Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
I find it interesting that this Jew Boteach SELLS this video, where Dawkins posts ALL OF HIS SPEECHES, LECTURES, INTERVIEWS, DEBATES AND DOCUMENTARIES FOR FREE ONLINE.
Pay me and agree with me or else...because I'm religious
Listen to what I have to say for free and through critical thinking, decide for yourself...because I'm a scientist.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
THEN YOU TELL ME THIS . WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN . WHY IS YOU FIGHTING A INVIABLE GOD . THATS LIKE FIGHTING AGAINST A INVIABLE PERSON . THE ONLY WAY YOU WILL FIGHT ANYTHING . YOU HAVE TO BELEAVE THAT IT IS THERE ? LOL
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" Their not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true......
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" Their not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true...
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" Their not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true...
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" They're not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true...
He admitted it happened later. He said he forgot it(Which is likely, because it was 13 years after the debate that he said he didn't), he debates alot of people, and this was a fairly small one. Everyone makes mistakes, isn't Christianity all about forgiveness?
And, sorry, I missed the meeting where Dawkins became the leader of all Atheists.
Discovered in 2003: The underlying law of nature. . Discovered in 2008: The empirical process by which one may identify the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself. . This knowledge comes with no middleman wearing a fancy hat, cape, scarf, ring or necklace to obey and pay. . Think about it. . The underlying law of nature is the observable, constant, most fundamental way of all things -- all matter, energy, forms, forces, thoughts, behaviour, events and conditions. . Google it.
My common sense without arguments of science makes me beleive thart god doesn't exist. If I apply science god doesn't make any sense. Poor god, he never existed.
@arutam007 can i ask you something? How come when most fruits aren't ripe their green but when they ripen they turn colors-colors that we can now identify as ripe fruit? what could have caused that to evolve? and furthermore when the fruit ripens it becomes ready to eat and healthy too! they even taste good! wow, thats some luck we humans got........ that the universe would "accidentally" provide for us like that.....
Saturation of vitamin and minerals. Most vegetables are actually green when ripe anyway. Either that or god did it. Now I don't know what to think. Oh, wait. I'll go with the provable, logical and most likely explanation.
@SimLappp We identify those colours as meaning that the fruit is ripe because we have learned that when they change colour they are ripe. It's that simple.
@SimLappp What a stupid question, there's plenty of ripe fruits out there that will kill you. Our fruit is no accident, ancient civilizations cultivated and preserved the best varietys and that's why it's so good today. Denying evolution is denying science which has given you so many of the little luxurys you have today. Don't be such an ungrateful little shit.
@redeyejedi1987 Unfortunately because macroevolution (the branch of evolution which states that a number of mutations over time can result in the creation of a new species) has NOT been proven and thus it is an insult to science to treat such a THEORY as being factual when there is no empirical evidence for macroevolution. Google "godandscience" and read some of the articles concerning the matter.
@fbbplant Unfortunately because god has no place in science, googling "godandscience" was as pointless as I thought it would be. No we haven't witnessed species evolving into another, but modern science has only been around for a few hundred years and evolution only half of that, evolution takes time. There are enough transitional forms in the fossil records for us to know things evolve. Evolution is fact all rational scientists would say the same, saying otherwise is an insult to science.
@redeyejedi1987 All scientists? Certainly the author of the site does not. Certainly authors of similar sites do not, and there are certainly more (a pew forum survey says 13%). Unfortunately, there are too many places where evolution falls out, such as: tetrapods existing BEFORE any transitional form or intermediate, the fact that birds have digits 2, 3 and 4 while dinosaurs had 1, 2 and 3 with there being no evidence of a regression of 1 and a growth of 4 in the fossil record
to suggest such an occurance. Furthermore, it is often more useful to not evolve than to have an incomplete evolution (what is the use of half a wing?) rendering an organism less likely to pass on genes than more likely.
@redeyejedi1987 Would you prefer to continue this debate through email or private messaging where there is more spaces for response and links to responses can be provided?
@fbbplant No not really, I have no interest in sites called godandscience. It's something like 7% of American scientists don't think evolution happened. Which is a very small minority for a very religious country. What do the 7% know that the other 93% don't? We will never have a complete record of every single species with all intermediate and transitional forms because not all of them would've been preserved. In the small amount of time we have been searching for fossils we've found
@fbbplant an impressive ammount, think how many we'll have in 2000 years. Over time the evidence for evolution builds and builds. The burden of proof is on creationists not evolution. If you believe you can disprove evolution and have another theory which doesn't require faith alone then go for it, go get yourself a nobel prize, do something no one else has.
@redeyejedi1987 Evidence has not been building for evolution, but building against it. You cannot simply say "the fossil record isn't complete" because what you have thus said is "evolution hasn't been proven", for what if the new organisms we find in your 2000 year time frame continue to disprove evolution? Evolution is still a theory, to call it a fact is an insult to science. You tell me that any solution cannot involve theistic ideas, but what if that's the only solution? Oh, and pelase tell
@redeyejedi1987 And about your burden of proof, burden of proof comes on anyone who has expressly stated a theory as fact. I have not come here and said creationism is a fact (though I believe it is), rather I have come here and said evolution is not. The argument is about evolution, not creationism, putting the burden of proof on you. I have provided evidence against evolution, for that is what this argument is about.
@redeyejedi1987 Ah and one last point. Considering that you believe in evolution, even though there is an incomplete fossil record which you are relying on as evidence (in fact, are relying on evidence which you do not know exists), would it not be accurate to say that you have your faith as evolution?
@fbbplant it's proven through the study and comparison of DNA. You know, the stuff we didn't know about when the 50 or so religions were created by our imagination. I would love to see any kind of scientific proof against evolution, other than referring to a book that was written thousands of years ago, which has been changed/revised over the years by various Kings and political figures. Please give me some solid evidence/reasoning to believe in 1 religion out of the other hundreds.... lolz
@HippieDrummer06 Please elaborate on "it's proven through the study and comparison of DNA". Perhaps something I can google would be helpful, or a link to an article. I explained proof against evolution earlier, including that tetrapods were found to have existed 10 million years before the so-called "intermediates" which evolutionists claim evolved from marine animals and into tetrapods, as well as dinosaurs having digits 1, 2 and 3 but birds having digits 2, 3 and 4 with the fossil record not
"I explained proof against evolution earlier" Did you?
It is clear that you deem your less-than-exhaustive theory as if proven, even a given and other theories to be less than proof. It isn't surprising given how driven you are to refute the theory. You have a problem with it. I would like to understand why. I don't think it's because you value scientific method above all, or you wouldn't have used the word "proof" as glibly. IE: you set out with a predisposition.
@fbbplant Maybe I can. Pertaining to the fossil record. Fossils require extremely specific conditions to happen. When it pertains to whales, it would stand to argue that any fossils created of seas creatures would hardley ever be possible to come across. With dna mapping now though, we can look at the Dna and compare any artifacts to known existing whales today. There will be gaps. There are more extinct animals that are made through evolution than are sustained.
@splicedenergy Yes, this is true. However, it could also mean that said animals came into existence through intelligent design (I'm not saying this is the case, merely speculating) as it would stand to reason that if an intelligent designer were to create a series of animals with similar living conditions (water based mammals) that they would be rather similar as they come from one mind and. It would be important to compare the DNA of fully land mammal "ancestors" to modern whales.
@HippieDrummer06 showing any regression of digit 1 and growth of digit 4. While you can say that the above examples will have proof found in the future, that is proof we don't have now, and thus we cannot think of evolution as a fact, but a theory. I would like you to google godandscience, it's a great website which provides many articles showing how science gives evidence for Christianity. I guarantee that even if you don't believe what you read there, you will find it an interesting read.
@aguteempasil Could you please elaborate your argument? Your post does not illustrate a proper argument or response to my argument, rather, an insult. Tell me, aguteempasil, are you insulting me due to a lack of a response or just because of contempt?
@fbbplant ceratinly. evolution is a fact, the evidence outways the skepticism by far. science is constantly pouring on the evidence, mountains and mountains of it. you spoke of fossil records before, well there are excellent records of whale transitional fossils we now have. to say they are incomplete is a moronic kirk cameron moment, of course we dont have ever single transitional form of an organism in the record, every generation is one and that would be near impossible. much to learn u have.
@aguteempasil Unfortunately, the fossil record is mostly discontinuous. Even the most continuous examples, such as the horse, are filled with gaps. Furthermore, there are periods of "stasis" where organisms remain unchanged for millions of years before new organisms appear extremely quickly. This means that the gradualistic model of evolution is wrong, meaning either punctuated equilibrium or no evolution. This would require that a small portion of a population would gain multiple beneficial...
@fbbplant then what would satisfy your skepticism? every single generation of a horse, whale, dog over a few million year period? i cant produce the fossil record for you, obviously, that is something you would need to seek out on your own accord and investigate. if you were to do that id recommend looking at whale specimen, which is very reliable and complete, and shows various forms of transitional stages.
@aguteempasil As I stated below, the fossil record supports only punctuated equilibrium as a method of evolution and not gradualism, though studies have shown that the idea of punctuated equilibrium (a small portion of a large population gaining mutations and becoming isolated) is detrimental to that new population's health (the study involving the Greater Praire Chicken I posted earlier). I shall research the fossil record of whales and ask people I know about it.
@aguteempasil mutations (with most mutations being neutral or detrimental) and then become isolated from the original population (with the many "evolutions" in the fossil record, this would have to happen all the time). However, a study of the Greater Prairie Chicken of a 35 year population decline and isolation of a population, which illustrated that the isolated population required for punctuated equilibrium resulted in inbreeding, with genetic variability being reduced, and detrimental...
@aguteempasil genes that weren't previously expressed because they were recessive, becoming expressed because of the reduced population. With fertility rates dropping from 93% to 74% and the population only recovering with human intervention, the mechanism for punctuated equilibrium is shown to be detrimental to a population, not helpful.
@aguteempasil Next time, could I please have some specific evidence? I prefer specifics to a general statement of "mountains and mountains of it". Perhaps an example from the fossil record of macroevolution. For how can I question evidence when it is not presented?
@fbbplant it is not just one area of science which confirms evolution, but a whole myriad of areas of reasearch. embriology, geneology, ecology, genetics and so on, all point to the same thing. what precisely your problem with it? also i have to ask, are you religious?
@aguteempasil you still have not given me any specific evidence. Simply stating that those fields prove evolution is not proof, stating how they do is. Please back up your statements with evidence. It is tiring not being able to rebuke something because it is not present. My problem with it is that I do not think science supports it (though I wouldn't have started debate here if it wasn't implied I was "an ungrateful little shit" for not believing in evolution). I have provided evidence
@aguteempasil Especially specific evidence (though not a lot considering the character cap), while I have only been given "mountains and mountains" or "its proven by many fields". Yes I am religious, though when I used to think evolution was a fact, I was what would be described as "a theistic evolutionist". My faith does not influence my decision, and if I were not a Christian, I would be like Robert Locke, who has no faith but thinks of evolution the same way I do.
@aguteempasil The problems with the fossil record of whales are as follows: 1) The fossil record indicates that there was a 10 million year gap between the solely land creature and the solely marine creature. There is not enough time in 10 million years for all of the necessary anotomical and physiological changes to be made for a land creature to "evolve" into a marine one. Furthermore, The fossils of the "transitional" Ambulocetus and the Basilosaurus indicate that a 7-12 ft creature had
@aguteempasil changed into a 70ft one, a size difference too large to ignore. Furthermore, fossils of the Pakicetus (a supposed "ancestor") were only found to have a skull fragment and teeth. How can a reconstruction show that it is an animal that swims in the water and hunts fish? Other "transitional" creatures such as the Ambulocetus also are missing parts, such as the pelvic girdle (thus meaning we don't know how the creature moved).
@aguteempasil Furthermore, a number of artistic reconstructions depict webbed feet, something that will never be known (for such tissue would not have survived to the present time).
@fbbplant you still didn't answer the question...why believe in one religion out of the other hundreds? what makes a religion different than a cult? where do poeple who don't believe in Christianity go after they die? hell? if yes, then half of the world is going to hell. Of course we don't know every thing about evolution - we are still learning through the study of DNA and fossil records. You think we should just stop studying and say "oh well it was god, lets not even try and find the truth?"
@HippieDrummer06 Of course it is good for study to continue, to verify or falsify the theory of evolution. However, I was objecting to the claim that evolution has already been proven (with evidence I provided) and that any evidence that we get in the future will only strengthen evolutionists' claims. I want the truth to be found, not to be assumed, for that is not scientific. This debate has been about evolution, not religion. I did not see your question, hence why I did not answer it....
@HippieDrummer06 However, the discussion we're having has been on whether or not evolution is the truth, not about alternative theories, and thus in order to not disrupt the debate, will not answer your question here, but will be happy to have a PM debate if you want (just PM me to tell me you want to and it will happen).
@fbbplant I would say i have faith we will find many more fossils and eventually find out how life began. The theory of evolution is a well established fact of science, all modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms, there is no opposing evidence, missing links in the fossil record does not disprove it. However... the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is what we do not fully understand, if i was to say Darwin's theory was fact you could argue that i'm insulting science.
@redeyejedi1987 The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Otherwise, it would be called the fact of evolution. I still have yet to receive specific arguments from anyone here, though I thank you for the site you provided and shall read it. Perhaps I shall PM you some responses.
@redeyejedi1987 Perhaps if there is anything specific from the site you would like to argue (such as one of their points for evolution), we could discuss it?
@fbbplant Microevolution is proven. Transitional fossils have been found, and carbon dating shows that over great periods of time, species change from one form to another slightly different form. We simply haven't seen this part with our own eyes.
Either evolution happened, or an all-powerful being named God has an elaborate plan for a prank in which he plants perfectly realistic fake fossils, with the goal of fooling scientists and tricking people into not believing in him.
@fbbplant It's just silly how people will ignore a mountain of evidence in favor of the idea that an unprovable being is acting out of character and playing tricks on us (without any reason for those actions either). But of course, people do this because the alternative draws their religious beliefs into question.
No one doubts science in other areas. People trust microwaves will heat food, and cell phones will make calls. But as soon as there's a Bible contradiction, science MUST be wrong.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
God is simply a magical figment of imagination that was by necessity formed by culture to fill the void of the complete lack of scientific knowledge back in the Bronze Age.
Many people still lack this knowledge and so resort to magical figments of imagination, even to this day.
It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't.
@DHSucked creator in certain things, like prepackaged foods, automobiles, myths, and cellphones. complexity does not mean created, not does it default to anyones personal god just because they think so. it also does not mean that something was not created, but the more humans learn of the world, the less a divine hand seems as anything logical.
@DHSucked Common sense? common to who? Certainly not to people who can actually think for themselves. Even if a god did exist, and he doesn´t, how the hell do you know which one it is without referring to some dusty old book that you just believe in without ANY evidence whatsoever. It isn´t scant evidence, it´s NONE at all
Well, if you want to speak of things that are common, that post of yours is full of a common logical FALLACY that atheists always make. If somebody says they believe in God then obviously it's the Christian-Judeo God. If God exists, he's the one of the torah/bible. It's that or atheism. One most certainly cannot be simply a theist, no sir.
@DHSucked You talk horsehite my friend, where did I specify WHICH god? Or was it that you made the fallacy up in your own mind, pretty much in the same way as you make up your god.
@DHSucked Well without the dogmatic belief system it's hard to imagine how the hell you could ever come up with any reason to believe you are going to continue to live after you die... So i suppose some assumptions are made on the atheist's part, but you'll have to excuse us, seeing as the evidence is in our favour. So i'm sorry, but It generally takes a dogmatic believe system to turn somebodies head away from the evidence.
@DHSucked Common sense? Common yes, but common sense? No... Not one single person on this planet knows how the universe came about. All we can do is either speculate (thats you) Or we can hunt for evidence, test and observe (thats the scientist, often, but not always atheist) So it is common to speculate that there might be a god, but it is far from common sense to believe you have any reason to actually assume there is one.
When I am born, I am indeed an atheist, that is because like EVERY other aspect of a babies sensory and brain functions, and sooner their learning skills and the understanding of reality has to be LEARNT! It is just so ironic that some of atheists worst arguments, are ideas that have already been represented in the Bible. God charges us with the teaching of the Bible to our children, for that exact reason, so that they may know he exists!
Because it hasn't yet been established that any of the gods are real.
Your capslock is broken again. You keep making claims you can't back up with any evidence, even your last post assumed a god. Rmember, theists are making the claims, yet they can't back them up, hence it is common sense not to accept them.
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh How can Christians be so arrogant as to think that THEY know how the universe came to be and that of all the gods ever thought to exist, THEY have a personal relationship with the one and only god. Give me a break. stop pretending youre special.
@1tabligh Yes, considering there is likely an infinite number of universes, something we now have evidence for. You are in Sweden, have someone there explain what a logical fallacy is.
@93alvbjo The evidence ( not very strong evidence granted) is in the fact that space time appears to be flat, so it is possible that there could have been many "big bangs" in our "universe" and they are simply so far away that we could never hope to see one. The other line comes from the weird shit subatomic particles do. Of course there is as of yet no direct evidence of a metaverse, but there are some pretty strong hints, such as the "fine tuning" argument.
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
@1tabligh My computer is an amazing invention that boggles the mind when one thinks about the amount of calculations it can do per second, all within a chip the size of my fingernail. That doesnt prove an existence of a god.
@REman07 Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@1tabligh Now that's what we call an argument from incredulity if I've ever seen one. Here is another one: if there earth is round, wouldn't people fall of the bottom?
@SimKoning What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh One that has a solid understanding of the theory of evolution, which you obviously do not. Look up "argument from ignorance". It's ok that you are afraid of death and really want there to be proof of a god, but please, for sake of mankind, read a fu***** biology book. I'm not going to sit here and give you a free education, just so you can provide one argument from incredulity after another.
Let me ask you a question: what rational human being would believe a magical anthropomorphich being created man from DIRT and woman from his rib, before placing a magical tree in a garden, so he can be tricked by a talking snake into doing something wrong before he even has an understanding of right and wrong? Does this not smell, at least slightly, of bullshit to you?
@SimKoning Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
you need a lot of demolitions to bring that tower down...The fact that demolitions brought down those 3 buildings is a fact and is not contestable...who did it and who had knowledge of it, and who was involved is what the investigation needs to find out.
If arabs flew planes into the building thats not the issuie, they very well might of and that does not matter, they didn't bring those 3 towers down
@Tangentbordsblues "might of" is a phonetic misspelling of the contraction "might've" and means "might have" or "may have." "might of" is substandard english when used in this way [as opposed to when "might" is a noun and "might of" means "the might of" someone or something] because it is grammatically meaningless and is usually only spoken--which results in it appearing almost exclusively online when written by subliterate individuals who simply do not know any better.
i have personally seen the blueprints to those towers, they are built like a brick shit house!! you could crash 10 planes in those buildings and they will still stand, if you look at the blueprints they were designed with the possibility of a passenger plane hitting them you couldnt bring those buildings down even with napalm either, those buildings could of been set of fire for 1 month constantly and still stand
all i am searching for is the biter medicine cold hard truth, i am a bit tired of being lied to constantly by everyone, and it sucks that we have to investigate even the obvious things, because that is how bad this liar crap and ideological subversion stuff has gotten out of hand
@MadMAn12gauge Everybody who wants the truth and tries hard enough will find it, its an ugly truth, but yet life is still beautiful, you can't have positive with out negative, and vice verse. Its hard because everthing we have been taught since birth has been a lie, because those teaching us have been lied to, you are closer to the truth now then you think, trust me.
@aARIESsSs no not exactly,something can be true if it has not been proven, It is how you come up with an answer that is a problem, this is what religions do...they allready have the answer they want first, then they look for things to try to legitimize it, instead of asking a question and then following a fact trail to see where it leads then making an answer last, they make their answers first
@MadMAn12gauge yes, but your missing the point, everything that is not true, has not been proven, by your logic we could say scientology has not been prove, little red riding hood has not been proven, allah god yhwh zeus thor megatron have not been proven, anything you can imagine that does not exist has not been proven, to give your "soul" and entire life to something that has 0% proof is telling you something, and its not good.
@aARIESsSs well yeah but, all i am saying is give everything claimed a proper investigation and not just pass it off as true or false(like 9/11 for example)...if something has not been proven logic says investigate it since people believe what they have no proof over, there must be a reason why people believe anything that is not true or has any fact found to lead to it
@MadMAn12gauge yes thats what I do with everything, I search both sides and come to a conclusion, 911 was not carried out by the usa, but the people who control the planet play contries off each other like chess pieces to create war, because they are the bankers and war is MAJOR profit. And christianity like any religion has absoloutly ZERO evidence, its man made.
@aARIESsSs well as for 9-11 i don't know exactly who demolished the buildings with explosives to give an answer, an investigation needs to be done, their official answer for what brought down the buildings puzzles me, if the government had no involvement why is there not an investigation and why are they bullshitting us about what actually occured?
@darkfur35 I'm not going to pretend I don't know what you're talking about, but maybe you should take a good look at the definition of 'religion' before you make such a statement. Your comment expresses the usual religious lament, that Atheism seems to be supplanting religion in our societies. That is only a matter of perspective. By analogy think about Darth Vader bringing balance to the force, which he did by reducing the 'good' side to a shell of it's former self. (hey, you started it!)
Good constructive criticism, not pertaining to the topic. Maybe you should comment on Shmuley's outrageous doyle hat on his head and how he needs a shave. Or maybe you can just think about what they're actually saying.
Maybe you should stop being so anti semitic and attacking the Jewish culture. Dawkins lost this debate by the way, but all the atheists here on youtube won't admit that.
It's not a matter of anti-semitism. I don't agree with what I said, I'm saying it'd be equivalent to what you said. Thank you for the ad-Hom attacks. So practical.
Maximus, you say that Dawkins jerks his head a lot... why do you say that? We only see him briefly, sitting and waiting for his turn. In this particular vid he hasn't spoken yet. The one you see at the lectern for most of this first bit is Prof.Peter Atkins.
I have to say...after reading an exceedingly large amount of crap...I'm very happy and encouraged by the intelligent and insightful posts from those articulating the evidence for evolution and the transparent fallacy of creationism.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996
i believe in all proven science and in an unknown God.
this is not only common proven sense, but based upon Spirit.
read more about spirit in the Bhagavad Gita.
Wolfje777 5 months ago
God created everything. Got was not created, therefor god is not a thing. If god is no thing, he is nothing. God is nothing..
There, he doesn't exist.
DaFleegsta 5 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996
@DaFleegsta lol pathetic!!
ulsterscothosy 2 months ago
I find it interesting that this Jew Boteach SELLS this video, where Dawkins posts ALL OF HIS SPEECHES, LECTURES, INTERVIEWS, DEBATES AND DOCUMENTARIES FOR FREE ONLINE.
Pay me and agree with me or else...because I'm religious
Listen to what I have to say for free and through critical thinking, decide for yourself...because I'm a scientist.
CaptHandsome42 6 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996 6
@CaptHandsome42 You anti-semitic asshole. As an atheist and proponent of science, allow me to tell you that you're not fucking helping.
zyxek 6 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996
Comment removed
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996
this video quality is awful. I can barely hear what's being said.
tonyxc87 8 months ago in playlist Shmuley Boteach vs Richard Dawkins Debate - Oxford 1996 4
Can anybody tell me where I can find the full debate?
TomPark1986 9 months ago
for @arutam007
Evolution is nothing like an accident, perhaps a bit of reading would exspand your knowledge on the subject.
neuromatiker 1 year ago
the first two guy are hoooooooot
veronicachic 1 year ago
Comment removed
jancivil 1 year ago
THEN YOU TELL ME THIS . WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN . WHY IS YOU FIGHTING A INVIABLE GOD . THATS LIKE FIGHTING AGAINST A INVIABLE PERSON . THE ONLY WAY YOU WILL FIGHT ANYTHING . YOU HAVE TO BELEAVE THAT IT IS THERE ? LOL
thinkalott33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" Their not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true......
Tobytrim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" Their not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true...
Tobytrim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" Their not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true...
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@thinkalott33 " WHY IS THEY FIGHTING SOMETHING THEY DONT BELAEVE IN(sic)" They're not "fighting" the thing that doesn't exist. They are debating against people with the irrational and unverified belief that something so unlikely does. More specifically, the are arguing against the intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, or gullibility, required to assume, (usually claiming "certain knowledge") such an idea to be true...
Tobytrim 1 year ago
i totally agree
chelseamate2 1 year ago
richard dawkins is saying this debeta never took place
well i guess atheist don't want look at the evidence when it's right in their nose
LaughingHobo 1 year ago
@LaughingHobo
He admitted it happened later. He said he forgot it(Which is likely, because it was 13 years after the debate that he said he didn't), he debates alot of people, and this was a fairly small one. Everyone makes mistakes, isn't Christianity all about forgiveness?
And, sorry, I missed the meeting where Dawkins became the leader of all Atheists.
Cyphairius 1 year ago
when i see the phrase richard ...dawkins debate... i already know someone going to get destroyed.
willardftw 1 year ago
this is very difficult to hear, very muffled. is there a better audio version?
LeadRat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
The left wants to be judged by its rhetoric apart from its works.
LovingScrubbies 1 year ago
My common sense without arguments of science makes me beleive thart god doesn't exist. If I apply science god doesn't make any sense. Poor god, he never existed.
arutam007 1 year ago 20
@arutam007 "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen." Albert Einstein
NapalmSanctuary 1 year ago
@arutam007 can i ask you something? How come when most fruits aren't ripe their green but when they ripen they turn colors-colors that we can now identify as ripe fruit? what could have caused that to evolve? and furthermore when the fruit ripens it becomes ready to eat and healthy too! they even taste good! wow, thats some luck we humans got........ that the universe would "accidentally" provide for us like that.....
SimLappp 1 year ago
@SimLappp
Saturation of vitamin and minerals. Most vegetables are actually green when ripe anyway. Either that or god did it. Now I don't know what to think. Oh, wait. I'll go with the provable, logical and most likely explanation.
subg88 1 year ago
@SimLappp You're not well educated, are you?
FantasticBob7000 1 year ago
@SimLappp We identify those colours as meaning that the fruit is ripe because we have learned that when they change colour they are ripe. It's that simple.
LikeALeadZeppelin 1 year ago
@SimLappp What a stupid question, there's plenty of ripe fruits out there that will kill you. Our fruit is no accident, ancient civilizations cultivated and preserved the best varietys and that's why it's so good today. Denying evolution is denying science which has given you so many of the little luxurys you have today. Don't be such an ungrateful little shit.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 Unfortunately because macroevolution (the branch of evolution which states that a number of mutations over time can result in the creation of a new species) has NOT been proven and thus it is an insult to science to treat such a THEORY as being factual when there is no empirical evidence for macroevolution. Google "godandscience" and read some of the articles concerning the matter.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant Unfortunately because god has no place in science, googling "godandscience" was as pointless as I thought it would be. No we haven't witnessed species evolving into another, but modern science has only been around for a few hundred years and evolution only half of that, evolution takes time. There are enough transitional forms in the fossil records for us to know things evolve. Evolution is fact all rational scientists would say the same, saying otherwise is an insult to science.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 All scientists? Certainly the author of the site does not. Certainly authors of similar sites do not, and there are certainly more (a pew forum survey says 13%). Unfortunately, there are too many places where evolution falls out, such as: tetrapods existing BEFORE any transitional form or intermediate, the fact that birds have digits 2, 3 and 4 while dinosaurs had 1, 2 and 3 with there being no evidence of a regression of 1 and a growth of 4 in the fossil record
fbbplant 1 year ago
to suggest such an occurance. Furthermore, it is often more useful to not evolve than to have an incomplete evolution (what is the use of half a wing?) rendering an organism less likely to pass on genes than more likely.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 Would you prefer to continue this debate through email or private messaging where there is more spaces for response and links to responses can be provided?
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant No not really, I have no interest in sites called godandscience. It's something like 7% of American scientists don't think evolution happened. Which is a very small minority for a very religious country. What do the 7% know that the other 93% don't? We will never have a complete record of every single species with all intermediate and transitional forms because not all of them would've been preserved. In the small amount of time we have been searching for fossils we've found
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@fbbplant an impressive ammount, think how many we'll have in 2000 years. Over time the evidence for evolution builds and builds. The burden of proof is on creationists not evolution. If you believe you can disprove evolution and have another theory which doesn't require faith alone then go for it, go get yourself a nobel prize, do something no one else has.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 Evidence has not been building for evolution, but building against it. You cannot simply say "the fossil record isn't complete" because what you have thus said is "evolution hasn't been proven", for what if the new organisms we find in your 2000 year time frame continue to disprove evolution? Evolution is still a theory, to call it a fact is an insult to science. You tell me that any solution cannot involve theistic ideas, but what if that's the only solution? Oh, and pelase tell
fbbplant 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 me where you got your statistics from.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 And about your burden of proof, burden of proof comes on anyone who has expressly stated a theory as fact. I have not come here and said creationism is a fact (though I believe it is), rather I have come here and said evolution is not. The argument is about evolution, not creationism, putting the burden of proof on you. I have provided evidence against evolution, for that is what this argument is about.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 You should research Robert Locke's "Scientific Case Against Evolution". It's about 3 pages but a good read.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 Ah and one last point. Considering that you believe in evolution, even though there is an incomplete fossil record which you are relying on as evidence (in fact, are relying on evidence which you do not know exists), would it not be accurate to say that you have your faith as evolution?
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant it's proven through the study and comparison of DNA. You know, the stuff we didn't know about when the 50 or so religions were created by our imagination. I would love to see any kind of scientific proof against evolution, other than referring to a book that was written thousands of years ago, which has been changed/revised over the years by various Kings and political figures. Please give me some solid evidence/reasoning to believe in 1 religion out of the other hundreds.... lolz
HippieDrummer06 1 year ago
@HippieDrummer06 Please elaborate on "it's proven through the study and comparison of DNA". Perhaps something I can google would be helpful, or a link to an article. I explained proof against evolution earlier, including that tetrapods were found to have existed 10 million years before the so-called "intermediates" which evolutionists claim evolved from marine animals and into tetrapods, as well as dinosaurs having digits 1, 2 and 3 but birds having digits 2, 3 and 4 with the fossil record not
fbbplant 1 year ago
Comment removed
jancivil 1 year ago
@fbbplant
"I explained proof against evolution earlier" Did you?
It is clear that you deem your less-than-exhaustive theory as if proven, even a given and other theories to be less than proof. It isn't surprising given how driven you are to refute the theory. You have a problem with it. I would like to understand why. I don't think it's because you value scientific method above all, or you wouldn't have used the word "proof" as glibly. IE: you set out with a predisposition.
jancivil 1 year ago
@jancivil Please refute the evidence I have given instead of just telling me it is wrong.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant Maybe I can. Pertaining to the fossil record. Fossils require extremely specific conditions to happen. When it pertains to whales, it would stand to argue that any fossils created of seas creatures would hardley ever be possible to come across. With dna mapping now though, we can look at the Dna and compare any artifacts to known existing whales today. There will be gaps. There are more extinct animals that are made through evolution than are sustained.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Yes, this is true. However, it could also mean that said animals came into existence through intelligent design (I'm not saying this is the case, merely speculating) as it would stand to reason that if an intelligent designer were to create a series of animals with similar living conditions (water based mammals) that they would be rather similar as they come from one mind and. It would be important to compare the DNA of fully land mammal "ancestors" to modern whales.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@splicedenergy I would be interested in any studies or arguments you could provide.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@HippieDrummer06 showing any regression of digit 1 and growth of digit 4. While you can say that the above examples will have proof found in the future, that is proof we don't have now, and thus we cannot think of evolution as a fact, but a theory. I would like you to google godandscience, it's a great website which provides many articles showing how science gives evidence for Christianity. I guarantee that even if you don't believe what you read there, you will find it an interesting read.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant creatard.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
@aguteempasil Could you please elaborate your argument? Your post does not illustrate a proper argument or response to my argument, rather, an insult. Tell me, aguteempasil, are you insulting me due to a lack of a response or just because of contempt?
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant ceratinly. evolution is a fact, the evidence outways the skepticism by far. science is constantly pouring on the evidence, mountains and mountains of it. you spoke of fossil records before, well there are excellent records of whale transitional fossils we now have. to say they are incomplete is a moronic kirk cameron moment, of course we dont have ever single transitional form of an organism in the record, every generation is one and that would be near impossible. much to learn u have.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
@aguteempasil Unfortunately, the fossil record is mostly discontinuous. Even the most continuous examples, such as the horse, are filled with gaps. Furthermore, there are periods of "stasis" where organisms remain unchanged for millions of years before new organisms appear extremely quickly. This means that the gradualistic model of evolution is wrong, meaning either punctuated equilibrium or no evolution. This would require that a small portion of a population would gain multiple beneficial...
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant then what would satisfy your skepticism? every single generation of a horse, whale, dog over a few million year period? i cant produce the fossil record for you, obviously, that is something you would need to seek out on your own accord and investigate. if you were to do that id recommend looking at whale specimen, which is very reliable and complete, and shows various forms of transitional stages.
aguteempasil 1 year ago
@aguteempasil As I stated below, the fossil record supports only punctuated equilibrium as a method of evolution and not gradualism, though studies have shown that the idea of punctuated equilibrium (a small portion of a large population gaining mutations and becoming isolated) is detrimental to that new population's health (the study involving the Greater Praire Chicken I posted earlier). I shall research the fossil record of whales and ask people I know about it.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil You shall have a response about the fossil record of whales within a day or 2. Thank you for waiting.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil mutations (with most mutations being neutral or detrimental) and then become isolated from the original population (with the many "evolutions" in the fossil record, this would have to happen all the time). However, a study of the Greater Prairie Chicken of a 35 year population decline and isolation of a population, which illustrated that the isolated population required for punctuated equilibrium resulted in inbreeding, with genetic variability being reduced, and detrimental...
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil genes that weren't previously expressed because they were recessive, becoming expressed because of the reduced population. With fertility rates dropping from 93% to 74% and the population only recovering with human intervention, the mechanism for punctuated equilibrium is shown to be detrimental to a population, not helpful.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil Next time, could I please have some specific evidence? I prefer specifics to a general statement of "mountains and mountains of it". Perhaps an example from the fossil record of macroevolution. For how can I question evidence when it is not presented?
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant it is not just one area of science which confirms evolution, but a whole myriad of areas of reasearch. embriology, geneology, ecology, genetics and so on, all point to the same thing. what precisely your problem with it? also i have to ask, are you religious?
aguteempasil 1 year ago
@aguteempasil you still have not given me any specific evidence. Simply stating that those fields prove evolution is not proof, stating how they do is. Please back up your statements with evidence. It is tiring not being able to rebuke something because it is not present. My problem with it is that I do not think science supports it (though I wouldn't have started debate here if it wasn't implied I was "an ungrateful little shit" for not believing in evolution). I have provided evidence
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil Especially specific evidence (though not a lot considering the character cap), while I have only been given "mountains and mountains" or "its proven by many fields". Yes I am religious, though when I used to think evolution was a fact, I was what would be described as "a theistic evolutionist". My faith does not influence my decision, and if I were not a Christian, I would be like Robert Locke, who has no faith but thinks of evolution the same way I do.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil The problems with the fossil record of whales are as follows: 1) The fossil record indicates that there was a 10 million year gap between the solely land creature and the solely marine creature. There is not enough time in 10 million years for all of the necessary anotomical and physiological changes to be made for a land creature to "evolve" into a marine one. Furthermore, The fossils of the "transitional" Ambulocetus and the Basilosaurus indicate that a 7-12 ft creature had
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil changed into a 70ft one, a size difference too large to ignore. Furthermore, fossils of the Pakicetus (a supposed "ancestor") were only found to have a skull fragment and teeth. How can a reconstruction show that it is an animal that swims in the water and hunts fish? Other "transitional" creatures such as the Ambulocetus also are missing parts, such as the pelvic girdle (thus meaning we don't know how the creature moved).
fbbplant 1 year ago
@aguteempasil Furthermore, a number of artistic reconstructions depict webbed feet, something that will never be known (for such tissue would not have survived to the present time).
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant you still didn't answer the question...why believe in one religion out of the other hundreds? what makes a religion different than a cult? where do poeple who don't believe in Christianity go after they die? hell? if yes, then half of the world is going to hell. Of course we don't know every thing about evolution - we are still learning through the study of DNA and fossil records. You think we should just stop studying and say "oh well it was god, lets not even try and find the truth?"
HippieDrummer06 1 year ago
@HippieDrummer06 Of course it is good for study to continue, to verify or falsify the theory of evolution. However, I was objecting to the claim that evolution has already been proven (with evidence I provided) and that any evidence that we get in the future will only strengthen evolutionists' claims. I want the truth to be found, not to be assumed, for that is not scientific. This debate has been about evolution, not religion. I did not see your question, hence why I did not answer it....
fbbplant 1 year ago
Comment removed
fbbplant 1 year ago
@HippieDrummer06 However, the discussion we're having has been on whether or not evolution is the truth, not about alternative theories, and thus in order to not disrupt the debate, will not answer your question here, but will be happy to have a PM debate if you want (just PM me to tell me you want to and it will happen).
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant I would say i have faith we will find many more fossils and eventually find out how life began. The theory of evolution is a well established fact of science, all modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms, there is no opposing evidence, missing links in the fossil record does not disprove it. However... the mechanisms by which evolution occurs is what we do not fully understand, if i was to say Darwin's theory was fact you could argue that i'm insulting science.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Otherwise, it would be called the fact of evolution. I still have yet to receive specific arguments from anyone here, though I thank you for the site you provided and shall read it. Perhaps I shall PM you some responses.
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant Search on the site 'Evolution is a fact and a theory', that'll be a good one for you to read seen as you won't accept evolution is fact.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@fbbplant But evolution is fact whether you believe it or not. The burden of proof, i'd recommend talkorigins for plenty of evidence.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@redeyejedi1987 Perhaps if there is anything specific from the site you would like to argue (such as one of their points for evolution), we could discuss it?
fbbplant 1 year ago
@fbbplant Besides that most of it's good non-biased evidence for evolution.
redeyejedi1987 1 year ago
@fbbplant Microevolution is proven. Transitional fossils have been found, and carbon dating shows that over great periods of time, species change from one form to another slightly different form. We simply haven't seen this part with our own eyes.
Either evolution happened, or an all-powerful being named God has an elaborate plan for a prank in which he plants perfectly realistic fake fossils, with the goal of fooling scientists and tricking people into not believing in him.
bobdonda 9 months ago 2
@bobdonda I had a muslim tell me dinosaur fossils were planted by scientist.
kingwillie206 6 months ago
@fbbplant It's just silly how people will ignore a mountain of evidence in favor of the idea that an unprovable being is acting out of character and playing tricks on us (without any reason for those actions either). But of course, people do this because the alternative draws their religious beliefs into question.
No one doubts science in other areas. People trust microwaves will heat food, and cell phones will make calls. But as soon as there's a Bible contradiction, science MUST be wrong.
bobdonda 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arutam007 "My common sense without arguments of science makes me beleive thart god doesn't exist."
I wish you guys'd make up your minds. Most "atheists" hate common sense and require that everything must be counter-intuitive.
trextoter 1 year ago
@arutam007
"My common sense without arguments of science makes me beleive thart [sic] god doesn't exist."
lol, how can you say it is common sense when it isn't so common!?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@arutam007
God is simply a magical figment of imagination that was by necessity formed by culture to fill the void of the complete lack of scientific knowledge back in the Bronze Age.
Many people still lack this knowledge and so resort to magical figments of imagination, even to this day.
SuperAntiZionist 1 year ago
@SuperAntiZionist superantizionist? why the antisemetism? does not israel have the right to exist?
manyfaceddestiny 9 months ago
@manyfaceddestiny
What antisemitism? Zionist is a political ideology you moron, and thus can be criticized like any other political ideology like Nazism or communism.
Take your slander, defamation and wanton ignorance and shove it up your arse.
SuperAntiZionist 6 months ago
@arutam007 you might want to check out kent hovind if you want some real science
heightboosting 1 year ago
@heightboosting
I used to foolishly believe in kent hovinds teaching, I used to be a strong believing christian,
but now im an athiest...why? Becuase like I searched for my answers
I suggest you go to thunderfoots videos on Kent Hovind, a lot of his teachigns are lies and thunderfoot disproves them
samsonmathew7000 11 months ago
@arutam007 so your commonsense tells you that the whole universe came into being from nothing by accident.
masonwealth 1 year ago
The Theist Challenge
It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
I'd actually say it's common sense TO believe in a creator.
DHSucked 1 year ago
@DHSucked
Why? An invisible magical guy with enough power to create everything. Sounds pretty unlikely to me.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@DHSucked creator in certain things, like prepackaged foods, automobiles, myths, and cellphones. complexity does not mean created, not does it default to anyones personal god just because they think so. it also does not mean that something was not created, but the more humans learn of the world, the less a divine hand seems as anything logical.
mistereveready 1 year ago
@DHSucked Common sense? common to who? Certainly not to people who can actually think for themselves. Even if a god did exist, and he doesn´t, how the hell do you know which one it is without referring to some dusty old book that you just believe in without ANY evidence whatsoever. It isn´t scant evidence, it´s NONE at all
yatter1 1 year ago
@yatter1
Well, if you want to speak of things that are common, that post of yours is full of a common logical FALLACY that atheists always make. If somebody says they believe in God then obviously it's the Christian-Judeo God. If God exists, he's the one of the torah/bible. It's that or atheism. One most certainly cannot be simply a theist, no sir.
DHSucked 1 year ago
@DHSucked You talk horsehite my friend, where did I specify WHICH god? Or was it that you made the fallacy up in your own mind, pretty much in the same way as you make up your god.
yatter1 1 year ago
"some dusty old book you just believe without ANY evidence whatsoever"
Let me rephrase. Many assume to believe in God/the afterlife/creationism, one must follow a certain dogmatic belief system.
DHSucked 1 year ago
@DHSucked Well without the dogmatic belief system it's hard to imagine how the hell you could ever come up with any reason to believe you are going to continue to live after you die... So i suppose some assumptions are made on the atheist's part, but you'll have to excuse us, seeing as the evidence is in our favour. So i'm sorry, but It generally takes a dogmatic believe system to turn somebodies head away from the evidence.
censurabass 1 year ago
@DHSucked Occasionally, it is simple ignorance, ofcourse...
censurabass 1 year ago
@DHSucked Common sense? Common yes, but common sense? No... Not one single person on this planet knows how the universe came about. All we can do is either speculate (thats you) Or we can hunt for evidence, test and observe (thats the scientist, often, but not always atheist) So it is common to speculate that there might be a god, but it is far from common sense to believe you have any reason to actually assume there is one.
censurabass 1 year ago
Atheism is simply open-mindedness and common sense. Everyone is born an atheist. Live and let live.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
Everyone is also born a parasite, by definition... that does not mean that we should continue to mooch of of others.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns
Indeed so. None the less atheism is open-mindedness and common sense, so we should continue with it.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
How is it common sense?
When I am born, I am indeed an atheist, that is because like EVERY other aspect of a babies sensory and brain functions, and sooner their learning skills and the understanding of reality has to be LEARNT! It is just so ironic that some of atheists worst arguments, are ideas that have already been represented in the Bible. God charges us with the teaching of the Bible to our children, for that exact reason, so that they may know he exists!
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns
"How is it common sense?"
Because it hasn't yet been established that any of the gods are real.
Your capslock is broken again. You keep making claims you can't back up with any evidence, even your last post assumed a god. Rmember, theists are making the claims, yet they can't back them up, hence it is common sense not to accept them.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
oh goodness...
good day.
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@aveyowyns
Classic theist. You're all claims, but as soon as someone asks you to back anything up, you run for the hills. You're done.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
oh 1996 i remember this year as the beginning of my indoctrination when my parents sent me to kindergarten at a christian school
aziansn4k3 1 year ago
@aziansn4k3 kingergarten?! damn youre young
Slacktoo2010 1 year ago
@Slacktoo2010 yeap im only 18
aziansn4k3 1 year ago
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh How can Christians be so arrogant as to think that THEY know how the universe came to be and that of all the gods ever thought to exist, THEY have a personal relationship with the one and only god. Give me a break. stop pretending youre special.
REman07 1 year ago
@REman07 How can Christians be so arrogant ...
______
Where did you pull that from?
I am not a Christian!
I am a shiite muslim!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Whats the difference? Christianity and Islam just stole their belief systems from religions which came before them.
As to your question, just do a google search for "watchmaker argument"
REman07 1 year ago
@1tabligh Yes, considering there is likely an infinite number of universes, something we now have evidence for. You are in Sweden, have someone there explain what a logical fallacy is.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning no sorry we have no emperical evidence for multiverses, they are just laboreate theories from the theoretic physisists.
93alvbjo 1 year ago
@93alvbjo The evidence ( not very strong evidence granted) is in the fact that space time appears to be flat, so it is possible that there could have been many "big bangs" in our "universe" and they are simply so far away that we could never hope to see one. The other line comes from the weird shit subatomic particles do. Of course there is as of yet no direct evidence of a metaverse, but there are some pretty strong hints, such as the "fine tuning" argument.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning the fine tune argument fails miserably, read dawkins book about it, god delusion.
93alvbjo 1 year ago
@93alvbjo I know, I have it, and the metaverse hypothesis is probably the thing he brings up the most as a possible answer to it.
SimKoning 1 year ago
I also have 'The End of Faith' by Harris, and "God is NOT Great' by Hitchens
SimKoning 1 year ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh My computer is an amazing invention that boggles the mind when one thinks about the amount of calculations it can do per second, all within a chip the size of my fingernail. That doesnt prove an existence of a god.
REman07 1 year ago
@REman07 Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Now that's what we call an argument from incredulity if I've ever seen one. Here is another one: if there earth is round, wouldn't people fall of the bottom?
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh One that has a solid understanding of the theory of evolution, which you obviously do not. Look up "argument from ignorance". It's ok that you are afraid of death and really want there to be proof of a god, but please, for sake of mankind, read a fu***** biology book. I'm not going to sit here and give you a free education, just so you can provide one argument from incredulity after another.
SimKoning 1 year ago
Let me ask you a question: what rational human being would believe a magical anthropomorphich being created man from DIRT and woman from his rib, before placing a magical tree in a garden, so he can be tricked by a talking snake into doing something wrong before he even has an understanding of right and wrong? Does this not smell, at least slightly, of bullshit to you?
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning Sorry, you are a Muslim, so was it a blood clot then? I can't remember...
SimKoning 1 year ago
Comment removed
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 1 year ago
you need a lot of demolitions to bring that tower down...The fact that demolitions brought down those 3 buildings is a fact and is not contestable...who did it and who had knowledge of it, and who was involved is what the investigation needs to find out.
If arabs flew planes into the building thats not the issuie, they very well might of and that does not matter, they didn't bring those 3 towers down
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge I am not a native speaker of English. What does "might of" mean?
Tangentbordsblues 1 year ago
@Tangentbordsblues "might of" is like "Maybe" "Could Of" "possibly"
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@Tangentbordsblues "might of" is a phonetic misspelling of the contraction "might've" and means "might have" or "may have." "might of" is substandard english when used in this way [as opposed to when "might" is a noun and "might of" means "the might of" someone or something] because it is grammatically meaningless and is usually only spoken--which results in it appearing almost exclusively online when written by subliterate individuals who simply do not know any better.
panopticon7 1 year ago
@Tangentbordsblues Many English speakers dont know English very well either. What they mean to say is, "might have"
REman07 1 year ago
i have personally seen the blueprints to those towers, they are built like a brick shit house!! you could crash 10 planes in those buildings and they will still stand, if you look at the blueprints they were designed with the possibility of a passenger plane hitting them you couldnt bring those buildings down even with napalm either, those buildings could of been set of fire for 1 month constantly and still stand
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
all i am searching for is the biter medicine cold hard truth, i am a bit tired of being lied to constantly by everyone, and it sucks that we have to investigate even the obvious things, because that is how bad this liar crap and ideological subversion stuff has gotten out of hand
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge Everybody who wants the truth and tries hard enough will find it, its an ugly truth, but yet life is still beautiful, you can't have positive with out negative, and vice verse. Its hard because everthing we have been taught since birth has been a lie, because those teaching us have been lied to, you are closer to the truth now then you think, trust me.
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
a religion is only something that has not been proven
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge good point, everything thats not true has not been proven.
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
@aARIESsSs no not exactly,something can be true if it has not been proven, It is how you come up with an answer that is a problem, this is what religions do...they allready have the answer they want first, then they look for things to try to legitimize it, instead of asking a question and then following a fact trail to see where it leads then making an answer last, they make their answers first
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge yes, but your missing the point, everything that is not true, has not been proven, by your logic we could say scientology has not been prove, little red riding hood has not been proven, allah god yhwh zeus thor megatron have not been proven, anything you can imagine that does not exist has not been proven, to give your "soul" and entire life to something that has 0% proof is telling you something, and its not good.
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
@aARIESsSs well yeah but, all i am saying is give everything claimed a proper investigation and not just pass it off as true or false(like 9/11 for example)...if something has not been proven logic says investigate it since people believe what they have no proof over, there must be a reason why people believe anything that is not true or has any fact found to lead to it
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@MadMAn12gauge yes thats what I do with everything, I search both sides and come to a conclusion, 911 was not carried out by the usa, but the people who control the planet play contries off each other like chess pieces to create war, because they are the bankers and war is MAJOR profit. And christianity like any religion has absoloutly ZERO evidence, its man made.
aARIESsSs 1 year ago
@aARIESsSs well as for 9-11 i don't know exactly who demolished the buildings with explosives to give an answer, an investigation needs to be done, their official answer for what brought down the buildings puzzles me, if the government had no involvement why is there not an investigation and why are they bullshitting us about what actually occured?
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins has turned evolution into a religion.
darkfur35 1 year ago
@darkfur35
And religion is trying to explain itself scientifically, because saying "my belief" doesn't cut it anymore.
newguyout 1 year ago
@darkfur35 I'm not going to pretend I don't know what you're talking about, but maybe you should take a good look at the definition of 'religion' before you make such a statement. Your comment expresses the usual religious lament, that Atheism seems to be supplanting religion in our societies. That is only a matter of perspective. By analogy think about Darth Vader bringing balance to the force, which he did by reducing the 'good' side to a shell of it's former self. (hey, you started it!)
SecularResponse 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins sure does jerk his head a lot, he looks like a freakin idiot
MaximusTheConfessor7 2 years ago
Good constructive criticism, not pertaining to the topic. Maybe you should comment on Shmuley's outrageous doyle hat on his head and how he needs a shave. Or maybe you can just think about what they're actually saying.
Cazador 2 years ago
Maybe you should stop being so anti semitic and attacking the Jewish culture. Dawkins lost this debate by the way, but all the atheists here on youtube won't admit that.
MaximusTheConfessor7 2 years ago
It's not a matter of anti-semitism. I don't agree with what I said, I'm saying it'd be equivalent to what you said. Thank you for the ad-Hom attacks. So practical.
Cazador 2 years ago
Yep cazador is right. I'm Jewish and proud. But jerking heads or yarmulkas are irrelevant to the debate.
qarton 2 years ago
and you sound like one
dieyoubastards 2 years ago
Maximus, you say that Dawkins jerks his head a lot... why do you say that? We only see him briefly, sitting and waiting for his turn. In this particular vid he hasn't spoken yet. The one you see at the lectern for most of this first bit is Prof.Peter Atkins.
queenastilon 2 years ago
Im just kidding, I just wanted to get a laugh or two.
MaximusTheConfessor7 2 years ago
Which makes paints quite a vivid picture of yourself as... a freakin idiot.
rusH1023 1 year ago
"Biblical Scholar" is an oxymoron.
curetheingorant 2 years ago 2
I have to say...after reading an exceedingly large amount of crap...I'm very happy and encouraged by the intelligent and insightful posts from those articulating the evidence for evolution and the transparent fallacy of creationism.
jns124able 2 years ago 4
Thank god for that ;)
seansalvador1 2 years ago