God or not I don't realy give a shit.I wan't to know where the rules came from,where matter came from,where the universal binary code came from.Fuck the big bang, thats the same as saying we haven't got a clue.
@TheBudhistpunk@thinkboutit Duh, aren't all these debating/arguments about the unknown? Watch my video below and tell me whether professor Storm (an intelligent man) is a liar?
@Christistruth1 Didn't say it accounted for anything. I don't need to prove anything. God is not real. It's a myth. That's a fact until someone can prove otherwise.
@thinkboutit "I don't need to prove anything." Well you made positive claims, and now you don't need to prove them? Wow. "God is not real." That's a also a positive claim, and you say you don't need to prove it either? Wow to that one. "It's a myth." Another positive claim. "That's a fact until someone can prove otherwise." How is it a fact, when you can't prove them? Other than that, it's an opinion you can't prove. You're a philosophical failure buddy.
@Christistruth1 All myths are just that, myths. If it cannot be proven there's no reason to believe it. If you make a habit of believing things with no evidence, where do you draw the line? There's millions of other things you could believe in but choose not to. Delusional much? ;)
@thinkboutit "If it can't be proven there's no reason to believe it." That's faulty logic there buddy. Why because you're using a fallacy for a valid argument. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence...that's basically what you're using. So, you're okay with using a fallacy as a valid position??? cont....
@Christistruth1 Why don't you believe in fairy's then? Because there's no reason to. You could argue all day but you will get nowhere because there is no proof for god. PERIOD.
@thinkboutit When you say..."There's no reason to." That's doesn't disprove it, it also doesn't prove there is no REAL reason. It's just a subjective point of view, that carries no weight. "There is no proof for God." I beg to differ, I believe there is plenty of REASONABLE proof for God's existence.But I doubt it's proof that you haven't heard already, the problem is you don't see it as adequate proof for belief. Because your standard of proof is unreasonable.That doesn't mean there's no proof.
@thinkboutit cont...."If you make a habit of believing things with no evidence, where do you draw the line? There's millions of other things you could believe in but choose not to. Delusional much?" So , basically you're attempting to rationalize and reason your fallacy as a reasonable argument??? And you call me delusional? lol
haha Lenin and Stalin where in fact atheist but thats because they were COMMUNISTS! An ideology absolutely dismissing any religion (cause its kind of a religion itself but anyway...)!!!
and because most of the American population is so gullible they are becoming not a communist but SOCIALIST country, so the atheist president is on the way, you like it or not :D
Americans don't want an atheist as President because we know what historical happened in the Soviet Union when militant atheists like Lenin and Stalin gained power. The result was the execution of approximately 70,000,000 million innocent theists in the 70 year period between 1917 - 1987
@BT3701 Russia was ruled by communists, that was their driving Ideology.
Your current Pres...not only endorses Science, but took the time to honor Charles Darwin in a speech.
How many Politicians in America, have to lie about being religious? To admit to Atheism would be political suicide, but times are a changing my friend. Only 400 yrs ago me and people like Dawkins would have been accused of being in league with Satan, and burned alive perhaps. Superstitions are fading!
@BT3701 "Liars lie." Yes anyone who claims to know a Deity, and what that Deity wants and needs is a Liar.
Again, through spreading lies about atheists, like you are doing, is why they are considered the least trusted group of people. Maybe if you had more than "faith" to back your claims, you wouldn't have to lie about atheism.
@Desdenova262 From your comments I must assume that you possess absolute proof that no Deity exists. I would love you to entertain us with such absolute proof - good luck with that.
@BT3701 Your a deluded fool. Where is the proof that Zeus does not exist?
There is no evidence in our universe support or reject a god. Which is exactly what you'd expect to find in a universe without a god. But not what you would expect find, in a universe govern by a god....:)
@Desdenova262 I don't think that makes sense, what sort of evidence would YOU expect to find? Since evidence is interpreted, you're saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a fallacy. So, this time try to make a better argument, then attempting to use a fallacy to prove your argument.
@Desdenova262 Again, your original argument made no sense. Don't use a fallacy to prove your argument, by way of absence of evidence being evidence of absence. Please give a better argument then a fallacy. "Nice Apologetic circle talks." Asinine point..."Try more nouns, less verbs." Again, failing to make your argument valid.
@Christistruth1 If you have a point to make, make it. I don't care to waste words on the fluff talk. Which pretty much sums up Theology.
But of course, i require more than "faith" to form my reality. So facts and evidence are what i look for to determine whats real, and whats make believe.
The story of Jesus bares no more meaning to me than the story of Hercules.
@Desdenova262 That's what I've asked you to do, but all you have done was give a personal opinion based on a fallacy. "Which pretty much sums up Theology." That's an opinion, not a fact, all though you will assert it as a fact. You have faith that your reality is even truth. Evidence is interpreted. "The story of Jesus bares no more meaning to me than the story of Hercules." Opinion accounts for nothing. Now, give me something with some substance.
@Desdenova262 How sure are you that you would accept it?? "Why would such a deity, rely on you and bt3701 to speak on it's behalf.?" That's a weak argument. There have been more people who have spoken of their experiences, and we can logically and reasonably conclude that there must be an intelligence that created all that exists, either something from nothing, or something from intelligence. "Grow up." Is that the best you have? I thought you were an intellectual free thinker?
@Desdenova262 Thanks for providing evidence that you have no absolute proof for any of your claims, and thanks also for providing evidence of your immaturity with your childish tactic of name calling so common to atheists every time they get cornered.
@BT3701 "Still no proof for any claim you made" Really?
Superstitons only exist in the heads of people such as yourself. The Proof of burden is on the superstitious. Why should people believe in gods, witches, wizards, demons, unicorns, without empirical evidence to back it up.
Do we convict people on faith, or evidence in a court of law?
@Desdenova262 Let me clue you in on the correct way the burden of proof is used. The burden of proof rests upon the person making a claim. I didn't make any claim, you did, therefore you own the burden of proof for the claims you made. Got any more claims you would like to make besides the ones you already made and had no proof for?
@Desdenova262 Before a person can correctly say there is no evidence would require that the person possess infinite knowledge. Do you possess infinite knowledge?
@Desdenova262 What you're doing is false logic. "Because I do not posses infinite knowledge Puff the magic dragon is real?" That's not what were saying at all. But if you're insinuating that God is equal to the fantasy of puff the magic dragon, then you're inadvertently stating that God is not real, and does not exist. Is this true???
@Elitest2 And by asking for the difference, he's asserting that they are they same, since he classifies them in the same category as fantasy, hence not real.
@Christistruth1 What exists beyond the known Cosmos is all speculation. And so far we do not see the hand of god arranging stars and black holes. Many things are still unexplained, and we will continue to search (thats what humans do). However until evidence is uncovered, personal feelings from you, or any other person, does not validate anything Supernatural, or existence of a Deity.
@Desdenova262 How do you know it's speculation? "So far we don't see the hand of God arranging the stars and black holes." He doesn't have too, since they exist according to laws, that he put in place. So, saying...'I don't see God's hand doing something.' Doesn't mean he's not doing it, or doesn't create laws for it. I never said personal feelings validated anything, but again, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. So again, use a better argument instead of a fallacy.
@Desdenova262 How do you know we can't know? You're speculating that too aren't you? I mean after all, you're speculating that your own thoughts in your head making moral judgments are yours, and not existential, isn't that right? After all, you couldn't prove those thoughts are solely yours. I can reasonably exclude Zeus. But that doesn't mean because I can't disprove Zeus, that you're valid.
Because you do not possess special powers that i do not have. That's how i know. I do not hear voices from gods, fairies, demons. I have never witnessed magic words, things appearing out of thin air. I have never seen a vampire, bigfoot, exorcism, ghost.
I have read alot of the holy bible....and one things for sure. My morals most certainly did not come from the war god Yahweh.
@Christistruth1 You are right! I have strong feelings that the universe was created by fairies and a big cup of tea orbiting the earth. Until they can't prove that the cup of tea and my fairies exist I will kee my faith!
@fr1ghtful I didn't say feelings proved anything. But it's not logical for a tea cup would be orbiting the earth. There is no history of anyone ever taking a tea cup and shooting it out into space, so that argument fails. Because God is no where near similar to the "celestial teapot". Because it's not rational.
@Elitest2 Puff the magic dragon is a story, and song, by the ADMITTED imaginations of it's writers, who weren't murdered for writing it. There is no historical mention of such an entity in historical documents, there is no archeological evidence supporting it. The differences are enormous. You're asserting it as equal because you fail to understand who or what God is. You can not comprehend past a fantasy of puff the magic dragon. So, you just equate it with a fantasy, because you fail.
@Christistruth1 You see, here is where I don't fail: Puff talked to me in a dream, and told me to write a holy book for him. And the writers were ignorant to what they were doing.
If you want historical documents, maybe I'll just switch my God to Zeus. Problem solved!
@Elitest2 "None of what you said adds to Yahweh's likelihood to exist." That's an opinion based position. It's not a hard fact. Others my agree with you, but that doesn't prove it's true. Yes, Humans are capable of having mental ailments...but that doesn't prove that beliefs are part of it. You're just grasping at straws for an objection that you reason to yourself as likely.
@Elitest2 Oh and by the way, this is false too.."Provide proof* that one is less likely to exist than the other."because reason and logic prove these things. Honestly, to say.."provide proof" is a loaded question.
@Elitest2 Because Puff, AGAIN, is a product of the admitted imagination of it's writers. He is a CONFESSED invention of the mind. You're asserting that since God can't be proven, then he qualifies in the same category as Puff the magic dragon. "He spoke to me in a dream, and then I wrote down his teachings." What's wrong with that? Can you prove that God can't speak to people through dreams? No. You just don't believe it. cont...
@Elitest2 cont..."If he isn't sufficient for you historically, I will switch to Zeus. He's more fun anyway." That's fine. As far as Zeus goes...A being that owes its existence to other beings cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived. Zeus owes his existence to other beings. Therefore, Zeus cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived. So God and Zeus are two completely different entities. Even Aristotle didn't believe in Zeus.
@Christistruth1 "it's not logical for a tea cup would be orbiting the earth. There is no history of anyone ever taking a tea cup and shooting it out into space, it's not rational."
Aha! But I claim the Creator (the Great Teetotaler) placed the Celestial Teapot in space as a sign of His covenant with us, His creation. I know it is there because the Divine has told me personally and I have since had visions of it. Praise be! Now, what is the difference between my claims and yours?
@Desdenova262 Since your the one who has been making absolute claims which you have failed to provide absolute proof for then it's your standards that are set low.
Again you lie, i never said i have absolute proof that no god exists,That would be impossible when something is make believe. Just as you cannot provide absolute proof that Zeus or Ra do not exist.
Lack of evidence is what your god is, just like bigfoot, just like all other gods and goddesses written down in Earths history.
How can you devote your channel to debunking Atheists when you don't even understand how they think? Superstitions only work on the naive.
@Desdenova262 you did previously say, "Yes anyone who claims to know a Deity is a liar" and then never provided any evidence to as proof for that claim, so it looks like you're the liar here. Lastly the term "thinking atheist" is an oxymoron
@Desdenova262 Of all the knowledge in the world, what percentage of it would you say you possess? Let's be generous and say you possess 20% of all knowledge. Could it be that God could exist the 80% you have no knowledge of? Watch the following very short YouTube video .. watch?v=eI_wDiQHn-U
@Desdenova262 Yawn! More of your diatribe of comments which you once again fail to provide proof for. Just because you shout "no proof" doesn't make it so. It takes more faith to maintain your position and view than it does mine. - were done here.
Faith is all you have, and it requires no evidence. Just wishful thinking, like a child playing with his make believe friend.
Word of advice; if you plan to debunk atheism, we are a funny bunch of humans, we require facts, evidence. So your "game" will require a better effort!
@Desdenova262 I realize that in all of our discussions you have failed to provide an ounce of proof for any of your claims, and I don't expect you will be able to offer any proof for the following question either, but nevertheless here it is. What proof do you have that atheism is true? BTW - the Bible says, the fool is the person who says in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:1
@BT3701 This is how little you know about Atheists. We have no religion, we use things like our senses, experiences in life, knowledge, facts, reason, and science to draw our conclusions from.
The goat herder scribblings you follow are just superstitious ignorant men, that thought the earth was the center of the universe, and demons made you sick because they could not understand things like bacteria. And they copied most of their stories from other superstitious cultures. 950 yr old Noah :)
@BT3701 I still stand true to my claim that your god was created by men just like all the other gods and goddesses. And no amount goat herder scripture reading can change that fact.
Science only deals with the natural world.
We leave the imaginary world to people (christian) like you, muslims, fortune tellers, astrologists, magicians, alien abductions. At least Hollywood knows their shit is fake and for entertainment. Do you still wait for Santa?
@BT3701 You need to leave desdenova alone. He's mentally retarded. Look at what he's saying. "Science only deals with the natural world." and so he will only deal with the natural world. He doesn't care how stupid science is.
@BT3701 It is not us who have to prove a negative, it is you who have to prove a "positive," in other words, what proof, other than the Bible, do you have that God exists? And something else, I assume you don't believe in Allah, Buddah, Krishna, Xenu, Zeus, All Hindu Gods, all other Greek Gods, and any other religion's Gods, right? Well, we're not so far apart you and I. I just take my disbelief one God further.
@happywash First of all, you haven't as yet proven that God is a negative, so that just remains your opinion. Secondly, thank you for admitting your atheism is a disbelief rather than a lack of belief. Thirdly, the rule concerning the proof of burden is that any person who makes a claim owns the burden of proof. You claimed that God is a negative - now prove it.
@BT3701 Can you have a thought of your own without quoting a ridiculous 80s-style Youtube video? Can the Spaghetti Monster exist in the 99 percent you have no knowledge of? Turn these things around on yourself, and you'll see how useless and foolish they are.
@bassbass99able What. The. Fuck. I can't even comprehend your moronic statement. An atheist will most likely not believe in the afterlife, so that means this is our only life we will ever have. Why would you want to waste the only time you will ever have to exist? I think I just wasted mine by explaining simple LOGIC to you.
@bassbass99able Thats pathetic, you're meaning in life is to worship some fu.ck hole in sky. Anyway I'll prefer to spend my sundays playing video games than delude myself somewhere else.
I wasn't implying that Dawkins is gay, nor do I care. As for his accent being British, that isn't the point either. There are British accents of many types, but to my ears, Dawkins' accent isn't pleasant because it sounds very prissy. Just puts me off and I don't understand the admiration for this man.
@mliuzzolino Hey, you're welcome. If that is you in your avatar, and it is logical to keep that hairstyle you have. Keep your logic, it is pathetic. And how am I a hypocrite again? Is it logical to assert that someone is a hypocrite and then not say why too?
@timcp1 They didn't kill because of atheism though. They killed because of their irrational political belief in communism, although Stalin was probably a sociopath and his belief in communism might have taken a backseat to his psychological issues. Their atheism was irrelevant as they essentially replaced god with communism.
@leejs By that same line of argument it can be said that any atrocity committed by a religious zealot cannot be attributed to his faith and the religion, but instead to his psychological lunacy. He may have claimed to kill in the name of God, but is it really even relevant? Despite whatever ideal they hide behind, they kill because of deep rooted, complex psychological issues that cannot simply be defined, nor may a simple causality, such as theism or atheism be pointed to as the sole culprit.
@mliuzzolino Some undoubtedly used religion to push their psychotic desires. But many others pushed war and murder specifically because of god (ie Inquisition, Crusades, the various islamic conquests). Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Che committed murders and atrocities in the name of their twisted communist ideology, not because of their lack of belief in god. Their atheism is irrelevant because they just exchanged one irrational belief system for another and then killed many people for it.
@timcp1 Might want to mention that to the victims of the crusades and the inquisition; part of the thirty years war was for religious reasons (before it devolved into just a land grab). Saying you can't kill in the name of the Christian god because there is a rule against it is irrelevant because it's demonstrably false (ie popes giving gods permission/blessing for the crusades). It's just a 'no true scotsman fallacy'.
But as I am also an evolutionist, I believe that religion is slowly dieing out. Why do I believe this? Because we as a people are growing intellectually. And with intellect comes the understanding of rational things. We are in the age of science and understanding, and religion has no place there. And I think, in the far future - this time will be remembered as the time that human-kind as whole opened their eyes to rationality and reality. This is where religion has no basis any longer.
I am an atheist, and have been for as long as I can remember. I cannot believe that in a world of today, there are still actually people who are non agnostic theists. How can a person with a rational mind believe such things. But then again, I do believe that without religion many people would be lost in life. Some people do not posses the capability to rationalize what they do without a written moralic compass (Bible, Quor´an and torah etc), and someone telling them what to do (Priests etc).
@mliuzzolino Ha, gee, is that a joke? Hmm, Dawkins is still alive. And uh, he's the one who says atheists are peaceful. It was a jab at Dawkins....you know the man in the video who is alive? Yeah, that guy.
@timcp1 ::sigh:: Of course it was a joke - a hyperbolized one at that. I am very well aware that Dawkins is still alive. My joke was a jab at the bigotry of theists and their abhorrently violent history.
@mliuzzolino Violent history....Mao Zedong, and Stalin come to mind for personification of violence, neither "theist" neither Christian. And theist doesn't = Christian either. Deists can believe in a random God not associated with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
@timcp1 You obviously haven't read any Dawkins, nor have you watched any of his debates. He explicitly addresses the faulty correlation between Atheism and violence, as most commonly brought about via mention of Mao and Stalin. It's not an argument of quantity, and I wish it were as the cases of theism inspiring violence as opposed to atheism are overwhelming. However, as Dawkins states there is no correlation between Atheism and violence.
@mliuzzolino Ridiculous. Correlation doesn't equal causation, that is what I hear from these types all the time...oh wait the double-standard is not when applied to religion. But of course. If you want to pick and choose the Spanish Inquisition, then we can pick and choose...Mao. Because you people don't pay attention, Queen Isabella was not a Christian, but a Catholic and there is no telling how much scripture she read and understood herself. The Holy Bible never condones inquisition of Jews.
@timcp1 Both the inquisition and Mao's purges were political acts. Neither were done because of atheism or Christianity, but to shore up individual ruler's power.
However I must point out that there is a much closer link between the inquisition and religion than between the purges and atheism. Mao's killings were not done under the banner of atheism as the inquisition was under the banner of faith.
On a side note, Catholics are Christians, and the inquisition courts had no authority over Jews.
@rudderham235235 What is the point thought? If someone were to kill in the name of peaceful motives, they would be called a hypocrite. People wouldn't say "Oh peaceful motives are bad." So if in the Ten Commandments it says You shall not kill, and in the New Testament Jesus didn't go around killing. And someone kills in the name of Christianity, people blame the faith? Not the hypocrite? That isn't consistent.
@timcp1 exactly! I see that we're on the same page. I probably expressed my self poorly because looking back I seam to suggest that I put blame on Christianity for the inquisition, and not the people who hijack it for their own purposes. You're absolutely right that it's foolish to blame an entire belief system for the actions of a few madmen who profess it.
@mliuzzolino If something is a subgroup, then it doesn't equal. It differs. Theist can be a general belief in a higher power. To be a Christian requires much more.
@timcp1 Wow. Are you serious? You just stunned me into a few moments silence by that incredible statement. Do you like the smell of your own farts too?
@mliuzzolino Yep I'm serious. And as to your moronic question nope. You should be stunned, atheism among atheists is so varied, you animals come up with nearly anything just to sound smart.
There is no correlation between intelligence and being an atheist or not, I've seen both kinds with good and bad, and 90% of the atheists i've observed are almost illiterate,ignorant and lack even a proper human conversation. I've seen also intelligent religious people, doctors, scientists, poets, university professors... so yeah...seems Dawkins got carried away as usual with his biased thoughts, and the bunch of laughing monkeys kept laughing instead of correcting him.
This is wrong! There is a god!! Even though there is countless evidence opposed to one and none in support of, there has to be one because I was told so ever since I was baby of his existence, therefore HE EXISTS,,
I think people should still give "live and let live" a try. It's worked out for me so far. I'm tired of all these extremists making pointless arguments amongst each other. YouTube needs more rational people who don't favor either side. People who see that this constant bickering amongst one another isn't helping anything. Both sides act like the other side is going to be the death of humanity, but at this rate it seems like both of them are.
@TheTrickster14 "I think people should still give (live and let live) a try."
Really?
Its ok for religions to lie and twist education and science? We should just turn our backs and let them run amuck spreading their make believe ideology?
When religions learn to respect Science and real knowledge, and stay out of governments, they may earn some respect. But we both know that won't happen, because their fairy tales do not match the evidence, so they lie.
i got a question for you, if atheism is pro-social development, how come athiest europe's culture is deteriorating then and more and more atheist and skeptic scientists in europe convert to islam then?
Christian: Damn the philosopher! Damn the logical, free-thinker! Damn your science! Damn intelligent, concise thought! You're going to hell for not believing as I do! I don't need proof, but even with all of yours, you are wrong!
@Preeminence21 Yeah, but it's just a hard habit I suppose...especially when all the religious people you meet or interact with are of the same exact religion lol
@Preeminence21 I was raised to be a Presbyterian Christian, a moderate sect. My youth group was full of brainwashed kids whose figurative peripheral vision had been covered. They knew nothing other than what they were told in youth group. Most of the kids were white, rich kids. I am white, but could not identify with the elitist attitude of some. I enjoyed the adult pastor's messages very much, but never believed in the validity of anything he said in reference to actual events.
@Preeminence21 Like others have posted, I am surrounded by Christians. They dominate the land so to speak. I speak out against the Quran more than the Bible. The Quran teaches hate and violence where the Bible is more welcoming. I enjoyed the Bible. I just think it is wrong for Christianity and all religion to have spread like it has. Most children can't defend their brains against such lies. I'm agnostic. Something greater is apparent. But one doesn't need the Bible to see that.
@Bubblesatx Thank you for the respectful response. I just feel as though Christian doctrine doesn't really "brainwash" youth. While children are highly impressionable, I believe that maturation will let them determine the truth for themselves. Even if the teachings did remain, I don't see what the hinderance is. Even if there isn't a god, I believe that adherence to a religion of virtually any kind is beneficial. I know that one can be an atheist and still have good morals...
@Bubblesatx but if religion is another's way, why not let them retain it? There are plenty of things I could talk about pertaining to religion, but my mane concern is to why people take others' beliefs so seriously. If you think another's belief is illogical, good for you. It's not a problem unless it somehow *considerably affects others. I don't see how saying "In God We Trust" on currency is a big deal. I realize it's easy for me to say that, since I"m not an Atheist, but I think people...
@Bubblesatx just like to find fault with others and need to feel important. If being condescending and fastidious is better than following religious doctrine, I don't know what to say.
This man is an idiot. Sometimes I think it is a good thing not to get a college education. Seems when they get any education past the third grade they become "thinkers" I will not say more because God will give us what we deserve at the appointed time. Evolution has been proven to be a farce.
@goldenpassages it's not a good thing to have a college education? And being a 'thinker' is bad? I don't think you're for real. So i won't rise to your apparent ignorance...
@goldenpassages HAHA are you serious! so thinking is bad?! guess we should all be ignorant bibe humpers instead of believing in facts that have been have proof on their side
@rudderham235235 If evolution hasn't been proven then that logically leads to it being proven a farce? That implication makes absolutely no sense.
It depends on how technical you want to get about the definition of proven - only pedantic philosophers will argue this as how can you truly prove anything? However, evolution is an indisputable fact and has been "proven" to as much of an extent as that the world is round.
Oh yeah... I forgot that theists don't care about facts, only skewed faith.
@mliuzzolino I'm not certain to whom your comment was addressed, because as for me, I couldn't imagine a logical argument contesting evolution.
When I asked "How was it so proven?" I was challenging someone to show how evolution was proven false. A challenge which doesn't appear to have been met.
But all the confusion might stem from this ridiculous comment system. Nobody can make heads or tales of it- let alone hold a logical and linear debate!
I think if anyone has debated as many bigoted religious people as he has (i'm not saying that all religious people are bigoted), who use emotional arguments, you would be pretty frustrated with trying to make civil arguments too.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth for a lie, And worshiped and served created things rather the Creator-- Who is forever praised. Romans 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" Hebrews 2:3
Since nothing can come from nothing, it logically follows that there must be "an eternal source" -- a timeless, immaterial, ultimate source of all the energy and matter in existence, which existed before "spacetime." But what is this "source?" What is its nature? Whoever has a scientific answer - please enlighten us!! I want to know!!
Dawkins has mastered the art of making outrageous, headline grabbing, mainstream attack speeches in the same vain as a Hugo Chavez in politiks, a Marilyn Manson in music, a Dan Brown in publishing, an Andrew Dice Clay in comedy & a John Waters in film. It's a genius business model - connect w/ ur market, continue pushing the limits of decency & back it up w/ scientific theory that most of us aren't smart enough to understand let alone, question. A millionaire scientist . . . pretty rare feat.
@garyconditjr what are you TALKING about? Richard Dawkins is FAR from wealthy, and his organization has one of the most transparent systems of donations among NGOs the world over. A not-so-rare-occurrence, accusations without evidence. While he is a marketing genius, it's because he's saying things we've been thinking for so long without having had the courage to say them. And he is an acclaimed scientist, sir, well-recognized in the academic community.
Trying to disprove Zeus within the confines of physics is impossible. Maybe if you formed your own opinions once in a while, instead of parroting everything Dawkins spits out of his mouth, you could truly see the glory of Zeus.
Trying to disprove God within the confines of physics is impossible. Maybe if you formed your own opinions once in a while, instead of parroting everything Dawkins spits out of his sinful mouth, you could truly see the glory of God.
How is anyone trying to disprove God within the confines of physics? Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and it is through biological mechanisms, logic, and statistical mathematics by which he ventures to disprove God.
Regarding your second statement, I don't even know where to begin on addressing such blatant stupidity and ignorance of the basis of human interaction and expression. Does the word bigot mean anything to you?
13:21, Was that Darwin on the British currency?
PatersonFinest 1 day ago
@PatersonFinest Yes our £10 note has Charles Darwin on it. :)
BallerT 16 hours ago
God or not I don't realy give a shit.I wan't to know where the rules came from,where matter came from,where the universal binary code came from.Fuck the big bang, thats the same as saying we haven't got a clue.
TheBudhistpunk 1 day ago
@TheBudhistpunk @thinkboutit Duh, aren't all these debating/arguments about the unknown? Watch my video below and tell me whether professor Storm (an intelligent man) is a liar?
dalasoft 11 hours ago
Man got some balls, I tell you that much.
olppa1 2 days ago
So funny when Christians comment. Always sound so dumb and pathetic.
thinkboutit 3 days ago
@thinkboutit "Always sound so dumb and pathetic." Subjective points of view do not account for a valid argument. :)
Christistruth1 2 days ago
@Christistruth1 I as just expressing my opinion. This wasn't an argument. Tell sky daddy hello for me ;)
thinkboutit 2 days ago
@thinkboutit And that accounts for what? Your opinion, and that's all. It's not even a provable opinion. lolol ;)
Christistruth1 2 days ago
@Christistruth1 Didn't say it accounted for anything. I don't need to prove anything. God is not real. It's a myth. That's a fact until someone can prove otherwise.
thinkboutit 2 days ago
@thinkboutit "I don't need to prove anything." Well you made positive claims, and now you don't need to prove them? Wow. "God is not real." That's a also a positive claim, and you say you don't need to prove it either? Wow to that one. "It's a myth." Another positive claim. "That's a fact until someone can prove otherwise." How is it a fact, when you can't prove them? Other than that, it's an opinion you can't prove. You're a philosophical failure buddy.
Christistruth1 2 days ago
@Christistruth1 All myths are just that, myths. If it cannot be proven there's no reason to believe it. If you make a habit of believing things with no evidence, where do you draw the line? There's millions of other things you could believe in but choose not to. Delusional much? ;)
thinkboutit 2 days ago
@thinkboutit "If it can't be proven there's no reason to believe it." That's faulty logic there buddy. Why because you're using a fallacy for a valid argument. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence...that's basically what you're using. So, you're okay with using a fallacy as a valid position??? cont....
Christistruth1 1 day ago
@Christistruth1 Why don't you believe in fairy's then? Because there's no reason to. You could argue all day but you will get nowhere because there is no proof for god. PERIOD.
thinkboutit 13 hours ago
@thinkboutit When you say..."There's no reason to." That's doesn't disprove it, it also doesn't prove there is no REAL reason. It's just a subjective point of view, that carries no weight. "There is no proof for God." I beg to differ, I believe there is plenty of REASONABLE proof for God's existence.But I doubt it's proof that you haven't heard already, the problem is you don't see it as adequate proof for belief. Because your standard of proof is unreasonable.That doesn't mean there's no proof.
Christistruth1 12 hours ago
@Christistruth1 I cannot disprove it. But there is no reason to believe it. There's NO evidence. NONE.
thinkboutit 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thinkboutit cont...."If you make a habit of believing things with no evidence, where do you draw the line? There's millions of other things you could believe in but choose not to. Delusional much?" So , basically you're attempting to rationalize and reason your fallacy as a reasonable argument??? And you call me delusional? lol
Christistruth1 1 day ago
haha Lenin and Stalin where in fact atheist but thats because they were COMMUNISTS! An ideology absolutely dismissing any religion (cause its kind of a religion itself but anyway...)!!!
and because most of the American population is so gullible they are becoming not a communist but SOCIALIST country, so the atheist president is on the way, you like it or not :D
Herowar 3 days ago
Americans don't want an atheist as President because we know what historical happened in the Soviet Union when militant atheists like Lenin and Stalin gained power. The result was the execution of approximately 70,000,000 million innocent theists in the 70 year period between 1917 - 1987
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 Russia was ruled by communists, that was their driving Ideology.
Your current Pres...not only endorses Science, but took the time to honor Charles Darwin in a speech.
How many Politicians in America, have to lie about being religious? To admit to Atheism would be political suicide, but times are a changing my friend. Only 400 yrs ago me and people like Dawkins would have been accused of being in league with Satan, and burned alive perhaps. Superstitions are fading!
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Liars lie, and a recent poll stated that atheists are the least trusted of all minority groups.
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 "Liars lie." Yes anyone who claims to know a Deity, and what that Deity wants and needs is a Liar.
Again, through spreading lies about atheists, like you are doing, is why they are considered the least trusted group of people. Maybe if you had more than "faith" to back your claims, you wouldn't have to lie about atheism.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 From your comments I must assume that you possess absolute proof that no Deity exists. I would love you to entertain us with such absolute proof - good luck with that.
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 Your a deluded fool. Where is the proof that Zeus does not exist?
There is no evidence in our universe support or reject a god. Which is exactly what you'd expect to find in a universe without a god. But not what you would expect find, in a universe govern by a god....:)
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 I don't think that makes sense, what sort of evidence would YOU expect to find? Since evidence is interpreted, you're saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a fallacy. So, this time try to make a better argument, then attempting to use a fallacy to prove your argument.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 Nice Apologetic circle talk.
Try more nouns, less verbs.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Again, your original argument made no sense. Don't use a fallacy to prove your argument, by way of absence of evidence being evidence of absence. Please give a better argument then a fallacy. "Nice Apologetic circle talks." Asinine point..."Try more nouns, less verbs." Again, failing to make your argument valid.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 If you have a point to make, make it. I don't care to waste words on the fluff talk. Which pretty much sums up Theology.
But of course, i require more than "faith" to form my reality. So facts and evidence are what i look for to determine whats real, and whats make believe.
The story of Jesus bares no more meaning to me than the story of Hercules.
Both are fables.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 That's what I've asked you to do, but all you have done was give a personal opinion based on a fallacy. "Which pretty much sums up Theology." That's an opinion, not a fact, all though you will assert it as a fact. You have faith that your reality is even truth. Evidence is interpreted. "The story of Jesus bares no more meaning to me than the story of Hercules." Opinion accounts for nothing. Now, give me something with some substance.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 Look, if a god decided to make itself known to the human race, and wanted communicate with us, me and most atheists would accept it.
Why would such a Deity, rely on you and bt3701 to speak on its behalf.
Grow up.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 How sure are you that you would accept it?? "Why would such a deity, rely on you and bt3701 to speak on it's behalf.?" That's a weak argument. There have been more people who have spoken of their experiences, and we can logically and reasonably conclude that there must be an intelligence that created all that exists, either something from nothing, or something from intelligence. "Grow up." Is that the best you have? I thought you were an intellectual free thinker?
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Thanks for providing evidence that you have no absolute proof for any of your claims, and thanks also for providing evidence of your immaturity with your childish tactic of name calling so common to atheists every time they get cornered.
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 You asked for proof, if Bigfoot is a made up story, how can one provide proof of it not existing? Yes, i called you a fool.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Yawn - Still no proof for any claim you made. Pretty irrational to make claims you are unable to provide proof for.
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 "Still no proof for any claim you made" Really?
Superstitons only exist in the heads of people such as yourself. The Proof of burden is on the superstitious. Why should people believe in gods, witches, wizards, demons, unicorns, without empirical evidence to back it up.
Do we convict people on faith, or evidence in a court of law?
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Let me clue you in on the correct way the burden of proof is used. The burden of proof rests upon the person making a claim. I didn't make any claim, you did, therefore you own the burden of proof for the claims you made. Got any more claims you would like to make besides the ones you already made and had no proof for?
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 I am well versed in Christianese and Apologetic circle jerk talk.
Again there is no evidence to support a god or puff the magic dragon.
I also claim that Puff the magic dragon is make believe just like Jesus.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Before a person can correctly say there is no evidence would require that the person possess infinite knowledge. Do you possess infinite knowledge?
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 So, because i do not possess infinite knowledge.....Puff the magic dragon is real?
Your standards for reality are set a little low, don't ya think?
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 What you're doing is false logic. "Because I do not posses infinite knowledge Puff the magic dragon is real?" That's not what were saying at all. But if you're insinuating that God is equal to the fantasy of puff the magic dragon, then you're inadvertently stating that God is not real, and does not exist. Is this true???
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 He's asking for the difference.
Elitest2 3 days ago
@Elitest2 And by asking for the difference, he's asserting that they are they same, since he classifies them in the same category as fantasy, hence not real.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 What exists beyond the known Cosmos is all speculation. And so far we do not see the hand of god arranging stars and black holes. Many things are still unexplained, and we will continue to search (thats what humans do). However until evidence is uncovered, personal feelings from you, or any other person, does not validate anything Supernatural, or existence of a Deity.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 How do you know it's speculation? "So far we don't see the hand of God arranging the stars and black holes." He doesn't have too, since they exist according to laws, that he put in place. So, saying...'I don't see God's hand doing something.' Doesn't mean he's not doing it, or doesn't create laws for it. I never said personal feelings validated anything, but again, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. So again, use a better argument instead of a fallacy.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 How do i know that what exists beyond the known universe is speculation?
Do you hear voices? If we cannot see beyond with our telescopes, or travel on the Enterprise, how could it be anymore than speculation.
Your little fallacy hang up cute; YOU CAN"T DISPROVE ZEUS....so there!
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 How do you know we can't know? You're speculating that too aren't you? I mean after all, you're speculating that your own thoughts in your head making moral judgments are yours, and not existential, isn't that right? After all, you couldn't prove those thoughts are solely yours. I can reasonably exclude Zeus. But that doesn't mean because I can't disprove Zeus, that you're valid.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 "How do you know we can't know?
Because you do not possess special powers that i do not have. That's how i know. I do not hear voices from gods, fairies, demons. I have never witnessed magic words, things appearing out of thin air. I have never seen a vampire, bigfoot, exorcism, ghost.
I have read alot of the holy bible....and one things for sure. My morals most certainly did not come from the war god Yahweh.
Desdenova262 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 You are right! I have strong feelings that the universe was created by fairies and a big cup of tea orbiting the earth. Until they can't prove that the cup of tea and my fairies exist I will kee my faith!
fr1ghtful 3 days ago
@fr1ghtful I didn't say feelings proved anything. But it's not logical for a tea cup would be orbiting the earth. There is no history of anyone ever taking a tea cup and shooting it out into space, so that argument fails. Because God is no where near similar to the "celestial teapot". Because it's not rational.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 Explain the difference between God and Puff the magic Dragon (provide proof that one is less likely to exist than the other)
Elitest2 3 days ago
@Elitest2 Puff the magic dragon is a story, and song, by the ADMITTED imaginations of it's writers, who weren't murdered for writing it. There is no historical mention of such an entity in historical documents, there is no archeological evidence supporting it. The differences are enormous. You're asserting it as equal because you fail to understand who or what God is. You can not comprehend past a fantasy of puff the magic dragon. So, you just equate it with a fantasy, because you fail.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 You see, here is where I don't fail: Puff talked to me in a dream, and told me to write a holy book for him. And the writers were ignorant to what they were doing.
If you want historical documents, maybe I'll just switch my God to Zeus. Problem solved!
Elitest2 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 None of what you said adds to Yahweh's likelihood to exist.
Humans are capable of having mental ailments, leading to ludicrous ideas and beliefs.
Elitest2 3 days ago
@Elitest2 "None of what you said adds to Yahweh's likelihood to exist." That's an opinion based position. It's not a hard fact. Others my agree with you, but that doesn't prove it's true. Yes, Humans are capable of having mental ailments...but that doesn't prove that beliefs are part of it. You're just grasping at straws for an objection that you reason to yourself as likely.
Christistruth1 2 days ago
@Elitest2 Oh and by the way, this is false too.."Provide proof* that one is less likely to exist than the other."because reason and logic prove these things. Honestly, to say.."provide proof" is a loaded question.
Christistruth1 3 days ago
@Christistruth1 How is Puff less likely? Run me through your reason and logic. He spoke to me in a dream, and then I wrote down his teachings.
If he isn't sufficient for you historically, I will switch to Zeus. He's more fun anyway.
Elitest2 3 days ago
@Elitest2 Because Puff, AGAIN, is a product of the admitted imagination of it's writers. He is a CONFESSED invention of the mind. You're asserting that since God can't be proven, then he qualifies in the same category as Puff the magic dragon. "He spoke to me in a dream, and then I wrote down his teachings." What's wrong with that? Can you prove that God can't speak to people through dreams? No. You just don't believe it. cont...
Christistruth1 2 days ago
@Elitest2 cont..."If he isn't sufficient for you historically, I will switch to Zeus. He's more fun anyway." That's fine. As far as Zeus goes...A being that owes its existence to other beings cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived. Zeus owes his existence to other beings. Therefore, Zeus cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived. So God and Zeus are two completely different entities. Even Aristotle didn't believe in Zeus.
Christistruth1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Christistruth1 "it's not logical for a tea cup would be orbiting the earth. There is no history of anyone ever taking a tea cup and shooting it out into space, it's not rational."
Aha! But I claim the Creator (the Great Teetotaler) placed the Celestial Teapot in space as a sign of His covenant with us, His creation. I know it is there because the Divine has told me personally and I have since had visions of it. Praise be! Now, what is the difference between my claims and yours?
fdasherv 3 days ago
@Desdenova262 Since your the one who has been making absolute claims which you have failed to provide absolute proof for then it's your standards that are set low.
BT3701 2 days ago
@BT3701 "provide absolute proof."
Again you lie, i never said i have absolute proof that no god exists,That would be impossible when something is make believe. Just as you cannot provide absolute proof that Zeus or Ra do not exist.
Lack of evidence is what your god is, just like bigfoot, just like all other gods and goddesses written down in Earths history.
How can you devote your channel to debunking Atheists when you don't even understand how they think? Superstitions only work on the naive.
Desdenova262 2 days ago
@Desdenova262 you did previously say, "Yes anyone who claims to know a Deity is a liar" and then never provided any evidence to as proof for that claim, so it looks like you're the liar here. Lastly the term "thinking atheist" is an oxymoron
BT3701 2 days ago
@BT3701 And i stand true to that claim. Its self explanatory provide you apply some rational thinking.
You cannot prove your Deity anymore than i can prove Zeus.
If there is no proof, how can you make your claim?
Are you dumb? Mentally challenged...if so, i bow out of this conversation.
Are you just stupid? Uneducated...then there's a chance you can learn.
If your brainwashed you will need to fix that yourself.
Our knowledge of the Cosmos so far has not revealed any Deity's, or any magic.
Desdenova262 2 days ago
@Desdenova262 Of all the knowledge in the world, what percentage of it would you say you possess? Let's be generous and say you possess 20% of all knowledge. Could it be that God could exist the 80% you have no knowledge of? Watch the following very short YouTube video .. watch?v=eI_wDiQHn-U
BT3701 2 days ago
@BT3701 Your pretty thick skulled.
Which part of no proof....didn't you understand?
If i write in old english will that help?
Desdenova262 2 days ago
@Desdenova262 Yawn! More of your diatribe of comments which you once again fail to provide proof for. Just because you shout "no proof" doesn't make it so. It takes more faith to maintain your position and view than it does mine. - were done here.
BT3701 2 days ago
@BT3701 That's were you are wrong again fool.
I require no faith for my reality.
Faith is all you have, and it requires no evidence. Just wishful thinking, like a child playing with his make believe friend.
Word of advice; if you plan to debunk atheism, we are a funny bunch of humans, we require facts, evidence. So your "game" will require a better effort!
Desdenova262 2 days ago
@Desdenova262 I realize that in all of our discussions you have failed to provide an ounce of proof for any of your claims, and I don't expect you will be able to offer any proof for the following question either, but nevertheless here it is. What proof do you have that atheism is true? BTW - the Bible says, the fool is the person who says in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:1
BT3701 2 days ago
@BT3701 This is how little you know about Atheists. We have no religion, we use things like our senses, experiences in life, knowledge, facts, reason, and science to draw our conclusions from.
The goat herder scribblings you follow are just superstitious ignorant men, that thought the earth was the center of the universe, and demons made you sick because they could not understand things like bacteria. And they copied most of their stories from other superstitious cultures. 950 yr old Noah :)
Desdenova262 2 days ago
@Desdenova262 the science you rely on is pseudo-science, and the knowledge you rely on is anti-knowledge.
avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called 1 Timothy 6:20
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? - 1 Corinthians 1:20
BT3701 1 day ago
@BT3701 I still stand true to my claim that your god was created by men just like all the other gods and goddesses. And no amount goat herder scripture reading can change that fact.
Science only deals with the natural world.
We leave the imaginary world to people (christian) like you, muslims, fortune tellers, astrologists, magicians, alien abductions. At least Hollywood knows their shit is fake and for entertainment. Do you still wait for Santa?
Desdenova262 1 day ago
@BT3701 You need to leave desdenova alone. He's mentally retarded. Look at what he's saying. "Science only deals with the natural world." and so he will only deal with the natural world. He doesn't care how stupid science is.
dalasoft 1 day ago
@BT3701 It is not us who have to prove a negative, it is you who have to prove a "positive," in other words, what proof, other than the Bible, do you have that God exists? And something else, I assume you don't believe in Allah, Buddah, Krishna, Xenu, Zeus, All Hindu Gods, all other Greek Gods, and any other religion's Gods, right? Well, we're not so far apart you and I. I just take my disbelief one God further.
happywash 2 days ago
@happywash First of all, you haven't as yet proven that God is a negative, so that just remains your opinion. Secondly, thank you for admitting your atheism is a disbelief rather than a lack of belief. Thirdly, the rule concerning the proof of burden is that any person who makes a claim owns the burden of proof. You claimed that God is a negative - now prove it.
BT3701 1 day ago
@happywash "do you have that God exists?" Do you think professor Storm, an intelligent man, in this video (v=8vj0qKthCgg) is a liar?
dalasoft 1 day ago
@BT3701 Can you have a thought of your own without quoting a ridiculous 80s-style Youtube video? Can the Spaghetti Monster exist in the 99 percent you have no knowledge of? Turn these things around on yourself, and you'll see how useless and foolish they are.
happywash 2 days ago
Dawkins talks about the phobia Creationists have while ignoring his own Theophobia
BT3701 3 days ago
@BT3701 Maybe Dawkins has Atheophobia.
Absence of Theophobia.
Is not collecting stamps a Hobby too?
Desdenova262 3 days ago
I u r a atheist nothing matters so y dont you kill yr self
bassbass99able 5 days ago
@bassbass99able Things we know about give us a purpose and therefore a meaning
ThirstyCharlie 5 days ago
@bassbass99able What. The. Fuck. I can't even comprehend your moronic statement. An atheist will most likely not believe in the afterlife, so that means this is our only life we will ever have. Why would you want to waste the only time you will ever have to exist? I think I just wasted mine by explaining simple LOGIC to you.
Elfonz0 5 days ago
@bassbass99able Thats pathetic, you're meaning in life is to worship some fu.ck hole in sky. Anyway I'll prefer to spend my sundays playing video games than delude myself somewhere else.
3dimensionalJoe 4 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred
I wasn't implying that Dawkins is gay, nor do I care. As for his accent being British, that isn't the point either. There are British accents of many types, but to my ears, Dawkins' accent isn't pleasant because it sounds very prissy. Just puts me off and I don't understand the admiration for this man.
BookofLife3242 6 days ago
I wish my mom wasn't a baptist...she's driving our family apart. :(
AndreaL5285 1 week ago
@AndreaL5285 Can't piss me...
Pissatme 1 week ago
@AndreaL5285 Be proud friend.
dalasoft 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mliuzzolino Hey, you're welcome. If that is you in your avatar, and it is logical to keep that hairstyle you have. Keep your logic, it is pathetic. And how am I a hypocrite again? Is it logical to assert that someone is a hypocrite and then not say why too?
timcp1 1 week ago
Comment removed
timcp1 1 week ago
The Christians, Muslims and Hindis all slaughter each other for a differing opinion, Atheism is the solution.
hangman994Videos 1 week ago
@hangman994Videos Mao Zedong, and Stalin, both atheists. You like that solution?
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 They didn't kill because of atheism though. They killed because of their irrational political belief in communism, although Stalin was probably a sociopath and his belief in communism might have taken a backseat to his psychological issues. Their atheism was irrelevant as they essentially replaced god with communism.
leejs 1 week ago
@leejs By that same line of argument it can be said that any atrocity committed by a religious zealot cannot be attributed to his faith and the religion, but instead to his psychological lunacy. He may have claimed to kill in the name of God, but is it really even relevant? Despite whatever ideal they hide behind, they kill because of deep rooted, complex psychological issues that cannot simply be defined, nor may a simple causality, such as theism or atheism be pointed to as the sole culprit.
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino Some undoubtedly used religion to push their psychotic desires. But many others pushed war and murder specifically because of god (ie Inquisition, Crusades, the various islamic conquests). Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Che committed murders and atrocities in the name of their twisted communist ideology, not because of their lack of belief in god. Their atheism is irrelevant because they just exchanged one irrational belief system for another and then killed many people for it.
leejs 1 week ago
@leejs sorry Against atheism*
Tudorel98 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino Well spoken.
BookofLife3242 6 days ago
@leejs You can't kill in the name of Christianity. In the Ten Commandments it says you shall not kill. Not you shall kill.
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 Might want to mention that to the victims of the crusades and the inquisition; part of the thirty years war was for religious reasons (before it devolved into just a land grab). Saying you can't kill in the name of the Christian god because there is a rule against it is irrelevant because it's demonstrably false (ie popes giving gods permission/blessing for the crusades). It's just a 'no true scotsman fallacy'.
leejs 1 week ago
@timcp1Mao and Stalin both wore shoes, too. Maybe we should all band together and create arguments against the use of shoes
madmangtr1 1 week ago
DAWKINS ! If i ever want to meet any one in my life its this man ! the intelligence. The TRUTH ! fact and reasoning over fairytales any day.
MiloMatrataMusic 1 week ago
But as I am also an evolutionist, I believe that religion is slowly dieing out. Why do I believe this? Because we as a people are growing intellectually. And with intellect comes the understanding of rational things. We are in the age of science and understanding, and religion has no place there. And I think, in the far future - this time will be remembered as the time that human-kind as whole opened their eyes to rationality and reality. This is where religion has no basis any longer.
ramonster163 1 week ago
I am an atheist, and have been for as long as I can remember. I cannot believe that in a world of today, there are still actually people who are non agnostic theists. How can a person with a rational mind believe such things. But then again, I do believe that without religion many people would be lost in life. Some people do not posses the capability to rationalize what they do without a written moralic compass (Bible, Quor´an and torah etc), and someone telling them what to do (Priests etc).
ramonster163 1 week ago
An atheists call to arms....whatever happened to the peaceful tolerant atheist?
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 The theists murdered them for differing opinions.
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino Ha, gee, is that a joke? Hmm, Dawkins is still alive. And uh, he's the one who says atheists are peaceful. It was a jab at Dawkins....you know the man in the video who is alive? Yeah, that guy.
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 ::sigh:: Of course it was a joke - a hyperbolized one at that. I am very well aware that Dawkins is still alive. My joke was a jab at the bigotry of theists and their abhorrently violent history.
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino Violent history....Mao Zedong, and Stalin come to mind for personification of violence, neither "theist" neither Christian. And theist doesn't = Christian either. Deists can believe in a random God not associated with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 You obviously haven't read any Dawkins, nor have you watched any of his debates. He explicitly addresses the faulty correlation between Atheism and violence, as most commonly brought about via mention of Mao and Stalin. It's not an argument of quantity, and I wish it were as the cases of theism inspiring violence as opposed to atheism are overwhelming. However, as Dawkins states there is no correlation between Atheism and violence.
The same statement can not be said of theism.
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino Ridiculous. Correlation doesn't equal causation, that is what I hear from these types all the time...oh wait the double-standard is not when applied to religion. But of course. If you want to pick and choose the Spanish Inquisition, then we can pick and choose...Mao. Because you people don't pay attention, Queen Isabella was not a Christian, but a Catholic and there is no telling how much scripture she read and understood herself. The Holy Bible never condones inquisition of Jews.
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 Both the inquisition and Mao's purges were political acts. Neither were done because of atheism or Christianity, but to shore up individual ruler's power.
However I must point out that there is a much closer link between the inquisition and religion than between the purges and atheism. Mao's killings were not done under the banner of atheism as the inquisition was under the banner of faith.
On a side note, Catholics are Christians, and the inquisition courts had no authority over Jews.
rudderham235235 6 days ago
@rudderham235235 What is the point thought? If someone were to kill in the name of peaceful motives, they would be called a hypocrite. People wouldn't say "Oh peaceful motives are bad." So if in the Ten Commandments it says You shall not kill, and in the New Testament Jesus didn't go around killing. And someone kills in the name of Christianity, people blame the faith? Not the hypocrite? That isn't consistent.
timcp1 6 days ago
@timcp1 exactly! I see that we're on the same page. I probably expressed my self poorly because looking back I seam to suggest that I put blame on Christianity for the inquisition, and not the people who hijack it for their own purposes. You're absolutely right that it's foolish to blame an entire belief system for the actions of a few madmen who profess it.
rudderham235235 5 days ago
@timcp1 And what do you mean theism does not equal Christian? Christianity is a subgroup of Theism. I don't understand your point.
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino If something is a subgroup, then it doesn't equal. It differs. Theist can be a general belief in a higher power. To be a Christian requires much more.
timcp1 1 week ago
@timcp1 Wow. Are you serious? You just stunned me into a few moments silence by that incredible statement. Do you like the smell of your own farts too?
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino Yep I'm serious. And as to your moronic question nope. You should be stunned, atheism among atheists is so varied, you animals come up with nearly anything just to sound smart.
timcp1 1 week ago
Everyone who believes in God is so fucking stupid.
Aureas86 1 week ago
@Aureas86 Have fun with your earth mommy.
timcp1 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins is a fucking badass! lol
ledzeppize 1 week ago
There is no correlation between intelligence and being an atheist or not, I've seen both kinds with good and bad, and 90% of the atheists i've observed are almost illiterate,ignorant and lack even a proper human conversation. I've seen also intelligent religious people, doctors, scientists, poets, university professors... so yeah...seems Dawkins got carried away as usual with his biased thoughts, and the bunch of laughing monkeys kept laughing instead of correcting him.
BTW i am not Religious.
Tanklovaaa 1 week ago
Comment removed
Tanklovaaa 1 week ago
Two words, FRANCIS COLLINS.
TimLincecum211 1 week ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
This is wrong! There is a god!! Even though there is countless evidence opposed to one and none in support of, there has to be one because I was told so ever since I was baby of his existence, therefore HE EXISTS,,
utuberoxxz 1 week ago
Not to quibble but I think that image is of Neptune, not Mars, which the Great Teapot ("Holy be it's liquid") is orbiting.
tweaker1bms 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
I think people should still give "live and let live" a try. It's worked out for me so far. I'm tired of all these extremists making pointless arguments amongst each other. YouTube needs more rational people who don't favor either side. People who see that this constant bickering amongst one another isn't helping anything. Both sides act like the other side is going to be the death of humanity, but at this rate it seems like both of them are.
TheTrickster14 1 week ago
@TheTrickster14 "I think people should still give (live and let live) a try."
Really?
Its ok for religions to lie and twist education and science? We should just turn our backs and let them run amuck spreading their make believe ideology?
When religions learn to respect Science and real knowledge, and stay out of governments, they may earn some respect. But we both know that won't happen, because their fairy tales do not match the evidence, so they lie.
Desdenova262 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Desdenova262
i got a question for you, if atheism is pro-social development, how come athiest europe's culture is deteriorating then and more and more atheist and skeptic scientists in europe convert to islam then?
YushiroTheJuggernaut 1 week ago
Christian: Damn the philosopher! Damn the logical, free-thinker! Damn your science! Damn intelligent, concise thought! You're going to hell for not believing as I do! I don't need proof, but even with all of yours, you are wrong!
Bubblesatx 1 week ago
@Bubblesatx Why is it that atheists always mock Christianity when they supposedly oppose religion in general?
Preeminence21 1 week ago
@Preeminence21 In countries where free speech is allowed, the populations are predominantly Christian.
Islam has a larger supporter base, but Atheists would be executed for speaking against it.
Eastern religions are non-conversionalist (and sometimes atheist too) so they do not threaten athiesm
rudderham235235 1 week ago
@Preeminence21 Probably because it's the most prevalent one in their (western) society. *shrug*
Why oppose religions no one around you has? Or for that matter when would that opportunity come up?
tweaker1bms 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@tweaker1bms I'm not saying one should directly refer to a specific religion, just say creationist or religious person.
Preeminence21 1 week ago
@Preeminence21 Yeah, but it's just a hard habit I suppose...especially when all the religious people you meet or interact with are of the same exact religion lol
tweaker1bms 1 week ago
@Preeminence21 I was raised to be a Presbyterian Christian, a moderate sect. My youth group was full of brainwashed kids whose figurative peripheral vision had been covered. They knew nothing other than what they were told in youth group. Most of the kids were white, rich kids. I am white, but could not identify with the elitist attitude of some. I enjoyed the adult pastor's messages very much, but never believed in the validity of anything he said in reference to actual events.
Bubblesatx 1 week ago
@Preeminence21 Like others have posted, I am surrounded by Christians. They dominate the land so to speak. I speak out against the Quran more than the Bible. The Quran teaches hate and violence where the Bible is more welcoming. I enjoyed the Bible. I just think it is wrong for Christianity and all religion to have spread like it has. Most children can't defend their brains against such lies. I'm agnostic. Something greater is apparent. But one doesn't need the Bible to see that.
Bubblesatx 1 week ago
@Bubblesatx Thank you for the respectful response. I just feel as though Christian doctrine doesn't really "brainwash" youth. While children are highly impressionable, I believe that maturation will let them determine the truth for themselves. Even if the teachings did remain, I don't see what the hinderance is. Even if there isn't a god, I believe that adherence to a religion of virtually any kind is beneficial. I know that one can be an atheist and still have good morals...
Preeminence21 1 week ago
@Bubblesatx but if religion is another's way, why not let them retain it? There are plenty of things I could talk about pertaining to religion, but my mane concern is to why people take others' beliefs so seriously. If you think another's belief is illogical, good for you. It's not a problem unless it somehow *considerably affects others. I don't see how saying "In God We Trust" on currency is a big deal. I realize it's easy for me to say that, since I"m not an Atheist, but I think people...
Preeminence21 1 week ago
@Bubblesatx just like to find fault with others and need to feel important. If being condescending and fastidious is better than following religious doctrine, I don't know what to say.
Preeminence21 1 week ago
Great video!
kissimmeebarcelona 1 week ago
This man is an idiot. Sometimes I think it is a good thing not to get a college education. Seems when they get any education past the third grade they become "thinkers" I will not say more because God will give us what we deserve at the appointed time. Evolution has been proven to be a farce.
goldenpassages 1 week ago
@goldenpassages it's not a good thing to have a college education? And being a 'thinker' is bad? I don't think you're for real. So i won't rise to your apparent ignorance...
1988Leger 1 week ago
@goldenpassages HAHA are you serious! so thinking is bad?! guess we should all be ignorant bibe humpers instead of believing in facts that have been have proof on their side
phoenix9909 1 week ago
@goldenpassages When was evolution proved to be a farce?
TrampVamp 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldenpassages When was evolution proved to be a farce?
TrampVamp 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldenpassages When was evolution proved to be a farce?
TrampVamp 1 week ago
@goldenpassages how was it so proven?
rudderham235235 1 week ago
@rudderham235235 If evolution hasn't been proven then that logically leads to it being proven a farce? That implication makes absolutely no sense.
It depends on how technical you want to get about the definition of proven - only pedantic philosophers will argue this as how can you truly prove anything? However, evolution is an indisputable fact and has been "proven" to as much of an extent as that the world is round.
Oh yeah... I forgot that theists don't care about facts, only skewed faith.
mliuzzolino 1 week ago
@mliuzzolino I'm not certain to whom your comment was addressed, because as for me, I couldn't imagine a logical argument contesting evolution.
When I asked "How was it so proven?" I was challenging someone to show how evolution was proven false. A challenge which doesn't appear to have been met.
But all the confusion might stem from this ridiculous comment system. Nobody can make heads or tales of it- let alone hold a logical and linear debate!
rudderham235235 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please check out my new ebook on atheism, "Beyond the Devil" by C. Neron on Amazon.
NeronBeyondtheDevil 1 week ago
The man is a genius.
BlueLondonVampire 1 week ago
I think if anyone has debated as many bigoted religious people as he has (i'm not saying that all religious people are bigoted), who use emotional arguments, you would be pretty frustrated with trying to make civil arguments too.
ttimmss 2 weeks ago
bravo!!
suphysis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 weeks ago
507 people was hoping for 72 virgins.
Dawkinsforever 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE BIBLE PREDICTED EVOLUTION!
Romans 1:23
And they Exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images made to look
like mortal man and birds
and animals and reptiles..
Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth for a lie, And worshiped and served created things rather the Creator-- Who is forever praised. Romans 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" Hebrews 2:3
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since nothing can come from nothing, it logically follows that there must be "an eternal source" -- a timeless, immaterial, ultimate source of all the energy and matter in existence, which existed before "spacetime." But what is this "source?" What is its nature? Whoever has a scientific answer - please enlighten us!! I want to know!!
harvardlaw14 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
harvardlaw14 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
harvardlaw14 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
harvardlaw14 2 weeks ago
Dawkins has mastered the art of making outrageous, headline grabbing, mainstream attack speeches in the same vain as a Hugo Chavez in politiks, a Marilyn Manson in music, a Dan Brown in publishing, an Andrew Dice Clay in comedy & a John Waters in film. It's a genius business model - connect w/ ur market, continue pushing the limits of decency & back it up w/ scientific theory that most of us aren't smart enough to understand let alone, question. A millionaire scientist . . . pretty rare feat.
garyconditjr 2 weeks ago 18
@garyconditjr what are you TALKING about? Richard Dawkins is FAR from wealthy, and his organization has one of the most transparent systems of donations among NGOs the world over. A not-so-rare-occurrence, accusations without evidence. While he is a marketing genius, it's because he's saying things we've been thinking for so long without having had the courage to say them. And he is an acclaimed scientist, sir, well-recognized in the academic community.
siddistani 2 weeks ago
@garyconditjr Sorry you're too dumb to get on board. Try reading a book sometime.
c0mpt0n4ssk31th 2 weeks ago
@garyconditjr Sounds a little exaggerated...unless I missed his book titled "Fuck Creationists."
tweaker1bms 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
Richard is such a great talker, a good version of hitler (if that sounds ok)
S117haloandmetal 2 weeks ago 19
@S117haloandmetal i think people might take that the wrong way
gat0rgirl13 1 week ago
@S117haloandmetal I don't think Hitler was "fun" in his talks >.<
tweaker1bms 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
Trying to disprove Zeus within the confines of physics is impossible. Maybe if you formed your own opinions once in a while, instead of parroting everything Dawkins spits out of his mouth, you could truly see the glory of Zeus.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
Trying to disprove God within the confines of physics is impossible. Maybe if you formed your own opinions once in a while, instead of parroting everything Dawkins spits out of his sinful mouth, you could truly see the glory of God.
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mliuzzolino 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkateObsession
How is anyone trying to disprove God within the confines of physics? Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and it is through biological mechanisms, logic, and statistical mathematics by which he ventures to disprove God.
Regarding your second statement, I don't even know where to begin on addressing such blatant stupidity and ignorance of the basis of human interaction and expression. Does the word bigot mean anything to you?
mliuzzolino 2 weeks ago
@mliuzzolino I like how the majority of your argument was name calling ;) nice try though
SkateObsession 2 weeks ago