I also feel that saying "I am not an atheist or agnostic" doesn't mean you are a theist. This may seem like a paradox, but of course we are dealing with loaded terminology. 'God' is often assumed to mean the god of the bible, but god can mean many things. It is possible to shun the idea of creationism, accept evolution, not be 'religious', yet not be an atheist. Call it agnosticism, call it ambiguity. If theism never existed, could atheism exist? We need to get past this battle to see clearly.
If there were people who believed a pink elephant created the universe, it would seem unnecessary to call yourself an 'anti-pink-elephantist' simply because you thought the pink elephant theory was ridiculous. I feel the term 'atheist' is a product of a loaded question (do you believe in god?) with an expected binary outcome - yes or no. The seemingly bottomless mystery of the universe and our consciousness should not be subject to such side-taking. And thus the term 'igtheist' was born.
I'm taking my first biology class, and we're at the start of the fourth quarter and still haven't touched evolution. I don't think we'll be getting to it... which is sad. It would have been much more beneficial for the teacher to be explaining it, instead of me just reading it for myself.
when i read the book, called ' the God's word' , i find so many inconsistencies, so many errors...i don't get it how someone can take christianity, islam, hinduism...so seriously! I think pple use religion maybe because it gives them some kind of placebo effect!
Dear God help me to understand how so smart guy can be that stupid? The most stupid of all. And to have so many sheep as followers? Ooo you docile sheep, could you think for a moment with your own head? Ohh, pardon me! You do not have one, perhaps Dawkins will explain us, from evolutionary point of view, how come that organizms use their butts for thinking. Wake up sheeple, wake up and start thinking and stop baaaaaa. Baaaaaaaa! BaaaaAAaaAAAaaAAAaAAaaaAA!!! Sheeeeeeple
@snajpdj Religious people are the real sheeples. You accept what your preacher says with out question. You obediently obey a book that was written by sheepherders 2,000 years ago who had no knowledge of how the world works and make claims that are not supported by any evidence. Do you still think illness is caused by demonic possession as the bible claims. Why bother going to a doctor, shouldn't you be able to pray your illnesses away. The pious are the sheep, worshiping a fictitious God.
thaths just silly <_< you know what i mean... :) theres not diference and i still belive you dont really respect sheep they are gentle and nice animals.
We really need Dawkins to stage an intervention in Texas. Our education standards are being decided by a creationist dentist. The enlightenment will now be taught in school through the lens of Calvin, Jefferson has been kicked out...and the School Board has vowed to stand up to so-called science experts and teach what jesus wants.
Dawkins inspires me to learn science more so in ten minutes than all my years spent listening to my science teachers who would drone on and on yet did absolutely nothing to inspire me to understanding science. we need educators that are brilliant like Dawkins and we need them decades ago.
Religion (the greatest FRAUD in all history), astrology, tarot, tea, coffee and palm readings, numerology, witchcraft, etc are junk mythological fraudulent nonsense, yet people believe, live and pay money into these ridiculous fantasy things.
TheIrateAtheist as I see it blasphemy implies disrespect... I don't see any disrespect in "God forgives you." I think they are just haphazardly trying convey God's willingness to forgive sins... But we all know that Richard would say "Blasphemy is a victimless crime"... :) :)
its hard for anyone to listen to dawkins and not be convinced.
as sam harris put it, " good ideas are contagous, I will give you my reasons, and if they are good enough, you will helplessly believe them, that is what it is to be a rational human being"
we should collect the sperm of the 4 horsemen and save them in a jar incase of a nuclear holocaust, then the new world could raise a rational society.
Forgive my ignorance, but who are the For Horsemen?
And since they are apparently male, which women's eggs would you want to preserve?
And anyway, I don't think four couples are enough. A biologist friend of mine said nine is the minimum number of couples one would need to restore a species.
Well, that would be nice, if you'd actually answered the question or pointed a direction for me to find the answer for myself.
As it stands, it's really rather rude, Sylvia. And I bet it's cowardly, too, in that you enjoy acting that way annonymously online, but probably wouldn't dream of treating someone like that in person. (Are you thirteen years old, by any chance?)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ok, to answer your original questions (which were all retarded in nature)
answer to Q#1: google 4 horsemen
Q:2 I would suggest using Ayan hirsi ali's eggs.
Q#3: your biologist friend is a retard, as i suspect you are as well. You can recreated a species with 2 couples, there just wont be very much genetic variation in the gene pool, and will be susecptable to geneitc abnormalities.
and im 12. not 13. my moms even gonna let me have a sleep over for my birthday. so suck it.
you can see the illusion of design. so you have the dellusion of a designer.
riddle me this, if you truely believe in god. he made everything? so who made him? and please dont be one of these god squad cop-outs who insist that natral law applies to everything except god.
Natural law doesn't apply to God. Natural law only applies to nature (the physical world) – that's why we call it natural law. God is by definition uncreated. He is not bound by time and space or any other things that govern the natural world.
And the world is designed – how can it be otherwise? It's not just an illusion, it is a reality, and as such it necessitates a designer.
@alaric1247 So you decided to be one of these cop-outs then. If the circular reasoning in your post is good enough for you, then that's fine.
But tell me this, by whatever process you think god came into being, whether he is eternal in your mind or whatever else, why could the universe not have came into being in the same way? why have god in the equation at all?
Every argument involving presuppositions is circular.
God didn't come into being. Like I said, he is uncreated. Matter cannot create itself. For ex nihilo to happen, it requires an omniscient, omnipotent being who is not bound by the laws of nature.
@alaric1247 well at least you are not denying that you use circular reasoning. thats something i suppose.
matter cannot create itself.. but it can be just *poofed* into being by an unseen and unknowable, but all powerful 'being'. And it must be a 'being' right? an intelligence? otherwise that presupposition of yours might well have to be reviewed and we cant have that can we?
it's a wonder to me, how you can know some of the things you've said about god. self contradictory to say the least.
Any presuppositional argument ends up being circular, atheistic arguments not excluded.
Matter cannot create itself. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." God is knowable, to an extent. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." There's no need to review the presupposition.
@alaric1247 by definition Atheistic arguments have no presuppositions as they are merely a rejection of a claim and make no claims of its own.
Contradictions such as what you assert god must be, in order to fit the gaps. It is as if you know the mind of god, what he is, how he exists, what he has done and that you can understand the things he has done. But how could a human know the mind, motives and deeds of a being omnipotent & omniscient?
By denying God's existence, you are claiming "God does not exist." That is your presupposition. And any argument you might have to disprove His existence is based on that presupposition.
I'm not asserting anything about God "in order to fit the gaps." My claims about His nature and character are what He says He is. The fact that it doesn't leave any gaps is probably due to the fact that it is true. Due to space constraints I will continue in a second response.
Again, the only claims I will make about God are things that can be known through special revelation (His Word) and general revelation (His creation). This is how I can know as much as I do about his mind, motives, and deeds. Of course, a human mind can never fully understand an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.
@alaric1247 ok, firstly, by denying gods existence i am NOT claiming he does not exist.
Spot the difference in these two statements.
1) '' I believe there is no god'' 2) '' I dont believe there is a god''. If you are having trouble understanding the important difference here i can recommend a video that fully explains.
Can you indicate where in 'special revelation' god reveals that he is outside of natural law, not bound by time etc, i wish to look it up. 1 more thing... cont in next post...
I understand that they aren't exactly the same. But you do believe that God does not exist, right? Your worldview cannot rest on simply the denial of God. Your worldview in reference to God has to be either a denial of Him, or an affirmation of Him.
Psalm 90:2 says that God is everlasting. We know he is not bound by natural law because such laws are inherently bound to the material world. It is apparent that laws which govern creation don't bind the one that created them.
@0aks0liver with respect, i dont think you do understand the difference. if you post is any indication of you comprehension.
it is a case if reasonable doubt, you (or the religious) make a claim that god exists. i have rejected that claim as the evidence does not support it. i DO NOT make the claim that god does not exist, because there is no evidence for that either. I will (and do) accept things that come with evidence that amounts to proof. i make a 2nd post about Psalm 90:2
@0aks0liver so Psalms 90 then. so i have read. 89, 90 & 91. so in 85 separate verses, that god is 'everlasting' is mentioned once (90:2) and it is just 'said' no explanation or anything. it mentions nothing about being outside of natural law or anything so interpretation is open. But lets say i concede the mean... without explanation why would any thinking person believe it?
BTW, nice demonstration of your god omnibenevolence in these chapters.
Omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent eh? really?
we can, i hope, agree that there is evil in the world and bad things happen to good people as well as good things happing to bad people. so tell me this, is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? is he able but not willing? if he IS able and IS willing, then why is there evil? if he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?
Yes, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But what makes evil bad? It can only be considered such in contrast with good. So why does God allow good to happen? God is just as well as merciful, so why does He give us any good in the first place? Having sinned against God (Romans 3:23), we all deserve Hell.
If everything we do is dictated by chemical processes, then you should be asking me about the "problem of good" not of evil.
@0aks0liver Thanks for your replies, my posts were directed towards user alaris1247 as part of a series, but i will answer your points anyway.
You reply to my challenge(which was not mine but epicurus' of course) is lack lustre, circular and non sense, as well as not actually answering it. you assert the three qualities i challenged including omnibenevolent and then quote scripture to show him being malevolent... attempt at humor?
and why should i be asking you about the problem of good?
R. Dawkins is wrong about God. He DOES exist. I am God. Please, send me your money (the more the better). I'll send the address in my next statement. HA HA. R. Dawkins is great. He also makes a good point about teaching science. It should be taught in a way that makes it interesting. Not taught like " rules form a cookbook" as Carl Sagan once said...
Richard Dawkins is wrong about God God DOES exist. I AM GOD. Please, send me you money (the more the better) I will send the address in my next statement. Ha ha. Love R. Dawkins. He kicks such intellectual ass... Also, R. Dawkins has a point about how science is taught. Sciences needs to be taught in a way that makes it interesting. Not like "rules from a cookbook" as Carl Sagan once put it...
Richard... always the poet! love it love it love it, he's my consoler in bad times, we have Richard to teach us, who needs a god???
religionruinsus 6 months ago 2
I also feel that saying "I am not an atheist or agnostic" doesn't mean you are a theist. This may seem like a paradox, but of course we are dealing with loaded terminology. 'God' is often assumed to mean the god of the bible, but god can mean many things. It is possible to shun the idea of creationism, accept evolution, not be 'religious', yet not be an atheist. Call it agnosticism, call it ambiguity. If theism never existed, could atheism exist? We need to get past this battle to see clearly.
mrbibio 7 months ago
If there were people who believed a pink elephant created the universe, it would seem unnecessary to call yourself an 'anti-pink-elephantist' simply because you thought the pink elephant theory was ridiculous. I feel the term 'atheist' is a product of a loaded question (do you believe in god?) with an expected binary outcome - yes or no. The seemingly bottomless mystery of the universe and our consciousness should not be subject to such side-taking. And thus the term 'igtheist' was born.
mrbibio 7 months ago
Dawkins makes me feel so excited about science!
TheJuliusJT 9 months ago
2 ppl think the world is less than 10,000 years old!!!
freedomland11 10 months ago
I'm taking my first biology class, and we're at the start of the fourth quarter and still haven't touched evolution. I don't think we'll be getting to it... which is sad. It would have been much more beneficial for the teacher to be explaining it, instead of me just reading it for myself.
riotreality 1 year ago 4
when i read the book, called ' the God's word' , i find so many inconsistencies, so many errors...i don't get it how someone can take christianity, islam, hinduism...so seriously! I think pple use religion maybe because it gives them some kind of placebo effect!
24erayfikri69 1 year ago 4
Dear God help me to understand how so smart guy can be that stupid? The most stupid of all. And to have so many sheep as followers? Ooo you docile sheep, could you think for a moment with your own head? Ohh, pardon me! You do not have one, perhaps Dawkins will explain us, from evolutionary point of view, how come that organizms use their butts for thinking. Wake up sheeple, wake up and start thinking and stop baaaaaa. Baaaaaaaa! BaaaaAAaaAAAaaAAAaAAaaaAA!!! Sheeeeeeple
snajpdj 1 year ago
@snajpdj Religious people are the real sheeples. You accept what your preacher says with out question. You obediently obey a book that was written by sheepherders 2,000 years ago who had no knowledge of how the world works and make claims that are not supported by any evidence. Do you still think illness is caused by demonic possession as the bible claims. Why bother going to a doctor, shouldn't you be able to pray your illnesses away. The pious are the sheep, worshiping a fictitious God.
Jshect 1 year ago
@snajpdj
how dare you insult sheep in that manner,
comparng sheep to gods followers is an insult to sheep all over the world.
unfad1ng 1 year ago 3
@unfad1ng to gods followers yes you r right, But God's followers are a different category. Go learn the dference.
snajpdj 1 year ago
@snajpdj
thaths just silly <_< you know what i mean... :) theres not diference and i still belive you dont really respect sheep they are gentle and nice animals.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
Good thing in Canada, even in Catholic schools, evolution is fully taught and accepted
Huddiethegreat 1 year ago 5
We really need Dawkins to stage an intervention in Texas. Our education standards are being decided by a creationist dentist. The enlightenment will now be taught in school through the lens of Calvin, Jefferson has been kicked out...and the School Board has vowed to stand up to so-called science experts and teach what jesus wants.
ChoraNym 2 years ago 4
Dawkins inspires me to learn science more so in ten minutes than all my years spent listening to my science teachers who would drone on and on yet did absolutely nothing to inspire me to understanding science. we need educators that are brilliant like Dawkins and we need them decades ago.
kristopopins 2 years ago 4
Religion (the greatest FRAUD in all history), astrology, tarot, tea, coffee and palm readings, numerology, witchcraft, etc are junk mythological fraudulent nonsense, yet people believe, live and pay money into these ridiculous fantasy things.
goldstead 2 years ago 16
thank god for richard dawkins.....uh never mind...
newtonslogic 2 years ago 29
I hate people that say stupid shit like "God forgives you." Are you speaking for god? Isn't it blasphemous to do that?
TheIrateAtheist 3 years ago 13
TheIrateAtheist as I see it blasphemy implies disrespect... I don't see any disrespect in "God forgives you." I think they are just haphazardly trying convey God's willingness to forgive sins... But we all know that Richard would say "Blasphemy is a victimless crime"... :) :)
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago 3
Kk :D
TheIrateAtheist 2 years ago
when peple say that to me I politly as them not to bess me etc as i find it offensive
weallhaveavalue 2 years ago
its hard for anyone to listen to dawkins and not be convinced.
as sam harris put it, " good ideas are contagous, I will give you my reasons, and if they are good enough, you will helplessly believe them, that is what it is to be a rational human being"
we should collect the sperm of the 4 horsemen and save them in a jar incase of a nuclear holocaust, then the new world could raise a rational society.
sylviabombs15 3 years ago 12
hahah well said
Jonnymont 3 years ago
Forgive my ignorance, but who are the For Horsemen?
And since they are apparently male, which women's eggs would you want to preserve?
And anyway, I don't think four couples are enough. A biologist friend of mine said nine is the minimum number of couples one would need to restore a species.
EyeLean5280 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dont worry, you are forgiven.
sylviabombs15 3 years ago
Well, that would be nice, if you'd actually answered the question or pointed a direction for me to find the answer for myself.
As it stands, it's really rather rude, Sylvia. And I bet it's cowardly, too, in that you enjoy acting that way annonymously online, but probably wouldn't dream of treating someone like that in person. (Are you thirteen years old, by any chance?)
EyeLean5280 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok, to answer your original questions (which were all retarded in nature)
answer to Q#1: google 4 horsemen
Q:2 I would suggest using Ayan hirsi ali's eggs.
Q#3: your biologist friend is a retard, as i suspect you are as well. You can recreated a species with 2 couples, there just wont be very much genetic variation in the gene pool, and will be susecptable to geneitc abnormalities.
and im 12. not 13. my moms even gonna let me have a sleep over for my birthday. so suck it.
sylviabombs15 3 years ago
you're forgetting the principle of "regression to the mean". their children would not necessarily be as reasonable as they are.
captainsurrey 3 years ago
thanks mr.dawkins!
Q8hypermania 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science accepts creation, we cannot see evolutionism anywhere it is pure fantasy.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
cant see god either. wake up from your bronze-age myths and see the real truth.
erin321321 3 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can see design, so I can see a designer.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
you can see the illusion of design. so you have the dellusion of a designer.
riddle me this, if you truely believe in god. he made everything? so who made him? and please dont be one of these god squad cop-outs who insist that natral law applies to everything except god.
erin321321 3 years ago 32
@erin321321
Natural law doesn't apply to God. Natural law only applies to nature (the physical world) – that's why we call it natural law. God is by definition uncreated. He is not bound by time and space or any other things that govern the natural world.
And the world is designed – how can it be otherwise? It's not just an illusion, it is a reality, and as such it necessitates a designer.
alaric1247 11 months ago
@alaric1247 So you decided to be one of these cop-outs then. If the circular reasoning in your post is good enough for you, then that's fine.
But tell me this, by whatever process you think god came into being, whether he is eternal in your mind or whatever else, why could the universe not have came into being in the same way? why have god in the equation at all?
erin321321 11 months ago
@erin321321
Every argument involving presuppositions is circular.
God didn't come into being. Like I said, he is uncreated. Matter cannot create itself. For ex nihilo to happen, it requires an omniscient, omnipotent being who is not bound by the laws of nature.
alaric1247 11 months ago
@alaric1247 well at least you are not denying that you use circular reasoning. thats something i suppose.
matter cannot create itself.. but it can be just *poofed* into being by an unseen and unknowable, but all powerful 'being'. And it must be a 'being' right? an intelligence? otherwise that presupposition of yours might well have to be reviewed and we cant have that can we?
it's a wonder to me, how you can know some of the things you've said about god. self contradictory to say the least.
erin321321 11 months ago
@erin321321
Any presuppositional argument ends up being circular, atheistic arguments not excluded.
Matter cannot create itself. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." God is knowable, to an extent. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." There's no need to review the presupposition.
What self contradictions?
alaric1247 11 months ago
@alaric1247 by definition Atheistic arguments have no presuppositions as they are merely a rejection of a claim and make no claims of its own.
Contradictions such as what you assert god must be, in order to fit the gaps. It is as if you know the mind of god, what he is, how he exists, what he has done and that you can understand the things he has done. But how could a human know the mind, motives and deeds of a being omnipotent & omniscient?
erin321321 11 months ago
@erin321321
By denying God's existence, you are claiming "God does not exist." That is your presupposition. And any argument you might have to disprove His existence is based on that presupposition.
I'm not asserting anything about God "in order to fit the gaps." My claims about His nature and character are what He says He is. The fact that it doesn't leave any gaps is probably due to the fact that it is true. Due to space constraints I will continue in a second response.
alaric1247 11 months ago
@erin321321 Continuing...
Again, the only claims I will make about God are things that can be known through special revelation (His Word) and general revelation (His creation). This is how I can know as much as I do about his mind, motives, and deeds. Of course, a human mind can never fully understand an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.
alaric1247 11 months ago
@alaric1247 ok, firstly, by denying gods existence i am NOT claiming he does not exist.
Spot the difference in these two statements.
1) '' I believe there is no god'' 2) '' I dont believe there is a god''. If you are having trouble understanding the important difference here i can recommend a video that fully explains.
Can you indicate where in 'special revelation' god reveals that he is outside of natural law, not bound by time etc, i wish to look it up. 1 more thing... cont in next post...
erin321321 11 months ago
@erin321321
I understand that they aren't exactly the same. But you do believe that God does not exist, right? Your worldview cannot rest on simply the denial of God. Your worldview in reference to God has to be either a denial of Him, or an affirmation of Him.
Psalm 90:2 says that God is everlasting. We know he is not bound by natural law because such laws are inherently bound to the material world. It is apparent that laws which govern creation don't bind the one that created them.
0aks0liver 11 months ago
@0aks0liver with respect, i dont think you do understand the difference. if you post is any indication of you comprehension.
it is a case if reasonable doubt, you (or the religious) make a claim that god exists. i have rejected that claim as the evidence does not support it. i DO NOT make the claim that god does not exist, because there is no evidence for that either. I will (and do) accept things that come with evidence that amounts to proof. i make a 2nd post about Psalm 90:2
erin321321 11 months ago
@0aks0liver so Psalms 90 then. so i have read. 89, 90 & 91. so in 85 separate verses, that god is 'everlasting' is mentioned once (90:2) and it is just 'said' no explanation or anything. it mentions nothing about being outside of natural law or anything so interpretation is open. But lets say i concede the mean... without explanation why would any thinking person believe it?
BTW, nice demonstration of your god omnibenevolence in these chapters.
erin321321 11 months ago
@alaric1247 . continuing . .
Omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent eh? really?
we can, i hope, agree that there is evil in the world and bad things happen to good people as well as good things happing to bad people. so tell me this, is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? is he able but not willing? if he IS able and IS willing, then why is there evil? if he is neither able nor willing, why call him god?
erin321321 11 months ago
@erin321321
Oh, don't get me started on suffering! :)
Yes, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But what makes evil bad? It can only be considered such in contrast with good. So why does God allow good to happen? God is just as well as merciful, so why does He give us any good in the first place? Having sinned against God (Romans 3:23), we all deserve Hell.
If everything we do is dictated by chemical processes, then you should be asking me about the "problem of good" not of evil.
0aks0liver 11 months ago
@0aks0liver Thanks for your replies, my posts were directed towards user alaris1247 as part of a series, but i will answer your points anyway.
You reply to my challenge(which was not mine but epicurus' of course) is lack lustre, circular and non sense, as well as not actually answering it. you assert the three qualities i challenged including omnibenevolent and then quote scripture to show him being malevolent... attempt at humor?
and why should i be asking you about the problem of good?
erin321321 11 months ago
R. Dawkins is wrong about God. He DOES exist. I am God. Please, send me your money (the more the better). I'll send the address in my next statement. HA HA. R. Dawkins is great. He also makes a good point about teaching science. It should be taught in a way that makes it interesting. Not taught like " rules form a cookbook" as Carl Sagan once said...
crazykb 4 years ago 5
Richard Dawkins is wrong about God God DOES exist. I AM GOD. Please, send me you money (the more the better) I will send the address in my next statement. Ha ha. Love R. Dawkins. He kicks such intellectual ass... Also, R. Dawkins has a point about how science is taught. Sciences needs to be taught in a way that makes it interesting. Not like "rules from a cookbook" as Carl Sagan once put it...
crazykb 4 years ago
loving the uploads. masif respect for dawkins
Ethniki 4 years ago 7
I love Richard Dawkins!
billyx1111 4 years ago 13
Great video. Thanks.
Dirus23 4 years ago 9
Again, thanks for the upload, gotta love Dawkins!
SoapSoapCrayon 4 years ago 11