i have a proposal, any one who is a a proffessing religious person should get a stamp branded on their forehead so people know not to take them seriously
By now I have heard many debates where D'Souza keeps avoiding the point and keeps repeating himself to fill his time and then askes how much time he has left - hoping it is over soon. When Dennett asks and hears "ten minutes", is response is "oh good!".
@deathtris Well this could be a good argument to a believer who does not have a good understanding of the "god debate". He can say that is our mind looking for a pattern and the atheist cannot comprehend the existence of God.
If you had cancer, would you want the doctors to be truthful and tell you that you only have one month to live, or would you rather the doctor lie and tell you that you have many healthy years ahead of you? The point being, life is sometimes blunt, and the answers that we come across aren't always what we had hoped for. I want to know exactly what I'm up against. Then, through logic and reason, I know exactly what I should expect.
You are correct, life is sometimes blunt, so allow me to be equaly blunt...Religions serve 3 purposes
1. To explain natural phenomena to the ignorant who don't grasp science
2. To garner political power
3. To force the morality of the few upon the many
Religion is the excuse people use to comit evil then pretend they are justified because an Imaginary God agrees with them, because they imagine him doing so
It absolves people of taking responsibility for being assholes
@krizzia1000 you think life is hopeless without god because u bases ur life, u thank him for the gud, u think your being punishd by god for the bad, wen u acheive it is because of god, everything is god.
So wen someone suggests that there is no god you picture your life without it and suprise, theres no purpose anymore, no meaning.
The only reason for this is because you assume god exists and then give him credit/blame for everything. you let your life get fcked by the church
@shandcunt If you read all the free reading in valtorta.org at the left side of the site I will assure you 101 percent that you will believe that there is God. Hope that you will not stop on reading and searching. Don't confine yourself by just listening to one idea that there is no God. Because the idea is very reasonable you will just accept, if you cannot reach with reason you believe that it is not true anymore. Please do not be deceived by Satan, He is the Deceiver.God loves you so much!
@Fike2308 Science is applauded for changing because it by it's definition is the improvement of knowledge. Religion is ridiculed for changing because so many religions have a dogma that is purportedly "written by an infallible God." Why would an infallible omniscient God write a perfect document that then needs to be constantly updated to relate to each generations problems. For example: Why did God just realize slavery was bad within the last 200 years?
@waitwhatwasthat Your statement is based on many assumptions I do not agree with such as religious dogma is created by God instead of Man. God "realized" slavery was bad within the last 200 years (Did you talk to God personally?).....like a lot of people you seem to treat religion and God as if they were identical.
If one (or more) religions does something bad than there can be no God?
@Fike2308 If you're talking about religion as an organization for self-help, or group solidarity, then no, it shouldn't be ridiculed as it changes. But I'm referring to those that assert that the origin myths, laws and lessons within are the "word of god". Redaction from that position IS ridiculous. You are speaking about a "personal god" in which you cherry-pick the parts you agree with and make the rest up. That's inconsistent with what most religions insist you align yourself with.
@Fike2308 It's because science's goal is to change to get closer to the truth, while religion's goal is to get the truth right the first time. If you claim to get the truth right the first time, then change what you say, then you deserve to be ridiculed.
I've never read on this anywhere but I would like to know if there is an evolutionary explanation for plants and insects. Is there a theory that says that prokarytic became both plant and animal cells? Also about insects, what evolutionary process is responsible for them? And why is it that insects have remained virtually the same over millions of years?
@luvlatinmamis What makes you think insects have remained virtually the same over millions of years? That is simply false. Prokaryotic cells exists everywhere where we have liquid water and Abiogenisis (which explains how life formed from non-life processes) says that the first cells to ever show-up on earth where sub-forms of Prokaryotic. There is an endless amount of literature on the net alone which explains the evolution of plants and insects.
Do not be deceived by the Devil he is enraged so much with God that he want us all to go to hell not because he loves us but because he hates God and he is using those who wants to be used by him. The Jews believed it for thousand of years and you believe that there is no God. If there is no God there would be no love. If there was no love,wehad been dead a long time ago by killing each other. Please visit valtorta.org God is speaking He did this only now because the end is near. God bless!
@krizzia1000 visiting that website gave me a clear understanding ... of how one could post such ridiculous nonsense. Dude, or ma'am, whatever - Take some time, look up at the stars and realize we are all in this reality together. Really think -- should I search for truth (understanding this existence) or live in fear of hell or God? We (of the likes of dennett) acknowledge the mysteriousness of life and seek a bit more logic to this life, so that we can give the info to the next generation
@ColePremoMusic But what are we gonna give the next generation or why do we ever bother care for the next generation if our lives now has no purpose. Have you ever realize that many people are killing themselves when they feel so hopeless why because there is no need to suffer when you are not happy anymore in this life. If one has no God to hope for and there is no heaven to yearn for what is life? God is real. Read on the site before you judge. Visit the site God is talking.God loves you.
@krizzia1000 You are wrong about so many things. Hey.... Who made the Devil?? (assuming that he even exists, probably not) Your god supposedly knows the future and yet created the Devil knowing he would turn on him. Doesn't that sound ridicously stupid?? If you don't see the point then just go back to reading your 2000 year old book. Umm... We evolved "Love" and because of that we didn't kill each other off. We don't need a god to give us love.
@ndvak13 God did not create the Devil, he is the most beautiful angel Lucifer but because of his pride thought that he could be greater than God. And the consequence is ugliness.Now God allowed the Devil to tempt us in any possible ways God has His purpose on it. He wants to know who will really love Him or would not love HIm. Please visit valtorta.org and read at the left side of the site. We have soul and it is eternal our decisions today will have an eternal consequence. Search the truth
@krizzia1000 I would like to start by saying that you probably have no idea what you are really even saying. Secondly, you probably suck at basic reasoning.
That being said...
You believe that God created Lucifer. You also believe that the Devil is or was Lucifer.
So explain to me HOW THE FUCK God didn't set in motion the events that created the Devil.
How isn't God ultimately responsible for his creation.
(It's all myth anyway, but I just wanna see you struggle with this)
Dan barker's filthy godamn eyes looks devilish. His fingers are just nasty disgusting looking. He Hates God, because God is not like he want him to be, or like he thinks in his filthy devil hell bound mind he should be.
@1982witchcraft Everyone, take a good look at the post by 1982witchcraft. It is nothing to get laughed at or get mad at. This is the tragedy of ignorance.
@1982witchcraft Everyone, take a good look at the post by 1982witchcraft. Don't laugh at it or get mad. This is tragic. This is what ignorance does to otherwise good people.
Religions do evolve. They ARE man made. Hatsune Miku is the new goddess. Our sacred muse. Powered by the creativity of millions of anonymous online souls.
SUGGESTION: people should read and understand the bible like philosophers first read and understand the arguments of the opponents before dismantling or discrediting them. it is only then you can learn something truthful; as opposed to pedaling heresay about what is writen in the bible without understanding the same.
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I have read the bible... and I understand it perfectly.
What do YOU make of a simple passage like this? I enjoy watching people tap dance.
@Krumbz2003 what we are good at is nit-picking what we want to hear (even if we don't totally understand words, verses and so for) in order to fit our agenda...you might think you understand the bible...if you really did, you would embrace it's doctrine thereof. Don't worry, i shall pray that you will understand the things written in the bible. Mean while, will you read the book of Proverbs while you are at? it is one of my favorites!!
@okellookello I've the bible twice. A childrens bible (gotta indoctrinate the minds while their young and gullible)... and the entire King James version.
I was, when I was a kid, a "born again" Christian.
It's 100% pure bullshit. Absolute nonsense. It's not true. Never has been.
The doctrine is "evil" at its core and divisive. I'm embarrassed to say that I ever believed such mindless ignorance.
Pray? Don't pray for me. Doesn't work. Never has. Again it's bullshit.
@Krumbz2003 believing that God exists or in the scripture does not mean that you are saved. Must I remind you that even satan believes in God and quoted the scripture while he tempted Jesus. But he was never and will never be saved! Now, shouldn't we be thankful that God, in his mercy and everlasting kindness, gave us the gift of choice. We can choose to follow him, or we can choose to worship ourselves or other things... the choice is ours...But God is the ultimate judge...not me or you...
Or "Satan" for that matter. These deities DO. NOT. EXIST.
They DON'T. It's all bullshit. God never gave anyone "choice"... we make our own decisions as human beings. There is NO need for ANY supernatural deity to intervene. We are just on an average planet, in an average solar system, in an average galaxy... and maybe in an average universe.
You guys are like drones with no minds of your own. It's borderline pathetic... it really is.
Based on Dennett's logic one should teach one's child about all kinds of sexuality and morality [when he or she reaches the appropriate age]. So like, be sure to teach your children about ass fucking, bestiality, scat, S&M, 'cause you wouldn't want them to remain ignorant, right? And don't forget to teach them that it's both okay to beat them and not beat them... I mean we have to teach them everything.... According to Dennett you should not be allowed to instill your own values in your children
Nope. Stop misrepresenting people. Earlier in the interview Dennett CLEARLY states that parents should teach their kids whatever religious values hey choose - as long as the kids also receive the basic facts about other religions at school.
@regresseur How did you learn about Assfucking, beastiality etc. Which school did you go to to learn about these things!!! What kind of a social life do you have dude!!!!
Jokes aside I am assuming you learned about all that outside of your school curriculum as have others in the past, present and will continue to in the future.
Ridiculous objection. Dannet is not claimins anyone to "covert" their children to all religions, but to TEACHE ABOUT.
Aobut sex, don't you think it is better to INFORM, TO TALK ABOUT this things with your child before he/she discovery such things in the street??
Ignorance would not be better in ANY case. Just religious fundamentalists deffends ignorance, simply cause ALLO religions feeds themselves on human ignorance.
"They just don't get it"-- the point that the shoe doesn't make the cobbler? When had Daniel Dennett ever observed random forces--of any sort--making a highly ordered system?
Let us all bow down to the naked emperor of random force, lest we be accused of not "getting it." :(
@MorganMarvinson Last time he poured salt into acid, last time he saw wind on a beach, last time he saw a timelapse of a baby growing in a stomach. Shall I got on? Forces aren't truly random they seem to follow laws, this means they can, without design or foresight create order.
@SPACKlick Either you list something that is not a random force (baby is constrained by specific genetic code) or it does not make "a highly ordered system." (Besides Dennett has NEVER seen "wind on a beach.") Going on with such examples only proves why we will not bow to the naked emperor of random force.
@MorganMarvinson The point is that the forces are not random. The wind on a beach moves the sand, no purpose, no design but the sand ends up in a very improbable arrangement. The baby is constrained by the laws of physics, molecules bouncing at random, following only the rules of gravity, weak force, strong force and electromagnetism. These forces can bring about very strange, complex and apparantly ordered configurations with no prior design.
@SPACKlick Then there is no such thing as "random." "No purpose, no design" = random.
"These forces can bring about very strange, complex and apparently ordered configurations with no prior design." No disagreement there. The question was whether a random force can make "a highly ordered system."
@MorganMarvinson Ok, define waht you mean by "random force" because if the 4 forces of physics don't count then I don't know what you mean. Also define what you mean by "highly ordered system" that the grains of sand on a beach aren't.
@SPACKlick I'm afraid if you can't tell sand from the high organization of the DNA or the organization of a cell, I am unable to make this any plainer to you. The lack is mine.
@MorganMarvinson look at the grains of sand on the beach, each is in an exact position in relation to the others and is held their on the basis of nothing more than physical laws. The movement of the pattern contains more information than all the libraries in a small country.
DNA can form, without any prior design, we have seen each of the steps of this, from DNA the order of an organism can form. Organisms do not require prior design.
@SPACKlick I'm awed by God's laws that govern the universe too, but the organization of sand is paltry when compared to the immense complexity of the DNA. How can you minimize DNA? Would you even know anything about it without Watson and Crick? Like I said, if you can't see the difference, I am at a loss to explain it to you.
@SPACKlick "Shall I got on?" Respectfully I must say that your "going on" thus far hasn't given us anything enlightening on a random force making a highly ordered system. Salt into acid doesn't created a highly organized system. It's merely disassociation of molecules in solution. Beach sand is about as ordered as jellybeans in a jar. A baby growing in the womb is the result of a highly organized system called DNA, which is a coded language.
The naked emperor should be cold or sunburned by now.
@MorganMarvinson Order is in EVERYTHING, all systems are highly ordered when viewed in the right perspective. DNA isn't as special in its order as you think, what makes it special is that it is self replicating.
Almost every single step from naked atoms to complex DNA has been shown to happen without outside interference.
@SPACKlick So-- you acknowledge the ORDER in everything, and you acknowledge that DNA is special. We can agree on these. Unfortunately, you then try to let an inference stand in for an observable fact. If you don't know that this is an inference, and not an observable fact, then we have no room for discussion.
@MorganMarvinson It is an observed fact that witout ouside interference atoms can form self replicating molecules like DNA. As for what actually happened, ofcourse we are unsure. exactly what process occurred, but we can infer an awful lot.
There is no justification, as yet, for infering an outside agent.
@SPACKlick With your acknowledgment that "we can infer an awful lot," perhaps we have room for healthy discussion. The recognition of inference rather than fact being the lion's share of the issue clears the way for this.
We aren't talking about interference in the natural process--at least not I--we are looking at whether DNA came about on its own or whether it gives true evidence of having been programmed. Since it is a programming language, that it was programmed has my vote.
@MorganMarvinson It clearly isn't a programming language. It can come about on its own and once its constituents START to come together natural processes increase the complexity and order of the DNA, making its behaviour (for want of a better word) more intricate and specific.
DNA is not a programming language, it doesn't program anything, it merely behaves.
@SPACKlick That is your assertion. It programs the production of proteins. Without the programming language of DNA, the organism would not form as it does.
It clearly IS the programming language that produces each and every organism.
@MorganMarvinson ok then, lets make this simple. Define what a programming language is AND give me the metric by which you determine something is one or isn't one.
@SPACKlick I am not a scientist, so any definition I provide would not be helpful to you; I don't know how to apply a metric. As a layman who is interested in the subject, a programming language is a series of codes that communicate instructions on what protein to make and how it is to be made. DNA does not react directly like acids and bases, but gives instructions, based on a code. Hence it is designated the DNA code--universally understood to be programming language for the cell and organism.
"Dna does not react directly" yes it does. Dna, reacts directly following the laws of chemistry. But even if I grant, under that definition, that DNA is a programming langauge, it still doesn't get you to "DNA was designed by intelligence". That's not the definition I would use but using YOUR definition, why does a programming language need to be designed? it doesn't, it could occur naturally.
@MorganMarvinson I understand that human created programming languages need to be designed but what is it you believe is integral to a programming language that means it COULD NOT come about naturally.
Check it out. There's a CSI episode in which there is one clue that just doesn't make sense. The wind could have blown in the seeds, the rain could have washed off the blood; but the chemical code--it was some kind of manufacture sequencing. .... Did it point to a programmer?
Nah! Just some kind of random pattern with no real significance.
@MorganMarvinson Yeh, but saying "finding DNA of a human when a human wasn't there is so unlikely as to be ridiculous" is different from saying "DNA or some other system of replication could have formed naturally".
All the components of DNA have been shown in a lab to form, they have been shown to begin to replicate and demonstrated that that replication leads to complexity.
So why does a programming languge need a programmer?
@SPACKlick I don't know how to believe like you do. Programming doesn't happen by itself in anything we have ever observed. Intuitively it makes no sense to think that random forces--even constrained by physical law--can program. The amino acids that have been observed to form have readily fallen apart--unless rescued out of the "soup" by an intelligent experimenter. The experimenter sets it up. Even the forming of these passing organic chains are a tribute to careful intelligent design.
@MorganMarvinson This is why I find it unhelpful and incorrect to call DNA a programming language (as I have said, I wouldn't use your definition) I wuld refer to it as a coded entity, and coded entities do appear naturally. You have a defnition of DNA that doesn't require intelligent agency but that baggage of the word program makes intelligence almost necessary.
Also, the experimenters had hours/days in a small jar, the earth had millions of years in a whole see. There is an issue of scale.
@SPACKlick "coded entities do appear naturally" begging the question since new coded entities only appear as the result of previous coding.
"makes intelligence almost necessary" Actually, intelligence is absolutely necessary to write code--especially that is capable of rewriting itself.
Imagine the programming of a self-repairing car.
"Millions of years" unless there is intelligence guiding the process, the more time there was, the less likely that the "laboratory conditions" were right.
@MorganMarvinson 1) the pattern of heights of sand at 3 m from the water is a code. With a tanslation it holds information. This code appeared naturally.
2) I agree intelligence is necessary to write code, I was disagreeing it was necessary for code to be. Intelligence is required to write code, and to interpret code because writing and interpreting are things that inteligence does. Codes can exist without inteligence.
3) you have the idea of time and probability backwards.
@SPACKlick You may gain some information from piles of sand, but that isn't assembly code as in DNA.
Leave your laboratory unattended for a billion billion years and see if what you say "could" happen actually did ever happen. It won't. The more time you give it--without intelligence--the more impossible that it ever could happen.
The writing of the first DNA code by unintelligent forces is the greatest fantasy smart people ever believed.
@MorganMarvinson So now this code, that has to be caused by intelligence, has to be an assembly code? Why does an assembly code have to be intelligently designed?
we're not talking about leaving a laboratory unattended, we are talking about leaving a planet unattended. This gives rise to billions of opportunities for unlikely events to happen, making the improbable nearly certain.
Writing is bad verb for the formation of the first DNA code. Because it implies information TRANSFER.
@SPACKlick DNA is assembly code--it directs the assembly of proteins in a very specific order.
A planet is less equipped than a lab. Just for protein molecules to line up and stay together takes very specific conditions with technician intervention--otherwise they disassociate. Randomness and time are not enough to account for life.
The only reason "writing" would not fit is if you have an A PRIORI theory that it wasn't written. Otherwise, the best inference is that it was indeed written.
DNA has certain causal properties that cause protein synthesis, it doesn't "direct"it.
Protein molecules line up and stay together in conditions formed when phospholipids form a bilayer which curves in on itself to form a vesicle. This reaction, and the formation of simple RNA, is catalysed by several clay crystals which exist naturally, like montmorrilonite.
No, writing is the wrong word unless you have evidence or assumption that it WAS written. These chemicals form naturally.
@SPACKlick Certain "causal properties"? A baby looks like a unique combination of its parents and grandparents. That's directed.
"These chemicals form naturally." Begging the question again. They do what they were programmed to do, but DNA does not form of itself directly from the elements it is made of.
Your description is of what it has been programmed to do. DNA does not spontaneously form. It does what it is programmed to do.
The best inference we have to account for a code is mind.
@MorganMarvinson "that's directed" that's causally related.Directed begs the question of external purpose.
"begging the question again" No, I'm not. These chemicals, all of them, form without directed interference in conditions that are likely to have existed.
"your description is of what it has been programmed to do" No, it is of what it does, whether or not an outside agent programmed it.
I disagree with your best inference. this process COULD happen without the mind, occams razor.
@SPACKlick We have a basic difference in what is reasonable. I have stated what I consider unreasonable. You believe that the digital assembly code of the cell could have written itself. The proof is not in seeing assembly code writing itself from scratch, but the mere fact that DNA exists and you believe it could happen on its own. That merely begs the question.
I cannot argue against your beliefs, but I do not see any solid evidence to conclude that undirected forces wrote the original code.
@MorganMarvinson well you're just one of those people that dennett's talking about that just don't get it and have very limitted scientific understanding of nature-- essentially every word you say demonstrates that..my advice is: read scientific literature (and not creationist nonsense) and ask yourself why the vast majority of scientists fully conform with what Dennett's saying. and if you still don't get it, well you're beyond help. sorry
@HerrVonManstein I already understand why the majority of scientists don't make waves. The pressures are many: (1) no funding, no job; (2) evolution provides a convenient way to disregard God; (3) they have been raised with this worldview and screen all contrary evidence. How do I know? Because those who are convinced of ID have faced the pressures of #1; I've talked to enough people to know that #2 and #3 are true.
But I really do appreciate your conciliatory tone. Thanks.
@MorganMarvinson What is the definition of your god? What does it look like? What does it sound like? What form does it take? Have you ever, even once, considered that there may have never been a god at all? If you can't answer these extremely basic questions... how can you be so sure that such a deity exists at all?
If your answer is along the lines of "Well it says so in the Bible"... then I highly suggest you reevaluate your current beliefs and perform more research.
@Krumbz2003 "What is the definition of your god? What does it look like?" The definition of my God looks like this:
The self-existing (Gen 17:1; Exo 3:14) Creator God (Gen 1), invisible (1 Tim 1:17; Col 1:15; Heb 11:27), the law giver (Exo 24:12; Job 38:8-11), and the life giver (Gen 2:7; 6:17; Job 33:4; John 10:10).
If He didn't exist then no one would exist. You wouldn't have the consciousness to even read this post.
Quantum physics is amazing! Many who study it, come to believe in God.
What about the child sacrifice, rape, murder, sexism, racism and slavery that is not only condoned by god but declared? It's all throughout the bible.
I hate to say this... but... unfortunately... your god... just like the other 750 something deities... simply doesn't exist. Never has. Never will.
And quantum physics IS amazing! Many, MANY more who study it, reject any and all personal gods. Over 97% of the scientific community does NOT believe in a deity.
"sexism" Getting a little subjective on us, aren't you?
"racism" He is the God who made all people. "For God so loved THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVERr"
"Slavery" Put limits on its abuse
I am sorry you don't know Him, but glad that He is longsuffering instead of how Dawkins has painted Him. I would only hope that you didn't fight so hard against Him.
@MorganMarvinson Of course I did. Enlighten me about these divisive, foul, disgusting passages in your so called holy book then. I really could go on... there are hundreds and hundreds of extremely wicked passages, most being from "god" himself. (Why a "he" anyway? Do gods need genitals? Do gods reproduce?).
It's time to QUESTION these passages and statements instead of glossing over the ugly facts inside the book. I have and trust me... everyone's been duped.
@Krumbz2003 "Of course I did." Well at least you acknowledge this sarcastically. I'd love to take text by text and demonstrate the misapprehension, but I fear, with your answer, that it will be labor lost. I don't know about you, but I have a limit to my time, and I don't consider it a good use of time to sow seed on sidewalks. (Yes, I know, occasionally a seed can grow between the cracks.)
@Krumbz2003 Undoubtedly you are unaware that cherry season is over, and even if your assertion were based on willful ignorance, I don't think I could ever enjoy it.
Regarding the picture of God in Scripture, the truth is derived from investigation of the whole picture, not from caricatures concocted from isolated verses.
Exo 21:7-11 Num 31:7-18 Deu 20:10-14 21:10-14 22:23-24, 28-29 Judges 5:3021:10-24 2 Sam 12:11-14 Zech 14:1-2 (nothing here promoting rape)
@MorganMarvinson They're not from a website... they are from that ancient "holy book" that is the cornerstone of christianity. What I'm saying to you is... yes absolutely certain phrases can be taken out of context but... not these. You... like BILLIONS of others... have been inducted into the largest organized cult on the planet. Congrats!
God did NOT "poof" us into existence. Adam and Eve is absolutely bullshit. Jesus - if he lived - was no deity. Noahs Ark? Hilarious. I could on and on.
@Krumbz2003 The one spreading dooky here is the one who says he got it from the book.
If you got them reading the passages in context, you would have recognized that they aren't promoting rape. You aren't the first anti-Bible-ist to make a caricature of God from someone else's gatherings of Biblical soundbytes.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
- Is this passage from the "Holy Bible"? Yes or no? Does raping a woman and then forcing her to marry you promote rape? Discuss.
@Krumbz2003 So explain how this promotes rape. Then read verse 25 of the chapter you got this from and see what happens to a man who rapes a woman who is betrothed.
Shall I go into sexism and racism? And I BARELY scratched the surface with "murder". There is so much murder committed in the name of YOUR god that it's absolutely appalling.
And wow... you at least admit that there's slavery in there. Lots and lots of it actually. But god put "limits" on its abuse. Why isn't "he" merciful???
I don't know "him" and neither do you. You've just been duped. Don't worry you're not alone!
Invisible deities have been dupin' humans for ages now.
Daniel Dennett's main strategy is ridicule, pompous arrogance, sarcasm and generally being a super-obnoxious, extremely unpleasant sarcastic jerk. I've listened to him for 20 minutes now and I hear no argument for why Atheism can explain the Universe, life, DNA, and human beings. Of course he cites Darwinism as his ultimate answer for everything. Pompousness supreme. I haven't heard Dinesh's response yet, but he deserves sainthood for suffering to listen to him.
You clearly disagree with Dennett, so much anger in your words. I can feel your pain at hearing these things after a life of being lead down a path your parents picked for you. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. You have my sympathy. It would probably be better if you only listen to those that don't question your belief.
@Bayhuntr Assuming does make an ass out of you now doesn't it. btw, I am a bible believing Christian and did not grow up in a Christian home. I've heard any argument there is against God and looked into as much scientific evidence as is available to a 21st century professional. My faith is as strong as it ever has been in the truth of the Bible. People are going to believe whatever they want and find the rationale to support.
@jfly888 One of the problems with evangelicals is, since they know for a fact they are right, lying to support that "fact" is acceptable. Your statement "I've heard any argument there is against God and looked into as much scientific evidence as is available to a 21st century professional" is a very good example of this. You really do have my sympathy.
@jfly888 including yourself. Has it occured to you that Because you were exposed to your religion since you were a child, it has become ingrained? Has it occured to you that you may be brain washed? What does faith mean? It is a weak word like, belief, and it means nothing. dont think that you are better than other people just because you have "faith" in something.
@CAridge2008 Why on Earth would you expect athiesm to explain the universe? Brights only understand a bit more about the universe than religionists do, but at least our thinking is founded on fact and a spirit of enquiry, rather than the kind of primitive superstition that stultifies thought.
My primary problem with Dennet is that his argument consists 99% of sarcasm, ridicule & contempt. He is a typical arrogant professor who tries to silence dissent from his point of view by ridicule. He also tries to rattle D'Souza personally (such as demanding that he answer his ridiculous idea of wanting to brainwash children against religion). As for your claim "Brights (?) only understand a bit more about the universe than religionists;" I disagree. But it's pointless to argue here.
*sigh... why can't religious people understand what atheism is? Atheism doesn't claim to explain those things... Science does. And Atheism is not science. Theism is the belief in a supernatural power, atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural power. also, he does not cite darwinism. You demonstrate how incredibly biased you are by calling it that. what we know about evolution now would blow darwin off his feet, it has grown many magnitudes since darwin suggested it.
additionally, there is actually some scientific evidence that the universe could have come from 'nothing' granted not enough to say we know, but much more evidence than you have to prove god did it, as far as i know, your only evidence, is... it just makes sense! also, how much do you actually know about evolution? i doubt very much beyond what your pastor told you. if you did some research, you would realize that evolution is a fact.
Well, it wasn't created from nothing, it was created from everything... as in, all the mass of the universe now was there at the beginning. It was just a little bit smaller.
It's quite obvious that Daniel Dennett's debate strategy is to kill his opponents (or possibly his entire audience) by way of boredom. I've suffered through several of these videos so far - he hasn't much time/patience left in which to convince me of anything but his long-windedness which I hereby mock, though in far fewer words.
@seban678 I know huh all that making sense stuff takes time doesn't it?! Away with all that its much easier to say " Its true, because the Bible says so..."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
From 3:00 to 5:10, Daniel clearly expresses not a secular, but a religous view. This is what religion is all about!
If you don't have someone to be greatful to, you invent him. This is not a sacriledge. From Ancient Egyptians and Greeks to Taoists and Hopi Indians, everyone knows that God created everything, but man invented God.
If you want to say say "goodness" instead of ""God" - go ahead. You can just as well say "Uranus." It's your gratitude that matters, not the name.
And this is it! All the rest that goes under name "religion" is just dross, nonsense that accumulated over millennia, human stubborness, dogmaticfism, power games and politics.
Hagia Sophia will soon again be a mosque. This is being proposed already, and the voices are getting louder. Turkey is clearly going down the Islamist path.
St. Peters too will become a mosque, though that would take longer.
Daniel's program re. teaching religion is fine as he draws it. In fact, I think this is mostly how religion was (and sometimes still is) taught in public schools.
But I am sure in practice it would soon become Islam only, with hijabs for girls, mandatory praying to Allah, signs of "There's no God but Allah" over schools and all the rest that's already going on.
I'm not saying that's an invalid fear, one that I've never had. But I do truly believe that, just as there has always been, "dhimmis" and "kaffir" will rebel, will show pride in their non-Muslimness, and will refuse to "surrender." As long as this is so, human nature being what it is, one religion controlling, or trying to control, the world will be just too unfeasible, and natural diversity will come again. Or, in the process, religious warfare will ensure until we all die. Yippie!
Yeah, you are right in theory. However, I don't see it happening in practice. The British are particularly under assault by Muslims, yet for all the talk of refusing to surrender, it remains just talk.
So maybe the theory is not always right. Often people just quietly surrender, especially when the chattering class calls all pride and dignity "racism," "jingoism" and other nasty terms, and everyone is afraid of the chattering class.
Prove it... Give me one shred of evidence that a God gives a shit about one human thought. I bet you drop your faith when your family gets the swine flu as your driving them to the hospital. People care about people and thats it. God has murdered more cities women children and innocent people than you and I will ever see!!! Don't believe me? Read the man made Bible.
@FutureLiberty: It appears the human tendency to debate God's existence is directly proportional to its scientific advancement. That is to say, the less we know, the less make-believe God seems to be, and the more we know, the less employed God seems to be.
This is an interesting point, with one stipulation.
When the sort of "Career Atheists" like Dawkins and Hitchens describe nature, they call it "Wonderful". When theists describe their gods, they call them "Perfect" and say they created nature.
Nature can be wonderful while still having imperfections/mistakes in, but a "Perfect" god can't create something imperfect.
When theists describe their gods, they call them "Perfect" <---------You take the words of the dingbats and twist their pathetic ideas into one big ball of "them+causation=idiocy."
You may say SOME or MANY theists/deists, assign attributes to a god as best as they can imagine them. Yes. But your statement is a lie that "when theists describe" etc etc etc bla bla bla Ralph.
I RALPH, because I'm trying to discern our causation, and you're going on about a group of people's opinions.
...We didn't have "Causation". We just sort of happened. Like London.
And yes, I'll admit that it's a bit of a tautology to say that Theists describe their god, because the description of god as having certain attributes MAKES one a Theist.
Though i feel your statement is an oversimplification, it does touch on a point i can clear up for you.
As a product of a natural process that is complex and massive, our universe is amazing. That so much order can come of it is astounding.
But if there is an omnipotent being pulling all the strings. Then he is making some very basic mistakes that us as non omnipotent can easily point out. Leading to questions regarding either this being's ability or intent.
We have no word where we could do justice in labeling the universe....at all.
Anyway, I don't want to get into "beings" and their "intentions". I simply want to understand where anyone could possibly prove that intention is any less likely than unintentional causation.
Many atheists argue that they make no claims and thus their faith relies on the evidence.
Well, "Big" is a start. The universe is, most will agree, very, very big. "Big" is a label. It is also completely correct.
Unintentional happening is more likely that intentional causation, because all that's required for something to happen unintentionally is for it to happen, but for something to happen intentionally, something unintentional has to first create an intender to intend for something to happen.
Excellent. Now make a list of things that are taken of granted, assumed, calculated on a 51-49% probability rate as well as extrapolations from extrapolations from untestable theories created by our quite limited plane of thought and consciousness.
But I like your answer, at least it makes sense, even if only in a storybook religious type of way. Religious scoreboard.
Jew/Xian -1 points Ahteist -1.1 points
(The extra -.1 is because at least Jews admit that it's faith.)
There is a difference between accepting things on faith and accepting a thing because it is the thing best supported by available evidence.
For one thing, we KNOW the big bang happened. We know almost exactly when, a lot about how, but almost nothing about why. But we know for certain that it happened, simply because of the wealth of available evidence, like the proportions of hydrogen and helium predicted using big-bang centered calculations exactly matching their real-world proportions.
The frequency and amplitude of the cosmic background radiation, the "Echoes" of the big bang also fit to within extremely tight tolerances with what's predicted based on the nature of the event.
Unfortunately I can't give you mathematically precise calculations because I am not a physicist, but there are physicists in the world, and they'll give the exact same answer, but with better numbers.
As for my "Story", it's nothing more than fairly simple logic.
Living in Europe would give you an insight you clearly need. It has nothing to do with brainwashing you fool its called a cultural insight. Do not sledge something you simply are prejudices against without experiencing it firsthand.
Your looking at Europe as a whole and just making sweeping generalizations about all its members.
Gotta say, Daniel Dennett is a rather boring speaker. At least Dinesh is engaging
jamaicanification 3 weeks ago
@jamaicanification The truth is more wonderful than childish fairytales.
huwrj 2 weeks ago
i have a proposal, any one who is a a proffessing religious person should get a stamp branded on their forehead so people know not to take them seriously
ThePenguinColonel 2 months ago
By now I have heard many debates where D'Souza keeps avoiding the point and keeps repeating himself to fill his time and then askes how much time he has left - hoping it is over soon. When Dennett asks and hears "ten minutes", is response is "oh good!".
whauffend 3 months ago
Have you ever seen energy with a maker? (YES/NO)
Have you ever seen a galaxy with a maker? (YES/NO)
Have you ever seen matter with a maker? (YES/NO)
If you answered YES to any of the above, please give details:
deathtris 7 months ago 3
@deathtris Well this could be a good argument to a believer who does not have a good understanding of the "god debate". He can say that is our mind looking for a pattern and the atheist cannot comprehend the existence of God.
deathxe5 7 months ago
Comment removed
lukose2007 7 months ago
@lukose2007 Mr. Dennett has no respect for _any_ religions. Why should he? Do you respect people that believe Elvis is still alive?
sorrymybadguys 4 months ago
@lukose2007
"Mr Dennett HAS NO RESPECT FOR OTHER RELIGIONS. WHAT A SHAMELESS MAN !!"
religions will get respect when they EARN respect instead of trying to demand it with threats of eternal damnation
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415
If you had cancer, would you want the doctors to be truthful and tell you that you only have one month to live, or would you rather the doctor lie and tell you that you have many healthy years ahead of you? The point being, life is sometimes blunt, and the answers that we come across aren't always what we had hoped for. I want to know exactly what I'm up against. Then, through logic and reason, I know exactly what I should expect.
Nwidmann 3 weeks ago
@Nwidmann
You are correct, life is sometimes blunt, so allow me to be equaly blunt...Religions serve 3 purposes
1. To explain natural phenomena to the ignorant who don't grasp science
2. To garner political power
3. To force the morality of the few upon the many
Religion is the excuse people use to comit evil then pretend they are justified because an Imaginary God agrees with them, because they imagine him doing so
It absolves people of taking responsibility for being assholes
whiteowl1415 3 weeks ago
Daniel Dennett looks like Santa. <3
dlmc1989 9 months ago 7
@dlmc1989 Ironic, considering Santa is a product of Christianity
boostrockets 1 month ago
'trickle down theory of goodness' YES!!!! xD you are a genius dennett!
clubsandwedge 9 months ago
@krizzia1000 you think life is hopeless without god because u bases ur life, u thank him for the gud, u think your being punishd by god for the bad, wen u acheive it is because of god, everything is god.
So wen someone suggests that there is no god you picture your life without it and suprise, theres no purpose anymore, no meaning.
The only reason for this is because you assume god exists and then give him credit/blame for everything. you let your life get fcked by the church
shandcunt 10 months ago
@shandcunt If you read all the free reading in valtorta.org at the left side of the site I will assure you 101 percent that you will believe that there is God. Hope that you will not stop on reading and searching. Don't confine yourself by just listening to one idea that there is no God. Because the idea is very reasonable you will just accept, if you cannot reach with reason you believe that it is not true anymore. Please do not be deceived by Satan, He is the Deceiver.God loves you so much!
krizzia1000 9 months ago
Why is science applauded for changing while religion is ridiculed for changing?
Is change inherently bad?
Fike2308 10 months ago
@Fike2308 Science is applauded for changing because it by it's definition is the improvement of knowledge. Religion is ridiculed for changing because so many religions have a dogma that is purportedly "written by an infallible God." Why would an infallible omniscient God write a perfect document that then needs to be constantly updated to relate to each generations problems. For example: Why did God just realize slavery was bad within the last 200 years?
waitwhatwasthat 10 months ago
@waitwhatwasthat Your statement is based on many assumptions I do not agree with such as religious dogma is created by God instead of Man. God "realized" slavery was bad within the last 200 years (Did you talk to God personally?).....like a lot of people you seem to treat religion and God as if they were identical.
If one (or more) religions does something bad than there can be no God?
If religion learns from mistakes it is ridiculed?
Fike2308 10 months ago
@Fike2308 If you're talking about religion as an organization for self-help, or group solidarity, then no, it shouldn't be ridiculed as it changes. But I'm referring to those that assert that the origin myths, laws and lessons within are the "word of god". Redaction from that position IS ridiculous. You are speaking about a "personal god" in which you cherry-pick the parts you agree with and make the rest up. That's inconsistent with what most religions insist you align yourself with.
waitwhatwasthat 10 months ago
@Fike2308 It's because science's goal is to change to get closer to the truth, while religion's goal is to get the truth right the first time. If you claim to get the truth right the first time, then change what you say, then you deserve to be ridiculed.
sexyloser 2 months ago
didnt know that Dennett is such a funny guy...love his presentations
Serpico261 1 year ago
I've never read on this anywhere but I would like to know if there is an evolutionary explanation for plants and insects. Is there a theory that says that prokarytic became both plant and animal cells? Also about insects, what evolutionary process is responsible for them? And why is it that insects have remained virtually the same over millions of years?
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis What makes you think insects have remained virtually the same over millions of years? That is simply false. Prokaryotic cells exists everywhere where we have liquid water and Abiogenisis (which explains how life formed from non-life processes) says that the first cells to ever show-up on earth where sub-forms of Prokaryotic. There is an endless amount of literature on the net alone which explains the evolution of plants and insects.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago
Do not be deceived by the Devil he is enraged so much with God that he want us all to go to hell not because he loves us but because he hates God and he is using those who wants to be used by him. The Jews believed it for thousand of years and you believe that there is no God. If there is no God there would be no love. If there was no love,wehad been dead a long time ago by killing each other. Please visit valtorta.org God is speaking He did this only now because the end is near. God bless!
krizzia1000 1 year ago
@krizzia1000 visiting that website gave me a clear understanding ... of how one could post such ridiculous nonsense. Dude, or ma'am, whatever - Take some time, look up at the stars and realize we are all in this reality together. Really think -- should I search for truth (understanding this existence) or live in fear of hell or God? We (of the likes of dennett) acknowledge the mysteriousness of life and seek a bit more logic to this life, so that we can give the info to the next generation
ColePremoMusic 1 year ago
@ColePremoMusic But what are we gonna give the next generation or why do we ever bother care for the next generation if our lives now has no purpose. Have you ever realize that many people are killing themselves when they feel so hopeless why because there is no need to suffer when you are not happy anymore in this life. If one has no God to hope for and there is no heaven to yearn for what is life? God is real. Read on the site before you judge. Visit the site God is talking.God loves you.
krizzia1000 11 months ago
@krizzia1000 You are wrong about so many things. Hey.... Who made the Devil?? (assuming that he even exists, probably not) Your god supposedly knows the future and yet created the Devil knowing he would turn on him. Doesn't that sound ridicously stupid?? If you don't see the point then just go back to reading your 2000 year old book. Umm... We evolved "Love" and because of that we didn't kill each other off. We don't need a god to give us love.
ndvak13 11 months ago
@ndvak13 God did not create the Devil, he is the most beautiful angel Lucifer but because of his pride thought that he could be greater than God. And the consequence is ugliness.Now God allowed the Devil to tempt us in any possible ways God has His purpose on it. He wants to know who will really love Him or would not love HIm. Please visit valtorta.org and read at the left side of the site. We have soul and it is eternal our decisions today will have an eternal consequence. Search the truth
krizzia1000 11 months ago
@krizzia1000 obviuosly you have not.
fidenful 10 months ago
@krizzia1000 I would like to start by saying that you probably have no idea what you are really even saying. Secondly, you probably suck at basic reasoning.
That being said...
You believe that God created Lucifer. You also believe that the Devil is or was Lucifer.
So explain to me HOW THE FUCK God didn't set in motion the events that created the Devil.
How isn't God ultimately responsible for his creation.
(It's all myth anyway, but I just wanna see you struggle with this)
ndvak13 9 months ago
Disney's Magic Kingdom of Allah... haha
xoloxum 1 year ago 31
Dan barker's filthy godamn eyes looks devilish. His fingers are just nasty disgusting looking. He Hates God, because God is not like he want him to be, or like he thinks in his filthy devil hell bound mind he should be.
he's mad and he's gonna burn forever in hell.
I can't stand to even watch that filthy beast!
1982witchcraft 1 year ago
@1982witchcraft you're hilarious
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 Thanks lol
1982witchcraft 1 year ago
@1982witchcraft You really do need to get a life Witch.
johneamer 1 year ago
@1982witchcraft Everyone, take a good look at the post by 1982witchcraft. It is nothing to get laughed at or get mad at. This is the tragedy of ignorance.
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
@1982witchcraft Everyone, take a good look at the post by 1982witchcraft. Don't laugh at it or get mad. This is tragic. This is what ignorance does to otherwise good people.
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
@1982witchcraft hahahaha. if that was meant to be satire, I applaud you....
ColePremoMusic 1 year ago
Religions do evolve. They ARE man made. Hatsune Miku is the new goddess. Our sacred muse. Powered by the creativity of millions of anonymous online souls.
kzymeth 1 year ago
SUGGESTION: people should read and understand the bible like philosophers first read and understand the arguments of the opponents before dismantling or discrediting them. it is only then you can learn something truthful; as opposed to pedaling heresay about what is writen in the bible without understanding the same.
okellookello 1 year ago
@okellookello
1 Corinthians
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I have read the bible... and I understand it perfectly.
What do YOU make of a simple passage like this? I enjoy watching people tap dance.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 what we are good at is nit-picking what we want to hear (even if we don't totally understand words, verses and so for) in order to fit our agenda...you might think you understand the bible...if you really did, you would embrace it's doctrine thereof. Don't worry, i shall pray that you will understand the things written in the bible. Mean while, will you read the book of Proverbs while you are at? it is one of my favorites!!
okellookello 1 year ago
@okellookello I've the bible twice. A childrens bible (gotta indoctrinate the minds while their young and gullible)... and the entire King James version.
I was, when I was a kid, a "born again" Christian.
It's 100% pure bullshit. Absolute nonsense. It's not true. Never has been.
The doctrine is "evil" at its core and divisive. I'm embarrassed to say that I ever believed such mindless ignorance.
Pray? Don't pray for me. Doesn't work. Never has. Again it's bullshit.
And that's condescending.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 believing that God exists or in the scripture does not mean that you are saved. Must I remind you that even satan believes in God and quoted the scripture while he tempted Jesus. But he was never and will never be saved! Now, shouldn't we be thankful that God, in his mercy and everlasting kindness, gave us the gift of choice. We can choose to follow him, or we can choose to worship ourselves or other things... the choice is ours...But God is the ultimate judge...not me or you...
okellookello 1 year ago
@okellookello Okay... listen... there. is. NO. god.
Or "Satan" for that matter. These deities DO. NOT. EXIST.
They DON'T. It's all bullshit. God never gave anyone "choice"... we make our own decisions as human beings. There is NO need for ANY supernatural deity to intervene. We are just on an average planet, in an average solar system, in an average galaxy... and maybe in an average universe.
You guys are like drones with no minds of your own. It's borderline pathetic... it really is.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
Based on Dennett's logic one should teach one's child about all kinds of sexuality and morality [when he or she reaches the appropriate age]. So like, be sure to teach your children about ass fucking, bestiality, scat, S&M, 'cause you wouldn't want them to remain ignorant, right? And don't forget to teach them that it's both okay to beat them and not beat them... I mean we have to teach them everything.... According to Dennett you should not be allowed to instill your own values in your children
regresseur 1 year ago
@regresseur What? That's not the logic behind Dennett. You're just making things up and pulling them out of your ass.
TheLegendarySkeptic 1 year ago
@regresseur
Nope. Stop misrepresenting people. Earlier in the interview Dennett CLEARLY states that parents should teach their kids whatever religious values hey choose - as long as the kids also receive the basic facts about other religions at school.
1006abs1006 1 year ago
@regresseur How did you learn about Assfucking, beastiality etc. Which school did you go to to learn about these things!!! What kind of a social life do you have dude!!!!
Jokes aside I am assuming you learned about all that outside of your school curriculum as have others in the past, present and will continue to in the future.
spyg2330 1 year ago
@regresseur Straw man much?
PhotoUlf 1 year ago
@regresseur
Ridiculous objection. Dannet is not claimins anyone to "covert" their children to all religions, but to TEACHE ABOUT.
Aobut sex, don't you think it is better to INFORM, TO TALK ABOUT this things with your child before he/she discovery such things in the street??
Ignorance would not be better in ANY case. Just religious fundamentalists deffends ignorance, simply cause ALLO religions feeds themselves on human ignorance.
afterlifeless1 1 year ago
"They just don't get it"-- the point that the shoe doesn't make the cobbler? When had Daniel Dennett ever observed random forces--of any sort--making a highly ordered system?
Let us all bow down to the naked emperor of random force, lest we be accused of not "getting it." :(
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Last time he poured salt into acid, last time he saw wind on a beach, last time he saw a timelapse of a baby growing in a stomach. Shall I got on? Forces aren't truly random they seem to follow laws, this means they can, without design or foresight create order.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Either you list something that is not a random force (baby is constrained by specific genetic code) or it does not make "a highly ordered system." (Besides Dennett has NEVER seen "wind on a beach.") Going on with such examples only proves why we will not bow to the naked emperor of random force.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The point is that the forces are not random. The wind on a beach moves the sand, no purpose, no design but the sand ends up in a very improbable arrangement. The baby is constrained by the laws of physics, molecules bouncing at random, following only the rules of gravity, weak force, strong force and electromagnetism. These forces can bring about very strange, complex and apparantly ordered configurations with no prior design.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Then there is no such thing as "random." "No purpose, no design" = random.
"These forces can bring about very strange, complex and apparently ordered configurations with no prior design." No disagreement there. The question was whether a random force can make "a highly ordered system."
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I'm not sure what your definition of "a highly ordered system" is.
I assumed, possibly naively, that people, and deep coding in sand grains, would count.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick The issue was using a random force to produce an ordered system.
Genetic code is a very constrained force that produces an ordered system.
Sand grains on a beach are not a highly ordered system.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Ok, define waht you mean by "random force" because if the 4 forces of physics don't count then I don't know what you mean. Also define what you mean by "highly ordered system" that the grains of sand on a beach aren't.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick I'm afraid if you can't tell sand from the high organization of the DNA or the organization of a cell, I am unable to make this any plainer to you. The lack is mine.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson look at the grains of sand on the beach, each is in an exact position in relation to the others and is held their on the basis of nothing more than physical laws. The movement of the pattern contains more information than all the libraries in a small country.
DNA can form, without any prior design, we have seen each of the steps of this, from DNA the order of an organism can form. Organisms do not require prior design.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick I'm awed by God's laws that govern the universe too, but the organization of sand is paltry when compared to the immense complexity of the DNA. How can you minimize DNA? Would you even know anything about it without Watson and Crick? Like I said, if you can't see the difference, I am at a loss to explain it to you.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@SPACKlick "Shall I got on?" Respectfully I must say that your "going on" thus far hasn't given us anything enlightening on a random force making a highly ordered system. Salt into acid doesn't created a highly organized system. It's merely disassociation of molecules in solution. Beach sand is about as ordered as jellybeans in a jar. A baby growing in the womb is the result of a highly organized system called DNA, which is a coded language.
The naked emperor should be cold or sunburned by now.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Order is in EVERYTHING, all systems are highly ordered when viewed in the right perspective. DNA isn't as special in its order as you think, what makes it special is that it is self replicating.
Almost every single step from naked atoms to complex DNA has been shown to happen without outside interference.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick So-- you acknowledge the ORDER in everything, and you acknowledge that DNA is special. We can agree on these. Unfortunately, you then try to let an inference stand in for an observable fact. If you don't know that this is an inference, and not an observable fact, then we have no room for discussion.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It is an observed fact that witout ouside interference atoms can form self replicating molecules like DNA. As for what actually happened, ofcourse we are unsure. exactly what process occurred, but we can infer an awful lot.
There is no justification, as yet, for infering an outside agent.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick With your acknowledgment that "we can infer an awful lot," perhaps we have room for healthy discussion. The recognition of inference rather than fact being the lion's share of the issue clears the way for this.
We aren't talking about interference in the natural process--at least not I--we are looking at whether DNA came about on its own or whether it gives true evidence of having been programmed. Since it is a programming language, that it was programmed has my vote.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It clearly isn't a programming language. It can come about on its own and once its constituents START to come together natural processes increase the complexity and order of the DNA, making its behaviour (for want of a better word) more intricate and specific.
DNA is not a programming language, it doesn't program anything, it merely behaves.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick That is your assertion. It programs the production of proteins. Without the programming language of DNA, the organism would not form as it does.
It clearly IS the programming language that produces each and every organism.
Denial is futile.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ok then, lets make this simple. Define what a programming language is AND give me the metric by which you determine something is one or isn't one.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick I am not a scientist, so any definition I provide would not be helpful to you; I don't know how to apply a metric. As a layman who is interested in the subject, a programming language is a series of codes that communicate instructions on what protein to make and how it is to be made. DNA does not react directly like acids and bases, but gives instructions, based on a code. Hence it is designated the DNA code--universally understood to be programming language for the cell and organism.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Ok, afew mistakes and one conclusion
"Dna does not react directly" yes it does. Dna, reacts directly following the laws of chemistry. But even if I grant, under that definition, that DNA is a programming langauge, it still doesn't get you to "DNA was designed by intelligence". That's not the definition I would use but using YOUR definition, why does a programming language need to be designed? it doesn't, it could occur naturally.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick "Why does a programming language need to be designed?" Ask a programmer.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I understand that human created programming languages need to be designed but what is it you believe is integral to a programming language that means it COULD NOT come about naturally.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Credibility.
Check it out. There's a CSI episode in which there is one clue that just doesn't make sense. The wind could have blown in the seeds, the rain could have washed off the blood; but the chemical code--it was some kind of manufacture sequencing. .... Did it point to a programmer?
Nah! Just some kind of random pattern with no real significance.
The case goes cold.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yeh, but saying "finding DNA of a human when a human wasn't there is so unlikely as to be ridiculous" is different from saying "DNA or some other system of replication could have formed naturally".
All the components of DNA have been shown in a lab to form, they have been shown to begin to replicate and demonstrated that that replication leads to complexity.
So why does a programming languge need a programmer?
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick I don't know how to believe like you do. Programming doesn't happen by itself in anything we have ever observed. Intuitively it makes no sense to think that random forces--even constrained by physical law--can program. The amino acids that have been observed to form have readily fallen apart--unless rescued out of the "soup" by an intelligent experimenter. The experimenter sets it up. Even the forming of these passing organic chains are a tribute to careful intelligent design.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson This is why I find it unhelpful and incorrect to call DNA a programming language (as I have said, I wouldn't use your definition) I wuld refer to it as a coded entity, and coded entities do appear naturally. You have a defnition of DNA that doesn't require intelligent agency but that baggage of the word program makes intelligence almost necessary.
Also, the experimenters had hours/days in a small jar, the earth had millions of years in a whole see. There is an issue of scale.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick "coded entities do appear naturally" begging the question since new coded entities only appear as the result of previous coding.
"makes intelligence almost necessary" Actually, intelligence is absolutely necessary to write code--especially that is capable of rewriting itself.
Imagine the programming of a self-repairing car.
"Millions of years" unless there is intelligence guiding the process, the more time there was, the less likely that the "laboratory conditions" were right.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson 1) the pattern of heights of sand at 3 m from the water is a code. With a tanslation it holds information. This code appeared naturally.
2) I agree intelligence is necessary to write code, I was disagreeing it was necessary for code to be. Intelligence is required to write code, and to interpret code because writing and interpreting are things that inteligence does. Codes can exist without inteligence.
3) you have the idea of time and probability backwards.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick You may gain some information from piles of sand, but that isn't assembly code as in DNA.
Leave your laboratory unattended for a billion billion years and see if what you say "could" happen actually did ever happen. It won't. The more time you give it--without intelligence--the more impossible that it ever could happen.
The writing of the first DNA code by unintelligent forces is the greatest fantasy smart people ever believed.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So now this code, that has to be caused by intelligence, has to be an assembly code? Why does an assembly code have to be intelligently designed?
we're not talking about leaving a laboratory unattended, we are talking about leaving a planet unattended. This gives rise to billions of opportunities for unlikely events to happen, making the improbable nearly certain.
Writing is bad verb for the formation of the first DNA code. Because it implies information TRANSFER.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick DNA is assembly code--it directs the assembly of proteins in a very specific order.
A planet is less equipped than a lab. Just for protein molecules to line up and stay together takes very specific conditions with technician intervention--otherwise they disassociate. Randomness and time are not enough to account for life.
The only reason "writing" would not fit is if you have an A PRIORI theory that it wasn't written. Otherwise, the best inference is that it was indeed written.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
DNA has certain causal properties that cause protein synthesis, it doesn't "direct"it.
Protein molecules line up and stay together in conditions formed when phospholipids form a bilayer which curves in on itself to form a vesicle. This reaction, and the formation of simple RNA, is catalysed by several clay crystals which exist naturally, like montmorrilonite.
No, writing is the wrong word unless you have evidence or assumption that it WAS written. These chemicals form naturally.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Certain "causal properties"? A baby looks like a unique combination of its parents and grandparents. That's directed.
"These chemicals form naturally." Begging the question again. They do what they were programmed to do, but DNA does not form of itself directly from the elements it is made of.
Your description is of what it has been programmed to do. DNA does not spontaneously form. It does what it is programmed to do.
The best inference we have to account for a code is mind.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Wow you're dumb.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 Could you enlighten us how your judgment adds any light to the subject?
I believe I'd rather discuss this with SPACKlick--he deals with the issues.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "that's directed" that's causally related.Directed begs the question of external purpose.
"begging the question again" No, I'm not. These chemicals, all of them, form without directed interference in conditions that are likely to have existed.
"your description is of what it has been programmed to do" No, it is of what it does, whether or not an outside agent programmed it.
I disagree with your best inference. this process COULD happen without the mind, occams razor.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick We have a basic difference in what is reasonable. I have stated what I consider unreasonable. You believe that the digital assembly code of the cell could have written itself. The proof is not in seeing assembly code writing itself from scratch, but the mere fact that DNA exists and you believe it could happen on its own. That merely begs the question.
I cannot argue against your beliefs, but I do not see any solid evidence to conclude that undirected forces wrote the original code.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson well you're just one of those people that dennett's talking about that just don't get it and have very limitted scientific understanding of nature-- essentially every word you say demonstrates that..my advice is: read scientific literature (and not creationist nonsense) and ask yourself why the vast majority of scientists fully conform with what Dennett's saying. and if you still don't get it, well you're beyond help. sorry
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago
@HerrVonManstein I already understand why the majority of scientists don't make waves. The pressures are many: (1) no funding, no job; (2) evolution provides a convenient way to disregard God; (3) they have been raised with this worldview and screen all contrary evidence. How do I know? Because those who are convinced of ID have faced the pressures of #1; I've talked to enough people to know that #2 and #3 are true.
But I really do appreciate your conciliatory tone. Thanks.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What is the definition of your god? What does it look like? What does it sound like? What form does it take? Have you ever, even once, considered that there may have never been a god at all? If you can't answer these extremely basic questions... how can you be so sure that such a deity exists at all?
If your answer is along the lines of "Well it says so in the Bible"... then I highly suggest you reevaluate your current beliefs and perform more research.
I did.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 "What is the definition of your god? What does it look like?" The definition of my God looks like this:
The self-existing (Gen 17:1; Exo 3:14) Creator God (Gen 1), invisible (1 Tim 1:17; Col 1:15; Heb 11:27), the law giver (Exo 24:12; Job 38:8-11), and the life giver (Gen 2:7; 6:17; Job 33:4; John 10:10).
If He didn't exist then no one would exist. You wouldn't have the consciousness to even read this post.
Quantum physics is amazing! Many who study it, come to believe in God.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
What about the child sacrifice, rape, murder, sexism, racism and slavery that is not only condoned by god but declared? It's all throughout the bible.
I hate to say this... but... unfortunately... your god... just like the other 750 something deities... simply doesn't exist. Never has. Never will.
And quantum physics IS amazing! Many, MANY more who study it, reject any and all personal gods. Over 97% of the scientific community does NOT believe in a deity.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 "child sacrifice" Expressly forbid
"rape" Prohibited
"murder" Specifically prohibited (sixth commandment)
"sexism" Getting a little subjective on us, aren't you?
"racism" He is the God who made all people. "For God so loved THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVERr"
"Slavery" Put limits on its abuse
I am sorry you don't know Him, but glad that He is longsuffering instead of how Dawkins has painted Him. I would only hope that you didn't fight so hard against Him.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 I believe you have misunderstood the intent of these Scriptures.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Of course I did. Enlighten me about these divisive, foul, disgusting passages in your so called holy book then. I really could go on... there are hundreds and hundreds of extremely wicked passages, most being from "god" himself. (Why a "he" anyway? Do gods need genitals? Do gods reproduce?).
It's time to QUESTION these passages and statements instead of glossing over the ugly facts inside the book. I have and trust me... everyone's been duped.
Everyone. Like... EVERYONE.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 "Of course I did." Well at least you acknowledge this sarcastically. I'd love to take text by text and demonstrate the misapprehension, but I fear, with your answer, that it will be labor lost. I don't know about you, but I have a limit to my time, and I don't consider it a good use of time to sow seed on sidewalks. (Yes, I know, occasionally a seed can grow between the cracks.)
Do take care.
Morgan
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No prob! Enjoy your cherry picking and willful ignorance!
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 Undoubtedly you are unaware that cherry season is over, and even if your assertion were based on willful ignorance, I don't think I could ever enjoy it.
Regarding the picture of God in Scripture, the truth is derived from investigation of the whole picture, not from caricatures concocted from isolated verses.
Exo 21:7-11 Num 31:7-18 Deu 20:10-14 21:10-14 22:23-24, 28-29 Judges 5:30 21:10-24 2 Sam 12:11-14 Zech 14:1-2 (nothing here promoting rape)
Whose website gave you these?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson They're not from a website... they are from that ancient "holy book" that is the cornerstone of christianity. What I'm saying to you is... yes absolutely certain phrases can be taken out of context but... not these. You... like BILLIONS of others... have been inducted into the largest organized cult on the planet. Congrats!
God did NOT "poof" us into existence. Adam and Eve is absolutely bullshit. Jesus - if he lived - was no deity. Noahs Ark? Hilarious. I could on and on.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 The one spreading dooky here is the one who says he got it from the book.
If you got them reading the passages in context, you would have recognized that they aren't promoting rape. You aren't the first anti-Bible-ist to make a caricature of God from someone else's gatherings of Biblical soundbytes.
This isn't an honest conversation.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson Okay...
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
- Is this passage from the "Holy Bible"? Yes or no? Does raping a woman and then forcing her to marry you promote rape? Discuss.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003 So explain how this promotes rape. Then read verse 25 of the chapter you got this from and see what happens to a man who rapes a woman who is betrothed.
I've found the cherry lover in this conversation.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
Shall I go into sexism and racism? And I BARELY scratched the surface with "murder". There is so much murder committed in the name of YOUR god that it's absolutely appalling.
And wow... you at least admit that there's slavery in there. Lots and lots of it actually. But god put "limits" on its abuse. Why isn't "he" merciful???
I don't know "him" and neither do you. You've just been duped. Don't worry you're not alone!
Invisible deities have been dupin' humans for ages now.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
And man created God in his own image.
sfmike20 1 year ago
hahaha trickle down goodness.
just like trickle down economics of Bush.
I love it.
mooogles 1 year ago
Comment removed
wittgitter 1 year ago
Comment removed
wittgitter 1 year ago
Daniel Dennett's main strategy is ridicule, pompous arrogance, sarcasm and generally being a super-obnoxious, extremely unpleasant sarcastic jerk. I've listened to him for 20 minutes now and I hear no argument for why Atheism can explain the Universe, life, DNA, and human beings. Of course he cites Darwinism as his ultimate answer for everything. Pompousness supreme. I haven't heard Dinesh's response yet, but he deserves sainthood for suffering to listen to him.
CAridge2008 1 year ago
You clearly disagree with Dennett, so much anger in your words. I can feel your pain at hearing these things after a life of being lead down a path your parents picked for you. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. You have my sympathy. It would probably be better if you only listen to those that don't question your belief.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
@Bayhuntr Assuming does make an ass out of you now doesn't it. btw, I am a bible believing Christian and did not grow up in a Christian home. I've heard any argument there is against God and looked into as much scientific evidence as is available to a 21st century professional. My faith is as strong as it ever has been in the truth of the Bible. People are going to believe whatever they want and find the rationale to support.
jfly888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jfly888 One of the problems with evangelicals is, since they know for a fact they are right, lying to support that "fact" is acceptable. Your statement "I've heard any argument there is against God and looked into as much scientific evidence as is available to a 21st century professional" is a very good example of this. You really do have my sympathy.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
@jfly888 including yourself. Has it occured to you that Because you were exposed to your religion since you were a child, it has become ingrained? Has it occured to you that you may be brain washed? What does faith mean? It is a weak word like, belief, and it means nothing. dont think that you are better than other people just because you have "faith" in something.
youngfart40 1 year ago
@jfly888 Not find, make up. People will make up the rationale to support irrational believe.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
@CAridge2008 Why on Earth would you expect athiesm to explain the universe? Brights only understand a bit more about the universe than religionists do, but at least our thinking is founded on fact and a spirit of enquiry, rather than the kind of primitive superstition that stultifies thought.
guruyoghourt 1 year ago
My primary problem with Dennet is that his argument consists 99% of sarcasm, ridicule & contempt. He is a typical arrogant professor who tries to silence dissent from his point of view by ridicule. He also tries to rattle D'Souza personally (such as demanding that he answer his ridiculous idea of wanting to brainwash children against religion). As for your claim "Brights (?) only understand a bit more about the universe than religionists;" I disagree. But it's pointless to argue here.
CAridge2008 1 year ago
*sigh... why can't religious people understand what atheism is? Atheism doesn't claim to explain those things... Science does. And Atheism is not science. Theism is the belief in a supernatural power, atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural power. also, he does not cite darwinism. You demonstrate how incredibly biased you are by calling it that. what we know about evolution now would blow darwin off his feet, it has grown many magnitudes since darwin suggested it.
Jantles 1 year ago
additionally, there is actually some scientific evidence that the universe could have come from 'nothing' granted not enough to say we know, but much more evidence than you have to prove god did it, as far as i know, your only evidence, is... it just makes sense! also, how much do you actually know about evolution? i doubt very much beyond what your pastor told you. if you did some research, you would realize that evolution is a fact.
Jantles 1 year ago
Well, it wasn't created from nothing, it was created from everything... as in, all the mass of the universe now was there at the beginning. It was just a little bit smaller.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
stebrad, yet you watch lol
TomBobKen 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
daniel voice is too droning...i feel sleepy.
hawklanzs 2 years ago
It's quite obvious that Daniel Dennett's debate strategy is to kill his opponents (or possibly his entire audience) by way of boredom. I've suffered through several of these videos so far - he hasn't much time/patience left in which to convince me of anything but his long-windedness which I hereby mock, though in far fewer words.
stebrad 2 years ago
@stebrad haha, very good! great comments!
Taheton 2 years ago
Yeah, well-constructed rational arguments tend to bore stupid people rather quickly.
seban678 2 years ago 42
@seban678 I know huh all that making sense stuff takes time doesn't it?! Away with all that its much easier to say " Its true, because the Bible says so..."
weekes3660 1 year ago
i'm an atheist with a background in philosophy, and even i find this boring.
TADGELL 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dude, Daniel Dennett is putting me to sleep, lol. I can't stand the sound he makes with his lips, either. Lol.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
From 3:00 to 5:10, Daniel clearly expresses not a secular, but a religous view. This is what religion is all about!
If you don't have someone to be greatful to, you invent him. This is not a sacriledge. From Ancient Egyptians and Greeks to Taoists and Hopi Indians, everyone knows that God created everything, but man invented God.
If you want to say say "goodness" instead of ""God" - go ahead. You can just as well say "Uranus." It's your gratitude that matters, not the name.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
And this is it! All the rest that goes under name "religion" is just dross, nonsense that accumulated over millennia, human stubborness, dogmaticfism, power games and politics.
Kurtlane 2 years ago 3
Hagia Sophia will soon again be a mosque. This is being proposed already, and the voices are getting louder. Turkey is clearly going down the Islamist path.
St. Peters too will become a mosque, though that would take longer.
Daniel's program re. teaching religion is fine as he draws it. In fact, I think this is mostly how religion was (and sometimes still is) taught in public schools.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
But I am sure in practice it would soon become Islam only, with hijabs for girls, mandatory praying to Allah, signs of "There's no God but Allah" over schools and all the rest that's already going on.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
I'm not saying that's an invalid fear, one that I've never had. But I do truly believe that, just as there has always been, "dhimmis" and "kaffir" will rebel, will show pride in their non-Muslimness, and will refuse to "surrender." As long as this is so, human nature being what it is, one religion controlling, or trying to control, the world will be just too unfeasible, and natural diversity will come again. Or, in the process, religious warfare will ensure until we all die. Yippie!
gyniest 2 years ago
Yeah, you are right in theory. However, I don't see it happening in practice. The British are particularly under assault by Muslims, yet for all the talk of refusing to surrender, it remains just talk.
So maybe the theory is not always right. Often people just quietly surrender, especially when the chattering class calls all pride and dignity "racism," "jingoism" and other nasty terms, and everyone is afraid of the chattering class.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
In Lebanon, on the other hand, Christians defended themselves, the country collapsed into civil war, but Muslims won in the end.
Sorry, but I'm a pessimist.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"Maybe Mecca will become Disney's Magic Kingdom of Allah." I loved that. XD
SableRain 2 years ago 7
Science and medicine has done more for me and my famiily than any God has every done.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago 3
That's interesting. Science and medicine don't care about what you think. But God does.
FutureLiberty 2 years ago
Prove it... Give me one shred of evidence that a God gives a shit about one human thought. I bet you drop your faith when your family gets the swine flu as your driving them to the hospital. People care about people and thats it. God has murdered more cities women children and innocent people than you and I will ever see!!! Don't believe me? Read the man made Bible.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
If God doesn't exist then why do you think the human race is naturally inclined to debate about it so much?
FutureLiberty 2 years ago
@FutureLiberty: It appears the human tendency to debate God's existence is directly proportional to its scientific advancement. That is to say, the less we know, the less make-believe God seems to be, and the more we know, the less employed God seems to be.
warrenfalk 2 years ago
The human race is in it's infancy. If we survive long enough God may become nothing more than an idea in history.
scaryflakybiscuits 2 years ago 9
@scaryflakybiscuits
just wait for gen Y to realise how stupid the idea of religion is...
it'll take about 10-20 more years for religion to just die in its own ass..
alexvrynios 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
because that belief has killed so many.. where have you been?
Machimbombo 2 years ago
part 1, 2 and 3 and you are so afraid of Dinesh that you dare not expose the whole debate but one the one side???
Jesuslily 2 years ago 2
Let me quote him
"I look around and ***I AM SO GLAD TO BE ALIVE.*** This world is filled with WONDERFUL STUFF."
Hitchens expresses the same sentiment as does Dawkins.
And then in the next breath they say, "UNLESS GOD DID IT" Then all of a sudden is ugly and sloppy and poorly designed etc etc.
As a fair minded thinker, taking no sides in this, I just wanted to point that out.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Interesting analysis...
robotwookie 2 years ago
This is an interesting point, with one stipulation.
When the sort of "Career Atheists" like Dawkins and Hitchens describe nature, they call it "Wonderful". When theists describe their gods, they call them "Perfect" and say they created nature.
Nature can be wonderful while still having imperfections/mistakes in, but a "Perfect" god can't create something imperfect.
LordOmberus 2 years ago 17
When theists describe their gods, they call them "Perfect" <---------You take the words of the dingbats and twist their pathetic ideas into one big ball of "them+causation=idiocy."
You may say SOME or MANY theists/deists, assign attributes to a god as best as they can imagine them. Yes. But your statement is a lie that "when theists describe" etc etc etc bla bla bla Ralph.
I RALPH, because I'm trying to discern our causation, and you're going on about a group of people's opinions.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
...We didn't have "Causation". We just sort of happened. Like London.
And yes, I'll admit that it's a bit of a tautology to say that Theists describe their god, because the description of god as having certain attributes MAKES one a Theist.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
@LordOmberus Imperfection is subjective.
ZenMuadDib1 1 year ago
Though i feel your statement is an oversimplification, it does touch on a point i can clear up for you.
As a product of a natural process that is complex and massive, our universe is amazing. That so much order can come of it is astounding.
But if there is an omnipotent being pulling all the strings. Then he is making some very basic mistakes that us as non omnipotent can easily point out. Leading to questions regarding either this being's ability or intent.
sadhattersreturn 2 years ago
"our universe is amazing"
We have no word where we could do justice in labeling the universe....at all.
Anyway, I don't want to get into "beings" and their "intentions". I simply want to understand where anyone could possibly prove that intention is any less likely than unintentional causation.
Many atheists argue that they make no claims and thus their faith relies on the evidence.
They say, "no god here, no god there".
"Default" position is thus soft-atheism.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Well, "Big" is a start. The universe is, most will agree, very, very big. "Big" is a label. It is also completely correct.
Unintentional happening is more likely that intentional causation, because all that's required for something to happen unintentionally is for it to happen, but for something to happen intentionally, something unintentional has to first create an intender to intend for something to happen.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
Excellent. Now make a list of things that are taken of granted, assumed, calculated on a 51-49% probability rate as well as extrapolations from extrapolations from untestable theories created by our quite limited plane of thought and consciousness.
But I like your answer, at least it makes sense, even if only in a storybook religious type of way. Religious scoreboard.
Jew/Xian -1 points Ahteist -1.1 points
(The extra -.1 is because at least Jews admit that it's faith.)
D33veeoss 2 years ago
There is a difference between accepting things on faith and accepting a thing because it is the thing best supported by available evidence.
For one thing, we KNOW the big bang happened. We know almost exactly when, a lot about how, but almost nothing about why. But we know for certain that it happened, simply because of the wealth of available evidence, like the proportions of hydrogen and helium predicted using big-bang centered calculations exactly matching their real-world proportions.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
The frequency and amplitude of the cosmic background radiation, the "Echoes" of the big bang also fit to within extremely tight tolerances with what's predicted based on the nature of the event.
Unfortunately I can't give you mathematically precise calculations because I am not a physicist, but there are physicists in the world, and they'll give the exact same answer, but with better numbers.
As for my "Story", it's nothing more than fairly simple logic.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
Everytime you masturbates, god kills a kitten. So please, think of the kittens.
TheWorldsStage 2 years ago
And everytime you pet a kitten god kills your boner. Evidence of intelligent design.
TBlake34 2 years ago
Anyone else impressed with Dennett's analogies? Not to mention his pleasant jabs at D'Souza?
boobmcnutt 2 years ago 2
obviously you had enough patients to post three times. And for your information i may be 18 but that is not a means for you to judge me you halfwit.
Shaun1040 2 years ago 2
Living in Europe would give you an insight you clearly need. It has nothing to do with brainwashing you fool its called a cultural insight. Do not sledge something you simply are prejudices against without experiencing it firsthand.
Your looking at Europe as a whole and just making sweeping generalizations about all its members.
Shaun1040 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
balamanti2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3rd
I do not have patience to talk to an 18 year old kid, whose experience in life is still too little to talk in a descent way
balamanti2 2 years ago