Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Hey guys learn how to get a hot girlfriend in a week or less. Go to the link in the brackets..
(sn.im / 281nmh)
Remove the space before and after the slash. Quit saying you are ugly. Haven't you seen scores of guys that aren't good looking who have super hot girl friends?
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
"...We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind..." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 ed. vol. I, p. 168]
The nudist camp, where I was born, encourages freedom of expression. Once you become nude among the trees & fencing you realize the wisdom behind the encampment & entrapment of nudies.
[Should not Charles Darwin be exhumed to see what progress time has been made in his putrefaction and fossilization? Even people in sweaters are partially nude.]
The intricacies of any chronic metabolic disease needn't bog us down. Is it not reasonable to assume that scurvy has innumerable eccentricities? It's proven that vitamin C is the preventative, treatment & cure. Is this not enough?
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." — Ted Turner of C.N.N., as quoted in the "McAlvany Intelligence Advisor," 6/96
Eugenicist and plagiarist Charles Darwin preached elitism, in that those who rise to the top economically, are there due to superior intellect. Darwin's commandment concerning the strong destroying the weak demands that society's elite class thin the herd within the lower classes of those who are infirmed, aged and sick through sterilization, abortion, contraceptives, poisoned inoculations, war, pestilence and willful neglect.
@YourUTubeMonitor You are representing Darwin fraudulently. The more genetically fit don't DESTROY the weaker, they simply survive the given condition better or instead. Current genetic research isn't highlighted on PBS is because its findings are beginning to refute the environment theory of intelligence and tend to support eugenic principles. We can see the inferior weeding themselves out refusal of discipline and the work to effect critical intelligence, such as your post demonstrates.
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
@YourUTubeMonitor, yeah and Churchill ended up in opposition to the eugenics policy of Hitler. So what? The last such conference was held in 1932. Almost all modern biologists are opposed to eugenics. What is your point?
@theinquisitor : "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." — Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in "The Courier," a publication of the U.N. Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (U.N.E.S.C.O.)
@YourUTubeMonitor "preached elitism, in that those who rise to the top economically, are there due to superior intellect." Cite for me where he states this anywhere in his writings.
Thanks for posting this. I really enjoy a subjective discussion of Darwinism which ventures to criticize the overapplication of the theory by Darwinian "hacks". Not everything resolves to simple Darwinism. It was interesting to see how the discussion "evolved" to conclude with Pinker, a major proponent of the theory of evo-psychology.
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
The aerosolized aluminum oxide propellant that's being sprayed into our stratosphere from tanker jet planes, and utilized in the name of terra-forming and aerial obscuration, is THE cause of Alzheimer's Disease.
@YourUTubeMonitor, wrong, stupid and irrelevant to this video or anything in these comments. Do you know how much of that stuff it would take to have a significant contribution by the time it dispersed and reached the ground. Only moments of coherent thought and basic knowledge are required to refute your idiotic nonsense. Say something relevant to the video or discussion in the comments or be blocked.
As had the priests of science (knowledge) who'd preached and sermonized from their pulpits, during the reign of Caesars, about sacred linkages betwixt simians & humans (sans evidential relics); and beneficial mutations; and about the randomness of all systemic interactions: His Holy Eminence Bishop of futility and defeatism, the Pastor Carl Sagan, also waxed religiously & intimately of things that occurred billions & billions & billion of years before his birth beneath a pool table.
evolutionism n -s 1 : a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) – see DARWINISM 2 : adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings [Fr. p. 789 of “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” 1967]
evolutionism n -s 1 : a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) – see DARWINISM 2 : adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings [Fr. p. 789 of “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” 1967]
@YourUTubeMonitor, dictionaries are not the authorities on the meaning of scientific terms, they merely report word usage. You'll find the words energy and power to be defined as synonyms in many dictionaries, but in physics there is a meaningful difference between the two. Biologists define evolution as the change in allele frequencies within a gene pool over generations. Once again the only way you can criticise evolution is to misrepresent it. Try actually knowing what you're talking about.
@YourUTubeMonitor, you haven't acknowledged, responded, conceded or even argued any of my refutations. Like every creationist I've talked to, once I present a counter-argument, you just move on from one ill-informed argument to the next. Why is it that you're all so incredibly intellectually dishonest? Why can't you stick by your arguments and respond to my counter points? I showed that Darwin wasn't in favour of eugenics and you just ignore me. Make a counter argument or concede the point.
@YourUTubeMonitor, yes and you claimed that Darwin was in favour of eugenics and I showed evidence to the contrary. Do I have to explain everything to you?
@theinquisitor If these comments weren't from 2 months ago, I would have the feeling that a "Darwin himself admitted that the eye is too complex a structure to have evolved" was coming on.... ahhhh creationists.... never learn. Which is to be expected since they never listen.
Eugenicist and plagiarist Charles Darwin preached elitism, in that those who rise to the top economically, are there due to superior intellect. Darwin's commandment concerning the strong destroying the weak demands that society's elite class thin the herd within the lower classes of those who are infirmed, aged and sick through sterilization, abortion, contraceptives, poisoned inoculations, war, pestilence and willful neglect.
@YourUTubeMonitor, care to provide any evidence at all to back up that claim? Darwin merely observed how things work in nature. The slowest gazelle is the one that the cheetah catches. How do you get from noticing this fact to deciding that we need to practice eugenics? That's like going from noticing gravity to deciding that we should push people down stairs. You can't get an ought from an is. This is very basic stuff. Why can't you separate facts and values? Think about what you're saying.
(3) directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 edition, vol. I, p. 168]
(2) every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
(1) "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of
@YourUTubeMonitor, did you read the very next paragraph where he says "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature" and "if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil"?
So this eugenicist would consider the neglect of the weak an overwhelming evil and sympathy for the weak to be the noblest part of our nature. Pwned I believe.
@YourUTubeMonitor Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is true, doesn't mean it ought to be true. And Darwinian evolution is true. Admitting that says nothing about your views on social order.
@YourUTubeMonitor A person must admit that we evolved by natural selection. The fact that social Darwinism is repugnant, even that Darwin himself was a product of his time and therefore had eugenicist and racist views (though relatively speaking he was pretty liberal), has no bearing on the fact that we evolved by natural selection. Admitting this is true is not the same as saying we should model our lives after this system - that's the naturalistic fallacy.
@YourUTubeMonitor I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
'Your sorrow isn't pertinent'? That's the most heartless thing I've ever heard. You monster. Let's get back to the main theme, your obsession with my sex life.
I find Jared Diamond's used of social evolution rather lacking in many aspects: Very deterministic - (because culture A lacked variable B, therefore Culture A is not like Culture B). Many variables come into play in the success of a society- including random events that has nothing to do with a group's intelligence. I.e. the accidental discovery of fire or glass.
Pinker nailed it with his second application of natural selection. The underlying law to all of society is natural selection. We humans evolved, and our brains sure as hell weren't exempt. Everyone is a product of natural selection- therefore everything produced mentally and physically is a product of natural selection on the human lineage.
@SHIBBYiPANDA, the original link doesn't seem to be working. The whole talk is up here, just in pieces. Check the video this is a response to for the second part. Check the description box for links to the individual talks by the other speakers.
How was it that Mr Darwin was never knighted!! We have Sir Mick Jagger but not Mr Darwin. We need a Facebook campaign for the posthumous knighting for Charles Darwin!!
@nebuncz, again, there are five people on that stage. Dawkins and Dennett have actually been named along with Hitchens and Harris as the four horsemen of the counter-apocalypse. There's a group discussion with them called "the four horsemen". Pinker and Diamond aren't part of that. Also, Douglas Adams was always funny and never unintentionally. Other than that, a good criticism, well thought out and insightful.
Four, five, schmive...don't matter how many of them there are or what panel they sit on, these mercenary vulgarizers and flim-flam men will still do more damage to real science and learning than every fundie put together. Nobody sees the fundies as scientists or intellectuals, and they don't pretend to be- but Pinker, Dennett, et al. do, when in fact they're mere vulgar entertainers. Three Stooges skits were funnier, and did not pretend to the status of scientific discourse.
@nebuncz, nobody sees fundies as intellectuals? Have you heard of so-called intelligent design? That's an attempt to brand creationism as an intellectual and scientific justification for fundamentalist beliefs, and people buy it! I don't accept that arguing against the fundamentalists is the cause of their popularity. Their popularity is a result of a lot of money put into public relations. How did you come to this conclusion that they are making things worse? Empirical data or making shit up?
@theinquisitor: Gallup finds that only about 40% of Americans believe in evolution. Creationism is outlawed in the schools, blacked out by most media, and contentious even in the religious world itself, so the cause must lie elsewhere. Today's public views evolution as so much ideology- and the fault lies with irresponsible public intellectuals who debase evolutionary theory into facile speculation (Pinker) and-or tie it to non-scientific agendas, esp. militant secularism (Dawkins, Dennett).
@nebuncz, the resistance to evolution has existed for as long as the theory has. If arguing against fundamentalism only makes it stronger, then are you suggesting we should just ignore it and it'll go away? And what about the role of the internet, which allows people to find all manner of crackpot arguments to support their preconceptions where they couldn't before? Since there also seems to be a rise in other forms of nutty beliefs, like conspiracy theories, isn't that a more likely cause?
@theinquisitor: P.S. I really don't think anybody sees the ID crowd as intellectuals or scientists except for other IDers. There are some critics of evolution who are real intellectuals, mostly profs at various Catholic universities, but they have almost no public profile aside from a relative handful of highly literate Catholic conservatives.
wow its refreshing to see one of these hard rationalists having a sense of humour, ie jared, altho maybe if he's a historian that would explain it. Non of the other boys up there would have given a cheeky lil quip like that :)
@theinquisitor This is what creationists do: they just like to drop bombs - make a baseless statement without backing it up in any way, shape, or form - thereby abdicating the responsibility of the application of logic.
I was hoping that the question to the ultimate answer to everything would have went to Douglas Adams, but I guess we already know the answer is 42 :-)
Feel free to answer more than one alternative if you think the words meaning differs dependent on the context. Do you think that people in general agree on these contextual differences? Yes or no?
Hello, I am conducting some research for a small linguistic essay concerning the meaning of the internet word LOL. I would be very grateful if you would quickly answer the questions below about how you use and interpret the word.
Does it mean?
A: To actually laugh out loud.
B: To express mild amusement.
C: To express large amusement.
D: To express appreciation.
E: None of the above (if so please specify the actual meaning).
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
Sorry to orphan a number of replies made to 1tabligh, but his spam is intolerable. If you want to hear his arguments, all you need to do is go to the al islam website. Every single thing he's said is copy pasted from there.
He doesn't understand what he's arguing about. His arguments are pure spam.
Google a few sections of his paragraphs and you'll find he's directly copied everything he's stated from other people's pages and is trying to use that to pass himself off as an intellectual.
@sonic8005, you're right. And that's the one thing I will not tolerate on my channel. I've already caught him doing this once on another video where it was much more obvious. I'll be deleting his spam and giving him one final warning to stop it or be blocked.
@1tabligh We don't "occasionally" perceive weak points in nature. The weak points of nature are rather salient. We DON'T, also, necessarily like some of the conclusions that we have discovered or unveiled, but we accept them nonetheless because the evidence in their favor is simply staggering.
Astronomers have worked really hard to give us a fairly definitive understanding of our universe, much of which we now know contains literally nothing.
@1tabligh, so you're saying that we're too stupid to understand the machine, and that's how you know how it came to be? Don't you see the inconsistency there?
@theinquisitor He is @-1tabligh-, also insinuating that the information we have gathered about the "small screw" is of no particular relevance, and any conclusions we draw, thereof, is of no importance.
He is also making the arrogant claim of having access to information concerning and regarding the magnitude of the grand scheme of things. Information which the rest of us, necessarily, and conveniently, don't have access to.
Turns out it's not. Intelligence and so on developed slowly over millions of years across thousands of species. It takes a long time to develop organized complexity. To explain the most basic, simple, stupid, and non-complex early life forms you are assuming an extremely complex superbeing popped into existence and made something pathetic in comparison to himself. On the other hand we can show that organic chemicals form on their own and we have shown evolution to occur many times.
point is, that we don't know how fast evolution could go in other planets. In some it could be much slower and in stars life time of 10 billion years nothing appears more complicated than primitive invertebrates, in other cases, evolution might be faster and in 2 billion years would appear intelligent species. We just have not enough knowledge at the moment.
Question to those that believe that there is no other intelligent life out there. We believe that the universe is 14 to 16 billion years old. Earth is believed to be 4 to 6 billion years old. If life started on just one other planet at the same age our planet did, that would mean they are billions of years ahead of us. Question, Where will we be as beings 1 billion years from now? Will we be stuck on earth still or will we be in space ships check out our neighboring galaxy's?
>that would mean they are billions of years ahead of us.
No. There is no evidence that life must become intelligent. 99.9% of species on Earth have died out. We almost did. Had we done so, there is nothing to say that we might never develop another intelligent species on Earth.
They only way of assigning probability of an event is either sampling a significant number of planets or assigning probabilities of each step in a process of developing intelligent life. We can't do either.
@BW022 and there is no evidence that life hasn't become intelligent either. There are millions of galaxy's out there older than we and to believe that we're the only intelligent species is not only, in my opinion, ignorant but its outrageously superficial, and arrogant. We are not some cosmic mistake nor divine species. We are a speck on a grain of sand, in the grand canyon that is our universe. Nothing more nothing less.
Lack of evidence means that we don't know. Metaphors do not change this.
We can't assign probabilities as we don't know the chances of the process taking place, nor can we sample enough planets for life. So, we don't know.
BTW. Uniqueness does not suggest divinity or arrogance. Statistically, I am so unlikely that I'm happy saying I am unique (so is a fly). Now... since we have no idea how likely life (or intelligent life is), considering uniqueness isn't arrogant.
@BW022 To simply wave off the probabilities because we don't know the chances of the process taking place and we can't sample enough planets for life, only proves one thing, OUR ineptness. Hopefully one day we will have those properties."
It didn't wave off the possibility. I merely said we don't know. Whereas you made an absolute statement "that would mean they are billions of years ahead of us." for which you have no evidence for.
You also have no evidence that our inability to sample other planets is ineptness. It might be impossible to every travel to other stars practically.
Unless you start using "might" or "could be", your statements are just wishful thinking.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thisa shit dosen't make sense. even einstein knows it " Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" what you don't understand is the complexity of faith most preist are very literal, it a shame becuase without faith there is no hope and without hope ther4e is no better future. in other word evolution is a part of religon
Actually that's exactly wrong. Faith is unwavering certainty without reason. Hope is the recognition of the possibility of change. Certainty leaves no room for possibility or change. Faith makes hope impossible.
"evolution is a part of religon"
Fractal wrongness! Evolution is science, which is antithetical to faith, and religion does not evolve because it is faith based and cannot change.
I'm an atheist with a morbid interest in religion as mythology. If you read anything (or watch university courses) about the history of Xianity, you'll see that it definitely did evolve in the early days. After the orthodox centrists won, scriptural invention ceased and theological evolution took over. Nowadays, shifts create schisms into new dogmas.
I think that the unchanging aspect relates to the ridiculous insistence on the supernatural.
"I think that the unchanging aspect relates to the ridiculous insistence on the supernatural"
Indeed, however there are some ideologies that could be called religions that don't involve supernatural elements. Raelism for example, involves the belief that life on Earth was seeded by an alien race and they reject anything supernatural.
Of course, they are just as lacking in evidence as any other religious claims, and I think that is an important distinguishing feature of religion.
But I do find myself agreeing with the idea that religions evolve after all.
However I think one key difference between the way religion and science evolve, is that religions often claim to be the absolute truth, and therefore change is resisted by faith and dogma, whereas in science, means of change is built into the system.
I think that any group that believes that the world was seeded by an alien race is indulging in a thinly-disguised form of supernaturalism, whether they admit to it or not. It's all baseless, magical thinking that has no foundation in what is known of the physical world -- particularly since our nearest neighbouring star is 4 1/2 light years away. They might respond with, "what's 41.5 trillion km to a determined alien, after all?"
I'm not saying this to salvage my "supernatural" point. I do think that your explanation of "absolute truth" is more accurate.
However, even *that* is a late-developing theological outgrowth of the early Jesus-myth groups. The mythologies were internally inconsistent, so Christian church leaders consolidated their grip on power by wrapping the myths in concrete. Promised certainty appeals to a certain type.
While the Raelian version of panspermia (the seeding of life on an interstellar scale) does seem absurd since it also involves characters like Jesus and Budda being aliens, there is some plausibility to the idea in general.
If time isn't a concern for the seeders, then they could send automated vessels to prospective star systems which contained some bacterial life in suspended animation along with a supply of nutrients, like a cosmic egg. It would take millions of years to arrive of course.
The egg could then break open and the nutrients would provide the time required for the microscopic life to adapt to the conditions on the new planet.
If a society deemed this important enough for ideological reasons, it could be done. We could probably do it if we put the equivalent of our military budget into the project.
While it's unlikely, it's not much beyond our level of technology and I think that puts the idea in a quite different category to religious creation myths.
But in the end, it does boil down to taking a remote possibility as certainty.
Regarding the modern religious emphasis on absolute truth, what do you think is the reason for that change? Perhaps the challenge of science to the factual claims of religion, or maybe an over-simplification for the short attention span of modern culture, or something else? And are these fundamentalist varieties of religion more likely to survive than the more "moderate" types?
3 Entrenched rigidity (creed) preceded the challenge of science by more than a millennium -- starting with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
The sequence seems to have been Jesus as new-social-order inspiration; various post-mortem myth-making groups; evangelism, including Paul's; increasingly elaborate scriptural concoctions (many lost and destroyed); vitriolic polemics and deceit in the competition to be the prevailing version.
4 The victorious group became orthodoxy and prospered through Creed, Canon, and Clergy -- plus some political packaging. This included the Apostolic Myth -- that the message had come directly from Jesus, through his disciples, to the church. It's a fib, but hey, when you're peddling a huge myth, what is another?
To be fair, they probably believed the myth, and were simply politically astute. Truth was subordinate to aims.
Simple ideas evolve into formalized bureaucracies.
Fundamentalism seems to increase in times of perceived threat -- hence the fear-mongering by scam artists.
I think that fundamentalist ideologies are quite brittle. They are so rigid, and so broadly implausible that they are more easily exposed as false to those who honestly want truth. I think that it's no surprise that many deconverts come from fundamentalist denominations.
Bible-as-allegory and science-accepted are more resilient.
2 // quite different category to religious creation myths //
Suspended-animation, alien, galaxy-trotting bacteria versus DirtBoy and RibGirl? They both sound loopy to me, but the Raelian loopy sounds like a why-would-the-aliens-bother-? type of sci fi loopy. I agree that modern technology suggests that might be do-able.
I consider abiogenesis and biological evolution immensely more likely -- and more interesting -- but you'd probably guessed that.
I did some calculations based on the speed of the Phoenix rocket (mission to Mars) of 120,000 km/hr.
I was surprised -- it would take a mere 39,500 years (unless I've done something terribly wrong). Positively speedy, but definitely a call for suspended animation. Hyperbolically speaking, that's probably a "gazillion" lifetimes for a bacterium.
Jesus as a bacterium? I love it! It fits the "God Virus" concept in a microbiological vein ;^/
Forgive me, but you have obviously never read a shred of philosophy. Einstein also said that we could find no explanation of love at first sight. Does understanding ANYTHING down the T diminish its beauty, or 'meaning' that we find in it? No. I think not.
If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.
In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe.
"...Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from"
I agree, and I think that the reason is that they hate life, and they want to be saved from it; they want another reality(an everlasting life in a paradise). They hate their reality, so they want a new one; it's really depressing, life is all we got, it is truly a gift to be conscious -just for a moment in time-, and it's silly to try to escape from it.
I am against main stream religions simply because it teaches people to be comfortable with not understanding the universe.Denying scientific findings like Darwin's Theory of Evolution and substituting it with a magical garden of incest is silly.People are not inherently evil and White people do not own God. Christianity,RomanCatholicism and all other off-shot religions are the root problems of societies today.Christianity is a business,therefore the content of what they dictate will be affected.
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
Scientists are actually pretty boring people. What they do well can be useful but making a connection with God requires far more than just an intellectual investigation.
Since the atheists commenting on these videos are almost all middle aged men, it's probably safe to assume that they're now too old and rooted in their atheistic position to even want to know God. Good luck to anyone arguing with them....it's called "casting pearls before swine" They're really just not worth the effort.
atheistfriends, I just wrote a long response to this comment in a PM trying to explain why you might not be getting a decent response, and what do you know, I can't send it because you have friend lock on.
Maybe the reason you're not getting a response is because you spam people and don't accept PMs. That kind of one-way flow of communication is way too preachy and people don't appreciate being talked to like that. I've saved my response if you want to disable that friend lock.
I hear this a lot. That scientists are boring people. That's why religious nonsense thrives because the charlatans who propagate ancient myths and rituals tell people things they want to hear. Science isn't supposed to be interesting, any more than math equations are meant to be interesting.
Science gives us a manner with which to better understand the world. Religious wish-thinking isn't necessary. I've always said, don't give me your opinion, just give me the data. Data is all we need.
But science isn't boring at all. It's just taught that way in school.
The knowledge that the atoms in our bodies are literally made of the ashes of dead stars, that the speed of time changes as you move close to the speed of light, that the universe itself began at a point of infinite density where all the laws of physics are unified. Contrast this and more with a burning bush.
Science reveals truths of such magnitude and awe that no fiction like the bible can come close to approximating.
Oh, yeah. I don't think science is boring at all. But there's an awful lot of people out there who aren't terribly educated who find science boring. For these people, you have to spoon-feed them data in bright, flashy, sexy packaging or they don't retain it. That's where religion is successful, because it caters to human emotion. Science deals with empirical data. To put it one way, if the human race didn't exist, neither would religion. The discoveries made by science, however, would remain.
For instance, I go outside a lot, late at night, and just stare at the stars, reveling in just how tiny and insignificant we are and how immense the universe is. And you don't need to inject the rigid, dogmatic concept of a god to just enjoy the vastness of space. You can appreciate it for what it is, and I do.
So too if you can't spell a three letter word. The inability to capitalize the first letters in a name and title don't scream out to me as characteristics of a superior intellect either.
the entire bloody video and every single speaker, is recorded badly. Would've been better if you'd done it properly or if somebody else had uploaded it!
The problem is with the source. I know of no superior recording available online. It was recorded in the dark ages of the internet (1998) and designed for streaming on a 56k modem. Check the direct link in the description box to the streaming real media file and you'll see that the original resolution and compression.
You've just been spoiled by HD video and crystal clear sound. It's worth putting up with the low quality sound and video for the entirely comprehensible high quality content.
With regard to the moderator... 42.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 2 weeks ago
some sweet info here
osclarkos 3 weeks ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
khijasmith 1 month ago
Hey, it's santa! And he's on Dawkins' side!
MatsEP 2 months ago
Was this filmed with a potato?
l337z0r 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Couldn't you get better quality video?
BigBagsForRent 4 months ago
This is so great! Thanks for posting.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey guys learn how to get a hot girlfriend in a week or less. Go to the link in the brackets..
(sn.im / 281nmh)
Remove the space before and after the slash. Quit saying you are ugly. Haven't you seen scores of guys that aren't good looking who have super hot girl friends?
alexmerc256 5 months ago
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
YourUTubeMonitor 8 months ago
"...We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind..." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 ed. vol. I, p. 168]
YourUTubeMonitor 8 months ago
The nudist camp, where I was born, encourages freedom of expression. Once you become nude among the trees & fencing you realize the wisdom behind the encampment & entrapment of nudies.
YourUTubeMonitor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[Should not Charles Darwin be exhumed to see what progress time has been made in his putrefaction and fossilization? Even people in sweaters are partially nude.]
YourUTubeMonitor 11 months ago
The intricacies of any chronic metabolic disease needn't bog us down. Is it not reasonable to assume that scurvy has innumerable eccentricities? It's proven that vitamin C is the preventative, treatment & cure. Is this not enough?
YourUTubeMonitor 11 months ago
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." — Ted Turner of C.N.N., as quoted in the "McAlvany Intelligence Advisor," 6/96
YourUTubeMonitor 11 months ago
Eugenicist and plagiarist Charles Darwin preached elitism, in that those who rise to the top economically, are there due to superior intellect. Darwin's commandment concerning the strong destroying the weak demands that society's elite class thin the herd within the lower classes of those who are infirmed, aged and sick through sterilization, abortion, contraceptives, poisoned inoculations, war, pestilence and willful neglect.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor You are representing Darwin fraudulently. The more genetically fit don't DESTROY the weaker, they simply survive the given condition better or instead. Current genetic research isn't highlighted on PBS is because its findings are beginning to refute the environment theory of intelligence and tend to support eugenic principles. We can see the inferior weeding themselves out refusal of discipline and the work to effect critical intelligence, such as your post demonstrates.
deaddoc 11 months ago
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
YourUTubeMonitor 11 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, yeah and Churchill ended up in opposition to the eugenics policy of Hitler. So what? The last such conference was held in 1932. Almost all modern biologists are opposed to eugenics. What is your point?
theinquisitor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theinquisitor : "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." — Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in "The Courier," a publication of the U.N. Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (U.N.E.S.C.O.)
YourUTubeMonitor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YourUTubeMonitor "preached elitism, in that those who rise to the top economically, are there due to superior intellect." Cite for me where he states this anywhere in his writings.
BillKiernan 10 months ago
Thanks for posting this. I really enjoy a subjective discussion of Darwinism which ventures to criticize the overapplication of the theory by Darwinian "hacks". Not everything resolves to simple Darwinism. It was interesting to see how the discussion "evolved" to conclude with Pinker, a major proponent of the theory of evo-psychology.
fairiebee 1 year ago
those are the leading intellectuals of today.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@ulizinho leading intellectuals are not usually public figures, but diamond is a leading intellectual for sure
farouqnimer 1 year ago
No Chihuahua ever swung a hammer; ever drove a nail.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor wat
itarethetroll 1 year ago
The aerosolized aluminum oxide propellant that's being sprayed into our stratosphere from tanker jet planes, and utilized in the name of terra-forming and aerial obscuration, is THE cause of Alzheimer's Disease.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, wrong, stupid and irrelevant to this video or anything in these comments. Do you know how much of that stuff it would take to have a significant contribution by the time it dispersed and reached the ground. Only moments of coherent thought and basic knowledge are required to refute your idiotic nonsense. Say something relevant to the video or discussion in the comments or be blocked.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor : Where's your gay-pride now?
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, oh honey stop flirting with me. You're making me wet.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 2
As had the priests of science (knowledge) who'd preached and sermonized from their pulpits, during the reign of Caesars, about sacred linkages betwixt simians & humans (sans evidential relics); and beneficial mutations; and about the randomness of all systemic interactions: His Holy Eminence Bishop of futility and defeatism, the Pastor Carl Sagan, also waxed religiously & intimately of things that occurred billions & billions & billion of years before his birth beneath a pool table.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
evolutionism n -s 1 : a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) – see DARWINISM 2 : adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings [Fr. p. 789 of “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” 1967]
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
evolutionism n -s 1 : a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) – see DARWINISM 2 : adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings [Fr. p. 789 of “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” 1967]
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, dictionaries are not the authorities on the meaning of scientific terms, they merely report word usage. You'll find the words energy and power to be defined as synonyms in many dictionaries, but in physics there is a meaningful difference between the two. Biologists define evolution as the change in allele frequencies within a gene pool over generations. Once again the only way you can criticise evolution is to misrepresent it. Try actually knowing what you're talking about.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 2
@theinquisitor : Heaven forfend anyone should cite a dictionary's entry.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, you haven't acknowledged, responded, conceded or even argued any of my refutations. Like every creationist I've talked to, once I present a counter-argument, you just move on from one ill-informed argument to the next. Why is it that you're all so incredibly intellectually dishonest? Why can't you stick by your arguments and respond to my counter points? I showed that Darwin wasn't in favour of eugenics and you just ignore me. Make a counter argument or concede the point.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 2
@theinquisitor : The burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, yes and you claimed that Darwin was in favour of eugenics and I showed evidence to the contrary. Do I have to explain everything to you?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor If these comments weren't from 2 months ago, I would have the feeling that a "Darwin himself admitted that the eye is too complex a structure to have evolved" was coming on.... ahhhh creationists.... never learn. Which is to be expected since they never listen.
LeonhardEuler1 10 months ago
Eugenicist and plagiarist Charles Darwin preached elitism, in that those who rise to the top economically, are there due to superior intellect. Darwin's commandment concerning the strong destroying the weak demands that society's elite class thin the herd within the lower classes of those who are infirmed, aged and sick through sterilization, abortion, contraceptives, poisoned inoculations, war, pestilence and willful neglect.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, care to provide any evidence at all to back up that claim? Darwin merely observed how things work in nature. The slowest gazelle is the one that the cheetah catches. How do you get from noticing this fact to deciding that we need to practice eugenics? That's like going from noticing gravity to deciding that we should push people down stairs. You can't get an ought from an is. This is very basic stuff. Why can't you separate facts and values? Think about what you're saying.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
(3) directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 edition, vol. I, p. 168]
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
(2) every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
(1) "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor, did you read the very next paragraph where he says "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature" and "if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil"?
So this eugenicist would consider the neglect of the weak an overwhelming evil and sympathy for the weak to be the noblest part of our nature. Pwned I believe.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 3
@YourUTubeMonitor Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is true, doesn't mean it ought to be true. And Darwinian evolution is true. Admitting that says nothing about your views on social order.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000 : A person must "admit" that Darwin's Sumerian postulations are true?
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor A person must admit that we evolved by natural selection. The fact that social Darwinism is repugnant, even that Darwin himself was a product of his time and therefore had eugenicist and racist views (though relatively speaking he was pretty liberal), has no bearing on the fact that we evolved by natural selection. Admitting this is true is not the same as saying we should model our lives after this system - that's the naturalistic fallacy.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@YourUTubeMonitor I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
Carl Linnaeus 1747
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok : Do you have sexual relations with simians? If not, why?
YourUTubeMonitor 8 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor Adjective: Resembling or characteristic of apes or monkeys.
Noun: An ape or monkey. Ther term simian is no longer used in scientific contexts. Compare prosimian.
The Farlax Free Online dictionary.
Yes, although less frequently now than formerly.
Please include a dishonest quote-mine in your answer. I value consistancy.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok : Your comment is meaningless as it proffers nothing relevant.
YourUTubeMonitor 8 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor I'm sorry, was your original question serious? Do you often request details of the sex lives of strangers?
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok : Your sorrow isn't pertinent.
YourUTubeMonitor 8 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor
'Your sorrow isn't pertinent'? That's the most heartless thing I've ever heard. You monster. Let's get back to the main theme, your obsession with my sex life.
gamesbok 8 months ago
I find Jared Diamond's used of social evolution rather lacking in many aspects: Very deterministic - (because culture A lacked variable B, therefore Culture A is not like Culture B). Many variables come into play in the success of a society- including random events that has nothing to do with a group's intelligence. I.e. the accidental discovery of fire or glass.
ManyInfiniteComments 1 year ago
Pinker nailed it with his second application of natural selection. The underlying law to all of society is natural selection. We humans evolved, and our brains sure as hell weren't exempt. Everyone is a product of natural selection- therefore everything produced mentally and physically is a product of natural selection on the human lineage.
crazysoccerman14 1 year ago
GAY POWER
airhead516 1 year ago
where can i get this whole lecture?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA, the original link doesn't seem to be working. The whole talk is up here, just in pieces. Check the video this is a response to for the second part. Check the description box for links to the individual talks by the other speakers.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
Wow. I've read at least 20 books by these authors at least 100 times total. Probably more like 30 books and 200 readings. What a dream team
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@6:36,
Yes, there are benefits including a slower metabolism. Also, if a trait is no longer necessary, it is possible for a species to lose it over time.
TheFlanker35 1 year ago
How was it that Mr Darwin was never knighted!! We have Sir Mick Jagger but not Mr Darwin. We need a Facebook campaign for the posthumous knighting for Charles Darwin!!
raelarise 1 year ago 2
A beard signifies experience in neolithic man, those without a beard were to young to know the ways of the world. Just my personal theory.
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
Hi there. If you like this, you might like my book at evolvingcaveman 'dot' com
It's a kind of guide to navigate future human evolution. I've described it in my video.
Jeff
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
Creationists must think these guys are the four horsemen of the apocalypse!
pugilist102 1 year ago
@pugilist102, yeah since they probably can't count.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 8
@pugilist102
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are servants of God. These clowns are more like the Four Stooges, but only unintentionally funny.
nebuncz 1 year ago
@nebuncz, again, there are five people on that stage. Dawkins and Dennett have actually been named along with Hitchens and Harris as the four horsemen of the counter-apocalypse. There's a group discussion with them called "the four horsemen". Pinker and Diamond aren't part of that. Also, Douglas Adams was always funny and never unintentionally. Other than that, a good criticism, well thought out and insightful.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor
Four, five, schmive...don't matter how many of them there are or what panel they sit on, these mercenary vulgarizers and flim-flam men will still do more damage to real science and learning than every fundie put together. Nobody sees the fundies as scientists or intellectuals, and they don't pretend to be- but Pinker, Dennett, et al. do, when in fact they're mere vulgar entertainers. Three Stooges skits were funnier, and did not pretend to the status of scientific discourse.
nebuncz 1 year ago
@nebuncz, nobody sees fundies as intellectuals? Have you heard of so-called intelligent design? That's an attempt to brand creationism as an intellectual and scientific justification for fundamentalist beliefs, and people buy it! I don't accept that arguing against the fundamentalists is the cause of their popularity. Their popularity is a result of a lot of money put into public relations. How did you come to this conclusion that they are making things worse? Empirical data or making shit up?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor: Gallup finds that only about 40% of Americans believe in evolution. Creationism is outlawed in the schools, blacked out by most media, and contentious even in the religious world itself, so the cause must lie elsewhere. Today's public views evolution as so much ideology- and the fault lies with irresponsible public intellectuals who debase evolutionary theory into facile speculation (Pinker) and-or tie it to non-scientific agendas, esp. militant secularism (Dawkins, Dennett).
nebuncz 1 year ago
@nebuncz, the resistance to evolution has existed for as long as the theory has. If arguing against fundamentalism only makes it stronger, then are you suggesting we should just ignore it and it'll go away? And what about the role of the internet, which allows people to find all manner of crackpot arguments to support their preconceptions where they couldn't before? Since there also seems to be a rise in other forms of nutty beliefs, like conspiracy theories, isn't that a more likely cause?
theinquisitor 1 year ago 3
@theinquisitor: P.S. I really don't think anybody sees the ID crowd as intellectuals or scientists except for other IDers. There are some critics of evolution who are real intellectuals, mostly profs at various Catholic universities, but they have almost no public profile aside from a relative handful of highly literate Catholic conservatives.
nebuncz 1 year ago
wow its refreshing to see one of these hard rationalists having a sense of humour, ie jared, altho maybe if he's a historian that would explain it. Non of the other boys up there would have given a cheeky lil quip like that :)
dwaynedibbly 1 year ago
Dawkins is awsome.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
holy mother of all the debates.
marianiiina 1 year ago
I better grow my beard out.
ashleylovesdaddy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richard Dawkins: a certified nut.
TAXtheAtheist 1 year ago
TAXtheAtheist: Makes baseless claims.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 18
@theinquisitor: PWN'D TAXtheAtheist!
theinquisitor -- 1
TAXtheAtheist -- FAILED
ReverendPopeFoxyFox 1 year ago
@theinquisitor This is what creationists do: they just like to drop bombs - make a baseless statement without backing it up in any way, shape, or form - thereby abdicating the responsibility of the application of logic.
AtheistJames 1 year ago
@TAXtheAtheist
Religion: certified murder.
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago 2
Atheist choose their beliefs according to their desires. Truth is NOT their goal.
MARK1212WHY 1 year ago
@MARK1212WHY the same applies to you
nehorlavazapalka 1 year ago
I was hoping that the question to the ultimate answer to everything would have went to Douglas Adams, but I guess we already know the answer is 42 :-)
Primalxbeast 1 year ago 2
Appendix to the questionnaire.
Feel free to answer more than one alternative if you think the words meaning differs dependent on the context. Do you think that people in general agree on these contextual differences? Yes or no?
Peterlisinski 1 year ago
@Peterlisinski, E, I don't use it because it's stupid. Partly because no-one actually means it literally as in answer A.
However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't spam my videos with random unrelated questions.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
Hello, I am conducting some research for a small linguistic essay concerning the meaning of the internet word LOL. I would be very grateful if you would quickly answer the questions below about how you use and interpret the word.
Does it mean?
A: To actually laugh out loud.
B: To express mild amusement.
C: To express large amusement.
D: To express appreciation.
E: None of the above (if so please specify the actual meaning).
Peterlisinski 1 year ago
Interesting sonic effects: all the s's are pronounced "th"s.
Because of the poor sonic quality of the tape.
48acar19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
It's the Robert Ridgely filter on the mic lololol
Is there perhaps a better audio version?
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sagan said, "We are star stuff" and "a way for the cosmos to know itself."
All the atoms on earth and in our bodies came from supernova that blew up over 5 billion years ago.
Aren't we all just walking, talking stardust -- this cosmos become AWAKE and looking back at itself? -- and aren't we intimately connected to it all?
We are this wonder called life become AWAKE
Please enjoy the dance.
And ultimately there's nothing that separates us from others in this grand mystery. Please be kind.
goog2k 1 year ago
Why are they all lisping? It thoundth tho thilly to hear Dawkinth talk like a thix year old.
frankieshaw1958 1 year ago
@frankieshaw1958
Their teeth are at fault!
The gift of the old age for all of us, present and future oldies!
48acar19 1 year ago
Does anyone have this in better quality and can send me this ?
Freudianer1 2 years ago 2
evolution is imbroglio.
darkfur35 2 years ago
Sorry to orphan a number of replies made to 1tabligh, but his spam is intolerable. If you want to hear his arguments, all you need to do is go to the al islam website. Every single thing he's said is copy pasted from there.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
@theinquisitor
He doesn't understand what he's arguing about. His arguments are pure spam.
Google a few sections of his paragraphs and you'll find he's directly copied everything he's stated from other people's pages and is trying to use that to pass himself off as an intellectual.
sonic8005 2 years ago
@sonic8005, you're right. And that's the one thing I will not tolerate on my channel. I've already caught him doing this once on another video where it was much more obvious. I'll be deleting his spam and giving him one final warning to stop it or be blocked.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
I'm sorry, 1tabligh, but that's just jibberish. I can hear the hollow sound of the bottoms of barrels being scraped!
TheFunkadelicFan 2 years ago
@1tabligh We don't "occasionally" perceive weak points in nature. The weak points of nature are rather salient. We DON'T, also, necessarily like some of the conclusions that we have discovered or unveiled, but we accept them nonetheless because the evidence in their favor is simply staggering.
Astronomers have worked really hard to give us a fairly definitive understanding of our universe, much of which we now know contains literally nothing.
Scofield0085 2 years ago
@1tabligh, so you're saying that we're too stupid to understand the machine, and that's how you know how it came to be? Don't you see the inconsistency there?
theinquisitor 2 years ago
@theinquisitor He is @-1tabligh-, also insinuating that the information we have gathered about the "small screw" is of no particular relevance, and any conclusions we draw, thereof, is of no importance.
He is also making the arrogant claim of having access to information concerning and regarding the magnitude of the grand scheme of things. Information which the rest of us, necessarily, and conveniently, don't have access to.
Scofield0085 2 years ago
@1tabligh The "precise" geometry also leads galaxies to collide with each other...including the impending collision of ours with the Andromeda galaxy.
"A wise creator" would also...logically...not engineer a non-wise process i.e . evolution, that wipes out almost entirely all of its creation.
(These are just some basic refutations...I could go more in depth if you like.)
I may grant your premise that there is a creator, but he or she most certainly isn't a 'wise' one by any standards.
Scofield0085 2 years ago
Best simple and succinct refutation Ive thusfar heard! Excellent points
Sizerian 2 years ago
Turns out it's not. Intelligence and so on developed slowly over millions of years across thousands of species. It takes a long time to develop organized complexity. To explain the most basic, simple, stupid, and non-complex early life forms you are assuming an extremely complex superbeing popped into existence and made something pathetic in comparison to himself. On the other hand we can show that organic chemicals form on their own and we have shown evolution to occur many times.
sdaciuk 2 years ago
HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!
FGBiuvjnspeFASO
adrastea99 2 years ago
point is, that we don't know how fast evolution could go in other planets. In some it could be much slower and in stars life time of 10 billion years nothing appears more complicated than primitive invertebrates, in other cases, evolution might be faster and in 2 billion years would appear intelligent species. We just have not enough knowledge at the moment.
Kibernautas 2 years ago
Question to those that believe that there is no other intelligent life out there. We believe that the universe is 14 to 16 billion years old. Earth is believed to be 4 to 6 billion years old. If life started on just one other planet at the same age our planet did, that would mean they are billions of years ahead of us. Question, Where will we be as beings 1 billion years from now? Will we be stuck on earth still or will we be in space ships check out our neighboring galaxy's?
specialjr11 2 years ago
>that would mean they are billions of years ahead of us.
No. There is no evidence that life must become intelligent. 99.9% of species on Earth have died out. We almost did. Had we done so, there is nothing to say that we might never develop another intelligent species on Earth.
They only way of assigning probability of an event is either sampling a significant number of planets or assigning probabilities of each step in a process of developing intelligent life. We can't do either.
BW022 2 years ago
@BW022 and there is no evidence that life hasn't become intelligent either. There are millions of galaxy's out there older than we and to believe that we're the only intelligent species is not only, in my opinion, ignorant but its outrageously superficial, and arrogant. We are not some cosmic mistake nor divine species. We are a speck on a grain of sand, in the grand canyon that is our universe. Nothing more nothing less.
specialjr11 2 years ago
Lack of evidence means that we don't know. Metaphors do not change this.
We can't assign probabilities as we don't know the chances of the process taking place, nor can we sample enough planets for life. So, we don't know.
BTW. Uniqueness does not suggest divinity or arrogance. Statistically, I am so unlikely that I'm happy saying I am unique (so is a fly). Now... since we have no idea how likely life (or intelligent life is), considering uniqueness isn't arrogant.
BW022 2 years ago
Comment removed
specialjr11 2 years ago
@BW022 To simply wave off the probabilities because we don't know the chances of the process taking place and we can't sample enough planets for life, only proves one thing, OUR ineptness. Hopefully one day we will have those properties."
specialjr11 2 years ago
It didn't wave off the possibility. I merely said we don't know. Whereas you made an absolute statement "that would mean they are billions of years ahead of us." for which you have no evidence for.
You also have no evidence that our inability to sample other planets is ineptness. It might be impossible to every travel to other stars practically.
Unless you start using "might" or "could be", your statements are just wishful thinking.
BW022 2 years ago
@BW022 lets agree to disagree on this one.
specialjr11 2 years ago
Science is interesting...
And if you don't agree then you can fuck off.
nemirn 2 years ago 2
Damn.
Why do all the good videos have bad audio.
PDFlogic 2 years ago 25
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thisa shit dosen't make sense. even einstein knows it " Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" what you don't understand is the complexity of faith most preist are very literal, it a shame becuase without faith there is no hope and without hope ther4e is no better future. in other word evolution is a part of religon
Greddybear 2 years ago
"without faith there is no hope"
Actually that's exactly wrong. Faith is unwavering certainty without reason. Hope is the recognition of the possibility of change. Certainty leaves no room for possibility or change. Faith makes hope impossible.
"evolution is a part of religon"
Fractal wrongness! Evolution is science, which is antithetical to faith, and religion does not evolve because it is faith based and cannot change.
I have faith in nothing, and I am very hopeful.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
// religion does not evolve //
I'm an atheist with a morbid interest in religion as mythology. If you read anything (or watch university courses) about the history of Xianity, you'll see that it definitely did evolve in the early days. After the orthodox centrists won, scriptural invention ceased and theological evolution took over. Nowadays, shifts create schisms into new dogmas.
I think that the unchanging aspect relates to the ridiculous insistence on the supernatural.
musekiteer 2 years ago
"I think that the unchanging aspect relates to the ridiculous insistence on the supernatural"
Indeed, however there are some ideologies that could be called religions that don't involve supernatural elements. Raelism for example, involves the belief that life on Earth was seeded by an alien race and they reject anything supernatural.
Of course, they are just as lacking in evidence as any other religious claims, and I think that is an important distinguishing feature of religion.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
But I do find myself agreeing with the idea that religions evolve after all.
However I think one key difference between the way religion and science evolve, is that religions often claim to be the absolute truth, and therefore change is resisted by faith and dogma, whereas in science, means of change is built into the system.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
I agree, and you express it better than I did.
I think that any group that believes that the world was seeded by an alien race is indulging in a thinly-disguised form of supernaturalism, whether they admit to it or not. It's all baseless, magical thinking that has no foundation in what is known of the physical world -- particularly since our nearest neighbouring star is 4 1/2 light years away. They might respond with, "what's 41.5 trillion km to a determined alien, after all?"
musekiteer 2 years ago
2
I'm not saying this to salvage my "supernatural" point. I do think that your explanation of "absolute truth" is more accurate.
However, even *that* is a late-developing theological outgrowth of the early Jesus-myth groups. The mythologies were internally inconsistent, so Christian church leaders consolidated their grip on power by wrapping the myths in concrete. Promised certainty appeals to a certain type.
Must be why I studied science! ;^/
musekiteer 2 years ago
While the Raelian version of panspermia (the seeding of life on an interstellar scale) does seem absurd since it also involves characters like Jesus and Budda being aliens, there is some plausibility to the idea in general.
If time isn't a concern for the seeders, then they could send automated vessels to prospective star systems which contained some bacterial life in suspended animation along with a supply of nutrients, like a cosmic egg. It would take millions of years to arrive of course.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
The egg could then break open and the nutrients would provide the time required for the microscopic life to adapt to the conditions on the new planet.
If a society deemed this important enough for ideological reasons, it could be done. We could probably do it if we put the equivalent of our military budget into the project.
While it's unlikely, it's not much beyond our level of technology and I think that puts the idea in a quite different category to religious creation myths.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
But in the end, it does boil down to taking a remote possibility as certainty.
Regarding the modern religious emphasis on absolute truth, what do you think is the reason for that change? Perhaps the challenge of science to the factual claims of religion, or maybe an over-simplification for the short attention span of modern culture, or something else? And are these fundamentalist varieties of religion more likely to survive than the more "moderate" types?
theinquisitor 2 years ago
3 Entrenched rigidity (creed) preceded the challenge of science by more than a millennium -- starting with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
The sequence seems to have been Jesus as new-social-order inspiration; various post-mortem myth-making groups; evangelism, including Paul's; increasingly elaborate scriptural concoctions (many lost and destroyed); vitriolic polemics and deceit in the competition to be the prevailing version.
musekiteer 2 years ago
4 The victorious group became orthodoxy and prospered through Creed, Canon, and Clergy -- plus some political packaging. This included the Apostolic Myth -- that the message had come directly from Jesus, through his disciples, to the church. It's a fib, but hey, when you're peddling a huge myth, what is another?
To be fair, they probably believed the myth, and were simply politically astute. Truth was subordinate to aims.
Simple ideas evolve into formalized bureaucracies.
musekiteer 2 years ago
5 (puff!!)
Fundamentalism seems to increase in times of perceived threat -- hence the fear-mongering by scam artists.
I think that fundamentalist ideologies are quite brittle. They are so rigid, and so broadly implausible that they are more easily exposed as false to those who honestly want truth. I think that it's no surprise that many deconverts come from fundamentalist denominations.
Bible-as-allegory and science-accepted are more resilient.
musekiteer 2 years ago
2 // quite different category to religious creation myths //
Suspended-animation, alien, galaxy-trotting bacteria versus DirtBoy and RibGirl? They both sound loopy to me, but the Raelian loopy sounds like a why-would-the-aliens-bother-? type of sci fi loopy. I agree that modern technology suggests that might be do-able.
I consider abiogenesis and biological evolution immensely more likely -- and more interesting -- but you'd probably guessed that.
musekiteer 2 years ago
// millions of years //
I did some calculations based on the speed of the Phoenix rocket (mission to Mars) of 120,000 km/hr.
I was surprised -- it would take a mere 39,500 years (unless I've done something terribly wrong). Positively speedy, but definitely a call for suspended animation. Hyperbolically speaking, that's probably a "gazillion" lifetimes for a bacterium.
Jesus as a bacterium? I love it! It fits the "God Virus" concept in a microbiological vein ;^/
musekiteer 2 years ago
Forgive me, but you have obviously never read a shred of philosophy. Einstein also said that we could find no explanation of love at first sight. Does understanding ANYTHING down the T diminish its beauty, or 'meaning' that we find in it? No. I think not.
RainsSong 2 years ago
Lol Dawkins talked on the tip of his tongue and accentuated his S.
FreddyFuFu 2 years ago
If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.
anthonyfuckyouutube 2 years ago
In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe.
anthonyfuckyouutube 2 years ago
"...Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from"
I agree, and I think that the reason is that they hate life, and they want to be saved from it; they want another reality(an everlasting life in a paradise). They hate their reality, so they want a new one; it's really depressing, life is all we got, it is truly a gift to be conscious -just for a moment in time-, and it's silly to try to escape from it.
prgalois 2 years ago
Comment removed
prgalois 2 years ago
I am against main stream religions simply because it teaches people to be comfortable with not understanding the universe.Denying scientific findings like Darwin's Theory of Evolution and substituting it with a magical garden of incest is silly.People are not inherently evil and White people do not own God. Christianity,RomanCatholicism and all other off-shot religions are the root problems of societies today.Christianity is a business,therefore the content of what they dictate will be affected.
anthonyfuckyouutube 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Christians understand the Athiest arguments for why they don't believe in God but they can never accept that position because it would mean denying the personal connection with God that they've experienced.
Christians explain that intellectual investigation isn't how you make that connection but Atheists prefer to do what they know doesn't work, so that they can continue to tell Christians the reasons why there is no God!
Watch the new "Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" video on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
The man with the beard is God!
And therefore atheistfriend, you fail.
TheBenEEeee 2 years ago
Scientists are actually pretty boring people. What they do well can be useful but making a connection with God requires far more than just an intellectual investigation.
Since the atheists commenting on these videos are almost all middle aged men, it's probably safe to assume that they're now too old and rooted in their atheistic position to even want to know God. Good luck to anyone arguing with them....it's called "casting pearls before swine" They're really just not worth the effort.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
atheistfriends, I just wrote a long response to this comment in a PM trying to explain why you might not be getting a decent response, and what do you know, I can't send it because you have friend lock on.
Maybe the reason you're not getting a response is because you spam people and don't accept PMs. That kind of one-way flow of communication is way too preachy and people don't appreciate being talked to like that. I've saved my response if you want to disable that friend lock.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
"casting pearls before swine"....that's classic and funny at the same time...where did you get that from
donnyab 2 years ago
"where did you get that from"
It's a quote from Jesus's sermon on the mount. These people have nothing original to say. All their ideas are thousands of years old.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
I hear this a lot. That scientists are boring people. That's why religious nonsense thrives because the charlatans who propagate ancient myths and rituals tell people things they want to hear. Science isn't supposed to be interesting, any more than math equations are meant to be interesting.
Science gives us a manner with which to better understand the world. Religious wish-thinking isn't necessary. I've always said, don't give me your opinion, just give me the data. Data is all we need.
shade1978x 2 years ago
But science isn't boring at all. It's just taught that way in school.
The knowledge that the atoms in our bodies are literally made of the ashes of dead stars, that the speed of time changes as you move close to the speed of light, that the universe itself began at a point of infinite density where all the laws of physics are unified. Contrast this and more with a burning bush.
Science reveals truths of such magnitude and awe that no fiction like the bible can come close to approximating.
theinquisitor 2 years ago
Oh, yeah. I don't think science is boring at all. But there's an awful lot of people out there who aren't terribly educated who find science boring. For these people, you have to spoon-feed them data in bright, flashy, sexy packaging or they don't retain it. That's where religion is successful, because it caters to human emotion. Science deals with empirical data. To put it one way, if the human race didn't exist, neither would religion. The discoveries made by science, however, would remain.
shade1978x 2 years ago 5
For instance, I go outside a lot, late at night, and just stare at the stars, reveling in just how tiny and insignificant we are and how immense the universe is. And you don't need to inject the rigid, dogmatic concept of a god to just enjoy the vastness of space. You can appreciate it for what it is, and I do.
shade1978x 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"Does My Father Love Me?" - A new video on my channel that looks at how Atheists and Christians interpret the same evidence very differently.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if u never heard of gun germs and steel by jared diamond...ur and idiot
demik027 2 years ago
So too if you can't spell a three letter word. The inability to capitalize the first letters in a name and title don't scream out to me as characteristics of a superior intellect either.
atek1234 2 years ago
what a superficial criteria for intellect. get fucked you grammar nazi.
mdoob11 2 years ago
I agree, if you have not heard of that book..... Get educated man!!!
tempemonkey2323 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
why have I never hear of this diamond guy?
NegativeNick 2 years ago
I don't know. But he is famous for his books; "Guns, Germs and Steel", "Collapse" and "Why sex is fun".
Lusekofta 2 years ago 2
and the third chimpanzee, a great book.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago 2
the entire bloody video and every single speaker, is recorded badly. Would've been better if you'd done it properly or if somebody else had uploaded it!
jameshanley40 2 years ago
The problem is with the source. I know of no superior recording available online. It was recorded in the dark ages of the internet (1998) and designed for streaming on a 56k modem. Check the direct link in the description box to the streaming real media file and you'll see that the original resolution and compression.
You've just been spoiled by HD video and crystal clear sound. It's worth putting up with the low quality sound and video for the entirely comprehensible high quality content.
theinquisitor 2 years ago