Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
I love the Hitch, and he is undoubtedly one of my idols, but watching him with his scotch and cigarettes makes me physically sick to my stomach. Like to the point of where I gag a little bit. It's really gross. How anyone can do that 24/7 is completely beyond me.
There's a reason why Hitch, Harris and Dawkins are the three poster boys of atheism. Sorry to say this, but I completely switch off when Dennett speaks.
Not to insult Hitchens, but sometimes he mumbles things, where they become completely in-decipherable. Either he doesn't know the correct thing to say or he has an un-controllable urge to mumble.
Yes most churches have it wrong, they are not teaching the true Gospel. My God/Christ accepts everyone; Blind, wretched, thieves, etc... Come As You Are! But what I found out was when I started praying to "Him" is He accepted me as I am (a real jerk), But then He changed me and my goals. His most important laws were LOVE God and LOVE Your Neighbor more than yourself. Now that is my goal! When He freed us of our sins, He freed us from the accusers (most atheists, but some evangelists) Peace!
So MrOverdoser, a self-proclaimed "jerk," will be rewarded with eternal life while a person like Gandhi will be punished forever just because he believes Jesus is God? I'm sure the Son of Sam serial killer who was "saved" in prison deserves a reward too right? Christianity is the most popular religion because it's the most convenient. Just say a few words and you're in! Excuse me, but I find difficulty finding ANY justice in this, especially "divine justice."
LOL if it was just say a few words, and you're in, every one would be a Christian. You have to feel that God Loves You, but He loves you enough to change you into a better human being. I'm a reformed jerk, I've seen the errors of my ways, and with God I can follow in His footsteps and be what real humans need to be=completely loving of each other. I still get mad at people who cut me off, but if I die after swearing at someone, I'd still be saved - the righteousness is in Him, where it is SAFE!
@MrOverdoser You were a jerk, so don't be a jerk anymore. You don't need God for that. Humans also do not need to be completely loving of each other, although that would be a bonus in a world of civility. They need just to be tolerant, and have the freedom to not love someone who does not deserve it. I don't love Adolf Hitler....by your theory you love him or think that others should do. That is just one flaw of "Christianity".
I disagree with Dennetts idea that we should not label anything as a mystery. How about not knowing how many planets there are in the whole universe? Can't we call that a mystery? Because we could never know how many planets there are in this vast universe. This IS an impossible task.
@knowthetruth1492 "Because we could never know how many planets there are in this vast universe. This IS an impossible task." you know in about 200-300 years people could laugh to such stements.
I bet that 1000 years ago peopple said that our world(earth) is center of the universe. . . oh w8 they have.
@MrPrankmastergeneral , Im pretty sure that in 200-300 years from now, people still won't know how many planets there are in the universe. And the people who believed that the earth was at the center of the earth did so because, they believed that their god had a special plan for humans.
@MrPrankmastergeneral Its not impossible. If we keep evolvoving at the alarming rate we are going at, and manage to find a way to travel great distances in short periods of time or to prolong human life to the capability of long distance travel, then we will eventually know how many planets there are in the universe. Not that it matters at all, it matters whats on the planets and the placement of them not how may there are.
Dennett's field of study IS a scientific field: cognitive science.
Dealing with how & why philosophy comes about in humans, and how this information is interpreted and represented in the body's mechanics. Not just philosophy but other things such as language, and sensory information... etc.
@drunkagnostic that's hyperbolic. Dawkins has said that Dennett often brings things about evolution to his attention before he comes across them himself. Dennett is extremely well-versed in biology.
They talk about religion, politics, philosophy and physics with an exceptional level of intellect and familiarity. Find me any religious leaders who can discuss on these topics with such affinity and calmness and I'll admire your infinite research.
@Ioannisthegreat7 these men are exceptional. I challenge you to find a professor who can converse the variety of topics with such thoughtfulness and depth that the four here did.
Jesus freaks and right wing facist simpletons are already touting that god gave Hitchens throat cancer to stop his condemnation of the church and christianity. I despise all religious people. Fuck your god!
@Thronsohn Man you just took my wish from my heart when I started seeing this. Someone should have told Hitchens to start being careful about smoking. Brilliant minds deserve to stay on alive as long as possible. If I was in Hitchen's circle of friends (a very strong wish), I would have tried every thing humanly possible to get him off smoking.
@Chanks420 theres not much one can do. i smoked for many years and i can tell you, it is a very irrational thing that no one but the smoker himself can deside to stop. greetings from germany.
Maybe it's the English nazi in me, but I prefer strict adherence to definitions when possible, and as such I actually don't mind being called as fundamentalist as a terrorist. Fundamentalist is just another word for principled after all; we just share extremely different principles. Now I do object strongly to the label extremist or militant. Every time I'm called militant, I want to become militant just to teach my accuser what the word means =P
I think Dennet's sympathetic view of many religious believers is very helpful. It's important that when trying to teach atheism and science we don't treat the religious believer as though they were an idiot. Almost all religious believers either haven't thought about the issues, or they have been stifled from free thought from a young age through upbringing or community. This doesn't make them idiotic.
@BrosoKintobor Very true, I am an atheist and I come from a christian background and it's not that I reject these ideologies I was just completely ignorant to them. Instead of learning about something I would just learn christian One-linners like "Carbon 14 dating doesn't work" or " evolution can't be proven" Its not really stupidity, but more of an ignorance.
It's such a shame. One of the physics lecturers at my university said that when he was young and going to church he was told about how the wine and bread were literally meant to become Jesus' blood and body during the ceremony. He got excited at this and, being scientifically minded, proposed to the vicar that they conduct an experiment he had thought up to test the hypothesis. He was sent out of the church for being disobedient. It makes you laugh, but the truth is very sad
@BrosoKintobor It kind of makes them cowardly, or weak. They refused to put questions to the words of their parents' or community's religion, which I'll admit can be trying. However, it's not so difficult that we can allow those that don't their excuses.
@BrosoKintobor Agreed. I would only critique your argument by suggesting that reason and science are enough, i.e., atheism is somewhat of a 5th wheel that can follow the former only after reason and science have been properly established.
True dat. It was a pretty long time ago when I posted my comment, and as a freethinker my opinions change with regard to many things as time goes on lol but I think what I meant originally by 'teaching atheism' was to teach what atheism is about, not to preach it as though it were fact. Mentioning atheism alongside science in the same sentence probably wasn't the best way of putting it, I'll admit :)
@BrosoKintobor i agree, but to an extent...once you've countered every opposing argument, and gave religious ppl sufficient knowledge, if the still believe stories like noahs ark, then hostility is definitely required....at least for the sake of intelligence within humanity
Personally, I think that the best way to "shake" people awake is to mock, not them, but their superstitious religious beliefs. Mock their superstition with wit, but treat the PERSON with dignity and respect.
Don't jeer or sneer at someone because they don't know what they're talking about.....
Just prove them wrong, and then MOCK THAT WRONGNESS, not the person.
@sonykroket I think you're both right in your different approaches. Just look at the speakers in the video. Hitchens and Dawkins are very forceful and mock believers for their idiocy and that def gets some believers to think. Harris and Dennet mock the belief more than the people and they win people over that way. We need all types of approaches to free thought and atheism to reach people of different personality types in order to be effective.
I love how Hitchens is smoking a cigarette and drinking what looks like scotch, while Harris quietly pours himself another glass of perrier. Two very different men with equally brilliant ideas about life. I like them both very much, I once drank like a fish and smoked like a chimney, seems like a lifetime ago. Now I drink perrier like Sam.
I like these guys. But can't evolution just be the answer to how? and God be the answer to why?
I don't think you can compare and contrast science with religion when they to seek to address different questions. They'll say science does this...religion cant do that. Of course it can't! Religion would never try to do that. That is not what religion is for. Religion and science just have different roles. Roles that don't have to run in competition with each other.
@thickhead11 The creative force behind the universe and everything in it, including the diversity of life on Earth is a deeply scientific question. If one possible explanation is god, then god must be open to discussion on scientific terms. As for evolution as god's way of developing life, Genesis doesn't state that and evolution itself would tend to argue against complexity (god) pre-existing simplicty. Religion must meet the scientific test and it doesn't.
@Tapiola2007 Obviously scripture written thousands of years ago. Back when people had no idea of what atoms or molecules or anything like were we could assume that things like Genesis should be understood as metaphor and not to be taken literally. Something like the Bible is not a source of authority on matters of science, but rather a source for its main theological claims. If could elaborate on what you mean by "religion must meet the scientific test and it does not?" Maybe an example?
@thickhead11 There's no reason to assume that the Bible's authors intended Genesis or anything else as metaphor. It's only in modern scientific times that people have proposed a more allegorical interpretation because science and rational thought have totally challenged the validity of the Bible's literal explanation. And if we accept Genesis isn't literal truth what else should get the same treatment, and how do you know which books? Sounds like cherry picking to me. (CONT...)
@thickhead11 As for religion meeting the scientific test, I mean proof of the major claims in eg Genesis. The Bible makes very specific claims that are open to scientific inquiry. Science makes a nonsense of such claims and I see nothing from Creationists too suggest otherwise. On the contrary, we have the Creation Museum in Kentucky telling lies, especially to children, about how dinosaurs coexisted with humans or how the Grand Canyon was carved out by a huge flood. (CONT...)
@Tapiola2007 "Cherry picking??" you assume that every religious person needs be a fundamentalist? Or that the Bible implies fundamentalist interpretation. We have a lot of reason to believe that the Biblical authors intended many of the things that they wrote to be metaphorical. Where you draw the line is up to the interpreter. The Bible does not interpret itself and it is filled scientific flaws because it of the epistemology of the time frame in which it is written.
@thickhead11 I assume that the Bible says what it says and whoever reads it and accepts it as the word of god also accepts it all or nothing - no selecting the nice and easy bits and whitewashing over the unpleasant and indefensible bits. It is the word of god or it isn't. And that's not my demand - that's what believers represent the Bible to be and have done since the early days of the church. Of course, there are parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with questions of creation and (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 Accepting it all as true doesnt mean accepting it all as literal. Much of it was never suppose to be taken as literal. Let me ask you do you understand a non-fiction book the same way that you understand poetry? You cant understand the meaning unless you understand the genre of the book you are reading. For instance something like Job or Noah and the Ark is OBVIOUSLY fiction and therefore metaphorical. You cant understand those stories meanings unless you understand the genre
@thickhead11 How do you know that Job or Noah are intended as fiction and other stories in the Bible are not? On what basis are you making the distinction?
@Tapiola2007 You mean other than common sense? You could use any number of criteria for historicity. It mostly based on an exegetical understanding of what the original author's context and purpose for writing the book would've been.
@thickhead11 divinity but there are substantial claims made throughout the text of both the OT and NT. Now, those claims are either meant to be understood literally or they are not. If you say they are not, how do you know that and why are there interpretations that say they are literal? Who is to be believed? And this applies to all so-called holy texts, not just Christian texts.
@Tapiola2007 "Those claims meant to understood literally or they are not."? Really? I just explained to you that there are tons of different genres of literature in the Bible. You understand each genre differently in light of what each individual text is trying to say. For instance the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is clearly metaphorical? I dont lose any meaning in not thinking of it as a literal historical event. In fact I get more meaning from it when I see it as metaphorical.
@thickhead11 So if the Tree of Knowledge is metaphorical that means there was no Fall of Man and no Original Sin, right? In which case, why does Jesus need to be sacrificed?
@Tapiola2007Please explain how tree of knowledge of Good and evil being metaphorical cancels out the fall of man? All the tree is a metaphor used to show that man choose something other than what God intended. It simply used to help us understand that God didnt create the world to be this way. That the way things are is not the way that they ought to be. And that sin's hegemony is not doing of God but of man.
@thickhead11 Religion does seek to demarcate for itself a realm that it claims is its own, but, personally, I can't think of a single question or issue in life that a person posing as a pastor, vicar, bishop, pope or whatever is any better qualified to answer than a non-believer with a good grasp of science and a modicum of common sense.
@Tapiola2007 We are operating from such drastically different understandings of what the Bible fundamentally is. I do not believe the Bible to be some kind of objective disembodied voice of truth from God's diary. But to be written by different authors, in different time frames, different contexts and writing different genres of writing: narrative, poetry, letters, fiction, historical non-fiction. All of which had no idea that what they were writing would end up in something called Bible.
@Tapiola2007 As far as questions of life. I do not assume that religious people have a monopoly on morality or that pastors are the only ones that can answer certain questions. There are some questions that I would prefer the perspective of a theologian or pastor than I would a scientist. For instance I dont feel that a physicist although brilliant is in any better place to inform me as to the meaning of life as anyone else is. He can tell how things work but he cant tell me why they do?
@thickhead11 You make my point for me. Correct, a physicist may not be able to give you any more insight into the meaning of life than your pastor but he won't necessarily offer you any less. There is absolutely nothing that a pastor 'knows' that can be understood as more meaningful on the subject than any other person who has contemplated it. What does a pastor, a religious person, know that a non-religious person doesn't know? The mind of god? Please! This is such a fallacy!
@Tapiola2007 main reason Id go to theologian over a physicist is cuz Im banking on the fact that the theologian has probably spent more time thinking about why. While the scientist as spent most of his time figuring how. Ultimately its subjective and unverifiable. I mean to say religion and science seek to answer different questions. Cant we argee on that? or do you think they try to ask the same questions and are therefore in conflict?
@thickhead11 Why shouldn't a physicist have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about why questions? Just because he's professionally a scientist does that exclude him/her from such questions? Why not go to a gardner who spends all day prune his flowers and mulling over the mysteries of life to while away the time. Priests are no more qualified than any other person.
@Tapiola2007 Lets not break it down to individuals am sure there are many scientists that have thought more about it than pastors. Just could we agree that the religion and science seek to answer different questions? Yes or no?
@thickhead11 No. The "why" only exists if you think there is meaning behind the existence of life and the universe. If science if correct and it's all a natural process, there is no "why", only "how".
@Tapiola2007 I gotta be honest thou. I have never heard of a agnostic/atheist (you never mentioned what you are). Advocate for fundamentalism. That is definitely a first.
@thickhead11 sorry before you jump on me for that last comment. Obviously you are not advocating for fundamentalism. You simply asserting that all religious people are fundamentalists. And then you are critiquing religion based on that assertion. When in reality only a fraction of religious people are fundamentalists. You literally build a false religion and then attack that because it easier to critique
@thickhead11 No. I recognise that not all believers are fundamentalists in the sense that we mean. But all believers do or should acknowledge the texts and the texts are clear about what they say. However, this is all rather meaningless. We can argue over literal or metaphorical meaning and get nowhere. The real question is are the texts evidence of god and if so, where did god come from?
@Tapiola2007 where did God come from? When we say that God is free to exist, we do not say that God lifts Himself, as it were, out of non-existence, that He makes Himself free to exist. What we say is that the mode of existence is proper to Him which is exempt from any limitation by the possibility of its non-existence. He is the One who is in Himself the Existent. By existing in this way He is not subject to any necessity, as though He must first exist in order to be who He is.
@thickhead11 Utter nonsense! OK, if you want to justify the possible existence of a prime mover in this way, go for it. But for those of us with our feet in reality this is nothing more than cheap pseudo-intellectual babble. The textual equivalent of white noise.
@Tap But by His existence He simply reaffirms Himself, but that, being who He is, He does in fact reaffirm Himself and His existence. Obviously if a being like God exists He would need no origin of existence other then Himself
"If science is correct there is no why" Really? Please explain your sceifitic evidence proving this
Is it so irrational to believe that the uncaused cause was something rather than nothing. That something created everything rather than that nothing created it?
@Tapiola2007 by saying there is no why. You mean that you occured rather than were created. Saying there is no why seems pretty close to saying there is no meaning. Do you believe that life has no meaning? Maybe you could elaborate if Im off base
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
@thickhead11 Acknowledging there is no why does not mean there is no meaning in life. I'm stunned at the number of believers who make this connection when it's a complete non sequitur. Just because the cosmos offers no objective meaning it doesn't follow that sentient beings can't discover meaning for themselves. The fact that we're having this discussion proves that point. Your point about us not finding out there is no meaning in the universe and the bit about light isn't logical at all (CONT)
@thickhead11 Arguing that dark is meaningless without light is yet more babble. Darkness and light exist in the universe whether we are here to see it or not. Light is electromagnetic radiation usually resulting from a thermal source (e.g. a star/sun). It has wide ranging consequences for the nature and dynamics of the universe and our appreciation of it is irrelevant. There are trillions of stars/sources of light that will exist long after humanity has disappeared.
@Tapiola2007 All I am saying is that is not a illogical irrational leap to believe that something created everything than that nothing did. Ya know the whole uncaused cause. The first mover.
saying things like "pseudo-intellectual babble" is nice except you kind of have to explain to me WHY it is pseudo-intellectual babble and just say that it is.
As far as the meaning of life thing. Was just trying to get on the same page. I wasnt sure if you thought there was meaning or not.
@thickhead11 It's pseudo-intellectual babble because on the face of it you may have the semblance of an argument but if one pauses to consider what you're actually saying there's nothing there: lots of words, lots of nice educated terms like "mode of existence" but no substance. It means nothing. And even if I concede you have a point, where do you get this knowledge from? At the very best it's wild specualtion, at worst it's frantic thrashing around for an explanation for the inexplicable.
@thickhead11 You seem to think you've solved the infinite regress problem posed by the prime mover by arbitrarily stating that god isn't or by necessity can't be restrained by the need to lift himself out of non-existence in order to exist. Well, you're free to believe that but it's not a rigourous testable theory that can put to bed the single most important question man has asked himself.
If Dennett were intellectualy honest he'd get up from the table and leave the heavy lifting to the other three. I cannot for the life of me figure out why this simpleton was invited to sit amongst such luminaries! He is an embarrassment.
Yeah when atheists gather once in a blue moon to talk about their beliefs it's boring and one-sided, lets forget about the religious who gather in swarms at least once a week to hear from other religious people which only strengthens their belief through faith based confirmation.
My dad used to educate me with science when I was young telling me to research for the facts. Now he is one of those reborn christians totally abandoning science. He said the bible proves that the world is only 6000 years old or something like that I all I could do to not start a heated debate with him was to walk away laughing.
@shicky2001 Does this not raise some amazing questions about the human mind? I marvel constantly at the things that seemingly otherwise rational people can believe. It kills me. I need to find an atheist support group or something.
I'm Catholic and I just love hearing these men think. Truely refreshing. All religious people should listen to their common sense, and learn. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go pray my Rosary, just like Louis Pasteur, you know... the French Catholic microbiologist, chemist and physicist who discovered a cure against Rage ! Peace.
@Versgolem Do you realise that Louis Pasteur lived in the 1800's? I'm not denying that he is intelligent, but it dangerous to justify your entire world-view solely with the fact that some intellectual members of your religion existed several hundred years ago. Today, approximately 65-95% of all scientists in the western world are either atheists or agnostic, which is a much higher proportion than the average population of nearly all countries.
@marcusantonio91 Do you even know what agnosticism means? You have to have a philosophical justification for your belief just like atheists reject theism and theists defend theism. To be an agnostic you have to believe that no atheistic or theistic arguments are convincing.
@marcusantonio91 I agree with the statement that theistic arguments are feeble, but how are the arguments in favour of rejecting theism, eg. the argument of natural evil, inconsistent revelations, the weakness of faith, the fallibility of holy books, the number of religions, and so on ... how do you find these unconvincing critiques of theistic dogma?
I don't find these videos boring at all. I'm trying to get better at debating or just having conversations with religious people to attempt to make them open their eyes which is pretty much impossible but listening to these four guys talk helps alot. I also just bought Sam's book The End of Faith and Dawkin's book The God Delusion.
@rogiet3 A term is only measured by it's definition. Definition can be manipulated by the person that is using that word/words. If you define yourself as stupid then you must be stupid in your perspective. Although with this manipulation of meanings it may not align with other person's or parties ideals.
@rogiet3 One sided? I'll gladly help clear up or even converse with you on any issues they discuss as long as your "open minded" about it. I certainly am.
I love how as I progress through the parts in this series, the number of theists leaving comments decreases. They clearly have lost interest after half an hour.
Well seems like we're done. If your in denial that the fossils we are finding are older then 6,000 years we really have nothing further to discuss. It's simply not possible to have a serious conversation with someone that will spit in the face of so many scientific diciplines. Until you are willing to concede that the fossil records cover milliions of years, that the earth is some 4+ billion years old and that modern humans are aroud 100K years your simply not capable of being rational.
It is your speculation that puts fossils to be any older than actual historical accounts say. It is irrational to say that humans have been around longer than we have evidence of them being around. There is no evidence of humans on earth more than 6,000 years. There should be a lot more evidence than there is so enjoy your fantasy until you have to face the reality.
Last thing they want is to grow up I think. That would mean that they would have to come to grips with the fact that they are a very small part of what is going on around them. They would then truly have to take responsibility for what they do in this life to give it meaning rather then treating their existence here like some worldly breadline that somehow grants them access to gods soup kitchen where they become some kind of eternal welfare recipient. Great till it gets in the way of science.
You are naive to think that you can't be wrong. Address and face the issues to see how wrong you are. Objects do not order information. Objects do not create nano technology.
Actually it has to a great degree. When talking about whales though, do please stick to whales.There is fossil evidence, lots of it, showing the migration of the blowhole over time from the nostrils. The nylon eating bacteria is also a wonderful example of evolution in our lifetime. Ignoring the mounting evidence isn't going to get you very far. Do you really understand how fossil evidence is applied? How old do you believe the earth is? Also, it's not "nano tech", its just chemestry.
The problem that you have is that there is no actual record of any human history any older than 6,000 years and the fossil record that you do have is no more than 4500 years old. Reptiles still do not turn into mammals and deer do not turn into whales anyway. Bacteria will always be bacteria and mutations do not account for all of the variation there is which is even more evidence of design. Don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. Chemistry has no information, silly.
If you would stop trying to attack people and learn something, you would be a lot better off. There is a lot of good reason for being quiet and listening before you open your mouth. In order to learn something, you have to learn from someone who knows. That's because people will very easily confuse everything.
Don't even suggest that I am the only person that knows. There are many people around the world that know the truth. There is only one truth the same as there is only one God because there cannot be two different truths as there cannot be two different gods. You can't be serious.
If you know that someone possesses "The Truth," than you yourself know that Truth, since otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the real philosopher king from your average hokey panjandrum.
I admire the four horsemen because of their eloquence, their reasoned argument, and because they have no such pretension to any Universal Truth. They are still pursuing the best system of beliefs, and are never going to consider that pursuit complete. The one who thinks he possesses Truth cannot admit error.
The horse guys are just guessing because they don't know the truth.
Only people who agree about everything know the truth because there is only one truth. Acknowledging that there is a Creator is not an error. It is acknowledging the obvious truth that is so evident.
I know the truth because I have checked things out for myself. I have found that everything the Bible says is true. I have found out that all the speculation and conjecture that evolutionists make is all wrong. Nothing about evolution is true. All of the evidence supports the existence of a Creator and the Creation.
You are the evidence of Creation. Just look in the mirror. You are the result of billions of observable digits from designed interchangeable elements that the entire universe is also made of that have commanded the formation of everything that you are. This kind of nano technology requires design by intent for us to be made from the same interchangeable nanoparts that the entire universe is also made of. Nothing ever works apart from design. The only reason that we work is because of the intent.
I'm only going to say this once: research. If you think that the complex workings of biology and physics require design by intent, then you have not done the research. There are hundreds of solid, peer-reviewed, undisputed refutations of your claim, and not one of them is inaccessible. You have no excuse to make such a claim while there is a never ending torrent of opposition. You have been either willingly or incidentally ignorant. Go fix it.
None of your "research" is able to explain any of the billions of digits of directives that even one life form has. You are only kidding yourself. There is the observable META information that is also not accounted for by any of your "research". Mutations also do not account for all of the variation that we see.
Do you even understand how wrong you are? You are wrong billions of times over.
You can't even explain in your own words what it is that you believe. That's how far fetched it is.
Your not qualified to speak on biology, evolution or any other subject frankly. Your lack of understanding of even the timeframe the planet operates on make you unable to comprehend how slow these processes actually are. Man's historical record, and the fairytale you believe in, only arived after man was capable of passing down these records.
I don't say this often, and I don't intend it to be mean spirited, but you sir.. are ignorant of a great many things. I now see why churches are full.
You are not able to address or even face any of the issues. You keep on convincing yourself with the strawmen that you create and you believe your own story that you made up. It is the evolution that you believe in that is the fabricated fantasy. You are making up things and believing them which is no different than carving an idol and thinking that it will save you. Like the Bible says, "you cannot cover yourself with the webs that you weave."
You need to face and address the issues. You actually think that it makes you look better if you put someone down. FYI, it makes you look even worse than you show yourself to be.
I apologize, my intentions are not to put you down, they are to make you conscious of the fallacious ideology in which you are trying to assert. however, it would seem that this is improbable due to your preconceived schema, so my words will be blunt. I am no better than you and vice versa, and there seems to be no need to prove that I am. So if you would like to discuss a certain argument I would happily reply but I am afraid your arguments and assumptions may be completely bias..
I was taught that the "Trinity" was a mystery and that you had to take it on faith, but no one ever said hey go read up on how it came to be the central dogma of Christianity. No wonder! Once you realize that it has no basis in faith or reality, the whole house of Christian theology comes tumbling down.
"Circular fundamentalism" describes Mr. Seekmosttoprophesy's weird nonsensical comments here. Hey Seek! Where did you learn your art of persuasion? I know, "your pastor told you."
This is great
jakeyalmighty 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 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 3 months ago
im a bitch for the hitch,word up.
dreadedwheat26 3 months ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro 4
why is there so many dislikes on this video? I don't get it.
Xinfinitude 3 months ago
@Xinfinitude hahaha not everyone likes the thought of disbelief, and there are billions of them.
InformationMinister 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
I love the Hitch, and he is undoubtedly one of my idols, but watching him with his scotch and cigarettes makes me physically sick to my stomach. Like to the point of where I gag a little bit. It's really gross. How anyone can do that 24/7 is completely beyond me.
I can definitely smoke weed all day, however. xD
itstonymacaroni 7 months ago
@itstonymacaroni Yet he's managed to live 65+ years on a diet of cigarettes and alcohol =P
AgowTisro 6 months ago
Comment removed
itstonymacaroni 7 months ago
The only thing "not good" in this otherwsie great production is Hitchens smoking.
Chanks420 7 months ago
There's a reason why Hitch, Harris and Dawkins are the three poster boys of atheism. Sorry to say this, but I completely switch off when Dennett speaks.
neonatalpenguin 9 months ago
Comment removed
itstonymacaroni 7 months ago
Not to insult Hitchens, but sometimes he mumbles things, where they become completely in-decipherable. Either he doesn't know the correct thing to say or he has an un-controllable urge to mumble.
IsolationInstigation 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IsolationInstigation
Cite one example/
DUB8leA 8 months ago
What a brain trust! I could listen to these guys all day.
Flipstick96 9 months ago 2
@Flipstick96 same here ;D
freiheitsalv 8 months ago
1:45 - Santa starts dying.
1:48 - Santa dies.
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago
Grrrrrrrrrrr!
Now that we've seen the four Horsemen, the Apocalypse is going to happen...
DOH!
MrOverdoser 11 months ago
Yes most churches have it wrong, they are not teaching the true Gospel. My God/Christ accepts everyone; Blind, wretched, thieves, etc... Come As You Are! But what I found out was when I started praying to "Him" is He accepted me as I am (a real jerk), But then He changed me and my goals. His most important laws were LOVE God and LOVE Your Neighbor more than yourself. Now that is my goal! When He freed us of our sins, He freed us from the accusers (most atheists, but some evangelists) Peace!
MrOverdoser 11 months ago
So MrOverdoser, a self-proclaimed "jerk," will be rewarded with eternal life while a person like Gandhi will be punished forever just because he believes Jesus is God? I'm sure the Son of Sam serial killer who was "saved" in prison deserves a reward too right? Christianity is the most popular religion because it's the most convenient. Just say a few words and you're in! Excuse me, but I find difficulty finding ANY justice in this, especially "divine justice."
ragzy02 10 months ago
LOL if it was just say a few words, and you're in, every one would be a Christian. You have to feel that God Loves You, but He loves you enough to change you into a better human being. I'm a reformed jerk, I've seen the errors of my ways, and with God I can follow in His footsteps and be what real humans need to be=completely loving of each other. I still get mad at people who cut me off, but if I die after swearing at someone, I'd still be saved - the righteousness is in Him, where it is SAFE!
MrOverdoser 10 months ago
@MrOverdoser You were a jerk, so don't be a jerk anymore. You don't need God for that. Humans also do not need to be completely loving of each other, although that would be a bonus in a world of civility. They need just to be tolerant, and have the freedom to not love someone who does not deserve it. I don't love Adolf Hitler....by your theory you love him or think that others should do. That is just one flaw of "Christianity".
suckit69er 8 months ago
I disagree with Dennetts idea that we should not label anything as a mystery. How about not knowing how many planets there are in the whole universe? Can't we call that a mystery? Because we could never know how many planets there are in this vast universe. This IS an impossible task.
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
@knowthetruth1492 "Because we could never know how many planets there are in this vast universe. This IS an impossible task." you know in about 200-300 years people could laugh to such stements.
I bet that 1000 years ago peopple said that our world(earth) is center of the universe. . . oh w8 they have.
MrPrankmastergeneral 10 months ago
@MrPrankmastergeneral , Im pretty sure that in 200-300 years from now, people still won't know how many planets there are in the universe. And the people who believed that the earth was at the center of the earth did so because, they believed that their god had a special plan for humans.
knowthetruth1492 10 months ago
@MrPrankmastergeneral Its not impossible. If we keep evolvoving at the alarming rate we are going at, and manage to find a way to travel great distances in short periods of time or to prolong human life to the capability of long distance travel, then we will eventually know how many planets there are in the universe. Not that it matters at all, it matters whats on the planets and the placement of them not how may there are.
suckit69er 8 months ago
I find it sickening that Hitchens (at 3:43) and Harris (at 5:43) bow to Dennett The Mickey-Mouse Philosopher as though he's a scientist.
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@drunkagnostic
Dennett's field of study IS a scientific field: cognitive science.
Dealing with how & why philosophy comes about in humans, and how this information is interpreted and represented in the body's mechanics. Not just philosophy but other things such as language, and sensory information... etc.
ElDuorPaso 11 months ago
@ElDuorPaso Dennett's degree is in philosophy, not science. He has no more scientific credentials than George W. Bush.
drunkagnostic 11 months ago
@drunkagnostic that's hyperbolic. Dawkins has said that Dennett often brings things about evolution to his attention before he comes across them himself. Dennett is extremely well-versed in biology.
PapaWilk 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit.
Dear religion, fuck off and die.
Amen
AnAtheisticAbomb 1 year ago
lol the # of thiests decrease each pt, slowly losing the battle with there logic:)
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin Yeah, I predict 0 theists comments by part 12 and comments from theists about their lost of faith due to this gentlemen brilliant words.
DaGavinX 1 year ago 3
Hitchens smoking a J on the sly.
0110101001101110 1 year ago 3
@0110101001101110 Not so sly these days.
BrokenBard 1 year ago
They talk about religion, politics, philosophy and physics with an exceptional level of intellect and familiarity. Find me any religious leaders who can discuss on these topics with such affinity and calmness and I'll admire your infinite research.
Ioannisthegreat7 1 year ago
@Ioannisthegreat7 these men are exceptional. I challenge you to find a professor who can converse the variety of topics with such thoughtfulness and depth that the four here did.
TrueMusou 1 year ago
260 people have not yet evolved the capacity of cognitive reasoning.
bobnelly 1 year ago 2
@Thronsohn I totally agree. So sad that cancer is trying to claim this great man's life.
DARKx85xKNIGHT 1 year ago
i just wish we could travel back in time to this day. id tell hitchens to see a doctor.
Thronsohn 1 year ago 89
@Thronsohn lol i was thinking the same thing....
mihaimoldo 8 months ago
Jesus freaks and right wing facist simpletons are already touting that god gave Hitchens throat cancer to stop his condemnation of the church and christianity. I despise all religious people. Fuck your god!
scotttebben 7 months ago
@Thronsohn Man you just took my wish from my heart when I started seeing this. Someone should have told Hitchens to start being careful about smoking. Brilliant minds deserve to stay on alive as long as possible. If I was in Hitchen's circle of friends (a very strong wish), I would have tried every thing humanly possible to get him off smoking.
Chanks420 7 months ago
@Chanks420 theres not much one can do. i smoked for many years and i can tell you, it is a very irrational thing that no one but the smoker himself can deside to stop. greetings from germany.
Thronsohn 7 months ago
Maybe it's the English nazi in me, but I prefer strict adherence to definitions when possible, and as such I actually don't mind being called as fundamentalist as a terrorist. Fundamentalist is just another word for principled after all; we just share extremely different principles. Now I do object strongly to the label extremist or militant. Every time I'm called militant, I want to become militant just to teach my accuser what the word means =P
darkmiles22 1 year ago
I think Dennet's sympathetic view of many religious believers is very helpful. It's important that when trying to teach atheism and science we don't treat the religious believer as though they were an idiot. Almost all religious believers either haven't thought about the issues, or they have been stifled from free thought from a young age through upbringing or community. This doesn't make them idiotic.
BrosoKintobor 1 year ago 64
@BrosoKintobor Very true
anyrock22 1 year ago
@BrosoKintobor Very true, I am an atheist and I come from a christian background and it's not that I reject these ideologies I was just completely ignorant to them. Instead of learning about something I would just learn christian One-linners like "Carbon 14 dating doesn't work" or " evolution can't be proven" Its not really stupidity, but more of an ignorance.
CameronCanFLY 1 year ago
@CameronCanFLY
It's such a shame. One of the physics lecturers at my university said that when he was young and going to church he was told about how the wine and bread were literally meant to become Jesus' blood and body during the ceremony. He got excited at this and, being scientifically minded, proposed to the vicar that they conduct an experiment he had thought up to test the hypothesis. He was sent out of the church for being disobedient. It makes you laugh, but the truth is very sad
BrosoKintobor 1 year ago
@BrosoKintobor I suppose the same argument could be applied to any one who follows orders.
henryporter101 11 months ago
@BrosoKintobor It kind of makes them cowardly, or weak. They refused to put questions to the words of their parents' or community's religion, which I'll admit can be trying. However, it's not so difficult that we can allow those that don't their excuses.
Pierce4316 10 months ago
@BrosoKintobor Agreed. I would only critique your argument by suggesting that reason and science are enough, i.e., atheism is somewhat of a 5th wheel that can follow the former only after reason and science have been properly established.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@writersblock26
True dat. It was a pretty long time ago when I posted my comment, and as a freethinker my opinions change with regard to many things as time goes on lol but I think what I meant originally by 'teaching atheism' was to teach what atheism is about, not to preach it as though it were fact. Mentioning atheism alongside science in the same sentence probably wasn't the best way of putting it, I'll admit :)
BrosoKintobor 9 months ago
@BrosoKintobor I strongly disagree. They are stupid and should be ridiculed to the utmost.
scotttebben 7 months ago
@BrosoKintobor i agree, but to an extent...once you've countered every opposing argument, and gave religious ppl sufficient knowledge, if the still believe stories like noahs ark, then hostility is definitely required....at least for the sake of intelligence within humanity
keewee1091 7 months ago
@BrosoKintobor Couldn't agree with you more, dude!
You have remarkably good phrasing, I have to say.
Personally, I think that the best way to "shake" people awake is to mock, not them, but their superstitious religious beliefs. Mock their superstition with wit, but treat the PERSON with dignity and respect.
Don't jeer or sneer at someone because they don't know what they're talking about.....
Just prove them wrong, and then MOCK THAT WRONGNESS, not the person.
GoodAvatar 6 months ago
@BrosoKintobor Patronising.
drscribe 5 months ago
@BrosoKintobor
Claiming evolution as false and the earth being 6000 years old does make one look like an idiot.
The religious tend to force their crap down everybody's throat, threatening scientific achievements
sonykroket 4 months ago
@sonykroket I think you're both right in your different approaches. Just look at the speakers in the video. Hitchens and Dawkins are very forceful and mock believers for their idiocy and that def gets some believers to think. Harris and Dennet mock the belief more than the people and they win people over that way. We need all types of approaches to free thought and atheism to reach people of different personality types in order to be effective.
RegularSmith 1 month ago
@RegularSmith
Well, i dont really need anyones approval
sonykroket 1 month ago
I love how Hitchens is smoking a cigarette and drinking what looks like scotch, while Harris quietly pours himself another glass of perrier. Two very different men with equally brilliant ideas about life. I like them both very much, I once drank like a fish and smoked like a chimney, seems like a lifetime ago. Now I drink perrier like Sam.
DylanTownesDrake 1 year ago
I like these guys. But can't evolution just be the answer to how? and God be the answer to why?
I don't think you can compare and contrast science with religion when they to seek to address different questions. They'll say science does this...religion cant do that. Of course it can't! Religion would never try to do that. That is not what religion is for. Religion and science just have different roles. Roles that don't have to run in competition with each other.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 The creative force behind the universe and everything in it, including the diversity of life on Earth is a deeply scientific question. If one possible explanation is god, then god must be open to discussion on scientific terms. As for evolution as god's way of developing life, Genesis doesn't state that and evolution itself would tend to argue against complexity (god) pre-existing simplicty. Religion must meet the scientific test and it doesn't.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 Obviously scripture written thousands of years ago. Back when people had no idea of what atoms or molecules or anything like were we could assume that things like Genesis should be understood as metaphor and not to be taken literally. Something like the Bible is not a source of authority on matters of science, but rather a source for its main theological claims. If could elaborate on what you mean by "religion must meet the scientific test and it does not?" Maybe an example?
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 There's no reason to assume that the Bible's authors intended Genesis or anything else as metaphor. It's only in modern scientific times that people have proposed a more allegorical interpretation because science and rational thought have totally challenged the validity of the Bible's literal explanation. And if we accept Genesis isn't literal truth what else should get the same treatment, and how do you know which books? Sounds like cherry picking to me. (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@thickhead11 As for religion meeting the scientific test, I mean proof of the major claims in eg Genesis. The Bible makes very specific claims that are open to scientific inquiry. Science makes a nonsense of such claims and I see nothing from Creationists too suggest otherwise. On the contrary, we have the Creation Museum in Kentucky telling lies, especially to children, about how dinosaurs coexisted with humans or how the Grand Canyon was carved out by a huge flood. (CONT...)
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 "Cherry picking??" you assume that every religious person needs be a fundamentalist? Or that the Bible implies fundamentalist interpretation. We have a lot of reason to believe that the Biblical authors intended many of the things that they wrote to be metaphorical. Where you draw the line is up to the interpreter. The Bible does not interpret itself and it is filled scientific flaws because it of the epistemology of the time frame in which it is written.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 I assume that the Bible says what it says and whoever reads it and accepts it as the word of god also accepts it all or nothing - no selecting the nice and easy bits and whitewashing over the unpleasant and indefensible bits. It is the word of god or it isn't. And that's not my demand - that's what believers represent the Bible to be and have done since the early days of the church. Of course, there are parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with questions of creation and (CONT)
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 Accepting it all as true doesnt mean accepting it all as literal. Much of it was never suppose to be taken as literal. Let me ask you do you understand a non-fiction book the same way that you understand poetry? You cant understand the meaning unless you understand the genre of the book you are reading. For instance something like Job or Noah and the Ark is OBVIOUSLY fiction and therefore metaphorical. You cant understand those stories meanings unless you understand the genre
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 How do you know that Job or Noah are intended as fiction and other stories in the Bible are not? On what basis are you making the distinction?
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 You mean other than common sense? You could use any number of criteria for historicity. It mostly based on an exegetical understanding of what the original author's context and purpose for writing the book would've been.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 divinity but there are substantial claims made throughout the text of both the OT and NT. Now, those claims are either meant to be understood literally or they are not. If you say they are not, how do you know that and why are there interpretations that say they are literal? Who is to be believed? And this applies to all so-called holy texts, not just Christian texts.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 "Those claims meant to understood literally or they are not."? Really? I just explained to you that there are tons of different genres of literature in the Bible. You understand each genre differently in light of what each individual text is trying to say. For instance the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is clearly metaphorical? I dont lose any meaning in not thinking of it as a literal historical event. In fact I get more meaning from it when I see it as metaphorical.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 So if the Tree of Knowledge is metaphorical that means there was no Fall of Man and no Original Sin, right? In which case, why does Jesus need to be sacrificed?
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007Please explain how tree of knowledge of Good and evil being metaphorical cancels out the fall of man? All the tree is a metaphor used to show that man choose something other than what God intended. It simply used to help us understand that God didnt create the world to be this way. That the way things are is not the way that they ought to be. And that sin's hegemony is not doing of God but of man.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 Religion does seek to demarcate for itself a realm that it claims is its own, but, personally, I can't think of a single question or issue in life that a person posing as a pastor, vicar, bishop, pope or whatever is any better qualified to answer than a non-believer with a good grasp of science and a modicum of common sense.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 We are operating from such drastically different understandings of what the Bible fundamentally is. I do not believe the Bible to be some kind of objective disembodied voice of truth from God's diary. But to be written by different authors, in different time frames, different contexts and writing different genres of writing: narrative, poetry, letters, fiction, historical non-fiction. All of which had no idea that what they were writing would end up in something called Bible.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 As far as questions of life. I do not assume that religious people have a monopoly on morality or that pastors are the only ones that can answer certain questions. There are some questions that I would prefer the perspective of a theologian or pastor than I would a scientist. For instance I dont feel that a physicist although brilliant is in any better place to inform me as to the meaning of life as anyone else is. He can tell how things work but he cant tell me why they do?
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 You make my point for me. Correct, a physicist may not be able to give you any more insight into the meaning of life than your pastor but he won't necessarily offer you any less. There is absolutely nothing that a pastor 'knows' that can be understood as more meaningful on the subject than any other person who has contemplated it. What does a pastor, a religious person, know that a non-religious person doesn't know? The mind of god? Please! This is such a fallacy!
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 main reason Id go to theologian over a physicist is cuz Im banking on the fact that the theologian has probably spent more time thinking about why. While the scientist as spent most of his time figuring how. Ultimately its subjective and unverifiable. I mean to say religion and science seek to answer different questions. Cant we argee on that? or do you think they try to ask the same questions and are therefore in conflict?
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 Why shouldn't a physicist have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about why questions? Just because he's professionally a scientist does that exclude him/her from such questions? Why not go to a gardner who spends all day prune his flowers and mulling over the mysteries of life to while away the time. Priests are no more qualified than any other person.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 Lets not break it down to individuals am sure there are many scientists that have thought more about it than pastors. Just could we agree that the religion and science seek to answer different questions? Yes or no?
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 No. The "why" only exists if you think there is meaning behind the existence of life and the universe. If science if correct and it's all a natural process, there is no "why", only "how".
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 I gotta be honest thou. I have never heard of a agnostic/atheist (you never mentioned what you are). Advocate for fundamentalism. That is definitely a first.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 sorry before you jump on me for that last comment. Obviously you are not advocating for fundamentalism. You simply asserting that all religious people are fundamentalists. And then you are critiquing religion based on that assertion. When in reality only a fraction of religious people are fundamentalists. You literally build a false religion and then attack that because it easier to critique
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 No. I recognise that not all believers are fundamentalists in the sense that we mean. But all believers do or should acknowledge the texts and the texts are clear about what they say. However, this is all rather meaningless. We can argue over literal or metaphorical meaning and get nowhere. The real question is are the texts evidence of god and if so, where did god come from?
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 where did God come from? When we say that God is free to exist, we do not say that God lifts Himself, as it were, out of non-existence, that He makes Himself free to exist. What we say is that the mode of existence is proper to Him which is exempt from any limitation by the possibility of its non-existence. He is the One who is in Himself the Existent. By existing in this way He is not subject to any necessity, as though He must first exist in order to be who He is.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 I dont think that "Do the texts serve as proofs for God" is the real question.
The text are not really all that concerned with whether or not a God exists. They are much more concerned with what kind of God exists.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 Utter nonsense! OK, if you want to justify the possible existence of a prime mover in this way, go for it. But for those of us with our feet in reality this is nothing more than cheap pseudo-intellectual babble. The textual equivalent of white noise.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tap But by His existence He simply reaffirms Himself, but that, being who He is, He does in fact reaffirm Himself and His existence. Obviously if a being like God exists He would need no origin of existence other then Himself
"If science is correct there is no why" Really? Please explain your sceifitic evidence proving this
Is it so irrational to believe that the uncaused cause was something rather than nothing. That something created everything rather than that nothing created it?
thickhead11 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 by saying there is no why. You mean that you occured rather than were created. Saying there is no why seems pretty close to saying there is no meaning. Do you believe that life has no meaning? Maybe you could elaborate if Im off base
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 Acknowledging there is no why does not mean there is no meaning in life. I'm stunned at the number of believers who make this connection when it's a complete non sequitur. Just because the cosmos offers no objective meaning it doesn't follow that sentient beings can't discover meaning for themselves. The fact that we're having this discussion proves that point. Your point about us not finding out there is no meaning in the universe and the bit about light isn't logical at all (CONT)
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@thickhead11 Arguing that dark is meaningless without light is yet more babble. Darkness and light exist in the universe whether we are here to see it or not. Light is electromagnetic radiation usually resulting from a thermal source (e.g. a star/sun). It has wide ranging consequences for the nature and dynamics of the universe and our appreciation of it is irrelevant. There are trillions of stars/sources of light that will exist long after humanity has disappeared.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 All I am saying is that is not a illogical irrational leap to believe that something created everything than that nothing did. Ya know the whole uncaused cause. The first mover.
saying things like "pseudo-intellectual babble" is nice except you kind of have to explain to me WHY it is pseudo-intellectual babble and just say that it is.
As far as the meaning of life thing. Was just trying to get on the same page. I wasnt sure if you thought there was meaning or not.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@thickhead11 It's pseudo-intellectual babble because on the face of it you may have the semblance of an argument but if one pauses to consider what you're actually saying there's nothing there: lots of words, lots of nice educated terms like "mode of existence" but no substance. It means nothing. And even if I concede you have a point, where do you get this knowledge from? At the very best it's wild specualtion, at worst it's frantic thrashing around for an explanation for the inexplicable.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 so because they know more words than you they're wrong?
savage09256 1 year ago
@savage09256 When you understand the point I was making, you can join the grown ups' discussion. Until then, don't waste your time...
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tapiola2007 so because they know more words than you they're wrong?
savage09256 1 year ago
@thickhead11 You seem to think you've solved the infinite regress problem posed by the prime mover by arbitrarily stating that god isn't or by necessity can't be restrained by the need to lift himself out of non-existence in order to exist. Well, you're free to believe that but it's not a rigourous testable theory that can put to bed the single most important question man has asked himself.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tapiola2007 texts are not concerned with whether or not God exists, but they are much more concerned with what type of God exists.
thickhead11 1 year ago
@markp10311969 why for the sake of alliteration
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
If Dennett were intellectualy honest he'd get up from the table and leave the heavy lifting to the other three. I cannot for the life of me figure out why this simpleton was invited to sit amongst such luminaries! He is an embarrassment.
markp10311969 1 year ago
Richard is way too polite. Dennett jumps in at every opportunity and steals time from Richard.
killsourenemy 1 year ago
Yeah when atheists gather once in a blue moon to talk about their beliefs it's boring and one-sided, lets forget about the religious who gather in swarms at least once a week to hear from other religious people which only strengthens their belief through faith based confirmation.
killsourenemy 1 year ago 4
@killsourenemy Well, this wasn't exactly thier idea to get together. People have been buggin' the crap outta them to do this.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy I was being sarcastic. I would like to see more gatherings like this. ;D
killsourenemy 1 year ago
@killsourenemy I tend to be very sarcastic myself, it just never relays it in text. Though, I wasn't on your case or nothin'
splicedenergy 1 year ago
My dad used to educate me with science when I was young telling me to research for the facts. Now he is one of those reborn christians totally abandoning science. He said the bible proves that the world is only 6000 years old or something like that I all I could do to not start a heated debate with him was to walk away laughing.
shicky2001 1 year ago
@shicky2001 Does this not raise some amazing questions about the human mind? I marvel constantly at the things that seemingly otherwise rational people can believe. It kills me. I need to find an atheist support group or something.
trueleroix 1 year ago
I'm Catholic and I just love hearing these men think. Truely refreshing. All religious people should listen to their common sense, and learn. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go pray my Rosary, just like Louis Pasteur, you know... the French Catholic microbiologist, chemist and physicist who discovered a cure against Rage ! Peace.
Versgolem 1 year ago
@Versgolem Do you realise that Louis Pasteur lived in the 1800's? I'm not denying that he is intelligent, but it dangerous to justify your entire world-view solely with the fact that some intellectual members of your religion existed several hundred years ago. Today, approximately 65-95% of all scientists in the western world are either atheists or agnostic, which is a much higher proportion than the average population of nearly all countries.
seany505 1 year ago
i'm gonna stick to agnosticism, neither these guys nor religious people are going to convince me
marcusantonio91 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 Do you even know what agnosticism means? You have to have a philosophical justification for your belief just like atheists reject theism and theists defend theism. To be an agnostic you have to believe that no atheistic or theistic arguments are convincing.
seany505 1 year ago
@marcusantonio91 I agree with the statement that theistic arguments are feeble, but how are the arguments in favour of rejecting theism, eg. the argument of natural evil, inconsistent revelations, the weakness of faith, the fallibility of holy books, the number of religions, and so on ... how do you find these unconvincing critiques of theistic dogma?
seany505 1 year ago
Look towards Wales for answers
rogiet3 1 year ago
Music?! What the hell?
AlexanderDGraham 1 year ago
I don't find these videos boring at all. I'm trying to get better at debating or just having conversations with religious people to attempt to make them open their eyes which is pretty much impossible but listening to these four guys talk helps alot. I also just bought Sam's book The End of Faith and Dawkin's book The God Delusion.
omgimontheinternet 1 year ago
Is this the most boring video of all time?
rogiet3 1 year ago
only to stupid people
raztis1 1 year ago
@raztis1 Then I must be very stupid
rogiet3 1 year ago
possibly... i found it to be an invigorating conversation about the reality of human hypocrasy, and what needs to be done to open minds to reality
raztis1 1 year ago
@rogiet3 A term is only measured by it's definition. Definition can be manipulated by the person that is using that word/words. If you define yourself as stupid then you must be stupid in your perspective. Although with this manipulation of meanings it may not align with other person's or parties ideals.
XaneCrazy 1 year ago
@XaneCrazy
Hi there. No I am not stupid, just found it boring and very one sided
rogiet3 1 year ago
@rogiet3 One sided? I'll gladly help clear up or even converse with you on any issues they discuss as long as your "open minded" about it. I certainly am.
XaneCrazy 1 year ago
i might play this video when i'm trying to sleep to help cure my insomnia.
bull864 1 year ago
hear here
OH MY GOD - the secular song
astrologysongs 1 year ago
Seria ótimo com legendas em português!!
tavarespe 1 year ago
I love how as I progress through the parts in this series, the number of theists leaving comments decreases. They clearly have lost interest after half an hour.
Englishdosser86 1 year ago 85
@Englishdosser86 nice observation
memento18poker 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 Very wrong. I'm a theist and have seen the whole thing, and many more debates with all 4.
130adi 1 year ago
@130adi Sorry, but you watching all of it doesn't invalidate what I've said.
Englishdosser86 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 lol That is awesome.
suthezcian 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86
Someone put curtains on ! Dawkins is trying avoid sunlight right into freking eye! (at start)
mrkk666 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 hahaha i guess their head exploded
flumberg 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 well, either that or they're watching it and finding nothing to bitch about.
boredwithlife04 1 year ago
Sam Harris can never interject when Hitchens is talking lol. He's like 0/49 so far.
KnightXIXVII 1 year ago
Well seems like we're done. If your in denial that the fossils we are finding are older then 6,000 years we really have nothing further to discuss. It's simply not possible to have a serious conversation with someone that will spit in the face of so many scientific diciplines. Until you are willing to concede that the fossil records cover milliions of years, that the earth is some 4+ billion years old and that modern humans are aroud 100K years your simply not capable of being rational.
PaleHearse 2 years ago
It is your speculation that puts fossils to be any older than actual historical accounts say. It is irrational to say that humans have been around longer than we have evidence of them being around. There is no evidence of humans on earth more than 6,000 years. There should be a lot more evidence than there is so enjoy your fantasy until you have to face the reality.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
yea, you cant argue with religious fanatics. they think a completely fictional book is all the world needs.
in reality, its fiction... has absolutly no truth.
like "fossils are put here to test our faith"
no they are here beceause shit existed.
God is fake.. people just need to grow up
briantheman890 2 years ago
Last thing they want is to grow up I think. That would mean that they would have to come to grips with the fact that they are a very small part of what is going on around them. They would then truly have to take responsibility for what they do in this life to give it meaning rather then treating their existence here like some worldly breadline that somehow grants them access to gods soup kitchen where they become some kind of eternal welfare recipient. Great till it gets in the way of science.
PaleHearse 2 years ago
The strawmen that you create are not real.
Address the issues. Objects do not design nano technology.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You are naive to think that you can't be wrong. Address and face the issues to see how wrong you are. Objects do not order information. Objects do not create nano technology.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Seek..
Actually it has to a great degree. When talking about whales though, do please stick to whales.There is fossil evidence, lots of it, showing the migration of the blowhole over time from the nostrils. The nylon eating bacteria is also a wonderful example of evolution in our lifetime. Ignoring the mounting evidence isn't going to get you very far. Do you really understand how fossil evidence is applied? How old do you believe the earth is? Also, it's not "nano tech", its just chemestry.
PaleHearse 2 years ago
The problem that you have is that there is no actual record of any human history any older than 6,000 years and the fossil record that you do have is no more than 4500 years old. Reptiles still do not turn into mammals and deer do not turn into whales anyway. Bacteria will always be bacteria and mutations do not account for all of the variation there is which is even more evidence of design. Don't confuse the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. Chemistry has no information, silly.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
...besides, it is much more than "chemistry", it is nano technology. That is where the information that is required comes into play.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
dude shut up, you have like 10 people saying your an idiot.
we dont believe in your stupid fictional story.
fact > fiction
science > religion
god is made to make people back then be good. just like santa makes kids be good for presents. EXACT same shit.
if we celebrate christmas for jesus' birth, with a FAKE santa. what makes his birth real?
just stop respondnig, your a fucking moron
briantheman890 2 years ago
The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
It didn't kill the truth when they killed Yeshua (Jesus). It confirmed the truth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Take on the clergy, and we're condescending the parishioners by assuming that they don't know any better.
Take on the congregation, and we're killing hope and insulting them by attacking their dearest beliefs.
*sigh*
It's emotional blackmail that precludes any argumentation in the first place!
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
If you would stop trying to attack people and learn something, you would be a lot better off. There is a lot of good reason for being quiet and listening before you open your mouth. In order to learn something, you have to learn from someone who knows. That's because people will very easily confuse everything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy "Someone who knows." I guess that would be you huh? I don't think so.
jereuter01 2 years ago
Don't even suggest that I am the only person that knows. There are many people around the world that know the truth. There is only one truth the same as there is only one God because there cannot be two different truths as there cannot be two different gods. You can't be serious.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
If you know that someone possesses "The Truth," than you yourself know that Truth, since otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the real philosopher king from your average hokey panjandrum.
I admire the four horsemen because of their eloquence, their reasoned argument, and because they have no such pretension to any Universal Truth. They are still pursuing the best system of beliefs, and are never going to consider that pursuit complete. The one who thinks he possesses Truth cannot admit error.
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
@wilfredthebold You got it! SMTP doesn't,
jereuter01 2 years ago
The horse guys are just guessing because they don't know the truth.
Only people who agree about everything know the truth because there is only one truth. Acknowledging that there is a Creator is not an error. It is acknowledging the obvious truth that is so evident.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy - No, you cant be serious.. You assume you know the truth because you were probably brought up to think so. Sorry you dont know.
OriginDebate 2 years ago
I know the truth because I have checked things out for myself. I have found that everything the Bible says is true. I have found out that all the speculation and conjecture that evolutionists make is all wrong. Nothing about evolution is true. All of the evidence supports the existence of a Creator and the Creation.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Show us your evidence. Now.
I've seen your comments on a great number of videos, and they're getting old.
I demand to see you evidence. If you can't provide any, leave.
rolyan3 2 years ago
You are the evidence of Creation. Just look in the mirror. You are the result of billions of observable digits from designed interchangeable elements that the entire universe is also made of that have commanded the formation of everything that you are. This kind of nano technology requires design by intent for us to be made from the same interchangeable nanoparts that the entire universe is also made of. Nothing ever works apart from design. The only reason that we work is because of the intent.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I'm only going to say this once: research. If you think that the complex workings of biology and physics require design by intent, then you have not done the research. There are hundreds of solid, peer-reviewed, undisputed refutations of your claim, and not one of them is inaccessible. You have no excuse to make such a claim while there is a never ending torrent of opposition. You have been either willingly or incidentally ignorant. Go fix it.
rolyan3 2 years ago
None of your "research" is able to explain any of the billions of digits of directives that even one life form has. You are only kidding yourself. There is the observable META information that is also not accounted for by any of your "research". Mutations also do not account for all of the variation that we see.
Do you even understand how wrong you are? You are wrong billions of times over.
You can't even explain in your own words what it is that you believe. That's how far fetched it is.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Your not qualified to speak on biology, evolution or any other subject frankly. Your lack of understanding of even the timeframe the planet operates on make you unable to comprehend how slow these processes actually are. Man's historical record, and the fairytale you believe in, only arived after man was capable of passing down these records.
I don't say this often, and I don't intend it to be mean spirited, but you sir.. are ignorant of a great many things. I now see why churches are full.
PaleHearse 2 years ago
You are not able to address or even face any of the issues. You keep on convincing yourself with the strawmen that you create and you believe your own story that you made up. It is the evolution that you believe in that is the fabricated fantasy. You are making up things and believing them which is no different than carving an idol and thinking that it will save you. Like the Bible says, "you cannot cover yourself with the webs that you weave."
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
you are maniacal and need some help
OriginDebate 2 years ago
You need to face and address the issues. You actually think that it makes you look better if you put someone down. FYI, it makes you look even worse than you show yourself to be.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I apologize, my intentions are not to put you down, they are to make you conscious of the fallacious ideology in which you are trying to assert. however, it would seem that this is improbable due to your preconceived schema, so my words will be blunt. I am no better than you and vice versa, and there seems to be no need to prove that I am. So if you would like to discuss a certain argument I would happily reply but I am afraid your arguments and assumptions may be completely bias..
OriginDebate 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was taught that the "Trinity" was a mystery and that you had to take it on faith, but no one ever said hey go read up on how it came to be the central dogma of Christianity. No wonder! Once you realize that it has no basis in faith or reality, the whole house of Christian theology comes tumbling down.
jereuter01 2 years ago
Comment removed
jereuter01 2 years ago
"Circular fundamentalism" describes Mr. Seekmosttoprophesy's weird nonsensical comments here. Hey Seek! Where did you learn your art of persuasion? I know, "your pastor told you."
jereuter01 2 years ago
jereuter01 Where did you learn how to try to avoid addressing the issues?
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy From nucklehead lemmings like you who blindly follow the pied-piper into the sea of spiritual oblivion.
jereuter01 2 years ago
Address an issue. Objects do not order billions of observable digits of directives.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago