Dawkins made a point of insisting that Collins did not personally discover the Human Genome (an assumption no one actually made). Why? If Collins had personally discovered the Human Genome, would Dawkins not consider him a Christian? And I don't understand how his view of a man can switch from positive to negative at the drop of a hat as it did. I really hope he was just sort of pandering to Maher's crowd of ... enlightened, brilliant, scientific individuals.
@BrotherAtticus you missed the point by a mile. Maher implied Collins found the genome, Dawkins corrected him rightly to give due credit to the people who actually did discover the genome. His turn around in opinion was based on new evidence being presented which tipped the scales of his impression of a man whom he already knew. So it was the straw the broke the camels back more than a drop of the hat turnaround. You're an idiot if you can't make these distinctions.
@BalrogRoke I acknowledged those things already. I don't, however, think an interview on a comedy show can earn the milestone of being the "straw that broke the camel's back" regarding Dawkins' perception of a fellow human being. I give him more credit than that. That was my point.
Incidentally, I was just inquiring. For all you know, I'm impartial on the issue of religion, so don't burn your bridges by calling new acquaintances "idiots."
Those who believe in one particular god are, in the end, athiests 99.9% of the time. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, that means you're an athiest when it comes to the thousands of other gods that have been worshipped throughout human history (i.e. Horus, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc., etc.) Those of us with the balls to call ourselves athiests simply traverse that last .1% and reject every last one of these superstitous and childish claims.
@DrBlueDot shows a fundamental misunderstanding of athiesm. Athiesm is simply the rejection of supernatural claims because there is absolutely no evidence to support them-- that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Athiests don't have to "prove" anything because we make no claim that there is or isn't a god (or gods). The burden of proof lies with those who make such fantastical claims, not with those who understand that such claims are nonsensical.
Dawkins is a GENIUS. It's not a coincience that there are no christian fundamentalists with masters or PhD's in physics/chemistry/biology/astronomy etc. It's because those that do achieve that level of intellectual accomplishment have no choice but to stop believing religious nonsense. Anyone who truly studies this universe with an open mind will run from superstition and come to reconize the cold, hard truths of reality.
@EEEL123 I grew up in a strict Catholic family and it became impossible for me to be 'a believer' once I studied science and understood how the world really works (i.e. how cold/uncaring the universe really is.) To believe in 'God' is to suspend your knowledge of reality and pretend to know something that you simply cannot know. I find that kind of intellectual dishonesty utterly repulsive. I've no respect for charlatans who go around pretending to know things they clearly don't know.
@EEEL123 Yes. Education in science and logical thinking is our only hope. I haven't read up on what they call 'The God Gene.' The idea that humans are predisposed, through evolution, to think that there are supernatural explanations to natural things/events. But I tend to think there is some validity to that line of inquiry-- simply because I know some very smart, rational people who use logic and evidence in every area of their life, except when it comes to the subject of 'God.'
@AbbeyRoadkill1 The good thing is, more and more people are looking to reason rather than blind faith. The problem atheists have is that they are too meek, perhaps because they are not infused with the blind passion and sometimes fanaticism that religious people have. We are 'punching below our weight', so to speak. Look at the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington. Yet there are many more atheists and agnostics than Jews.
@EEEL123 That's a good point. After all-- at least in America & Canada-- the fastest growing 'sect,' if you will, is people who are unaffiliated with any religious point of view. Although, in America, those who self-identify as atheist/agnostic is only about 2%. Still, like you said, that's a higher percentage than Jews. We also must take into account the social taboo on atheism in America, which causes some to shy away from identifying as atheist. BTW, 23% of Canadians are now atheist.
"Faith is defined to be belief... (not evidence) "
the bible defines faith as substance. its an actual thing. most if not all of religous ppl dont have faith. they believe 'just in case' and they dont believe that God is good but live in terror.
I got faith when I saw how evil I was and that I couldnt trust myself anymore. Then I was aware of God and his goodness and he said to me, 'Trust me and Ill save u from ur evil self.'
That was the day i finally was set free to enjoy God every day
@NICH0LASM so nicholasm wanna be scientist with the most stupid example (guess you learned and red about other examples with A and B thats why you are using those letters) but let me ask you about the B part of yours. Can you give me a proof that God doesnt exist? I mean give me an evidence of that ;) Lets change position of those letters and get B to A and A to B. So if you can not explain A... dont proceed to B (Does it ring a bell?)
@BeforeManKind The only way to prove something doesn't exist is to contradict it with something that does, Evolution exists and thus contradicts the base of Christianity: Creationism.
Although this does not 100% prove against god, it does however dent the possibility of such a power if said power were based upon such in the Bible.
So either on the grounds on Humanities origin, either the Bible is wrong or the chance of a God has diminished, make your choice.
@Evangeline220 Hey if i ever meet him i'll be sure to give him a wee Q&A but until then i shan't be holding my breathe, i will however still maintain my logical state of mind.
@Evangeline220 I understand the Bible fairly well - probably better than many Christians - and I understand that according to the Bible, Jesus fulfilled many prophecies and did many miracles, including his birth and resurrection. However, that is just what the Bible says. I'm sure you would not accept my reasoning if I just pointed you to Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' and told you that it was incontrovertible proof of the non-existence of God.
@Evangeline220 IF, and only IF, the Bible is factually correct, does God exist. However, the main problem with the religious - mainly Abrahamic - argument is that the Bible itself has NOT been proven to be factually correct. If it is demonstrated to be completely true, with real scientific evidence, and I very much doubt that it will be, then that may change things.
@EEEL123 There is archeological evidence that supports the stories in the Bible. There is historical evidence that coincides with Biblical stories. There are internal evidences in the Bible that support the truth of the Bible. But, none of the evidence is going to prove anything you don't want to believe. Actually, you have much stronger faith in something that is false, then I have in something that is true.
@Evangeline220 I accept that SOME of the Bible is historically PARTLY accurate, but the crucial bits about the existence of God and miracles etc. have yet to be proven. Just because Joshua seized Jericho did not mean that God was behind it. Just because Jesus got pinned up on a cross did not mean that God was behind it.
@Evangeline220 I know that digs have shown that Jericho was destroyed. However, that proves nothing other than that Jericho was destroyed - maybe not even by the Israelites. Your claim that only one man rose from the dead after being cruxified has not been proven, except by the Bible, which I have explicitly said does NOT constitute real evidence.
Why didn't the chief priests and pharisees and Romans bring his body out to prove the early Christians were wrong?
His tomb was guarded and sealed. Anyone tampering with the seal would have been dead meat. His disciples were too afraid to be grave robbers. They would not have been marytr fpr a dead man.
@Evangeline220 What seems more likely: that a man was resurrected or that the guards were negligent and someone pinched his body. As for you question about why the Romans didn't bring his body out - well, does the fact that the American government refused to release pictures of Osama bin Laden's body mean that maybe they didn't actually kill him?
@EEEL123 If any one of the guards fell asleep, they would all have been killed. Anyone interfering with the Roman seal on the tomb would have been killed. Romans persecuted Christians. If the Romans had taken the body, they would have stopped this new religion by producing it. the Jews would have done the same thing.
Pictures of osama bin laden's dead body aren't even close to the resurrection of Christ.
@Evangeline220 The Epistles of Paul were actually written before all four Gospels, and Paul says that Jesus rose not in physical form but in a spiritual, non-physical body. The original Gospel of Mark ends with an announcement that Jesus had risen, but does not mention how (the ending was later modified). Matthew and Luke came later, and their stories are more developed. John's Gospel was the latest and is massively embellished and reads like Norse poetry in its grandiosity.
@Evangeline220 So we can see that even the Bible states that Jesus rose in a non-bodily form, that is, as a vision to his disciples, although the later Gospels were embellished, so much so that Thomas gets the unenviable job of sticking his fingers through the holes in Jesus' wrists.
@Evangeline220 I do not believe in the Bible, especially not about the miracles and the God bit, but even your own holy text strikes out your argument. And yes, Mark does mention the empty tomb, but in ancient cultures, empty tombs were symbols, and Mark may not have meant it as a literal statement.
@santanaquan In the ancient times, empty tombs were a symbol of divinity. For example, it is said that Alexander the Great arranged for his body to be hidden after he died to dope people into thinking that he was a God (evidently this worked better for Jesus than for Alex).
@Evangeline220 Internal evidences in the Bible do not count. When someone who claimes to be prophet writes something down, other people will copy elements into their own stories for credibility. All myths are passed down and copied. Just because the elements of Greek myth or Hindu myth correlate does not mean that they are true. I'm sure you don't believe in Zeus and Poseidon or Brahma and Shiva because of that.
@EEEL123 When the Jewish scribes copied the Word of God, they had to be exact, or the new manuscript was thrown out. They had checks in place to make sure they were accurate.
Greek, Hindu, zeus, Poseidon, Brahma, and Shiva did not fulfill prophecies that were hundreds of years old. Jesus accurately fulfilled all of the prophecies concerning His first coming, including His resurrection from the dead.
There were witnesses to His miracles. None of them could refute that He did miracles.
@Evangeline220 How do you know that the Christian authors were not telling fibs? They were not writing for the Jewish authorities; they were writing some fifty years after the fact (fiction, to be accurate) to promote their own little cult. You know - 'Jesus did this, but we can get away with saying that he did this as well, even though he didn't...'
@Evangeline220 Also I doubt your first point - that there is archeological evidence. Yes, someone may have dug up the ruins of Jericho or found nails stuck in ankles, but I doubt that there is archeological evidence for the existence of God and miracles. But if you'd like to be more specific, do tell.
@EEEL123 The New Testament was written during the lifetime of many of the people who knew Jesus. None of them could refute the Gospels and Epistles.
Jesus' disciples were cowards and doubted Jesus would die and be resurrected, until after His resurrection. The men guarding the tomb were witnesses to His resurrection. They could not refute it. No one found His body. The guards would have been killed for falling asleep, so they didn't.
@Evangeline220 The writers of the Gospels and Epistles had a religious agenda. Do you think that these people were going to mention the doubters who could refute them. They were one-sided and biased. At least Richard Dawkins mentions the arguments for God before moving to refute them instead of completely disregarding them like religious people would do to evidence for evolution and other things in disagreement with their dogma: 'Screw evidence, God loves you.'
@Evangeline220 If you believe that the Bible is factually correct, do you also believe in what God explicitly endorses in the Bible-- i.e., slavery, genocide, rape, infanticide, killing homosexuals, etc? And don't give me the old "Jesus came along and corrected those mistakes," because HE DIDN'T-- read the Sermon on the Mount! Jesus states that he DID NOT come to overturn the old laws. If you believe the Bible to be factually correct then you & your 'God' are homicidal monsters.
@AbbeyRoadkill1 Wow! You have really misread the Bible! Slavery was a fact of life, not ordered by God. Rape and infanticide were forbidden. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. God did not create men to have sex men or women to have sex with other women. That isn't PC, but it is the truth. God waited 400 years for the people who lived in the current Israel to turn from evil, while the Jews were in slavery in Egypt.
@Evangeline220 You've obviously never read the Bible-- and that explains why you believe it. All those things I pointed to were EXPLICITLY ordered by God. Ever heard of Exodus? Leviticus? BTW, if "God's message to humanity" was so important, why did he only reveal it to a handful of people in a backwards (at the time) part of the world, then allow the language in which his messages were written down in to die off? Any being worth the title 'God' wouldn't have done it that way.
God loves you. He is calling to you to come to Him for forgiveness of your sin. He came to give you abundant life. He died for you. He arose from the dead. He did for you. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door (of your heart) and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him (her) and dine with him and he with me."
@Evangeline220 Assumptions? I haven't assumed anything. The 'God' of the Bible has specifically told me what he thinks (in Exodus and Leviticus) & it's a giant load of COMPLETE NONSENSE. It's YOU who are assuming the Bible is even worth the paper it's written on. Funny how all religious people have the same reaction when they can't refute the ACTUAL FACTS-- they retreat into their shell and start preaching. Try this: instead of studying dubious religious texts, crack open a SCIENCE BOOK!
@Evangeline220 I have cracked open quite a few science books, and have listened to lectures on science. It convinces me even more, that God created the world. I am not going to repeat it all, since it is available on-line and in various books. (For ex: Lee Stroble, H Morris.)
@Evangeline220 I've misinterpreted? THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT I MADE EARLIER! If 'God' were an entity worthy of the title HE WOULD KNOW THAT RELIGIOUS TEXTS WOULD BE MISINTERPRETED and WOULD NOT HAVE USED THAT MEDIUM TO GET HIS MESSAGE ACROSS. So thank you for agreeing that the Bible is not the word of 'God.' BTW, the books of Stroble and Morris are apologist nonsense for people who don't actually understand science. STUDY THE HARD SCIENCE, not some moron's interpretation of it.
@EEEL123 When I look at the skies, trees, and other things in nature, I wonder how anyone can claim there is no God. I wonder how anyone could believe that all this came into being by chance. I don't have enough faith to believe that a big bang and evolution could bring it about. Nature testifies to the present of God.
@Evangeline220 Evolution is not chance. It means that advantageous traits are passed on more often, and those that do not have traits that help them survive will die. So in the end, those with advantageous 'mutations' will survive. Having sufficient 'mutations', you can move from one species to the next. Look at the fossil record and you'll see small variations between species that were descended from a common ancestor. They get closer and closer to the modern animal.
@EEEL123 It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution to than to believe in a creator. There are way too many missing links to prove evolution. In fact the fossil records show both complex and simple organisms in the same site.strata.
If you are really interested in the arguments for and against evolution, there are plenty of videos on youtube to watch.
@Evangeline220 There a greater missing links in the theory of God. How did he arise in the first place? That is the fundamental question. At least the fossil record gives us a picture of how evolution progressed, even if it is a vague one.
@Evangeline220 As for the start of life, it could well be chance. Yes, even if the odds seem long, God is surely more unlikely. How could a being who created the world, listens to prayers, whips up disasters, forgives sins and watches us in the bedroom possibly be likely? The odds are astronomical that anything as complicated a human or even a mouse could have come into being in one go. Something as complicated God, especially since he didn't evolve, is almost impossible.
@BeforeManKind Are you serious? There is tonnes of evidence for evolution and it has been taken as a fact for some time now, hence the teaching of it in schools.
Who said Religion doesn't exist? Religion exists but the icons - if you will - of Religions have a very implausible existence.
@DrBlueDot with religion I meant God. Evolution, according to Dawkins, have to different paths that connects to one. Like a pyramid. The top of the pyramid is a prohestoric animal that developed to two different spieces (two different paths but at the same time similar to each other). The one developed to us, nowdays humans and the other to something thats close to us and a "relative" with other words the monkeys. Thats one of the many theories about evolution, until a new and better one will
@DrBlueDot appear. Science is good no doubt about it but it never gives a straight 110% clear and correct answer it only builds bases to come up with something more logical and clear. An old theory brings a new one. Thats how science works. Take for example positivists, empirists and so on. For two years ago swineinfluense was at the top until we got the vaccin. Today there are few that even remember that influensefashion that appeared for two years ago :S We took the vaccin in the name of
@DrBlueDot science. I was teaching in a school that time and I forces (litteraly) to take 25 kids and get them the vaccin. The parents of course said yes because they just followed and trusted the science. Science came many times with ideas and suggestions about how we have to raise our kids (like we dont know about something that we are doing for centuries about something that is natural for us humans). I mean that science some times are too obvious and "too much". They do good things but at
@DrBlueDot the same time "potato" things (for example in the "territory" of health). When they can not explain something (after many many tries of course) they choose the easy way "it doesnt exist or its fake". Well when science will (I ll take religion as an example now because the video is related to it) explain to me why they believe that God doesnt exist (by giving me proof) then I will shut up. But I want proof (because thats science about to give proof) not bla bla and bla bla.
@BeforeManKind I shan't be replying to the other 3 messages but to the last line of your last comment: Like i said in my original comment, the only way to prove something DOESN'T exist is to contradict it with something that does exist, i used Evolution and by reading my original comment you'll understand what that means.
Also you're/theists are debating this the wrong way, one doesn't ask for evidence against something they believe in, the believer must come up with the evidence to support
@BeforeManKind As Dawkins says here, you cannot prove anything absolutely. But the evidence seems to indicate that flying pigs are more likely to exist than God.
There was nothing.... and then the great bang created everything... from nothing!!! This is BRILLIANT!!! I don't understand why everyone is not atheist?? This is simply BRILLIANT.
@mrski Sorry, my mistake; I'll fix the scientific formula so that it fits in with your belief;
"There was nothing.... and then the HE,created everything... from nothing!!! This is BRILLIANT!!! I don't understand why everyone is not Christian?? This is simply BRILLIANT"
=P
It's funny, cause one side can make a random claim that their dad made everything for em; but then gets bent out of shape when rigorous study indicates that something like that--minus the dad--might *actually* be true. ;p
In 1997, Elvis Presley (Zed 25:16) appeared on a hilltop in Nashville and said,' Follow me, I am the true God! (Red 5:21) And so it was written in the Holy Book of the Blue Shoes (Ned 4:11) that we must shun the other gods and become Elviscopalians (Fred 4:16) on penalty of spending Eternity listening to Country Western music (Ted14:12)
Now tell me why I should not take the above seriously.
3:25-3:45 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... I didn't know the person who DOESN'T do stand up comedy was going to be the one to make me laugh so hard in this conversation!!!!
@markvleth Actually Americans do not have the accent. Over the years of separation the two populaces diverged linguistically and the british "gained" more of an accent then did american english. So it is not that either "they" or "we" have an accent, it's rather that both british and american accents grew from a root-accent which was slightly closer to modern day american.
@markvleth wrong the british accent we know of (also called RP or Received Pronounciation) is much younger that the General American accent, when the Brits colonised America their famous accent hadn't developed yet
@markvleth Actually, the American accent, in New England at least, is quite close to Elizabethan English. The way the English talk has mutated over the last 500 years.
It's amazing how sacreligious and shallow this culture has become. You know they wanted to do this stuff 50 years ago but were afraid it wouldn't be tolerated but now they see one person after the next sticking his little atheist head out of his tortoise shell going "is it ok to criticize now?" Pffft.
@EvolBob1 You are filled with hate, your comment is one big insult. I don't have anyore tie to waste on those who choice ignorance over whats right in front of there face. Make a REAL comment thats ore then just a insult PLEASE, im bored.
@fasfsdfasd Then again, when you look at the sky, you think of a bitter old man, cursing at the world for his short-comings, so your judgement may not be completely trustworthy.
It is awesome. I support the right of evolutionist to be evolved from pond scum I believe they are pond scum at heart. They are the ones proselystizing, they can be pond scum and I'm a creation of devine being whats the problem? Don't force your religion on me and I won't force anything on you. Wait though you want to be taught in schools? Someone is proselytizing and it not only christians. On his death bed he will repent he doesn't have the balls to burn in hell for eternity. Big talk.
@gat0rgirl13They are the ones that think they came from pond scum. I just support them in their religious cult beliefs. I can't help it they evolved from pond scum. Pond scum is what they are. You can't force your beliefs on other people gatolgirl.
@DionAFields Yes you're right that you shouldn't force your beliefs on other people, but they aren't doing that. And they're atheists so it would be incorrect to say they have religious cult beliefs. Also if they did come from pond scum it doesn't mean they are pond scum.
@gat0rgirl Atheist aren't a cult evolutionist are a cult. What does it mean if you came from pond scum then? If mom and dad pond scum had a baby what kind of baby would it be? Pond scum baby. Apparently your not aware they are trying to force evolution into schools and down childrens throats? Yeah they are forcing their cult beliefs on people if they wasn't pond scum. Forcing that crap on children makes em pond scum
@DionAFields They want evolution taught in school just as they want the fact that the earth is round taught in school. Whenever new discoveries are made in science they are put into the curriculum - evolution is no different.
Evolution is not crap; it has been tested and proven so many times.. instead of ignoring it or dissmissing it because it threatens your faith, you should look into it.
Go buy Darwin's On the Origin of Species it will clear up your misunderstanding of pond scum.
@DionAFields urgh you have a fundamental misunderstanding on this. We didn't evolve from pond scum, life is essentially a result of millions of years of gradual adaption of an organism to their environment through advantageous characteristics giving them an advantage for survival and hence reproduction. This process repeats ad infinitum and this is why we have creatures, plants, etc adapted to the part of the earth they find themselves in. This is why viruses are developing resistance to drugs.
@TheEmptyHunter Thanks, you seem like a very nice evolutionist. I wasn't really targeting you in my flaming comments. I'm looking more to make the evolutionist haters look like the idiots they are. The ones that prosyletize and are cult zealots. I'm aware of the misunderstanding but I thank you for pointing it out but it accomplishes my goals in dragging these haters out in the open. I don't care what kind of haters they are. They're idiots creationist or evolutionist.
@TheEmptyHunter Dawkins, Maher, Orielly, Rush all haters a good place to find them an route them out is find them on the net near these haters. Slam em have a good time and expose the lunacy of hating. Its helpfull for them gets some of that hate out of them and me at the same time. I support that you all think you have evidence. I just don't see it being the evidence you do anymore then you see the consistancy of the gospels as evidence of anything usually.
One of many reason I don't believe there is a Christian god, is this burning in hell.
It has to be the most compelling reason, because if you think clearly on this, you have wonderful GOOD in Heaven, and EVIL in hell. So one should not go there - right? Satan is in charge - then why the fuck is he doing his best to make sure you don't go hell?
Satan works for god - obviously, so why would anyone want to go to Heaven?
@EvolBob1 You do believe in a god I take it though? In my personal view nothing biblical about this but Satan does work for God in that there are other beings that wouldn't respect Gods word and come after us as soon as Gods back is turned. God can't look upon sin. So while His back is turned He has Satan do his bidding in keeping people safe. No other beings will mess with Satan that are evil.
@EvolBob1 To hell itself? I don't like the idea of there being a hell. I wouldn't believe it myself except I can clearly see there is a hell on the earth for some and usually for everyone if you live long enough. So God is capable of allowing a hell I'm sure. Without Gods word the society you live in now would look very different. We would still be ape like in your cult. You see atheist can't create a stable society so it must say that atheism isn't correct.
@jaieet athiest created all europe thats a athiest lie I missed in history class. So all that christian stuff after the dark ages was really a time when the atheist were taking a break getting ready to make the golden age? Elizebeth must have been an athiest probably king henry the 8th too? I'm making stuff up though right? Yeah right..............
You said societies; not countries. And there are a very significant number of societies that feature non-belief as a majority/large minority of the populace. The more Western of these societies generally lead the globe when it comes to standards of living; as do societies that promote diversity (and, y'know, don't pick on groups on account of religious beliefs =p) ala Australia -which is pretty high up on the human development index
@jaieet Ok blabber mouth you have to crap all over my hate fest. lol. Diversity is the best but your not so supposed to know that I had already pegged you for a hater and you had to go and ruin it for me. :) Its good to see the haters are getting far smaller on the web from when I first started posting in forums years ago on the web. Maybe all that arguing we did in those days did actually make a difference.
Haha 2:30 is the truth. Why is this even a debate still? Its disgusting. Some teachings of some religions are good messages to think about but as such so is Dr. Seuss.
I wonder if he enjoys Fiction. Does he understand that biblical stories use metaphors? Do Maher and Dawkins realize they are choosing to believe they are temporary pieces of matter with no soul, meaning, or purpose, when they could easily choose to believe they are more than that and be just as correct? Any belief system with regard to God is correct. It's your choice. They choose to believe nothing guides the Universe, so their God is still at least Nothingness. That's cold.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y I know it must be hard for you to understand but I cannot simply lie to myself when I have looked at enough evidence to believe religion is nonsense. You're right about having to accept the fact we are temporary etc and meaningless but I can't lie to myself when I don't believe it. I also don't think that the bible is taken as a metaphor which is the problem. I don't believe what it says because it directly contradicts mountains of scientific evidence.
@worldmayor2008 All I'm saying is the evidence to say for certain that he's NOT there is just as incomplete as the evidence that he IS there. The scripture of science might as well be the bible when it comes to describing God, or no God. You still have to use a considerable about of faith to believe He, or something, is not there. Seeing is not believing. Science mostly explains everything in the context of this 5 sense physical reality. God exisits well outside of that.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y Its more a case of this; The overwhelming evidence in circulation in the scientific community is incongruent with any religious scripture. Under this logic of the evidence of a creator being there through no direct study against, every mythical story and everyone's lies have equal credibility. Do you see what I'm saying? I do understand your point but its more a play on words. For example the age of the earth alone demonstrates the inaccuracies of the bible.
@worldmayor2008 Well yes, obviously science and the bible are not compatable with eachother, any religious scripture for that matter, but using scrpiture as the only evidence and case against God isn't thorough enough. To get a bigger, more accurate view of God you need to consider the supernatural things humans have experienced over the years. Like ghosts. And I know, you probably haven't seen them yourself; but, you probably haven't personally calculated the formulas that disprove God either..
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y I didn't use a formula I simply read lots of books and the bible makes claims that cannot be backed up with evidence so I prefer to make a rational decision. There have been many studies into the supernatural and the majority of this can be explained as delusion, hallucination or selective memory. I'd recommend watching some Derren Brown documentaries where he sets out to disprove people who claim to possess or have witnessed supernatural evidence.
@worldmayor2008 That Darren Brown guy is known to use actors. He's almost as fake as David Blaine. Obviously, science, the institution that can only explain things in a physical sense, will conclude mental instability or hallucinations in a person who claims to see a ghost, even if the subject authentically saw a ghost. Atheists are blank slates. Over time they will fill that void with something spiritual. Science can't know everything, and you need to dream up the things it will never know.
@TheBoredProle That's not what I believe. I picture the universe as dimensional layers. We are in the third layer, the physical, Dualistic layer. I believe we re-incarnate into different realities and live countless different lives, progressing spiritually. It's like a video game, with different levels. Once we fully experience and understand a dimensional layer, our souls move on to the next stage. The last level is God, which is comprised of all the souls that reached Enlightement.
@stz128 Atheism is an organized religion now. Any Faith-- because Atheism IS a Faith-- that gets popular enough will begin to organize itself. And the popularization of belief systems is the issue, not any specific religion. Each individual needs to establish their own Faith and then speak about it modestly to everyone else that has their own unique belief system.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y Atheism isn't a "faith", it's a lack of faith in a supernatural being, and all the complete nonsense that goes along with it. As for choosing to believe that we have no soul, where is the evidence or logic for the soul?
@KevinLockard23 It is still a faith. In the same way believing in a thorough, but incomplete, theory is. You need to make a leap, at some point, to say with confidence that something we can't see isn't there for certain. Out of body experiences is evidence of a soul. Even science is beginning to explain the soul, .via the studies of the pineal gland, which is our third eye. Science says, when we die, this gland becomes hyper active, and some scientist suggest it is the gateway for the soul.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y You still haven't provided any good reasons to think there is a soul. Out of body experiences have been debunked and explained away over and over again. I don't know what this pinal gland thingy is, but it hardly sounds convincing. All of the evidence we have of the human body (especially the way technology can tamper with the body, such as sex-change operations, etc.) strongly points to us being just biological machines, basically.
@KevinLockard23 Look up the video DMT- The Spirit Molecule. It'll be one of the first videos on youtube. There are 5 parts. It will probably change your mind a bit. It is based in Science, and it give a thorough case of how a spirit can exist physically.
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y all DMT proves is that most religious experience and feelings of faith are a result of chemical reactions in the brain that influence perception and therefore feelings of faith are as real as an LSD trip, that is to say, a hallucination.
This has been flagged as spam show
This Atheist, Dawkins, even denied in his book that Jesus is an historical figure.
He ought to inform the rabbis that their anti-Christ Babylonian Talmud is in error.
lughcious 3 days ago
Dawkins made a point of insisting that Collins did not personally discover the Human Genome (an assumption no one actually made). Why? If Collins had personally discovered the Human Genome, would Dawkins not consider him a Christian? And I don't understand how his view of a man can switch from positive to negative at the drop of a hat as it did. I really hope he was just sort of pandering to Maher's crowd of ... enlightened, brilliant, scientific individuals.
BrotherAtticus 4 days ago
@BrotherAtticus you missed the point by a mile. Maher implied Collins found the genome, Dawkins corrected him rightly to give due credit to the people who actually did discover the genome. His turn around in opinion was based on new evidence being presented which tipped the scales of his impression of a man whom he already knew. So it was the straw the broke the camels back more than a drop of the hat turnaround. You're an idiot if you can't make these distinctions.
BalrogRoke 3 days ago
@BalrogRoke I acknowledged those things already. I don't, however, think an interview on a comedy show can earn the milestone of being the "straw that broke the camel's back" regarding Dawkins' perception of a fellow human being. I give him more credit than that. That was my point.
Incidentally, I was just inquiring. For all you know, I'm impartial on the issue of religion, so don't burn your bridges by calling new acquaintances "idiots."
BrotherAtticus 3 days ago
You tube needs to have an extra button next to like for "I frigging love this"
Frizboxa 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the talking snake is such an idiotic argument, of course everybody knows is meant to be a story, a symbolic story
prskaloo1 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the talking snake is such an idiotic argument, of course everybody knows is meant to be a story, a symbolic story
prskaloo1 5 days ago
the talking snake is such an idiotic argument, of course everybody knows is meant to be a story, a symbolic story
prskaloo1 5 days ago
the awkward feeling when the title of the video your watching is awkward
bahaysapureza 1 week ago
i used to be a believer, but then i took rationality to the brain
McSmYtHuRs 1 week ago 3
the day this book replaces the bible is the day humans wake up
DraconicFury 2 weeks ago
Is that a laugh track? That audience sounds fake. And annoying.
superedo75 2 weeks ago
Wow. It's great to see Richard Dawkins smile and laugh.
Especially when he's laughing as he says that Tony Blai's not a bright guy.
mybagitchesalot 2 weeks ago
a mind like his should not be lost to time
scientificevolution 1 month ago 7
"I interviewed him and he deffinitley believes in the talking snake"
"He does!?" :O
Omg I love you Richard xD
glitteraddict44 1 month ago
Repent! Or you will likewise perish. Jus like these jokers
chappy23231 1 month ago
@chappy23231 repent what exactly?
humdrumfeast 3 weeks ago
Those who believe in one particular god are, in the end, athiests 99.9% of the time. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, that means you're an athiest when it comes to the thousands of other gods that have been worshipped throughout human history (i.e. Horus, Zeus, Thor, Shiva, etc., etc.) Those of us with the balls to call ourselves athiests simply traverse that last .1% and reject every last one of these superstitous and childish claims.
AbbeyRoadkill1 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot shows a fundamental misunderstanding of athiesm. Athiesm is simply the rejection of supernatural claims because there is absolutely no evidence to support them-- that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Athiests don't have to "prove" anything because we make no claim that there is or isn't a god (or gods). The burden of proof lies with those who make such fantastical claims, not with those who understand that such claims are nonsensical.
AbbeyRoadkill1 1 month ago
Dawkins is a GENIUS. It's not a coincience that there are no christian fundamentalists with masters or PhD's in physics/chemistry/biology/astronomy etc. It's because those that do achieve that level of intellectual accomplishment have no choice but to stop believing religious nonsense. Anyone who truly studies this universe with an open mind will run from superstition and come to reconize the cold, hard truths of reality.
AbbeyRoadkill1 1 month ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 Well said!
thrashmetalteen 1 month ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 Apparently, of all the fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Science, less than one in fifteen believe in a god.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 I grew up in a strict Catholic family and it became impossible for me to be 'a believer' once I studied science and understood how the world really works (i.e. how cold/uncaring the universe really is.) To believe in 'God' is to suspend your knowledge of reality and pretend to know something that you simply cannot know. I find that kind of intellectual dishonesty utterly repulsive. I've no respect for charlatans who go around pretending to know things they clearly don't know.
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 The problem is, many people believe that their Bible trumps all evidence.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 Yes. Education in science and logical thinking is our only hope. I haven't read up on what they call 'The God Gene.' The idea that humans are predisposed, through evolution, to think that there are supernatural explanations to natural things/events. But I tend to think there is some validity to that line of inquiry-- simply because I know some very smart, rational people who use logic and evidence in every area of their life, except when it comes to the subject of 'God.'
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 The good thing is, more and more people are looking to reason rather than blind faith. The problem atheists have is that they are too meek, perhaps because they are not infused with the blind passion and sometimes fanaticism that religious people have. We are 'punching below our weight', so to speak. Look at the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington. Yet there are many more atheists and agnostics than Jews.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 That's a good point. After all-- at least in America & Canada-- the fastest growing 'sect,' if you will, is people who are unaffiliated with any religious point of view. Although, in America, those who self-identify as atheist/agnostic is only about 2%. Still, like you said, that's a higher percentage than Jews. We also must take into account the social taboo on atheism in America, which causes some to shy away from identifying as atheist. BTW, 23% of Canadians are now atheist.
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
which episode is this?
17bumblebee17 1 month ago
maher for president.
euroman32589 1 month ago
"Faith is defined to be belief... (not evidence) "
the bible defines faith as substance. its an actual thing. most if not all of religous ppl dont have faith. they believe 'just in case' and they dont believe that God is good but live in terror.
I got faith when I saw how evil I was and that I couldnt trust myself anymore. Then I was aware of God and his goodness and he said to me, 'Trust me and Ill save u from ur evil self.'
That was the day i finally was set free to enjoy God every day
j919or 1 month ago
We have theory A and theroy B
Theory A is supported by loads and loads of evidence - EVOLUTION
Theory B, theory b has absolutley no evidence at all, just like the loch ness monster, a myth. - RELIGION
RELIGIOUS PERSON SAYS - "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THEORY A THEREFORE THEORY B MUST BE RIGHT."
Answer, Natural selection is the evidence, religion is the insult to human intelligence.
NICH0LASM 1 month ago
@NICH0LASM so nicholasm wanna be scientist with the most stupid example (guess you learned and red about other examples with A and B thats why you are using those letters) but let me ask you about the B part of yours. Can you give me a proof that God doesnt exist? I mean give me an evidence of that ;) Lets change position of those letters and get B to A and A to B. So if you can not explain A... dont proceed to B (Does it ring a bell?)
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@BeforeManKind The only way to prove something doesn't exist is to contradict it with something that does, Evolution exists and thus contradicts the base of Christianity: Creationism.
Although this does not 100% prove against god, it does however dent the possibility of such a power if said power were based upon such in the Bible.
So either on the grounds on Humanities origin, either the Bible is wrong or the chance of a God has diminished, make your choice.
DrBlueDot 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot Try telling that to your Creator on judgement day.
Evangeline220 1 month ago
@Evangeline220 Hey if i ever meet him i'll be sure to give him a wee Q&A but until then i shan't be holding my breathe, i will however still maintain my logical state of mind.
DrBlueDot 1 month ago
@Evangeline220 Your statement requires the existence of a God. Can you prove his existence?
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 Yeah, But unless you are interested, genuinely, I am not about to waste my time.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 Very well. Tell me.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 Start with the birth of Christ, fulfilling enough prophecies, a few centuries old, to be more than just a chance birth.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 I understand the Bible fairly well - probably better than many Christians - and I understand that according to the Bible, Jesus fulfilled many prophecies and did many miracles, including his birth and resurrection. However, that is just what the Bible says. I'm sure you would not accept my reasoning if I just pointed you to Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' and told you that it was incontrovertible proof of the non-existence of God.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 IF, and only IF, the Bible is factually correct, does God exist. However, the main problem with the religious - mainly Abrahamic - argument is that the Bible itself has NOT been proven to be factually correct. If it is demonstrated to be completely true, with real scientific evidence, and I very much doubt that it will be, then that may change things.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 There is archeological evidence that supports the stories in the Bible. There is historical evidence that coincides with Biblical stories. There are internal evidences in the Bible that support the truth of the Bible. But, none of the evidence is going to prove anything you don't want to believe. Actually, you have much stronger faith in something that is false, then I have in something that is true.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 I accept that SOME of the Bible is historically PARTLY accurate, but the crucial bits about the existence of God and miracles etc. have yet to be proven. Just because Joshua seized Jericho did not mean that God was behind it. Just because Jesus got pinned up on a cross did not mean that God was behind it.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 Archeological digs have shown that the way the walls of Jericho points to an act of God.
Many men were hung on crosses by the Romans. Only one arose from dead.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 I know that digs have shown that Jericho was destroyed. However, that proves nothing other than that Jericho was destroyed - maybe not even by the Israelites. Your claim that only one man rose from the dead after being cruxified has not been proven, except by the Bible, which I have explicitly said does NOT constitute real evidence.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 Where was His body?
Why didn't the chief priests and pharisees and Romans bring his body out to prove the early Christians were wrong?
His tomb was guarded and sealed. Anyone tampering with the seal would have been dead meat. His disciples were too afraid to be grave robbers. They would not have been marytr fpr a dead man.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 What seems more likely: that a man was resurrected or that the guards were negligent and someone pinched his body. As for you question about why the Romans didn't bring his body out - well, does the fact that the American government refused to release pictures of Osama bin Laden's body mean that maybe they didn't actually kill him?
EEEL123 1 week ago
@EEEL123 If any one of the guards fell asleep, they would all have been killed. Anyone interfering with the Roman seal on the tomb would have been killed. Romans persecuted Christians. If the Romans had taken the body, they would have stopped this new religion by producing it. the Jews would have done the same thing.
Pictures of osama bin laden's dead body aren't even close to the resurrection of Christ.
Evangeline220 1 week ago
@Evangeline220 The Epistles of Paul were actually written before all four Gospels, and Paul says that Jesus rose not in physical form but in a spiritual, non-physical body. The original Gospel of Mark ends with an announcement that Jesus had risen, but does not mention how (the ending was later modified). Matthew and Luke came later, and their stories are more developed. John's Gospel was the latest and is massively embellished and reads like Norse poetry in its grandiosity.
EEEL123 1 week ago
@Evangeline220 So we can see that even the Bible states that Jesus rose in a non-bodily form, that is, as a vision to his disciples, although the later Gospels were embellished, so much so that Thomas gets the unenviable job of sticking his fingers through the holes in Jesus' wrists.
EEEL123 1 week ago
@Evangeline220 I do not believe in the Bible, especially not about the miracles and the God bit, but even your own holy text strikes out your argument. And yes, Mark does mention the empty tomb, but in ancient cultures, empty tombs were symbols, and Mark may not have meant it as a literal statement.
EEEL123 1 week ago
@EEEL123 i dont believe God either but the empty tombs were symbols of what? i have never heard of this before
santanaquan 1 week ago
@santanaquan In the ancient times, empty tombs were a symbol of divinity. For example, it is said that Alexander the Great arranged for his body to be hidden after he died to dope people into thinking that he was a God (evidently this worked better for Jesus than for Alex).
EEEL123 1 week ago
@Evangeline220 Internal evidences in the Bible do not count. When someone who claimes to be prophet writes something down, other people will copy elements into their own stories for credibility. All myths are passed down and copied. Just because the elements of Greek myth or Hindu myth correlate does not mean that they are true. I'm sure you don't believe in Zeus and Poseidon or Brahma and Shiva because of that.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 When the Jewish scribes copied the Word of God, they had to be exact, or the new manuscript was thrown out. They had checks in place to make sure they were accurate.
Greek, Hindu, zeus, Poseidon, Brahma, and Shiva did not fulfill prophecies that were hundreds of years old. Jesus accurately fulfilled all of the prophecies concerning His first coming, including His resurrection from the dead.
There were witnesses to His miracles. None of them could refute that He did miracles.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 How do you know that the Christian authors were not telling fibs? They were not writing for the Jewish authorities; they were writing some fifty years after the fact (fiction, to be accurate) to promote their own little cult. You know - 'Jesus did this, but we can get away with saying that he did this as well, even though he didn't...'
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 Also I doubt your first point - that there is archeological evidence. Yes, someone may have dug up the ruins of Jericho or found nails stuck in ankles, but I doubt that there is archeological evidence for the existence of God and miracles. But if you'd like to be more specific, do tell.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 The New Testament was written during the lifetime of many of the people who knew Jesus. None of them could refute the Gospels and Epistles.
Jesus' disciples were cowards and doubted Jesus would die and be resurrected, until after His resurrection. The men guarding the tomb were witnesses to His resurrection. They could not refute it. No one found His body. The guards would have been killed for falling asleep, so they didn't.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 The writers of the Gospels and Epistles had a religious agenda. Do you think that these people were going to mention the doubters who could refute them. They were one-sided and biased. At least Richard Dawkins mentions the arguments for God before moving to refute them instead of completely disregarding them like religious people would do to evidence for evolution and other things in disagreement with their dogma: 'Screw evidence, God loves you.'
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 If you believe that the Bible is factually correct, do you also believe in what God explicitly endorses in the Bible-- i.e., slavery, genocide, rape, infanticide, killing homosexuals, etc? And don't give me the old "Jesus came along and corrected those mistakes," because HE DIDN'T-- read the Sermon on the Mount! Jesus states that he DID NOT come to overturn the old laws. If you believe the Bible to be factually correct then you & your 'God' are homicidal monsters.
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 Wow! You have really misread the Bible! Slavery was a fact of life, not ordered by God. Rape and infanticide were forbidden. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. God did not create men to have sex men or women to have sex with other women. That isn't PC, but it is the truth. God waited 400 years for the people who lived in the current Israel to turn from evil, while the Jews were in slavery in Egypt.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 You've obviously never read the Bible-- and that explains why you believe it. All those things I pointed to were EXPLICITLY ordered by God. Ever heard of Exodus? Leviticus? BTW, if "God's message to humanity" was so important, why did he only reveal it to a handful of people in a backwards (at the time) part of the world, then allow the language in which his messages were written down in to die off? Any being worth the title 'God' wouldn't have done it that way.
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 Your assumptions are false. All of them.
God loves you. He is calling to you to come to Him for forgiveness of your sin. He came to give you abundant life. He died for you. He arose from the dead. He did for you. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door (of your heart) and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him (her) and dine with him and he with me."
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 Assumptions? I haven't assumed anything. The 'God' of the Bible has specifically told me what he thinks (in Exodus and Leviticus) & it's a giant load of COMPLETE NONSENSE. It's YOU who are assuming the Bible is even worth the paper it's written on. Funny how all religious people have the same reaction when they can't refute the ACTUAL FACTS-- they retreat into their shell and start preaching. Try this: instead of studying dubious religious texts, crack open a SCIENCE BOOK!
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 God has told you what He thinks, but you have misinterpreted what He said.
But, God still loves you. He still wants to give you eternal life. But, you need to accept His gift, or you won't receive it.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 I have cracked open quite a few science books, and have listened to lectures on science. It convinces me even more, that God created the world. I am not going to repeat it all, since it is available on-line and in various books. (For ex: Lee Stroble, H Morris.)
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 I've misinterpreted? THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT I MADE EARLIER! If 'God' were an entity worthy of the title HE WOULD KNOW THAT RELIGIOUS TEXTS WOULD BE MISINTERPRETED and WOULD NOT HAVE USED THAT MEDIUM TO GET HIS MESSAGE ACROSS. So thank you for agreeing that the Bible is not the word of 'God.' BTW, the books of Stroble and Morris are apologist nonsense for people who don't actually understand science. STUDY THE HARD SCIENCE, not some moron's interpretation of it.
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 When I look at the skies, trees, and other things in nature, I wonder how anyone can claim there is no God. I wonder how anyone could believe that all this came into being by chance. I don't have enough faith to believe that a big bang and evolution could bring it about. Nature testifies to the present of God.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 Evolution is not chance. It means that advantageous traits are passed on more often, and those that do not have traits that help them survive will die. So in the end, those with advantageous 'mutations' will survive. Having sufficient 'mutations', you can move from one species to the next. Look at the fossil record and you'll see small variations between species that were descended from a common ancestor. They get closer and closer to the modern animal.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution to than to believe in a creator. There are way too many missing links to prove evolution. In fact the fossil records show both complex and simple organisms in the same site.strata.
If you are really interested in the arguments for and against evolution, there are plenty of videos on youtube to watch.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 There a greater missing links in the theory of God. How did he arise in the first place? That is the fundamental question. At least the fossil record gives us a picture of how evolution progressed, even if it is a vague one.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@EEEL123 mutations usual result in death and infertility.
Evangeline220 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 Alright, variations. Not mutations. Happy?
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 As for the start of life, it could well be chance. Yes, even if the odds seem long, God is surely more unlikely. How could a being who created the world, listens to prayers, whips up disasters, forgives sins and watches us in the bedroom possibly be likely? The odds are astronomical that anything as complicated a human or even a mouse could have come into being in one go. Something as complicated God, especially since he didn't evolve, is almost impossible.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@Evangeline220 Until the Bible is proven, you cannot direct me to the Bible and say 'Look, here's my evidence'.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@DrBlueDot give me proof
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot give me proof that evolution exists and give me proof that religion doesnt. But proof not talk.
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@BeforeManKind Are you serious? There is tonnes of evidence for evolution and it has been taken as a fact for some time now, hence the teaching of it in schools.
Who said Religion doesn't exist? Religion exists but the icons - if you will - of Religions have a very implausible existence.
DrBlueDot 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot with religion I meant God. Evolution, according to Dawkins, have to different paths that connects to one. Like a pyramid. The top of the pyramid is a prohestoric animal that developed to two different spieces (two different paths but at the same time similar to each other). The one developed to us, nowdays humans and the other to something thats close to us and a "relative" with other words the monkeys. Thats one of the many theories about evolution, until a new and better one will
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot appear. Science is good no doubt about it but it never gives a straight 110% clear and correct answer it only builds bases to come up with something more logical and clear. An old theory brings a new one. Thats how science works. Take for example positivists, empirists and so on. For two years ago swineinfluense was at the top until we got the vaccin. Today there are few that even remember that influensefashion that appeared for two years ago :S We took the vaccin in the name of
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot science. I was teaching in a school that time and I forces (litteraly) to take 25 kids and get them the vaccin. The parents of course said yes because they just followed and trusted the science. Science came many times with ideas and suggestions about how we have to raise our kids (like we dont know about something that we are doing for centuries about something that is natural for us humans). I mean that science some times are too obvious and "too much". They do good things but at
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@DrBlueDot the same time "potato" things (for example in the "territory" of health). When they can not explain something (after many many tries of course) they choose the easy way "it doesnt exist or its fake". Well when science will (I ll take religion as an example now because the video is related to it) explain to me why they believe that God doesnt exist (by giving me proof) then I will shut up. But I want proof (because thats science about to give proof) not bla bla and bla bla.
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
Comment removed
DrBlueDot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeforeManKind I shan't be replying to the other 3 messages but to the last line of your last comment: Like i said in my original comment, the only way to prove something DOESN'T exist is to contradict it with something that does exist, i used Evolution and by reading my original comment you'll understand what that means.
Also you're/theists are debating this the wrong way, one doesn't ask for evidence against something they believe in, the believer must come up with the evidence to support
DrBlueDot 1 month ago
@BeforeManKind As Dawkins says here, you cannot prove anything absolutely. But the evidence seems to indicate that flying pigs are more likely to exist than God.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@BeforeManKind The only bells it rings are your because you are a bell end.
NICH0LASM 1 month ago
@NICH0LASM what a nice arguments from a piece of shit that pretends to enjoy science. Whos the bell end? lol
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
What rubbish. Two morons congratulating one another. *yawn*
EmilyHeathcliff 2 months ago
There was nothing.... and then the great bang created everything... from nothing!!! This is BRILLIANT!!! I don't understand why everyone is not atheist?? This is simply BRILLIANT.
mrski 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrski Sorry, my mistake; I'll fix the scientific formula so that it fits in with your belief;
"There was nothing.... and then the HE,created everything... from nothing!!! This is BRILLIANT!!! I don't understand why everyone is not Christian?? This is simply BRILLIANT"
=P
It's funny, cause one side can make a random claim that their dad made everything for em; but then gets bent out of shape when rigorous study indicates that something like that--minus the dad--might *actually* be true. ;p
jaieet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1997, Elvis Presley (Zed 25:16) appeared on a hilltop in Nashville and said,' Follow me, I am the true God! (Red 5:21) And so it was written in the Holy Book of the Blue Shoes (Ned 4:11) that we must shun the other gods and become Elviscopalians (Fred 4:16) on penalty of spending Eternity listening to Country Western music (Ted14:12)
Now tell me why I should not take the above seriously.
lmnop1022 2 months ago
3:25-3:45 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... I didn't know the person who DOESN'T do stand up comedy was going to be the one to make me laugh so hard in this conversation!!!!
tpstrat14 2 months ago
"I mean, I'm pretty sure there are no fairies".... Dawkins can really make me laugh sometimes.
tpstrat14 2 months ago
If I had a British accent I'd never shut the fuck up
aguacatito2k 2 months ago 80
@aguacatito2k That's not a British accent, it's English. It's the Americans that have the accent ;)
markvleth 2 months ago 48
@markvleth Actually Americans do not have the accent. Over the years of separation the two populaces diverged linguistically and the british "gained" more of an accent then did american english. So it is not that either "they" or "we" have an accent, it's rather that both british and american accents grew from a root-accent which was slightly closer to modern day american.
AgentSpetznaz 1 month ago
@markvleth england is british
cjguitarist100 1 month ago
@markvleth Thats not English thats anglosaxonic. Peace.
BeforeManKind 1 month ago
@markvleth The language has split into two different directions since the days of old english. NEITHER of us speak english properly.
xSportsKingx 1 month ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSportsKingx
Once watched a Scottish film that had subtitles which were totally necessary.
People, lets talk American.
lughcious 3 days ago
@markvleth actually, you're wrong. take a look at this for an introduction: bit dot ly/zWA44r
cortesuprema 1 month ago
@markvleth lol I think these are both relative.
TheMagicOrca 1 month ago
@markvleth Actually that's not true. British in its current form is just as different to what was spoken 300 years ago as American is.
JohnZackarias 1 month ago
@markvleth wrong the british accent we know of (also called RP or Received Pronounciation) is much younger that the General American accent, when the Brits colonised America their famous accent hadn't developed yet
FreestateofOkondor 3 weeks ago
@markvleth STFU jk ;)
spinynorman1982 2 weeks ago
@markvleth Actually, the American accent, in New England at least, is quite close to Elizabethan English. The way the English talk has mutated over the last 500 years.
EEEL123 2 weeks ago
@aguacatito2k i live in England. we never do.
minkr1 4 weeks ago
It's amazing how sacreligious and shallow this culture has become. You know they wanted to do this stuff 50 years ago but were afraid it wouldn't be tolerated but now they see one person after the next sticking his little atheist head out of his tortoise shell going "is it ok to criticize now?" Pffft.
PabloDPena 2 months ago
@PabloDPena
Yeah, finally it IS okay to criticize now, as opposed to burning one at the stake - disappointed Pablo?
EvolBob1 2 months ago
@EvolBob1 I think you are seriously confused. I don't remember atheists being burned at the stake. Evidently in your mind Atheism = Witchcraft!
PabloDPena 2 months ago
@PabloDPena
Lets see, I have my Voodoo doll here, all I need from you now, is your picture and few strands of your hair.
I'll soon clear up your confusion, by the way do you get headaches?
EvolBob1 2 months ago
@EvolBob1 Gee, why are atheists so unpopular?
PabloDPena 2 months ago
@PabloDPena
Because telling the truth is never appreciated.
Kverul 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why, you who hate me, do you love me,
and hate those who love me?
You who deny me, confess me,
and you who confess me, deny me.
You who tell the truth about me, lie about me,
and you who have lied about me, tell the truth about me.
You who know me, be ignorant of me,
and those who have not known me, let them know me. " GOD
The Thunder, Perfect Mind
truthseeker010101 3 months ago
@truthseeker010101
I don't hate you - disappointed?
You don't seek the truth, you assert the truth.
I don't lie either.
The truth is you don't know how to find out what is true, nor do you wish to - as you say "You already KNOW."
We get it.
EvolBob1 2 months ago
@EvolBob1 You are filled with hate, your comment is one big insult. I don't have anyore tie to waste on those who choice ignorance over whats right in front of there face. Make a REAL comment thats ore then just a insult PLEASE, im bored.
truthseeker010101 2 months ago
i need and want dawkins book!!!!!!!
sosbarbie 3 months ago
@sosbarbie im gonna buy one with my chrismas money from my parents!!!
gat0rgirl13 3 months ago
@gat0rgirl13 im saving up for it my self :D cant wait ....
sosbarbie 3 months ago
@fasfsdfasd Then again, when you look at the sky, you think of a bitter old man, cursing at the world for his short-comings, so your judgement may not be completely trustworthy.
TheBoredProle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's no point trying to debate with a creationist, they're too stupid to see reason and we don't want morons onside anyway.
mikealite 3 months ago
Dawkins + Maher = -2
caelachyt 3 months ago
It is awesome. I support the right of evolutionist to be evolved from pond scum I believe they are pond scum at heart. They are the ones proselystizing, they can be pond scum and I'm a creation of devine being whats the problem? Don't force your religion on me and I won't force anything on you. Wait though you want to be taught in schools? Someone is proselytizing and it not only christians. On his death bed he will repent he doesn't have the balls to burn in hell for eternity. Big talk.
DionAFields 3 months ago
@DionAFields if they're pond scum, you're pond scum; if you're a creation of a divine being, so are they.
gat0rgirl13 3 months ago
@gat0rgirl13They are the ones that think they came from pond scum. I just support them in their religious cult beliefs. I can't help it they evolved from pond scum. Pond scum is what they are. You can't force your beliefs on other people gatolgirl.
DionAFields 3 months ago
@DionAFields Yes you're right that you shouldn't force your beliefs on other people, but they aren't doing that. And they're atheists so it would be incorrect to say they have religious cult beliefs. Also if they did come from pond scum it doesn't mean they are pond scum.
gat0rgirl13 3 months ago
@gat0rgirl Atheist aren't a cult evolutionist are a cult. What does it mean if you came from pond scum then? If mom and dad pond scum had a baby what kind of baby would it be? Pond scum baby. Apparently your not aware they are trying to force evolution into schools and down childrens throats? Yeah they are forcing their cult beliefs on people if they wasn't pond scum. Forcing that crap on children makes em pond scum
DionAFields 3 months ago
@DionAFields They want evolution taught in school just as they want the fact that the earth is round taught in school. Whenever new discoveries are made in science they are put into the curriculum - evolution is no different.
Evolution is not crap; it has been tested and proven so many times.. instead of ignoring it or dissmissing it because it threatens your faith, you should look into it.
Go buy Darwin's On the Origin of Species it will clear up your misunderstanding of pond scum.
gat0rgirl13 3 months ago
@DionAFields urgh you have a fundamental misunderstanding on this. We didn't evolve from pond scum, life is essentially a result of millions of years of gradual adaption of an organism to their environment through advantageous characteristics giving them an advantage for survival and hence reproduction. This process repeats ad infinitum and this is why we have creatures, plants, etc adapted to the part of the earth they find themselves in. This is why viruses are developing resistance to drugs.
TheEmptyHunter 3 months ago
@TheEmptyHunter Thanks, you seem like a very nice evolutionist. I wasn't really targeting you in my flaming comments. I'm looking more to make the evolutionist haters look like the idiots they are. The ones that prosyletize and are cult zealots. I'm aware of the misunderstanding but I thank you for pointing it out but it accomplishes my goals in dragging these haters out in the open. I don't care what kind of haters they are. They're idiots creationist or evolutionist.
DionAFields 3 months ago
@TheEmptyHunter Dawkins, Maher, Orielly, Rush all haters a good place to find them an route them out is find them on the net near these haters. Slam em have a good time and expose the lunacy of hating. Its helpfull for them gets some of that hate out of them and me at the same time. I support that you all think you have evidence. I just don't see it being the evidence you do anymore then you see the consistancy of the gospels as evidence of anything usually.
DionAFields 3 months ago
@DionAFields
One of many reason I don't believe there is a Christian god, is this burning in hell.
It has to be the most compelling reason, because if you think clearly on this, you have wonderful GOOD in Heaven, and EVIL in hell. So one should not go there - right? Satan is in charge - then why the fuck is he doing his best to make sure you don't go hell?
Satan works for god - obviously, so why would anyone want to go to Heaven?
These are your fictious worlds not mine.
EvolBob1 2 months ago
@EvolBob1 You do believe in a god I take it though? In my personal view nothing biblical about this but Satan does work for God in that there are other beings that wouldn't respect Gods word and come after us as soon as Gods back is turned. God can't look upon sin. So while His back is turned He has Satan do his bidding in keeping people safe. No other beings will mess with Satan that are evil.
DionAFields 2 months ago
@EvolBob1 To hell itself? I don't like the idea of there being a hell. I wouldn't believe it myself except I can clearly see there is a hell on the earth for some and usually for everyone if you live long enough. So God is capable of allowing a hell I'm sure. Without Gods word the society you live in now would look very different. We would still be ape like in your cult. You see atheist can't create a stable society so it must say that atheism isn't correct.
DionAFields 2 months ago
@DionAFields "You see atheist can't create a stable society"
Disclaimer! This statement discludes any and all European and Australasian countries!
Silly - you can't just make stuff up - That's why people don't believe the bible! You're just going in circles! =p
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet athiest created all europe thats a athiest lie I missed in history class. So all that christian stuff after the dark ages was really a time when the atheist were taking a break getting ready to make the golden age? Elizebeth must have been an athiest probably king henry the 8th too? I'm making stuff up though right? Yeah right..............
DionAFields 2 months ago
@DionAFields "thiest created all europe"
Well... obviously!
:P
You said societies; not countries. And there are a very significant number of societies that feature non-belief as a majority/large minority of the populace. The more Western of these societies generally lead the globe when it comes to standards of living; as do societies that promote diversity (and, y'know, don't pick on groups on account of religious beliefs =p) ala Australia -which is pretty high up on the human development index
jaieet 2 months ago
@jaieet Ok blabber mouth you have to crap all over my hate fest. lol. Diversity is the best but your not so supposed to know that I had already pegged you for a hater and you had to go and ruin it for me. :) Its good to see the haters are getting far smaller on the web from when I first started posting in forums years ago on the web. Maybe all that arguing we did in those days did actually make a difference.
DionAFields 2 months ago
@jaieet I did post in the haters Maher, Dawkins the kkk of christian haters. after all lol
DionAFields 2 months ago
@jaieet At least I don't believe in hobb goblins, fish walking on land, magical monkeys that change into men. Wow your delusional.
DionAFields 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DionAFields "At least I don't believe in hobb goblins, fish walking on land, magical monkeys that change into men. "
Nah, you just believe magical *dust* that changes into people and walks on land. And ribs. ;p
Though some of this is really obvious. :P Fossilised fish with feet are in museums - have you been to one?
...Hobb goblins? lol
jaieet 2 months ago
I believe there are fairies. They live in a magical land called San Fransisco.
miack84 3 months ago
Haha 2:30 is the truth. Why is this even a debate still? Its disgusting. Some teachings of some religions are good messages to think about but as such so is Dr. Seuss.
AlienBrainTutorials 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Humans wrote the bible.
Prayer is a placebo.
Atheists are generally smarter than religious people.
The bible supports slavery, sacrificing your child, and stoning people to death.
Morality does not come from the bible.
Most of the 10 commandments aren't even laws..
LOGICandREAS0N 3 months ago
@LOGICandREAS0N
Yes that is so true. But for some strange reason your post was flagged as spam, now why do you think that was?
Let me guess, logic and reason are bad anti-religious things?
The real kicker was the one about them being dumb, they certainly recognised that truth!
The ones that flagged your post as spam, I might say are dumber than pond scum, except I don't wish to offend pond scum. )
EvolBob1 2 months ago
2 of the biggest, pathetic, hypocritical, idiotic, egotistical fuckheads together, what a disgusting pile of shit mixed with more dog piss.
iwannabethekid34x 3 months ago
I wonder if he enjoys Fiction. Does he understand that biblical stories use metaphors? Do Maher and Dawkins realize they are choosing to believe they are temporary pieces of matter with no soul, meaning, or purpose, when they could easily choose to believe they are more than that and be just as correct? Any belief system with regard to God is correct. It's your choice. They choose to believe nothing guides the Universe, so their God is still at least Nothingness. That's cold.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y I know it must be hard for you to understand but I cannot simply lie to myself when I have looked at enough evidence to believe religion is nonsense. You're right about having to accept the fact we are temporary etc and meaningless but I can't lie to myself when I don't believe it. I also don't think that the bible is taken as a metaphor which is the problem. I don't believe what it says because it directly contradicts mountains of scientific evidence.
worldmayor2008 3 months ago
@worldmayor2008 All I'm saying is the evidence to say for certain that he's NOT there is just as incomplete as the evidence that he IS there. The scripture of science might as well be the bible when it comes to describing God, or no God. You still have to use a considerable about of faith to believe He, or something, is not there. Seeing is not believing. Science mostly explains everything in the context of this 5 sense physical reality. God exisits well outside of that.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y Its more a case of this; The overwhelming evidence in circulation in the scientific community is incongruent with any religious scripture. Under this logic of the evidence of a creator being there through no direct study against, every mythical story and everyone's lies have equal credibility. Do you see what I'm saying? I do understand your point but its more a play on words. For example the age of the earth alone demonstrates the inaccuracies of the bible.
worldmayor2008 3 months ago
@worldmayor2008 Well yes, obviously science and the bible are not compatable with eachother, any religious scripture for that matter, but using scrpiture as the only evidence and case against God isn't thorough enough. To get a bigger, more accurate view of God you need to consider the supernatural things humans have experienced over the years. Like ghosts. And I know, you probably haven't seen them yourself; but, you probably haven't personally calculated the formulas that disprove God either..
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y I didn't use a formula I simply read lots of books and the bible makes claims that cannot be backed up with evidence so I prefer to make a rational decision. There have been many studies into the supernatural and the majority of this can be explained as delusion, hallucination or selective memory. I'd recommend watching some Derren Brown documentaries where he sets out to disprove people who claim to possess or have witnessed supernatural evidence.
worldmayor2008 3 months ago
@worldmayor2008 That Darren Brown guy is known to use actors. He's almost as fake as David Blaine. Obviously, science, the institution that can only explain things in a physical sense, will conclude mental instability or hallucinations in a person who claims to see a ghost, even if the subject authentically saw a ghost. Atheists are blank slates. Over time they will fill that void with something spiritual. Science can't know everything, and you need to dream up the things it will never know.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y Then again, you choose to believe that there's a man in the sky who controls you. That's a bit colder don't you think?
TheBoredProle 3 months ago
@TheBoredProle That's not what I believe. I picture the universe as dimensional layers. We are in the third layer, the physical, Dualistic layer. I believe we re-incarnate into different realities and live countless different lives, progressing spiritually. It's like a video game, with different levels. Once we fully experience and understand a dimensional layer, our souls move on to the next stage. The last level is God, which is comprised of all the souls that reached Enlightement.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
one of the reasons people are beginning to speak out against organized religions is... because it's RIDICULOUS!
yes indeed
stz128 3 months ago
@stz128 Atheism is an organized religion now. Any Faith-- because Atheism IS a Faith-- that gets popular enough will begin to organize itself. And the popularization of belief systems is the issue, not any specific religion. Each individual needs to establish their own Faith and then speak about it modestly to everyone else that has their own unique belief system.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y Atheism isn't a "faith", it's a lack of faith in a supernatural being, and all the complete nonsense that goes along with it. As for choosing to believe that we have no soul, where is the evidence or logic for the soul?
KevinLockard23 3 months ago
@KevinLockard23 It is still a faith. In the same way believing in a thorough, but incomplete, theory is. You need to make a leap, at some point, to say with confidence that something we can't see isn't there for certain. Out of body experiences is evidence of a soul. Even science is beginning to explain the soul, .via the studies of the pineal gland, which is our third eye. Science says, when we die, this gland becomes hyper active, and some scientist suggest it is the gateway for the soul.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y You still haven't provided any good reasons to think there is a soul. Out of body experiences have been debunked and explained away over and over again. I don't know what this pinal gland thingy is, but it hardly sounds convincing. All of the evidence we have of the human body (especially the way technology can tamper with the body, such as sex-change operations, etc.) strongly points to us being just biological machines, basically.
KevinLockard23 3 months ago
@KevinLockard23 Look up the video DMT- The Spirit Molecule. It'll be one of the first videos on youtube. There are 5 parts. It will probably change your mind a bit. It is based in Science, and it give a thorough case of how a spirit can exist physically.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 3 months ago
@983215ljhlkadbspig6y all DMT proves is that most religious experience and feelings of faith are a result of chemical reactions in the brain that influence perception and therefore feelings of faith are as real as an LSD trip, that is to say, a hallucination.
TheEmptyHunter 3 months ago