Completely falacious. Tony Blair does not believe in the God (at lest the God of the christians), and neither does Bush. They are agents who pretend to do so. In the case of Bush he wouldn't have been elected as a Republican if he didn't pretend to, as even the Democrats have to do so! As for genocidal Tony, he does it 1. deflect the blame for the warmongers to the Catholic Church 2.Infiltrate different countires with his judeo-freemasonic "Fatih" enterprise. Watch my video on Tony Blair.
Why doesn't Richard Dawkins do something more useful, like try to cure hunger, pollution and disease? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't waste my time like Dawkins writing books pretending God doesn't exist, unless of course, I wanted to make piles of money at the expense of our children, planet and every living thing on it. WWII alone conclusively proves science and education won't save us from our sins, so why not eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we blow ourselves to kingdom come?
@JesusRealTV No shit Sherlock, no one knows with certainty the origin of the universe. That doesn't mean anyone should believe the nonsense that world religions propose.
american atheist shares my values but i question their religious bias to focusing mostly on the christian views and hardly the other religious junk--its bias is focused on the offspring religions of judaism--christianity and islam; judaism started these other religion but AA website does not counter judaism--and why does the AA logo remind me of the star of david. i think there is a subliminal propaganda and covert non-secular operation going on here.
@grow2bwiser Or maybe no religion other than Christianity is causing trouble in America right now, on a national level. Grow up and forget about you nutty conspiracy theory.
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
what a funny guy, i was laughing for most of this letter. On a more real and very serious note however (haha) i hope hes fucking joking and that letter wasn't wrote by anybody serious about it.
The god delusion says that there is no gods therefore there are none! The god delusion is undeniable evidence, and it was written almost 1460 days ago, that long ago how is it that anyone could have known this? Therefore the god delusion is true. [/failed sarcasm attempt]
@id1337x Atheist do not cling to the God delusion as a form of guidance, it is mainly for the humor, and of course to help understand just how corrosive religion is. You will never ever hear an atheist say "I am an atheist because I have total faith in Richard Dawkins infallible book The God Delusion."
@AtheistxNinja I think he meant that because people have condoms, they have more sex and spread more aids than abstinence would. It's still stupid though.
@AtheistxNinja Condoms themselves do not spread anything, they are condoms. The practice of sex with condoms by people who are infected with aids do spread aids. As the protection is quite far from being 100% safe, the belief that they are, by many thousands of infected people, obvioulsly spreads aids in a way that monogamy and abstinence don't. If you were not aware condoms are not 100% safe you were right to make your comment. If you weren't, you are a fallacious idiot.
of course you can say condoms are not 100% safe(you really should effective) as with anything, there can never been absolute certainty, but if you wear a condom and there is no exchange of bodily fluid such as sperm then it would be impossible to transfer the HIV. mainly the thing you should understand is that people will have sex with or without a condom, the pope rejecting condoms will only lead to more unprotected sex and therefore more HIV (causing AIDS)
@l0rd0f0blivi0n "you wear a condom and there is no exchange of bodily fluid such as sperm then it would be impossible to transfer the HIV" well, yeah. You won't even need to wear a condom in that situation. Are you sure that is what you meant to say?? People can have do whatever they want, but the Pope, or whoever has a shred of common sense, cannot say whay you people want to please you. It's called telling the truth.
@l0rd0f0blivi0n What if it does rip then? Too late... And the condom does not have to rip to allow the hiv virus to go through. "Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS." FDA.GOV's words not mine.
@thegreatfearblog it's a matter of probability, it is impossible to say 100% for anything, just like it is possible to get cancer from siting a dark room your whole life, so no-one can say it is 100% impossible to get cancer from not smoking, working in radioactive areas..etc. it is the same thing with condoms, there is a very small chance, but there is a chance, so they cannot say that condoms are 100% effective, but that does not mean 50%, or 60 percent or even 95%, it is 99.(something)%
@l0rd0f0blivi0n It's not the same thing at all. You're comparing the possibility of infection while wearing a condom with almost impossibilities. That is borderline fallacious. Of course, it is nigh on impossible to test something like this in a lab, for obvious reasons, but we can use very basic logic to understand the criminality of telling uneducated people or youngsters that condoms protect you from hiv infections. And where did you get that "99.(something)%" probability thing?
@thegreatfearblog when i say 99...% i mean testing transmission of fluids through the comdom, such as sperm, which is what i was talking about earlier, if the condom is used properly and does not rip..etc, but i guess when you think about this you are thinking about in practice, and this is quite different, but, most of the time the wrong size condom is used or not used properly which is what results in the lower sucess rate. condoms do protect from hiv infection, why do you disagree?
@thegreatfearblog most often ripping is due to the wrong size of condoms being used; the typical guy thinking "oh well it's a bit big, but everything is still covered", but that is bad to think like that only the right size condom will work properly. So if the condom doesn't rip there is a very low percentage that the HIV can go straight through the condom, less than 0.1%, but yess that HIV can still get through.
i don't have a source to quote for that i must admit, though it is what i know from personal education. i could quote figures like 98-99% transmission barrier in practice when not ripping ..etc (wikipedia) that was just the first result, clearly you can get extremely varying quotes, often because of biased studies. The point i'm trying to make is that people are responsible for condoms failing; good quality condoms are themselves very good.
@l0rd0f0blivi0n condom > no condom, no argument about that. but what about the rest of the body, sweat, saliva, tears etc. and condom itself isn't 100% 'fluid' proof.
@aierce well HIV (the virus) lives by occupying white blood cells (killing them in the proccess, which is what weakens the immune system), tears, sweat and saliva have next to no white blood cells in them so the HIV cannot survive so the probability of transferring HIV through sweat saliva and tears is next to nothing (obviously i cannot say 100% impossible as i think there was been 1 reported case of transfer through saliva)
It is positively blasphemous for someone so unusually pale to wear a Hawaiian shirt. Dawkins isn't just pale, but out of my respect for him, I won't say what else.
Please don't wear that shirt again. No one ever need to pull a Rick Warren by trying to dress that casual in attempt to cozy up the audience.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stop blaming Bush for all your problems, I dont think Britain was attacked by terrorist and lost 2000 people. Stop blaming us for every fucking thing cunt!
@arttay1090 The proofs out there. What do you mean you werent aware it was still about? A poll has shown that over 60% of Americans now believe it. When there's evidence available, it's really hard to refute. Go look
@arttay1090 You've seen the explosions exploding out the buildings and thought nothing of it then? Even when they said there were no explosions and the building fell because of the heat. They've done tests on a lot of buildings since. Weakers buildings at that. The buildings stood for days after being on fire. Don't forget the amount of people at the scene on camera that they heard explosions coming from all over the place, in every direction. These were people in the building
you have a 200 story building(if thats the right spelling of "story") falling at who knows how many mph, your going to get pockets of air, and at some points there going to burst, and what that is going to look like is a window being blown out, that is all.
you dont need something that can burn so hot as to melt metal, all it has to do is make it 50% as strong. there are thousands of...giant metal things falling, would they make a sound? nope i guess not
Not to support the conspiracy guy, but he did say one thing correctly. The US did cause 9/11. When the US sent aid to afghanistan during the soviet invasion, they aided the wrong people. They armed highly religious, fanatical fringe groups and tribals, and then made no effort to stop those religious fanatics from coming to power after the soviets were gone.
Before the invasion, Afghanistan was a moderately liberal, forward thinking nation, where women were free to become doctors and lawyers.
@Etimos The best you could say is that the U.S. indirectly contributed to 9/11. The principle cause of 9/11, according to Al-Qaeda, was the presence of the U.S. military on Saudi soil during the Desert Storm operation (the intention being, of course, to repel Iraq from Kuwaiti territory).
Of course, the true cause of 9/11 was Al Qaeda and their warped religious ideology. Attempting to hold the U.S. solely to account for this is an almighty form of buck-passing.
@typicalmelburnian Well, while I agree partly with what you say, you're missing a big part of the picture. Al Qaeda (such as it is) mentions US military on saudi soil largely because Bin Laden is a Saudi. The Taliban, however, who gave aid and comfort to those terrorists, were NOT in it for that reason.
Al Qaeda had a safe haven in afghanistan because the US allowed the Taliban to take over the country after the soviets left, creating an unstable fundamentalist islamic theocracy.
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but most have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
It's hard to tell what parts are written by Dawkins and which parts by Blair. Hehe, unless it all was actually written by Blair, in which case i'm very frightened.
I also had trouble distinguishing what parts actually came from 'Tony's' letter so I looked it up. It's pretty safe to say that anything that is really frightening is actually satire written by Dawkins. I think I found the original letter through a link on Richard Dawkins' website
"I don't know how you feel, but I'm pretty sick of church people. You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The catholic church along would wipe out the national dept if all you did was tax their real estate.
Yes he has become much more comfortable with delivering funny lines in the last few years. Strident indeed ! More like Bill Gates in 1974 saying, "listen carefully, computers are going to be big", some people listened...
Because deists still believe that a God or somesort of all powerful deity created the cosmos and everything in it, dine tuning the earth to be capable of supporting life. Deists, unlike Christians, do not claim moral superiorty or absolute truths.
The term "FSM" was invented by a man who is heterosexually challenged....he invented this term inorder to retaliate against the Bible for it's condemnation of such a filthy lifestyle...and all those with the said abominable and vile way of living love the term "FSM".
However, what is ironic is that "inarticulant" is not actually a word, and your reply does not meet the requirements of being an actual sentence. Don't pick on other people's grammar when you're all but clueless yourself.
For future reference: the correct response is "no u".
Hair can can be dyed to match any image of any thing that's bald....if those who don't "collect stamps" regularly gather to discuss the fact that they don't and discuss also the behaviour of those who do collect stams...that can be considered religious behaviour.
@muchtribulation, right...I know weirdos who regulary attend Star Trek events where they dress as characters and discuss that. So your logic means Stark trek is a religion! Religion is defined as a: strong belief in a supernatural power(s) that control destiny and an institution to express belief in a divine power. Don't confuse organised religion with an organised society.
Disliking is not an approach fundamentally inherent in either group; making your comment similar to saying I like humans, Christians like humans, so I must be using the same approach. If you have problems with your anger, maybe you should seek professional help from a psychiatrist.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You have stated even more gibberish than previously.
In the video, you have all the settings of a religion, namely, the preacher (Dawkins), the followers agreeing with everyting said, a pulpit, a philosophy (darwinianity) and a critique of the ways of those who don't bilieve as they do.
calling atheism a religion in attempt to justify actual relgions is stupid. making these comparisons is dumb because you could also say the same about a football game, or a lecture at a college, or a magic show, or a strip club.
There is always a cause and purpose. The difference between the religious and no-religious view of cause and purpose is who creates such. On one hand it is a fictitious imaginary friend, on the other it is an internalized conscious manifestation of our own humanity.
We were born human, not apes, we just share common ancestors and just like those apes we are societal creatures whom tend to follow societal structures. Similarly, the morality of the religious and the non-religious in every human society has the same ancestral roots.
It is obvious by your posts that you are not in touch with reality. You believe in a sky fairy, you deny evolution, you feel "atheism" is a religion. All of these are delusions suited to your state of mind. They are not part of reality.
...and people like you believe and do such shameful, vile and abominal acts wich I deem delusional, suicidal, filthy, insane, repulsive....Those beliefs are shameful to society and also not a part of reality.
I have never heared you "talk", so, You couldn't possibly be referring to me...you must be alluding to the fact why you and your family memmbers don't talk to each other.
What I meant is that things just happen, sometimes by random chance, without any creator, observer, who has plan and give them special meaning, purpose.
actually atheism is a LACK of belief in a god. It doesn't make any other claims. Of course, there are atheists that believe in logic and science, but it is possible to be an illogical, new age atheist.
No but it is a specific belief just like theism is not in and of itself a religion, but rather any religious person who believes in a deity or deities is a theist. Atheism needs to be respected as if it were a religion or it allows people to discriminate against Atheists freely and we can't have that as it goes against the freedom to hold any belief pertaining to the existence of a deity or deities. Religious people don't want to be setting any precedents.
Firstly that would not be atheism but materialism that you are describing (and not even that because materialism only deals with cause and nature, not purpose) . Atheism just a lack of belief in something. The key thing however is on what the belief of an ism is based on. Materialism is based upon testable evidence and religion on untestable or wrong truth claims. (note: materialism doesn't mean wanting to own stuff as I thought for a long time :)
If you manage to read your beloved bible, and if you happen to be in some extremely rare moment where you actually use your brain and take what you read in your bible as a whole, you'll understand that there is no need to slander it: what is written in the bible does a pretty darn good job at invalidating and ridiculing itself. And on the topic of condemnation, let me ask you something, do you go shopping on Sundays? Just wondering.
Actually no. The bible is pretty clear about what it says, and it contradicts itself very often, "the deluded ones" do not want to see this because it threatens their beliefs and scares them. So ignorance is bliss! So, if you go shopping on Saturdays, does that mean that the people that work at the shops are condemned, because they are working? I mean, doesn't your bible say that you have to stone them to death because of that? And if you don't do it, doesn't that make you a "condemned" as well?
"Contridictions" in the Bible are there tailored for the condemned.
Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Nice muchtribulation, now we are talking! So tell me: Why isn't that you are not putting all those condemned that work in the sabbath to death as your lord tells you to do, as said in the bible? If you do, does that condemn you because of the commandment "thou shall not kill", or if you don't, does that also condemn you because you are disobeying your lord? Just asking. If you do not see the contradiction here (and yes, check my spelling), then you are more than a "deluded one".
brilliant video
TheKcsmithy 4 weeks ago
some sweet info here
jjclassjj 1 month ago
good work here
prchecker 1 month ago
interesting video and very informative
ericajjful 1 month ago
The pen is mightier than the spoon
breaneainn 5 months ago
@breaneainn Not for the Ginosaji!
Andy97009814 3 months ago
@Andy97009814 LOL! (had to google it)
breaneainn 3 months ago
i have a lot of time and respect for dawkins but i do think he should stay away from politics and stick to what he does best - science.
doveyt3 8 months ago
Completely falacious. Tony Blair does not believe in the God (at lest the God of the christians), and neither does Bush. They are agents who pretend to do so. In the case of Bush he wouldn't have been elected as a Republican if he didn't pretend to, as even the Democrats have to do so! As for genocidal Tony, he does it 1. deflect the blame for the warmongers to the Catholic Church 2.Infiltrate different countires with his judeo-freemasonic "Fatih" enterprise. Watch my video on Tony Blair.
thegreatfearblog 9 months ago
Is this guy a comedian?
He sure thinks good of himself, i laugh at him, in a very humiliating way.
Cause he is plain stupid
MonieGaming 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why doesn't Richard Dawkins do something more useful, like try to cure hunger, pollution and disease? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't waste my time like Dawkins writing books pretending God doesn't exist, unless of course, I wanted to make piles of money at the expense of our children, planet and every living thing on it. WWII alone conclusively proves science and education won't save us from our sins, so why not eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we blow ourselves to kingdom come?
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
18 people think the mission was accomplished.
AcmeEvil 10 months ago
LOLOLOLOL @ Tony Blair!
DoctorNociceptor 10 months ago
COOL! xD
cr4yv3n 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
RICHARD DAWKINS DECLARES THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
watch?v=DSM3BpTrA88
JesusRealTV 11 months ago
@JesusRealTV No shit Sherlock, no one knows with certainty the origin of the universe. That doesn't mean anyone should believe the nonsense that world religions propose.
krisfehr13 11 months ago 3
i liked this video immediately after he said bye to bush
laxstevo1 11 months ago
american atheist shares my values but i question their religious bias to focusing mostly on the christian views and hardly the other religious junk--its bias is focused on the offspring religions of judaism--christianity and islam; judaism started these other religion but AA website does not counter judaism--and why does the AA logo remind me of the star of david. i think there is a subliminal propaganda and covert non-secular operation going on here.
grow2bwiser 1 year ago
@grow2bwiser Or maybe no religion other than Christianity is causing trouble in America right now, on a national level. Grow up and forget about you nutty conspiracy theory.
lordlacolith 1 year ago
Thanks for the info.
There is only one Creator and so there is only one truth possible with one Savior and no exceptions.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FFreeThinker my msn in profile! Comrades In Faith - Richard Dawkins @ American Atheist Conference
sexykatie90 1 year ago
Comment removed
FilipH86 1 year ago
rockin' shirt
zhitgeist 1 year ago 4
100% brilliant with awesome sauce poured on top. I LOVE Dawkins. He's the number one human on this planet.
PaleBlueDotCitizen 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
Dawkins is a visionary. I wish he was Prime Minister.
kerazeee 1 year ago 5
what a funny guy, i was laughing for most of this letter. On a more real and very serious note however (haha) i hope hes fucking joking and that letter wasn't wrote by anybody serious about it.
1PintLasher 1 year ago
The god delusion says that there is no gods therefore there are none! The god delusion is undeniable evidence, and it was written almost 1460 days ago, that long ago how is it that anyone could have known this? Therefore the god delusion is true. [/failed sarcasm attempt]
id1337x 1 year ago 5
@id1337x Atheist do not cling to the God delusion as a form of guidance, it is mainly for the humor, and of course to help understand just how corrosive religion is. You will never ever hear an atheist say "I am an atheist because I have total faith in Richard Dawkins infallible book The God Delusion."
ciqjeuighqryquiryenu 1 year ago
@id1337x this comment made me lol so hard. So witty hahaha
TheDcac 1 year ago
Richard ought to run for president. I'll vote for him.
GroogFish 1 year ago 8
i've never seen him in a shirt like that. i dig it.
ossimkitteh 1 year ago 2
I don't understand how the pope can say condoms spread AIDS and people still listen to him. Who is the idiot there?
AtheistxNinja 2 years ago 71
@AtheistxNinja I think he meant that because people have condoms, they have more sex and spread more aids than abstinence would. It's still stupid though.
TheDcac 1 year ago
@AtheistxNinja
Who is dumber, the pope or Bush?
SexyArcanine666 10 months ago
@AtheistxNinja Condoms themselves do not spread anything, they are condoms. The practice of sex with condoms by people who are infected with aids do spread aids. As the protection is quite far from being 100% safe, the belief that they are, by many thousands of infected people, obvioulsly spreads aids in a way that monogamy and abstinence don't. If you were not aware condoms are not 100% safe you were right to make your comment. If you weren't, you are a fallacious idiot.
thegreatfearblog 9 months ago
@thegreatfearblog
of course you can say condoms are not 100% safe(you really should effective) as with anything, there can never been absolute certainty, but if you wear a condom and there is no exchange of bodily fluid such as sperm then it would be impossible to transfer the HIV. mainly the thing you should understand is that people will have sex with or without a condom, the pope rejecting condoms will only lead to more unprotected sex and therefore more HIV (causing AIDS)
l0rd0f0blivi0n 8 months ago
@l0rd0f0blivi0n "you wear a condom and there is no exchange of bodily fluid such as sperm then it would be impossible to transfer the HIV" well, yeah. You won't even need to wear a condom in that situation. Are you sure that is what you meant to say?? People can have do whatever they want, but the Pope, or whoever has a shred of common sense, cannot say whay you people want to please you. It's called telling the truth.
thegreatfearblog 8 months ago
@thegreatfearblog i'm saying that the if the condom does not rip it will prevent the exchange of bodily fluids
and i didn't really understand what that last sentence was, a few typos
l0rd0f0blivi0n 8 months ago
@l0rd0f0blivi0n What if it does rip then? Too late... And the condom does not have to rip to allow the hiv virus to go through. "Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS." FDA.GOV's words not mine.
thegreatfearblog 8 months ago
@thegreatfearblog it's a matter of probability, it is impossible to say 100% for anything, just like it is possible to get cancer from siting a dark room your whole life, so no-one can say it is 100% impossible to get cancer from not smoking, working in radioactive areas..etc. it is the same thing with condoms, there is a very small chance, but there is a chance, so they cannot say that condoms are 100% effective, but that does not mean 50%, or 60 percent or even 95%, it is 99.(something)%
l0rd0f0blivi0n 8 months ago
@l0rd0f0blivi0n It's not the same thing at all. You're comparing the possibility of infection while wearing a condom with almost impossibilities. That is borderline fallacious. Of course, it is nigh on impossible to test something like this in a lab, for obvious reasons, but we can use very basic logic to understand the criminality of telling uneducated people or youngsters that condoms protect you from hiv infections. And where did you get that "99.(something)%" probability thing?
thegreatfearblog 8 months ago
@thegreatfearblog when i say 99...% i mean testing transmission of fluids through the comdom, such as sperm, which is what i was talking about earlier, if the condom is used properly and does not rip..etc, but i guess when you think about this you are thinking about in practice, and this is quite different, but, most of the time the wrong size condom is used or not used properly which is what results in the lower sucess rate. condoms do protect from hiv infection, why do you disagree?
l0rd0f0blivi0n 7 months ago
@thegreatfearblog most often ripping is due to the wrong size of condoms being used; the typical guy thinking "oh well it's a bit big, but everything is still covered", but that is bad to think like that only the right size condom will work properly. So if the condom doesn't rip there is a very low percentage that the HIV can go straight through the condom, less than 0.1%, but yess that HIV can still get through.
l0rd0f0blivi0n 7 months ago
@l0rd0f0blivi0n I'm still waiting for your your answer to my question: where did you get that "99.(something)%" probability thing?
thegreatfearblog 7 months ago
@thegreatfearblog
i don't have a source to quote for that i must admit, though it is what i know from personal education. i could quote figures like 98-99% transmission barrier in practice when not ripping ..etc (wikipedia) that was just the first result, clearly you can get extremely varying quotes, often because of biased studies. The point i'm trying to make is that people are responsible for condoms failing; good quality condoms are themselves very good.
l0rd0f0blivi0n 7 months ago
@l0rd0f0blivi0n condom > no condom, no argument about that. but what about the rest of the body, sweat, saliva, tears etc. and condom itself isn't 100% 'fluid' proof.
aierce 8 months ago
@aierce well HIV (the virus) lives by occupying white blood cells (killing them in the proccess, which is what weakens the immune system), tears, sweat and saliva have next to no white blood cells in them so the HIV cannot survive so the probability of transferring HIV through sweat saliva and tears is next to nothing (obviously i cannot say 100% impossible as i think there was been 1 reported case of transfer through saliva)
l0rd0f0blivi0n 8 months ago
@AtheistxNinja The entire religous population? lol
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
"Cool!"
ha, that part cracked me up!
ScottTenorman1 2 years ago 2
cool
ConspiredAnimations 2 years ago
It is positively blasphemous for someone so unusually pale to wear a Hawaiian shirt. Dawkins isn't just pale, but out of my respect for him, I won't say what else.
Please don't wear that shirt again. No one ever need to pull a Rick Warren by trying to dress that casual in attempt to cozy up the audience.
highwind8124 2 years ago
he's 68 years old, i don't think he gives a shit what he looks like.
dropdeadwil 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stop blaming Bush for all your problems, I dont think Britain was attacked by terrorist and lost 2000 people. Stop blaming us for every fucking thing cunt!
wowpapa 2 years ago
@wowpapa
If you don't know by now that 9/11 was caused by America itself, you're an ignorant fool
weepaul666 2 years ago
i wasnt aware people still think this was a conspiracy...wow....just wow
arttay1090 2 years ago
@arttay1090 The proofs out there. What do you mean you werent aware it was still about? A poll has shown that over 60% of Americans now believe it. When there's evidence available, it's really hard to refute. Go look
weepaul666 2 years ago
i have seen about 10-15 documentaries on the subject, and its all the same "evidence"
i have seen nothing that can be explained by simple chemistry, laws of gravity, or presidents not taking care of the situation 5 years before hand
arttay1090 2 years ago
@arttay1090 You've seen the explosions exploding out the buildings and thought nothing of it then? Even when they said there were no explosions and the building fell because of the heat. They've done tests on a lot of buildings since. Weakers buildings at that. The buildings stood for days after being on fire. Don't forget the amount of people at the scene on camera that they heard explosions coming from all over the place, in every direction. These were people in the building
weepaul666 2 years ago
you have a 200 story building(if thats the right spelling of "story") falling at who knows how many mph, your going to get pockets of air, and at some points there going to burst, and what that is going to look like is a window being blown out, that is all.
you dont need something that can burn so hot as to melt metal, all it has to do is make it 50% as strong. there are thousands of...giant metal things falling, would they make a sound? nope i guess not
arttay1090 2 years ago
also if i could get a link to the amount of people that claim to really hear stuff, explosions and such
arttay1090 2 years ago
Not to support the conspiracy guy, but he did say one thing correctly. The US did cause 9/11. When the US sent aid to afghanistan during the soviet invasion, they aided the wrong people. They armed highly religious, fanatical fringe groups and tribals, and then made no effort to stop those religious fanatics from coming to power after the soviets were gone.
Before the invasion, Afghanistan was a moderately liberal, forward thinking nation, where women were free to become doctors and lawyers.
Etimos 2 years ago 13
yep, i tend t have to agree with that
arttay1090 2 years ago
@Etimos The best you could say is that the U.S. indirectly contributed to 9/11. The principle cause of 9/11, according to Al-Qaeda, was the presence of the U.S. military on Saudi soil during the Desert Storm operation (the intention being, of course, to repel Iraq from Kuwaiti territory).
Of course, the true cause of 9/11 was Al Qaeda and their warped religious ideology. Attempting to hold the U.S. solely to account for this is an almighty form of buck-passing.
typicalmelburnian 1 year ago
@typicalmelburnian Well, while I agree partly with what you say, you're missing a big part of the picture. Al Qaeda (such as it is) mentions US military on saudi soil largely because Bin Laden is a Saudi. The Taliban, however, who gave aid and comfort to those terrorists, were NOT in it for that reason.
Al Qaeda had a safe haven in afghanistan because the US allowed the Taliban to take over the country after the soviets left, creating an unstable fundamentalist islamic theocracy.
Etimos 1 year ago
@Etimos Lol, nice satire
ciqjeuighqryquiryenu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but most have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
What a brilliant demolition job on post- modernism by Dawkins! I love it.
keypointist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Yes!
The christians should give up their ridiculous circular argument and live their one and only life to the full. The eternal darkness awaits.
buryinggod 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins.......what a self-absorbed moron.
Political and religious agenda coming from a British elitist - who shuns our former President on our own turf?
These Americans are a bunch of pussys....
ThisIDig 2 years ago
Yea Dawkins is a moron and youre smart
Good man
EclecticSceptic 2 years ago
Norse mythology bitches!
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
ROFL! I love the bush and blair bashing!
emancoy 2 years ago 3
It's hard to tell what parts are written by Dawkins and which parts by Blair. Hehe, unless it all was actually written by Blair, in which case i'm very frightened.
Fidellio13 2 years ago
I also had trouble distinguishing what parts actually came from 'Tony's' letter so I looked it up. It's pretty safe to say that anything that is really frightening is actually satire written by Dawkins. I think I found the original letter through a link on Richard Dawkins' website
letsmosey 2 years ago
multiculturism is a joke,it will never work
naybobdenod 2 years ago
Why? We can't live together in peace, and celebrate our differences? (Just not sure why you say that)
Peace
AtheistEvolution 2 years ago
I love Richard Dawkins *-* .When I grow up want to be just like him!
KattyyScatty 2 years ago 67
@KattyyScatty You want to grow up to become a british man? ^^
RazielKain 11 months ago
i couldn't penetrate the sarcasm.
is this either a fake foundation (and fake Tony Blair quote)...
Or is it a real foundation, using sarcasm to advertise it's actual support for Secular Humanism.
I can't tell damnit
roidroid 2 years ago
The slides are what the
Blair foundation says. The rest is added by Mr. Dawkins.
memully 2 years ago
I fucking HATE office-speak!
"Think outside the box"
"It is what it is."
Fuck you!
webslinger123 2 years ago 2
"I don't know how you feel, but I'm pretty sick of church people. You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The catholic church along would wipe out the national dept if all you did was tax their real estate.
- George Carlin
George's book "Napalm & Silly Putty" page 56
RIP
Mokenofrs 2 years ago 3
Great quote, can't agree more.
AtheistEvolution 2 years ago
Nice shirt
politirel 2 years ago
Absolutely love his dry delivery in this talk.
slacknhash 2 years ago 3
Yes he has become much more comfortable with delivering funny lines in the last few years. Strident indeed ! More like Bill Gates in 1974 saying, "listen carefully, computers are going to be big", some people listened...
GowanBray 2 years ago
Nearest I got to faith is smoking some 5meo DMT!
mummyfunk 2 years ago 2
You got rid of Tony Blair only to be stuck with the worst prime minister in living memory (i.e. Gordon Brown.).
genji77 2 years ago
What is the difference between a deist, who's god currently does nothing, and a god that does not exist at all?
qsucvatz 2 years ago
Because deists still believe that a God or somesort of all powerful deity created the cosmos and everything in it, dine tuning the earth to be capable of supporting life. Deists, unlike Christians, do not claim moral superiorty or absolute truths.
AtheistBrad 2 years ago
sry tribulation atheism is not a religion
Ezeki3ls 2 years ago
america is the country all the world loves to hate! AMERICA'S THE BEST FUCK THE REST!!
fuckedupsickfuckboy 2 years ago
Seeing that there is only One true God that rules all, There is only one Religion.
Obedience to the Ten Commandments of That one God is True theism..
All other "religions'', including atheism/darwinianity, are the doctrines of the condemned.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
yes absolutely, and the FSM is that one true God, he said it himself.
please read our holy book or be condemned
iurak6868 2 years ago
The term "FSM" was invented by a man who is heterosexually challenged....he invented this term inorder to retaliate against the Bible for it's condemnation of such a filthy lifestyle...and all those with the said abominable and vile way of living love the term "FSM".
muchtribulation 2 years ago
You are an idiot.
ThePsychoReturns 2 years ago
Only in the eyes of the condemned.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Only in the eyes of the sane.
ThePsychoReturns 2 years ago
u mad
Borostiliont 2 years ago
"u" inarticulant.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Ha, I was just winding you up.
However, what is ironic is that "inarticulant" is not actually a word, and your reply does not meet the requirements of being an actual sentence. Don't pick on other people's grammar when you're all but clueless yourself.
For future reference: the correct response is "no u".
ty <3
Borostiliont 2 years ago
U mad.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
:DD
Borostiliont 2 years ago
I MAD? U MAD!
GOD'S UNDER A PIANO.
EnvirasuSan 2 years ago
@muchtribulation , wow. You think Atheism is a religion? That's like calling bald a hair colour and 'not collecting stamps' a hobby.
jround93 2 years ago
Hair can can be dyed to match any image of any thing that's bald....if those who don't "collect stamps" regularly gather to discuss the fact that they don't and discuss also the behaviour of those who do collect stams...that can be considered religious behaviour.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
@muchtribulation, right...I know weirdos who regulary attend Star Trek events where they dress as characters and discuss that. So your logic means Stark trek is a religion! Religion is defined as a: strong belief in a supernatural power(s) that control destiny and an institution to express belief in a divine power. Don't confuse organised religion with an organised society.
jround93 2 years ago
Yes, those star trek members have their own religion..and if you attenend one of there gatherings without you trek garments..you would be persecuted.
Atheists have a strong belief in a supernatral power, his name is "We don't know yet""
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Nothing much your violent and intolrent just like many other people at least you figure out the problem with it
Chill197 2 years ago
Disliking is not an approach fundamentally inherent in either group; making your comment similar to saying I like humans, Christians like humans, so I must be using the same approach. If you have problems with your anger, maybe you should seek professional help from a psychiatrist.
gotrootdude 2 years ago
God, I hate the phrase "touch base". Anyone who uses it is already half way to being a twat in my book.
spinkwotzer 2 years ago 6
Why tolerate them anywhere?
I say liquidate.
indignant99 2 years ago
Wonderful!!
And remenber that Moses tied his ass to a tree and then he walked three miles - visualize it!
And don't anyone dare to question this absolute trruth!!
Else, you are a sick puppy.
trime1851 2 years ago
Mr. Dawkins are you uncircumcised??
underground24020 2 years ago
wouldnt you like to know, lol
I dont think he swings that way though
waltermh111 2 years ago
He's from Britain, so yes.
Dall5000 2 years ago
He is normal, so yes.
communistromance 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You have stated even more gibberish than previously.
In the video, you have all the settings of a religion, namely, the preacher (Dawkins), the followers agreeing with everyting said, a pulpit, a philosophy (darwinianity) and a critique of the ways of those who don't bilieve as they do.
btw, I am typing not " talking".
muchtribulation 2 years ago
"(darwinianity)" - you made up a word,
calling atheism a religion in attempt to justify actual relgions is stupid. making these comparisons is dumb because you could also say the same about a football game, or a lecture at a college, or a magic show, or a strip club.
errskin 2 years ago 6
Very well put. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color.
Atheismrulez 2 years ago 3
Not well put.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Shut up, retard. I'd be doubtful if your IQ was even 80.
Atheismrulez 2 years ago
Did you mean to state: : I'd be doubtful THAT your IQ IS even 80?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Religion:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Atheism fits this discription
muchtribulation 2 years ago
"Atheism fits this discription "
atheism says nothing about cause, nature, or the purpose of the universe....
PeteD85 2 years ago 2
Because there is no cause, purpose.
stoova 2 years ago
There is always a cause and purpose. The difference between the religious and no-religious view of cause and purpose is who creates such. On one hand it is a fictitious imaginary friend, on the other it is an internalized conscious manifestation of our own humanity.
gotrootdude 2 years ago
..and when you atheists were "apes", What was this "internalized conscious manifestation of our own humanity"?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
We were born human, not apes, we just share common ancestors and just like those apes we are societal creatures whom tend to follow societal structures. Similarly, the morality of the religious and the non-religious in every human society has the same ancestral roots.
gotrootdude 2 years ago
....and when you atheists were "apes", What was this "internalized conscious manifestation of our own humanity"?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Are you demonstrating Poe's Law?
I ask because few people have the level of delusion and ignorance you appear to have.
judoyodan 2 years ago 5
....and why do you feel this way about me?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
I guess it's because I'm just a very observant person.
judoyodan 2 years ago 2
...and during your observations, what key points led you to draw your conclusions?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
I would say every bit of your idiocy led me to the conclusion of your delusion.
You sound like you need psych help.
judoyodan 2 years ago
Although you, as you so claim, are a "very observant" person, you are a retard when it comes to articulating your findings.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
muchtrib,
It is obvious by your posts that you are not in touch with reality. You believe in a sky fairy, you deny evolution, you feel "atheism" is a religion. All of these are delusions suited to your state of mind. They are not part of reality.
judoyodan 2 years ago
...and people like you believe and do such shameful, vile and abominal acts wich I deem delusional, suicidal, filthy, insane, repulsive....Those beliefs are shameful to society and also not a part of reality.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
muchtrib,
I don't talk to crazy people. And you are as far out there as they come. You should probably let your care provider know that you are on the 'puter.
Ciao Loco
judoyodan 2 years ago
judoyodan,
I have never heared you "talk", so, You couldn't possibly be referring to me...you must be alluding to the fact why you and your family memmbers don't talk to each other.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
What I meant is that things just happen, sometimes by random chance, without any creator, observer, who has plan and give them special meaning, purpose.
stoova 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I guess you haven't been to a preaching of one of your atheists sermons lately.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
actually atheism is a LACK of belief in a god. It doesn't make any other claims. Of course, there are atheists that believe in logic and science, but it is possible to be an illogical, new age atheist.
Enligh10ed1 2 years ago 4
Denominations?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
there are no separate denominations of atheism because it's not a religion
Enligh10ed1 2 years ago 2
No but it is a specific belief just like theism is not in and of itself a religion, but rather any religious person who believes in a deity or deities is a theist. Atheism needs to be respected as if it were a religion or it allows people to discriminate against Atheists freely and we can't have that as it goes against the freedom to hold any belief pertaining to the existence of a deity or deities. Religious people don't want to be setting any precedents.
flameroller 2 years ago
atheism is not a set of beliefs. atheism is the complete opposite, it is no beliefs at all.
errskin 2 years ago 2
atheism is not "no beliefs at all", it's no belief in god.
neil1337 2 years ago 3
yeah, thats what i meant, no religious beliefs at all, no belief in god, no supernatural beliefs, no theism.
errskin 2 years ago
Firstly that would not be atheism but materialism that you are describing (and not even that because materialism only deals with cause and nature, not purpose) . Atheism just a lack of belief in something. The key thing however is on what the belief of an ism is based on. Materialism is based upon testable evidence and religion on untestable or wrong truth claims. (note: materialism doesn't mean wanting to own stuff as I thought for a long time :)
omegavalerius 2 years ago
muchtribulation:
Religion: (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
- merriam-webster
Don't water down your definition of religion by taking GOD out of it. Remember the first commandment.
raytheist 2 years ago
If you are after the Truth, I will advise you not to only rely on merriam-webster.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
And you should not rely on a fantasy, fairytale collection of rubbish myths called "the bible".
uglyandbad 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Bible condemns you and your abominable lifestyle, that is why you slander It.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Why do you believe in the Bible?
only1tylerdurden 2 years ago
If you manage to read your beloved bible, and if you happen to be in some extremely rare moment where you actually use your brain and take what you read in your bible as a whole, you'll understand that there is no need to slander it: what is written in the bible does a pretty darn good job at invalidating and ridiculing itself. And on the topic of condemnation, let me ask you something, do you go shopping on Sundays? Just wondering.
uglyandbad 2 years ago
There are many things Written in the Bible which the condemned can not understand so they twist inorder to slander.
Sunday, the first day, I shop. Saturday, the seventh day, I rest.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Monday is the first day. That is when I shop.
Sunday is the seventh day, and that is when I rest.
or wait,
is it Tuesday that is the first day? Darn!
perditiontheelder 2 years ago
Indeed, you are "dam"ned
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Darn and Dam sure do look alike, if you're an idiot.
perditiontheelder 2 years ago
Hi.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Actually no. The bible is pretty clear about what it says, and it contradicts itself very often, "the deluded ones" do not want to see this because it threatens their beliefs and scares them. So ignorance is bliss! So, if you go shopping on Saturdays, does that mean that the people that work at the shops are condemned, because they are working? I mean, doesn't your bible say that you have to stone them to death because of that? And if you don't do it, doesn't that make you a "condemned" as well?
uglyandbad 2 years ago 2
"Contridictions" in the Bible are there tailored for the condemned.
Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
muchtribulation 2 years ago
Nice muchtribulation, now we are talking! So tell me: Why isn't that you are not putting all those condemned that work in the sabbath to death as your lord tells you to do, as said in the bible? If you do, does that condemn you because of the commandment "thou shall not kill", or if you don't, does that also condemn you because you are disobeying your lord? Just asking. If you do not see the contradiction here (and yes, check my spelling), then you are more than a "deluded one".
uglyandbad 2 years ago