@darktango78 It was theologians who gave rise to science when they tried to discover how their god, or gods created the world. Now that theology is sufficiently discredited people don't think about early scientists as being theologians but Isaac Newton & Galileo both wanted to discover the way god created the universe. In fact science as it's practiced now is only from the enlightenment era.
@KenMacMillan I would say that it was theologians who in *part* gave rise to *aspects* of science (particularly some forms of logic, which, if you see the entire lecture by Dennett, he mentions and grants).
But even so, that doesn't imply that modern day theology is warranted and that their conclusions should be considered valid.
One could say, "if it weren't for alchemy there'd be no modern chemistry". That doesn't make alchemy true. Newton was also an alchemist, by the way.
@KenMacMillan That's like saying we wouldn't have chemistry without alchemy. So if you are intellectually honest and think that such an evolution of thought gives credibility to earlier counterparts, prepare to be embarrassed.
Daniel Dennette is a know-nothing when it comes to theology and what happens in seminaries. He slanders seminaries and theologians without having the first clue about either subjects.
@AegeanKing If you're interested in seeing where his knowledge about seminaries comes from (first hand accounts from theologians who attended the seminaries) you can watch the full length video which I link to in the description box.
@darktango78 Nonsense. He says ridiculous things like professors at seminaries teach their students how to twist the facts about the Bible. That is complete twaddle. First, Dennette is not a Biblical scholar or a theologian. He is not in any position to declare what the truth about the Bible is. The fact is, Denette is nothing but a noise maker and the only reason anybody in the mainstream knows who he is is because bashing God is good business and makes u popular. Its pathetic and lame.
@AegeanKing He's not claiming to be a biblical scholar, but he is citing people who are; e.g. Bart Ehrman. In my second comment to you, I give you a timestamp in the linked video where he states where he's getting his information. Namely, it's the result of interviewing attendees of theological seminary.
@darktango78 Bart Ehrman is a charlatan and stands in the vast minority of Biblical scholars. Even non-Christian New Testament scholars like Dr. Amy Levine, who is a Jew, says Ehrman twists things to sell books. Denette picks the most radical of biblical scholars to make his case. As I said before, Dennette is only semi-relevant to the public because he bashes theists. He's just a pathetic old man who likes the spot light.
@AegeanKing Also, if you're interested in jumping straight to where he describes the theologians involved and how the interviews were conducted for the study, you can go to the 5:35 mark in said linked video were he begins.
Actually its not only the Theologian Trying to run this worthless show running, we have a Philosophers on the other side tempting it as well for their intellectual hobbies. Now Science have striped philosophy in every direction, as they have nothing left talk about, they have targeted the question of "Human Values", which is a by product of culture and religion, so there is no any Scientific bases for it. A true Values must correspond with the reality, otherwise its pointless.
This is from a longer presentation where Dennett is summarizing his study on atheist preachers. What he says about seminary isn't his own guess but statements made by people who attended seminary and lost faith.
the course is called Rhetoric, everyone should take it, but it died out in the middle ages and with ethics, physics, grammar and logic became philosophy:)
'theologians have often said it was impossible' eg Augustine, although it wasn't theology until Acquinas after Aristotle= a combination of science and philosophy.
Dennett is disingenuous, he is not talking about theology but about disciples and departments (those things that make up a discipline)
You can apply what he says to philosophy and science, which nobody does, you do astronomy or logic or ethics, and Dawkins and Dennett explain to atheists how to think like a good atheist...tu quoque
which bit? tu quoque -is you apply the argument you use against others to yourself. attacking someone ad hominem never defeats an argument. Dan accuses theologians of being disingenous, its all spin....
what he says about theology 'its all spin' has has been said about philosophy (eg by Wolpert and Dawkins) and the 'science' of biochemical psychiatry, this spin the psychiatrist believes, patient believes the psy. Psy charisma is the predictive variable in successful therapy, spin as placebo
@davdevalle Just to focus on something concrete, could you tell me where exactly Dawkins has said that "Philosophy is all spin"? I've never heard him say anything of the sort.
@darktango78 "quotes" don't mean Dawkins said it per se. It is a paraphrase. But let it pass. When I worked in building I did use concrete. But nothing I say is concrete or not concrete but just WORDS. As Dawkins theory says minds get infected by memes. Words are one way memes work. Dennett never worked on a building site in his life, I have seen his hands. let's focus on
@davdevalle I was obviously using "concrete" as an adjective meaning "specific".
So, let me get this straight: you don't seem to think concrete meaning is conveyable, you invent positions for your opponents and then won't cite your sources, you obfuscate by changing the topic (to Dennett's building skills) and you still wonder why a position such as yours would be criticized as unhelpful at best?
@darktango78 no - nope using concrete has implicature (see Grice) you want to focus upon. I did not invent a position, Wolpert has said and Dawkins implied what I wrote. You need to read more carefully. Opponent who said anything about opponent, Dawkins and Wolpert are colleagues in the scientific enterprise. I value philosophy, the irony is that philosophy is to theology for many scientists. My position? Tu Quoque loook it up. Dennett criticises the man not the argument. Like you do.
@davdevalle First, regarding "concrete", Webster's definition 3b of the term states: "specific, particular".
Second, you're the one making a claim about Dawkins. You're the one who should support it. Telling me to "look it up" is inadequate.
Third and final, saying "well, some people think your field is BS too" is not even a valid defense. You're not countering any of the arguments presented by Dennett, nor even denying the charge, for that matter.
@darktango78 your talking to me not a dictionary. Conversational implicature, you know the connotations of concrete in these kinds of discussion. Its your rhetorical ploy or are you naive? I didn't say "your field is BS". Dennett did not present any arguments. This is utube not a conference, look it up. 'Charge' . I am a scientist, Dennett is a philosopher. Tu quoque is a an argument against those who argue against the man and not the argument which Dennett did and which you are also doing.
The dictionary definition agrees with my intent. Telling me what I meant is ridiculous.
"This is utube not a conference, look it up."
You made the claim. YOU look it up and give me a link
Dennett and Dawkins are friends. Dawkins is in the audience at this conference. Dawkins consults Dennett. To say Dawkins has no respect for philosophy is simply false.
I'm not "arguing against the man". I'm saying you have yet to make an argument.
@darktango78 err, tu quoque is an argument. 'figure it out, or try wikipedia' or Aristotle'. I didn't say no respect, I said spin, I mentioned Wolpert, and Dawkins on 'fashionable nonsense' you may say what he criticises is not philosophy sure, but that is only opinion. The philosophy of philosophy is another discussion. Theologians have said theology is impossible. To portray a discipline as only about application is selective most disciplines are, including preachers of scientism.
what worse philosophy than theology? Ascribing emotions to inanimate objects.
Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological. Why don't Dennett and Dawkins get on with some real original work improving their ideas instead of wasting time with stuff they hold in contempt, shooting fish in a barrel? Have they run of ideas? Read Eagleton vol 28 no 20 London Review B 19 october 2006 on Dawkins bad theology etc...
@darktango78 to help you look it up, here is Eagleton "With dreary predictability, Daniel C. Dennett defines religions at the beginning of his Breaking the Spell as "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought," which as far as Christianity goes is rather like beginning the history of the potato by defining it as a rare species of rattlesnake" (p. 50). Reason Faith and Revolution. Many memes infected minds -truthfulness needed
@darktango78 Everything you type sounds like shit. Maybe you should go back and read your comments. Either that, or stop deranging normal facts and ask people to look it up. You sound like a fucking idiot or you are trying to play dumb.
@Zenome What "normal facts" do you claim I'm "deranging"? They only person I asked to "look it up" was someone who asked me to do so first in lieu of making an argument.
is it the same clever spin that is used in rationalism and atheism to cover up the fact you don't have all the answers either?
you mean like intellectually scholarly taking in Dawkin's laundry why we all wonder why on Earth are you doing it for that endless whiner?
do you mean like doing very very well at something useless like using science to back up your own sociological beliefs and forcing them on the rest of us?
ministers who ask what can I say to the parishioners - like Dick Dawkins ?
@AfterFauve001 If I don't know something, I'll say so. I might venture a guess, but I'll try and be clear that that's what it is. I've never taken in Dawkins's "laundry", figuratively or otherwise. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone.
@AfterFauve001 Eager to read the latest theology like the latest Dawkin's book?
Theology keeps changing with issues & problems like just about everything else including science & evolution? a creationist atheist who would've thought?
Like the market you are selling to, to answer those embarrassing questions that the rest of us keep asking Dick because he can't keep his egotistical mouth shut exposing evangelical atheism as just another religion?
@AfterFauve001 Theology is a way of not coming clean about the whole enterprise? so its not ok to hypothesis about the meaning of life, but it is ok to rewrite science to prop up a socialist agenda? - makes absolute sense.
Spinmeisters? talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
That's what evangelical atheism is and that's what it has always been even back when it was called Marxism.
@AfterFauve001 jesus christ! atheism does not MAKE EVEN ONE CLAIM about anything. we just say that there is no real evidence that we accept to accept god or gods. there is not other beliefs that atheists have. atheism IS NOT A FUCKING BELIEF, IT IS A REJECTION OF YOURS...
@AfterFauve001 how the fuck do the 8% of us force anything on you dumbass. christians push there shit on us everyday. they wanna teach dumb fucking creationism in class, they have stained our currency and no politicians can get elected to high office if he doesnt pretend he is christain. what do we force on yo? open minded thought not restrained by fairy tales our parents told us??? grow up.
@AfterFauve001 im sorry people with other opinions are so scary to you. i bet you wish everyone believed in the dumb shit you do so u can feel validated in ur unwaranted beleife system and nvr have to think that maybe your fucking wrong and when you die you just fucking die. like a animal. like an ape.
@AfterFauve001 haha i do not believe anyone has the answers sir. and secondly your arguing semantics. what i clearly meant is that atheist reject the claims of people who claim to know that god exists and to know this god personally. everything else is not a point of view of an atheist.
@AfterFauve001 do you understand this difference. athesit could well disagree on every other fact or question that this world offers. atheism only mean non-theistic. all claims that religions make are unconvincing and not backed up. i dont know how you misconstrued my argument to be militanlty or evangelically atheist.sorry for your misunderstanding of my position. theres ur PM.
@AfterFauve001 an agnostic atheist is one who admits he doestn know but has been given no compelling proof that any god, (christain, hindu, muslim, deists, etc.) exists. there are a millino other ways we could have come about some possiblities we cant even comprehend. so the real sad thing is your utter lack of knowledge about what it means to be athesits. you commit hyperbolic generalizations which is a fallacy. and science IS objective inherently, it has to be.
Seems to me Dennett defends his position with arguments. Are you going to point out problems in his arguments or are you going to simply assert he's ignorant?
I don't think there's an awful lot of need for atheist conventions; we live in the information age, so you're only at best speeding up the natural selection and evolution of beliefs.
additionally, athiests meeting up in the name of "atheism" is in a way an oxymoron or paradox; it's the theistic beliefs that require communion to be propagated, not ours.
a video called "the internet; where religions come to die)" explains this pretty fully.
Something is missing in his explanation, an example. I'm sure he could make a great one, but he didn't, I suppose.
heloizyjhenifer 1 month ago
some sweet info here
prchecker 1 month ago
really informative and interesting
thegeffc 1 month ago
love the video really good
SuperDogbrown 1 month ago
Without theology there would be no science.
KenMacMillan 3 months ago
@KenMacMillan How do you figure?
darktango78 3 months ago
@darktango78 It was theologians who gave rise to science when they tried to discover how their god, or gods created the world. Now that theology is sufficiently discredited people don't think about early scientists as being theologians but Isaac Newton & Galileo both wanted to discover the way god created the universe. In fact science as it's practiced now is only from the enlightenment era.
KenMacMillan 3 months ago
@KenMacMillan I would say that it was theologians who in *part* gave rise to *aspects* of science (particularly some forms of logic, which, if you see the entire lecture by Dennett, he mentions and grants).
But even so, that doesn't imply that modern day theology is warranted and that their conclusions should be considered valid.
One could say, "if it weren't for alchemy there'd be no modern chemistry". That doesn't make alchemy true. Newton was also an alchemist, by the way.
darktango78 3 months ago
@KenMacMillan That's like saying we wouldn't have chemistry without alchemy. So if you are intellectually honest and think that such an evolution of thought gives credibility to earlier counterparts, prepare to be embarrassed.
kdwormy 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
do people really pay to see other people laugh about religion? LOL I can do that for free...
alfredozaher 6 months ago
@alfredozaher You can also play football, tell jokes and sing for free, too. People pay to see things done well.
darktango78 6 months ago
Daniel Dennette is a know-nothing when it comes to theology and what happens in seminaries. He slanders seminaries and theologians without having the first clue about either subjects.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing If you're interested in seeing where his knowledge about seminaries comes from (first hand accounts from theologians who attended the seminaries) you can watch the full length video which I link to in the description box.
darktango78 8 months ago
@darktango78 Nonsense. He says ridiculous things like professors at seminaries teach their students how to twist the facts about the Bible. That is complete twaddle. First, Dennette is not a Biblical scholar or a theologian. He is not in any position to declare what the truth about the Bible is. The fact is, Denette is nothing but a noise maker and the only reason anybody in the mainstream knows who he is is because bashing God is good business and makes u popular. Its pathetic and lame.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing He's not claiming to be a biblical scholar, but he is citing people who are; e.g. Bart Ehrman. In my second comment to you, I give you a timestamp in the linked video where he states where he's getting his information. Namely, it's the result of interviewing attendees of theological seminary.
darktango78 8 months ago
@darktango78 Bart Ehrman is a charlatan and stands in the vast minority of Biblical scholars. Even non-Christian New Testament scholars like Dr. Amy Levine, who is a Jew, says Ehrman twists things to sell books. Denette picks the most radical of biblical scholars to make his case. As I said before, Dennette is only semi-relevant to the public because he bashes theists. He's just a pathetic old man who likes the spot light.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing Ok. So make a video about it :)
darktango78 8 months ago
@AegeanKing Also, if you're interested in jumping straight to where he describes the theologians involved and how the interviews were conducted for the study, you can go to the 5:35 mark in said linked video were he begins.
darktango78 8 months ago
Actually its not only the Theologian Trying to run this worthless show running, we have a Philosophers on the other side tempting it as well for their intellectual hobbies. Now Science have striped philosophy in every direction, as they have nothing left talk about, they have targeted the question of "Human Values", which is a by product of culture and religion, so there is no any Scientific bases for it. A true Values must correspond with the reality, otherwise its pointless.
ayobpala 10 months ago
This is from a longer presentation where Dennett is summarizing his study on atheist preachers. What he says about seminary isn't his own guess but statements made by people who attended seminary and lost faith.
rainbowofhazes 1 year ago
@rainbowofhazes Yup. I name and link the full video in the information bar.
darktango78 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot and a total waste of time. His circular reason is quite hilarious.
Zenome 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist Nonsense.
lonegroover 1 year ago
Comment removed
davdevalle 1 year ago
the course is called Rhetoric, everyone should take it, but it died out in the middle ages and with ethics, physics, grammar and logic became philosophy:)
davdevalle 1 year ago
'theologians have often said it was impossible' eg Augustine, although it wasn't theology until Acquinas after Aristotle= a combination of science and philosophy.
Dennett is disingenuous, he is not talking about theology but about disciples and departments (those things that make up a discipline)
You can apply what he says to philosophy and science, which nobody does, you do astronomy or logic or ethics, and Dawkins and Dennett explain to atheists how to think like a good atheist...tu quoque
davdevalle 1 year ago
@davdevalle I gotta say, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're saying.
darktango78 1 year ago
which bit? tu quoque -is you apply the argument you use against others to yourself. attacking someone ad hominem never defeats an argument. Dan accuses theologians of being disingenous, its all spin....
what he says about theology 'its all spin' has has been said about philosophy (eg by Wolpert and Dawkins) and the 'science' of biochemical psychiatry, this spin the psychiatrist believes, patient believes the psy. Psy charisma is the predictive variable in successful therapy, spin as placebo
davdevalle 1 year ago
@davdevalle Just to focus on something concrete, could you tell me where exactly Dawkins has said that "Philosophy is all spin"? I've never heard him say anything of the sort.
darktango78 1 year ago
@darktango78 "quotes" don't mean Dawkins said it per se. It is a paraphrase. But let it pass. When I worked in building I did use concrete. But nothing I say is concrete or not concrete but just WORDS. As Dawkins theory says minds get infected by memes. Words are one way memes work. Dennett never worked on a building site in his life, I have seen his hands. let's focus on
on philosophers like Dennett
davdevalle 1 year ago
@davdevalle I was obviously using "concrete" as an adjective meaning "specific".
So, let me get this straight: you don't seem to think concrete meaning is conveyable, you invent positions for your opponents and then won't cite your sources, you obfuscate by changing the topic (to Dennett's building skills) and you still wonder why a position such as yours would be criticized as unhelpful at best?
darktango78 1 year ago
@darktango78 no - nope using concrete has implicature (see Grice) you want to focus upon. I did not invent a position, Wolpert has said and Dawkins implied what I wrote. You need to read more carefully. Opponent who said anything about opponent, Dawkins and Wolpert are colleagues in the scientific enterprise. I value philosophy, the irony is that philosophy is to theology for many scientists. My position? Tu Quoque loook it up. Dennett criticises the man not the argument. Like you do.
davdevalle 1 year ago
@davdevalle First, regarding "concrete", Webster's definition 3b of the term states: "specific, particular".
Second, you're the one making a claim about Dawkins. You're the one who should support it. Telling me to "look it up" is inadequate.
Third and final, saying "well, some people think your field is BS too" is not even a valid defense. You're not countering any of the arguments presented by Dennett, nor even denying the charge, for that matter.
darktango78 1 year ago
@darktango78 your talking to me not a dictionary. Conversational implicature, you know the connotations of concrete in these kinds of discussion. Its your rhetorical ploy or are you naive? I didn't say "your field is BS". Dennett did not present any arguments. This is utube not a conference, look it up. 'Charge' . I am a scientist, Dennett is a philosopher. Tu quoque is a an argument against those who argue against the man and not the argument which Dennett did and which you are also doing.
davdevalle 1 year ago
@davdevalle
"you know the connotations of concrete"
The dictionary definition agrees with my intent. Telling me what I meant is ridiculous.
"This is utube not a conference, look it up."
You made the claim. YOU look it up and give me a link
Dennett and Dawkins are friends. Dawkins is in the audience at this conference. Dawkins consults Dennett. To say Dawkins has no respect for philosophy is simply false.
I'm not "arguing against the man". I'm saying you have yet to make an argument.
darktango78 1 year ago
@darktango78 err, tu quoque is an argument. 'figure it out, or try wikipedia' or Aristotle'. I didn't say no respect, I said spin, I mentioned Wolpert, and Dawkins on 'fashionable nonsense' you may say what he criticises is not philosophy sure, but that is only opinion. The philosophy of philosophy is another discussion. Theologians have said theology is impossible. To portray a discipline as only about application is selective most disciplines are, including preachers of scientism.
davdevalle 1 year ago
what worse philosophy than theology? Ascribing emotions to inanimate objects.
Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological. Why don't Dennett and Dawkins get on with some real original work improving their ideas instead of wasting time with stuff they hold in contempt, shooting fish in a barrel? Have they run of ideas? Read Eagleton vol 28 no 20 London Review B 19 october 2006 on Dawkins bad theology etc...
davdevalle 1 year ago
@davdevalle he doesn't actually, you know, say that genes actively think and are selfish...
GotmyplaceinHell 2 months ago
@GotmyplaceinHell what are you talking about
davdevalle 2 months ago
@darktango78 to help you look it up, here is Eagleton "With dreary predictability, Daniel C. Dennett defines religions at the beginning of his Breaking the Spell as "social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought," which as far as Christianity goes is rather like beginning the history of the potato by defining it as a rare species of rattlesnake" (p. 50). Reason Faith and Revolution. Many memes infected minds -truthfulness needed
davdevalle 1 year ago
@darktango78 Everything you type sounds like shit. Maybe you should go back and read your comments. Either that, or stop deranging normal facts and ask people to look it up. You sound like a fucking idiot or you are trying to play dumb.
Zenome 1 year ago
@Zenome What "normal facts" do you claim I'm "deranging"? They only person I asked to "look it up" was someone who asked me to do so first in lieu of making an argument.
darktango78 1 year ago
is it the same clever spin that is used in rationalism and atheism to cover up the fact you don't have all the answers either?
you mean like intellectually scholarly taking in Dawkin's laundry why we all wonder why on Earth are you doing it for that endless whiner?
do you mean like doing very very well at something useless like using science to back up your own sociological beliefs and forcing them on the rest of us?
ministers who ask what can I say to the parishioners - like Dick Dawkins ?
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 If I don't know something, I'll say so. I might venture a guess, but I'll try and be clear that that's what it is. I've never taken in Dawkins's "laundry", figuratively or otherwise. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone.
darktango78 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 Eager to read the latest theology like the latest Dawkin's book?
Theology keeps changing with issues & problems like just about everything else including science & evolution? a creationist atheist who would've thought?
Like the market you are selling to, to answer those embarrassing questions that the rest of us keep asking Dick because he can't keep his egotistical mouth shut exposing evangelical atheism as just another religion?
which by the way is fed by Evangelical Atheists.
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 Theology is a way of not coming clean about the whole enterprise? so its not ok to hypothesis about the meaning of life, but it is ok to rewrite science to prop up a socialist agenda? - makes absolute sense.
Spinmeisters? talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
That's what evangelical atheism is and that's what it has always been even back when it was called Marxism.
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 I just watched the canons of good spin.
don't need to be relieved - I'm not a skeptic - I studied history - I know what's up, and yeah I do get it.
your speech was quite profound.
So do I get a blind fold or what?
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 jesus christ! atheism does not MAKE EVEN ONE CLAIM about anything. we just say that there is no real evidence that we accept to accept god or gods. there is not other beliefs that atheists have. atheism IS NOT A FUCKING BELIEF, IT IS A REJECTION OF YOURS...
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 how the fuck do the 8% of us force anything on you dumbass. christians push there shit on us everyday. they wanna teach dumb fucking creationism in class, they have stained our currency and no politicians can get elected to high office if he doesnt pretend he is christain. what do we force on yo? open minded thought not restrained by fairy tales our parents told us??? grow up.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 im sorry people with other opinions are so scary to you. i bet you wish everyone believed in the dumb shit you do so u can feel validated in ur unwaranted beleife system and nvr have to think that maybe your fucking wrong and when you die you just fucking die. like a animal. like an ape.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAware1
& what is my belief exactly?
its not just a rejection any one belief, its the rejection of any belief not theirs
and that might also includes yours.
just have to look on you tube to see what Evangelical atheism supposedly does not "claim".
Evangelical Atheism is not objective.
whats the difference between pushing creationism and pushing politically correct science?
cut it any way you want it's still bull shit to make you believe one guy has all the answers.
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
Dennett is not promoting atheism or science, Dennett is promoting Dennett.
he is showing off his brain power to manipulate other people's meaning and what you see as the facta that govern your life.
that was Dangerous when it was first done buy another 8% group called the Marxists.
I am going to take the point of view of history before Dennett's
AfterFauve001 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 haha i do not believe anyone has the answers sir. and secondly your arguing semantics. what i clearly meant is that atheist reject the claims of people who claim to know that god exists and to know this god personally. everything else is not a point of view of an atheist.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 do you understand this difference. athesit could well disagree on every other fact or question that this world offers. atheism only mean non-theistic. all claims that religions make are unconvincing and not backed up. i dont know how you misconstrued my argument to be militanlty or evangelically atheist.sorry for your misunderstanding of my position. theres ur PM.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@AfterFauve001 an agnostic atheist is one who admits he doestn know but has been given no compelling proof that any god, (christain, hindu, muslim, deists, etc.) exists. there are a millino other ways we could have come about some possiblities we cant even comprehend. so the real sad thing is your utter lack of knowledge about what it means to be athesits. you commit hyperbolic generalizations which is a fallacy. and science IS objective inherently, it has to be.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
Never the atheist Ignorance and stupidity di nat stop to amaze me!!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
Did you mean "atheist ignorance and stupidity never ceases to amaze me"?
If so, can you comment on what specifically in the clip you thought was stupid?
darktango78 1 year ago
@darktango78
The ignorance!
Why there is theology? It is this guy sound mind?
Maybe he should look a little at atheism, and see how many atheists say stupid, stuff.
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
Seems to me Dennett defends his position with arguments. Are you going to point out problems in his arguments or are you going to simply assert he's ignorant?
darktango78 1 year ago
@darktango78
I know that he is ignorant! I had this discussion, so many times, I am bored.
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
:) Ok.
darktango78 1 year ago
@VyckRo : You are obviously very retarded.
You did not study any science, true?
You might come from a very backward place!
48acar19 1 year ago
@VyckRo
You need philosophy and psychology, not theology.
CloudsofBliss 1 year ago
I don't think there's an awful lot of need for atheist conventions; we live in the information age, so you're only at best speeding up the natural selection and evolution of beliefs.
additionally, athiests meeting up in the name of "atheism" is in a way an oxymoron or paradox; it's the theistic beliefs that require communion to be propagated, not ours.
a video called "the internet; where religions come to die)" explains this pretty fully.
gavsmith1980 2 years ago