LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
If you lie to someone once - I might accept your apology, all is not lost. When you lie more than once & do so on the basis that you want people to believe in a being who values honesty, courage & compassion- you have lost ALL credibility hence I can no longer trust Muslim & Christian apologists.
I have said that knowledge in a verse could be obtained from civilisations before & I have demonstrated this (Greeks) & have highlighted that knowledge unknown before doesn't mean it's from god.
If you will not address my points & continue with your fallacious ramblings "it must have been from god because we haven't seen others talk of it before", all the self-deception in the world will not change the fact that your arguments are weak & are out of mere ignorance.
If there is knowledge/verse in a book that you don't know how it got there:
1) It could have been stolen from people before
2) It may have been common knowledge/myth at the time
3) You have to establish the intepretation of a "scientific" verse BEFORE it is confirmed for it to be valid, even then it does not mean it came from god - Einstein is not god yet he made predictions that would appear "miraculous".
4) Islam is not the only religion to make such claims see Vedhas and Granth Sahib.
If you find knowledge or verses in a book that you can't explain how it got there, does not mean it came from god. You need to understand that knowledge has been stolen from civilisations previously destroyed. You think Islam is the only religion to make claims of "there is science in this book therefore it's really from god"? No, I've come across many religions who've made such claims, they can't all be right, but they can ALL be wrong.
We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" [Al-Quraan 21:30]
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence.
"And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?"
We have known for thousands of years the importance of water in living things. We see how animals seek water, those who do not continue with their intake of water, they shrivel up & die. From this simple observation we can see that water is an important component to life.
The Greeks (oh those Greeks!) Aristotle & Thales spoke of how water (and heat) is the basis of all life and these guys lived more than 2,000 years ago!
The Qur’aan contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe: "Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?" [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]
The striking congruence between the Qur’aanic verse and the ‘Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth? Would you agree?
First acknowledge my point that the Greeks already made claims of organisms being made of water & requiring it to survive. Secondly, just because YOU find a something in a book that you can't explain does not mean that it was "from god". If the Greeks came up with the water/life, heliocentric model & spherical earth etc HUNDREDS of years before the Koran, yet you claim it’s a new discovery unique to the Koran - what makes you think I will trust & waste time on you now?
@TurboDally The greeks also made errors, which have been proven morden scientists. Would you still accept them as facts? I dont think so! As for the Quran, there is absolutely no scientific errors which contradict sceintific facts.
God challenge those who doubt the authenticity of the Quran! He sayS:
Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein many contradictions. (82) of surah 4 Quran
"As for the Quran, there is absolutely no scientific errors which contradict sceintific facts."
The Christians say the same about their bible.
"Up the challenge?"
You claim that the heliocentric model, spherical earth & life from water was first revealed in the koran. When I research this, I find that Greeks proposed this before, why should I waste my time on a liar like you? How many of those verses claimed to be "scientific" are only found to be "scientific" AFTER the discoveries, not before?
@TurboDally Well, i guess you scared to challenge the Truth! It will also be a waste of time trying to, because in the end you will be the LOSER! God says:
Allâh to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth! And woe unto the disbelievers from a severe torment (Hellfire). (2) Those who prefer the life of this world to of the Hereafter, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allâh (i.e.Islâm) and seek crookedness therein - they are far astray. (3) of surah 14 Quran
Knowledge in a book for which you can't explain does not mean it came from god. I have also included in my previous comments a few examples from where such knowledge may have come from.
"disbelievers...severe torment (Hellfire)."
A person who creates a place of eternal torment for those who simply don't believe or see evidence for believing, is unworthy of worship. Such a being is no better than "satan" & Hitler.
' person who creates a place of eternal torment for those who simply don't believe or see evidence for believing, is unworthy of worship..'
so a criminal who goes ahead and steal after being that the cctv camera is watching him or not refusing to accept that its watching him, should not be punish? The evidence is plain to see but u refuse to accept it out of pride and arrogance. cont...
You are likening someone who does not see evidence for god(s) (or more specifically the ABRAHAMIC god) to a criminal? How laughable.
"but u refuse to accept it out of pride and arrogance."
I refuse to accept out of lack of evidence and dishonesty of people like you. Why should a jury accep a verdict for which insufficient evidence has been presented? Go take your manmade god elsewhere. At least I do not expect god to be so primitive.
@TurboDally SEE MY BLOG FOR THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE :
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
@TurboDally cont.. Some people may require ten signs while some may require hundred signs to be convinced about the Divine Origin of the Qur’aan. Some would be unwilling to accept the Truth even after being shown a thousand signs. The Qur’aan condemns such a closed mentality in the verse: "Deaf, dumb and blind, They will not return (To the path)." [Al-Qur’aan 2:18]
You say just as those of other religions say. I suggest an education in world religions other than your own. Now please politely bother someone else with your salesman mentality.
@TurboDally SEE MY BLOG FOR THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE :
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
You know, the thing is, for every sign in favor of Allah, I see a million signs that he does not exist. All the hate and pain in the world, decease and death. You just simply ignore those and that makes you: "Deaf, dumb and blind, They will not return (To the path)." Only that would be the path of logic and love, and not the Qur'aan.
I think it is beautiful how religion is so powerful an illness of someone's thought process that it can bend any argument in favor of the religion
I think that the god of the bible is worse. Hitler killed people and Satan chose God above man as a crime, but God torments people on a different scale entirely. This is beyond sick and revolting.
It's a shame that Spencer didn't agree to be tested scientifically, because if the experiment was set up the same way that Michael Shermer tested astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, it might have shown similar, positive results for astrology.
Astrology is an easy target but Dawkins doesn't get it - we need mysticism in this world and Dawkins ia ta risk of being driven insane by his own rationalism - RB
What do we need mysticism for exactly? What clues have you observed that make you think Dawkins is at risk of losing his sanity? What symptoms has he got that show a sign of mental instability?
There's a biological reason why we get cancer too. I wouldn't say we 'need' cancer, though. Cancer and mysticism are both negative as far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that there's likely a biological reason why we are susceptible to both. Again, ''need'' is a problematic word for me as far as mysticism is concerned.
I think ronniebryan means that richard aprroaches astrology very lightly like all scientists. Rationalism is important but also is the general sense of feeling, sensing without reason. column horoscopes in daily papers., Those things are a disgrace to astrology, shame on the astrologist who write them. e. That's why science can never prove astrology, and in the end the only way to see if it is true or not is to ask the person whether this is really you.
Open Mindedness, and using the basic senses that we have are all keys to understanding astrology. Like someone already wrote arguing with an astrologist is like asking for no evidence. Richard thinks anyone who is born an Aries, is just an Aries he/she have the rest of the planets placed in different houses therefore being more than just an Aries. Richard wants to relate astrology to anyone, when that is wrong.
The only accuracy you can get from astrology is gettting a personal reading not a daily column referal to know who you are. Have you ever heard of Michel Gauqelin?
Spencer whined like a petulant teenager in an article in his newspaper (The Observer - shame on them for having a quack on staff) about this interview.
Arguing with an astrologer inevitably comes down to them saying "I don't need evidence!"
My mother is a firm astrology believer and I have found all attempts to elicit scientific debate on the issue fruitless. They seem to view any attempts at objective analysis as a personal attack.
thats the funniest thing ever. a philosopher who emphasizes scientific proof over irrational belief. philosophy is irrational belief, it can't be proven one way or the other like you can prove gravity or bacterial infections. dawkins can stand up for science, but when he says we SHOULD, "should" is a value statement without proof. dawkins kinda falls on his face there. but hey we all do it
"I thought you would be eager" so true! If you really believe in something, you would want it to be tested, you would want to know the mechanism, because that would help you a lot.
I DONT KNOW IT JUST IS
sounds like religion
iamweapon 1 year ago
Horoscopes failed to describe me, but zodiac totally describe who I am 99.99%. Very amazing. I applaud to those chinese.
killerboyfoolz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SEE MY BLOG FOR THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE :
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
2:17 I hear the scientology laugh there.
why does this guy talk like a mind controlled zombie?
TeamDarwin1809 1 year ago
If you lie to someone once - I might accept your apology, all is not lost. When you lie more than once & do so on the basis that you want people to believe in a being who values honesty, courage & compassion- you have lost ALL credibility hence I can no longer trust Muslim & Christian apologists.
I have said that knowledge in a verse could be obtained from civilisations before & I have demonstrated this (Greeks) & have highlighted that knowledge unknown before doesn't mean it's from god.
TurboDally 1 year ago
If you will not address my points & continue with your fallacious ramblings "it must have been from god because we haven't seen others talk of it before", all the self-deception in the world will not change the fact that your arguments are weak & are out of mere ignorance.
TurboDally 1 year ago
If there is knowledge/verse in a book that you don't know how it got there:
1) It could have been stolen from people before
2) It may have been common knowledge/myth at the time
3) You have to establish the intepretation of a "scientific" verse BEFORE it is confirmed for it to be valid, even then it does not mean it came from god - Einstein is not god yet he made predictions that would appear "miraculous".
4) Islam is not the only religion to make such claims see Vedhas and Granth Sahib.
TurboDally 1 year ago
If you find knowledge or verses in a book that you can't explain how it got there, does not mean it came from god. You need to understand that knowledge has been stolen from civilisations previously destroyed. You think Islam is the only religion to make claims of "there is science in this book therefore it's really from god"? No, I've come across many religions who've made such claims, they can't all be right, but they can ALL be wrong.
TurboDally 1 year ago
Astrology is BULLSHIT!
briggles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
hahaha that astrologer is so dumb. Bloody hell he had nothing to say. Astrology is such a load of shit. Throw it out ffs.
thomas1510 2 years ago
We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" [Al-Quraan 21:30]
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence.
iReadthequran 1 year ago
"And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?"
We have known for thousands of years the importance of water in living things. We see how animals seek water, those who do not continue with their intake of water, they shrivel up & die. From this simple observation we can see that water is an important component to life.
The Greeks (oh those Greeks!) Aristotle & Thales spoke of how water (and heat) is the basis of all life and these guys lived more than 2,000 years ago!
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally
The Qur’aan contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe: "Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?" [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]
The striking congruence between the Qur’aanic verse and the ‘Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth? Would you agree?
iReadthequran 1 year ago
@iReadthequran
First acknowledge my point that the Greeks already made claims of organisms being made of water & requiring it to survive. Secondly, just because YOU find a something in a book that you can't explain does not mean that it was "from god". If the Greeks came up with the water/life, heliocentric model & spherical earth etc HUNDREDS of years before the Koran, yet you claim it’s a new discovery unique to the Koran - what makes you think I will trust & waste time on you now?
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally The greeks also made errors, which have been proven morden scientists. Would you still accept them as facts? I dont think so! As for the Quran, there is absolutely no scientific errors which contradict sceintific facts.
God challenge those who doubt the authenticity of the Quran! He sayS:
Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein many contradictions. (82) of surah 4 Quran
Up the challenge?
iReadthequran 1 year ago
"As for the Quran, there is absolutely no scientific errors which contradict sceintific facts."
The Christians say the same about their bible.
"Up the challenge?"
You claim that the heliocentric model, spherical earth & life from water was first revealed in the koran. When I research this, I find that Greeks proposed this before, why should I waste my time on a liar like you? How many of those verses claimed to be "scientific" are only found to be "scientific" AFTER the discoveries, not before?
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally Well, i guess you scared to challenge the Truth! It will also be a waste of time trying to, because in the end you will be the LOSER! God says:
Allâh to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth! And woe unto the disbelievers from a severe torment (Hellfire). (2) Those who prefer the life of this world to of the Hereafter, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allâh (i.e.Islâm) and seek crookedness therein - they are far astray. (3) of surah 14 Quran
iReadthequran 1 year ago
"in the end you will be the LOSER!"
I shall state my point again:
Knowledge in a book for which you can't explain does not mean it came from god. I have also included in my previous comments a few examples from where such knowledge may have come from.
"disbelievers...severe torment (Hellfire)."
A person who creates a place of eternal torment for those who simply don't believe or see evidence for believing, is unworthy of worship. Such a being is no better than "satan" & Hitler.
TurboDally 1 year ago
' person who creates a place of eternal torment for those who simply don't believe or see evidence for believing, is unworthy of worship..'
so a criminal who goes ahead and steal after being that the cctv camera is watching him or not refusing to accept that its watching him, should not be punish? The evidence is plain to see but u refuse to accept it out of pride and arrogance. cont...
iReadthequran 1 year ago
@iReadthequran
"so a criminal who goes ahead and steal"
You are likening someone who does not see evidence for god(s) (or more specifically the ABRAHAMIC god) to a criminal? How laughable.
"but u refuse to accept it out of pride and arrogance."
I refuse to accept out of lack of evidence and dishonesty of people like you. Why should a jury accep a verdict for which insufficient evidence has been presented? Go take your manmade god elsewhere. At least I do not expect god to be so primitive.
TurboDally 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TurboDally 'You are likening someone who does not see evidence for god(s) (or more specifically the ABRAHAMIC god) to a criminal?'
Its a mild likening! His worse than a criminal! Disbelieving in the one who created you is the worse crime!
iReadthequran 1 year ago
@TurboDally SEE MY BLOG FOR THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE :
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
@TurboDally cont.. Some people may require ten signs while some may require hundred signs to be convinced about the Divine Origin of the Qur’aan. Some would be unwilling to accept the Truth even after being shown a thousand signs. The Qur’aan condemns such a closed mentality in the verse: "Deaf, dumb and blind, They will not return (To the path)." [Al-Qur’aan 2:18]
iReadthequran 1 year ago
@iReadthequran
You say just as those of other religions say. I suggest an education in world religions other than your own. Now please politely bother someone else with your salesman mentality.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally SEE MY BLOG FOR THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE :
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
@iReadthequran SEE MY BLOG FOR THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE :
LAS SAGRADAS ESCRITURAS SE CARACTERIZA MAYORMENTE POR LAS EVIDENCIAS CIENTIFICAS, HISTORICAS, ETIMOLOGICAS, ARQUEOLOGICAS, GEOGRAFICAS, PALEONTOLOGICAS, PSICOLOGICAS, PEDIATRICAS, PSOCIOLOGICAS, QUIMICAS,ASTROFISICAS, GEOFISICAS, ESTRATIGRAFÍA, BIOLOGICAS, FISICAS, COSMOLOGICAS Y PROFETICAS MAS NO ES SOLAMENTE FE, SI NO, POR EVIDENCIAS VERIFICABLES Y COMPROBABLES.Y ASI COMPROBANDO QUE LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE LA BIBLIA CON 100% EXACTAS.
APOLOGETICIENCE 1 year ago
@iReadthequran
You know, the thing is, for every sign in favor of Allah, I see a million signs that he does not exist. All the hate and pain in the world, decease and death. You just simply ignore those and that makes you: "Deaf, dumb and blind, They will not return (To the path)." Only that would be the path of logic and love, and not the Qur'aan.
I think it is beautiful how religion is so powerful an illness of someone's thought process that it can bend any argument in favor of the religion
Brillyr 1 year ago
@TurboDally
I think that the god of the bible is worse. Hitler killed people and Satan chose God above man as a crime, but God torments people on a different scale entirely. This is beyond sick and revolting.
Brillyr 1 year ago
It's a shame that Spencer didn't agree to be tested scientifically, because if the experiment was set up the same way that Michael Shermer tested astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, it might have shown similar, positive results for astrology.
putkettleonfilms 2 years ago
Astrology is a joke! Silly stuff.
Intiminator99 2 years ago
50/50
SelfInterestServes 3 years ago
Astrology is an easy target but Dawkins doesn't get it - we need mysticism in this world and Dawkins ia ta risk of being driven insane by his own rationalism - RB
ronniebryan 3 years ago
@ronniebryan:
What do we need mysticism for exactly? What clues have you observed that make you think Dawkins is at risk of losing his sanity? What symptoms has he got that show a sign of mental instability?
Methos5000plus 3 years ago
ronniebryan probably means that there is a biological reason that our need for mysticism exists.
mongobobo 3 years ago
The word ''need'' is the problem I'd say.
Methos5000plus 3 years ago
So if you'd agree that there is a biological reason for our mystic leanings, surely you wouldn't want to risk getting rid of that 'need?'
mongobobo 3 years ago
There's a biological reason why we get cancer too. I wouldn't say we 'need' cancer, though. Cancer and mysticism are both negative as far as I'm concerned, despite the fact that there's likely a biological reason why we are susceptible to both. Again, ''need'' is a problematic word for me as far as mysticism is concerned.
Methos5000plus 3 years ago
I think ronniebryan means that richard aprroaches astrology very lightly like all scientists. Rationalism is important but also is the general sense of feeling, sensing without reason. column horoscopes in daily papers., Those things are a disgrace to astrology, shame on the astrologist who write them. e. That's why science can never prove astrology, and in the end the only way to see if it is true or not is to ask the person whether this is really you.
JohannesDances 2 years ago 2
So, what exactly is a credible showing of astrology, in your opinion?
Methos5000plus 2 years ago
Open Mindedness, and using the basic senses that we have are all keys to understanding astrology. Like someone already wrote arguing with an astrologist is like asking for no evidence. Richard thinks anyone who is born an Aries, is just an Aries he/she have the rest of the planets placed in different houses therefore being more than just an Aries. Richard wants to relate astrology to anyone, when that is wrong.
JohannesDances 2 years ago
The only accuracy you can get from astrology is gettting a personal reading not a daily column referal to know who you are. Have you ever heard of Michel Gauqelin?
JohannesDances 2 years ago
Touche.........Richard Dawkins 10.....Astrology 0.
lordlitherquot 3 years ago
I would have really liked to have seen the results of Dawkins' proposed test.
lizclegg 3 years ago
If you see the entire program he carries out the test and the results are striking.
nugun889 3 years ago
Dawkins experiences, once again, what it's like to talk to a grown man with the intelligence of a leather boot.
Poorglands 3 years ago 5
It is depressing seeing people like that.. He's either a charlatan getting rich off the gullible (which would be my guess) or completely off his nut.
"There's no proof for it but I know it just works but I don't want to test it because that would make it not work."
Sounds quite a lot like religion doesn't it?
megamarsvin 3 years ago 3
Neil Spencer is a cunt. Plain and simple.
dcmanagementltd 3 years ago
astrologers are charlatans .
gasgas270 3 years ago 2
Astrology is Bullshit.
statickk14 3 years ago
Are you off of your meds?
akinadownhillace 4 years ago
Spencer whined like a petulant teenager in an article in his newspaper (The Observer - shame on them for having a quack on staff) about this interview.
revjimbob 4 years ago 2
Do you have anything vaguely intelligible to say?
grayabc1234 4 years ago 2
Arguing with an astrologer inevitably comes down to them saying "I don't need evidence!"
My mother is a firm astrology believer and I have found all attempts to elicit scientific debate on the issue fruitless. They seem to view any attempts at objective analysis as a personal attack.
Psycarne 4 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is no scientist, he's a philosopher. But whatever you call him, he's bad at them both.
igystrvigy 4 years ago
Yet, he has a PhD in Evolutionary Science?
thkaal 4 years ago 14
From Oxford?
Peripatetic5 4 years ago 3
@thkaal
Yes. And evolution is hard science. Not unproven bollocks.
PsyPavlov 1 year ago
Dawkins is theoretical scientific and philosopher!!!!!he is the best
USPFOSIPT 4 years ago 6
thats the funniest thing ever. a philosopher who emphasizes scientific proof over irrational belief. philosophy is irrational belief, it can't be proven one way or the other like you can prove gravity or bacterial infections. dawkins can stand up for science, but when he says we SHOULD, "should" is a value statement without proof. dawkins kinda falls on his face there. but hey we all do it
chrispollock 3 years ago
No offense but are you retarded? You are arguing that saying someone should do something doesn't have proof so its erroneous? If so you are a moron.
Smood47 3 years ago
Don't make stupid comments like that in public..makes you look like an idiot.
statickk14 3 years ago
you cant beat dawkins, he is awesome
syazzypoo 4 years ago 14
damn it, you are way too stupid. anyone that really, but really wants to "test" that crap of video, give me a call.
pleyar 4 years ago
PWNED so hard at 2:05 by Dawkins. So funny.
JosephOD 4 years ago 2
"I told you, I don't know how it works... But I can give precriptions as to what's going on in complete stranger's lives based on it."
sounds reasonable!
killerskillet 4 years ago 3
lol, hes made to look like an idiot
PunkRox1977 4 years ago 3
Ha ha! "A firm grasp on the obvious" yes. I think he'd like that! Far more of a grasp than that goalshifting fraud he is interviewing.
clarkgwent 4 years ago
"I thought you would be eager" so true! If you really believe in something, you would want it to be tested, you would want to know the mechanism, because that would help you a lot.
elzosmid 4 years ago 3
Dawkins has a firm grasp on the obvious.
cloonmore 4 years ago 3