I'm an Atheist, and I only believe in things which are in front of me, or thing which are not but have evidence to back it up. I want to live my life and be happy, I don't want to live my life by some fairy tale god and be unhappy. If you want to succeed in life then you gotta be your own man, don't rely on others.
@crazymanlargemarge I am a christian and I'm very happy. I don't want to bash each other on here, I just want to know why you don't believe what you don't believe haha why do you think christians aren't happy?
@tymusgraves I don't believe all Christians are unhappy, I respect people who have beliefs, I just don't like the Christians who force there beliefs onto me. People who do that must be so unhappy, if they were happy they would enjoy life and enjoy there belief.
Personally, I can't stand when people have such ridiculous beliefs. They end up passing them on to their kids and shit. I certainly have a problem with certain beliefs. Most of the time I'll be purely intellectual about it, but sometimes I can get really annoyed with the crap people pass off as truth. It's tough respecting some people when they believe such nonsense.
And this is why Americans will continue to be a dumb race because they simply don't understand natural selection and the laws of the universe. They choose to just make fun of things they simply don't understand. Think out side the box!!!!!
Totally agree with you! I think the Americans should have let the Nazis "naturally select" the Brits, French and Jews out of this fucking world. Think about how many more jobs there would be!
While we're at it, I think we should euthanize the poor. I know that seems harsh but is it better to euthanize an animal or let it live in poverty and starve to death?
@johnbaptist15 disprove what exactly? We don't believe theist claims. You can disprove that we don't believe you? Can you disprove I don't believe in ghosts and unicorns too? Lol you're an obvious troll.
@theUKatheist hahaha we do these kind of debates and spend our time so we can get reward from God . . . i wonder why u atheist ppl waste your time here ? ? i feel u r a fat ass who dont work at all take benefits from government and just fool urself that u r doing a great job and u know smthing that we dont know . . .u continue to live this kind of curse life or hang urself no one cares dont fool ur own self "reality check" love u bro just kidding . . . no hard feelings ok love and peace . . . .
@johnbaptist15 thats a great hypothesis but totally wrong. I'm in good shape, work 50 hours a week ( doing what I love ) I earn twice as much as most people, I have a great family, a wife to be.
@theUKatheist Thank God u r not rude at all . . .i m glad u r a happy person God bless ur wife . . .amin you hvnt answer my question yet . . . why r u doing this ? ? ? i saw ur channel u seems like u worship mr Dawkins . . . hehehe why u r wasting ur time here ? ? ?
I'm very happy, and I'm an atheist. I know this boggles your head but frankly I do not care for rude, hateful and judgemental people such as yourself.
PS you're doing this for reward? You think your God doesn't see you're doing it out of selfishness for reward? Lol. Drop the faith and live a happy life...peace.
@johnbaptist15 Thank God u r not rude at all . . .i m glad u r a happy person God bless ur wife . . .amin you hvnt answer my question yet . . . why r u doing this ? ? ? i saw ur channel u seems like u worship mr Dawkins . . . hehehe why u r wasting ur time here ? ? ?
This interview reveals the low opinion Richard has of the US audience... and his desperation to help educate in any way he can. If he hadn't been so troubled by the polling data showing the numbers of creationists and believers, he may have been a bit more easy-going.
I mean weird because he has a satirical act against the right (which is always perceived as highly religious), and in many, many cases he directly makes fun of religion; this gives us an impression that he dislikes religion. Meanwhile, he is catholic, which is one of the strictest Christian sects. I just find him to be, I don't know.. weird.
I love stephen colbert and richard dawkins and I get that he's just trying to be funny, but when it comes down to something serious like this I'm ever so slightly annoyed that he keeps making funny quips when dawkins tries to explain a serious point. It's like HAHAHA KNOCK IT OFF ASSHOLE LOLOL
Nah man. It is because of Colbert's satire that Dawkin's points are made even clearer. Colbert plays the dumb Christian in order to display how stupid their common rebuttals are.
@Phx8ball602 by the way, theres proof that the earth is billions of years old, yes, but there is also proof that the earth can be no older than a few hundred million years old, there is proof that the earth is no older than about a few hundred thousand years old, and theres proof that the eart is no older than 10,000 years old. so you comment is pretty pointless.
He does get it. You can tell by his manner that he does. But he's using Stephen's satire as a platform for his ideas while debunking the theories that Stephen presents. In essence, Stephen is helping Dawkins present his ideas through satire. :)
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
@bluetrilobite There was an interview where colbert says that he takes his guests aside and sort of lets them in on the satire before he goes and interviews them. He probably told dawkins something like "Just pretend that I'm serious. haha. Though I have met a few people who never realized that Colbert was satire, I think some people just don't perceive irony.
@paulusvii97 He did actually. Seems Colbert visited Dawkins before the interview and said, "You know I play a complete idiot?" making sure Dawkins knew that what Colbert did was satire.
@antibarbi03 - it seems to me that arguing god's existence cant be proven or disproven is to argue god is irrelevant. That wich can not be proven to be or not be is on equal ground with that wich does not exist or has consequence.
1. write a book about how religous people are idiots and basically they have been suckered into doing exactly what some guy in a robe wants them to do for hundreds of years. like give up there hard earned cash.
2. argue and try to get someone religous to read the book.
3. if steps one and two fail, do what the christians did, and beat whoever doesnt agree with you to death with the book.
@holidaysinsweden thats kinda the point. He's pretending to be a fundamentalist christian giving ridiculous claims that atheists hate to hear (cause they claim its so stupid)
@holidaysinsweden if you don't like him, don't watch him. He's satirising American conservatives and religious fundamentalists, and he's really good at it. There are many youtube videos seeking out those precious few moments when he breaks character.
@nietsnatsud I don't generally watch him, but if I occasionally do I reserve the right of voicing my opinion about it.
The satire wasn't that obvious to me. I didn't know anything about him previously, and the language barrier might have something to do with me not getting it as well.
@holidaysinsweden Colbert's act is satire. He exposes the flaws in others by making them look ridiculous. Oddly enough though, some people actually think he's a conservative...
@Arcexey its funny kuz Richard thinks that people are dumb because they believe God always existed. But he thinks the universe always existed and people are smart if they agree with him.... hypocrisy at it's best. it comes down to faith. theres just no going around it. case closed
@marineboy090 I don't think Richard Dawkins thinks the universe is timeless.
What do you mean by 'always?'
If by 'always' you mean recorded time, then yes, because the universe IS all recorded time.
Never forget that religion is the one saying god has 'always' (timeless) been here. Dawkins's word usage in this video is to say, 'if religion is insinuating everything had a maker.. who is god's maker? Why does god get a free pass?"
@Arcexey asking "who made God", is the same as asking "who made the universe." both imply that they had a creator. God said he didnt have a creator. Dawkins is stating that the universe didnt have a creator. its the same argument for both sides. to say one is dumb because you dont agree with it, is hypocrisy.
@Arcexey if you havent already, check out the debate (theres two) between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. it comes to faith no matter what. this is my point. If the universe had a creator, then who created it? if it didnt, then it always existed. how can something always exist? If the universe can always exist and that makes sense, why cant God? it would better explain the complexity of life. thats where faith comes in. its either, Complex made less complex, or simple made complex.
@marineboy090 What does faith have anything to do with it?? Do you understand the definition of faith?
You also need to define 'always.' Again, if 'always' means 'all time,' then yes, the universe has always existed. If you are insinuating there was time before the universe was created, then no, Dawkins is not saying the universe always existed.
Let's say we found out our universe existed before the bigbang (pretend this is possible).
@marineboy090 but it does mean (your word) that you are dumb to believe god did it, because of Occam's Razor. And the same goes for your last bit. If we have a perfectly good explanation for life, adding an extra, unneeded god onto the end is pointless.
It's like, "My brain lets my arm move vs. A Leprechan lets my brain let my arm move."
Leprechauns (god) isn't needed in the equation.
And one more thing.. God is not an explanation of the complexity of life. It is the
@marineboy090 anti explanation for complexity of life. If you haven't begun to show god exists (this is why they call it faith) then to say 'God did it' is absolutely no different than 'We don't know.'
Remember that you can't say life is complex because of god, and god is real because life is complex. Until god is real, 'god did it' is not an explanation.. it's the opposite!
@Arcexey the always that i use for the universe, is the same that i use for God. Something had to have always existed or else nothing would exist now. i dont use a different "always." when i say "always existing" i mean never had a beginning.
Now, you want to believe that the universe just blew into existence by however means, and started from simple to complex (life). This takes faith. Others believe that God created the universe. God, being omniscient, would have the ability and
@marineboy090 whoa whoa whoa whoa. "Something had to have always existed or else nothing would exist now." Says who?????
As far as we know, 'always' is when the universe began. There is no 'before' the universe yet. So the only always we know of is the beginning of space and time: the big bang.
-I don't -want- believe something. I believe it because that is what the evidence says.
-Can you tell me your definition of 'faith'? The way you are using it doesn't make sense to me.
@Arcexey faith, as i am using it, to believe in something with lack of evidence for.
there is no "before the universe" just as there is no "before God" This is honestly, without a doubt, going to be a faith based decision simply because humans cannot (probably will not) be able to comprehend "has forever existed." no matter what it is: Big bang, Pre Big Bang, or God
@marineboy090 Yes, science can explain how something goes from simple to complex.
Yes, god would have the ability to do all of this stuff, as would anything else we can imagine in our heads. Until god is demonstrated, it doesn't become an explanation, but an antiexplanation. a place holder. Like dark matter.
"without an agent to guide development, it would be pretty much impossible that evolution could account alone for life on earth."
@marineboy090 mean one is descendant from the other! =D Were you thinking paleontologists discover a fossil and go 'looks similar to this other one.. must be a direct descendant."
Yes, you can test evolution, just like with anything else: predictions! We can predict any fossil will be found in a particular geographic place, in a particular geologic era.
And we can predict where fossils will NOT be found. We can predict that diseases will continue to be better resistant to our
@Arcexey (in a non condescending tone): what happens when fossils that shouldnt be where they are, appear? such fossils have been found in Canada, where they shouldn't be, and in a way they shouldn't be. Does this mean their hypothesis failed? what happens then?
also, diseases is evolution in a sense. however, evolution that i am referring to is species to species transitioning. (really, read the information theory and tell me what you think)
@marineboy090 Yes, when it's shown that a legitimate fossil is found in a place it shouldn't be, evolution is wrong.
As it has been said, it only takes 1 rabbit in the Precambrian for evolution to be wrong. And there hasn't been. And BTW, fossils is one of the weakest evidences of evolution, compared to the others.
yes, information theory. What about it?
I think if you understood a little more about the scientific process, you wouldn't be so quick to question evolution.
@marineboy090 just about every single scientist would love to disprove evolution. Scientists have everything to lose from defending it, and nothing to lose from attacking it.
If someone showed a legitimate fossil in Canada, or otherwise disproved evolution, they would instantly be a celebrity, be rich and famous. The reason this doesn't happen, and that there is nothing ever published in a scientific journal showing evolution to be wrong.. is because IT ISN'T.
@marineboy090 under the assumption that evolutionary biologists are just a segregated group of the entire scientific community that makes up its mind about evolution on its own - no. The overwhelming consensus among all branches, geology, biology, physics - people from all across the world of all religions who can do the tests in their own laboratories all agree the evidence points to one thing: we are all cousins in a great family tree. These are the same people that build your
@marineboy090 airplanes and tell you that taking aspirin won't kill you, and tell you that how to repair your heart. If evolution wasn't a real phenomenon, there are so many applications of your life that would disappear that you don't even realize comes from evolutionary theory. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity. The only reason this whole thing is even a fucking issue is because it obviously contradicts genesis. It's just like the damn flat earth society. The
@marineboy090 whole flat earth issue wouldn't be wasting everyone's time if the bible didn't say the earth is flat in about 7 passages. I'm tired of religious people accepting science for 99.9% of everything in their lives until it comes to the 1 or 2 things that contradict the bible. It would have to have be such an EXTRAORDINARY conspiracy for all these independent people across the planet to be lying about this - and it's all stuff we can go and check ourselves!!!! /end rant
@Arcexey We were having a great discussion until you started this comment. Then it just got ridiculous. then it whent just how it goes with every other person i talk to. a personalized opinion and attack against religion, that is Christianity. Because of this, we both need to close before it gets too unproductive. first off, evolution doesn't debunk genesis, they can actually coexist. thats way besides the point though. i understand that evolution is the leading theory of the origins of
@marineboy090 What comment did I even start? You messaged me first. My one about Dawkins resting his case? I'll clear that up that bit up (again), and then if you choose not to read the rest, that's OK. We can resolve one topic at a time.
Let's just resolve the first issue,
nice and simple:
Dawkins is NOT saying the world is not created.
Religion IS saying the world is created.
Dawkins merely points out that if the world was created, why does god get away with not being created?
@marineboy090 To which Cobert gives the classic cop out, that god is timeless. How people would know that god even exists, let alone that he or she is timeless, is ?????
Ok, now on to evolution:
If you take genesis and you omit nothing, it is a contradiction to evolution. A flood did not happen. There was no firmament.... unlesss,
god created life and then omitted that he destroyed it all and then started evolution. In that respect, it isn't a contradiction.
@marineboy090 They can co-exist if you take a different interpretation of genesis, but my 'obvious contradiction' comes from religion efforts themselves. It is no wonder that nearly all critcisim of evolution comes from religious agents. It doesn't matter to me if they aren't or are compatible - but it matters to religion. Just like the bible saying the earth is flat matters to religion:
@marineboy090 plus many duplicates of the above in other passges and many psalms about the earth not being movable, and of course the earth having pillars. -.
That is why the flat earth society began in the 1800's, because of those bible quotes. It's the same story with evolution: Don't fight science for 99%, but fight it only when it contradicts what the bible says.
The Discovery Institute is not science. Do you understand how the scientific community operates? I tried to explain it to
@marineboy090 you - if there were evidence against evoltion, every single scientist would try to get it published!! It would instantly make them rich, and be a world-wide celebrity!!! As a scientist, you have everything to lose defending evolution, and nothing to lose attacking it.
The Discovery institute already sent Michael Behe to represent creationism during the Dover, PA trial. Have you watched the Dover trial? Where Behe was shown, by real agents of science, in front of a judge, how and
@marineboy090 why creationism is a pseudoscience? And how many times he couldn't answer a direct question? And how many times he was dead wrong with his assertions about evolution? I mean the common, key arguments brought by creationism were just on trial and in public view. Watch the dramatization. Or read the transcripts. The Discovery Institute is not science. It's a religious organization that picked a 'sciencey' name.
I'm not saying this this shows evolution to be a real phenomenon,
@marineboy090 the best part about evolution, and science in general, is that you can go and do the tests yourself! And you can go see the abundance of fossils, you can learn that a transitional fossil isn't what creationist propaganda make them out to be! Learn about dating and apply it. You can go to these museums and see this stuff!
You show me a single entry where the bible specifically describes what the universe is: giving dimensions of time, space, labels how old it is,
@seaton125 Have you ever thought that there might not be an explanation for the 'origin' of the universe?
Even to me, the first thing you think of is: ppft.. please. Everything else is caused by something, that doesn't make sense."
Look at the quantum: It's been said that, with the quantum, you can no longer say 'that doesn't make sense.' Because you'd be wrong. Because there are things with the very small that just - don't - make - sense.
@seaton125 I'm not projecting this at you, but I just don't get how religious people can accuse the rest of us that we aren't open to god existing, yet they aren't open to the universe existing without a cause. And I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but there is no difference than holding out for the answer to the origin of the universe than there is holding out for the reason the tides go in and out.
@seaton125 Once science can prove the existence of a supernatural being, then I might be convinced. Sorry, but either way, it can't be proven or disproven.
@Arcexey life, however, there are studies and commentaries by both religious and atheist scientists that call into question the theory of evolution as the origins of life. there are hundreds of biologists with all kinds of educational background from all over the world from the most prestigious schools that doubt the evolutionary theory. go to Discovery Institute, look at some of the articles. These are mindless religious idiots, they are true scientists that question the evolution dog
@Arcexey ma. Science is more than observation, it has to be testable in order to be a science. tests such as the fruit-fly mutation experiment, only show the need for an intelligent agent, the near impossibility of successful mutations, and the fact that fruit-flies will always be fruit-flies, nothing more. articles like this are being writtin by scientists that are showing evolution for what it really is, ONLY a theory, NOT fact.
@marineboy090 Can we safely assume that you also do not believe in the major sciences? Clearly you must consider Paeleontology, Geology, Archeaology and Physics (to name a few) to be fataly flawed. For evolution to be wrong, the vast majority of the sciences must also be wrong. Certainly you can find someone in any field who supports a "fringe" theory or idea. Hundreds of scientists actively supported the Nazi theories on racial purity.....didn't make them right.
@cf80to01 to assume something like that would not be accurate. I am not saying that they are wrong, i simply want to be able to call into question their assumptions without being called an uneducated idiot. something that hurts many scholarly scientists (religious and atheist). read my earlier comment on why fossils and such don't do evolution much justice.
@marineboy090 anyway. If scientists are saying there is something 'before' the universe, then yes, it would be on faith. But no scientist is saying that there is something before the big bang because there is no evidence for that. Richard Dawkins is not saying that. He is also not assuming god doesn't exist. he is an agnostic atheist - he's not saying saying god doesn't exist. he's just saying follow the evidence!
god is something that our mind can conceive of. it's an
@marineboy090 entity that basically can do anything and doesn't follow any rules.
Whenever there is something we don't yet understand - like gravity, germ theory, even the diversity of species - why the sun seems to appear every morning - we have applied god to the in past. With time, and discoveries, we've seen all these things happen naturally. But there are still many, many things we don't understand. The Big bang is one of them. Nobody is saying there isn't a god, or
@marineboy090 that god didn't 'start' the big bang, scientists and myself are just saying: 'there's no reason to believe it didn't happen naturally, so let's figure it out.'
People jumping to conclusions and saying God!...just like they did when we couldn't figure out why we all got diseases... is why Richard Dawkins is so vocal about this stuff.
Now there are a few hypotheses about all of this: Multiple universes or whatever the hell that is. There's a theoretical physicist
@marineboy090 named Lawrence Krauss here on youtube, and now has a book, where he explains exactly how and why if our universe is flat (which it is) a big bang can happen all on its own, titled 'A universe from nothing.' Now those are great to watch, but the moment anyone of us jump to conclusions and say any of those hypotheses is the answer, we'll be just as equally bad as anyone that assumes god did it just because we don't have a real answer yet!
@Arcexey people aren't jumping to conclusions. We should have known that the universe was flat a long time ago, the Bible said it =)
isn't that interesting? how is it a 2000+ year old book knew the universe was flat before science did? Here's the thing though. as great as all those theories are, they are just as possible as God. There's no way to test the theories, therefore, will forever be theories.
@marineboy090 In closing.. there are things at the quantum level that make ZERO sense whatsoever. They go against everything we've ever thought to be right in this world. The point is.. don't jump to conclusions that 'How did the big bang start?' is even a valid question. I greatly agree with the title to a lecture by Dawkins, 'Queerer than we can suppose.' I believe this universe is weirder and queerer than we can ever possibly imagine,
If you think there is no way to 'test evolution,' you better throw other sciences in there as well! How would you test that a moon is going to go around a planet that hasn't made one entire trip in our history yet? Prediction.
Anyway, do you understand that Dawkins isn't saying the world isn't created, but religion is? And so he's the one calling out the hipocrisy because religion wants all things to be created - except god.
@Arcexey God said himself, no one created him. he always was, and will always be. IF God is real, then religion didn't make it up. But Dawkins assumes that God does not exist therefore his biased view does not allow for God to speak for Himself, only through religion which he thinks is man made.
@Arcexey knowledge to create less complex (than him) life. this also takes faith.
If you studied evolution, you would see that, without an agent to guide development, it would be pretty much impossible that evolution could account alone for life on earth. The point im trying to make, is that this theory (evolution) NEEDS an intelligent agent in order for it to work. and accounts better than any other assumption made.
@Arcexey Evolution is based on assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions. These assumptions require faith. Fossil records only show two things, the animal existed, and the animal died. Just because one looks like the other, doesn't mean it evolved into something else. There is no way to test the theory in any scientific way, therefore is an assumption and faith based.(look up the Information Theory).
I love how stephen's satirical responses are still more clever, thoughtful, and meaningful than anything you'd get out of a typical TV personality who actually believes the things he's jokingly positing
I have a feeling that Colbert's comment, about god being outside of time, was a real argument he belived to be valid . . . did anyone else feel that as well? I feel his genuine belief in that argument sort of slipped out of his satire. Alas, it's only my opinion.
@theUKatheist ahah, I KNEW you must be in on it, you purposefully flipped the video thinking no one would notice the secret message you were sending to your fellow conspirators.
@theUKatheist OMG, I cant wait to go out to dinner with my friends tonight and explain to them the "Left handed hand shake" We will have to start doing this in public just for kicks and giggles..... People are hilarious aren't they :-) XO
@theUKatheist theres two reasons for the left handed shaking thing.
1. its a sign of respect, something along the lines of your weapons in your right hand, your shield in your left, so you drop your weapon to shake your friends hand.
2. in eastern cultures, they only wipe there ass with there left hand, which makes shaking someones hand with your left, an insult.
WTF is up with that audience??... laughing like they're all on crack!
DrAmorphos 3 hours ago
I'm an Atheist, and I only believe in things which are in front of me, or thing which are not but have evidence to back it up. I want to live my life and be happy, I don't want to live my life by some fairy tale god and be unhappy. If you want to succeed in life then you gotta be your own man, don't rely on others.
crazymanlargemarge 23 hours ago
@crazymanlargemarge I am a christian and I'm very happy. I don't want to bash each other on here, I just want to know why you don't believe what you don't believe haha why do you think christians aren't happy?
tymusgraves 20 hours ago
@tymusgraves I don't believe all Christians are unhappy, I respect people who have beliefs, I just don't like the Christians who force there beliefs onto me. People who do that must be so unhappy, if they were happy they would enjoy life and enjoy there belief.
crazymanlargemarge 10 hours ago
@crazymanlargemarge
Personally, I can't stand when people have such ridiculous beliefs. They end up passing them on to their kids and shit. I certainly have a problem with certain beliefs. Most of the time I'll be purely intellectual about it, but sometimes I can get really annoyed with the crap people pass off as truth. It's tough respecting some people when they believe such nonsense.
itzahazylife 9 hours ago
@itzahazylife I totally agree!
crazymanlargemarge 9 hours ago
That interviewer is the funiest !
anaamee 23 hours ago
And this is why Americans will continue to be a dumb race because they simply don't understand natural selection and the laws of the universe. They choose to just make fun of things they simply don't understand. Think out side the box!!!!!
24thetorch 1 day ago
@24thetorch
Totally agree with you! I think the Americans should have let the Nazis "naturally select" the Brits, French and Jews out of this fucking world. Think about how many more jobs there would be!
While we're at it, I think we should euthanize the poor. I know that seems harsh but is it better to euthanize an animal or let it live in poverty and starve to death?
Atheism all the way!
HeadDockta 1 day ago
Colbert looked foolish here. It's not that he has ever been intelligent before.
schchen2000 1 day ago
I love Richie, but please, please, PLEASE, don't call belief in evolution and science Darwinism. Not the right connotation
MADsurvivor15 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
o my my today i realise how easy it is to disprove atheist ppl . . . . .
johnbaptist15 2 days ago
@johnbaptist15 "today i realise how easy it is to disprove atheist ppl" - Well, don't keep us in suspenders, c'mon give us all a laugh!
kelco93 1 day ago
@johnbaptist15 disprove what exactly? We don't believe theist claims. You can disprove that we don't believe you? Can you disprove I don't believe in ghosts and unicorns too? Lol you're an obvious troll.
theUKatheist 1 day ago 12
@theUKatheist well said
mazx19 1 day ago
@theUKatheist hahaha we do these kind of debates and spend our time so we can get reward from God . . . i wonder why u atheist ppl waste your time here ? ? i feel u r a fat ass who dont work at all take benefits from government and just fool urself that u r doing a great job and u know smthing that we dont know . . .u continue to live this kind of curse life or hang urself no one cares dont fool ur own self "reality check" love u bro just kidding . . . no hard feelings ok love and peace . . . .
johnbaptist15 1 day ago
@johnbaptist15 thats a great hypothesis but totally wrong. I'm in good shape, work 50 hours a week ( doing what I love ) I earn twice as much as most people, I have a great family, a wife to be.
theUKatheist 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist Thank God u r not rude at all . . .i m glad u r a happy person God bless ur wife . . .amin you hvnt answer my question yet . . . why r u doing this ? ? ? i saw ur channel u seems like u worship mr Dawkins . . . hehehe why u r wasting ur time here ? ? ?
johnbaptist15 1 day ago
@johnbaptist15 continued
I'm very happy, and I'm an atheist. I know this boggles your head but frankly I do not care for rude, hateful and judgemental people such as yourself.
Cont2
theUKatheist 1 day ago
@johnbaptist15 cont2
PS you're doing this for reward? You think your God doesn't see you're doing it out of selfishness for reward? Lol. Drop the faith and live a happy life...peace.
theUKatheist 1 day ago 2
@johnbaptist15 Thank God u r not rude at all . . .i m glad u r a happy person God bless ur wife . . .amin you hvnt answer my question yet . . . why r u doing this ? ? ? i saw ur channel u seems like u worship mr Dawkins . . . hehehe why u r wasting ur time here ? ? ?
johnbaptist15 1 day ago
This interview reveals the low opinion Richard has of the US audience... and his desperation to help educate in any way he can. If he hadn't been so troubled by the polling data showing the numbers of creationists and believers, he may have been a bit more easy-going.
SelfImmolator 2 days ago
A US television celebrity with a sense of humor, will wonders never cease?
davidsfriend01 2 days ago
Please check this out. Its amazing :)
/watch?v=bAPrHZDiEfI
theUKatheist 2 days ago
Comment removed
proprodigySD 2 days ago
Wonder what kind of wood noah biult the ark with...
Wayfarer515 3 days ago
@Wayfarer515 Morning wood... Yeah, that's right.
axel5735 3 days ago
I hate when they invite someone on for a little 6 minute clip. You cannot even begin to get started in that short of a period of time.
accent77 4 days ago
@accent77 the show minus commercials is only like 22 minutes long so not much choice. We'd need long form Colbert
dodisman 3 days ago
i love colbert
jamrstan 4 days ago
you kids are all so gay
jamrstan 4 days ago
I love Stephen Colbert - particularly in view of the fact that he's a practicing Catholic.
Ellie8969 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 he don't rape kids
ST4leave 3 days ago
@ST4leave No...but then I'm not ignorant enough to think all catholics do. Grow up.
Ellie8969 2 days ago
I mean weird because he has a satirical act against the right (which is always perceived as highly religious), and in many, many cases he directly makes fun of religion; this gives us an impression that he dislikes religion. Meanwhile, he is catholic, which is one of the strictest Christian sects. I just find him to be, I don't know.. weird.
BER2ERKER 5 days ago
Colbert, according to Wikipedia, is a practicing Catholic who teaches Sunday school. Eh, he's a weird dude.
BER2ERKER 5 days ago
Hah! What a great interview! Two men I respect on entirely different grounds sharing a laugh. Good stuff.
gamblorn 5 days ago
I love stephen colbert and richard dawkins and I get that he's just trying to be funny, but when it comes down to something serious like this I'm ever so slightly annoyed that he keeps making funny quips when dawkins tries to explain a serious point. It's like HAHAHA KNOCK IT OFF ASSHOLE LOLOL
RectalDiscourse 5 days ago
@RectalDiscourse
Nah man. It is because of Colbert's satire that Dawkin's points are made even clearer. Colbert plays the dumb Christian in order to display how stupid their common rebuttals are.
itzahazylife 2 days ago
@itzahazylife Colbert is a Roman Catholic and was actually a Sunday school teacher....
egyptian420 1 day ago
@egyptian420
"Colbert plays the dumb Christian"....
itzahazylife 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@egyptian420
Colbert plays the dumb Christian....
itzahazylife 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@egyptian420
Colbert plays the dumb Christian....
itzahazylife 22 hours ago
@itzahazylife
Yeah, I get what he was doing :P
RectalDiscourse 10 hours ago
Big words make Colby's brain hurt... :(
leafblight27 6 days ago
genius.
mcvirgo1 6 days ago
@marineboy090 if they do coexist than the earth can be no older than 10,000 years old. but its been prove. earth is billions if years old
Phx8ball602 6 days ago
@Phx8ball602 Gap theory smart one. not gunna get into it with you if you didnt know that. take care =)
marineboy090 4 days ago
Comment removed
marineboy090 4 days ago
Comment removed
marineboy090 4 days ago
@Phx8ball602 by the way, theres proof that the earth is billions of years old, yes, but there is also proof that the earth can be no older than a few hundred million years old, there is proof that the earth is no older than about a few hundred thousand years old, and theres proof that the eart is no older than 10,000 years old. so you comment is pretty pointless.
marineboy090 4 days ago
@marineboy090 Obviously, one of those proofs is true, and the others are false or misunderstandings. They can't all be true.
L00NGB00W 4 days ago
@L00NGB00W why dont you learn about them first before you write them off as false.
marineboy090 4 days ago
"God doesn't like black-holes." Is possibly the greatest sentence of all time.
leftovers0 1 week ago
Type in "Dawkins Penn" and listen to Penn interviewing Dawkins on radio. Dawkins talks about this appearance. He knew Colbert was playing an idiot.
kmvoss 1 week ago
Satire you stupid fuks.......
tonydorsett33 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins is the "inside a box,"master.
Serpentmatrix 1 week ago
why as this video been flipped?
frankiethefrank 1 week ago
@frankiethefrank Avoids copyright infrigement. or at least infringement detection systems.
redjuggler2040 1 week ago
The Latin alphabet looks like the Cyrillic alphabet backwards. Also, Stephen (in character) and Dawkins? Awesome.
metalElvalover 1 week ago
@uranatheisttwit Umm, yeah no. It should be called, Colbert agrees with Dawkins and pretends to be a theist to make it funny,
because listening to theists argue their points is funny.
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
This should be titled "The Quick (Colbert) and the Intellectually Dead (Dawkins.)"
uranatheisttwit 1 week ago
He does get it. You can tell by his manner that he does. But he's using Stephen's satire as a platform for his ideas while debunking the theories that Stephen presents. In essence, Stephen is helping Dawkins present his ideas through satire. :)
BritishBlueSigma 1 week ago 56
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 1 week ago
Ahhh poor Dawkins doesn't understand satire, bless his heart, lols :P
Fluffythedestroyer69 1 week ago
i dont think dawkins realizes colbert is pulling his leg
bluetrilobite 1 week ago
@bluetrilobite There was an interview where colbert says that he takes his guests aside and sort of lets them in on the satire before he goes and interviews them. He probably told dawkins something like "Just pretend that I'm serious. haha. Though I have met a few people who never realized that Colbert was satire, I think some people just don't perceive irony.
paulusvii97 1 week ago 20
@paulusvii97 he actually told Dawkins, before the show, "you KNOW I'm an idiot don't you?" and that broke the ice..
HomoCognitus 1 week ago
@paulusvii97 Its poe's law, where extremism and satire can't be exactly sorted out because its based on how you see them.
gocrazy432 6 days ago
@paulusvii97 the internet taught me irony, without it I would be super delicious troll bate.
saintmichael881 6 days ago
@paulusvii97 He did actually. Seems Colbert visited Dawkins before the interview and said, "You know I play a complete idiot?" making sure Dawkins knew that what Colbert did was satire.
Velox415 1 day ago
@bluetrilobite yeah he does but he still has to answer his sarcasm questions haha
jakeyalmighty 1 week ago
@antibarbi03 - it seems to me that arguing god's existence cant be proven or disproven is to argue god is irrelevant. That wich can not be proven to be or not be is on equal ground with that wich does not exist or has consequence.
OccamsKatana 1 week ago
That presenter was so out of his depth but at least he kept it light hearted. In doing so he didn't make a total fool out of himself.
MegaPaddy86 1 week ago
Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. What truth? There is no spoon.
MsIMListening2U 1 week ago
I like this version of Dawkins. None of the aggression. Makes him much easier to listen to.
bubbyj 1 week ago
@bubbyj C'mon. he's not that aggressive. He just calls out cop outs, bullshit and tolerance.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey Dawkins gets red in the face and name calls at times. How do you call out tolerance? Sorry I don't get what you're saying lol.
bubbyj 1 week ago
@bubbyj what.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@bubbyj it's much easier to engage in a debate with an intelligent person playing a fool, then one who actually is.
kardentyrell 1 week ago
1. write a book about how religous people are idiots and basically they have been suckered into doing exactly what some guy in a robe wants them to do for hundreds of years. like give up there hard earned cash.
2. argue and try to get someone religous to read the book.
3. if steps one and two fail, do what the christians did, and beat whoever doesnt agree with you to death with the book.
tada
MrAudacia 1 week ago
This is not a fine debate...if it even was one to start. Debates aren't fun fluff...they're putting heads on chopping blocks
thedeerhunter32 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins is the MAN.
Supreme7198 1 week ago
why is this in inverse video or reverse whatever the correct technical term is? see as of e.g. 2.04...
trident3b 1 week ago
What's he satirising? If anything, the only one he makes look ridiculous is himself.
holidaysinsweden 1 week ago
@holidaysinsweden thats kinda the point. He's pretending to be a fundamentalist christian giving ridiculous claims that atheists hate to hear (cause they claim its so stupid)
cheeseUout 1 week ago
@holidaysinsweden if you don't like him, don't watch him. He's satirising American conservatives and religious fundamentalists, and he's really good at it. There are many youtube videos seeking out those precious few moments when he breaks character.
nietsnatsud 1 week ago
@nietsnatsud I don't generally watch him, but if I occasionally do I reserve the right of voicing my opinion about it.
The satire wasn't that obvious to me. I didn't know anything about him previously, and the language barrier might have something to do with me not getting it as well.
Now I know and can maybe appreciate him better.
holidaysinsweden 2 days ago
He's kidding, right? He really can't be that daft?
holidaysinsweden 1 week ago
@holidaysinsweden Colbert's act is satire. He exposes the flaws in others by making them look ridiculous. Oddly enough though, some people actually think he's a conservative...
underdog353777 1 week ago
And who 'Just Did' God, then?
Dawkins rests his case.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey its funny kuz Richard thinks that people are dumb because they believe God always existed. But he thinks the universe always existed and people are smart if they agree with him.... hypocrisy at it's best. it comes down to faith. theres just no going around it. case closed
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 I don't think Richard Dawkins thinks the universe is timeless.
What do you mean by 'always?'
If by 'always' you mean recorded time, then yes, because the universe IS all recorded time.
Never forget that religion is the one saying god has 'always' (timeless) been here. Dawkins's word usage in this video is to say, 'if religion is insinuating everything had a maker.. who is god's maker? Why does god get a free pass?"
I don't see the hypocrisy.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey asking "who made God", is the same as asking "who made the universe." both imply that they had a creator. God said he didnt have a creator. Dawkins is stating that the universe didnt have a creator. its the same argument for both sides. to say one is dumb because you dont agree with it, is hypocrisy.
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 No, it isn't. The hypocrisy is from religion, not Dawkins.
Dawkins isn't saying the universe didn't have a creator, just that the evidence doesn't suggest it.
Did the universe/world have a creator?
Dawkins: Maybe.
Religion: Yes.
Dawkins: Well if the world is created.. why does your creator get a free pass?
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey if you havent already, check out the debate (theres two) between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. it comes to faith no matter what. this is my point. If the universe had a creator, then who created it? if it didnt, then it always existed. how can something always exist? If the universe can always exist and that makes sense, why cant God? it would better explain the complexity of life. thats where faith comes in. its either, Complex made less complex, or simple made complex.
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 What does faith have anything to do with it?? Do you understand the definition of faith?
You also need to define 'always.' Again, if 'always' means 'all time,' then yes, the universe has always existed. If you are insinuating there was time before the universe was created, then no, Dawkins is not saying the universe always existed.
Let's say we found out our universe existed before the bigbang (pretend this is possible).
This doesn't mean god cant always exist,
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 but it does mean (your word) that you are dumb to believe god did it, because of Occam's Razor. And the same goes for your last bit. If we have a perfectly good explanation for life, adding an extra, unneeded god onto the end is pointless.
It's like, "My brain lets my arm move vs. A Leprechan lets my brain let my arm move."
Leprechauns (god) isn't needed in the equation.
And one more thing.. God is not an explanation of the complexity of life. It is the
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 anti explanation for complexity of life. If you haven't begun to show god exists (this is why they call it faith) then to say 'God did it' is absolutely no different than 'We don't know.'
Remember that you can't say life is complex because of god, and god is real because life is complex. Until god is real, 'god did it' is not an explanation.. it's the opposite!
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey the always that i use for the universe, is the same that i use for God. Something had to have always existed or else nothing would exist now. i dont use a different "always." when i say "always existing" i mean never had a beginning.
Now, you want to believe that the universe just blew into existence by however means, and started from simple to complex (life). This takes faith. Others believe that God created the universe. God, being omniscient, would have the ability and
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 whoa whoa whoa whoa. "Something had to have always existed or else nothing would exist now." Says who?????
As far as we know, 'always' is when the universe began. There is no 'before' the universe yet. So the only always we know of is the beginning of space and time: the big bang.
-I don't -want- believe something. I believe it because that is what the evidence says.
-Can you tell me your definition of 'faith'? The way you are using it doesn't make sense to me.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey faith, as i am using it, to believe in something with lack of evidence for.
there is no "before the universe" just as there is no "before God" This is honestly, without a doubt, going to be a faith based decision simply because humans cannot (probably will not) be able to comprehend "has forever existed." no matter what it is: Big bang, Pre Big Bang, or God
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Yes, science can explain how something goes from simple to complex.
Yes, god would have the ability to do all of this stuff, as would anything else we can imagine in our heads. Until god is demonstrated, it doesn't become an explanation, but an antiexplanation. a place holder. Like dark matter.
"without an agent to guide development, it would be pretty much impossible that evolution could account alone for life on earth."
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Yes, and that agent is the non-random, non-intelligent process of natural selection.
-No, it doesn't need an intelligent agent. As I've just said, advantageous mutations and natural selection account for that.
Ever seen a snowflake? Natural complexity from chaos. =)
I guess we've now talking about evolution...
No, it's not based on assumptions. It's based on evidence and testable hypotheses.
I agree, just because one fossil 'looks like' another doesn't
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 mean one is descendant from the other! =D Were you thinking paleontologists discover a fossil and go 'looks similar to this other one.. must be a direct descendant."
Yes, you can test evolution, just like with anything else: predictions! We can predict any fossil will be found in a particular geographic place, in a particular geologic era.
And we can predict where fossils will NOT be found. We can predict that diseases will continue to be better resistant to our
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey (in a non condescending tone): what happens when fossils that shouldnt be where they are, appear? such fossils have been found in Canada, where they shouldn't be, and in a way they shouldn't be. Does this mean their hypothesis failed? what happens then?
also, diseases is evolution in a sense. however, evolution that i am referring to is species to species transitioning. (really, read the information theory and tell me what you think)
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Yes, when it's shown that a legitimate fossil is found in a place it shouldn't be, evolution is wrong.
As it has been said, it only takes 1 rabbit in the Precambrian for evolution to be wrong. And there hasn't been. And BTW, fossils is one of the weakest evidences of evolution, compared to the others.
yes, information theory. What about it?
I think if you understood a little more about the scientific process, you wouldn't be so quick to question evolution.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 just about every single scientist would love to disprove evolution. Scientists have everything to lose from defending it, and nothing to lose from attacking it.
If someone showed a legitimate fossil in Canada, or otherwise disproved evolution, they would instantly be a celebrity, be rich and famous. The reason this doesn't happen, and that there is nothing ever published in a scientific journal showing evolution to be wrong.. is because IT ISN'T.
A lot of people are
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 under the assumption that evolutionary biologists are just a segregated group of the entire scientific community that makes up its mind about evolution on its own - no. The overwhelming consensus among all branches, geology, biology, physics - people from all across the world of all religions who can do the tests in their own laboratories all agree the evidence points to one thing: we are all cousins in a great family tree. These are the same people that build your
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 airplanes and tell you that taking aspirin won't kill you, and tell you that how to repair your heart. If evolution wasn't a real phenomenon, there are so many applications of your life that would disappear that you don't even realize comes from evolutionary theory. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity. The only reason this whole thing is even a fucking issue is because it obviously contradicts genesis. It's just like the damn flat earth society. The
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 whole flat earth issue wouldn't be wasting everyone's time if the bible didn't say the earth is flat in about 7 passages. I'm tired of religious people accepting science for 99.9% of everything in their lives until it comes to the 1 or 2 things that contradict the bible. It would have to have be such an EXTRAORDINARY conspiracy for all these independent people across the planet to be lying about this - and it's all stuff we can go and check ourselves!!!! /end rant
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey We were having a great discussion until you started this comment. Then it just got ridiculous. then it whent just how it goes with every other person i talk to. a personalized opinion and attack against religion, that is Christianity. Because of this, we both need to close before it gets too unproductive. first off, evolution doesn't debunk genesis, they can actually coexist. thats way besides the point though. i understand that evolution is the leading theory of the origins of
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 What comment did I even start? You messaged me first. My one about Dawkins resting his case? I'll clear that up that bit up (again), and then if you choose not to read the rest, that's OK. We can resolve one topic at a time.
Let's just resolve the first issue,
nice and simple:
Dawkins is NOT saying the world is not created.
Religion IS saying the world is created.
Dawkins merely points out that if the world was created, why does god get away with not being created?
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 To which Cobert gives the classic cop out, that god is timeless. How people would know that god even exists, let alone that he or she is timeless, is ?????
Ok, now on to evolution:
If you take genesis and you omit nothing, it is a contradiction to evolution. A flood did not happen. There was no firmament.... unlesss,
god created life and then omitted that he destroyed it all and then started evolution. In that respect, it isn't a contradiction.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 They can co-exist if you take a different interpretation of genesis, but my 'obvious contradiction' comes from religion efforts themselves. It is no wonder that nearly all critcisim of evolution comes from religious agents. It doesn't matter to me if they aren't or are compatible - but it matters to religion. Just like the bible saying the earth is flat matters to religion:
Isaiah 40:22
Isaiah 11:12
Job 38:13
Daniel 4:11
Matthew 4:8
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 plus many duplicates of the above in other passges and many psalms about the earth not being movable, and of course the earth having pillars. -.
That is why the flat earth society began in the 1800's, because of those bible quotes. It's the same story with evolution: Don't fight science for 99%, but fight it only when it contradicts what the bible says.
The Discovery Institute is not science. Do you understand how the scientific community operates? I tried to explain it to
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 you - if there were evidence against evoltion, every single scientist would try to get it published!! It would instantly make them rich, and be a world-wide celebrity!!! As a scientist, you have everything to lose defending evolution, and nothing to lose attacking it.
The Discovery institute already sent Michael Behe to represent creationism during the Dover, PA trial. Have you watched the Dover trial? Where Behe was shown, by real agents of science, in front of a judge, how and
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 why creationism is a pseudoscience? And how many times he couldn't answer a direct question? And how many times he was dead wrong with his assertions about evolution? I mean the common, key arguments brought by creationism were just on trial and in public view. Watch the dramatization. Or read the transcripts. The Discovery Institute is not science. It's a religious organization that picked a 'sciencey' name.
I'm not saying this this shows evolution to be a real phenomenon,
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 the best part about evolution, and science in general, is that you can go and do the tests yourself! And you can go see the abundance of fossils, you can learn that a transitional fossil isn't what creationist propaganda make them out to be! Learn about dating and apply it. You can go to these museums and see this stuff!
You show me a single entry where the bible specifically describes what the universe is: giving dimensions of time, space, labels how old it is,
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 how many objects are in it, the math behind it, talk about elements and give detail.. and I'll believe you.
Otherwise, what's the difference between the bible really knowing about the universe, and you just interpreting a vague passage?
Lastly..
In the following, I'm going to make it crystal clear that you:
Don't even know what a theory is, yet you are still attacking it. (and then accusing me of attacking Christianity. lol)
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Evolution is not the leading theory, it is the ONLY theory.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Theories cannot be right, they can only be wrong. Something can only be 'truth' when axioms are involved.
A theory, just like a hypothesis or even an explanation, require empiricial evidence (testable) to even be considered a theory, by definition.
I gave you two ways in which evolution can be tested. Strange you didn't comment on those?
How is it you think astronomy is tested?
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Take what creationists call 'micro evolution.' Add 100 million years.
That is evolution.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey once science can give an explanation for the origin of the universe then I might be convinced...
seaton125 1 week ago
@seaton125 I'll try to show you why that line of linking is dishonest:
Imagine you were saying this 1000 years ago:
'once science can give an explanation for why we all get sick then I might be convinced...'
Or just 200 years ago:
'once science can explain the diversity of species then I might be convinced...'
Or 700 years ago:
'once science explain why the sun goes up and down then I might be convinced..."
Arcexey 1 week ago
@seaton125 Have you ever thought that there might not be an explanation for the 'origin' of the universe?
Even to me, the first thing you think of is: ppft.. please. Everything else is caused by something, that doesn't make sense."
Look at the quantum: It's been said that, with the quantum, you can no longer say 'that doesn't make sense.' Because you'd be wrong. Because there are things with the very small that just - don't - make - sense.
So: Why does the universe need an origin?
Arcexey 1 week ago
@seaton125 I'm not projecting this at you, but I just don't get how religious people can accuse the rest of us that we aren't open to god existing, yet they aren't open to the universe existing without a cause. And I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but there is no difference than holding out for the answer to the origin of the universe than there is holding out for the reason the tides go in and out.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@seaton125 Once science can prove the existence of a supernatural being, then I might be convinced. Sorry, but either way, it can't be proven or disproven.
antibarbi03 1 week ago
@Arcexey life, however, there are studies and commentaries by both religious and atheist scientists that call into question the theory of evolution as the origins of life. there are hundreds of biologists with all kinds of educational background from all over the world from the most prestigious schools that doubt the evolutionary theory. go to Discovery Institute, look at some of the articles. These are mindless religious idiots, they are true scientists that question the evolution dog
marineboy090 1 week ago
@Arcexey ma. Science is more than observation, it has to be testable in order to be a science. tests such as the fruit-fly mutation experiment, only show the need for an intelligent agent, the near impossibility of successful mutations, and the fact that fruit-flies will always be fruit-flies, nothing more. articles like this are being writtin by scientists that are showing evolution for what it really is, ONLY a theory, NOT fact.
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 So tell me why ALL the marsupials went to Australia together once the Ark landed?
You are talking utter garbage. It is clear that you don't understand evolution / are too thick to grasp the reality of truly large numbers.
AngryBugger2012 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Can we safely assume that you also do not believe in the major sciences? Clearly you must consider Paeleontology, Geology, Archeaology and Physics (to name a few) to be fataly flawed. For evolution to be wrong, the vast majority of the sciences must also be wrong. Certainly you can find someone in any field who supports a "fringe" theory or idea. Hundreds of scientists actively supported the Nazi theories on racial purity.....didn't make them right.
cf80to01 4 days ago
@cf80to01 to assume something like that would not be accurate. I am not saying that they are wrong, i simply want to be able to call into question their assumptions without being called an uneducated idiot. something that hurts many scholarly scientists (religious and atheist). read my earlier comment on why fossils and such don't do evolution much justice.
marineboy090 4 days ago
@cf80to01 if you wanna discuss it, PM me, coming here and searching for comments is kinda annoying. im sure you understand. thanks
marineboy090 4 days ago
@Arcexey also, what verses say that the earth is flat?
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 anyway. If scientists are saying there is something 'before' the universe, then yes, it would be on faith. But no scientist is saying that there is something before the big bang because there is no evidence for that. Richard Dawkins is not saying that. He is also not assuming god doesn't exist. he is an agnostic atheist - he's not saying saying god doesn't exist. he's just saying follow the evidence!
god is something that our mind can conceive of. it's an
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 entity that basically can do anything and doesn't follow any rules.
Whenever there is something we don't yet understand - like gravity, germ theory, even the diversity of species - why the sun seems to appear every morning - we have applied god to the in past. With time, and discoveries, we've seen all these things happen naturally. But there are still many, many things we don't understand. The Big bang is one of them. Nobody is saying there isn't a god, or
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 that god didn't 'start' the big bang, scientists and myself are just saying: 'there's no reason to believe it didn't happen naturally, so let's figure it out.'
People jumping to conclusions and saying God!...just like they did when we couldn't figure out why we all got diseases... is why Richard Dawkins is so vocal about this stuff.
Now there are a few hypotheses about all of this: Multiple universes or whatever the hell that is. There's a theoretical physicist
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 named Lawrence Krauss here on youtube, and now has a book, where he explains exactly how and why if our universe is flat (which it is) a big bang can happen all on its own, titled 'A universe from nothing.' Now those are great to watch, but the moment anyone of us jump to conclusions and say any of those hypotheses is the answer, we'll be just as equally bad as anyone that assumes god did it just because we don't have a real answer yet!
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey people aren't jumping to conclusions. We should have known that the universe was flat a long time ago, the Bible said it =)
isn't that interesting? how is it a 2000+ year old book knew the universe was flat before science did? Here's the thing though. as great as all those theories are, they are just as possible as God. There's no way to test the theories, therefore, will forever be theories.
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 You don't know the meaning of the word Theory do you?
Poor dear.
AngryBugger2012 1 week ago
@marineboy090 In closing.. there are things at the quantum level that make ZERO sense whatsoever. They go against everything we've ever thought to be right in this world. The point is.. don't jump to conclusions that 'How did the big bang start?' is even a valid question. I greatly agree with the title to a lecture by Dawkins, 'Queerer than we can suppose.' I believe this universe is weirder and queerer than we can ever possibly imagine,
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 and we should always leave all options open.
But never assert anything on zero evidence, be it god or Lawrence Krauss's hypothesis on a 'Universe from Nothing."
God always needs to be one of those options that remains open.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@marineboy090 medication, via evolution.
If you think there is no way to 'test evolution,' you better throw other sciences in there as well! How would you test that a moon is going to go around a planet that hasn't made one entire trip in our history yet? Prediction.
Anyway, do you understand that Dawkins isn't saying the world isn't created, but religion is? And so he's the one calling out the hipocrisy because religion wants all things to be created - except god.
Arcexey 1 week ago
@Arcexey God said himself, no one created him. he always was, and will always be. IF God is real, then religion didn't make it up. But Dawkins assumes that God does not exist therefore his biased view does not allow for God to speak for Himself, only through religion which he thinks is man made.
marineboy090 1 week ago
@Arcexey knowledge to create less complex (than him) life. this also takes faith.
If you studied evolution, you would see that, without an agent to guide development, it would be pretty much impossible that evolution could account alone for life on earth. The point im trying to make, is that this theory (evolution) NEEDS an intelligent agent in order for it to work. and accounts better than any other assumption made.
marineboy090 1 week ago
@Arcexey Evolution is based on assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions. These assumptions require faith. Fossil records only show two things, the animal existed, and the animal died. Just because one looks like the other, doesn't mean it evolved into something else. There is no way to test the theory in any scientific way, therefore is an assumption and faith based.(look up the Information Theory).
marineboy090 1 week ago
@marineboy090 Just to clarify one more thing...
An assumption would be that god is the reason life is complex.
You have to ASSUME god exists to be able to apply that god is the reason why life is complex.
Arcexey 1 week ago
I love how stephen's satirical responses are still more clever, thoughtful, and meaningful than anything you'd get out of a typical TV personality who actually believes the things he's jokingly positing
325982668 1 week ago
I have a feeling that Colbert's comment, about god being outside of time, was a real argument he belived to be valid . . . did anyone else feel that as well? I feel his genuine belief in that argument sort of slipped out of his satire. Alas, it's only my opinion.
bfoaliali 1 week ago
Dawkins and Colbert are two of my favorite people.
rusman74x 1 week ago
Colbert is awesome - but Dawkins is too serious.
check out Buddha is an Atheist at misterkel.wordpress
misterkel10 1 week ago
Colbert is a satirical representation of the conservative news media.
dalhar20 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the biggest tragedy of the atheist? He has no god to talk to during his orgasm.
chris241289 1 week ago
Colbert is hilarious. Hes jerking dawkins chain and dawkin is incensed and responding
GT45000 1 week ago 2
I didn't know Colbert played Pachinco
filipinowhiteboy 1 week ago
ooohh, left handed hand shake at the end.... hmmmm... hmmm.. HMMMMM>>>>!!
notBananaSlama 1 week ago
@notBananaSlama im not sure why thats important? also its a mirrored image video so its actually right handed
theUKatheist 1 week ago 5
@theUKatheist it is important because left-handed shakes are an indication of secrecy or conspiracy. It is no mistake that this is a mirrored video..
notBananaSlama 1 week ago
@notBananaSlama
are you being serious?
3 points i need to make
1- it is mirrored because it prevents copyright infringement. ( look up flipping images for youtube copyright ) #
2 - my point was they are not actually shaking hands with their left hands! they are shaking their right hands. flip the image
3 - shaking with your left hand means nothing, unless you are a conspiracy nut job. but again they are not shaking their left hands.
im unsure if you are joking, being serious or an idiot?
theUKatheist 1 week ago 7
@theUKatheist ahah, I KNEW you must be in on it, you purposefully flipped the video thinking no one would notice the secret message you were sending to your fellow conspirators.
notBananaSlama 1 week ago
@theUKatheist But one question, how is being an idiot an option. isnt it im joking or im serious?
notBananaSlama 1 week ago
@theUKatheist OMG, I cant wait to go out to dinner with my friends tonight and explain to them the "Left handed hand shake" We will have to start doing this in public just for kicks and giggles..... People are hilarious aren't they :-) XO
brianh406 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist You said, "im unsure if you are joking, being serious or an idiot?"
Welcome to the Internet, and to about 90% of all conversations concerning religion.
TheRichardHinckley 1 week ago
@theUKatheist theres two reasons for the left handed shaking thing.
1. its a sign of respect, something along the lines of your weapons in your right hand, your shield in your left, so you drop your weapon to shake your friends hand.
2. in eastern cultures, they only wipe there ass with there left hand, which makes shaking someones hand with your left, an insult.
tada
MrAudacia 1 week ago