Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
im glad there are alot of inteligent people living in america like you guys..thank goodness.. keep fighting against these religious nut jobs that force rubbish and fairy tales onto all of us...good luck...friend from UK
He isn't indoctrinating them with the theory of evolution, he is indoctrinating them with the philosophy of Darwinism. Except that they are probably already indoctrinated. So he is just there to reinforce the philosophy, using his credibility as a way to further the agenda of Darwinism. And look at all of the people falling in line. Let's make fun of the opposition instead of addressing their critiques. Dick Douchekins.
My dear Fox,I do not suppose you will have heard of our bitter and cruel loss. Poor dear little Annie, when going on very well at Malvern, was taken with a vomiting attack, ...........which carried her off in ten days. Thank God, she suffered hardly at all, and expired as tranquilly as a little angel. ........... Poor dear little soul. Well it is all over
Dude, I for one can't even read your homepage because of all that weird "family tree" stuff plastered all over the background; so do me a favor, will ya? Summarize the proof for me.
Actually I think Dawkins is ignorant of cultural diversity. Having read the God delusion I noted that he was quite ascerbic about tribal cultures and seemed to have the same unnerving disrespect for them that Christians display. He clearly didn't value them at all. As I have an anthropological background I found this less than endearing.
he treats them with no more or less respect than any other religion. Religion has little to no value to civilization as a whole and in many cases is a detriment.
So Dawkins thinks it is just fine and dandy to destroy an indigenous culture in the name of an arbitrary definition of what is civilized ? Doesn't that mean that any criticism he makes of Christianity destroying civilizations in the New World are a bit hypocritical ? Clearly their culture had no value, and the people were hostile religious fanatics, so when the Church puts them to the sword, they are doing the world a favor ? This cultural ignorance is a tacit support for genocide.
absolutely not, Dawkins says that indigenous RELIGIONS have the same worth to society as Christianity, which is none. Cultures can survive easily without their indigenous religions, just look at Europe.
Your example shows your ignorance of secular humanism. The church is not in any way doing the world a favor because they themselves are acting on religious beliefs to justify immoral acts. It is of no worth to destroy a culture, but religion can be destroyed without casualties, cultures cannot.
I am well acquainted with secular humanism thank you, and I support it, except when it is prepared to take away an indigenous person's cultural identity, of which indigenous religion is a large part and often inseparable from their culture and traditional way of life. I support Dawkins on most points, but not on that one. There his ignorance is uncomfortably clear.
@formless: doesn't that position of yours qualify as cultural relativism? Wouldn't that equate to saying, "it's only wrong from a certain perspective..."?
Well why not ? Legal systems throughout the world are governed by cultural relativisim. There is no truly objective standard for morality either, as philosophy has pretty much established after centuries of bickering. It is also hypocritical for atheism to decry the Church's attacks on tribal societies and their beliefs when atheism would seek to do no different. Consider the ethics of cannibalism for example, objectively it is wasteful not to eat the dead, but few cultures endorse it.
@formless777L That's really interesting. I had thought that most atheists were also consequentialists and leaning towards relativism, whereas theists inclined to absolutist ethics ("it's wrong because the bible says so").
Do you think that it is possible to make a statement of the form, "it is absolutely wrong to do this"? Are there suitable axioms from which you could deduce such a statement?
I think the right of a culture to believe what it likes even if it's wrong is quite important....
I am inclined to take the Boolean logic approach to absolutes. Any proposition which falls into the area of an absolute is meaningless. Anything which applies equally in all cases is logically irrelevant by definition, as meaning lies in context and absolutes have no defining context because they have been reduced to a universal context which is universally irrelevant.
...while at the same time, if you have a strong moral objection to behavior that is acceptable in a given culture, you should by all means argue against it. Perhaps you will convince them, perhaps they will convince you. But to initiate force on the basis of such a moral disagreement might just be one of those things that is *always* wrong. The British interaction with the old Hindu custom of sati comes to mind.
There's a consequentialist in every deontologist and vice versa :-).
I agree with this statement dkt80, no culture exists in a vacuum, and they must learn to deal with other cultures they come into contact with, even if their attitudes sometimes clash. However, I do object to cultures seeking to actively destroy other cultures, such as the Spanish, the Russians and the Church etc. have done.
And yes, consequence is ever at the heart of morality. Can it really be otherwise ?
I am well aware of the value of the separation of Church and State and support it wholeheartedly Wraithofvolsunga. What you have to understand is that there are many cultures where there is no delineation between what is religion and what is ordinary life. You are laboring under the misapprehension that humans are all fundamentally alike, I am explaining that other cultures don't even have the same conception of what constitutes being a human. You can't be reductionist about this issue.
In the modern western culture that has controlled most of the civilized world for a few centuries, there is really only one moral "absolute"; something that advances mankind as a species is right, and something that retards advancement is wrong. That is a simple thing that anyone can get behind. Religion has been shown to be a member of the latter, regardless of what religion. be it the Catholic church, or the tribal worship of an isolated culture. Without gods, we can accomplish so much more.
A single moral absolute ? Whose ? Consider, does having red hair advance the species or retard it ? If having red hair has no survival value, shouldn't we sterilize gingers, or kill them by that logic ? We know that Social Darwinism dealt in absolutes like that and became a driving force behind NAZIsm. Consider, the problem with the philosophy of meritocracy is who decides what is considered merit. There are no such objective absolutes and absolutes are meaningless in any case.
Thanks for cluing me in to the humorous work of Mike Godwin, I hadn't bumped into him before :D
You say cultural identification is divisive, but given what happens to people who encounter a technologically superior people and wind up relocated to a mud brick shanty with no sanitary facilities and no source of income with their way of life destroyed by bulldozers and fire, I'd question whether this "unification" you speak of is a worthwhile pursuit for anybody.
indigenous "religions" as you call them, are based on a concept so far removed from what Dawkins has an understanding of, which is spirituality, he should just STFU about it.
If the spirituality of an indigenous culture has no irrational superstitious beliefs and does not think less of those who are not of their culture, then Dawkins, or any humanist, would obviously have no problem with them. When their beliefs hold others in their group back from learning and knowledge, then there is a problem. Every human is born with the inalienable right to the pursuit of knowledge. When any religious or spiritual belief denies one that right, there is a problem in that culture
There are 250,000 American Indians left alive today. Your belief system, which has joined hands with Christianity in this regard, is within reach OF the TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF A CULTURE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU....You should feel very very proud in your accomplishment. Let me ask, do you also claim to be intelligent???
No, humanists are not on the same side as Christians, Christians are just as guilty of superstition and irrational beliefs as any religion and should be dealt with accordingly.
In almost every culture in the world, their religion can be removed whilst still keeping the rest of their culture (secular Jews for example). It doesn't matter whether a religion is in the majority (Christianity, Islam) or the minority (Animism, paganism) their superstitions are still equally harmful to its members.
Do not be so arrogant as to presume to tell me what my beliefs are. I am interested to know what aspects of "Darwinism" you find superstitious. While Darwin himself may have had some superstitions (he was a theist), he succeeded in keeping that separate from his scientific observations, which is the only thing we really care about today.
"Judgmental know it all"? Knowledge is a GOOD thing. Knowledge is one of the few things you can judge people on. Don't be a Luddite.
In what way are they mythologies? It is a fact that those most fit to survive in an environment are the most probable to succeed at doing so. It's basic logic, not mythology.
And I'm not sure what you're saying so far as racial superiority goes; I mean, asides from the absurdity of calling it "Darwinism" to begin with, which is some pathetic attempt to equate it to religion.
Darwinism is a philosophy, coined by proponents of Darwin back in the day. Don't blame me, blame them. Darwinism has much to do with survival of the fittest, an idea that can be shown to be largely incorrect. It isn't the survival of the fittest, it's just the survival of those that survive. It's called chance, you should probably consider it in your own world view, considering that it hinges upon it for a rational foundation.
fail. You need to go look up the concept of probability. Not all chances are equal.
Natural selection is not incorrect at all. It is not a guarantee that the fittest will survive in any one situation; however, those who are better adapted to their environment have a HIGHER PROBABILITY of survival. When you're talking about the HUGE time spans involved in evolution (millions and millions of generations) those things add up.
I agree with everything you are saying up until the very last phrase. What is adding up? Mutations? Don't you understand? In the junk dna are many mutations, they are a history of genetic information that the cell doesn't normally express. There is definitely a history there, not of common descent, but of the tale of a particular species or population.
Mutations are that which helps species adapt to changing environments. If an animal has a mutation that causes it to have greater hair growth, and suddenly for some reason the climate becomes a lot colder, it has a greater chance of survival (and thus propagation). That mutation will be passed onto its offspring.
Whilst most mutations aren't so directly beneficial or obvious, they do happen. It has been speculated that such a mutation is responsible for homosapiens brains.
Which Darwinism do you mean? The use of the word in England, which is synonymous with evolutionary theory, or the version used by Spencer? I'm assuming you mean the Spencer version as he also coined the term "survival of the fittest." Charles Darwin did not use that term, as it is technically a tautology. Regardless, no one here is a Darwinist in that sense, and neither is Dawkins.
It's impossible to listen to Dawkins and not see at least undertones of Darwinism (not necessarily limited to Spencer) in his philosophical presuppositions. So it really doesn't matter if we call him a Darwinist or not. I just use Dawkins as an example because his ideas are often copied and redistributed within the the thinking of other atheists who believe the same things about life and evolution.
Can you give me specific examples of this? I see no evidence for what you are claiming at all, but I am willing to re-evaluate my position if given a clear example.
It's interesting that Dawkins himself refers to Darwinism as "religion", although I am not sure how much of that is sarcasm coming through. Dawkins and probably most evolutionary biologists hold a gene-centered view. This is Darwinist at it's core, even though Darwin himself was unaware of genes. When it comes to the actual science, statements are carefully weighed I think. But when it comes to antagonizing religion, Dawkins reverts to Darwin speak.
Specific examples please. Also, the gene centered view is just a way to approach evolutionary problems. It's is no more or less "Darwinist" than any other approach.
Specific example - Eugenie Scott's active campaign to teach biological evolution from the Darwinian perspective (one small example). The gene centered approach is Darwinian in the sense that it points to genes as the primary mode of change, where everything else is subordinate to genetic determinism.
Eugenie Scott? You're supposed to be giving me examples that concern Richard Dawkins. Also, and this is really, really weird, did you know that one of the leading opponents of the gene-centered view, evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, has been quoted as saying "Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian" when discussing this topic? Exactly how is the gene centered view Darwinian in the Spencer sense?
Dawkins is essentially doing the same thing as Eugenie Scott. The difference is that Dawkins will favor looking at other evolutionary points of view in certain circles. So the selfish gene is non-Darwinian? So what is it? I thought it was an expansion of Mendel and Darwin. What you are asking me is difficult to answer. The gene centered view resembles Darwin's ideas about slight modifications that can be inherited.
Also, back to Spencer, I'm still trying to figure out why you chose him. Although he tried to apply Darwin's ideas to many other aspects of philosophy and science, he didn't coin the term Darwinism or purposefully promote it as such (at least not that I am aware of). Have you read Darwinism in the Stanford Ency of Phil? It's an interesting read.
Perhaps I am, but the point remains that the key element to always remember is natural selection. That is the important factor of Darwinism. The role of natural selection, and it's supremacy in evolution continues to be held by many biologists.
Yes, let's go with that. I think natural selection is what makes Darwinism so appealing. It proposes an explanation as to where apparent design comes from, if it is indeed true that natural selection is the driving force of evolution. The problem I see in looking at all of the various aspects and functions of living things, is that natural selection has little to do with the evolution of biological systems, but more to do with which systems have been "allowed" to exist.
OK, then you are still wrong. Dawkins is not a Darwinist at all. No evolutionary biologist is. You should read about the modern evolutionary synthesis.
How am I wrong? Dawkins emphasizes the importance of natural selection acting on random variation, does he not? Isn't that the ever prevailing mainstream explanation as to how evolution occurs in a very broad sense?
You're missing a very important distinction. Darwin thought that natural selection was the only factor at work. We know a lot more now. So to say that someone is a Darwinist is to say that that person thinks that natural selection is the only factor involved in evolution. Dawkins has written enough books on the subject indicating the contrary that it is absurd to label him a Darwinist.
I've been previously informed by several people that Dawkins believes that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution. Either there is a disconnect between public affairs and the actual intellectual discourse of certain scientists, or there are a bunch of agenda driven idiots on the internet who want to keep natural selection in the lime light for what ever reason. Either way, I don't think you are being fair in your assessment.
It is very important. It might even be accurate to call it the primary mechanism. But it doesn't work without the other mechanisms. Did you read about the modern evolutionary synthesis? There is a short article on it on wikipedia. And how am I not being fair in my assessment?
I have read about the modern synthesis, I've even read about the more recent "synthesis". But it would do me good to refresh. The point I was trying to make seems to have been lost, that is why I said you weren't being fair. But perhaps that's not true. Just curious, why are you defending Dawkins (and most biologists today) against being labeled as Darwinist?
I have an aversion to things that are untrue. Why are you trying to label them as Darwinists when they clearly are not? At least not in the sense that you mean. What's the point?
The point is the truth. Maybe they really aren't Darwinists. But the fact remains that Darwinian ideas continue to rule philosophically. This implicit Darwinism, at least on a surface level, empowers people to embrace a false view of evolution for "other than scientific" reasons.
I really don't see anything wrong with the idea of natural selection. It's remarkably simple, yet has so much explanatory power. How could it possibly lead to a false view of evolution?
Natural selection is a great idea, and it appears to be an actual phenomenon. But do we attribute the multitude of living species (past and present) to it's actions upon random variations, or is there "more" to the story? Does that "more" (perhaps I am begging the question, but it can't be helped) force us to look at life and it's evolution in a different way? Most people aren't even aware that these questions are continually being asked by many scientists.
Selective environmental pressure is the factor that drives speciation. So the answer to your question is yes. Mutations that have no real benefit in one environment may offer a statistically higher advantage in another environment. And obviously, deleterious mutations tend to select themselves out.
I wish the American Indians could reclaim America. But they won't because they aren't pieces of shit like most of us who have been absolutely emasculated by western culture.
When I say reclaim, I mean culturally, I don't mean a military take over. They couldn't even if they wanted to. But Darwinism, atheism, fundamentalist FALSE Christianity, secular humanism, all of these western modes of thought are pure poison, but listen to the stupid arrogant masses laugh as they go quietly into the night while nature and spirituality are completely destroyed.
There is no "American Indian culture" as a whole, there are hundreds. The only thing they have in common is that they were in the Stone Age until Europeans came. I would be skeptical of any culture that would preclude its people from discovering metallurgy until 10,000 years after the rest of the world.
Define "Spirituality". It's a stupid word because it can mean anything the person wants it to, it carries no information. Nature is not always good. Stop being a Luddite.
Why does the term spirituality need a rigid definition? That is the whole beauty of it, it's expansive and largely subjective. Why would I want to be a technological control freak and wage war on human culture? We have no respect for other points of view. We think our technology makes us superior, but we don't have a clue about who we are or what reality is.
To the contrary, we DO know who we are and what reality is. We know to pretty exact specifications. Refusing to accept it on the grounds on willful ignorance doesn't unsolve the mysteries we've unraveled. Technology doesn't make us superior, us being "superior" makes our technology. Your relativism makes it clear that you have no comprehension of social and cultural constructs. Get it out of your head that technology and culture are somehow incompatible. They enrich eachother.
Oh, you are hilarious! At first I thought you were being serious. I was going to say something about how incredibly ignorant & arrogant is such a statement. I was going to explain about logical fallacies, like False Analogy, & about how criticizing the self-serving narrow-minded state legislature is not "destroying" an "indigenous culture". I wanted to say how absurd such "poor little victim me" statements are, but then I realized you're joking & mocking those fearful little people
Not quite. My point is, if atheism lacks respect for indigenous cultures because they are superstitious, it is not a false analogy to suggest that the Church showed a similar disregard for them. I am not suggesting that atheism has destroyed any indigenous cultures (though I know that doctrinal atheism in the USSR damaged indigenous Siberian cultures), I am suggesting that there is an intrinsic value to these societies which cannot be dismissed with reductionist claims of superstition.
I attended this lecture and i had a good time (got one of my friends to come down to Norman for it), despite the fact that the family in front of me had little girls who were playing throughout. I'm glad some people brought their children though. He was on the point as usual, and he certainly made our idiot representatives look like the asses they are.
I've just read through a number of the responses here and on similar videos. My question is why do the righteous seem to think that they are in well enough with god that they can abuse their fellows with such impunity? "suck cock"? Is that the best they can do?
The only people impressed by that I wouldn't have as carpet.
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This Dawkins guy is so sly. Ask him what he wants out of life and his answer will be "Truth", Then ask him about 9/11 and the lying old bastard will tell you 19 hijackers did it. His bezzie mate the evil Randi runs the main 9/11 'debwunking' site. It is where all the toxic cockroaches (paid shills) congregate. Dirty bastards. I spit on the lot of them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Richard Dawkins is an NWO tool. He has hypnotized so many sheeple with his vile books. He is also a friend of James Randi, a despicable, evil little shill. These two fuckers will HANG with the rest of the monsters when it all kicks off. Wake up and see through charlatans such as Dawkins, at your earliest convenience.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
because he assumes that if anything can not be wraped up by his limited mind it is not rational and therefore not non existing. he is creating a Soviet style arrogance towards the Spiritual realm and trying to replace a basic human need with sad mistakenly conceived rationalism. He is emboding the nearly opposite of the Dark Ages - Soviet lite.
you are uneducated, oblivious, ignorant and self-righteous. he isnt against spirituality, he is against religiosity. and you're just another brainwashed kid who cant stand criticism of the bible.
you believers cant be argued because you make impossible claims. IT BECAME GODS WRITTEN WORD. no. it didnt. yyou have no proof. you cant just claim it and expect a thinking person to put trust into you.
here, let me make an impossible claim:
a 10foot horned unicorn killed jesus while he was on the cross. he sucked out all his blood and therefore became god. all praise the unicorn of justice and peace and love. you know, it is actually the unicorn who carved out the bible with his horn.
no it is about seeking and finding the truth. it becomes the Word when it begins working in my heart and changes my ways for good. It becomes the Word when I get blessed and succeed beyond my previously wildest imagination. It becomes Word of God when assessed, compared against all other creeds and human experience and life and found absolutely relevant, helpful, soothing, needed, guiding, comforting illuminating.
Dawkins and yourself do not interprete it correctly.
I have no problem with accepting your belief. You are free to believe that his word is in your heart, and all that shit. But once you come out with it, and say that existentially, scientifically, morally and hitorically GOD exists, I must defend reality. Sure god can exist within you. That spirituality I cannot deny. What I must deny is the existence of god in reality and in my own heart, but not in your heart. Your delusion is circular and foolproof.
trust me all external and internal evidence leads towards the conclusion that there is God. Well "rhere is" is not a correct expression but these are the weaknesses of the language.. God is everywhere and we and all else dwell in HIm and are in Him. believing in God is the most reasonable conclusion one can make but I cant within 500 characters lead you there. you tell me why you dont believe and then we can have some debate
ok, let's go. why do you believe in god? believing in such a huge thing requires only a few words, if you are so confident, you'd need less than 500 characters. so, why believe in the biblical god who is all caring, listens to your prayers but has a divine unalterable plan? reasons please.
the plan is generally unalterable but we fill in the details
one reason to believe - the ultimate cause could be matter or higher intelligence
I choose the second because there is obvious design in the world which can not be emulated by blind watchmaker ie just happens. it is counterintuitive
Wow, you believe in ID. Intelligent design isnt even science. Sorry, I'm not going to lower myself to argue with such pathetic ideas on such a low intellectual level. Just google or youtube some vids about it. Thanks.
PS. A giant unicorn intelligently designed the world. It is obvious, because there are many sharp things in life. Just like its horns.
I am evangelical christian so I believe in ID. The catholics accept evolution. why? because they see God's guidance and sustenance in the process of the evolution. whether by the means of evolution as they believe or by other higher means as I believe God did it and the only alternative to that is a great accident. dont write off ID on basis of propaganda videos. its more intelligently challenging than any other idea of beginning. I hope a coherent theory will come out soon
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sinprelic, you are a complete wally. Science = the new religion. It's the new opiate for the sheeple masses. You look up to Gods, except your 'Gods' are lying shits like Dawkins. You have failed in life. Make sure you get the swine flu vaccinations. Dipshit.
I asked you a question you simple little man. Do you believe in the Occult, now answer it. I have read your answers and you come across as being as thick as two short plants.
@accidentsinspace. I've just come across your contributions here. You obviously can't hide your brilliant education. Not only is your language absolutely elegant, you also seem to have a profound knowledge of science and philosophy. All this makes you so convincing.
instead of acting like a self-righteous 8 year old who's lived in the ghetto too long, how about you tell me how old you are? otherwise, the assumption that i make sir, is that you are of age 8. you will be deemed incommunicable and i will stop responding to your impressive remarks about evolution, the myths of higher powers and philosophy.
I am so embarrassed to be an American. After traveling overseas, I know that I am lumped in with all of the stupid people in this country, which, I am afraid to say, may even be a majority.
You should not be allowed to vote unless you pass a test. Seriously, in my opinion it is not a right to vote, it is something that needs to be earned, through demonstrating that you have at least a basic understanding of the world and the true effects your decisions will have on yourself and others.
I haven't traveled and experienced embarrassment, I feel it having never left the country. I'm 21 and I can realize that things are getting ridiculous. Within my lifetime I have seen a change in people and the general attitude.
Man, its true and its sad. And not only that it's embarrassing, but its also more dangerous. Americans are more of a target overseas than anyone else, and before Bush this wasn't the case. We were respected and adored. Its like before they kidnapped you becuz they wanted you to marry their daughter. Now they want to kill you and put it on the internet.
And we really have no ground to stand on. I tell people I'm from my friends town in Canada sometimes, just so Im not bothered or worse.
Dawkins need to hit EVERY campus in the USA, especially Liberty U.
I got this from their online course catalog just a few weeks ago, for Biology :
'There is a strong emphasis on God as the Creator of our world.'
This is disingenuous and fraudulent to the students who attend or plan on attending this learning 'institution'. The accrediting body, who's job it is to keep this school licensed, needs to address this craziness immediately. We should bombard this group with mail to address this.
keepitreals you spelled intelligence wrong. and multiple other words. also a pandemic is a spread of infectious disease not by a bunch of missing fruit. your probably not the best person to be talking about intelligence.
im more free thinking than any you mofos , cuz i dont know what to think, but ill excwpt whatever makes the most sense not because i wanna believe someshit .
"atheism is anything but free thinking in its nature"
Perhaps not. Its depend son how you define free. If by free you mean "with no standards for evidence" then yeah... its not at all free thinking.
"you don't have a clue about scientific thought"
What led you to believe this? Because, like every other scientist in the world I believe in the onus of proof to back ones assertions? Lack of evidence for a claim means a "weak claim". That's how science works. I get it. You however dont at all.
"My point is quite simple. A religious argument can never be won. the pro and cons of a possible diety can't be proven nor disproven by the empiricism or the SM."
Invisible Flying monkeys holding strobe lights are real. Prove me wrong. Oh no contrary evidence? I guess the SM can't disprove them.
unless... of course...lack of evidence IS disproof....
yeah. that.Get it?
And as for religion or metaphysics, why even waste your time with such nonsense?
Atheism isn't thinking at all. It's ignoring ancient mythical rubbish. This is the same basic cognitive fallacy you need to make to think that an atheists' dogma exists. If you assume without evidence, you're lying with the best pokerface that evolution could possibly grant you.
invisable flying monkeys you dumb ass. i know they dont exist i cna prove you wrong because we would have a pandemic of missing bananas and other food. we would feel them hitting use. are they mute we would hear them. is there shit invisible. or do they not eat at all . get the fuck out of hear with your sudo-intelegence
My point is quite simple. A religious argument can never be won. the pro and cons of a possible diety can't be proven nor disproven by the empiricism or the SM. And if you are going to try to use philosophy, philosophers have been debating the god question from Thales to Sartre with arriving at a finite conclusion. So if anyone says that they have definitive proof that there is or is not they are lying. It is all subjective. Religion relies on faith, based on only subjective evidence, and...
atheists have nothing to base their belief upon if they flatly claim there is no god. It's all in the interpretation.
American Atheists claim there is no God. They have zero objective evidence. Religious people are in the same boat. Their statements are based on faith subjective, circumstancial evidence. So if Dawkins is infering from science that no god exists, he is only guessing.
The SM method is great for its intended use and it does work. But science is an entirely different epistemology than religion or metaphysics, and it has no application there(or at least not in the same form used in science).
"The idea that man's is the highest intelligence in the universe is improbable to me."
Dude, noones arguing that.
WE are arguing that next step in retarded logic. What step you say?
"There may (emphasis on may) be a god"
(heres the retarded step..right here don't miss it)
soo THEREFORE! JEsus is real, miracles are real, sin is real, satan is real, he rose fom the dead, he walked on water, fucking DEMONS are real angels are real, hell is real (you're gonna burn in it), and the bible is true
BAHAHAHA QUOTE OF THE YEAR: "Atheistic group think"... that's what we call an oxymoron, look it up. Religion is where you go when you're looking for group think. Atheism is a LACK of belief, not a belief. Try this quote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are entitled to your beliefs, but your reasoning is an ad hoc form of reasoning and you use ad hominem arguing to validate your claims, which means that you are unable to argue your point. Atheists live in a box and anything outside that box does not exist for them because they cannot see,smell,taste,hear, nor feel evidence of anything outside the box. That's atheist logic in a nutshell. That's atheist group think and that's what is being propagated by your mentors.
I think you're finally getting it. It's ignorance that is the real enemy. Anyone who stands by and listens to someone creating an aura of bigotry, no matter the message is ignorant.
There were so many "there's no God"-scientists with a cool accent, but they have all died while Christian faith still remains. So Mr Dawkins, good luck with your theory of randomlution, but you will fail for sure. The only sad thing is that some will actually believe in the lies you say during your charades...
Yes, all those scientists, those unbelieving heretics from Galileo, to Einstein, to Hawking.... they died. They were all human, and all humans die. Yet thanks to the unenlightened masses such as yourself Bronze Age myths (from people who would have considered the wheel barrel to be an emerging technology) are allowed to persist. Ask yourself this: why do 93% of the body of American scientists believe there is no personal god? Do you know something that they don't? Please share
haha you call Americans elite of the world. America is a new Babylon if you ask me. Biblical phropechies are being fulfilled in case you didnt notice. for example polution of the nature and 2 big wars. watch and you will see that very soon there will be an obligation for everyone to have a chip in his/her hand which is the mark of the beast, described in the Bible.
Well, you are wrong about both Galileo and Einstein. Galileo was a Catholic, Einstein believed in an impersonal god. Also Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, and Newton to name a few, believed. My advice to you is that if you want your ideas respected, you need to be respectful of others. Too many people are aware of the damage to humanity that atheistic governments have done to this world- the soviets, the chinese communists, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Romania, Poland, Tibet, etc.
Science is based solely on empirical data. Epistemologies such as psychology, metaphysics, philosophy,etc. are not. TYhat means that science is very limited in what it can infer AND has NO capacity to make any assertion about an intelligent creator. Atheism is anything but free thought and atheists have every right not to believe, but have absolutely no basis to condemn and ridicule others for their beliefs.
Galileo "believed" in a time when heresy meant certain death thanks to the Catholic church's "respect for other faiths". Einstein used the word god to mean what is unknown, he was quite clearly an atheist. I respect your ideas only so far as I respect that you have the right to have them. Do I respect your beliefs as equally valid in an intellectual discussion? Of course I don't. Asking me to respect the Christian creation myth is like asking me to show respect for the tooth fairy
More atheistic group think. Direct quote from Einstein,"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
Since I've tragically lived in this back-ass-wards state my entire life, I prefer to think of it as the ass-crack of the armpit of America.
Saying "marijuana should remain illegal because if they did make it legal the entire country would go to 'pot'" is considered a rational argument here. Saying "I have some doubts as to the validity of the bible" is automatic grounds for those who hear you to tie you to a car and drag you for miles...
Freethinkers should avoid this state like the plague.
Actually though, to be fair, religious intolerance has spread to every corner of the planet thanks to the missionaries who see it as their duty to spread their nasty meme to every last man, woman, and child on the planet. And not just the Christians: the UN is actually trying to criminalize blasphemy, mainly because the Islam community feels offended when we equate Muslims with terrorist bombs; they're "martyrs" as far as they're concerned...
I live in Oklahoma, and this doesn't surprise me. Where I live there are 8 channels on public television devoted to religion. These religous nuts should be laughed at. Please do not treat their beliefs with any more respect than an adult who is scared of monsters under their bed. It's terribly sad that any adult who is otherwise intelligent would become deluded to the point of getting upset and throwing a fit because you don't believe in their invisible best friend.
@DevonWhorton you should move out of oklahoma and go to a broke down state in the northeast where unions,antireligious bigots,liberal that wantto tax people who work and pay bums who wont,they accept perverts,homosesual marriage and other deviant behavior.another goof that believes in 18th century junk science,voted for obama and believes the farce of global warming
@DevonWhorton yeah you believe in open homosexuality that was practiced 1000 years ago in rome and greeece when thier civilization began to crumble.A stupid gomer pyle that lives in a place that he is a misfit and butts of jokes.We laugh at atheist as the clowns and dupes they are
@namtesyalp Somehow, you admitting that the only thing between you and "open homosexuality" is your "god". Trust me dude, you CANNOT pray the gay away.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheism and so called "free thinking" is as old as humanity itself and quite normal as a part of society. But, the radical atheism of today is probably the most vocal bigoted movement today and Dawkins is just one of the cheerleaders.
At some point when you gently tell people year after year after year that they're wrong and all you get is BS back you just have to say sorry, no more BS and the truth doesn't really care if your widdle fewings get hurt. All you're doing is hiding behind issues like opinion and religion since you know you lose on the facts.
I'll stand by what I said. There is nothing free thinking about radical atheism. I've been in that camp before. Dawkins is easily debatable and debunkable.
RADICAL ATHEISM?! Do you even know what atheism means? it's the LACK of belief in god. How can you RADICALLY not believe something? And how do you "easily" debunk someone who's thesis is "There's no proof of god's existence". If you think he's easily debunked, post a video link to an example on film of him being debunked.
first of all you ask what is radical atheism. atheism by itself is quite benign, but when atheists resort to bigotry and ridicule of those who don't share their beliefs, they become quite radical.
As far as debunking Dawkins. He's trying to build his case on science and there is no possible way that science can determine the existence or not of a god. The scientific method only recognizes empiricism. It is only one of many epistemologies. Dawkins and atheism are a danger to free thought.
If you believe that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches over you and observes everything you do, and that he can give you eternal life if you telepathically tell him that he is your master, though if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood and ask for his forgiveness you will rot in torment forever. And if you believe you are sinful in nature because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a magic fruit... well... you are TRULY deserving or ridicule.
and if you believe that everything had come out of a single-cell organism and MAGICALLY evolved into what we see nowadays, then you deserve a Nobel prize for joke making.
You are the very essence FAIL. At this very second you have at your fingertips access to more knowledge than could have possibly been dreamed of only decades ago, yet you bury your head in the sand to preserve the status of your myths. Evolution by natural selection, should you ever seriously look into it, does not work by magic and is indeed a FACT. There is ZERO debate about the truthfulness of evolution in the scientific community. The truth will set you free, as it says in your book
I am a firm believer in evolution as are most Christians, but not Darwinism which eliminates a creator. All Catholic schools teach evolution in that manner. Again, I say that science has NO mechanism to determine the existence of a god/ no god. Regardless of what you think, you cannot base your atheistic beliefs on science. NOT POSSIBLE. Science is empirical - absolutely. Metaphysics - not empirical. 2 different epistemologies.
Dawkins is a great biologist and it is logical for him to find no empirical evidence of a god because science simply cannot address that issue- NOT POSSIBLE. But, he is no philosopher and no historian. His opinions are based on nothing more than educated guesses.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
OK, NC FL. TX ETC. run by idiots.
MrJohnnyrace 4 months ago
Someone please take Ben Steins lunch money !! The moron is uneducated.
MrJohnnyrace 4 months ago
If god exists, why are there so many atheists? After all, he killed so many disobedient ones, in the bible. OR.......he just doesn't exist.
evelsteev 6 months ago
lol @ intelligent falling XD
freiheitsalv 6 months ago
im glad there are alot of inteligent people living in america like you guys..thank goodness.. keep fighting against these religious nut jobs that force rubbish and fairy tales onto all of us...good luck...friend from UK
chelseamate2 1 year ago
@chelseamate2
Gotta watch out for those atheist nut jobs as well. Nut jobs seem to show up everywhere.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
He isn't indoctrinating them with the theory of evolution, he is indoctrinating them with the philosophy of Darwinism. Except that they are probably already indoctrinated. So he is just there to reinforce the philosophy, using his credibility as a way to further the agenda of Darwinism. And look at all of the people falling in line. Let's make fun of the opposition instead of addressing their critiques. Dick Douchekins.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
"intolerant...of diversity of thinking..." Damn straight! lmao!!
mjh012363 1 year ago
after my first child was born my wife refused to be openminded about stork theory. she's so dogmatic i don't know what to do.
burnhippiesforfuel 1 year ago
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX.
Down, April 29th [1851].
My dear Fox,I do not suppose you will have heard of our bitter and cruel loss. Poor dear little Annie, when going on very well at Malvern, was taken with a vomiting attack, ...........which carried her off in ten days. Thank God, she suffered hardly at all, and expired as tranquilly as a little angel. ........... Poor dear little soul. Well it is all over
Project Gutenberg: Letters of Charles Darwin
anolmec 1 year ago
And...?
jerico641 1 year ago
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Dude, I for one can't even read your homepage because of all that weird "family tree" stuff plastered all over the background; so do me a favor, will ya? Summarize the proof for me.
jerico641 1 year ago
Actually I think Dawkins is ignorant of cultural diversity. Having read the God delusion I noted that he was quite ascerbic about tribal cultures and seemed to have the same unnerving disrespect for them that Christians display. He clearly didn't value them at all. As I have an anthropological background I found this less than endearing.
formless777 2 years ago
he treats them with no more or less respect than any other religion. Religion has little to no value to civilization as a whole and in many cases is a detriment.
Wraithofvolsunga 2 years ago
So Dawkins thinks it is just fine and dandy to destroy an indigenous culture in the name of an arbitrary definition of what is civilized ? Doesn't that mean that any criticism he makes of Christianity destroying civilizations in the New World are a bit hypocritical ? Clearly their culture had no value, and the people were hostile religious fanatics, so when the Church puts them to the sword, they are doing the world a favor ? This cultural ignorance is a tacit support for genocide.
formless777 2 years ago
absolutely not, Dawkins says that indigenous RELIGIONS have the same worth to society as Christianity, which is none. Cultures can survive easily without their indigenous religions, just look at Europe.
Your example shows your ignorance of secular humanism. The church is not in any way doing the world a favor because they themselves are acting on religious beliefs to justify immoral acts. It is of no worth to destroy a culture, but religion can be destroyed without casualties, cultures cannot.
Wraithofvolsunga 2 years ago
I am well acquainted with secular humanism thank you, and I support it, except when it is prepared to take away an indigenous person's cultural identity, of which indigenous religion is a large part and often inseparable from their culture and traditional way of life. I support Dawkins on most points, but not on that one. There his ignorance is uncomfortably clear.
formless777 2 years ago
@formless: doesn't that position of yours qualify as cultural relativism? Wouldn't that equate to saying, "it's only wrong from a certain perspective..."?
dkt80 2 years ago
Well why not ? Legal systems throughout the world are governed by cultural relativisim. There is no truly objective standard for morality either, as philosophy has pretty much established after centuries of bickering. It is also hypocritical for atheism to decry the Church's attacks on tribal societies and their beliefs when atheism would seek to do no different. Consider the ethics of cannibalism for example, objectively it is wasteful not to eat the dead, but few cultures endorse it.
formless777 2 years ago
@formless777L That's really interesting. I had thought that most atheists were also consequentialists and leaning towards relativism, whereas theists inclined to absolutist ethics ("it's wrong because the bible says so").
Do you think that it is possible to make a statement of the form, "it is absolutely wrong to do this"? Are there suitable axioms from which you could deduce such a statement?
I think the right of a culture to believe what it likes even if it's wrong is quite important....
dkt80 2 years ago
I am inclined to take the Boolean logic approach to absolutes. Any proposition which falls into the area of an absolute is meaningless. Anything which applies equally in all cases is logically irrelevant by definition, as meaning lies in context and absolutes have no defining context because they have been reduced to a universal context which is universally irrelevant.
formless777 2 years ago
...while at the same time, if you have a strong moral objection to behavior that is acceptable in a given culture, you should by all means argue against it. Perhaps you will convince them, perhaps they will convince you. But to initiate force on the basis of such a moral disagreement might just be one of those things that is *always* wrong. The British interaction with the old Hindu custom of sati comes to mind.
There's a consequentialist in every deontologist and vice versa :-).
dkt80 2 years ago
I agree with this statement dkt80, no culture exists in a vacuum, and they must learn to deal with other cultures they come into contact with, even if their attitudes sometimes clash. However, I do object to cultures seeking to actively destroy other cultures, such as the Spanish, the Russians and the Church etc. have done.
And yes, consequence is ever at the heart of morality. Can it really be otherwise ?
formless777 2 years ago
I am well aware of the value of the separation of Church and State and support it wholeheartedly Wraithofvolsunga. What you have to understand is that there are many cultures where there is no delineation between what is religion and what is ordinary life. You are laboring under the misapprehension that humans are all fundamentally alike, I am explaining that other cultures don't even have the same conception of what constitutes being a human. You can't be reductionist about this issue.
formless777 2 years ago
In the modern western culture that has controlled most of the civilized world for a few centuries, there is really only one moral "absolute"; something that advances mankind as a species is right, and something that retards advancement is wrong. That is a simple thing that anyone can get behind. Religion has been shown to be a member of the latter, regardless of what religion. be it the Catholic church, or the tribal worship of an isolated culture. Without gods, we can accomplish so much more.
Wraithofvolsunga 2 years ago
A single moral absolute ? Whose ? Consider, does having red hair advance the species or retard it ? If having red hair has no survival value, shouldn't we sterilize gingers, or kill them by that logic ? We know that Social Darwinism dealt in absolutes like that and became a driving force behind NAZIsm. Consider, the problem with the philosophy of meritocracy is who decides what is considered merit. There are no such objective absolutes and absolutes are meaningless in any case.
formless777 2 years ago 2
lol, I hereby invoke Godwin's law and therefore win the argument.
You obviously don't get the idea of what is or is not good for the race as a whole. Here are some examples:
Technological advancement, arts and architecture, education=good
Genocide, terrorism, blocking scientific progress on religious grounds=bad
Its very simple and there are no moral dilemmas.
Cultural identification is a divisive property, not unitary.
Wraithofvolsunga 2 years ago
Thanks for cluing me in to the humorous work of Mike Godwin, I hadn't bumped into him before :D
You say cultural identification is divisive, but given what happens to people who encounter a technologically superior people and wind up relocated to a mud brick shanty with no sanitary facilities and no source of income with their way of life destroyed by bulldozers and fire, I'd question whether this "unification" you speak of is a worthwhile pursuit for anybody.
formless777 2 years ago
Comment removed
anolmec 1 year ago
indigenous "religions" as you call them, are based on a concept so far removed from what Dawkins has an understanding of, which is spirituality, he should just STFU about it.
anolmec 1 year ago
If the spirituality of an indigenous culture has no irrational superstitious beliefs and does not think less of those who are not of their culture, then Dawkins, or any humanist, would obviously have no problem with them. When their beliefs hold others in their group back from learning and knowledge, then there is a problem. Every human is born with the inalienable right to the pursuit of knowledge. When any religious or spiritual belief denies one that right, there is a problem in that culture
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
There are 250,000 American Indians left alive today. Your belief system, which has joined hands with Christianity in this regard, is within reach OF the TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF A CULTURE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU....You should feel very very proud in your accomplishment. Let me ask, do you also claim to be intelligent???
anolmec 1 year ago
No, humanists are not on the same side as Christians, Christians are just as guilty of superstition and irrational beliefs as any religion and should be dealt with accordingly.
In almost every culture in the world, their religion can be removed whilst still keeping the rest of their culture (secular Jews for example). It doesn't matter whether a religion is in the majority (Christianity, Islam) or the minority (Animism, paganism) their superstitions are still equally harmful to its members.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago 2
@Wraithofvolsunga
Darwinists are equally superstitious and irrational, don't forget to take a good look at yourself if you are going to be a judgmental "know it all".
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Do not be so arrogant as to presume to tell me what my beliefs are. I am interested to know what aspects of "Darwinism" you find superstitious. While Darwin himself may have had some superstitions (he was a theist), he succeeded in keeping that separate from his scientific observations, which is the only thing we really care about today.
"Judgmental know it all"? Knowledge is a GOOD thing. Knowledge is one of the few things you can judge people on. Don't be a Luddite.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga
Darwinism holds certain mythologies about survival of the fittest, racial superiority, and so forth. It's actually not too difficult to see.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
In what way are they mythologies? It is a fact that those most fit to survive in an environment are the most probable to succeed at doing so. It's basic logic, not mythology.
And I'm not sure what you're saying so far as racial superiority goes; I mean, asides from the absurdity of calling it "Darwinism" to begin with, which is some pathetic attempt to equate it to religion.
Take your garbage apologetic's elsewhere.
Vire70 1 year ago
@Vire70
Darwinism is a philosophy, coined by proponents of Darwin back in the day. Don't blame me, blame them. Darwinism has much to do with survival of the fittest, an idea that can be shown to be largely incorrect. It isn't the survival of the fittest, it's just the survival of those that survive. It's called chance, you should probably consider it in your own world view, considering that it hinges upon it for a rational foundation.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
fail. You need to go look up the concept of probability. Not all chances are equal.
Natural selection is not incorrect at all. It is not a guarantee that the fittest will survive in any one situation; however, those who are better adapted to their environment have a HIGHER PROBABILITY of survival. When you're talking about the HUGE time spans involved in evolution (millions and millions of generations) those things add up.
Vire70 1 year ago
@Vire70
I agree with everything you are saying up until the very last phrase. What is adding up? Mutations? Don't you understand? In the junk dna are many mutations, they are a history of genetic information that the cell doesn't normally express. There is definitely a history there, not of common descent, but of the tale of a particular species or population.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Mutations are that which helps species adapt to changing environments. If an animal has a mutation that causes it to have greater hair growth, and suddenly for some reason the climate becomes a lot colder, it has a greater chance of survival (and thus propagation). That mutation will be passed onto its offspring.
Whilst most mutations aren't so directly beneficial or obvious, they do happen. It has been speculated that such a mutation is responsible for homosapiens brains.
Vire70 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Which Darwinism do you mean? The use of the word in England, which is synonymous with evolutionary theory, or the version used by Spencer? I'm assuming you mean the Spencer version as he also coined the term "survival of the fittest." Charles Darwin did not use that term, as it is technically a tautology. Regardless, no one here is a Darwinist in that sense, and neither is Dawkins.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
It's impossible to listen to Dawkins and not see at least undertones of Darwinism (not necessarily limited to Spencer) in his philosophical presuppositions. So it really doesn't matter if we call him a Darwinist or not. I just use Dawkins as an example because his ideas are often copied and redistributed within the the thinking of other atheists who believe the same things about life and evolution.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Can you give me specific examples of this? I see no evidence for what you are claiming at all, but I am willing to re-evaluate my position if given a clear example.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
It's interesting that Dawkins himself refers to Darwinism as "religion", although I am not sure how much of that is sarcasm coming through. Dawkins and probably most evolutionary biologists hold a gene-centered view. This is Darwinist at it's core, even though Darwin himself was unaware of genes. When it comes to the actual science, statements are carefully weighed I think. But when it comes to antagonizing religion, Dawkins reverts to Darwin speak.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Specific examples please. Also, the gene centered view is just a way to approach evolutionary problems. It's is no more or less "Darwinist" than any other approach.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
Specific example - Eugenie Scott's active campaign to teach biological evolution from the Darwinian perspective (one small example). The gene centered approach is Darwinian in the sense that it points to genes as the primary mode of change, where everything else is subordinate to genetic determinism.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Eugenie Scott? You're supposed to be giving me examples that concern Richard Dawkins. Also, and this is really, really weird, did you know that one of the leading opponents of the gene-centered view, evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, has been quoted as saying "Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian" when discussing this topic? Exactly how is the gene centered view Darwinian in the Spencer sense?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
Dawkins is essentially doing the same thing as Eugenie Scott. The difference is that Dawkins will favor looking at other evolutionary points of view in certain circles. So the selfish gene is non-Darwinian? So what is it? I thought it was an expansion of Mendel and Darwin. What you are asking me is difficult to answer. The gene centered view resembles Darwin's ideas about slight modifications that can be inherited.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
Also, back to Spencer, I'm still trying to figure out why you chose him. Although he tried to apply Darwin's ideas to many other aspects of philosophy and science, he didn't coin the term Darwinism or purposefully promote it as such (at least not that I am aware of). Have you read Darwinism in the Stanford Ency of Phil? It's an interesting read.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Actually, I have. Regardless, perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by Darwinism. You seem to be vacillating between the definitions.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
Perhaps I am, but the point remains that the key element to always remember is natural selection. That is the important factor of Darwinism. The role of natural selection, and it's supremacy in evolution continues to be held by many biologists.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
OK, so let's make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You essentially mean natural selection when you use the term Darwinism, correct?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
Yes, let's go with that. I think natural selection is what makes Darwinism so appealing. It proposes an explanation as to where apparent design comes from, if it is indeed true that natural selection is the driving force of evolution. The problem I see in looking at all of the various aspects and functions of living things, is that natural selection has little to do with the evolution of biological systems, but more to do with which systems have been "allowed" to exist.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
OK, then you are still wrong. Dawkins is not a Darwinist at all. No evolutionary biologist is. You should read about the modern evolutionary synthesis.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
How am I wrong? Dawkins emphasizes the importance of natural selection acting on random variation, does he not? Isn't that the ever prevailing mainstream explanation as to how evolution occurs in a very broad sense?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
You're missing a very important distinction. Darwin thought that natural selection was the only factor at work. We know a lot more now. So to say that someone is a Darwinist is to say that that person thinks that natural selection is the only factor involved in evolution. Dawkins has written enough books on the subject indicating the contrary that it is absurd to label him a Darwinist.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
I've been previously informed by several people that Dawkins believes that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution. Either there is a disconnect between public affairs and the actual intellectual discourse of certain scientists, or there are a bunch of agenda driven idiots on the internet who want to keep natural selection in the lime light for what ever reason. Either way, I don't think you are being fair in your assessment.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
It is very important. It might even be accurate to call it the primary mechanism. But it doesn't work without the other mechanisms. Did you read about the modern evolutionary synthesis? There is a short article on it on wikipedia. And how am I not being fair in my assessment?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
I have read about the modern synthesis, I've even read about the more recent "synthesis". But it would do me good to refresh. The point I was trying to make seems to have been lost, that is why I said you weren't being fair. But perhaps that's not true. Just curious, why are you defending Dawkins (and most biologists today) against being labeled as Darwinist?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
I have an aversion to things that are untrue. Why are you trying to label them as Darwinists when they clearly are not? At least not in the sense that you mean. What's the point?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
The point is the truth. Maybe they really aren't Darwinists. But the fact remains that Darwinian ideas continue to rule philosophically. This implicit Darwinism, at least on a surface level, empowers people to embrace a false view of evolution for "other than scientific" reasons.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
I really don't see anything wrong with the idea of natural selection. It's remarkably simple, yet has so much explanatory power. How could it possibly lead to a false view of evolution?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66
Natural selection is a great idea, and it appears to be an actual phenomenon. But do we attribute the multitude of living species (past and present) to it's actions upon random variations, or is there "more" to the story? Does that "more" (perhaps I am begging the question, but it can't be helped) force us to look at life and it's evolution in a different way? Most people aren't even aware that these questions are continually being asked by many scientists.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
Selective environmental pressure is the factor that drives speciation. So the answer to your question is yes. Mutations that have no real benefit in one environment may offer a statistically higher advantage in another environment. And obviously, deleterious mutations tend to select themselves out.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@anolmec
I wish the American Indians could reclaim America. But they won't because they aren't pieces of shit like most of us who have been absolutely emasculated by western culture.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@anolmec
When I say reclaim, I mean culturally, I don't mean a military take over. They couldn't even if they wanted to. But Darwinism, atheism, fundamentalist FALSE Christianity, secular humanism, all of these western modes of thought are pure poison, but listen to the stupid arrogant masses laugh as they go quietly into the night while nature and spirituality are completely destroyed.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
There is no "American Indian culture" as a whole, there are hundreds. The only thing they have in common is that they were in the Stone Age until Europeans came. I would be skeptical of any culture that would preclude its people from discovering metallurgy until 10,000 years after the rest of the world.
Define "Spirituality". It's a stupid word because it can mean anything the person wants it to, it carries no information. Nature is not always good. Stop being a Luddite.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga
Why does the term spirituality need a rigid definition? That is the whole beauty of it, it's expansive and largely subjective. Why would I want to be a technological control freak and wage war on human culture? We have no respect for other points of view. We think our technology makes us superior, but we don't have a clue about who we are or what reality is.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision
To the contrary, we DO know who we are and what reality is. We know to pretty exact specifications. Refusing to accept it on the grounds on willful ignorance doesn't unsolve the mysteries we've unraveled. Technology doesn't make us superior, us being "superior" makes our technology. Your relativism makes it clear that you have no comprehension of social and cultural constructs. Get it out of your head that technology and culture are somehow incompatible. They enrich eachother.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga
Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around. I think you are living in TV land.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga
Ever fought in a war? Ever seen genocide? Ever seen what violent technology and "superior" culture does when they "enrich" eachother?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@formless777
Oh, you are hilarious! At first I thought you were being serious. I was going to say something about how incredibly ignorant & arrogant is such a statement. I was going to explain about logical fallacies, like False Analogy, & about how criticizing the self-serving narrow-minded state legislature is not "destroying" an "indigenous culture". I wanted to say how absurd such "poor little victim me" statements are, but then I realized you're joking & mocking those fearful little people
DarwinPHX 2 years ago
Not quite. My point is, if atheism lacks respect for indigenous cultures because they are superstitious, it is not a false analogy to suggest that the Church showed a similar disregard for them. I am not suggesting that atheism has destroyed any indigenous cultures (though I know that doctrinal atheism in the USSR damaged indigenous Siberian cultures), I am suggesting that there is an intrinsic value to these societies which cannot be dismissed with reductionist claims of superstition.
formless777 2 years ago
I attended this lecture and i had a good time (got one of my friends to come down to Norman for it), despite the fact that the family in front of me had little girls who were playing throughout. I'm glad some people brought their children though. He was on the point as usual, and he certainly made our idiot representatives look like the asses they are.
Thanks for posting this
kurugeta 2 years ago 21
that funny to me .
nauta51 2 years ago
I've just read through a number of the responses here and on similar videos. My question is why do the righteous seem to think that they are in well enough with god that they can abuse their fellows with such impunity? "suck cock"? Is that the best they can do?
The only people impressed by that I wouldn't have as carpet.
puncheex 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Some atheists have done their homework, gone through the intellectual arguments for and against the existence of God, and arrived at a thoughtful atheistic position but many have no real understanding of what Christianity is.
For anyone who wants to learn more about the other side of the debate, my channel has some info that you might find interesting.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
All getting together to take the piss out of creationism.
Thats all the attention it deserves though really lol.
peteq1972 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This Dawkins guy is so sly. Ask him what he wants out of life and his answer will be "Truth", Then ask him about 9/11 and the lying old bastard will tell you 19 hijackers did it. His bezzie mate the evil Randi runs the main 9/11 'debwunking' site. It is where all the toxic cockroaches (paid shills) congregate. Dirty bastards. I spit on the lot of them.
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richard Dawkins is an NWO tool. He has hypnotized so many sheeple with his vile books. He is also a friend of James Randi, a despicable, evil little shill. These two fuckers will HANG with the rest of the monsters when it all kicks off. Wake up and see through charlatans such as Dawkins, at your earliest convenience.
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins promotes stupidity.
kotarak 2 years ago
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree when I ask this, but... Why?
gloomilyeuphoric 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
because he assumes that if anything can not be wraped up by his limited mind it is not rational and therefore not non existing. he is creating a Soviet style arrogance towards the Spiritual realm and trying to replace a basic human need with sad mistakenly conceived rationalism. He is emboding the nearly opposite of the Dark Ages - Soviet lite.
kotarak 2 years ago
He is just attempting to remove the veil of ignorance you hide under.
Be a lot easier if you weren't so thick.
bobthesmasher 2 years ago 3
you are uneducated, oblivious, ignorant and self-righteous. he isnt against spirituality, he is against religiosity. and you're just another brainwashed kid who cant stand criticism of the bible.
sinprelic 2 years ago
uneducated - no working towards second BSc degree
oblivious - I think about the state of the world every day and it needs more than Darwin
Ignorant - about what?
Selfrighteous - well I am no better than anybody generally just I try to humble myself before God
He says there is no God - this is against spirituality for me
I have done tens of papers critisizing the BIble and yet understood correctly it becomes God's written Word
Dawkins interpretes it misleadingly and wrongly
kotarak 2 years ago
you believers cant be argued because you make impossible claims. IT BECAME GODS WRITTEN WORD. no. it didnt. yyou have no proof. you cant just claim it and expect a thinking person to put trust into you.
here, let me make an impossible claim:
a 10foot horned unicorn killed jesus while he was on the cross. he sucked out all his blood and therefore became god. all praise the unicorn of justice and peace and love. you know, it is actually the unicorn who carved out the bible with his horn.
sinprelic 2 years ago
no it is about seeking and finding the truth. it becomes the Word when it begins working in my heart and changes my ways for good. It becomes the Word when I get blessed and succeed beyond my previously wildest imagination. It becomes Word of God when assessed, compared against all other creeds and human experience and life and found absolutely relevant, helpful, soothing, needed, guiding, comforting illuminating.
Dawkins and yourself do not interprete it correctly.
kotarak 2 years ago
OK, let me explain your delusion then.
I have no problem with accepting your belief. You are free to believe that his word is in your heart, and all that shit. But once you come out with it, and say that existentially, scientifically, morally and hitorically GOD exists, I must defend reality. Sure god can exist within you. That spirituality I cannot deny. What I must deny is the existence of god in reality and in my own heart, but not in your heart. Your delusion is circular and foolproof.
sinprelic 2 years ago
trust me all external and internal evidence leads towards the conclusion that there is God. Well "rhere is" is not a correct expression but these are the weaknesses of the language.. God is everywhere and we and all else dwell in HIm and are in Him. believing in God is the most reasonable conclusion one can make but I cant within 500 characters lead you there. you tell me why you dont believe and then we can have some debate
kotarak 2 years ago
ok, let's go. why do you believe in god? believing in such a huge thing requires only a few words, if you are so confident, you'd need less than 500 characters. so, why believe in the biblical god who is all caring, listens to your prayers but has a divine unalterable plan? reasons please.
sinprelic 2 years ago
sorry for late answer.
the plan is generally unalterable but we fill in the details
one reason to believe - the ultimate cause could be matter or higher intelligence
I choose the second because there is obvious design in the world which can not be emulated by blind watchmaker ie just happens. it is counterintuitive
kotarak 2 years ago
Wow, you believe in ID. Intelligent design isnt even science. Sorry, I'm not going to lower myself to argue with such pathetic ideas on such a low intellectual level. Just google or youtube some vids about it. Thanks.
PS. A giant unicorn intelligently designed the world. It is obvious, because there are many sharp things in life. Just like its horns.
sinprelic 2 years ago 2
I am evangelical christian so I believe in ID. The catholics accept evolution. why? because they see God's guidance and sustenance in the process of the evolution. whether by the means of evolution as they believe or by other higher means as I believe God did it and the only alternative to that is a great accident. dont write off ID on basis of propaganda videos. its more intelligently challenging than any other idea of beginning. I hope a coherent theory will come out soon
milebennett 2 years ago
ID isnt science.
Evolution has more proof for it than any other theory ever established by mankind. Fact.
Can you deal with your delusions in private?
Thank you, dont reply. You waste my, I daresay, valuable time.
sinprelic 2 years ago
you are very sad man
kotarak 2 years ago
yes I do. if you were a bit more educated you could have understood it
kotarak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sinprelic, you are a complete wally. Science = the new religion. It's the new opiate for the sheeple masses. You look up to Gods, except your 'Gods' are lying shits like Dawkins. You have failed in life. Make sure you get the swine flu vaccinations. Dipshit.
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
how old are you?
sinprelic 2 years ago
I asked you a question you simple little man. Do you believe in the Occult, now answer it. I have read your answers and you come across as being as thick as two short plants.
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
@accidentsinspace. I've just come across your contributions here. You obviously can't hide your brilliant education. Not only is your language absolutely elegant, you also seem to have a profound knowledge of science and philosophy. All this makes you so convincing.
TheMutest 2 years ago
Why, thankyou! You have made me blush. :)
Now, can you prove to me that there is no God? Also, do you believe in the Occult?
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
you have read my answers.. alright..
what is occult and how old are you?
sinprelic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Get back to JREF and suck Randi's cock. I hear he is into little boys.
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
instead of acting like a self-righteous 8 year old who's lived in the ghetto too long, how about you tell me how old you are? otherwise, the assumption that i make sir, is that you are of age 8. you will be deemed incommunicable and i will stop responding to your impressive remarks about evolution, the myths of higher powers and philosophy.
sinprelic 2 years ago
You sound like a Scientology now!
FordPrefect23 2 years ago
Sinprelic, do you believe in the Occult?
accidentsinspace 2 years ago
You must be thinking of the pope.
Furl3ssmonkey00 2 years ago
I am so embarrassed to be an American. After traveling overseas, I know that I am lumped in with all of the stupid people in this country, which, I am afraid to say, may even be a majority.
You should not be allowed to vote unless you pass a test. Seriously, in my opinion it is not a right to vote, it is something that needs to be earned, through demonstrating that you have at least a basic understanding of the world and the true effects your decisions will have on yourself and others.
arod2222 2 years ago 3
I haven't traveled and experienced embarrassment, I feel it having never left the country. I'm 21 and I can realize that things are getting ridiculous. Within my lifetime I have seen a change in people and the general attitude.
gloomilyeuphoric 2 years ago
Man, its true and its sad. And not only that it's embarrassing, but its also more dangerous. Americans are more of a target overseas than anyone else, and before Bush this wasn't the case. We were respected and adored. Its like before they kidnapped you becuz they wanted you to marry their daughter. Now they want to kill you and put it on the internet.
And we really have no ground to stand on. I tell people I'm from my friends town in Canada sometimes, just so Im not bothered or worse.
arod2222 2 years ago
Watch the entire Q & A session on my channel.
Sapien6x 2 years ago
Dawkins need to hit EVERY campus in the USA, especially Liberty U.
I got this from their online course catalog just a few weeks ago, for Biology :
'There is a strong emphasis on God as the Creator of our world.'
This is disingenuous and fraudulent to the students who attend or plan on attending this learning 'institution'. The accrediting body, who's job it is to keep this school licensed, needs to address this craziness immediately. We should bombard this group with mail to address this.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago 13
keepitreals you spelled intelligence wrong. and multiple other words. also a pandemic is a spread of infectious disease not by a bunch of missing fruit. your probably not the best person to be talking about intelligence.
captainmaveric 2 years ago
No big deal, but you used the wrong your. "You're" is the one you wanted.
JackTheWanderer 2 years ago
im more free thinking than any you mofos , cuz i dont know what to think, but ill excwpt whatever makes the most sense not because i wanna believe someshit .
keepsitreals 2 years ago
Thank you Mr.Dawkins , please come back soon .
1947Chief 2 years ago 3
"atheism is anything but free thinking in its nature"
Perhaps not. Its depend son how you define free. If by free you mean "with no standards for evidence" then yeah... its not at all free thinking.
"you don't have a clue about scientific thought"
What led you to believe this? Because, like every other scientist in the world I believe in the onus of proof to back ones assertions? Lack of evidence for a claim means a "weak claim". That's how science works. I get it. You however dont at all.
5imian 2 years ago 5
"My point is quite simple. A religious argument can never be won. the pro and cons of a possible diety can't be proven nor disproven by the empiricism or the SM."
Invisible Flying monkeys holding strobe lights are real. Prove me wrong. Oh no contrary evidence? I guess the SM can't disprove them.
unless... of course...lack of evidence IS disproof....
yeah. that.Get it?
And as for religion or metaphysics, why even waste your time with such nonsense?
5imian 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
bantumwt 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You just proved to me that atheism is anything but free thinking in its nature and that you don't have a clue about scientific thought.
bantumwt 2 years ago
Atheism isn't thinking at all. It's ignoring ancient mythical rubbish. This is the same basic cognitive fallacy you need to make to think that an atheists' dogma exists. If you assume without evidence, you're lying with the best pokerface that evolution could possibly grant you.
sandwichtaster 2 years ago 3
Need I say any more?
bantumwt 2 years ago
well its a good thing that there is a ton of evidence to support evolution, and also a good thing that there is none to support creationism.
lovecraftfan311 2 years ago 4
invisable flying monkeys you dumb ass. i know they dont exist i cna prove you wrong because we would have a pandemic of missing bananas and other food. we would feel them hitting use. are they mute we would hear them. is there shit invisible. or do they not eat at all . get the fuck out of hear with your sudo-intelegence
keepsitreals 2 years ago
Christians believe that kind of..pardon me STUPID bullshit with (obviously) no empirical evidence or..well..honestly any OTHER evidence too.
"the scientific method only accepts empiricist conclusions. That is its limitation."
Wrong! That's its anti-bullshit repellent. Thats why it WORKS and gets RESULTS.
.... When i get sick, I'll take medicine based on 'empirical' evidence. Fell free to pray your little head off, sir.
5imian 2 years ago
My point is quite simple. A religious argument can never be won. the pro and cons of a possible diety can't be proven nor disproven by the empiricism or the SM. And if you are going to try to use philosophy, philosophers have been debating the god question from Thales to Sartre with arriving at a finite conclusion. So if anyone says that they have definitive proof that there is or is not they are lying. It is all subjective. Religion relies on faith, based on only subjective evidence, and...
bantumwt 2 years ago
atheists have nothing to base their belief upon if they flatly claim there is no god. It's all in the interpretation.
American Atheists claim there is no God. They have zero objective evidence. Religious people are in the same boat. Their statements are based on faith subjective, circumstancial evidence. So if Dawkins is infering from science that no god exists, he is only guessing.
bantumwt 2 years ago
The SM method is great for its intended use and it does work. But science is an entirely different epistemology than religion or metaphysics, and it has no application there(or at least not in the same form used in science).
bantumwt 2 years ago
"The idea that man's is the highest intelligence in the universe is improbable to me."
Dude, noones arguing that.
WE are arguing that next step in retarded logic. What step you say?
"There may (emphasis on may) be a god"
(heres the retarded step..right here don't miss it)
soo THEREFORE! JEsus is real, miracles are real, sin is real, satan is real, he rose fom the dead, he walked on water, fucking DEMONS are real angels are real, hell is real (you're gonna burn in it), and the bible is true
5imian 2 years ago
BAHAHAHA QUOTE OF THE YEAR: "Atheistic group think"... that's what we call an oxymoron, look it up. Religion is where you go when you're looking for group think. Atheism is a LACK of belief, not a belief. Try this quote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
LEV1ATHYN 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are entitled to your beliefs, but your reasoning is an ad hoc form of reasoning and you use ad hominem arguing to validate your claims, which means that you are unable to argue your point. Atheists live in a box and anything outside that box does not exist for them because they cannot see,smell,taste,hear, nor feel evidence of anything outside the box. That's atheist logic in a nutshell. That's atheist group think and that's what is being propagated by your mentors.
bantumwt 2 years ago
I agree with the fact that there are many ignorant atheists out there, but religious people are any better than them how??
martinkun167 2 years ago
I think you're finally getting it. It's ignorance that is the real enemy. Anyone who stands by and listens to someone creating an aura of bigotry, no matter the message is ignorant.
bantumwt 2 years ago
There were so many "there's no God"-scientists with a cool accent, but they have all died while Christian faith still remains. So Mr Dawkins, good luck with your theory of randomlution, but you will fail for sure. The only sad thing is that some will actually believe in the lies you say during your charades...
SomeoneWhoCanType 2 years ago
Yes, all those scientists, those unbelieving heretics from Galileo, to Einstein, to Hawking.... they died. They were all human, and all humans die. Yet thanks to the unenlightened masses such as yourself Bronze Age myths (from people who would have considered the wheel barrel to be an emerging technology) are allowed to persist. Ask yourself this: why do 93% of the body of American scientists believe there is no personal god? Do you know something that they don't? Please share
LEV1ATHYN 2 years ago
haha you call Americans elite of the world. America is a new Babylon if you ask me. Biblical phropechies are being fulfilled in case you didnt notice. for example polution of the nature and 2 big wars. watch and you will see that very soon there will be an obligation for everyone to have a chip in his/her hand which is the mark of the beast, described in the Bible.
SomeoneWhoCanType 2 years ago
Well, you are wrong about both Galileo and Einstein. Galileo was a Catholic, Einstein believed in an impersonal god. Also Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, and Newton to name a few, believed. My advice to you is that if you want your ideas respected, you need to be respectful of others. Too many people are aware of the damage to humanity that atheistic governments have done to this world- the soviets, the chinese communists, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Romania, Poland, Tibet, etc.
bantumwt 2 years ago
Science is based solely on empirical data. Epistemologies such as psychology, metaphysics, philosophy,etc. are not. TYhat means that science is very limited in what it can infer AND has NO capacity to make any assertion about an intelligent creator. Atheism is anything but free thought and atheists have every right not to believe, but have absolutely no basis to condemn and ridicule others for their beliefs.
bantumwt 2 years ago
Galileo "believed" in a time when heresy meant certain death thanks to the Catholic church's "respect for other faiths". Einstein used the word god to mean what is unknown, he was quite clearly an atheist. I respect your ideas only so far as I respect that you have the right to have them. Do I respect your beliefs as equally valid in an intellectual discussion? Of course I don't. Asking me to respect the Christian creation myth is like asking me to show respect for the tooth fairy
LEV1ATHYN 2 years ago 2
More atheistic group think. Direct quote from Einstein,"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
bantumwt 2 years ago
lovely, just lovely...
TheAtheistTEEN 2 years ago
Oklahoma is tha anus of usa.
ltbelial 2 years ago
Since I've tragically lived in this back-ass-wards state my entire life, I prefer to think of it as the ass-crack of the armpit of America.
Saying "marijuana should remain illegal because if they did make it legal the entire country would go to 'pot'" is considered a rational argument here. Saying "I have some doubts as to the validity of the bible" is automatic grounds for those who hear you to tie you to a car and drag you for miles...
Freethinkers should avoid this state like the plague.
Truthiness231 2 years ago 2
I never thought I would actually prefer to live in Brasil then in a part of the first world.
ltbelial 2 years ago
ROFL, well said ^.^
Actually though, to be fair, religious intolerance has spread to every corner of the planet thanks to the missionaries who see it as their duty to spread their nasty meme to every last man, woman, and child on the planet. And not just the Christians: the UN is actually trying to criminalize blasphemy, mainly because the Islam community feels offended when we equate Muslims with terrorist bombs; they're "martyrs" as far as they're concerned...
Truthiness231 2 years ago
Try living in Texas. Bible Belt for the loss.
Thatonedude917 2 years ago
At least you texans have Austin...
But then again you have Lubbock....
Why hasn't texas exploded yet?
5imian 2 years ago
LOL!!
DevonWhorton 2 years ago
I live in Oklahoma, and this doesn't surprise me. Where I live there are 8 channels on public television devoted to religion. These religous nuts should be laughed at. Please do not treat their beliefs with any more respect than an adult who is scared of monsters under their bed. It's terribly sad that any adult who is otherwise intelligent would become deluded to the point of getting upset and throwing a fit because you don't believe in their invisible best friend.
DevonWhorton 2 years ago 49
@DevonWhorton you should move out of oklahoma and go to a broke down state in the northeast where unions,antireligious bigots,liberal that wantto tax people who work and pay bums who wont,they accept perverts,homosesual marriage and other deviant behavior.another goof that believes in 18th century junk science,voted for obama and believes the farce of global warming
namtesyalp 8 months ago
@namtesyalp I don't take advice from hateful bigots who believe in bronze age moral values.
DevonWhorton 8 months ago 3
@DevonWhorton yeah you believe in open homosexuality that was practiced 1000 years ago in rome and greeece when thier civilization began to crumble.A stupid gomer pyle that lives in a place that he is a misfit and butts of jokes.We laugh at atheist as the clowns and dupes they are
namtesyalp 8 months ago
@namtesyalp Somehow, you admitting that the only thing between you and "open homosexuality" is your "god". Trust me dude, you CANNOT pray the gay away.
djtripnosys 7 months ago
Noone can do a "yeeeeeeah" like an american. YEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHH!
ManyFaces1Voice 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism and so called "free thinking" is as old as humanity itself and quite normal as a part of society. But, the radical atheism of today is probably the most vocal bigoted movement today and Dawkins is just one of the cheerleaders.
bantumwt 2 years ago
At some point when you gently tell people year after year after year that they're wrong and all you get is BS back you just have to say sorry, no more BS and the truth doesn't really care if your widdle fewings get hurt. All you're doing is hiding behind issues like opinion and religion since you know you lose on the facts.
sgmarshall 2 years ago
I'll stand by what I said. There is nothing free thinking about radical atheism. I've been in that camp before. Dawkins is easily debatable and debunkable.
bantumwt 2 years ago
RADICAL ATHEISM?! Do you even know what atheism means? it's the LACK of belief in god. How can you RADICALLY not believe something? And how do you "easily" debunk someone who's thesis is "There's no proof of god's existence". If you think he's easily debunked, post a video link to an example on film of him being debunked.
LEV1ATHYN 2 years ago 2
first of all you ask what is radical atheism. atheism by itself is quite benign, but when atheists resort to bigotry and ridicule of those who don't share their beliefs, they become quite radical.
As far as debunking Dawkins. He's trying to build his case on science and there is no possible way that science can determine the existence or not of a god. The scientific method only recognizes empiricism. It is only one of many epistemologies. Dawkins and atheism are a danger to free thought.
bantumwt 2 years ago
If you believe that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches over you and observes everything you do, and that he can give you eternal life if you telepathically tell him that he is your master, though if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood and ask for his forgiveness you will rot in torment forever. And if you believe you are sinful in nature because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a magic fruit... well... you are TRULY deserving or ridicule.
LEV1ATHYN 2 years ago
and if you believe that everything had come out of a single-cell organism and MAGICALLY evolved into what we see nowadays, then you deserve a Nobel prize for joke making.
SomeoneWhoCanType 2 years ago
You are the very essence FAIL. At this very second you have at your fingertips access to more knowledge than could have possibly been dreamed of only decades ago, yet you bury your head in the sand to preserve the status of your myths. Evolution by natural selection, should you ever seriously look into it, does not work by magic and is indeed a FACT. There is ZERO debate about the truthfulness of evolution in the scientific community. The truth will set you free, as it says in your book
LEV1ATHYN 2 years ago
I am a firm believer in evolution as are most Christians, but not Darwinism which eliminates a creator. All Catholic schools teach evolution in that manner. Again, I say that science has NO mechanism to determine the existence of a god/ no god. Regardless of what you think, you cannot base your atheistic beliefs on science. NOT POSSIBLE. Science is empirical - absolutely. Metaphysics - not empirical. 2 different epistemologies.
bantumwt 2 years ago
Dawkins is a great biologist and it is logical for him to find no empirical evidence of a god because science simply cannot address that issue- NOT POSSIBLE. But, he is no philosopher and no historian. His opinions are based on nothing more than educated guesses.
bantumwt 2 years ago