@valgez1 How arrogant can one person be? I brought up completely valid arguments but you responded by simply cracking an insult and acting as if I had never even commented. You call everyone childish because of their beliefs but you are arguing like a 12 year old.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@tgillspy1 Evolution doesnt lead to eugenics any more than genetics leads to eugenics. The twisting and manipulation of science by crazy people should not be held against science. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf, these are Hitlers words.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
@MrKGatl which raises the interesting question: how does science explain the problem of evil? I agree science is not itself evil. But where does evil come from?
@1962mrpaul I would say, an a non expert in psychology, evil comes from the same place as love, your consciousness. It would be my guess that scientifically all of our emotions come from the same place in our brains. Evil is an emotion that normally doesnt come out of no where, it is what happens when anger boils over. Tramatic conditions can foster feelings of anger and evil, like a child that is physically abused growing up, might take it out when he is an adult. Like Mansons childhood
Both Douglas and Dawkins seem ignorant of Religious history in which theological theories were debated and argued and tested all the time rather than simply accepted without question. Catholicism with its Councils and theologians brought the rigorous rules of reason to bare against the datum available and arrived at its various dogmas and doctrines. His criticism seems appropriate only to a small if vocal slice of fundamentalist unreasoning christianity.
@MrKGatl a typical knee-jerk sarcasm stereotyping "the Catholics" as corrupt. Just as all scientists without exception rigorously follow the rules of science and never, ever fudge results or cut corners because the idea of winning a noble prize never even crosses their minds in their dispassionate quest for truth and the betterment of humankind. Scientists are immune to celebrity and would never say something controversial just to sell a few books or keep them on the most popular chat shows.
@1962mrpaul interesting factoid: Eisnstein originally fudged the numbers of his famous relativity theory to make it fit the then-dominant scientific "dogma" of a static universe. Only after the theory of the Big Bang was proposed by the stronomer Georges Lemaitre WHO WAS ALSO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST did Einstein feel confident to restore the original, unbiased equation.
@1962mrpaul Yes, and Lemaitre presented his findings of the Big Bang exactly as for what it was: a scientific theory. When the pope apparently offered to make it dogma, he simply didn't get the point. BTW adjusting your equations to new evidence is good science. Other than in religion, which just sticks its fingers in the ears and goes la la la.
"As far as I see, such a theory [...] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question."
It's unfortunate that most of the believers I know, (my entire family) will be too constricted by their own beliefs then to ever watch this video in it's entirety. Not only can you say nothing about other people's beliefs, but they themselves feel guilt by allowing themselves to hear you say it. How childish and weak.
@skywize this has been my experience as well. it frustrates me beyond belief. you can't have an intelligent conversation of substance that encroaches on religious views/beliefs
Whats ironic is religious people seem to have no problem mocking other faiths, because all religions teach that theirs is the one, 'true' faith. What is considered completely inappropriate is the idea of a nonreligious person questioning god, or mocking someone's belief system. Im not saying youre not entitled to your beliefs, im just saying theyre stupid.
@DAranJames What's even weirder is that religious people will tolerate criticism from a believer of a different faith with more stride than they will an atheist.
@DAranJames Sorry, slight correction. It's every Monotheistic faith that believes that. Most polytheists don't tend to have issue with other peoples gods... Although the christian god tends to be omitted slightly, lol
@TheJudgeJoker Yes, that's why when I die I plan to be buried, unembalmed, in a natural graveyard. I would like an infrared camera placed nearby to record the gas escaping, maybe it'll look like a soul lol.
funny thing is, i was thinking the same principle about criticising different viewpoints without causing offence but criticising religion WITH causing offence earlier today and Dawkins has just relayed it back to me in much more coherent language.
Ahem, one objection to Douglas: what he describes as the scientific method is really the philosophical method, going all the way back to Plato and Socrates.
We "ringfence" religion from hatred because so many have been killed for their religion. See, Dawkins comes from a theocratic monarchy. The monarch's religion is best, and everything else is less. Dawkins simply replaces Anglicanism with atheism, and then begins persecuting all others. That's not America. Here, we're all equal and respectful. Easy question.
it says alot when believers must support their ideas critisising science while having to use computers to do so. hey just pray your opinions to you tube
Can't mock religion? Utter bullshit. I've been mocked for wearing a crucifix - by my atheist friends. Why? Because my faith is stupid, because I'm a sheep, because God is a fantasy etc etc.
It gets wearing. Really, really soul crushing.
And that's why I respect people who respect me and my beliefs - and not men like Richard Dawkins, who is just hateful.
I believe in evolution, always have - but of course it has holes, and I believe that where science lacks, there comes God.
@Trontador Science, given time, will fill its own holes as we learn. God does not do that, he only bends and gets re-written by the very men that created him. The holes in evolution will be filled with provable, observable facts. God will then be morphed into something else to withstand the blow science has given it. Science does not need god, they are incompatible as god is defeated by science. As for your friends. . . they are asses then
@Trontador what you fail to understand is that it doesn't make sense to fill in the "holes" with religion. Religion gives you the answers, but none of them are true.
I got my morals and etics from a wonderfull upbringing with a loving mother and father that showed me whats right and whats wrong....I do not need any god or bible to teach me how to live
@blacklight019 Fine. I am stating facts, that's all. The last thing I want to promote is hatred - that's for religious extremists & others who resort to childish abuse such as calling others 'fuctard' rather than indulge in a reasoned debate.
@blacklight019 Fine. I am stating facts, that's all. The last thing I want to promote is hatred - that's for religious extremists & others who resort to childish abuse such as calling others 'fuctard' rather than indulge in a reasoned debate.
@dalefantom Read 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. Dawkins does, in fact, know a great deal. There is no 'missing link' & every lifeform that has ever been on earth is a transitional fossil. If you are looking for a 'crocoduck' then you need to go & find out how evolution really works before commenting on it.
@loeghat Dawkins is not extreme!! He quite rightly calls for open debate & scrutinises. What's 'extreme' about that? Religious followers lie to kids, mutilate kids genitals, are homophobic, treat women as 2nd class, tell others what to eat, what to wear, with whom others can have relationships with/interfere in consenting adults' sex lives etc etc etc - this is extreme yet gets away with being classed as normal.
@loeghat Hmm...to be labelled a 'fundamental muslim/jew/christain' you have to block free speech, issue death threats, kill abortion doctors, fly planes into buildings etc, but to be labelled a 'fundamental atheist' you simply have to reject absurd middle eastern myths, scrutinise & ask the religious to justify why they deserve special treatment over rational people. It's interesting that religious folks do things like mutilate a childs genitals in the name of a sky fairy yet claim it's normal.
@brandisify at one time, everyone believed the world was flat and the blue void above us was heaven.
Science is a work in progress, it has always been. Its progress is due to the constant search to understand to world around us. We've come a long way, and there's still much we don't yet understand.
Religion is static. People still take at face value what primitive men said 2000 years ago. Their explanations are difficult to accept nowadays given our limited understand of our existence.
@brandisify There is evidence. Masses of it - your statement proves you have not sought it out. & yes by 'working on it', it purely means that science is continually seeking more answers, re-testing, discovering. If it didn't, we wouldn't have known about DNA (which is an example of evolutionary proof).
@brandisify You have completely missed the points here.
1. Dawkins has never ever said that any gods absolutely do not exist. He has, quite rightly said that based on a lack of any evidence, it is highly unlikely that there are any gods - just like we can't prove a flying pink teapot over Mars - it's equally unlikely.
2. Evolution is true & there is masses of evidence to support it - go & see, it's there. He also rightly says science hasn't yet filled all the holes. Hence 'working on it'.
this man is single handedly turning america on its self ! i have yet to see this man loose an argument ! unless somebody kills him he is going to take over the planet LOL
Consider if you will, that the world can be divided into two very distinct groups. Those who believe in a supreme being, and those who seem to spend all of their time saying there isn't one.
@digital0707neo Well shit sucks sometimes when half your race has delusional ideas of higher powers gods and spirits ghosts angels and other mystical and all mythical figures.
20 From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.
21 They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness.
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
@loeghat From what reasoning can you conclude that atheist are blind and close minded, considering you refuse to believe the world wasn't created by your imaginary friend?
@loeghat Sorry there is no such term as an "extreme atheist." Atheism does not have dogma or a set of beliefs, therefore cannot be extreme. It simply means that they don't believe there is a god. Simple as that. You could be referring to extreme anti-theists which do not like organized religion. Your definition of God sounds somewhat like Pantheism, which is one of the many ways people define their God.
By way way, if you want to read an atheist and take seriously the implications of atheism read Nietzsche as I did for years (See my blog if you wish), not pop atheists like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. Read all of Nietzsche and you can be done with bubble gum atheism, though he ended up in the mad house.
@dalefantom all nowadays living animals have evolved. even a modern simple bacteria is compared to it's ancestor-bacteria completely developed. it's not for instance, as if we have evolved from chimpanzees. it's that both, chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor some million years ago.
@dalefantom the pyramids in china were build inbetween 200bc and 200ac. the ones in egypt are build in 2500bc. the atztec pyramide was build in 200ac. ..
@dalefantom scientist don't kno everythin and that's why they keep workin on understand it and learning how everything work in the universe. unlike religion who claim to kno godn kno what he wants . I mean i think there's no god, but even if there was he wouldn't b a personal god, it wud b more like a force that put motion to the universe and doesn't care about you me or any other living thing. i mean if there was a personal god how can u explain 99.9 percent of all exctinct earth species?
Oh, you silly people will be surprised when the mothership lands and you find out the Galactic Overlord Xenu was behind it all. L. Ron Hubbard said so. He's gonna toss all you unbeleivers into volcanoes like he did the last batch. But I'm hoping there's room on the mothership for me. Right next to Tom Cruise. Hail Xenu !
'Messiah', 'worship', 'blindly believing'? Are you projecting?
I doubt any biologist thinks in these terms about Darwin. Admiration for someone and his works is light years away from deifying the person. And even when 'messiah' and 'worship', or other similar expressions, are actually used to refer to someone, they're used as pure metaphors by any sane scientist.
(cont.) Furthermore, Darwin's 'Origin' is in no way comparable to some 'holy scripture' of an evolutionary biologist. Its reading is not compulsory, and unquestioningly accepting everything in it is not required. If one reads it, he does it out of pure historical interest or curiosity. It's very much in the same position as Newston's 'Principia' for a physicist or 'Gray's Anatomy' (the textbook, not the TV show) for a physician.
Also, evolution is a FACT. Change over time is a fact. The THEORY of evolution, if i'm not mistaken, involves the process, and the origins of the process.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is the Fred Phelps of atheism.
He is neither doing science nor the discrimination of atheists any favors.
He calls himself a man of science, yet is a xenophobe that border on ethnocentric, especially towards jews, arabs and tribal cultures.
He has contributed absolutely nothing to the scientific community, accept perhaps a few dime store pop science novellas and his half baked pseudo-science 'meme' theory; which is as empirical as feng shui and as dangerous as nazi eugenics.
Dawkins asks simple questions, in a calm way, that really infuriates and threatens believers. Unable to argue effectively against him, they resort to juvenile attacks, like Buckeyefan's below. So obvious that they've lost the argument. I also like the way he's so uncompromising with bullshit.
@blacklight019 No faith is required to know that evolution is true - it is provable over and over again. This is a very weak argument by the religious, and people who simply do not understand that evolution is a fact.
Atheists using certain things from the Old Testament Bible to try and slander the Bible,the problem is without the key to the Word of God you don't know what you are speaking of ,the Key is in the New Testament ,his name is Jesus the Prince of Peace, the Morning Star,he came and called the Jewish Priests whitewashed snakes,he kicked the money changer out of the temple ,He healed the lame,the blind,the sick,He spoke peace,he is the Prince of Peace,He offers you eternal life,accept it
I really think that all believers are atheist. I don't think they can possibly believe in bullshit - but they are so proud of it they are willing to be dumb in the name of religion, but only for their benefit of course.
------
take an example of Irish Catholic - if you tell him Ireland sucks - he will be pissed - if you tell him Catholics are sucm - he will be pissed, because he identifies Ireland with Catholicism.
Same goes for Jews, Arabs, Russians, Poles, Americans, etc....
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
Yes, mainly because the scientist who has investigated, tested and analysed all the evidence as to how the things in your "god's creation" work - he then applies the same scientific method to the creation of life and the universe and sees, to his horror, that the evidence suggests that this started on it's own.
Scientists, and indeed people, who have an understanding of the laws of physics and how things work don't have time for your supernatural, unevidenced mumbo jumbo
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
If I can understand this, you're telling me that because I'd rather investigate scientific theories to explore the complexities, workings and, indeed, origins of life and the universe, than take the rather easy assertion that "God did it all" that it makes ME closed minded.
I put it to you, sir, that you're blatant indifference of evidence and anything else that contradicts the bible restricts YOUR thought to the "logic" of sciences
I understand fully that science can't answer anything and may be wrong - but based on evidence (there's that word again, see it's pretty damn important) I'd rather take an evidenced "half-answer" than illogical, unfounded *mumbo jumbo* as absolute truth
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
I apologise, in general the religious people of YouTube who tend to comment on Richard Dawkins videos tend to be christians, I made an unfounded assumption and I apologise.
But how is your idea of "God created everything" any different because it leaves you with how he created it - people say that evolution &big bang is "something out of nothing" but your philosophy is the same simply with "God made..." at the start
Furthermore, it creates two bigger questions, which god? and who created him?
Call Him by whatever name you like (Allah, Jehovah, God, Merciful, Lord... etc), as long as the word is not contaminated.
Say: "Invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious: by whichever name you invoke Him, He is always the One -- for His are all the attributes of perfection."
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. ...
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
God is omnipotent and all knowing yet help create the bible which is ambiguous, contradictory and sometimes flat out silly. Since creationists claim God created man, you would think he could create a holy book people could understand as a whole and not fill it with such stupidity. He creates man flawed then blames man when his flawed creation eats from the tree of life. For an all knowing omnipotent being, he sure make some pretty amateur mistakes. Sorry, but your God sounds like a Retard.
I couldn't agree more with everything you said. One minor correction, though, that actually makes God even more retarded; it wasn't "The Tree of Life"; it was "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil." God gives man a brain, then commands him to be stupid.
@chrisinsocalif: Yours was an incisive and eloquent dissection of God's character; much kudos.
The "Tree of Life" thing is largely perpetuated by Christians who apparently learned the story in kindergarten, never bothered to read Genesis, and can't see the obvious inconsistency of the Tree of Life causing certain death...
There were supposedly two forbidden trees in the Garden, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge; the former plays no part whatsoever in the Bible's "plot".
Catholic seminaries require as much philosophy as theology. Theology is heavily steeped in classical philosophy. The argument that religious people are irrational is simply unfounded. There exist numerous rational arguments for God, and reasonable people through all ages have held a belief in God. What strikes me about this Dawkin presentation is that it speaks to a literal minded sort of religiosity. What of the symbolic interpretations? Religion is about mystery.
@belleobscurytee Sure lots of the bible is not meant literally (i hope), but some people beleive it all. Also religious people are irratoinal in their Faith. Faith in that sense is irrational, as beleiving in something without any evidence is irrational.
@SuperPais Wow... you obviously don't know your own position very well. If you're going to say that God exists, YOU are the one who has to prove it. We as atheists will simply say "I don't believe God exists", and it's up to YOU to prove us wrong.
Btw, "I don't believe God exists" is not a "rude, stupid claim" without "evidecens"
@redshark618 No. Its you that dont know your position at all. You said and all atheists said "I don't believe God exists". So, you and all atheists are BELIEVERS . You dont believe (in the existence of god).
So, you must back up your claim, that god dont exist !!
@SuperPais Your statement is inherently flawed. If you don't believe in something, its not a belief but a lack thereof. Academia states that in the absence of proof for the existence of somethingm it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable proof is found.
@SuperPais Well, then. I don't believe fairies or unicorns exist. Am I supposed to back up my "nonbelief " in those as well? If you came up to me and said you DO believe in those things, I would expect you to back that shit up. Do you understand that "nonbelievers" don't need any evidence? Seriously, grow up.
@SuperPais You have gone into headbanging mode. You ignore everything else and keep repeating yourself. I have heard enough and will stop arguing with you. You are so blocked.
@SuperPais You cannot prove something doesn't exist. In order to disprove something you need actual evidence to disprove, hence the term. So what you just commented makes no sense at all. You are the one with the bold claim. You have the burden or proof, not I.
@chrisinsocalif Of course you can prove something dont exist. For example, I can prove you have not 10 brothers. Or, I can prove water and oil dont mix together. Or, I can prove Einstein didnt live in the 19 century. Or I can prove theres no son of Einstein.
@chrisinsocalif Yes, I have some of that and more, and I can prove there is no such things. Now , its your time to prove there is no Good. See Agnostics. They take no position, and are decent persons. But atheists are boring, most of them liars, etc, and take position : they believe there is no god.
@SuperPais Please take a science class. You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. You are almost an atheist, you don't believe other gods do not exist, I go one step further and say your god doesn't exist either. "But atheists are boring, most of them liars, etc" More Christians in Prison than atheist by far (less than 1% atheist). Atheists tend to have higher educations and be more affluent. Please get an education, it may help.
@chrisinsocalif Take a science and logic class. Religion by defenition, dont require what you call evidence. Thats why its called faith. Otherwise, it will be called something else. Is called "faith".
Regarding persons in prison, is very well know that most prisioners, converted. There are even films with it.
Still, the biggest mass murders of all times, were all atheists or pagans.
@SuperPais I bet you would also find that the biggest mass murderers of all times were a-unicornists and a-leprechanists. What does disbelief have to do with motivation? Do you think that Stalin not believing in fairies had anything to do with the attrocities that he committed. Non belief, or atheism means that there are no dogmas, no scriptures, no holy men, no agendas, no ethical code. You never hear atheists saying all christians are bad people because of Hitler
@MrKGatl Blah, blah, blah. Regarding hittler, do your research, and see that hittler like many kids was raised as a christian, but left to atheism / paganism. Orgs like the SS full of pagan symbols, and even the swastika (cant you see that?), a clearly pagan symbols, left no doubts that hitler and nazis, were atheists or pagans. (not talking about the people enforced to get into army(
@SuperPais I'm sorry that you are misinformed. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf, these are Hitlers own words. "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..." Hitler did believe in god. Hitler constantly evoked Christianity in his speeches. Hitler and the nazi soldiers were all Christians.
@SuperPais christmas trees, easter eggs, boxing day etc etc etc, evry christian I ever heard of does similar things, what´s your point? On every SS belt buckle it said "got mit uns". Following your logic, all christians are pagans or atheists.
@SuperPais Faith by definition means "belief without proof." If you want to believe in nonsense without evidence, doesn't seem very logical. Also, Atheism didn't drive people to do bad things, as religion does. The evil deeds were not in the name of atheism. Why bring up that i need an education in science when you obviously do not follow an the views of science which is based on the study of evidence? You do not make sense.
@chrisinsocalif Faith by definition means "belief without proof." ??? Where did you find this definition? In an "Atheism self study" 3 - pages brochure? Cut the crap, dude :-)
@valgez1 Look the word up in the dictionary, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" taken from the merriam-webster dictionary. Seems you have a lot to learn.
@chrisinsocalif Well, :-) so you suggest that we base history - long philosophical dilemma on some "Merriam-webster dictionary". I wonder, how people could do without it? Seems you need to tackle different, more earthly topics :-)
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1 How arrogant can one person be? I brought up completely valid arguments but you responded by simply cracking an insult and acting as if I had never even commented. You call everyone childish because of their beliefs but you are arguing like a 12 year old.
TheVyndictus 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheVyndictus 3 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant thinker and scientist.
Rowanffe 3 months ago
He's dangerous! He made me think and question things! What a blasphemy!
dummychaos 3 months ago
Bravo! Richard Dawkins is a great man. He speaks the truth about religion.
Klash92 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Douglas Adams - you're missed!
auritone 6 months ago
Science is the investigation to disclose the facts of any physical truth'
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
What good is any Belief? A dream to be right about why the question even exists?
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
Arguing with creationists is a WASTE OF TIME!! For them; ignorance is bliss. Sad but true.
dkthg 7 months ago
We must stop Atheism paranoia, and imense mass-murders
SuperPais 7 months ago
The use of words creates the description. Without description, good and evil are just preferred action.
Lingerminator 8 months ago
@tgillspy1 Evolution doesnt lead to eugenics any more than genetics leads to eugenics. The twisting and manipulation of science by crazy people should not be held against science. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf, these are Hitlers words.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
MrKGatl 8 months ago
@MrKGatl which raises the interesting question: how does science explain the problem of evil? I agree science is not itself evil. But where does evil come from?
1962mrpaul 8 months ago
@1962mrpaul I would say, an a non expert in psychology, evil comes from the same place as love, your consciousness. It would be my guess that scientifically all of our emotions come from the same place in our brains. Evil is an emotion that normally doesnt come out of no where, it is what happens when anger boils over. Tramatic conditions can foster feelings of anger and evil, like a child that is physically abused growing up, might take it out when he is an adult. Like Mansons childhood
MrKGatl 8 months ago
Both Douglas and Dawkins seem ignorant of Religious history in which theological theories were debated and argued and tested all the time rather than simply accepted without question. Catholicism with its Councils and theologians brought the rigorous rules of reason to bare against the datum available and arrived at its various dogmas and doctrines. His criticism seems appropriate only to a small if vocal slice of fundamentalist unreasoning christianity.
1962mrpaul 8 months ago
@1962mrpaul yeah and the Catholics have never been corrupt
MrKGatl 8 months ago
@MrKGatl a typical knee-jerk sarcasm stereotyping "the Catholics" as corrupt. Just as all scientists without exception rigorously follow the rules of science and never, ever fudge results or cut corners because the idea of winning a noble prize never even crosses their minds in their dispassionate quest for truth and the betterment of humankind. Scientists are immune to celebrity and would never say something controversial just to sell a few books or keep them on the most popular chat shows.
1962mrpaul 8 months ago
@1962mrpaul interesting factoid: Eisnstein originally fudged the numbers of his famous relativity theory to make it fit the then-dominant scientific "dogma" of a static universe. Only after the theory of the Big Bang was proposed by the stronomer Georges Lemaitre WHO WAS ALSO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST did Einstein feel confident to restore the original, unbiased equation.
1962mrpaul 8 months ago
@1962mrpaul Yes, and Lemaitre presented his findings of the Big Bang exactly as for what it was: a scientific theory. When the pope apparently offered to make it dogma, he simply didn't get the point. BTW adjusting your equations to new evidence is good science. Other than in religion, which just sticks its fingers in the ears and goes la la la.
"As far as I see, such a theory [...] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question."
George Lemaitre
TomFynn 7 months ago
@dashaftable People considering taking away by bitch-axing weekends? What a joke...
BlckSbthMan 9 months ago
It's unfortunate that most of the believers I know, (my entire family) will be too constricted by their own beliefs then to ever watch this video in it's entirety. Not only can you say nothing about other people's beliefs, but they themselves feel guilt by allowing themselves to hear you say it. How childish and weak.
skywize 9 months ago
@skywize this has been my experience as well. it frustrates me beyond belief. you can't have an intelligent conversation of substance that encroaches on religious views/beliefs
bigbob917 9 months ago
Whats ironic is religious people seem to have no problem mocking other faiths, because all religions teach that theirs is the one, 'true' faith. What is considered completely inappropriate is the idea of a nonreligious person questioning god, or mocking someone's belief system. Im not saying youre not entitled to your beliefs, im just saying theyre stupid.
DAranJames 10 months ago
@DAranJames What's even weirder is that religious people will tolerate criticism from a believer of a different faith with more stride than they will an atheist.
jessemaurais 10 months ago
@DAranJames Sorry, slight correction. It's every Monotheistic faith that believes that. Most polytheists don't tend to have issue with other peoples gods... Although the christian god tends to be omitted slightly, lol
skywize 9 months ago
Maybe it is not that we are "used to it" but because it is innate.
belleobscurytee 11 months ago
@TheJudgeJoker Yes, that's why when I die I plan to be buried, unembalmed, in a natural graveyard. I would like an infrared camera placed nearby to record the gas escaping, maybe it'll look like a soul lol.
portersbabe 1 year ago
Xenu will collect our souls and eat them in the afterlife.
PrimericanIdol 1 year ago
@PrimericanIdol Blasphemer!!! The Flying Spaghetti Monster will strike you down for such a statement!!!
skywize 9 months ago 15
funny thing is, i was thinking the same principle about criticising different viewpoints without causing offence but criticising religion WITH causing offence earlier today and Dawkins has just relayed it back to me in much more coherent language.
ajmf35029 1 year ago
Ahem, one objection to Douglas: what he describes as the scientific method is really the philosophical method, going all the way back to Plato and Socrates.
ahmedeox 1 year ago
Ahh, Dawkins. What a legend and such a character.
OurBackToTheDark 1 year ago 10
We "ringfence" religion from hatred because so many have been killed for their religion. See, Dawkins comes from a theocratic monarchy. The monarch's religion is best, and everything else is less. Dawkins simply replaces Anglicanism with atheism, and then begins persecuting all others. That's not America. Here, we're all equal and respectful. Easy question.
matt605 1 year ago
it says alot when believers must support their ideas critisising science while having to use computers to do so. hey just pray your opinions to you tube
adzug 1 year ago
@TheJudgeJoker I dont understand your argument.
No real christian should claim to be perfect, what makes us different is that when you are bornagain
you have your salvation sealed and the holy spirit works inside you.
It is a journey, and we grow as christians, but we are still humans living in a fallen world full of sin.
the difference is that..... we recognize our creator and are forgiven for all sins and our souls will live for eterity with the Father.
brandisify 1 year ago
If you dont care what happens to your soul after death, then follow Richard Dawkins
all of you Rebels.
brandisify 1 year ago
Can't mock religion? Utter bullshit. I've been mocked for wearing a crucifix - by my atheist friends. Why? Because my faith is stupid, because I'm a sheep, because God is a fantasy etc etc.
It gets wearing. Really, really soul crushing.
And that's why I respect people who respect me and my beliefs - and not men like Richard Dawkins, who is just hateful.
I believe in evolution, always have - but of course it has holes, and I believe that where science lacks, there comes God.
Trontador 1 year ago
@Trontador Whats so hatefull in this? he just states fact.
And what holes do you speak of in evolution? if it is where it all started that isnt evolution.
Sweddude 1 year ago
@Trontador My best advise would be ignore anyone that belittles you. be it religion.colour.size. seems to work for me ;)
MarcowaR 1 year ago
@Trontador Science, given time, will fill its own holes as we learn. God does not do that, he only bends and gets re-written by the very men that created him. The holes in evolution will be filled with provable, observable facts. God will then be morphed into something else to withstand the blow science has given it. Science does not need god, they are incompatible as god is defeated by science. As for your friends. . . they are asses then
sixmachined 1 year ago
@Trontador what you fail to understand is that it doesn't make sense to fill in the "holes" with religion. Religion gives you the answers, but none of them are true.
okgo43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I got my morals and etics from a wonderfull upbringing with a loving mother and father that showed me whats right and whats wrong....I do not need any god or bible to teach me how to live
milkwasabadchoice131 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@blacklight019 Fine. I am stating facts, that's all. The last thing I want to promote is hatred - that's for religious extremists & others who resort to childish abuse such as calling others 'fuctard' rather than indulge in a reasoned debate.
glebe9 1 year ago
@blacklight019 Fine. I am stating facts, that's all. The last thing I want to promote is hatred - that's for religious extremists & others who resort to childish abuse such as calling others 'fuctard' rather than indulge in a reasoned debate.
glebe9 1 year ago
@blacklight019 Ignoramus
glebe9 1 year ago
@dalefantom Read 'The Greatest Show on Earth'. Dawkins does, in fact, know a great deal. There is no 'missing link' & every lifeform that has ever been on earth is a transitional fossil. If you are looking for a 'crocoduck' then you need to go & find out how evolution really works before commenting on it.
glebe9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dalefantom If you understand how evolution actually works, you will understand why that statement is rather stupid.
glebe9 1 year ago
@loeghat Dawkins is not extreme!! He quite rightly calls for open debate & scrutinises. What's 'extreme' about that? Religious followers lie to kids, mutilate kids genitals, are homophobic, treat women as 2nd class, tell others what to eat, what to wear, with whom others can have relationships with/interfere in consenting adults' sex lives etc etc etc - this is extreme yet gets away with being classed as normal.
glebe9 1 year ago
@loeghat Hmm...to be labelled a 'fundamental muslim/jew/christain' you have to block free speech, issue death threats, kill abortion doctors, fly planes into buildings etc, but to be labelled a 'fundamental atheist' you simply have to reject absurd middle eastern myths, scrutinise & ask the religious to justify why they deserve special treatment over rational people. It's interesting that religious folks do things like mutilate a childs genitals in the name of a sky fairy yet claim it's normal.
glebe9 1 year ago
I have never ever heard this man give one single reason why God doesnt exist.
If its true it should be easy...right?
If evolution is true it should be easy to show us some evidence. right?
Oh but they are working on that ....I forgot.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify at one time, everyone believed the world was flat and the blue void above us was heaven.
Science is a work in progress, it has always been. Its progress is due to the constant search to understand to world around us. We've come a long way, and there's still much we don't yet understand.
Religion is static. People still take at face value what primitive men said 2000 years ago. Their explanations are difficult to accept nowadays given our limited understand of our existence.
beenn15 1 year ago
@brandisify There is evidence. Masses of it - your statement proves you have not sought it out. & yes by 'working on it', it purely means that science is continually seeking more answers, re-testing, discovering. If it didn't, we wouldn't have known about DNA (which is an example of evolutionary proof).
glebe9 1 year ago
Comment removed
glebe9 1 year ago
Comment removed
glebe9 1 year ago
@brandisify You have completely missed the points here.
1. Dawkins has never ever said that any gods absolutely do not exist. He has, quite rightly said that based on a lack of any evidence, it is highly unlikely that there are any gods - just like we can't prove a flying pink teapot over Mars - it's equally unlikely.
2. Evolution is true & there is masses of evidence to support it - go & see, it's there. He also rightly says science hasn't yet filled all the holes. Hence 'working on it'.
glebe9 1 year ago 2
who do you know who would admit openely to being stupid?
mikevern69 1 year ago
The other classic from religion is, “Faith is a virtue.”
samten54 1 year ago
@JohnfromPerth Thats a dumbass idea that the church puts in your head that you are persecuted so you act like it. Reality says otherwise though.
popebiscuit666 1 year ago
What a bigoted idiot...
dex1391 1 year ago
this man is single handedly turning america on its self ! i have yet to see this man loose an argument ! unless somebody kills him he is going to take over the planet LOL
british123able 1 year ago 3
great vid, thank you
mpeniak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Consider if you will, that the world can be divided into two very distinct groups. Those who believe in a supreme being, and those who seem to spend all of their time saying there isn't one.
digital0707neo 1 year ago
@digital0707neo Well shit sucks sometimes when half your race has delusional ideas of higher powers gods and spirits ghosts angels and other mystical and all mythical figures.
popebiscuit666 1 year ago
20 From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.
21 They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness.
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools.
digital0707neo 1 year ago
@digital0707neo Thank you. I couldnt have said it better myself.
brandisify 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
digital0707neo 1 year ago
Zeus will strike you all!
If he doesn't you got lucky he got distracted by some woman...
But you will surely suffer in the underworld!
LanteanKnight 1 year ago 3
Religion is 1 big giant asshole and the believers are just passing through
kansaimagic 1 year ago 4
@kansaimagic religion is so stupid lol people still believe in this crap
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
@loeghat Yeah, and I don't really remember me saying something like that.
DaveGrean 1 year ago
@loeghat Yeah. Too bad that "there is no other explanation for the universe at the moment" isn't an argument for the existence of god.
DaveGrean 1 year ago
@loeghat From what reasoning can you conclude that atheist are blind and close minded, considering you refuse to believe the world wasn't created by your imaginary friend?
DaveGrean 1 year ago
@loeghat Sorry there is no such term as an "extreme atheist." Atheism does not have dogma or a set of beliefs, therefore cannot be extreme. It simply means that they don't believe there is a god. Simple as that. You could be referring to extreme anti-theists which do not like organized religion. Your definition of God sounds somewhat like Pantheism, which is one of the many ways people define their God.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
Excellent!!!
Vorushka01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By way way, if you want to read an atheist and take seriously the implications of atheism read Nietzsche as I did for years (See my blog if you wish), not pop atheists like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. Read all of Nietzsche and you can be done with bubble gum atheism, though he ended up in the mad house.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@dalefantom They haven't found that God.... Oh... I forgot. I just can't do that.
EPR89 1 year ago
@dalefantom there's an interesting page on wikipedia, just type human evolution. there's a lot to find out..**
carryall69 1 year ago
@dalefantom all nowadays living animals have evolved. even a modern simple bacteria is compared to it's ancestor-bacteria completely developed. it's not for instance, as if we have evolved from chimpanzees. it's that both, chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor some million years ago.
carryall69 1 year ago
@dalefantom the pyramids in china were build inbetween 200bc and 200ac. the ones in egypt are build in 2500bc. the atztec pyramide was build in 200ac. ..
carryall69 1 year ago
@dalefantom scientist don't kno everythin and that's why they keep workin on understand it and learning how everything work in the universe. unlike religion who claim to kno godn kno what he wants . I mean i think there's no god, but even if there was he wouldn't b a personal god, it wud b more like a force that put motion to the universe and doesn't care about you me or any other living thing. i mean if there was a personal god how can u explain 99.9 percent of all exctinct earth species?
Atheist603 1 year ago
Oh, you silly people will be surprised when the mothership lands and you find out the Galactic Overlord Xenu was behind it all. L. Ron Hubbard said so. He's gonna toss all you unbeleivers into volcanoes like he did the last batch. But I'm hoping there's room on the mothership for me. Right next to Tom Cruise. Hail Xenu !
stayjit1 1 year ago
@stayjit1 Hail Xenu, or intergalactic overlord!
glassbrain 1 year ago
'Messiah', 'worship', 'blindly believing'? Are you projecting?
I doubt any biologist thinks in these terms about Darwin. Admiration for someone and his works is light years away from deifying the person. And even when 'messiah' and 'worship', or other similar expressions, are actually used to refer to someone, they're used as pure metaphors by any sane scientist.
krrypton 1 year ago
(cont.) Furthermore, Darwin's 'Origin' is in no way comparable to some 'holy scripture' of an evolutionary biologist. Its reading is not compulsory, and unquestioningly accepting everything in it is not required. If one reads it, he does it out of pure historical interest or curiosity. It's very much in the same position as Newston's 'Principia' for a physicist or 'Gray's Anatomy' (the textbook, not the TV show) for a physician.
krrypton 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
Also, evolution is a FACT. Change over time is a fact. The THEORY of evolution, if i'm not mistaken, involves the process, and the origins of the process.
mcneely2818 1 year ago
@blacklight019 I repeat it is not a theory.
spikeman23 1 year ago
@blacklight019 You're a dumbass.
spikeman23 1 year ago
@blacklight019 Evolution isn't a theory, It's fact.
spikeman23 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is the Fred Phelps of atheism.
He is neither doing science nor the discrimination of atheists any favors.
He calls himself a man of science, yet is a xenophobe that border on ethnocentric, especially towards jews, arabs and tribal cultures.
He has contributed absolutely nothing to the scientific community, accept perhaps a few dime store pop science novellas and his half baked pseudo-science 'meme' theory; which is as empirical as feng shui and as dangerous as nazi eugenics.
gorojo1 1 year ago
@gorojo1 Nice arguments there! Ad hominem rings a bell?
Murdulo 1 year ago
reminds me of when nixon called timoth leary the most dangerous man in america just rediculous its a fear of loosing control of the people
foxofthenight 1 year ago
Dawkins asks simple questions, in a calm way, that really infuriates and threatens believers. Unable to argue effectively against him, they resort to juvenile attacks, like Buckeyefan's below. So obvious that they've lost the argument. I also like the way he's so uncompromising with bullshit.
mmartini50 1 year ago 28
@mmartini50 Yep - agreed.
glebe9 1 year ago
@blacklight019 No faith is required to know that evolution is true - it is provable over and over again. This is a very weak argument by the religious, and people who simply do not understand that evolution is a fact.
timhirst 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists using certain things from the Old Testament Bible to try and slander the Bible,the problem is without the key to the Word of God you don't know what you are speaking of ,the Key is in the New Testament ,his name is Jesus the Prince of Peace, the Morning Star,he came and called the Jewish Priests whitewashed snakes,he kicked the money changer out of the temple ,He healed the lame,the blind,the sick,He spoke peace,he is the Prince of Peace,He offers you eternal life,accept it
majorl31 1 year ago
new testament is the continuantion of the fairy tale yes lol
earthangelrojanie 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richard would probably suck Darwins dick if he had the chance
buckeyefan2107 1 year ago
@buckeyefan2107 and you'll suck Jesus' cock.
bongolongo 1 year ago
naww hes smart but he needs to hop off darwins cock
buckeyefan2107 1 year ago
@buckeyefan2107, wouldn't you? :P
ichimonji1988 1 year ago
I really think that all believers are atheist. I don't think they can possibly believe in bullshit - but they are so proud of it they are willing to be dumb in the name of religion, but only for their benefit of course.
------
take an example of Irish Catholic - if you tell him Ireland sucks - he will be pissed - if you tell him Catholics are sucm - he will be pissed, because he identifies Ireland with Catholicism.
Same goes for Jews, Arabs, Russians, Poles, Americans, etc....
BULLSHIT...
49fiori 2 years ago
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 years ago
Comment removed
ShaolinHero1 2 years ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
Yes, mainly because the scientist who has investigated, tested and analysed all the evidence as to how the things in your "god's creation" work - he then applies the same scientific method to the creation of life and the universe and sees, to his horror, that the evidence suggests that this started on it's own.
Scientists, and indeed people, who have an understanding of the laws of physics and how things work don't have time for your supernatural, unevidenced mumbo jumbo
MeBeMat 2 years ago
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
mumbo jumbo
_________
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
How is that for YOUR "mumbo jumbo "?
1tabligh 2 years ago
You've given me a lot of it.
If I can understand this, you're telling me that because I'd rather investigate scientific theories to explore the complexities, workings and, indeed, origins of life and the universe, than take the rather easy assertion that "God did it all" that it makes ME closed minded.
I put it to you, sir, that you're blatant indifference of evidence and anything else that contradicts the bible restricts YOUR thought to the "logic" of sciences
MeBeMat 2 years ago
I understand fully that science can't answer anything and may be wrong - but based on evidence (there's that word again, see it's pretty damn important) I'd rather take an evidenced "half-answer" than illogical, unfounded *mumbo jumbo* as absolute truth
MeBeMat 2 years ago
the bible restricts YOUR ...
______
Where did you pull that from?
I am not a Christian!
I am a shiite muslim!
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
1tabligh 2 years ago
I apologise, in general the religious people of YouTube who tend to comment on Richard Dawkins videos tend to be christians, I made an unfounded assumption and I apologise.
But how is your idea of "God created everything" any different because it leaves you with how he created it - people say that evolution &big bang is "something out of nothing" but your philosophy is the same simply with "God made..." at the start
Furthermore, it creates two bigger questions, which god? and who created him?
MeBeMat 2 years ago
it creates two bigger questions, which god?
______
Call Him by whatever name you like (Allah, Jehovah, God, Merciful, Lord... etc), as long as the word is not contaminated.
Say: "Invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious: by whichever name you invoke Him, He is always the One -- for His are all the attributes of perfection."
The Quran 17:110 ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22 ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
and who created him?
_______
The Manifestations of God in Nature
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
1tabligh 2 years ago
@MeBeMat If you could reason with a religious mind, there would be no religion.
glebe9 1 year ago
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 years ago
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 2 years ago
Whereas religion closes both eyes and makes up the answer based on feeling around for a bit
MeBeMat 2 years ago
Evidence
MeBeMat 2 years ago
God is omnipotent and all knowing yet help create the bible which is ambiguous, contradictory and sometimes flat out silly. Since creationists claim God created man, you would think he could create a holy book people could understand as a whole and not fill it with such stupidity. He creates man flawed then blames man when his flawed creation eats from the tree of life. For an all knowing omnipotent being, he sure make some pretty amateur mistakes. Sorry, but your God sounds like a Retard.
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago 69
@chrisinsocalif: "Your God sounds like a retard."
I couldn't agree more with everything you said. One minor correction, though, that actually makes God even more retarded; it wasn't "The Tree of Life"; it was "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil." God gives man a brain, then commands him to be stupid.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@JCLeSinge My apologies. Thank you for the correction.
chrisinsocalif 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif: Yours was an incisive and eloquent dissection of God's character; much kudos.
The "Tree of Life" thing is largely perpetuated by Christians who apparently learned the story in kindergarten, never bothered to read Genesis, and can't see the obvious inconsistency of the Tree of Life causing certain death...
There were supposedly two forbidden trees in the Garden, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge; the former plays no part whatsoever in the Bible's "plot".
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@chrisinsocalif If religious people used reason, there wouldn't be religious people.
LIVEETERNALLOVE 1 year ago 73
@LIVEETERNALLOVE
Catholic seminaries require as much philosophy as theology. Theology is heavily steeped in classical philosophy. The argument that religious people are irrational is simply unfounded. There exist numerous rational arguments for God, and reasonable people through all ages have held a belief in God. What strikes me about this Dawkin presentation is that it speaks to a literal minded sort of religiosity. What of the symbolic interpretations? Religion is about mystery.
belleobscurytee 11 months ago
@belleobscurytee Sure lots of the bible is not meant literally (i hope), but some people beleive it all. Also religious people are irratoinal in their Faith. Faith in that sense is irrational, as beleiving in something without any evidence is irrational.
GumboWatches 11 months ago
"Christan's wallow in denial and call it virtue whilst delighting in ignorance and calling it faith." [Scott Tebben]
scotttebben 9 months ago
@LIVEETERNALLOVE "If religious people used reason, there wouldn't be religious people. "
Why atheists make claims, rude and stupid claims, but never back up them with evidecens ?
Show us the evidences that prove your claim, or shut up.
SuperPais 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperPais We say the same thing to you, yet you never shut up.
mk2escortvan 7 months ago
@SuperPais Wow... you obviously don't know your own position very well. If you're going to say that God exists, YOU are the one who has to prove it. We as atheists will simply say "I don't believe God exists", and it's up to YOU to prove us wrong.
Btw, "I don't believe God exists" is not a "rude, stupid claim" without "evidecens"
redshark618 7 months ago
@redshark618 No. Its you that dont know your position at all. You said and all atheists said "I don't believe God exists". So, you and all atheists are BELIEVERS . You dont believe (in the existence of god).
So, you must back up your claim, that god dont exist !!
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais Your statement is inherently flawed. If you don't believe in something, its not a belief but a lack thereof. Academia states that in the absence of proof for the existence of somethingm it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable proof is found.
chrisinsocalif 7 months ago
@SuperPais Well, then. I don't believe fairies or unicorns exist. Am I supposed to back up my "nonbelief " in those as well? If you came up to me and said you DO believe in those things, I would expect you to back that shit up. Do you understand that "nonbelievers" don't need any evidence? Seriously, grow up.
redshark618 7 months ago
@redshark618 I never saw anyome saying to believe in Unicorns.
Anyway, you and all atheists say : "I don't believe God exists". So, you and all atheists are BELIEVERS . You dont believe in the existence of god.
So, acording to your own rules, back up with evidences, that god dont exist !!
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais You have gone into headbanging mode. You ignore everything else and keep repeating yourself. I have heard enough and will stop arguing with you. You are so blocked.
redshark618 7 months ago
@chrisinsocalif "Since creationists claim God created man, you would think he could create a holy book people could understand as a whole"
If you dont understand (or cant read) the Bibble, its your problem.
"and not fill it with such stupidity."
Again, if you dont understand the Bibble, its your problem. You are the stupid one
SuperPais 7 months ago
Sadly, it seems you and other Christians are still held firmly prisoner by the self perpetuating brainwashing.
chrisinsocalif 7 months ago
@chrisinsocalif No. Its the oposite.
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais Yeah? Prove it.
chrisinsocalif 7 months ago
@chrisinsocalif No, you do the first claim, so obvious its you that need to prove it.
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais You claim a supreme being, not I. Provide evidence of your claim and not unsupported blind assertions.
chrisinsocalif 7 months ago
@chrisinsocalif You claim theres no God, so you are the first one to follow atheist rules, and show evidences theres no god.
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais You cannot prove something doesn't exist. In order to disprove something you need actual evidence to disprove, hence the term. So what you just commented makes no sense at all. You are the one with the bold claim. You have the burden or proof, not I.
chrisinsocalif 7 months ago
@chrisinsocalif Of course you can prove something dont exist. For example, I can prove you have not 10 brothers. Or, I can prove water and oil dont mix together. Or, I can prove Einstein didnt live in the 19 century. Or I can prove theres no son of Einstein.
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais That is because you have evidence and comparable data to observe and test, so your comparison is deemed invalid, Try again.
chrisinsocalif 7 months ago
@chrisinsocalif Yes, I have some of that and more, and I can prove there is no such things. Now , its your time to prove there is no Good. See Agnostics. They take no position, and are decent persons. But atheists are boring, most of them liars, etc, and take position : they believe there is no god.
SuperPais 7 months ago
@SuperPais Please take a science class. You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. You are almost an atheist, you don't believe other gods do not exist, I go one step further and say your god doesn't exist either. "But atheists are boring, most of them liars, etc" More Christians in Prison than atheist by far (less than 1% atheist). Atheists tend to have higher educations and be more affluent. Please get an education, it may help.
chrisinsocalif 6 months ago
@chrisinsocalif Take a science and logic class. Religion by defenition, dont require what you call evidence. Thats why its called faith. Otherwise, it will be called something else. Is called "faith".
Regarding persons in prison, is very well know that most prisioners, converted. There are even films with it.
Still, the biggest mass murders of all times, were all atheists or pagans.
Get an education, it may help
SuperPais 6 months ago
@SuperPais I bet you would also find that the biggest mass murderers of all times were a-unicornists and a-leprechanists. What does disbelief have to do with motivation? Do you think that Stalin not believing in fairies had anything to do with the attrocities that he committed. Non belief, or atheism means that there are no dogmas, no scriptures, no holy men, no agendas, no ethical code. You never hear atheists saying all christians are bad people because of Hitler
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl Blah, blah, blah. Regarding hittler, do your research, and see that hittler like many kids was raised as a christian, but left to atheism / paganism. Orgs like the SS full of pagan symbols, and even the swastika (cant you see that?), a clearly pagan symbols, left no doubts that hitler and nazis, were atheists or pagans. (not talking about the people enforced to get into army(
SuperPais 6 months ago
@SuperPais I'm sorry that you are misinformed. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf, these are Hitlers own words. "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..." Hitler did believe in god. Hitler constantly evoked Christianity in his speeches. Hitler and the nazi soldiers were all Christians.
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@SuperPais christmas trees, easter eggs, boxing day etc etc etc, evry christian I ever heard of does similar things, what´s your point? On every SS belt buckle it said "got mit uns". Following your logic, all christians are pagans or atheists.
yatter1 6 months ago
@SuperPais Faith by definition means "belief without proof." If you want to believe in nonsense without evidence, doesn't seem very logical. Also, Atheism didn't drive people to do bad things, as religion does. The evil deeds were not in the name of atheism. Why bring up that i need an education in science when you obviously do not follow an the views of science which is based on the study of evidence? You do not make sense.
chrisinsocalif 6 months ago
@chrisinsocalif Faith by definition means "belief without proof." ??? Where did you find this definition? In an "Atheism self study" 3 - pages brochure? Cut the crap, dude :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 Look the word up in the dictionary, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" taken from the merriam-webster dictionary. Seems you have a lot to learn.
chrisinsocalif 3 months ago
@chrisinsocalif Well, :-) so you suggest that we base history - long philosophical dilemma on some "Merriam-webster dictionary". I wonder, how people could do without it? Seems you need to tackle different, more earthly topics :-)
valgez1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@valgez1 You can admit you are wrong now and move on.
chrisinsocalif 3 months ago
@valgez1 It's the defination.... People may have taken faith as truth a thousands year ago but Faith IS belief in something with little to no proof.
FunAssFunProductions 3 months ago
@FunAssFunProductions What has some "Merriam-webster dictionary" definition to do with all this ?
valgez1 3 months ago
@valgez1 He's saying the Definition to Faith.
FunAssFunProductions 3 months ago