This is the bias of stupid atheists, not Dawkins or most other intelligent ones. Dawkins believes Thor is equally non-existant because you can't put forth scientific, verifiable evidence that either exist.
I'm sorry but this video fails, however interesting the point it, though. It's really atheists who are biased, it's the anti-biblicals or anti-quranics or the world who CLAIM to be atheists. Big difference.
@hdregmore Sorry, wrote it badly, was tired. What I meant was that there's a difference between true atheists (who believe as a matter of faith that there specifically is no God, Gods or divinity - the definition of "atheism") and pseudo-atheists who THINK that they're atheists just because they don't believe in the biblical or quranic interpretations of God.
There's also the third group, those who simply suspend their judgement, until further evidence is found.
@DrMadolite It's interesting that you differentiate between the two.
I think this is where many atheists fall into a trap. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, period.
People like Einstein and others were not atheists because they did believe in god, however they did not believe in a personal God. So to say that you do not believe in Jesus or Krishna does not definitively make you an atheist.
It is a very small step to take from believing in God to believing a specific one.
@Frab2001 It is good to see that you almost got the idea of the video. Yes Dawkins is a liar. Dawkinsian Bias is the process whereby an atheist will refuse to accept evidence or (as in this case) produce false evidence in order to deny the validity of the basic premise of God.
It is not limited to just Dawkins. It is an ego driven reflex related to atheism.
By definition, an atheist also thinks that Thor, god of thunder, is as equally non-existent as all the others.
It's just a pragmatic reality that you don't usually have to bother mentioning that explicitly, because no-one believes in Thor anymore and, therefore, no-one is contending that he does exist, that it has to be explicitly countered.
But, if you like, atheists will happy suffix "the non-existent" after the name of Thor or Zeus or any other deity - which also includes your own Yahweh.
@Gage371@Gage371 I am sorry that you could not comply with the rules of the forum and decided to repeatedly be disrespectful to religion. I am also sorry that you had to resort to attacking me and my videos on a personal level rather than dealing with the content that they contain.
This gives us all a fair indication of the type of arrogant and ignorant atheist that you must be.
@Gage371 Again you make disrespectful suggestions regarding religion being incorrect. That is a classic example of the Dawkinsian Bias. You do not qualify in which ways religion is incorrect, you simply make a sweeping generalization based on a predetermined and incorrect idea.
@Gage371 You made the suggestion that all hypotheses are scientifically based. They are not.
Dawkins made a deliberate decision based on bias and not science that the probability of the existence of God is 90%. When asked to qualify the reasoning he could not. That is what the video is about. I am sorry if you have problems with that, but those are the facts.
@Gage371 You are now being disingenuous. You have deliberately replaced the word "God" with "deity" in order to gain a separation of understanding between a personal God and God. The question given was in regard to God only.
Sorry but I am bound to remove any comments that are disrespectful to religion. If you cannot produce an argument without doing that then it is a wasted attempt.
In regard to me being hypocritical because i portray atheists badly in cartoon, yes I am guilty.
So the video begins with an obvious ad-hominem attack on athiests. Next dudley CORRECTLY describes both images. The first is a representation of what some believe Thor looks like and the second is a representation of what Leonardo Da Vinci thinks god looks like. Where is the bias? maybe if you had used an actual Atheist instead of what you think one would be like you might have had a good video but your ignorance of atheism shines through. FAIL
@MrArokOleary Not if a statement of reality is such an attack. Dudley may have described both images, however he distinctly displays his "Dawkinsian Bias". That is what the video is about. Perhaps you need to watch it again and attempt to keep your own bias in place.
How sad. You are suffering from the arrogant ignorance of ego that many atheists are afflicted with.
@hdregmore He displayed no bias, he described what he saw which agrees with all of the presented evidence. What do these pictures dudley is describing have to do with Dawkins or biology whatsoever? Constructive criticism is what i've offered you, a way to make your video better by incorporating a real example using a real athiest instead of your own preconceived notion of what an athiest is. How is it arrogant to point out a flaw in your video?
@MrArokOleary No. Dudley may have described both images, however he distinctly displays his "Dawkinsian Bias". That is what the video is about. Perhaps you need to watch it again and attempt to keep your own bias in place.
He deliberately elaborates his negative bias when shown a picture of a Christian God.
I really do not know any other reason for your failure to understand this than the same bias being present within you.
@hdregmore Whether or not dudley did or did not show a bias (I still hold he did not) he's still a figment of your imagination based on your preconceived notions of what an atheist is, nothing more. This is a great video of what you think about atheists but it has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins OR Biology. The only thing you've done is make a fictional character to make fun of. Once again you really should include a REAL Atheist in your video otherwise it's all pointless.
@hdregmore Ok I see where your sayin he is biased because he said the second one was the "imaginary christian god who does not exist" While dudley may be biased he is based on your imagination, I as an atheist would not describe those pictures like he did and I don't know any who would. AGAIN: USE A REAL ATHEIST NEXT TIME!
@hdregmore Well I don't think I worked it out per se but rather I disregarded what he thought about the picture automatically and focused on which of his words were facts.
You can't use a real person in a cartoon of course lol but you could use a real atheist to write dudley's lines, sort of a collaboration.
@MrArokOleary I think that is a moot point. The reason that I have portrayed Dudley as describing the pictures the way he has is because from my own experience that is how atheists usually answer.
Since my videos are all opinions as to how atheists react to situation then this is indeed an accurate portrayal. In the same way that ANY character is stereotyped and lampooned in comedy.
I apologize for calling you arrogant. That was uncalled for.
@hdregmore It is only an accurate portrayal of your opinion though and I think that should be addressed or shown in some way. I think many like myself will (maybe wrongly but justifiably) see this as an objective cartoon rather than your opinion as you pointed out. You said "In the same way that ANY... lampooned in comedy" but I did not understand that this was supposed to be funny. Btw the reason I said it was ad hominem is because of dudley's first comment before the questions.
@hdregmore Lol no Atheists are not supposed to be "the intelligentsia of this world" I think this is a common misconception. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, you don't have to be super intelligent to not believe that I have a Unicorn in the trunk of my car.
I will happily admit that my initial reaction was wrong that dudley did in fact have a bias but I stand by my position that because dudley is a figment of your imagination it is not representative of actual atheism.
@MrArokOleary Analogies of unicorns and fairies are unjustified and imperfect when dealing with comparisons to God. They are also disrespectful to those who believe. The basic premise of a creator is such a large philosophical idea that is so inherently with mankind that there is no adequate "thing" to present of equivalent significance. That is why they fail.
Dudley is a representative of atheism based on my experience.
@hdregmore Why? I think they are part of the "supernatural" realm just as god is. Here is something to think about: God is supposedly beyond comprehension he doesn't tell us how, or why he does any of this. If it is beyond your comprehension then you're saying you don't know, which is exactly what I'm saying except that I think you are limiting your options by having to make a god part of that equation.
You should make a new video with dudley replaced by me :)
@MrArokOleary The basic premise of a creator is such a large philosophical idea that is so inherently with mankind that there is no adequate "thing" to present of equivalent significance.
I think I already told you that. I don't understand what you mean by "limiting your options" considering that God does not have any limitations.
Sorry but Dudley has signed a contract and it would cost me too much to sack him.
@hdregmore Ok so there is no thing present of equivalent significance, so there is no way to really imagine god we just know that it must be a god? Am I getting you right there?
Yes you limit your options when you claim it must be a god that created everything. by saying it is a god you have arbitrarily thrown out any other options that might be possible. You have said it was god and therefore cannot be anything else, by the way we're not sure if its a god because we can't define him.
@hdregmore Nothing I said was disrespectful, nonsensical or even comparative. You're absolutely wrong and the point you are trying to make is ridiculous.. I'm a christian and even I say that this video is absurd and you should start living up to our values.
@hdregmore know better than point out when someone deliberately misrepresents a person's point of view to ridicule them.. I'm FAIRLY sure there's a commandment about bearing false witness..
@messakg123 You are being very foolish and I repeat. You do not know what my religion is. You are assuming that it is Christianity and attempting to suggest that I should feel guilty about some rule I am unfamiliar with.
You wrote disrespectful comparative nonsense about God and it was deleted.
On these forums any disrespectful or abusive remark about any religion is removed. Perhaps you should contemplate your own sinful actions and not any implied of others.
@hdregmore what did i say that was disrespectful or nonsensical? Your point is that atheists approach the topic of the existence of god with a bias. This is true, but also true of theists. You imply that they are open-minded, or at least not dismissive, about Thor but this is not true. All atheists would by definition dismiss the possibility of the existence of Thor as im sure most people would have.. How is this offensive or comparative or nonsensical?
@messakg123 You must not have been watching the video very closely. Dudley clearly refers to Thor as the God of Thunder because there is no ingrained bias toward that character. Yet when he is shown an image of the Christian God he goes to great length to describe him as imaginary. There in lies the bias of atheism
On these forums any disrespectful or abusive remark about any religion are removed.
@hdregmore How are all "atheist arguments" made of straw? You can talk about Dudley since you invented him but which "atheist argument" is made of straw?
@hdregmore nobody represents me... I am as unique as any Christian and I find it offensive that you will say that my views are (of straw) and yet cannot explain why.
@hdregmore No I believe he said that "Dudley" who happened to be atheist was in fact "made out of straw". You responded that all "atheists arguments" were misunderstanding the phrasing of the statement.
As to the second part how am I supposed to know how your fictional character thinks? From what you make him say and do I can surmise that he is a terrible debater and probably doesn't put in any research.
@nanaforiod Weeellll, maybe it's not you? It's just a person who fits the stereotype of the atheist that Dudley is. Well I'll be...how accurate is that.
BTW: I owe you nothing. Least of all an answer to a third person statement.
@ShowYourWorking Thank you for your honesty in posting. He is an extremely intelligent man in his field. However when he crosses over to matters of philosophy and theology the cracks in his knowledge appear.
Uh, no. The reason the atheist doesn't put 'imaginary' in the description of Thor is because almost no one in modern society believes Thor to be real, that is a dead religion. Thus, there is no need to assert something that is already well understood, it would be redundant.
But in the case of Yahweh, many people do believe him to be real, thus the Atheist feels the need to make a point to distinguish themselves from that group.
@GarethNN Incorrect. Did you not watch the video? It is Dawkinsian Bias in action. Dudley felt compelled to add predetermined and judgmental information to the description when it was not even called for because of this unhealthy denial.
This bias is clearly evident and your suggestion that it is not simply reinforces the stereotypical mindset of the atheist in denial. So your attempt to justify Dudley's actions enhances the point of the video.
Uh, no. The reason the atheist doesn't put 'imaginary' in the description of Thor is because almost no one in modern society believes Thor to be real, that is a dead religion. Thus, there is no need to make assert something that is already well understood, it would be redundant.
But in the case of Yahweh, many people do believe him to be real, thus the Atheist feels the need to make a point to distinguish themselves from that group.
Harvey, brilliant perception as usual. Yes, the Atheists do tend to leave out the word "Imaginary" when referring to the Norse God Thor who was meant to be the son of Odin/Supreme Norse God. How little they know about the correlation between all civilizations and God/s belief throughout time and the difference in language and utterance of the name, eg Egyptians named the Supreme God Amen. Also, thank you for such a beautiful comment on my home page.
Everybody already knows Thor is a fictional character. The fact that Jahweh is one too has not quite sunken in yet throughout the world. Hence the 'bias'.
@wouter1411 No, the arrogant bias of atheists immediately initiates a torrent of predetermined hatred based on ego. There is no amount of time that will eliminate the premise of god within the psyche of mankind. The exercise simply displays the Dawkinsian Bias in action.
@krakendahed Is that a proverb or bastardized portions of many? If it is supposed to mean anything then I suggest you stop attempting your pseudo--intellectualism and just write whatever you want to say. We are all grownup here so there is no need for cryptic cautionary candor.
Again, your mistake is thinking an atheist's conclusions are preconceived when in actuality they are POST-conceived. Atheists will address any evidence you have to offer but the mere presentation of the evidence does not guarantee it's acceptance as acceptable evidence. Your espousal of faith indicates you have no criteria for evidence and it seems from this video it upsets you that others do.
@krakendahed Again, you mistake reaching an informed conclusion with a premature and premeditated one. That is made perfectly clear in the video. I have "espoused" no faith in this video and your suggestion of such just further enhances the premise of the video. If you wish to jump to conclusions be aware that it is no way done in the name of science or logical thinking. It is just preconceived rubbish that has come with the arrogance of atheism.
@hdregmore - At what point do you no longer consider an atheist's conclusion premature and premeditated? If you say "never" or something equivalent, then please explain how that is not a bias on your part. What's clear? You assigning an attribute to "atheists" that can also be applied to "theists?" You used "faith" in a comment ("Faith is required in...religion"). Should I consider the hdregmore commenting is different than the one who created the video?
@krakendahed When he or she has been given and accepted ALL the evidence at hand. To give an unconfirmed answer to a question is just premeditated bias that shows everyone that no matter what amount of evidence is produced to the contrary, the person is in pure and unmitigated denial of the relevant facts.It has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith" or "religion". It is a predisposition produced by the egotistical and childish desire to be right.
@hdregmore - Accepted? Your context might imply it's to be done unconditionally or do you mean received? The former is irrational and the latter is evidence that your video is just a generalization as you have absolutely no way of knowing how much "evidence" was considered by every atheist in the world before they arrived at their conclusion. The remainder of your comment can be applied even more easily to the "theist," so there's nothing distinctively atheistic in your description.
@krakendahed You write nonsense in incredibly self complicating irrelevant rhetoric. The fact is that the "Dawkinsian Bias" is a very real phenomena that is exhibited by atheists who deliberately use information to attempt to prove preconceived and premeditated conclusions held prior to any debate or discourse. That is why they get so irate and abusive when presented with factual evidence contradicting their prejudiced ideas. That is a proven behavioral model that atheists fit. Like it or not.
@hdregmore - And again, such behavior is exhibited by theists as well, so what's your point other than insult? The only difference is you gave it a name for some atheists doing it. I'm sure you would be a little upset if you were presented with already refuted arguments again and again. Reiteration does not make something true.
@hdregmore - I assume you are referring to "faith." To deny that it can be considered derogatory is a "bias of ignorance" of the numerous examples of its deleterious effects in western society and it's fundamental nature of being irrational. It's hardly an ignorance to recognize the abuses to which faith has been previously applied. It's more of a rejection of an antiquated and flawed method of attaining truth. Faith has shown it's true nature with planes and buildings.
@hdregmore Don't delete my comment making it seem I am saying something I dont. Goddamn, I got not reason to show respect towards something that is only evil. Asshole. If you are going to delete this, delete the reast of my comments. So tired of the religion way to think.
The video shows much more about you than the so called bias you assign to atheists. Because atheism doesn't agree with your views (or more likely it's Dawkins), you jump to the conclusion that it's skepticism must be a bias of some kind. "Just have faith" has little value to rational thinking human beings.
@krakendahed What nonsense. Faith is required in science as well as religion. As for the rest of your pointless comment, well it is.....pointless. You in no way gave any information or evidence to refute the Dawkinsian Bias assertion. In fact all you did is attempt to construct a pathetic illogical strawman that blew away before you hit the Post button. LOLOLOLOL
@hdregmore - Nonsense is claiming faith is required in science. You should know how faithless scientists can be after they falsify a hypothesis! Oh, was it an assertion with any value to refute? Your statement implies your ignorance of the concept of "atheism by default" which by necessity cannot have a bias. This lapse of knowledge on your part merely shows *your* bias in the form of a cartoon.
@PreparationH Yes, bias can exist both ways. The fact is that Dawkins and Dudley had a predetermined unjustified conclusion. It is impossible to debate rationally from such a position.
@amadain17 Why would I feel the need to here? This video merely explains a biased behaviour common with the atheist mindset. It was not an attempt in proving anything else. Your demand actually highlights this strange bias. You feel threatened by the possible wrongness of a predetermined decision.
@hdregmore no bias. I simply se no evidence for the existence of any god. I see Yaweh's existence to have the same amount of evidence as Thor's and as the Flying Spaghetti Monster but I am very willing to examine evidence. In this way I have no bias. The religious position IS a bias in favour of one particular god out of all of the many gods believed in today and throughout history.
@amadain17 contd. If you have any evidence to show that your god in particular exists and it was suitably compelling then maybe I would come to the same biased conclusion as you as to the existence of your particular god and your particular taken on his views.
@amadain17 Again you use an old strawman that was destroyed long ago. The basic premise of a creator is a valid and reasonable suggestion. If you wish to cloud that idea with denominational nonsense then you achieve nothing. The facts are that the characteristics of God have always been defined universally across all religions and are immutable.
@hdregmore "The facts are that the characteristics of God have always been defined universally across all religions and are immutable."
Really? Where's Jesus' hammer and lightning bolts? Where is his Goat driven chariot? How come the concept of justice is radically different in different religions? How come the salvation doctrines are mutually exclusive? I'm sorry, but the plurality of religion stands as testimony to the contradictory nature of "God".
Couldn't of said it better myself. I would also like to point out in the Greek Pantheon, that many of the gods behave as humans. They all show aspects of love, hate, jealousy, deceit, treachery, pride, and even compassion. In addition, these gods could could potentially be destroyed and more frequently, new gods were born adding to the Pantheon. The idea of an single all knowing, all powerful, everlasting god(s) is far less common among most religions, but not wholly unique either.
@amadain17 There is a multitude of evidential information regarding God. But with a preconceived bias you are unable to accept any of it. Instead atheists deal in a rhetoric of disinformation and disrespectful nonsense. There is no bias regarding God and the plurality of religion stands as testimony to the his/her characteristics. Why would something that is eternal and limitless by definition be limited to one particular process of understanding? That is extremely illogical.
@hdregmore Please point me to the evidence for the existence of god. I will examine it without bias. With a multitude of evidence there must be a multitude of peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. That will be my starting point to reintroduction into your religion. So which god and which version of god are we all agreeing with? Are Catholics 'true' christians? Are Westboro Baptists? Are Jehovahs? Have Scientologists got it correct? If they have then where does this leave Muslims?
@amadain17 contd. Then there are the religions in India with many deities? This general agreement in religion is overwhelming. Can you show to me why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more real than Yaweh?
@hdregmore "Why would something that is eternal and limitless by definition be limited to one particular process of understanding? That is extremely illogical."
Yes, but it is also illogical to claim that they could be flat out contradictory and still refer to the same concept. The truth is that, to get to a smallest common ground, you end up with Deism. When you end up there, your theology is indistinguishable from Naturalism. At which point naturalism wins due to parsimony considerations.
This is the bias of stupid atheists, not Dawkins or most other intelligent ones. Dawkins believes Thor is equally non-existant because you can't put forth scientific, verifiable evidence that either exist.
I'm sorry but this video fails, however interesting the point it, though. It's really atheists who are biased, it's the anti-biblicals or anti-quranics or the world who CLAIM to be atheists. Big difference.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite I suggest you watch the video of the encounter. The bias definitely resides with Dawkins. He is the one who was interviewed.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. First you say they are not biased and then you say they are?
Who are these "stupid atheist" that you refer to?
Could you kindly ensure that they are easily recognizable for I cannot tell them from the everyday "stupid atheists".
lol
hdregmore 1 month ago
@hdregmore Sorry, wrote it badly, was tired. What I meant was that there's a difference between true atheists (who believe as a matter of faith that there specifically is no God, Gods or divinity - the definition of "atheism") and pseudo-atheists who THINK that they're atheists just because they don't believe in the biblical or quranic interpretations of God.
There's also the third group, those who simply suspend their judgement, until further evidence is found.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@DrMadolite It's interesting that you differentiate between the two.
I think this is where many atheists fall into a trap. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, period.
People like Einstein and others were not atheists because they did believe in god, however they did not believe in a personal God. So to say that you do not believe in Jesus or Krishna does not definitively make you an atheist.
It is a very small step to take from believing in God to believing a specific one.
hdregmore 1 month ago
@DrMadolite The last one you mention is are not atheists. They are agnostic.
hdregmore 1 month ago
@hdregmore Yes I was talking in general. And personally I find myself agreeing more to them than any atheist.
DrMadolite 1 month ago
@Frab2001 Thank you for the comment.
hdregmore 2 months ago
@Frab2001 It is good to see that you almost got the idea of the video. Yes Dawkins is a liar. Dawkinsian Bias is the process whereby an atheist will refuse to accept evidence or (as in this case) produce false evidence in order to deny the validity of the basic premise of God.
It is not limited to just Dawkins. It is an ego driven reflex related to atheism.
hdregmore 2 months ago
Whoever thinks dawkins got pwned in his interview with ben stein should watch this video.
/watch?v=y9bEFoaQOwg
Thumbs up, so others can see. ben is an idiot.
DoubterApe 4 months ago
@ButItSureIsFun6949 Wrote nonsense
deleted
Wake Up Atheism
hdregmore 4 months ago
By definition, an atheist also thinks that Thor, god of thunder, is as equally non-existent as all the others.
It's just a pragmatic reality that you don't usually have to bother mentioning that explicitly, because no-one believes in Thor anymore and, therefore, no-one is contending that he does exist, that it has to be explicitly countered.
But, if you like, atheists will happy suffix "the non-existent" after the name of Thor or Zeus or any other deity - which also includes your own Yahweh.
KlaxonCow 4 months ago
@ButItSureIsFun6949 Wrote a whole lot of shit.
Deleted
wake Up atheism.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@hdgredmore
"You don't even know the correct meaning of the term. LOL (nervous laughter)"
Tell me what term you're referring to and I'll define it.
ButItSureIsFun6949 4 months ago
Oh, and how could I forget?
STRAWMAN FALLACY
ButItSureIsFun6949 4 months ago
@ButItSureIsFun6949 You do not even know the correct meaning of the term. LOL
WAKE UP ATHEISM
hdregmore 4 months ago
Proof of ignorance of hdredmore
Constant use of Hasty Generalizations
Deleting comments
Refuting himself/herself "your abuse destroys any valid argument you may have" in that case we should forget everything you said:)
ButItSureIsFun6949 4 months ago
Poof of the non-existance of God:
Law of conservation.
Matter and Energy cannot be created or destoryed, they merely alter forms.
Ergo: The universe could not be Created, only have it's form changed
But you will probably delete this as "Disrepectful" because it contains evidence
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Proof of the Ignorance of Atheists
Why would you expect a universal God to be bound by his/her own laws of nature?
That is simple stupidity.
Ergo: Your argument is nonsense.
It is not my problem if you simply cannot accept that I only deleted posts disrespectful toward religion.
Your abuse destroys any valid argument you may have.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@hdregmore No abuse there.
Basicaly you've been forced back to the "God can do anything" defense.
Religion endows its God with the ability to do anything, then hides behind that rather than face real scrutiny.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Perhaps you should think about the characteristics of a universal God before you suggest such nonsense.
You will find everything in order in respect to such an idea. It si not my concern if you cannot accept that.
What a shame that atheists cannot product adequate intellectual criticisms without resorting to disrespectful behaviour.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@hdregmore Your delusions sheild you from reality.
Enjoy them.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Your denial encases your ignorance.
Suffer for it.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 @Gage371 I am sorry that you could not comply with the rules of the forum and decided to repeatedly be disrespectful to religion. I am also sorry that you had to resort to attacking me and my videos on a personal level rather than dealing with the content that they contain.
This gives us all a fair indication of the type of arrogant and ignorant atheist that you must be.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 Again you make disrespectful suggestions regarding religion being incorrect. That is a classic example of the Dawkinsian Bias. You do not qualify in which ways religion is incorrect, you simply make a sweeping generalization based on a predetermined and incorrect idea.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 You made the suggestion that all hypotheses are scientifically based. They are not.
Dawkins made a deliberate decision based on bias and not science that the probability of the existence of God is 90%. When asked to qualify the reasoning he could not. That is what the video is about. I am sorry if you have problems with that, but those are the facts.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 Wrote "A hypothesis is based within the natural and material world"
It is you who is making no sense. There are many hypothoses that refer to outside of the known universe.
Again you present a fallacious argument referring to religion as "supernatural and false"
That is your unqualified and disrespectful opinion and nothing to do with science.
I cannot allow this form of disrespectful behaviour.
Deleted
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 Wrote disrespectful nonsense about the basic premise of God
Your attempt to link this basic idea with pseudo-scientific nonsense is disrespectful.
Were it true the same could be said of most scientific hypotheses.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 You are now being disingenuous. You have deliberately replaced the word "God" with "deity" in order to gain a separation of understanding between a personal God and God. The question given was in regard to God only.
Sorry but I am bound to remove any comments that are disrespectful to religion. If you cannot produce an argument without doing that then it is a wasted attempt.
In regard to me being hypocritical because i portray atheists badly in cartoon, yes I am guilty.
hdregmore 4 months ago
@Gage371 Wrote disrespectful nonsense about religion
Deleted
He was / is unable to qualify his assertion regarding the probability of God. It is therefore unscientific.
I would have thought that was obvious.
hdregmore 4 months ago
So the video begins with an obvious ad-hominem attack on athiests. Next dudley CORRECTLY describes both images. The first is a representation of what some believe Thor looks like and the second is a representation of what Leonardo Da Vinci thinks god looks like. Where is the bias? maybe if you had used an actual Atheist instead of what you think one would be like you might have had a good video but your ignorance of atheism shines through. FAIL
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary Not if a statement of reality is such an attack. Dudley may have described both images, however he distinctly displays his "Dawkinsian Bias". That is what the video is about. Perhaps you need to watch it again and attempt to keep your own bias in place.
How sad. You are suffering from the arrogant ignorance of ego that many atheists are afflicted with.
Your attempt at criticism has MONUMENTALLY FAILED
hdregmore 5 months ago
@hdregmore He displayed no bias, he described what he saw which agrees with all of the presented evidence. What do these pictures dudley is describing have to do with Dawkins or biology whatsoever? Constructive criticism is what i've offered you, a way to make your video better by incorporating a real example using a real athiest instead of your own preconceived notion of what an athiest is. How is it arrogant to point out a flaw in your video?
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary No. Dudley may have described both images, however he distinctly displays his "Dawkinsian Bias". That is what the video is about. Perhaps you need to watch it again and attempt to keep your own bias in place.
He deliberately elaborates his negative bias when shown a picture of a Christian God.
I really do not know any other reason for your failure to understand this than the same bias being present within you.
hdregmore 5 months ago
@hdregmore Whether or not dudley did or did not show a bias (I still hold he did not) he's still a figment of your imagination based on your preconceived notions of what an atheist is, nothing more. This is a great video of what you think about atheists but it has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins OR Biology. The only thing you've done is make a fictional character to make fun of. Once again you really should include a REAL Atheist in your video otherwise it's all pointless.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@hdregmore Ok I see where your sayin he is biased because he said the second one was the "imaginary christian god who does not exist" While dudley may be biased he is based on your imagination, I as an atheist would not describe those pictures like he did and I don't know any who would. AGAIN: USE A REAL ATHEIST NEXT TIME!
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary At last you worked it out. Bravo.
How can I use a real person in a cartoon? Strange logic there.
I thought atheists were supposed to be the intelligentsia of this world?
Never mind, just accept that you got it very wrong and move along. it will do wonders for your overgrown ego.
hdregmore 5 months ago
@hdregmore Well I don't think I worked it out per se but rather I disregarded what he thought about the picture automatically and focused on which of his words were facts.
You can't use a real person in a cartoon of course lol but you could use a real atheist to write dudley's lines, sort of a collaboration.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary I think that is a moot point. The reason that I have portrayed Dudley as describing the pictures the way he has is because from my own experience that is how atheists usually answer.
Since my videos are all opinions as to how atheists react to situation then this is indeed an accurate portrayal. In the same way that ANY character is stereotyped and lampooned in comedy.
I apologize for calling you arrogant. That was uncalled for.
hdregmore 5 months ago
@hdregmore It is only an accurate portrayal of your opinion though and I think that should be addressed or shown in some way. I think many like myself will (maybe wrongly but justifiably) see this as an objective cartoon rather than your opinion as you pointed out. You said "In the same way that ANY... lampooned in comedy" but I did not understand that this was supposed to be funny. Btw the reason I said it was ad hominem is because of dudley's first comment before the questions.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@hdregmore Lol no Atheists are not supposed to be "the intelligentsia of this world" I think this is a common misconception. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, you don't have to be super intelligent to not believe that I have a Unicorn in the trunk of my car.
I will happily admit that my initial reaction was wrong that dudley did in fact have a bias but I stand by my position that because dudley is a figment of your imagination it is not representative of actual atheism.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary Analogies of unicorns and fairies are unjustified and imperfect when dealing with comparisons to God. They are also disrespectful to those who believe. The basic premise of a creator is such a large philosophical idea that is so inherently with mankind that there is no adequate "thing" to present of equivalent significance. That is why they fail.
Dudley is a representative of atheism based on my experience.
hdregmore 5 months ago
@hdregmore Why? I think they are part of the "supernatural" realm just as god is. Here is something to think about: God is supposedly beyond comprehension he doesn't tell us how, or why he does any of this. If it is beyond your comprehension then you're saying you don't know, which is exactly what I'm saying except that I think you are limiting your options by having to make a god part of that equation.
You should make a new video with dudley replaced by me :)
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary The basic premise of a creator is such a large philosophical idea that is so inherently with mankind that there is no adequate "thing" to present of equivalent significance.
I think I already told you that. I don't understand what you mean by "limiting your options" considering that God does not have any limitations.
Sorry but Dudley has signed a contract and it would cost me too much to sack him.
hdregmore 5 months ago
@hdregmore Ok so there is no thing present of equivalent significance, so there is no way to really imagine god we just know that it must be a god? Am I getting you right there?
Yes you limit your options when you claim it must be a god that created everything. by saying it is a god you have arbitrarily thrown out any other options that might be possible. You have said it was god and therefore cannot be anything else, by the way we're not sure if its a god because we can't define him.
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@hdregmore You have a long way to go to actually understanding Atheism, if you have questions don't hesitate to ask :)
MrArokOleary 5 months ago
@MrArokOleary You have a long way to go to actually understanding religious people, if you have questions don't hesitate to ask.
repugnant smilie face withheld.
hdregmore 5 months ago
@messakg123 Wrote more unqualified and spiteful nonsense about the video.
I have already told you to go away.
Deleted
Wake Up Atheism
hdregmore 6 months ago
All I learned from this is, Thor is real, and he is the GOD OF THUNDAR.
guyfromdubai 7 months ago
@guyfromdubai All I learned from your comment is that you have a comprehension problem.
hdregmore 6 months ago
@messakg123 Wrote disrespectful comparative nonsense about God
Deleted
It's amazing how when shown to be wrong atheists turn to abusive comparisons.
hdregmore 7 months ago
@hdregmore Nothing I said was disrespectful, nonsensical or even comparative. You're absolutely wrong and the point you are trying to make is ridiculous.. I'm a christian and even I say that this video is absurd and you should start living up to our values.
messakg123 6 months ago
@messakg123 If you are as you say "a Christian" then you should know better.
Go away and say three Hail Marys and don't do it again.
And don't attempt to suggest what my values should be. You do not know me or my religion.
hdregmore 6 months ago
@hdregmore know better than point out when someone deliberately misrepresents a person's point of view to ridicule them.. I'm FAIRLY sure there's a commandment about bearing false witness..
messakg123 6 months ago
@messakg123 You are being very foolish and I repeat. You do not know what my religion is. You are assuming that it is Christianity and attempting to suggest that I should feel guilty about some rule I am unfamiliar with.
You wrote disrespectful comparative nonsense about God and it was deleted.
On these forums any disrespectful or abusive remark about any religion is removed. Perhaps you should contemplate your own sinful actions and not any implied of others.
hdregmore 6 months ago
@hdregmore what did i say that was disrespectful or nonsensical? Your point is that atheists approach the topic of the existence of god with a bias. This is true, but also true of theists. You imply that they are open-minded, or at least not dismissive, about Thor but this is not true. All atheists would by definition dismiss the possibility of the existence of Thor as im sure most people would have.. How is this offensive or comparative or nonsensical?
messakg123 6 months ago
@messakg123 You must not have been watching the video very closely. Dudley clearly refers to Thor as the God of Thunder because there is no ingrained bias toward that character. Yet when he is shown an image of the Christian God he goes to great length to describe him as imaginary. There in lies the bias of atheism
On these forums any disrespectful or abusive remark about any religion are removed.
I do not care for your manner. Go away now.
hdregmore 6 months ago
@ShowYourWorking Are you even an atheist?
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Wrote disrespectful rubbish about religion. What else should we expect from arrogant ignorant atheists?
deleted.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@ShowYourWorking You are correct. All atheist arguments are made of straw.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore How are all "atheist arguments" made of straw? You can talk about Dudley since you invented him but which "atheist argument" is made of straw?
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod He represents you all. If you are not happy with that talk to him about it.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore nobody represents me... I am as unique as any Christian and I find it offensive that you will say that my views are (of straw) and yet cannot explain why.
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Ask @ShowYourWorking, he is the one who said that the atheist Dudley is made of straw.
BTW: You sound and act exactly like Dudley.......(thinks).......Is that you Duddles?
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore No I believe he said that "Dudley" who happened to be atheist was in fact "made out of straw". You responded that all "atheists arguments" were misunderstanding the phrasing of the statement.
As to the second part how am I supposed to know how your fictional character thinks? From what you make him say and do I can surmise that he is a terrible debater and probably doesn't put in any research.
P.S. How can you know if I act like Dudders?
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Now now you can't fool me Duddles. I knew it was you. Stay way cool.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Ummm, who are you talking to?
Obviously you are trolling... is it because you have no legitimate response?
nanaforiod 8 months ago
@nanaforiod Weeellll, maybe it's not you? It's just a person who fits the stereotype of the atheist that Dudley is. Well I'll be...how accurate is that.
BTW: I owe you nothing. Least of all an answer to a third person statement.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@ShowYourWorking Thank you for your honesty in posting. He is an extremely intelligent man in his field. However when he crosses over to matters of philosophy and theology the cracks in his knowledge appear.
hdregmore 8 months ago
Uh, no. The reason the atheist doesn't put 'imaginary' in the description of Thor is because almost no one in modern society believes Thor to be real, that is a dead religion. Thus, there is no need to assert something that is already well understood, it would be redundant.
But in the case of Yahweh, many people do believe him to be real, thus the Atheist feels the need to make a point to distinguish themselves from that group.
The point you make in this video is incorrect.
GarethNN 8 months ago
@GarethNN Incorrect. Did you not watch the video? It is Dawkinsian Bias in action. Dudley felt compelled to add predetermined and judgmental information to the description when it was not even called for because of this unhealthy denial.
This bias is clearly evident and your suggestion that it is not simply reinforces the stereotypical mindset of the atheist in denial. So your attempt to justify Dudley's actions enhances the point of the video.
Thank you.
hdregmore 8 months ago
Uh, no. The reason the atheist doesn't put 'imaginary' in the description of Thor is because almost no one in modern society believes Thor to be real, that is a dead religion. Thus, there is no need to make assert something that is already well understood, it would be redundant.
But in the case of Yahweh, many people do believe him to be real, thus the Atheist feels the need to make a point to distinguish themselves from that group.
The point you make in this video is incorrect.
GarethNN 8 months ago
jesus was an atheist
starscreamdkmo 8 months ago
@starscreamdkmo hitchens is a believer
hdregmore 8 months ago
I describe the second picture as Yahweh or Genesis, but maybe thats you're bias and you're own premeditated conclusion :/
JuiceBoxheero 8 months ago
@JuiceBoxheero No, "imaginary Christian God" was the atheists bias. Perhaps it did not sink in for you. Watch it again.
hdregmore 8 months ago
Harvey, brilliant perception as usual. Yes, the Atheists do tend to leave out the word "Imaginary" when referring to the Norse God Thor who was meant to be the son of Odin/Supreme Norse God. How little they know about the correlation between all civilizations and God/s belief throughout time and the difference in language and utterance of the name, eg Egyptians named the Supreme God Amen. Also, thank you for such a beautiful comment on my home page.
unionof666666 8 months ago
@unionof666666 No problem. Thanks for stopping by and looking in.
hdregmore 8 months ago
Everybody already knows Thor is a fictional character. The fact that Jahweh is one too has not quite sunken in yet throughout the world. Hence the 'bias'.
wouter1411 9 months ago
@wouter1411 No, the arrogant bias of atheists immediately initiates a torrent of predetermined hatred based on ego. There is no amount of time that will eliminate the premise of god within the psyche of mankind. The exercise simply displays the Dawkinsian Bias in action.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore Maybe. But give it enough time and Jahweh might follow the same path as Thor or any of the other countless forgotten gods .
wouter1411 9 months ago
You are a man throwing rocks while standing in front of his glass house.
krakendahed 9 months ago
@krakendahed Is that a proverb or bastardized portions of many? If it is supposed to mean anything then I suggest you stop attempting your pseudo--intellectualism and just write whatever you want to say. We are all grownup here so there is no need for cryptic cautionary candor.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@Tonguenyomom Wrote irrelevant disrespectful religious shit. Deleted.
hdregmore 9 months ago
Again, your mistake is thinking an atheist's conclusions are preconceived when in actuality they are POST-conceived. Atheists will address any evidence you have to offer but the mere presentation of the evidence does not guarantee it's acceptance as acceptable evidence. Your espousal of faith indicates you have no criteria for evidence and it seems from this video it upsets you that others do.
krakendahed 9 months ago
@krakendahed Again, you mistake reaching an informed conclusion with a premature and premeditated one. That is made perfectly clear in the video. I have "espoused" no faith in this video and your suggestion of such just further enhances the premise of the video. If you wish to jump to conclusions be aware that it is no way done in the name of science or logical thinking. It is just preconceived rubbish that has come with the arrogance of atheism.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore - At what point do you no longer consider an atheist's conclusion premature and premeditated? If you say "never" or something equivalent, then please explain how that is not a bias on your part. What's clear? You assigning an attribute to "atheists" that can also be applied to "theists?" You used "faith" in a comment ("Faith is required in...religion"). Should I consider the hdregmore commenting is different than the one who created the video?
krakendahed 9 months ago
@krakendahed When he or she has been given and accepted ALL the evidence at hand. To give an unconfirmed answer to a question is just premeditated bias that shows everyone that no matter what amount of evidence is produced to the contrary, the person is in pure and unmitigated denial of the relevant facts.It has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith" or "religion". It is a predisposition produced by the egotistical and childish desire to be right.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore - Accepted? Your context might imply it's to be done unconditionally or do you mean received? The former is irrational and the latter is evidence that your video is just a generalization as you have absolutely no way of knowing how much "evidence" was considered by every atheist in the world before they arrived at their conclusion. The remainder of your comment can be applied even more easily to the "theist," so there's nothing distinctively atheistic in your description.
krakendahed 9 months ago
@krakendahed You write nonsense in incredibly self complicating irrelevant rhetoric. The fact is that the "Dawkinsian Bias" is a very real phenomena that is exhibited by atheists who deliberately use information to attempt to prove preconceived and premeditated conclusions held prior to any debate or discourse. That is why they get so irate and abusive when presented with factual evidence contradicting their prejudiced ideas. That is a proven behavioral model that atheists fit. Like it or not.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore - And again, such behavior is exhibited by theists as well, so what's your point other than insult? The only difference is you gave it a name for some atheists doing it. I'm sure you would be a little upset if you were presented with already refuted arguments again and again. Reiteration does not make something true.
krakendahed 9 months ago
@krakendahed You bandy terms religious terms as if they are derogatory. That is the pure bias of ignorance.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore - I assume you are referring to "faith." To deny that it can be considered derogatory is a "bias of ignorance" of the numerous examples of its deleterious effects in western society and it's fundamental nature of being irrational. It's hardly an ignorance to recognize the abuses to which faith has been previously applied. It's more of a rejection of an antiquated and flawed method of attaining truth. Faith has shown it's true nature with planes and buildings.
krakendahed 9 months ago
@jazzx251 Wrote some imaginary rubbish about religion.
Deleted.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore
Am I still here?
jazzx251 9 months ago
Clearly so.
Notice how I tested my hypothesis that you would block me as well as delete my comment.
Anyway; let's imagine a trial - the trial of God.
I present evidence against him.
Then you delete my evidence so that the jury can't read it, before presenting your own evidence defending Him.
Is that fair?
Deleting opposing views is intellectual cowardice.
Unless you can argue otherwise, there can be no other conclusion than that you are an intellectual coward.
jazzx251 9 months ago
@Tonguenyomom Wrote disrespectful nonsense about religion.
Deleted.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@LittleTownInNorway wrote stupid shit disrespectful to religion.
Deleted.
hdregmore 9 months ago
... So sad.
LittleTownInNorway 9 months ago
@LittleTownInNorway Yes.............he is.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore You are missunderstanding. I am saying you are sad.
LittleTownInNorway 9 months ago
@LittleTownInNorway You are misunderstanding, I am saying you are pathetic
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore Don't delete my comment making it seem I am saying something I dont. Goddamn, I got not reason to show respect towards something that is only evil. Asshole. If you are going to delete this, delete the reast of my comments. So tired of the religion way to think.
LittleTownInNorway 9 months ago
The video shows much more about you than the so called bias you assign to atheists. Because atheism doesn't agree with your views (or more likely it's Dawkins), you jump to the conclusion that it's skepticism must be a bias of some kind. "Just have faith" has little value to rational thinking human beings.
krakendahed 9 months ago
@krakendahed What nonsense. Faith is required in science as well as religion. As for the rest of your pointless comment, well it is.....pointless. You in no way gave any information or evidence to refute the Dawkinsian Bias assertion. In fact all you did is attempt to construct a pathetic illogical strawman that blew away before you hit the Post button. LOLOLOLOL
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore - Nonsense is claiming faith is required in science. You should know how faithless scientists can be after they falsify a hypothesis! Oh, was it an assertion with any value to refute? Your statement implies your ignorance of the concept of "atheism by default" which by necessity cannot have a bias. This lapse of knowledge on your part merely shows *your* bias in the form of a cartoon.
krakendahed 9 months ago
You could do the same exact thing with "this is god that does indeed exist". Would that be Dawkinsian as well?
PreparationH 9 months ago
@PreparationH Yes, bias can exist both ways. The fact is that Dawkins and Dudley had a predetermined unjustified conclusion. It is impossible to debate rationally from such a position.
hdregmore 9 months ago
I see that you have to make up your own fictional atheist to prove your point.
Chuck1863 9 months ago
so can you provide evidence for the existence of Thor, Yaweh or whatever god you believe exists then please?
amadain17 9 months ago
@amadain17 Why would I feel the need to here? This video merely explains a biased behaviour common with the atheist mindset. It was not an attempt in proving anything else. Your demand actually highlights this strange bias. You feel threatened by the possible wrongness of a predetermined decision.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore no bias. I simply se no evidence for the existence of any god. I see Yaweh's existence to have the same amount of evidence as Thor's and as the Flying Spaghetti Monster but I am very willing to examine evidence. In this way I have no bias. The religious position IS a bias in favour of one particular god out of all of the many gods believed in today and throughout history.
amadain17 9 months ago
@amadain17 contd. If you have any evidence to show that your god in particular exists and it was suitably compelling then maybe I would come to the same biased conclusion as you as to the existence of your particular god and your particular taken on his views.
amadain17 9 months ago
@amadain17 Again you use an old strawman that was destroyed long ago. The basic premise of a creator is a valid and reasonable suggestion. If you wish to cloud that idea with denominational nonsense then you achieve nothing. The facts are that the characteristics of God have always been defined universally across all religions and are immutable.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore Super then the evidence please? Peer reviewed scientific evidence please as the peer review takes liars out of the picture.
amadain17 9 months ago
@hdregmore "The facts are that the characteristics of God have always been defined universally across all religions and are immutable."
Really? Where's Jesus' hammer and lightning bolts? Where is his Goat driven chariot? How come the concept of justice is radically different in different religions? How come the salvation doctrines are mutually exclusive? I'm sorry, but the plurality of religion stands as testimony to the contradictory nature of "God".
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro
Couldn't of said it better myself. I would also like to point out in the Greek Pantheon, that many of the gods behave as humans. They all show aspects of love, hate, jealousy, deceit, treachery, pride, and even compassion. In addition, these gods could could potentially be destroyed and more frequently, new gods were born adding to the Pantheon. The idea of an single all knowing, all powerful, everlasting god(s) is far less common among most religions, but not wholly unique either.
bayouboyy 9 months ago
@amadain17 There is a multitude of evidential information regarding God. But with a preconceived bias you are unable to accept any of it. Instead atheists deal in a rhetoric of disinformation and disrespectful nonsense. There is no bias regarding God and the plurality of religion stands as testimony to the his/her characteristics. Why would something that is eternal and limitless by definition be limited to one particular process of understanding? That is extremely illogical.
hdregmore 9 months ago
@hdregmore Please point me to the evidence for the existence of god. I will examine it without bias. With a multitude of evidence there must be a multitude of peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject. That will be my starting point to reintroduction into your religion. So which god and which version of god are we all agreeing with? Are Catholics 'true' christians? Are Westboro Baptists? Are Jehovahs? Have Scientologists got it correct? If they have then where does this leave Muslims?
amadain17 9 months ago
@amadain17 contd. Then there are the religions in India with many deities? This general agreement in religion is overwhelming. Can you show to me why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more real than Yaweh?
amadain17 9 months ago
@hdregmore "Why would something that is eternal and limitless by definition be limited to one particular process of understanding? That is extremely illogical."
Yes, but it is also illogical to claim that they could be flat out contradictory and still refer to the same concept. The truth is that, to get to a smallest common ground, you end up with Deism. When you end up there, your theology is indistinguishable from Naturalism. At which point naturalism wins due to parsimony considerations.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@hdregmore - We are biased in favor of reality. Deal with it
Christheatheist1 9 months ago