YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Dawkins cares what people believe because certain religious beliefs are dangerous to a modern, rational society. I'd have thought that was obvious.

samrobson123 1 year ago

No, not really. Islam, sure, that is dangerous.

But Christianity? Teaching people to love their neighbours as themselves. No that is the basis of a happy functioning society.

perfacetus 1 year ago

Creationism, anti-abortion/stem cell research/homosexuality. Christians are proponents of these ideas too, are they not?

Or how about the recent "condoms are worse than AID's" drivel spouted by the Pope, or persistent abuse of young children throughout churches worldwide.

No I think Christianity is similarly damaging.

samrobson123 1 year ago

Creationism, doesn't endanger people.

Anti-abortion and stem cell research just prevents the murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings who have no voice of their own. Hardly tragic.

The Pope is just another man who is obliged to follow the traditions of Catholicism, many of which has nothing to do with Christianity.

perfacetus 1 year ago

Creationism endangers scientific growth. Stem cell research is a fantastic breakthrough, and yet there are still those who oppose it because all life is sacred, and apparently a pocket of cells should have human rights. I notice you didn't touch on the anti-homosexuality argument? Wise choice on your part.

What about slavery endorsement and misogyny in the Bible? Timothy 2:12 and Exodus 20:21 if you are interested.

samrobson123 1 year ago

Creationism endangers what useful scientific growth?

Stem cells from embroys aren't even needed to get stem cells. More efficient research can be carried out with skin stem cells, but without having to kill humans, or a pocket of cells as you call it.

Homosexuality is an easy one too. If people want to be gay that is their call. All Christians want is for every child to have a father and mother.

Exodus 20:21 doesn't even mention slavery, read it for yourself!

perfacetus 1 year ago

*Exodus 21:20

Creationism endangers growth as it encourages people to be satisfied with nonsense, and leads people to distrust science and consequently, stunt growth. Christianity does have a decent history in regards to subduing science, Gallileo for example?

samrobson123 1 year ago

Lol, evoultion endangers science because it teaches people not to question the complete rubbish some people will try to peddle when it suits them. Just because we know how the Universe started doesn't mean we're not interested in everything else. Or let me put it to you another way: which is the most advanced nation in the whole world... yep, the most Christian.

Gallileo was once again people not listening to the Bible. No where in the Bible does it support geocentrism.

perfacetus 1 year ago

Evolution endangers science? What a stupid thing to say, may as well suggest that Chemistry or Physics also endanger science.

And the most advanced nation in the world obviously isn't the most Christian. Firstly, the US is arguably not the most advanced nation in the world, and even if it is the most technologically advanced, it certainly isn't a societal haven. Besides, the most Christian nations would be Uganda, Brazil and Mexico I imagine. Not very thriving countries are they?

samrobson123 1 year ago

No, Chemistry and Physics are just categories of scientific interest. Evo is a belief system to which people subscribe. Which is why they refuse to debate the subject more often than not.

The main Christian nations, (defined as both containing protestant Christians and run on Christian principles) as Germany, the UK, the US and Scandinavia... pretty much a list of the most prosperous and stable countries in which one can live.

perfacetus 1 year ago

The US states in it's constitution that it is a secular state, for a start, and the UK is now allegidly 45% atheist/agnostic, which is higher than the Protestant and Catholic percentage. In Germany, 47% believe in a God, whilst less than 34% of people believe in a God in The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Seriously, how are these Christian nations? 97% of Brazil are Christian, and 99% of Uganda are too...

And Evolution isn't a belief system.

samrobson123 1 year ago

None of those statistics are accurate. I don't know where you got them or whether you just made them up but in the last census 72% of people in the UK said they were Christian and in every Scandinavian country the figures are above 80%.

Regardless of the US constitution (which is arguably Christian too) I'm spent time in the US and loads of people are Christian and extremely active ones too.

Evolution hasn't been seen by anyone, what more does one need to make something a faith.

perfacetus 1 year ago

My figures are from the Eurostat Eurobarometer poll. Google Wikipedia - Demographics of Atheism.

And yes a lot of the US is Christian, but is that a decent example of a harmonious society?

Evolution is not a belief, it is a theory. The major difference being that it has vast amounts of evidence, is Atomic theory also a belief? I wouldn't happen to be debating a Creationist would I?

samrobson123 1 year ago

Between a wiki page called "demographics of atheism" and a neutral government census, I'll take the later.

The US has its faults but if someone works hard they can enjoy a prosperous and peaceful life, which is generally a reasonably measure of a country.

Science depends on being able to observe and test. No one has observed evo therefore it cannot be science.

perfacetus 1 year ago

The wiki page has the figures from an independant poll, the Eurostat Eurobarometer poll, which has absolutely nothing to do with wiki. And I think you meant the 'latter' not later.

Evidence of Evolution can be observed in numerous ways, including distribution of species (both geographically and through time), comparative anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, cell biology, molecular biology, and paleontology. It is obviously science, maybe you should read up on it.

samrobson123 1 year ago

Independent poll, lol. I wonder who commissioned the independent poll.

Distribution of species is not evidence to show that we have evoled by random mutations.

Neither is the rest of it. What would be evidence (and only this) would be the observed development of a creature through random mutations so as to creature new biological mechanisms.

Comparative anatomy is worthless.

perfacetus 1 year ago

Lol you think its some sort of atheist conspiracy?

And yes, taxonomy, cell biology, paleontology etc are all valid forms of evidence. We simply don't need to wait around for millions of years before confirming our hypothesis with first-hand observation.

And not that many people appear to be trying to get into Christian countries. Havn't heard of much immigration trouble in Uganda? And i was under the impression that migration was the problem in Mexico.

samrobson123 1 year ago

No, I don't think it is a conspiracy.

First hand observation, you mean the scientific method!

And to where do the people in Mexico immigrate? You don't often see Germans desperately trying to run across the border into an Islamic country or an atheist country.

perfacetus 1 year ago

And yes it's great that the US is a land of opportunity, however it is also a land of huge crime rates, racism and homophobia. Of course I am generalising, but i'd prefer to live in a less parochial society.

I have yet to see a reasonable case for Christianity being a force for good. I think I'll take my morals from somewhere which doesn't reward the ignorant "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed' (John 20:26-29).

samrobson123 1 year ago

According to evo, racism is a bad thing anyway. It is just a normal application of the selfish gene theory.

All countries have their issues, but judging my the people trying to get a green card into Christian protestant countries I'd say the world agrees that we're doing things right.

Presumably you've seen a black hole then?

perfacetus 1 year ago

Yeah actually, or atleast enhanced images which suggest there may be a black hole there. That argument is flawed anyway, as the quote from the Bible was referring to believing without evidence, rather than the literal.

samrobson123 1 year ago

Right, and how do these enhanced images show there is a blackhole?

When the Bible says faith it means in the context of trust, not in the context of belief.

ie. I have faith in God, means the same as if I said: I have faith in my friend. It means I trust my friend will come through, not I believe my friend exists.

perfacetus 1 year ago

@samrobson123 Yes. Yes you certainly would.

hoodman12 1 year ago

@perfacetus I'm sorry I know that this is a dropped argument but I saw the Islam cmnt and thought "Really?!" That's a justifiably alarming view. Islam is not dangerous. Where did you come to that harmful backwards conclusion? People are dangerous. Some muslims are dangerous but equally some christians are dangerous. Take, for example, the ongoing situation between catholics and protestants in Ireland. Once again I'm sorry for flogging a dead horse but I just couldn't say nothing when I saw that.

DanDelAwesome 10 months ago

The difference is that in Christianity people who suggest violence would be reported to the police and put in jail. In Islam if people suggest violence they get support. That is a HUGE distinction. This can only be done if sufficient people in Islam are either happy to turn a blind eye or actually support the use of violence.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus It's nothing to do with islam, in spite of what a lot of people would have you believe. Al Quaeda and other violent organizations in the middle east aren't fighting against occupying forces and their countries because they're of a different religion it's because governments such as the US and UK are putting pressure on their countries politically and in a way miltarily as well. The forty virgins thing is if you die in a Jihad you'll go to heaven not strictly if you blow yourself up.

DanDelAwesome 10 months ago

Whatever the reason is the religion the fact is that large numbers of them believe that deliberately killing civilians in terror attacks is acceptable and want to bring down the 'West'. They also want to 'wipe Israel from the face of the earth'.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus No not large numbers of them. It's a minority mate. If you want to focus on dangerous majorities look closer to home at groups like nazis (yes there are still some) skinheads, KKK and the BNP.

Terrorists don't give a dman about the west being the west anyway that's just hate-mongering against Muslims, what they want is for the west to withdraw from their country and yes they do want rid of Israel because it used to be theirs up until the end of WWII when WE gave it to the jews

DanDelAwesome 10 months ago

That would hold out except the people who bombed London in the 7/7 bombings, were British Muslims. So its not like they are annoyed because of Britain interfering in their affairs. Then you have the Muslims of the middle East celebrating when the twin towers were destroyed. Huge numbers partying in the street. The same goes for when the lockerbie bomber returned to Algeria. That doesn't fit with the description you're giving.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus You hand too much trust to the news and not enough to common sense. I bet you think Iraq was happy to be rid of Sadaam Husain (sp) too. Just because someone is a citizen of one place doesn't mean they cease to ackonwledge the affairs of their motherland. And the lockerbie bomber was hardly hailed as a hero on his return, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. He's under permanant house arrest under an ISLAMIC STATE. So yeah I'm sure all muslims support him. No!

DanDelAwesome 10 months ago

He returned to be met by cheering crowds waving flags at his arrival actually. So no, obviously he does have a huge amount of support out there. There is film footage if you don't believe me.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus And there was footage of 'masses of Iraqi citizens toppling Sadaam Heusein's statue' too. If you don't know what I mean sarch for a birds eye view of that event. You'll learn how the media doctored that footage to incite over-zealous patriotism and it won't seem so far-fetched that some dodgy camera angles are used to demonify a people. There's always someone supporting everything but your "no" is still a yes because a funadmentalist Islamic government put him under 24hr surveillance

DanDelAwesome 10 months ago

@perfacetus why shouldn't they celebrate when the twin towers were destroyed? the USA has supported israeli apartheid for decades and invaded or threatened to invade almost every arab country in the region. wouldn't you feel good about a bit of revenge if the USA had fucked your country up for the last 50 years for no reason other than the fact that some zionist jews wanted your land for themselves?

Bjarku 7 months ago

The USA hasn't f***ed anyone up in Palestine. Usually they are just trying to negotiate peace agreements. And the last time the Jews were rebuilding settlements the US opposed it.

But completely beside all that, the murder of 3,000 civilians benefits no one. No one at all, which means that is it seriously wrong to celebrate it.

perfacetus 7 months ago

@perfacetus oh really? how about the billions of dollars that the US government gives israel every single year? how about the fact that almost every major US politician, democrat or republican is owned by israeli lobby groups? how about the fact that US sanctions on Iraq killed (estimated by UNICEF) 500,000 children alone in iraq. how about the fact that the US created the taliban? how about the fact that the US overthrew the democratically elected government of iran?

Bjarku 7 months ago

Even if the US does give Israel money, so what? The EU gives Palestinians money, does that mean Israel can bomb London with justification?

Saying some politician is 'owed' is pointless and posturing.

Errr, what happens in Iraq has no relevance on whether Palestinians celebrating the murder of civilians is right.

Your point was that the US was f***ing with Palestine.

perfacetus 7 months ago

@perfacetus what do you mean so what? the israelis are committing and have committed acts of genocide against an entire people: the palestinians. the palestinians never did anything to hurt jews until zionist jews forcibly took their land away from them and mercilessly massacred thousands of their people. imagine if white people set up a state just for white people where you were allowed to move there but only if you're white, and it was built by taking jewish land.

Bjarku 7 months ago

What acts of genocide?

All the jews want is a country to call their own. After the holocaust, no one can hold that against them. They just took back the country that was taken from them years before. I don't recall genocide.

perfacetus 7 months ago

@perfacetus so forcing an entire people off their land and engaging in brutal massacres such as at Deir Yassin is okay because of the holocaust? would it be okay for the irish and welsh to force everyone in england off their land because the celts were the original inhabitants of england before they were forced into the corners of the island? would you hold it against the israelis if it was your home, your family who were forced off the land they had held for hundreds of years?

Bjarku 7 months ago

Any massacres are not ok. This is the issue with 'whose land is it?' questions. As you said, if we all followed that Wales and Ireland would own England and half the English would be off to Saxony. But the difficulty is, the Jews need a country because everyone hates them (generally). They need a place to call their own where they are more safe.

perfacetus 7 months ago

@perfacetus you seem to think its okay for zionist jews to invade and take over someone else's country because bad things have happened to them. two wrongs dont make a right. and they didnt take back the country that was taken from them. the majority of zionist jews, of all jews infact, are ashkenazi jews who converted to judaism and whose ancestors have never lived in israel. it is absolutely despicable to brutalise and force a people off their land and then use the holocaust to justify it.

Bjarku 7 months ago

I wouldn't justify it because they have suffered. I would say that they:

a) need a country; and

b) should have one that is originally theirs.

Saying most Jews are not genetically jews is silly. Jews aren't really into converting people, which means it is likely that most of the jews have at least 50% genetic jewish ancestry.

perfacetus 7 months ago

israel has enforced apartheid on an entire people, driven them off their land and even now is preventing them from receiving aid, and shooting them dead as they protest. after the war, palestine allowed hundreds of thousands of jewish refugees into the country and how did the zionists repay the palestinians? by massacring them simply for being the wrong race and by taking their land. they also terrorised and bombed british soldiers at the time. are you surprised that arabs hate the USA?

Bjarku 7 months ago

Preventing them receive aid? Yeah right. They allow aid through if it can be checked first, what they don't allow through is weapons, and who can blame them.

Evidence for massacre?

perfacetus 7 months ago

@perfacetus why don't you say what you really mean which is that your imaginary friend in the sky said its okay for a state to exist in which everyone except jews are second class citizens.

Bjarku 7 months ago

@Bjarku yeah but you can't make justify wronging because a wrong was justified by a wrong. Hypocracy you see.

wei495 3 months ago

@perfacetus Yeah that isn't because of Christianity, that's because we live in a civilised, liberal democracy. I'm sure that if a nation was run by a bunch of insane Christian fundamentalists then there'd be violence.

TheLeardMan 10 months ago

If that is the case, it is quite a surprise that almost every 'liberal democracy' right now exists in a country with a strong Christian heritage! Suggests quite the reverse, that without 'Christian fundamentalists' liberal democracies would never have developed.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus Actually I would say that Christianity had nothing to do with it. The reason why the West is as it is now is because we've got and had the resources, the temperate climate, and the fact that the Christian kingdoms were closer to the New World and thus able to colonise it and create America. Imagine if the Islamic countries had been in the position of Britian, Spain and France etc and they had all been in the position of the Islamic countries.

TheLeardMan 10 months ago

That is rubbish and you know it. The there are huge areas of the world that are temperate and they did not develop democracies. The new world, also makes no difference at all. If China had found Australia it would have been a 'new world'. But China still didn't develop liberal democracy.

If the Islamic countries had been in the position of France, UK etc, then Europe would probably be run by dictators and the Middle East would be run by Christian liberal democracies.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus Ever noticed that the less influence Christianity and every other religion has had on the world, the more freedom each nation has become. That's because it's a fact that having no religion makes you a more free person than believing in one.

TheLeardMan 10 months ago

No, actually I've never noticed that. I've noticed that the less influence Christianity has on a nation the more oppressive and corrupt it tends to become.

Which is why the some of the most oppressive regimes are atheist. Meanwhile the most liberty is in the US, a country with a very powerful Christian voice.

perfacetus 10 months ago

@perfacetus Europe, a country that generally has more freedom than America (Americans are deluded about how much freedom they actually have) is a lot less Christian than America. So according to your theory, places like Sweden and Britain are a lot more oppressive and corrupt compared to America.

TheLeardMan 10 months ago

Thankfully Britain isn't very corrupt. But as our Christian legacy fades, so to does out freedom. Parliament (which is our democratically elected house) is in the pocket of pressure groups. Quote 1 Corintians 6:9 in work and you'll lose your job, say it in the street and you'll be arrested.

perfacetus 10 months ago