Re: Dawkins Rap and Idiot Atheists

[LucandKristiesLife]

you should read it b/c it will give alot of clarity to your views

[drspoof1]

Richard Dawkins is laughing at you, you bible bashing loonatic. GOD ISN'T REAL - It's a story book FOOL.

[hybridamerica]

Doesn't matter. The video did what it had to do.

...and that was, to make The Dawkins' Rap the overarching plea. That is, it was so well done that any "spoof" effect is minimized to such a degree that it remains negligible.

Really, because what Dawkin's character says in the video is true!

[StupidLittleNobody]

Get a life, dude, seriously! You're totally embarrassing yourself.

And the Jesus look isn't working for you, either.

Have a shave and a haircut and you might find a nice girl to take your mind off YouTube.

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

Fuck off.

You clicked on it.

[Mattexmo]

All I heard was, mumbly mumble, mumble, mumble.

Not good enough to be broadcast. Sorry.

[shellroom]

Killersepp, you might be better off writing your thoughts rather than speaking them. I'd probably agree with you, but you're really not orating well. At all.

[ah05075]

weirdo, sorry

[Dragnf1y]

GTFO my YouTube.

[kksf1979]

it was funny

[Crazyman1212]

wow another little sissy girl crying over a fucking sweet video. I give the dawkins rap video 5 stars for dankins bling

[udi0Point]

did YOU study biology? do you have a 'science' degree?

[bubbafet2200]

carnage123123123 your conclusions are based on a poor understanding of the facts; I'll be brief.

1)It's foolish and impractical to shape your view of the evidence for evolution according to nonsensical "nature vs nurture" platitudes. What you lack is a sense of time and scope. Natural selection explains elegantly and completely the biodiversity we observe, both living and in the fossil record.

[bubbafet2200]

2)A biologist convinced of evolution is no more exhibiting faith than an engineer convinced of the properties of electricity; here the word "faith" is poorly used and misleading. It is not the same "faith" used in invoking gods. You would benefit from a clarity of language. 3a)Suggesting that the "polarization" in the creation-evolution debate is evidence of a shortcoming on both sides is nonsense; one side is reasonable, the other is not.

[bubbafet2200]

3b)ID/creationism does not provide a counterpoint to natural selection; it merely points to complexities, and claims that they could not arise naturally. ID is 100% an argument from incredulity. Scientists patiently counter each claim with a reasonable model for each supposed 'improbable' feature, and thus nullify the claim. Ironically, the endpoint to each ID argument from incredulity - namely God - is infinitely improbable by the same ID standards, thus rendering the exercise moot.

[bubbafet2200]

4)The bible is a very bad guidebook for morality. It sometimes contains a few nice directives (be charitable), and often contains a lot of evil commands (kill, rape, enslave, exterminate); the central tenet of the christian faith (compulsory, vicarious redemption by human sacrifice) is evil; its command towards blind faith, in itself is evil, irresponsible, and a clear vestige of its primitive, illiterate origins.

[bubbafet2200]

5)Science polices itself, and quite capably. If you were moderately interested in the history of evolutionary thinking, you would know it was never homogeneous, and still retains contrasting, divergent models for certain processes. Natural selection, however, has been thoroughly vindicated as the correct mechanism to explain the biodiversity and evolution of life. There is no conspiracy, and there is no controversy on this point. There is only doo-doo-throwing by self-congratulating apes =]

[Makotoichio]

See bubba, too many words for them to handle. You don't think they have actually read the bible do you? Atheists have read the bible. That's why we're Atheists.

[xandoclone]

Heh. Well played.

[carnage123123123]

It was needed because evidence is too polarized because of ideologies, when science is neutral then real science is done. Science is done by clearing any emotions, any beliefs and any other human traits that will influence the meaning of the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself, not "soft science", we need more "hard science".

[carnage123123123]

...to continue, both sides of this debate is too polarized. We need to see evidence for what "it is", not what we think it should be. If evidence constitutes design, we need to learn from it, if we learn from it, we will not just say "this was designed because it looks like it" or "this only appears to be designed", we need predictive theories, we need to reverse engineer, only then will the evidence be clear, much clearer, not-biased. Intelligent design theory was needed for this.

[carnage123123123]

Each person sees "evidence" in a different scope. A theory such as evolution requires more explanation then say gravity. Gravity is constant, observable and is well tested, thus predictable. Many atheists claim evolution is as well tested as gravity, they see evidence for micro-evolution (small scope) evidence for (large scope) macro-evolution. Theists for example, do the same thing. They look at molecular machinery (ss) and say that god did it (ls). This is act of faith on both sides

[carnage123123123]

I have been more honest here because you are an honest atheist and I respect such honesty. However, now its time for your genes to kick (this is your gut instinct), you will either take me for a bible banging fundie "kill for jesus" guy or some other type in the same "class".

[carnage123123123]

As you can see, IF you truly think that I was converted to God through priests and bible fundies etc.. then you are "prescribed" like all the other atheists to believe that, I can't help you. I made MY OWN choice, a choice based firmly on a criteria I SET UP, NOT THE BIBLE. The bible is just there, very good moral resource, I don't know if its all true or not, don't care either.

IF there is evidence I will follow it, so far evidence for RM & NS/OOL studies are unconvincing to me.

[carnage123123123]

To continue, I believe that evolution was determined (pre-programmed) and has ended long ago, the output of that evolution is what we see. The evidence for this is nature vs. nurture. You are born that way, and you will stay that way. Each person is part of his or her prescription, this is all. Like ontogeny, so is phylogeny. P.S: I never read the bible, was raised a catholic, had doubts for many years (agnostic) then changed back. I AM a ID proponent now.

[carnage123123123]

I defined the words that needed to be guessed, I specified the game loop and when to exit the loop, I defined the data types, how guess had been updated if a character matched, I defined all the parameters for the program and it did what I told it too.

[PrometheusAlight]

Evolution is only a threat to a flawed interpretation of a book held as holy by many people who haven't even read it.

If your personal experience brought you to a place where you found spirituality carnage123123123, I find that admirable.

I & many like me would never dream of treading on your right to find comfort and happiness in your belief system.

The main problem arises when zealots insist on forcing their beliefs in others and openly lying about facts while claiming atheists are amoral.

[PrometheusAlight]

Killersepp, I appreciate tyhe sentiment of your video, but finishing up with a Zen based statement hurt your argument.

If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[procommenter]

Dawkins is at the pier now waiting for the navy.

[C0ldhead]

Hm hm, No I would say the finger is not given at all!

Awesome response, I dont know why he the guy cant go and have a smile once i a while ^^

This reminds me of the Islamic response of the Denmark, when a cartoonist had drawn funny things of Muhammed, and then then draw back funny things of our queen..

We dont care for out Queen, our own comedians even make fun of her...

[beanson99]

stop mumbling you dumbfuck

[carlos0951]

shut up atheist. he really is an alcoholic look it up. everything u believe in is just the result before a fresh mornings hangover.

[Killersepp]

Who's an alcoholic? And what do I believe?

[CkVega]

The parody of the Dawkins rap is that it uses the same, useless, tired, anti-atheist arguments that are so easily refuted.

[UrosPetrovicPSY]

There's no place 4 ... what? You must be blind than or you just don't know facts, anyway, I believe that attacking is caracteristical approach for ALL IDEAS ON THIS WORLD, BUT for religion I THINK IS NO - TOLERANCE for changing dogmas ... that's all

[UrosPetrovicPSY]

There's no place 4 ... what? You must be blind than or you just don't know facts, anyway, I believe that attacking is caracteristical approach for ALL IDEAS ON THIS WORLD,

[Smokebuda420]

what was this about i couldent lisen, i love ur beard to much. and keep hand gestures and a minimum hard to concentrate =) who cares im 13

[UrosPetrovicPSY]

All of u r so confused

[UrosPetrovicPSY]

I dont hear what you are talkin man your speach is awful. I SEE THAT U ALL PUZZLE AROUND SOME THINGS BUT U really missed all the points. Why dont u live ure atheist life and live CHRISTIANS to believe in what they believe and stop puzzling around your own SHADOW? m?

[EnemyofCredulity]

" Why dont u live ure atheist life and live CHRISTIANS to believe in what they believe and stop puzzling around your own SHADOW? m?"

--because beliefs lead to actions, and religion has infected our society for in a negative way for too long.

[UrosPetrovicPSY]

This makes sense, but... im certain that u r aware u sounded like Antichrist? Remembered Immanuel Kant? U know that William Blake have an interesting view on the issue? Illuminati - Anitchrist and that stuff? Im just asking, I think that u r aware of what u r saying im just asking d basic questions so that we can continue the disscussion. U think that antichrist will save the world or that New Testemony is made to decieve the man justice? Or u came alone to that answere?

[Wolfieu2ube]

Religion has no place in todays modern society. Religion has reigned too long and is becoming more obvious to intelligent humans as being mysticism and fictitious.

If the religious could leave THE REST OF US alone we would be happy, But all they do is attack, attack, attack. Just sod off.

[squigglesy]

'even if it were' is right... 'were' is the subjunctive, which is not used in informal English but is technically correct. just thought i'd correct you! by the way, i agree with you about mike... he's an angry idiot.

[carnage123123123]

Your one of the most honest atheists on youtube, but you know nothing about Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is another term used for technology in biological systems. As a computer engineer, I find biologists lack understanding of designed systems, so what follows is a complete misunderstanding of Intelligent Design and what its about.

[Killersepp]

"you know nothing about Intelligent Design."

So then please enlighten me. What *does* Intelligent Design mean, other than "God did it"?

[DrPoodle]

Intelligent Design simply means that there are certain organisms / processes that couldn't have evolved by natural selection, but by a "designer". In all circumstances either a "God" is given as the designer or nobody is given at all. Either way, the question still arises "who designed the designer?" and I.D answers nothing. It is as good as saying "God did it".

[ConstantlyQuestion]

"Intelligent Design simply means that there are certain organisms / processes that couldn't have evolved by natural selection, but by a "designer"."

The fallacy of ID is that it does not allow for the discovery of new natural processes and jumps to the conclusion that the system was designed intelligently.

[PrometheusAlight]

As a systems and network engineer I find that most engineers lack an understanding of natural systems carnage123123123.

You would not claim that a baker is an authority on plumbing, so why claim you as an engineer are an authoratative resource on any field of scientific study clearly outside your remit?

ID is flawed beyond belief, as someone who claims capability of analytical thought processes you should know better.

[carnage123123123]

Prometheus, this is fine, its your choice to deny design. When I was agnostic, I simply had to choose between design or chance. Believe it or not what changed my mind was about 8 years ago when I programmed my first game in c called hangman. I thought about natural selection and random mutation as a powerful filtering mechanism for creating complex biological systems. My very simple hangman game proved me wrong. Continued...

[PrometheusAlight]

Hi carnage123123123. I appreciate the point you make & I understand the reason behind it.

Although, I must admit that I do not deny design, I have just found no evidence for it in my research. If you'll forgive me I believe that you have mistakenly applied a real world observation to a system that doesn't play by the same rules. It's easily done and many less reasonable people have put less cognitive effort into their belief system.

Living organisms have several properties (continued).

[PrometheusAlight]

That are not shared by designed systems such as computer programs.

Thunderf00t has made observations that among these properties are the fact that living organisms can die, living organisms that are unsuited to their environment are unlikely to survive and living organisms can reproduce with variation.

There are also separations between biologically evolved and designed systems with regard to energy usage, growth/development and homeostasis (continued).

[carnage123123123]

Hi Prometheus,

Computers are designed to run complex algorithms. I can run any algorithm you like to simulate/model anything you like (Virtual organisms?), digital binary code is like that, at a good enough sampling rate and resolution (Nyquist theorem) its as close to real as you can get. Anything analog is considered "natural" while anything logical, abstract or symbolic in "nature" is considered discrete, not continuous. The similarities between DNA and digital binary code are hard to deny

[carnage123123123]

What has also profound impact on me was that only intelligence was known to produce symbolic code. It was either chance or design, I found that Intelligent Design was maybe not more "scientific" but it was more logical and concrete explanation. I would say that "intelligent" is hard to define, but "design" is not. Also, I am a firm believer in evolution, I'd call myself a determinist. I believe if evolution (by RM & NS) were really true, then people would change, yet they don't. continue...

[PrometheusAlight]

I have found that the more knowledge you gain on modern evolutionary synthesis the more difficult it is to categorise life and the universe as a designed system.

Of course gaining knowledge on this subject can prove difficult as many creationists knowingly & deliberately allow themselves to be mis-informed as they believe that evolution directly threatens their belief system, while still others (Ham, Hovind, Stein) are openly dishonest about the facts.

Evolution isn't a threat to spirituality.

[carnage123123123]

Nobody fuck** "likes" Richard Dawkins.

[number16aaron]

Why is it that All britist people are smart?

[Escuerd]

Not all of them are. Many are, but not all.

Some of the most brilliant people in history have been from Britain, but it has its share of dumb people too, just like anywhere else.

[jgoemat]

The prevailing theory (look up I.Q. world map on google image search or wikipedia) is that life was more difficult in colder climates like England. People had to plan ahead for crops for instance so they would have enough food for winter. People that planned better (i.e. smart people) produced more offspring and there you go.

[number16aaron]

Actually thats only part of the reason.why they're so cunning and sneaky

[TheEyesOfNye]

Oh my god that was Awesome!!!! You are great, why have I not seen you before!? I love the philosophical question at the end there!

[mikecampochiaro]

Good response sir, I just watched it. The original video was to atheists who favorited the video under the pretense that it was pro-atheism, and that clearly doesn't describe you.

[pedroac]

I thought you're an english-man until you had that grammar doubt (it happens to me too), and I checked your channel.

Anyway, I read the comments from atheists here in YouTube and at Richard Dawkins website. Most of them say they don't care what side is the target and think it's funny. Some of them (the blind sheeps) even try to convince Dawkins that's funny, and stuff like that.

Maybe the guy you're responding is a fanatics, and fanatics can't laugh at themselves and their beliefs.

[hunniebee173]

You come highly recommended by a little qmog i know :D Excellent response!!!!

[Killersepp]

Well, give that little qmog you know my best regards, and tell her that I hope her young are behaving well and do not yet feast on her own carcass.

Also, thanks for your subscription :-D

[tavin15]

I just googled and I can't find anything atheistic-terror or anything like it , so I'm wondering why you(as an atheist) get attaced. Do you know why?

[HeavensSacrifice]

I've seen and known many very intelligent atheists and I would definitely say you fall under that category.People need to be open to others beliefs or non beliefs and you've never been rude to me for my beliefs.I have the utmost respect for you for that. Thanks.

[Killersepp]

You're most welcome. And for that matter, you could say that I'm d'accord with Jesus' most substantial teaching: Be nice to each other. At least when not provoked :-D