humbletim10 @gergister lol! in the time since my last comment to you i have become an atheist :D sorry for earlier stupid comments! Feb 24, 2011 hahahha this is awesome. One less brainwashed person
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. albert einstein... So wouldn t that be atheists that he doesn t like quoting him. how horrible dawkins putting himself along side such a peaceful great person
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no god , but what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such ideas. Cann t take the truth huh, poetic atheist harharhar
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what make me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. So would that be atheist that he doesn t like quoting him. how horrible dawkins putting himself along side such a peaceful great person
Einstein rejected both theism and atheism. He did not believe in a personal god, however, he sensed there was a cosmic intelligence responsible for the laws of physics. He could be bested labeled as an agnostic with deistic type inclinations.
@revo1974 Wrong. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, which is essentially nature that has a set of rules but not necessarily intelligence. He was a pantheist.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human...
....being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.
From an interview, quoted in 'Glimpses of the Great' by....
Time Magazine put an an article that explored Einstein's faith in depth. It was called "Einstein & Faith", here is the link: ww w.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
Also here are links to two articles about Einstein's God letter he wrote not long before he died. "Einstein experts" conclude that he was in fact an agnostic with deistic inclinations.
@revo1974 well in this vid dawkins is pulling eisntein even out of the realm of pantheism. if your zuotes are correct, this means Rd is falsifying to bend once again his evidence to his theory on einstein (as for evolution)
@revo1974 I think it's hard to put him in any camp, especially a religious camp when he said that "There are only two things I know to be infinite: The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
“Einstein was wrong when he said “God does not play dice”. Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen.” - Stephen Hawking
I think he just isn't fair to Einstein when he says that physicists like him are "Atheist with a poetic disposition". Atheists deny God all together. If Einstein denied god, he would simply do it. Einstein was therefore pantheist/deist. Atheists always want to label agnostics, pantheists and deists (I happen to be a combination of the three) as one of their own, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. The idea of no good whatsoever doesn't seem completely unacceptable to me, but I simply do not believe it.
In the same way, the idea of pantheism is acceptable by atheists, and is seen by them (as expressed by prof. Dawkins) as the variation of the same way of thinking. Not really a difference, but a matter of personal taste.
@timfidotru I don't see why pantheism would be closer to atheism than to theism.When you strip it down to simple logic , those are all answers to question "Is there a god?"So, the answers are as follows:Theism: YES, Atheism: NO, Pantheism: YES. So how is pantheism a variation of atheism? I'm not an atheist and it would take scientific knowledge millenia ahead of our time to convince me that there isn't a god, just as much as it would take me to believe anyone that they know exactly what god is.
I can't know what are your beliefs exactly, but as for "Einsteinian religion", Dawkins' point is absolutely clear for me.
And as for the atheism, the answer on this question is a little bit more difficult, then simple 'no'. First of all, not me, nor Dawkins, not any atheist I know personally answers like "I know there is no god". I guess, that to understand atheist insight, you can watch this video: (watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns) "Science Can't Disprove God - Richard Dawkins"
My personal a bit more extended answer is the following.
"Does god which is praised by church X exist?" - Technically, no. There is absolutely no evidence for him and great evidence for preachers' delusion.
"Does god 'in common' exist?" - The term 'god' here is undefined and thus the question is meaningless. There is no any valid theory, which would introduce such 'god'. It is like "Does I-don't-know-what exist?"
@timfidotru I guess the question is "Since science cannot say if there is a God, do you think that thinking about God is important?" Einstein often mentioned God to illustrate his theories, which means he gave importance to that figure. Dawkins admits there could be a God, but that there is a low probability. These are quite different. Pantheists, agnostics and atheists all admit that they don't know if there is God, just that a pantheist BELIEVES it DOES, atheist doesn't and agnostic is unsure.
So long as the religious accept scientific findings and adapt their views to fit the most current info, I have no problem. And that is possible, by the way. I have much less quarrel with theologians than I do with mainstream bible-thumpers. I would rather people not invent unnecessary claims of truth that they have no means to back up, but so long as they accept modern science and adjust their beliefs accordingly, I don't think there has to be a showdown like many believe there will be.
so when you say the universe was created by chance, you are saying, analytically, that the universe was created by nothing. so you're not just attributing some power to chance, you're attributing the supreme power that we can conceive of to chance by declaring it possible not only to do something, but to bring into being the whole of reality.
no sane person in their sound mind would buy darwin's gobbledygook theory
the baseline supposition of darwin's origin of species theorizes that the universe came into being by chance. that's his dogma. that's his altar. the fact is, chance is nothing. it is not a thing. it's not a being and has no being. it has no power. it's a useful concept for insurance actuaries or pinochle players, but not for scientists. scientists base their work on tried and true laws, not abstract concepts.
@invict2007: Check out some pro-Catholic vids on Youtube. You will find very often that they have Comments and Ratings switched off. Do the same for Atheist vids and you'll see that your point of view at least gets a chance (even though it is absurd).
Dictators are people who use everything in their power to censor different views? I don't know where you learned the definition of dictator but I suggest you look it up. It's pretty embarrassing to not know what a dictator is, especially since even most kids know what it is. And yes it is a fortune that atheists do not have total power, it is a fortune that nobody has total power so I fail to see your incoherent point.
Christianity CAN be a weapon, why, because it is powerful. It is the Word of God, thats why it was forced upon people and the controllers took out many books of the Bible so that the people would be subject to whatever "divine" man claimed to be a mediator. and the "christianity" that was imposed was nothing more than CATHOLICISM....which is basically bullshit.
so get it right, all the history you learned in high school was bullshit
Well here is how it works in America. The state and locals do any old crazy thing they want (it is against the law to live together in my State for instance) and we Americans procede to break the stupid laws until someone charges us with something then we go the the Supreme court and the court say "Bullshit law". and that's how we roll. It is not a perfect system , but it usually works out.
Dictators? Do you even know what the word means? If the people trying to censor the zoo were DICTATORS they would have censored it immediately on the spot. They merely encouraged tourists sites to stop its promotion. They are not the law and cannot force anyone to stop promoting the zoo. So stop with your false accusations.
Would you be opposed to letting the holocaust deniers start a museum and claim it as fact that the holocaust never happened?
Multiple gallup poles have shown that there are at least 4 times as many phd historians that deny the holocaust as there are phd biologists that deny evolution or accept ID.
cont. associated with a zoo. If they were to call it an animal park or reserve I'd have no problem with it but I think it sends a misleading message that there is scientific evidence or any other evidence other than religious text for creationism.
This is not true. Dawkins had nothing to do with the lobbying the British tourist board to cease promoting the zoo, rather it was the British Humanist Society and they did so on the grounds that it was spreading misinformation on the natural world. Naming something a Zoo or Zoological park gives the representation that it is a scientific endeavor and as such information that is supplied is of a reasonable scientific standard. ID is not supported by the scientific community and should not be
You moron, when Einstein said "I am disgusted that people would say that about me" he was talking about people who said he was a CHRISTIAN!!
He repeatedly called the idea of any personnal god, specifically the christian one "childish"; when Einstein talked about "god" he was talking about the universe.
Yes, I don't have time for them, because I'm almost one of them. I don't have the luxury of being rich, one more step down in class and I'd be homeless.
Also, like I said, good people doing good things. For every christian working at a food bank there is a christian committing a crime. Christians make up 75% of the prison population, while atheist only make up .2%. Does that mean that atheist are less evil than christians? No, that means bad people are doing bad things.
I personally don't, because I don't have the time too, however in the US, the largest charity giver is an atheist, and he's donated billions, goes by the name of bill gates :P
So don't try to play the morality card. Good people will always be doing good things.
Wow, did you even read what I said? I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. Maybe it's different in Britain, but in the US there is a separation of church and state, and that is specifically in place to prevent religious oppression. If it's not like that in Britain then so be it, but here you can't impose religion.
And yes, you do have every right to enjoy your religion and beliefs, but so do atheist, and atheist shouldn't be forced bend to your religion so you can enjoy it.
So that means you can't work religion into politics or school. That does not mean, students and teachers can't be religious. That does not mean politicians can't be religious. That just means that religious students/teachers and religious politicians can't work their religion into their policies and programs that are publicly funded.
@atheistchaos, that seems pretty reasonable, but do you also agree that both sides should stop ridiculing each other for their beliefs. I think we need to respect each other. These arguements between both sides gets annoying after a while. Eventually I just tend to tune it out, ya know what I mean. It means that Atheists should stop calling religous people illogical and that Theists should stop calling Atheists "Godless heathens". I think this seems pretty reasonable, given the circumstances.
@hippo11222 you are more agnostic than you believe. If every theist was like you - atheists won't be pushing the logic so hard. The problem is if you look around you'll find people voting for governments just because of GOD's will. In the name of god people will drop Atom Bombs. In the name of GOD people will blow up suiciders. People are afraid if irrationality. If you believe in god, then you might as well believe in "KILLING in the name of GOD"- then you are no longer irrelative to me.
I understand what you mean, but humans don't need to invoke God to be irrational. It is our nature to be irrational and I think we must except this and deal with it. If we don't we will destroy ourselves. I think Nietzche's idea that people yearn for power is an accurate one. When you think of power many think despotism, Nazi, Communist. Power has a broad basis of definition.
People want an identity, and the power to be heard. To have power is to make a mark in the world that says I was here. Many tend to leave scars. We as a species have seen this, yet we continue to live in this world. Atheists that you speak of that push so hard should not be injecting Atheism into science. Science has been, should be and always will be a system of agnostism. It should not have personal bias in the system.
The real chains that have us locked up are the chains of our perception. We must break through these chains and see through the perspective of others and to live in peace. A world where Atheists, Christians, Buddists, Pagans, and people of all religious denominations live in harmony.
Trying to forcefully control these people and to ridiculing them to change whether your an Atheist or a Theist is oppressive. The founding fathers had regious views themselves (Deists) AND WOULD NEVER WANT A WORLD THAT IS LIKE THAT! GOD'S will is a broad and vague statement. MAN'S WILL is the force that truely perpetuates attrocity after attrocity.
lol 'in the name of god people will drop atom bombs'
this is funny since the only atom bombs to have been dropped on people so far were dropped for non-religious reasons. ie
'oooh we're scared of the japs we'll lose too many troops lets nuke their civilians'
pff how many sucicide bombers have there been? how many people die from materialist organisations like nike/BK/McDonalds/Wallmart/ etc and their corporate exploitation? far far far more. so take you're hatred im not buying it.
Good on that. You are not buying it is exactly the kind of thinking you should have.
But imagine that.. it include gODs. OKEY ?!
It is yet another reason for people to do irrational stuff. No1 excluded McDonalds or Wallmart. We just don't mention it because of the topic is on "the religion can harm".
@gergister you should always mention all sides of the argument, otherwise thats terible bias. any organisation, government, society or religion can harm. although right now i think most of the harm is being done by corporate greed and consumer culture.
im sure people will drop atom bombs for religion, as they have already done for non-religious reasons. more likely though that they will drop them through simple greed or insecurity.
@humbletim10 indeed I should always mention all sides of the argument .. unfortunately utube does not allow infinite comments. So in the context of the discussion I do talk about the harm that religion can do.
I said ppl can harm in the name of god. WRONG. They do harm in the name of god. The fact that extreme religious people have their brain wired 2 hard to even listen to an argument is enough fo rme to be "Against".
You can't deal with madness that easy. Ppl try to roll triangles dead wrong.
@atheistchaos, Oh and separate church and state. This is a Democracy, not a Theocracy. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Nough said!
You should shut up because you have a completely skewed view of reality. You label atheism as fascist, for example, because we don't want your religion to be forced down our throat. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about -you- and your idiotic ideology.
As for intelligent design, Dawkins is against it because it's pseudoscience and has no evidence. It relies solely on disproving science, and ID advocates are trying to force it into schools.
atheist only have a problem with religion when it tries to impede on our rights. When a religion tries to force our government to adopt it as the state religion (as christianity has done for awhile now) we have a problem with it, because we don't want it forced down our throats. You'd be in the same position if say, muslims tried to barge into your life and make you and your government adopt their practices.
True, unless atheists can somehow isolate themselves (and more mportantly the technology they create) away from the religious. I have noticed that the religious may cry out against the secular and scientific, but they have no trouble using the fruits of its knowledge to reap holy death on all and sundry.
Again, no one is trying to make religion illegal. I said that before. However, in the United States we do have states that will not allow a non-believer to run for office. I happen to live in one of those states.
The wall that Jefferson proposed is slowly deteriorating.
It's just another way to create bigotry, and in return, hatred forms.
I do have a problem with politicians having religious beliefs, especially fundamentalist views. I don't want anyone that thinks they can talk to god having the nuclear codes.
I'm upset that people still hold on to beliefs as explanations for things we now have knowledge. I'm upset that these beliefs are being manifested in government. I'm upset that theists still attempt to disguise knowledge with "god did it", I'm upset that religion is trying to block stem cell research. I'm upset that children are being taught bullshit rather than reality and science.
You came on to a Richard Dawkins video and started talking shit, and then complain about atheists attacking theists. I have a degree in Physics and am now working on a degree in Biology. I am doing just fine. However, it would be nice if we didn't have bullshit beliefs being forced into our lives. Our concern is with our species, not your arbitrary beliefs.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are questioning the morality of atheists, just like every other theist. The only three shelters that I know of are ran by an atheist organization. Religion is the root of evil.
The reason history has panned out this way is because science (and indeed, most rational deductive and evaluative approaches) converges onto the truth - it's no wonder religion is getting pushed further and further out of the picture.
That's a poorly conceived conclusion/hypothesis - especially since atheists and theists are of the same species... Plus atheists become theists and theists become atheists... Do a bit more homework (and, more importantly, thinking) before you start organising the victory parade ;)
That equality of science and religion was a BAD thing. Remember Socrates? He was MURDERED for not believing in the gods, when he had made (and still could make) great contributions to philosophy. These men were NOT open-minded! Can anyone open-minded person kill another human being out of dogma?
Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. - Einstein
No, Einstien, from what I've read, did beleive in something before the big bang. He refered to god in the poetic sense-- wait, why do I have to explain this in the comments for the video that explain that!?
i have no idea what you have read, but he did not believe in a personal god. thats it. stop confusing personal god with god a necessary firswt principle.
i simply do not think it is possible to know how may deities were involved with the big questions of life, so I will assume that all gods are equally unlikely and are not worth dieing for..
Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. He said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Esintein believed in a non-personal God. Not neccesarily a deist or pantheist, but he did believe in an unperceiveable being that revelas himself among the Physical. Dawkins is an idiot that tries to brainwahs all your idiots.
He said:
"God does not play dice"
Because he was against quantom mechanics and unceirtanty, he believed God didin't use factors of chance to create the Universe.
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
I never said he believed in a personal God, it's obvious people are very antagonisti towards Theism these days. of course the majority of the population's IQ is below 120 so i'll let the moronic judgements pass.
Einstein was a Deist, I know! i don't care if he was, all I know is that he wasn't an Atheist:
'I am not an Atheist, I don't consider myself a Pantheist" -Albert Einstein
most rational atheists are not Atheists in the sense that they "know" there is no god(s), we acknowledge that we can not know such unprovable supernatural claims ( like god(s), karma, reincarnation), but we believe they are highly unlikely. I do not know if Einstein stated he was deist, but I do know that Einstein did describe himself as a "deeply religious nonbeliever" & that he believed in "the god of Spinoza" . I suppose it can be a bit ambiguous, as you apparently think he was a deist..
As Atheists use to mean as to "know" there was no god, as theists "know" there is some number of god(s), Which i suppose that makes most Atheists, agnostics or agnostic atheists....
Yeah, Einstein was a Deist, I just hate when people try and call him a pantheist and Atheist, I don't see any Christian calling him a Christian, but many delusional Atheists call him an Atheist.
he never said he was a Deist, but it was obvious from the words and process of elimination that that was his belief. He rejected pantheism and Atheism, he rejected a personal God, and he spoke about God so often as the magnificent order behind the harmony of the Universe, that sounds like a Deist to me. tell me otherwise.
Atheism back then meant you knew there was no god(s), just as Theism meant you did know there was some number of gods, so yes, Atheism was just as wrong as theism.. In reality, that it not a knowable question, and though you can believe there is or isn't you can not be certain in the sense of absolutes...
You can never know anythign is true, btu if you take into that sort of thinking you wouldn't sound rational or logical whatsoever.
I know there is a god, if it's my god I don't knwo if it is my God, we will probably never know, I have faith in my God, but without doubt I know there is a creator.
He didn't reject pantheism. He said he doesn't know if he can be called a pantheist. He may have been more of a panentheist. He never referred to himself as a deist. Spinoza's pantheism is certainly a closer, more accurate description just from his own words.
Alright, so if I say I don´t think you can call me a Christian, I´m a Christian right? None of Einstein´s writings refer to a pantheistic God. Some of Einstein´s beliefs did hold pantheistic beliefs but it´s nowhere near the atheistic description made by Dawkins or other people who make Pantheism look Atheistic. Even Christians hold Pantheistic views, that doesn´t make them pantheists.
You say that he never referred himself as a deist, what about Pantheism or Atheism?
First of all Spnioza's beliefs in God were many, they were many different concepts. Furthermore Einstein never said he was a Pantheist, he never said it, furthermore he didn't consider himself one. Lets go along with your logic, so if I say I don't think you can call me a Christian, I'm a Christian because you want me to be one? His writings are some what Panentheistic not Pantheistic, he refers to God as a being or a spirit force.
He did regard the ordered cosmos with the same kind of feeling that believers have for their God. He believed in Spinoza's God who revealed himself in the harmony of what exists. The substance of the universe is what is revealed by Einstein's God, and the divine Reason for this harmony was God, such as the laws of the universe which he believed were deterministic. He never suggests that this reason or spirit transcends the world - so in that sense he is a clear pantheist and not a panentheist.
Einstein never mentioned deism, and his description of his religious feeling never matched deism. Spinoza's God wasn't a deistic one. It was a pantheistic one. Spinoza's "God or Nature" provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical "First Cause" or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."
Einstein couldn't accept quantum mechanics because it was indeterministic; more proof that he thought of God as the divine Reason and determinism of the nature's laws.
I never said Einstein was a Deist, so why did you even mention that, you sound stupid right now. Also there are many different concepts of God, Einstein never said he was a Pantheist ever in his life. Furthermore, Pantheism arose from Judaism and Christianity so it has many similarities, the thing is that Einstein believed in God...
For someone who doesn't claim Einstein is a deist, you seem pretty defensive about it. And I look stupid? Lol.. I mention it to exclude that option.
What similarities does pantheism have to judaism and christianity? All three involve a God; that's about it... What are you babbling about? Judaism and Christianity involve a personal god, an anthropomorphic god, that intervenes with humans and concerns itself with humans. Einstein rejected all these things, and rejected the soul and afterlife..
"Because he was against quantom mechanics and unceirtanty"
"Esintein", or how the rest of us call him, Einstein is considered one of the persons responsible for the "quantom" physics, or quantum physics (for us, brainwashed idiots). Without Einstein, this scientific branch would be very different, or maybe even not exist today. He certainly wasn't "against it", he just had a different view on principle of unceirtanty (uncertainty, for the brainwashed), compared to Heisenberg.
First of all Quantom Mechanics was dicovered or considered founded by MAx planck after the discovery of quantas. I may have had spelling errors, and I may have offended you, I just feel antagonistic at times.
Einstein believed in theological determinism, which is completely against what quantom mechanics states, but I will agree that without special relativity quantom mechanics would be very different.
You are a fucking retard. A dead being doesn't suffer anymore. A living being suffers. If a living being as some fucking cancer that is giving the most insane pain you can imagine, a logically coherent person will use cells from dead beings that DONT SUFFER ANYMORE to cure the ones that are ALIVE and SUFFERING SHITLOADS.
The rest is the same christian clueless hipocrite arguments about fake morality and such.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
" They are Atheists of a poetic disposition and so am i "
Yet another contradiction from Richard, secularist thinking killed off the concept of romance a long time ago....there's no room for romance in Science Richard, remember, only cold, calculating, ruthless efficiency, a la ' Triumph des Willens '.
Wha? How is this a contradiction from Dawkins? You pick up a sentence, claim it's false... and your reasoning? Because you list opposing, opinionated adjectives?
The idea that reason and enlightenment - pillars of science and atheism - killed off romance is utterly ridiculous. Some of the most beautiful works of art and literature come from such a period, the French Philosophes being a prime example.
Its not that logical people don't believe in God, its that they can't without evidence.
Similarly, believing in God without any evidence is logically incoherent.
This is a very crucial point that many anti-atheists don't understand for some reason.
Same as this, we still haven't solved Big Bang theory, and we admit we don't know the origin of the universe, that is why every day Science advances for new evidences (see LHC) instead of stating the origin "is God" without no evidence.
Not quite, reason and emotion are both the result of electrochemical activity of the brain. There is no room for an anthropomorphized deity, but plenty for romance.
/ reason and emotion are both the result of electrochemical activity of the brain. /
Why does Science need to know these
things ? Oh yeah that's right the military/industrial interests insist they come up with answers regarding mind control techniques.
But personally i believe these are affairs of the soul, after all Dawkins himself has spoken many times on the Human predisposition to believing in God.
I am curious though, what's so romantic about the H-bomb or partial birth abortion ?
If you dont like science then unplug your computer, smash your telephone, never again store your food in a fridge, never again use electricity, never again visit a hospital, never again watch tv, and never ever again eat food that has been stored or produced by ways that were discovered by science.
Did i say i objected to Science which is conducted from a moral and ethical basis, a Scientific process which puts the interests of common sense and common good ahead of the military imperative.
I don't object to Science and neither did the Church to begin with, in fact modern Science was created and funded by the church, but unfortunately the process was hijacked by interests who have used Science for their own selfish, and some might say evil agenda.
lilshnappinturtle, here is an atheist who agrees with you 100%. But today, the situation is different. Church today is directly opposed to science. If the science stayed in church hands only, we would probably still think sun goes around earth.
On the other side, when you see who is financing the scientists today, you get creeps. The only hope is giving independence to scientists, and that can be done in only one way: by popularizing science so that masses of people can finance it directly.
Not all churche's deny science. The Catholic Church today don't deny it, only evangelicals.
Also I'd like to mention that 1/3 of all Christians believe in avolution. so that would mean 25% of the whole US population believe in both Christianity and evolution (increasing number) while Atheists only 2% fo the population that believe in evolution. Agnostics are not Atheists, before you say something stupid as 'we make up 15% of the population".
ogirv101, Before you accuse somebody of stupidity, maybe you should read what they wrote. I never wrote nor I think that "we make up 15% of the population". I don't know where you got that.
And if you are going to claim something about the theory, at least learn its name. It is quantUm, not quantOm. And Einstein didn't work only on the relativity, he has a big part in quantum physics directly. For example the photons are named by him. Now go learn on mechanism of defense in psychology.
I wasn't acusing you of anything, I just wanted to reassure someone, because I've heard it many times from mis-informed people. I'm not speaking to you directly.
I know, I always confuse the way you spell quantUm mechanics, I know more on how it works than the spelling, sorry very bad at grammar.
I know what Eisntein did on how he revolutionzed science, he changed our perception of time,space, and momentum. gravitational time dilation is a consequence of special relativity for example.
Atheism is just someone who does not believe. Almost like a young born child they to do not believe in god as there minds have not been obscured by people telling them they must believe in god.
To survive cancer? Fuck yea i would eat a dead persons heart. Not even a question!!
Not dead babies, a zygote. See this period (.) It is way smaller then that. It is not a baby! It is a group of living cells not dead ones.
When I die, if my body can help someone to survive longer of educate others to help society, Fuck Yea use it. It would be selfish not to let the world benefit from my dead body.
Yes, if they could get a heart from someone who has already died.
The zygote(group of cells from the fertilized egg before it implants) does not have the potential to become a human unless it is implanted in a woman's uterus. 80% of zygotes do not implant and are flushed naturally. And you think they have the same rights as living breathing people. its not a fetus its a group of cells.
That is completely different. The potential for stemcell research far outweighs the rights of a small group of cells.
Cutting down a tree is not the same as eating a nut. The nut has the potential to become a tree if it is planted in a good location, but a nut is not a tree. And yes, a nut is the equivalent to the group of cells used by stemcell researchers.
does anyone know the name of that modern pakistani physicist who is a devout muslim I know nothing of him but that he worked on some important theory with a famous american atheist guy and they didnt hate each other!
Oh my Fucking god, sacrificing a pin head of cells that have no potential to become life for the soul purpose of saving those that are already alive, and killing innocent people to say that your religion is the best, are two completely separate things!!! How can you even compare that, one thing with the entent of ending life and causing fear, with the other intent on saving lives and creating hope, you make me sick you religious assholes
I don't know by what standard you are judging dawkins morality. I mean not many people think killing animals is always wrong. But maybe your God said it's wrong or your benign feelings says it's wrong doesn't make it wrong for us. It sounds like your other point has to do with abortions, which I'm not a big fan of. However, since it's inevitable people are going to kill babies why not use the "evil" and use it for good?
Killing one person to save another is unethical. We all know this, although sometimes we understand it (mother killing someone to save her child?) But then we need to apply this to the real world. Will we kill a guilty person to save another? Self defense is allowed right? And what about waging a war to, say, prevent a genocide? We're killing people to save people. It happens all the time. And it doesn't even apply here, because we're talking 150 cell fetuses, not humans.
This man not only twist the bible
now he is twisting einsteins words and the
people that have no knowledge believe in him.
SO WHEN EINSTEIN SAID "MAN FINDS GOD BEHIND EVERY DOOR
THAT SCIENCE MANAGE TO OPEN" he meant to say man finds the "universe"
behind every door that science manage to open. dawkins is just satans puppet
and he doest even know it.Only he and his kind believe this senseless and absurd
demonic teaching.
thealkimista2012 2 weeks ago
This is a great video
grisgrisy 1 month ago
Very enjoyable thank you
jayejayeee 1 month ago
really informative and interesting
bribribri56 1 month ago
you have some great stuff here
xtremetom180 1 month ago
Yes, God doesn't play dice with the world, he kills people on purpouse XD
DarkMind95 1 month ago
humbletim10 @gergister lol! in the time since my last comment to you i have become an atheist :D sorry for earlier stupid comments! Feb 24, 2011 hahahha this is awesome. One less brainwashed person
Bxdarealest 2 months ago
Wait. This isn't a physics video?
jakeedmans 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since the Bible and the Quran are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?
AtheismGate 3 months ago
Comment removed
AtheismGate 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God knows the thoughts of the wise .they are vain
king solomon The fool has said in his heart THERE IS NO GOD!
God has chosen the weak and foolish things to bring to nought the things that are.
GOD CONCEALS HIMSELF FROM THE WISE AND PRUDENT BUT REVEALS HIMSELF TO BABES ecclisiasticus.
MrNewkingjames 7 months ago
God knows the thoughts of the wise .they are vain
king solomon The fool has said in his heart THERE IS NO GOD!
God has chosen the weak and foolish things to bring to nought the things that are.
GOD CONCEALS HIMSELF FROM THE WISE AND PRUDENT BUT REVEALS HIMSELF TO BABES
MrNewkingjames 7 months ago
@MrNewkingjames stupid?
dumbnetworks 3 months ago
God knows the thoughts of the wise .they are vain
king solomon The fool has said in his heart THERE IS NO GOD!
God has chosen the weak and foolish things to bring to nought the things that are.
GOD CONCEALS HIMSELF FROM THE WISE AND PRUDENT BUY REVEALS HIMSELF TO BABES
MrNewkingjames 7 months ago
I happen to know that God is shit-hot at Risk.
weejockpoopongmcplop 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. albert einstein... So wouldn t that be atheists that he doesn t like quoting him. how horrible dawkins putting himself along side such a peaceful great person
joywonder 1 year ago
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no god , but what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such ideas. Cann t take the truth huh, poetic atheist harharhar
joywonder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what make me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. So would that be atheist that he doesn t like quoting him. how horrible dawkins putting himself along side such a peaceful great person
joywonder 1 year ago
Einstein rejected both theism and atheism. He did not believe in a personal god, however, he sensed there was a cosmic intelligence responsible for the laws of physics. He could be bested labeled as an agnostic with deistic type inclinations.
revo1974 1 year ago
@revo1974 Wrong. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, which is essentially nature that has a set of rules but not necessarily intelligence. He was a pantheist.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
This is a common misconception.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human...
revo1974 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
....being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.
From an interview, quoted in 'Glimpses of the Great' by....
revo1974 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
...G. S. Viereck (Macauley, New York, 1930)
Time Magazine put an an article that explored Einstein's faith in depth. It was called "Einstein & Faith", here is the link: ww w.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
Also here are links to two articles about Einstein's God letter he wrote not long before he died. "Einstein experts" conclude that he was in fact an agnostic with deistic inclinations.
ww w.msnbc.msn.com/id/24668015/
.....
revo1974 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
... ww w.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/science/17einsteinw.html
Here are some terms that Einstein used which supports my claims:
“spiritual force”
“spirit manifest in the laws of the universe”
“superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds”
“eternal spirit whose rational nature was imprinted on the physical universe”
"God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists”
.....
revo1974 1 year ago
@gupsphoo
...
“My God created laws that take care of that”
“there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature”
“intelligence manifested in Nature" “mysterious force that moves the constellations"
Atheists so desperately try to put Einstein in their camp. The facts simply wont allow it.
revo1974 1 year ago
@revo1974 well in this vid dawkins is pulling eisntein even out of the realm of pantheism. if your zuotes are correct, this means Rd is falsifying to bend once again his evidence to his theory on einstein (as for evolution)
wolfgang911 1 year ago
@revo1974 I think it's hard to put him in any camp, especially a religious camp when he said that "There are only two things I know to be infinite: The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
Thatmakessense356 9 months ago
"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."
— Albert Einstein (The World As I See It)
dex1391 1 year ago
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
dex1391 1 year ago
-God does play dice, sometimes he throws the dice under the couch.
tictactoechicken123 1 year ago
“Einstein was wrong when he said “God does not play dice”. Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen.” - Stephen Hawking
Blubang 1 year ago
I think he just isn't fair to Einstein when he says that physicists like him are "Atheist with a poetic disposition". Atheists deny God all together. If Einstein denied god, he would simply do it. Einstein was therefore pantheist/deist. Atheists always want to label agnostics, pantheists and deists (I happen to be a combination of the three) as one of their own, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. The idea of no good whatsoever doesn't seem completely unacceptable to me, but I simply do not believe it.
dovlinhos 1 year ago
@dovlinhos
In the same way, the idea of pantheism is acceptable by atheists, and is seen by them (as expressed by prof. Dawkins) as the variation of the same way of thinking. Not really a difference, but a matter of personal taste.
timfidotru 1 year ago
@timfidotru I don't see why pantheism would be closer to atheism than to theism.When you strip it down to simple logic , those are all answers to question "Is there a god?"So, the answers are as follows:Theism: YES, Atheism: NO, Pantheism: YES. So how is pantheism a variation of atheism? I'm not an atheist and it would take scientific knowledge millenia ahead of our time to convince me that there isn't a god, just as much as it would take me to believe anyone that they know exactly what god is.
dovlinhos 1 year ago
@dovlinhos
I can't know what are your beliefs exactly, but as for "Einsteinian religion", Dawkins' point is absolutely clear for me.
And as for the atheism, the answer on this question is a little bit more difficult, then simple 'no'. First of all, not me, nor Dawkins, not any atheist I know personally answers like "I know there is no god". I guess, that to understand atheist insight, you can watch this video: (watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns) "Science Can't Disprove God - Richard Dawkins"
timfidotru 1 year ago
My personal a bit more extended answer is the following.
"Does god which is praised by church X exist?" - Technically, no. There is absolutely no evidence for him and great evidence for preachers' delusion.
"Does god 'in common' exist?" - The term 'god' here is undefined and thus the question is meaningless. There is no any valid theory, which would introduce such 'god'. It is like "Does I-don't-know-what exist?"
timfidotru 1 year ago
@timfidotru I guess the question is "Since science cannot say if there is a God, do you think that thinking about God is important?" Einstein often mentioned God to illustrate his theories, which means he gave importance to that figure. Dawkins admits there could be a God, but that there is a low probability. These are quite different. Pantheists, agnostics and atheists all admit that they don't know if there is God, just that a pantheist BELIEVES it DOES, atheist doesn't and agnostic is unsure.
dovlinhos 1 year ago
hits the spot, he does.
kvm244 1 year ago
So long as the religious accept scientific findings and adapt their views to fit the most current info, I have no problem. And that is possible, by the way. I have much less quarrel with theologians than I do with mainstream bible-thumpers. I would rather people not invent unnecessary claims of truth that they have no means to back up, but so long as they accept modern science and adjust their beliefs accordingly, I don't think there has to be a showdown like many believe there will be.
chuckinator0 1 year ago 2
I love science and poetry.
One seeks the truth, while the other seeks its beauty.
I'm particularly reminded of Keat's Ode on a Grecian Urn:
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
I think this about sums up how atheists view the world.
Lukegamer 1 year ago
fwefew
eatwoodman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so when you say the universe was created by chance, you are saying, analytically, that the universe was created by nothing. so you're not just attributing some power to chance, you're attributing the supreme power that we can conceive of to chance by declaring it possible not only to do something, but to bring into being the whole of reality.
no sane person in their sound mind would buy darwin's gobbledygook theory
ultrakool 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the baseline supposition of darwin's origin of species theorizes that the universe came into being by chance. that's his dogma. that's his altar. the fact is, chance is nothing. it is not a thing. it's not a being and has no being. it has no power. it's a useful concept for insurance actuaries or pinochle players, but not for scientists. scientists base their work on tried and true laws, not abstract concepts.
cont'd
ultrakool 2 years ago
@invict2007: Check out some pro-Catholic vids on Youtube. You will find very often that they have Comments and Ratings switched off. Do the same for Atheist vids and you'll see that your point of view at least gets a chance (even though it is absurd).
kleykenb 2 years ago
Dictators are people who use everything in their power to censor different views? I don't know where you learned the definition of dictator but I suggest you look it up. It's pretty embarrassing to not know what a dictator is, especially since even most kids know what it is. And yes it is a fortune that atheists do not have total power, it is a fortune that nobody has total power so I fail to see your incoherent point.
eatwoodman 2 years ago
Oh the problem is not that an outdated law exist, the problem is the fellow christian that try to enforce it in the land of the "free speech".
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
Christianity CAN be a weapon, why, because it is powerful. It is the Word of God, thats why it was forced upon people and the controllers took out many books of the Bible so that the people would be subject to whatever "divine" man claimed to be a mediator. and the "christianity" that was imposed was nothing more than CATHOLICISM....which is basically bullshit.
so get it right, all the history you learned in high school was bullshit
SuaveCapone 2 years ago
/watch?v=FefynZwWM0I
there you go, youtube video.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
You mean the same USA that deny for atheist in 8 states the right to be elected in a public office?
just wondering.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
Well here is how it works in America. The state and locals do any old crazy thing they want (it is against the law to live together in my State for instance) and we Americans procede to break the stupid laws until someone charges us with something then we go the the Supreme court and the court say "Bullshit law". and that's how we roll. It is not a perfect system , but it usually works out.
Surrealist6 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
atheist are egotistical fools...nothing more
SuaveCapone 2 years ago
@SuaveCapone, dude, come on. Your killing your cause. Whatever you may be, (Christian, Jew, Buddist?), but come on!!
hippo11222 2 years ago
@hippo11222
uh....no.
Facts are facts.
Peace
SuaveCapone 2 years ago
Dictators? Do you even know what the word means? If the people trying to censor the zoo were DICTATORS they would have censored it immediately on the spot. They merely encouraged tourists sites to stop its promotion. They are not the law and cannot force anyone to stop promoting the zoo. So stop with your false accusations.
eatwoodman 2 years ago
@invict2007
Would you be opposed to letting the holocaust deniers start a museum and claim it as fact that the holocaust never happened?
Multiple gallup poles have shown that there are at least 4 times as many phd historians that deny the holocaust as there are phd biologists that deny evolution or accept ID.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
@invict2007 - We censor because religion causes harm, you censor simply because you think that we're wrong.
TheMomoply 2 years ago
cont. associated with a zoo. If they were to call it an animal park or reserve I'd have no problem with it but I think it sends a misleading message that there is scientific evidence or any other evidence other than religious text for creationism.
arsebaine 2 years ago
This is not true. Dawkins had nothing to do with the lobbying the British tourist board to cease promoting the zoo, rather it was the British Humanist Society and they did so on the grounds that it was spreading misinformation on the natural world. Naming something a Zoo or Zoological park gives the representation that it is a scientific endeavor and as such information that is supplied is of a reasonable scientific standard. ID is not supported by the scientific community and should not be
arsebaine 2 years ago
atheists blow, i already read what einstein had to say about them
his wrods went something like "im disgusted that people thought that abotu me"
khfan121 2 years ago
You moron, when Einstein said "I am disgusted that people would say that about me" he was talking about people who said he was a CHRISTIAN!!
He repeatedly called the idea of any personnal god, specifically the christian one "childish"; when Einstein talked about "god" he was talking about the universe.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
Damn, some people are so desperate to make atheists look bad that they fool themselves into believing and spreading bullshit. It's sad, actually.
eatwoodman 2 years ago
hey man i could care less what atheists think about any sort of religion whether its christianity or hinduism or any of that
khfan121 2 years ago
Yes, I don't have time for them, because I'm almost one of them. I don't have the luxury of being rich, one more step down in class and I'd be homeless.
Also, like I said, good people doing good things. For every christian working at a food bank there is a christian committing a crime. Christians make up 75% of the prison population, while atheist only make up .2%. Does that mean that atheist are less evil than christians? No, that means bad people are doing bad things.
atheistchaos 2 years ago
I personally don't, because I don't have the time too, however in the US, the largest charity giver is an atheist, and he's donated billions, goes by the name of bill gates :P
So don't try to play the morality card. Good people will always be doing good things.
atheistchaos 2 years ago
Wow, did you even read what I said? I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. Maybe it's different in Britain, but in the US there is a separation of church and state, and that is specifically in place to prevent religious oppression. If it's not like that in Britain then so be it, but here you can't impose religion.
atheistchaos 2 years ago
And yes, you do have every right to enjoy your religion and beliefs, but so do atheist, and atheist shouldn't be forced bend to your religion so you can enjoy it.
So that means you can't work religion into politics or school. That does not mean, students and teachers can't be religious. That does not mean politicians can't be religious. That just means that religious students/teachers and religious politicians can't work their religion into their policies and programs that are publicly funded.
atheistchaos 2 years ago
@atheistchaos, that seems pretty reasonable, but do you also agree that both sides should stop ridiculing each other for their beliefs. I think we need to respect each other. These arguements between both sides gets annoying after a while. Eventually I just tend to tune it out, ya know what I mean. It means that Atheists should stop calling religous people illogical and that Theists should stop calling Atheists "Godless heathens". I think this seems pretty reasonable, given the circumstances.
hippo11222 2 years ago
@hippo11222 you are more agnostic than you believe. If every theist was like you - atheists won't be pushing the logic so hard. The problem is if you look around you'll find people voting for governments just because of GOD's will. In the name of god people will drop Atom Bombs. In the name of GOD people will blow up suiciders. People are afraid if irrationality. If you believe in god, then you might as well believe in "KILLING in the name of GOD"- then you are no longer irrelative to me.
gergister 2 years ago
I understand what you mean, but humans don't need to invoke God to be irrational. It is our nature to be irrational and I think we must except this and deal with it. If we don't we will destroy ourselves. I think Nietzche's idea that people yearn for power is an accurate one. When you think of power many think despotism, Nazi, Communist. Power has a broad basis of definition.
hippo11222 2 years ago
People want an identity, and the power to be heard. To have power is to make a mark in the world that says I was here. Many tend to leave scars. We as a species have seen this, yet we continue to live in this world. Atheists that you speak of that push so hard should not be injecting Atheism into science. Science has been, should be and always will be a system of agnostism. It should not have personal bias in the system.
hippo11222 2 years ago
The real chains that have us locked up are the chains of our perception. We must break through these chains and see through the perspective of others and to live in peace. A world where Atheists, Christians, Buddists, Pagans, and people of all religious denominations live in harmony.
hippo11222 2 years ago
Trying to forcefully control these people and to ridiculing them to change whether your an Atheist or a Theist is oppressive. The founding fathers had regious views themselves (Deists) AND WOULD NEVER WANT A WORLD THAT IS LIKE THAT! GOD'S will is a broad and vague statement. MAN'S WILL is the force that truely perpetuates attrocity after attrocity.
hippo11222 2 years ago
lol 'in the name of god people will drop atom bombs'
this is funny since the only atom bombs to have been dropped on people so far were dropped for non-religious reasons. ie
'oooh we're scared of the japs we'll lose too many troops lets nuke their civilians'
pff how many sucicide bombers have there been? how many people die from materialist organisations like nike/BK/McDonalds/Wallmart/ etc and their corporate exploitation? far far far more. so take you're hatred im not buying it.
humbletim10 1 year ago
@humbletim10
Good on that. You are not buying it is exactly the kind of thinking you should have.
But imagine that.. it include gODs. OKEY ?!
It is yet another reason for people to do irrational stuff. No1 excluded McDonalds or Wallmart. We just don't mention it because of the topic is on "the religion can harm".
Mr "wannabe wisdom"
gergister 1 year ago
@gergister you should always mention all sides of the argument, otherwise thats terible bias. any organisation, government, society or religion can harm. although right now i think most of the harm is being done by corporate greed and consumer culture.
im sure people will drop atom bombs for religion, as they have already done for non-religious reasons. more likely though that they will drop them through simple greed or insecurity.
humbletim10 1 year ago
@humbletim10 indeed I should always mention all sides of the argument .. unfortunately utube does not allow infinite comments. So in the context of the discussion I do talk about the harm that religion can do.
I said ppl can harm in the name of god. WRONG. They do harm in the name of god. The fact that extreme religious people have their brain wired 2 hard to even listen to an argument is enough fo rme to be "Against".
You can't deal with madness that easy. Ppl try to roll triangles dead wrong.
gergister 1 year ago
@gergister lol! in the time since my last comment to you i have become an atheist :D
sorry for earlier stupid comments!
humbletim10 1 year ago
@atheistchaos, Oh and separate church and state. This is a Democracy, not a Theocracy. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Nough said!
hippo11222 2 years ago
You should shut up because you have a completely skewed view of reality. You label atheism as fascist, for example, because we don't want your religion to be forced down our throat. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about -you- and your idiotic ideology.
As for intelligent design, Dawkins is against it because it's pseudoscience and has no evidence. It relies solely on disproving science, and ID advocates are trying to force it into schools.
atheistchaos 2 years ago
invict2007,
atheist only have a problem with religion when it tries to impede on our rights. When a religion tries to force our government to adopt it as the state religion (as christianity has done for awhile now) we have a problem with it, because we don't want it forced down our throats. You'd be in the same position if say, muslims tried to barge into your life and make you and your government adopt their practices.
So basically, stop being a prick, and shut up.
atheistchaos 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL pathetic, Dawkins does not understand Einstein at all.
1madaboutguitar 2 years ago
Comment removed
shrimpydude 2 years ago
True, unless atheists can somehow isolate themselves (and more mportantly the technology they create) away from the religious. I have noticed that the religious may cry out against the secular and scientific, but they have no trouble using the fruits of its knowledge to reap holy death on all and sundry.
morganbath 2 years ago 38
Again, no one is trying to make religion illegal. I said that before. However, in the United States we do have states that will not allow a non-believer to run for office. I happen to live in one of those states.
The wall that Jefferson proposed is slowly deteriorating.
miniontemple 2 years ago
It's just another way to create bigotry, and in return, hatred forms.
I do have a problem with politicians having religious beliefs, especially fundamentalist views. I don't want anyone that thinks they can talk to god having the nuclear codes.
miniontemple 2 years ago
Totalitarianism? No one is trying to make religion illegal. It just needs to be kept out of government and schools and left at a personal level.
miniontemple 2 years ago 2
And they are not formed from personal beliefs.
miniontemple 2 years ago
The struggle is not with religion. It is with the totalitarianism brought on by religion.
miniontemple 2 years ago
Again you are on a Richard Dawkins video complaining about atheists attacking beliefs.
And it is nice to know where your morality stands.
miniontemple 2 years ago
I'm upset that people still hold on to beliefs as explanations for things we now have knowledge. I'm upset that these beliefs are being manifested in government. I'm upset that theists still attempt to disguise knowledge with "god did it", I'm upset that religion is trying to block stem cell research. I'm upset that children are being taught bullshit rather than reality and science.
miniontemple 2 years ago
You came on to a Richard Dawkins video and started talking shit, and then complain about atheists attacking theists. I have a degree in Physics and am now working on a degree in Biology. I am doing just fine. However, it would be nice if we didn't have bullshit beliefs being forced into our lives. Our concern is with our species, not your arbitrary beliefs.
miniontemple 2 years ago
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are questioning the morality of atheists, just like every other theist. The only three shelters that I know of are ran by an atheist organization. Religion is the root of evil.
miniontemple 2 years ago
Your view of atheism is absurd. Religion continues to prove itself destructive to our species.
miniontemple 2 years ago
The reason history has panned out this way is because science (and indeed, most rational deductive and evaluative approaches) converges onto the truth - it's no wonder religion is getting pushed further and further out of the picture.
holyhell5050 2 years ago
That's a poorly conceived conclusion/hypothesis - especially since atheists and theists are of the same species... Plus atheists become theists and theists become atheists... Do a bit more homework (and, more importantly, thinking) before you start organising the victory parade ;)
holyhell5050 2 years ago
That equality of science and religion was a BAD thing. Remember Socrates? He was MURDERED for not believing in the gods, when he had made (and still could make) great contributions to philosophy. These men were NOT open-minded! Can anyone open-minded person kill another human being out of dogma?
Katsuhisa777 2 years ago
"Islam faced Darwin one hundred years ago, and won"
So how exactly did Darwin challenge Islam?
ThePariahGame 2 years ago
"Islam for instance is bullet proof against Atheist attacks."
How do you figure?
ThePariahGame 2 years ago
Just because science and religion coexisted before, doesn't mean they will again.
Science evolved (no pun intended).
As for religion: There was no evidence of any God back then. There isn't any evidence for a God now.
ThePariahGame 2 years ago 24
You talk as if "Science" is another entity or another being floating around and stuff, while really it literally translates to "knowledge"
Science provides explanation to those things that can be tested. It increases your knowledge of the physical world.
Religion is for your spiritual growth. It will grant knowledge of illogical human traits such as mercy, altruism and morality.
Big difference, very different that they should NEVER overlap. If there is no evidence now, then maybe next time.
dirx103 2 years ago
@ThePariahGame there was always evidence of god it is just that science wasn t smart enough before to realize the evidence
joywonder 1 year ago
Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. - Einstein
AbhijatX 2 years ago 2
I, as well as many buddhist monks, go far enough to say that Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy on life.
anon4654 2 years ago 2
Either way, it's the only "religion" I can have any sort of respect for. I like Buddhism. =-D
jmthetank 2 years ago
Einstein didnt believe in the god of religion, but he did belief in the god of philosophers; that logical necessity of a first cause.
Mailrobot 2 years ago
No, Einstien, from what I've read, did beleive in something before the big bang. He refered to god in the poetic sense-- wait, why do I have to explain this in the comments for the video that explain that!?
Deshara218 2 years ago
i have no idea what you have read, but he did not believe in a personal god. thats it. stop confusing personal god with god a necessary firswt principle.
Mailrobot 2 years ago
i simply do not think it is possible to know how may deities were involved with the big questions of life, so I will assume that all gods are equally unlikely and are not worth dieing for..
REZJT 2 years ago 3
Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. He said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
REZJT 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Esintein believed in a non-personal God. Not neccesarily a deist or pantheist, but he did believe in an unperceiveable being that revelas himself among the Physical. Dawkins is an idiot that tries to brainwahs all your idiots.
He said:
"God does not play dice"
Because he was against quantom mechanics and unceirtanty, he believed God didin't use factors of chance to create the Universe.
Neil Bohr responds with:
"Stop telling God what to do"
This sounds funny, miss the old days.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
REZJT 3 years ago
I never said he believed in a personal God, it's obvious people are very antagonisti towards Theism these days. of course the majority of the population's IQ is below 120 so i'll let the moronic judgements pass.
Einstein was a Deist, I know! i don't care if he was, all I know is that he wasn't an Atheist:
'I am not an Atheist, I don't consider myself a Pantheist" -Albert Einstein
ogirv101 2 years ago
most rational atheists are not Atheists in the sense that they "know" there is no god(s), we acknowledge that we can not know such unprovable supernatural claims ( like god(s), karma, reincarnation), but we believe they are highly unlikely. I do not know if Einstein stated he was deist, but I do know that Einstein did describe himself as a "deeply religious nonbeliever" & that he believed in "the god of Spinoza" . I suppose it can be a bit ambiguous, as you apparently think he was a deist..
REZJT 2 years ago
As Atheists use to mean as to "know" there was no god, as theists "know" there is some number of god(s), Which i suppose that makes most Atheists, agnostics or agnostic atheists....
REZJT 2 years ago
Yeah, Einstein was a Deist, I just hate when people try and call him a pantheist and Atheist, I don't see any Christian calling him a Christian, but many delusional Atheists call him an Atheist.
ogirv101 2 years ago
when did he say he was a deist?
REZJT 2 years ago
he never said he was a Deist, but it was obvious from the words and process of elimination that that was his belief. He rejected pantheism and Atheism, he rejected a personal God, and he spoke about God so often as the magnificent order behind the harmony of the Universe, that sounds like a Deist to me. tell me otherwise.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Atheism back then meant you knew there was no god(s), just as Theism meant you did know there was some number of gods, so yes, Atheism was just as wrong as theism.. In reality, that it not a knowable question, and though you can believe there is or isn't you can not be certain in the sense of absolutes...
REZJT 2 years ago 2
You can never know anythign is true, btu if you take into that sort of thinking you wouldn't sound rational or logical whatsoever.
I know there is a god, if it's my god I don't knwo if it is my God, we will probably never know, I have faith in my God, but without doubt I know there is a creator.
ogirv101 2 years ago
He didn't reject pantheism. He said he doesn't know if he can be called a pantheist. He may have been more of a panentheist. He never referred to himself as a deist. Spinoza's pantheism is certainly a closer, more accurate description just from his own words.
gtg309v 2 years ago
Alright, so if I say I don´t think you can call me a Christian, I´m a Christian right? None of Einstein´s writings refer to a pantheistic God. Some of Einstein´s beliefs did hold pantheistic beliefs but it´s nowhere near the atheistic description made by Dawkins or other people who make Pantheism look Atheistic. Even Christians hold Pantheistic views, that doesn´t make them pantheists.
You say that he never referred himself as a deist, what about Pantheism or Atheism?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Comment removed
gtg309v 2 years ago
First of all Spnioza's beliefs in God were many, they were many different concepts. Furthermore Einstein never said he was a Pantheist, he never said it, furthermore he didn't consider himself one. Lets go along with your logic, so if I say I don't think you can call me a Christian, I'm a Christian because you want me to be one? His writings are some what Panentheistic not Pantheistic, he refers to God as a being or a spirit force.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Comment removed
gtg309v 2 years ago
He did regard the ordered cosmos with the same kind of feeling that believers have for their God. He believed in Spinoza's God who revealed himself in the harmony of what exists. The substance of the universe is what is revealed by Einstein's God, and the divine Reason for this harmony was God, such as the laws of the universe which he believed were deterministic. He never suggests that this reason or spirit transcends the world - so in that sense he is a clear pantheist and not a panentheist.
gtg309v 2 years ago
Einstein never mentioned deism, and his description of his religious feeling never matched deism. Spinoza's God wasn't a deistic one. It was a pantheistic one. Spinoza's "God or Nature" provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical "First Cause" or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."
Einstein couldn't accept quantum mechanics because it was indeterministic; more proof that he thought of God as the divine Reason and determinism of the nature's laws.
gtg309v 2 years ago
I never said Einstein was a Deist, so why did you even mention that, you sound stupid right now. Also there are many different concepts of God, Einstein never said he was a Pantheist ever in his life. Furthermore, Pantheism arose from Judaism and Christianity so it has many similarities, the thing is that Einstein believed in God...
ogirv101 2 years ago
For someone who doesn't claim Einstein is a deist, you seem pretty defensive about it. And I look stupid? Lol.. I mention it to exclude that option.
What similarities does pantheism have to judaism and christianity? All three involve a God; that's about it... What are you babbling about? Judaism and Christianity involve a personal god, an anthropomorphic god, that intervenes with humans and concerns itself with humans. Einstein rejected all these things, and rejected the soul and afterlife..
gtg309v 2 years ago
And in fact you DID say Einstein was a Deist. I quote you:
"he never said he was a Deist, but it was obvious from the words and process of elimination that that was his belief."
gtg309v 2 years ago
Einstein was never a deist!
XQlusiveProductions 2 years ago 4
Einstein : " I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. ..."
REZJT 3 years ago
"Because he was against quantom mechanics and unceirtanty"
"Esintein", or how the rest of us call him, Einstein is considered one of the persons responsible for the "quantom" physics, or quantum physics (for us, brainwashed idiots). Without Einstein, this scientific branch would be very different, or maybe even not exist today. He certainly wasn't "against it", he just had a different view on principle of unceirtanty (uncertainty, for the brainwashed), compared to Heisenberg.
bugogorac 2 years ago
First of all Quantom Mechanics was dicovered or considered founded by MAx planck after the discovery of quantas. I may have had spelling errors, and I may have offended you, I just feel antagonistic at times.
Einstein believed in theological determinism, which is completely against what quantom mechanics states, but I will agree that without special relativity quantom mechanics would be very different.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You are a fucking retard. A dead being doesn't suffer anymore. A living being suffers. If a living being as some fucking cancer that is giving the most insane pain you can imagine, a logically coherent person will use cells from dead beings that DONT SUFFER ANYMORE to cure the ones that are ALIVE and SUFFERING SHITLOADS.
The rest is the same christian clueless hipocrite arguments about fake morality and such.
tubbe911 3 years ago 2
They are dead. Hello? Idiot.
tubbe911 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
" They are Atheists of a poetic disposition and so am i "
Yet another contradiction from Richard, secularist thinking killed off the concept of romance a long time ago....there's no room for romance in Science Richard, remember, only cold, calculating, ruthless efficiency, a la ' Triumph des Willens '.
lilshnappinturtle 3 years ago
Wha? How is this a contradiction from Dawkins? You pick up a sentence, claim it's false... and your reasoning? Because you list opposing, opinionated adjectives?
GreatStalin 3 years ago
The idea that reason and enlightenment - pillars of science and atheism - killed off romance is utterly ridiculous. Some of the most beautiful works of art and literature come from such a period, the French Philosophes being a prime example.
drinkthesoupnow 3 years ago
Its not that logical people don't believe in God, its that they can't without evidence.
Similarly, believing in God without any evidence is logically incoherent.
This is a very crucial point that many anti-atheists don't understand for some reason.
Same as this, we still haven't solved Big Bang theory, and we admit we don't know the origin of the universe, that is why every day Science advances for new evidences (see LHC) instead of stating the origin "is God" without no evidence.
tubbe911 3 years ago
Not quite, reason and emotion are both the result of electrochemical activity of the brain. There is no room for an anthropomorphized deity, but plenty for romance.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago 2
/ reason and emotion are both the result of electrochemical activity of the brain. /
Why does Science need to know these
things ? Oh yeah that's right the military/industrial interests insist they come up with answers regarding mind control techniques.
But personally i believe these are affairs of the soul, after all Dawkins himself has spoken many times on the Human predisposition to believing in God.
I am curious though, what's so romantic about the H-bomb or partial birth abortion ?
lilshnappinturtle 3 years ago
Thats the result of human behavior, as is romance.
Science tells us about the universe, religious people just do not like what nature tells us about god.
It happens to contradict with their dogma which tends to be based purely on speculation and outright make believe.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago 2
If you dont like science then unplug your computer, smash your telephone, never again store your food in a fridge, never again use electricity, never again visit a hospital, never again watch tv, and never ever again eat food that has been stored or produced by ways that were discovered by science.
kargaethas 3 years ago 6
Did i say i objected to Science which is conducted from a moral and ethical basis, a Scientific process which puts the interests of common sense and common good ahead of the military imperative.
I don't object to Science and neither did the Church to begin with, in fact modern Science was created and funded by the church, but unfortunately the process was hijacked by interests who have used Science for their own selfish, and some might say evil agenda.
Check out Bertrand Russell's view on it.
lilshnappinturtle 3 years ago
lilshnappinturtle, here is an atheist who agrees with you 100%. But today, the situation is different. Church today is directly opposed to science. If the science stayed in church hands only, we would probably still think sun goes around earth.
On the other side, when you see who is financing the scientists today, you get creeps. The only hope is giving independence to scientists, and that can be done in only one way: by popularizing science so that masses of people can finance it directly.
bugogorac 2 years ago
Not all churche's deny science. The Catholic Church today don't deny it, only evangelicals.
Also I'd like to mention that 1/3 of all Christians believe in avolution. so that would mean 25% of the whole US population believe in both Christianity and evolution (increasing number) while Atheists only 2% fo the population that believe in evolution. Agnostics are not Atheists, before you say something stupid as 'we make up 15% of the population".
ogirv101 2 years ago
ogirv101, Before you accuse somebody of stupidity, maybe you should read what they wrote. I never wrote nor I think that "we make up 15% of the population". I don't know where you got that.
And if you are going to claim something about the theory, at least learn its name. It is quantUm, not quantOm. And Einstein didn't work only on the relativity, he has a big part in quantum physics directly. For example the photons are named by him. Now go learn on mechanism of defense in psychology.
bugogorac 2 years ago
I wasn't acusing you of anything, I just wanted to reassure someone, because I've heard it many times from mis-informed people. I'm not speaking to you directly.
I know, I always confuse the way you spell quantUm mechanics, I know more on how it works than the spelling, sorry very bad at grammar.
I know what Eisntein did on how he revolutionzed science, he changed our perception of time,space, and momentum. gravitational time dilation is a consequence of special relativity for example.
ogirv101 2 years ago
about the atheists & agnostics are "only 15%"
I thought it was closer to 10% of the US population, but whatever... go look for and watch (the rather recent) CNN's
" Losing Your Religion? ARIS Survey: Growing Number Of Atheists, Religion Declining"
/watch?v=qamMjFSZqGI or
Fox's " Growing Atheist Movement in America " /watch?v=CPtiZGKE--Y&feature=related
REZJT 2 years ago
It is actually around 10% but some groups that believe in a higher being are placed in the Agnostic/Atheist party.
Also, Atheism is declining, it hard a large rise, but it seems to be halting.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Why are people making a big deal about it?
Atheism is just someone who does not believe. Almost like a young born child they to do not believe in god as there minds have not been obscured by people telling them they must believe in god.
Cr8veLcnse 2 years ago 11
To survive cancer? Fuck yea i would eat a dead persons heart. Not even a question!!
Not dead babies, a zygote. See this period (.) It is way smaller then that. It is not a baby! It is a group of living cells not dead ones.
When I die, if my body can help someone to survive longer of educate others to help society, Fuck Yea use it. It would be selfish not to let the world benefit from my dead body.
You are a selfish person if you think otherwise.
ragetony 3 years ago
Yes, if they could get a heart from someone who has already died.
The zygote(group of cells from the fertilized egg before it implants) does not have the potential to become a human unless it is implanted in a woman's uterus. 80% of zygotes do not implant and are flushed naturally. And you think they have the same rights as living breathing people. its not a fetus its a group of cells.
ragetony 3 years ago
That is completely different. The potential for stemcell research far outweighs the rights of a small group of cells.
Cutting down a tree is not the same as eating a nut. The nut has the potential to become a tree if it is planted in a good location, but a nut is not a tree. And yes, a nut is the equivalent to the group of cells used by stemcell researchers.
ragetony 3 years ago
Hmm nice, deistic and theistic. xD
daddyleon 3 years ago
does anyone know the name of that modern pakistani physicist who is a devout muslim I know nothing of him but that he worked on some important theory with a famous american atheist guy and they didnt hate each other!
manhattanwombat 3 years ago
abdus salaam (or salam)??????
vaghistory 3 years ago
yea thats the one abdus salam thanks
manhattanwombat 3 years ago
Oh my Fucking god, sacrificing a pin head of cells that have no potential to become life for the soul purpose of saving those that are already alive, and killing innocent people to say that your religion is the best, are two completely separate things!!! How can you even compare that, one thing with the entent of ending life and causing fear, with the other intent on saving lives and creating hope, you make me sick you religious assholes
flatline138 3 years ago 4
I don't know by what standard you are judging dawkins morality. I mean not many people think killing animals is always wrong. But maybe your God said it's wrong or your benign feelings says it's wrong doesn't make it wrong for us. It sounds like your other point has to do with abortions, which I'm not a big fan of. However, since it's inevitable people are going to kill babies why not use the "evil" and use it for good?
darkforce333 3 years ago
Killing one person to save another is unethical. We all know this, although sometimes we understand it (mother killing someone to save her child?) But then we need to apply this to the real world. Will we kill a guilty person to save another? Self defense is allowed right? And what about waging a war to, say, prevent a genocide? We're killing people to save people. It happens all the time. And it doesn't even apply here, because we're talking 150 cell fetuses, not humans.
wimscheers 3 years ago
I'm afraid none of the uses of marriage apply to animals, so no, that won't be an issue. Animal-human babys?
wimscheers 3 years ago