a) creationists who realised the guy who made Expelled fucked up by including this.
b) non-creationists who are not looking past the fact this is a creationist video that has fucked up badly at being parody. A very Shallow parody of people like MC Hawking and Baba Brinkman.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
I love this video, its funny. I think the machine is the scientific method and academia in general. Either ones theories can be verified with reproduceable experiments or their not scientific. So then thats why the creation scientist got kicked out, his theories couldnt be put to a scientific test. Thats why you see the machine taking in media coverage and funding.
I especially love the part about Darrow which refers to the Scopes trial where science education won a landmark victory.
gee, ppl, creationists are retards but so is this anti-theist shit by dawkins and others. you shouldn't appreciate this video as in a debate between creationists and atheists (or evolutionists).
@RockJosiah Oh, I know Stein wanted it that way (to present a negative view of secularists/atheists). You're right that it's ironic atheists/agnostics find it cool. I like to think of it as the atheist "Yankee-Doodle" song (which was originally used to make fun of American colonists) ;) .
@RockJosiah Yeah :) . I don't mind a little laugh like this. It actually is a decent nerd-core rap. I hope the musician who was, ahem, "Dicky D" gets more work.
all you fus are stupid this is a stupid vid.its wana be funny you can tell lame ass fus made this.prabably lame ass white bitch as fus.go suck jesus dick homos.
@carlosrockapx It's not about thinking I'm right. I understand evolution, and know it to be true. There's no 'belie it's rightf' or 'thinking it's right' It just is.
@BigLundi 1st: evolution is just a theory. Saying "it just is (true)" shows how much faith u put in it. 2nd: I also BELIEVE in evolution, and in God. There is no dichotomy between them.
@BigLundi saying that u're right, before saying evolution is true, made it look like to me u were expecting me to be creationist - so I and theists would be wrong, if we were all creationists, which we aren't.
@carlosrockapx Well, because evolution IS true, and if you disagree, you're wrong. We are right in asserting it's true, because it is. It's the most true out of any scientific theory out there, including germs, elecromagnetics, and gravity.
@carlosrockapx Oh, great. Another person who doesn't know what a theory is. People like you really think that a theory is just a guess don't you? Making a theory requires evidence, and there is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence, however, for any sort of deity.
@AZJamie1 No, I don't think a theory is just a guess. But I don't think it is an absolute, unquestionable statement either. It might be refuted one day. People who treat evolution like a dogma are just acting religious. Even the big bang is in question nowadays. So why evolution would never be? And there is evidence for a specific deity. Anyone who researches about it will find. And no, I'm not telling you to look through your window and see how beautiful nature is.
@carlosrockapx Sure, evolution, like everything needs to be questioned, and at least you haven't suggested replacing a real scientific theory with religious scripture.
@carlosrockapx In science you do not have absolute statements - that's not how science works. That doesn't mean that evolution will be refuted one day though, just like gravity won't be refuted. Evolution is a fact, but science always leaves room for the uncertain in case some details have to be changed one day for example. The entire dismissal of evolution however, will never happen. Furthermore, I really have to stop you when youre saying there's evidence for a specific deity. That's plain bs
@carlosrockapx plain bullshit, because there is no such things as evidence in favor of any religion. And if you really think so, you have been taught terrible things - and i'm willing to tell you what it's really like.
So, what evidence for god is it you're talking about?
@joe80dmanizanerd It seems I can't post a link here, but if you Google search for "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe", you'll find the main argumentation and evidence for God.
@carlosrockapx The link you just posted contains no evidence, i'm sorry. Or at least not what any scientificly educated person would perceive as evidence.
William Lane Craig is a theological philosopher, things like the kalam cosmological argument hold no evidence at all. The article itself even states "this purely philosophical argument". Philosophy is (as we all know) not a science. Philosophical "rules" are meaningless because they are fundamentally based on nothing at all.
@carlosrockapx furthermore, the link you posted is using the phrase "scientific confirmation #1" - continued by why the author believes the big bang is incorrect. This does not make sense at all. Lets not go into the big bang theory itself, but lets just say that it is false - that doesn't prove god right. It just proves that the big bang theory is flawed.
The "#2 scientific confirmation" just made me laugh, they simply imply the following. The universe had a beginning = god exists. Ridiculous
@joe80dmanizanerd Most "Creationists" follow simplistic "idiot logic" like you stated at the end of that statement as the fine print between lines of larger words. It seems difficult, to the point of impossibility for most people behind said argument to understand the fundamental tenet of religion... "Faith". It makes me laugh a cackle of sorrow when I see people with scientific backgrounds attempting to undermine serious research done by their colleagues out of a misguided need for validation.
@Darthsikk Also, its not faith that bothers me. If people want to believe in god, they are free to do so and I won't argue with them. The point where I step in is when people make untrue pseudo scientific claims - like dr. Craig does.
As for your second confirmation, it's just bullshit. It claims that because energy exists - it must have been put in by something + universe had a beginning = god exists.
@joe80dmanizanerd what u said about the "1st scientific confirmation" is just what makes no sense, as Craig is DEFENDING the Big Bang; the ones who thought it was incorrect were ATHEIST scientists at the time. It seems Dawkins is making school for "how to distort the arguments of others", because that's what he does better. Also, your contempt for philosophy is your greatest failure, because philosophy is nothing but the basis of science...
@carlosrockapx Sorry but nothing of what you're saying is even making the slightest sense. I study philosophy of science, don't try to tell me what philosophy is.. Philosophy is just like theology, no science. We can't explain science through philosophy - nor does philosophy give us any facts or evidence to work with. In philosophy of science you have several fundamental theories, verificationism, falsifiability etc. The shit craig pulls out of his ass however, is nothing but theological bs.
@joe80dmanizanerd ...but I guess you're one of these guys who think "yeah, only science can prove things", but can you prove that assumption as well with science? I don't think so, and that is the biggest contradiction of scientism, and the reason that it is not taken seriously by the academies.
@joe80dmanizanerd about the 2nd scientific confirmation, again you comment nothing but nonsense. It simply follows the defense of the beginning of the universe with scientific arguments. The conclusion leads to a personal creator as the cause of it, but it also has an explanation on why is that. Even Dawkins stated that the universe is supposed to have an intelligent creator, which would be aliens to him... I think it could be anything to atheists, unless God, of course.
@carlosrockapx Furthermore, Dawkisn doesn't say that the universe has to be created by anyone. He says we don't know how the universe came to be (but if life on earth was created, aliens are alot more likely than god). And that's the entire point. I'm not saying that no god can exist or has existed. We don't know, and thus its unreasonable to believe there is one.
You're making the claim here that god exists, but you can't prove it - nor will you ever.
@TheXiantruth I will, it's fun watching you troll hard. Trollin trollin trollin, little theists trollin, trollin trollin trollin, troLLIN, get em mad, laugh it up, do it hard, for the lulz, ask 'umad?' then lol AGAIN, trollin trollin trollin, little theists trollin, trollin trollin trollin, TROLLIN
@BigLundi you should print pamphlets for those who have their asses handed to them and them backpedal like hell....LMAO!!....say it Sparky!!" Troll!!" LMAO....
Say it again...'Troll!..."
You're a HOOT , Sparky!!....
Show all the losers how it's done wittle atheist and your wittle shit upon ego!!..
@TheXiantruth Say Sparky again, the more you sound like Nephilimfree the funnier you are, it's great. Show all the losers what a wittle troll you are.
And for the record, you'd better hope you're a troll, because if you're not, you're all the dumber.
I just showed this to my brother. He said he could tell it was a joke right off but still, he said, it casts Richard Dawkins in a favorable light and it's fun to sing.
If this was intended to mock Richard Dawkins, it failed miserably.
I can't tell if this was intended as pro-atheist, but as an atheist I can tell you that this video is fucking hilarious! Dawkins smarter than creationists? Why yes, yes he is.
Yeah, he didn't just study biology, any more than Feynman just studied physics or Eric Clapton just strums a few chords. He's written books that make his colleagues see evolution in a new light.
This is ironically funny because its true and you believers think its funny or insulting. Yes he's smarter than you, unless you are a scientist, you don't get to argue against their findings without evidence.
Christians only wish that science worked like their hierarchy, If someone has an idea with good evidence, they aren't "silenced" like in Christianity...
The irony is that the "machine" the theists are trying to overcome is actually their own ignorance. They see this obstacle as a conspiracy, when in fact the conspiracy has a name: education. When you learn about the facts, you don't need conjecture and belief without proof.
I didn't realize this until someone personified it with the machine image.
i'm sorry, i going to have to block you 1tabligh, you are nothing more than a bot. a cut and paste bot, who's only mission has been to flood these boards with your propaganda. you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble and just posted a link to al-islam dot org rather than just cut and paste their garbage. but your real goal was to pollute these boards and you have succeeded it seems. no1 will read your shite however, they will just not be able to read anything else any1 else has to say.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
When the angels said: O Mary, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. christ, JESUS son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).
@BrellK Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@5600981 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
You sir, win the prize. 1tabligh's has been doing this for years now, and I am thinking of a way to stop his shitflood. I've already tried contacting a few uploaders to block him from their videos due to the pollution he causes. Will you ride with me on this quest, kind sir?
@laflugantabastardo I am in two minds as whether he should be stopped. his hollow and incoherent arguments, clearly cut and pasted from some religious crackpot website can easily been seen through. however, as you point out he just front-loads his pollution wholesale onto videos.
on balance, i think he is doing his cause more harm than good with these tactics.
@MCDon17 hmmm.. not sure where you're coming from here... you have possibly jumped into a discussion and made an assumption about what i was saying to another user about a third party. In doing so making an ass of yourself.
However, if you are leaping to the defense of 1tabligh (as your comment implies) then i'll say this, he makes no arguments, just front loads spiel cut and pasted from an islamic propaganda website. His goal is simply to pollute the boards.
any fool can just cut and paste nonsense. and you 1tabligh, are a fool of the highest order. you clearly now realise your cut and paste nonsense is just that, nonsense, yet you continue to blurge it out and close your eyes to anything opposing you.
Use the reply button instead O' deluded and duped atheist!
Matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded atheist, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
@1tabligh you are one boring person. for about 3 dozen posts now all you have done is cut and paste. you asked 1 direct question, which i answered directly, and your reply was to bombard with more cut and paste shite from al-islam dot org.
how this is meant to work, you make a statement or ask a question, i reply, you then come back ON WHAT I SAID, i then come back on what you said. This cut and paste BS is making you look retarded.
@erin321321 Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Only good part of this movie. The rest of it was just totally inaccurate. If you can easily disprove an entire movie in about twenty minutes on Google, it shouldn't have been made.
people like dawkins make science, which seems to be about making discoveries, not rejecting them, go stale and become useless. I'm not a scientist but I don't think we discovered electrons by adamantly rejecting the possibility.
@asalynd it's clear from your comment that you are not a scientist... or even aware of how science works. however keep commenting, it is funny when people criticize what they don't understand. it's like they're poking fun at themselves without realising it.
@erin321321 Which is exactly what dawkins is doing by criticizing religion when he has no understanding of what religion is about. No I don't have a degree in physics but I know how a scientist would go about examining evidence in a laboratory while examining and removing all mitigating factors by use of a control group. I have a basic grasp on the scientific method. Darwin didn't discover evolution when it was popular, he discovered it by keeping a keen eye and an open mind.
@asalynd and you continue to make statements about something you have little or no understanding about. your first comment shows that you DO NOT grasp the scientific method and this comment shows that you do not know or do not understand Dawkins' point(s) on religion.
i recommend you read one of his books on the subject and do not base your opinions of him (or his position) on someone else's summary, because it looks like you have accepted a strawman.
@erin321321 good i have found someone who hopefully can answer this question- where is the scientific evidence for 'memes' ?or is it just like the flying memepot analogy? I have read his book but cannot find empirical evidence of it in any lab- and by dawkins points does that mean that memes are a meme and even evolution?
@philosophyteacher i have a feeling, from your wording, that i am being set up for a word play trap. if that is not the case i apologise. So meme is a term coined by Dawkins and used in several way, replicator fashion, (like a virus) and cultural evolution. The later is evident by observation of human history, you may recall from the book the discussion on shifting moral zeitgeist?. As for the the former i am not a biologist so dont have references to hand, however .... continued....
@erin321321 ....continued.... google has several articles on it, a search of 'meme theory' or 'evidence for memes', should bring back the material you seek. if it exists. I have read Selfish Gene but a long time ago and cant recall if Dawkins referenced experiments or whether he was seeking to use 'memes' as a rhetorical object.
@erin321321 thanks but so it is inference really then. So a meme is a meme also (this seems a sticky point) and logically all ideas must be so ...theism and atheism and even more alarmingly evolution which does seem nonsensical ?
@erin321321 you DO NOT grasp the scientific method and this comment ....you do not know or do not understand Dawkins' point(s) on religion.
______
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Universe.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Aware of what they do".
@1tabligh sigh. well there is a lot of 'white noise' in your 5.. no 6 posts. it is clear you are religious and trying to use semantics to discredit something you have little knowledge about. Quoting scripture to refute science is a tried and tested means of failure. assertions you make about 'truth' are just that, and nothing more.
That which is is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@erin321321 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
How is that for YOUR "your appeal to ignorance is pitiful." and answer instead?
@1tabligh and again with the white noise. Your semantic babbling's ARE trying to appeal to the ignorant. the individual words you are using may sound intelligent, however the sentences you have constructed are anything but.
your unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions require no answer. in the same way and for the same reason that if i was to assert that we are all just brains in a jar hooked up to computer playing a mmorpg. unfalsifiable = unscientific = nonsense.
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh LMAO.... the language of your posts was a little hit and miss so i googled some of your babblings. Cut and paste from al-islam dot org much? are you incapable of debating off your own back? are you just a mindless drone of islamic pseudoscience? you really disappoint me. Here was i thinking i had found an intelligent, if misguided, antagonist i could debate with and you are nothing more than a mindless cut and paste merchant
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh you blatant avoidance of my observation of your sources (if you can call it that) and then trying to project your short comings onto me is telling, to say the least. you most recent post again contains cut and paste garbage direct from al-islam dot org.
so you asked me is 'matter' was the start of everything or ws there something before that? and the answer is yes, according to the most recent scientific data that i know of (although a few years old now). that something was energy.
Still dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
i think i just answered your question directly didn't i?
looks like you are just writing ''Still dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!'' and posting yet more cut and paste garbage. is your plan to flood this board with your pseudoscience and ignore every response?
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh so i was right, you have no interest in a debate. a discourse. of hearing and considering an opposing point of view, you are just front loading your cut and paste pseudoscience.
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
@erin321321 can you explain the paradigm shift theory please as you seem to know lots about science. Another point that puzzles me is concerning biochemistry and lack of evidence for moelcular evolution. My final point concerns quantum theory and reality - the scientific method involves observation, evidence and experimentation but what does this fellow Schrodinger and cat tell us? Does reality exist? does matter exist ? if the answer is not what are the conclusions for Dawkins, Dennet ?
"He's smarter than you--he's got a SCIENCE degree! He's still smarter than you--he's got a Biology degree!" What a great sarcastic line!
Christlovesanimals 1 day ago
Comment removed
Christlovesanimals 1 day ago
if this was trying to make fun of atheists...FAIL!!!
arjunmax7 1 week ago
very good XD
drewkendal 3 weeks ago
this is great! long live Dawkins, and people with religious beliefs can shut the fuck up! yay!
cricketjam 1 month ago
ED.ch brought me here :)
RedSkiesAwaitUs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.
needgod.com
if you are interested in abortion or thinking of having one watch 180 movie
standingontruth1 2 months ago in playlist Reason and Science
216 people are either:
a) creationists who realised the guy who made Expelled fucked up by including this.
b) non-creationists who are not looking past the fact this is a creationist video that has fucked up badly at being parody. A very Shallow parody of people like MC Hawking and Baba Brinkman.
micmac274 2 months ago in playlist Atheist Music
@micmac274
What? This was made by creationists? But, it's good... I'm confused.
How is this meant to be pro-creationist, I wonder....?
Do they see PeerReviewBot as an enforcer of "science dogma" or something?
ulodetero 2 months ago
what the fuck is the point of this video
TheHunter14792 3 months ago
@MJFan666 I think it's Funny that they COULD have got an Atheist to write this. It's hilarious.
micmac274 3 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 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
after you read the lyrics... i don't think they mean to mock them...
andresdohko 3 months ago
I love this video, its funny. I think the machine is the scientific method and academia in general. Either ones theories can be verified with reproduceable experiments or their not scientific. So then thats why the creation scientist got kicked out, his theories couldnt be put to a scientific test. Thats why you see the machine taking in media coverage and funding.
I especially love the part about Darrow which refers to the Scopes trial where science education won a landmark victory.
PowerOfTheMirror 3 months ago 2
Evolution Gods way of issuing updates can't wait for the new Beta
vocalarr 5 months ago
This is a viral ad supposedly; floatonfilms [dot] com/11974/171032/projects/richard-dawkins-beware-the-believers
Task5003 5 months ago
gee, ppl, creationists are retards but so is this anti-theist shit by dawkins and others. you shouldn't appreciate this video as in a debate between creationists and atheists (or evolutionists).
c0rt0m4ltese 5 months ago
@c0rt0m4ltese
This video was made by creationists advocating intelligent design. It came as part of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
I'm an atheist, and I appreciate this video for all the victims of Poe's Law it made. Anyone taking this thing seriously is very deluded indeed.
Xgya2000 4 months ago
@c0rt0m4ltese no such thing as 'evolutionists'.
MJFAN666 3 months ago
It's Killer. And I'm Christian heh
SAINTJUDAS28 5 months ago
@SAINTJUDAS28 THis is a creationist video. I am a non-believer.
MJFAN666 3 months ago
Did they give the evil atheist conspiracy scientist a russian accent on purpose?
elevadon 6 months ago
@elevadon
Of course! All atheists are communists, didn't you know? ;P
ulodetero 2 months ago
@ulodetero sometimes you get that feeling
sexyxrs 1 month ago
At 3:23 I was totally waiting for that church to get stomped on.
IvanAndreevich 7 months ago
Arrogant as hell, but funny :) .
Jaybird196 7 months ago
@Jaybird196 It was paid for by Ben Stine, it was made for that Expelled thing he did. Poe's law or not, it's just ironic XD
RockJosiah 7 months ago
@RockJosiah Oh, I know Stein wanted it that way (to present a negative view of secularists/atheists). You're right that it's ironic atheists/agnostics find it cool. I like to think of it as the atheist "Yankee-Doodle" song (which was originally used to make fun of American colonists) ;) .
Jaybird196 7 months ago
@Jaybird196 Ahh didn't know those Tankee-Doodle songs where mocking.
I preaty much see it the same way, a bit of a laugh at yourself never hurt anyone =3
RockJosiah 7 months ago
@RockJosiah Yeah :) . I don't mind a little laugh like this. It actually is a decent nerd-core rap. I hope the musician who was, ahem, "Dicky D" gets more work.
Jaybird196 7 months ago
this is hilarious. i guess who ever produced this for the creatards was a double agent....
moredread100 8 months ago 2
YOU ARE MOCKING MY GOD!!! I WILL NOW BURN YOUR EMBASSY, BEHEAD YOU AND TAKE YOUR WOMEN AS WAR BOOTY!!!
Andreastij 8 months ago
@Andreastij Like, seriously? O_o If yes, LOL!!! ^_^
Novaspes82 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andreastij Like, seriously? O_o If yes, LOL!!! ^_^
Novaspes82 8 months ago
So hilarious!
KEEETARO 9 months ago
217 minds were not set at ease by Dawkins' little ditty.
RightRocks 9 months ago
all you fus are stupid this is a stupid vid.its wana be funny you can tell lame ass fus made this.prabably lame ass white bitch as fus.go suck jesus dick homos.
ALONSOJAILE 9 months ago
DAWKINS PWNS!
dianambowman 9 months ago
No, we know what the makers of this video were trying to do. We think it's funny because they failed, just like Stein and his stupid movie.
xMazz666x 10 months ago
@xMazz666x wrong. You were suppose to thinks it's funny because it's funny.
randomslice 9 months ago
I used to take Dawkins seriously until I watched this video. Just kidding, I always found him and his followers to be plain stupid
carlosrockapx 10 months ago
@carlosrockapx Really doesn't matter, since even if we are dicks, we're right. :D
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi if thinking you are right makes you feel good...
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx It's not about thinking I'm right. I understand evolution, and know it to be true. There's no 'belie it's rightf' or 'thinking it's right' It just is.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi 1st: evolution is just a theory. Saying "it just is (true)" shows how much faith u put in it. 2nd: I also BELIEVE in evolution, and in God. There is no dichotomy between them.
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx 1st: You don't know what a theory is aparently. 2nd, I never said there's a dichotomy between god and evolution. So lol.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi saying that u're right, before saying evolution is true, made it look like to me u were expecting me to be creationist - so I and theists would be wrong, if we were all creationists, which we aren't.
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx Well, because evolution IS true, and if you disagree, you're wrong. We are right in asserting it's true, because it is. It's the most true out of any scientific theory out there, including germs, elecromagnetics, and gravity.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx Oh, great. Another person who doesn't know what a theory is. People like you really think that a theory is just a guess don't you? Making a theory requires evidence, and there is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence, however, for any sort of deity.
AZJamie1 9 months ago
@AZJamie1 No, I don't think a theory is just a guess. But I don't think it is an absolute, unquestionable statement either. It might be refuted one day. People who treat evolution like a dogma are just acting religious. Even the big bang is in question nowadays. So why evolution would never be? And there is evidence for a specific deity. Anyone who researches about it will find. And no, I'm not telling you to look through your window and see how beautiful nature is.
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx Sure, evolution, like everything needs to be questioned, and at least you haven't suggested replacing a real scientific theory with religious scripture.
AZJamie1 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx In science you do not have absolute statements - that's not how science works. That doesn't mean that evolution will be refuted one day though, just like gravity won't be refuted. Evolution is a fact, but science always leaves room for the uncertain in case some details have to be changed one day for example. The entire dismissal of evolution however, will never happen. Furthermore, I really have to stop you when youre saying there's evidence for a specific deity. That's plain bs
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd idk whats a "plain bs".
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx plain bullshit, because there is no such things as evidence in favor of any religion. And if you really think so, you have been taught terrible things - and i'm willing to tell you what it's really like.
So, what evidence for god is it you're talking about?
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd It seems I can't post a link here, but if you Google search for "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe", you'll find the main argumentation and evidence for God.
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx The link you just posted contains no evidence, i'm sorry. Or at least not what any scientificly educated person would perceive as evidence.
William Lane Craig is a theological philosopher, things like the kalam cosmological argument hold no evidence at all. The article itself even states "this purely philosophical argument". Philosophy is (as we all know) not a science. Philosophical "rules" are meaningless because they are fundamentally based on nothing at all.
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx furthermore, the link you posted is using the phrase "scientific confirmation #1" - continued by why the author believes the big bang is incorrect. This does not make sense at all. Lets not go into the big bang theory itself, but lets just say that it is false - that doesn't prove god right. It just proves that the big bang theory is flawed.
The "#2 scientific confirmation" just made me laugh, they simply imply the following. The universe had a beginning = god exists. Ridiculous
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd Most "Creationists" follow simplistic "idiot logic" like you stated at the end of that statement as the fine print between lines of larger words. It seems difficult, to the point of impossibility for most people behind said argument to understand the fundamental tenet of religion... "Faith". It makes me laugh a cackle of sorrow when I see people with scientific backgrounds attempting to undermine serious research done by their colleagues out of a misguided need for validation.
Darthsikk 9 months ago
@Darthsikk Also, its not faith that bothers me. If people want to believe in god, they are free to do so and I won't argue with them. The point where I step in is when people make untrue pseudo scientific claims - like dr. Craig does.
As for your second confirmation, it's just bullshit. It claims that because energy exists - it must have been put in by something + universe had a beginning = god exists.
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd what u said about the "1st scientific confirmation" is just what makes no sense, as Craig is DEFENDING the Big Bang; the ones who thought it was incorrect were ATHEIST scientists at the time. It seems Dawkins is making school for "how to distort the arguments of others", because that's what he does better. Also, your contempt for philosophy is your greatest failure, because philosophy is nothing but the basis of science...
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx Sorry but nothing of what you're saying is even making the slightest sense. I study philosophy of science, don't try to tell me what philosophy is.. Philosophy is just like theology, no science. We can't explain science through philosophy - nor does philosophy give us any facts or evidence to work with. In philosophy of science you have several fundamental theories, verificationism, falsifiability etc. The shit craig pulls out of his ass however, is nothing but theological bs.
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd ...but I guess you're one of these guys who think "yeah, only science can prove things", but can you prove that assumption as well with science? I don't think so, and that is the biggest contradiction of scientism, and the reason that it is not taken seriously by the academies.
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd about the 2nd scientific confirmation, again you comment nothing but nonsense. It simply follows the defense of the beginning of the universe with scientific arguments. The conclusion leads to a personal creator as the cause of it, but it also has an explanation on why is that. Even Dawkins stated that the universe is supposed to have an intelligent creator, which would be aliens to him... I think it could be anything to atheists, unless God, of course.
carlosrockapx 9 months ago
@carlosrockapx Furthermore, Dawkisn doesn't say that the universe has to be created by anyone. He says we don't know how the universe came to be (but if life on earth was created, aliens are alot more likely than god). And that's the entire point. I'm not saying that no god can exist or has existed. We don't know, and thus its unreasonable to believe there is one.
You're making the claim here that god exists, but you can't prove it - nor will you ever.
I'd rather stay humble.
joe80dmanizanerd 9 months ago
stupid atheists don't even realize what this video is about....figures...
TheXiantruth 10 months ago
@TheXiantruth Oh we know what it's about, but if fails so hard as an attempt to make fun of us, it's great.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi See my original statement above. Thanks for proving my point, Sparky.
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@TheXiantruth Lol, Sparky? You went all Nephilimfree on my ass!
Classic douchebag rebuttal, "Tch, you proved my point." without even explaining your point to any degree of detail.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi Again, read my point. You've been owned Sparky. Get over it and move on.
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
Respond to this video..."Prove your point??..." What do I do after that? Wipe your ass for you?
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@TheXiantruth You've failed to even give a point for me to prove.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi move along Sparky...and , no, I'm not going to grab the toilet paper from you.
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@TheXiantruth Lol, ok, you're a troll. See, you could have just said that in the beginning, "I'm just trying to piss people off." trololol.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi Now you're playing the "Troll" card...Damn son! Do they get any more pathetic than you??
Seriously....
Run along little atheist...
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@TheXiantruth If it smells and acts and looks like a troll......
Troll harder little troll.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi Thanks for making me laugh son. Seriously. puh--the-tic. did I hurt him's wittle feelings owning him, this wittle atheist?
i'm sooo sorry, wittle boy....
hang around son....you're funny.
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@TheXiantruth I will, it's fun watching you troll hard. Trollin trollin trollin, little theists trollin, trollin trollin trollin, troLLIN, get em mad, laugh it up, do it hard, for the lulz, ask 'umad?' then lol AGAIN, trollin trollin trollin, little theists trollin, trollin trollin trollin, TROLLIN
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi you should print pamphlets for those who have their asses handed to them and them backpedal like hell....LMAO!!....say it Sparky!!" Troll!!" LMAO....
Say it again...'Troll!..."
You're a HOOT , Sparky!!....
Show all the losers how it's done wittle atheist and your wittle shit upon ego!!..
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@TheXiantruth Say Sparky again, the more you sound like Nephilimfree the funnier you are, it's great. Show all the losers what a wittle troll you are.
And for the record, you'd better hope you're a troll, because if you're not, you're all the dumber.
BigLundi 9 months ago
216 people need a science degree... or at least a highschool diploma. :D
CalicoVall 10 months ago 5
I just showed this to my brother. He said he could tell it was a joke right off but still, he said, it casts Richard Dawkins in a favorable light and it's fun to sing.
If this was intended to mock Richard Dawkins, it failed miserably.
Jeremiah613 11 months ago 5
God used to believe in himself before this video =DDD
Qarzort 11 months ago 4
Are they trying to mock richard dawkins or something? From my point of vew after watching this video, he's fucking awesome.
Atomic91 11 months ago 15
OMFG!! Dawkin's is badass yo!!!!!
bariuspelagic 11 months ago 4
so true.
dr0dread 11 months ago
uhhh Dawkins IS smarter than you.. and me... He's one of the worlds best biologists and has written many books...
TheBriguy04 11 months ago 3
Ahahahahhahaha. That's freaking hilarious.
sawser2k2 11 months ago
I can't tell if this was intended as pro-atheist, but as an atheist I can tell you that this video is fucking hilarious! Dawkins smarter than creationists? Why yes, yes he is.
FreeFromChrist 11 months ago 10
This... is actually really good lyricism.
hugeposuer 11 months ago
So this is a pro-atheist video, right? Those all seemed like valid points as to why one should listen to Richard Dawkins...
ovinophile 11 months ago 6
@ovinophile We tried to make a pro-awesome video. It's like that cave Yoda sends Luke into... What is in there is only what you bring with you.
randomslice 11 months ago
o_O what the hell does this even mean?!
omfgzhax 11 months ago
Yeah, he didn't just study biology, any more than Feynman just studied physics or Eric Clapton just strums a few chords. He's written books that make his colleagues see evolution in a new light.
SheilaCrosby 11 months ago 6
This is ironically funny because its true and you believers think its funny or insulting. Yes he's smarter than you, unless you are a scientist, you don't get to argue against their findings without evidence.
chaoslord4441 11 months ago
What sad is he is smarter than them because he studied biology and got a science degree
Dacke 11 months ago
my dog this is amazing.
eigotiyotyu 11 months ago
hahaa great stuff
Falsel1ght 11 months ago
There's a term for this type of thinking: anti-intellectualism. People always fear that which they don't understand.
rolexxx11 11 months ago 22
@rolexxx11 I.e. Science.
MJFAN666 6 months ago in playlist Atheist Music
@rolexxx11 Are you Atheist?
MJFAN666 5 months ago
@rolexxx11 What do you mean?
MJFAN666 3 months ago
Christians only wish that science worked like their hierarchy, If someone has an idea with good evidence, they aren't "silenced" like in Christianity...
aliasalan 11 months ago 7
I can't decide whether I should "like" this or not. I don't think that I was meant to find this as hilarious as I do.
sewicyde 11 months ago 4
The irony is that the "machine" the theists are trying to overcome is actually their own ignorance. They see this obstacle as a conspiracy, when in fact the conspiracy has a name: education. When you learn about the facts, you don't need conjecture and belief without proof.
I didn't realize this until someone personified it with the machine image.
Stroggoth 11 months ago 12
Oh Poe's Law always gives me a good laugh.
CrusHSC 11 months ago
This video is POE^2.
Gotta hand it to you theists, catchy riff. Shit was funny too.
Okie7123 11 months ago 5
LOL!! He's smarter and also better looking.
PrairiePie23 11 months ago
Poe's law much?
murd3rface 11 months ago 54
@murd3rface Verily Verily...
bernlin2000 11 months ago
@murd3rface Yeap applies to the atheist to as the poster of this vid is an agnostic.
AuberonDraenenWen 9 months ago
becuz this video, therefore god exists
5600981 11 months ago
I funny because is true.. they're indeed smarter than you
MigraineGOAT 11 months ago 3
Hahahah I love this.
PS. He is smarter than you ;)
khanna06 11 months ago
Wow.... You made this instead of doing what?
texasratt12 11 months ago
@texasratt12 coming up with other ways to disprove science
beavismagnum 11 months ago
I used to believed in God until I watched this video.
Santarchy 11 months ago 126
silly atheists!
BeLogicalWillU 1 year ago
i'm sorry, i going to have to block you 1tabligh, you are nothing more than a bot. a cut and paste bot, who's only mission has been to flood these boards with your propaganda. you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble and just posted a link to al-islam dot org rather than just cut and paste their garbage. but your real goal was to pollute these boards and you have succeeded it seems. no1 will read your shite however, they will just not be able to read anything else any1 else has to say.
erin321321 1 year ago 2
@erin321321 i'm sorry, i going to have to block you 1tabligh,
_______
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance under your stupid pretext of "i'm sorry, i going to have to block you 1tabligh,...."!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
1tabligh 1 year ago
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?
You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 9398 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science and answer the questions otherwise clock off!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh christian appologetics are a duty to your faith
AdVictoriam1 1 year ago
@AdVictoriam1
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
When the angels said: O Mary, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. christ, JESUS son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).
The Quran [3:45]
Behold! the angels said: "O mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.
The Quran [3:42]
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Thank you for wasting our time. That adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
BrellK 11 months ago
@BrellK Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh ahahahaha parody of a parody
5600981 11 months ago
@5600981 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh
Hello again, 1tabligh. I see you're copypasting again? When will you stop? After all, there's not one person who takes your nonsense seriously.
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@erin321321
You sir, win the prize. 1tabligh's has been doing this for years now, and I am thinking of a way to stop his shitflood. I've already tried contacting a few uploaders to block him from their videos due to the pollution he causes. Will you ride with me on this quest, kind sir?
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@laflugantabastardo I am in two minds as whether he should be stopped. his hollow and incoherent arguments, clearly cut and pasted from some religious crackpot website can easily been seen through. however, as you point out he just front-loads his pollution wholesale onto videos.
on balance, i think he is doing his cause more harm than good with these tactics.
erin321321 11 months ago
@erin321321
You'd be surprised how many people (myself included) have sunk in hours of time before we figured out what he was doing. "Shit we're dumb."
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@erin321321 if u can see through them then u obviously dont understand his argument or evolution!
MCDon17 11 months ago
@MCDon17 hmmm.. not sure where you're coming from here... you have possibly jumped into a discussion and made an assumption about what i was saying to another user about a third party. In doing so making an ass of yourself.
However, if you are leaping to the defense of 1tabligh (as your comment implies) then i'll say this, he makes no arguments, just front loads spiel cut and pasted from an islamic propaganda website. His goal is simply to pollute the boards.
erin321321 11 months ago
any fool can just cut and paste nonsense. and you 1tabligh, are a fool of the highest order. you clearly now realise your cut and paste nonsense is just that, nonsense, yet you continue to blurge it out and close your eyes to anything opposing you.
ignorant fool. worse, wilful ignorant fool.
erin321321 1 year ago
Use the reply button instead O' deluded and duped atheist!
Matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
1tabligh 1 year ago
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded atheist, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh you are one boring person. for about 3 dozen posts now all you have done is cut and paste. you asked 1 direct question, which i answered directly, and your reply was to bombard with more cut and paste shite from al-islam dot org.
how this is meant to work, you make a statement or ask a question, i reply, you then come back ON WHAT I SAID, i then come back on what you said. This cut and paste BS is making you look retarded.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
1tabligh 1 year ago
The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
is this video... supposed to be .... anti-Dawkins? I can't tell but it makes Dawkins look fucking awesome lol
chron5007 1 year ago
Dawkins rocks!!!
dduckyduck 1 year ago
I am probably Richard Dawkins' biggest fan and I totally disagree with the message of this video, but it's just hilarious!
NerdyIncorporated 1 year ago
Only good part of this movie. The rest of it was just totally inaccurate. If you can easily disprove an entire movie in about twenty minutes on Google, it shouldn't have been made.
olddeuteronomy 1 year ago
I laughed hard with this video! Thank you!
gspahr 1 year ago
people like dawkins make science, which seems to be about making discoveries, not rejecting them, go stale and become useless. I'm not a scientist but I don't think we discovered electrons by adamantly rejecting the possibility.
asalynd 1 year ago
@asalynd it's clear from your comment that you are not a scientist... or even aware of how science works. however keep commenting, it is funny when people criticize what they don't understand. it's like they're poking fun at themselves without realising it.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 Which is exactly what dawkins is doing by criticizing religion when he has no understanding of what religion is about. No I don't have a degree in physics but I know how a scientist would go about examining evidence in a laboratory while examining and removing all mitigating factors by use of a control group. I have a basic grasp on the scientific method. Darwin didn't discover evolution when it was popular, he discovered it by keeping a keen eye and an open mind.
asalynd 1 year ago
@asalynd and you continue to make statements about something you have little or no understanding about. your first comment shows that you DO NOT grasp the scientific method and this comment shows that you do not know or do not understand Dawkins' point(s) on religion.
i recommend you read one of his books on the subject and do not base your opinions of him (or his position) on someone else's summary, because it looks like you have accepted a strawman.
erin321321 1 year ago 2
@erin321321 good i have found someone who hopefully can answer this question- where is the scientific evidence for 'memes' ?or is it just like the flying memepot analogy? I have read his book but cannot find empirical evidence of it in any lab- and by dawkins points does that mean that memes are a meme and even evolution?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher i have a feeling, from your wording, that i am being set up for a word play trap. if that is not the case i apologise. So meme is a term coined by Dawkins and used in several way, replicator fashion, (like a virus) and cultural evolution. The later is evident by observation of human history, you may recall from the book the discussion on shifting moral zeitgeist?. As for the the former i am not a biologist so dont have references to hand, however .... continued....
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 ....continued.... google has several articles on it, a search of 'meme theory' or 'evidence for memes', should bring back the material you seek. if it exists. I have read Selfish Gene but a long time ago and cant recall if Dawkins referenced experiments or whether he was seeking to use 'memes' as a rhetorical object.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 thanks but so it is inference really then. So a meme is a meme also (this seems a sticky point) and logically all ideas must be so ...theism and atheism and even more alarmingly evolution which does seem nonsensical ?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@erin321321 you DO NOT grasp the scientific method and this comment ....you do not know or do not understand Dawkins' point(s) on religion.
______
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 year ago
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 year ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 year ago
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 year ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Aware of what they do".
The Quran: [10:36]
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh sigh. well there is a lot of 'white noise' in your 5.. no 6 posts. it is clear you are religious and trying to use semantics to discredit something you have little knowledge about. Quoting scripture to refute science is a tried and tested means of failure. assertions you make about 'truth' are just that, and nothing more.
That which is is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
your appeal to ignorance is pitiful.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
How is that for YOUR "your appeal to ignorance is pitiful." and answer instead?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh and again with the white noise. Your semantic babbling's ARE trying to appeal to the ignorant. the individual words you are using may sound intelligent, however the sentences you have constructed are anything but.
your unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions require no answer. in the same way and for the same reason that if i was to assert that we are all just brains in a jar hooked up to computer playing a mmorpg. unfalsifiable = unscientific = nonsense.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh LMAO.... the language of your posts was a little hit and miss so i googled some of your babblings. Cut and paste from al-islam dot org much? are you incapable of debating off your own back? are you just a mindless drone of islamic pseudoscience? you really disappoint me. Here was i thinking i had found an intelligent, if misguided, antagonist i could debate with and you are nothing more than a mindless cut and paste merchant
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321
Poor fella!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh you blatant avoidance of my observation of your sources (if you can call it that) and then trying to project your short comings onto me is telling, to say the least. you most recent post again contains cut and paste garbage direct from al-islam dot org.
so you asked me is 'matter' was the start of everything or ws there something before that? and the answer is yes, according to the most recent scientific data that i know of (although a few years old now). that something was energy.
erin321321 1 year ago
@erin321321
Still dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
i think i just answered your question directly didn't i?
looks like you are just writing ''Still dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!'' and posting yet more cut and paste garbage. is your plan to flood this board with your pseudoscience and ignore every response?
erin321321 1 year ago
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
1tabligh 1 year ago
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh so i was right, you have no interest in a debate. a discourse. of hearing and considering an opposing point of view, you are just front loading your cut and paste pseudoscience.
you sir, are pathetic.
erin321321 1 year ago
according to the most recent scientific data
_____
Nonsense!
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@erin321321 can you explain the paradigm shift theory please as you seem to know lots about science. Another point that puzzles me is concerning biochemistry and lack of evidence for moelcular evolution. My final point concerns quantum theory and reality - the scientific method involves observation, evidence and experimentation but what does this fellow Schrodinger and cat tell us? Does reality exist? does matter exist ? if the answer is not what are the conclusions for Dawkins, Dennet ?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago