You need to educate yourself if you think communism & secularism are even remotely similar.
The USA is a secular nation in theory if not fully in practice. People are free it believe what they wish but religion & religious policies should remain out of government.
Basically the secularism in Europe is being pushed by the native European population. This causes the white boys and girls to be very tolerant and accepting of all religions. The destruction of Christianity in Europe allows for Islam to move in and take over Europe by using this to their advantage. Muslims will NEVER stand for a secular society. Either you submit to Islam or die. Once they have the numbers, Richard Dawkins' children and grandchildren are SCREWED. All due to his agenda.God Bless
Anybody can call themselves "catholic". Jesus said though:"You'll know them by their fruits" and "faith without works is dead". Therefore Hitler was not Catholic. Mr. Dawkins atheism is the fruit of all evil. If everybody loved and followed Jesus there would be a paradise on earth.
@TheViolet76 The Muslims say EXACTLY the same thing. Saudi Arabia is their inspiration.
The Dark Ages were when Christianity ruled the roost.
Religion is a howling, gibbering Beast slurping and groaning on the dark side of humanity, happy-clapped on by its Useful Idiots like you, and if it ever rises like the swollen, pus-filled disease it is again, I'll be one of the Warriors of the Light cutting it down.
@allieron and how and when did ever atheism contribute positively in any way to society. With no moral compas how is anybody going to know what is right and wrong. Obviously you are a very simple minded person.(Considering your name calling without even knowing who you are talking to) Therefore I don't expect you to understand such abstract issues...
@TheViolet76 Every good thing you see is the product of Deists, agnostics and atheists. The Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all by people who shunned the revolting vomit of religion and stood up as Humans to change this planet for Humans. Not mewling slaves of a jealous god who were given (lol) "free-will" to either burn in hell or grovel at the feet of their master. Some choice.
The Moral compass exists without ANY pathetic superstitious mumbo to justify it.
@TragonballReloaded Census data is inaccurate. I worked on the British census 10 years ago, and I can tell you there are a number of problems with that data - Lapsed Catholics going Catholic instead of No Religion. People putting their atheist children down as Catholic (as happened to me). The Secular Britain survey has a significantly higher rate of secularism in society than the Census - because they ask about how many times people go to Church, pray, etc.
"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 Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Why does Europe need a march for secularism? Isn't Europe in general pretty secular already? I thought the idea of a Catholic European as already as extinct as the Dinos. The "New Atheist" movement is just a lot of hot air, the atheist version of the Tea Party.
Apparently you don't realize what a threat Islam is becoming in Europe. There are communities in European democracies where sharia law is being imposed. Faith schools are popping up all over Britain, these schools are segregating the population a teaching pseudo science in the class rooms.
Most importantly free speech is being threatened. The U.N. seriously considered an anti blasphemy law . Where is would become a crime to say anything negative about religion.
@RedlineMMA That's just paranoid hogwash. Yes there are more Muslims moving to Europe, so NATO should probably stop bombing and looting their countries (and supporting brutal dictators). But right now the actual lives of Europeans are under more threat from IMF, oligarchs and their local capitalist barons than from people practicing some ancient belief. Dawkins will eventually end up like the Nobel Prize-winning scientists who backed Hitler in the 1930s and his bizarre theories and paranoias.
@retrogamerist I understand that, but he's just as fundamentalist about it as a religious radical. Even a super atheist revolutionary thinker like Bakunin wrote that even in the case of a revolutionary overturn of society, it would be incredibly difficult to pound atheism into the population (as soon as the USSR fell the church came roaring back into the daily lives of Eastern Europeans).
@BeBoBli Ok, I concede that point BUT again, what's the need for all this crusading? The French will always be secularist, they have been since the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, how is the typical Frenchman's secularist attitude under threat? People can choose to believe in something or not, that's "free will," an idea ironically made very popular in the modern era by the Reformation.
@SJGibbons1000 I agree with many of his points on principle, but I just don't agree with his methods or his attitude of apparently wanting to pound atheism into the culture, it's just not going to happen, religion is a very ancient, embedded part of human society in various forms, Dawkins and others like Sam Harris run around like mad Crusaders. I think Chris Hedges has made very valid criticisms of the New Atheist movement and its attitudes.
No, it's not. In the UK, for example, the Anglican Church is the official state church. So much for the separation of religion and politics. What is more, there are almost 30 bishops in the House of Lords. They weren't voted in there. They were given that position just because they are Church of England bishops. Religions are exempt from taxes. etc etc.
No, it's not. In the UK, for example, the Anglican Church is the official state church. So much for the separation of religion and politics. What is more, there are almost 30 bishops in the House of Lords. They weren't voted in there. They were given that position just because they are Church of England bishops. Religions are exempt from taxes. etc etc.
@Mattyb88ful Tax them all. Tax the vast wealth and use it for the common good. Goodbye, recession, goodbye crisis. The Greek Orthodox church is one of the wealthiest institutions in Greece. They pay NO tax. The Vatican sits like bloated, corpulent toads on a mountain of gold, and benefits humanity as much as herpes or a hole in the head.
Tax all superstition.
After all, if they need more cash, they can just as their god to loan some.
No, it's not. In the UK, for example, the Anglican Church is the official state church. So much for the separation of religion and politics. What is more, there are almost 30 bishops in the House of Lords. They weren't voted in there. They were given that position just because they are Church of England bishops. Religions are exempt from taxes. etc etc.
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate, from truth. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers!!!!!!!!
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him!!! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!!!
He is an idiot for demanding evidence and citations from a religious moron like yourself. You people don't deal with evidence. Just blind faith. You wallow in ignorance.
@BeBoBli You... demand, Sr.? Very humble. Please, first convince me that the WHY question is silly, then I may believe you want to listen to his arguments with a open mind.
@BeBoBli You... demand, Sr.? Not very humble, huh? It will be my pleasure. But first, please convince me that the WHY question is silly, then I may believe you want to listen to his arguments with a open mind. Otherwise, fuck off.
@BeBoBli You... demand, Sr.? Not very humble, huh? It will be my pleasure. But first, please convince me that the WHY question is silly, then I may believe you want to listen to his arguments with a open mind. Otherwise, fuck off.
Listen. You aren't making proper sentences or valid points, and you aren't demonstrating cohesive ideas. And it's clear you don't even know what science actually is.
Science doesn't CREATE wrong ideas - It doesn't create any ideas at all. Science is the process through which ideas - a product of natural human fallibility - are TESTED by proof and experimentation. Science is not some belief system that 'says' things. Science is a method of eliminating FALSE beliefs. That's all it is.
You don't know enough about physics to claim there is no evidence for hypotheses made based on them. these ideas are not without evidence, they are without PROOF. There is evidence of multiple universes in the mathematical structure of our world. It's only a hint, and as such, the concept is not widely accepted as FACT - just a good idea.
Of course, you leap at far-reaching, unproven ideas as though they are equivalent to your unprovable claim.
@taicleis Mathematical derivation is not evidence. Mathematics has no existence in the physical world other than ink marks in a dictionary describing it as an abstract noun. Mathematical extrapolation requires supporting physical evidence to be counted a valid description of the real world.
Indeed, the multiverse is a good idea, even rational, and it might be right. But there is as yet no physical evidence in its support.
I claim nothing. It is you who claim to have it all nailed down.
I claim to have it all nailed down? Show me where I said that. Sounds like you just made another claim without evidence.
The multiverse theory is not just an 'idea'. Mathematical extrapolation seems to work fine for everything its ever been used for, including the computer you're using, the vehicles you ride in, and the satellites orbiting over your head. There is ample reason to trust mathematics, but trust isn't even necessary - math is self-correcting. You can't make 1+1=3.
@taicleis The tone of your entire series of posts is: the secular worldview is dead right, the religious worldview is dead wrong. If this is a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation then please correct where appropriate.
If mathematics is a valid description of Nature, why so many paradoxes? Mathematics is an abstraction. Numbers are an abstraction. 1+1 does indeed equal 3 in the abstract world. But what happens between X.000...000 and X.000...001 in the measure of any physical quantity?
@taicleis The only proofs in existence are mathematical proofs. All else are probability functions. Truth, i.e. what is and what is not, no doubt exists as a suite of absolute facts. Our knowledge of these facts is a function of their discoverability. Not everything in the physical world, and the properties thereof, may be discoverable. It is a mistake to presume that everything is. Science, then, must assume a built-in limitation. Science is necessarily approximate. Close, but approximate.
You are correct that science assumes limitations, but this is merely science acknowledging the limitation that EVERYONE has. Science is simply the only one to admit it.
@taicleis "You are correct that science assumes limitations, but this is merely science acknowledging the limitation that EVERYONE has. Science is simply the only one to admit it."
Biblical scholarship worthy of the appellation embraces the notion of doubt. The 'blind faithers' don't count. There is blind faith is astrology and the power of sacred crystals. None of these things matter. What matters is; is the creator-God theory worthy of contemplation. I think it is.
There is no evidence for there NOT being something before the Big Bang, be it a deity or a banana peel. But the important thing is - FROM AT LEAST THAT POINT ONWARDS, everything has proceeded naturally and without any intervention.
If there were a creator, the only role allowed by the evidence (or rather, the one place where there is yet none) would be to set the universe in motion with a few physical laws, and then never ever touch it again.
@taicleis "If there were a creator, the only role allowed by the evidence (or rather, the one place where there is yet none) would be to set the universe in motion with a few physical laws, and then never ever touch it again."
Alright, so we are. If you're a pantheist like myself, then you should have just said so.
But I still think that a secular worldview fits fine with the non-interfering God hypothesis. Since there is no moral difference between naturalism and pantheism, a secular worldview is practically the same thing. Secularists don't 'forbid' the belief in a non-interfering God. Rather, they don't base their society upon cultural mythologies. Dawkins himself could be called a pantheist.
@taicleis I am actually an atheist, but an atheist with unanswered questions. I recognise a number of paradoxes that exist within the physical universe for which our all-answering mathematics has no answer. I recognise a plethora of moral conundrums for which secularism has no adequate answer. I recognise within the human condition a bundle of ‘knowledge’ that our status as evolved beings cannot justify. The last thing on my mind is faith that my atheism is100% correct.
The difference between music and noise is as studied as language itself; it's related brain centers and even what frequency patterns constitute music is not a mystery. Humans appreciate music using much of the same parts of the brain as speech - the parts that find patterns and meaning in sound stimulus. If you didn't even know that, I don't know how you can make the claims you do about science's validity.
@taicleis There is no such thing as a "frequency pattern that constitutes music". The quality of music is a phenomenon of the human mind and not a known property of molecular activity. It presently has no explanation other than that of the cop-out explanation I have already offered - phenomenon. If it did you would be able to tell me precisely. I asked you to think about this carefully and you did not. Music has nothing to do with "sound stimulus". I know you can do better. Please try.
Your attempt to mystify music doesn't hold water. Music IS a sound stimulus, similar to language. You could easily claim that language is 'of the human mind' and cannot be known as a 'molecular property'. Doesn't make it a mystery.
Music works very much like language. Temporal lobe is heavily used. We learn from the sounds of others. We imitate, and create novel phrases. It's applied neuroscience. Damage to the temporal lobe can make it hard to follow a tune, or EVEN RECOGNIZE MUSIC.
@taicleis If an imagined super-autopsy surgeon were to discect the brain of a dead bird he might be able to identify the molecular arrangements that corresponded to birdsong recognition. If the same surgeon were to discect the brain of a dead human would he be able to identify the molecular arrangements which showed the person's preference for Handel over the Sex Pistols? Or vice versa; take your pick.
A bell, a gong or a whistle is a sound stimulus. Music is a transcendent 'quality'.
Yes, they would be able to identify those arrangements. They are molecular constructs, built of associations and neural networks. Things that affect the function of these networks also affect the perception of your supposed 'transcendent' music. Some people listen to music high. Some people have no 'ear' for music. Some people are tone-deaf. Some people lose the ability to recognize music at all after brain trauma.
eing misguided. But you clearly haven't even understood the very things you're trying tk use as arguments, so going 'on and on' is just going to compound your errors.
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You say 'science says there is a 4th dimension'. A more accurate statement is that scientists POSTULATE the existence of a 4th spatial dimension, and even then this is based on observational evidence (in this case, the observed expansion of spacetime). The things you are claiming to be unevidenced, are not. And Dawkins' statement stands as PROOF of scientific honesty and truth, not vice versa. I'm sure you COULD go on and on, b
white ppl create god ,white ppl worship a murderous god, white ppl kill for that same MURDEROUS god, NOW white ppl hate a non-existant god of their OWN making.... you can't make this shit up.
@frotobare There's always a chance that there is a god. There's a chance that there are many gods. But it does not point to your god(the Christian one) if one existed. Even if it's a 0.0001% that one or many existed, the fact remains is that we don't know and that small percentage is not on equal footing with the chance that gods don't exist. Gaps in knowledge can't be filled with "God" because that creates an even bigger mystery of what created that being or how did it come into existence?
Scientific claims require evidence FIRST, then a hypothesis. Secular worldviews are based on observed facts.
Creation is based on an assumption first, and then no facts to back it up. Very, very different. In a secular worldview, there is no reason to infer a creator. No evidence. From a purely rational standpoint, God would never have been invented.
@taicleis Scientific claims emphatically do no require evidence first. There is no evidence that multiverses exist, and yet the idea is a scientific claim. I here use the word claim to describe a rational idea that may, for example, have been derived from mathematics but for which no tangible evidence exists. There is no evidence for the Higgs boson, and yet the idea is a scientific claim. All these claims must submit themselves for falsification before they be admitted to the halls of truth.
@taicleis "In a secular worldview, there is no reason to infer a creator. No evidence. From a purely rational standpoint, God would never have been invented."
This is plainly absurd. Even "secular worldview" logic must admit to effects requiring causes. It is logical to suppose that the Universe did not 'come from nothing' as physicists are now saying might have happened. Is this a species of 'new physics' which is counter-logical? If logic be suspended for this event, why not "invent" God.
The Judeo-Christian creation myth HAS been disproven. It makes specific claims which are demonstrably false - such as the Earth being created before the sun.
The only avenue of escape for it has been to (only recently) backtrack into claiming that the creation story is metaphorical. God was pushed all the way back to the Big Bang. The God of the gaps. It says something when a hypothesis can only survive outside of known facts.
@taicleis I'm not interested in the "Judeo-Christian myth". The Bible and its ilk can be dismissed as an early attempt at understanding the mysteries of the universe and man's place in it. It was necessarily fantastical given the capacity for imagination of the primitives together with a profound lack of scientific method.
Now please present me with evidence that falsifies the creator-God hypothesis. I'm refering to an imagined causal entity/being prefiguring the Big Bang.
Concrete evidence for the existence of music and literature? Download an mp3 and grab a book from the library. There's your evidence - they exist.
And if what you MEAN to infer is that the VALUE of these things is not empirically evidenced, even this is wrong. Laboratory studies of the brain's auditory and language centers provide scientific, quantitative understanding of how these things work.
@taicleis There is no 'concrete' scientific evidence for the existence of music and literature. There is no scientific difference between the molecular air movements of white noise and those transmitting Beethoven. There is no scientific difference between the ink marks on a telephone directory and those of a book by Charles Dickens.
Please provide the "scientific, quantitative understanding" of how the brain distinguishes music from the sound of leaves rustling in the breeze.
Dawkins is simply a coward. William Lane Craig has challenged him to a debate and he refuses to take him up on the offer. He's had his day and seems to be clinging on to his desire to be heard and "respected". Few theists (and philosophers) take him seriousely anymore.
@WitchcraftWillDamnU You misconstrue the Dawkins case. Craig argues philosophically, and virtually any philosophy is valid in that evidence in the Dawkins sense is not required. It is logical to suppose that matter did not 'come from nothing'. It is logical to suppose a cause. Craig's interpretation of the human condition suggests, at least to him, a purposeful and meaningful existence, hence the 'intelligent God-cause' theory. No Dawkins-type evidence can falsify this theory. Hence no debate.
@LazaaMMA If you took a little time to read the word, you would notice that those days were so different and so were values of ownership and the law. Just for saying what you just said to me you would have been stoned to death. Besides this, Christians read the new testament and refer to the old testament as a reference for prophetic word.
@LazaaMMA Remember in your history lesson? What did they say about the olden days? Look at the victorian era 110 years ago and people were living differently from today, what about in the middle ages? What about the barbaric times 2000 or 4000 tears ago. You need to view things in the context of the times. The west is far more civilized now, but there are parts of the world where barbaric behaviour is found today. The Bible was written over about 4500 years by over 40 different people.
Science DISALLOWS unevidenced claims from being accepted. As such, a secular worldview contains ONLY that for which there is concrete, measurable evidence.
Any challenge to a scientific view is met with either evidence or the abandonment of said view - the very definition of reasonable. Secularism would hold up in a fair trial. God would not.
@taicleis Science does not "disallow unevidenced claims from being accepted". Science accepts reasoned claims to knowledge supported by logical argument. These claims may subsequently be falsified through experimentation and/or the appearence of evidence to the contrary. While the creator-God theory has only argument to offer in its favour/defence, no evidence has yet surfaced with which it can be falsified. The same is true of 'belief' in extraterrestrial life, for which no evidence exists.
@taicleis "A secular worldview contains ONLY that for which there is concrete, measurable evidence".
Please present concrete evidence of the existence of music, literature and, say, beauty. Since you cannot do so (please think carefully before replying), do you propose that these areas of human knowledge be excluded from the secular worldview? They don't exist in other words.
The moment a scientific hypothesis is shown to be wrong, it is dropped. There are no irrational 'beliefs' in science. Evidence and experimentation are absolute.
The 'hypothesis' of God is not based upon evidence, but speculation. What's more, even if a purely speculative conception WERE scientific (it is not), there is a rift between a possible divine intelligence and a tribal deity named Jehovah.
@taicleis The creator-God hypothesis has not been shown to be wrong, hence it is still current. It is one of numerous creator hypotheses. Particle physicists believe the universe 'came into being', with some speculating that it 'came from nothing'. This is acknowledging creation but not speculating on a source. The religious, through a process of speculative imagination and logical reasoning, with not a little appeal to plausibility, push the 'don't know' one step further.
@LackLup no, they are not faith-based. Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence. Macroevolution follows logically (and unavoidably) from microevolution, and multiple universe theory is based upon possibilities derived through mathematical reality. Multiverse theory is also not a BELIEF. It is a hypothetical possibility under investigation. Faith does not investigate. Faith assumes one thing and refuses logical scrutiny.
@taicleis Multiverse theory is very much a belief, a belief of scientific desperation in an attempt to explain the apparent 'fine tuning' in the universe. It is rational in the sense that it would explain the so-called fine tuning. But there is absolutely no evidence that the theory has any basis in fact. To style the thing as "under investigation" is mischievous. Biblical scholars have had God 'under investigation' for far longer. Most are now of the opinion that the theory is far-fetched.
Dawkins is a just a nasty angry hateful bigot of a man. Barely knows a thing about theology as well. I would be ashamed if i was an atheist and this man was representing us.
@PaulP567 there is a difference. Calling someone stupid just because they disagree with you is not intrinsically backed up by evidence. Secular people have nothing to defend in terms of what they believe, so it does not work both ways. There is no evidence for Allah, God, Zeus, or Xenu, and so anyone operating under the assumption of their existence is not operating rationally.
@taicleis Secular people have nothing to defend? You are joking? What about multiverse theory = a faith based belief. Heck, even macro evolution is faith based.
@taicleis That is not correct. The existence of a God is a perfectly rational hypothesis if the logical route to such existence is well thought out and eminently plausible. But of course it may be wrong. The 'supersymmetry' theory was perfectly rational until the LHC demonstrated that it is probably wrong. There is nothing 'stupid' about the idea of a creator God, but to be constantly paralleling the idea with Easter bunnies and unicorns and the like is both irrational and stupid.
Dawkins is currently on the run from debating William Lane Craig. Dawkins will have 0 credibility when he fails to turn up for the debate challenge this October in the UK. Even some of his fellow atheists are losing respect for him. First the scandal of denying people free speech on his own forum, and now even his fellow atheists are recognizing he is cowering away from Craig's debate challenges. Google: Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God .
@ReekCat It would be pointless to discuss the obvious. If someone is denying the existence of god then it would be really embarrassing and humiliating to participate in an debate like that. Its like if someone serious you respect would be challenged to discuss the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus - starting a discussion like that would be the betrayal of rationale. I am sorry, but for the clever part of mankind religion is no more than a scary tale invented to control the masses.
@ReekCat Dawkins won't debate Craig because Craig's entire case will be based on the plausibility of plausibilities, the premise of premises, the explanation of explanations, and so forth in similar vein.
There is no tangible evidence for God. Everyone knows that, including Craig. Craig's 'evidence' will be thought-evidence, explanation-evidence, plausibility-evidence. All one need do is disagree with him to be perfectly valid. It wouldn't take half a second for Dawkins to disagree with him.
@LazaaMMA What Bible did you read, and where does it say that? I really dont think you understood what you read. The only slaughtering of innocent childeren was done as a sacrifice to Baal (satan) who God detests, if you are refferring to the people before the flood or Sodom and Gamorrah, you need to realise that those civilizatiions were so perverse and corrupt (burning babies alive as offerings, having sex with animals etc), no one in thier right mind today would dissagree with Gods judgement.
@LazaaMMA Why did you mention God? It is to satan that acts when people give him rights to. This issue is very complex and it is not so black and white. If you had read the Bible and sought answers from God then things would be clearer for you. But what about you - How are you responding to peoples needs in Africa?
@frotobare Oh yes, and I am totally happy living with my son and wife and really sorry for your kind for wasting your mind on a nonsense instead of finding purpose in life and living it.
@frotobare Tell people religion is not intolerant who were executed in the mediaval for herecy by the inquisition.Tell this to people in islamic countries today who get their hands chopped off for stealing food because they are hungry, tell all the women in islamic countries, tell this to catholics who keep their virginity, marry unhappy and die unhappy as divorce is also untolerated.The dark mediaval ages were the produce of christianity,where would we be now in science if it had not happenned?
Dawkins is in support of destroying our societies. Without God what is meaning? If I am just a result of natural selection, then why and what should be moral. Secular Humanism is just as much a religion (and is recognized by the UN as one) as any other religion. Dump religion and you have no reason not to become complete Pragmatic Utilitarians. You have Hitler,Stalin and Mao,Pol pot and Nihlism.When God is Dead so is what makes humanity alive dies too.Athiesm brings mass Death.
@doobersmanster Just how stupid you are. Do you only refrain from killing, stealing and so on because your religion bans these for you? If that's true for you then urgently find some specialist before you start killing people, in the name of your god maybe, you psychopath.
@doobersmanster I agree, I am not quite 50 years old, and it is plain to see what the fall of morals in our society has done to it (in the absence of belief in a God). I have seen this decline first hand and can see the mess the west is in now. Anyone who applauds and embraces the morals and life style of todays world, will never be able to seek the God who loves them and created them.
@jesusfilledphil I have seen it also. When I was a child, for example, people left thier doors open at night, The curse words were not even heard on TV, Women and men believed in the country and committed relationships, now it is just a free for all and the violence and disrespect of other people and thier lives is rampant. It is obvious that we as a society have been deteriorating and the next step is... Totalitarianism? naturalism is reducing us to animals on a "soul" level resulting in death
@doobersmanster These atheists will never find happiness, because religion is the key to family, community, and a fulfilled life. I pity them, for all their intellectual blabber they'll never be truly happy. The lack of morals in Western society is a direct result from people collectively turning their backs on God, and embracing hedonistic materialism and physical pleasures. Its made people lose their spirit, lose their pride in their culture, lose touch with their communities. Its truly sad.
@Aresolar690 All these atheists are happy, fulfilled people. The enlightenment and stimulation that atheism provides is enormous compared to religion's easy answer. Religion provides an unchanging point of view which is irrational and dangerous.
@TheUnusuallyNormal That my be true for some including yourself, but my faith provides more security and happiness than whatever pseudo-intellectual "enlightenment" atheism provides. But Religion isn't an easy answer, I question the word of God constantly, I analyze what it says, I ponder it, I doubt it. No ones faith in unwavering, but all anyone can do is live life as God would have us; love our family, provide for our community, and raise our children honestly. Faith is renewed through good
@Aresolar690 I'm not so assuming that I'll say "oh, clever people like me can live without religious faith, but of course the less intelligent, well-read or mature people need the support". That is a horribly arrogant way to think. "No ones faith is unwavering" - this is a lie! Maybe yours isn't, but when a belief system justifies murder and abuse, you can be pretty sure it's one that elicits an unreasonable amount of uncertainty.
@TheUnusuallyNormal I'm not sure what you're saying here. I said my belief is not unwavering, but your response was a rebuttal more suitable to if I had said that my belief WASN"T unwavering.
@Aresolar690 As for the last part, as a child religion only ever made me feel worse about myself. Whether or not we got some of our most valuable morals from religious text, they are now so ingrained into our culture that the original text is irrelevant. That's why they don't set The Origin of Species for biology students. There are terrible messages in many holy books, and we only censor them according to already-present moral values gained from reasoning and proper thinking,
@TheUnusuallyNormal Whatever moral values you have were built on religion, my friend. Religion is the beginning of morality, the values you have are just a very liberal version of those in the Bible, which of course aren't consistant due to the changes in culture and society that happened during the lives of its authors. I follow the words of Christ, because they are meant for his followers. The laws of Moses were meant for the Jews. I'm sorry religion made you feel horrible, whoever was your
Our morals are based on your culture & experience within the parameters of your evolved mind. There were many moral philosophers that long predate Jesus. Many were much more eloquent & morally sound. Rules like do unto others as you would do upon yourself predate Jesus by 1000yrs
Jesus says repeatedly that he his here to make sure the not one word from the law is changed. He supported old testament laws & never condemned slavery or treating women like property.
@TheUnusuallyNormal In short, my faith is faith both in the existance of God, and faith that his Word will lead me down a righteous path. Faith isn't unshakable, but it is a comfort, and I feel Gods prescence when I look in my sons eyes, and when I attend church with the people I know and love. I can be sure of God when following his Word makes me happier than I've ever been.
@Aresolar690 Sorry to interrupt, but granted that you derive comfort, inspiration and goodness from your belief in God, and in your case a very personal God, does the fact that none of the 'God theory' may be true, and likely isn't, bother you? Do you pause for thought at the knowwledge that, while the Bible may have been an honest enough attempt by primitives at addressing the mysteries of the universe and man's place in it, the narratives are entirely fictional? How do you deal with this?
My dear. I hope you'll feel the righteous existence of god when you'll stone him to death - because I'm afraid you are obligated to do so, as a good christian.
I hope when you'll look into your son's glassy, bloody, dead eyes your faith will be as unshakable as ever.
I hope you love jesus better, than your son, because jesus says you'll burn in hell if you don't leave your family behind and love him better than them.
These are only a few of the numberless reasons people like you make me sick to the stomach.
You don't think. You don't investigate. You are incapable of large scale of complex compassion. You bow down to false authority and superstitions. We who think and feel are always up against the seas of people like you who don't think and feel, but hinder progress and well being of others. *pukes*
"following his Word makes me happier than I've ever been."
So what, The Muslim, the Hindu the Jew....it doesn't matter. they all have identical experience to you they get the same loving transcendent feeling. We know this conclusively based off of MRI studies, The exact same parts of the brain are activated.
Your experience is just a product of the human mind. Please learn some basic human psychology the mind is easily fooled & people readily see patterns that aren't there..
@RedlineMMA So, your point is that since all religions make people happier, mine is false? Your logic is extremely flawed. I think your point just goes in my favor, that religion makes people happy. Technically, all our pleasurable expereinces are just "tricks" of the mind, neurotransmitters firing off. My experience makes me happy because its given me a community and helped me build a family. Since you obviously know a lot less than you think you do, I wouldn't have such a pretentious tone.
The fact that it gives you good feeling has NO bearing on whether it is factually true or not. Therefor you can not use your emotions to judge its validity. there is plenty of real evidence that the bible is purely man made & the story of Jesus especially the miracle claims & resurrection are simply not true. Frankly it should bother you that a Muslim while contemplating Muhammad gets the identical emotional feeling & just knows his faith it correct.
@RedlineMMA I know my faith is "correct" because I can see the bounties of it before me. How many times do I have to say it? My faith isn't in Gods existance; that I admit I am skeptical over. My faith is in his word, which has given me the tools to lead a virtuous, giving and productive life. It has inspired me, more than reading more "eloquent" philosophers of which you speak. I think theres a good reason why people are more inspired by the words of Christ or Muhammad than Sophocles or Plato
Jesus preaches that to not follow him mean eternal torment in hell, Muhammad says the same thing. Its obvious you don't care if its actually true or not all you care about is how it makes you feel.
It may give you comfort but it unnecessarily divides humanity. Whether its blocking stem cell research, motivating suicide bomber's or causing MILLIONS of deaths from genocide in Uganda. the Sudan & Bosnia.
Theses unfounded beliefs cause untold suffering & bigotry on this planet.
@RedlineMMA It doesn't bother me that Muslims get as much out of their faith as I do, if it leads them down a moral path. It doesn't make me question the words of Christ, or their applicability in my life. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove to me by your endless prosyletizing of the virtues of atheism. Tell me, when exactly has atheism done any good? What atheistic societies have ever done well, ever functioned healthily?
Atheism isn't a ideology. Its simply realizing there is no good evidence to support a god of any religion. there is no doctrine you are free make up your own mind on any subject.
Science has contributed mightily to human life. Although is not inherent atheistic it is a path to truth through observation & experiment. Things I value highly.
Well Sweden & western Europe are highly atheistic & according to polling have the happiest populations & lowest crime rates in the world.
@RedlineMMA Sweden and western Europe are more religious then atheist. And atheist (Hitler, Lenin, Stalin) have done much more harm to Europe then religion or religious people. And any christian who harms somebody isn't really being a christian, since the Christian religion teaches non-violence. And you make it sound as if religion and science cannot coexist, which they can.
@RedlineMMA Most of western Europe is 10-30% atheist. And Hitler hated Christianity because it taught peace and tolerance, and Hitler planned to destroy religion after ww2, so Hitler was a atheist.
Fact, Hitler referenced his Catholicism repeatedly in speeches to the German people, who were also overwhelmingly catholic. He blamed Jews for the murder of Christ something the church had done for centuries. He also always praised DIVINE PROVIDENCE. He was a theist
He killed not only jews & gypsies he also rounded up & KILLED atheists as well.
Try reading a history book based on known facts not religious revisionism.
@RedlineMMA If you have ever read anything about Hitler (which from your lack of knowledge on the subject I'm guessing you haven't) You would know that Hitler hated Christianity and called it a religion for the weak. Hitler also had priests sent to concentration camps and had them killed. Give me one good reason why a catholic would send catholic priests to concentration camps. Hitler was a Atheist, It is a fact. Please don't lie about history just make your opinions seem valid.
@RedlineMMA Hitler was occultist. There are plenty of historical books proving his passion for occult things, he believed in Satan and kept his throne, the gold of Nazi is cursed. He always had a group of occultists who would approve his choices in the war. Again, read read read. Education is good, very good thing
I've read both the old & new testaments as well ass several books about how they were put together. Don't feel bad for me because I have a functioning brain & don't accept your delusional beliefs.
How could Hitler possibly be an atheist if he believed in satin?? You aren't making any sense.
@RedlineMMA Everyone believes in something, you believe in yourself and your ideas in the video above. He believed in Spirits (not Satan as such) or whatever it was. You are full of anger, and that's your fruit. The real believer will never come with the war but peace only. Hope one day you will understand your mistake. hope that wont be too late.
@RedlineMMA It's a shame, that your comments are the top liked on the page, considering both of them are nonsense atheist propaganda(no different then fox news propaganda) and have no truth to them whatsoever. It's sad that people so readily believe the lies people like you and Richard Dawkins tell them. All you have to do is pick up and read any book or read any internet article about Hitler and you will clearly see that that Hitler became a staunch atheist in the early 1940's.
It is true that Hitler seemed to give up on Christianity late in life. That doesn't make him an atheist. he still believed in a god thanking divine Providence often.
Not believing in Christianity does not make somebody an atheist.
"internet article about Hitler and you will clearly see that that Hitler became a staunch atheist in the early 1940's"
Where is the evidence for your claims?
And do you not think that centuries of HOMOPHOBIA and ANTI-SEMITISM espoused by the Church and other Christian denominations played a part in the Holocaust? Don't you think it made the Nazis' job a lot easier? You spread hatred against gays, Jews etc, don't be surprised if someone comes along and then kills gays and Jews.
@polishguy994 Your ignorance baffles me. Hitler was in fact not an atheist, but a Catholic. And even if he was an atheist, that's hardly the point, because what every dictator, from Hitler to Mao, has in common is that they create a national cult around themselves. And what do we know of cults? Well, they're just the prototype forms of undeveloped religions.
@frankystein12 Your ignorance baffles me, Hitler in fact was not an catholic, but a atheist. Hitler sent catholic priests to concentration camps during World War Two. No catholic would do such a thing. And a police state that threatens people with violence for disobedience is not a religion. There are these things called books. They have been around for a few thousand years, and if you read them you will be more knowledgeable about history. I would suggest you try reading one of these books.
And, by the way, it's not a coincide that the victims of the Holocaust were Jews, homosexuals and et cetera. If you spread hatred against them, like the Catholic Church and protestant groups have for centuries, don't be surprised if the populace turn against these groups.
@Mattyb88ful If you have ever read anything about Hitler(And not just blindly believing Dawkins Intolerant and fabricated view of European history) you would know that he was a staunch Atheist. And the victims of the Holocaust Had nothing to do with the opinions of the church, It was Hitlers Idea of a pure race that chose who would be persecuted. Hitler sent priests and fellow Catholics to concentration camps. No religious person person would do such a thing.
@Mattyb88ful By 1940 Hitler had personally expressed his hatred toward Christianity, and he called it and I quote a "Religion for the weak".Hitler also made plans to eradicate all religion in Nazi Germany after ww2. A true catholic would not have done such things. Hitler was a atheist. its a fact, whether you choose except it or not. And if Hitler did mention god in his speeches in the 1940's,it was merely to assist him in controlling Christians in Germany,many of whom opposed Hitlers policies.
@Mattyb88ful Read my previous comments on this video, or feel free to look up Hitlers religious views on the internet. You'll find more then enough evidence to prove Hitlers atheism.
@polishguy994 You are the World's biggest idiot if you think Hitler was an atheist. I am not going to tell you to read volumes of books, but if you skim through Hitler's quotes GOD is mentioned quite some times. I am an Atheist, but Hitler was not one.
@royalstarfish17 Hitler abused, altered, and used Christianity to suit his own needs,the same way Fox News does.Hitler just used faith to try to comfort and win over the mostly religious German population, he wasn't religious himself.Also, many of the top Nazi Leaders were atheist, and the Catholic Church was the first major organization to denounce Nazism. All historical evidence clearly proves that Hitler was an atheist. Hitlers atheism is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not.
too loud music
halflifeproductionz 4 weeks ago
But hasn't Stalin tried to set up a secular Europe already?
sunonthewindow 1 month ago
@sunonthewindow
You need to educate yourself if you think communism & secularism are even remotely similar.
The USA is a secular nation in theory if not fully in practice. People are free it believe what they wish but religion & religious policies should remain out of government.
RedlineMMA 3 weeks ago
Basically the secularism in Europe is being pushed by the native European population. This causes the white boys and girls to be very tolerant and accepting of all religions. The destruction of Christianity in Europe allows for Islam to move in and take over Europe by using this to their advantage. Muslims will NEVER stand for a secular society. Either you submit to Islam or die. Once they have the numbers, Richard Dawkins' children and grandchildren are SCREWED. All due to his agenda.God Bless
ndrwrainey 3 months ago
yugoslavia exist no more idiots!!
masterbuby731 4 months ago
Maybe a 'secular world' is to prefer
GodOfUnbelief 4 months ago
I just realized Richard Dawkins has a slight lisp. HAHA
SIROSCARG1 4 months ago
@TragonballReloaded it just means there's so much more retards out there whom need medication for thier delusions.
Numbz1 4 months ago
We should do this in Canada.
ffxme 4 months ago 2
Anybody can call themselves "catholic". Jesus said though:"You'll know them by their fruits" and "faith without works is dead". Therefore Hitler was not Catholic. Mr. Dawkins atheism is the fruit of all evil. If everybody loved and followed Jesus there would be a paradise on earth.
TheViolet76 4 months ago
@TheViolet76 Remember when Jesus said to cut off your hand if it caused you to sin? I do. Sounds like paradise to me!
SACK0FWINE 4 months ago
@TheViolet76 The Muslims say EXACTLY the same thing. Saudi Arabia is their inspiration.
The Dark Ages were when Christianity ruled the roost.
Religion is a howling, gibbering Beast slurping and groaning on the dark side of humanity, happy-clapped on by its Useful Idiots like you, and if it ever rises like the swollen, pus-filled disease it is again, I'll be one of the Warriors of the Light cutting it down.
Count on it.
allieron 3 months ago
@allieron and how and when did ever atheism contribute positively in any way to society. With no moral compas how is anybody going to know what is right and wrong. Obviously you are a very simple minded person.(Considering your name calling without even knowing who you are talking to) Therefore I don't expect you to understand such abstract issues...
TheViolet76 3 months ago
@TheViolet76 Every good thing you see is the product of Deists, agnostics and atheists. The Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all by people who shunned the revolting vomit of religion and stood up as Humans to change this planet for Humans. Not mewling slaves of a jealous god who were given (lol) "free-will" to either burn in hell or grovel at the feet of their master. Some choice.
The Moral compass exists without ANY pathetic superstitious mumbo to justify it.
allieron 3 months ago 4
@TragonballReloaded Census data is inaccurate. I worked on the British census 10 years ago, and I can tell you there are a number of problems with that data - Lapsed Catholics going Catholic instead of No Religion. People putting their atheist children down as Catholic (as happened to me). The Secular Britain survey has a significantly higher rate of secularism in society than the Census - because they ask about how many times people go to Church, pray, etc.
micmac274 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 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 Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution 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
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
I repeat: only 1000 people marched
Dawkins and his convocatory were a BIG FAILURE
TragonballReloaded 5 months ago
only 1000 people (exaggeration) marched in September. 17
Dawkins may have had success as a writer but as a social leader is BIG FAILURE
TragonballReloaded 5 months ago
I attended the march. It didn't attract as many people as the Protest the Pope rally did last year but it was still quite a lot of fun.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
I was gonna go today, but my parents won't let me. AND DAWKINS WAS GONNA BE THERE! IM SAD NOW!
retrogamerist 5 months ago
Why does Europe need a march for secularism? Isn't Europe in general pretty secular already? I thought the idea of a Catholic European as already as extinct as the Dinos. The "New Atheist" movement is just a lot of hot air, the atheist version of the Tea Party.
AndrewMann552 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552
Apparently you don't realize what a threat Islam is becoming in Europe. There are communities in European democracies where sharia law is being imposed. Faith schools are popping up all over Britain, these schools are segregating the population a teaching pseudo science in the class rooms.
Most importantly free speech is being threatened. The U.N. seriously considered an anti blasphemy law . Where is would become a crime to say anything negative about religion.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA I never knew they were teaching that stuff in english faith schools.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA That's just paranoid hogwash. Yes there are more Muslims moving to Europe, so NATO should probably stop bombing and looting their countries (and supporting brutal dictators). But right now the actual lives of Europeans are under more threat from IMF, oligarchs and their local capitalist barons than from people practicing some ancient belief. Dawkins will eventually end up like the Nobel Prize-winning scientists who backed Hitler in the 1930s and his bizarre theories and paranoias.
AndrewMann552 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552 No. He's not so politically incorrect. He wants secularism.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@retrogamerist I understand that, but he's just as fundamentalist about it as a religious radical. Even a super atheist revolutionary thinker like Bakunin wrote that even in the case of a revolutionary overturn of society, it would be incredibly difficult to pound atheism into the population (as soon as the USSR fell the church came roaring back into the daily lives of Eastern Europeans).
AndrewMann552 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552 He isn't punding, he just likes to publicly refute ideas. He doesn't say "BE AN ATHEIST OR BE ETERNALLY TORTURED"
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552
HE WANTS A SECULARIST NATION NOT SO MUCH AN ATHEISTIC ONE
BeBoBli 5 months ago
@BeBoBli Ok, I concede that point BUT again, what's the need for all this crusading? The French will always be secularist, they have been since the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, how is the typical Frenchman's secularist attitude under threat? People can choose to believe in something or not, that's "free will," an idea ironically made very popular in the modern era by the Reformation.
AndrewMann552 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552 do you at least agree with what dawkins said in this video?
SJGibbons1000 5 months ago
@SJGibbons1000 I agree with many of his points on principle, but I just don't agree with his methods or his attitude of apparently wanting to pound atheism into the culture, it's just not going to happen, religion is a very ancient, embedded part of human society in various forms, Dawkins and others like Sam Harris run around like mad Crusaders. I think Chris Hedges has made very valid criticisms of the New Atheist movement and its attitudes.
AndrewMann552 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552
"Isn't Europe in general pretty secular already?"
No, it's not. In the UK, for example, the Anglican Church is the official state church. So much for the separation of religion and politics. What is more, there are almost 30 bishops in the House of Lords. They weren't voted in there. They were given that position just because they are Church of England bishops. Religions are exempt from taxes. etc etc.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
@AndrewMann552
"Isn't Europe in general pretty secular already?"
No, it's not. In the UK, for example, the Anglican Church is the official state church. So much for the separation of religion and politics. What is more, there are almost 30 bishops in the House of Lords. They weren't voted in there. They were given that position just because they are Church of England bishops. Religions are exempt from taxes. etc etc.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago 13
@Mattyb88ful Tax them all. Tax the vast wealth and use it for the common good. Goodbye, recession, goodbye crisis. The Greek Orthodox church is one of the wealthiest institutions in Greece. They pay NO tax. The Vatican sits like bloated, corpulent toads on a mountain of gold, and benefits humanity as much as herpes or a hole in the head.
Tax all superstition.
After all, if they need more cash, they can just as their god to loan some.
allieron 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewMann552
"Isn't Europe in general pretty secular already?"
No, it's not. In the UK, for example, the Anglican Church is the official state church. So much for the separation of religion and politics. What is more, there are almost 30 bishops in the House of Lords. They weren't voted in there. They were given that position just because they are Church of England bishops. Religions are exempt from taxes. etc etc.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
England - Tue Oct 25, 2011
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate, from truth. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers!!!!!!!!
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him!!! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!!!
feanando 5 months ago
@feanando
Please do link to William Craig Lane displaying the brilliance that is apparently so worthy of Dawkins' time to make a rebuttal.
BeBoBli 5 months ago
@BeBoBli Your idol is a coward. He is the man that once said that the "WHY" question is a silly question. Very, very scientific...
feanando 5 months ago
@feanando
I have claimed no idols and would not endorse anything other than freethought myself. Again, I demand citations.
BeBoBli 5 months ago
@BeBoBli You... demand? Who do you think you are?
feanando 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@feanando
"You... demand? Who do you think you are?"
He is an idiot for demanding evidence and citations from a religious moron like yourself. You people don't deal with evidence. Just blind faith. You wallow in ignorance.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
@BeBoBli You... demand, Sr.? Very humble. Please, first convince me that the WHY question is silly, then I may believe you want to listen to his arguments with a open mind.
feanando 5 months ago
@BeBoBli You... demand, Sr.? Not very humble, huh? It will be my pleasure. But first, please convince me that the WHY question is silly, then I may believe you want to listen to his arguments with a open mind. Otherwise, fuck off.
feanando 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeBoBli You... demand, Sr.? Not very humble, huh? It will be my pleasure. But first, please convince me that the WHY question is silly, then I may believe you want to listen to his arguments with a open mind. Otherwise, fuck off.
feanando 5 months ago
Europe already was secular until the scum immigrants came in and ruined it
GodOfUnbelief 5 months ago
What's up with the music?
dujl 5 months ago
I'm glad that secular Europe is nearly achieved. Now please help America.
gupsphoo 5 months ago
@gupsphoo America is one hundreds years behind. It will not change anytime soon. Its full of religious simpletons.
ScottishCaledonian 5 months ago
Man created gods in his own image.
MrJohnnyrace 5 months ago
@frotobare
Listen. You aren't making proper sentences or valid points, and you aren't demonstrating cohesive ideas. And it's clear you don't even know what science actually is.
Science doesn't CREATE wrong ideas - It doesn't create any ideas at all. Science is the process through which ideas - a product of natural human fallibility - are TESTED by proof and experimentation. Science is not some belief system that 'says' things. Science is a method of eliminating FALSE beliefs. That's all it is.
taicleis 6 months ago
Comment removed
taicleis 6 months ago
@PaulP567
You don't know enough about physics to claim there is no evidence for hypotheses made based on them. these ideas are not without evidence, they are without PROOF. There is evidence of multiple universes in the mathematical structure of our world. It's only a hint, and as such, the concept is not widely accepted as FACT - just a good idea.
Of course, you leap at far-reaching, unproven ideas as though they are equivalent to your unprovable claim.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis Mathematical derivation is not evidence. Mathematics has no existence in the physical world other than ink marks in a dictionary describing it as an abstract noun. Mathematical extrapolation requires supporting physical evidence to be counted a valid description of the real world.
Indeed, the multiverse is a good idea, even rational, and it might be right. But there is as yet no physical evidence in its support.
I claim nothing. It is you who claim to have it all nailed down.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
I claim to have it all nailed down? Show me where I said that. Sounds like you just made another claim without evidence.
The multiverse theory is not just an 'idea'. Mathematical extrapolation seems to work fine for everything its ever been used for, including the computer you're using, the vehicles you ride in, and the satellites orbiting over your head. There is ample reason to trust mathematics, but trust isn't even necessary - math is self-correcting. You can't make 1+1=3.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis The tone of your entire series of posts is: the secular worldview is dead right, the religious worldview is dead wrong. If this is a misinterpretation or a misrepresentation then please correct where appropriate.
If mathematics is a valid description of Nature, why so many paradoxes? Mathematics is an abstraction. Numbers are an abstraction. 1+1 does indeed equal 3 in the abstract world. But what happens between X.000...000 and X.000...001 in the measure of any physical quantity?
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567 Correction: I meant to say 1+1does indeed equal 2 in the abstact world.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@taicleis The only proofs in existence are mathematical proofs. All else are probability functions. Truth, i.e. what is and what is not, no doubt exists as a suite of absolute facts. Our knowledge of these facts is a function of their discoverability. Not everything in the physical world, and the properties thereof, may be discoverable. It is a mistake to presume that everything is. Science, then, must assume a built-in limitation. Science is necessarily approximate. Close, but approximate.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
You are correct that science assumes limitations, but this is merely science acknowledging the limitation that EVERYONE has. Science is simply the only one to admit it.
taicleis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@taicleis "You are correct that science assumes limitations, but this is merely science acknowledging the limitation that EVERYONE has. Science is simply the only one to admit it."
Biblical scholarship worthy of the appellation embraces the notion of doubt. The 'blind faithers' don't count. There is blind faith is astrology and the power of sacred crystals. None of these things matter. What matters is; is the creator-God theory worthy of contemplation. I think it is.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
There is no evidence for there NOT being something before the Big Bang, be it a deity or a banana peel. But the important thing is - FROM AT LEAST THAT POINT ONWARDS, everything has proceeded naturally and without any intervention.
If there were a creator, the only role allowed by the evidence (or rather, the one place where there is yet none) would be to set the universe in motion with a few physical laws, and then never ever touch it again.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis "If there were a creator, the only role allowed by the evidence (or rather, the one place where there is yet none) would be to set the universe in motion with a few physical laws, and then never ever touch it again."
Precisely. We are in agreement.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
Alright, so we are. If you're a pantheist like myself, then you should have just said so.
But I still think that a secular worldview fits fine with the non-interfering God hypothesis. Since there is no moral difference between naturalism and pantheism, a secular worldview is practically the same thing. Secularists don't 'forbid' the belief in a non-interfering God. Rather, they don't base their society upon cultural mythologies. Dawkins himself could be called a pantheist.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis I am actually an atheist, but an atheist with unanswered questions. I recognise a number of paradoxes that exist within the physical universe for which our all-answering mathematics has no answer. I recognise a plethora of moral conundrums for which secularism has no adequate answer. I recognise within the human condition a bundle of ‘knowledge’ that our status as evolved beings cannot justify. The last thing on my mind is faith that my atheism is100% correct.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
The difference between music and noise is as studied as language itself; it's related brain centers and even what frequency patterns constitute music is not a mystery. Humans appreciate music using much of the same parts of the brain as speech - the parts that find patterns and meaning in sound stimulus. If you didn't even know that, I don't know how you can make the claims you do about science's validity.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis There is no such thing as a "frequency pattern that constitutes music". The quality of music is a phenomenon of the human mind and not a known property of molecular activity. It presently has no explanation other than that of the cop-out explanation I have already offered - phenomenon. If it did you would be able to tell me precisely. I asked you to think about this carefully and you did not. Music has nothing to do with "sound stimulus". I know you can do better. Please try.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
Your attempt to mystify music doesn't hold water. Music IS a sound stimulus, similar to language. You could easily claim that language is 'of the human mind' and cannot be known as a 'molecular property'. Doesn't make it a mystery.
Music works very much like language. Temporal lobe is heavily used. We learn from the sounds of others. We imitate, and create novel phrases. It's applied neuroscience. Damage to the temporal lobe can make it hard to follow a tune, or EVEN RECOGNIZE MUSIC.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis If an imagined super-autopsy surgeon were to discect the brain of a dead bird he might be able to identify the molecular arrangements that corresponded to birdsong recognition. If the same surgeon were to discect the brain of a dead human would he be able to identify the molecular arrangements which showed the person's preference for Handel over the Sex Pistols? Or vice versa; take your pick.
A bell, a gong or a whistle is a sound stimulus. Music is a transcendent 'quality'.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
Yes, they would be able to identify those arrangements. They are molecular constructs, built of associations and neural networks. Things that affect the function of these networks also affect the perception of your supposed 'transcendent' music. Some people listen to music high. Some people have no 'ear' for music. Some people are tone-deaf. Some people lose the ability to recognize music at all after brain trauma.
taicleis 5 months ago
Watch the Father Bernard Lynch video next. Wow!
teacherninja1 6 months ago
@frotobare
eing misguided. But you clearly haven't even understood the very things you're trying tk use as arguments, so going 'on and on' is just going to compound your errors.
taicleis 6 months ago
@frotobare
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. You say 'science says there is a 4th dimension'. A more accurate statement is that scientists POSTULATE the existence of a 4th spatial dimension, and even then this is based on observational evidence (in this case, the observed expansion of spacetime). The things you are claiming to be unevidenced, are not. And Dawkins' statement stands as PROOF of scientific honesty and truth, not vice versa. I'm sure you COULD go on and on, b
taicleis 6 months ago
white ppl create god ,white ppl worship a murderous god, white ppl kill for that same MURDEROUS god, NOW white ppl hate a non-existant god of their OWN making.... you can't make this shit up.
interstellarwonder 6 months ago
@frotobare There's always a chance that there is a god. There's a chance that there are many gods. But it does not point to your god(the Christian one) if one existed. Even if it's a 0.0001% that one or many existed, the fact remains is that we don't know and that small percentage is not on equal footing with the chance that gods don't exist. Gaps in knowledge can't be filled with "God" because that creates an even bigger mystery of what created that being or how did it come into existence?
MasterAdam100 6 months ago
@PaulP567
Scientific claims require evidence FIRST, then a hypothesis. Secular worldviews are based on observed facts.
Creation is based on an assumption first, and then no facts to back it up. Very, very different. In a secular worldview, there is no reason to infer a creator. No evidence. From a purely rational standpoint, God would never have been invented.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis Scientific claims emphatically do no require evidence first. There is no evidence that multiverses exist, and yet the idea is a scientific claim. I here use the word claim to describe a rational idea that may, for example, have been derived from mathematics but for which no tangible evidence exists. There is no evidence for the Higgs boson, and yet the idea is a scientific claim. All these claims must submit themselves for falsification before they be admitted to the halls of truth.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@taicleis "In a secular worldview, there is no reason to infer a creator. No evidence. From a purely rational standpoint, God would never have been invented."
This is plainly absurd. Even "secular worldview" logic must admit to effects requiring causes. It is logical to suppose that the Universe did not 'come from nothing' as physicists are now saying might have happened. Is this a species of 'new physics' which is counter-logical? If logic be suspended for this event, why not "invent" God.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
The Judeo-Christian creation myth HAS been disproven. It makes specific claims which are demonstrably false - such as the Earth being created before the sun.
The only avenue of escape for it has been to (only recently) backtrack into claiming that the creation story is metaphorical. God was pushed all the way back to the Big Bang. The God of the gaps. It says something when a hypothesis can only survive outside of known facts.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis I'm not interested in the "Judeo-Christian myth". The Bible and its ilk can be dismissed as an early attempt at understanding the mysteries of the universe and man's place in it. It was necessarily fantastical given the capacity for imagination of the primitives together with a profound lack of scientific method.
Now please present me with evidence that falsifies the creator-God hypothesis. I'm refering to an imagined causal entity/being prefiguring the Big Bang.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
Concrete evidence for the existence of music and literature? Download an mp3 and grab a book from the library. There's your evidence - they exist.
And if what you MEAN to infer is that the VALUE of these things is not empirically evidenced, even this is wrong. Laboratory studies of the brain's auditory and language centers provide scientific, quantitative understanding of how these things work.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis There is no 'concrete' scientific evidence for the existence of music and literature. There is no scientific difference between the molecular air movements of white noise and those transmitting Beethoven. There is no scientific difference between the ink marks on a telephone directory and those of a book by Charles Dickens.
Please provide the "scientific, quantitative understanding" of how the brain distinguishes music from the sound of leaves rustling in the breeze.
PaulP567 6 months ago
Religion = nonsense bullshit
TheSasss1 6 months ago
Dawkins is simply a coward. William Lane Craig has challenged him to a debate and he refuses to take him up on the offer. He's had his day and seems to be clinging on to his desire to be heard and "respected". Few theists (and philosophers) take him seriousely anymore.
WitchcraftWillDamnU 6 months ago 2
@WitchcraftWillDamnU You misconstrue the Dawkins case. Craig argues philosophically, and virtually any philosophy is valid in that evidence in the Dawkins sense is not required. It is logical to suppose that matter did not 'come from nothing'. It is logical to suppose a cause. Craig's interpretation of the human condition suggests, at least to him, a purposeful and meaningful existence, hence the 'intelligent God-cause' theory. No Dawkins-type evidence can falsify this theory. Hence no debate.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@WitchcraftWillDamnU are you worried he is going around telling people to fly planes in to buildings to bomb your local religion
MakepplQQthenRQ 5 months ago
@LazaaMMA By the way, I have read the complete Bible twice and I am on my fourth reading of the New Testament.
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
@LazaaMMA If you took a little time to read the word, you would notice that those days were so different and so were values of ownership and the law. Just for saying what you just said to me you would have been stoned to death. Besides this, Christians read the new testament and refer to the old testament as a reference for prophetic word.
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
@LazaaMMA Remember in your history lesson? What did they say about the olden days? Look at the victorian era 110 years ago and people were living differently from today, what about in the middle ages? What about the barbaric times 2000 or 4000 tears ago. You need to view things in the context of the times. The west is far more civilized now, but there are parts of the world where barbaric behaviour is found today. The Bible was written over about 4500 years by over 40 different people.
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
@PaulP567
Science DISALLOWS unevidenced claims from being accepted. As such, a secular worldview contains ONLY that for which there is concrete, measurable evidence.
Any challenge to a scientific view is met with either evidence or the abandonment of said view - the very definition of reasonable. Secularism would hold up in a fair trial. God would not.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis Science does not "disallow unevidenced claims from being accepted". Science accepts reasoned claims to knowledge supported by logical argument. These claims may subsequently be falsified through experimentation and/or the appearence of evidence to the contrary. While the creator-God theory has only argument to offer in its favour/defence, no evidence has yet surfaced with which it can be falsified. The same is true of 'belief' in extraterrestrial life, for which no evidence exists.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@taicleis "A secular worldview contains ONLY that for which there is concrete, measurable evidence".
Please present concrete evidence of the existence of music, literature and, say, beauty. Since you cannot do so (please think carefully before replying), do you propose that these areas of human knowledge be excluded from the secular worldview? They don't exist in other words.
PaulP567 6 months ago
@PaulP567
The moment a scientific hypothesis is shown to be wrong, it is dropped. There are no irrational 'beliefs' in science. Evidence and experimentation are absolute.
The 'hypothesis' of God is not based upon evidence, but speculation. What's more, even if a purely speculative conception WERE scientific (it is not), there is a rift between a possible divine intelligence and a tribal deity named Jehovah.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis The creator-God hypothesis has not been shown to be wrong, hence it is still current. It is one of numerous creator hypotheses. Particle physicists believe the universe 'came into being', with some speculating that it 'came from nothing'. This is acknowledging creation but not speculating on a source. The religious, through a process of speculative imagination and logical reasoning, with not a little appeal to plausibility, push the 'don't know' one step further.
PaulP567 6 months ago
well done richard we are a billion at least and growing not by reproduction or indoctrination but by open minds
sharpjwe 6 months ago
@LackLup no, they are not faith-based. Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence. Macroevolution follows logically (and unavoidably) from microevolution, and multiple universe theory is based upon possibilities derived through mathematical reality. Multiverse theory is also not a BELIEF. It is a hypothetical possibility under investigation. Faith does not investigate. Faith assumes one thing and refuses logical scrutiny.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis Multiverse theory is very much a belief, a belief of scientific desperation in an attempt to explain the apparent 'fine tuning' in the universe. It is rational in the sense that it would explain the so-called fine tuning. But there is absolutely no evidence that the theory has any basis in fact. To style the thing as "under investigation" is mischievous. Biblical scholars have had God 'under investigation' for far longer. Most are now of the opinion that the theory is far-fetched.
PaulP567 6 months ago
Dawkins is a just a nasty angry hateful bigot of a man. Barely knows a thing about theology as well. I would be ashamed if i was an atheist and this man was representing us.
CrisisWithYouSoul 6 months ago
@CrisisWithYouSoul
Maylana11 6 months ago
@PaulP567 there is a difference. Calling someone stupid just because they disagree with you is not intrinsically backed up by evidence. Secular people have nothing to defend in terms of what they believe, so it does not work both ways. There is no evidence for Allah, God, Zeus, or Xenu, and so anyone operating under the assumption of their existence is not operating rationally.
taicleis 6 months ago
@taicleis Secular people have nothing to defend? You are joking? What about multiverse theory = a faith based belief. Heck, even macro evolution is faith based.
LackLup 6 months ago
@taicleis That is not correct. The existence of a God is a perfectly rational hypothesis if the logical route to such existence is well thought out and eminently plausible. But of course it may be wrong. The 'supersymmetry' theory was perfectly rational until the LHC demonstrated that it is probably wrong. There is nothing 'stupid' about the idea of a creator God, but to be constantly paralleling the idea with Easter bunnies and unicorns and the like is both irrational and stupid.
PaulP567 6 months ago
Dawkins is currently on the run from debating William Lane Craig. Dawkins will have 0 credibility when he fails to turn up for the debate challenge this October in the UK. Even some of his fellow atheists are losing respect for him. First the scandal of denying people free speech on his own forum, and now even his fellow atheists are recognizing he is cowering away from Craig's debate challenges. Google: Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God .
ReekCat 6 months ago
@ReekCat It would be pointless to discuss the obvious. If someone is denying the existence of god then it would be really embarrassing and humiliating to participate in an debate like that. Its like if someone serious you respect would be challenged to discuss the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus - starting a discussion like that would be the betrayal of rationale. I am sorry, but for the clever part of mankind religion is no more than a scary tale invented to control the masses.
lbarna66 6 months ago
@ReekCat Dawkins won't debate Craig because Craig's entire case will be based on the plausibility of plausibilities, the premise of premises, the explanation of explanations, and so forth in similar vein.
There is no tangible evidence for God. Everyone knows that, including Craig. Craig's 'evidence' will be thought-evidence, explanation-evidence, plausibility-evidence. All one need do is disagree with him to be perfectly valid. It wouldn't take half a second for Dawkins to disagree with him.
PaulP567 6 months ago
katelling1
Mr.dawkins forgot to take his meds again !!
katelling1 6 months ago
@LazaaMMA What Bible did you read, and where does it say that? I really dont think you understood what you read. The only slaughtering of innocent childeren was done as a sacrifice to Baal (satan) who God detests, if you are refferring to the people before the flood or Sodom and Gamorrah, you need to realise that those civilizatiions were so perverse and corrupt (burning babies alive as offerings, having sex with animals etc), no one in thier right mind today would dissagree with Gods judgement.
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
Secularism - No problem! But this is not what Richard Dawkins is marching for, he wants to march against "ancient Religions".
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
@LazaaMMA Why did you mention God? It is to satan that acts when people give him rights to. This issue is very complex and it is not so black and white. If you had read the Bible and sought answers from God then things would be clearer for you. But what about you - How are you responding to peoples needs in Africa?
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
@frotobare Oh yes, and I am totally happy living with my son and wife and really sorry for your kind for wasting your mind on a nonsense instead of finding purpose in life and living it.
lbarna66 6 months ago
@frotobare Tell people religion is not intolerant who were executed in the mediaval for herecy by the inquisition.Tell this to people in islamic countries today who get their hands chopped off for stealing food because they are hungry, tell all the women in islamic countries, tell this to catholics who keep their virginity, marry unhappy and die unhappy as divorce is also untolerated.The dark mediaval ages were the produce of christianity,where would we be now in science if it had not happenned?
lbarna66 6 months ago
Dawkins is in support of destroying our societies. Without God what is meaning? If I am just a result of natural selection, then why and what should be moral. Secular Humanism is just as much a religion (and is recognized by the UN as one) as any other religion. Dump religion and you have no reason not to become complete Pragmatic Utilitarians. You have Hitler,Stalin and Mao,Pol pot and Nihlism.When God is Dead so is what makes humanity alive dies too.Athiesm brings mass Death.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster
Secular Humanism as a religion is an oxymoron. Please look up the meaning of the word secular.
Why should we be moral if not because we're under threat of torture by a god?, Well then perhaps you should also look up the Humanism part too.
As for the rest, Hitler was a Catholic and even if he wasn't the German people at the time were a mix of Catholics and Lutherans.
Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot?, Perhaps they were motivated by their lack of belief in Unicorns?.. or communism?
Cha4k 6 months ago
@doobersmanster Just how stupid you are. Do you only refrain from killing, stealing and so on because your religion bans these for you? If that's true for you then urgently find some specialist before you start killing people, in the name of your god maybe, you psychopath.
lbarna66 6 months ago
@doobersmanster I agree, I am not quite 50 years old, and it is plain to see what the fall of morals in our society has done to it (in the absence of belief in a God). I have seen this decline first hand and can see the mess the west is in now. Anyone who applauds and embraces the morals and life style of todays world, will never be able to seek the God who loves them and created them.
jesusfilledphil 6 months ago
@jesusfilledphil I have seen it also. When I was a child, for example, people left thier doors open at night, The curse words were not even heard on TV, Women and men believed in the country and committed relationships, now it is just a free for all and the violence and disrespect of other people and thier lives is rampant. It is obvious that we as a society have been deteriorating and the next step is... Totalitarianism? naturalism is reducing us to animals on a "soul" level resulting in death
doobersmanster 6 months ago
@doobersmanster These atheists will never find happiness, because religion is the key to family, community, and a fulfilled life. I pity them, for all their intellectual blabber they'll never be truly happy. The lack of morals in Western society is a direct result from people collectively turning their backs on God, and embracing hedonistic materialism and physical pleasures. Its made people lose their spirit, lose their pride in their culture, lose touch with their communities. Its truly sad.
Aresolar690 6 months ago
@Aresolar690 All these atheists are happy, fulfilled people. The enlightenment and stimulation that atheism provides is enormous compared to religion's easy answer. Religion provides an unchanging point of view which is irrational and dangerous.
TheUnusuallyNormal 6 months ago
@TheUnusuallyNormal That my be true for some including yourself, but my faith provides more security and happiness than whatever pseudo-intellectual "enlightenment" atheism provides. But Religion isn't an easy answer, I question the word of God constantly, I analyze what it says, I ponder it, I doubt it. No ones faith in unwavering, but all anyone can do is live life as God would have us; love our family, provide for our community, and raise our children honestly. Faith is renewed through good
Aresolar690 6 months ago
@Aresolar690 I'm not so assuming that I'll say "oh, clever people like me can live without religious faith, but of course the less intelligent, well-read or mature people need the support". That is a horribly arrogant way to think. "No ones faith is unwavering" - this is a lie! Maybe yours isn't, but when a belief system justifies murder and abuse, you can be pretty sure it's one that elicits an unreasonable amount of uncertainty.
TheUnusuallyNormal 6 months ago
@TheUnusuallyNormal I'm not sure what you're saying here. I said my belief is not unwavering, but your response was a rebuttal more suitable to if I had said that my belief WASN"T unwavering.
Aresolar690 5 months ago
@Aresolar690 As for the last part, as a child religion only ever made me feel worse about myself. Whether or not we got some of our most valuable morals from religious text, they are now so ingrained into our culture that the original text is irrelevant. That's why they don't set The Origin of Species for biology students. There are terrible messages in many holy books, and we only censor them according to already-present moral values gained from reasoning and proper thinking,
TheUnusuallyNormal 6 months ago
@TheUnusuallyNormal Whatever moral values you have were built on religion, my friend. Religion is the beginning of morality, the values you have are just a very liberal version of those in the Bible, which of course aren't consistant due to the changes in culture and society that happened during the lives of its authors. I follow the words of Christ, because they are meant for his followers. The laws of Moses were meant for the Jews. I'm sorry religion made you feel horrible, whoever was your
Aresolar690 5 months ago
@Aresolar690
Our morals are based on your culture & experience within the parameters of your evolved mind. There were many moral philosophers that long predate Jesus. Many were much more eloquent & morally sound. Rules like do unto others as you would do upon yourself predate Jesus by 1000yrs
Jesus says repeatedly that he his here to make sure the not one word from the law is changed. He supported old testament laws & never condemned slavery or treating women like property.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@TheUnusuallyNormal teacher did not instruct you properly.
Aresolar690 5 months ago
@TheUnusuallyNormal In short, my faith is faith both in the existance of God, and faith that his Word will lead me down a righteous path. Faith isn't unshakable, but it is a comfort, and I feel Gods prescence when I look in my sons eyes, and when I attend church with the people I know and love. I can be sure of God when following his Word makes me happier than I've ever been.
Aresolar690 6 months ago
@Aresolar690 Sorry to interrupt, but granted that you derive comfort, inspiration and goodness from your belief in God, and in your case a very personal God, does the fact that none of the 'God theory' may be true, and likely isn't, bother you? Do you pause for thought at the knowwledge that, while the Bible may have been an honest enough attempt by primitives at addressing the mysteries of the universe and man's place in it, the narratives are entirely fictional? How do you deal with this?
PaulP567 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aresolar690
My dear. I hope you'll feel the righteous existence of god when you'll stone him to death - because I'm afraid you are obligated to do so, as a good christian.
I hope when you'll look into your son's glassy, bloody, dead eyes your faith will be as unshakable as ever.
I hope you love jesus better, than your son, because jesus says you'll burn in hell if you don't leave your family behind and love him better than them.
Matt. 10:37 Deuteronomy 21:18-21
d3st88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aresolar690
But don't worry. If you don't have the balls to kill the kid god will do the dirty job instead of you pussy.
Check out 2 kings 2 23-24
d3st88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aresolar690
These are only a few of the numberless reasons people like you make me sick to the stomach.
You don't think. You don't investigate. You are incapable of large scale of complex compassion. You bow down to false authority and superstitions. We who think and feel are always up against the seas of people like you who don't think and feel, but hinder progress and well being of others. *pukes*
d3st88 6 months ago
@Aresolar690
"following his Word makes me happier than I've ever been."
So what, The Muslim, the Hindu the Jew....it doesn't matter. they all have identical experience to you they get the same loving transcendent feeling. We know this conclusively based off of MRI studies, The exact same parts of the brain are activated.
Your experience is just a product of the human mind. Please learn some basic human psychology the mind is easily fooled & people readily see patterns that aren't there..
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA So, your point is that since all religions make people happier, mine is false? Your logic is extremely flawed. I think your point just goes in my favor, that religion makes people happy. Technically, all our pleasurable expereinces are just "tricks" of the mind, neurotransmitters firing off. My experience makes me happy because its given me a community and helped me build a family. Since you obviously know a lot less than you think you do, I wouldn't have such a pretentious tone.
Aresolar690 5 months ago
@Aresolar690
The fact that it gives you good feeling has NO bearing on whether it is factually true or not. Therefor you can not use your emotions to judge its validity. there is plenty of real evidence that the bible is purely man made & the story of Jesus especially the miracle claims & resurrection are simply not true. Frankly it should bother you that a Muslim while contemplating Muhammad gets the identical emotional feeling & just knows his faith it correct.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA I know my faith is "correct" because I can see the bounties of it before me. How many times do I have to say it? My faith isn't in Gods existance; that I admit I am skeptical over. My faith is in his word, which has given me the tools to lead a virtuous, giving and productive life. It has inspired me, more than reading more "eloquent" philosophers of which you speak. I think theres a good reason why people are more inspired by the words of Christ or Muhammad than Sophocles or Plato
Aresolar690 5 months ago
@Aresolar690
Jesus preaches that to not follow him mean eternal torment in hell, Muhammad says the same thing. Its obvious you don't care if its actually true or not all you care about is how it makes you feel.
It may give you comfort but it unnecessarily divides humanity. Whether its blocking stem cell research, motivating suicide bomber's or causing MILLIONS of deaths from genocide in Uganda. the Sudan & Bosnia.
Theses unfounded beliefs cause untold suffering & bigotry on this planet.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA It doesn't bother me that Muslims get as much out of their faith as I do, if it leads them down a moral path. It doesn't make me question the words of Christ, or their applicability in my life. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove to me by your endless prosyletizing of the virtues of atheism. Tell me, when exactly has atheism done any good? What atheistic societies have ever done well, ever functioned healthily?
Aresolar690 5 months ago
@Aresolar690
Atheism isn't a ideology. Its simply realizing there is no good evidence to support a god of any religion. there is no doctrine you are free make up your own mind on any subject.
Science has contributed mightily to human life. Although is not inherent atheistic it is a path to truth through observation & experiment. Things I value highly.
Well Sweden & western Europe are highly atheistic & according to polling have the happiest populations & lowest crime rates in the world.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago 28
@RedlineMMA Sweden and western Europe are more religious then atheist. And atheist (Hitler, Lenin, Stalin) have done much more harm to Europe then religion or religious people. And any christian who harms somebody isn't really being a christian, since the Christian religion teaches non-violence. And you make it sound as if religion and science cannot coexist, which they can.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994
Your just plane wrong on the statistical facts. Sweden is over 80% atheist. Most other European countries are over 50%.
First of Hitler was a catholic. second Stalin & mao were motivated by political ideologies not atheism,
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA Most of western Europe is 10-30% atheist. And Hitler hated Christianity because it taught peace and tolerance, and Hitler planned to destroy religion after ww2, so Hitler was a atheist.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994 God damn! Very first comment on the page and it's a Goodwin? Rare treat, indeed. Stay classy Internet.
MrGogoZec 5 months ago
@polishguy994
Your views on history are pure fabrication.
Fact, Hitler referenced his Catholicism repeatedly in speeches to the German people, who were also overwhelmingly catholic. He blamed Jews for the murder of Christ something the church had done for centuries. He also always praised DIVINE PROVIDENCE. He was a theist
He killed not only jews & gypsies he also rounded up & KILLED atheists as well.
Try reading a history book based on known facts not religious revisionism.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago 17
@RedlineMMA If you have ever read anything about Hitler (which from your lack of knowledge on the subject I'm guessing you haven't) You would know that Hitler hated Christianity and called it a religion for the weak. Hitler also had priests sent to concentration camps and had them killed. Give me one good reason why a catholic would send catholic priests to concentration camps. Hitler was a Atheist, It is a fact. Please don't lie about history just make your opinions seem valid.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA Hitler was occultist. There are plenty of historical books proving his passion for occult things, he believed in Satan and kept his throne, the gold of Nazi is cursed. He always had a group of occultists who would approve his choices in the war. Again, read read read. Education is good, very good thing
abatareika 5 months ago
@abatareika
I've read both the old & new testaments as well ass several books about how they were put together. Don't feel bad for me because I have a functioning brain & don't accept your delusional beliefs.
How could Hitler possibly be an atheist if he believed in satin?? You aren't making any sense.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA Everyone believes in something, you believe in yourself and your ideas in the video above. He believed in Spirits (not Satan as such) or whatever it was. You are full of anger, and that's your fruit. The real believer will never come with the war but peace only. Hope one day you will understand your mistake. hope that wont be too late.
abatareika 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA It's a shame, that your comments are the top liked on the page, considering both of them are nonsense atheist propaganda(no different then fox news propaganda) and have no truth to them whatsoever. It's sad that people so readily believe the lies people like you and Richard Dawkins tell them. All you have to do is pick up and read any book or read any internet article about Hitler and you will clearly see that that Hitler became a staunch atheist in the early 1940's.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994
It is true that Hitler seemed to give up on Christianity late in life. That doesn't make him an atheist. he still believed in a god thanking divine Providence often.
Not believing in Christianity does not make somebody an atheist.
RedlineMMA 5 months ago
@polishguy994
"internet article about Hitler and you will clearly see that that Hitler became a staunch atheist in the early 1940's"
Where is the evidence for your claims?
And do you not think that centuries of HOMOPHOBIA and ANTI-SEMITISM espoused by the Church and other Christian denominations played a part in the Holocaust? Don't you think it made the Nazis' job a lot easier? You spread hatred against gays, Jews etc, don't be surprised if someone comes along and then kills gays and Jews.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
@RedlineMMA Hitler was Vatican's puppet.
rened89 5 months ago
@polishguy994 Your ignorance baffles me. Hitler was in fact not an atheist, but a Catholic. And even if he was an atheist, that's hardly the point, because what every dictator, from Hitler to Mao, has in common is that they create a national cult around themselves. And what do we know of cults? Well, they're just the prototype forms of undeveloped religions.
frankystein12 5 months ago
@frankystein12 Your ignorance baffles me, Hitler in fact was not an catholic, but a atheist. Hitler sent catholic priests to concentration camps during World War Two. No catholic would do such a thing. And a police state that threatens people with violence for disobedience is not a religion. There are these things called books. They have been around for a few thousand years, and if you read them you will be more knowledgeable about history. I would suggest you try reading one of these books.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994
No, Hitler was not an atheist.
And, by the way, it's not a coincide that the victims of the Holocaust were Jews, homosexuals and et cetera. If you spread hatred against them, like the Catholic Church and protestant groups have for centuries, don't be surprised if the populace turn against these groups.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
@Mattyb88ful If you have ever read anything about Hitler(And not just blindly believing Dawkins Intolerant and fabricated view of European history) you would know that he was a staunch Atheist. And the victims of the Holocaust Had nothing to do with the opinions of the church, It was Hitlers Idea of a pure race that chose who would be persecuted. Hitler sent priests and fellow Catholics to concentration camps. No religious person person would do such a thing.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994
"you would know that he was a staunch Atheist."
If you had a read of Mein Kempf you would know he was not an atheist. He refers to a higher power in that book.
"And the victims of the Holocaust Had nothing to do with the opinions of the church"
The centuries of anti-Semitism, homophobia and et cetera espoused by the Catholic Church crcreated a fertile ground for the Nazis to exploit.
"No religious person person would do"
Many in the Nazi regime reguarly attended Mass.
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
@Mattyb88ful By 1940 Hitler had personally expressed his hatred toward Christianity, and he called it and I quote a "Religion for the weak".Hitler also made plans to eradicate all religion in Nazi Germany after ww2. A true catholic would not have done such things. Hitler was a atheist. its a fact, whether you choose except it or not. And if Hitler did mention god in his speeches in the 1940's,it was merely to assist him in controlling Christians in Germany,many of whom opposed Hitlers policies.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994
"Hitler was a atheist. its a fact"
Evidence?
Mattyb88ful 5 months ago
@Mattyb88ful Read my previous comments on this video, or feel free to look up Hitlers religious views on the internet. You'll find more then enough evidence to prove Hitlers atheism.
polishguy994 5 months ago
@polishguy994 You are the World's biggest idiot if you think Hitler was an atheist. I am not going to tell you to read volumes of books, but if you skim through Hitler's quotes GOD is mentioned quite some times. I am an Atheist, but Hitler was not one.
royalstarfish17 5 months ago
@royalstarfish17 Hitler abused, altered, and used Christianity to suit his own needs,the same way Fox News does.Hitler just used faith to try to comfort and win over the mostly religious German population, he wasn't religious himself.Also, many of the top Nazi Leaders were atheist, and the Catholic Church was the first major organization to denounce Nazism. All historical evidence clearly proves that Hitler was an atheist. Hitlers atheism is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not.
polishguy994 5 months ago