Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Is this similar to why humans generally produce only one offspring? Not in the sense that if there were two, the eldest would kill its sibling. Rather, I mean the fact that resources available required only one child. I guess I just answered my question.
I wonder if there is any genetic difference between the first egg and the second. Would the second chick survivors be more or less likely to lay second eggs?
@calamagrostis88 There is genetic difference, just like there is between you and your older or younger siblings (assuming you have them). Second chick survivors would have the same likelihood of laying two eggs as the first chick survivors.
The primary difference between chick 1 and chick 2 is developmental, the older chick is, well, older. It's more developed, and therefore a better competitor than the younger, weaker chick.
@WonderDuds Right, I guess there is no mechanism that would allow for specific traits to be passed down to only the first or second chick, for both the recombination of genes would be random, and they would both grow up to be adults that are more likely to lay two eggs rather than one or three.
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the Big corporations spend millions to ensure that information does not spread to the masses,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
... for example it is probable that treating a patient with diabetes with insulin is going to be beneficial to his health and it is not probable that the earth is 6000 years old and was created by a wizard, this based on what can be observed.
If you for some reason feel that you need to know the absolute truth before you can act on something then you're never going to get anywhere.
Life ultimately comes down to what is probable and what is not.
Just because we cannot make absolute statements of truth should that stop us from trying to get at the truth in whatever way we can?
No, of course not.
To me saying that critisising religion is wrong because we cannot be certain of the truth is like saying that treating a diabetes patient with insulin is wrong because we cannot be certain that the insulin will help.
Even though we do not possess the ability to discern absolute truth we can asses the probability of things...
... scientists cannot make absolute statements of truth in the sense that you refer to truth but I fail to see why that would make critisising religion wrong.
Even if we cannot make absolute statements of truth we can sure as hell try to get as close as possible to the truth in order to better our understanding of the universe, something that science has been extremely successful in doing over the last hundred years.
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
@Zoofnick: Well, not all aggression involves the usage of force or violence! Just ask the English: Their great foe Gandhi never was aggressive in that strict meaning of the word but still annoying beyond any decent restrain of human behaviour; and so are these pseudo-atheists; therefore my comparison with the witnesses of Jehovah, as their egomaniac believe to be in possession of the truth and their missionary zeal equals each other.
@GreatGrumbledook I think you're using aggressive in the loosest possible form here, prehaps the word you're lookning for is "persistent".
He's never claimed to know the truth in the same way jehova's wittnesses claim to know it, effectively making him an agnostic atheist, nor does he seek out people with differing opinions in the hope of converting them.
All he does is question religion and call it out on the plethora of logical inconsistencies it presents in a precise and calm manner.
@Zoofnick: Nope, as persistent is too nice and harmless there should be used a prerogative word for his behaviour and all the more for that of his votaries; and besides: Do you deny that he believes in truth?
@GreatGrumbledook Certainly he believes in truth, who doesn't? My point was simply that he never claims to know it with absolute certainty like some religious people do.
Also; how can you criticise his efforts to promote reason and understanding over
blind faith?
The way I see it RD is the very definition of a nice and harmless person.
@Zoofnick: And by admitting that your idol does believe in truth I am able to entrap him with some fancy Nietzsche quote:
"No! People should not come at me with science when I am looking for the natural antagonist of the ascetic ideal, when I ask, “Where is the opposing will, in which an opposing ideal expresses itself?” For that purpose, science does not stand sufficiently on its own, not nearly; for that it first requires an value ideal, a power to make value, in whose service it ...
...could have faith in itself science is never in itself something which creates values. Its relationship to the ascetic ideal is still not inherently antagonistic at all. It’s even more that case that, for the most part, it represents the forward-driving force in the inner development of this ideal. Its resistance and struggle, when we inspect more closely, are not concerned in any way with the ideal itself, but only with its external trappings, clothing, masquerade, its temporary hardening,...
...petrifaction, dogma. Science makes the life in this ideal free again, since it denies what is exoteric in it. These two things, science and the ascetic ideal they really stand on a single foundation I’ve just clarified the point namely, on the same overvaluing of the truth (or more correctly, on the same faith in the inestimable value of the truth, which is beyond criticism). In that very claim they are necessarily allies so that, if someone is going to fight against them, he can only...
...fight them together and place them both in question. An appraisal of the value of the ascetic ideal unavoidably also involves an appraisal of the value of science; while there’s still time people should to keep their eyes open for that, their ears alert! (As for art let me offer a preliminary remark, for I’ll be coming back to it at some point or other at greater length the very art in which the lie sanctifies itself and the will to deceive has good conscience on its side is much more...
...fundamentally opposed to the ascetic ideal than is science: that’s what Plato’s instinct experienced the greatest enemy of art which Europe has produced up to this point. Plato versus Homer: that’s the entire, the true antagonism on one side, the “beyond” of the best will, the great slanderer of life; on the other side, life’s unintentional worshipper, the golden nature."
@GreatGrumbledook If all you can come up with is some long winded quote
by Nietzche as opposed to clearly and concisely stating your argument yourself then I have no intrerest in further discussing this with you.
If I'm interpreting Nietzsche correctly here he seems to argue that science cannot stand on its own, that it needs some sort of absolute ground on which to stand (I suppose one that is supernatural?).
I do understand what you're getting at with this...
@Zoofnick: Nope, you do not understand Nietzsche correctly as he clearly says that the blind believe in truth is no less a metaphysical believe and therefore science cannot act as an antagonist to religion as they are based on the same sort of believe; besides I never asked to have any discussion with you but I am bound to the commandment of the poet: "The sum of all our answer is but this: We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it."
@Zoofnick: But to your final question; I had some annoying discussion with one of his votaries a while ago, who tried to tell me that all opinions and believes have to be based on such vulgar science as one can see here; and as it heated up I decided to take some vengeance at his master; so your question is wrongly asked: As I did gain all I wanted to gain by my first statement and if such disciples of his like you are enraged by this I will defy their fury and rage.
@GreatGrumbledook I get that you want to appear cultured and refined but really, trying to channel some 19th century poet just makes you come of as a pretentious twat and makes it harder for me to discern what the hell you're talking about (especially since you clearly have yet to master the basics of the english language), but I digress.
@Zoofnick: If I would speak English like you I would not try to lecture other about it! Remember what sweet Jesus said: "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
@Zoofnick: While the divine Friedrich Nietzsche is a German philosopher and not a poet, though he sometimes refers to himself as a poet (but that is part of his conception of art and would lead to far here if I would try to explain); if one is considered to be cultured by quoting him than I cannot help it; and it would be folly if a cultured person tries to advice an uncultured multitude about culture; and only meals are to be refined; and I will invoke the Medea of Euripides about being smart:
"Wherefore whoso is wise in his generation ought never to have his children taught to be too clever; for besides the reputation they get for idleness, they purchase bitter odium from the citizens. For if thou shouldst import new learning amongst dullards, thou wilt be thought a useless trifler, void of knowledge; while if thy fame in the city o'ertops that of the pretenders to cunning knowledge, thou wilt win their dislike. I too myself share in this ill-luck. ...
...Some think me clever and hate me, others say I am too reserved, and some the very reverse; others find me hard to please and not so very clever after all."
@Zoofnick: And do not talk of religion in general as I will not suffer any blasphemy against the Old Gods, mock and deny monotheism as much in my presence as you like and if you have to; but back to science; this harping about absolute truth is of no avail: Truth itself is the problem here.
@GreatGrumbledook I never claimed to be in full command of the english language myself, I simply pointed out that your errors stand out oh so much more clearly when you express yourself in the way that you do.
You are clearly dodging the question, can we or can we not determine someting to be more likely to be true than an other?
If the answer is no then you might aswell pray to Zeus to cure your illness instead of seeking a physician, something that I'm sure you would not do, right?
@Zoofnick: Still you claim that your endless screams and inane babble belongs somewhat to the English language! If one would be gracious one may grant you the imperfect usage of the base proletarian-economic degeneration of the English language; gobbledygook which is spoken in the USA and sometimes confused with proper English! While the problem of truth and falsehood remains. Besides you pseudo-scientific folk are odd: ...
@Zoofnick: Read the play The Imaginary Invalid by Molière and know that one may do everything when being sick but should never ever seek the help of the doctors! For the Gods one should never fail to invoke them but should not assume that they will send succour or be gracious towards the mortals; as the following passage from the Iliad will illustrate (and there is no remedy: Against the will of the Gods mortals can do nothing):
"Now when they were come to the temple of Athene in the citadel, the doors were opened for them by fair-cheeked Theano, daughter of Cisseus, the wife of Antenor, tamer of horses; for her had the Trojans made priestess of Athene. Then with sacred cries they all lifted up their hands to Athene; and fair-cheeked Theano took the robe and laid it upon the knees of fair-haired Athene, and with vows made prayer to the daughter of great Zeus: ...
... Lady Athene, that dost guard our city, fairest among goddesses, break now the spear of Diomedes, and grant furthermore that himself may fall headlong before the Scaean gates; to the end that we may now forthwith sacrifice to thee in thy temple twelve sleek heifers that have not felt the goad, if thou wilt take pity on Troy and the Trojans' wives and their little children." So spake she praying, but Pallas Athene denied the prayer."
@GreatGrumbledook Right, it has become painfully obvious that you are either:
1. A clever and very patient troll.
or
2. Insane.
If 1 then I applaud you for your efforts, very good work, A+.
If 2 then I urge you to seek help... from a doctor, preferably one who has no qualms about prescribing you very strong medication for your mental condition.
@Zoofnick: I am for sure no vicious beast from the Old Norse mythology! As being clever and patient are to things which are never to be attributed with Trolls; just read the Edda or its children version called the Lord of the Rings; while I may be twisted by unbridled ambition, haunted by insatiable greed and the most evil woman in the world; but I do not think that doctors or medicine will help me to find my three attendants: Lean famine, quartering steel and climbing fire.
@GreatGrumbledook Whatever you say psycho, I'll think of you when I hear the news that some bitter old philosophy professor shot-up a high school before turning the gun on himself, I'll think of you.
Shit, I hope this isn't what drives you to do it, I'd feel terrible ;_;
@Zoofnick: I tell you plainly, coxcomb, if I had to work as a teacher I would not grow old but do the shooting at the second day of work, provided that I had to cope with dunderheads like you! Any judge would rule this as pure self-defence; but as Athena says in the Odyssey: "for it beseems thee not to practise childish ways, since thou art no longer of such an age." - The Gods did indeed send the crisis of global economy in order to free me from boredom, the age of peace and plenty is over:
"The present-day war with economic weapons (which may later be accounted a second world war) produced wholly new forms in the Bolshevik economic offensive expressed in the Five Year Plan; the attack by dollars and francs on the pound sterling; the inflations engineered by foreign exchanges which destroyed the whole contents of national exchequers; autarchy of economic systems which may be carried to the extent of wiping out exports from the opposing powers and therewith the whole economic ...
...system and the means of existence for great nations; and the Dawes and Young plans, which represent the attempts of financial groups to force whole states to do forced labour for the banks. What it really amounts to is that the life of one’s own nation has to be gained at the cost of destroying that of others. It is the struggle on the keel of the overturned boat. And when all other means are exhausted, then the oldest and most primitive, the military means, will come into their own again...
...The more strongly armed power will force the weaker one to give up its economic defensive, capitulate, and disappear, Cannon are in the last resort stronger than coal. There is not telling how this economic war will end, but it is certain that it will finally restore to the State as authority its historical rights, based on voluntary, and therefore reliable, thoroughly trained, and highly mobile armies – and will push back economics to the second place, where they belong."
Also what is this raving and ranting about economics? Are you somehow under the impression that the current economical crisis is a punishment from the gods?
Because if so then all I have so say is widdly scuds followed by HERP DERP.
@Zoofnick: Raving and ranting are certainly not the proper description of the writings of the German philosopher Oswald Spengler, whom I quoted here, as he is indeed my other self, my counsel's consistory, my oracle, my prophet and I, like a child, will go by his direction; and this economy crisis is a mighty gift by the Gods indeed!
@Zoofnick: By heaven, brat, I'll plague ye for that word. And there are older and fouler things than Nazism in the deep places of the world; to show this a little I will invoke the doom of Oswald Spengler concerning the Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica:
"Is the United States a power with a future? Before 1914 superficial observers talked of unlimited possibilities after they had looked about them for a week of two, and post-war "society" from Western Europe, compounded of snobs and mobs, for full of enthusiasm for "husky" young America as being far superior to ourselves – nay, positively a model for us to follow. But for purposes of durable form records and dollars must not be taken to represent the spiritual strength and depth of the ...
...people to whom they belong; neither must sport be confused with race-soundness nor business intelligence with spirit and mind. What is "hundred per cent Americanism"? A mass existence standardized to a low average level, a primitive pose, or a promise for the future?
All we know is that so far there is neither a real nation nor a real State. Can both of these develop out of the knocks of fate, or is this possibility excluded by the very fact of the Colonial type, whose spiritual past ...
...belongs elsewhere and is now dead? The American does not talk of State or Mother Country like the Englishman, but of "this country". Actually what it amounts to is a boundless field and a population of trappers, drifting from town to town in the dollar-hunt, unscrupulous and dissolute; for the law is only for those who are not cunning or powerful enough to ignore it.
The resemblance to Bolshevik Russia is far greater than one imagines. There is the same breadth of landscape, which firstly...
...by excluding any possibility of successful attack by an invader, consequently excludes the experience of real national danger, and, secondly, by making the State not indispensable, prevents the development of any true political outlook. Life is organized exclusively from the economic side and consequently lacks depth, all the more because it contains nothing of that element of historic tragedy, of great destiny, that has widened and chastened the soul of Western peoples through the ...
...centuries. Their religion, originally a strict from of Puritanism, has become a sort of obligatory entertainment, and the War was a novel sport. And there is the same dictatorship there as in Russia (it does not matter that it is imposed by society instead of a party), affecting everything – flirtation and church-going, shoes and lipstick, dances and novels a` la mode, thought, food, and recreation – that in the Western world is left to the option of individuals. ...
.... There is one standardized type of American, and, above all, American woman, in body, clothes, and mind; any departure from or open criticism of the type arouses public condemnation in New York as in Moscow. Finally, there is an almost Russian form of State socialism or State capitalism, represented by the mass of trusts, which, like the Russian economic administrations, systematically standardize and control every detail of production and marketing. ...
...These are the real lords of the land in both cases. It is the Faustian will-to-power, but translated from organic growth to soulless mechanization."
@Zoofnick: Had thy brethren here, their lives and thine were not revenge sufficient for me; No, if I digg'd up thy forefathers' graves and hung their rotten coffins up in chains, it could not slake mine ire, nor ease my heart. The sight of any coxcomb is as a fury to torment my soul; and till I root out your accursed kind and leave not one alive, I live in hell. Therefore -
To richardaberdeen, you CANNOT move the goal post on what evolution means you twit. It's called a dictionary, get one. Evolution is the Mirco AND Macro changes that happen overtime. You cannot change the def. of species either, speciation DOES occure, and it can happen in under 3 generations. You are uneducated in the field, and as such have no bearings when criticizing it, you sound like and absolute nob. It would be the equivalent to stating that you think God sneezed out the Universe.
My responses were to what you just bald-faced stated without any supporting evidence whatsoever. They had nothing to do with my fondness for Durant. Perhaps you should be more careful what you publicly put in print. You said Paul invented Jesus. You said Jesus was a myth. You've a lot of things over the coast of many posts that only serve to make you look really, really, really ignorant to anyone who has read a few history and science books.
You remind me of my high school teacher, who said evolution is true because most scientists believe in it, as if what a majority of people makes something true. The vast majority of scientists once believed the sun revolves around the earth and, the vast majority of scientists once believed the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. No modern scientist believes either one. What the vast majority of scientists or anyone else believes doesn't prove anything.
FYI guys, Richardaberdeen runs or is associated with a hillbilly record company promoting American superiority, currently strongly promoting the unironically titled album 'Who would Jesus bomb?'. I think you can safely dismiss him as the typical illogical thinker who pollutes this kind of thread with baseless and tired 'arguments' which attempt to rationalise his inherently irrational faith.
Yeah right, someone who releases a CD titled "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" is promoting "American superiority". Yeah, sure and pigs fly, after they have first magically appeared on their own from nothing out of nowhere.
The first video on your site promotes a news story in which magical supernatural gems fall from the ceiling of a Puerto Rican Church. I suspect Dawkins would not be swayed by this "evidence".
I agree, if I could post links, then you would have a better idea where I'm coming from--it's pretty hard to cover much in 500 characters. The reason for my various responses is that I was pointing out, among other things, how great of a liar Richard Dawkins is. Dawkins has stated as a scientific fact, the life began in the ocean. He doesn't know that and neither does anybody else. For all we know life started under ground, migrated into the ocean and then back on land several times.
Again I wonder...what did any of that have to do with my original post?
Also, might you help me out with something? See I find all these clips of Dawkins arguing, talking and discussing about evolution but I can't find anything about him ranting about the origin of life. Seeing as he obviously spends a copious amount of time doing so (why else would you focus so much on it?) could you please help me find some of that?
Apparently it never dawned on you, that someone who says there is no God by default, must supply a better alternative explanation for the observable reality (Socrates 1-A). Perhaps you should read Anthony Flew's book, "There Is A God", which in the preface alone, which isn't even written by Flew, Dawkins is made to look like the obvious intellectual juvenhile deliquent he is. His ideas have no scientifc or other merit and don't pass the most rudimentary form of basic human logic.
Now you are just getting even more and more incomprehensible and absurd. Posting responses that are even remotely relevant to my comments is just beyond you huh?
See, my question was about sourcing your claim that Dawkins talks repetitively about the origin of life and why you so often start talking about something else than the issue at hand.
But for the sake of discussion, lets talk about what you say here.
"must supply a better alternative explanation for the observable reality"
1: Socrates isn't the only important philosopher, he isn't some sort of god.
2: According to say, rationalism and scepticism you don't.
3: According to science (which Dawkins is trying to promote and this is what he follows) a theory has to be scientific to be called a theory, and there are already theories in that subject (like the origin of life).
And that Dawkins ideas aren't scientific...that's probably one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard! What he is doing is simply trying to convince people that science is the "way to go" and explain to people what the current scientific theories that are out there says.
Even his ideas of belief shows a remarkable stroke of the scientific method
According to the guy who wrote the preface for Anthony Flew's book, who is a lifetime reporter on things relating to science, many of Dawkins peers, who are not necessarily theists, believe he is bad for the image of science and that his views represent blind faith dogma no better and arguably worse than conservative religionists. I have long tried to point this out, long before reading Flew's book, as any moron who has studied even rudimentary ideas of science and philosophy already knows that
There is no evidentiary basis for atheism, thus anyone who calls themselves an atheist is in direct violation of the basic tenets of science, philosophy and human logic, rationality and reason. Anybody can walk by Stonehenege and then question whether or not anyone actually deisgned it, but there is no logical basis for such a conclusion and there is far less logic for concluding atheism upon opening one's own two eyes, ears and nostrils.
"There is no evidentiary basis for atheism, thus anyone who calls themselves an atheist is in direct violation of the basic tenets of science, philosophy and human logic, rationality and reason."
That would make almost the entire humanity fall into that group, as the very same thing can be said about theists. The only group that would be spared that conclusion are some forms of Agnosticism.
So is everyone who believes in god. you are basing your argument off of an a priori. which in philosophy means you are using logic with out your senses. but when you go outside of that a priori argument it is logical to not believe in god.
No, that is patently and completely false. Everything known to humanity, from Pyramids to microchips, reguires conception, design and construction. As both Jefferson and Descartes believed (Descartes first principle of science and reason), what is "self-evident" remains true until proven otherwise. If you are going to pretend the universal reality appeared on its own without the aid of designers and builders, than it is up to you, the one with the fabricated goofball theory, to prove it.
If you want to believe in bullshit, that's your coice, but don't pretend around me that you understand even the most rudimentary of concepts regarding philosophy, science, logical and/or reason.
What bullshit is that I believe? I would really like to know what it is and how you know I believe in it, especially seeing as I have been rather careful not to say what I believe in!
@richardaberdeen "but don't pretend around me that you understand even the most rudimentary of concepts regarding philosophy, science, logical and/or reason."
Wow, another absurd and brash statement with very limited support (if there even is any). This reminds me of what you said about you having studied more science than what I could even imagine existed... Do you actually believe yourself?
I have studied logic, philosophy and science and my grades in those subjects have been excellent.
@richardaberdeen You know, your arguments gets an even greater flair of the good old classic Ad Hominem fallacy for every post you make.
Do you see me making dead certain claims about your beliefs, education and understanding of science/philosophy/logic? Do you know why? Because I can't possibly know for sure! Unless you know what schools I have studied in, what my grades are and have an understanding that goes beyond a few days of commenting making claims of that character is downright stupid
And to simplify, in case you don't understand what the term "Socratic Logic" means, pretending gee, the evolutionary boogie man did it, doesn't score any Socratic or other rational points.
True faith and science are based on evidence. To say the universe appeared on its own is an example of superstitious nonsense, having no facts in evidence. It is neither logical, rational, scientific or reasonable to pretend there is no God. To state there is no God is to deliberately lie, just as it is to state that Stonehenge is not a result of deliberate design. To state there is no God is a much greater lie than to state Stonehenge randomly arranged itself apart from deliberate design.
belief is a freedom. belief is a thing that an individual has the human right to form by themselves, for themselves, having made a concious decision to belief it. this, as everyone can see, is taken away as soon as a babies is pressured, baptised or confirmed into an insitituional train of thought - binded into it. before they can even walk, let alone decide what they think about what humanity doenst know about yet.
That is correct. God has given us freedom of choice and you can choose to base what you believe on evidence, or you can choose to believe in magical spontaneously appearing universes or like Dawkins, you can choose to believe the Darwinian Boogieman created the universe. Regardless of how ignorant one's beliefs may be, we do have "freedom" of choice.
Yes but then we'd be hypocrites since we'd have institutionalized and (possibly) set into stone a single uniting creed for atheism which is too much like religion.
Instead we ought to continue what we are doing and start working towards the Unity Convention which ought to be held next year in D.C.
They wouldnt need to if kids here and now were protected from forced insitituional belief at birth, under the psychologically-assaulting threat of roasting for eternity. That is how religion is alive today - not naturally, artificially. it has member breeding tactics. parents are in most cases also victims of the stifling, fake fear theyve been hypnotised with by egotisical men since childhood. a sadistic, evil fake threat, coined by a small group of medieval psychopaths hundreds of years ago
Any moron can easily debate Richard Dawkins. After all, it is Dawkins who has no evidence for sponataneously appearing random chance universes, motion apart from primary cause or intelligent beings appearing on their own without any Creative Intelligence. Even a small child knows better than that.
Your position then is - "therefore a magic man in the clouds did it"? The basis of all regions, and it makes you sound as big a fucking moron as it suggests.
Consider why you're no longer asked to believe in a God of the .. Sun, Sea, Thunder, Jam, Hairdryers and mopeds. Its because we understand them now.
Your God of the gaps (in knowledge) is a fraud - and so are you.
@wilfredthebold Nice. But more to the point, why are you implying that the creator had a certain sex (because people who like 'boobie' are overwhelming male)? The creator, if it exists, may had been anything, from the spaghetti monster to a dense pack of photons.
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the three languages associated with the Bible, like English have no neutural tense, thus like English, "he", "his" and "him" is often used for both male and female or, neither male or female. Apparently you have never studied linguistics as well as the scientific evidence, which is clearly demonstrated by your juvenhile remarks. In Old Testament Leviticus, for example, "he", "his" and "him" is very clearly used for laws applying to both male and female several times.
Well, adapting sort of makes you a hypocrite, you agree? Forexample, most of the christians in industrialized nations tollerate homosexuality, though the bible clearly says it's forbidden. It's sad, how people change religion to their own benefit.. But then again, if everyone were extremists, we would be fucked.
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
I think Mr Dawkins is a Satanist in drag who knows is he also a fag I am shocked and amazed at all the suckers who listen to every word he utters What in the world has happened to you I am talking to you the Red White and Blue What has happened have you gone mad So atheism is now your latest fad Its been tried you know they have done it before take away God take away the law French history called it the reign of terror of this bad news I am the bearer
What I wondered is an extension of that. If animals have no souls and are just here for our amuesment and so we can benefit from the bounty of animals, how come God didnt program them to recognize us as their masters and not eat us? Apparently he forgot to do that in bees, bears, lions, snakes, sharks, etc.
"Does God exist?" is not a scientific question because it is impossible to disprove. No prediction can be made based on the existence of god, no experiment can be conducted, and no conclusion can be reached. In my opinion the question and concept are thus useless at best. If you allow the supernatural you can argue the existence of anything, Santa and God included. The grandiose claims of intelligent design offer no extra credibility. Watch the vid for evidence against intelligent design.
2:26 Paint me like one of your French girls...
captainlustMnB 3 months ago
All about chicks and boobies.
binkyN1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
This is sort of like Princess Diana, who job was to produce and "an heir and a spare".
txvoltaire 4 months ago
heeey, aint it obvious that one boobie can only feed one chick!?!?
TheGoatherdGod 4 months ago
Boobies are my favourite kind of animals!
whiterottenrabbit 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
@8yankee That's great............But how does your comment directly relate to this video other than Richard Dawkins is in it.
cjl236 3 months ago
Comment removed
DisembowelMe 3 months ago
I like boobies.
Diemedes 5 months ago
@Diemedes
xD
whiterottenrabbit 4 months ago
Did I seriously spot multiple 2g1c references or was that just a rare instance of pareidolia on my part?
luccaskunk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Is this similar to why humans generally produce only one offspring? Not in the sense that if there were two, the eldest would kill its sibling. Rather, I mean the fact that resources available required only one child. I guess I just answered my question.
Ha . . . boobies.
QBRebel16 6 months ago
hehe...boobies.
sutphoe 6 months ago
boobies.. lol. juvenile i know. sorry.
matsukatse 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW;;'IPAD2::;ＦＲＥＥ:`;SITES'`;``'
ＷＷＷ.ＳＯＣＩＡＬＩＰＡＤ２ＧＩＶＥＡＷＡＹＳ.ＴＫ
COPY SITE & PASTE
waggishcushion3ar 9 months ago
Nazca Boobies are evil
vishva8kumara 9 months ago
I want to visit Galapagos and watch Boobies!
oldpiq 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the music. So uplifting and inspiring.
UndeadTurk 9 months ago
Dawkins you fucking moron, it's obvious the birds have original sin too DUH XP
ForeverWiked 9 months ago
Boobies.... White feathery ones, sometimes with blue limbs. (Lol)
ashyboy1324 10 months ago
boobies
supermonkeyman118 10 months ago
"is the creator a cruel monster or just incompetent"
haha its funny because those are their only two options....religious people... is your master a giant dickwad or a stupid moron? haha fools
TheBlitz1 10 months ago
Dawkins said boobies :D
Brencs 11 months ago
I wonder if there is any genetic difference between the first egg and the second. Would the second chick survivors be more or less likely to lay second eggs?
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 I don't think so..
vishva8kumara 9 months ago
@calamagrostis88 There is genetic difference, just like there is between you and your older or younger siblings (assuming you have them). Second chick survivors would have the same likelihood of laying two eggs as the first chick survivors.
The primary difference between chick 1 and chick 2 is developmental, the older chick is, well, older. It's more developed, and therefore a better competitor than the younger, weaker chick.
WonderDuds 6 months ago
@WonderDuds Right, I guess there is no mechanism that would allow for specific traits to be passed down to only the first or second chick, for both the recombination of genes would be random, and they would both grow up to be adults that are more likely to lay two eggs rather than one or three.
calamagrostis88 6 months ago
"I don't know if there's a God, but he will make a better figure if he does not exist"
By Galles.
redorso 1 year ago
Clearly these 'boobies' have been planted by Satan so that people start going astray from their way towards God!
freethinkermarkc 1 year ago
Don't watch this video while you are stoned. You'll laugh to death.
Boobies... ROFL
Immuuni 1 year ago
Hehe he said boobies! lol sorry had to.
DemonAMVs 1 year ago
I wonder how many times he had to rehearse this without laughing when he said "boobays"?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
ROFL BOOBIES.
lanamal 1 year ago
BOOBIES!!!!! <3
Uteko95 1 year ago
Who named these boobies? O_o
blazearmoru 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, If your an atheist as am I, please check out my channel, where I'll be assessing major issues our society is facing in terms of religion and basic ethics... As well as the occasional video game content as I am a bit of a gamer..
I hope you'll check it out. Cheers, Mitchel
TIME4LOGIC 1 year ago
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the Big corporations spend millions to ensure that information does not spread to the masses,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
glennjgd 1 year ago
boobies LOL
selearemus 1 year ago
Does it turn anyone else on when dawkins says boobies? By the way very informative I love it! Spread reason!
GeneralHasslehoff 1 year ago
... for example it is probable that treating a patient with diabetes with insulin is going to be beneficial to his health and it is not probable that the earth is 6000 years old and was created by a wizard, this based on what can be observed.
If you for some reason feel that you need to know the absolute truth before you can act on something then you're never going to get anywhere.
Life ultimately comes down to what is probable and what is not.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
Just because we cannot make absolute statements of truth should that stop us from trying to get at the truth in whatever way we can?
No, of course not.
To me saying that critisising religion is wrong because we cannot be certain of the truth is like saying that treating a diabetes patient with insulin is wrong because we cannot be certain that the insulin will help.
Even though we do not possess the ability to discern absolute truth we can asses the probability of things...
Zoofnick 1 year ago
... scientists cannot make absolute statements of truth in the sense that you refer to truth but I fail to see why that would make critisising religion wrong.
Even if we cannot make absolute statements of truth we can sure as hell try to get as close as possible to the truth in order to better our understanding of the universe, something that science has been extremely successful in doing over the last hundred years.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
Boobies
AdamOuissellat 1 year ago
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Aggressive?
How was that video in any way aggressive?
Or prehaps more to the point, when has RD ever been aggressive in his critique of religion?
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Well, not all aggression involves the usage of force or violence! Just ask the English: Their great foe Gandhi never was aggressive in that strict meaning of the word but still annoying beyond any decent restrain of human behaviour; and so are these pseudo-atheists; therefore my comparison with the witnesses of Jehovah, as their egomaniac believe to be in possession of the truth and their missionary zeal equals each other.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook I think you're using aggressive in the loosest possible form here, prehaps the word you're lookning for is "persistent".
He's never claimed to know the truth in the same way jehova's wittnesses claim to know it, effectively making him an agnostic atheist, nor does he seek out people with differing opinions in the hope of converting them.
All he does is question religion and call it out on the plethora of logical inconsistencies it presents in a precise and calm manner.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Nope, as persistent is too nice and harmless there should be used a prerogative word for his behaviour and all the more for that of his votaries; and besides: Do you deny that he believes in truth?
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Certainly he believes in truth, who doesn't? My point was simply that he never claims to know it with absolute certainty like some religious people do.
Also; how can you criticise his efforts to promote reason and understanding over
blind faith?
The way I see it RD is the very definition of a nice and harmless person.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: And by admitting that your idol does believe in truth I am able to entrap him with some fancy Nietzsche quote:
"No! People should not come at me with science when I am looking for the natural antagonist of the ascetic ideal, when I ask, “Where is the opposing will, in which an opposing ideal expresses itself?” For that purpose, science does not stand sufficiently on its own, not nearly; for that it first requires an value ideal, a power to make value, in whose service it ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...could have faith in itself science is never in itself something which creates values. Its relationship to the ascetic ideal is still not inherently antagonistic at all. It’s even more that case that, for the most part, it represents the forward-driving force in the inner development of this ideal. Its resistance and struggle, when we inspect more closely, are not concerned in any way with the ideal itself, but only with its external trappings, clothing, masquerade, its temporary hardening,...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...petrifaction, dogma. Science makes the life in this ideal free again, since it denies what is exoteric in it. These two things, science and the ascetic ideal they really stand on a single foundation I’ve just clarified the point namely, on the same overvaluing of the truth (or more correctly, on the same faith in the inestimable value of the truth, which is beyond criticism). In that very claim they are necessarily allies so that, if someone is going to fight against them, he can only...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...fight them together and place them both in question. An appraisal of the value of the ascetic ideal unavoidably also involves an appraisal of the value of science; while there’s still time people should to keep their eyes open for that, their ears alert! (As for art let me offer a preliminary remark, for I’ll be coming back to it at some point or other at greater length the very art in which the lie sanctifies itself and the will to deceive has good conscience on its side is much more...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...fundamentally opposed to the ascetic ideal than is science: that’s what Plato’s instinct experienced the greatest enemy of art which Europe has produced up to this point. Plato versus Homer: that’s the entire, the true antagonism on one side, the “beyond” of the best will, the great slanderer of life; on the other side, life’s unintentional worshipper, the golden nature."
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook If all you can come up with is some long winded quote
by Nietzche as opposed to clearly and concisely stating your argument yourself then I have no intrerest in further discussing this with you.
If I'm interpreting Nietzsche correctly here he seems to argue that science cannot stand on its own, that it needs some sort of absolute ground on which to stand (I suppose one that is supernatural?).
I do understand what you're getting at with this...
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Nope, you do not understand Nietzsche correctly as he clearly says that the blind believe in truth is no less a metaphysical believe and therefore science cannot act as an antagonist to religion as they are based on the same sort of believe; besides I never asked to have any discussion with you but I am bound to the commandment of the poet: "The sum of all our answer is but this: We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it."
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: But to your final question; I had some annoying discussion with one of his votaries a while ago, who tried to tell me that all opinions and believes have to be based on such vulgar science as one can see here; and as it heated up I decided to take some vengeance at his master; so your question is wrongly asked: As I did gain all I wanted to gain by my first statement and if such disciples of his like you are enraged by this I will defy their fury and rage.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook I get that you want to appear cultured and refined but really, trying to channel some 19th century poet just makes you come of as a pretentious twat and makes it harder for me to discern what the hell you're talking about (especially since you clearly have yet to master the basics of the english language), but I digress.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: If I would speak English like you I would not try to lecture other about it! Remember what sweet Jesus said: "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: While the divine Friedrich Nietzsche is a German philosopher and not a poet, though he sometimes refers to himself as a poet (but that is part of his conception of art and would lead to far here if I would try to explain); if one is considered to be cultured by quoting him than I cannot help it; and it would be folly if a cultured person tries to advice an uncultured multitude about culture; and only meals are to be refined; and I will invoke the Medea of Euripides about being smart:
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
"Wherefore whoso is wise in his generation ought never to have his children taught to be too clever; for besides the reputation they get for idleness, they purchase bitter odium from the citizens. For if thou shouldst import new learning amongst dullards, thou wilt be thought a useless trifler, void of knowledge; while if thy fame in the city o'ertops that of the pretenders to cunning knowledge, thou wilt win their dislike. I too myself share in this ill-luck. ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...Some think me clever and hate me, others say I am too reserved, and some the very reverse; others find me hard to please and not so very clever after all."
@Zoofnick: And do not talk of religion in general as I will not suffer any blasphemy against the Old Gods, mock and deny monotheism as much in my presence as you like and if you have to; but back to science; this harping about absolute truth is of no avail: Truth itself is the problem here.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook I never claimed to be in full command of the english language myself, I simply pointed out that your errors stand out oh so much more clearly when you express yourself in the way that you do.
You are clearly dodging the question, can we or can we not determine someting to be more likely to be true than an other?
If the answer is no then you might aswell pray to Zeus to cure your illness instead of seeking a physician, something that I'm sure you would not do, right?
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Still you claim that your endless screams and inane babble belongs somewhat to the English language! If one would be gracious one may grant you the imperfect usage of the base proletarian-economic degeneration of the English language; gobbledygook which is spoken in the USA and sometimes confused with proper English! While the problem of truth and falsehood remains. Besides you pseudo-scientific folk are odd: ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Read the play The Imaginary Invalid by Molière and know that one may do everything when being sick but should never ever seek the help of the doctors! For the Gods one should never fail to invoke them but should not assume that they will send succour or be gracious towards the mortals; as the following passage from the Iliad will illustrate (and there is no remedy: Against the will of the Gods mortals can do nothing):
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
"Now when they were come to the temple of Athene in the citadel, the doors were opened for them by fair-cheeked Theano, daughter of Cisseus, the wife of Antenor, tamer of horses; for her had the Trojans made priestess of Athene. Then with sacred cries they all lifted up their hands to Athene; and fair-cheeked Theano took the robe and laid it upon the knees of fair-haired Athene, and with vows made prayer to the daughter of great Zeus: ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
... Lady Athene, that dost guard our city, fairest among goddesses, break now the spear of Diomedes, and grant furthermore that himself may fall headlong before the Scaean gates; to the end that we may now forthwith sacrifice to thee in thy temple twelve sleek heifers that have not felt the goad, if thou wilt take pity on Troy and the Trojans' wives and their little children." So spake she praying, but Pallas Athene denied the prayer."
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Right, it has become painfully obvious that you are either:
1. A clever and very patient troll.
or
2. Insane.
If 1 then I applaud you for your efforts, very good work, A+.
If 2 then I urge you to seek help... from a doctor, preferably one who has no qualms about prescribing you very strong medication for your mental condition.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: I am for sure no vicious beast from the Old Norse mythology! As being clever and patient are to things which are never to be attributed with Trolls; just read the Edda or its children version called the Lord of the Rings; while I may be twisted by unbridled ambition, haunted by insatiable greed and the most evil woman in the world; but I do not think that doctors or medicine will help me to find my three attendants: Lean famine, quartering steel and climbing fire.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Whatever you say psycho, I'll think of you when I hear the news that some bitter old philosophy professor shot-up a high school before turning the gun on himself, I'll think of you.
Shit, I hope this isn't what drives you to do it, I'd feel terrible ;_;
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: I tell you plainly, coxcomb, if I had to work as a teacher I would not grow old but do the shooting at the second day of work, provided that I had to cope with dunderheads like you! Any judge would rule this as pure self-defence; but as Athena says in the Odyssey: "for it beseems thee not to practise childish ways, since thou art no longer of such an age." - The Gods did indeed send the crisis of global economy in order to free me from boredom, the age of peace and plenty is over:
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
"The present-day war with economic weapons (which may later be accounted a second world war) produced wholly new forms in the Bolshevik economic offensive expressed in the Five Year Plan; the attack by dollars and francs on the pound sterling; the inflations engineered by foreign exchanges which destroyed the whole contents of national exchequers; autarchy of economic systems which may be carried to the extent of wiping out exports from the opposing powers and therewith the whole economic ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...system and the means of existence for great nations; and the Dawes and Young plans, which represent the attempts of financial groups to force whole states to do forced labour for the banks. What it really amounts to is that the life of one’s own nation has to be gained at the cost of destroying that of others. It is the struggle on the keel of the overturned boat. And when all other means are exhausted, then the oldest and most primitive, the military means, will come into their own again...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...The more strongly armed power will force the weaker one to give up its economic defensive, capitulate, and disappear, Cannon are in the last resort stronger than coal. There is not telling how this economic war will end, but it is certain that it will finally restore to the State as authority its historical rights, based on voluntary, and therefore reliable, thoroughly trained, and highly mobile armies – and will push back economics to the second place, where they belong."
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Dunderheaded coxcomb, oh snap!
Also what is this raving and ranting about economics? Are you somehow under the impression that the current economical crisis is a punishment from the gods?
Because if so then all I have so say is widdly scuds followed by HERP DERP.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Raving and ranting are certainly not the proper description of the writings of the German philosopher Oswald Spengler, whom I quoted here, as he is indeed my other self, my counsel's consistory, my oracle, my prophet and I, like a child, will go by his direction; and this economy crisis is a mighty gift by the Gods indeed!
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Well, Mr Spengler (who sounds like a bit of a nazi) and your gods can suck it, long and hard.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: By heaven, brat, I'll plague ye for that word. And there are older and fouler things than Nazism in the deep places of the world; to show this a little I will invoke the doom of Oswald Spengler concerning the Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica:
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
"Is the United States a power with a future? Before 1914 superficial observers talked of unlimited possibilities after they had looked about them for a week of two, and post-war "society" from Western Europe, compounded of snobs and mobs, for full of enthusiasm for "husky" young America as being far superior to ourselves – nay, positively a model for us to follow. But for purposes of durable form records and dollars must not be taken to represent the spiritual strength and depth of the ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...people to whom they belong; neither must sport be confused with race-soundness nor business intelligence with spirit and mind. What is "hundred per cent Americanism"? A mass existence standardized to a low average level, a primitive pose, or a promise for the future?
All we know is that so far there is neither a real nation nor a real State. Can both of these develop out of the knocks of fate, or is this possibility excluded by the very fact of the Colonial type, whose spiritual past ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...belongs elsewhere and is now dead? The American does not talk of State or Mother Country like the Englishman, but of "this country". Actually what it amounts to is a boundless field and a population of trappers, drifting from town to town in the dollar-hunt, unscrupulous and dissolute; for the law is only for those who are not cunning or powerful enough to ignore it.
The resemblance to Bolshevik Russia is far greater than one imagines. There is the same breadth of landscape, which firstly...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...by excluding any possibility of successful attack by an invader, consequently excludes the experience of real national danger, and, secondly, by making the State not indispensable, prevents the development of any true political outlook. Life is organized exclusively from the economic side and consequently lacks depth, all the more because it contains nothing of that element of historic tragedy, of great destiny, that has widened and chastened the soul of Western peoples through the ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...centuries. Their religion, originally a strict from of Puritanism, has become a sort of obligatory entertainment, and the War was a novel sport. And there is the same dictatorship there as in Russia (it does not matter that it is imposed by society instead of a party), affecting everything – flirtation and church-going, shoes and lipstick, dances and novels a` la mode, thought, food, and recreation – that in the Western world is left to the option of individuals. ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
.... There is one standardized type of American, and, above all, American woman, in body, clothes, and mind; any departure from or open criticism of the type arouses public condemnation in New York as in Moscow. Finally, there is an almost Russian form of State socialism or State capitalism, represented by the mass of trusts, which, like the Russian economic administrations, systematically standardize and control every detail of production and marketing. ...
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
...These are the real lords of the land in both cases. It is the Faustian will-to-power, but translated from organic growth to soulless mechanization."
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook And this kids, is why you don't mix LSD with PCP.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Adrenochrome: Just a little tiny taste, that stuff makes pure mescaline seem like ginger-beer.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook Good for you man, good for you.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
@Zoofnick: Had thy brethren here, their lives and thine were not revenge sufficient for me; No, if I digg'd up thy forefathers' graves and hung their rotten coffins up in chains, it could not slake mine ire, nor ease my heart. The sight of any coxcomb is as a fury to torment my soul; and till I root out your accursed kind and leave not one alive, I live in hell. Therefore -
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
@GreatGrumbledook but more to the point; Would you argue that one cannot make the claim that certain things are more likely to be true than others?
Science does not need absolute truth to function, nor does Richard Dawkins need absolute truth to assert that religion is highly unlikely to be false.
Zoofnick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey nice video, the true is you can buy USA iTunes gift cards at this store iTunesgiftScards at COM
treatraschelleasn 1 year ago
To richardaberdeen, you CANNOT move the goal post on what evolution means you twit. It's called a dictionary, get one. Evolution is the Mirco AND Macro changes that happen overtime. You cannot change the def. of species either, speciation DOES occure, and it can happen in under 3 generations. You are uneducated in the field, and as such have no bearings when criticizing it, you sound like and absolute nob. It would be the equivalent to stating that you think God sneezed out the Universe.
janaoo4 1 year ago
dawkins saying "boobies" is just fantastic,
swiggydiggy 1 year ago
@swiggydiggy lol particularly in his nice rp accent
aardjazz 1 year ago
My responses were to what you just bald-faced stated without any supporting evidence whatsoever. They had nothing to do with my fondness for Durant. Perhaps you should be more careful what you publicly put in print. You said Paul invented Jesus. You said Jesus was a myth. You've a lot of things over the coast of many posts that only serve to make you look really, really, really ignorant to anyone who has read a few history and science books.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
You remind me of my high school teacher, who said evolution is true because most scientists believe in it, as if what a majority of people makes something true. The vast majority of scientists once believed the sun revolves around the earth and, the vast majority of scientists once believed the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. No modern scientist believes either one. What the vast majority of scientists or anyone else believes doesn't prove anything.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
FYI guys, Richardaberdeen runs or is associated with a hillbilly record company promoting American superiority, currently strongly promoting the unironically titled album 'Who would Jesus bomb?'. I think you can safely dismiss him as the typical illogical thinker who pollutes this kind of thread with baseless and tired 'arguments' which attempt to rationalise his inherently irrational faith.
Morriusvids 1 year ago
Yeah right, someone who releases a CD titled "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" is promoting "American superiority". Yeah, sure and pigs fly, after they have first magically appeared on their own from nothing out of nowhere.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Comment removed
Morriusvids 1 year ago
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
I highly doubt that he will find the evidence on your youtube channel.
bigchurp 1 year ago
The first video on your site promotes a news story in which magical supernatural gems fall from the ceiling of a Puerto Rican Church. I suspect Dawkins would not be swayed by this "evidence".
Morriusvids 1 year ago
Those are some nice boobies
RevisingPerfection 2 years ago
Bullshit youtube for not letting me post links
Sachaztan 2 years ago
I agree, if I could post links, then you would have a better idea where I'm coming from--it's pretty hard to cover much in 500 characters. The reason for my various responses is that I was pointing out, among other things, how great of a liar Richard Dawkins is. Dawkins has stated as a scientific fact, the life began in the ocean. He doesn't know that and neither does anybody else. For all we know life started under ground, migrated into the ocean and then back on land several times.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Again I wonder...what did any of that have to do with my original post?
Also, might you help me out with something? See I find all these clips of Dawkins arguing, talking and discussing about evolution but I can't find anything about him ranting about the origin of life. Seeing as he obviously spends a copious amount of time doing so (why else would you focus so much on it?) could you please help me find some of that?
Sachaztan 2 years ago
Apparently it never dawned on you, that someone who says there is no God by default, must supply a better alternative explanation for the observable reality (Socrates 1-A). Perhaps you should read Anthony Flew's book, "There Is A God", which in the preface alone, which isn't even written by Flew, Dawkins is made to look like the obvious intellectual juvenhile deliquent he is. His ideas have no scientifc or other merit and don't pass the most rudimentary form of basic human logic.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Now you are just getting even more and more incomprehensible and absurd. Posting responses that are even remotely relevant to my comments is just beyond you huh?
See, my question was about sourcing your claim that Dawkins talks repetitively about the origin of life and why you so often start talking about something else than the issue at hand.
Sachaztan 2 years ago
But for the sake of discussion, lets talk about what you say here.
"must supply a better alternative explanation for the observable reality"
1: Socrates isn't the only important philosopher, he isn't some sort of god.
2: According to say, rationalism and scepticism you don't.
3: According to science (which Dawkins is trying to promote and this is what he follows) a theory has to be scientific to be called a theory, and there are already theories in that subject (like the origin of life).
Sachaztan 2 years ago
And that Dawkins ideas aren't scientific...that's probably one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard! What he is doing is simply trying to convince people that science is the "way to go" and explain to people what the current scientific theories that are out there says.
Even his ideas of belief shows a remarkable stroke of the scientific method
Sachaztan 2 years ago
According to the guy who wrote the preface for Anthony Flew's book, who is a lifetime reporter on things relating to science, many of Dawkins peers, who are not necessarily theists, believe he is bad for the image of science and that his views represent blind faith dogma no better and arguably worse than conservative religionists. I have long tried to point this out, long before reading Flew's book, as any moron who has studied even rudimentary ideas of science and philosophy already knows that
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
@richardaberdeen "any moron who has studied even rudimentary ideas of science and philosophy already knows that"
Knows exactly what? If you are talking about what Dawkins are at his core that would much more have to do with knowledge about him than anything else.
Sachaztan 2 years ago
There is no evidentiary basis for atheism, thus anyone who calls themselves an atheist is in direct violation of the basic tenets of science, philosophy and human logic, rationality and reason. Anybody can walk by Stonehenege and then question whether or not anyone actually deisgned it, but there is no logical basis for such a conclusion and there is far less logic for concluding atheism upon opening one's own two eyes, ears and nostrils.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen
"There is no evidentiary basis for atheism, thus anyone who calls themselves an atheist is in direct violation of the basic tenets of science, philosophy and human logic, rationality and reason."
That would make almost the entire humanity fall into that group, as the very same thing can be said about theists. The only group that would be spared that conclusion are some forms of Agnosticism.
Sachaztan 2 years ago
So is everyone who believes in god. you are basing your argument off of an a priori. which in philosophy means you are using logic with out your senses. but when you go outside of that a priori argument it is logical to not believe in god.
bigchurp 2 years ago
No, that is patently and completely false. Everything known to humanity, from Pyramids to microchips, reguires conception, design and construction. As both Jefferson and Descartes believed (Descartes first principle of science and reason), what is "self-evident" remains true until proven otherwise. If you are going to pretend the universal reality appeared on its own without the aid of designers and builders, than it is up to you, the one with the fabricated goofball theory, to prove it.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
If you want to believe in bullshit, that's your coice, but don't pretend around me that you understand even the most rudimentary of concepts regarding philosophy, science, logical and/or reason.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
@richardaberdeen "If you want to believe in bullshit"
What bullshit is that I believe? I would really like to know what it is and how you know I believe in it, especially seeing as I have been rather careful not to say what I believe in!
Sachaztan 2 years ago
@richardaberdeen "but don't pretend around me that you understand even the most rudimentary of concepts regarding philosophy, science, logical and/or reason."
Wow, another absurd and brash statement with very limited support (if there even is any). This reminds me of what you said about you having studied more science than what I could even imagine existed... Do you actually believe yourself?
I have studied logic, philosophy and science and my grades in those subjects have been excellent.
Sachaztan 2 years ago
@richardaberdeen You know, your arguments gets an even greater flair of the good old classic Ad Hominem fallacy for every post you make.
Do you see me making dead certain claims about your beliefs, education and understanding of science/philosophy/logic? Do you know why? Because I can't possibly know for sure! Unless you know what schools I have studied in, what my grades are and have an understanding that goes beyond a few days of commenting making claims of that character is downright stupid
Sachaztan 2 years ago
And to simplify, in case you don't understand what the term "Socratic Logic" means, pretending gee, the evolutionary boogie man did it, doesn't score any Socratic or other rational points.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sachaztan 2 years ago
True faith and science are based on evidence. To say the universe appeared on its own is an example of superstitious nonsense, having no facts in evidence. It is neither logical, rational, scientific or reasonable to pretend there is no God. To state there is no God is to deliberately lie, just as it is to state that Stonehenge is not a result of deliberate design. To state there is no God is a much greater lie than to state Stonehenge randomly arranged itself apart from deliberate design.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
religion here, now, today, violates human rights and freedom. particularly in america, ironically.
The freedom it violates is the freedom for people to form thier own beliefs, without being indoctranated and confirmed into a belief at birth. .....
fluentinsound 2 years ago
belief is a freedom. belief is a thing that an individual has the human right to form by themselves, for themselves, having made a concious decision to belief it. this, as everyone can see, is taken away as soon as a babies is pressured, baptised or confirmed into an insitituional train of thought - binded into it. before they can even walk, let alone decide what they think about what humanity doenst know about yet.
fluentinsound 2 years ago
That is correct. God has given us freedom of choice and you can choose to base what you believe on evidence, or you can choose to believe in magical spontaneously appearing universes or like Dawkins, you can choose to believe the Darwinian Boogieman created the universe. Regardless of how ignorant one's beliefs may be, we do have "freedom" of choice.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
IF GOD EXIST, IS INCOMPETENT
XxAlitoxX 2 years ago
some country should donate 120 acres of land so Dawkins can create the atheist Vatican equivalent and have vote in United Nations too.
neoflyboy 2 years ago
That is such a sweet idea
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
@neoflyboy Why? What would the point be?
Crucidildo 2 years ago
Is just about of augment visibility in international forums. This world should be atheist as soon as possible.
neoflyboy 2 years ago
Yes but then we'd be hypocrites since we'd have institutionalized and (possibly) set into stone a single uniting creed for atheism which is too much like religion.
Instead we ought to continue what we are doing and start working towards the Unity Convention which ought to be held next year in D.C.
Crucidildo 2 years ago
They wouldnt need to if kids here and now were protected from forced insitituional belief at birth, under the psychologically-assaulting threat of roasting for eternity. That is how religion is alive today - not naturally, artificially. it has member breeding tactics. parents are in most cases also victims of the stifling, fake fear theyve been hypnotised with by egotisical men since childhood. a sadistic, evil fake threat, coined by a small group of medieval psychopaths hundreds of years ago
fluentinsound 2 years ago
If your parents made child indoctrination with you, you should demand them. Were you able to do something like that with your parents?
This game will be won in the legal arena. We should continue publishing this ideas and generate demands.
neoflyboy 2 years ago
the elder chicks' boobies always die
fluentinsound 2 years ago
Heh heh... boobies. Oh god, I need to grow up.
Lilliaal 2 years ago
Comment removed
PhilMason99 2 years ago
lol he said BOOBIES! BOOBIES are related to blue footed BOOBIES!
alexander92648 2 years ago
Humans definitely need to take after the nazca boobies. The are way too many people around here.
AmericanCritiquer 2 years ago
Agreed. I volunteer you :P
easyTree77 2 years ago
i am so immature l laughed every time he said boobies
crazygeek777 2 years ago
Me too! Haha
dragonofthedarknight 2 years ago
I love boobies...
stagesix6 2 years ago
I would love to see any creationist debating this after watching the video.
frankystein12 2 years ago
Any moron can easily debate Richard Dawkins. After all, it is Dawkins who has no evidence for sponataneously appearing random chance universes, motion apart from primary cause or intelligent beings appearing on their own without any Creative Intelligence. Even a small child knows better than that.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Well give it a shot, moron.
Your position then is - "therefore a magic man in the clouds did it"? The basis of all regions, and it makes you sound as big a fucking moron as it suggests.
Consider why you're no longer asked to believe in a God of the .. Sun, Sea, Thunder, Jam, Hairdryers and mopeds. Its because we understand them now.
Your God of the gaps (in knowledge) is a fraud - and so are you.
PhilMason99 2 years ago
There are over 38,000 species of spiders, 900,000 species of insects, 10,000 species of birds, 100,000 species of trees. Why?
Evolution. THINK about it.
prostock69 2 years ago
OR maybe God likes making insects... :P
easyTree77 2 years ago
what amazing design (sarcasm)
AsG1989 2 years ago
Those are nice boobies.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
boobies :)
tiberux 2 years ago
Maybe the creator just doesn't like boobies. Did you think of that? Why would He name them "boobies" if he liked them?
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
@wilfredthebold Nice. But more to the point, why are you implying that the creator had a certain sex (because people who like 'boobie' are overwhelming male)? The creator, if it exists, may had been anything, from the spaghetti monster to a dense pack of photons.
frankystein12 2 years ago
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the three languages associated with the Bible, like English have no neutural tense, thus like English, "he", "his" and "him" is often used for both male and female or, neither male or female. Apparently you have never studied linguistics as well as the scientific evidence, which is clearly demonstrated by your juvenhile remarks. In Old Testament Leviticus, for example, "he", "his" and "him" is very clearly used for laws applying to both male and female several times.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
boobies. i still laugh at that. im so pathetic
slipram1 2 years ago
Nature is hardcore.
outofnowheres 2 years ago
I love this video, though christians ignorance make me sad.
SigDrums 2 years ago
You just have to let it go.
They will either adapt (No pun intended) or die out. Which is why theologians really don't take the Adam and eve story literally.
YogzDaBeatChild 2 years ago
Well, adapting sort of makes you a hypocrite, you agree? Forexample, most of the christians in industrialized nations tollerate homosexuality, though the bible clearly says it's forbidden. It's sad, how people change religion to their own benefit.. But then again, if everyone were extremists, we would be fucked.
SigDrums 2 years ago
Indeed. It renders Yahweh's perfection, an illusion.
YogzDaBeatChild 2 years ago
Just ignore them.
prostock69 2 years ago
Comment removed
Spudthecat1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Totally Cool!
UndeadTurk 2 years ago
MARJORIE REPRESENT
lalalalsksksksjdjdjd 2 years ago
Love these videos, but Josh's music is godawful.
holydave 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" - Check it out on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
What I wondered is an extension of that. If animals have no souls and are just here for our amuesment and so we can benefit from the bounty of animals, how come God didnt program them to recognize us as their masters and not eat us? Apparently he forgot to do that in bees, bears, lions, snakes, sharks, etc.
tobyeo 2 years ago
"Does God exist?" is not a scientific question because it is impossible to disprove. No prediction can be made based on the existence of god, no experiment can be conducted, and no conclusion can be reached. In my opinion the question and concept are thus useless at best. If you allow the supernatural you can argue the existence of anything, Santa and God included. The grandiose claims of intelligent design offer no extra credibility. Watch the vid for evidence against intelligent design.