explain suspended animation and where the soul go's in suspense ?? say 200 years suspended ,. we are worm food ,. ad love to have faith see my grandparents again but my intelligence over ruled the nonsense , same with ghosts the world spins so it must be a fast freaking ghost to visit , the soul can be broken to i was stabbed it fucks with yea , am betting this plays with all them religious monkeys, but then again evolution wasn't Jesus's idea so its got to be false a
poor David Attenborough, i thought somone with his level of intelligence would realise that god created him and all the worldy things around him! such a pity,he is a cold fish fo sure, only one place were the non believers end up! He should do more research into islam, the last religion brought to all mankind through the prophet muhammed peace be upon him,but god says by the end of days, non believers there be many... There hearts are empty and concelled & there lifes empty and dull and boring!
@soraya1239 Nobodys hearts are empty, they're all full...of blood. If your heart was empty you'd be dead! Your heart only pumps blood...It doesn't do anything else!
@soraya1239 Actually most people 'with David's intelligence' are non religious for very good reason ;) The world around us is imperfect and ever changing, don't be scared, you will end up in the ground like everyone else. Simply embrace the imperfect world, accept everyone is different and be grateful for the short time you will be alive
poor David Attenborough, i thought somone with his level of intelligence would realise that god created him and all the worldy things around him! such a pity,he is a cold fish fo sure, only one place were the non believers end up! He should do more research into islam, the last religion brought to all mankind through the prophet muhammed peace be upon him,but god says by the end of days, non believers there be many... There hearts are empty and concelled & there lifes emptyand dull and boring!
As usual, David Attenborough, shines a light on a subject and makes you look at it in an entirely new, and far clearer way. Everyone believes in different things depending on where on earth they were born, but evidence of the past is found everywhere, in the form of bones etc... and that is therefore proof of what is true across the world.
One might call that a 'rule' rather than a 'theory': a term much bastardised by creationists.
Eh, makes me sad that since he was about 30 and made basically the same documentaries he makes now many people haven't changed there minds "GOD DID IT"... It's just so sad how fucked up in the head so many people are...
To all you religious faithheads and spiritualists: The idea of a "god" is not an answer at all. It only complicates things more because then you have to explain what/who/where/when that "god" is. Just grow up and let it go! SCIENCE IS THE ONLY GAME THAT MATTERS!
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@Rabsputin We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@1tabligh "We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting."
doublespeak.
"If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing."
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
@1tabligh "it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,"
no, people (including you) in general are all ignorant and don't understand the subject matter.
your comment is trying to assert that some creator must have been the primary cause (or reason), if that's the case, what causes the cause? and even at that, there's absolutely no reason to ever think that "allah" would have been that prime mover, none at all, nothing to back that notion up.
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh "and deny the existence of the Creator."
the claim of the existence of this "creator" is based on absolutely nothing.
"a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;"
evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic."
"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Aware of what they do". The Quran: [10:36]
"Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the Way of God. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie." The Quran: [6:116]
see my earlier post, it's well known that his youngest wife was only 9, and if you don't plan on consummating a marriage you don't get married, simple as that.
"Show me only one verse from the Quran!"
why would i do that? the quran is full of bullshit and outright lies, just like the bible and the torah.
Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
I said *Show me only one verse from the ***Quran***!
Any Tom Dick and Harry, including YOU the brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue, can write hadith and "blah blah Aisha was six years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents blah blah'"
@1tabligh "I said *Show me only one verse from the ***Quran***!"
why? you do realise that the quran is evidence for absolutely fuck all, don't you? you talk about science and yet you seem to think that the quran actually stands up to scientific scrutiny (which it doesn't).
YOU became disbeliever, and because of a deficiency of your knowledge and *puerility* of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that you *denied* creativeness and claimed that all this *universe* was *meaningless* and vain, without any *ingenious* design on the part of a Designer or Creator *God* - a purposeless non-entity *without* balance or poise.
@1tabligh "YOU became disbeliever, and because of a deficiency of your knowledge and *puerility* of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that you *denied* creativeness and claimed that all this *universe* was *meaningless* and vain, without any *ingenious* design on the part of a Designer or Creator *God* - a purposeless non-entity *without* balance or poise."
@1tabligh you're the one who seems to be convinced that nothing can be without meaning, that it had to be created, that there had to be a creator. you're the one with the problem.
you make claims about the nature of the universe based on some bullshit book which don't reflect scientific discovery, discovery which everyone can see and understand.
they say that knowledge is power, from your perspective, it's removing power from your non-existant "god".
"And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand."
The Quran 2:171
And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.
as soon as you show me that you can actually understand science and that you don't let irrational beliefs try to guide you. reality is as reality is, regardless of what you believe, and attempting to change results to suit your beliefs is both extremely dishonest and desperate.
@1tabligh "Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!"
no real scientist has ever claimed with any certainty that the universe was created from /nothing/, that would be similar to a theist claiming that "god did it".
@1tabligh also, your little "allah" didn't create the universe from nothing either. creating from nothing is a logical fallacy, and this universe operates on logic.
Talk to me like a scientistn no wasting time, stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it. You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it. You believe in it only because you see its products such as light, heat, etc. If this is sufficient to make you a believer in the existence of electricity, the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator.
@1tabligh "In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it."
it certainly helps. the difference with your "allah" is that not only has nobody seen him, he has never interacted with this universe in any way shape or form, so he couldn't be heard, seen, touched, tasted, smelt, none of these things.
Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.
To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.
@1tabligh "Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings."
no it isn't. a child born of it's mother is merely evidence that it's mother existed, not of any mythical characters some desert jews decided were the first people.
if the entire species came from a single pair of humans, the entire species would have died out millennia ago because in-breeding causes all kinds of mutations, which back then would have meant death.
@1tabligh "You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed."
no i don't.
"You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on."
that happened, but there's no evidence which backs up the claims of genesis and the garden of eden, so i have no reason to believe any of it happened, the best part is that we have evidence to the contrary.
You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.
@1tabligh "You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve."
why don't you try it and see if it gets back to adam and eve, i'll bet the house i live in and everything i own against the house you live in and everything you own that you never find them in the family tree, deal?
@1tabligh "If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children."
have you read the story of cain and abel? one killed the other over a woman, but who was the woman? i don't remember reading anything about adam and eve having any daughters. and if they did, how disgusting! trying to fuck their sister! maybe it was their mother? were they trying to fuck their mother like some hillbillies in a trailer park?
with regards to the child molester thing, mo (piss be upon his rotten corpse) married a 9 year old.
with regards to the rest of it, you can't pick and choose which parts of the scientific method you like.
science will always rule over irrational belief because science actually involves investigation as opposed to your bullshit which some prick just made up.
@1tabligh this last comment is just comical from you. you do realise that trying to call me "stupid" doesn't make your braindead arguments any more likely to be the case, don't you?
i care more about the truth than i do about desert myths or "faith" (see: extreme gullibility), clearly the opposite is true for you.
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@Rabsputin quoting from a book written by men who fucked sheep in the desert.
___
Poor fella!
So much science for this stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet.
Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God.
Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with a duped and brainwashed atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
"Should I understand from your statement that Islam offers for substantiating the existence of God some universal evidence which may be considered even by those who are not committed to any religion, such as the atheists and the agnostics? If this is what you mean, what is that evidence?"
When our belief in God precedes any other religious belief, the evidence which produces such a belief must be universal and available to every rational being, whether committed or uncommitted to a particular religion.
The Holy Qur'an offers the universe as evidence on the existence of its Creator.
The material world, its celestial bodies, the earth, and the other planets, are viewed by Islam to be the main evidence of the Creator of matter and energy.
@LichQueenKathie Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
@1tabligh Sorry, but the day I am told by someone with no discernable qualifications in the relevent fields that those with said qualifications are wrong, is a sad day indeed xD
@LichQueenKathie Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@1tabligh So...are you telling me, as a man who sits behind a computer, in a nice cosy warm house, with plenty of food and clean water to drink, with access to medicine which can cure diseases that would have killed him only a few hundred years ago, that science is wrong? If so, I have nothing more to discuss. My occupation is predecated on scientific understanding of the human mind. Although psychology is less exact, it is still a rigorous science and I am not inclined to hear fundies bash it.
@LichQueenKathie It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by *science*.
@1tabligh Science rejects all your false, unfashionable or unverifiable claims. If it ain't helpful to humanity, it ain't getting anywhere in science. Sorry, but your religion played the game and lost. End. of. fucking. discussion.
@LichQueenKathie Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
@1tabligh Did you not hear? End of fucking discussion. Your religion lost to science centuries ago, now graciously step aside and let me enjoy my fucking evening!
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
@1tabligh It's rude to keep talking to someone when they've told you to go away. I have some treatment plans to write up. I don't have time to correct your lack of science knowledge from the ground up. I'm not one of those nice little atheists who will say "Oh no, I have time to discuss stuff with you!"
I have a job, and I earn money for doing it. I don't earn money from speaking with you. Now silence, I have a job to do. This is the last reply, so don't bother posting.
@Boomboxpower Dealing with a guy that is so far from reason like "1tabligh" is just a waste of time. If you want to challenge peoples beliefs, you need to have at least some common ground. His using phrases like science worship and then asserting Allah indicated he has no interest in discussion. It may benefit onlookers though.
@Boomboxpower If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh Not at all, in order to determine whether or not something exists you need to provide either evidence or sound logical argument, the burden is upon you to validate your claim that a God exists. Not on us to disprove one.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh It's an unknown, no one knows the first source if there was indeed one. Any claim that there was one or identifies one needs to back that up.
@Boomboxpower We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh I never made such claims at all, stop straw manning. I said it's an unknown, the origins of the universe are currently unknown to all humans. We can speculate and assert but at the end of it all we have no idea. So I'm still waiting for your justification for asserting this cause was a God.
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
@1tabligh I don't see how what you just said is relevant at all to our discussion nor did you justify your claim that God was the cause, Do you understand English distinctly?
@Boom..In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
@Boomboxpower ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific
principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and *logic*.
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
The material world is observable by the atheist as well as by the believer, by the illiterate as well as by the philosopher. One may reflect on the formation of the heavenly bodies and the existence of the matter and energy without being committed to any particular religion or recognizing any religious book.
How is that for YOUR "fucked sheep in the desert."?!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh scientists don't claim that no deities exist and neither do atheists, this is a common misconception amongst theists and religious apologists. only an idiot would make a claim either way about the existence of something which it's impossible to know with any kind of certainty.
atheists reject your deities because you haven't provided any good reasons to accept them as actually being real.
the only honest position is to say we don't know and then examine the likeliness.
Darwin - Devil worshippin maniac, and attenborough unbeliveably, with all his knowledge, fails to see how this intricate world and the universe we live in has not got a Creator. I Pray that he Believes one day, but that is only up to Allah. He creatd such a Magnificent Creation.
@gulfrazthehunk1 "fails to see how this intricate world and the universe we live in has not got a Creator" No, he sees perfectly well that this world has no creator. Your English has let you down but it happens to be the truth. If a genius of the experience and intelligence of David Attenborough agrees with me that there is no God, I am happy to concur and to have such solid support. Allah-Ballallah-la-la-la!
@gulfrazthehunk1 I see your reasoning in thinking he is of the devil..but equally he would have strong reasons to think why you are wrong in your thinking and the religion you belong to. Would you agree with that ? Were you brought up into religion ? Are you "open minded" ? Lets say the universe were a trillion times more complex and "fine tuned" .. do you think that would still be sufficient reason to believe in God ?
@supersmaster "the very science that rejects the claim of evolution" And what science would that be? And no, your Bible dicussion group does not count.
Everyone has the propensity to cheat others. Although a person is fool number one, he poses himself as very intelligent. Although it is already pointed out that he is in illusion and makes mistakes, he will theorize: "I think this is this, this is this." But he does not even know his own position. He writes books of philosophy, although he is defective. That is his disease. That is cheating.
@DeletedComment ... what? How does that disregard evolution? That's not a case of the 'Every painting has a painter' Now I'm not an expert on the Evolution of the Anteater, but I'm pretty certain by logic that the way that it evolved would of had to do with it's diet being ants and small insects, (snouts, strong forearms to dig)
"A large portion of atheist are arrogant idiots."
Let me rewrite that
"Most people are arrogant idiots regardless of race, religion or creed"
I love David attenborough´s work. I don't understand why religious people always have to discuss about atheism and it seems like they have nothing ells to do in there life's. OK your religious is your truth and you decide to live in your faith and don't bother us who don't believe in that bullshit. learn to accept people think differently. And to me who is a Atheist is great comfort that I am not alone in my thinking, just as religious people go to there religious buildings to pray.
@Climaticsman It's also an idea that pre-dates biblical works and exists in cultures where the Christianity never developed. Seems like that's more a humanist idea then anything religious. Besides, having a good message doesn't make something true. Shrek has a lovely message about judgement and vilification, but doesn't prove the existence of ogres.
@MaddestHatterFilms Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@Climaticsman lolwut? What r u talking about? FAITH is the exact opposite of FACT so u don't have much to say about science do ya? Philosophic syllogism is the refuge of the dumb who want to look smart, philosophy wont get you fundamental truths (FACTS).
Newsflash: 'The Golden rule' was acquired by all 3 abrahamic religions from the Greek Hellenistic culture. Yes smart guy,not only it is not original of ya religion, your religion doesn't even practice the Golden rule so stop being hypocrite.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
A biologist who studies life, especially one who has the means to travel between countries can see evolution before his eyes. Darwin, Wallace, Bates, Attenborough, even if some favor theism, none doubt evolution.
Just plain common sense from the great man. What a life he has had, and he is still so humble and retains the desire to learn and discover still. He quotes the golden rule, "do as you would be done by". That's the only morality we need. Science will try to explain everything else. We no longer have a need for religion.
If you are not an Atheist you are an enemy of Humanity. The religionists have a cancer on the their Human spirit and as such it devolves them to a subtangent...say homo sapein ridiculous or homo sapein superstitious, a cowardly fearful child like logicless bible wielding redheaded stepchild dunce cap wearing hominid, characterized by breeding with children, racism, waring and a general lack of intellect. Problem creators not solvers. No critical thinking abilities.
And no, that's not true. At all. Isaac Newton? Galileo? The father of Quantum Physics Max Planck? Einstein believed in God also. All of the fathers of modern science were believers. Cracks me up how all of the "atheists" in this comments section can barely spell or construct a sentence. Imagine that.
@PrepTard Newton was a devout believer and Galileo is thought to have been a Christian (though he may have been lying to stop the church from executing him). You should remember that they both died before the evolution was even thought of and there was virtually no alternative to religion. As for Einstein and Planck, neither believed in god.
Instead of insulting people on their syntax perhaps you could spend your time making a structured argument for your case. Imagine THAT.
@callumAS “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” (Max Planck, Religion und Naturwissenschaft, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, 1958, 27).
@PrepTard "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954
@callumAS “I am not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages....."
@callumAS ...."The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” - Albert Einstein
@PrepTard Einstein did say that. However, where in the quote does he say he believed in God? He was saying that we do not and cannot know if there is a god because of the complexity of the universe, not that he believes in one. Similar quotes have always been misunderstood or just misused by theists as proof that he was a believer. Fortunately he cleared up his beliefs so that even you can understand. I have to post it in a separate comment because it's too long to post here.
@callumAS No, you said Einstein was an atheist. He was not. You dumb atheists are so deceptive, so intellectually dishonest !! I suppose the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen was established for fun, because Planck was an atheist, according to you? LMAO !! Even Planck's wikipedia debunks you, it's not hard to "do some research".
@PrepTard .(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
@callumAS "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max Planck
David Attenborough for Pope
KennyHBCA1 2 months ago
explain suspended animation and where the soul go's in suspense ?? say 200 years suspended ,. we are worm food ,. ad love to have faith see my grandparents again but my intelligence over ruled the nonsense , same with ghosts the world spins so it must be a fast freaking ghost to visit , the soul can be broken to i was stabbed it fucks with yea , am betting this plays with all them religious monkeys, but then again evolution wasn't Jesus's idea so its got to be false a
hatfaesax 2 months ago
1:51 - 2:42 enough said.
torrentz333 2 months ago
poor David Attenborough, i thought somone with his level of intelligence would realise that god created him and all the worldy things around him! such a pity,he is a cold fish fo sure, only one place were the non believers end up! He should do more research into islam, the last religion brought to all mankind through the prophet muhammed peace be upon him,but god says by the end of days, non believers there be many... There hearts are empty and concelled & there lifes empty and dull and boring!
soraya1239 2 months ago
@soraya1239 You think David's life is empty because he doesn't attribute the spectacles of nature to God? Haha, he doesn't need your pity.
phantasmagorial 2 months ago 6
@phantasmagorial People that are "religious" are so closed minded and so focused on nothing but there "god" They end up having the emptiest of lives.
torrentz333 2 months ago
@soraya1239 Pathetic are those who need imaginary support to live a good life.
ipilincoln1515 2 months ago 8
@soraya1239 Nobodys hearts are empty, they're all full...of blood. If your heart was empty you'd be dead! Your heart only pumps blood...It doesn't do anything else!
truesouljs 2 months ago
@soraya1239 Actually most people 'with David's intelligence' are non religious for very good reason ;) The world around us is imperfect and ever changing, don't be scared, you will end up in the ground like everyone else. Simply embrace the imperfect world, accept everyone is different and be grateful for the short time you will be alive
dustziggy 2 months ago 2
poor David Attenborough, i thought somone with his level of intelligence would realise that god created him and all the worldy things around him! such a pity,he is a cold fish fo sure, only one place were the non believers end up! He should do more research into islam, the last religion brought to all mankind through the prophet muhammed peace be upon him,but god says by the end of days, non believers there be many... There hearts are empty and concelled & there lifes emptyand dull and boring!
soraya1239 2 months ago
As usual, David Attenborough, shines a light on a subject and makes you look at it in an entirely new, and far clearer way. Everyone believes in different things depending on where on earth they were born, but evidence of the past is found everywhere, in the form of bones etc... and that is therefore proof of what is true across the world.
One might call that a 'rule' rather than a 'theory': a term much bastardised by creationists.
Pyraclipse 2 months ago
Eh, makes me sad that since he was about 30 and made basically the same documentaries he makes now many people haven't changed there minds "GOD DID IT"... It's just so sad how fucked up in the head so many people are...
zalmanusa 2 months ago
I agree with every word he said. Every single one.
Katw76 2 months ago
If you trust his analysis of wildlife, trust his analysis of humans.
chiffmonkey 2 months ago
GENIUS!
BrunoHP89IT 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all you religious faithheads and spiritualists: The idea of a "god" is not an answer at all. It only complicates things more because then you have to explain what/who/where/when that "god" is. Just grow up and let it go! SCIENCE IS THE ONLY GAME THAT MATTERS!
ptij0404 2 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh as far as "allah" is concerned, well he's just a ghost who was invented by a child molester in a cave.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@Rabsputin We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting."
doublespeak.
"If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing."
bullshit, you forgot about logic and evidence.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,"
no, people (including you) in general are all ignorant and don't understand the subject matter.
your comment is trying to assert that some creator must have been the primary cause (or reason), if that's the case, what causes the cause? and even at that, there's absolutely no reason to ever think that "allah" would have been that prime mover, none at all, nothing to back that notion up.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "and deny the existence of the Creator."
the claim of the existence of this "creator" is based on absolutely nothing.
"a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;"
evidence for this ridiculous claim?
"they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic."
no they haven't.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@Rabsputin child molester
___
Produce your evidence!
Show me only one verse from the Quran!
"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Aware of what they do". The Quran: [10:36]
"Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the Way of God. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie." The Quran: [6:116]
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "child molester
___
Produce your evidence!"
see my earlier post, it's well known that his youngest wife was only 9, and if you don't plan on consummating a marriage you don't get married, simple as that.
"Show me only one verse from the Quran!"
why would i do that? the quran is full of bullshit and outright lies, just like the bible and the torah.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh also, quran quotes don't impress me, they hold absolutely no weight when it comes to dealing with actual facts.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 11464 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?
TALK SCIENCE OTHERWISE CLOCK OFF!
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Ever heard "You can take the donkey to a watering place, but you can't force him to drink!"?
No wasting time!
Brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "I have already in my inbox more then 11464 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!"
so what? you've talked enough bullshit to be inundated with messages which refute your ridiculous claims.
"TALK SCIENCE OTHERWISE CLOCK OFF!"
you're the one who started quoting from a book written by men who fucked sheep in the desert.
"Brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!"
this coming from a muslim is hilarious :D
Rabsputin 2 months ago
You still don't get it, do you?
LIAR!!!
Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
I said *Show me only one verse from the ***Quran***!
Any Tom Dick and Harry, including YOU the brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue, can write hadith and "blah blah Aisha was six years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents blah blah'"
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "You still don't get it, do you?
LIAR!!!"
there's something seriously wrong with you, and i know exactly what it is.
"Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?"
i'm an ape, as are you.
"Do you understand english distinctly?"
i speak and write it fluently, maybe this is why you're having trouble understanding me, going by your comments.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh "I said *Show me only one verse from the ***Quran***!"
why? you do realise that the quran is evidence for absolutely fuck all, don't you? you talk about science and yet you seem to think that the quran actually stands up to scientific scrutiny (which it doesn't).
Rabsputin 2 months ago
YOU became disbeliever, and because of a deficiency of your knowledge and *puerility* of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that you *denied* creativeness and claimed that all this *universe* was *meaningless* and vain, without any *ingenious* design on the part of a Designer or Creator *God* - a purposeless non-entity *without* balance or poise.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "YOU became disbeliever, and because of a deficiency of your knowledge and *puerility* of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that you *denied* creativeness and claimed that all this *universe* was *meaningless* and vain, without any *ingenious* design on the part of a Designer or Creator *God* - a purposeless non-entity *without* balance or poise."
reply to follow...
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh you're the one who seems to be convinced that nothing can be without meaning, that it had to be created, that there had to be a creator. you're the one with the problem.
you make claims about the nature of the universe based on some bullshit book which don't reflect scientific discovery, discovery which everyone can see and understand.
they say that knowledge is power, from your perspective, it's removing power from your non-existant "god".
Rabsputin 2 months ago
"And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand."
The Quran 2:171
And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.
( The Quran Chapter 25, Verse
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh quran quotes don't impress me or hold any water.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
Talk to me like a scientist!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
Come back when you get something out of nothing!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Talk to me like a scientist!"
as soon as you show me that you can actually understand science and that you don't let irrational beliefs try to guide you. reality is as reality is, regardless of what you believe, and attempting to change results to suit your beliefs is both extremely dishonest and desperate.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!"
no real scientist has ever claimed with any certainty that the universe was created from /nothing/, that would be similar to a theist claiming that "god did it".
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh also, your little "allah" didn't create the universe from nothing either. creating from nothing is a logical fallacy, and this universe operates on logic.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
Talk to me like a scientistn no wasting time, stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it. You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it. You believe in it only because you see its products such as light, heat, etc. If this is sufficient to make you a believer in the existence of electricity, the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it."
it certainly helps. the difference with your "allah" is that not only has nobody seen him, he has never interacted with this universe in any way shape or form, so he couldn't be heard, seen, touched, tasted, smelt, none of these things.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it."
i don't "believe in" electricity, i'm aware of it's existence because it's detectable, unlike your "allah".
"the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator."
mere existence does not denote creation, and even if it did, there's nothing to say it was your little "allah" who created it.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.
To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings."
no it isn't. a child born of it's mother is merely evidence that it's mother existed, not of any mythical characters some desert jews decided were the first people.
if the entire species came from a single pair of humans, the entire species would have died out millennia ago because in-breeding causes all kinds of mutations, which back then would have meant death.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh "You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed."
no i don't.
"You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on."
that happened, but there's no evidence which backs up the claims of genesis and the garden of eden, so i have no reason to believe any of it happened, the best part is that we have evidence to the contrary.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve."
why don't you try it and see if it gets back to adam and eve, i'll bet the house i live in and everything i own against the house you live in and everything you own that you never find them in the family tree, deal?
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh "If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children."
have you read the story of cain and abel? one killed the other over a woman, but who was the woman? i don't remember reading anything about adam and eve having any daughters. and if they did, how disgusting! trying to fuck their sister! maybe it was their mother? were they trying to fuck their mother like some hillbillies in a trailer park?
Rabsputin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself."
no i don't, because adam and eve never existed.
"But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there."
buuuuuuuuuuullshit.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
Now you may bring the darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come fom monkeys or chimps or WHATEVER!
Granted!
Even then if you deny the existence of the first beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!
No more monkey tricks for you!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh booooooring.
with regards to the child molester thing, mo (piss be upon his rotten corpse) married a 9 year old.
with regards to the rest of it, you can't pick and choose which parts of the scientific method you like.
science will always rule over irrational belief because science actually involves investigation as opposed to your bullshit which some prick just made up.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh now i'll go through your comments and rebuke them point by point.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@1tabligh this last comment is just comical from you. you do realise that trying to call me "stupid" doesn't make your braindead arguments any more likely to be the case, don't you?
i care more about the truth than i do about desert myths or "faith" (see: extreme gullibility), clearly the opposite is true for you.
your beliefs are bullshit. end of story.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
@Rabsputin "Show me only one verse from the Quran!"
why would i do that? the quran is full of bullshit and outright lies
___
Then where did you pull that from?
Was it from YOUR big ..?
In that case you are liar!
Poor fella!
So much science for this stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
..adam and eve having any daughters. and if they did, how disgusting! trying to fuck their sister! maybe it was their mother?
___
If God can create Eva for Father Adam then why can't He create Mini Evas for Cain and Abel?
For God to create millions of Evas is peanut!
No need for incest!
His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.
The Quran 36 : 82
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
what causes the cause?
___
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
1tabligh 2 months ago
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and compounding with other bodies.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 2 months ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 months ago
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
How is that for YOUR "this coming from a muslim is hilarious :D" and answer the questions instead?!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@Rabsputin quoting from a book written by men who fucked sheep in the desert.
___
Poor fella!
So much science for this stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God.
Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with a duped and brainwashed atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Talk to me like a scientist, and ask me!
"Should I understand from your statement that Islam offers for substantiating the existence of God some universal evidence which may be considered even by those who are not committed to any religion, such as the atheists and the agnostics? If this is what you mean, what is that evidence?"
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When our belief in God precedes any other religious belief, the evidence which produces such a belief must be universal and available to every rational being, whether committed or uncommitted to a particular religion.
The Holy Qur'an offers the universe as evidence on the existence of its Creator.
The material world, its celestial bodies, the earth, and the other planets, are viewed by Islam to be the main evidence of the Creator of matter and energy.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Actually, the earliest beliefs were worship of animals/spirits.
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Sorry, but the day I am told by someone with no discernable qualifications in the relevent fields that those with said qualifications are wrong, is a sad day indeed xD
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh So...are you telling me, as a man who sits behind a computer, in a nice cosy warm house, with plenty of food and clean water to drink, with access to medicine which can cure diseases that would have killed him only a few hundred years ago, that science is wrong? If so, I have nothing more to discuss. My occupation is predecated on scientific understanding of the human mind. Although psychology is less exact, it is still a rigorous science and I am not inclined to hear fundies bash it.
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by *science*.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Science rejects all your false, unfashionable or unverifiable claims. If it ain't helpful to humanity, it ain't getting anywhere in science. Sorry, but your religion played the game and lost. End. of. fucking. discussion.
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Did you not hear? End of fucking discussion. Your religion lost to science centuries ago, now graciously step aside and let me enjoy my fucking evening!
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie End of fucking discussion.
___
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh It's rude to keep talking to someone when they've told you to go away. I have some treatment plans to write up. I don't have time to correct your lack of science knowledge from the ground up. I'm not one of those nice little atheists who will say "Oh no, I have time to discuss stuff with you!"
I have a job, and I earn money for doing it. I don't earn money from speaking with you. Now silence, I have a job to do. This is the last reply, so don't bother posting.
LichQueenKathie 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
YOUR vain bragging does NOT help at all cure your delusions!
READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I'm an atheist rationalist, more than happy to discuss your logical or empirical evidence of a God. Go ahead.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower You may as well go out in your driveway and start banging your head with a brick.
newcoyote 2 months ago
@newcoyote I find it more productive to challenge people's beliefs but yea I get the idea :)
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower Dealing with a guy that is so far from reason like "1tabligh" is just a waste of time. If you want to challenge peoples beliefs, you need to have at least some common ground. His using phrases like science worship and then asserting Allah indicated he has no interest in discussion. It may benefit onlookers though.
newcoyote 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Not at all, in order to determine whether or not something exists you need to provide either evidence or sound logical argument, the burden is upon you to validate your claim that a God exists. Not on us to disprove one.
You've not provided either.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Who said I was limiting logic to the material world? Get on with it.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh It's an unknown, no one knows the first source if there was indeed one. Any claim that there was one or identifies one needs to back that up.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I never made such claims at all, stop straw manning. I said it's an unknown, the origins of the universe are currently unknown to all humans. We can speculate and assert but at the end of it all we have no idea. So I'm still waiting for your justification for asserting this cause was a God.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I don't see how what you just said is relevant at all to our discussion nor did you justify your claim that God was the cause, Do you understand English distinctly?
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boom..In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh You going to keep quoting the al-islam website or actually respond coherently to your claim?
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Convo is over you are just copy/pasting from Al-Islam (dot) com. I've never claimed any causation, you did and didn't justify it.
Keep straw manning though, it shows your ignorance.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@Boomboxpower ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 2 months ago
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 2 months ago
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific
1tabligh 2 months ago
principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and *logic*.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@LichQueenKathie The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
The material world is observable by the atheist as well as by the believer, by the illiterate as well as by the philosopher. One may reflect on the formation of the heavenly bodies and the existence of the matter and energy without being committed to any particular religion or recognizing any religious book.
How is that for YOUR "fucked sheep in the desert."?!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh scientists don't claim that no deities exist and neither do atheists, this is a common misconception amongst theists and religious apologists. only an idiot would make a claim either way about the existence of something which it's impossible to know with any kind of certainty.
atheists reject your deities because you haven't provided any good reasons to accept them as actually being real.
the only honest position is to say we don't know and then examine the likeliness.
Rabsputin 2 months ago
Darwin - Devil worshippin maniac, and attenborough unbeliveably, with all his knowledge, fails to see how this intricate world and the universe we live in has not got a Creator. I Pray that he Believes one day, but that is only up to Allah. He creatd such a Magnificent Creation.
gulfrazthehunk1 2 months ago
@gulfrazthehunk1 "fails to see how this intricate world and the universe we live in has not got a Creator" No, he sees perfectly well that this world has no creator. Your English has let you down but it happens to be the truth. If a genius of the experience and intelligence of David Attenborough agrees with me that there is no God, I am happy to concur and to have such solid support. Allah-Ballallah-la-la-la!
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@gulfrazthehunk1 I see your reasoning in thinking he is of the devil..but equally he would have strong reasons to think why you are wrong in your thinking and the religion you belong to. Would you agree with that ? Were you brought up into religion ? Are you "open minded" ? Lets say the universe were a trillion times more complex and "fine tuned" .. do you think that would still be sufficient reason to believe in God ?
brindow1 2 months ago
how do you describe your soul? Forget thats way too complicated for science... the very science that rejects the claim of evolution?
Lets see what do you say now?
supersmaster 2 months ago
@supersmaster "the very science that rejects the claim of evolution" And what science would that be? And no, your Bible dicussion group does not count.
TomFynn 2 months ago
Comment removed
supersmaster 2 months ago
I love this man!
buktomsin 2 months ago
Everyone has the propensity to cheat others. Although a person is fool number one, he poses himself as very intelligent. Although it is already pointed out that he is in illusion and makes mistakes, he will theorize: "I think this is this, this is this." But he does not even know his own position. He writes books of philosophy, although he is defective. That is his disease. That is cheating.
vedabase.net/iso/introduction/en
peyote48 2 months ago
Moral objections to the way the world is now leads to agnosticism, moral objections to a world destined to stay the way it is now leads to theism.
StormTrek 2 months ago
David Attenborough is a great man, but a large portion of atheist are arrogant idiots.
He did contradict himself that an ant-eater couldn't exist without ants, which would disregard evolution more than creationism...
DeletedComment 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeletedComment "He did contradict himself that an ant-eater couldn't exist without ants, which would disregard evolution more than creationism..."
You didn't get the point, did you?
Stinukli 2 months ago
@DeletedComment ... what? How does that disregard evolution? That's not a case of the 'Every painting has a painter' Now I'm not an expert on the Evolution of the Anteater, but I'm pretty certain by logic that the way that it evolved would of had to do with it's diet being ants and small insects, (snouts, strong forearms to dig)
"A large portion of atheist are arrogant idiots."
Let me rewrite that
"Most people are arrogant idiots regardless of race, religion or creed"
TheAsymmetrical 2 months ago
@TheAsymmetrical Well said. To which I would like to add "Nothing makes people arrogant idiots like religion."
TomFynn 2 months ago
Who are the 30 dickheads who disliked this? They don't deserve to have internetz
BigBallsBoydie 2 months ago
this amazing man puts it in words only a true great man ever could.
GOBLINKINGISM 2 months ago
David Attenborough is God.
fletchers4 2 months ago
@fletchers4
Certainly Attenborough is God. If not you would be struck by lightning till now. You are not i assume.
Therefor Attenborough must be god.
Nobody can disprove that. HA!
shurednichso 2 months ago
@fletchers4 Go tell the Pope.
azzy314159 2 months ago
@incubusslayer at the start David said.......after being asked did he ever have any faith....
"No"
thats Atheism if ive ever heard it.....
azmanabdula 2 months ago
there is only one god name brahma or in other religions that are similar to brahma .
atheist are little winging faggots who can't tolerate equality just like the christ , jew and muslim .
ukgreaterlondon 2 months ago
My man, respect Sir!!
TurkiyeCumhurbaskani 2 months ago
You know there's a religious debate going on in the comments when you see a load of blue writing...
matthe3234 3 months ago
I love David attenborough´s work. I don't understand why religious people always have to discuss about atheism and it seems like they have nothing ells to do in there life's. OK your religious is your truth and you decide to live in your faith and don't bother us who don't believe in that bullshit. learn to accept people think differently. And to me who is a Atheist is great comfort that I am not alone in my thinking, just as religious people go to there religious buildings to pray.
jennisuomi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2011 and theres so many people on the planet that believe in that religious rubbish.SHOCKING.
dilwich123 3 months ago
David Attenborough doesn't know my father, therefore my father doesn't exist? Thats not scientific, is it?
The Golden Rule, "do as you would be done by" is a direct quotation from - Guess who?
Clue - Luke 6 verses 27 to 31
Climaticsman 3 months ago
@Climaticsman It's also an idea that pre-dates biblical works and exists in cultures where the Christianity never developed. Seems like that's more a humanist idea then anything religious. Besides, having a good message doesn't make something true. Shrek has a lovely message about judgement and vilification, but doesn't prove the existence of ogres.
MaddestHatterFilms 3 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaddestHatterFilms Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@Climaticsman lolwut? What r u talking about? FAITH is the exact opposite of FACT so u don't have much to say about science do ya? Philosophic syllogism is the refuge of the dumb who want to look smart, philosophy wont get you fundamental truths (FACTS).
Newsflash: 'The Golden rule' was acquired by all 3 abrahamic religions from the Greek Hellenistic culture. Yes smart guy,not only it is not original of ya religion, your religion doesn't even practice the Golden rule so stop being hypocrite.
ZZzzzzzWhat 3 months ago
I love David Attenborough.
TheNubbbler 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
A biologist who studies life, especially one who has the means to travel between countries can see evolution before his eyes. Darwin, Wallace, Bates, Attenborough, even if some favor theism, none doubt evolution.
Jlaaag 3 months ago
Just plain common sense from the great man. What a life he has had, and he is still so humble and retains the desire to learn and discover still. He quotes the golden rule, "do as you would be done by". That's the only morality we need. Science will try to explain everything else. We no longer have a need for religion.
sids500 3 months ago
Russ Miller must have 27 youtube accounts....
powerofgod2010 3 months ago
If you are not an Atheist you are an enemy of Humanity. The religionists have a cancer on the their Human spirit and as such it devolves them to a subtangent...say homo sapein ridiculous or homo sapein superstitious, a cowardly fearful child like logicless bible wielding redheaded stepchild dunce cap wearing hominid, characterized by breeding with children, racism, waring and a general lack of intellect. Problem creators not solvers. No critical thinking abilities.
699backstab 3 months ago
@699backstab Oh look, another illiterate atheist.
PrepTard 3 months ago
@699backstab well put!
foxyjohnuk 3 months ago
cracks me up how all the well known atheists are the intellectuals, and the well known christains are in members of the church or shock news
Moppy1988 3 months ago
@Moppy1988 * Christians
And no, that's not true. At all. Isaac Newton? Galileo? The father of Quantum Physics Max Planck? Einstein believed in God also. All of the fathers of modern science were believers. Cracks me up how all of the "atheists" in this comments section can barely spell or construct a sentence. Imagine that.
PrepTard 3 months ago
@PrepTard Yet you started a sentence with "and"... funny that.
Moppy1988 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Moppy1988 LOL !! Fuck off you joker.
PrepTard 3 months ago
@PrepTard So much hate. ):
RedRedFortune 3 months ago
@RedRedFortune Meh. Think what you like.
PrepTard 3 months ago
@PrepTard Newton was a devout believer and Galileo is thought to have been a Christian (though he may have been lying to stop the church from executing him). You should remember that they both died before the evolution was even thought of and there was virtually no alternative to religion. As for Einstein and Planck, neither believed in god.
Instead of insulting people on their syntax perhaps you could spend your time making a structured argument for your case. Imagine THAT.
callumAS 3 months ago
@callumAS “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” (Max Planck, Religion und Naturwissenschaft, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, 1958, 27).
YOU FAIL !!
PrepTard 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrepTard "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954
callumAS 3 months ago
@callumAS “I am not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages....."
PrepTard 3 months ago
@callumAS ...."The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” - Albert Einstein
YOU FAIL AGAIN !!
PrepTard 3 months ago
@PrepTard Einstein did say that. However, where in the quote does he say he believed in God? He was saying that we do not and cannot know if there is a god because of the complexity of the universe, not that he believes in one. Similar quotes have always been misunderstood or just misused by theists as proof that he was a believer. Fortunately he cleared up his beliefs so that even you can understand. I have to post it in a separate comment because it's too long to post here.
callumAS 3 months ago
@callumAS No, you said Einstein was an atheist. He was not. You dumb atheists are so deceptive, so intellectually dishonest !! I suppose the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen was established for fun, because Planck was an atheist, according to you? LMAO !! Even Planck's wikipedia debunks you, it's not hard to "do some research".
YOU FAIL
PrepTard 3 months ago
@PrepTard .(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Read your bible son.
lewisner 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callumAS "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter" - Max Planck
Yeah, sounds like an atheist. Lulz.
PrepTard 3 months ago
@PrepTard "I have always been deeply religiously disposed, but I do not believe in a personal God, not to mention a Christian God." - Max Planck
Happy? Surely even you can understand what they are saying in blunt quotes like this.
callumAS 3 months ago
jounawh