he mentioned newton genes lol...im related to newton...his father was my grandmother's great great great great great great great great great grandfather
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I'm afraid, I find Archbishop Dawkins, a less than credible oracle of truth. It is more than apparent that Archbishop Dawkins motives for his public dictates, have little to do with a belief in atheism and much more to do with his own internal personal struggle with God.
@faithbyloving You apparently didn't understand anything they are talking about. I know you posted this nearly half a year ago but what you wrote is so dumb, i just had to answer.
Double bind: society needs people who obey instructions, but you want people to be individualistic, not following instructions.
There is a certain sort of arrogance on your parts in trying to define those who believe in God as weakminded. Certainly you are aware of great scientists and philosophers who believed in God.
On the other hand, some of us on the belief side wonder how you could possibly believe that life came about of itself or that the fuel of adaptation is chance. Big belief!
@MorganMarvinson Yes, I agree. When you actually start to investigate the necessary factors for life to even exist on this planet, let alone all its diversities, it is stretching the very bounds of credibility to expect anyone to believe that such a set of circumstances happened by random co-incidence. For some of these factors, you need odds of millions or billions to one, for them to occur by random chance. The truth is it is far harder to believe in Dawkins atheism for this reason
@faithbyloving "The truth is, it is far harder to believe in Dawkins' atheism for this reason." It's simply hope against hope that it possibly, might could have worked.
"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." Nobel prize winner George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.
@MorganMarvinson re: "It's simply hope against hope that it possibly, might could have worked." - I agree. The odds against all of the conditions which have been necessary for life to exist and evolve, are beyond serious consideration. There are simply too many factors involved, with far too many stringent requirements, without which life on earth would have been impossible.
@MorganMarvinson George Wald is entitled to believe what he wishes to. So is everyone. However, the odds of just one form of life (humans), ever being able to comprehend its own life cycle, planetary ecosystems and astronomy, are so highly stacked up against this ever happening, that anyone not questiong the idea of random design by natural selection, is simply in denial of realities.
@faithbyloving I agree, random design isn't a possibility in Darwinian natural selection, everything that happens is for adaptational purposes, as for the odd factor: there are billions of stars, millions of which have planets at similar distances and material compositions as the earth which have recently been discovered. Natural selection is a pretty hard to believe theory, I wouldn't subscribe to it myself if I didn't know modern Biology and Medicine are based on it.
Look at the body lauguage , Dawkins is relaxed because he believe's in what he is saying . Thunderfoot is using his hands and looking to the ground to much which means he is sending an SOS like a person who is lost waving at a plane passing by over-head . But he is a good actor and i admire him for that.
To be honest i find this interview uncomfortable to watch , i wonder how much thunderfoot paid to get this interview.Everything about thunderfoot is so contrived and its like he is in character. He keeps quoting random statements from other interviews with dawkins as information pretending to know what he's talking about.The reason he's so slow when he talks its because he has to think about what he is saying and Dawkins had to correct him a few times in this video did you notice?.
@Treefrogs2 Your so right , there is a high% of people on youtube think he is great , but not me he is boring your 100% right but there are alot of sheep that follow him and bleep for guidance and who will also send me and you messages with troll like comments giving us abuse .
I dislike Dawkins for one reason. None of his beliefs irritate me a great deal. But he will not allow people with differing ideas to voive them. I recently watched one of his documentaries for the second time. Any time he spoke to an imbecile he was allowed to say his full point. Every time he spoke to an intelligent person the answer would fade out to a Dawkins voiceover and the reply was never heard. He is afraid to debate genuine intelligence with differing ideas.
@Jammsbro1 In Richard Dawkin's book, the God Delusion, he mentions a list of 10 Secular Commandments which would be morally relevant and also free from mysticism. Number 8 on the list is this: "Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you." Now, allowing other people to speak their say does not constitute agreeing with them or conceding one's point. Yes, it's possible to say one thing and do another, but check it out, perhaps.
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, one could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
@BloodOfRayne The term was coined by Dawkins himself in his book, The Selfish Gene. It has be defined as "a cultural unit (an idea, value, or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (imitation); 'memes are the cultural counterpart of genes' ". *This definition can be easily found through Google by typing in the search box: define:meme Hope that helps!
Dawkins proving himself as a true gent of science. Roughly between 2 and 3 mins TF suggests that memes could survive through groups of people, Richard was about to disagree until he graciously accepted his point. Science is never afraid to be wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dawkins & thunderfoot both believe it's their meaning & purpose life to go around writing books & lecturing people about how life has no meaning or purpose. that's a concept well worth pondering.
Its funny how they talk about religious folk as if they were a science expirement, and rightfully so. How could they become so brainwashed??/ Was it the group mentality? Is it the need for athority? Is it like a Drug? Please tell me that you had an off camera session with dawkins where you fellas really put some good diggers in on the religious folk.
Do you have any idea of what an Atheist is? If so then you would understand how ignorat your post is. If on the other hand you are just having fun and poking at believers then I totaly get it and thats the funniest thing I have seen all day! Bravo!,,either way,,LOL
Couldn't agree more with Dawkins, people who are religious do have to be gullible and obey authority. One of the things ive noticed about christians and as stated by dawkins is that there belief in god is psychological. It comes from either a wanting to live forever in a paradise or the fear of burning alive forever. There faith is not based upon merit or evidence. I think this is how christians can glaze over the obvious absurdities and cotrodictions to science contained both testaments.
Considering that Dawkins is the hero of the atheist/evolutionists, thus far, Blunderfool has wasted his opportunity that will most likely never present itself again
Dawkins had already presented his view on the question that Blundy continued to pursue with an opposing debating response. Big mistake, it would have been far more interesting to move on.
You're bleating on about nothing in particular. If you think you can do better, set up a more interesting discussion with Dawkins on YouTube. If not, STFU.
Aside from all the other reasons, also because although evolution is false, still, Dawkins is an Englishman whom appears to have consciously developed skills in speaking his native language. While Blundy sounds like he's struggling to grunt out every word
Causing the effect of that even if Blundy were correct, Dawkins still sounds like the one correct simply from his oratory skills when compared to grunts
I respect both Dawkins and Thunderfoot. Both really intelligent guys. I do believe in Natual selection and evolution. But I still believe in God. Sorry !!!!!
I personally have my own views on god and the universe (we're not an accident man, too convienient) but dawkins is on the ball and you did what alota people would love to do.
tell me how Christians suffering for their faith...even unto death... makes them feel good?how would such a propogation continue if during periods of deep attempts at extermination(such as in China today) seem to grow faith, not diminish it?
@ottojaws The reason why, Religionists feel good, about their faith is because they kind of, as a former muslim, i know they kind of feel secure to an immortal life after death, and they reflect that in our daily life example, we have to work, to make money. so they think, that someone up there, wants us to work for him until we die so we can earn our place in heaven or hell. depending on, how good we workd. lol
Don't forget the selection pressures involved. I.e. those who farmed the citizens worked pretty hard to prevent the "uncooperative" ones from breeding - (usually by killing them).
Hitchens in politics is a big joke... He is no-longer a Marxist and he has betrayed his Socialistic Materialism.
Hitchens has become an ass-kisser of American ideals... which are quite cruel and terroristic.
Hitchens used to be good on subjects such as the Vietnam War... But he has become a reformist trotskyist... Supporting the Iraq war, claiming that Islam is now imperialistic.
this isn't hitchens... it is dawkins... as for your ignorant muslim statement, look at southeast asia and the middle east... and modern era muslims are direct heretics. my friend hathim is a manwhore alcoholic, at the mall this holiday i saw a muslim woman with a hejad(?) face uncovered eating bourbon chicken with a face tattoo and had shopping bags. so modern muslims break most tenets of faith.
religion is black and white, if you believe you must follow tenets. that doesn't make you moderate it makes you a fool, and that you doubt your faith.
also there is no such thing as darwinism, that is a christian term made to think there a cult or faith, therefore making it a rival religion. saying darwinism is to discredit the work of all evolutionary scientists, and darwin didn't have all of pieces, like genetics.
the point of a tenet is that is never to be broken, and to that moderates are people that don't agree or follow their own beliefs, therefore are not part of the whole but secularists. which most faiths have tenets against secularism, making them heretics to the faith. really it is black and white.
When I say we'll find out when we die, is not a proposition of truth, it's a proposition of true. It's different from taking the logical Operator KI-->A, rather BI-->A, I being the agent involved here, K being knowing, B being believing, and A the proposition.
Take a closer look into epistemic logic, and you'll understand. You just made a pleading fallacy near the end, because someone doesn't necessarily follow their faith doesn't mean they aren't part of it...
no that is a fact, excommunication, exile, and many other anti-secularist ceremonies. secularism creates new religions and sects which are not the core of religion.
also your philosophy text book equation, does not equal any truth but a perverse stand off statement. we DO know where we go when we die, into a casket, crematoria or a ditch, depend on incident.
Plato mentioned the killing of Atheists, therefore Plato is wrong, even though you don't provide why killing Atheists is wrong (not implying that it isn't).
So I'm wrong because I use logical operators, but you're write because you use subjective semantics? Yeah, I would ratehr trust logical operators than your flawed nonsense anyday.
We do know? Yeah, prove it, prove that there is no afterlife if you claim it is so, you're claimign we know, when it's belief.
wow you contradicted yourself again, also you fail at reading comprehension, also by your poor spelling you are quite flustered.
actually i think as a realist and a minimalist, which is extremely logical, but understanding logic is presenting semantics. and as for your atheist genocide theory, it is not the case of religion but ignorance.
Spelling? This is youtube, I make comments last less than 30 seconds, I really could care less about spelling. Btu yuo konw waht yuo sitll udnserstnd waht im syaing...
You also made the ignorant mistake of saying "extremely "logical", lol that was illogical in itself, because logic can't be extreme. If you prefer semantics over logical operators which you can't refute, then you're illogical, semantics are by definition subjective depending ont he definition of the words used...
actually logic can be in degrees, as it is not always about the easiest path to a goal. so by nature itself logic folds into definition of parameters, even if they end in goal(s) the process is not equilateral. which also defines itself to semantic... a question has an answer that leads to a new question ad infinitum... that is logic.
you missed the point... saying it is a belief is the problem, it is the pursuit of truth not blind conjecture (like religion). science isn't belief it is truth, although "global warming" is slowly going into fanatic fantasy, and is scrutinized until a theory can be proven. religious groups feed off the idea that there is only faith in science, because they know faith is flimsy and can be coerced.
I've read a little about comparitive religion, yes I know who the father of Zonothrainism (or whatever it is) is, I know the basic tenents of the mystery religion.
Yes, there is a genralization there, you see the world in white and black. I've read in history how Christianity has always been on one side, but some have used it to do things against us. Because others decided to do that, it makes religion the cause? NO, that's a corellation-causation fallacy.
I don't see the world that way, religion does. most ignorant and religious people start wars and genocide because of it, even the gita and torah have many parts pertaining to treatment of non-believers, mostly as less than human. the torah write explicitly that an israelite can kill a non-believer with no penalty, that IS black and white thinking.
I don't care if you don't see the world that way, and that's the damn point, it's a belief system, the same way you hold a belief system. So only ignorant religious people start war and genocide? last time I checked it was an Atheist who started a famine and genocide that ended with 3 million deatsh in the Ukraine.
Yeah, hypocrite much? Furthermore, corellation-causation fallacy, good luck with fallacies in the real world. The Torah? I'm not Jewish lol, and what's wrong?
all functions are N.I. or chemicals exchange. most organisms die and only a select few return in better conditions, the rest cease all functions or the common name "death". once these functions cease life has ended, after there are no more functions and that is the truth.
Also, I made no theory, I was merely showing the corellation/causation FALLACY you've made. Your ineptness and incompetence astounds me, prove that religion caused what you said, you make claims but don't back it up, and you claim to be "extremely" logical (ROFL).
So all human body functions are chemical reactions? If your mind is just that, why trust that the mind can attain truth? Is there a reason for us to know, please say evolution, this is going to be funny.
again you missed everything i have said, and if you don't understand what i am saying then you probably never will. i have already repeated myself twice, so i am not going to try to explain it to you, you just can't grasp it.
and yes all functions are electro/chemical, i shouldn't have to explain middle school science to you. without function you are not alive, therefore no possibility for life, except for bacteria and molds, but for all of us that is the proven truth.
That is the truth, so there is no afterlife? Uhh, you haven't proven it, you have just proven that we die, people who believe in anfterlife believe in that too, prove that there is no afterlife. Prove to me that after life ends, we don't go somewhere else, I'm claiming that I believe, you claim to know? Yeah, you're arrogant and commiting a bare assertion fallacy.
religious work have many hateful judgemental things written, with the full intent of killing someone based solely on what they believe. maybe you have never read any religious texts, because almost all of them have passages designed to make it okay to kill someone. where as an ignorant dictator slaughters people but they blame him for his actions because he doesn't believe.
is your word-of-the-day calendar word fallacy? because you aren't using it properly, maybe you should get a thesaurus.
A negative cannot be proven. If something is absent it would not exist to prove its absence. You are positing that something does exist when there is no evidence to support it, therefore the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.
Who says Atheism is a negative claim, and yes negatives can be proven, you do it in science all the time. In science, scientific postulations are discredited all the time. You can discredit the idea of God, you CAN disprove a negative. Furthermore, if you're relying on the lack of evidence, you follow the argument from ignorance. So you're still fallacious either way.
@ogirv101. Atheism = not theism. For example, take this dictionary: P = a person. t = a theist. based on this dictionary, an atheist (logically notated) would look something like this: ~ Pt. (NOT a person who is a theist ). it is a negative claim.
"Yes, my point exactly... most muslims are very moderate"
Excuse me? How can anyone say that who has any knowledge of how Islam was spread.
Islam was spread by the sword! The point of Islam is to dominate or convert through force if necessary anyone who is a Kafir (non muslim).
The evidence of Islamic Jihad is overwhelming for anyone who has any knowledge of what took place in Southeast Asia, North Africa and India, from 800-1700.
The only moderate Muslim is a Muslim whose out of bullets.
I would like to contradict. There are moderate muslims, which just want to live their lives just like everyone else. But Islam is as Islam does, and it is a ideology which deprives humanity out of society. But there really are moderate muslims, but they are like the people of Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's. Altough the part which actually agrees totally with the Nazi idea, was minor, they lack the means to bring their views into light, as they fear the reprisal of the authority.
i think that change in people to form heirarcy and group thinking is directly related to the cat skinner box. to have the ability to give to a religion or government is to assume that later you will get more (peity=afterlife, taxes=protection). which children cannot second guess but do not comprehend the reward later, and many children who did not go with this were beaten or killed before being able to pass their genes. religion approved violence has bred you to be stupid.
I'm a big fan of TF's, but why did he show up to interview Dawkins looking like he just rolled out of bed? He looked more clean cut when meeting banana man.
perhaps because you're writing in german whilst most of the users of the internet agree on using english in one form or another, however crude the individual's ability to use that language may be?
Genetic predesposition to follow hierarchical constructs, as D suggests, is only half of the equation The other half is society's influence on people and how it indoctrinates them into believing that society should be hierarchical. And just out of curiosity, where is the evidence of this genetic predesposition to hierarchy? I can look up a thousand academic papers proving the existence of the societal influence and a million cases of people who are not well adjusted to our hierarchical system.
I know humans are different to the other primates in various ways but to get an idea of a genetic predisposition to authority its helpful to look at chimpanzee societies. Do you think chimps have a genetic predisposition to follow hierarchical constructs? If your answer is yes then it follows we might share this trait with our closest living relative.
there was actually a documentary about this, and chimps differ mostly in their inability to cooperate to obtain a goal, but also, chimpanzee children are far less gullible than human children. they had a transparent box, with a treat inside. there was a hole in the top, that did nothing, and
an opening mechanism.
the grownups took a stick, and put it first in the top hole, and then into the opening mechanism. the human child did exactly the same as the grownups. the chimp just opened the box.
ALERT Well guys. If you have a brain please reply. I was talking with a mother. And she told me humans are not born with emotions, that they are taught. That they are learned through rules, people around you. Then we talked about morality. And that without society we would have no morals. So what exactly do yall think about this. I was hoping that I will get a reply. Or something. Please. (: BTW i am atheist
@Weston29406 the concept of morals being a biproduct of society is agreeable if society were to somehow dissappear morality would dissapate slowly not instantly this is mainly because of how long these values have been engraned in us. and as for emotions being taught there is sufficient evidence to prove that emotions are a genetic trate that you are born with however how to display your emotions is developed by observation
@Weston29406. People are born with emotions in tact. We know exactly which parts of a working brain create which emotions and they do not just start working if we are "taught". All societys MUST evolve morals in order to survive, for example if we evolved to think it was ok to rape and kill little girls then there would be no grown women to reproduce and clearly our society would not have survived. The same can be said for all of morality.
I do believe that some of our morality is innate, however I also believe that most of it is taught. If this were not the case, then morality is rapidly evolving. During the middle ages, watching animals be tortured, and public executions was considered good entertainment. 2000 years ago, watching people fight to the death was entertainment. I would like to think that we have come a long ways since, yet I believe this is societal, not genetic. Of course, this is all just my speculation.
LOL, bad analogy. Grains of sand is not the same as morality. There is one problem in William Craig's argument though, he begs the question in number 2. He has to prove morality is objective, buthe basically gives Atheists a dead end because if they have no objective morals than they can be deemed immoral by Christians, and Atheists absolutely hate that.
I agree with you more Thunderfoot, individuals survive better when the group survives better. This is perhaps one reason the "Greed is good" philosophy has been such a failure and very likely why this sort of individualistic thinking has caused much of the problems - including the economic downturn that our society is now experiencing. A video to that effect would really get to the root of a lot of the consequences of currently held beliefs.
Well of course! Science isn't a moral philosophy so people would be stupid to be looking for answers to questions like "How do I move on from my wife leaving me?" by scientific experimentation.
social sciences are moral philosophy arent they? but my main point is why try to argue about terminating religion if it can help our social society be just? i understand that religion sometimes contradict itself as people take it literally but what about the background meaning? for example jesus why argue if he was real or fake if he can represent a person who is kind to all?
Sure! I think a lot of people don't have a problem with understanding those stories as stories with important meanings, but I think a lot of people still think they are true as well, which I think is a shame because it sort of ruins the point of a story. It would be like people believing that Tom Sawyer was real rather than understanding the author's point behind the story. Aesop's fables have importance, even though they aren't real and I think literalists ruin the magic of story telling.
agreed which is why i stated in my first comment the only thing i hate about religion are the branches that take passages literally and force it upon people. but other than that if religion helps then its ok.
No, I think ethics belongs in formal sciences in philosophy. Social sciences is more of psychological behavior, history, sociology, etc. Formal sciences is where ethics belongs.
Why argue about Jesus? Because some of the stuff he says is too kind, and people would rather not be kind and do whatever they want. I don't know that sounds plausible to me for rejecting Jesus as an ethical figure, he asked too much.
other than religion, ask yourself what is wrong with the world today? and ask why? cus i believe one of the main things wrong with the world today is, are the flaws of human nature. philosophers claim (forgot their names) either people are born the way they are with certain habbits or they learn those habbits. if people live to do what ever they want without a limit, i see this world towards end. but jesus real or fake, as a character represents an example thats all.
What's wrong? Define wrong in an Atheistic stance? In an Atheistic stance it's totally subjective, and wrong can mean peaceful people living in a society in one view and it would be totally right to that person.
Locke argued that man's ethical system is what his enviorment makes him, I think it was Descartes who argued we are innately morally good at conception. They both failed to define good without involving a postulating divine being, which many argue does not exist...
hmm wrong can be defined so differently by everyone!, like disagreements.. i was told i was wrong because i talking about a football player to a brazillian who has a crush on the guy.
when it comes to morals, i think everyone knows what makes them feel good about themselves, whether it takes trial and error or just common sense, not an invisible big brother.
So wrong is defined by the individual, I consider peace wrong, therefore I'm going to systematically kill half a million people in chambers? It's alright as long it makes me feel good and I think it's right? I also think that pushing grandmothers with alzheimers down stairs is cool, therefoe I should do it?
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
23 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Yes, he is damnig cities, so what of it? He is talking about final moral judgement, it's an argument imamnuel kant himself made for the existance of the afterlife. Why would there be moral rules if those who break them are not punished or brought to justice? I side with immanuel kant on this one.
Also, Stalin didn't condemn cities for being immoral, he condemned cities because he wanted them to compyl with what he said. There's a difference though....
"Also, Stalin didn't condemn cities for being immoral, he condemned cities because he wanted them to compyl with what he said. There's a difference though...."
Lol, oh yeah?
The Aztecs considered it moral to sacrifice their own to their bloody gods to allow the sun to rise each day. Were they moral?
If you went back in time and asked an ancient Aztec, they would consider themselves quite moral indeed. Learn your arguments before posting them.
Yeah, the aztecs in Jesus' view are all burning in hell, I could care less about their morality. But since you're all high and mighty, I'd like to hear from the high and mighty godless commie what moral is when the godless commies killed 110 million people?
Youguys consider yourselves moral right, wait you guys don't have morality at all, just some subjective moral relaticistic bs. In Soviet Russia, morals don't tell you what to do, you tell morals what to do. =p
Fuck all the "Godless Commies". Unlike yourself, I don't associate myself with crazies nor label myself. Communism has never been seen on this earth since prehistory, i.e. surrounding the agricultural revolution, (apparently before God created the heavens and the earth) and won't be for a good long time to come.
Those disgraceful bastards that dare called themselves commies went the same way all empires do; the way of the Dodo.
I suppose as well that you are the moral rightfighter, what with all the atrocities you wonderful christians are responsible for. Religion has curved the development of our race for far too long; it's about time we put an end to the incantations. But it's all in good time; when people are educated, they begin to see the world for what it is, not the fairytale you believe it to be.
Stalin killed 60 million people on earth and said he was the law. Jesus didn't touch a soul, he never hurt anyone, and he said if you don't believe in his morality, you'll just see after you die. Again, Pascal's wager is a pain in the ass. Jesus didn't force you to comply with him, but he did give you a warning, and Stalin was warned as well, and so were you. It's all up to when we die isn't it, Pascal's dildo sounds better in my opinion...
Mate, Stalin gave his people a choice too. Believe me or you die.
Jesus didn't have the manpower to support a similar regime, but considering his words as recorded by scholars believing in his personality cult, he would have, given the chance. Also, my friend, remember who invented Hell in the first place.
Pascal's wager is a farce. The same argument could be made for Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, etc. But do you follow those religions?
LOL, Stalin gave his people a choice believe him or die? Yeah... Jesus said believe me or you're going to find out after you die. Jesus claim seems alot more real and powerful than Stalin's. So you're claiming Jesus has a personality cult? LOL, well he was God, why not? Hinduism doesn't have a hell, paganism has no hell either, and none of them set standards of wha thell is like Christianity. Islam? Yeah, not buying it...
Tell me exactly how Jesus' supposed divinity differs from any other given personality cult?
And, excluding all the lovely stonings and acts of violence in the Good Book, Jesus may not have stabbed anyone in the chest, but he certainly set people up for it later, what with the fire, brimstone, weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Hate to tell you this, but any theistic stance is subjective. There is no objective god that theists can use to decide common morals: what it really is is their own individual subjective standards, which other people happen to hold, which is really not surprising given that humans all humans are of the same species and share the same basic hardwiring in the brain. So of course they form groups with those who have similar values. The point is many values may be shared but are still subjective.
No, a theistic stance by its nature is objective, by your way of thinking they are subjective becuse you disagree with them, but they don't care, their laws are objective.
In the own system of beliefs they are objective, and they hold same values? Sure, they may hold some similar values, who cares? Their belief systems are objective, I really can't discuss this in depth I'm trying my best to irk Reg-godlesscommie-mass murderer (=p). So send me a PM if you want.
I'm sorry but you lack any sort of evidence for such a preposterous claim as absolute objectivity. And no, the Bible is NOT evidence.
Yes, in their "own" system they may seem objective, but you have to step outside that system to see what it really is. Take murder. Most people are hardwired to be against murdering another person, so in THAT sense it is somewhat objective. But it is not a SCIENTIFIC law that murder is wrong. That would give intent to the universe, which is NOT a sentient being.
Your problem simply is that you cannot see beyond humans; you cannot see that our properties, our traits, our characteristics, our thoughts, our ways of life, even our very lives themselves have NO. AFFECT. ON. THE. LAWS. OF. THE. UNIVERSE. They just don't. The universe and its laws are what they are, with or without you or your opinion.
wrong in non religious stance. im 17 your going way above my head. however by wrong i mean the flaws of how our world as a community is functioning. the flaws the create war, allow poverty so exist etc. these flaws are created by the nature of men wanting to do what ever they want. like the conspiracy that the men who run the banks like the rocafellas have been in charge of war as they profit in it. we are flawed to continue living similarly to this eg wanting power or the ability to do wat ever
Who is thunderf00t... really, is a Rothschild?
faro0485 4 months ago
@faro0485 Allah loves the cock
nilbud 4 months ago
@nilbud Let me see you say that in front of Malcom X, or those who knew him: /watch?v=f81YGFolfS4
faro0485 4 months ago
he mentioned newton genes lol...im related to newton...his father was my grandmother's great great great great great great great great great grandfather
idlenessss 4 months ago
@idlenessss Newton's father only had one child.
nilbud 4 months ago
@nilbud he had three siblings from a second marriage...
the list was long enough to mention in laws
idlenessss 4 months ago
@idlenessss Step-father not father. You're related through the mother not the father.
nilbud 4 months ago
@nilbud whatever...but i dont even know what her maiden name was. My grandmother still had the maiden name of newton
idlenessss 4 months ago
Dawkins looks bored.
knowwaie 6 months ago
@knowwaie don't worry, he just always looks like that.
deliman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
I want Dawkins' brain.
395Javelin 9 months ago
I'm afraid, I find Archbishop Dawkins, a less than credible oracle of truth. It is more than apparent that Archbishop Dawkins motives for his public dictates, have little to do with a belief in atheism and much more to do with his own internal personal struggle with God.
faithbyloving 11 months ago
Dawkins is seriously weird if he thinks rivers, thunderstorms or inanimate objects have personalities! What planet is he from?
faithbyloving 1 year ago
@faithbyloving no hes saying that people will make up gods for everythink like fire and water gods etc...
bellyzbad 1 year ago
@faithbyloving He was making a point about how people make gods up for certain elements.
2009OLP 11 months ago
@faithbyloving You apparently didn't understand anything they are talking about. I know you posted this nearly half a year ago but what you wrote is so dumb, i just had to answer.
MrMLabi 6 months ago
@MrMLabi Yeah, great answer! You sound really "informed" - keep up the amazing contributions!
faithbyloving 6 months ago
Double bind: society needs people who obey instructions, but you want people to be individualistic, not following instructions.
There is a certain sort of arrogance on your parts in trying to define those who believe in God as weakminded. Certainly you are aware of great scientists and philosophers who believed in God.
On the other hand, some of us on the belief side wonder how you could possibly believe that life came about of itself or that the fuel of adaptation is chance. Big belief!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, I agree. When you actually start to investigate the necessary factors for life to even exist on this planet, let alone all its diversities, it is stretching the very bounds of credibility to expect anyone to believe that such a set of circumstances happened by random co-incidence. For some of these factors, you need odds of millions or billions to one, for them to occur by random chance. The truth is it is far harder to believe in Dawkins atheism for this reason
faithbyloving 11 months ago
@faithbyloving "The truth is, it is far harder to believe in Dawkins' atheism for this reason." It's simply hope against hope that it possibly, might could have worked.
"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." Nobel prize winner George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.
MorganMarvinson 11 months ago
@MorganMarvinson re: "It's simply hope against hope that it possibly, might could have worked." - I agree. The odds against all of the conditions which have been necessary for life to exist and evolve, are beyond serious consideration. There are simply too many factors involved, with far too many stringent requirements, without which life on earth would have been impossible.
faithbyloving 11 months ago
@MorganMarvinson George Wald is entitled to believe what he wishes to. So is everyone. However, the odds of just one form of life (humans), ever being able to comprehend its own life cycle, planetary ecosystems and astronomy, are so highly stacked up against this ever happening, that anyone not questiong the idea of random design by natural selection, is simply in denial of realities.
faithbyloving 11 months ago
@faithbyloving I agree, random design isn't a possibility in Darwinian natural selection, everything that happens is for adaptational purposes, as for the odd factor: there are billions of stars, millions of which have planets at similar distances and material compositions as the earth which have recently been discovered. Natural selection is a pretty hard to believe theory, I wouldn't subscribe to it myself if I didn't know modern Biology and Medicine are based on it.
Grandecasla 6 months ago
@MorganMarvinson TROLL!
srexob715 11 months ago
i wish i could have a 1 on 1 with hitchens before he goes
viego215 1 year ago
atheist priest talking to his pope.
xleax 1 year ago
Thunderf00t is wearing small pants and if you don't agree, you can fuck off.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Look at the body lauguage , Dawkins is relaxed because he believe's in what he is saying . Thunderfoot is using his hands and looking to the ground to much which means he is sending an SOS like a person who is lost waving at a plane passing by over-head . But he is a good actor and i admire him for that.
bendthatnote 1 year ago
To be honest i find this interview uncomfortable to watch , i wonder how much thunderfoot paid to get this interview.Everything about thunderfoot is so contrived and its like he is in character. He keeps quoting random statements from other interviews with dawkins as information pretending to know what he's talking about.The reason he's so slow when he talks its because he has to think about what he is saying and Dawkins had to correct him a few times in this video did you notice?.
bendthatnote 1 year ago
@bendthatnote
So, you are accusing Thunderfoot of being human?
Chumkil 1 year ago
@Chumkil Why ? what else is he ? LOL
bendthatnote 1 year ago
Comment removed
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Your so right , there is a high% of people on youtube think he is great , but not me he is boring your 100% right but there are alot of sheep that follow him and bleep for guidance and who will also send me and you messages with troll like comments giving us abuse .
bendthatnote 1 year ago
NICE SOCKS.
mrrockyrooster 1 year ago
Dude this is awesome, you got to sit down and have a 1-0n-1 with dawkins. Thunderf00t, you're one cool hombre.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago 21
@mmmmmarcus Rubbish, A guy talking to mirrors about metaphysics LOL !!!
isawman1 8 months ago
I dislike Dawkins for one reason. None of his beliefs irritate me a great deal. But he will not allow people with differing ideas to voive them. I recently watched one of his documentaries for the second time. Any time he spoke to an imbecile he was allowed to say his full point. Every time he spoke to an intelligent person the answer would fade out to a Dawkins voiceover and the reply was never heard. He is afraid to debate genuine intelligence with differing ideas.
Jammsbro1 1 year ago
@Jammsbro1 In Richard Dawkin's book, the God Delusion, he mentions a list of 10 Secular Commandments which would be morally relevant and also free from mysticism. Number 8 on the list is this: "Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you." Now, allowing other people to speak their say does not constitute agreeing with them or conceding one's point. Yes, it's possible to say one thing and do another, but check it out, perhaps.
themediocrenontheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, one could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
OVER 9000!!!!!
Thats an internet meme.
Pwned (jk)
TMNoob3 1 year ago
What the hell is a meme?
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne The term was coined by Dawkins himself in his book, The Selfish Gene. It has be defined as "a cultural unit (an idea, value, or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (imitation); 'memes are the cultural counterpart of genes' ". *This definition can be easily found through Google by typing in the search box: define:meme Hope that helps!
veganmochi 1 year ago
So Society has come to a point where we're starting to understand Memes and we have to consider responsible Meme management?
ThePhantomBlacksmith 1 year ago
Dawkins proving himself as a true gent of science. Roughly between 2 and 3 mins TF suggests that memes could survive through groups of people, Richard was about to disagree until he graciously accepted his point. Science is never afraid to be wrong.
TheSugarEng 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins & thunderfoot both believe it's their meaning & purpose life to go around writing books & lecturing people about how life has no meaning or purpose. that's a concept well worth pondering.
jmnew1 2 years ago
Its funny how they talk about religious folk as if they were a science expirement, and rightfully so. How could they become so brainwashed??/ Was it the group mentality? Is it the need for athority? Is it like a Drug? Please tell me that you had an off camera session with dawkins where you fellas really put some good diggers in on the religious folk.
DjetGlea 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
these guys are both ATHEISTS be warned what they say they are trying to plant the seed of wordly evil into our christian hearts
be warned!!
xjaskix 2 years ago
@xjaskix
lol
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Xjaskix.
Do you have any idea of what an Atheist is? If so then you would understand how ignorat your post is. If on the other hand you are just having fun and poking at believers then I totaly get it and thats the funniest thing I have seen all day! Bravo!,,either way,,LOL
carpnter2000 2 years ago
I would have never guessed...?
Raidenoftherebellion 2 years ago
@xjaskix
fail.
MikeHall683 2 years ago
You are pathetic.
MrPoopybum 2 years ago
nice colbertism
SouthernWhiteTrash 2 years ago
LOL
violator198666 2 years ago
ugh why is shawn even filing dmcas on these videos... so far as i'm aware, he is not mentioned anywhere in them
corey02346 2 years ago
The new video has been taken down.
DMCA filed by Shawn Karon. aka VenomFangX.
Whether or not it is him or not is beyond me.
GLeNss 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These guys like to hear themselves speak.. All you are doing is guessing.
MrGlowster 2 years ago
It's called discussion, as the title says.
spudpeel 2 years ago 10
uhh?
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
Couldn't agree more with Dawkins, people who are religious do have to be gullible and obey authority. One of the things ive noticed about christians and as stated by dawkins is that there belief in god is psychological. It comes from either a wanting to live forever in a paradise or the fear of burning alive forever. There faith is not based upon merit or evidence. I think this is how christians can glaze over the obvious absurdities and cotrodictions to science contained both testaments.
evertoff 2 years ago
My father is religious. He's not a bible-thumper, but he truly believes in the bible. At least he lives his life that way, and professes to.
It's an amazing thing. He is also literally a mathematical savant.
He is as critical a thinker as one can imagine when it comes to the rest of his life. Not gullible.
My point I suppose is that it's not intelligence or gullibility that's to blame.
I think in his case it's simply that he was taught religion at school at a very young age.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
especially if you don't catch it early in your life, droped religion when i was 18 even though i learnt it in school
mijolnir55 2 years ago
You might have something there 'in your infinite wisdom'.
2010JesusSaves 2 years ago
Our atoms will eventually return to the "cosmos" where they were forged. Mostly by way of our little micro-organism friends.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
Considering that Dawkins is the hero of the atheist/evolutionists, thus far, Blunderfool has wasted his opportunity that will most likely never present itself again
Dawkins had already presented his view on the question that Blundy continued to pursue with an opposing debating response. Big mistake, it would have been far more interesting to move on.
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Go back to the dark ages where your mentality belongs.
newfagscanttrif0rce 2 years ago
You're bleating on about nothing in particular. If you think you can do better, set up a more interesting discussion with Dawkins on YouTube. If not, STFU.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Especially because Dawkins has global prestige & a reputation to be concerned with. Therefor, he's not about to yield to a YouTuber before a
substantial internet viewership. It was a blunder for Blundy to have nearly treated him as a proponent of the opposing view
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Aside from all the other reasons, also because although evolution is false, still, Dawkins is an Englishman whom appears to have consciously developed skills in speaking his native language. While Blundy sounds like he's struggling to grunt out every word
Causing the effect of that even if Blundy were correct, Dawkins still sounds like the one correct simply from his oratory skills when compared to grunts
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
I respect both Dawkins and Thunderfoot. Both really intelligent guys. I do believe in Natual selection and evolution. But I still believe in God. Sorry !!!!!
Tom6093 2 years ago
7.30 - 7.50 epic fail lmao
TheRustaman 2 years ago
does anyone ever wonder that if there is a heaven those who do not believe in the unexplained WILL get in instead of the "true" believers?
evilresidence4 2 years ago
Legend, nicely done.
I personally have my own views on god and the universe (we're not an accident man, too convienient) but dawkins is on the ball and you did what alota people would love to do.
I'm english, in england so actually jealous lol
- Keep up the good work
Quasiguambo 2 years ago
tell me how Christians suffering for their faith...even unto death... makes them feel good?how would such a propogation continue if during periods of deep attempts at extermination(such as in China today) seem to grow faith, not diminish it?
ottojaws 2 years ago
zacky89 2 years ago
Dawkins says we have the type of brain that creates personalities. Guess he never owned a Dog or Cat......
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Is anyone else having trouble viewing this vid? I tried d/l-ing it and streaming it, but it refuses to play. The other 3 parts work, though.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Don't forget the selection pressures involved. I.e. those who farmed the citizens worked pretty hard to prevent the "uncooperative" ones from breeding - (usually by killing them).
fluffymcdeath 2 years ago
Hitchens in politics is a big joke... He is no-longer a Marxist and he has betrayed his Socialistic Materialism.
Hitchens has become an ass-kisser of American ideals... which are quite cruel and terroristic.
Hitchens used to be good on subjects such as the Vietnam War... But he has become a reformist trotskyist... Supporting the Iraq war, claiming that Islam is now imperialistic.
He has become a class traitor.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
"Hitchens has become an ass-kisser of American ideals."
Rule of law, protection the rights rights of any minority, Constitutional protections against the tyranny of the majority?
How terrible
[/sarcasm]
ikvsabre 2 years ago
this isn't hitchens... it is dawkins... as for your ignorant muslim statement, look at southeast asia and the middle east... and modern era muslims are direct heretics. my friend hathim is a manwhore alcoholic, at the mall this holiday i saw a muslim woman with a hejad(?) face uncovered eating bourbon chicken with a face tattoo and had shopping bags. so modern muslims break most tenets of faith.
morakdais 2 years ago
Hejab*
Yes, my point exactly... most muslims are very moderate...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
religion is black and white, if you believe you must follow tenets. that doesn't make you moderate it makes you a fool, and that you doubt your faith.
also there is no such thing as darwinism, that is a christian term made to think there a cult or faith, therefore making it a rival religion. saying darwinism is to discredit the work of all evolutionary scientists, and darwin didn't have all of pieces, like genetics.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais
I agree on the point of Darwinism... It is a bad term.
However, religion is not all black and white.
There are moderates who claim they believe, but to you, they don't.
To the moderates, the tenets of faith are obviously different than to the fundamentalists.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
the point of a tenet is that is never to be broken, and to that moderates are people that don't agree or follow their own beliefs, therefore are not part of the whole but secularists. which most faiths have tenets against secularism, making them heretics to the faith. really it is black and white.
morakdais 2 years ago
Tenets have room for interpretation...
The moderates say they "interpret" it differently...
Personally, I do not care... as long as you act secular towards me.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
@morakdais:
When I say we'll find out when we die, is not a proposition of truth, it's a proposition of true. It's different from taking the logical Operator KI-->A, rather BI-->A, I being the agent involved here, K being knowing, B being believing, and A the proposition.
Take a closer look into epistemic logic, and you'll understand. You just made a pleading fallacy near the end, because someone doesn't necessarily follow their faith doesn't mean they aren't part of it...
ogirv101 2 years ago
no that is a fact, excommunication, exile, and many other anti-secularist ceremonies. secularism creates new religions and sects which are not the core of religion.
also your philosophy text book equation, does not equal any truth but a perverse stand off statement. we DO know where we go when we die, into a casket, crematoria or a ditch, depend on incident.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
Plato mentioned the killing of Atheists, therefore Plato is wrong, even though you don't provide why killing Atheists is wrong (not implying that it isn't).
So I'm wrong because I use logical operators, but you're write because you use subjective semantics? Yeah, I would ratehr trust logical operators than your flawed nonsense anyday.
We do know? Yeah, prove it, prove that there is no afterlife if you claim it is so, you're claimign we know, when it's belief.
ogirv101 2 years ago
wow you contradicted yourself again, also you fail at reading comprehension, also by your poor spelling you are quite flustered.
actually i think as a realist and a minimalist, which is extremely logical, but understanding logic is presenting semantics. and as for your atheist genocide theory, it is not the case of religion but ignorance.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
Spelling? This is youtube, I make comments last less than 30 seconds, I really could care less about spelling. Btu yuo konw waht yuo sitll udnserstnd waht im syaing...
You also made the ignorant mistake of saying "extremely "logical", lol that was illogical in itself, because logic can't be extreme. If you prefer semantics over logical operators which you can't refute, then you're illogical, semantics are by definition subjective depending ont he definition of the words used...
ogirv101 2 years ago
actually logic can be in degrees, as it is not always about the easiest path to a goal. so by nature itself logic folds into definition of parameters, even if they end in goal(s) the process is not equilateral. which also defines itself to semantic... a question has an answer that leads to a new question ad infinitum... that is logic.
morakdais 2 years ago
I'm a dirty "Darwinist" myself. I'm also a Newtonist, because I don't believe in intelligent falling.
chiconspiricy 2 years ago
@chiconspiricy
I'm also a "Darwinist", but I don't know if it is an appropriate term...
I call myself a Marxist, rather than Communist...
So I guess Darwinist is a fine term.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
you missed the point... saying it is a belief is the problem, it is the pursuit of truth not blind conjecture (like religion). science isn't belief it is truth, although "global warming" is slowly going into fanatic fantasy, and is scrutinized until a theory can be proven. religious groups feed off the idea that there is only faith in science, because they know faith is flimsy and can be coerced.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
Yup, you obviously don't understand religion doya, try reading on theology before maing hasty generalization fallacy.
Thanks,
An actual future Philosopher
ogirv101 2 years ago
i have and have lived around many different faiths, you probably don't even know who zoaster is or the center of bahi faith.
there is no generalisation there, religion has always been with us or against us, so your point is?
you mean future walmart manager?
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
I've read a little about comparitive religion, yes I know who the father of Zonothrainism (or whatever it is) is, I know the basic tenents of the mystery religion.
Yes, there is a genralization there, you see the world in white and black. I've read in history how Christianity has always been on one side, but some have used it to do things against us. Because others decided to do that, it makes religion the cause? NO, that's a corellation-causation fallacy.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I don't see the world that way, religion does. most ignorant and religious people start wars and genocide because of it, even the gita and torah have many parts pertaining to treatment of non-believers, mostly as less than human. the torah write explicitly that an israelite can kill a non-believer with no penalty, that IS black and white thinking.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
I don't care if you don't see the world that way, and that's the damn point, it's a belief system, the same way you hold a belief system. So only ignorant religious people start war and genocide? last time I checked it was an Atheist who started a famine and genocide that ended with 3 million deatsh in the Ukraine.
Yeah, hypocrite much? Furthermore, corellation-causation fallacy, good luck with fallacies in the real world. The Torah? I'm not Jewish lol, and what's wrong?
ogirv101 2 years ago
sorry to be the bearer of bad news...
all functions are N.I. or chemicals exchange. most organisms die and only a select few return in better conditions, the rest cease all functions or the common name "death". once these functions cease life has ended, after there are no more functions and that is the truth.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
Also, I made no theory, I was merely showing the corellation/causation FALLACY you've made. Your ineptness and incompetence astounds me, prove that religion caused what you said, you make claims but don't back it up, and you claim to be "extremely" logical (ROFL).
So all human body functions are chemical reactions? If your mind is just that, why trust that the mind can attain truth? Is there a reason for us to know, please say evolution, this is going to be funny.
ogirv101 2 years ago
again you missed everything i have said, and if you don't understand what i am saying then you probably never will. i have already repeated myself twice, so i am not going to try to explain it to you, you just can't grasp it.
and yes all functions are electro/chemical, i shouldn't have to explain middle school science to you. without function you are not alive, therefore no possibility for life, except for bacteria and molds, but for all of us that is the proven truth.
morakdais 2 years ago
@morakdais:
That is the truth, so there is no afterlife? Uhh, you haven't proven it, you have just proven that we die, people who believe in anfterlife believe in that too, prove that there is no afterlife. Prove to me that after life ends, we don't go somewhere else, I'm claiming that I believe, you claim to know? Yeah, you're arrogant and commiting a bare assertion fallacy.
Good luck dealing with fallacies.
ogirv101 2 years ago
religious work have many hateful judgemental things written, with the full intent of killing someone based solely on what they believe. maybe you have never read any religious texts, because almost all of them have passages designed to make it okay to kill someone. where as an ignorant dictator slaughters people but they blame him for his actions because he doesn't believe.
is your word-of-the-day calendar word fallacy? because you aren't using it properly, maybe you should get a thesaurus.
morakdais 2 years ago
@ogirv101
A negative cannot be proven. If something is absent it would not exist to prove its absence. You are positing that something does exist when there is no evidence to support it, therefore the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.
yermomsboxx 1 year ago
@yermomsboxx:
Who says Atheism is a negative claim, and yes negatives can be proven, you do it in science all the time. In science, scientific postulations are discredited all the time. You can discredit the idea of God, you CAN disprove a negative. Furthermore, if you're relying on the lack of evidence, you follow the argument from ignorance. So you're still fallacious either way.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101. Atheism = not theism. For example, take this dictionary: P = a person. t = a theist. based on this dictionary, an atheist (logically notated) would look something like this: ~ Pt. (NOT a person who is a theist ). it is a negative claim.
richi3mass3 1 year ago
"Yes, my point exactly... most muslims are very moderate"
Excuse me? How can anyone say that who has any knowledge of how Islam was spread.
Islam was spread by the sword! The point of Islam is to dominate or convert through force if necessary anyone who is a Kafir (non muslim).
The evidence of Islamic Jihad is overwhelming for anyone who has any knowledge of what took place in Southeast Asia, North Africa and India, from 800-1700.
The only moderate Muslim is a Muslim whose out of bullets.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
I would like to contradict. There are moderate muslims, which just want to live their lives just like everyone else. But Islam is as Islam does, and it is a ideology which deprives humanity out of society. But there really are moderate muslims, but they are like the people of Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's. Altough the part which actually agrees totally with the Nazi idea, was minor, they lack the means to bring their views into light, as they fear the reprisal of the authority.
aaKonda 2 years ago
@LordMalice6d9
I am fully aware of the "islamic empire"... and how it was spread, I should know... I'm iranian.
It should however be noted, that "islamic empire" was long the center for science etc. but this stagnated.
However, Christianity was also spread "by the sword". And since American Imperialism is influenced by Christians in USA, it still is.
So, there is no religion of the sword.
You have to learn geo-politics.
Muslims are as moderate as Christians.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Hitchens is dead wrong on Islam... I'm afraid.
Most muslims are as moderate as Christians...
I've alot of muslim fiends (@ Sweden) and you wouldn't notice the difference btw me and them.
Also, Hitchens has entirely forgot about what American Capitalism does to the world, and how Islam is used...
Islam is used as a "pseudo-nationalistic" thing to contra the terrorism of USA (which is alot bigger than any other terrorism, see Noam Chomsky).
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Nice talk. How lucky of you to get to speak with Richard like this! How did you get to do this?
anetchi 2 years ago
i think that change in people to form heirarcy and group thinking is directly related to the cat skinner box. to have the ability to give to a religion or government is to assume that later you will get more (peity=afterlife, taxes=protection). which children cannot second guess but do not comprehend the reward later, and many children who did not go with this were beaten or killed before being able to pass their genes. religion approved violence has bred you to be stupid.
morakdais 2 years ago
I'm a big fan of TF's, but why did he show up to interview Dawkins looking like he just rolled out of bed? He looked more clean cut when meeting banana man.
muffinman514 2 years ago
perhaps because you're writing in german whilst most of the users of the internet agree on using english in one form or another, however crude the individual's ability to use that language may be?
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
Genetic predesposition to follow hierarchical constructs, as D suggests, is only half of the equation The other half is society's influence on people and how it indoctrinates them into believing that society should be hierarchical. And just out of curiosity, where is the evidence of this genetic predesposition to hierarchy? I can look up a thousand academic papers proving the existence of the societal influence and a million cases of people who are not well adjusted to our hierarchical system.
DrQuijano 2 years ago
I know humans are different to the other primates in various ways but to get an idea of a genetic predisposition to authority its helpful to look at chimpanzee societies. Do you think chimps have a genetic predisposition to follow hierarchical constructs? If your answer is yes then it follows we might share this trait with our closest living relative.
shallbeagain 2 years ago
there was actually a documentary about this, and chimps differ mostly in their inability to cooperate to obtain a goal, but also, chimpanzee children are far less gullible than human children. they had a transparent box, with a treat inside. there was a hole in the top, that did nothing, and
an opening mechanism.
the grownups took a stick, and put it first in the top hole, and then into the opening mechanism. the human child did exactly the same as the grownups. the chimp just opened the box.
dejawolf 2 years ago
dawkins vs thunderfoot massive fight who wins?
P4PMike 2 years ago
dawkins but why would they fight
Adventfred 2 years ago
This feels like a discussion on The Selfish Gene. I recommend you read it if you haven't, Thunderf00t. Very good book.
Kairusan 2 years ago
Sorry Thunderfoot. I give up.. The audio is terrible and you should not put such great interview to waste like that...
Francebrasil 2 years ago
SUBTITLEEES.
dejawolf 2 years ago
I second it - subtitles
DrQuijano 2 years ago 2
Weston29406 2 years ago
@Weston29406 the concept of morals being a biproduct of society is agreeable if society were to somehow dissappear morality would dissapate slowly not instantly this is mainly because of how long these values have been engraned in us. and as for emotions being taught there is sufficient evidence to prove that emotions are a genetic trate that you are born with however how to display your emotions is developed by observation
FrovenChair 2 years ago
@Weston29406. People are born with emotions in tact. We know exactly which parts of a working brain create which emotions and they do not just start working if we are "taught". All societys MUST evolve morals in order to survive, for example if we evolved to think it was ok to rape and kill little girls then there would be no grown women to reproduce and clearly our society would not have survived. The same can be said for all of morality.
zzlgrant 2 years ago
I do believe that some of our morality is innate, however I also believe that most of it is taught. If this were not the case, then morality is rapidly evolving. During the middle ages, watching animals be tortured, and public executions was considered good entertainment. 2000 years ago, watching people fight to the death was entertainment. I would like to think that we have come a long ways since, yet I believe this is societal, not genetic. Of course, this is all just my speculation.
84Mega 2 years ago
@84Mega
Well thanks.
That makes more sense to me.
Well compared to what I recieved.
Weston29406 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Type in - JakeRs Stoner video - it's the best shit out on YOU TUBE so far
JokeRtheJakeR 2 years ago
Dawkins looks really bored!
alternut 2 years ago 3
this is from william lane craig, his views on objective morals
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
this might be silly but...
1. If beaches do not exist, grains of sand do not exist.
2. Grains of sand exist. I know this because there are grains of sand in the bottom of my pythons cage.
3. The bottom of my snakes cage is a beach.
lukeism2 2 years ago
@lukeism2:
LOL, bad analogy. Grains of sand is not the same as morality. There is one problem in William Craig's argument though, he begs the question in number 2. He has to prove morality is objective, buthe basically gives Atheists a dead end because if they have no objective morals than they can be deemed immoral by Christians, and Atheists absolutely hate that.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I agree with you more Thunderfoot, individuals survive better when the group survives better. This is perhaps one reason the "Greed is good" philosophy has been such a failure and very likely why this sort of individualistic thinking has caused much of the problems - including the economic downturn that our society is now experiencing. A video to that effect would really get to the root of a lot of the consequences of currently held beliefs.
goodspelr 2 years ago
Well of course! Science isn't a moral philosophy so people would be stupid to be looking for answers to questions like "How do I move on from my wife leaving me?" by scientific experimentation.
molesniper666 2 years ago
social sciences are moral philosophy arent they? but my main point is why try to argue about terminating religion if it can help our social society be just? i understand that religion sometimes contradict itself as people take it literally but what about the background meaning? for example jesus why argue if he was real or fake if he can represent a person who is kind to all?
easy2mind 2 years ago
Sure! I think a lot of people don't have a problem with understanding those stories as stories with important meanings, but I think a lot of people still think they are true as well, which I think is a shame because it sort of ruins the point of a story. It would be like people believing that Tom Sawyer was real rather than understanding the author's point behind the story. Aesop's fables have importance, even though they aren't real and I think literalists ruin the magic of story telling.
molesniper666 2 years ago
agreed which is why i stated in my first comment the only thing i hate about religion are the branches that take passages literally and force it upon people. but other than that if religion helps then its ok.
easy2mind 2 years ago
@easy2mind:
No, I think ethics belongs in formal sciences in philosophy. Social sciences is more of psychological behavior, history, sociology, etc. Formal sciences is where ethics belongs.
Why argue about Jesus? Because some of the stuff he says is too kind, and people would rather not be kind and do whatever they want. I don't know that sounds plausible to me for rejecting Jesus as an ethical figure, he asked too much.
ogirv101 2 years ago
other than religion, ask yourself what is wrong with the world today? and ask why? cus i believe one of the main things wrong with the world today is, are the flaws of human nature. philosophers claim (forgot their names) either people are born the way they are with certain habbits or they learn those habbits. if people live to do what ever they want without a limit, i see this world towards end. but jesus real or fake, as a character represents an example thats all.
easy2mind 2 years ago
@easy2mind:
What's wrong? Define wrong in an Atheistic stance? In an Atheistic stance it's totally subjective, and wrong can mean peaceful people living in a society in one view and it would be totally right to that person.
Locke argued that man's ethical system is what his enviorment makes him, I think it was Descartes who argued we are innately morally good at conception. They both failed to define good without involving a postulating divine being, which many argue does not exist...
ogirv101 2 years ago
hmm wrong can be defined so differently by everyone!, like disagreements.. i was told i was wrong because i talking about a football player to a brazillian who has a crush on the guy.
when it comes to morals, i think everyone knows what makes them feel good about themselves, whether it takes trial and error or just common sense, not an invisible big brother.
lukeism2 2 years ago
@lukeism2:
So wrong is defined by the individual, I consider peace wrong, therefore I'm going to systematically kill half a million people in chambers? It's alright as long it makes me feel good and I think it's right? I also think that pushing grandmothers with alzheimers down stairs is cool, therefoe I should do it?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
And to your statement concerning grandmothers, if you do think that we'll simply lock you in a nice padded room.
Reghedable 2 years ago
Matthew 11:20, my favorite bible verse:
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.
Reghedable 2 years ago
23 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Reghedable 2 years ago
Sounds like Jesus is damning cities whose people disagreed with him.
Who does that sound like?
Quelling the opposition, hm?
Let's think for a minute, ogirv101. Try not to hurt yourself.
Reghedable 2 years ago 2
@Reghedable:
Yes, he is damnig cities, so what of it? He is talking about final moral judgement, it's an argument imamnuel kant himself made for the existance of the afterlife. Why would there be moral rules if those who break them are not punished or brought to justice? I side with immanuel kant on this one.
Also, Stalin didn't condemn cities for being immoral, he condemned cities because he wanted them to compyl with what he said. There's a difference though....
ogirv101 2 years ago
"Also, Stalin didn't condemn cities for being immoral, he condemned cities because he wanted them to compyl with what he said. There's a difference though...."
Lol, oh yeah?
The Aztecs considered it moral to sacrifice their own to their bloody gods to allow the sun to rise each day. Were they moral?
If you went back in time and asked an ancient Aztec, they would consider themselves quite moral indeed. Learn your arguments before posting them.
Reghedable 2 years ago
@Reghedable:
Yeah, the aztecs in Jesus' view are all burning in hell, I could care less about their morality. But since you're all high and mighty, I'd like to hear from the high and mighty godless commie what moral is when the godless commies killed 110 million people?
Youguys consider yourselves moral right, wait you guys don't have morality at all, just some subjective moral relaticistic bs. In Soviet Russia, morals don't tell you what to do, you tell morals what to do. =p
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Fuck all the "Godless Commies". Unlike yourself, I don't associate myself with crazies nor label myself. Communism has never been seen on this earth since prehistory, i.e. surrounding the agricultural revolution, (apparently before God created the heavens and the earth) and won't be for a good long time to come.
Those disgraceful bastards that dare called themselves commies went the same way all empires do; the way of the Dodo.
As will you and I, comrade, at the end of things.
Reghedable 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I suppose as well that you are the moral rightfighter, what with all the atrocities you wonderful christians are responsible for. Religion has curved the development of our race for far too long; it's about time we put an end to the incantations. But it's all in good time; when people are educated, they begin to see the world for what it is, not the fairytale you believe it to be.
Reghedable 2 years ago
@Reghedable:
Stalin killed 60 million people on earth and said he was the law. Jesus didn't touch a soul, he never hurt anyone, and he said if you don't believe in his morality, you'll just see after you die. Again, Pascal's wager is a pain in the ass. Jesus didn't force you to comply with him, but he did give you a warning, and Stalin was warned as well, and so were you. It's all up to when we die isn't it, Pascal's dildo sounds better in my opinion...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Mate, Stalin gave his people a choice too. Believe me or you die.
Jesus didn't have the manpower to support a similar regime, but considering his words as recorded by scholars believing in his personality cult, he would have, given the chance. Also, my friend, remember who invented Hell in the first place.
Pascal's wager is a farce. The same argument could be made for Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, etc. But do you follow those religions?
Reghedable 2 years ago
@Reghedable:
LOL, Stalin gave his people a choice believe him or die? Yeah... Jesus said believe me or you're going to find out after you die. Jesus claim seems alot more real and powerful than Stalin's. So you're claiming Jesus has a personality cult? LOL, well he was God, why not? Hinduism doesn't have a hell, paganism has no hell either, and none of them set standards of wha thell is like Christianity. Islam? Yeah, not buying it...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Tell me exactly how Jesus' supposed divinity differs from any other given personality cult?
And, excluding all the lovely stonings and acts of violence in the Good Book, Jesus may not have stabbed anyone in the chest, but he certainly set people up for it later, what with the fire, brimstone, weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Reghedable 2 years ago
Hate to tell you this, but any theistic stance is subjective. There is no objective god that theists can use to decide common morals: what it really is is their own individual subjective standards, which other people happen to hold, which is really not surprising given that humans all humans are of the same species and share the same basic hardwiring in the brain. So of course they form groups with those who have similar values. The point is many values may be shared but are still subjective.
Xagzan 2 years ago 3
@Xagzan:
No, a theistic stance by its nature is objective, by your way of thinking they are subjective becuse you disagree with them, but they don't care, their laws are objective.
In the own system of beliefs they are objective, and they hold same values? Sure, they may hold some similar values, who cares? Their belief systems are objective, I really can't discuss this in depth I'm trying my best to irk Reg-godlesscommie-mass murderer (=p). So send me a PM if you want.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I'm sorry but you lack any sort of evidence for such a preposterous claim as absolute objectivity. And no, the Bible is NOT evidence.
Yes, in their "own" system they may seem objective, but you have to step outside that system to see what it really is. Take murder. Most people are hardwired to be against murdering another person, so in THAT sense it is somewhat objective. But it is not a SCIENTIFIC law that murder is wrong. That would give intent to the universe, which is NOT a sentient being.
Xagzan 2 years ago 2
Your problem simply is that you cannot see beyond humans; you cannot see that our properties, our traits, our characteristics, our thoughts, our ways of life, even our very lives themselves have NO. AFFECT. ON. THE. LAWS. OF. THE. UNIVERSE. They just don't. The universe and its laws are what they are, with or without you or your opinion.
Xagzan 2 years ago 2
wrong in non religious stance. im 17 your going way above my head. however by wrong i mean the flaws of how our world as a community is functioning. the flaws the create war, allow poverty so exist etc. these flaws are created by the nature of men wanting to do what ever they want. like the conspiracy that the men who run the banks like the rocafellas have been in charge of war as they profit in it. we are flawed to continue living similarly to this eg wanting power or the ability to do wat ever
easy2mind 2 years ago