@honolulugator You keep seeking the truth my friend.He will most definitely find you.And your simple question is not so much as a hint of simple.You are asking about God as if you were asking of me, you think a simple question exists in asking of how an almighty God works? I'll let you answer that.
@Ryakki I'm sorry, I didn't know that Richard Dawkins IS a theology expert and therefore has the capability of refuting God based on what God has revealed to humans in science using science to do so, my bad. Craig would completely convert the mind of Dawkins, THAT is why Dawkins refuses to debate, he is not an atheist because he has found the truth, HE is one because he is afraid of it. Tell me how someone from his background, without God in his life, can NOT be wrongly mad at God.
Point 1: Does an ant fully comprehend or is it even capable of understanding things beyond it's mental limits? Are you so arrogant that you think human beings are fully capable of understanding ALL there is? Sure, just because we learn new things everyday in science does not mean our intellect can experience and understand our surroundings without limits.
Point 2: Atheists are negative by nature. They say if god were real, why are there so many unfair and bad things in the world
Simple question: How does God know he's omniscient? Sure, He knows all He knows, but so do I. It could very well be that there is a higher level of reality where His creator resides.
Now, God, being the smartest being possible, would know that possibility. Is God a theist? Does He think that He was created?
If so, why no mention of it?
If not, why should we, being in the same situation He is, believe in a higher reality? Shouldn't we copy the brightest being?
Simply put: This universe did not need a god to exist. This has been proven mathematically multiple times. This, of course, does NOT say a god was not present, only that this superbeing's presence was not needed or indeed useful.
Other dimensions are also mathematically probable (the probability almost reaches 100%).
Simply put: God is possible, but meaningless.
Other dimensions are very probable, and have quite a few scientific repercussions.
@Xgya2000 I agree with some of your points. Although I believe that God is a mystery, in that it is an entity that is beyond our comprehension. God could be a part of the universe? I really don't know. But I do believe that all of everything is a stage created for us. That all the steps taken, big bang--life on earth--human beings, are for our consciousnesses, that for me is the big part of life that is important.
Think about it this way: it seems created because if it was any other way, we wouldn't be there to comment about it.
If you take into account the multiverse hypothesis, every possible universe actually exists. We just happen to live one of the few that can support intelligent life.
I don't have enough ego to think the whole universe is there just for a small speck of dust to have thinking beings on it (nor do I think we are the only thinking species)
@Xgya2000 Just as God did not need to exist, we as well did not. The uncountable amount of steps, taken for us to arrive at this point, is hard to comprehend that it all occurred through randomness. I can easily understand that there are many aspects to Creation (everything that is, all dimensions, universes etc.) that are still beyond our human understanding.
"we as well did not" - If you think of all the possible planets in the universe able to support life identical to our own - we've already discovered 3 in our own galaxy because they are directly passing in front of their star, something pretty uncommon - this leaves out the billions of others in our galaxy, and then the billions of other galaxies. 1 in a billion chances? Very common occurance.
@Xgya2000 Scientists can only speculate that these planet can support life, they have to have faith in their research before they actually find evidence of life. I believe that there maybe other lifeforms on other planets, but some steps have been changed so therefore I doubt that there is human life on other planets.
"can only speculate" - We can detect the traces of liquid water. The exact distance from their star and the heat received. We can even detect presence of oxygen, or plant life.
THEN, you have to take in the multiverse hypothesis (mathematically sound) that basically states that every possible Universe exists. We just happen to be in one of them that can support intelligent life.
Dsouza is the most pesky of all the theists. The athiests negativity is really pronounced during the debates. To all the atheists out there: what is more important? The truth (which is relative anyway since perception is limited no matter how confident you are "right") or happiness. I hope atheists really do find comfort in their meaningless soulless selves, as they believe...
Dawkins is an expert on evolutionary biology. I'm sure he would debate anyone on that specific subject.
Why would he want to debate any expert on, say, theoretical physics, or any subject with which he is not familiar?
Of course, you are probably talking about W L Craig, who is, of course, an expert on making shit up and atrocity justification, which are out of Dawkins' field.
He has debated many of the big guns in theism - must he do them all to satisfy you?
People with fake degrees from unaccredited theological schools who lack understanding of the science involved but pretend to know what they're talking about are not experts. They're annoyances. They're fake experts.
Few reasonable people would lower themselves to the agony of having a conversation with wl craig or some such.
@pointguard11 Yeah right. Dawkins - a *biologist* - is afraid to debate *biology* with someone who doesn't grasp the difference between biology and cosmology.
There is little point in debating people who know nothing - except to publicly humiliate them. If you want to see D'souza humiliated, he's debated Hitchens at least five times and lost each one completely. Look on the DailyHitchens youtube channel to watch it happen. Bring popcorn.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Thanks for the video. D'Souza is a tool. If you watch his debates, it becomes pretty clear that he's not an idiot or ignorant, he's just a liar. He needs to be exposed.
Dsouza stated himself that it was a speculation yet proceeded to attack it as if Dawkins had asserted it, he should have been booed off stage... What a dishonest charlatan
differential equations. The point I'm getting at is that sometimes dumbing down something is required for people to understand the BASIC concept, so in lower chemistry classes one is "lied" to in order to deliver general concepts. So if one hears the dumbed down version and takes it as absolute truth, they are wrong! Preachers and clergy men often times dumb down the bible and people take it as absolute truth. Dinesh dumbed down the quotes and idiots are taking at absolute truth, so sad!
Dinesh, like many other religious people appear to dilute information until it makes sense to the idiots. It reminds me of the first couple of weeks of physical chemistry, where assumptions and poor equations are used to make approximate calculations easy enough for people in the class to understand. Although these assumptions are COMPLETELY wrong, they worked as "decent" "approximations" that have no real world applications. Now to actually get a real life approximation it takes calculus and
I´ve read DSouza´s book "Whats great about christianity" and found it´s conclusions very disappointing and discouraging, especially because the arguments that lead to those conclusions are in general very good and valid. I almost gave up reading it at many points, but those arguments made me give him a chance. I´d recommend it, it´s not a complete waste of time.
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
People who are religious and declare themselves atheists often have in common anthropological view on God,in that defining their restriction and not possible existence out of, defining the word God.So if I see no logic in people believing in Christianity God than God doesn't exist.Why should someone give up believing in what he believes in if it makes him happy if it doesn't make you fulfilled.
That still does not prove that something outside of elements of human restriction does not exist.If there are no prove there are no prove not no existence..Something outside of your understanding is a possibility,for example if i took your wallet and you didn't notice it does not mean i didn't take it.Just like you find emotional fulfillment in reading Richard Dawkins books someone else doesn't but they find fulfillment in Bible and you don't.
I have to say this is a first realistic no anger argument from atheist point of view I heard so far.Why should there be universal belief for everyone,why should you be religious if you believe in God,why should you believe in creationism and not evolution if you believe in God,couldn't God make evolution,why should your God be universal humanity God, why does it have to exist duality,why does God have to be good and not evil, why does God have to care.
Ignorant or to use Dawkins' term "diluded". The same can be said about any belief system including scientific since hypothesis, theories and the like are just that, guesses. That's besides the point. The main point is this: Dawkins' central message is this "abandone your superstition, Ive figured
It out. Abandone Jesus, worship Darwin"...um, no. Darwin has been proven wrong on several points including on his own "irriduacible complexity" rider.
I will admit that whereas I've read D'Souza's book "what's so great about Christianity?" and all I know about Dawkins and Hitchens
is that are two of the most well known proponents of the Atheist movement, one thing always strikes me. Why do Atheists defend their lack of a belief system with so
Much vitriol? Christians for the most at best want everyone to be saved and at worst, just want to be left alone. The most commom
Complaint I hear about Christians from Atheists is that we are either ign
I love Dinesh D'Souza. In a debate with Hitchens, Harris & Dennett he ragged on science pretty heavily, boldly declaring that science has given us nothing! What a pathetic imbecile.
Dinesh D'Souza distort the truth? Of course not. With every breath DD exudes truth. DD is the truth. In fact he's the way and the life too. Ergo DD is Jesus. Ergo DD is God.
@lilsm555 actually, you can. Atheists are so obsessed with their own unbelief that they actually take time out of their day to search for videos that include a topic in which they don't believe. Very irrational if you ask me.
@Seigu007 Just as Jesus would have put it! Bravo mister, you've truly shown me how the religulous are the better people. We unbelievers should be ashamed of ourselves for no believing, like you, in a sadistic pig with no rival. I can no see why worshipping such a monster is a good thing! I thank you. RAmen.
@Seigu007 Oh, right, you're from Arab Emirates. I apologise for mentioning Jesus, I take it you're a pedophile worshipping nut then? That's even better. Its my very favourite religion after the Jesus cult, I simply love the inhumanity and pointless violence of it all. =)
Remember to start with the big stones so your women don't have to suffer needlessly.
@Seigu007 Oh, very good. Wouldn't have thought of a better comeback myself, congratulations.
Srly though, if realising that your fantasies are bullshit means I'm a loser, I'm happy with that. =) Now go away and be a bigot somewhere else or I shall taunt you a second time.
@PeGe90 You are exactly what a coward and a fool should not be. A moron with a keyboard and Internet access. Now run away like the good little God-Hating synchophant that you are. You’re almost as full of Red Herrings, and the begging of questions as you are full of monkey shit.
I think this guy's missing the point. DD is simply pointing out, as he's done before, that Dawkins repeatedly puts forth theories, usually those of another, that lack any real scientific evidence. The point is that these theories are no more credible than the belief in creation. For example, that life may have been seeded by aliens. No evidence, but simply a way to create a seemingly vast amount of evidence against the claims of creation. It's confuscation but not evidence.
@antybu86 He mentioned that Ben Stein said that he believe in little green men. Help me find the original quote that Ben Stein actually said such a thing. I tried to be fair, and honestly I cannot find it. And I will be contented with your proof if you have one. And also I'd be willing to show you my proof that Dawkins is himself guilty of lying and quote mining.
.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Sorry, I only made it to 1:47. He was referring to a sort of survival of the fittest of universes, not biological explanation of infinite universes. Infinite universes, where things can be different so that we can every now and then get ours. It was an analogy by dinesh. And yes, Dawkins does take it on faith that there will be a "darwinian moment" for why our universe exists. Namely, infinitely many, without origin.
1:44 "I'v never heard him claim that biological evolution explains the origin of the universe".
It seems that its the maker of this video who has misheard or intentionality distorted the claim as Dinesh never made such a statement. He states 'natural competition among universes". The inclusion of 'biological' kind of completely distorts the claim and dissolves this video dont you think ?
Why don't you include the clip from Expelled instead of Dawkins' recounting of it to a sympathetic audience? You included the actual quotes from his books but for some reason felt no need to include the scence from Expelled. The only likely reason to do so would be because the actual movie quote tells a different story than Dawkins himself. Let the viewers decide for themselves
@AlwaysRight88 Well to do your research for you /watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc at 3m10sec...
GS: What do you think is the possibility that there is an ID that might turn out to be an answer to some issues in genetics... or darwinian evolution?
RD: It could be that somewhere in the universe an advance civ evolved to a high level of tech & designed a form of life that they seeded onto this planet. (see exogenesis or panspermia on wiki)
BS question doesn't 'fit' the answer that RD gave, it was edited.
Schroedingers cat is either dead or alive, or BOTH, depending on it's state of observation. All things can and MUST occur in the multiverse. The speed of light actually ISN'T constant, various dimensions exists (at vibrational levels), and time can travel backwards as well (and might at the end of the universe).
@ScottMacFie Schroedinger's cat is more a way of thinking about quantum physics than a statement of actual truth (as is a lot of science). As for everything else you say, we may speculate and hypothesize about the universe, but we don't take anything on faith.
D'Souza explicitly accused Dawkins of over-reaching his grasp as a Biologist, by delving into Theoretical Physics, when he did no such thing. There's no need to pick apart the theory; it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that D'Souza dishonestly attributed the theory to Dawkins himself, completely hiding the fact that it was Smolin's theory, and that Dawkins simply found it interesting that it is structured like Darwin's theory.
Dinesh's second claim is in fact true, I heard him say it. dawkins claims that macro evolution doesn't need even one proof because any other idea is simply wrong and being that he's really smart and on his say so you should think this way too, no need for evidence here!
I believe the quote comes from a q and a session when dawkins lets slip his true thoughts on the subject. believe me i was quite shocked at his admission. it is on youtube somewhere... it might even be on his unofficial channel.
@RedLetterChristian How awful when people say stuff like "Dawkins thinks he's so smart you should take his word, no evidence needed!" He has NEVER said anything like that; it's religious folk who accept things on faith w/o evidence. Christians shouldn't bear false witness against their neighbors, didn't you know that?
@ivyshoots i'm telling you that dawkins did basicly say that no evidence was needed to believe in evolution. I just kick myself for not bookmarking the video. it has probably since been taken down due to it being so embarasing. next for crying out loud would you atheists stop thinking that religious people accept things w/o evidence. we do use logic and argumentation just as you do. seeing as how you believe that there is no god(a positive claim), you can't prove. you are equally religious.
@RedLetterChristian "i'm telling you that dawkins did basicly say that..." And I'm telling you he NEVER said it. So who has the burden of proof, you or I? You can kick yourself all you like, it won't help. Even if you find it, it will turn out to be some"Eddington concession" or just a flat-out misconstruing. Stop pretending faith isn't the basis for religious belief. Logic and argumentation aren't substitutes for EVIDENCE; they're tactics for defending faith w/o facts. Apologetics
@ivyshoots first of all you are a fool to believe that you can either prove or disprove that there is a god using scientific method. science has it's bounderies, it's good at explaing how things work but not the why. next dawkins thinks he's all that a a tic tac, but please realise that all of his arguements are rehashed old bad argumentst that don't prove anything. faith - is it more reasonable to believe in god or not that's what it comes down to. how do you justify your faith good sir?
@RedLetterChristian sputters "you are a fool to believe that you can either prove or disprove that there is a god using scientific method." Um, WTF? Having a reading comprehension problem? I addressed your shameful behavior, spreading lies about Dawkins. Period. Where do you get "disprove god" from that? If you can't produce proof that Dawkins ever said, "I'm really smart so believe me w/o evidence" post it or STFU. Otherwise you're bearing false witness and that is a SIN.
@ivyshoots the video was making a claim. i then said that one of those claims was faulse b/c i heard and saw dawkins say otherwise. no i can't prove it to you b/c i didn't make note of the exact video in which he stated his convictions. next one does not have to provide evidence that one saw or heard something, it's called an eye witness testimony. you may doubt that i am telling the truth but you can't say that i'm lying because you can't prove that i am. that's slander, and liable, also a sin
@ivyshoots first off good sir is a form of sirs or to whom it may consern, it is a polite way addressing someone, now someone can be both good and a fool. you have proven yourself to have no knowledge or at least an imperfect knowledge of what science can and can not prove. as for the theory of evolution goes it claims that god is not absolutely nessisary from a strictly materiallist perspective this in NO WAY disproves god. science has proven that you can't get something from nothing.
@ivyshoots the idea that you can get somthing from nothing has been proven time and time again, however this claim that you can get something from nothing underpins evolution, cosmic evolution, which a precursor to biological evolution on this planet. next macro evolution has not in any way ever been proven scientifically, due to a little thing called observation that just so happens to be in the scientific method that is part of the paradime that you are holding up as way to test truth.
@RedLetterChristian Same ignorant creationist LIES. Evolution has NOTHING to do with getting "something from nothing." It just proves you don't know what you're talking about. You have an agenda and are willing to bear false witness against your innocent neighbor in a sick attempt to crush the truth and deny reality. Any religion that forces you to choose between accepting the truth of physical reality or the proven errors in an incorrect ancient text as "fact" is false and evil.
@ivyshoots did you even read my post or did you just jump to conclusions. you should really read it again carefully and slowly this time and realize that i qualified my point about evolution by saying that the evolution of the univerce came first, something from nothing. an atheist black hole if there ever was one. big bang, stuff happens next earth evolution. you should really learn to read a little before going off half cocked. the something from nothing idea is core to the atheist mind set.
@RedLetterChristian I read your bullshit but it's WRONG. The Theory of Evolution is strictly about speciation; it has NOTHING to do with how the universe came into being. "The evolution of the univerce came first, something from nothing" is MEANINGLESS gibberish misusing the word "evolution."
How much bullshit are you gonna post instead of dealing with my one and only point: you smeared Dawkins with a lie you can't back up, yet you refuse to retract it. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
When D'Souza talks about Expelled he completely misrepresents both the question posed to Dawkins and his response to it. Stein pretty clearly asks Dawkins what the possibility that ID turns out to be the answer to some of the mysteries of genetics etc. To which Dawkins answers that if it was an intelligent designer, it would have been a designer which came to be through Darwinian means.
Also, religious believers say that ALL THE TIME: That we should believe in God even if he doesn't exist.
Furthermore, Dawkins was saying that there are philosophical reasons for favoring Darwinian evolution in addition to scientific reasons. Is Dennet a liar? What is wrong with him; he isn't stupid but he constantly misreads his opponents.
Natural selection is not, primarily, about competition. It is about variable reproduction---which involves a number of factors only one of which is competition. Variable reproduction is the part of evolution Dawkins is comparing Smolin's theory to, not competition for resources.
So universes that have rules that maintain them longer may have more offspring, not that they were fighting it out.
Dawkins was drawing an analogy, not saying that it was exactly the same
Natural selection is not, primarily, about competition. It is about variable reproduction---which involves a number of factors only one of which is competition. So universes that have rules that maintain them longer may have more offspring, not that they were fighting it out. Dawkins was drawing an analogy, not saying that it was exactly the same.
So you don't know where Dinesh got his information? So why don't you ask him? Instead of speculating.....Personally, I find what the Athiest believe as the fairytales.
@shanana000 AthEIsm is more of a lack of belief than a belief in itself. Imagine someone who believed in unicorns, pixies etc and new nothing about you asked you if you believed in them, you then respond no and he blurts out 'then I personally find what you believe to be fairytales'..perhaps that will give you a little insight as to why I giggled outloud a little upon reading your comment.
@ChrissyChiChi Thanks for showing me my error in spelling...I love when no it alls do that...as if they aren't human and don't err. You may giggle all you like..I trust you learned that from all your fairtales..because it takes more belief that all that is in the earth, and universe came from nothing. Then believing in a God that works outside of time and space and is eternal.
@shanana000 Im not usually a grammar nazi but the amount of times I have seen Christians spell'atheist' as 'athiest' is astounding, its a mistake which tends to be made by those Christians who have not done much research or thought on atheism and often have no clue of the arguments used...this certainly seems to be the case with you or else you would not have made the point you did here, its an old classic which has been shot down time and time again to the point where most debating christians
@shanana000 do not even bother to bring it up as even they are aware of its ludicrousness.
So let me explain, you are essentially saying believing the universe has no designer is incredibly unlikely due to the extreme complexity of the universe right? So in order to explain this you then invent an invisible omniscient, omnipresent man in the sky who created the universe who must by definition be more complicated than the universe itself (and thus by your own argument less likely to exist) and
@shanana000 yet because you have grown up with people shoving down your throats that he does not need a designer himself you have no issue with believing he came from nothing. We dont know the details of how the universe came to be, but inventing a god who made it from nothing does not answer the question at all, it just leads to a far more difficult being to explain.
Just saying 'god did it' for things the scientific world has yet to uncover is a poor poor argument and is known as the
@shanana000 'god of the gaps' argument, again its an old classic but as science has uncovered more and more about the secrets of our universe this gap continues to get smaller and smaller. It is in our nature to want to find answers to everything, its a thought process we have evolved (for obvious benefits) however as a downside it can mean that when no obvious solution is avaliable the mind jumps to ridiculous things, just look at all the hundreds of thousands of religions throughout the world.
It is so funny that detritus like D'Souza try to attack science. I hope that he understands the the world of science does not even register him. :) He is beyond a joke and more like sad and pathetic. S
That the GOP and the right-wing is intellectually bankrupt is manifestly obvious in its reliance on corporate lapdogs like D'souza - this babbling juvenile is there to fill the vacuum.
That the GOP and the right-wing is intellectually bankrupt is manifestly obvious in its having to rely on corporate lapdogs like D'souza - this babbling juvenile is there to fill the vacuum.
Sometimes wonderful inventions also hold significant detractors.
This is especially true for communications, telephony and the internet.
While the dissemination of information has brought knowledge & enlightenment to remote places of the world it has also allowed for the proliferation and icon-ization of untruths and the bad actors that spread them - like D'Souza, Limbaugh, Coulter, FOX news et al.
hi antybu. i think it's from the ancestors tale, somewhere in the beginning i guess. d'souza misrepresents it of course, as apologetics are known to do. dawkins kinda entertains the idea of the multi-universe hypothesis expressed by linde, while explaining various concepts in it.. i love dawkins, d'zouza is just a fraud who lies to children for a living as hitchens says it..
Dinesh D'Souza is a little bitch, he's trying SO hard to get Dawkin's attention. Dawkins perhaps does not want to debate D'Souza because Dinesh is an ass and has no f^cking manners. It's one thing to ridicule other's arguments with reasoning but D'souza likes name calling; he calls other peoples arguments: Bull-, Diarrhea, idiotic, etc. And every time he tries to defend his point he sounds like a little whiny bitch. F^ck him !
@kdd1228 Exactly. The reason he debates bishops and priests is simple. They are not necessarily trained in apologetics, but it gives him great bang for the buck. People view them as the experts in religion, which is probably true, but they may not be good at debating. That's a separate skill. At the same time, Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig because he knows Craig will win the debate.
@Roper122 well, the point I'm trying to make is that some people like christopher hitchens, richard dawkins, and william lane craig have studied debate, whereas others like priests, bishops, etc. have not necessarily studied debate at all. so they probably just use the same skills they do when having a normal conversation with someone.
@phil8888 ...I honestly don't think Dawkins or Hitchens have studied debating.
It's one of the reasons that the formal debate style rarely works in these situations, you sort of end up with two people making speeches at one another.
funny thing is dinesh d'souza was an advisor for ronald reagon. Who would rip you apart in a debate..thats a fact.. and richard likes to duck and dodge ppl like dinesh and william lane craig..cuz he too would get embarassed..
atleast hitchens takes on all comers..respect to him..
This Dinesh guy is totally obsessed with Dawkins. He doesnt think before he calls someone a liar (Almost in every debate, he accuses the opponent of lying without understanding content for eg debate against Loftus, it was nice to hear him creamed by Erhman). I dont think he will be good in future debates.
Black people are public haired wide nosed ugly gorrilas yuck.
White people are ugly pink pigs that try and be brown but fail brown haired Shiser kopf-shit heads (their mothers shat on their heads when born lol), Blonde haired piss kopf-piss head (their mothers pissed on their heads when born).
Orientals/asians are slant eyed sand cooons who are uglyier than sin and look like cheap chimps-also with wide noses kinda like yellow blackies Yuck!!
that is trouble is that when you let an Indian out of India, he thinks he's a talking snake, the sad truth is that he's indeed a spinning talking snake.
"Not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea..." Just out of curiosity what comes after the ellipsis? Also, this says nothing about Dawkins personal view, simply the view of other physicists. The fact that he advances it at all and says that it is "tantilizing" suggests he gives the theory some form of credibility.
"Not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea..." Just out of curiosity what comes after the ellipsis? Also, this says nothing about Dawkins personal view, simply the view of other physicists. The fact that he advances it at all and says that it is "tantilizing" suggests he gives the theory some form of credibility.
@deweysmith Directly after the ellipsis "...although, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann is quoted as saying: 'Smolin? Is he that young guy with those crazy ideas? He may not be wrong.' "
Also, I'm not sure how simply describing an idea as "tantalizing" lends it credibility. Maybe you could explain that one further. (Although, you're still missing the point that Dawkins was not using biological evolution to describe the origin of the universe, which was what D'Souza claimed)
@antybu86 In the context of your video the quote carry's a different weight than it would had you left it in its entirety. The quote in it's entirety says that while not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea, this award winning physicist, Gell-Mann seems to be. What does this say to Dawkins audience? That they ought to believe to. And to address your second point, certainly you would not address something you found absurd as "tantalizing." It implies that Dawkins at the least
@antybu86 thinks it is an idea with some credibility. D'Souza's point is that atheists like Dawkins, point to multiple universes to try and get around a divine creator, when there is no empirical evidence for such universes. It is therefore an act of faith to believe such universes exist. Though it is not an impossibility that they do, and D'Souza himself acknowledges this, it is still an act of faith. And Dawkins is referring to a "Darwinian variant" on how universes survive. He says so
@antybu86@antybu86 in the quote you cite, then you subsequently explain how in a "Darwinian way" universes that can survive longer produce more black holes etc etc. Unfortunately it's hard to go back and read these and rewrite, as I'm posting as I go, so forgive me if my train of thought gets muddled, but basically I guess I'm not seeing how D'Souza misrepresents Dawkins position. The complete quote seems to suggest that Dawkins believes Smolin's theory, and D'Souza refers to Darwinian
1. Just because it has a Darwinian-like twist does not mean that Darwinian evolution (a biological science) has anything to do with it. Yet D'Souza says (slight paraphrase) "this has gone far afield of what biologists have discovered." This comment of D'Souza's makes no sense whatsoever in the context of what Dawkins is talking about.
2. Dawkins readily states that this hypothesis is not well-accepted. D'Souza doesn't acknowledge this and implies the opposite.
@antybu86 That Dawkins is tantalized by the hypothesis at all suggests he quotes it approvingly as a generalized application of the principle as it has emerged in biology--hence the term 'Darwinian.' Of course, I suppose you could be asserting that something that is Darwinian may have nothing to do with biology. That would be clever, but a bit disingenuous.
@CincinnatusUSA The term tantalizing means he finds it alluring, tempting. The use of the word rather implies, to a fellow skeptic at least, that he would like for it to be true, but isn't buying it without evidence. That's how I read it anyway.
The Darwinian model can be applied to lots of things, from economics to mechanics. That doesn't in any way imply that it's a biological process or has any actual connection to biological evolution. Dawkin's never even implied that it did.
@antybu86 You too are infact taking Dinesh out of context. (1) Dinesh was not stupid enough to accuse Dawkins of saying that the universe follows BIOLOGICAL evolution, instead was ridiculing Dawkins' tendency to accept, without proof, a theory simply because it takes the form of DARWINIAN EVOLUTION concept of the universe. (2) I agree with you on your second complaint. (3) I have been following Dawkins intellectual conduct for some time, and have also found him guilty of quote mining (cont)
@walkingphilosopher I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your first point. Your run-on sentence is not exactly grammatically correct. Are you saying that Dawkins will accept any theory, as long as it is premised on Darwinian evolution? If that is what you are saying than you are obviously mistaken. You need only look at the extensive debates that Dawkins has had with other Darwinian Evolutionists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, over their applications of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
@Fray2221 No, that is not what I meant. I am pointing that out as to what I believe Dinesh was saying. His claim, of course, may or may not be true (For example, your example on the debate with Jay Gould may serve to oppose this claim). But to say that Dinesh was ridiculing him as saying that the universe follows a BIOLOGICAL evolution is a step which I think is too far. Do you get it yet?
@walkingphilosopher Dawkins is not claiming anything. He's not a physicist, he's not qualified to argue in favor of any particular multi-verse theory. He's simply explaining at a very basic level some of the more interesting theories proposed by qualified physicists.Neither, Dawkins or Dinesh, nor you or I are anywhere near qualified to defend or refute any of these models. Obviously when he talks about a parent universe, he is not talking about a literal biological parent, its called an analogy
@Fray2221 "he is not talking about a literal biological parent, its called an analogy" Still you do not get it. Although I am not a big fan of Dawkins to say the least, but I was not directly criticising Dawkins' standpoint in my first post. Rather my criticism is to THIS video because it seems to accuse that DINESH do not understand that Dawkins was making an ANALOGY. You can call him delusional if you wish, but Dinesh is too smart of a guy to not know this. (cont)
@walkingphilosopher As I understand it Dinesh is criticizing Dawkins for applying evolutionary biology to theoretical physics, which is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of what Dawkins said. If I am wrong about this, then maybe you could explain to me the nature of Dinesh's criticism. If he knows that Dawkins is merely making analogy, then what is his problem? I don't know nearly enough about Dinesh to estimate his intelligence, but on this and many other points he is clearly wrong.
@Fray2221 "applying evolutionary biology to theoretical physics" He was criticising Dawkins for being too quick to accept a theory which suits his liking for evolution-like process. Dinesh knew all along it was Lee Smollin who proposed this theory, not Dawkins. His use of jokes, while probably inaccurate, served only to stressed his ridicule of Dawkins. To know Dinesh's intelligence, go to his debate. You may not like them, but I bet you cannot claim that he is not witty, go look him up.
@walkingphilosopher Well, that's exactly the point, Dawkins doesn't just accept Smollin's theory because it fits into his worldview. Its simply an interesting possibility that deserves to be looked into.
@Fray2221 You seem to not get it that I was not specifically claiming about whether or not Dawkins accept Smollin's theory based on reason or world view. *sigh*
@walkingphilosopher I agree that this conversation is going nowhere, and that we appear to be having some difficulty communicating with each other. I really have no idea what your criticism of this video is, or what exactly this video got wrong.
@walkingphilosopher You want to say that in the end, the statement was at least partly meant jokingly. I agree, but i think it is also apparent that Dinesh tries to imply that Dawkins acceptance of evolution goes well beyond what evidence claims, that it was some sort of world view. He makes it look funny in the end, but the goal is to make Dawkins appear as if he was'n't looking at evolution as a scientist, but as a faithful follower. And that, i say, is deception on purpose.
@Duplex0r Likewise, I too agree with your post only in part. I agree that Dinesh was being borderline mischievous here. But again, after seeing his debates and viewpoint, I think he will not be stupid as to make anybody appear to accept evolution based on "faith." Doing so will not serve his purpose. (continue)
@Duplex0r More accurately, from my observation, Dinesh ACCEPTS evolution and have no problem admitting science strongly support this view (NOTE: Hold your horse please, not all religious people disagree with evolution). He was merely saying that Dawkins MISUSED evolution to support his ATHEISTIC view of the world, and interestingly, when confronted with "begining of the universe" issue, he was too eager to support a unproven theory simply because it fit with his own worldview.
D'Souza is an ex indian, a captive of the religous conversion syndrome. who has found home the the right wing that needs some tanning. ;) As for intellect, he has none. A total fraud. Yes he has the ugly white woman too to go with his transvestism. S
Mr Dinesh D'Souza is gullible minded and ignorant man. His naive belief has made him blind. Adolf Hitler was a Roman catholic and Josef Stalin was aspiring to be a priest. They both has Christian upbringing. The Catholics have destroyed many civilizations and killed millions in the name of god. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) was a member of the Hitler Youth. The people who murdered the innocent women and children Rwanda and Burundi were Christians. He should read about 30years of war .
Dinesh D'Souza is an embarrassment.
jacderida 23 hours ago
dude this is the guy that dated ann Coulter..who gives a fuck what he thinks
darrynboodan 2 weeks ago
I don't know who to feel sorrier for, Dinesh, Anne or us.
BunrakukenIII 1 week ago
4:16 all this time Darwin was telling him to do things... xD
OptimalElement 2 weeks ago
@honolulugator You keep seeking the truth my friend.He will most definitely find you.And your simple question is not so much as a hint of simple.You are asking about God as if you were asking of me, you think a simple question exists in asking of how an almighty God works? I'll let you answer that.
soccer1288 4 weeks ago
@Ryakki I'm sorry, I didn't know that Richard Dawkins IS a theology expert and therefore has the capability of refuting God based on what God has revealed to humans in science using science to do so, my bad. Craig would completely convert the mind of Dawkins, THAT is why Dawkins refuses to debate, he is not an atheist because he has found the truth, HE is one because he is afraid of it. Tell me how someone from his background, without God in his life, can NOT be wrongly mad at God.
soccer1288 4 weeks ago
@Ryakki
Point 1: Does an ant fully comprehend or is it even capable of understanding things beyond it's mental limits? Are you so arrogant that you think human beings are fully capable of understanding ALL there is? Sure, just because we learn new things everyday in science does not mean our intellect can experience and understand our surroundings without limits.
Point 2: Atheists are negative by nature. They say if god were real, why are there so many unfair and bad things in the world
honolulugator 1 month ago
@honolulugator
Simple question: How does God know he's omniscient? Sure, He knows all He knows, but so do I. It could very well be that there is a higher level of reality where His creator resides.
Now, God, being the smartest being possible, would know that possibility. Is God a theist? Does He think that He was created?
If so, why no mention of it?
If not, why should we, being in the same situation He is, believe in a higher reality? Shouldn't we copy the brightest being?
Xgya2000 1 month ago
@Xgya2000 Its odd how scientists believe in other dimensions but not in heaven.
UltraEpicLoser 1 month ago
@UltraEpicLoser
Simply put: This universe did not need a god to exist. This has been proven mathematically multiple times. This, of course, does NOT say a god was not present, only that this superbeing's presence was not needed or indeed useful.
Other dimensions are also mathematically probable (the probability almost reaches 100%).
Simply put: God is possible, but meaningless.
Other dimensions are very probable, and have quite a few scientific repercussions.
Xgya2000 1 month ago
@Xgya2000 I agree with some of your points. Although I believe that God is a mystery, in that it is an entity that is beyond our comprehension. God could be a part of the universe? I really don't know. But I do believe that all of everything is a stage created for us. That all the steps taken, big bang--life on earth--human beings, are for our consciousnesses, that for me is the big part of life that is important.
UltraEpicLoser 1 month ago
@UltraEpicLoser
Think about it this way: it seems created because if it was any other way, we wouldn't be there to comment about it.
If you take into account the multiverse hypothesis, every possible universe actually exists. We just happen to live one of the few that can support intelligent life.
I don't have enough ego to think the whole universe is there just for a small speck of dust to have thinking beings on it (nor do I think we are the only thinking species)
Xgya2000 1 month ago
@Xgya2000 Just as God did not need to exist, we as well did not. The uncountable amount of steps, taken for us to arrive at this point, is hard to comprehend that it all occurred through randomness. I can easily understand that there are many aspects to Creation (everything that is, all dimensions, universes etc.) that are still beyond our human understanding.
UltraEpicLoser 4 weeks ago
@UltraEpicLoser
"we as well did not" - If you think of all the possible planets in the universe able to support life identical to our own - we've already discovered 3 in our own galaxy because they are directly passing in front of their star, something pretty uncommon - this leaves out the billions of others in our galaxy, and then the billions of other galaxies. 1 in a billion chances? Very common occurance.
Xgya2000 4 weeks ago
@Xgya2000 Scientists can only speculate that these planet can support life, they have to have faith in their research before they actually find evidence of life. I believe that there maybe other lifeforms on other planets, but some steps have been changed so therefore I doubt that there is human life on other planets.
UltraEpicLoser 4 weeks ago
@UltraEpicLoser
"can only speculate" - We can detect the traces of liquid water. The exact distance from their star and the heat received. We can even detect presence of oxygen, or plant life.
Xgya2000 3 weeks ago
@UltraEpicLoser
THEN, you have to take in the multiverse hypothesis (mathematically sound) that basically states that every possible Universe exists. We just happen to be in one of them that can support intelligent life.
Xgya2000 4 weeks ago
@honolulugator the most imperfect thing ever to come to existence are humans.
UltraEpicLoser 1 month ago
Dsouza is the most pesky of all the theists. The athiests negativity is really pronounced during the debates. To all the atheists out there: what is more important? The truth (which is relative anyway since perception is limited no matter how confident you are "right") or happiness. I hope atheists really do find comfort in their meaningless soulless selves, as they believe...
honolulugator 1 month ago
@honolulugator
There is a pleasure in truth that ignorance can never match. A satisfaction that blind dogmatic acceptance is only a placebo for.
Ryakki 1 month ago
Dawkins can't defend himself. He won't debate specific subjects with experts of that subject. Big name, small claim.
soccer1288 1 month ago
@soccer1288 Have you also read why he doesn't?
foroparapente 1 month ago
@soccer1288
Dawkins is an expert on evolutionary biology. I'm sure he would debate anyone on that specific subject.
Why would he want to debate any expert on, say, theoretical physics, or any subject with which he is not familiar?
Of course, you are probably talking about W L Craig, who is, of course, an expert on making shit up and atrocity justification, which are out of Dawkins' field.
He has debated many of the big guns in theism - must he do them all to satisfy you?
revjimbob 1 month ago
@soccer1288
People with fake degrees from unaccredited theological schools who lack understanding of the science involved but pretend to know what they're talking about are not experts. They're annoyances. They're fake experts.
Few reasonable people would lower themselves to the agony of having a conversation with wl craig or some such.
Ryakki 1 month ago
christianity gave us 1000 years of dark ages...period
ThePseudoBasher 2 months ago
dineshdsouzadotcom/books/enemy-introdothtml
pointguard11 2 months ago
You accuse Dinesh of the same thing that you do. He doesn't blame gays specifically. I think you pulled the joker in your deck of cards.
pointguard11 2 months ago
Dawkins has been avoiding Dinesh D'Souza for a long time. He is afraid to debate D'Souza
pointguard11 2 months ago
@pointguard11 Yeah right. Dawkins - a *biologist* - is afraid to debate *biology* with someone who doesn't grasp the difference between biology and cosmology.
There is little point in debating people who know nothing - except to publicly humiliate them. If you want to see D'souza humiliated, he's debated Hitchens at least five times and lost each one completely. Look on the DailyHitchens youtube channel to watch it happen. Bring popcorn.
KapStuf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dinesh is intellectually superior to these monkeys
Seigu007 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Thanks for the video. D'Souza is a tool. If you watch his debates, it becomes pretty clear that he's not an idiot or ignorant, he's just a liar. He needs to be exposed.
mjt532 3 months ago
dawkins is my messiah
judicum 3 months ago
Dsouza stated himself that it was a speculation yet proceeded to attack it as if Dawkins had asserted it, he should have been booed off stage... What a dishonest charlatan
mehico33 3 months ago
Dinesh D'Souza is really stupid at his argument
hellobal100 4 months ago
differential equations. The point I'm getting at is that sometimes dumbing down something is required for people to understand the BASIC concept, so in lower chemistry classes one is "lied" to in order to deliver general concepts. So if one hears the dumbed down version and takes it as absolute truth, they are wrong! Preachers and clergy men often times dumb down the bible and people take it as absolute truth. Dinesh dumbed down the quotes and idiots are taking at absolute truth, so sad!
scuntpunter420 4 months ago
Dinesh, like many other religious people appear to dilute information until it makes sense to the idiots. It reminds me of the first couple of weeks of physical chemistry, where assumptions and poor equations are used to make approximate calculations easy enough for people in the class to understand. Although these assumptions are COMPLETELY wrong, they worked as "decent" "approximations" that have no real world applications. Now to actually get a real life approximation it takes calculus and
scuntpunter420 4 months ago
Dinesh starts every debate with "I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony, where do I begin?".
kaduisaui 4 months ago
GREAT VIDEO, thanks for posting. :)
cptmuska 4 months ago
nice video ;D
freiheitsalv 5 months ago
I´ve read DSouza´s book "Whats great about christianity" and found it´s conclusions very disappointing and discouraging, especially because the arguments that lead to those conclusions are in general very good and valid. I almost gave up reading it at many points, but those arguments made me give him a chance. I´d recommend it, it´s not a complete waste of time.
ThePhilosorpheus 5 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 5 months ago
People who are religious and declare themselves atheists often have in common anthropological view on God,in that defining their restriction and not possible existence out of, defining the word God.So if I see no logic in people believing in Christianity God than God doesn't exist.Why should someone give up believing in what he believes in if it makes him happy if it doesn't make you fulfilled.
hapobelle 5 months ago
That still does not prove that something outside of elements of human restriction does not exist.If there are no prove there are no prove not no existence..Something outside of your understanding is a possibility,for example if i took your wallet and you didn't notice it does not mean i didn't take it.Just like you find emotional fulfillment in reading Richard Dawkins books someone else doesn't but they find fulfillment in Bible and you don't.
hapobelle 5 months ago
I have to say this is a first realistic no anger argument from atheist point of view I heard so far.Why should there be universal belief for everyone,why should you be religious if you believe in God,why should you believe in creationism and not evolution if you believe in God,couldn't God make evolution,why should your God be universal humanity God, why does it have to exist duality,why does God have to be good and not evil, why does God have to care.
hapobelle 5 months ago
God-haters are born again losers
Seigu007 5 months ago
Ignorant or to use Dawkins' term "diluded". The same can be said about any belief system including scientific since hypothesis, theories and the like are just that, guesses. That's besides the point. The main point is this: Dawkins' central message is this "abandone your superstition, Ive figured
It out. Abandone Jesus, worship Darwin"...um, no. Darwin has been proven wrong on several points including on his own "irriduacible complexity" rider.
Mongoose2210 6 months ago
I will admit that whereas I've read D'Souza's book "what's so great about Christianity?" and all I know about Dawkins and Hitchens
is that are two of the most well known proponents of the Atheist movement, one thing always strikes me. Why do Atheists defend their lack of a belief system with so
Much vitriol? Christians for the most at best want everyone to be saved and at worst, just want to be left alone. The most commom
Complaint I hear about Christians from Atheists is that we are either ign
Mongoose2210 6 months ago
I love how creationists always jump to cosmology. It's so predictable.
ThePurpleSeahorse 6 months ago
I love Dinesh D'Souza. In a debate with Hitchens, Harris & Dennett he ragged on science pretty heavily, boldly declaring that science has given us nothing! What a pathetic imbecile.
Rarae192 6 months ago
Misleading title. I expected a Dinesh D' Souza video. Not your own "expert" analysis.
NameforYouT 6 months ago 2
Disort D' Newsa strikes again
smutyhouse 6 months ago
Dinesh D'Souza distort the truth? Of course not. With every breath DD exudes truth. DD is the truth. In fact he's the way and the life too. Ergo DD is Jesus. Ergo DD is God.
imshippyupup 7 months ago
religious people are pathetic.
lilsm555 7 months ago
@lilsm555 You God-haters deserve to be lined up and shot. Youre a worthless corpse. Nothing more.
Seigu007 7 months ago
@Seigu007 I cant hate what doesnt exist.
lilsm555 7 months ago
@lilsm555 actually, you can. Atheists are so obsessed with their own unbelief that they actually take time out of their day to search for videos that include a topic in which they don't believe. Very irrational if you ask me.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
@AegeanKing wrong.
lilsm555 7 months ago
@Seigu007 Just as Jesus would have put it! Bravo mister, you've truly shown me how the religulous are the better people. We unbelievers should be ashamed of ourselves for no believing, like you, in a sadistic pig with no rival. I can no see why worshipping such a monster is a good thing! I thank you. RAmen.
PeGe90 6 months ago
@Seigu007 Oh, right, you're from Arab Emirates. I apologise for mentioning Jesus, I take it you're a pedophile worshipping nut then? That's even better. Its my very favourite religion after the Jesus cult, I simply love the inhumanity and pointless violence of it all. =)
Remember to start with the big stones so your women don't have to suffer needlessly.
PeGe90 6 months ago
@PeGe90 sore loser
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Oh, very good. Wouldn't have thought of a better comeback myself, congratulations.
Srly though, if realising that your fantasies are bullshit means I'm a loser, I'm happy with that. =) Now go away and be a bigot somewhere else or I shall taunt you a second time.
PeGe90 3 months ago
@PeGe90 You are exactly what a coward and a fool should not be. A moron with a keyboard and Internet access. Now run away like the good little God-Hating synchophant that you are. You’re almost as full of Red Herrings, and the begging of questions as you are full of monkey shit.
Seigu007 3 months ago
I think this guy's missing the point. DD is simply pointing out, as he's done before, that Dawkins repeatedly puts forth theories, usually those of another, that lack any real scientific evidence. The point is that these theories are no more credible than the belief in creation. For example, that life may have been seeded by aliens. No evidence, but simply a way to create a seemingly vast amount of evidence against the claims of creation. It's confuscation but not evidence.
FRWHELAN 7 months ago
@antybu86 He mentioned that Ben Stein said that he believe in little green men. Help me find the original quote that Ben Stein actually said such a thing. I tried to be fair, and honestly I cannot find it. And I will be contented with your proof if you have one. And also I'd be willing to show you my proof that Dawkins is himself guilty of lying and quote mining.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
Comment removed
ozzylad71 9 months ago
Sorry, I only made it to 1:47. He was referring to a sort of survival of the fittest of universes, not biological explanation of infinite universes. Infinite universes, where things can be different so that we can every now and then get ours. It was an analogy by dinesh. And yes, Dawkins does take it on faith that there will be a "darwinian moment" for why our universe exists. Namely, infinitely many, without origin.
MPaulHolmes 10 months ago
be quiet! D'Souza rocks! And you can't accept it. Go home.
RAZZp00 10 months ago
@RAZZp00 D'Souza and Naik are on my shitlist of "utterly dishonest" apologists. In a sense he rocks, in a liars world- he's a rock star!
DesiFreethinkers 10 months ago
Anyone who thinks Dawkins is a great thinker needs to think again......HA!!!!
dannywizz 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you read all of dawkin's books?
sgprailfan 11 months ago
1:44 "I'v never heard him claim that biological evolution explains the origin of the universe".
It seems that its the maker of this video who has misheard or intentionality distorted the claim as Dinesh never made such a statement. He states 'natural competition among universes". The inclusion of 'biological' kind of completely distorts the claim and dissolves this video dont you think ?
sh3rv 11 months ago
Why don't you include the clip from Expelled instead of Dawkins' recounting of it to a sympathetic audience? You included the actual quotes from his books but for some reason felt no need to include the scence from Expelled. The only likely reason to do so would be because the actual movie quote tells a different story than Dawkins himself. Let the viewers decide for themselves
AlwaysRight88 1 year ago
@AlwaysRight88 Well to do your research for you /watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc at 3m10sec...
GS: What do you think is the possibility that there is an ID that might turn out to be an answer to some issues in genetics... or darwinian evolution?
RD: It could be that somewhere in the universe an advance civ evolved to a high level of tech & designed a form of life that they seeded onto this planet. (see exogenesis or panspermia on wiki)
BS question doesn't 'fit' the answer that RD gave, it was edited.
Azz151515 9 months ago
Schroedingers cat is either dead or alive, or BOTH, depending on it's state of observation. All things can and MUST occur in the multiverse. The speed of light actually ISN'T constant, various dimensions exists (at vibrational levels), and time can travel backwards as well (and might at the end of the universe).
Yet, God is taken on "faith" ???
ScottMacFie 1 year ago
@ScottMacFie Schroedinger's cat is more a way of thinking about quantum physics than a statement of actual truth (as is a lot of science). As for everything else you say, we may speculate and hypothesize about the universe, but we don't take anything on faith.
coltharpnicholas 10 months ago
D'Souza explicitly accused Dawkins of over-reaching his grasp as a Biologist, by delving into Theoretical Physics, when he did no such thing. There's no need to pick apart the theory; it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that D'Souza dishonestly attributed the theory to Dawkins himself, completely hiding the fact that it was Smolin's theory, and that Dawkins simply found it interesting that it is structured like Darwin's theory.
ivyshoots 1 year ago
Dinesh's second claim is in fact true, I heard him say it. dawkins claims that macro evolution doesn't need even one proof because any other idea is simply wrong and being that he's really smart and on his say so you should think this way too, no need for evidence here!
I believe the quote comes from a q and a session when dawkins lets slip his true thoughts on the subject. believe me i was quite shocked at his admission. it is on youtube somewhere... it might even be on his unofficial channel.
RedLetterChristian 1 year ago
@RedLetterChristian How awful when people say stuff like "Dawkins thinks he's so smart you should take his word, no evidence needed!" He has NEVER said anything like that; it's religious folk who accept things on faith w/o evidence. Christians shouldn't bear false witness against their neighbors, didn't you know that?
ivyshoots 1 year ago
@ivyshoots i'm telling you that dawkins did basicly say that no evidence was needed to believe in evolution. I just kick myself for not bookmarking the video. it has probably since been taken down due to it being so embarasing. next for crying out loud would you atheists stop thinking that religious people accept things w/o evidence. we do use logic and argumentation just as you do. seeing as how you believe that there is no god(a positive claim), you can't prove. you are equally religious.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian "i'm telling you that dawkins did basicly say that..." And I'm telling you he NEVER said it. So who has the burden of proof, you or I? You can kick yourself all you like, it won't help. Even if you find it, it will turn out to be some"Eddington concession" or just a flat-out misconstruing. Stop pretending faith isn't the basis for religious belief. Logic and argumentation aren't substitutes for EVIDENCE; they're tactics for defending faith w/o facts. Apologetics
ivyshoots 9 months ago
@ivyshoots first of all you are a fool to believe that you can either prove or disprove that there is a god using scientific method. science has it's bounderies, it's good at explaing how things work but not the why. next dawkins thinks he's all that a a tic tac, but please realise that all of his arguements are rehashed old bad argumentst that don't prove anything. faith - is it more reasonable to believe in god or not that's what it comes down to. how do you justify your faith good sir?
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian sputters "you are a fool to believe that you can either prove or disprove that there is a god using scientific method." Um, WTF? Having a reading comprehension problem? I addressed your shameful behavior, spreading lies about Dawkins. Period. Where do you get "disprove god" from that? If you can't produce proof that Dawkins ever said, "I'm really smart so believe me w/o evidence" post it or STFU. Otherwise you're bearing false witness and that is a SIN.
ivyshoots 9 months ago
@ivyshoots the video was making a claim. i then said that one of those claims was faulse b/c i heard and saw dawkins say otherwise. no i can't prove it to you b/c i didn't make note of the exact video in which he stated his convictions. next one does not have to provide evidence that one saw or heard something, it's called an eye witness testimony. you may doubt that i am telling the truth but you can't say that i'm lying because you can't prove that i am. that's slander, and liable, also a sin
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian watch?v=3XdIG4jUkzg&feature=related
PS When you open with "you are a fool" and close with "good sir" do you know what that makes you? A H Y P O C R I T E
(BTW I'm not a sir but I am very good)
ivyshoots 9 months ago
@ivyshoots first off good sir is a form of sirs or to whom it may consern, it is a polite way addressing someone, now someone can be both good and a fool. you have proven yourself to have no knowledge or at least an imperfect knowledge of what science can and can not prove. as for the theory of evolution goes it claims that god is not absolutely nessisary from a strictly materiallist perspective this in NO WAY disproves god. science has proven that you can't get something from nothing.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@ivyshoots the idea that you can get somthing from nothing has been proven time and time again, however this claim that you can get something from nothing underpins evolution, cosmic evolution, which a precursor to biological evolution on this planet. next macro evolution has not in any way ever been proven scientifically, due to a little thing called observation that just so happens to be in the scientific method that is part of the paradime that you are holding up as way to test truth.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian Same ignorant creationist LIES. Evolution has NOTHING to do with getting "something from nothing." It just proves you don't know what you're talking about. You have an agenda and are willing to bear false witness against your innocent neighbor in a sick attempt to crush the truth and deny reality. Any religion that forces you to choose between accepting the truth of physical reality or the proven errors in an incorrect ancient text as "fact" is false and evil.
ivyshoots 9 months ago
@ivyshoots did you even read my post or did you just jump to conclusions. you should really read it again carefully and slowly this time and realize that i qualified my point about evolution by saying that the evolution of the univerce came first, something from nothing. an atheist black hole if there ever was one. big bang, stuff happens next earth evolution. you should really learn to read a little before going off half cocked. the something from nothing idea is core to the atheist mind set.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian I read your bullshit but it's WRONG. The Theory of Evolution is strictly about speciation; it has NOTHING to do with how the universe came into being. "The evolution of the univerce came first, something from nothing" is MEANINGLESS gibberish misusing the word "evolution."
How much bullshit are you gonna post instead of dealing with my one and only point: you smeared Dawkins with a lie you can't back up, yet you refuse to retract it. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
ivyshoots 9 months ago
When D'Souza talks about Expelled he completely misrepresents both the question posed to Dawkins and his response to it. Stein pretty clearly asks Dawkins what the possibility that ID turns out to be the answer to some of the mysteries of genetics etc. To which Dawkins answers that if it was an intelligent designer, it would have been a designer which came to be through Darwinian means.
WhereTheGoodNamesAt 1 year ago
Also, religious believers say that ALL THE TIME: That we should believe in God even if he doesn't exist.
Furthermore, Dawkins was saying that there are philosophical reasons for favoring Darwinian evolution in addition to scientific reasons. Is Dennet a liar? What is wrong with him; he isn't stupid but he constantly misreads his opponents.
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Natural selection is not, primarily, about competition. It is about variable reproduction---which involves a number of factors only one of which is competition. Variable reproduction is the part of evolution Dawkins is comparing Smolin's theory to, not competition for resources.
So universes that have rules that maintain them longer may have more offspring, not that they were fighting it out.
Dawkins was drawing an analogy, not saying that it was exactly the same
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Natural selection is not, primarily, about competition. It is about variable reproduction---which involves a number of factors only one of which is competition. So universes that have rules that maintain them longer may have more offspring, not that they were fighting it out. Dawkins was drawing an analogy, not saying that it was exactly the same.
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
Religion is based on the fear of death, nothing else.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Far too many ifs in ALL religions for it to interest me !
naybobdenod 1 year ago
So you don't know where Dinesh got his information? So why don't you ask him? Instead of speculating.....Personally, I find what the Athiest believe as the fairytales.
shanana000 1 year ago
@shanana000 AthEIsm is more of a lack of belief than a belief in itself. Imagine someone who believed in unicorns, pixies etc and new nothing about you asked you if you believed in them, you then respond no and he blurts out 'then I personally find what you believe to be fairytales'..perhaps that will give you a little insight as to why I giggled outloud a little upon reading your comment.
ChrissyChiChi 1 year ago
@ChrissyChiChi Thanks for showing me my error in spelling...I love when no it alls do that...as if they aren't human and don't err. You may giggle all you like..I trust you learned that from all your fairtales..because it takes more belief that all that is in the earth, and universe came from nothing. Then believing in a God that works outside of time and space and is eternal.
shanana000 1 year ago
@shanana000 Im not usually a grammar nazi but the amount of times I have seen Christians spell'atheist' as 'athiest' is astounding, its a mistake which tends to be made by those Christians who have not done much research or thought on atheism and often have no clue of the arguments used...this certainly seems to be the case with you or else you would not have made the point you did here, its an old classic which has been shot down time and time again to the point where most debating christians
ChrissyChiChi 1 year ago
@shanana000 do not even bother to bring it up as even they are aware of its ludicrousness.
So let me explain, you are essentially saying believing the universe has no designer is incredibly unlikely due to the extreme complexity of the universe right? So in order to explain this you then invent an invisible omniscient, omnipresent man in the sky who created the universe who must by definition be more complicated than the universe itself (and thus by your own argument less likely to exist) and
ChrissyChiChi 1 year ago
@shanana000 yet because you have grown up with people shoving down your throats that he does not need a designer himself you have no issue with believing he came from nothing. We dont know the details of how the universe came to be, but inventing a god who made it from nothing does not answer the question at all, it just leads to a far more difficult being to explain.
Just saying 'god did it' for things the scientific world has yet to uncover is a poor poor argument and is known as the
ChrissyChiChi 1 year ago
@shanana000 'god of the gaps' argument, again its an old classic but as science has uncovered more and more about the secrets of our universe this gap continues to get smaller and smaller. It is in our nature to want to find answers to everything, its a thought process we have evolved (for obvious benefits) however as a downside it can mean that when no obvious solution is avaliable the mind jumps to ridiculous things, just look at all the hundreds of thousands of religions throughout the world.
ChrissyChiChi 1 year ago
Yeah Lane Craig, another frekin idiot who claims that religon has more proof than science. No wonder religion is in the mess that it is in! S
StyngRay1 1 year ago
It is so funny that detritus like D'Souza try to attack science. I hope that he understands the the world of science does not even register him. :) He is beyond a joke and more like sad and pathetic. S
StyngRay1 1 year ago
All hail Dawkins!
Kill in the name of no god!
Slay those who insult nothing!
phocjame 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins should have the nerve to debate William Lane Craig. Then again, he knows he would get crushed.
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888 " Richard Dawkins should have the nerve to debate William Lane Craig "
Really?
Gee... even the creator of this video has destroyed Craig...
Why should Dawkins bother?
Craig's a snake oil salesman who refuses to debate plenty of people.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Who has he refused to debate?
The fact is Dawkins is scared to debate Craig.
phil8888 1 year ago
Comment removed
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
- Who has Craig refused to debate??
Jaco Gericke, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, John Loftus, Matt Dillahunty
Wow.. his list is longer than Dawkins.. he must be really scared.
We could equally run down a list of people who have debated Craig and won.
Or if you prefer I could give a you a list of youtubers who have decimated his arguments?
After all, debates are one thing, but having your arguments destroyed upon reflection, is another.
Roper122 1 year ago
@phil8888
Yep, because science and true are about rhetorical "crushings"
bbree333 1 year ago
I wish I could debate Dinish D'Souza. I am absolutely confident I could own him in a public debate (not that it would be hard.)
LockardKevin 1 year ago
That the GOP and the right-wing is intellectually bankrupt is manifestly obvious in its reliance on corporate lapdogs like D'souza - this babbling juvenile is there to fill the vacuum.
newfoundart 1 year ago
That the GOP and the right-wing is intellectually bankrupt is manifestly obvious in its having to rely on corporate lapdogs like D'souza - this babbling juvenile is there to fill the vacuum.
newfoundart 1 year ago
Dawkin's is not a messiah for the simple reason that atheist do not believe in any messiah
Melpheos1er 1 year ago
Great video. D'Souza is, to use the scientific parlance, an absolute fucking plum!
IDrinkYourMilkshake8 1 year ago
I believe Dinesh D'Souza is a closet homosexual. My proof? He dated Ann Coulter.
EvilTube2007 1 year ago
Sometimes wonderful inventions also hold significant detractors.
This is especially true for communications, telephony and the internet.
While the dissemination of information has brought knowledge & enlightenment to remote places of the world it has also allowed for the proliferation and icon-ization of untruths and the bad actors that spread them - like D'Souza, Limbaugh, Coulter, FOX news et al.
Nice job.
Candyliz2003 1 year ago
This guys is the dumbest person ever to have written for Forbes, not because of this, but his articles on Obama
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
hi antybu. i think it's from the ancestors tale, somewhere in the beginning i guess. d'souza misrepresents it of course, as apologetics are known to do. dawkins kinda entertains the idea of the multi-universe hypothesis expressed by linde, while explaining various concepts in it.. i love dawkins, d'zouza is just a fraud who lies to children for a living as hitchens says it..
carryall69 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza is a little bitch, he's trying SO hard to get Dawkin's attention. Dawkins perhaps does not want to debate D'Souza because Dinesh is an ass and has no f^cking manners. It's one thing to ridicule other's arguments with reasoning but D'souza likes name calling; he calls other peoples arguments: Bull-, Diarrhea, idiotic, etc. And every time he tries to defend his point he sounds like a little whiny bitch. F^ck him !
allegromarcato 1 year ago
Good vid.
I guess Smolin is speculating about what goes on inside a black hole, since it has a singularity in there.
"and I just wanted to add that D'Souza has apparently dated Ann Coulter. So, take that for whatever it's worth."
Dinesh is gay?
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
richard dawkins is a fraud and a coward...he will never put the money where his mouth is...he only debates bishops, priest and sunday school teachers
kdd1228 1 year ago
@kdd1228 Exactly. The reason he debates bishops and priests is simple. They are not necessarily trained in apologetics, but it gives him great bang for the buck. People view them as the experts in religion, which is probably true, but they may not be good at debating. That's a separate skill. At the same time, Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig because he knows Craig will win the debate.
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888 " but they may not be good at debating. That's a separate skill. "
Exactly!!
And well done for admitting that...
Debating is a skill, a skill that WLC had practised for years and years with very little deviation.
Unfortunately some people seem to equate skill in debating with being right.
However in the cold light of day some arguments fall apart
( as the above clip shows with D'Souza )
But at least you're honest enough to admit that Craig is all about the debate.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 well, the point I'm trying to make is that some people like christopher hitchens, richard dawkins, and william lane craig have studied debate, whereas others like priests, bishops, etc. have not necessarily studied debate at all. so they probably just use the same skills they do when having a normal conversation with someone.
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888 ...I honestly don't think Dawkins or Hitchens have studied debating.
It's one of the reasons that the formal debate style rarely works in these situations, you sort of end up with two people making speeches at one another.
Roper122 1 year ago
funny thing is dinesh d'souza was an advisor for ronald reagon. Who would rip you apart in a debate..thats a fact.. and richard likes to duck and dodge ppl like dinesh and william lane craig..cuz he too would get embarassed..
atleast hitchens takes on all comers..respect to him..
kdd1228 1 year ago
This is one of my favourite D'Souza clips.
So refreshing to see someone actually take the time to show exactly how he misrepresents Dawkins ( among others )
Roper122 1 year ago
This Dinesh guy is totally obsessed with Dawkins. He doesnt think before he calls someone a liar (Almost in every debate, he accuses the opponent of lying without understanding content for eg debate against Loftus, it was nice to hear him creamed by Erhman). I dont think he will be good in future debates.
pobanmanu 1 year ago
how funny, dawkins never favorized the idea of universes that try to survive...its not even his theory...what a dumbfuck
Serpico261 1 year ago
watch?v=3bgBg8N9sAU&playnext_from=TL&videos=2ZeHUoDV6YM&feature=sub
FIDESetRATIOihtys 1 year ago
isnt this the guy who wants the christians to team up against the moderate Muslims to form some sort of anti-atheist/liberals team?
angrydead 1 year ago
Black people are public haired wide nosed ugly gorrilas yuck.
White people are ugly pink pigs that try and be brown but fail brown haired Shiser kopf-shit heads (their mothers shat on their heads when born lol), Blonde haired piss kopf-piss head (their mothers pissed on their heads when born).
Orientals/asians are slant eyed sand cooons who are uglyier than sin and look like cheap chimps-also with wide noses kinda like yellow blackies Yuck!!
Indians Only good looking race on earth period!!
SOLFEACE 1 year ago
@SOLFEACE lol. first indian that I've ever seen that was this racist.
phil8888 1 year ago
that is trouble is that when you let an Indian out of India, he thinks he's a talking snake, the sad truth is that he's indeed a spinning talking snake.
0orangepeel0 1 year ago
Great video. You just earned yourself another subscriber :)
dashpowers22 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea..." Just out of curiosity what comes after the ellipsis? Also, this says nothing about Dawkins personal view, simply the view of other physicists. The fact that he advances it at all and says that it is "tantilizing" suggests he gives the theory some form of credibility.
deweysmith 1 year ago
"Not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea..." Just out of curiosity what comes after the ellipsis? Also, this says nothing about Dawkins personal view, simply the view of other physicists. The fact that he advances it at all and says that it is "tantilizing" suggests he gives the theory some form of credibility.
deweysmith 1 year ago
@deweysmith Directly after the ellipsis "...although, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann is quoted as saying: 'Smolin? Is he that young guy with those crazy ideas? He may not be wrong.' "
Also, I'm not sure how simply describing an idea as "tantalizing" lends it credibility. Maybe you could explain that one further. (Although, you're still missing the point that Dawkins was not using biological evolution to describe the origin of the universe, which was what D'Souza claimed)
antybu86 1 year ago 8
@antybu86 In the context of your video the quote carry's a different weight than it would had you left it in its entirety. The quote in it's entirety says that while not all physicists are enthusiastic about Smolin's idea, this award winning physicist, Gell-Mann seems to be. What does this say to Dawkins audience? That they ought to believe to. And to address your second point, certainly you would not address something you found absurd as "tantalizing." It implies that Dawkins at the least
deweysmith 1 year ago
@antybu86 thinks it is an idea with some credibility. D'Souza's point is that atheists like Dawkins, point to multiple universes to try and get around a divine creator, when there is no empirical evidence for such universes. It is therefore an act of faith to believe such universes exist. Though it is not an impossibility that they do, and D'Souza himself acknowledges this, it is still an act of faith. And Dawkins is referring to a "Darwinian variant" on how universes survive. He says so
deweysmith 1 year ago
@antybu86 @antybu86 in the quote you cite, then you subsequently explain how in a "Darwinian way" universes that can survive longer produce more black holes etc etc. Unfortunately it's hard to go back and read these and rewrite, as I'm posting as I go, so forgive me if my train of thought gets muddled, but basically I guess I'm not seeing how D'Souza misrepresents Dawkins position. The complete quote seems to suggest that Dawkins believes Smolin's theory, and D'Souza refers to Darwinian
deweysmith 1 year ago
@deweysmith
1. Just because it has a Darwinian-like twist does not mean that Darwinian evolution (a biological science) has anything to do with it. Yet D'Souza says (slight paraphrase) "this has gone far afield of what biologists have discovered." This comment of D'Souza's makes no sense whatsoever in the context of what Dawkins is talking about.
2. Dawkins readily states that this hypothesis is not well-accepted. D'Souza doesn't acknowledge this and implies the opposite.
antybu86 1 year ago 7
@antybu86 That Dawkins is tantalized by the hypothesis at all suggests he quotes it approvingly as a generalized application of the principle as it has emerged in biology--hence the term 'Darwinian.' Of course, I suppose you could be asserting that something that is Darwinian may have nothing to do with biology. That would be clever, but a bit disingenuous.
CincinnatusUSA 1 year ago
@CincinnatusUSA The term tantalizing means he finds it alluring, tempting. The use of the word rather implies, to a fellow skeptic at least, that he would like for it to be true, but isn't buying it without evidence. That's how I read it anyway.
The Darwinian model can be applied to lots of things, from economics to mechanics. That doesn't in any way imply that it's a biological process or has any actual connection to biological evolution. Dawkin's never even implied that it did.
PanWolven 1 year ago
@antybu86 You too are infact taking Dinesh out of context. (1) Dinesh was not stupid enough to accuse Dawkins of saying that the universe follows BIOLOGICAL evolution, instead was ridiculing Dawkins' tendency to accept, without proof, a theory simply because it takes the form of DARWINIAN EVOLUTION concept of the universe. (2) I agree with you on your second complaint. (3) I have been following Dawkins intellectual conduct for some time, and have also found him guilty of quote mining (cont)
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your first point. Your run-on sentence is not exactly grammatically correct. Are you saying that Dawkins will accept any theory, as long as it is premised on Darwinian evolution? If that is what you are saying than you are obviously mistaken. You need only look at the extensive debates that Dawkins has had with other Darwinian Evolutionists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, over their applications of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Fray2221 8 months ago
@Fray2221 No, that is not what I meant. I am pointing that out as to what I believe Dinesh was saying. His claim, of course, may or may not be true (For example, your example on the debate with Jay Gould may serve to oppose this claim). But to say that Dinesh was ridiculing him as saying that the universe follows a BIOLOGICAL evolution is a step which I think is too far. Do you get it yet?
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher Dawkins is not claiming anything. He's not a physicist, he's not qualified to argue in favor of any particular multi-verse theory. He's simply explaining at a very basic level some of the more interesting theories proposed by qualified physicists.Neither, Dawkins or Dinesh, nor you or I are anywhere near qualified to defend or refute any of these models. Obviously when he talks about a parent universe, he is not talking about a literal biological parent, its called an analogy
Fray2221 8 months ago
@Fray2221 "he is not talking about a literal biological parent, its called an analogy" Still you do not get it. Although I am not a big fan of Dawkins to say the least, but I was not directly criticising Dawkins' standpoint in my first post. Rather my criticism is to THIS video because it seems to accuse that DINESH do not understand that Dawkins was making an ANALOGY. You can call him delusional if you wish, but Dinesh is too smart of a guy to not know this. (cont)
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher As I understand it Dinesh is criticizing Dawkins for applying evolutionary biology to theoretical physics, which is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of what Dawkins said. If I am wrong about this, then maybe you could explain to me the nature of Dinesh's criticism. If he knows that Dawkins is merely making analogy, then what is his problem? I don't know nearly enough about Dinesh to estimate his intelligence, but on this and many other points he is clearly wrong.
Fray2221 8 months ago
@Fray2221 "applying evolutionary biology to theoretical physics" He was criticising Dawkins for being too quick to accept a theory which suits his liking for evolution-like process. Dinesh knew all along it was Lee Smollin who proposed this theory, not Dawkins. His use of jokes, while probably inaccurate, served only to stressed his ridicule of Dawkins. To know Dinesh's intelligence, go to his debate. You may not like them, but I bet you cannot claim that he is not witty, go look him up.
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher Well, that's exactly the point, Dawkins doesn't just accept Smollin's theory because it fits into his worldview. Its simply an interesting possibility that deserves to be looked into.
Fray2221 8 months ago
@Fray2221 You seem to not get it that I was not specifically claiming about whether or not Dawkins accept Smollin's theory based on reason or world view. *sigh*
walkingphilosopher 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher I agree that this conversation is going nowhere, and that we appear to be having some difficulty communicating with each other. I really have no idea what your criticism of this video is, or what exactly this video got wrong.
Fray2221 8 months ago
@walkingphilosopher You want to say that in the end, the statement was at least partly meant jokingly. I agree, but i think it is also apparent that Dinesh tries to imply that Dawkins acceptance of evolution goes well beyond what evidence claims, that it was some sort of world view. He makes it look funny in the end, but the goal is to make Dawkins appear as if he was'n't looking at evolution as a scientist, but as a faithful follower. And that, i say, is deception on purpose.
Duplex0r 7 months ago
@Duplex0r Likewise, I too agree with your post only in part. I agree that Dinesh was being borderline mischievous here. But again, after seeing his debates and viewpoint, I think he will not be stupid as to make anybody appear to accept evolution based on "faith." Doing so will not serve his purpose. (continue)
walkingphilosopher 7 months ago
@Duplex0r More accurately, from my observation, Dinesh ACCEPTS evolution and have no problem admitting science strongly support this view (NOTE: Hold your horse please, not all religious people disagree with evolution). He was merely saying that Dawkins MISUSED evolution to support his ATHEISTIC view of the world, and interestingly, when confronted with "begining of the universe" issue, he was too eager to support a unproven theory simply because it fit with his own worldview.
walkingphilosopher 7 months ago
he is such a tard, I dont htink he could find pussy at a whorehouse !
S
StyngRay1 1 year ago
@StyngRay1 clever
phil8888 1 year ago
D'Souza is an ex indian, a captive of the religous conversion syndrome. who has found home the the right wing that needs some tanning. ;) As for intellect, he has none. A total fraud. Yes he has the ugly white woman too to go with his transvestism. S
StyngRay1 1 year ago
@StyngRay1 enlightened ad hominems
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888 Well if it the suits fits, especially considering there is no argument on his side other than in his own head. :) S
StyngRay1 1 year ago
Mr Dinesh D'Souza is gullible minded and ignorant man. His naive belief has made him blind. Adolf Hitler was a Roman catholic and Josef Stalin was aspiring to be a priest. They both has Christian upbringing. The Catholics have destroyed many civilizations and killed millions in the name of god. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) was a member of the Hitler Youth. The people who murdered the innocent women and children Rwanda and Burundi were Christians. He should read about 30years of war .
arumugamyau 1 year ago
I disagree with D`Souza on nearly everything, but some comments here strike me as racist and I would like to voice my concern about those comments.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978 It's the internet. People make racist comments simply to get a rise out of people... best to just ignore it.
antybu86 1 year ago 2