I would say I am an atheist but I still feel that religion has value. It can lay down a groundwork for morals and can lead to a more positive life. The actual scientific values from religion i.e creationism I think has long been disproven.
I look at books like the Bible as one massive parable that is supposed to be used to present a moral values in the form of the stories and scriptures.
nowadays, is religion still a good way of evolution for humanity and his highest and better behaviour and life ? I think no.. religon is out of time, it should be just a fairy tale for the primitives humans..
I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realized he was imaginary when I was 10. Now I'm an atheist, and I'll be an opponent of religion for the rest of my life.
@123loco1991 nope,i do not have a religion but i do beleive in one God,I beleive in the great architect of the universe and life.I believe we have a purpose and reason for being here and because of that every one of our lives has meaning.I do think alot of people need religion to give there life meaning however
@pinball281 Truthfully I also believe this, I believe in a God, but I also believe in the collective progression of humanity through scientific progress, just because you cant see it or touch it doesn't mean it exists it is the collection of hints that spiral towards that truth, which does not exist in any religious collectives, no bricks in the proverbial road which gives rise to any acceptance of divine intervetion in humanitys existance, just elaborate tales and myths by people
It seems to me that religion provided an "answer" to how we got here and how things work when we knew F all about the truth. Humans have a need to know, we have inquiring minds (some more than others!) and God filled that gap.
One by one Science has discovered that all things have a natural cause. Not everyone acknowledges it but the trend is clear that all things we used to think were caused by a magical Sky Daddy were in fact NOT caused that way.
@Pancettie True, and religion has served to be a very (brutally) effective method at crowd control and for certain individuals to live a richer life off the backs of others, there's no arguing that - but with just about any system or "thing" in our lives, there will be people trying to profiteer from it, that's the nature of the beast.
I'm not religious but I can't believe there's no spiritual side to this reality. It's too much of an "experience" to really be some giant, cosmic survival orgy.
He doubts that religion had no positive effect on our survival... he's a great scientist, but he sucks as a speaker, and he's doesn't know jack about what he's harping on... religion served to be the law of those days, it banded people together, it encouraged trust and discourage anarchy.
@billroscoe76 It's true, religion is what makes us humans and not just procreating creatures on a floating rock - it gives our death focus and meaning, and makes people want to achieve or make something of their lives, regardless of how strongly someone believes or doesn't believe.
To truly believe there's nothing after death, that we're a cosmic fart of coincidence that will amount to nothing; why not immediately commit suicide? Why wait for nothing? I don't get "full atheists", it's nonsense.
@ChainsawGutsFuck if you want a personal answer from an atheist, here's one: i'm alive now, and i'm intrigued by certain aspects of my life such as social interation, seeing new things, having sex and possibly making babies. i don't need to live for a greater being, nore for sacrifices from a christ or from my parents. i merely live to be entertained by the people around me and my hobbies. plus committing suicide requires the hardest task in someone's life of escaping one's own human instincts.
@lloydgar01 I just can't attribute personality and emotions to electrons firing in the brain, and I won't believe in an easily twisted "big bang" theory that destroys all known physics for the sake of an quick, easy answer.
What if the brain is a proverbial "pilot's seat" for the soul? Or whatever it is that makes our bodies animated individuals, not standing piles of meat? If we really are just electrons firing in sequence you could mathematically map out an entire personality, in theory.
If you mean that soul = consciousness, you're wrong. The reticular formation which is a part of the nervous system is responsible for the consciousness...FACT!
If you say that the soul is the battery of the body, you're wrong as well...mitochondrias in the cells are the batteries for the body.
@ChainsawGutsFuck One last note: Now they can predict your choices and tomorrow they may be able to predict everything about you, just watch this video: /watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM&list=FLswOi2fi5Kbyz7xmdH7xHig&index=28&feature=plpp_video
If you "can't" attribute personality and emotions to electrons or chemicals, then this is your own problem, try to solve it. Facts can attribute them in the end of the day.
@JoOoez Fact, because someone with a diploma and eloquent voice said so? How's that any different to believing the words of a priest or rabbi? The only difference is that "God" is numbers and impossibly vague figures on a sheet of paper, and the priests and figureheads are people who waste time trying to disprove everyone else.
How can the big bang be explained without breaking all laws of physics? It can't
@ChainsawGutsFuck It's not a fact because because someone with a diploma and eloquent voice said so. You can make sure it's a fact by yourself through reading, and if you are infected with conspiracy theory, maybe you can search for a scientist you trust and let him teach you and show you by experiment! :D
Evolution theory is a fact on the scale of fossils which are found in the museum of natural history, you can see them there as well as on the scale of molecular biology.
@ChainsawGutsFuck Big Bang doesn't violate the laws of physics, quantum just have its own laws.
Science has evidence, priests and rabbis just have some books that lack evidence, they are the one who need to prove their stance before disproving others.
@ChainsawGutsFuck the fact that electric currents determine our personalities and emotions don't even contradict the bible. It doesn't even contradict the idea of a "soul" existing.
and the big bang theory is actually a very intricate theory: albeit a theory nevertheless (a theory under a scientific understanding being something with evidence backing it up, but no proof as of yet).
and we've actually mapped a fair bit of the mind's electronic signals out. ask any lobotomist.
@lloydgar01 It's all speculation. All of it. Science itself is simply mankind's most logical reasoning presented in a logically sound manner, to try and make more sense of the world and reality. Yet no-one can "prove" what happened with the "big bang". Fancy mathematics and words can be used, elaborate experiments can be conducted, but nothing is concrete until one agrees with it.
Are you a scientist? Or do you simply believe what you've been told, no matter how logically convincing it sounds?
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Dawkins, why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool.
The 1000 religions would then be forms of this tradition howbeit corrupted by mans philosophies and ideas. of this tradition howbeit corrupted by mans philosophies and ideas.
"evolutionary trait" that's my point and question though. If its all hogwash, what value did it serve to evolve a sense for spirituality, a pull to look toward the heavens/ beyond to explain creation in terms of an intelligent being? Sure there's a thousand different religions, and there must be a lot of man-made stuff in them. But is there a true creator who first revealed himself to man, instegating the idea of intelligent powerful entities influencing the mortal realm? The 1000
Other evolutionary biologists disagree and say that religion was indeed a direct result of evolution, and no psychological predisposition intermediary was involved.
A successful religion is a self-sustaining and self-preserving system which favours itself and its members. I think there are clear social advantages, historically, and as those advantages often involve staying safe and healthy, there are evolutionary advantages.
there was an evolutionary value to religion, it kept people from asking questions and therefore gave rise to governments where few ruled, greed gave rise to where one ruled, and tyranny gave rise to revolution giving us a government where many rule. it is quite simple, the closer to god the bigger the oppression.
@Blitzkrieg678 and the founding fathers believed god to be so oppressive that the first amendment was made to keep people from being controlled by religion
@Nixom1334 that's not how they felt at all. Although religion can take over and become oppressive, they also felt that government could become oppresive. The first amendment begins with the words "congress shall make no law..." etc. Its more about giving religions the freedom to make their own way without government inhibition.
@PCEggo "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."-J. Maddison
"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" - John Adam's letter to Thomas Jefferson
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Jefferson
@Nixom1334 those quotes sound like when a specific religion becomes the state leader, not religion in general just existing.
The founders wanted seperation of church and state, also for religion to free from repression, but neither did they intend to make the institution of ir-religion into a favored state church.
@Nixom1334 That Being, who gave me existence, and through almost threescore years has been continually showering his favors upon me, whose very chastisements have been blessings to me ; can I doubt that he loves me? And, if he loves me, can I doubt that he will go on to take care of me, not only here but hereafter? This to some may seem presumption ; to me it appears the best grounded hope ; hope of the future built on experience of the past. ---Letter to George Whitefield (19 June 1764)
you are word mining statements to make it appear he had irreligious viewpoints that he did not in fact have. He believed religion had its place, but also had its value, and he was a believer in it.
@Nixom1334 A google search will turn up hundreds of sites boasting viewpoints like your own but very little citing of sources. as for my point, i apologize again if the quote is not authentic, but there is also more to one of your ben f quotes then quoted. "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle." I think the complete quote gives a meaning that is not meant in any irreligious way at all.
Listen my friend, science become what it was because of religion. Without Science religion is lame, and without religion science is blind. You obviously dont know who God is, but you will know when the moment comes. The problem with you of all people is that you need a physical proof of everything in order to believe that there is a grand creator. This bloke is basing all his theories in psychological facts, that a person with weak spirit will fall victim to its trap.
@tigershumon Wouldn't you rather know for certain the reasoning behind our existence? Having faith has proven to be beneficial psychologically thus physically as well but why attempt to gain extra benefits/satisfactory value from having faith that the bible is correct and that God/Jesus in fact exist? People who believe in religion believe that they are being open-minded when in fact they are being narrow minded. Listening to others rather then find out with facts using their 5 senses.
@tigershumon Sorry, it's bad to want physical proof of everything? Tell you what, if you ever go on trial for a crime you didn't commit, just as you're slammed in jail for 30 years or so, I'll ask you if it's still a 'problem' to need physical proof.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
@kandikid2308 Because God created the world in six days and finely tuned the world perfectly . Evolution says by accident we were created in billions of years by no creator. Big difference.
He has a pretty good way of speaking, and his English is very posh. Listen to him, how he uses words and phrases to get his minions to laugh and awe at him. This guy was nothing more than a fetus in his mothers womb some decades ago. God sends an Angel to breath soul into him, he learned all that he did not know with the grace of God, and now he denies the very existance of a creator as he thinks he the God himself. It's degenerates like him that I feel most sorry for.
This guy is a complete and utter freak. Listen to him talk, how he mumbles about science yet it was God who made us aware of science in the bible and the Holy Qur'an over 1400 years ago, and only now they are discovering things that had already been mentioned. He has formed a revolution for aithiests. A new religion for non believers. He is going to wake up on judgement day with a nasty mark on his face with forelocks (Chains) around his feet, where he will be dragged and thrown in hell.
@tigershumon HAH! Yeah, see how this internationally renown and respected master in the field of evolutionary and genetic biology is using his articulacy to make simple scientific fact accessible to lay people so that everyone can understand the lack of need for oppressive religion in the world. The fool! I'm sure you and your expertise in genetics can disprove what we actually KNOW, not 'believe', know, and then you can make us all sensible by preaching damnation, like you're doing already...
@tigershumon He is thoughtful and bases his arguments on scientific facts and discoveries, not on unproven, baseless fairytales that religious people have blind faith in. Difficult to see the difference?
Yeah, don't pick up snakes, even if the snake is called religion. It will put its fangs in you injecting delusions. What if mankind is misled for thousands of years to cover up something that might shake the foundations of mankinds existence? I used to be a very stubborn believer when it came to Santa Clause...Turns out that he's not only a fake based on some ancient dwarf, the current red-white Santa as you know was adapted by Coca-Cola. Holy father, holy ghost, who's the one who pays the most?
This man travels the world just to make money on human stupidity. She rides and telling people that they can do whatever they want. And that how he makes money .. That everything is self created and evolved. But once it is satisfied that its existence is not without purposeful, and that is God. I hope he learns that before his death. But what about the people who follow him. Satan is really happy.
Because your child contains the genes which are carefully shaped by billions of years of natural selection passed down by millions of generations, from simple cells to complex organisms. We are intelligent because organisms which are not intelligent would have gone extinct millions of years ago. That is the truth, and you just gotta live with it.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
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
You know what's funny? Religion went from being ignorant to things, but was objective. . . to still being ignorant to things but is now subjective. Bitches started out worshiping the sun because they didn't know what the hell it was, but it kept them alive. Now people are just ignoring the advancement of science and technology, so religion is solely based on subjective doo-doo and religious people continue to be ignorant.
so then how did a belief in deity first arise as a majority of the world kind of a thing? if they only believe it because their parents taught them. Where did their parents get it? and where did those parents' parents get it? And when did the whole world decide that whoever first "made it up" actually made some sense?
i think there is a creator who did reveal a religion for whatever reason, and that the diversity of man and his own take on things fragmented it into a thousand pieces
but that is how all the world has a pull toward the spiritual, because of their parents yes, but because somewhere back in history there was a first set of parents who got their information directly from the creator(s).
@PCEggo but genesis and exodus are clearly recounts, that's how they're portrayed in the bible. and that's where spirituality is mentioned 1st CHRONOLOGICALLY. so you're wrong. it's based on ficticious recounting.
@PCEggo that argument is sound for semitism, not christianity, because the religion of the hebrew people is the 1st religion from parents and parents' parents. does that answer your questions?
@lloydgar01 i think its still an argument for religion in general. which religion is a religious argument or maybe a historical argument. I believe in revelation, that the same being(s) who created us also has power to talk to us and frankly communicate facts and truth to us.
Where you see fictitious recounting, i see revelation from Deity. The evidences I have to give revolve around parts of the Bible's history having been verified by archeology and fulfilled prophecies.
@PCEggo and on that note, the most recent prophecies come from islam as does the most recent prophet who also claims to have heard "the words of god". if you believe in the prophecies in the bible, then why not in the qur'an also?
@lloydgar01 if i answered that question it would be out of my own religious convictions and studies. but i think that's beside the point. Through all religion, regardless which church or pursuasion, we all agree on a creator who is the supreme being. And taking all the major religions into account the nature of this being is generally similar. if religion is just a stupid silly thing, then how and at what point in our history did it overtake us all?
and if there is a creator, which there is an abundance of evidence in nature to answer yes, then is it possible that he really has spoken to us in the past or that he could speak to us today? of course man is diverse in his ways and can take parts of the original religion and run with it, adding man made stuff on top of it, but there has to be something in some religion somewhere that represents the truth of what our creator has said unto us at one point or another on some subject.
@seansalvador1 well there's a circular argument, trying to argue that ID-ists have only circular arguments and logical puzzles to throw at Naturalists.
its not science vs. religion. there are scientists on both sides, and the reason it comes across as only logical arguements and no evidence is because both sides are playing tug of war with the same evidence. when the evidence is up in the air, we use logic to pull it to our side, but we still cite the evidence. its the same on the otherside
@PCEggo i just don't understand why scientific beliefs like evolution affect people's religious beliefs. i think many people who don't understand science, basically classify it as another religion and therefore theories, such as evolution, are considered wrong because they are categorized as a belief, when in fact that's not what science promotes at all. btw i'm not asserting that you think this way i'm just saying generally :)
@PCEggo it overtook us from our cognitive beginnings when we sought to answer questions about life and the universe. hearing voices in one's head is easier than philosophically constructing physical analogies based on observable reality.
@lloydgar01 but there is a movement in naturalism/Darwinism to pin-point the "god-experience" to some sort of gene. Why would we have such a strong pull so seek out deity, especially if we find out it is genetic, if the whole thing is just a stupid? Dawkins argues not only that its silly, but that it doesn't even have any evolutionary value. How then, and why? when the spiritual pull is so universal? it is a "need" that almost every culture recognizes being as real as hunger and thirst.
my point being that godless random chance sure seems to have "designed" us to grope for the creator pretty hard core. kind of stupid if there's no chance in hell that he's acutally there How can there not be something real to it? What if somewhere in the haze of religious claims, something has survived that Deity actually did reveal to man in ancient past? Which and where is beside the point, but there is a scientific obligation to acknowledge the fingerprints of design if it is there.
@PCEggo people like darwin, newton and einstein wanted to find god through science true. it doesn't mean that the point of science as a whole is to either prove or disprove a greater being, that was just the personal drive to some scientists of the past.
as for the spirit: prove to me that there is a universally spiritual pull and we'll continue talking.
@lloydgar01 well, what do you think of when I say "a universally spiritual pull"? I'll start from there.
yes, I agree with your first statement, but a lot of people think that think themselves "scientific" also think that "atheistic" is a synonym for "scientific." My point is that it is unscientific to close off the possibility like that.
@PCEggo well atheism and science are completely separate things, where the only link between the two is atheism's use of scientific method to justify the idea of there being no god.
also, the possibility of a god or spirit being in existence is based on insubstantial "evidence". no one has ever defined a true theory behind the two, so until or unless that does happen, both will have to be treated as scientifically "factual" as "parallel universes".
@lloydgar01 yes, but the connection between them is greater than just that. for the last 150 years or so the trend in the realm of science has been dominated by naturalism with an atheistic bias. naturalism is not quite the same as atheism, but naturalism was slowly enthroned as the base foundation for all scientific theory to be built upon by those who became disenchanted with theism especially Christianity.
at the end of the day naturalism is no different from theism with regard to the
fact that no one atheist or otherwise has ever seen into every possible corner of the universe and seen with their own eyes or can say with a perfect knowledge that there can be no God.
and i think there is evdience for God, not just subjective evidence in the lives of believers, and not just logical arguments that argue that scientific evidence favors the theory that there is an intelligent designer, but actual events that occured that lots of people witnessed, documented, and historically...
inarguable. for example Washington wrote in a letter to a friend that there was no reason that we should have won the revolutionary war save god was on our side. when Washington was defending long island, a fog rolled in conveniently enabling the continental army to escape overwhelming odds when it might have been crushed right there. or like in the war of 1812, after the british burned washington but before they attacked Ft. mchenry, a massive storm came out of no where with tornadoes and...
killed many of the british and the winds and rain just utterly wore out the rest and busted much of their equipment. They would have progressed onward in their march against the americans, but they withdrew from DC back to the coast and the americans caught just enough of a break to regroup. these aren't necessarily scientific evidences, but they are historical evidences of a supreme being who intervenes in the affairs of men. i think we ought to look for the same kinds of things in science:
remarkable against all odds cooincidences so that it takes more faith to attribute it to the cosmic lottery than to admit there could be a supreme being of some kind.
sorry don't mean to spam being so wordy.
the was a reason the first few generations of americans believed in manifest destiny, it was because of examples like the ones i shared. they knew, not just had blind faith, but KNEW from where their blessings came. its not all just arrogant backwoods redneck bull honkey.
@PCEggo but you have to understand that in the events you've described there, there are many other factors to take into consideration such as global weather patterns. so in this instance to say that a higher power "may have" been a part of this would be scientifically reasonable. but saying that it's irrefutable evidence just adds a tonne of postulates to the event in question and so it is then considered to be less scientific.
@lloydgar01 well, i didn't say irrefutable evidence, but evidence none the less. The evidence in cases like these I would say definitely does not scream random chance. and i know the storm that attacked the British in the war of 1812 didn't magically appear defying how storms form, but with a young country's future on the line, wouldn't you say it was a remarkable coincidence that it stopped the British invasion force in their tracks just when it did? and it didn't hurt the Americans at all.
i think all the complex variables to consider is what makes it so amazing.
this one example by itself, yes, is not "irrefutable evidence" its just "evidence". but when stacked up with hundreds of similar examples in history and science, an objective common sense review of the evidence would appear "very strong" that there is an intelligent power being who has his fingerprints both in the creation of our world and in the affairs of mankind from time to time.
@PCEggo Those events can be interpreted, from an age that was not scientifically educated, as being caused by a God. The more educated humans become, the less they put these events down to a supernatural being.
Religion is an evolutionary trait that every culture in history has created. How can there be 1000 different tribal gods and hundreds of different religions? Because they are man made.
most East Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) is atheist de facto (... they still go to temple and pray ((usually once/twice a year)),,, but it is a part of tradition,,, not part of a religion)
but incredibly they never discuss about atheism although they are atheist de facto... "atheism vs religion/creationism" debate is time wasting....
My biggest problem with Dawkins is not actually what he believes. I agree with much of it. His problem is that he loves to go around insulting people who disagree. He also makes claims about knowing that evolution happened and knowing that there is no god, which is completely contradictory to a scientific mindset. There is always the chance you could be wrong. There will always be people who disagree, but that does not mean they are stupid. They just see things a different way.
@dragonfiremalus Ok, 1: Religious nuts SHOULD be insulted... It's fun and they shouldn't be spared the sharp poke of logic just because they're fragile little things... 2: Evolution DID happen, DOES happen and will continue to happen... Whether this happens after creation or without is neither here nor there... 3: There is NO god in the sense that these religious idiots claim... An ultimate creator, maybe... A very advanced alien race, possibly... But the christian god? Impossible...
@champjklccmk If you think that people should be insulted, then you will get nowhere. Every piece of evidence we have suggests that Evolution did happen. We can see it happening. But that does not mean that it DID happen. We can never know for sure. None of us were there. It is simply unfounded arrogance that would lead someone to think they could not be wrong. And it is quite possible that there is a god. There is no way that you could know 100% that there is not so don't even try to say so.
@dragonfiremalus So by that logic, you are insinuating that gravity is god's angels pulling us down and keeping us rooted to the earth? Or that the Earth, indeed the universe!, was created in exactly seven days? And so we should follow the bible's decrees no matter how ridiculous they may be? If so my friend, then we are enemies in every sense of the word...
@champjklccmk ????? When did I ever say that I believe in a young earth? I in fact stated that I don't believe in a young earth when I said I agree with what Dawkins believes. Your comment is absolutely asinine. I agree with what he is saying, but sometimes I disagree with how he says it. I said there might be a god. I in fact don't think there is, but it annoys me when people go around claiming to know one way or the other.
@dragonfiremalus In life, if all the evidence points to something having happened, if we should need to act according to whether or not that something happened, then we should act as though it did happen. If every piece of evidence says it happened then, from a scientific world-view it happened. I do agree with your last statement though. however without evidence for a god, i act as though there isnt. doesnt change my behavior much though. atheism=/=no morals. just no church and no guilt fapping
@dragonfiremalus "Every piece of evidence we have suggests that Evolution did happen. We can see it happening. But that does not mean that it DID happen"
Incredible... just incredible (literally, google the word).
In science (and everything other than maths) we can only prove things beyond reasonable doubt. Biological evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt, therefore to doubt it is unreasonable.
@dragonfiremalus The creatards and Christian taliban on the other side do not "disagree". They make up stuff and claim to know the truth without any kind of evidence, without thinking it necessary to present such and indeed making a virtue out of not having any.
If it insults them to point that out so fucking be it.
Dawkins measures himself as 6.8 out of 7 on a scale of being religious.
He describes himself as "technical agnostic" - he allows for the possibility of a deity but knows that such a possibility is extremely unlikely (we're talking several trillion to one). He values any possible deity equally unlikely.
How can a scientific theory be subjective? The whole point is that it is objective. You are talking about the theory of evolution here and i can see that yet again another creationist cannot understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.
"bigoted, arrogant, subjective and full of baseless assumptions"
Bigoted? If you had read a word he had ever wrote then you wouldn't say this...
@seansalvador1 I agree with Dawkins- although i think what servepartnership is trying to say is that Dawkins interpretations of the theories he presents are biased; that his conclusions are slanted by biases that some people simply do not share. It doesn't make the evidence or the theories "wrong," just some of the conclusions reached from them... At least that's what I thing serve partnership was trying to say
@JEMacProductions "It doesn't make the evidence or the theories "wrong," just some of the conclusions reached from them"
This may be a valid argument were it for examples... give me one single example.
You can't. The problem lies in that the whole of the biological community agrees on evolution as a fact and the minutiae of the theory makes no difference to this. It is simply a fact that animals evolve, the theory (like gravity) is simply a description of the mechanism by which this happens.
@JEMacProductions Dawkins is worthless to me. He is completely ignorant about the BIG questions about the universe and life that I want to know. He is a waist of time. I use to listen to some of his videos trying to get the answers I want but after watching his interview with BenStein (Richard Dawkins/Ben Stein interview) here on YouTube, I gave up on Dawkins. Dawkins doens't know how the universe began, doesn't know how life began and even gave support to Fred Hoyle's panspermia/creation theory
Except he didn't support it in the slightest, he said that it was a 'highly unlikely event' and that if it were so these aliens would 'have to have evolved' if not by Darwinian selection by some equivalent process.
Expelled is a notoriously dishonest 'documentary' and demonstrably so.
Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers so this is a strange comment.
Why do you assume the universe had a beginning? Why do you assume time and energy are finite?
As for life, it is not a dichotomy, the fact that we don't know does not mean god did it, that is a blatant surrender of reason, there exist many plausible hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, that it is an active area of research does in no way validate yours or any other theistic claims.
lol the little retarded human family have suffering enough..for the last 7000 years they been food for predators at night and slaves of kings by day ..paying taxes and running from hungry predators have teach then to believe in magical gods ..you see when a lion eat your kid but the son of your enemy still alive must be because god hate you..lol so they learn to pray to god for protection ..even rulers learns that people pay more taxes when is god the one asking for it ...
"Something supernatural" what, you mean like reality?
Seriously, anyone who thinks reality is not supernatural is a nut job who lives in their imagination.
The laws of physics are not natural, because they don't physically revolve around each other like the natural objects that they create. And if the laws did revolve around something, what would it be I wonder?
Ignorant people ignore the blatant obvious; the laws of physics are in and of themselves as supernatural as God.
Example: Unless gravity follows aero-dynamics and is pulled towards objects of greater mass , it isn't natural because it doesn't follow the laws of physics. thus, Gravity is supernatural.
Please don't treat Gravity like it doesn't need to be held to as high a standard as you hold God. That's not logic, that's hypocrisy.
Aerodynamics? Clearly you have no idea what the word means! Itis the study of motions of air, so what has that to do with gravity? I presume you mean quantum electrodynamics.
You are completely incorrect, by the way, it is not a dichotomy.
I do Not believe there exists a god so I don't hold him to any standards.
Objects are attracted to other objects and it is always in the direction of mass.
The fact they're not related is the point. Gravity is supernatural to aerodynamics, it would be unnatural if gravity started flowing like air does. Grass is supernatural to an airplane, it would be unnatural for it to start flying like one. EVERYTHING is "supernatural" compared to something else, God would be no different.
"Objects are attracted to other objects..."
According to... The ability to put facts together. (Intelligence).
No, the problem here is that you think you can decide what "natural" is, and have imaginary self made limits on what it can or can't be.
Gravity is outside the "natural world" of grass.
Gravity is outside the "natural world" of aerodynamics. It's supernatural compared to it.
PS. About what you said about God before: You're meant to hold things that you don't believe exist to the same standards as the things you do, otherwise you're seriously deluded.
I would say I am an atheist but I still feel that religion has value. It can lay down a groundwork for morals and can lead to a more positive life. The actual scientific values from religion i.e creationism I think has long been disproven.
I look at books like the Bible as one massive parable that is supposed to be used to present a moral values in the form of the stories and scriptures.
tsiglos 3 days ago
Dawkins 'as my vote, by my "vote" I mean my cum in his arse, nice 'ol bloke.
TonyMcAnus 1 month ago
nowadays, is religion still a good way of evolution for humanity and his highest and better behaviour and life ? I think no.. religon is out of time, it should be just a fairy tale for the primitives humans..
21fvc 1 month ago
I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realized he was imaginary when I was 10. Now I'm an atheist, and I'll be an opponent of religion for the rest of my life.
TheWhiteStripes3 1 month ago 6
@TheWhiteStripes3 Are the "white stripes" someones cum dripping down the back of your leg? If so, can I make some "white stripes too?
TonyMcAnus 1 month ago
hey everyone! science was set up by heretic atheists to disprove god! lol
lloydgar01 1 month ago
"How can one have a meaningfull existance if existance itself has no meaning"
pinball281 1 month ago
@pinball281 do you need religion to give your life meaning?
123loco1991 1 month ago
@123loco1991 nope,i do not have a religion but i do beleive in one God,I beleive in the great architect of the universe and life.I believe we have a purpose and reason for being here and because of that every one of our lives has meaning.I do think alot of people need religion to give there life meaning however
pinball281 1 month ago
@pinball281 Truthfully I also believe this, I believe in a God, but I also believe in the collective progression of humanity through scientific progress, just because you cant see it or touch it doesn't mean it exists it is the collection of hints that spiral towards that truth, which does not exist in any religious collectives, no bricks in the proverbial road which gives rise to any acceptance of divine intervetion in humanitys existance, just elaborate tales and myths by people
123loco1991 1 month ago
It seems to me that religion provided an "answer" to how we got here and how things work when we knew F all about the truth. Humans have a need to know, we have inquiring minds (some more than others!) and God filled that gap.
One by one Science has discovered that all things have a natural cause. Not everyone acknowledges it but the trend is clear that all things we used to think were caused by a magical Sky Daddy were in fact NOT caused that way.
Unfortunately religion has so much momentum!!!
warren52nz 1 month ago
am i the only one who just loves his ties??
RIMA142142 1 month ago
@RIMA142142 hey yeah man! i like the guy's arguments too!
lloydgar01 1 month ago
@lloydgar01 I'm a girl :P
and he's brilliant :)
RIMA142142 1 month ago
@RIMA142142 lol sorry: yeah woman! :-P
lloydgar01 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck philosophy is what sets humans apart from other animals. religion is an add-on to philosophy.
why not commit suicide? philosophy.
Pancettie 1 month ago
@Pancettie True, and religion has served to be a very (brutally) effective method at crowd control and for certain individuals to live a richer life off the backs of others, there's no arguing that - but with just about any system or "thing" in our lives, there will be people trying to profiteer from it, that's the nature of the beast.
I'm not religious but I can't believe there's no spiritual side to this reality. It's too much of an "experience" to really be some giant, cosmic survival orgy.
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 month ago
lol does anyone else get that 'single muslim' advert on almost every video? It's hilariously out of place on a Dawkins video.
liamjd1 1 month ago
He doubts that religion had no positive effect on our survival... he's a great scientist, but he sucks as a speaker, and he's doesn't know jack about what he's harping on... religion served to be the law of those days, it banded people together, it encouraged trust and discourage anarchy.
billroscoe76 2 months ago
@billroscoe76 Did you watch the whole video? That's exactly what he said.
Catrionaify 2 months ago
@billroscoe76 It's true, religion is what makes us humans and not just procreating creatures on a floating rock - it gives our death focus and meaning, and makes people want to achieve or make something of their lives, regardless of how strongly someone believes or doesn't believe.
To truly believe there's nothing after death, that we're a cosmic fart of coincidence that will amount to nothing; why not immediately commit suicide? Why wait for nothing? I don't get "full atheists", it's nonsense.
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck why not commit suicide? survival value.
TehVista 1 month ago
@TehVista But that's survival to eventually and inevitably perish - is there any logical reason to wait if it'll all amount to absolutely nothing?
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck if you want a personal answer from an atheist, here's one: i'm alive now, and i'm intrigued by certain aspects of my life such as social interation, seeing new things, having sex and possibly making babies. i don't need to live for a greater being, nore for sacrifices from a christ or from my parents. i merely live to be entertained by the people around me and my hobbies. plus committing suicide requires the hardest task in someone's life of escaping one's own human instincts.
lloydgar01 1 month ago
@lloydgar01 I just can't attribute personality and emotions to electrons firing in the brain, and I won't believe in an easily twisted "big bang" theory that destroys all known physics for the sake of an quick, easy answer.
What if the brain is a proverbial "pilot's seat" for the soul? Or whatever it is that makes our bodies animated individuals, not standing piles of meat? If we really are just electrons firing in sequence you could mathematically map out an entire personality, in theory.
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck We are just a bunch of chemical reactions...FACT!
If you mean that soul = consciousness, you're wrong. The reticular formation which is a part of the nervous system is responsible for the consciousness...FACT!
If you say that the soul is the battery of the body, you're wrong as well...mitochondrias in the cells are the batteries for the body.
JoOoez 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck One last note: Now they can predict your choices and tomorrow they may be able to predict everything about you, just watch this video: /watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM&list=FLswOi2fi5Kbyz7xmdH7xHig&index=28&feature=plpp_video
If you "can't" attribute personality and emotions to electrons or chemicals, then this is your own problem, try to solve it. Facts can attribute them in the end of the day.
JoOoez 1 month ago
@JoOoez Fact, because someone with a diploma and eloquent voice said so? How's that any different to believing the words of a priest or rabbi? The only difference is that "God" is numbers and impossibly vague figures on a sheet of paper, and the priests and figureheads are people who waste time trying to disprove everyone else.
How can the big bang be explained without breaking all laws of physics? It can't
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChainsawGutsFuck It's not a fact because because someone with a diploma and eloquent voice said so. You can make sure it's a fact by yourself through reading, and if you are infected with conspiracy theory, maybe you can search for a scientist you trust and let him teach you and show you by experiment! :D
Evolution theory is a fact on the scale of fossils which are found in the museum of natural history, you can see them there as well as on the scale of molecular biology.
JoOoez 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck Big Bang doesn't violate the laws of physics, quantum just have its own laws.
Science has evidence, priests and rabbis just have some books that lack evidence, they are the one who need to prove their stance before disproving others.
JoOoez 1 month ago
@ChainsawGutsFuck the fact that electric currents determine our personalities and emotions don't even contradict the bible. It doesn't even contradict the idea of a "soul" existing.
and the big bang theory is actually a very intricate theory: albeit a theory nevertheless (a theory under a scientific understanding being something with evidence backing it up, but no proof as of yet).
and we've actually mapped a fair bit of the mind's electronic signals out. ask any lobotomist.
lloydgar01 1 month ago
@lloydgar01 It's all speculation. All of it. Science itself is simply mankind's most logical reasoning presented in a logically sound manner, to try and make more sense of the world and reality. Yet no-one can "prove" what happened with the "big bang". Fancy mathematics and words can be used, elaborate experiments can be conducted, but nothing is concrete until one agrees with it.
Are you a scientist? Or do you simply believe what you've been told, no matter how logically convincing it sounds?
ChainsawGutsFuck 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give this a thump plz so everybody can see this
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Open Minded Christian
konfoshari9 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give this a thump plz so everybody can see this
Richard Dawkins is a big LIAR , dont listen to him peolpe, he is talking to you as if you are an idiots or an animals, we are not an animals but better than monkeys belive me in this and be careful about this point .
he doesn't say the truth but he dulls you because he is fake , racial and wrong .
Open Minded Christian
konfoshari9 2 months ago
Comment removed
jacynm 2 months ago
People are extremely social animals(groupy) so conceptualizing our strong
need to conform and identify with a group could be a god. Ancient peoples knew
that their god belonged to them and other's gods belonged to others. Our brains
are hardwired to interact with others including language which functions to
communicate with others and it also is the basis of our thinking as we think
in words. Christians base their philosophy on the mind/god "in the beginning was the logos."
mentalphysicalism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins, why don't you go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool.
Seigu007 3 months ago
The 1000 religions would then be forms of this tradition howbeit corrupted by mans philosophies and ideas. of this tradition howbeit corrupted by mans philosophies and ideas.
PCEggo 3 months ago
@ojideagu
"evolutionary trait" that's my point and question though. If its all hogwash, what value did it serve to evolve a sense for spirituality, a pull to look toward the heavens/ beyond to explain creation in terms of an intelligent being? Sure there's a thousand different religions, and there must be a lot of man-made stuff in them. But is there a true creator who first revealed himself to man, instegating the idea of intelligent powerful entities influencing the mortal realm? The 1000
PCEggo 3 months ago
Other evolutionary biologists disagree and say that religion was indeed a direct result of evolution, and no psychological predisposition intermediary was involved.
squamish4244 3 months ago
A successful religion is a self-sustaining and self-preserving system which favours itself and its members. I think there are clear social advantages, historically, and as those advantages often involve staying safe and healthy, there are evolutionary advantages.
Saxifrage040210 3 months ago
Maybe belief that a god is on your side gives people confidence, and that confidence is the evolutionary advantage.
Fuliginosus 4 months ago
there was an evolutionary value to religion, it kept people from asking questions and therefore gave rise to governments where few ruled, greed gave rise to where one ruled, and tyranny gave rise to revolution giving us a government where many rule. it is quite simple, the closer to god the bigger the oppression.
Nixom1334 4 months ago
@Nixom1334 But then again, both the British and the founding fathers believed that men had a God given right to freedom and equality.
Blitzkrieg678 3 months ago
@Blitzkrieg678 and the founding fathers believed god to be so oppressive that the first amendment was made to keep people from being controlled by religion
Nixom1334 3 months ago
@Nixom1334 that's not how they felt at all. Although religion can take over and become oppressive, they also felt that government could become oppresive. The first amendment begins with the words "congress shall make no law..." etc. Its more about giving religions the freedom to make their own way without government inhibition.
PCEggo 3 months ago
@PCEggo "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."-J. Maddison
"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" - John Adam's letter to Thomas Jefferson
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Jefferson
Nixom1334 3 months ago
@Nixom1334 those quotes sound like when a specific religion becomes the state leader, not religion in general just existing.
The founders wanted seperation of church and state, also for religion to free from repression, but neither did they intend to make the institution of ir-religion into a favored state church.
PCEggo 3 months ago
@PCEggo "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it." -Franklin
Nixom1334 3 months ago
@Nixom1334 That Being, who gave me existence, and through almost threescore years has been continually showering his favors upon me, whose very chastisements have been blessings to me ; can I doubt that he loves me? And, if he loves me, can I doubt that he will go on to take care of me, not only here but hereafter? This to some may seem presumption ; to me it appears the best grounded hope ; hope of the future built on experience of the past. ---Letter to George Whitefield (19 June 1764)
PCEggo 3 months ago
*quote by ben Frank
PCEggo 3 months ago
you are word mining statements to make it appear he had irreligious viewpoints that he did not in fact have. He believed religion had its place, but also had its value, and he was a believer in it.
PCEggo 3 months ago
@PCEggo You are quote mining quotes that aren't even real.
Nixom1334 3 months ago
@Nixom1334 A google search will turn up hundreds of sites boasting viewpoints like your own but very little citing of sources. as for my point, i apologize again if the quote is not authentic, but there is also more to one of your ben f quotes then quoted. "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle." I think the complete quote gives a meaning that is not meant in any irreligious way at all.
PCEggo 3 months ago
"all those virgin maries" :lol:
freiheitsalv 4 months ago
So sad.
MrFlatroofer 4 months ago
Listen my friend, science become what it was because of religion. Without Science religion is lame, and without religion science is blind. You obviously dont know who God is, but you will know when the moment comes. The problem with you of all people is that you need a physical proof of everything in order to believe that there is a grand creator. This bloke is basing all his theories in psychological facts, that a person with weak spirit will fall victim to its trap.
tigershumon 5 months ago
@tigershumon Wouldn't you rather know for certain the reasoning behind our existence? Having faith has proven to be beneficial psychologically thus physically as well but why attempt to gain extra benefits/satisfactory value from having faith that the bible is correct and that God/Jesus in fact exist? People who believe in religion believe that they are being open-minded when in fact they are being narrow minded. Listening to others rather then find out with facts using their 5 senses.
TheMikepep22 4 months ago
@tigershumon Sorry, it's bad to want physical proof of everything? Tell you what, if you ever go on trial for a crime you didn't commit, just as you're slammed in jail for 30 years or so, I'll ask you if it's still a 'problem' to need physical proof.
romeosdistress 4 months ago 3
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
I will never understand why people think that evolution disproves the existence of god. I believe in both. ;)
kandikid2308 5 months ago
@kandikid2308 Because God created the world in six days and finely tuned the world perfectly . Evolution says by accident we were created in billions of years by no creator. Big difference.
PajamaSam57 5 months ago
@PajamaSam57 the truth is probably somewhere in between the two extremes. both extremes are ridiculously unrealistic.
PCEggo 3 months ago
He has a pretty good way of speaking, and his English is very posh. Listen to him, how he uses words and phrases to get his minions to laugh and awe at him. This guy was nothing more than a fetus in his mothers womb some decades ago. God sends an Angel to breath soul into him, he learned all that he did not know with the grace of God, and now he denies the very existance of a creator as he thinks he the God himself. It's degenerates like him that I feel most sorry for.
tigershumon 5 months ago
This guy is a complete and utter freak. Listen to him talk, how he mumbles about science yet it was God who made us aware of science in the bible and the Holy Qur'an over 1400 years ago, and only now they are discovering things that had already been mentioned. He has formed a revolution for aithiests. A new religion for non believers. He is going to wake up on judgement day with a nasty mark on his face with forelocks (Chains) around his feet, where he will be dragged and thrown in hell.
tigershumon 5 months ago
@tigershumon HAH! Yeah, see how this internationally renown and respected master in the field of evolutionary and genetic biology is using his articulacy to make simple scientific fact accessible to lay people so that everyone can understand the lack of need for oppressive religion in the world. The fool! I'm sure you and your expertise in genetics can disprove what we actually KNOW, not 'believe', know, and then you can make us all sensible by preaching damnation, like you're doing already...
romeosdistress 5 months ago
@tigershumon He is thoughtful and bases his arguments on scientific facts and discoveries, not on unproven, baseless fairytales that religious people have blind faith in. Difficult to see the difference?
Forthright1 5 months ago
Groin groping creationists.
sebc2s 5 months ago
Groin groping creationists.
sebc2s 5 months ago
@matthewpeck87 Lol.
Pseudonym25 5 months ago
@matthewpeck87 Yeah brother his yard is a mess and Jesus is a great gardener and cheap too.
Xatasha6611 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matthewpeck87 Heyhey, the Jesus-junky is here also. Anything new to say or the usual 'I love Jesus so much I can cry'-stuff
Visualiser33 5 months ago
people invented many gods before jesus
mcdinkity 5 months ago
@matthewpeck87 yeah! he definitely needs jesus to.....
umm... jesus for....
wait, why do people need imaginary friends anyway?
to ease the pain of mortality?
OmfgItsHenu 5 months ago 3
@OmfgItsHenu No, to be loved.
Clubmeber2869 5 months ago
Yeah, don't pick up snakes, even if the snake is called religion. It will put its fangs in you injecting delusions. What if mankind is misled for thousands of years to cover up something that might shake the foundations of mankinds existence? I used to be a very stubborn believer when it came to Santa Clause...Turns out that he's not only a fake based on some ancient dwarf, the current red-white Santa as you know was adapted by Coca-Cola. Holy father, holy ghost, who's the one who pays the most?
zwareshag 6 months ago
This man travels the world just to make money on human stupidity. She rides and telling people that they can do whatever they want. And that how he makes money .. That everything is self created and evolved. But once it is satisfied that its existence is not without purposeful, and that is God. I hope he learns that before his death. But what about the people who follow him. Satan is really happy.
mobiledev 6 months ago
@mobiledev He wouldn't "travel the world just to make money" if there were fewer Satan believers like you.
hyperstone6 6 months ago
@yellowsafetypin
Because your child contains the genes which are carefully shaped by billions of years of natural selection passed down by millions of generations, from simple cells to complex organisms. We are intelligent because organisms which are not intelligent would have gone extinct millions of years ago. That is the truth, and you just gotta live with it.
remoraid7 6 months ago
If there is no God then why can't I eat babies?!
yellowsafetypin 6 months ago
@yellowsafetypin
They taste horrible
BJTMediaProductions 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
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
You know what's funny? Religion went from being ignorant to things, but was objective. . . to still being ignorant to things but is now subjective. Bitches started out worshiping the sun because they didn't know what the hell it was, but it kept them alive. Now people are just ignoring the advancement of science and technology, so religion is solely based on subjective doo-doo and religious people continue to be ignorant.
MroAeon 7 months ago
Quite informative, Dawkins is a smart guy.
superduperjew 7 months ago
awww i just love it when he offends my ex-religion: catholicism....XD way to go richard! hahahaha <3
freiheitsalv 7 months ago
he said poisonous, snakes are venomous. poison is ingested, venom is injected. HE DOESNT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES ALL HIS ARGUMENTS INVALID.
lol jk
claynate 7 months ago
so then how did a belief in deity first arise as a majority of the world kind of a thing? if they only believe it because their parents taught them. Where did their parents get it? and where did those parents' parents get it? And when did the whole world decide that whoever first "made it up" actually made some sense?
i think there is a creator who did reveal a religion for whatever reason, and that the diversity of man and his own take on things fragmented it into a thousand pieces
PCEggo 7 months ago
but that is how all the world has a pull toward the spiritual, because of their parents yes, but because somewhere back in history there was a first set of parents who got their information directly from the creator(s).
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo but genesis and exodus are clearly recounts, that's how they're portrayed in the bible. and that's where spirituality is mentioned 1st CHRONOLOGICALLY. so you're wrong. it's based on ficticious recounting.
lloydgar01 7 months ago
@PCEggo that argument is sound for semitism, not christianity, because the religion of the hebrew people is the 1st religion from parents and parents' parents. does that answer your questions?
lloydgar01 7 months ago
@lloydgar01 i think its still an argument for religion in general. which religion is a religious argument or maybe a historical argument. I believe in revelation, that the same being(s) who created us also has power to talk to us and frankly communicate facts and truth to us.
Where you see fictitious recounting, i see revelation from Deity. The evidences I have to give revolve around parts of the Bible's history having been verified by archeology and fulfilled prophecies.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo and on that note, the most recent prophecies come from islam as does the most recent prophet who also claims to have heard "the words of god". if you believe in the prophecies in the bible, then why not in the qur'an also?
lloydgar01 7 months ago
@lloydgar01 if i answered that question it would be out of my own religious convictions and studies. but i think that's beside the point. Through all religion, regardless which church or pursuasion, we all agree on a creator who is the supreme being. And taking all the major religions into account the nature of this being is generally similar. if religion is just a stupid silly thing, then how and at what point in our history did it overtake us all?
PCEggo 7 months ago
and if there is a creator, which there is an abundance of evidence in nature to answer yes, then is it possible that he really has spoken to us in the past or that he could speak to us today? of course man is diverse in his ways and can take parts of the original religion and run with it, adding man made stuff on top of it, but there has to be something in some religion somewhere that represents the truth of what our creator has said unto us at one point or another on some subject.
PCEggo 7 months ago
@PCEggo i would love to hear these evidences in nature for a creator
asjefgsyrf42482 7 months ago
@asjefgsyrf42482 there's a hundred books written on the subject, some more credible than others, but a really good one is called Case for a Creator.
PCEggo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PCEggo
It only matters what is said in those books.
None of them offer any evidence, they all repeat the same old long since refuted arguments.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 well there's a circular argument, trying to argue that ID-ists have only circular arguments and logical puzzles to throw at Naturalists.
its not science vs. religion. there are scientists on both sides, and the reason it comes across as only logical arguements and no evidence is because both sides are playing tug of war with the same evidence. when the evidence is up in the air, we use logic to pull it to our side, but we still cite the evidence. its the same on the otherside
PCEggo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PCEggo
"there are scientists on both sides"
Again, it only matters what those 'scientists' actually say and do, not who they are!
"both sides are playing tug of war with the same evidence"
Except for one side uses logic and the other simply misinterprets according to their scripture! One is clearly not science.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@seansalvador1 yep, one is clearly not science. petty stereotyping is far from scientific objectivity.
PCEggo 6 months ago
@PCEggo i just don't understand why scientific beliefs like evolution affect people's religious beliefs. i think many people who don't understand science, basically classify it as another religion and therefore theories, such as evolution, are considered wrong because they are categorized as a belief, when in fact that's not what science promotes at all. btw i'm not asserting that you think this way i'm just saying generally :)
asjefgsyrf42482 6 months ago
@PCEggo btw i realise the stupidity in writing "scientific beliefs" i should have said scientific facts or theories
asjefgsyrf42482 6 months ago
@PCEggo it overtook us from our cognitive beginnings when we sought to answer questions about life and the universe. hearing voices in one's head is easier than philosophically constructing physical analogies based on observable reality.
lloydgar01 7 months ago
@lloydgar01 but there is a movement in naturalism/Darwinism to pin-point the "god-experience" to some sort of gene. Why would we have such a strong pull so seek out deity, especially if we find out it is genetic, if the whole thing is just a stupid? Dawkins argues not only that its silly, but that it doesn't even have any evolutionary value. How then, and why? when the spiritual pull is so universal? it is a "need" that almost every culture recognizes being as real as hunger and thirst.
PCEggo 6 months ago
my point being that godless random chance sure seems to have "designed" us to grope for the creator pretty hard core. kind of stupid if there's no chance in hell that he's acutally there How can there not be something real to it? What if somewhere in the haze of religious claims, something has survived that Deity actually did reveal to man in ancient past? Which and where is beside the point, but there is a scientific obligation to acknowledge the fingerprints of design if it is there.
PCEggo 6 months ago
@PCEggo people like darwin, newton and einstein wanted to find god through science true. it doesn't mean that the point of science as a whole is to either prove or disprove a greater being, that was just the personal drive to some scientists of the past.
as for the spirit: prove to me that there is a universally spiritual pull and we'll continue talking.
lloydgar01 6 months ago
@lloydgar01 well, what do you think of when I say "a universally spiritual pull"? I'll start from there.
yes, I agree with your first statement, but a lot of people think that think themselves "scientific" also think that "atheistic" is a synonym for "scientific." My point is that it is unscientific to close off the possibility like that.
PCEggo 6 months ago
@PCEggo well atheism and science are completely separate things, where the only link between the two is atheism's use of scientific method to justify the idea of there being no god.
also, the possibility of a god or spirit being in existence is based on insubstantial "evidence". no one has ever defined a true theory behind the two, so until or unless that does happen, both will have to be treated as scientifically "factual" as "parallel universes".
lloydgar01 6 months ago
@lloydgar01 yes, but the connection between them is greater than just that. for the last 150 years or so the trend in the realm of science has been dominated by naturalism with an atheistic bias. naturalism is not quite the same as atheism, but naturalism was slowly enthroned as the base foundation for all scientific theory to be built upon by those who became disenchanted with theism especially Christianity.
at the end of the day naturalism is no different from theism with regard to the
PCEggo 6 months ago
fact that no one atheist or otherwise has ever seen into every possible corner of the universe and seen with their own eyes or can say with a perfect knowledge that there can be no God.
and i think there is evdience for God, not just subjective evidence in the lives of believers, and not just logical arguments that argue that scientific evidence favors the theory that there is an intelligent designer, but actual events that occured that lots of people witnessed, documented, and historically...
PCEggo 6 months ago
inarguable. for example Washington wrote in a letter to a friend that there was no reason that we should have won the revolutionary war save god was on our side. when Washington was defending long island, a fog rolled in conveniently enabling the continental army to escape overwhelming odds when it might have been crushed right there. or like in the war of 1812, after the british burned washington but before they attacked Ft. mchenry, a massive storm came out of no where with tornadoes and...
PCEggo 6 months ago
killed many of the british and the winds and rain just utterly wore out the rest and busted much of their equipment. They would have progressed onward in their march against the americans, but they withdrew from DC back to the coast and the americans caught just enough of a break to regroup. these aren't necessarily scientific evidences, but they are historical evidences of a supreme being who intervenes in the affairs of men. i think we ought to look for the same kinds of things in science:
PCEggo 6 months ago
remarkable against all odds cooincidences so that it takes more faith to attribute it to the cosmic lottery than to admit there could be a supreme being of some kind.
sorry don't mean to spam being so wordy.
the was a reason the first few generations of americans believed in manifest destiny, it was because of examples like the ones i shared. they knew, not just had blind faith, but KNEW from where their blessings came. its not all just arrogant backwoods redneck bull honkey.
PCEggo 6 months ago
@PCEggo but you have to understand that in the events you've described there, there are many other factors to take into consideration such as global weather patterns. so in this instance to say that a higher power "may have" been a part of this would be scientifically reasonable. but saying that it's irrefutable evidence just adds a tonne of postulates to the event in question and so it is then considered to be less scientific.
lloydgar01 6 months ago
@lloydgar01 well, i didn't say irrefutable evidence, but evidence none the less. The evidence in cases like these I would say definitely does not scream random chance. and i know the storm that attacked the British in the war of 1812 didn't magically appear defying how storms form, but with a young country's future on the line, wouldn't you say it was a remarkable coincidence that it stopped the British invasion force in their tracks just when it did? and it didn't hurt the Americans at all.
PCEggo 6 months ago
i think all the complex variables to consider is what makes it so amazing.
this one example by itself, yes, is not "irrefutable evidence" its just "evidence". but when stacked up with hundreds of similar examples in history and science, an objective common sense review of the evidence would appear "very strong" that there is an intelligent power being who has his fingerprints both in the creation of our world and in the affairs of mankind from time to time.
PCEggo 6 months ago
*powerful
PCEggo 6 months ago
@PCEggo that is pretty remarkable
lloydgar01 5 months ago
@PCEggo Those events can be interpreted, from an age that was not scientifically educated, as being caused by a God. The more educated humans become, the less they put these events down to a supernatural being.
Religion is an evolutionary trait that every culture in history has created. How can there be 1000 different tribal gods and hundreds of different religions? Because they are man made.
ojideagu 3 months ago
most East Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) is atheist de facto (... they still go to temple and pray ((usually once/twice a year)),,, but it is a part of tradition,,, not part of a religion)
but incredibly they never discuss about atheism although they are atheist de facto... "atheism vs religion/creationism" debate is time wasting....
dfdtdfdx 7 months ago
My biggest problem with Dawkins is not actually what he believes. I agree with much of it. His problem is that he loves to go around insulting people who disagree. He also makes claims about knowing that evolution happened and knowing that there is no god, which is completely contradictory to a scientific mindset. There is always the chance you could be wrong. There will always be people who disagree, but that does not mean they are stupid. They just see things a different way.
dragonfiremalus 7 months ago
@dragonfiremalus Ok, 1: Religious nuts SHOULD be insulted... It's fun and they shouldn't be spared the sharp poke of logic just because they're fragile little things... 2: Evolution DID happen, DOES happen and will continue to happen... Whether this happens after creation or without is neither here nor there... 3: There is NO god in the sense that these religious idiots claim... An ultimate creator, maybe... A very advanced alien race, possibly... But the christian god? Impossible...
champjklccmk 7 months ago
@champjklccmk If you think that people should be insulted, then you will get nowhere. Every piece of evidence we have suggests that Evolution did happen. We can see it happening. But that does not mean that it DID happen. We can never know for sure. None of us were there. It is simply unfounded arrogance that would lead someone to think they could not be wrong. And it is quite possible that there is a god. There is no way that you could know 100% that there is not so don't even try to say so.
dragonfiremalus 7 months ago
@dragonfiremalus So by that logic, you are insinuating that gravity is god's angels pulling us down and keeping us rooted to the earth? Or that the Earth, indeed the universe!, was created in exactly seven days? And so we should follow the bible's decrees no matter how ridiculous they may be? If so my friend, then we are enemies in every sense of the word...
champjklccmk 7 months ago
@champjklccmk ????? When did I ever say that I believe in a young earth? I in fact stated that I don't believe in a young earth when I said I agree with what Dawkins believes. Your comment is absolutely asinine. I agree with what he is saying, but sometimes I disagree with how he says it. I said there might be a god. I in fact don't think there is, but it annoys me when people go around claiming to know one way or the other.
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
@dragonfiremalus In life, if all the evidence points to something having happened, if we should need to act according to whether or not that something happened, then we should act as though it did happen. If every piece of evidence says it happened then, from a scientific world-view it happened. I do agree with your last statement though. however without evidence for a god, i act as though there isnt. doesnt change my behavior much though. atheism=/=no morals. just no church and no guilt fapping
me835 7 months ago
@dragonfiremalus "Every piece of evidence we have suggests that Evolution did happen. We can see it happening. But that does not mean that it DID happen"
Incredible... just incredible (literally, google the word).
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@dragonfiremalus
In science (and everything other than maths) we can only prove things beyond reasonable doubt. Biological evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt, therefore to doubt it is unreasonable.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
@dragonfiremalus The creatards and Christian taliban on the other side do not "disagree". They make up stuff and claim to know the truth without any kind of evidence, without thinking it necessary to present such and indeed making a virtue out of not having any.
If it insults them to point that out so fucking be it.
TomFynn 7 months ago
@dragonfiremalus
Dawkins measures himself as 6.8 out of 7 on a scale of being religious.
He describes himself as "technical agnostic" - he allows for the possibility of a deity but knows that such a possibility is extremely unlikely (we're talking several trillion to one). He values any possible deity equally unlikely.
jazzx251 7 months ago
@dragonfiremalus "he loves to go around insulting people who disagree"
Give me one example.
"knowing that evolution happened [is] contradictory to a scientific mindset"
It is a fact, a scientific fact that animals evolve.
"knowing that there is no god"
He doesn't say that, he says it is as likely as other ambiguous, absurd or radical claims like the existence of fairies, other gods etc.
It always helps to know what you are talking about before wading in.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
There universal becuase people keep finding God, and you keep teaching God's secrets as if they disprove God. Some might call you people mad!
truthseeker010101 7 months ago
@servepartnership
PS
would you like to specifically address any of his points? ...thought not. Diverting attention is just juvenile.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@servepartnership "he is full of subjective theory"
How can a scientific theory be subjective? The whole point is that it is objective. You are talking about the theory of evolution here and i can see that yet again another creationist cannot understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.
"bigoted, arrogant, subjective and full of baseless assumptions"
Bigoted? If you had read a word he had ever wrote then you wouldn't say this...
What 'baseless assumptions'?
seansalvador1 8 months ago 28
@seansalvador1 I agree with Dawkins- although i think what servepartnership is trying to say is that Dawkins interpretations of the theories he presents are biased; that his conclusions are slanted by biases that some people simply do not share. It doesn't make the evidence or the theories "wrong," just some of the conclusions reached from them... At least that's what I thing serve partnership was trying to say
JEMacProductions 7 months ago
@JEMacProductions "It doesn't make the evidence or the theories "wrong," just some of the conclusions reached from them"
This may be a valid argument were it for examples... give me one single example.
You can't. The problem lies in that the whole of the biological community agrees on evolution as a fact and the minutiae of the theory makes no difference to this. It is simply a fact that animals evolve, the theory (like gravity) is simply a description of the mechanism by which this happens.
seansalvador1 7 months ago
@JEMacProductions Dawkins is worthless to me. He is completely ignorant about the BIG questions about the universe and life that I want to know. He is a waist of time. I use to listen to some of his videos trying to get the answers I want but after watching his interview with BenStein (Richard Dawkins/Ben Stein interview) here on YouTube, I gave up on Dawkins. Dawkins doens't know how the universe began, doesn't know how life began and even gave support to Fred Hoyle's panspermia/creation theory
boblackey1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boblackey1
Except he didn't support it in the slightest, he said that it was a 'highly unlikely event' and that if it were so these aliens would 'have to have evolved' if not by Darwinian selection by some equivalent process.
Expelled is a notoriously dishonest 'documentary' and demonstrably so.
Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers so this is a strange comment.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boblackey1
Why do you assume the universe had a beginning? Why do you assume time and energy are finite?
As for life, it is not a dichotomy, the fact that we don't know does not mean god did it, that is a blatant surrender of reason, there exist many plausible hypotheses regarding abiogenesis, that it is an active area of research does in no way validate yours or any other theistic claims.
seansalvador1 6 months ago
Question: Is there an 'adaptive function' to having high social status?
ashbash986 8 months ago
@ashbash986
Of course, what a strange question... you can see no advantage in prestige?
That's why i don't like it.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
lol the little retarded human family have suffering enough..for the last 7000 years they been food for predators at night and slaves of kings by day ..paying taxes and running from hungry predators have teach then to believe in magical gods ..you see when a lion eat your kid but the son of your enemy still alive must be because god hate you..lol so they learn to pray to god for protection ..even rulers learns that people pay more taxes when is god the one asking for it ...
xxxlastmigxxx 8 months ago
See that question should be answered by an psychologist, maybe supported by Richard Dawkins evolutionary knowledge.
allermann1 8 months ago
WATCH THE ARRIVALS!!
pinball281 8 months ago
@pinball281
Seen it.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
God is the "natural" cause of laws.
The abililty to define what is real (intelligence) is the natural cause of laws.
The ability to put facts together (intelligence) is the natural cause of laws.
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
Cause of laws? What kind of laws are you talking about?
seansalvador1 8 months ago
"Something supernatural" what, you mean like reality?
Seriously, anyone who thinks reality is not supernatural is a nut job who lives in their imagination.
The laws of physics are not natural, because they don't physically revolve around each other like the natural objects that they create. And if the laws did revolve around something, what would it be I wonder?
Ignorant people ignore the blatant obvious; the laws of physics are in and of themselves as supernatural as God.
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "anyone who thinks reality is not supernatural is a nut job"
Please qualify that childish statement.
None of your entire comment made any sense in the slightest.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@seansalvador1
Example: Unless gravity follows aero-dynamics and is pulled towards objects of greater mass , it isn't natural because it doesn't follow the laws of physics. thus, Gravity is supernatural.
Please don't treat Gravity like it doesn't need to be held to as high a standard as you hold God. That's not logic, that's hypocrisy.
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
Aerodynamics? Clearly you have no idea what the word means! Itis the study of motions of air, so what has that to do with gravity? I presume you mean quantum electrodynamics.
You are completely incorrect, by the way, it is not a dichotomy.
I do Not believe there exists a god so I don't hold him to any standards.
Objects are attracted to other objects and it is always in the direction of mass.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@seansalvador1
The fact they're not related is the point. Gravity is supernatural to aerodynamics, it would be unnatural if gravity started flowing like air does. Grass is supernatural to an airplane, it would be unnatural for it to start flying like one. EVERYTHING is "supernatural" compared to something else, God would be no different.
"Objects are attracted to other objects..."
According to... The ability to put facts together. (Intelligence).
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
Ah, so the problem here lies in the fact that you do not understand what the word 'supernatural' means!
Supernatural -
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
So no, gravity is not supernatural, nor is grass!
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@seansalvador1
No, the problem here is that you think you can decide what "natural" is, and have imaginary self made limits on what it can or can't be.
Gravity is outside the "natural world" of grass.
Gravity is outside the "natural world" of aerodynamics. It's supernatural compared to it.
PS. About what you said about God before: You're meant to hold things that you don't believe exist to the same standards as the things you do, otherwise you're seriously deluded.
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
Are you seriously suggesting that gravity does not effect grass or aerodynamics? Also, your first comment CONFLATED gravity and aerodynamics! Moron.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@seansalvador1
Are you seriously suggesting that God does not effect grass or aerodynamics or gravity or reality?
And you're calling me a moron?
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheColaGoodfellow
Prove that your god exists. I can prove that gravity effects grass.
seansalvador1 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
comment removed... coward
seansalvador1 8 months ago
@seansalvador1
Seriously, assume what you like about how much of a "coward" I am, you're just deluding yourself like you do with everything else.
I did reply with another comment after I deleted that one, try looking for it
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago