To anyone who thinks Professor Dawkins is not all man I'm here to tell you otherwise! He has a good sized penis and the hair on his ass is like velvet.
@jesussave1979 How can you not be religious and have a relationship with Jesus Christ? It's like saying, "I hate milk, but at the same time i love cheese"
@UberREDKitteh Cheese consists of milk. That's my point (I wasn't arguing about what tastes better). You can't say that you are not religious, but at the same time have a personal connection with Christ. If you believe in Jesus being holy, then you are religious.
@jesussave1979 whatever you say, champ. Good news is, atheists, or as i like to call us reasonists are the fastest growing demographic in the world. Eventualy reason will outweigh religion and then we can start working together for the betterment of everyone instead of seperating ourselves with faulse beliefs.
@Antifaith29 The betterment of everybody.What council or cabal is going to determine that? Is it going to be your kindergarten teacher,whose soft voice and perfumed hair
entinced you to draw stick figures with pasted on cut- outs? No, it's going to be billionaries who deprive you of your rights and money.Who
will let you become slaves to their Ipod world with teenagers building your computers. Sounds like Red China.
@searchlight18 By all means, lets keep our noses in a book filled with bullshit out of fear of some intangible sky daddy that tells us all we were born wasted, horrible sinners but hey, thats cool because some random asshole got killed to save us. Sounds like guilt.
@jesussave1979 Exactly. Thats why so many are sucked in. We dont understand so we lable it and dumb it down into religion in order to controll it. Religion = fear .
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
@jesussave1979 It's a lie, all of it is. Designed to controll weak minded idiots that are incapable of thinking for themselves. Seriously, think about the scope of the universe. To think that it was " created" with you in mind is sheer arrogence and idiotic to the point of absurdity.
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
@jesussave1979 No, you said the bible doesnt contradict itself, i am showing you that it does, its not rocket science here, bud. Im just proving you wrong, its not hard.
@Antifaith29 ok buddy i know what circular reasoning mean.scientist should take there own advance and determent the age of the earth layers by not useing fossil they find in the ground.thats circular reasoning.its not science its a religion.bible does not lie one time or does it contradict it self.thats why i know its true and evolution is a lie and a religion.geological column is scientist holy grilled and it as lies with prove of humens footprints/object/ in the ground
@jesussave1979 Wow ok, youve stepped right into this one. First of all we dont use fossil records to determin the age of the earth, we use radiometric dating wich measures the decay of radioactive isotopes in various materials ( including the moon) secondly..the bible doesnt contradict itself.. i will now go ahead in my next posts and show you some fairly clear examples. Once youve removed your foot from your mouth you can have a look.
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
@Antifaith29 where the layers of rocks are and these rocks have been dated around 2hundered million years old.beside carbon dating does not work or any other method.
I wouldn't want to argue with a creationist, either: they already have their conclusion, thus they don't have to worry about "credibility" or "burden of proof" or "evidence". The conclusion is right there, and they're sticking to it.
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects are in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolved wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
if i was richard dawkins i be scared too debate any creationists like kent hovind cause he knows he would lose a debate everytime.dawkins knows god does exist but rather become his own god.
Dr. William Lane Craig doesn't believe the Earth is flat; nor does he believe that children are flown in to there mothers by stalks.
But even if he did, isn't the definition of a debate a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
OPPOSING arguments.
So what Dawkins is saying here is that he won't "debate" anyone who has different beliefs from him?
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know Dawkins did debate WL Craig several years ago - and since Craig has had no new arguments or new evidence for 30 years , what would be the point of a rematch?
@parsivalshorse Dawkins has never debated WLC... and if he has, please enlighten me on this debate they supposedly had, because I would be very eager to watch it.
And please, don't even mention the event in Mexico, because that was hardly a debate.
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know Dawkin's is a scientist - Craig is a philosopher, what common ground for debate would they have? Craig's principle arguements are the cosmological argument - which was refuted before even the time of Christ, and the rather silly notion that atheism is a belief that demands more faith than theism (obviously atheism is a disbelief)
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know There is no point in debating a creationist because they are stupid. There is nothing to discuss, creationism shouldn't be taken seriously. He isn't saying he doesn't want to debate someone who disagree with him, he is saying that he does not want to debate a moron, because there is no point in the discussion.
If I wanted to discuss the existence of ghosts with you, you wouldn't agreed to that would you? No, because it's a waste of time.
The reason I wouldn't want to discuss the existence or non-existence of ghost with you is because I hold no strong affirmation on the existence of ghost.
Dawkins is a biologist who wrote an entire book on why God doesn't exist.
Craig is a research professor of philosophy who has written several books in why God does exist.
Dawkins HAS debated others on the existence of God so its curious to me why he won't debate WLC
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know They were supposed to discuss creationism, not the existence of a god. Creationism is utter bullshit, and has been proven wrong, while nobody can prove there is no god(yet). Which is why I think the existence of a god is worth debating, while a discussion about creationism is totally fruitless.
If I have misunderstood and they actually were supposed to debate the existence of god then I agree with you, it does seem kind cowardly,, If that is the case.
@znybar Are you suggesting human intellegence has not evolved? Homo Erectus brain is said to have increased 850 and 1100 cm cube from Hibilis. The Turkana Boy 1.7mya would hav possed 1000-1050cc. Later Chinese exampl high as 1200cc. According to Molnar, modern human range up to 2200cc. These point to physical progression of brain size! Or are u debunking your own myth of evolution by now saying size HAS NO colleration with intelligence?
Kal, the internet is a good teacher if you are careful about the site you choose. TV like the history channel are dubious at best. Remember the burial box of James? How many people believed it and it proved to be a fake. It's OK if you already have enough knowlege to sort out the BS.
Zynbar - Actually, it was you I was replying to in the beginning "I know right? Religious people don't get that they can't use their books as evidence"
@zynbar: You reasoning is flawed. The early men must have had high IQ as you say, It tool him 1 million years to learn to make fire. But as you say you are a biology student, you would not knw that. You are also fallacious about God. He does not have to be morally good to your liking to exist.
@606snakes IQ and the creation of tools have nothing in common, otherwise by your standards fish have high IQ (they can use tools). Look it up. So then you are ok with your god wanting to rape and pillage others? Then don't judge my morality, because you have none.
If i was an atheist that had such a burning desire for proof of god then i would shoot myself in the fucking head to find out for myself instead of hanging around the world for 70 years or so wasting peoples time and energy i mean what could it hurt right its not like you believe there is a hell so why worry
@riverstory87 I have no burning desire lol. I'm sick of short-sighted religious people telling me what to believe when they can bring no proof to convince me. Let me guess, you were born in a christian family and raised up as a christian? Oh what a coincidence, you'd be saying the same about allah or the buddah if you were born elsewhere.
@riverstory87 Let's just change a couple of words and then you will see how YOU sound.
If iI had such a burning desire for proof of Santa Claus then i would shoot myself in the fucking head to find out for myself instead of hanging around the world for 70 years or so wasting peoples time and energy i mean what could it hurt right its not like you believe there is a North polel so why worry
@mathew1944: What makes you think the God of Koran or Bible must subscribe to your moral rectitude. He sets his own laws and decides apostasy is treason against him and leads to capital punishment=stoning. In computer jargon this decree is backward compatible, just like base memory, can even be carried with basic tools anywhere. To assume God is false on moral grounds is in itself grossly fallacious.
@606snakes no, your book says that. You have no idea, nor does anyone else, what ANY god has ever said. You're basing yourself on assumptions, nothing more. And yes, when gods supposedly support the murder of innocent women and children, the rape of women for looking at men, and paedophilia. I do very strongly consider that no such god could exist precisely on moral grounds. I dare you to support such a god and not consider yourself morally wrong.
@Znybar What do you care your an animal anyway's and last time i checked it wasn't wrong for animal's to rape and murder oh my bad i mean join into the natural order of nature.Without god there are no moral's
@riverstory87 Morals? Don't you dare talk to me about morals. Every stupid god rapes and pillages, commits infanticide and paedophilia. How dare you. You're perfectly happy that your 'moral' god lets thousands of people die of famine or war in terrible agony every day? You make me sick. For the record no, animals dont rape and murder each other. Nothing as frequently as religious fanatics.
@Znybar Yeah my point exactly dummy it's not called rape and murder when animals do it so if your an animal then why should it be called that.I hate atheist you suck you are all demoralizing this world(look at television lady gaga soon there will be screwing on the streets complete nudity on public television and what about all the fucking diseases that have been made in a science lab what about the wars over oil dont look at shit like that do you you only focus on the god you hate
@riverstory87 As for all the death because of famine and war if we would stop fighting and start living by what jesus (god)taught then there wouldnt be any of that but we wont and its no fault of gods its the fault of confusion spreading hate mongering devils such as yourself
@riverstory87 your god taught people it was right to have slaves if you didnt beat them 'too often'. I don't think that would stop wars. Read your own rubbish book.
@Znybar Stay out of the old testament dude where not even judged by that anymore as for stephen hawkings lol have you not seen the moral decline in the past 20 years and whats intelligence got to do with morals as for the founding fathers lol WE ARE FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY MORON!!!Atheist are stubborn,rebellious,hateful,,,,and gay lol if your so sick throw up all ready then squat down and eat it just like a dog would just the animal you claim to be would
@riverstory87 "The U.S. Treaty with Tripoli reaffirmed the Separation of Church and State and was written while George Washington was president, passed with unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate, signed by President John Adams and received no public outcry and states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." -- US Treaty with Tripoli - Article 11 - 1797
@Znybar No prob. I was looking for a reply to my post a few days ago and ran across this iill-informed mouthpiece and just couldn't resist. Glad it's OK with you. Want me to stick around?
@Matthew1944 I know the constitution and i'm not arguing "separation of church and state",I'm stating that america's founding father's were deeply religious people(christian).Politic's and religion don't mix and that's the truth but totally beside's the point i mean listen to the pledge of allegiance(1892)every one was christian then this was a christian nation to argue otherwise is atheist bullshit.
@riverstory87 It can't be said whether they were christian or not. It wasn't the "in" thing to claim to be an atheist or agnostic then as it is now. Lincoln said "The bible is not my book". Jefferson cut the supernatural events out of his bible. A good half dozen of them weren't Christian but didn't make a big thing out of it. A number of them were deists.
"One nation under God" was added in the mid 1900's during the recent cold war in reaction to Russian Communism.
@Matthew1944 Come on that's bullshit and you know it lincoln was born and raised in kentucky in the early 1800's.Now if you know anything about kentucky then you will know that even to this day everyone is still christian so imagine 200 years ago.The bibles not my book neither but that doesn't mean i haven't read plenty out of it or that i don't believe it's message it's just boring.
@riverstory87 It's not bullshit. Lincoln is widely regarded to have been non-christian by historians, as is your first president, Washington. It's sad that I'm not american and yet I know more about your country's history than you do. And the matter of where he was born doesn't mean anything about his beliefs: how many 'christians' are actually agnostic or atheist but choose not to make it public? The problem was much worse a hundred years ago.
@Znybar Widelt regarded by atheist's of the past 100 years but if you really do research on the subject then it will go to show you how wrong you are.Don't just look at the info set in place by other atheist that are at the top of google either, dig deep and find the truth and quit lying about american history.As for lincoln now i usually dont do this but i had to wikipedia the info this time maybe you should do the same and quit acting like your teaching me something YOUR NOT
@Znybar They didn't teach about the pledge being changed when i was in school so my bad on that count but i'm not dumb i just had no reason to research something i knew nothing about and of course an atheist would know any bit of info they can learn to refute god they will but i of course do the same
@riverstory87 Sorry to pee on your parade, river, but not everyone was Christian. There were more diests, even among the founding fathers, than you think. How does this grab you? Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson. James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[ and Thomas Paine
@Matthew1944 They didn't have to make big things out of it when everyone they was surrounded by was christian just like them.That's like saying im an amazing guitarist in a room full of guitarist its just silly and wouldn't happen in my eye you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself american which your probably not anyway's your probably from some other country just googling all the information you have been posting instead of being taught about them from american history class maybe not though
@riverstory87 And your point is? If you're not american you can't have an opinion? Does your bible tell you that as well? No offence, but google would be a much better history teacher than american history classes.
@Znybar Most website's out there aren't giving unbiased truth they our casting there own opinions and some people just lie and i would rather get the truth from a history class then a lie from some one with the same beliefs as myself
@Matthew1944 That is a small percentage though,but who are you to harp on whats being taught in the privacy of another persons home to another person's child.Or in religious schools the parents pay for them to be set apart from the foolishness that goes on at public school for a reason.To keep there child from being corrupted by new age independence,that's just another way for the government to cause separation from the child's family.The government then become's the child's family when it grows
@riverstory87 The products of that "teaching" go with a person throughout their life and either help or hinder it. Private schools are certainly better (maybe) in terms of discipline but they hinder them when that child goes out into the real world and finds out that he is vulnerable because he is actually a social misft. Public schools certainly aren't perfect but they do give the child social skills and make them "street smart". The trick is to monitor your own child 's activities.
@riverstory87 To keep there child from being corrupted by new age independence"
Science is actually a threat to belief because it can debunk it. Those who send their children to religious schools or homeschool, for the most part, want their children brainwashed and obedient. Public schools tend to make children question everything and apply rational thinking. These qualities don't lend themselves to the kind of belief the parents want.
@riverstory87 Oh dear, study your own history. The term 'god' in the pledge of allegiance was only added in the 1950s, and is currently being debated as unconstitutional. Thus the pledge was originally SECULAR and non-religious.
@Znybar It was written by a christian minister and of course it's being debated because of atheist such as yourself and foreigners.This whole country has gone to the dog's listen answer a question for me and it is completely off subject who was the twenty second president of the u.s of a
@riverstory87 demoralizing? Some of the greatist minds of our time were atheists. Hawkins, Einstein, the founding fathers of the US (they were at least secularists). I certainly wouldn't call the influence these people have had on society 'demoralising'. You want to point out people? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Saddam Hussein? Those religious people certainly left good impressions on the world, justified by their 'god'. I could say the same about George Bush if you're christian.
@riverstory87 Pointing out specific people does nothing to support your argument, because nothing forces people to follow rules. The behaviour of certain people will never prove or disprove the existence of anyone. To me, the stoning of women is acting like animals. Calling homosexuals animals is acting like animals. Religion disgusts me.
@riverstory87 there will be screwing on the streets complete nudity on public television and what about all the fucking diseases that have been made in a science lab what about the wars over oil
...................
Surprisingly, riv, it is already being done - Stats show that the countries with the highest religiosity religiosity are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute. The opposite is true in secular countries.
Yup, that's what the church tells you and it has to, because if the truth was really looked at carefully, and they could actually see that one does not need church or religion to be good, then what good is your church or religion?
@shoussam: Quran 2.30-33 says angels were opposed to human life on earth. They say man will only shed blood there. They only admit God is right after they lose an intellectual contest with Adam. They thought man was incapable of knowlege. Is it possible they were referring to this premodial man who had a low IQ?. Also the Quran does not says earth is only 5,000 years old. Note, Allah says he is creator cum evolver Quran 59:24
@606snakes Stop supporting your arguments with fairytale stories from your book written by men. It will never convince anyone who can think for themselves. And the idea of 'the primordial man with low IQ' is very funny, early men actually had larger brains than we do now relative to their body size.
@Znybar yeah but that doesn't mean it was more capable of holding more information retard look at einstein's brain it was weighed to be 2 pounds and was abnormally smaller than the average persons brain.
@Matthew1944 The size isn't secondary in this conversation you said cave men should have a higher I,Q because there brains are BIGGER not because of the number of convolution's.
@riverstory87 I didn't say ANYTHING about cavement. In this case, quanitity of brain matter is trumped by the quality of the brain, how richly fed it is by blood vessels and the number of nerve endings. It's like putting another chip into your computer, river. My computer is half the size of my roommates but it packs more gigs than ithe one that's bigger in physical size...
@riverstory87 Indubiously i say unto you my fine postulated unequivocally challenged counterpoint.The fidelity of your statements are void of truth and lean towards an ambiguous foundation.You see what ive done just know is called wordplay and it doesnt mean anything its just a way to make the crowd believe you are smarter then what you are when really you are merely dodging the answers and punching wholes in theorys and starting entirely new argument's to get the view off of what you dont know
@riverstory87 The purpose of a post is to communicate. You can't communicate if your writing form is difficult to understand. Notice in this post: "mistake's" - it's a plural, not possessive or a contraction and should be "mistakes". Preponderance means: superiority in weight, force, importance, or influence. How does that apply to your sentence: "It's preponderance on your part". I pointed it out because your kind of writing "style" and terminology are so common among fundamentalists.
@Matthew1944 You are right that is what it mean's and when i used it for referring to you meaning just that that you think your superior when your definitely not.As for not being able to understand what i'm saying, if you cant then you are retarded plain and simple and if my writing form is to difficult to understand perhaps you would be more comfortable arguing against little children.
@Matthew1944 Well seeing as you have completely stopped arguing the point and instead moved to bashing me, so who's the child?I believe that would be you so have good day fucking yourself you piece of shit lol
@riverstory87 Stop feeling persecuted, river. I can't answer your points and neither can anyone else if you resort to the kind of language you've used and insist on posting muddled writings. Your "methods" of debate are common coming from fundamentalists and I've grown accustomed to these ravings although I don't like them very much.
@Matthew1944 One more thing quit "googling" everything i say if i don't understand what your saying then i wait till after the argument to educate myself not during as to convince other's that i'm all knowing and that there is nothing i cant understand.
@riverstory87 In pointing out these little mistake's prove's how weak you are at debating and arguing if you have to resort to correcting grammar rather then expressing point's of view.
@riverstory87 Bingo! Bottom line - how can you tell what a person's point of view is, if their sentences run together and you can't understand what he's trying to get across.
@shoussam: I agree. Human evolution itself has different schools of thought; More work is being done by anthropolgists than plaentologists. Not exacly empirical. There are doubts whether homosapiens are from Cro Magnons or Neaderthal of 130,000 years ago These two groups fought for 10,000 years with rocks. There is no evidence of sexual contact even rape between these two groups!?. For scientists no smoking gun means it did not happen!...cont.
@606snakes Excuse me???? Do you always such unsupported arguments? I can tell you that roughly 70% of the biological department at my university (and most) studies evolution. Who cares if human evolution has different 'schools of thought', they still all agree that men evolved from an ancestral apes. And neanderthals used complex tools, not just rocks...
@606snakes The theory of evolution came from biology, not palaeontology. Palaeontology was only found later to support the theory. 90% of research on evolution is still a biological problem, with palaeontological support. Anthropology is the study of man nimrod. So of course, the study of the last 100000 years of man is done by anthropologists because that's their field.
Atheists can't see they are being set up.That is why an othwewise merticolous lot cant find time to escertain whether God, a real threat waiting in the wings is real or not. GOD IS A REAL THREAT to the unbeliever, he says.The problem is i cant prove him wrong. So the threat lingers on. He has chosen to be invicible to any available spectronometer. This makes the threat even more challenging and faith in him more rewarding. God can be real or imagined, but is still a big threat to the atheist.
There will always be conflict among humanity as the past has shown us, we have a propensity to self destruct, to dominate and a thirst for power and dominion over others!
I agree with the atheist proposition that 1, there is no tangible credible proof of god.creator and 2, neither do i wish there to be!
Life is simple, you're born, you survive, you procreate, you die and your legacy through your genes are passed onto the next generation!
Debates upon the origins and the past of the world leads people to ignore what goes on within present time...This idiotic conflict of ideas makes them even further ignorant to current situations,a passive distraction that divert resource space and time to a goal which by most it's goal relates only to humans Pride in themselves.
How about you all shot up,look up and notice that humanity currently are a barbaric race that got no idea how to live with itself and with the world around them?
A relative layman like Ricky Gervais can easily whip somebody like former child star Kirk Cameron from pillar to post. Hell, I am just a guy who yells at a camra in a park and could whip him from pillar to post. There is no contest.
i met richard dawkins yesterday and we discussed my theory. he was very impressed and said it should be made public. i have posted it on you-tube site "un human rights chief highlights australian".
who ever said god is a man, who ever said god is good, who ever said god is something we can comprehend, It is obvious, everything is created by god, even the matter and experements science bases itself on. It's a paradox. I'm not religious, I'm just was an atheist who gave the idea of god another look.
@bassbass99able Really? That is all you have. Listen, please stop spamming atheists videos with nonsense like this. It is void of any fact, reason or logic. It is just rubbish. God created nothing, man however created god.
@bassbass99able The idea of God does not matter Real or not,because a being of "god" size and capabilities is in such immense proportions that you don't even need to bother thinking about it...Because such a god will do whatever the heck it wants Literally regardless if people believe or don't believe in it...Anyway,the god people have in mind is actually more of a collective notion that somehow everything revolves around them and what they do with their Reproductive organs.
Fact - Atheism is the preserve of a reckless lot who can't even try to commit to anyone or anything. They hide under science, which to me is trying to connect the dots even in evolution itself - still in the kitchen, i say so because they have not yet dug under my house. Last month, i ate a wild fruit unknown to botanists i called the fruit LOD. Very sweet indeed, but my friend insists it does not exist, the taste still lingers in my mouth though.
@Matthew1944 lol @ all you ideology hipsters, you can pamper dawkins all you want, but he is afraid to debate craig. point blank. i would respect him more, bu this cowardly actions have allowed me to laugh even harder at atheism and all it's followers who boldy proclaim a "nonfaith, yet faith" and an unproven and equally hilarious concept. cheers
Dr. Dawkins definition of Creationism is that Creationist believe in a young earth. Ok, a young earth is proven false. Yes, I agree he should not debate Creationist who believe the
Earth is young. The Universe is PROVEN to be 13.7 billion years old. The Bible is not a Science book my stupied evangelical friends, it's a Theology book. But don't worry, yes, God still created the Universe.
@WorldMoment1 Yes I have a question, if the second sentence is true and evolution is real doesn't that made any need for intelligent design redundant?
Dawkins then should stick to his area of competence and stop sailing into unfamiliar waters. He should leave philosophy to the philosophers and theology to the theologians. But, of course, he won't make much money.
@wbarquez What's the point of your comments about money? The christian evangelists make hundreds of millions of dollars - so how is this even relevant?
Debating a religious person is like slamming your head against the ground.
SuperFluffylicious 11 hours ago
To anyone who thinks Professor Dawkins is not all man I'm here to tell you otherwise! He has a good sized penis and the hair on his ass is like velvet.
TonyMcAnus 1 day ago
@TonyMcAnus Hawt!
SuperFluffylicious 11 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The reason he doesn't is because Dawkins is massively over rated as a debater.
FuroraCeltica 1 day ago
@FuroraCeltica You'd probably be the best debater ever
disturbedking8 1 day ago
@FuroraCeltica
Hmm nope, didn't you watch the video? He said why he doesn't do it.
DrDopehat 1 hour ago
@DrDopehat Dawkins has had Christians like Lennox completely destroy him in debates, hence why he has stopped debating them
FuroraCeltica 1 hour ago
@FuroraCeltica LOL no Dawkins just doesn't like explaining quantum physics to children. It can get frustrating.
LosAngelesFresh1 11 minutes ago
i aint religious i have personal relationship with jesus christ
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 and yes, you are religious. Christianity is a religion no matter how you try to spin it.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@Antifaith29 not necessarily. just sayin.
mase15 1 day ago
@Antifaith29 never mind. I read the convo and take that back :-)
mase15 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 How can you not be religious and have a relationship with Jesus Christ? It's like saying, "I hate milk, but at the same time i love cheese"
Andyeeee 1 day ago
@Andyeeee No it's not, but i see what youre going at. im an atheist :)
XxRapiDaSHxX 1 day ago
@Andyeeee Random fact, I love milk but hate cheese.
UberREDKitteh 1 day ago
@UberREDKitteh Cheese consists of milk. That's my point (I wasn't arguing about what tastes better). You can't say that you are not religious, but at the same time have a personal connection with Christ. If you believe in Jesus being holy, then you are religious.
Andyeeee 1 day ago
u try the Samuel verse on me and u diden't think i knew about it.i look for answer not hie behind them
jesussave1979 1 day ago
u know the bible does not contradict its self.cause i just give u the prove or u know and reject god./dont worry i will pray for you my friend
jesussave1979 1 day ago
will it does not hurt me
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 whatever you say, champ. Good news is, atheists, or as i like to call us reasonists are the fastest growing demographic in the world. Eventualy reason will outweigh religion and then we can start working together for the betterment of everyone instead of seperating ourselves with faulse beliefs.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@Antifaith29 The betterment of everybody.What council or cabal is going to determine that? Is it going to be your kindergarten teacher,whose soft voice and perfumed hair
entinced you to draw stick figures with pasted on cut- outs? No, it's going to be billionaries who deprive you of your rights and money.Who
will let you become slaves to their Ipod world with teenagers building your computers. Sounds like Red China.
searchlight18 1 day ago
@searchlight18 By all means, lets keep our noses in a book filled with bullshit out of fear of some intangible sky daddy that tells us all we were born wasted, horrible sinners but hey, thats cool because some random asshole got killed to save us. Sounds like guilt.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
seem better then saying nothing come from something
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Exactly. Thats why so many are sucked in. We dont understand so we lable it and dumb it down into religion in order to controll it. Religion = fear .
Antifaith29 1 day ago
trolling^^
jesussave1979 1 day ago
u know i am right faith u just rolling cause u know gods exist and u want too hurt god by changing people minds
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Lmao well then obviously you dont think much of your god if you think my opinion can hurt it. Perhaps there is hope for you afterall.
I thought he was infalable? Guess not eh?
Antifaith29 1 day ago
there clues man just understand it
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 It's a lie, all of it is. Designed to controll weak minded idiots that are incapable of thinking for themselves. Seriously, think about the scope of the universe. To think that it was " created" with you in mind is sheer arrogence and idiotic to the point of absurdity.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
how many people can u put on a chariots
jesussave1979 1 day ago
u are just reading what u want too hear
jesussave1979 1 day ago
wow....hey anitfaith..here is a tip for you ok..read very carefully ok..CHARIOTS...THERE IS YOUR CLUE..
jesussave1979 1 day ago
hahahah
jesussave1979 1 day ago
antifaith if u just pick and choice from the bible and try make it look bad u are not looking for the truth
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 How many stalls and horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 No, you said the bible doesnt contradict itself, i am showing you that it does, its not rocket science here, bud. Im just proving you wrong, its not hard.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
i dont need you tell me that the bible is fales its true i have study the meanings of the bible.
jesussave1979 1 day ago
romans chapter 1 verse 18-25 is a perfect example of god does exist and thats just one of many my friend...
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Oh so the book all people believe in god follow proves the existence of god.
Please go and type " circular reasoning" into google and come back to me.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@Antifaith29 ok buddy i know what circular reasoning mean.scientist should take there own advance and determent the age of the earth layers by not useing fossil they find in the ground.thats circular reasoning.its not science its a religion.bible does not lie one time or does it contradict it self.thats why i know its true and evolution is a lie and a religion.geological column is scientist holy grilled and it as lies with prove of humens footprints/object/ in the ground
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Wow ok, youve stepped right into this one. First of all we dont use fossil records to determin the age of the earth, we use radiometric dating wich measures the decay of radioactive isotopes in various materials ( including the moon) secondly..the bible doesnt contradict itself.. i will now go ahead in my next posts and show you some fairly clear examples. Once youve removed your foot from your mouth you can have a look.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@Antifaith29 Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jesussave1979 Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 Book THAT** all people WHO ** Excuse me.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
@Antifaith29 where the layers of rocks are and these rocks have been dated around 2hundered million years old.beside carbon dating does not work or any other method.
jesussave1979 1 day ago
I wouldn't want to argue with a creationist, either: they already have their conclusion, thus they don't have to worry about "credibility" or "burden of proof" or "evidence". The conclusion is right there, and they're sticking to it.
Idiots.
TheOkami1113 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects are in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolved wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
YamiYami17 2 days ago
if i was richard dawkins i be scared too debate any creationists like kent hovind cause he knows he would lose a debate everytime.dawkins knows god does exist but rather become his own god.
jesussave1979 2 days ago
@jesussave1979 Kent Hovind is retarded. God isn't real. There's no proof or evidence to prove that he exists. Rethink your position. Kthx
WithSomeSpareTime 2 days ago
@WithSomeSpareTime romans chapter 1 verse 18-25.is a perfect example of god existent and thats just one reason for the prooth of god my friend
jesussave1979 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WithSomeSpareTime romans chapter 1 verse 18-25.is a perfect example of god existent and thats just one reason for the proof of god my friend
jesussave1979 1 day ago
@jesussave1979 It would be difficult to debate Hovind since he is in prison.
BiffWhitebread13 2 days ago
Hold on. I think I cracked a rib at the end there.
MrHsox 2 days ago
Dr. William Lane Craig doesn't believe the Earth is flat; nor does he believe that children are flown in to there mothers by stalks.
But even if he did, isn't the definition of a debate a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
OPPOSING arguments.
So what Dawkins is saying here is that he won't "debate" anyone who has different beliefs from him?
Puzzling, isn't it?
Man up, Dawkins; debate Dr. WLC.
ThatBoyUNeed2Know 2 days ago
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know Dawkins did debate WL Craig several years ago - and since Craig has had no new arguments or new evidence for 30 years , what would be the point of a rematch?
parsivalshorse 2 days ago
@parsivalshorse Dawkins has never debated WLC... and if he has, please enlighten me on this debate they supposedly had, because I would be very eager to watch it.
And please, don't even mention the event in Mexico, because that was hardly a debate.
ThatBoyUNeed2Know 2 days ago
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know Dawkin's is a scientist - Craig is a philosopher, what common ground for debate would they have? Craig's principle arguements are the cosmological argument - which was refuted before even the time of Christ, and the rather silly notion that atheism is a belief that demands more faith than theism (obviously atheism is a disbelief)
parsivalshorse 2 days ago
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know There is no point in debating a creationist because they are stupid. There is nothing to discuss, creationism shouldn't be taken seriously. He isn't saying he doesn't want to debate someone who disagree with him, he is saying that he does not want to debate a moron, because there is no point in the discussion.
If I wanted to discuss the existence of ghosts with you, you wouldn't agreed to that would you? No, because it's a waste of time.
Carljoakimmm 2 days ago
@Carljoakimmm Thats such a copout.
The reason I wouldn't want to discuss the existence or non-existence of ghost with you is because I hold no strong affirmation on the existence of ghost.
Dawkins is a biologist who wrote an entire book on why God doesn't exist.
Craig is a research professor of philosophy who has written several books in why God does exist.
Dawkins HAS debated others on the existence of God so its curious to me why he won't debate WLC
To me personally, it seems very cowardly.
ThatBoyUNeed2Know 2 days ago
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know Craig has used the same argument for 30 years - what would be the point?
parsivalshorse 2 days ago
@ThatBoyUNeed2Know They were supposed to discuss creationism, not the existence of a god. Creationism is utter bullshit, and has been proven wrong, while nobody can prove there is no god(yet). Which is why I think the existence of a god is worth debating, while a discussion about creationism is totally fruitless.
If I have misunderstood and they actually were supposed to debate the existence of god then I agree with you, it does seem kind cowardly,, If that is the case.
Carljoakimmm 2 days ago
@Carljoakimmm Why don't you debate my hypothysis that god is an orange and pink semi energy, semi organic, and semi inorganic.
Your proposal is just as asinine. What? Are you about 20 years old? Live life a little longer and learn about true critical thinking.
policechaser 2 days ago
@znybar Are you suggesting human intellegence has not evolved? Homo Erectus brain is said to have increased 850 and 1100 cm cube from Hibilis. The Turkana Boy 1.7mya would hav possed 1000-1050cc. Later Chinese exampl high as 1200cc. According to Molnar, modern human range up to 2200cc. These point to physical progression of brain size! Or are u debunking your own myth of evolution by now saying size HAS NO colleration with intelligence?
606snakes 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can I get people to see this? No idea, but if you have time, this is eye-opening. /watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
MrSTOPANIMALCRUELTY 4 days ago
Kal, the internet is a good teacher if you are careful about the site you choose. TV like the history channel are dubious at best. Remember the burial box of James? How many people believed it and it proved to be a fake. It's OK if you already have enough knowlege to sort out the BS.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
Zynbar - Actually, it was you I was replying to in the beginning "I know right? Religious people don't get that they can't use their books as evidence"
Absolutely true, but that's all they have.
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@zynbar: You reasoning is flawed. The early men must have had high IQ as you say, It tool him 1 million years to learn to make fire. But as you say you are a biology student, you would not knw that. You are also fallacious about God. He does not have to be morally good to your liking to exist.
606snakes 5 days ago
@606snakes Don't waste your time with this guy man your only going to make him sicker then iv'e already made him.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@606snakes IQ and the creation of tools have nothing in common, otherwise by your standards fish have high IQ (they can use tools). Look it up. So then you are ok with your god wanting to rape and pillage others? Then don't judge my morality, because you have none.
Znybar 5 days ago
@Znybar That example is ridiculous
riverstory87 5 days ago
If i was an atheist that had such a burning desire for proof of god then i would shoot myself in the fucking head to find out for myself instead of hanging around the world for 70 years or so wasting peoples time and energy i mean what could it hurt right its not like you believe there is a hell so why worry
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 I have no burning desire lol. I'm sick of short-sighted religious people telling me what to believe when they can bring no proof to convince me. Let me guess, you were born in a christian family and raised up as a christian? Oh what a coincidence, you'd be saying the same about allah or the buddah if you were born elsewhere.
Znybar 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riverstory87 Let's just change a couple of words and then you will see how YOU sound.
If iI had such a burning desire for proof of Santa Claus then i would shoot myself in the fucking head to find out for myself instead of hanging around the world for 70 years or so wasting peoples time and energy i mean what could it hurt right its not like you believe there is a North polel so why worry
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@mathew1944: What makes you think the God of Koran or Bible must subscribe to your moral rectitude. He sets his own laws and decides apostasy is treason against him and leads to capital punishment=stoning. In computer jargon this decree is backward compatible, just like base memory, can even be carried with basic tools anywhere. To assume God is false on moral grounds is in itself grossly fallacious.
606snakes 5 days ago
@606snakes no, your book says that. You have no idea, nor does anyone else, what ANY god has ever said. You're basing yourself on assumptions, nothing more. And yes, when gods supposedly support the murder of innocent women and children, the rape of women for looking at men, and paedophilia. I do very strongly consider that no such god could exist precisely on moral grounds. I dare you to support such a god and not consider yourself morally wrong.
Znybar 5 days ago
@Znybar What do you care your an animal anyway's and last time i checked it wasn't wrong for animal's to rape and murder oh my bad i mean join into the natural order of nature.Without god there are no moral's
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 Morals? Don't you dare talk to me about morals. Every stupid god rapes and pillages, commits infanticide and paedophilia. How dare you. You're perfectly happy that your 'moral' god lets thousands of people die of famine or war in terrible agony every day? You make me sick. For the record no, animals dont rape and murder each other. Nothing as frequently as religious fanatics.
Znybar 5 days ago
@Znybar Yeah my point exactly dummy it's not called rape and murder when animals do it so if your an animal then why should it be called that.I hate atheist you suck you are all demoralizing this world(look at television lady gaga soon there will be screwing on the streets complete nudity on public television and what about all the fucking diseases that have been made in a science lab what about the wars over oil dont look at shit like that do you you only focus on the god you hate
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 As for all the death because of famine and war if we would stop fighting and start living by what jesus (god)taught then there wouldnt be any of that but we wont and its no fault of gods its the fault of confusion spreading hate mongering devils such as yourself
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 your god taught people it was right to have slaves if you didnt beat them 'too often'. I don't think that would stop wars. Read your own rubbish book.
Znybar 5 days ago
@Znybar Stay out of the old testament dude where not even judged by that anymore as for stephen hawkings lol have you not seen the moral decline in the past 20 years and whats intelligence got to do with morals as for the founding fathers lol WE ARE FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY MORON!!!Atheist are stubborn,rebellious,hateful,,,,and gay lol if your so sick throw up all ready then squat down and eat it just like a dog would just the animal you claim to be would
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 "The U.S. Treaty with Tripoli reaffirmed the Separation of Church and State and was written while George Washington was president, passed with unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate, signed by President John Adams and received no public outcry and states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." -- US Treaty with Tripoli - Article 11 - 1797
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@Matthew1944 thanks Matt, I didn't want to have to resort to reading out the guy's own constitution to him.
Znybar 5 days ago
@Znybar No prob. I was looking for a reply to my post a few days ago and ran across this iill-informed mouthpiece and just couldn't resist. Glad it's OK with you. Want me to stick around?
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@Matthew1944 I know the constitution and i'm not arguing "separation of church and state",I'm stating that america's founding father's were deeply religious people(christian).Politic's and religion don't mix and that's the truth but totally beside's the point i mean listen to the pledge of allegiance(1892)every one was christian then this was a christian nation to argue otherwise is atheist bullshit.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 It can't be said whether they were christian or not. It wasn't the "in" thing to claim to be an atheist or agnostic then as it is now. Lincoln said "The bible is not my book". Jefferson cut the supernatural events out of his bible. A good half dozen of them weren't Christian but didn't make a big thing out of it. A number of them were deists.
"One nation under God" was added in the mid 1900's during the recent cold war in reaction to Russian Communism.
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@Matthew1944 Come on that's bullshit and you know it lincoln was born and raised in kentucky in the early 1800's.Now if you know anything about kentucky then you will know that even to this day everyone is still christian so imagine 200 years ago.The bibles not my book neither but that doesn't mean i haven't read plenty out of it or that i don't believe it's message it's just boring.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 It's not bullshit. Lincoln is widely regarded to have been non-christian by historians, as is your first president, Washington. It's sad that I'm not american and yet I know more about your country's history than you do. And the matter of where he was born doesn't mean anything about his beliefs: how many 'christians' are actually agnostic or atheist but choose not to make it public? The problem was much worse a hundred years ago.
Znybar 4 days ago
@Znybar Widelt regarded by atheist's of the past 100 years but if you really do research on the subject then it will go to show you how wrong you are.Don't just look at the info set in place by other atheist that are at the top of google either, dig deep and find the truth and quit lying about american history.As for lincoln now i usually dont do this but i had to wikipedia the info this time maybe you should do the same and quit acting like your teaching me something YOUR NOT
riverstory87 4 days ago
@Znybar They didn't teach about the pledge being changed when i was in school so my bad on that count but i'm not dumb i just had no reason to research something i knew nothing about and of course an atheist would know any bit of info they can learn to refute god they will but i of course do the same
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Sorry to pee on your parade, river, but not everyone was Christian. There were more diests, even among the founding fathers, than you think. How does this grab you? Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson. James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[ and Thomas Paine
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 They didn't have to make big things out of it when everyone they was surrounded by was christian just like them.That's like saying im an amazing guitarist in a room full of guitarist its just silly and wouldn't happen in my eye you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself american which your probably not anyway's your probably from some other country just googling all the information you have been posting instead of being taught about them from american history class maybe not though
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 And your point is? If you're not american you can't have an opinion? Does your bible tell you that as well? No offence, but google would be a much better history teacher than american history classes.
Znybar 4 days ago
@Znybar but google is a much better history teacher than american history classes.
FTFY but it is, I've learned more from the Internet and Cable TV than I Did in American High School. School at all really.
katmannsson 4 days ago
@Znybar Most website's out there aren't giving unbiased truth they our casting there own opinions and some people just lie and i would rather get the truth from a history class then a lie from some one with the same beliefs as myself
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 You're very naive if you think american history classes are unbiased.
Znybar 4 days ago
@Znybar I don't see how they have cut religion out of everything
riverstory87 4 days ago
@Znybar Especially if they are being in a school outside of the public school system (i.e. private religious school) or during home schooling.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 That is a small percentage though,but who are you to harp on whats being taught in the privacy of another persons home to another person's child.Or in religious schools the parents pay for them to be set apart from the foolishness that goes on at public school for a reason.To keep there child from being corrupted by new age independence,that's just another way for the government to cause separation from the child's family.The government then become's the child's family when it grows
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 The products of that "teaching" go with a person throughout their life and either help or hinder it. Private schools are certainly better (maybe) in terms of discipline but they hinder them when that child goes out into the real world and finds out that he is vulnerable because he is actually a social misft. Public schools certainly aren't perfect but they do give the child social skills and make them "street smart". The trick is to monitor your own child 's activities.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riverstory87 To keep there child from being corrupted by new age independence"
Science is actually a threat to belief because it can debunk it. Those who send their children to religious schools or homeschool, for the most part, want their children brainwashed and obedient. Public schools tend to make children question everything and apply rational thinking. These qualities don't lend themselves to the kind of belief the parents want.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Wrong, it's like getting up and saying "I'm an atheist" in a group of Republicans.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Oh dear, study your own history. The term 'god' in the pledge of allegiance was only added in the 1950s, and is currently being debated as unconstitutional. Thus the pledge was originally SECULAR and non-religious.
Znybar 5 days ago 2
@Znybar It was written by a christian minister and of course it's being debated because of atheist such as yourself and foreigners.This whole country has gone to the dog's listen answer a question for me and it is completely off subject who was the twenty second president of the u.s of a
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 demoralizing? Some of the greatist minds of our time were atheists. Hawkins, Einstein, the founding fathers of the US (they were at least secularists). I certainly wouldn't call the influence these people have had on society 'demoralising'. You want to point out people? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Saddam Hussein? Those religious people certainly left good impressions on the world, justified by their 'god'. I could say the same about George Bush if you're christian.
Znybar 5 days ago
@riverstory87 Pointing out specific people does nothing to support your argument, because nothing forces people to follow rules. The behaviour of certain people will never prove or disprove the existence of anyone. To me, the stoning of women is acting like animals. Calling homosexuals animals is acting like animals. Religion disgusts me.
Znybar 5 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@riverstory87 there will be screwing on the streets complete nudity on public television and what about all the fucking diseases that have been made in a science lab what about the wars over oil
...................
Surprisingly, riv, it is already being done - Stats show that the countries with the highest religiosity religiosity are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute. The opposite is true in secular countries.
You mean like Bush's war over oil???????
Matthew1944 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riverstory87 Without god there are no moral's "
Yup, that's what the church tells you and it has to, because if the truth was really looked at carefully, and they could actually see that one does not need church or religion to be good, then what good is your church or religion?
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@shoussam: Quran 2.30-33 says angels were opposed to human life on earth. They say man will only shed blood there. They only admit God is right after they lose an intellectual contest with Adam. They thought man was incapable of knowlege. Is it possible they were referring to this premodial man who had a low IQ?. Also the Quran does not says earth is only 5,000 years old. Note, Allah says he is creator cum evolver Quran 59:24
606snakes 5 days ago
@606snakes Stop supporting your arguments with fairytale stories from your book written by men. It will never convince anyone who can think for themselves. And the idea of 'the primordial man with low IQ' is very funny, early men actually had larger brains than we do now relative to their body size.
Znybar 5 days ago
@Znybar yeah but that doesn't mean it was more capable of holding more information retard look at einstein's brain it was weighed to be 2 pounds and was abnormally smaller than the average persons brain.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 My point was obviously that the assumption that cavemen had low IQ is obviously false, or we wouldn't be here.
Znybar 5 days ago
@riverstory87 True, but it was the massive numbers of convolutions that his brain had, that made the difference. The size is secondary.
Matthew1944 5 days ago
@Matthew1944 The size isn't secondary in this conversation you said cave men should have a higher I,Q because there brains are BIGGER not because of the number of convolution's.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 Sorry i got you mixed up with znybar but the argument still stands just with the "you"with "him"
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 I didn't say ANYTHING about cavement. In this case, quanitity of brain matter is trumped by the quality of the brain, how richly fed it is by blood vessels and the number of nerve endings. It's like putting another chip into your computer, river. My computer is half the size of my roommates but it packs more gigs than ithe one that's bigger in physical size...
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 Well that's mighty hypocritical of you matthew,what is a cavement is that a mistake you made?
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Indubiously i say unto you my fine postulated unequivocally challenged counterpoint.The fidelity of your statements are void of truth and lean towards an ambiguous foundation.You see what ive done just know is called wordplay and it doesnt mean anything its just a way to make the crowd believe you are smarter then what you are when really you are merely dodging the answers and punching wholes in theorys and starting entirely new argument's to get the view off of what you dont know
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 I'd be more inclined to call it verbal diarrhea.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Yup, it's called a "typo"
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 Exactly, a simple mistake that need not be pointed out yet why do you point out my miniscule mistake's?It's preponderance on your part.
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 The purpose of a post is to communicate. You can't communicate if your writing form is difficult to understand. Notice in this post: "mistake's" - it's a plural, not possessive or a contraction and should be "mistakes". Preponderance means: superiority in weight, force, importance, or influence. How does that apply to your sentence: "It's preponderance on your part". I pointed it out because your kind of writing "style" and terminology are so common among fundamentalists.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 You are right that is what it mean's and when i used it for referring to you meaning just that that you think your superior when your definitely not.As for not being able to understand what i'm saying, if you cant then you are retarded plain and simple and if my writing form is to difficult to understand perhaps you would be more comfortable arguing against little children.
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 -perhaps you would be more comfortable arguing against little children.
I believe I already am.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 Well seeing as you have completely stopped arguing the point and instead moved to bashing me, so who's the child?I believe that would be you so have good day fucking yourself you piece of shit lol
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Stop feeling persecuted, river. I can't answer your points and neither can anyone else if you resort to the kind of language you've used and insist on posting muddled writings. Your "methods" of debate are common coming from fundamentalists and I've grown accustomed to these ravings although I don't like them very much.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@Matthew1944 One more thing quit "googling" everything i say if i don't understand what your saying then i wait till after the argument to educate myself not during as to convince other's that i'm all knowing and that there is nothing i cant understand.
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 In pointing out these little mistake's prove's how weak you are at debating and arguing if you have to resort to correcting grammar rather then expressing point's of view.
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87 Bingo! Bottom line - how can you tell what a person's point of view is, if their sentences run together and you can't understand what he's trying to get across.
Matthew1944 4 days ago
@shoussam: I agree. Human evolution itself has different schools of thought; More work is being done by anthropolgists than plaentologists. Not exacly empirical. There are doubts whether homosapiens are from Cro Magnons or Neaderthal of 130,000 years ago These two groups fought for 10,000 years with rocks. There is no evidence of sexual contact even rape between these two groups!?. For scientists no smoking gun means it did not happen!...cont.
606snakes 5 days ago
@606snakes
Recent studies suggest that some 4% of the human genome may have originated in the Neanderthal branch.
XGralgrathor 5 days ago
@606snakes Excuse me???? Do you always such unsupported arguments? I can tell you that roughly 70% of the biological department at my university (and most) studies evolution. Who cares if human evolution has different 'schools of thought', they still all agree that men evolved from an ancestral apes. And neanderthals used complex tools, not just rocks...
Znybar 5 days ago
@606snakes The theory of evolution came from biology, not palaeontology. Palaeontology was only found later to support the theory. 90% of research on evolution is still a biological problem, with palaeontological support. Anthropology is the study of man nimrod. So of course, the study of the last 100000 years of man is done by anthropologists because that's their field.
Znybar 5 days ago
I asked God to tell me the truth, but lo and behold....silence.
sooper2dooper3 5 days ago
Atheists can't see they are being set up.That is why an othwewise merticolous lot cant find time to escertain whether God, a real threat waiting in the wings is real or not. GOD IS A REAL THREAT to the unbeliever, he says.The problem is i cant prove him wrong. So the threat lingers on. He has chosen to be invicible to any available spectronometer. This makes the threat even more challenging and faith in him more rewarding. God can be real or imagined, but is still a big threat to the atheist.
606snakes 5 days ago
There will always be conflict among humanity as the past has shown us, we have a propensity to self destruct, to dominate and a thirst for power and dominion over others!
I agree with the atheist proposition that 1, there is no tangible credible proof of god.creator and 2, neither do i wish there to be!
Life is simple, you're born, you survive, you procreate, you die and your legacy through your genes are passed onto the next generation!
jjoneil73 6 days ago 2
"Are you crazy? Your words have nothing to do with what I said"
You wrote: Going to hell doesn't seem of much comfort.
If there IS a hell..............................
What's the problem?
Matthew1944 6 days ago
Debates upon the origins and the past of the world leads people to ignore what goes on within present time...This idiotic conflict of ideas makes them even further ignorant to current situations,a passive distraction that divert resource space and time to a goal which by most it's goal relates only to humans Pride in themselves.
How about you all shot up,look up and notice that humanity currently are a barbaric race that got no idea how to live with itself and with the world around them?
Shish..
Wharwulif 6 days ago
A relative layman like Ricky Gervais can easily whip somebody like former child star Kirk Cameron from pillar to post. Hell, I am just a guy who yells at a camra in a park and could whip him from pillar to post. There is no contest.
dangerouslytalented 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i met richard dawkins yesterday and we discussed my theory. he was very impressed and said it should be made public. i have posted it on you-tube site "un human rights chief highlights australian".
figbat1 1 week ago
When will religious people understand that short jokes are the best ?
H5iangfu 1 week ago
who ever said god is a man, who ever said god is good, who ever said god is something we can comprehend, It is obvious, everything is created by god, even the matter and experements science bases itself on. It's a paradox. I'm not religious, I'm just was an atheist who gave the idea of god another look.
bassbass99able 1 week ago
@bassbass99able Really? That is all you have. Listen, please stop spamming atheists videos with nonsense like this. It is void of any fact, reason or logic. It is just rubbish. God created nothing, man however created god.
itchygonads 6 days ago
@bassbass99able The idea of God does not matter Real or not,because a being of "god" size and capabilities is in such immense proportions that you don't even need to bother thinking about it...Because such a god will do whatever the heck it wants Literally regardless if people believe or don't believe in it...Anyway,the god people have in mind is actually more of a collective notion that somehow everything revolves around them and what they do with their Reproductive organs.
So...Not worth it.
Wharwulif 6 days ago
Fact - Atheism is the preserve of a reckless lot who can't even try to commit to anyone or anything. They hide under science, which to me is trying to connect the dots even in evolution itself - still in the kitchen, i say so because they have not yet dug under my house. Last month, i ate a wild fruit unknown to botanists i called the fruit LOD. Very sweet indeed, but my friend insists it does not exist, the taste still lingers in my mouth though.
606snakes 1 week ago
@606snakes fruit called LOD?
That explains your posts.
Matthew1944 6 days ago
He doesn't debate because there is no point in giving medicine to the dead.
Matthew1944 1 week ago
@Matthew1944 lol @ all you ideology hipsters, you can pamper dawkins all you want, but he is afraid to debate craig. point blank. i would respect him more, bu this cowardly actions have allowed me to laugh even harder at atheism and all it's followers who boldy proclaim a "nonfaith, yet faith" and an unproven and equally hilarious concept. cheers
AeonFlexMusic 1 week ago
@AeonFlexMusic Atheism is lack of belief, aeon. What's so funny about "I don't believe your story"?
Matthew1944 1 week ago
@AeonFlexMusic an unproven and equally hilarious concept."
By concept, I assume you mean evolution?
Matthew1944 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AeonFlexMusic Dawkins has debated Craig, several years ago and he got demolished.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
Dr. Dawkins definition of Creationism is that Creationist believe in a young earth. Ok, a young earth is proven false. Yes, I agree he should not debate Creationist who believe the
Earth is young. The Universe is PROVEN to be 13.7 billion years old. The Bible is not a Science book my stupied evangelical friends, it's a Theology book. But don't worry, yes, God still created the Universe.
WorldMoment1 1 week ago
The thing that's right about CREATIONISM = God created the Universe
The thing that's right about EVOLUTION = The Universe is 13.7 billion years old
The thing that's right about INTELLIGENT DESIGN = God did the two above to design the Universe.
Any questions?
WorldMoment1 1 week ago
@WorldMoment1 What does evolution have to do with the age of the universe?
Isn't intelligent design a refutation of evolution?
What convinced you that a god created the universe?
phpeni 1 week ago 12
Comment removed
TarousDT 1 week ago
@WorldMoment1 Where's your proof? All you've done is give us three statements, and only one of them (evolution) has any evidence at all.
TarousDT 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WorldMoment1 Yes I have a question, if the second sentence is true and evolution is real doesn't that made any need for intelligent design redundant?
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WorldMoment1
« EVOLUTION = The Universe is 13.7 billion years old »
That's cosmology, not biology.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
The best spokesperson for atheism and scientism is Nikita Khrushchev who said that "Gagarin flew out into space, but did not find any god there."
wbarquez 1 week ago
The same goes for you Stephen Hawking!
wbarquez 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins then should stick to his area of competence and stop sailing into unfamiliar waters. He should leave philosophy to the philosophers and theology to the theologians. But, of course, he won't make much money.
wbarquez 1 week ago
Comment removed
wbarquez 1 week ago
@wbarquez What makes you think Dawkins ever debated creationists for the money? He made his fortune from publishing and genetics.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
@parsivalshorse And much more money by writing about God being a delusion, as if he could arrive at that conclusion by using a microscope..
wbarquez 1 week ago
@wbarquez What's the point of your comments about money? The christian evangelists make hundreds of millions of dollars - so how is this even relevant?
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
@parsivalshorse At least the evangelists are not talking about genetics. If they did, I would listen to Richard Dawkins instead.
wbarquez 1 week ago
@wbarquez Well sadly the evangelists do talk about genetics - they just don''t understand it.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
@parsivalshorse So, leave religion to the evangelists and science to the scientists! That was my point all along.
wbarquez 1 week ago