You are mocking the God that you are serving by not believing in the literal interpretation of the bible.
If you don't believe in the bible than how are you representing? Do you believe that you evolve from apes like creatures? As for me I am made in the image and likeness if GOD....I do believe the bible and not the unbelievers.
Christians should believe the bible and not the atheist’s (religious) ideas….
@oceanceaser44 you are right, he is as much of an idiot as Dawkins. We are supposedly so advanced and so knowledgeable that people still adhere to 18th century beliefs that evolution is possible and even this "man of God" feels he should belittle others of his faith in favour of something that lacks any basis in modern science and is simply around as a materialist creation myth. It is sad to watch things like this.
@semitope Wait your saying that evolution isn't possible then saying it is sad we aren't an advanced and knowledgeable society... I can't really tell, you are being sarcastic right?
@oceanceaser44 *you're. its annoying when people get that wrong. I am saying evolution is impossible and its sad that we, as a supposedly advanced society, are holding to this primitive superstition that animals change into other animals. No scientist can answer the tough questions about evolution and none can provide even decent fossil evidence in favour of it, yet it is assumed fact regardless of current scientific knowledge. Evolution is impossible (common descent, not microevolution)
@semitope Allright So you say micro evolution is possible. The only difference between this and evolution is the time allotted. Have you ever even taken a biology course? I have and in it was overwhelming proof of evolution. And just because we don't know exactly how life started doesn't mean we don't know how it evolved to be what it is now.
@oceanceaser44 lol @ your question about biology course. I left med school in 2010 and doing a masters in medical physics right now. All I see there is proof of design. Nothing I come up on suggests random natural processes with selection. Also, the evidence for evolution is weak. Evolutionists can make it seem otherwise, but nobody who is not biased and looks at it can say common descent is true. Its not even apparently possible based on what we know. DNA, multipart systems etc.
@semitope I was once a Christian. Because of this, I was not unbiased, by rather, was heavily biased toward creationism when I decided to humor the evolutionists by taking a look at their evidence.
What I found was that the fact of evolution is overwhelming.
You are taking a course in medical physics, but that is not evolutionary biology. You're studying the body as it is today. You're not studying the history of how it became what it is.
@SeedsOfHatred your story has no importance. Evolution is highly deceptive. It takes some scientists YEARS upon years before they finally start going away from it and the stories some of them tell of how they were before actually looking at the evidence properly will tell u just how deceptive it is. I get why ppl accept evolution even though I think the whole thing stupid. It's easy for most people to get caught thinking its as supported as u say it is. I've seen the "evidence"
@semitope My story discredits your claim that (I'm paraphrasing) "no unbiased person can look at the evidence and be convinced". I was not biased toward Evolution, and in fact, was OPPOSED to it, and yet, was convinced by the evidence.
But if you refuse to see it, that's all well and fine. You say you've seen it, but I know that is false because I too have seen it, and it is as obvious as the Washington Monument.
@SeedsOfHatred we live in a world where we can have a debate in which the agnostics and atheists defend the intelligent design theory and christians defend evolution. The bias in in how you think, not what you profess to believe. I should make this simple and just ask you for just one piece of evidence that you consider in favour of common descent. Will be easy to show where you were susceptible to bad logic if you do that. There is nothing that should convince anyone of the claims made.
@semitope There are literally hundreds of pieces of evidence. Genetic similarities that can essentially be reverse-engineered to reveal how one species gave rise to another; physical anatomy being shown to have slowly mutated from a previous form...As Richard Dawkins puts it, it is "so remarkably elegant".
And as I said to someone else, there are the many flaws in nature that must be considered as well. In fact a favorite phrase of mine is "Where's the intelligence in THAT design?"
@SeedsOfHatred almost all the supposed flaws have been refuted over and over. The eyes, laryngeal nerve etc.
Morphology does not indicate relationship. That is a logical fallacy
Genetic similarities do not indicate relationship. That too is a fallacy, not to mention the many findings that go against common descent, from genetics. Take the recent findings that humans and chimp genomes are farm more different than previously thought. The REAL question is "is it even possible".
@SeedsOfHatred several pieces of research show that even accumulating supposedly beneficial mutations is harmful. We find that almost all if not all of these beneficial mutations, of which there are VERY FEW, are degradative. i.e. they do not add, but subtract from what is already there. Now tell me this, what shows that your claims are even possible? So far you have only presented similarities. Its not hard to understand that ANYTHING could be constructed from the variety of life on earth.
@semitope Actually, I think you'll notice that there aren't many new things that can be constructed from the variety of life on Earth. No matter what new creature you could invent in your imagination, it will always have attributes of already-existing animals. This is to be expected if things are connected in some way.
I also find it odd that you'd point out the eye and laryngeal nerve as examples - being that they're usually the two elementary things that creationists happen to see if they
@SeedsOfHatred I didn't mean constructing new things. I meant that creatures on earth fill almost all variations. Which means you could construct various relations all you want and say this turned into that. What really matters is if its possible at all. So far, nothing shows that it is. Laryngeal nerve and eye are 2 of the most common things mentioned when people talk about bad design. Mentioned by people like Dawkins and PZ myers, Ken miller etc. Your idea of where its from is wrong.
@semitope In that case, sure, we could construct new things and say "this turned into that". If you mean this literally, then quite obviously, this would be a decietful thing to do and it would progress nothing in regard to science. There would be no point to it.
However, gradual species evolution is apparent when given enough time and enough fossils. It would be absurd to ask for every last fossil - we're lucky to have the ones that we already have.
@SeedsOfHatred Add appendix to that list. Was supposed to be vestigial, now it has important use. I did not say they are all harmful, obviously. That is clear in my comment. I said most are not beneficial, which is true. The beneficial ones are also degradative, which is true. By your logic on humans and chimps, when did humans and bananas (60%) branch off? What about humans and rats (69% similar)? Note the human/ape is possibly around 75% similar. Obviously similar is not the whole story.
And while we're on the subject of vestigial organs, what of cave-dwelling salamanders and shrimp that possess partially-developed, non-functioning eyes? These eyes serve absolutely no purpose - good or bad - for the creature, and yet they possess them.
The only two explanations one can give are "God works in mysterious ways" or "They are remnants of previous generations which possessed working eyes".
@semitope (Part 2) skim through a book on Evolution real quick, hoping to pick out something that makes them sound somewhat familiar with the topic.
And yet, it's so very transparent.
As for mutations, they can either be beneficial or harmful. A foot growing out of your head (I was incredibly tempted to say "your head having grown inside of your ass") is far less beneficial than a virus mutating a resistance to antibiotics. Either way, however, your outright assertion that mutations
@semitope (Part 3) are harmful - just by default - is not simply a fallacy; it is just blatantly false.
And yes, Human and Chimp genomes are different, and yet still so similar. This suggests exactly what evolutionary biology already knows: that Humans and Chimps branched off from one another on the evolutionary tree. Different, yet similar genomes is exactly what we'd expect to find.
As for it "being possible", there have been tests conducted in the lab using E-Coli bacteria collonies which
@semitope (Part 4) have been directly observed to have mutated ("evolved", if we want to be serious) over several hundreds of generations in response to environmental stimuli.
This is all coming simply from memory, mind you, but if you decide to continue this debate, I'll gladly reference the many books I have on the topic. In any case, the fact is - as I already stated - that Evolution is as obvious as the Washington Monument.
If you want a humorous illustration of how you and other
@SeedsOfHatred Lenski experiment that resulted in citrate processing e-coli (after way too much time for just that simple result), is not conclusive. E-coli are already able to deal with citrate and there are already some that can already take citrate into the cell. Consider that ecoli are able to change from using a couple of more food sources already. Lenski, to my knowledge hasn't documented what exactly happened, but its typical for evolutionists to call everything like this evolution.
@semitope "After way too much time for just that simple result"
This shows that you know little about Evolution to be arguing against it. That's what Evolution needs in order to actually do anything. TIME, and lots of it. Take "that simple result" and give the bacteria billions of years to mutate and who knows what we could end up with.
What you fail to aknowledge is that mutations are directly observable instances of living things turning into something different than before. Given enough
@SeedsOfHatred you again dont get what i mean by way too much time. Take the time that certain creatures were supposed to have evolved into others. They propose that it took about ~5 mya for whales to evolve from land mammals (probably off because of a recent fossil find that makes it even less possible). This experiment emulates between 1mill to 600 thousands years and only managed citrate metabolism which is not even odd for ecoli.
@SeedsOfHatred how on earth would a land mammal evolve all the gross features needed to become a whale (just an example of the foolishness assumed by common descent), in that time. Even IF the processes said to drive evolution could produce the unique features needed ( there is no reason to think they could), there wouldn't even be enough time for them to. Some estimates put the time required for some of the simplest chances at more time than the number of particles in the universe.
@semitope I'm going to have to refer to the books later on to sufficiently answer your question, but for the time being, it should be noted that you're assuming that evolution occurs at the same pace for all living things. That is not how it works. It's only been just over 20 years since the Aids virus was discovered, and already there are those who have developed a resistance to it. Nature tends to work things out when it's pressured.
@SeedsOfHatred I just hope you realize that almost everything you have said is speculation. Evolution worked faster for land mammals turning into whales than for bacteria? Really? How about you address the fact that mutations and natural selection couldn't even produce a whale from a land mammal or a bird from a dinosaur?
@semitope I don't address that fact because that's not a fact. Evolution DID produce certain sea-animals from land mammals and birds from dinosaurs.
And as always, the evidence supports this.
You cannot make an assertion for which you have no evidence and then claim it as fact. "The fact that" - no, the "blind assertion I pulled out of my ass, that..."
It doesn't quite ring the way one might like it to, but it's more accurate.
@SeedsOfHatred That's the assumption. that is why nobody cares to take on the issue of if its even possible. Similarities are not going to convince anyone till it can be shown that evolution can actually do those things. Evidence that evolution could not? Lenskis experiment shows the limitations of the process. There is evidence that it cannot, both from ID advocates and from evolutionists
@SeedsOfHatred if you don't look into the details you speak grossly like so many evolutionists do. Biology is far more complex than people care to realize and that leads them to making silly claims. Evolution is impossible (macroevolution) and we know it. The problem is what happens if its rejected. There CANNOT be scientific confirmation of theism or everything changes.
@semitope You greatly misunderstand the meaning of science. Science doesn't care WHAT the truth is, it simply cares THAT the truth is. Even the most devout atheist will tell you that if God were scientifically proven tomorrow, they would convert on the spot. That's what rational people do in the fact of valid evidence.
So far, there is zero evidence for intelligent design. I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact of life.
@SeedsOfHatred actually that is not true. Hitchens had said that nothing would convince him of God. Dawkins has said that even if there was a God, he would not accept him. Anyway, you've become a proper evolutionist. Grats. no evidence for ID? Somehow you think atheists would welcome being proven wrong? Gimme a break. Human history, especially in science, refutes your assumptions. They will fight tooth and nail to keep God out and many have said they accept evolution in spite of the evidence...
@semitope I have read many of Dawkins' books and honestly cannot recall him stating that if there was a God, he would not accept him. Care to cite a source?
The same goes for Hitchens.
As for myself, I am also an Atheist and yes; would welcome being proven wrong. All one needs to do is provide the evidence that things have been intelligently designed.
And so far, all you people can come up with is "complexity". Sorry, that's a poor argument - for which we already have a viable explanation.
@SeedsOfHatred not surprised you have read much of Dawkins. Hitches was asked in a debate what could change his atheism and he could not give an answer. Well... he's dead so w/e.
All you have given is similarities. Complexity is far more relevant because its at the heart of this. Its not complexity alone either, its complexity and the possibility of it coming about by anything but intelligence. THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THIS. All you have given so far are still just-so stories by similarities.
And not an argument. We can *observe directly* how complexity emerges from simple systems without a guiding intelligence. So you'll have to do better than just crying "Oe, it's so complex, goddunnit!"
@SeedsOfHatred If you've been taking Dawkins seriously then I kind of understand why you are as you are. Dawkins is as bad as the worst creationist, just of an opposing view. people have taken apart his silly arguments over and over. Lennox and William Craig for example. As I have told you, feel free to read what the other side says. It takes quite a bit more intelligence to understand the arguments, but it will be worth your while. I notice many evolutionists can't even grasp the concepts...
@SeedsOfHatred lol. Can't understand his arguments huh? I avoided the guy for a while, but it turned out he could handle himself and make sense. Dawkins is an amateur that got spanked by Craig (out of debate) and refuses to debate him. I see nothing bad in mentioning him
@SeedsOfHatred "magical sky-fairies"? Come on man. By saying foolishness like that you are suggesting you somehow know the limits of reality. You are no longer an objective party in assessing this.
Best hope for you is to stop listening to people like Dawkins
@semitope "Foolishness like that"? So if I spoke ill of Santa Clause, I would be arrogantly "suggesting I know the limits of reality"? Does the same apply to the Tooth Fairy?
This brings us back to the beginging of our (pointless) argument, because we don't believe in any of these mythical things because there is no EVIDENCE. I don't need to be purely unbiased to conclude that there is no Santa. Get fucking real.
@SeedsOfHatred Ah, i see. To you God is just the same as a myth. Not even a possibility. I take it you were lying about actually being a christian, or maybe you just didn't have the good reasons to be one that others did. Guess what, to us God is a logical inference. Our faith is based on logic and evidence. Sure you can make something up and call it a god, but that is a created god like the created story of santa or the created story of tooth fairies.
@semitope No, I wasn't lying about having been a Christian. In fact, just a few years ago, I would have been cheering you on in this debate. I would have thought my arguments were moronic and that you were right in every way.
Thank god (pardon the pun) that time has passed.
"Our faith is based on logic and evidence"
There has never been a more oxymoronic statement uttered by Human lips.
@SeedsOfHatred For someone who was a christian to say there was no evidence just shows you had no basis for your christianity. You are making a claim about reality based on your very limited experience. You really cannot possibly comprehend the multitude of arguments that go on with regards to God. Hitchens and Dawkins are for idiots, they never meaningfully tackle the idea of God and just feed fools with emotive ideas with no substance.
@SeedsOfHatred I say it is foolishness because God is a possibility and a very obvious one. He is also quite evident throughout science. For you to say "magical sky fairies" on a legitimate consideration amongst intellectuals is just silly. I've only seen the followers of these new atheists doing that
@SeedsOfHatred JunkDNA is another thing frequently mentioned. Also turns out to be false even though some evolutionists are unwilling to let it go. If the majority of our DNA is useful, evolution cannot be true. That is not random unguided, but straight up design.
@semitope (Part 2) time, these changes can and do become so extensive that we're left with something that looks nothing like the organism we began with.
That IS evolution. "Evolution" means "change". Mutation, Evolution, Change, they're all synonyms that describe a single process.
Yes, we call that evolution, because that's exactly what it is.
@SeedsOfHatred needless to say, it never is evolution in action. There are several analyses of his work that you can read up. There was also a recent story about yeast becoming multicellular (a repeat of another from last year) but of course that again just deceives the public who doesn't know better. Its a clump of cells
« It takes some scientists YEARS upon years before they finally start going away from it »
Most of them (some 98%), however, remain sane throughout their entire lives, and accept that evolutionary theory is the best and only testable model we have for biological diversity.
I doubt that you do, boy. Frankly, I think that you're thinking of consequences, rather than an honest evaluation of hypotheses in the light of the available data.
@oceanceaser44 everything just screams engineering. from the ears, to the eyes to molecular systems. It's really an insult to intelligence to propose that they were not engineered
@semitope Of course the human body is extremely complex. I myself am only in gr 12 biology so I don't have close to as good understanding about the human body as you do, and what I have learned has shown me that the bodies systems and parts do appear at first as though they were designed. But it seems to me that evolution would create a human body that appears designed. Starting from very basic, the process of natural selection will increase complexity and refine the bodies systems.
@semitope You say that The proof of evolution is weak. Im interested in what you mean, seeing as I was taught differently, that there is overwhelming evidence and that it is the leading theory to how we came to be. There is evidence presented from the fossil record, as we see the small changes from organism to organism becoming increasingly complex and refined. There is evidence in in modern day micro evolution, that demonstrates in a relatively short time period. large changes can happen.
@semitope Lastly, you say the evidence suggest that the human body was not evolved, but designed. I ask you to present some evidence to support this. Again I am only in Bio 12 so I do believe you have a much better understanding of all this than me, and I am extremely curious about what you have to say on this subject, seeing as it is contrary to what I am told by my teachers and peers.
If I was god I would mention at the start of any holy book not to take what is said literally because I would know that humans (created in my image) experienced the emotion of confusion.
@IlRezzonico typical atheist kook. Why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool.
I disagree Dawkins hes interviewed some pretty intelligent con artists
Hello if your a UK citizen and believe that evoloution should be taught earlier in schools please copy this addres into your browser to sign an e-petition
This Bishop does not deserve to wear the crucifix over his neck. I agreed with him loosely on the euthanasia issue (the man burning alive in a vehicle) and on the evolutionary process and when the earth was created (billions of years ago) because the bible does not specifically give us a time line that is explicit.
However, everything else he says -- he should be ashamed of himself, he does not represent Christians in anyway shape or form, as he disregards the true words of his 'God'.
@owchywawa he said it was medieval, not from the medieval period. I would suggest you educate yourself if you want to debate with an atheist. We as atheist usually know more about your religion than you yourself do.
The primary function of this word is to describe the period so one can be forgiven for the usage assumed here. It's also highly contestable as to whether or not the bible is 'old fashioned' or 'primitive' for that matter - on a side note. I will however point out that more often than not atheists muck up their definitions too - we're all human it often happens.
@xX01RKXx LOL. from my experience, atheists are idiots. Usually idiots who think they know more than others, but cannot support their faith in any shape or form. Dawkins books are ridiculously easy to pick apart, hence why he does not debate intellectuals and simply interviews ppl who agree with him. Go check out his few debates and read up criticisms of his work
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Richard Dawkins was stunned to hear Christopher Hitchens admit that even if he could defeat every Christian in debate to end religion , he would not do it. It shows that Atheism is not a social bonding priori. It is what people pro actively believe in that bonds them, not what they do not believe in . I do not believe in Aliens, but that is not grounds for me to bond with anyone, such that this is a premise for a social order or group. You are the idiot.
@ThePurityMan the problem is that if this were true, you wouldnt be trying to convince us about this because there would be undeniable, uncrutanable and very compelling evidence that what you say is true. so until you can prove that anythign you say is anywhere close to the truth, stop wasting your time
I don't waste any time , in my belief , in Islam religion , we got message that you never know it ,
We advice you because we are Muslim are responsible about it ..
first of all Mohammed (pbuh) before islam and his 40 years old, he never know other religious like Christians and Judaism , he lived among those idols worshipers , but he didn't follow them firstly before Islam he followed his instinct that there is creator in some where , he never know , then god choice him to ....
@atimor This is what Mohammed (peace be upon him ) taught us , He said this (( "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.
@atimor (( the problem is that if this were true )) You said !
your rights to seek about true , i did advice u ,
so read about all prophets (peace be upon them ) together , and read Holy Qur'an , and find out where is true should be (( I believed islam is true after research and study ) and you have to do same thing , to follow any one blindly , take advice and seek about it , and find out ,, and knowledge your self as u can ...
@ThePurityMan i watched, apparently you have to be more gullable than a christian to be a muslim! the claim itself does not matter, it is how this claim is justified that is pattenly flawed, just as in the christian religion, the jewish religion, the hindu religion etc. all these religions cant be right, but they can all be wrong. the qu'ran is just another book written by men as far as science is concerned because you cant provide evidence that there is a god to write it in the first place!
Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."
And We have certainly diversified for the people in this Qur'an from every [kind] of example, but most of the people refused [anything] except disbelief.
you never know Holy Qur'an ,i read it every day , And thanks to the god ..
If you think i am more gullable ? then do what ever you think , It's your own choice , Peace
@ThePurityMan "but most of the people refused [anything] except disbelief". how can one "accept" disbelief? atheism isnt a choice, its a consequence of rationality and logical/critical thinking. once again, just because you read the qur'an every day and established a relationship with "god", does not mean that he exists. i have a video for you to watch now: The Real God: An Epiphany by darkmatter2525. listen carefully to what he says and relate it to yourself, youll notice a big similarity
This Universe runing in Measured , According to our thinking , and Mind , We feel and that must be some one behind this world , He created everything in Balance , Which he has More then mind , magnificent power , and great One !
There is no lucky in this part , If Atheist believes that there is no god , then he should believe the natural it's self his god !
I am as Muslim , i already know that there is God , and i know what the Purpose of this life , and why we are here ...
people who followed Abraham (peace be upon him ) got his message so clear .. and history can proves enough .
people who followed Moses (peace be upon him) also got the same message but in different some legislation .
people who followed Jesus (peace be upon him) also they got their message from their teacher , he told them what he got from his god ... He always proves that he is human and prophet who worshiping god , like other prophets (peace be upon them )
All that prophets they all accepted each other , Abraham believed in message from his god , and Moses believed in what Abraham said , also Jesus believed in all prophets that revealed before him ....
in islam god taught us to believe in everything that revealed before Mohammed (peace be upon him ) , Mohammed taught us to believe in all god law , and call it (( Islam law )) or islam religion and don't switch that Islam word to different word , try to understand what it's mean in Arabic.
@atimor Differences between people faith , not from their prophets or their God , We all have the same God , we all shall believe in the same way , but evil and devils people who Distorts what God revealed to us ...
Before Christianty people believed that there is ONE true only God !
And also Jesus taught them that , but they changed and astry , Now mohammed warned us and show us the path of god , that There is ONE TRUE GOD (( AND there is no doubt about that )) ...
@atimor I'm Muslim i follow this verse from holy Qur'an by god permission , Holy Qur'an Chapter 39 (( But those who have avoided Taghut, lest they worship it, and turned back to Allah - for them are good tidings. So give good tidings to My servants
Who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.(18)
@atimor So as i said above , i'm not here and never to arguing you or any different person ,
I have message and believe in my heart , and i try to tell u what i believe honstly in my heart ..
So again , if u want to believe , this religion open and still for all human , and they all welcome until , One of god sign , if you don't believe in it ,
@atimor Holy Qur'an chapter 2 (( There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (256).
@ThePurityMan sure, they say there is no compulsion in acceptance of religion; however, theres is an eternal consequence of hell for infidels. HOW IS THAT NOT A COMPULSION. its like this: a thief walks up to an old lady and says: "giving me your wallet is not a compulsion, but if you dont, im gonna stab ya. if you do, itll be clear you did the right thing." Patently absurd.
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to form life
Try reading the Epic of Gilgamesh & E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), other great writings are by Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', For sceptical Bible scholars try Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg book '101 myths of the Bible', Richard Carrier, David Mills, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
As a priest, what + Richard is saying here is what most of us (ordained and laity) think. He articulates 'the faith' most well is a beautiful manner. We (more liberal wing of the church) need to be more vocal.
this bishop is such a welcome break from the rigid stupidities of american christians.this man is at ease with himself and is truly tolerant of alternative views.american christians by virtue of their ignorance and superficiality,become defensive and combative for fear of their whole edifice collapsing.
the bishop is a huge baller, great representation of the philosophical deeper context that is probably the best thing religion can provide to secular intellectuals
I get the impression that if this Bishop was young again, and had his life open ahead of him, he would choose to be an atheist, if he isn't one already. A huge number of bishops/priests maintain their beliefs because it's all they know how to do.
@blackvapour And you know this how? You are saying that people such as bishops and priests dedicate their life, energy, thought,everything they have, because they never realized that they could be doing something else in life. That makes no sense to me
Topics: DEADLY 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
Hmmm, I wonder why Dawkins only gave this interview about 1 minute in his tv documentary and didn't show any of the long talk with Alister Mcgrath but did have scene after scence of Dawkins arguing with extremists, the Ted Hagards and Pat Roberstons of this world. I suspect that it was because Mcgrath was saying the sorts of things which did not promote the message that Dawkins was so eager to send out.
Oh dear, at about three minutes we get into a discussion about euthanasia. Our tame faithhead states that one shouldn't legislate for a scenario, but has himself done just that via his unearned position in the UK legislature. He may have been bright once, but his brain is obviously rotting. We need to remove such people from the legislative process.
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
Evolution is true micro that is macro no way, yet all these idiots lump them together when they are seperate one is true micro or adaptation is provable macro not so much.
@glendaweil Then we're not talking about the same thing. If you have to change the definition of what macro evolution is to show that it can be false, then you've made no comment on macro evolution whatsoever.
@glendaweil Evotard? Really? And my example is considered macro by the common use of the term; for some reason you seem to be using a different definition of macro evolution (maybe b/c it's the only defense you have?).
We could of course talk about the enormous collection of whale bones that, as you slowly follow the bones into the past, you can see that whales used to be land mammals similar to wolves. Or how we're 99% identical to Chimpanzes. Chickens vs. T-rex. Etc etc
@glendaweil You've never heard of Ockham's Razor have you? If you existed in another age I'm sure you'd have favored the complicated loop-de-loops of Ptolemy's earth-centered universe. After all, if a non-earth-centered universe was anti-religious then how is it any less anti-religious today...unless peoples' opinions change how the deity judges them.
@glendaweil Actually it isn't, it's very simple, but it has almost nothing to do with what he is saying. He is just saying it to pretend to be smart. I think he has some security issues...
@axekicker78 how did your mind make the jump to their sexual orientation?, they aren't speaking about sex. Isn't that a woman's agenda, to determine whether or not a person would be a suitable sexual partner?.why would you look at a guy and try to determine whether he is a 'fag' or not?.ofcourse. if u are homosexual, please accept my apologies.
how old is the universe and how old is religion,the difference of time will prove the difference of truth or delusion.and will religion exist if fear didn't exist.
would you like to know the real truth. read the 2 comments i have posted below and see if you can work them out. i am not lying. go to QI stephen fry puts alan in his place back comments for more. regards from burnie tasmania.
i came up with a theory that involves the book of genesis (fig leaves) buddha (sitting under the bodhi fig tree) jesus (many sayings about figs) ross horne's book (new health revolution) and science (figs are the most important source of food for fruit eating rainforest animals). i then experimented on the figs by eating mainly dried figs (same brand) for over 6 years now and found cycles which i related to the numbers in psgs 11/12 of the book of revelations. this theory has gone everywhere
so far i have had eliminations at days 504, 840, 1176, 1512, 1848, 2184, and expect my 7th at day 2520. today is day 2297. i have definitely found something. i am not lying. what i have discovered has gone around the world and so many songs have been written about it...the foo fighters last 3 albums..."vertigo" by U2 (my first name is phil)...coldplay's last 2 albums. an elimination is a day when you will experience strong flu-like symptoms and feel terrible. bad stuff is washed out of your body
Of all the "New Atheists" - I have the most respect for Richard Dawkins. He is at his best, for me, when he has long, thoughtful, respectful conversations with religious leaders/scholars like the Bishop of Oxford and Fr. George Coyne.
As adults, if we are going to continue in the faith of our fathers, or lose it - we should make that decision after listening to thoughtful, intelligent discussions like this one.
Religion is a Man-Made thought. It has no true meaning, except the meaning of oneself. If there is a god, surely he deals with science! we are but one lonely planet, in our solar system. Science made a fascinating discovery 3 months ago, of a similar planet to our earth, and how it goes around its sun perfectly just like ours. So, all this "we are special" is a bunch of SHIT!!!
How do people live their lives without finding meaning...In general, atheists are less intelligient and more arrogant than agnostic people. Just as religious people cannot prove the existance of God, atheists cannot prove that there is no God. They like to pretend like they are "brighter" than religious people, but in reality they fully believe something that is not absolute either.
@chelseamate1 "atheists are less intelligient and more arrogant," From someone who can't spell the word, intelligent you seem to have a warped view on what Atheism actually is. We don't believe, period. We may hold opinions of certain topics but we don't have beliefs in the same sense that religious people do. Richard Dawkins, Stephan Hawking, Neil degrasse Tyson, Leonard Mlodinow and countless other Atheists are highly intelligent, as are many other atheists.
@chelseamate1 Atheists do not need to prove there is no god lol. Burden of proof you are saying there is a god you need to prove it exists, you've done nothing by saying we can't prove it's existence. If I tell you a unicorn is real you can't prove it isn't but that doesn't mean it exists. Religious people are just plain ignorant.
@chelseamate1 There is a two-headed, fire-breathing, quadruple-tailed, purple-scaled, 100-foot-tall, half-robot monster living on the dark side of the moon. Oh what? You don't believe me? Then you're just as arrogant as atheists.
The point is that the burden of proof lies with the believers, and since there is no proof, it would be un-"intelligient" and arrogant to believe God exists based on words written in a book by primitive men.
You are mocking the God that you are serving by not believing in the literal interpretation of the bible.
If you don't believe in the bible than how are you representing? Do you believe that you evolve from apes like creatures? As for me I am made in the image and likeness if GOD....I do believe the bible and not the unbelievers.
Christians should believe the bible and not the atheist’s (religious) ideas….
aurelama1 2 weeks ago
@aurelama1 If you are to believe the drivel you just spouted off; you must - by default - believe the following:
1) Fossils do not exist
2) God is an imperfect entity
3) God is capable of error
I realize you understand nothing about biology, but if you did, you'd already know how fucked-up a creation the Human body really is.
If there is a designer, he SUCKS at his job.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
This is the first person I've seen Dawkins talk to that actually has very good points and seems to be close to Dawkins on an intellectual scale
oceanceaser44 1 month ago
@oceanceaser44 you are right, he is as much of an idiot as Dawkins. We are supposedly so advanced and so knowledgeable that people still adhere to 18th century beliefs that evolution is possible and even this "man of God" feels he should belittle others of his faith in favour of something that lacks any basis in modern science and is simply around as a materialist creation myth. It is sad to watch things like this.
semitope 3 weeks ago
@semitope Wait your saying that evolution isn't possible then saying it is sad we aren't an advanced and knowledgeable society... I can't really tell, you are being sarcastic right?
oceanceaser44 3 weeks ago
@oceanceaser44 *you're. its annoying when people get that wrong. I am saying evolution is impossible and its sad that we, as a supposedly advanced society, are holding to this primitive superstition that animals change into other animals. No scientist can answer the tough questions about evolution and none can provide even decent fossil evidence in favour of it, yet it is assumed fact regardless of current scientific knowledge. Evolution is impossible (common descent, not microevolution)
semitope 2 weeks ago
@semitope Allright So you say micro evolution is possible. The only difference between this and evolution is the time allotted. Have you ever even taken a biology course? I have and in it was overwhelming proof of evolution. And just because we don't know exactly how life started doesn't mean we don't know how it evolved to be what it is now.
oceanceaser44 2 weeks ago
@oceanceaser44 the only difference between me jumping over a 1 meter gap and leaping over an ocean, is the time allotted. See what I did there?
semitope 2 weeks ago
@oceanceaser44 lol @ your question about biology course. I left med school in 2010 and doing a masters in medical physics right now. All I see there is proof of design. Nothing I come up on suggests random natural processes with selection. Also, the evidence for evolution is weak. Evolutionists can make it seem otherwise, but nobody who is not biased and looks at it can say common descent is true. Its not even apparently possible based on what we know. DNA, multipart systems etc.
semitope 2 weeks ago
@semitope I was once a Christian. Because of this, I was not unbiased, by rather, was heavily biased toward creationism when I decided to humor the evolutionists by taking a look at their evidence.
What I found was that the fact of evolution is overwhelming.
You are taking a course in medical physics, but that is not evolutionary biology. You're studying the body as it is today. You're not studying the history of how it became what it is.
Read a fucking book.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred your story has no importance. Evolution is highly deceptive. It takes some scientists YEARS upon years before they finally start going away from it and the stories some of them tell of how they were before actually looking at the evidence properly will tell u just how deceptive it is. I get why ppl accept evolution even though I think the whole thing stupid. It's easy for most people to get caught thinking its as supported as u say it is. I've seen the "evidence"
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope My story discredits your claim that (I'm paraphrasing) "no unbiased person can look at the evidence and be convinced". I was not biased toward Evolution, and in fact, was OPPOSED to it, and yet, was convinced by the evidence.
But if you refuse to see it, that's all well and fine. You say you've seen it, but I know that is false because I too have seen it, and it is as obvious as the Washington Monument.
Perhaps YOU are the one who was biased, hmm?
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred we live in a world where we can have a debate in which the agnostics and atheists defend the intelligent design theory and christians defend evolution. The bias in in how you think, not what you profess to believe. I should make this simple and just ask you for just one piece of evidence that you consider in favour of common descent. Will be easy to show where you were susceptible to bad logic if you do that. There is nothing that should convince anyone of the claims made.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope There are literally hundreds of pieces of evidence. Genetic similarities that can essentially be reverse-engineered to reveal how one species gave rise to another; physical anatomy being shown to have slowly mutated from a previous form...As Richard Dawkins puts it, it is "so remarkably elegant".
And as I said to someone else, there are the many flaws in nature that must be considered as well. In fact a favorite phrase of mine is "Where's the intelligence in THAT design?"
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred almost all the supposed flaws have been refuted over and over. The eyes, laryngeal nerve etc.
Morphology does not indicate relationship. That is a logical fallacy
Genetic similarities do not indicate relationship. That too is a fallacy, not to mention the many findings that go against common descent, from genetics. Take the recent findings that humans and chimp genomes are farm more different than previously thought. The REAL question is "is it even possible".
semitope 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred several pieces of research show that even accumulating supposedly beneficial mutations is harmful. We find that almost all if not all of these beneficial mutations, of which there are VERY FEW, are degradative. i.e. they do not add, but subtract from what is already there. Now tell me this, what shows that your claims are even possible? So far you have only presented similarities. Its not hard to understand that ANYTHING could be constructed from the variety of life on earth.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope Actually, I think you'll notice that there aren't many new things that can be constructed from the variety of life on Earth. No matter what new creature you could invent in your imagination, it will always have attributes of already-existing animals. This is to be expected if things are connected in some way.
I also find it odd that you'd point out the eye and laryngeal nerve as examples - being that they're usually the two elementary things that creationists happen to see if they
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred I didn't mean constructing new things. I meant that creatures on earth fill almost all variations. Which means you could construct various relations all you want and say this turned into that. What really matters is if its possible at all. So far, nothing shows that it is. Laryngeal nerve and eye are 2 of the most common things mentioned when people talk about bad design. Mentioned by people like Dawkins and PZ myers, Ken miller etc. Your idea of where its from is wrong.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope In that case, sure, we could construct new things and say "this turned into that". If you mean this literally, then quite obviously, this would be a decietful thing to do and it would progress nothing in regard to science. There would be no point to it.
However, gradual species evolution is apparent when given enough time and enough fossils. It would be absurd to ask for every last fossil - we're lucky to have the ones that we already have.
The ones who do have, though, speak volumes
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred Add appendix to that list. Was supposed to be vestigial, now it has important use. I did not say they are all harmful, obviously. That is clear in my comment. I said most are not beneficial, which is true. The beneficial ones are also degradative, which is true. By your logic on humans and chimps, when did humans and bananas (60%) branch off? What about humans and rats (69% similar)? Note the human/ape is possibly around 75% similar. Obviously similar is not the whole story.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope Might I ask what that use is?
And while we're on the subject of vestigial organs, what of cave-dwelling salamanders and shrimp that possess partially-developed, non-functioning eyes? These eyes serve absolutely no purpose - good or bad - for the creature, and yet they possess them.
The only two explanations one can give are "God works in mysterious ways" or "They are remnants of previous generations which possessed working eyes".
WHich sounds more likely?
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@semitope (Part 2) skim through a book on Evolution real quick, hoping to pick out something that makes them sound somewhat familiar with the topic.
And yet, it's so very transparent.
As for mutations, they can either be beneficial or harmful. A foot growing out of your head (I was incredibly tempted to say "your head having grown inside of your ass") is far less beneficial than a virus mutating a resistance to antibiotics. Either way, however, your outright assertion that mutations
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@semitope (Part 3) are harmful - just by default - is not simply a fallacy; it is just blatantly false.
And yes, Human and Chimp genomes are different, and yet still so similar. This suggests exactly what evolutionary biology already knows: that Humans and Chimps branched off from one another on the evolutionary tree. Different, yet similar genomes is exactly what we'd expect to find.
As for it "being possible", there have been tests conducted in the lab using E-Coli bacteria collonies which
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@semitope (Part 4) have been directly observed to have mutated ("evolved", if we want to be serious) over several hundreds of generations in response to environmental stimuli.
This is all coming simply from memory, mind you, but if you decide to continue this debate, I'll gladly reference the many books I have on the topic. In any case, the fact is - as I already stated - that Evolution is as obvious as the Washington Monument.
If you want a humorous illustration of how you and other
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred Lenski experiment that resulted in citrate processing e-coli (after way too much time for just that simple result), is not conclusive. E-coli are already able to deal with citrate and there are already some that can already take citrate into the cell. Consider that ecoli are able to change from using a couple of more food sources already. Lenski, to my knowledge hasn't documented what exactly happened, but its typical for evolutionists to call everything like this evolution.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope "After way too much time for just that simple result"
This shows that you know little about Evolution to be arguing against it. That's what Evolution needs in order to actually do anything. TIME, and lots of it. Take "that simple result" and give the bacteria billions of years to mutate and who knows what we could end up with.
What you fail to aknowledge is that mutations are directly observable instances of living things turning into something different than before. Given enough
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred you again dont get what i mean by way too much time. Take the time that certain creatures were supposed to have evolved into others. They propose that it took about ~5 mya for whales to evolve from land mammals (probably off because of a recent fossil find that makes it even less possible). This experiment emulates between 1mill to 600 thousands years and only managed citrate metabolism which is not even odd for ecoli.
semitope 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred how on earth would a land mammal evolve all the gross features needed to become a whale (just an example of the foolishness assumed by common descent), in that time. Even IF the processes said to drive evolution could produce the unique features needed ( there is no reason to think they could), there wouldn't even be enough time for them to. Some estimates put the time required for some of the simplest chances at more time than the number of particles in the universe.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope I'm going to have to refer to the books later on to sufficiently answer your question, but for the time being, it should be noted that you're assuming that evolution occurs at the same pace for all living things. That is not how it works. It's only been just over 20 years since the Aids virus was discovered, and already there are those who have developed a resistance to it. Nature tends to work things out when it's pressured.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred I just hope you realize that almost everything you have said is speculation. Evolution worked faster for land mammals turning into whales than for bacteria? Really? How about you address the fact that mutations and natural selection couldn't even produce a whale from a land mammal or a bird from a dinosaur?
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope I don't address that fact because that's not a fact. Evolution DID produce certain sea-animals from land mammals and birds from dinosaurs.
And as always, the evidence supports this.
You cannot make an assertion for which you have no evidence and then claim it as fact. "The fact that" - no, the "blind assertion I pulled out of my ass, that..."
It doesn't quite ring the way one might like it to, but it's more accurate.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred That's the assumption. that is why nobody cares to take on the issue of if its even possible. Similarities are not going to convince anyone till it can be shown that evolution can actually do those things. Evidence that evolution could not? Lenskis experiment shows the limitations of the process. There is evidence that it cannot, both from ID advocates and from evolutionists
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope *Sigh* It's based on EVIDENCE, not assumption or simple speculation, but reason as you will. It is of no consequence to me.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred if you don't look into the details you speak grossly like so many evolutionists do. Biology is far more complex than people care to realize and that leads them to making silly claims. Evolution is impossible (macroevolution) and we know it. The problem is what happens if its rejected. There CANNOT be scientific confirmation of theism or everything changes.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope You greatly misunderstand the meaning of science. Science doesn't care WHAT the truth is, it simply cares THAT the truth is. Even the most devout atheist will tell you that if God were scientifically proven tomorrow, they would convert on the spot. That's what rational people do in the fact of valid evidence.
So far, there is zero evidence for intelligent design. I'm sorry, but it's a simple fact of life.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred actually that is not true. Hitchens had said that nothing would convince him of God. Dawkins has said that even if there was a God, he would not accept him. Anyway, you've become a proper evolutionist. Grats. no evidence for ID? Somehow you think atheists would welcome being proven wrong? Gimme a break. Human history, especially in science, refutes your assumptions. They will fight tooth and nail to keep God out and many have said they accept evolution in spite of the evidence...
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope I have read many of Dawkins' books and honestly cannot recall him stating that if there was a God, he would not accept him. Care to cite a source?
The same goes for Hitchens.
As for myself, I am also an Atheist and yes; would welcome being proven wrong. All one needs to do is provide the evidence that things have been intelligently designed.
And so far, all you people can come up with is "complexity". Sorry, that's a poor argument - for which we already have a viable explanation.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred not surprised you have read much of Dawkins. Hitches was asked in a debate what could change his atheism and he could not give an answer. Well... he's dead so w/e.
All you have given is similarities. Complexity is far more relevant because its at the heart of this. Its not complexity alone either, its complexity and the possibility of it coming about by anything but intelligence. THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THIS. All you have given so far are still just-so stories by similarities.
semitope 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
« All you have given is similarities »
No, we've also mentioned the nested hierarchies of biology, and the matching diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
« Complexity is far more relevant »
And not an argument. We can *observe directly* how complexity emerges from simple systems without a guiding intelligence. So you'll have to do better than just crying "Oe, it's so complex, goddunnit!"
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred If you've been taking Dawkins seriously then I kind of understand why you are as you are. Dawkins is as bad as the worst creationist, just of an opposing view. people have taken apart his silly arguments over and over. Lennox and William Craig for example. As I have told you, feel free to read what the other side says. It takes quite a bit more intelligence to understand the arguments, but it will be worth your while. I notice many evolutionists can't even grasp the concepts...
semitope 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred ...accurately.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope "William Craig"
If ever you had a viable argument, it is now completely gone.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred lol. Can't understand his arguments huh? I avoided the guy for a while, but it turned out he could handle himself and make sense. Dawkins is an amateur that got spanked by Craig (out of debate) and refuses to debate him. I see nothing bad in mentioning him
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope Oh of course. Because I reject an argument for the existence of magical sky-fairies, it MUST be because I don't understand it.
This is the arrogance of creationism.
To put things into perspective, you "saw nothing bad" in mentioning in a private message that I was somehow influenced by the Devil.
I realize YOU see nothing wrong with these things, but the rational ones who see these comments will certainly get the point.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred "magical sky-fairies"? Come on man. By saying foolishness like that you are suggesting you somehow know the limits of reality. You are no longer an objective party in assessing this.
Best hope for you is to stop listening to people like Dawkins
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope "Foolishness like that"? So if I spoke ill of Santa Clause, I would be arrogantly "suggesting I know the limits of reality"? Does the same apply to the Tooth Fairy?
This brings us back to the beginging of our (pointless) argument, because we don't believe in any of these mythical things because there is no EVIDENCE. I don't need to be purely unbiased to conclude that there is no Santa. Get fucking real.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred Ah, i see. To you God is just the same as a myth. Not even a possibility. I take it you were lying about actually being a christian, or maybe you just didn't have the good reasons to be one that others did. Guess what, to us God is a logical inference. Our faith is based on logic and evidence. Sure you can make something up and call it a god, but that is a created god like the created story of santa or the created story of tooth fairies.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope No, I wasn't lying about having been a Christian. In fact, just a few years ago, I would have been cheering you on in this debate. I would have thought my arguments were moronic and that you were right in every way.
Thank god (pardon the pun) that time has passed.
"Our faith is based on logic and evidence"
There has never been a more oxymoronic statement uttered by Human lips.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred For someone who was a christian to say there was no evidence just shows you had no basis for your christianity. You are making a claim about reality based on your very limited experience. You really cannot possibly comprehend the multitude of arguments that go on with regards to God. Hitchens and Dawkins are for idiots, they never meaningfully tackle the idea of God and just feed fools with emotive ideas with no substance.
semitope 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred I say it is foolishness because God is a possibility and a very obvious one. He is also quite evident throughout science. For you to say "magical sky fairies" on a legitimate consideration amongst intellectuals is just silly. I've only seen the followers of these new atheists doing that
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope *Sigh* You are absolutely beyond reason. Completely and totally.
There is simply nothing more to be said.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred Chimpanzee? bit.ly / AdRMN6
semitope 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred JunkDNA is another thing frequently mentioned. Also turns out to be false even though some evolutionists are unwilling to let it go. If the majority of our DNA is useful, evolution cannot be true. That is not random unguided, but straight up design.
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope (Part 2) time, these changes can and do become so extensive that we're left with something that looks nothing like the organism we began with.
That IS evolution. "Evolution" means "change". Mutation, Evolution, Change, they're all synonyms that describe a single process.
Yes, we call that evolution, because that's exactly what it is.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
@SeedsOfHatred needless to say, it never is evolution in action. There are several analyses of his work that you can read up. There was also a recent story about yeast becoming multicellular (a repeat of another from last year) but of course that again just deceives the public who doesn't know better. Its a clump of cells
semitope 1 week ago
@semitope (Part 5) creationists sound, I would recommend you search for "Family Guy Donkey" here on Youtube.
It sounds like a nonsensical suggestion, I know, but it certainly puts things into perspective.
SeedsOfHatred 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
« Evolution is highly deceptive »
Indeed. Just the other day, I asked it to fill up my car, and it overcharged me two nickel!
Seriously, dude. What the fuck are you talking about.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
« It takes some scientists YEARS upon years before they finally start going away from it »
Most of them (some 98%), however, remain sane throughout their entire lives, and accept that evolutionary theory is the best and only testable model we have for biological diversity.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
« I get why ppl accept evolution »
I doubt that you do, boy. Frankly, I think that you're thinking of consequences, rather than an honest evaluation of hypotheses in the light of the available data.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope
« I've seen the "evidence" »
Do you even understand what the evidence consists of? Or what the term 'evidence' entails and implies, for that matter?
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@oceanceaser44 everything just screams engineering. from the ears, to the eyes to molecular systems. It's really an insult to intelligence to propose that they were not engineered
semitope 2 weeks ago
@semitope Of course the human body is extremely complex. I myself am only in gr 12 biology so I don't have close to as good understanding about the human body as you do, and what I have learned has shown me that the bodies systems and parts do appear at first as though they were designed. But it seems to me that evolution would create a human body that appears designed. Starting from very basic, the process of natural selection will increase complexity and refine the bodies systems.
oceanceaser44 2 weeks ago
@semitope You say that The proof of evolution is weak. Im interested in what you mean, seeing as I was taught differently, that there is overwhelming evidence and that it is the leading theory to how we came to be. There is evidence presented from the fossil record, as we see the small changes from organism to organism becoming increasingly complex and refined. There is evidence in in modern day micro evolution, that demonstrates in a relatively short time period. large changes can happen.
oceanceaser44 2 weeks ago
@semitope Lastly, you say the evidence suggest that the human body was not evolved, but designed. I ask you to present some evidence to support this. Again I am only in Bio 12 so I do believe you have a much better understanding of all this than me, and I am extremely curious about what you have to say on this subject, seeing as it is contrary to what I am told by my teachers and peers.
oceanceaser44 2 weeks ago
@oceanceaser44 your
semitope 2 weeks ago
@oceanceaser44 I ask you present evidence that the human body is not designed.
shadowsburnme 2 weeks ago
@shadowsburnme I ask you to take a biology course, or visit a museum of natural history, or read a textbook on the subject.
oceanceaser44 2 weeks ago
If I was god I would mention at the start of any holy book not to take what is said literally because I would know that humans (created in my image) experienced the emotion of confusion.
mojoswoptopz 2 months ago 6
" highly contestable as to whether or not the bible is 'old fashioned' or 'primitive' for that matter"
Well what else would you call a 2,000 year old book? New York Times Bestseller??
sleep1 2 months ago
"God makes the world make itself" - hmmm, sounds alike a complete cop out to me, can't the Bish do any better than that? Pathetic!
IlRezzonico 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IlRezzonico typical atheist kook. Why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool.
Seigu007 2 months ago
Only problem is, the arguing is futile...... As each side will defend its own views to the last, it will not be settled at all.
A pragmatic response is, get on with life, and each to their own. People have been given the choice to believe what they want.
Dair56 2 months ago
what the heck he is doing with his hands?
mascarafea1 2 months ago
That criticism came from Germany?
Hell yeah, we rock!
^^
MellonVegan 3 months ago
@ransad1
I disagree Dawkins has interviwed some very intelligent con-artists
lsynno 3 months ago
@ransad
I disagree Dawkins hes interviewed some pretty intelligent con artists
Hello if your a UK citizen and believe that evoloution should be taught earlier in schools please copy this addres into your browser to sign an e-petition
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/19119
lsynno 3 months ago
The first intelligent person Dawkins interviews!!
ranasd1 3 months ago
Finally! A sensible bishop.... and what is the "mainstream" christian reaction?
"He's not representing christians!" "He's not whacko enough" etc. etc.
GenericRubbishName 3 months ago 2
This Bishop does not deserve to wear the crucifix over his neck. I agreed with him loosely on the euthanasia issue (the man burning alive in a vehicle) and on the evolutionary process and when the earth was created (billions of years ago) because the bible does not specifically give us a time line that is explicit.
However, everything else he says -- he should be ashamed of himself, he does not represent Christians in anyway shape or form, as he disregards the true words of his 'God'.
LightRevealsDark 3 months ago
@LightRevealsDark c'mon mate, you cant treat the bible factually, its medieval
HereThereAndNowhere 3 months ago 4
@HereThereAndNowhere Um, wow... Learn some history. The bible existed way before the medieval period.
owchywawa 3 months ago
@owchywawa he said it was medieval, not from the medieval period. I would suggest you educate yourself if you want to debate with an atheist. We as atheist usually know more about your religion than you yourself do.
xX01RKXx 2 months ago
@xX01RKXx @owchywawa @HereThereAndNowhere
Medieval:
1. Of or relating to the Middle Ages.
2. Very old-fashioned or primitive.
The primary function of this word is to describe the period so one can be forgiven for the usage assumed here. It's also highly contestable as to whether or not the bible is 'old fashioned' or 'primitive' for that matter - on a side note. I will however point out that more often than not atheists muck up their definitions too - we're all human it often happens.
SDWLLB 2 months ago
@xX01RKXx LOL. from my experience, atheists are idiots. Usually idiots who think they know more than others, but cannot support their faith in any shape or form. Dawkins books are ridiculously easy to pick apart, hence why he does not debate intellectuals and simply interviews ppl who agree with him. Go check out his few debates and read up criticisms of his work
semitope 3 weeks ago
@HereThereAndNowhere LOL NO ITS NOT!!
ComAntNeLib 1 week ago
Oh look, the Heretic "Bishop" of Oxford, in favour of abortion, sterilisation and all manner of horrible things.
Ohyewildthong 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins was stunned to hear Christopher Hitchens admit that even if he could defeat every Christian in debate to end religion , he would not do it. It shows that Atheism is not a social bonding priori. It is what people pro actively believe in that bonds them, not what they do not believe in . I do not believe in Aliens, but that is not grounds for me to bond with anyone, such that this is a premise for a social order or group. You are the idiot.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@CarmineFragione Ah Carmine, good to see its not just my videos you print your screeds of mental masturbation on.
ZuluFightrunner 4 months ago
In islam , we got true words about everything , And god spoke in Holy Qur'an , we can notice that as miracles ...
Our belief is so strong , and true Muslim , is true follower of Mohammed (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) ,
If you really follow true pure message from Jesus him self at his time or even close to his period , Then you will follow Mohammed (pbuh ) .
We love all prophets and we worship ONE TRUE GOD ! And Jesus is only prophet and messenger like others before him . ( Peace be upon them all )
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@ThePurityMan the problem is that if this were true, you wouldnt be trying to convince us about this because there would be undeniable, uncrutanable and very compelling evidence that what you say is true. so until you can prove that anythign you say is anywhere close to the truth, stop wasting your time
atimor 4 months ago
@atimor
I don't waste any time , in my belief , in Islam religion , we got message that you never know it ,
We advice you because we are Muslim are responsible about it ..
first of all Mohammed (pbuh) before islam and his 40 years old, he never know other religious like Christians and Judaism , he lived among those idols worshipers , but he didn't follow them firstly before Islam he followed his instinct that there is creator in some where , he never know , then god choice him to ....
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor choice him to lead the last message firstly for those who were in darkness who worshiped , idols , start and moon ......etc ))
He taught them there is creator , and he taught him by his Revelation that there is prophets (pbu them )
And he taught him , who is Jesus , and what he did ....... he did everything , that no human can even do same thing ....
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor
The one who build your false chrsitianty is Paul !
He taught u , that there is Trinity , and sin ........etc )).
So that makes some verses from bible contradicted other verses ...
Chrsitianty doesn't makes any sense because it's Distorted by human false ..
that's why most of their followers right now , reject it and follow atheist ... !
But Muslims knows every things and it's makes sense to us ....
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor This is what Mohammed (peace be upon him ) taught us , He said this (( "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.
So this is just advice !
And Peace again ..
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atimor (( the problem is that if this were true )) You said !
your rights to seek about true , i did advice u ,
so read about all prophets (peace be upon them ) together , and read Holy Qur'an , and find out where is true should be (( I believed islam is true after research and study ) and you have to do same thing , to follow any one blindly , take advice and seek about it , and find out ,, and knowledge your self as u can ...
......continue
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor How the Bible Led Me to Islam: The Story of a Former Christian Youth Minister - Joshua Evans
See that video in youtube , he was Christian ...
I think he even know christian more then you maybe ..
So i hope you open that link in youtube and see , what the reason that makes him join Islam ..
And thank you so much , with Love , and respect , Peace .
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@ThePurityMan i watched, apparently you have to be more gullable than a christian to be a muslim! the claim itself does not matter, it is how this claim is justified that is pattenly flawed, just as in the christian religion, the jewish religion, the hindu religion etc. all these religions cant be right, but they can all be wrong. the qu'ran is just another book written by men as far as science is concerned because you cant provide evidence that there is a god to write it in the first place!
atimor 4 months ago
@atimor
God already sent his message and told us every thing in holy Qur'an ,
Religion is ONE ! It's called THE LAW of ALL PROPHETS !
Am i gullable ? Do you think that i know u , ? at least i don't have Hate in my heart , i told you what i have to tell you ..
You follow it or not , this is your choice ,
We all shall know , If islam is true or not !!! in the last day .
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor
Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."
And We have certainly diversified for the people in this Qur'an from every [kind] of example, but most of the people refused [anything] except disbelief.
you never know Holy Qur'an ,i read it every day , And thanks to the god ..
If you think i am more gullable ? then do what ever you think , It's your own choice , Peace
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@ThePurityMan "but most of the people refused [anything] except disbelief". how can one "accept" disbelief? atheism isnt a choice, its a consequence of rationality and logical/critical thinking. once again, just because you read the qur'an every day and established a relationship with "god", does not mean that he exists. i have a video for you to watch now: The Real God: An Epiphany by darkmatter2525. listen carefully to what he says and relate it to yourself, youll notice a big similarity
atimor 4 months ago
@atimor
This Universe runing in Measured , According to our thinking , and Mind , We feel and that must be some one behind this world , He created everything in Balance , Which he has More then mind , magnificent power , and great One !
There is no lucky in this part , If Atheist believes that there is no god , then he should believe the natural it's self his god !
I am as Muslim , i already know that there is God , and i know what the Purpose of this life , and why we are here ...
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor
people who followed Abraham (peace be upon him ) got his message so clear .. and history can proves enough .
people who followed Moses (peace be upon him) also got the same message but in different some legislation .
people who followed Jesus (peace be upon him) also they got their message from their teacher , he told them what he got from his god ... He always proves that he is human and prophet who worshiping god , like other prophets (peace be upon them )
..........continue
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor
All that prophets they all accepted each other , Abraham believed in message from his god , and Moses believed in what Abraham said , also Jesus believed in all prophets that revealed before him ....
in islam god taught us to believe in everything that revealed before Mohammed (peace be upon him ) , Mohammed taught us to believe in all god law , and call it (( Islam law )) or islam religion and don't switch that Islam word to different word , try to understand what it's mean in Arabic.
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor Differences between people faith , not from their prophets or their God , We all have the same God , we all shall believe in the same way , but evil and devils people who Distorts what God revealed to us ...
Before Christianty people believed that there is ONE true only God !
And also Jesus taught them that , but they changed and astry , Now mohammed warned us and show us the path of god , that There is ONE TRUE GOD (( AND there is no doubt about that )) ...
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor I'm Muslim i follow this verse from holy Qur'an by god permission , Holy Qur'an Chapter 39 (( But those who have avoided Taghut, lest they worship it, and turned back to Allah - for them are good tidings. So give good tidings to My servants
Who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.(18)
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor So as i said above , i'm not here and never to arguing you or any different person ,
I have message and believe in my heart , and i try to tell u what i believe honstly in my heart ..
So again , if u want to believe , this religion open and still for all human , and they all welcome until , One of god sign , if you don't believe in it ,
..........continue
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@atimor Holy Qur'an chapter 2 (( There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (256).
Peace and Thank you .
ThePurityMan 4 months ago
@ThePurityMan sure, they say there is no compulsion in acceptance of religion; however, theres is an eternal consequence of hell for infidels. HOW IS THAT NOT A COMPULSION. its like this: a thief walks up to an old lady and says: "giving me your wallet is not a compulsion, but if you dont, im gonna stab ya. if you do, itll be clear you did the right thing." Patently absurd.
atimor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to form life
damienbrennan1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try reading the Epic of Gilgamesh & E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), other great writings are by Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', For sceptical Bible scholars try Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg book '101 myths of the Bible', Richard Carrier, David Mills, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 4 months ago
@Jabberwockyjefferies He's still skewed though. Hahaha
EdgePitSwing 4 months ago
IMO Dawkins is so much more brilliant in one-on-one situations like this one. He doesn't come across as well in front of an audience.
rgs11 5 months ago
As a priest, what + Richard is saying here is what most of us (ordained and laity) think. He articulates 'the faith' most well is a beautiful manner. We (more liberal wing of the church) need to be more vocal.
nonrealist 5 months ago
this bishop is such a welcome break from the rigid stupidities of american christians.this man is at ease with himself and is truly tolerant of alternative views.american christians by virtue of their ignorance and superficiality,become defensive and combative for fear of their whole edifice collapsing.
hotstixx 5 months ago
the bishop is a huge baller, great representation of the philosophical deeper context that is probably the best thing religion can provide to secular intellectuals
vajkosd 5 months ago
I've always liked Anglicans. It's very difficult not to like them.
jacksawild 5 months ago
I would want this guy on my side if I were God.
tonycatman 5 months ago
I really like this video - it feels like a real meeting of equals.
Roseblight 5 months ago
I get the impression that if this Bishop was young again, and had his life open ahead of him, he would choose to be an atheist, if he isn't one already. A huge number of bishops/priests maintain their beliefs because it's all they know how to do.
blackvapour 5 months ago
@blackvapour And you know this how? You are saying that people such as bishops and priests dedicate their life, energy, thought,everything they have, because they never realized that they could be doing something else in life. That makes no sense to me
vaisforlovers1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY 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 5 months ago
Hmmm, I wonder why Dawkins only gave this interview about 1 minute in his tv documentary and didn't show any of the long talk with Alister Mcgrath but did have scene after scence of Dawkins arguing with extremists, the Ted Hagards and Pat Roberstons of this world. I suspect that it was because Mcgrath was saying the sorts of things which did not promote the message that Dawkins was so eager to send out.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 5 months ago
Oh dear, at about three minutes we get into a discussion about euthanasia. Our tame faithhead states that one shouldn't legislate for a scenario, but has himself done just that via his unearned position in the UK legislature. He may have been bright once, but his brain is obviously rotting. We need to remove such people from the legislative process.
cnocspeireag 5 months ago
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 5 months ago
Evolution is true micro that is macro no way, yet all these idiots lump them together when they are seperate one is true micro or adaptation is provable macro not so much.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Humans have literally watched a type of E. Coli change into another species... that's macro bro.
TwistedLemniscate 5 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate Thats micro Bro. it is still a bacteria just another strain.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Then we're not talking about the same thing. If you have to change the definition of what macro evolution is to show that it can be false, then you've made no comment on macro evolution whatsoever.
TwistedLemniscate 5 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate You evotards are always using examples of micro to try and prove macro well good luck with that.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Evotard? Really? And my example is considered macro by the common use of the term; for some reason you seem to be using a different definition of macro evolution (maybe b/c it's the only defense you have?).
We could of course talk about the enormous collection of whale bones that, as you slowly follow the bones into the past, you can see that whales used to be land mammals similar to wolves. Or how we're 99% identical to Chimpanzes. Chickens vs. T-rex. Etc etc
TwistedLemniscate 5 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate A whale is a whale always has been and we are not related to monkeys. Micro yes macro no way.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil You've never heard of Ockham's Razor have you? If you existed in another age I'm sure you'd have favored the complicated loop-de-loops of Ptolemy's earth-centered universe. After all, if a non-earth-centered universe was anti-religious then how is it any less anti-religious today...unless peoples' opinions change how the deity judges them.
TwistedLemniscate 5 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate Ockhams razor is BS just like macro.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Ohhhh, so you ARE a troll. Good to know.
TwistedLemniscate 5 months ago
@TwistedLemniscate Ohhh so your an idiot good to know.
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil Actually it isn't, it's very simple, but it has almost nothing to do with what he is saying. He is just saying it to pretend to be smart. I think he has some security issues...
cenotosa1 5 months ago
@cenotosa1 Do not know how to respond to whom are you refering?
glendaweil 5 months ago
@glendaweil I was talking about Dawkins being insecure.
cenotosa1 5 months ago
@cenotosa1 Oh OK understood.
glendaweil 5 months ago
They both sound like fags. I think it's the accents.
axekicker78 6 months ago
@axekicker78 Take your idiocy elsewhere.
PsychoticNeurotic 6 months ago
@axekicker78 how did your mind make the jump to their sexual orientation?, they aren't speaking about sex. Isn't that a woman's agenda, to determine whether or not a person would be a suitable sexual partner?.why would you look at a guy and try to determine whether he is a 'fag' or not?.ofcourse. if u are homosexual, please accept my apologies.
rtrd624 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
and why only human believe in god?
martin111227 6 months ago
how old is the universe and how old is religion,the difference of time will prove the difference of truth or delusion.and will religion exist if fear didn't exist.
martin111227 6 months ago
im bored
NZmount 6 months ago
@NZmount
« im bored » 1
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
dawkins shuts up when he's talking to another Brit.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 he respects intelligent sane people
chrish12345 6 months ago
@chrish12345 Well count me out what dawkins says; he's full of bull.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@NorthNorth2009 No, he just shuts up when he's talking to sane, intelligent people; as opposed to the silly, unintelligent American "creationists".
Task5003 6 months ago
@Task5003 As long as someone shuts his mouth,it's all good.
NorthNorth2009 6 months ago
@figbat1 You really seriously need to go talk to someone about this. they have specal places for people like you.
1515Steve1515 7 months ago
HEY EVERYBODY............... FU C K Y O U
would you like to know the real truth. read the 2 comments i have posted below and see if you can work them out. i am not lying. go to QI stephen fry puts alan in his place back comments for more. regards from burnie tasmania.
figbat1 7 months ago
@figbat1
thats the dumbest comment i've read on all of youtube.
StefanCornelius 6 months ago
i came up with a theory that involves the book of genesis (fig leaves) buddha (sitting under the bodhi fig tree) jesus (many sayings about figs) ross horne's book (new health revolution) and science (figs are the most important source of food for fruit eating rainforest animals). i then experimented on the figs by eating mainly dried figs (same brand) for over 6 years now and found cycles which i related to the numbers in psgs 11/12 of the book of revelations. this theory has gone everywhere
figbat1 7 months ago
so far i have had eliminations at days 504, 840, 1176, 1512, 1848, 2184, and expect my 7th at day 2520. today is day 2297. i have definitely found something. i am not lying. what i have discovered has gone around the world and so many songs have been written about it...the foo fighters last 3 albums..."vertigo" by U2 (my first name is phil)...coldplay's last 2 albums. an elimination is a day when you will experience strong flu-like symptoms and feel terrible. bad stuff is washed out of your body
figbat1 7 months ago
Of all the "New Atheists" - I have the most respect for Richard Dawkins. He is at his best, for me, when he has long, thoughtful, respectful conversations with religious leaders/scholars like the Bishop of Oxford and Fr. George Coyne.
As adults, if we are going to continue in the faith of our fathers, or lose it - we should make that decision after listening to thoughtful, intelligent discussions like this one.
jjny03 7 months ago
Religion is a Man-Made thought. It has no true meaning, except the meaning of oneself. If there is a god, surely he deals with science! we are but one lonely planet, in our solar system. Science made a fascinating discovery 3 months ago, of a similar planet to our earth, and how it goes around its sun perfectly just like ours. So, all this "we are special" is a bunch of SHIT!!!
Queens, NY
freedomland11 7 months ago
How do people live their lives without finding meaning...In general, atheists are less intelligient and more arrogant than agnostic people. Just as religious people cannot prove the existance of God, atheists cannot prove that there is no God. They like to pretend like they are "brighter" than religious people, but in reality they fully believe something that is not absolute either.
chelseamate1 7 months ago
@chelseamate1 "atheists are less intelligient and more arrogant," From someone who can't spell the word, intelligent you seem to have a warped view on what Atheism actually is. We don't believe, period. We may hold opinions of certain topics but we don't have beliefs in the same sense that religious people do. Richard Dawkins, Stephan Hawking, Neil degrasse Tyson, Leonard Mlodinow and countless other Atheists are highly intelligent, as are many other atheists.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chelseamate1 Atheists do not need to prove there is no god lol. Burden of proof you are saying there is a god you need to prove it exists, you've done nothing by saying we can't prove it's existence. If I tell you a unicorn is real you can't prove it isn't but that doesn't mean it exists. Religious people are just plain ignorant.
indierocker1000 6 months ago
@chelseamate1 There is a two-headed, fire-breathing, quadruple-tailed, purple-scaled, 100-foot-tall, half-robot monster living on the dark side of the moon. Oh what? You don't believe me? Then you're just as arrogant as atheists.
The point is that the burden of proof lies with the believers, and since there is no proof, it would be un-"intelligient" and arrogant to believe God exists based on words written in a book by primitive men.
Agnostics (like myself) are merely... Indecisive.
kbizzle85 6 months ago
morons
hemi942 7 months ago
face it your wrong the sooner you accept this the better the planet will be!
pcxcado 7 months ago