@swordsage here is another point worth pondering, you mentioned that bacteria have "come a long way" . Well it's true that natural selection brings out the most resistant bacteria to survive antibiotics. Yes that is true. But over hundreds of billions of years they are 'still' bacteria. They have adapted & varied ( as all creatures do) but they are still bacteria.
@swordsage until otherwise, I will continue to believe in God as my creator, that He created me for an important reason, & that my life has true meaning within that context. Of coarse I never stop searching, but the more I do search ( including all aspects of science) the more I discover my belief in the Biblical God to be more & more true. It's a fallacy that Christians are 'ignorant of testable science'. A friend of mine is a geologist & has a degree in Biology, he became a Christian because
@swordsage if someone could show me how the critical, interdependent components of an animal could build themselves up from a simple single felled organism or better still, show me the observable science that show how inanimate elements can build themselves into reproducing bio machines, I will consider the atheistic formation of life a possibility.
@swordsage its true I don't have a biology degree, but I know enough basic biology (including evolution) to use as a base for discussion. Something else puzzles me, you seem to have an avid belief in atheistic evolution, & I'm guessing it's due to your own open analysis on the relevant material. However I feel that if you cannot answer these critical questions that I have referee to, I don't know how you can believe in this theory.( I have to say, you are more easily satisfied than me) I don't
@swordsage well here's the rub, I have studied 12 months biology at college already, I have done written assignments on biology & I have found 'nothing' that answers my questions. It's all 'hypothetical ideas'. They don't even have an empirical answer regarding how DNA emerged. Even less complex self replicating RNA has never been found in nature. Evolutionists argue between themselves on this issue. One postulation is the hypothetical 'RNA' world' theory, but it is full of problems. It doesn'
@swordsage for example why would a cardiovascular system evolve if there are no organs to feed with blood? How could organs even exist without a blood supply?
@swordsage well basic forms of bacteria are still around (they haven't evolved into anything else) whatever the environmental conditions were eons ago when they 'evolved' the conditions up to now have supported them & they reproduce the same as they always have. However animals are here living together in the same modern environment. It's easy to say that the cardio vascular system "evolved" somehow along the way, but you have to explain how every detail of precise, interdependent, matching of
@mpsmike All your answers could be gotten and basically understood if you took a college course on biology, particularly on the topic of multicellularity, the function of DNA and RNA, and the development of sexual reproduction. You also have to realize that bacteria has evolved greatly over the years, otherwise we wouldn't have to keep developing new antibacterials to keep up with them.
I can't give you these answers; I already told you before that I'm not an evolutionary biologist.
@swordsage actually very good question; what did come first the chicken or the egg? If we are dealing with science & logical argument, then this requires a satisfying answer. This is not a philosophical question it is a reality that it requires an answer that conforms with natural science,( as far as evolutionists are concerned that is). So what evolved first the cardiovascular system or the reproductive system in animals?
@mpsmike Well, if you want my honest opinion... I can't exactly give you an "answer". :b
As I said before, environmental factors dictate what traits get developed, and organisms with certain traits conducive to thriving in a certain environment will live out the ones who don't have them. But when dealing with internal systems it gets tricky, since they're not independent of each other. The cardiovascular system needs to match the complexity of the organism...
@Swordsage ... and the reproductive system is supported by it. However, considering that even the most basic form of bacteria can reproduce, I personally think the odds are good that the reproductive system was around first, and evolved further along with a developing complex cardiovascular system later.
... you know, now that I think about it, that sorta answers the chicken and the egg question, doesn't it? :b
@swordsage But I am not debating religion or the nature of God with you,Christianity is my personal belief of choice. I can not argue with anyone about things that involve some faith. I have a question for you I thought of today ( not from any book) what evolved first in animals; the cardio vascular system or the reproductive system??
@mpsmike I wouldn't know, but really that would depend on what environmental factors the organism in question would have had to have been in. The evolution of an organism always depends upon natural selection, and on what particular traits help that animal survive and/or function well in a particular setting.
@swordsage The Christian religion is Bible based. We believe that the Bible is directly & indirectly the Word of God. Our religion is partly based on faith & partly based on observation. It actually says in the Bible that some truth is revealed in the physical universe (by science & observation if you like) the rest of the truth is hidden from us ( in the supernatural realm). The Bible also presents a context for the universes existence & our relationship to the Creator & to the natural univers
@swordsage one must be careful here not to mix religion with creation science. There are two debates here not one. The first is simply is there a supernatural creator responsible for life here on earth (with no further description on the nature of such an entity) two, if there is a creator, then who or what is It? & from this you have religious theology debate. Of coarse It is mostly common that Christian groups use creation science to help spread the word of the Bible. but it is unfair & total
@swordsage I don't know why you are suggesting that creationists have 'no' investigative science? This is entirely incorrect. There are journals regularly published for example that provide very interesting investigative science in all areas including biology, maths, physics, cosmology. One such publication is called 'technical journal' published by CMI. There is loads of science out there regarding creation to suggest otherwise is just ignorance. I am interested which creation material you hav
@mpsmike ... um, I'm sorry, but that journal is not really a true "peer reviewed" publication. For it to truly quality as such, the information inside would have to have been reviewed by scientists OUTSIDE the circles that write for that magazine; in other words, not just people associated with AIG. If Creationsts are the only people doing the reviewing, then it's not really going through the rigorous process that all other scientific investigation goes through.
@Swordsage Also, this and any other similar publications fall victim to the same problem I told you about earlier; namely that they have already come to a conclusion and are now looking for anything that helps them prove it, instead of looking at the data in front of them and drawing conclusions from that. The latter method is what makes something an investigative process, not the former.
@swordsage think about what you said earlier, that if the naturalistic origin of life becomes "more improbable" than the alternative must be even more so. Think about this, if life is found not to naturally emerge then the answer by definition is the opposite, this is critical thinking. Out of two only possible answers, the less likely one is by definition the MORE likely the alternative is. To be objective & fair it makes no logical sense.
@mpsmike Actually, you're the one not thinking carefully about this issue. You're trying to say that the improbability of life itself is somehow less improbable if you have an even more complex being behind it all, who somehow is exempt from the factors that should be in place to create complex beings. That's not just improbable, that's insane.
Plus, you assume that because they don't have THE answer to how live emerged, that the natural view is disprove. You need EVIDENCE for that.
@Swordsage You can't disprove something with a lack of evidence, you can only point to its unlikelihood (you know, just like you guys point out when it comes to a god). If you are to assert that life came from a supernatural conscious being, you have to show evidence for it. So far you guys have nothing. Meanwhile, scientists have found things that hint at life emerging as some gradual combination of elements. It's not the smoking gun, but it's certainly can't be called nothing.
@Swordsage You have to understand that your whole methodology about this is flawed: you and other creationists already came to a conclusion, and now you're trying to prove it. Scientists on the other hand are looking at the data in front of them and drawing conclusions from that. Anyone in criminal investigation will tell you that the latter approach is how you come to the right answer: the former approach leads to dishonest methods and ignoring evidence that disproves their stance.
@Swordsage Now, in regards to the origins of life, and from the little clues they picked up from studying biology and the development of organisms for over a century now, they now have their current viewpoints. It isn't something they just made up, this is a current consensus stemming from an ongoing investigative process. It is possible that with more clues and evidence down the line, they will find evidence that changes their stance. But its evidence that has to dictate that.
@Swordsage Creationism on the other hand is not a stance coming from an intensive investigative process. It is a position born from faith based reasoning that tries to find a way to prove old beliefs to somehow be true and relevant in a world that has developed by finding things out, and not just believing in things, a world that came about from an attempt to understand things. Your approach is to just accept things; notice your argument just comes down to "just accept this is god."
@Swordsage There's no real inquiry, no real attempt to investigate the situation, and certainly no attempt to consider all the alternatives on your particular assumption: there has to just be one designer, it;s based on just one religious perspective, the designer has to be infallible, etc. Inconvenient truths you just ignore, such as the imperfections seen throughout nature, that biological changes are continually observed, that a god itself would have had to have been "designed".
@Swordsage As such, you can;t call this position logical by any stretch of the imagination. The only way it can be is through honest investigative work, as well as having an actual understanding of the scientific principles you guys try to talk about. The problem is, if you do that, you'll end up with the same current stance most scientists have; that some intelligent designer existing is highly unlikely. It is only an assumption based on faith and lack of information, nothing more.
@Swordsage By the way, as someone who has studied the interesting history of the Christian religion and the development of the freethinker movement during the Enlightenment period of Europe, I find it highly ironic that these days, religious people are trying to argue that their views are more logical and reasonable. It really just goes to show how times have changed.
@swordsage as a man of science why should I believe them when they can't support there words with hard science? Am I being unrealistic here? It seems to me that the more they try to proove the naturalistic origin of life the more they discover how 'impossible it is. If something exists that cannot be explained by the natural laws, or is demonstrated to be impossible to occur naturally, then by intrinsic default it proves the existence of a supernatural entity.
@mpsmike No, it doesn't. You're assuming two things:
1: that they haven't found any evidence that shows that natural laws had anything to do with the origins of life. This is false. They haven't found the so called "silver bullet", but what they have found is what has kept them on this path of inquiry.
2: This this supernatural entity HAS to be your god. This is a leap of faith, and not a true intellectual deduction. If it was, you'd actually have evidence of this. You have none.
@swordsage I am simply saying, Dawkins, Darwin, Gould, who ever you want to consider, there are thousands of books, hours of research, endless ideas & philosophies about how life arose in the natural realm, but there is just no repeatable evidence to show how it happened within the natural realm.
@swordsage I said earlier that I have read his stuff & that is true, but not this book. I have also listened to lots of his interviews as well. In his book 'climbing mount improbable' ( which I read) he uses the Darwinian model of evolution to discredit creation. It is a major theme of the book. That's where I get my claim from. It might be a different book but it's the same guy were talking about with the same ideas. What you have refer to as 'statistical enormity' & 'highly improbable' is co
@swordsage it's lame how Dawkins can present such a critical view of the existence of God, yet avoid this fundamental link in the chain. Ask yourself this with an open mind, gets say that Darwinian evolution is totally true, how does that in any way render the existence of God as 'improbable' ?
@swordsage wait wait let's not stray off coarse here, we are debating wether or not " there probably isn't a God" not if evolution is true or not. I only used evolution as a side line because Dawkins ( the centre of attention here) uses Darwinian evolution theory as the basis of his atheistic claims. What has to be addressed is, whatever method of science you use, you cannot claim that "God probably doesn't exist" & ignore the fundamental problem of how inanimate base chemicals formed into supe
@mpsmike Actually, he doesn't use evolution as the basis of his claims. If you actually read the book, you'd see that he actually comes at this from various positions: chapter 4 alone (the one that argues why there probably is no god) presents information from chemistry, physics, mathematics, and even philosophy, fields that lie outside the scope of evolution. Furthermore, he doesn't even "ignore" that "fundamental problem". I guess you didn't understand this book, or skimmed it.
@Swordsage Also, you sorely need to come to terms with the following: just because we don't really understand how base chemicals ended up forming into living cells doesn't mean it automatically means a god did it. That's just one idea, and an unproven one at that. Yes, it's unproven; there isn't a shred of evidence that suggest some outside hand did this, just faith in old myths and stories. You're trying to prove an old conclusion: scientists are trying to come to a conclusion.
@Swordsage Lastly, to get back to the book, not once does he try to use evolution, or any other scientific theory, to explain the origin of life. While he doesn't ignore the statistical enormity of such a thing happening, he points out that in a vast universe with infinite possibility, such a thing could happen under the right circumstances, which is a logical assumption. His focus however is on the scientific, logical, philosophical, and ethical problems found with this god belief.
@Swordsage This would be apparent to anyone who has actually read and understood the book. His use of evolutionary theory is to show the flaws in thinking that creatures were instantly designed as they are by some divine being; when it comes to the more philosophical arguments, he deals with those in kind, with philosophy and logical debate. The entire book is not focused on just evolution alone, and to suggest such a thing is either ignorant, or intellectually dishonest.
@Swordsage I will say this though: He does believe that there is a problem with there being a god if evolution is a valid theory (and as far as we know, we meaning those who know about science, it is), since he thinks it makes god superfluous. After all, why come up with a process that once you get it started, you aren't needed at all in its continued operation? While he has a point, I personally don't really see the problem... but then that would suggest a god that isn't perfect.
@Swordsage The other problem he has with this is the improbability stacking: If being able to make life from inorganic elements is already highly improbable, then having an all powerful being being responsible for it is even more so, since such a being had to have been created from a similar process, if we are to follow the logic. To say that this god is outside of such forces is pretty much cheating, and reeks of someone trying to have it both ways. You want to talk about lame...
@swordsage there is nothing in the known universe that defies these principles, accept the formation of complex life from uncomplex chemicals. Whether is is one year or a trillion. In regards to 'millions of years', I know they say that life builds itself over long eons of time ever so slowly, well that is an unobserved guess. Scientists have taken organisms that have a short generation span, & simulated thousands if not millions of generations of species such as fruit flies, & guess what? The
@mpsmike Again, the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you understood the theory, you'd know this, and thus would not keep bringing up the question of organic creatures being formed from inorganic matter. The theory of evolution does not concern itself with that question, and if you truly want to stick to talking about this theory, neither should you.
Once again, you don't understand this subject. I implore you to research it properly.
@swordsage this is not 'faulty' science, it is fundamental physics. Everything breaks down into 'basic' equilibrium order. Even every living organism must obey this law, when death occurs, the complex bio chemical structures return to less structured forms towards 'equilibrium' now you will say that rebirth occurs, perpetuating life, yes, but only because of the programed assembly of DNA molecules that facilitate this. The miracle is how the molecules in DNA formed into complex structures that
@swordsage well actually some of the science I have read is not only more convincing than evo theory, it basically renders it impossible. Eg the fundamental laws of thermodynamics dictate that chemical reactions & heat displacement always head from a reactive state to a less reactive state or 'equilibrium'. This implicates that anything overtime will 'breakdown' rather than 'construct' into higher level assembly & so forth (as evolution requires) that is why everything you see 'breaks down' ove
@mpsmike This is a classic example of not knowing about the theory of evolution. It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics anymore than a bird goes against the laws of gravity by being able to fly. A bird does active work to stay aloft, and evolution does active work to develop organisms.
Again, you seriously need to study this subject before trying to comment on it. I'll send you a PM later.
@swordsage but again in the name of good judgment, whether or not creatures have organs that do or don't have a function, the answer is irrelevant as I still have no answer or demonstration as to how these organs built themselves? Yes I know that evolution supporters are optimistic that the explanation will come 'one day' but they have had 150 years or more & still nothing. Again, in the name of critical thinking, why should I believe scientists who say"there probably is no God" when they can't
@mpsmike Wait... are you actually going to compare the amount of years scientists have been working on the evolution theory with the amount of years people have been saying religion describes the world? I really think you should think twice about that one... religion has had a much, much longer time getting things wrong, while science, while still missing several answers, have produced far more information than religion ever did. Don't bring up length of time... it's not a good idea.
@Swordsage Also, I just thought of something. You're having a problem wondering how things like eyes, hearts, and brains can just build themselves, which is certainly a logical assumption, but the problem is that the evolution theory doesn't believe such complex organs just spontaneously popped up. The theory states that these, and the organisms that have them, are the product of millions of years of development from much simpler forms, a process we've seen happen on a smaller scale.
@swordsage it is too difficult to have a theological discussion here given the type space restriction etc, so for the call Im only restricting my comments to the question of 'is there a God or intelligent creator for life'
@mpsmike Fair enough. Honestly, I don't know. I do know that the intelligent design arguments that have been presented thus far aren't really all that convincing, at least if one has more than a rudimentary understanding of science and its processes. That doesn't mean, however, that someone could come up with something better. I think if someone does though, it will have very little to do with a religious description of such a being.
@swordsage that's a really lame call to say 'the appendix has no function' it is so cliche, but as with many 'standard' evolution chants, it is lacking real depth. Scientists have found uses for all the supposed ' vestigial organs, including the tail bone tonsils etc. The appendix contains lymphatic nodules that act as a filter for bacteria & help protect the intestines from infection in the area where the colon begins.
@swordsage I would be more inclined to support evolution if someone could show how life can arise out of the dirt & build itself, is that such a big call ? As an open thinker, if someone tells me that there is no supernatural designer necessary to account for life here on earth because science can explain it, aren't I entitled to see that evidence? I haven't seen it yet, so why should I support these claims?
@mpsmike Good question, but that's just it; they're trying to find out. Stating that life seems to have come from forces somehow bringing elements together to form living matter (to say "dirt" is disingenuous and misleading) is not the end all be all answer and scientists know this, so they're going to keep trying to figure that part out until either they find out how, or realize they were wrong and go in a different direction... like they've been doing with other theories like gravity.
@Swordsage Your premise on the other hand doesn't lend itself to such deep inquiry. It pretty much amounts to "the grand wizard did it, and that's all you need to know". There is no chance for any real understanding or answers that way, no real ways to gain insight into our development. It's just "God did it, which was the old way to explain everything in the past. Why is there rain? God did it. How do we get lightning? God did it. We know better now, and the same will be for life.
@swordsage Q1 Ans, I am not assuming for the argument the type of creator or creators, just the fact that it was some sort of intelligent creator. Q2 Ans in the Biblical context, God the Creator cares the most for humans because He created them in His own image, so we are actually his personal 'children' not just pets or property. Q3 Ans Again in the Biblical context, in the beginning God did show Himself to Adam & Eve, He used to hang out with them, but When they defied Him, they chose the cur
2: You just threw any rational validity out by relying only on the bible for your answer. But just to humor you, a god that creates legions of living creatures but decides to focus only on ONE is incredibly wasteful, and of rather questionable rationality.
3: This is a story. Stories can be made up. Why can't he just show up NOW? That would end the argument completely. I personally would find it very exciting.
@swordsage yes & you guys love the vestigial organ thing, but it's only a distraction to the deeper problem. Sure a person can function without an appendix or nipple, just like a plane can without seats or carpet inside ( although these things all have functions). I was referring to 'fundamental or critical components in a system' that all have to be there together at the same time for the thing to function, such as the propellor, fuel tank, engine. In the most simple cell there are likewise co
@mpsmike If you can't understand how such as thing as vestigial organs throws a so called intelligent designer who puts everything together perfectly into doubt, and just think it's a "distraction, then you are incapable of understanding the intricacies of a well thought argument, much less scientific theory. Your statement about a plane without seats proves this even further: what intelligent person would build a plane without them? Seats have a function. Appendixes do not.
@Swordsage Furthermore, if you want to stick with so called "critical components", then you still have to explain why a critical system such as the skeleton system is being made to walk on 2 legs when it's actually based on a model that works better on 4. Wouldn't it be better to just design a skeleton made specifically for that? Or the fact that the main reason humans can eat meat is because of digestive enzymes: everything else was designed mostly for plants. That's perfect design?
@Swordsage What you need to understand is that no one trying to come up with a "perfect design" would put in anything that has no use. It's not about the fact that a human can live without these organs, but rather that they are there in the first place. They have no functions, period, and their inclusion in the human system can only make sense in an extraterrestrial design scenario if the designer in question wasn't perfect. In an evolutionary scenario, it makes more sense.
@swordsage an airplane is a great example, if I claimed that a plane could build itself you would laugh at me even if I said I could happen over a billion years. Why? Because it needs intelligent design to make each individual part to fit together into the complex structure called an airplane. You need a multitude of different parts to be made that interact in a critical way with every other part, all present & assembled at the same time in the correct position etc. If one critical part was mis
@mpsmike I picked the airplane example on purpose, because I knew you wouldn't be able to resist using that example; it's one creationists use all the time (see, I have read and listened to this material). It may sound convincing to you, but it's got two big problems:
1: While a plane has specific components specifically put together to make it what it is with nothing useless or out of place, organisms AREN'T. For example, are male nipples and the appendix part of perfect design??
@Swordsage I can go further: we know that the human ability to go about upright is actually detrimental to us in a few ways: it's why we're prone to things like back and knee pain, as well as sinus problems. This is because our skeleton is evolved from one meant to go on all fours, like pretty much every other organism on the planet, organisms which, by the way, have similar skeletons. Question: if we were made with specifically made parts, why not a specifically designed skeleton?
@Swordsage 2: An airplane is NOT an organism living on an organic planet; it is a tool fashioned for a specific purpose. If I see an inanimate tool, of course I'd expect someone to have created it. Human beings are not tools however; they are organisms, and unlike tools they weren't created with some specific purpose. If that is something you reject, then that's your faith talking, not logic or science. Organisms, if they have a "purpose", are here to keep genes going. That's it.
@Swordsage By the way, you using that example proves my point about stating things that show you don't understand this subject. To reject the notion of gradual complexity shows you don't even understand how life works in today's time; the increasing complexity of viruses and bacteria, the growing sophistication of animals adapting to new environments and developing new abilities, the gradual way the human body can adapt to shock and trauma. I'm sorry, but you don't know this stuff.
@swordsage I am just as biased as you are defending your position. As you said in your video "don't criticize Dawkins until you have read his shit" I am assuming that to support your comment that " creationist theory" does not "outweigh" evo theory, you have read a good deal of creationist material. If your conclusions on creation science are based on your own personal investigation of the material that's fine. It doesn't take a peer review to tell anyone that dirt, water, & solar energy over o
@swordsage another thing I have found in exploring the evo/creation question, is that the majority of evolution advocates support evolution, not because of scientific evidence but because they just don't want to believe in God. The evidence for creation far far far outweighs that for atheistic evolution, but it is very difficult for most to open there mind & attitude to it, top scientists included. The truth is not comfortable therefore few seek it.
@mpsmike The more you try to defend your position, the you're you're exposing your biases, not to mention the types of sources you must be sticking to. Contrary to what you and others believe, there is no grand conspiracy to censor creationism, nor does the creationist "evidence" outweigh" the evolution theory. The simple fact is that no creationist has been able to stand up to peer review, and their stance shows a lack of understanding of current scientific understanding.
@Swordsage Furthermore, there are several scientists who accept evolutionary theory AND believe in a god. Again, the two ideas do not disprove each other, and it is only a major misunderstanding of evolution that would make someone think that. I don't want to sound smug here, but it is obvious at this point that you really don't know this theory or the science behind it nearly as well as you think you do, much as a so called "race realist" doesn't really understand genetics.
@Swordsage To try to explain what I mean, imagine someone who claims to understand aviation saying to you that the shape of the wings couldn't have anything to do with planes flying, since birds' wings aren't shaped that way, and the plane must be somehow mimicking a bird's flapping motion.A statement like that would definitely expose their ignorance of the subject, right? Well, this is pretty much how the creationist argument looks to those who have truly studied evolution theory.
@swordsage well I am not a uni professor, but I have studied biology & chemistry. I have also read stuff on creation& evolution, including Dawkins, (I used to believe in evolution) but honestly the more I read the more I discovered that the creation model is far more scientifically viable than evolution, in fact from what I can see Darwinian evolution is impossible. What really got my attention was the massive censorship of credible creation science discoveries. Darwin, Dawkins, & many evolutio
@swordsage so as you also admit, the scientific possibility is still open to either solution, but it puzzles me why those who use science to investigate the creation view point are heavily ridiculed or dismissed or ignored in the popular science community? This is bad science, when only one side of the story is discussed.
@mpsmike It is bad science to not investigate all sides of the arguments, but you also have to realize that it's bad science to ignore all the evidence that disproves your position. And frankly, all the explanations that creationism has come up with has been scientifically faulty. The funny thing is, unless you actually studied or at least have a basic understanding of the material, you can't tell it's faulty... which is why we laypeople are still having these discussions.
@Swordsage Now, I will add this: there's really nothing in the theory of evolution that disproves a god existing, as far as I can tell. There's nothing in the theory that excludes a god having just put this all into motion through the process of evolution: the theory of how creatures evolved, and the idea of an omnipotent being are two separate ideas, that can co-exist with little conflict, save that it would make the god somewhat superfluous. But evolution is not disproving a god.
@swordsage it is not a quandary for me as I accept that some things require faith, Dawkins is the one who criticizes people who go on faith. The complexity in living cells is too large to have assembled itself without a creator, the skeptics to this have not shown any observable solution to there alternative view point, so by open thinking they must accept the atheistic formation of life on 'faith' no different than a religious person has faith in a Designer.
@mpsmike Not really: I honestly feel that while we don't really know how the first cells were formed (as far as I know, science has not yet come up with an explanation), there is still more evidence to suggest that they evolved into the forms we see today, rather than someone designing them, for the simple reason that we actually have observed remains of earlier specimens that are simpler in makeup than what we have now. Yet we have no evidence whatsoever of any god existing.
@swordsage so by critical thinking to say that God or a supernatural designer probably does not exist, demands an "OBSERVABLE" solution to counteract the need for an external force such as God, to assemble chemicals into the structure of the first living cell. I say 'observed' because Dawkins says that nothing should be taken on faith alone. Also I have actually read his stuff & find his arguments full of holes.
@mpsmike You've just put yourself into a quandary though. If you are going to agree that there needs to be some observable solution, then shouldn't that mean that we need observable evidence of a god? You know we don't have that at the moment. I agree with him that nothing should be taken on just faith alone, and the funny thing is that they aren't with this current understanding, since they are still researching this evolution angle to see if it will continue to yield any answers.
cont: I feel I need to add this, because this is something a lot of people miss: never expect definite answers when it comes to science. In fact, the more complex the thing you're trying to figure out, the less definite the answer is. That's why there's still research. If definite answers is what you really want, then I can see why the religious angle is more your thing, since it claims to provide that. But science just keeps on bringing up more questions. Still, it's been working...
@swordsage yes I realize we are made up of naturally found elements including carbon, my open thinking is how these chemicals in the ground etc assembled themselves in such a way to build living things? The world trade centre was also made of naturally found chemicals, but there is no way they could assemble themselves into such a structure. A separate intelligent force is needed to assemble the first cell, Dawkins denies this common sense, & never gives an answer to explain it.
@mpsmike I know it may seem crazy, but I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that the most basic of bacterial cells could be made within the types of cosmic pressures that would have had to been at play here with these inert chemicals. After all, even today we have new viruses and microbes popping up all the time from various corners of the world with lots of water, heat, and chemical material. Even so, no one has the answer to this important question yet.
cont: so yeah, it's a bit presumptuous of me to say "go ask Dawkins" since he doesn't know. However, the thing is that he and others are trying to find out what the answer actually is... and that's ultimately why I can't go with the creationist angle. If we go that route, then there is no searching for the answer.. there's just basically saying " a wizard did it", which really doesn't explain anything, and that goes against any true knowledge seeking.
@mpsmike You do realize that you're made up of inanimate chemicals, right? There's a reason why we're considered "carbon based life forms". We have minerals such as zinc, copper, iron, and calcium in our body, among other things. We're not made up of mysterious "life energy" materials that we can't identify and define.
Though, shouldn't you be asking him that question instead of me? It's not like I taught him this stuff.
Personally I believe that religion is simply a manifestation of mans inability to accept death. All religions I have heard about features an "afterlife" in one form or another like Heaven/hell, Valhalla, Field of Reeds e.t.c. And also reincarnation featured in Hinduism, Jainism and Islam. All of this boils down to one thing: Eternal existence. Man has, and will always, fear death and therefore will attempt to elude it. I dont believe in afterlifes..after all every good book has to have an ending
@everyone if you knew 80% of facts we you prefer 100% promise? 2000 year old Palestinian/Jewish legend. We must evolve. There is more meaning is this life if you treasure it. An immortality fantasy cheapens every moment.
I love this guy! He completely understood that its not science that will down religion.. Which is why I didn't get so many people complained about a lack of science in his book.. Its not about science.. Its about logic and philosophy.. And his sources where ratter stunning! And sure, it didn't cover everything, but its a great start and makes good points about a lot of the base of religious philosophy.. Not all, but a good base!
@mpsmike Research tells us that the building blocks of life, which are;
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, are easily formed by just mixing up lightning and mud.. The experiment has been repeated many times in labs and is quite easy to perform.. Now they haven't discovered anything else yet, but what's so strange about it? If those blocks can come to existence and we can make chihuahua's out of wolves, don't you think a whole lot is possible?
@TTFLS No i dont think its possible. They have created substances that are used in living organisms by these experiments, such as amino acids, thats not life, now they have to arrange these basic chemicals into a highly sophisticated DNA program, to build the cell & its funtioning motors & parts. show me how that can happen by lightning & rain & natural processes? if they claim it all to be scientificly proven, then let them show me?
@mpsmike Its about the philosophy behind it dude.. Just because we haven't discovered it, doesn't mean its not possible.. Its about movement and energy.. Its about energy that moves things, that changes things..
@TTFLS No they havent discovered it , but its interesting that many teachers & text books say they have.
they are lying to us. that pisses me off. the reason that they havent discovered it yet is because it isnt true. My life is limited & I am only interested in following the truth, not pseudo scientific fantasies. Sure man!, everything is moving & energy & all that, but for me its more about the God that created all that.
@mpsmike It was not the question what you believe.. The question is what logic is looking at science.. THEY HAVEN"T DISCOVERED IT ALL YET!! Read please.. Neither do books tell us they did.. Its about what we did discover, what we know about it and how this knowledge can easily form itself in the knowledge that life can actually exist out of its own.. But you fail to miss the point, ignore the things you did get and just end by rambling some shit about your fairy tells.. Go study dude...
He IS cool, calm & collected, charming & extremely eloquent in his manor & writing, that's why so many people are sucked in buy him, but if you really have a good mind for critical thinking you would see through him. Just another cult of personality.
@mpsmike if you're only argument against the statements in the book is that "well there has to be a god, otherwise how did things get here?", then you're the one showing a lack of critical thinking. If you don't understand why, you obviously are not ready for intelligent discussion, and you definitely aren't ready to even begin to question scientific principles that you haven't even studied. Intellectually, it's like an ant challenging the bird about to eat it.
@mpsmike Um, people buy into his books because it's BASED on critical thinking and it makes something called SENSE which you christian's can never grasp.
You know what converted me to atheism?, I read the bible, front to back 1 week, I highlighted, underlined, annotated, researched and read and reread. The book contradicts itself time and time again. WHAT has religion done for us since it's inception? NOW think of all science has done! The biggest converter of atheist isn't The God Delusion but the Bible
we watched the TV program The God Delusion last night & really enjoyed it now you have inspired my husband to look out for a copy of the book.
I belive that science can help proove that Jesus was a magic mushroom & the Dead Sea Scrolls could proove the biologicle science of the sacred magic mushroom a religion bassed on facts about the beginings of christianity & Judaeism. thus putting an end to the myths of Jesus the man & the historic missunderstood Bible codes that create blind faith.
This was quite interesting. 10 minutes seemed like a long time to talk about the subject but you managed to fill it out pretty well. I like how you keep a neutral standpoint in this video and stick to talking about the subject rather than your viewpoints on religion. Although if you had said "Read the book" one more time i would accuse you for advertising it! XD
nice take on it, I thought he might be overboard, but thanks for your more moderate view. Though never thought he was a lunatic ( but i am an atheist). Speaking about absolute isnt god one?
nice take on it, I thought he might be overboard, but thanks for your more moderate view. Though never thought he was a lunatic ( but i am an atheist). Speaking about absolute isnt god one?
do not care if people choose to believe that theres a magic thing that made everything what annoys me is when they pass things off as fact despite having no proof of explanation to back up what they are saying and the ones that knock on your door and just go "ive seen god" because everyone stands there and thinks no you havnt and of course everyone knows they havnt but religion should be separate from politics because thats a dangerous mix
Nicely done. The sad thing is that no matter how much you try, some people will never want to reason with evidence. Only staying in their circle of ignorance and self-pity.
... and this is the kind of dumb statement I expected from you.
First... institutional Satanists? I take it you're one of those conspiracy nuts. There are no secret Satanists in government with secret magical powers trying to take over the world.
Second, racists tend to be religious. Go down south and see how many people think that intermixing between races is something that's against god, or how many of them want this "christian nation" to be a pure white country.
Third, what was the system that was taught to slaves to keep them slaves? Atheism?? No, it was Christianity. Last time I checked, the descendants of slaves in this country are devoutly religious.
The elites actually prefer you to be religious. That way you'd rather expect a god to solve all your problems rather than do something yourself, or believe in so called "satanists" are behind everything, instead of just going after the government that's out in the open.
Even your name shows how ignorant you are. Hippies are nazis!?! You do realize these are people who aren't for things like theocracies, fascist states, and institutionalized citizens blindly serving the state. That's what they were PROTESTING against. Yet I noticed it's religious people who are asking for the very things I just listed. They want this place to be a theocracy, where everyone has to march to one beat, and live just like they do, swearing allegiance to the state, ie fascism.
In short, start reading some real books for a change, instead of blindly swallowing crap put out by kooks who will insure that you will never be effective against the powers that be, all while helping to further their agenda and giving them what they want: religious idiots who chase after ghosts and attack other citizens who actually care to exercise their own minds.
A theocracy is religious rule. Cults of personality, heinous as it is, doesn't equate religious rule. Nice try.
Karl Marx was a satanist? Wow. Would love to see some proof of that. You have pictures of him in congress with "the beast"?
MLK being a Christian doesn't negate Christianity's role in supporting slavery in this country. There were plenty of Christians who opposed slavery, but there were plenty of others who felt it was the natural order of things (cont)
... and that certain races were to be subjected. Check out the original Mormons beliefs on the role of black people in the world.
Just because slavery predates Christianity doesn't mean Christians didn't help to keep it going. There is a difference between CREATING something, and helping something along. I didn't say Christians created slavery, so for you to suggest this either means you are being intellectually dishonest or are just a mental deficient.
You also continue to prove my point that the only one here making baseless accusations is YOU. For instance, saying I'm an Obama supporter. Obviously you haven't seen my other videos. I've never supported the man, nor did I even vote for him. I will vote for no one who thinks its ok for our phones to be tapped.
You talk about "my side" I don't have a side, since both the left and the right want people marching to their own beat.
Any group that acts like they are the only good people and the others are all evil should be avoided... which is exactly what YOU are doing, which is why I can't take you seriously. It's funny how anyone who doesn't bow down to the cross or think the crazy way you do just HAS to be a "satanist" or a supporter of the state, yet you have no proof whatsoever of that.
If you want me to take you seriously, I need to see some real proof.
I still need to see proof that all this is linked to satanism. Contrary to popular christian belief, not everything that Christians don't like equals Satanism. Paganism for instance doesn't equal satanism. In order for that to be true, these religions need to acknowledge the christian god that they are supposedly fighting against... and they don't even believe in him, nor a devil for that matter. THey don't even acknowledge a Satan. SO how is it satanism?
You also equate Socialism (basically Karl Marx's ideas) with Satanism, which is really interesting. This implies that you believe capitalism is good and holy. Well Jesus spoke out against the rich, saying that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. He shared what he had with the poor. But capitalism is a designed for people to get rich, and the people tend not to divide wealth among the poor. So what does that tell you?
Now, I didn't say that to support communism and the like (they don't work), but rather to get you to think. Sure you can point out the problems with the systems you don't like, that's easy. But you also have to be willing to see what's wrong with stuff that people teach you is "good". That's how you get coned. ALL man made systems are flawed, and the powerful will always try to find ways to use these systems against us. The more you passionately champion something the easier it is to fool you.
@swordsage I meant hundreds of millions of years
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage here is another point worth pondering, you mentioned that bacteria have "come a long way" . Well it's true that natural selection brings out the most resistant bacteria to survive antibiotics. Yes that is true. But over hundreds of billions of years they are 'still' bacteria. They have adapted & varied ( as all creatures do) but they are still bacteria.
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage until otherwise, I will continue to believe in God as my creator, that He created me for an important reason, & that my life has true meaning within that context. Of coarse I never stop searching, but the more I do search ( including all aspects of science) the more I discover my belief in the Biblical God to be more & more true. It's a fallacy that Christians are 'ignorant of testable science'. A friend of mine is a geologist & has a degree in Biology, he became a Christian because
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage if someone could show me how the critical, interdependent components of an animal could build themselves up from a simple single felled organism or better still, show me the observable science that show how inanimate elements can build themselves into reproducing bio machines, I will consider the atheistic formation of life a possibility.
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage its true I don't have a biology degree, but I know enough basic biology (including evolution) to use as a base for discussion. Something else puzzles me, you seem to have an avid belief in atheistic evolution, & I'm guessing it's due to your own open analysis on the relevant material. However I feel that if you cannot answer these critical questions that I have referee to, I don't know how you can believe in this theory.( I have to say, you are more easily satisfied than me) I don't
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage well here's the rub, I have studied 12 months biology at college already, I have done written assignments on biology & I have found 'nothing' that answers my questions. It's all 'hypothetical ideas'. They don't even have an empirical answer regarding how DNA emerged. Even less complex self replicating RNA has never been found in nature. Evolutionists argue between themselves on this issue. One postulation is the hypothetical 'RNA' world' theory, but it is full of problems. It doesn'
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage for example why would a cardiovascular system evolve if there are no organs to feed with blood? How could organs even exist without a blood supply?
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike Again, a college course (or honest research) on evolutionary biology would give you better insight into this.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@swordsage well basic forms of bacteria are still around (they haven't evolved into anything else) whatever the environmental conditions were eons ago when they 'evolved' the conditions up to now have supported them & they reproduce the same as they always have. However animals are here living together in the same modern environment. It's easy to say that the cardio vascular system "evolved" somehow along the way, but you have to explain how every detail of precise, interdependent, matching of
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike All your answers could be gotten and basically understood if you took a college course on biology, particularly on the topic of multicellularity, the function of DNA and RNA, and the development of sexual reproduction. You also have to realize that bacteria has evolved greatly over the years, otherwise we wouldn't have to keep developing new antibacterials to keep up with them.
I can't give you these answers; I already told you before that I'm not an evolutionary biologist.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@swordsage actually very good question; what did come first the chicken or the egg? If we are dealing with science & logical argument, then this requires a satisfying answer. This is not a philosophical question it is a reality that it requires an answer that conforms with natural science,( as far as evolutionists are concerned that is). So what evolved first the cardiovascular system or the reproductive system in animals?
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike Well, if you want my honest opinion... I can't exactly give you an "answer". :b
As I said before, environmental factors dictate what traits get developed, and organisms with certain traits conducive to thriving in a certain environment will live out the ones who don't have them. But when dealing with internal systems it gets tricky, since they're not independent of each other. The cardiovascular system needs to match the complexity of the organism...
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@Swordsage ... and the reproductive system is supported by it. However, considering that even the most basic form of bacteria can reproduce, I personally think the odds are good that the reproductive system was around first, and evolved further along with a developing complex cardiovascular system later.
... you know, now that I think about it, that sorta answers the chicken and the egg question, doesn't it? :b
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@ swordsage sorry I couldn't resist this one, which evolved first? Bees or plants that produce pollen that feed bees?
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike *shrugs* Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think we're now venturing into the realm of speculative philosophy.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@swordsage PS some of my comments got cut short but you get the general gist.
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike Yes, I'm getting the gist... this 500 character limit is really getting annoying.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@swordsage But I am not debating religion or the nature of God with you,Christianity is my personal belief of choice. I can not argue with anyone about things that involve some faith. I have a question for you I thought of today ( not from any book) what evolved first in animals; the cardio vascular system or the reproductive system??
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike I wouldn't know, but really that would depend on what environmental factors the organism in question would have had to have been in. The evolution of an organism always depends upon natural selection, and on what particular traits help that animal survive and/or function well in a particular setting.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@swordsage The Christian religion is Bible based. We believe that the Bible is directly & indirectly the Word of God. Our religion is partly based on faith & partly based on observation. It actually says in the Bible that some truth is revealed in the physical universe (by science & observation if you like) the rest of the truth is hidden from us ( in the supernatural realm). The Bible also presents a context for the universes existence & our relationship to the Creator & to the natural univers
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage one must be careful here not to mix religion with creation science. There are two debates here not one. The first is simply is there a supernatural creator responsible for life here on earth (with no further description on the nature of such an entity) two, if there is a creator, then who or what is It? & from this you have religious theology debate. Of coarse It is mostly common that Christian groups use creation science to help spread the word of the Bible. but it is unfair & total
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@swordsage I don't know why you are suggesting that creationists have 'no' investigative science? This is entirely incorrect. There are journals regularly published for example that provide very interesting investigative science in all areas including biology, maths, physics, cosmology. One such publication is called 'technical journal' published by CMI. There is loads of science out there regarding creation to suggest otherwise is just ignorance. I am interested which creation material you hav
mpsmike 2 weeks ago
@mpsmike ... um, I'm sorry, but that journal is not really a true "peer reviewed" publication. For it to truly quality as such, the information inside would have to have been reviewed by scientists OUTSIDE the circles that write for that magazine; in other words, not just people associated with AIG. If Creationsts are the only people doing the reviewing, then it's not really going through the rigorous process that all other scientific investigation goes through.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@Swordsage Also, this and any other similar publications fall victim to the same problem I told you about earlier; namely that they have already come to a conclusion and are now looking for anything that helps them prove it, instead of looking at the data in front of them and drawing conclusions from that. The latter method is what makes something an investigative process, not the former.
Swordsage 2 weeks ago
@swordsage think about what you said earlier, that if the naturalistic origin of life becomes "more improbable" than the alternative must be even more so. Think about this, if life is found not to naturally emerge then the answer by definition is the opposite, this is critical thinking. Out of two only possible answers, the less likely one is by definition the MORE likely the alternative is. To be objective & fair it makes no logical sense.
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Actually, you're the one not thinking carefully about this issue. You're trying to say that the improbability of life itself is somehow less improbable if you have an even more complex being behind it all, who somehow is exempt from the factors that should be in place to create complex beings. That's not just improbable, that's insane.
Plus, you assume that because they don't have THE answer to how live emerged, that the natural view is disprove. You need EVIDENCE for that.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage You can't disprove something with a lack of evidence, you can only point to its unlikelihood (you know, just like you guys point out when it comes to a god). If you are to assert that life came from a supernatural conscious being, you have to show evidence for it. So far you guys have nothing. Meanwhile, scientists have found things that hint at life emerging as some gradual combination of elements. It's not the smoking gun, but it's certainly can't be called nothing.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage You have to understand that your whole methodology about this is flawed: you and other creationists already came to a conclusion, and now you're trying to prove it. Scientists on the other hand are looking at the data in front of them and drawing conclusions from that. Anyone in criminal investigation will tell you that the latter approach is how you come to the right answer: the former approach leads to dishonest methods and ignoring evidence that disproves their stance.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Now, in regards to the origins of life, and from the little clues they picked up from studying biology and the development of organisms for over a century now, they now have their current viewpoints. It isn't something they just made up, this is a current consensus stemming from an ongoing investigative process. It is possible that with more clues and evidence down the line, they will find evidence that changes their stance. But its evidence that has to dictate that.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Creationism on the other hand is not a stance coming from an intensive investigative process. It is a position born from faith based reasoning that tries to find a way to prove old beliefs to somehow be true and relevant in a world that has developed by finding things out, and not just believing in things, a world that came about from an attempt to understand things. Your approach is to just accept things; notice your argument just comes down to "just accept this is god."
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage There's no real inquiry, no real attempt to investigate the situation, and certainly no attempt to consider all the alternatives on your particular assumption: there has to just be one designer, it;s based on just one religious perspective, the designer has to be infallible, etc. Inconvenient truths you just ignore, such as the imperfections seen throughout nature, that biological changes are continually observed, that a god itself would have had to have been "designed".
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage As such, you can;t call this position logical by any stretch of the imagination. The only way it can be is through honest investigative work, as well as having an actual understanding of the scientific principles you guys try to talk about. The problem is, if you do that, you'll end up with the same current stance most scientists have; that some intelligent designer existing is highly unlikely. It is only an assumption based on faith and lack of information, nothing more.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage By the way, as someone who has studied the interesting history of the Christian religion and the development of the freethinker movement during the Enlightenment period of Europe, I find it highly ironic that these days, religious people are trying to argue that their views are more logical and reasonable. It really just goes to show how times have changed.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage as a man of science why should I believe them when they can't support there words with hard science? Am I being unrealistic here? It seems to me that the more they try to proove the naturalistic origin of life the more they discover how 'impossible it is. If something exists that cannot be explained by the natural laws, or is demonstrated to be impossible to occur naturally, then by intrinsic default it proves the existence of a supernatural entity.
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike No, it doesn't. You're assuming two things:
1: that they haven't found any evidence that shows that natural laws had anything to do with the origins of life. This is false. They haven't found the so called "silver bullet", but what they have found is what has kept them on this path of inquiry.
2: This this supernatural entity HAS to be your god. This is a leap of faith, and not a true intellectual deduction. If it was, you'd actually have evidence of this. You have none.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage I am simply saying, Dawkins, Darwin, Gould, who ever you want to consider, there are thousands of books, hours of research, endless ideas & philosophies about how life arose in the natural realm, but there is just no repeatable evidence to show how it happened within the natural realm.
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@swordsage I said earlier that I have read his stuff & that is true, but not this book. I have also listened to lots of his interviews as well. In his book 'climbing mount improbable' ( which I read) he uses the Darwinian model of evolution to discredit creation. It is a major theme of the book. That's where I get my claim from. It might be a different book but it's the same guy were talking about with the same ideas. What you have refer to as 'statistical enormity' & 'highly improbable' is co
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@swordsage it's lame how Dawkins can present such a critical view of the existence of God, yet avoid this fundamental link in the chain. Ask yourself this with an open mind, gets say that Darwinian evolution is totally true, how does that in any way render the existence of God as 'improbable' ?
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Again, he doesn't just use evolution to come to that conclusion. either you didn't understand the book, or you didn't really read it.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage wait wait let's not stray off coarse here, we are debating wether or not " there probably isn't a God" not if evolution is true or not. I only used evolution as a side line because Dawkins ( the centre of attention here) uses Darwinian evolution theory as the basis of his atheistic claims. What has to be addressed is, whatever method of science you use, you cannot claim that "God probably doesn't exist" & ignore the fundamental problem of how inanimate base chemicals formed into supe
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Actually, he doesn't use evolution as the basis of his claims. If you actually read the book, you'd see that he actually comes at this from various positions: chapter 4 alone (the one that argues why there probably is no god) presents information from chemistry, physics, mathematics, and even philosophy, fields that lie outside the scope of evolution. Furthermore, he doesn't even "ignore" that "fundamental problem". I guess you didn't understand this book, or skimmed it.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Also, you sorely need to come to terms with the following: just because we don't really understand how base chemicals ended up forming into living cells doesn't mean it automatically means a god did it. That's just one idea, and an unproven one at that. Yes, it's unproven; there isn't a shred of evidence that suggest some outside hand did this, just faith in old myths and stories. You're trying to prove an old conclusion: scientists are trying to come to a conclusion.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Lastly, to get back to the book, not once does he try to use evolution, or any other scientific theory, to explain the origin of life. While he doesn't ignore the statistical enormity of such a thing happening, he points out that in a vast universe with infinite possibility, such a thing could happen under the right circumstances, which is a logical assumption. His focus however is on the scientific, logical, philosophical, and ethical problems found with this god belief.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage This would be apparent to anyone who has actually read and understood the book. His use of evolutionary theory is to show the flaws in thinking that creatures were instantly designed as they are by some divine being; when it comes to the more philosophical arguments, he deals with those in kind, with philosophy and logical debate. The entire book is not focused on just evolution alone, and to suggest such a thing is either ignorant, or intellectually dishonest.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage I will say this though: He does believe that there is a problem with there being a god if evolution is a valid theory (and as far as we know, we meaning those who know about science, it is), since he thinks it makes god superfluous. After all, why come up with a process that once you get it started, you aren't needed at all in its continued operation? While he has a point, I personally don't really see the problem... but then that would suggest a god that isn't perfect.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage The other problem he has with this is the improbability stacking: If being able to make life from inorganic elements is already highly improbable, then having an all powerful being being responsible for it is even more so, since such a being had to have been created from a similar process, if we are to follow the logic. To say that this god is outside of such forces is pretty much cheating, and reeks of someone trying to have it both ways. You want to talk about lame...
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage there is nothing in the known universe that defies these principles, accept the formation of complex life from uncomplex chemicals. Whether is is one year or a trillion. In regards to 'millions of years', I know they say that life builds itself over long eons of time ever so slowly, well that is an unobserved guess. Scientists have taken organisms that have a short generation span, & simulated thousands if not millions of generations of species such as fruit flies, & guess what? The
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Again, the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. If you understood the theory, you'd know this, and thus would not keep bringing up the question of organic creatures being formed from inorganic matter. The theory of evolution does not concern itself with that question, and if you truly want to stick to talking about this theory, neither should you.
Once again, you don't understand this subject. I implore you to research it properly.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage this is not 'faulty' science, it is fundamental physics. Everything breaks down into 'basic' equilibrium order. Even every living organism must obey this law, when death occurs, the complex bio chemical structures return to less structured forms towards 'equilibrium' now you will say that rebirth occurs, perpetuating life, yes, but only because of the programed assembly of DNA molecules that facilitate this. The miracle is how the molecules in DNA formed into complex structures that
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@swordsage well actually some of the science I have read is not only more convincing than evo theory, it basically renders it impossible. Eg the fundamental laws of thermodynamics dictate that chemical reactions & heat displacement always head from a reactive state to a less reactive state or 'equilibrium'. This implicates that anything overtime will 'breakdown' rather than 'construct' into higher level assembly & so forth (as evolution requires) that is why everything you see 'breaks down' ove
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike This is a classic example of not knowing about the theory of evolution. It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics anymore than a bird goes against the laws of gravity by being able to fly. A bird does active work to stay aloft, and evolution does active work to develop organisms.
Again, you seriously need to study this subject before trying to comment on it. I'll send you a PM later.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage but again in the name of good judgment, whether or not creatures have organs that do or don't have a function, the answer is irrelevant as I still have no answer or demonstration as to how these organs built themselves? Yes I know that evolution supporters are optimistic that the explanation will come 'one day' but they have had 150 years or more & still nothing. Again, in the name of critical thinking, why should I believe scientists who say"there probably is no God" when they can't
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Wait... are you actually going to compare the amount of years scientists have been working on the evolution theory with the amount of years people have been saying religion describes the world? I really think you should think twice about that one... religion has had a much, much longer time getting things wrong, while science, while still missing several answers, have produced far more information than religion ever did. Don't bring up length of time... it's not a good idea.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Also, I just thought of something. You're having a problem wondering how things like eyes, hearts, and brains can just build themselves, which is certainly a logical assumption, but the problem is that the evolution theory doesn't believe such complex organs just spontaneously popped up. The theory states that these, and the organisms that have them, are the product of millions of years of development from much simpler forms, a process we've seen happen on a smaller scale.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage it is too difficult to have a theological discussion here given the type space restriction etc, so for the call Im only restricting my comments to the question of 'is there a God or intelligent creator for life'
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Fair enough. Honestly, I don't know. I do know that the intelligent design arguments that have been presented thus far aren't really all that convincing, at least if one has more than a rudimentary understanding of science and its processes. That doesn't mean, however, that someone could come up with something better. I think if someone does though, it will have very little to do with a religious description of such a being.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage that's a really lame call to say 'the appendix has no function' it is so cliche, but as with many 'standard' evolution chants, it is lacking real depth. Scientists have found uses for all the supposed ' vestigial organs, including the tail bone tonsils etc. The appendix contains lymphatic nodules that act as a filter for bacteria & help protect the intestines from infection in the area where the colon begins.
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@swordsage I would be more inclined to support evolution if someone could show how life can arise out of the dirt & build itself, is that such a big call ? As an open thinker, if someone tells me that there is no supernatural designer necessary to account for life here on earth because science can explain it, aren't I entitled to see that evidence? I haven't seen it yet, so why should I support these claims?
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike Good question, but that's just it; they're trying to find out. Stating that life seems to have come from forces somehow bringing elements together to form living matter (to say "dirt" is disingenuous and misleading) is not the end all be all answer and scientists know this, so they're going to keep trying to figure that part out until either they find out how, or realize they were wrong and go in a different direction... like they've been doing with other theories like gravity.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Your premise on the other hand doesn't lend itself to such deep inquiry. It pretty much amounts to "the grand wizard did it, and that's all you need to know". There is no chance for any real understanding or answers that way, no real ways to gain insight into our development. It's just "God did it, which was the old way to explain everything in the past. Why is there rain? God did it. How do we get lightning? God did it. We know better now, and the same will be for life.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage Q1 Ans, I am not assuming for the argument the type of creator or creators, just the fact that it was some sort of intelligent creator. Q2 Ans in the Biblical context, God the Creator cares the most for humans because He created them in His own image, so we are actually his personal 'children' not just pets or property. Q3 Ans Again in the Biblical context, in the beginning God did show Himself to Adam & Eve, He used to hang out with them, but When they defied Him, they chose the cur
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike
1: You're still assuming it's just one.
2: You just threw any rational validity out by relying only on the bible for your answer. But just to humor you, a god that creates legions of living creatures but decides to focus only on ONE is incredibly wasteful, and of rather questionable rationality.
3: This is a story. Stories can be made up. Why can't he just show up NOW? That would end the argument completely. I personally would find it very exciting.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage answer time
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@swordsage yes & you guys love the vestigial organ thing, but it's only a distraction to the deeper problem. Sure a person can function without an appendix or nipple, just like a plane can without seats or carpet inside ( although these things all have functions). I was referring to 'fundamental or critical components in a system' that all have to be there together at the same time for the thing to function, such as the propellor, fuel tank, engine. In the most simple cell there are likewise co
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike If you can't understand how such as thing as vestigial organs throws a so called intelligent designer who puts everything together perfectly into doubt, and just think it's a "distraction, then you are incapable of understanding the intricacies of a well thought argument, much less scientific theory. Your statement about a plane without seats proves this even further: what intelligent person would build a plane without them? Seats have a function. Appendixes do not.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Furthermore, if you want to stick with so called "critical components", then you still have to explain why a critical system such as the skeleton system is being made to walk on 2 legs when it's actually based on a model that works better on 4. Wouldn't it be better to just design a skeleton made specifically for that? Or the fact that the main reason humans can eat meat is because of digestive enzymes: everything else was designed mostly for plants. That's perfect design?
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage What you need to understand is that no one trying to come up with a "perfect design" would put in anything that has no use. It's not about the fact that a human can live without these organs, but rather that they are there in the first place. They have no functions, period, and their inclusion in the human system can only make sense in an extraterrestrial design scenario if the designer in question wasn't perfect. In an evolutionary scenario, it makes more sense.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage an airplane is a great example, if I claimed that a plane could build itself you would laugh at me even if I said I could happen over a billion years. Why? Because it needs intelligent design to make each individual part to fit together into the complex structure called an airplane. You need a multitude of different parts to be made that interact in a critical way with every other part, all present & assembled at the same time in the correct position etc. If one critical part was mis
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@mpsmike I picked the airplane example on purpose, because I knew you wouldn't be able to resist using that example; it's one creationists use all the time (see, I have read and listened to this material). It may sound convincing to you, but it's got two big problems:
1: While a plane has specific components specifically put together to make it what it is with nothing useless or out of place, organisms AREN'T. For example, are male nipples and the appendix part of perfect design??
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage I can go further: we know that the human ability to go about upright is actually detrimental to us in a few ways: it's why we're prone to things like back and knee pain, as well as sinus problems. This is because our skeleton is evolved from one meant to go on all fours, like pretty much every other organism on the planet, organisms which, by the way, have similar skeletons. Question: if we were made with specifically made parts, why not a specifically designed skeleton?
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage 2: An airplane is NOT an organism living on an organic planet; it is a tool fashioned for a specific purpose. If I see an inanimate tool, of course I'd expect someone to have created it. Human beings are not tools however; they are organisms, and unlike tools they weren't created with some specific purpose. If that is something you reject, then that's your faith talking, not logic or science. Organisms, if they have a "purpose", are here to keep genes going. That's it.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage By the way, you using that example proves my point about stating things that show you don't understand this subject. To reject the notion of gradual complexity shows you don't even understand how life works in today's time; the increasing complexity of viruses and bacteria, the growing sophistication of animals adapting to new environments and developing new abilities, the gradual way the human body can adapt to shock and trauma. I'm sorry, but you don't know this stuff.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Here's some more things you should consider before trying to champion creationism as "more logical":
-Why do you assume it was only one intelligent designer? Complex projects usually involve groups.
-Why would this designer only care about one particular species of animal (humans) after creating so many others?
-Why couldn't a designer so intelligent come up with a simple, foolproof way to show his/her existence?
-Would such a designer truly care about this one world?
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage I am just as biased as you are defending your position. As you said in your video "don't criticize Dawkins until you have read his shit" I am assuming that to support your comment that " creationist theory" does not "outweigh" evo theory, you have read a good deal of creationist material. If your conclusions on creation science are based on your own personal investigation of the material that's fine. It doesn't take a peer review to tell anyone that dirt, water, & solar energy over o
mpsmike 3 weeks ago
@swordsage another thing I have found in exploring the evo/creation question, is that the majority of evolution advocates support evolution, not because of scientific evidence but because they just don't want to believe in God. The evidence for creation far far far outweighs that for atheistic evolution, but it is very difficult for most to open there mind & attitude to it, top scientists included. The truth is not comfortable therefore few seek it.
mpsmike 4 weeks ago
@mpsmike The more you try to defend your position, the you're you're exposing your biases, not to mention the types of sources you must be sticking to. Contrary to what you and others believe, there is no grand conspiracy to censor creationism, nor does the creationist "evidence" outweigh" the evolution theory. The simple fact is that no creationist has been able to stand up to peer review, and their stance shows a lack of understanding of current scientific understanding.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage Furthermore, there are several scientists who accept evolutionary theory AND believe in a god. Again, the two ideas do not disprove each other, and it is only a major misunderstanding of evolution that would make someone think that. I don't want to sound smug here, but it is obvious at this point that you really don't know this theory or the science behind it nearly as well as you think you do, much as a so called "race realist" doesn't really understand genetics.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@Swordsage To try to explain what I mean, imagine someone who claims to understand aviation saying to you that the shape of the wings couldn't have anything to do with planes flying, since birds' wings aren't shaped that way, and the plane must be somehow mimicking a bird's flapping motion.A statement like that would definitely expose their ignorance of the subject, right? Well, this is pretty much how the creationist argument looks to those who have truly studied evolution theory.
Swordsage 3 weeks ago
@swordsage well I am not a uni professor, but I have studied biology & chemistry. I have also read stuff on creation& evolution, including Dawkins, (I used to believe in evolution) but honestly the more I read the more I discovered that the creation model is far more scientifically viable than evolution, in fact from what I can see Darwinian evolution is impossible. What really got my attention was the massive censorship of credible creation science discoveries. Darwin, Dawkins, & many evolutio
mpsmike 4 weeks ago
@swordsage so as you also admit, the scientific possibility is still open to either solution, but it puzzles me why those who use science to investigate the creation view point are heavily ridiculed or dismissed or ignored in the popular science community? This is bad science, when only one side of the story is discussed.
mpsmike 4 weeks ago
@mpsmike It is bad science to not investigate all sides of the arguments, but you also have to realize that it's bad science to ignore all the evidence that disproves your position. And frankly, all the explanations that creationism has come up with has been scientifically faulty. The funny thing is, unless you actually studied or at least have a basic understanding of the material, you can't tell it's faulty... which is why we laypeople are still having these discussions.
Swordsage 4 weeks ago
@Swordsage Now, I will add this: there's really nothing in the theory of evolution that disproves a god existing, as far as I can tell. There's nothing in the theory that excludes a god having just put this all into motion through the process of evolution: the theory of how creatures evolved, and the idea of an omnipotent being are two separate ideas, that can co-exist with little conflict, save that it would make the god somewhat superfluous. But evolution is not disproving a god.
Swordsage 4 weeks ago
@swordsage it is not a quandary for me as I accept that some things require faith, Dawkins is the one who criticizes people who go on faith. The complexity in living cells is too large to have assembled itself without a creator, the skeptics to this have not shown any observable solution to there alternative view point, so by open thinking they must accept the atheistic formation of life on 'faith' no different than a religious person has faith in a Designer.
mpsmike 4 weeks ago
@mpsmike Not really: I honestly feel that while we don't really know how the first cells were formed (as far as I know, science has not yet come up with an explanation), there is still more evidence to suggest that they evolved into the forms we see today, rather than someone designing them, for the simple reason that we actually have observed remains of earlier specimens that are simpler in makeup than what we have now. Yet we have no evidence whatsoever of any god existing.
Swordsage 4 weeks ago
@swordsage so by critical thinking to say that God or a supernatural designer probably does not exist, demands an "OBSERVABLE" solution to counteract the need for an external force such as God, to assemble chemicals into the structure of the first living cell. I say 'observed' because Dawkins says that nothing should be taken on faith alone. Also I have actually read his stuff & find his arguments full of holes.
mpsmike 1 month ago
@mpsmike You've just put yourself into a quandary though. If you are going to agree that there needs to be some observable solution, then shouldn't that mean that we need observable evidence of a god? You know we don't have that at the moment. I agree with him that nothing should be taken on just faith alone, and the funny thing is that they aren't with this current understanding, since they are still researching this evolution angle to see if it will continue to yield any answers.
Swordsage 1 month ago
cont: I feel I need to add this, because this is something a lot of people miss: never expect definite answers when it comes to science. In fact, the more complex the thing you're trying to figure out, the less definite the answer is. That's why there's still research. If definite answers is what you really want, then I can see why the religious angle is more your thing, since it claims to provide that. But science just keeps on bringing up more questions. Still, it's been working...
Swordsage 1 month ago
@swordsage yes I realize we are made up of naturally found elements including carbon, my open thinking is how these chemicals in the ground etc assembled themselves in such a way to build living things? The world trade centre was also made of naturally found chemicals, but there is no way they could assemble themselves into such a structure. A separate intelligent force is needed to assemble the first cell, Dawkins denies this common sense, & never gives an answer to explain it.
mpsmike 1 month ago
@mpsmike I know it may seem crazy, but I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that the most basic of bacterial cells could be made within the types of cosmic pressures that would have had to been at play here with these inert chemicals. After all, even today we have new viruses and microbes popping up all the time from various corners of the world with lots of water, heat, and chemical material. Even so, no one has the answer to this important question yet.
Swordsage 1 month ago
cont: so yeah, it's a bit presumptuous of me to say "go ask Dawkins" since he doesn't know. However, the thing is that he and others are trying to find out what the answer actually is... and that's ultimately why I can't go with the creationist angle. If we go that route, then there is no searching for the answer.. there's just basically saying " a wizard did it", which really doesn't explain anything, and that goes against any true knowledge seeking.
Swordsage 1 month ago
If there "probably isn't a God" then how does Dawkins explain in empirical scientific terms how life came about from random inanimate chemicals?
mpsmike 1 month ago
@mpsmike You do realize that you're made up of inanimate chemicals, right? There's a reason why we're considered "carbon based life forms". We have minerals such as zinc, copper, iron, and calcium in our body, among other things. We're not made up of mysterious "life energy" materials that we can't identify and define.
Though, shouldn't you be asking him that question instead of me? It's not like I taught him this stuff.
Swordsage 1 month ago
@xBlackEditionx I don't agree with you, I think many people buy into this arrogant creeps books, because they don't want to believe in God.
mpsmike 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD
855842 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Personally I believe that religion is simply a manifestation of mans inability to accept death. All religions I have heard about features an "afterlife" in one form or another like Heaven/hell, Valhalla, Field of Reeds e.t.c. And also reincarnation featured in Hinduism, Jainism and Islam. All of this boils down to one thing: Eternal existence. Man has, and will always, fear death and therefore will attempt to elude it. I dont believe in afterlifes..after all every good book has to have an ending
TheRacketBoss 6 months ago
@everyone if you knew 80% of facts we you prefer 100% promise? 2000 year old Palestinian/Jewish legend. We must evolve. There is more meaning is this life if you treasure it. An immortality fantasy cheapens every moment.
cadeere74 7 months ago
I love this guy! He completely understood that its not science that will down religion.. Which is why I didn't get so many people complained about a lack of science in his book.. Its not about science.. Its about logic and philosophy.. And his sources where ratter stunning! And sure, it didn't cover everything, but its a great start and makes good points about a lot of the base of religious philosophy.. Not all, but a good base!
TTFLS 10 months ago
Knifesniper69
If you are seriously an atheist that's sad, if there is no God then how did everything get here? & how does dirt come to life?
mpsmike 10 months ago
@mpsmike Research tells us that the building blocks of life, which are;
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, are easily formed by just mixing up lightning and mud.. The experiment has been repeated many times in labs and is quite easy to perform.. Now they haven't discovered anything else yet, but what's so strange about it? If those blocks can come to existence and we can make chihuahua's out of wolves, don't you think a whole lot is possible?
TTFLS 10 months ago
@TTFLS No i dont think its possible. They have created substances that are used in living organisms by these experiments, such as amino acids, thats not life, now they have to arrange these basic chemicals into a highly sophisticated DNA program, to build the cell & its funtioning motors & parts. show me how that can happen by lightning & rain & natural processes? if they claim it all to be scientificly proven, then let them show me?
mpsmike 10 months ago
@mpsmike Its about the philosophy behind it dude.. Just because we haven't discovered it, doesn't mean its not possible.. Its about movement and energy.. Its about energy that moves things, that changes things..
TTFLS 10 months ago
@TTFLS No they havent discovered it , but its interesting that many teachers & text books say they have.
they are lying to us. that pisses me off. the reason that they havent discovered it yet is because it isnt true. My life is limited & I am only interested in following the truth, not pseudo scientific fantasies. Sure man!, everything is moving & energy & all that, but for me its more about the God that created all that.
mpsmike 10 months ago
@mpsmike It was not the question what you believe.. The question is what logic is looking at science.. THEY HAVEN"T DISCOVERED IT ALL YET!! Read please.. Neither do books tell us they did.. Its about what we did discover, what we know about it and how this knowledge can easily form itself in the knowledge that life can actually exist out of its own.. But you fail to miss the point, ignore the things you did get and just end by rambling some shit about your fairy tells.. Go study dude...
TTFLS 10 months ago
I've read his stuff & it's shit!!
He IS cool, calm & collected, charming & extremely eloquent in his manor & writing, that's why so many people are sucked in buy him, but if you really have a good mind for critical thinking you would see through him. Just another cult of personality.
mpsmike 10 months ago
@mpsmike if you're only argument against the statements in the book is that "well there has to be a god, otherwise how did things get here?", then you're the one showing a lack of critical thinking. If you don't understand why, you obviously are not ready for intelligent discussion, and you definitely aren't ready to even begin to question scientific principles that you haven't even studied. Intellectually, it's like an ant challenging the bird about to eat it.
Swordsage 10 months ago 4
@mpsmike Um, people buy into his books because it's BASED on critical thinking and it makes something called SENSE which you christian's can never grasp.
xBlackEditionx 1 month ago
You know what converted me to atheism?, I read the bible, front to back 1 week, I highlighted, underlined, annotated, researched and read and reread. The book contradicts itself time and time again. WHAT has religion done for us since it's inception? NOW think of all science has done! The biggest converter of atheist isn't The God Delusion but the Bible
KnifeSniper69 11 months ago 2
Thank you for speaking the Truth, more people should
spindlegrinder 11 months ago
Everyone should read it, and it should be in all schools!!
spindlegrinder 11 months ago
youre brilliant.xxx
subbtopp 1 year ago
You should check out Ben Stein's "Expelled" documentary. It is an awesome comedy.
Edoric85 1 year ago
The main argument of "The God Delusion" is horrid. I feel sorry that this is the most popular book for atheists.
australianresistance 1 year ago
@australianresistance You must realize that he is considered a new age atheist, it wasn't aimed towards atheists but toward the Christians.
TheBadunka 1 year ago
well said!!
jammssy 1 year ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
What is a therum or theory?Is a theory BS?OR is A therum the truth?What does demi mean THen?Dema god. OK that must be right.
whattheheckevr 1 year ago
we watched the TV program The God Delusion last night & really enjoyed it now you have inspired my husband to look out for a copy of the book.
I belive that science can help proove that Jesus was a magic mushroom & the Dead Sea Scrolls could proove the biologicle science of the sacred magic mushroom a religion bassed on facts about the beginings of christianity & Judaeism. thus putting an end to the myths of Jesus the man & the historic missunderstood Bible codes that create blind faith.
lostindebespace 1 year ago
i did read it an its still - bull-shit.
whittensonthewall 1 year ago
@whittensonthewall Well, I would like to know exactly where in the book one finds the bullshit. That way, I can be convinced.
Swordsage 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
This was quite interesting. 10 minutes seemed like a long time to talk about the subject but you managed to fill it out pretty well. I like how you keep a neutral standpoint in this video and stick to talking about the subject rather than your viewpoints on religion. Although if you had said "Read the book" one more time i would accuse you for advertising it! XD
Brutalinax 1 year ago
My fellow atheists, you are not alone. :)
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
I need to read it. I just have alot of things to do. I think this summer I will borrow it from my library.
Elestareus 1 year ago
Great video.
slverfish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice take on it, I thought he might be overboard, but thanks for your more moderate view. Though never thought he was a lunatic ( but i am an atheist). Speaking about absolute isnt god one?
Xicit 1 year ago
nice take on it, I thought he might be overboard, but thanks for your more moderate view. Though never thought he was a lunatic ( but i am an atheist). Speaking about absolute isnt god one?
Xicit 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xicit 1 year ago
do not care if people choose to believe that theres a magic thing that made everything what annoys me is when they pass things off as fact despite having no proof of explanation to back up what they are saying and the ones that knock on your door and just go "ive seen god" because everyone stands there and thinks no you havnt and of course everyone knows they havnt but religion should be separate from politics because thats a dangerous mix
y05077 1 year ago
Nicely done. The sad thing is that no matter how much you try, some people will never want to reason with evidence. Only staying in their circle of ignorance and self-pity.
animemonarch888 2 years ago
Great review!! You made a lot of good points. It's good to see a video from a sensible person!
sarahvollmer 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Don't you think an Uncle Tom would actually be defending Christianity? After all, it's the religion that was used to keep black people as slaves.
Wow you're an idiot.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
... and this is the kind of dumb statement I expected from you.
First... institutional Satanists? I take it you're one of those conspiracy nuts. There are no secret Satanists in government with secret magical powers trying to take over the world.
Second, racists tend to be religious. Go down south and see how many people think that intermixing between races is something that's against god, or how many of them want this "christian nation" to be a pure white country.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Third, what was the system that was taught to slaves to keep them slaves? Atheism?? No, it was Christianity. Last time I checked, the descendants of slaves in this country are devoutly religious.
The elites actually prefer you to be religious. That way you'd rather expect a god to solve all your problems rather than do something yourself, or believe in so called "satanists" are behind everything, instead of just going after the government that's out in the open.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Even your name shows how ignorant you are. Hippies are nazis!?! You do realize these are people who aren't for things like theocracies, fascist states, and institutionalized citizens blindly serving the state. That's what they were PROTESTING against. Yet I noticed it's religious people who are asking for the very things I just listed. They want this place to be a theocracy, where everyone has to march to one beat, and live just like they do, swearing allegiance to the state, ie fascism.
Swordsage 2 years ago
In short, start reading some real books for a change, instead of blindly swallowing crap put out by kooks who will insure that you will never be effective against the powers that be, all while helping to further their agenda and giving them what they want: religious idiots who chase after ghosts and attack other citizens who actually care to exercise their own minds.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 1 year ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
A theocracy is religious rule. Cults of personality, heinous as it is, doesn't equate religious rule. Nice try.
Karl Marx was a satanist? Wow. Would love to see some proof of that. You have pictures of him in congress with "the beast"?
MLK being a Christian doesn't negate Christianity's role in supporting slavery in this country. There were plenty of Christians who opposed slavery, but there were plenty of others who felt it was the natural order of things (cont)
Swordsage 2 years ago
... and that certain races were to be subjected. Check out the original Mormons beliefs on the role of black people in the world.
Just because slavery predates Christianity doesn't mean Christians didn't help to keep it going. There is a difference between CREATING something, and helping something along. I didn't say Christians created slavery, so for you to suggest this either means you are being intellectually dishonest or are just a mental deficient.
Swordsage 2 years ago
You also continue to prove my point that the only one here making baseless accusations is YOU. For instance, saying I'm an Obama supporter. Obviously you haven't seen my other videos. I've never supported the man, nor did I even vote for him. I will vote for no one who thinks its ok for our phones to be tapped.
You talk about "my side" I don't have a side, since both the left and the right want people marching to their own beat.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Any group that acts like they are the only good people and the others are all evil should be avoided... which is exactly what YOU are doing, which is why I can't take you seriously. It's funny how anyone who doesn't bow down to the cross or think the crazy way you do just HAS to be a "satanist" or a supporter of the state, yet you have no proof whatsoever of that.
If you want me to take you seriously, I need to see some real proof.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago
I still need to see proof that all this is linked to satanism. Contrary to popular christian belief, not everything that Christians don't like equals Satanism. Paganism for instance doesn't equal satanism. In order for that to be true, these religions need to acknowledge the christian god that they are supposedly fighting against... and they don't even believe in him, nor a devil for that matter. THey don't even acknowledge a Satan. SO how is it satanism?
Swordsage 2 years ago
You also equate Socialism (basically Karl Marx's ideas) with Satanism, which is really interesting. This implies that you believe capitalism is good and holy. Well Jesus spoke out against the rich, saying that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. He shared what he had with the poor. But capitalism is a designed for people to get rich, and the people tend not to divide wealth among the poor. So what does that tell you?
Swordsage 2 years ago
Now, I didn't say that to support communism and the like (they don't work), but rather to get you to think. Sure you can point out the problems with the systems you don't like, that's easy. But you also have to be willing to see what's wrong with stuff that people teach you is "good". That's how you get coned. ALL man made systems are flawed, and the powerful will always try to find ways to use these systems against us. The more you passionately champion something the easier it is to fool you.
Swordsage 2 years ago
Comment removed
HippiesAreNazis 2 years ago