I don't claim to know, yet as I haven't reached the same conclusion as your fundamentalist mind has reached without evidence, yet I'm ignorant? Do tell me more oh brave atheist.
@jelliedsoup logic is made up of chance and evidence, though i don't have evidence that god does not exist (not irrefutable evidence atleast) i can however deduce that god is a very unlikley possability and that is why i am an athiest. to be agnostic you have to be either very cowardly or very ignorance of chance.
Excellent, all required evidence to disprove a god must be very nearly in. Someone can finally tell me what evidence is known, unknown and also assign a % value to it.
Don't worry I have no expectation that you can back up why I'm ignorant of the chance of a god existing. I'm expecting your 'proof' to consist the inability to disprove a negative. if you don't know this position assumes its conclusion.
@jelliedsoup though i agree i my possition would suggest that am losing a battle. because as you say, i cannot disprove a negative, however i don't ever seek to use old clichets to win an argument. instead i will simply say this. if i said to you that tomorrow it would rain in all parts of the world at some point within that one day. would you call me a fool or would you back your agnostacism and say that such a phonomanon is possible even if very very rare, and is to be accepted.
@jelliedsoup and that is where you are ignorant, firstly it was ironic, secondly the reason that athiesm seems like a cult/belife is because you see it through a narrow minds eye. athiesm does not fight the belife in god or orgonised religion purley because it wants to be an opposite to a dogma its because it is seen to be the least lickley applicable truth. if god was discovered scientists and athiests would admit to being wrong, then set to figuring out what god is made of.
@jelliedsoup athiesm is a constant that burnes its ideas in a forge of argument and the heat of intellectual conflict, your purile, cowardly, agnostacism is to me and athiest, a sign that you have either a lack of intellectual strength or are just to scared to take the fight to one side or the other. in fact you are a piculiarity because you reside here attacking me for choosing a side and backing it, therefore you have the drive, your clearly just to nieve to fight a good fight.
it is easy to keep telling people how stupid christians are - its just what the audience wants to hear - but it takes balls to take time to understand the real reasons behind christian opinions in the face of their logiccal fallacies... they are not stupid, they just have access to wrong information... the appeals to ridicule are counterproductive... instead of fighting them they should be educated - and there will be no reasons for debates...
It's a pity that because of the contempt held by most theotards toward anything that flies in the face of their beliefs, most would just thumb their nose at this video, obviously not take the time to watch but none the less piously shake their heads sanctimoniously and say something like "So Dawkins thinks he knows more than god, aye?"
Annoying that he couldn't show the Expelled footage as he'd likely threaten to sue. Fair use however does allow it to be used, since he is commenting on it and thus altering the nature of the content. But...he'd still sue just to shut it down and attempt censorship by any means he could...the kind of 'honesty' we'd expect from Stein. I wonder what Jesus would do there...
On Lennox, think about that, he says"he doesn't know" is a matter of faith. No, it's a true statement. And it says, because I don't know, I'm not going to claim I do know that god did it. I'm not going to insert the explanation of "god" into my ignorance...as if that some how does away with it. I'm going to attempt to find out, to investigate, to do science. There's no faith here, it's an explanation of process, of what he will do about the lack of knowledge. It not faith, to say you don't know.
No, not "like POOF HERE WE ARE."; rather, like: given a planet of enough mass to hold onto an atmosphere, containing water, with an askew rotation axis allowing for weather, in a stable orbit around a stable star within the zone allowing liquid water to persist, that has the essential (and ubiquitous) molecular building blocks which combine and recombine into ever-increasingly complex forms, and given enough time (billions of years, not 6 to 10 thousand), life arising seems almost inevitable.
The universe is a well oiled machine. Living bodies are like Machines; they have parts, pump, pipes, electrical lines and many other similarities. We have intelligence, (at least most of us do.) Were we put together with a means of replication by an all knowing Superior intelligence, or were we created from nothingness, like POOF HERE WE ARE. I make my camp in the creator field!!!
@charliepc56 Much better to say "POOF HERE GOD IS" and then say by invocation he afterwards "POOFed" the rest of everything into existence. ...looking at it that way...it doesn't seem to solve much does it?
And...one must wonder, why would the first thing to POOF be as complex as a conscious intending mind, rather than simple energy/matter that ...over time... assembled into greater and greater complexity which minds would eventually emerge from?
@charliepc56 Further...one must wonder, when god did POOF into existence, what was he made of? If nothing, then he was nothing, and didn't/doesn't really existence. If something, then that something must exist a priori before him...which...if that can happen why is it much better than something like matter poofing and making the universe (or multiverse), rather than a god? Seems like an added and unnecessary step, at least philosophically.
yeah your prob right but i need a word. the almighty or the unknown? I prefer the nothing. Im such a skeptic that im even skeptical of skeptics. Dawkins is right that the god of the bible is nonsense (the bible actually proves this in a wonderful paradox). If a supernatural entity who knows everything creates a universe then they (he?) must know that what happened was going to happen. there's no point gettin angry at us. It was gods plan after all. its nothing more than entrapment.
it seems to me the problem is not god so much as the definition of god. There will always be the unkown and no science can explain the existance of matter that went bang. Hence the mystery. we dont know. I loved this lecture because dawkins actually says "i dont know". Thats truth. Religious people on the other hand claim they "know" god. Thats false. That u richard for not knowing.
@huepix any abstract, generic term "god" is not useful to the conversation. if you aren't talking about a metaphysical, all-powerful, purposeful, anthropomorphic(ish, at least) being that intentionally created the universe as we perceive it, then you aren't having the same discussion. calling everything that exists in the temporal plane, including intangible things like gravity, "god" is a completely different concept.
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
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 Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
I appreciate Richard Dawkins work. The slow process to develop to complexity in evolutionary processes appears misstated. As the concept of time in human life can be vice versa. 1 million years of human life may possibly be a rather small amount of time as humans view a second. So a sudden existence of complexity may be possible and the process that came to develop that complexity can be very rapid and mind boggling... not so humanly slow.
Some evidence? OK. Sedimentation rates. Stratigraphy. Known decay rates of radioactive isotopes with long half-lives. Measurement of continental drift and mountain building. Measurement of faulting rates and the spread of subduction zones. Measurement of rates of genetic change. Magnetic polarity inversions. Thermoluminesce. Varves. More.
The Earth formed as a stable rocky planet about 4.6 bya. Life appeared on it 3.5 bya. The evidence is in, the facts are known. Deal with it.
no the world is not 4.6 billion years old. mr dawkins is les a scientist than a atheist infomercialist. come on mr dawkins provide some evidence for your emotion laden speeches.
You know, I appreciate all the idiots that came here to disagree. Somewhere in their free-for-all-but-one-with-god bubble, lies a spark of curiosity and search for the truth. Keep it up, educate yourself! It's okay to disagree with the rest of america, they're ignorant.
@talons2112 Well I see your point BUT i simply don't care. I've spent a lot of time debating creationists with logic. If there's one thing I've learned, waste of time. The world's too entertaining- I wont let that kind of comedy go to waste!
@CaramelBarz logic is a an excercise in valid reference and reasoning it however does not mean the outcome will be true. using mathmatical proofs it is possible to prove 1+1=0 much in the same way a high priest of athiesm mr dawkins does
@CaramelBarz i did not say logic and reasoning is invalid more to the point i said the logic and reasoning used to come to these conclusions is invalid hope you have a great week! :)
@CaramelBarz I've spent a lot of time debating creationists with logic.
___
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?
@CaramelBarz Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@1tabligh Creativity.....So God's an artist now too? Maybe he is, after all haven't you seen how beautiful the tiny organism AIDS is...wait.. a... minute,....
@CaramelBarz Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh Oh. Your just the entertainment I was looking for today:)
"Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter"
First of all, "faith", especially blind faith like religious people use is NOT even acceptable in science let alone a premise for "the creativity of matter". Secondly, just because YOU are a human that works by planning things doesn't mean that the rest of the universe works that way too. How self-centered!
@CaramelBarz Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@1tabligh No. Like I said before, Don't play the mystery card. Just because science doesn't have the answer doesn't mean it's a supreme being that does. I understand why the Greeks believed in God or the Cavemen, but we live in a society with much more answers to how the world works than back then. This is why i stick to comedy, debating Theists & Creationists is useless because they're always on a road to the answer they want to hear even if its false. So another GC quote.......
@1tabligh "Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money." GC
@CaramelBarz 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 I still don't see any proof in your "wise and all-knowing Creator". I honestly believe your beliefs come from personal satisfaction and NOT the truth. The Vampires comment pretty much says it all.
@CaramelBarz Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh belief in the existence of god is baseless. that is the point. there is no evidentiary foundation for any god. there is only musing and imagination. to believe in god requires the presuppostion that those conjurings are true. in this realm, it is almost exclusively an action of THEISTIC believers to defend DEISTIC notions. deists are not so vehement, because they don't have the vested commitment/stake. theists use it as subterfuge for their particular assertions and beliefs.
@slyjokerg Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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 wtf are you talking about? believing in what can be concluded via reason and science is the antithesis of being brainwashed. you are a black pot calling a white kettle, black. your contention doesn't follow, either. trying to rationalized that there must be a god, since you can't comprehend any other cause for the creation of matter, is NOT logical or factually based. it is you pulling presupposed rationalizations out of your ass. it is the bogus"sudoku argument."
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 you are being silly. there is no atheist delusion. atheism makes no claims. it is a desperate, childish attempt to put an atheist on the same ground as someone with baseless belief. and knowledge of the "total scheme of being" is very high, not anything like "close to zero." that is a flat out made up statement. and how "some of the scientists permit themselves to do anything" is not only NOT evidence that there is a god, but a matter of particulars for any of them.
@slyjokerg 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 ummm, science applies to 4 dimensions, dumbass, not one. that shows how whacked out you are. and when you show me allah, i will believe allah exists. why don't you believe in thor or zeus or apollo?
@slyjokerg I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of "zeus, apollo, thor " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "zeus, apollo, thor etc", But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
@1tabligh right... you make a claim of one god.... and with no basis whatsoever. you have to provide evidence of your assertion that there is a god of any kind, whichever you contend it is. you can't. that is why it is just as founded to say that apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu exist. i didn't claim that any god exists. YOU DID. i don't have to disprove it. you have to prove it. otherwise it is childish fancy to say that allah or jesus or vishnu are real.
@slyjokerg ...apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu ....jesus or vishnu ...
___
Exactly!
If you claim the divinity of anyone besides God *or anything for that matter*, you need to prove your claim. If someone claims that you are an angel, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
@1tabligh 'If you claim the divinity of anyone besides God *or anything for that matter*, you need to prove your claim.' LOLOLOLOL. umm, no.. NOT "besides god". just like everything else, YOUR claims of god have to be proven. there is no more evidence that the judeo/christian god is real than there is that vishnu, allah, spider-man, alice in wonderland, or minotaurs are real. that's the point, genius. LOL.
The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one.
None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the ...apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu ....jesus or vishnu ...." or an *"individual devised god"*, they can present more than one evidence.
@1tabligh "Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the ...apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu ....jesus or vishnu ...." or an *"individual devised god"*, they can present more than one evidence." ummmm, yes.. they are obligated to provide evidence, just like everyone else who makes such claims. they are not exempt. and if they can provide such evidence, then why don't they?
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
@1tabligh quoting the scripture of any religion is not evidence that the faith is true or legitimate. that is the epitome of circular reasoning. you can't use the religion's claims to prove the religion's claims, kiddo.
@slyjokerg Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
@1tabligh you just used equivocation to speak about people having other "gods" that are not a metaphysical being that created the universe. that isn't remotely the same. for some, a crack pipe is god. for some, their spouse. for some, surfing. and on and on. that isn't a belief in a magical being that waved a magic wand and created everything. man's religious ties are most tied to ignorance and other things, like a need to fit in and belong, and a desire for no doubts.
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
@1tabligh "false gods" is universal. all of them are false, obviously. you have no more place calling someone else's god false than they do yours, yet you are both right. get an education. learn about reason. learn to think critical and rationally. think from the point of view of another believer... and from the point of view of an atheist. look at how and why you think as you do. you were immersed into a baseless belief system that forbids you to doubt its mandates and doctrine.
@slyjokerg Unless a man is possessed of a firm and stable faith he remains a stranger to the ways of those who know God. His scepticism grows. He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading.He discounts anything that his sciences do not prove or even try to prove for him.
Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
@1tabligh no, there is absolutely no requirement that a person believe in god to understand such beliefs. and yes, skepticism exists, and should. right again, things that cannot be proven are "discounted," rejected, etc... or at the very least not believed until solid evidence is in place. there is no inner idol for a non-believer. and i can't worship something for which there is no evidence to convince me exists. not sanely anyway.
@slyjokerg Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being. ....
@1tabligh where did this "self worship" shit come from? LOL. i never mentioned anything about self worship. you are straw manning. a very common tactic among blind believers.
The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)
@1tabligh you can't use the quran to support the quran, dumbbell. that is circular. quoting the quran doesn't prove the quran is "true," nor give what you are saying any more weight or veracity. it is no different than someone quoting the old testament, the new testament, the book of mormon, or any other religious tale. that type of thing is simple a diversion from substance. you can't substantiate what you claim, so you ramble on with passages that are the basis of your silly belief system.
@slyjokerg The basis of religious thinking is thus left untilled and untended. He considers undeserving of attention any problem which cannot be taken in isolation from all religion, be judged by its outward appearance, and proved by experiment. Having grown used to scientific language, with its formulae and equations, he regards religious matters as lightweight and commonplace.
@1tabligh "religious matters" are childish whimsy. it is like believing that the lord of the rings is a true story. you believe in silly, juvenile, myths as if they are remotely substantive. you simply choose to believe something is real and true because you want to believe it. you have no foundation for it.
@slyjokerg Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@1tabligh yes, of course EVERYONE should realize that things are how they are by virtue of simply coming to be. regardless, trying to use such lines of thought as a basis to assert that some being exists is preposterous and silly. the 100% absolute lack of ANY knowledge is not evidence or a logical basis to claim something exists. the absence of negative proof does not grant a notion ANY veracity. you simply wish to believe in cartoonish nonsense, so you try to rationalize it.
@slyjokerg 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 ? again, you misstated the truth. no one said that matter was uncaused. straw man. and i never said that matter was the equivalent of anything, let alone a presupposed, wise, all-knowing creator. that very notion is paradoxical, since there is no evidence of such a being. at the very least, it requires the presupposition that such a being exists. the question is bogus, since it presumes that i recognize any such being. i can't call it the equivalent of something that doesn't exist.
@slyjokerg Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh you clearly don't understand physiology, and more particularly, evolutionary principles. the cells didn't learn to do anything. they do what they do. that is why they exist, because of their functions. and yes, it is beyond "possible" that this occurs without a completely conjured notion of a god. there is no evidence at all of any plan whatsoever. you are starting with a preconceived conclusion that you wish to be true, with no evidence, just baseless, philosophical ideas.
@slyjokerg What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh every realistic scientist... to answer your question... that's which ones. the kidney is a development of evolution. there is no plan. a kidney works as it does because living things needed kidneys to exist. no knowledge of kidneys is needed for kidneys to develop. they aren't sentient beings. they come to be via necessity. that is why they exist. your whimsical musings are not evidence of god. you are trying the sudoku argument, as i call it.
@slyjokerg Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@bligh no, it is not more logical to think that something for which there is no evidence exists. there was no "creation" of the world in the terms you are speaking. the "order" is a state of extreme disorder, actually. creativity is not being attributed to mere matter. you have again brought up a straw man in your "question." the evolution of human beings is what gives us creativity, intelligence, thought, and the power of evolution. it is insane to thing a conjured, magical being did anything.
@slyjokerg Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh ummm, no. precisely the opposite. it is inherently illogical to think that something exists simply because you imagine it does, without a shred of evidence. and you straw manned again. no one side that matter has any creativity, yet you attributed that nonsense to me. you also make the mistake of assuming there is or was some "plan." intelligence happened via a very long process, not via magic, nor matter having creativity or being sentient. you are making shit up.
@slyjokerg Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@1tabligh Attributes if intelligence? The ordering it displays? What about this Universe tells you that it's ordered? While there is some order in this world, there is also plenty of completely chaotic events. If God created this world for us, why is 80% of the Earth covered by a substance we can't even breath in? A great many of humans can't even swim in it. Why all this vast space? Why all these asteroids that could crash into us? Why are humans so fragile? What type of intelligence is this?
@iz2sicc If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
@1tabligh This is the problem when you theists attempt to compare the Universe to man-made products like machines... we can easily find out how that screw functions in that great machine by simply asking the machine's engineers what that function is. We cannot ask your God this question because he does not talk to us measly humans. Our gaze is indeed narrow. The difference between you and I however is that I am opening my gaze as much as possible. You are completely shutting yours.
@iz2sicc If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation. Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe. Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
@1tabligh "Weak points in nature" are not occasional. They are in abundance. Our intelligence as of now is too short to understand the mysteries of the universe. Don't you think people had this same mentality when we still believed in a geocentric solar system? We have made great leaps towards understanding the universe. Granted, we have a long way to go and may never reach the end. But you are presupposing that there has to necessarily be a "goal of existence".
@iz2sicc We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@1tabligh Again you make a comment about "orderliness". Where do you see this order? For every example you bring up for it, I will make one against it. When it comes to a human designer, a genuine good-willed person will design something to the best of their ability. If they can design a machine that never breaks, they will. They will design it in such a way that another machine of that type will never have to be made again. God, who is omniscience, did not design in this manner. Man > God then?
@iz2sicc Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform
The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.
@1tabligh In neither of your two comments did you address my question about what you are claiming to be "orderliness". What knowledge are you speaking of when you say "accident cannot perform the task of..."? So far, you have ignored my rebuttal about your machine analogy and have effectively dodged my other questions.
@iz2sicc Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
@1tabligh Geometry is a human construct. Geometry does not exist without the human mind. We humans created math as a tool to help us better understand the world we live in. Math is a human tool, not a product of the natural Universe.
@1tabligh Now let me counter your question and ask this... why did God design us to be so fragile? If you had the power to create your child so that he/she is invincible, why wouldn't you do so? If you had the power to ensure that your child has an absolutely perfect life, why wouldn't you do so? If you were an omniscient being, why would you put your child through a test of faith? Why would you sit idly if your child is suffering? Is this what you call intelligence?
@iz2sicc After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance,
This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the blind and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to logic and human intelligence and waging open war on the truth.
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God.
A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come *before* our belief in a religious book or a prophet, *not* vice versa.
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with duped atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?" sorry, but that is far too incoherent to address. try saying it again in a cogent manner.
@1tabligh Moreover, where exactly is the logic in the belief of god? how could you possibly say that it's logical to believe in an invisible designer? Logic is NOT a good place to start for you my friend. Thank you for watching these kinds of videos though cause like i said before i'm glad your educating yourself even if you think it's being done secretly. Why don't you read Dawkin's book? you have ALOT to learn.
3)"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?" What if there's a giant deer floating around the room that you're in but he just exists in something "beyond" matter>? what if there's a magical hedgehog who has to fart in order for it to rain everyday but he just exists "beyond the limits of matter"? Don't play the mystery card, it's just a cop-out.
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
any idea on books about religiosity in america from the foundig fathers to nowadays? maybe with manifest destiny doctrine well exposed? god behind the "chosen people"? ruling the "promised land" killing indians, and eventually taking over the world?
He had some things to say in response. Both had actually things to say in that debate, although Hitchens ended up being more informative and interesting in the end.
When should a virgin speak on the topic of sexual morality? Fucking pope. What do these dry old catholics know about suffering in Africa. The Catholic Church deserves AIDS.
as for "where is everbody": considering earth is over 4 billion year old yet only had life for a fraction of its age. It may be that the universe is too young to have a lot of civilizations in it and it may be that we are some of the universes "first born". another theory is that faster than light travel may be completely impossible and so all life that evolves in the universe will be stuck in its little corner of it and that we haven't been able to detect their radio transmissions so far.
Uhm I checked the Discovery Institute and I actually find lots of publications! And also a list of convincing proofs of irreducible complexity. What I find astonishing is that all of the videos of Dawkins.. he actually never actually explains or gives any scientific evidence against creationism. His agenda is just against the Bible which I do not complain about.
@rsobhee Of the "references" presented on the DI website only two are published in professional, peer reviewed, scientific journals (Protein Science and Proc Biol Soc Wash). Both articles are seven years old. All other references are books or from journals aimed at a general audience. Some are even in an "online"-journal by William Dumbski himself.
And Dawkins cannot give evidence against Creationism. Creationism does not make any testable and disprovable predictions. It is not science.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I wonder if we could be the first sentient life and in the future we guide the later sentient life. Like in green lantern the first sentient life, you could wonder if they wondered if there was other life and said there must be.
I should expound, I'm not saying other nations haven't contributed to humankind, not at all, I'm merely commenting on certain things we as "Brits" can be proud of, we ain't got much else lol.
I wd comment on the content itself, ( insightful, inspiring etc :) ) but I feel my views would become a drop in the ocean so to to speak, as such, I say how proud I'm to hail from the same country as prof. Dawkins. I cant recall who said it, but 1 of the few things UK citizens can be proud of atm is that we have Darwin on our money, (the £10 note), at least we recognise brilliance, & have given rise to great minds, Dawkins & Hawkings to name the prominent two, I imagine I'll be corrected :)
ive just heard about the american atheists sueing over a 9/11 cross and i gotta tell you it truly makes me laugh.If one is truly an atheist one shouldnt giva a damn about some cross going up to memorialize the victims lost in 9-11. it happend to our nation whether you believe in the invisible man upstairs or not. seriously why would one go through the trouble of sueing over something that means nothing to them. Its a fucking joke! they just need something to bitch about i guess.
Richard Dawkins truly is one of a kind. If I were to choose a person to be the singular universal teacher of every child on earth, then my first choice would absolutely and undoubtedly be Richard Dawkins.
William Craig. I'd like to see the lauded "four horsemen" come again, this time with their guns loaded. Armed to the teeth with rigorous analysis, as they display footage of William Craig making his fallacious case; prepared to demonstrate where, when, why & how his reasoning fails. EXPOSE the most finished & highly revered example of Christian Apologists, & you will change minds. It could EASILY be done, and w/ the weight & scope of influence THEIR words carry, it'd be well worth the effort.
I hate to nit pick, but it is improper to introduce him as Mr. Dawkins, call him Professor or Doctor. The same gaffe was made when he was introduced at my school.
I lost 10 points off my IQ from that thing with Tony Blair. I he truly gave that speech or wrote that as a speech, I have lost all hope for the people who even smiled at it.
@Bill4Banco Caps lock is right there on your computer...try pushing it. And being conservative is the same thing as being close-minded and not open to other opinions..
does anyone buy this bollocks?
jelliedsoup 1 week ago
@jelliedsoup stifle your ignorance and view the world further away from your cowardly fence.
Areyourealythatdumb 5 days ago
@Areyourealythatdumb
I don't claim to know, yet as I haven't reached the same conclusion as your fundamentalist mind has reached without evidence, yet I'm ignorant? Do tell me more oh brave atheist.
Really has 2 l's
jelliedsoup 5 days ago
@jelliedsoup logic is made up of chance and evidence, though i don't have evidence that god does not exist (not irrefutable evidence atleast) i can however deduce that god is a very unlikley possability and that is why i am an athiest. to be agnostic you have to be either very cowardly or very ignorance of chance.
Areyourealythatdumb 4 days ago
@Areyourealythatdumb
Excellent, all required evidence to disprove a god must be very nearly in. Someone can finally tell me what evidence is known, unknown and also assign a % value to it.
Don't worry I have no expectation that you can back up why I'm ignorant of the chance of a god existing. I'm expecting your 'proof' to consist the inability to disprove a negative. if you don't know this position assumes its conclusion.
jelliedsoup 4 days ago
@jelliedsoup though i agree i my possition would suggest that am losing a battle. because as you say, i cannot disprove a negative, however i don't ever seek to use old clichets to win an argument. instead i will simply say this. if i said to you that tomorrow it would rain in all parts of the world at some point within that one day. would you call me a fool or would you back your agnostacism and say that such a phonomanon is possible even if very very rare, and is to be accepted.
Areyourealythatdumb 3 days ago
@Areyourealythatdumb
I initially thought your use of "realy" was ironic, now I'm not sure.
If you say I'm ignorant so I ask you why, and all you can offer is "I cannot disprove a negative" and a weak analogy.
This view is typical and why many view new atheism as a cult/belief. The more I come across its proponents the more entrenched they appear.
Unless you can offer some proof of why I'm ignorant, I won't bother to replying to you.
Time to put up or shut up.
jelliedsoup 3 days ago
@jelliedsoup and that is where you are ignorant, firstly it was ironic, secondly the reason that athiesm seems like a cult/belife is because you see it through a narrow minds eye. athiesm does not fight the belife in god or orgonised religion purley because it wants to be an opposite to a dogma its because it is seen to be the least lickley applicable truth. if god was discovered scientists and athiests would admit to being wrong, then set to figuring out what god is made of.
Areyourealythatdumb 2 days ago
@jelliedsoup athiesm is a constant that burnes its ideas in a forge of argument and the heat of intellectual conflict, your purile, cowardly, agnostacism is to me and athiest, a sign that you have either a lack of intellectual strength or are just to scared to take the fight to one side or the other. in fact you are a piculiarity because you reside here attacking me for choosing a side and backing it, therefore you have the drive, your clearly just to nieve to fight a good fight.
Areyourealythatdumb 2 days ago
twat. emotive language. religion is bad, atheism is good. twat.
jelliedsoup 1 week ago
Comment removed
jelliedsoup 1 week ago
it is easy to keep telling people how stupid christians are - its just what the audience wants to hear - but it takes balls to take time to understand the real reasons behind christian opinions in the face of their logiccal fallacies... they are not stupid, they just have access to wrong information... the appeals to ridicule are counterproductive... instead of fighting them they should be educated - and there will be no reasons for debates...
TZMrazvitie 2 weeks ago
This is a "hypnotic" video. =p
kirbymelton23 2 weeks ago
This man is a legend!
213SEMPERFI 2 weeks ago
It's a pity that because of the contempt held by most theotards toward anything that flies in the face of their beliefs, most would just thumb their nose at this video, obviously not take the time to watch but none the less piously shake their heads sanctimoniously and say something like "So Dawkins thinks he knows more than god, aye?"
whirlpoolzend 2 weeks ago
Your video is popular on Egypt
ickieestes12r 3 weeks ago
Annoying that he couldn't show the Expelled footage as he'd likely threaten to sue. Fair use however does allow it to be used, since he is commenting on it and thus altering the nature of the content. But...he'd still sue just to shut it down and attempt censorship by any means he could...the kind of 'honesty' we'd expect from Stein. I wonder what Jesus would do there...
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
On Lennox, think about that, he says"he doesn't know" is a matter of faith. No, it's a true statement. And it says, because I don't know, I'm not going to claim I do know that god did it. I'm not going to insert the explanation of "god" into my ignorance...as if that some how does away with it. I'm going to attempt to find out, to investigate, to do science. There's no faith here, it's an explanation of process, of what he will do about the lack of knowledge. It not faith, to say you don't know.
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
No, not "like POOF HERE WE ARE."; rather, like: given a planet of enough mass to hold onto an atmosphere, containing water, with an askew rotation axis allowing for weather, in a stable orbit around a stable star within the zone allowing liquid water to persist, that has the essential (and ubiquitous) molecular building blocks which combine and recombine into ever-increasingly complex forms, and given enough time (billions of years, not 6 to 10 thousand), life arising seems almost inevitable.
612Tiberius 1 month ago
The universe is a well oiled machine. Living bodies are like Machines; they have parts, pump, pipes, electrical lines and many other similarities. We have intelligence, (at least most of us do.) Were we put together with a means of replication by an all knowing Superior intelligence, or were we created from nothingness, like POOF HERE WE ARE. I make my camp in the creator field!!!
charliepc56 1 month ago
@charliepc56 Much better to say "POOF HERE GOD IS" and then say by invocation he afterwards "POOFed" the rest of everything into existence. ...looking at it that way...it doesn't seem to solve much does it?
And...one must wonder, why would the first thing to POOF be as complex as a conscious intending mind, rather than simple energy/matter that ...over time... assembled into greater and greater complexity which minds would eventually emerge from?
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
@charliepc56 Further...one must wonder, when god did POOF into existence, what was he made of? If nothing, then he was nothing, and didn't/doesn't really existence. If something, then that something must exist a priori before him...which...if that can happen why is it much better than something like matter poofing and making the universe (or multiverse), rather than a god? Seems like an added and unnecessary step, at least philosophically.
tweaker1bms 3 weeks ago
i love richard dawkins nerdy style. keep rocking those Hawaii shirts
drums4woodstock 1 month ago 17
the end was bad ass!
DasSlime 1 month ago
"...no!"
AlexBaldwinFTW 1 month ago
yeah your prob right but i need a word. the almighty or the unknown? I prefer the nothing. Im such a skeptic that im even skeptical of skeptics. Dawkins is right that the god of the bible is nonsense (the bible actually proves this in a wonderful paradox). If a supernatural entity who knows everything creates a universe then they (he?) must know that what happened was going to happen. there's no point gettin angry at us. It was gods plan after all. its nothing more than entrapment.
huepix 2 months ago
it seems to me the problem is not god so much as the definition of god. There will always be the unkown and no science can explain the existance of matter that went bang. Hence the mystery. we dont know. I loved this lecture because dawkins actually says "i dont know". Thats truth. Religious people on the other hand claim they "know" god. Thats false. That u richard for not knowing.
huepix 2 months ago
@huepix any abstract, generic term "god" is not useful to the conversation. if you aren't talking about a metaphysical, all-powerful, purposeful, anthropomorphic(ish, at least) being that intentionally created the universe as we perceive it, then you aren't having the same discussion. calling everything that exists in the temporal plane, including intangible things like gravity, "god" is a completely different concept.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
That sort of design was in Star Trek! It was cool.
zeldaofarel 2 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
It's so weird to see Dawkins in that shirt and not in a suit.
zeldaofarel 2 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 2 months ago 33
@Thinkdeep420 Psst, I like both your name and science, if you get what I mean. *nudge* *nudge*
KreatorRage 1 month ago
NO.
CookieWalka 2 months ago
Its odd seeing him not wearing a suit.
joshhedgepeth 2 months ago
You're right, Atheists are brainwashed...We have Clear minds free of religious trash.
CaramelBarz 2 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
Absolutely enjoyed every second of this talk...made my day.
TheBlackmentos94 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 Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I appreciate Richard Dawkins work. The slow process to develop to complexity in evolutionary processes appears misstated. As the concept of time in human life can be vice versa. 1 million years of human life may possibly be a rather small amount of time as humans view a second. So a sudden existence of complexity may be possible and the process that came to develop that complexity can be very rapid and mind boggling... not so humanly slow.
ProBonoz 3 months ago
Some evidence? OK. Sedimentation rates. Stratigraphy. Known decay rates of radioactive isotopes with long half-lives. Measurement of continental drift and mountain building. Measurement of faulting rates and the spread of subduction zones. Measurement of rates of genetic change. Magnetic polarity inversions. Thermoluminesce. Varves. More.
The Earth formed as a stable rocky planet about 4.6 bya. Life appeared on it 3.5 bya. The evidence is in, the facts are known. Deal with it.
puffin51 3 months ago 2
no the world is not 4.6 billion years old. mr dawkins is les a scientist than a atheist infomercialist. come on mr dawkins provide some evidence for your emotion laden speeches.
talons2112 3 months ago
You know, I appreciate all the idiots that came here to disagree. Somewhere in their free-for-all-but-one-with-god bubble, lies a spark of curiosity and search for the truth. Keep it up, educate yourself! It's okay to disagree with the rest of america, they're ignorant.
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz and your evidence? are insults the way you support your beliefs?
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 No.Critical thinking is . Insults are just more entertaining:)
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz haha yeah maybe sometimes they are however i see plenty of evidence for your insult skills and no evidence of critical thinking skills
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Well I see your point BUT i simply don't care. I've spent a lot of time debating creationists with logic. If there's one thing I've learned, waste of time. The world's too entertaining- I wont let that kind of comedy go to waste!
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz logic is a an excercise in valid reference and reasoning it however does not mean the outcome will be true. using mathmatical proofs it is possible to prove 1+1=0 much in the same way a high priest of athiesm mr dawkins does
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Your contradicting yourself, honey your example was just a reinforcement to my point. What's your point?
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz that the logic and reasoning is invalid. however you stated that you dont care. but i think you do
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhaha
logic and reasoning is invalid? then how the fk did you come to the conclusion that it's invalid?
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahhashahahahahaHAH
you just made my week!
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz i did not say logic and reasoning is invalid more to the point i said the logic and reasoning used to come to these conclusions is invalid hope you have a great week! :)
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 i'm on my way to it:) thanks
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz I've spent a lot of time debating creationists with logic.
___
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?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh
1)"restrict one's thoughts to logic?" oh, god no! GOD forbid we may be be rational and reasonable!!!!!
2)really? misleading how? where does logic mislead you exactly?
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Creativity.....So God's an artist now too? Maybe he is, after all haven't you seen how beautiful the tiny organism AIDS is...wait.. a... minute,....
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Oh. Your just the entertainment I was looking for today:)
"Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter"
First of all, "faith", especially blind faith like religious people use is NOT even acceptable in science let alone a premise for "the creativity of matter". Secondly, just because YOU are a human that works by planning things doesn't mean that the rest of the universe works that way too. How self-centered!
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh No. Like I said before, Don't play the mystery card. Just because science doesn't have the answer doesn't mean it's a supreme being that does. I understand why the Greeks believed in God or the Cavemen, but we live in a society with much more answers to how the world works than back then. This is why i stick to comedy, debating Theists & Creationists is useless because they're always on a road to the answer they want to hear even if its false. So another GC quote.......
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@1tabligh "Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money." GC
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@CaramelBarz 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh I still don't see any proof in your "wise and all-knowing Creator". I honestly believe your beliefs come from personal satisfaction and NOT the truth. The Vampires comment pretty much says it all.
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaramelBarz Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh belief in the existence of god is baseless. that is the point. there is no evidentiary foundation for any god. there is only musing and imagination. to believe in god requires the presuppostion that those conjurings are true. in this realm, it is almost exclusively an action of THEISTIC believers to defend DEISTIC notions. deists are not so vehement, because they don't have the vested commitment/stake. theists use it as subterfuge for their particular assertions and beliefs.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh wtf are you talking about? believing in what can be concluded via reason and science is the antithesis of being brainwashed. you are a black pot calling a white kettle, black. your contention doesn't follow, either. trying to rationalized that there must be a god, since you can't comprehend any other cause for the creation of matter, is NOT logical or factually based. it is you pulling presupposed rationalizations out of your ass. it is the bogus"sudoku argument."
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg The atheist Delusion!
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 2 months ago
@1tabligh you are being silly. there is no atheist delusion. atheism makes no claims. it is a desperate, childish attempt to put an atheist on the same ground as someone with baseless belief. and knowledge of the "total scheme of being" is very high, not anything like "close to zero." that is a flat out made up statement. and how "some of the scientists permit themselves to do anything" is not only NOT evidence that there is a god, but a matter of particulars for any of them.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh ummm, science applies to 4 dimensions, dumbass, not one. that shows how whacked out you are. and when you show me allah, i will believe allah exists. why don't you believe in thor or zeus or apollo?
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of "zeus, apollo, thor " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "zeus, apollo, thor etc", But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh right... you make a claim of one god.... and with no basis whatsoever. you have to provide evidence of your assertion that there is a god of any kind, whichever you contend it is. you can't. that is why it is just as founded to say that apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu exist. i didn't claim that any god exists. YOU DID. i don't have to disprove it. you have to prove it. otherwise it is childish fancy to say that allah or jesus or vishnu are real.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg ...apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu ....jesus or vishnu ...
___
Exactly!
If you claim the divinity of anyone besides God *or anything for that matter*, you need to prove your claim. If someone claims that you are an angel, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh 'If you claim the divinity of anyone besides God *or anything for that matter*, you need to prove your claim.' LOLOLOLOL. umm, no.. NOT "besides god". just like everything else, YOUR claims of god have to be proven. there is no more evidence that the judeo/christian god is real than there is that vishnu, allah, spider-man, alice in wonderland, or minotaurs are real. that's the point, genius. LOL.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one.
1tabligh 2 months ago
None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the ...apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu ....jesus or vishnu ...." or an *"individual devised god"*, they can present more than one evidence.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the ...apollo or poseidon or athena or xenu ....jesus or vishnu ...." or an *"individual devised god"*, they can present more than one evidence." ummmm, yes.. they are obligated to provide evidence, just like everyone else who makes such claims. they are not exempt. and if they can provide such evidence, then why don't they?
slyjokerg 2 months ago
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh quoting the scripture of any religion is not evidence that the faith is true or legitimate. that is the epitome of circular reasoning. you can't use the religion's claims to prove the religion's claims, kiddo.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh you just used equivocation to speak about people having other "gods" that are not a metaphysical being that created the universe. that isn't remotely the same. for some, a crack pipe is god. for some, their spouse. for some, surfing. and on and on. that isn't a belief in a magical being that waved a magic wand and created everything. man's religious ties are most tied to ignorance and other things, like a need to fit in and belong, and a desire for no doubts.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "false gods" is universal. all of them are false, obviously. you have no more place calling someone else's god false than they do yours, yet you are both right. get an education. learn about reason. learn to think critical and rationally. think from the point of view of another believer... and from the point of view of an atheist. look at how and why you think as you do. you were immersed into a baseless belief system that forbids you to doubt its mandates and doctrine.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Unless a man is possessed of a firm and stable faith he remains a stranger to the ways of those who know God. His scepticism grows. He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading.He discounts anything that his sciences do not prove or even try to prove for him.
Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh no, there is absolutely no requirement that a person believe in god to understand such beliefs. and yes, skepticism exists, and should. right again, things that cannot be proven are "discounted," rejected, etc... or at the very least not believed until solid evidence is in place. there is no inner idol for a non-believer. and i can't worship something for which there is no evidence to convince me exists. not sanely anyway.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being. ....
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh where did this "self worship" shit come from? LOL. i never mentioned anything about self worship. you are straw manning. a very common tactic among blind believers.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh you can't use the quran to support the quran, dumbbell. that is circular. quoting the quran doesn't prove the quran is "true," nor give what you are saying any more weight or veracity. it is no different than someone quoting the old testament, the new testament, the book of mormon, or any other religious tale. that type of thing is simple a diversion from substance. you can't substantiate what you claim, so you ramble on with passages that are the basis of your silly belief system.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg The basis of religious thinking is thus left untilled and untended. He considers undeserving of attention any problem which cannot be taken in isolation from all religion, be judged by its outward appearance, and proved by experiment. Having grown used to scientific language, with its formulae and equations, he regards religious matters as lightweight and commonplace.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "religious matters" are childish whimsy. it is like believing that the lord of the rings is a true story. you believe in silly, juvenile, myths as if they are remotely substantive. you simply choose to believe something is real and true because you want to believe it. you have no foundation for it.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh yes, of course EVERYONE should realize that things are how they are by virtue of simply coming to be. regardless, trying to use such lines of thought as a basis to assert that some being exists is preposterous and silly. the 100% absolute lack of ANY knowledge is not evidence or a logical basis to claim something exists. the absence of negative proof does not grant a notion ANY veracity. you simply wish to believe in cartoonish nonsense, so you try to rationalize it.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh ? again, you misstated the truth. no one said that matter was uncaused. straw man. and i never said that matter was the equivalent of anything, let alone a presupposed, wise, all-knowing creator. that very notion is paradoxical, since there is no evidence of such a being. at the very least, it requires the presupposition that such a being exists. the question is bogus, since it presumes that i recognize any such being. i can't call it the equivalent of something that doesn't exist.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh you clearly don't understand physiology, and more particularly, evolutionary principles. the cells didn't learn to do anything. they do what they do. that is why they exist, because of their functions. and yes, it is beyond "possible" that this occurs without a completely conjured notion of a god. there is no evidence at all of any plan whatsoever. you are starting with a preconceived conclusion that you wish to be true, with no evidence, just baseless, philosophical ideas.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh every realistic scientist... to answer your question... that's which ones. the kidney is a development of evolution. there is no plan. a kidney works as it does because living things needed kidneys to exist. no knowledge of kidneys is needed for kidneys to develop. they aren't sentient beings. they come to be via necessity. that is why they exist. your whimsical musings are not evidence of god. you are trying the sudoku argument, as i call it.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@bligh no, it is not more logical to think that something for which there is no evidence exists. there was no "creation" of the world in the terms you are speaking. the "order" is a state of extreme disorder, actually. creativity is not being attributed to mere matter. you have again brought up a straw man in your "question." the evolution of human beings is what gives us creativity, intelligence, thought, and the power of evolution. it is insane to thing a conjured, magical being did anything.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@slyjokerg Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh ummm, no. precisely the opposite. it is inherently illogical to think that something exists simply because you imagine it does, without a shred of evidence. and you straw manned again. no one side that matter has any creativity, yet you attributed that nonsense to me. you also make the mistake of assuming there is or was some "plan." intelligence happened via a very long process, not via magic, nor matter having creativity or being sentient. you are making shit up.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slyjokerg Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Attributes if intelligence? The ordering it displays? What about this Universe tells you that it's ordered? While there is some order in this world, there is also plenty of completely chaotic events. If God created this world for us, why is 80% of the Earth covered by a substance we can't even breath in? A great many of humans can't even swim in it. Why all this vast space? Why all these asteroids that could crash into us? Why are humans so fragile? What type of intelligence is this?
iz2sicc 1 month ago in playlist Atheism is great
@iz2sicc If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh This is the problem when you theists attempt to compare the Universe to man-made products like machines... we can easily find out how that screw functions in that great machine by simply asking the machine's engineers what that function is. We cannot ask your God this question because he does not talk to us measly humans. Our gaze is indeed narrow. The difference between you and I however is that I am opening my gaze as much as possible. You are completely shutting yours.
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@iz2sicc If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation. Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe. Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh "Weak points in nature" are not occasional. They are in abundance. Our intelligence as of now is too short to understand the mysteries of the universe. Don't you think people had this same mentality when we still believed in a geocentric solar system? We have made great leaps towards understanding the universe. Granted, we have a long way to go and may never reach the end. But you are presupposing that there has to necessarily be a "goal of existence".
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@iz2sicc We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Again you make a comment about "orderliness". Where do you see this order? For every example you bring up for it, I will make one against it. When it comes to a human designer, a genuine good-willed person will design something to the best of their ability. If they can design a machine that never breaks, they will. They will design it in such a way that another machine of that type will never have to be made again. God, who is omniscience, did not design in this manner. Man > God then?
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@iz2sicc Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform
1tabligh 1 month ago
to the ignorance of nature itself.
The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh In neither of your two comments did you address my question about what you are claiming to be "orderliness". What knowledge are you speaking of when you say "accident cannot perform the task of..."? So far, you have ignored my rebuttal about your machine analogy and have effectively dodged my other questions.
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@iz2sicc Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Geometry is a human construct. Geometry does not exist without the human mind. We humans created math as a tool to help us better understand the world we live in. Math is a human tool, not a product of the natural Universe.
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@1tabligh Now let me counter your question and ask this... why did God design us to be so fragile? If you had the power to create your child so that he/she is invincible, why wouldn't you do so? If you had the power to ensure that your child has an absolutely perfect life, why wouldn't you do so? If you were an omniscient being, why would you put your child through a test of faith? Why would you sit idly if your child is suffering? Is this what you call intelligence?
iz2sicc 1 month ago
@iz2sicc After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance,
1tabligh 1 month ago
without direction, planning and precision.
This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the blind and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to logic and human intelligence and waging open war on the truth.
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slyjokerg you can't use the quran
___
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come *before* our belief in a religious book or a prophet, *not* vice versa.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with duped atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?" sorry, but that is far too incoherent to address. try saying it again in a cogent manner.
slyjokerg 2 months ago
@1tabligh Moreover, where exactly is the logic in the belief of god? how could you possibly say that it's logical to believe in an invisible designer? Logic is NOT a good place to start for you my friend. Thank you for watching these kinds of videos though cause like i said before i'm glad your educating yourself even if you think it's being done secretly. Why don't you read Dawkin's book? you have ALOT to learn.
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
@1tabligh
3)"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?" What if there's a giant deer floating around the room that you're in but he just exists in something "beyond" matter>? what if there's a magical hedgehog who has to fart in order for it to rain everyday but he just exists "beyond the limits of matter"? Don't play the mystery card, it's just a cop-out.
CaramelBarz 3 months ago
Comment removed
Easleytee 4 months ago
boring....
iAppleseedy 4 months ago
@iAppleseedy It's called ADD. There are medications. Not everything has to blow up or have sex in it to to be interesting.
victordemise 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
any idea on books about religiosity in america from the foundig fathers to nowadays? maybe with manifest destiny doctrine well exposed? god behind the "chosen people"? ruling the "promised land" killing indians, and eventually taking over the world?
Laparanoicafierita 4 months ago
richard delivers like comedian :)
soth3d 5 months ago
The video that shows what happens after death..watch "GOD'S PRISON" and see what will happen to you.
Electfilmproductions 5 months ago
Thumbs up if you watched the whole thing.
Riiye 5 months ago 32
Ben Stein is a doofus.
twooffour 5 months ago
@SymmetricStrings
He had some things to say in response. Both had actually things to say in that debate, although Hitchens ended up being more informative and interesting in the end.
twooffour 5 months ago
When should a virgin speak on the topic of sexual morality? Fucking pope. What do these dry old catholics know about suffering in Africa. The Catholic Church deserves AIDS.
LoneRookRS1 5 months ago 3
@LoneRookRS1 Meanie :(
TheSturdyWall 2 months ago
as for "where is everbody": considering earth is over 4 billion year old yet only had life for a fraction of its age. It may be that the universe is too young to have a lot of civilizations in it and it may be that we are some of the universes "first born". another theory is that faster than light travel may be completely impossible and so all life that evolves in the universe will be stuck in its little corner of it and that we haven't been able to detect their radio transmissions so far.
PowerOfTheMirror 5 months ago
Uhm I checked the Discovery Institute and I actually find lots of publications! And also a list of convincing proofs of irreducible complexity. What I find astonishing is that all of the videos of Dawkins.. he actually never actually explains or gives any scientific evidence against creationism. His agenda is just against the Bible which I do not complain about.
rsobhee 5 months ago
@rsobhee Of the "references" presented on the DI website only two are published in professional, peer reviewed, scientific journals (Protein Science and Proc Biol Soc Wash). Both articles are seven years old. All other references are books or from journals aimed at a general audience. Some are even in an "online"-journal by William Dumbski himself.
And Dawkins cannot give evidence against Creationism. Creationism does not make any testable and disprovable predictions. It is not science.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn I made a video myself to give my views critics most welcome: watch?v=29RB6dNvlpo
rsobhee 5 months ago
Is John Lennox really THAT Dishonest? This is fucking ridiculous...is he REALLY that dishonest?! Sigh....
ImAnotherZang 5 months ago
@ImAnotherZang Or that idiot.
JaguarEscarlata 5 months ago
Do they have these every 2 years? I want to go to the next one!
ZachRose88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I wonder if we could be the first sentient life and in the future we guide the later sentient life. Like in green lantern the first sentient life, you could wonder if they wondered if there was other life and said there must be.
jandkas 5 months ago
I should expound, I'm not saying other nations haven't contributed to humankind, not at all, I'm merely commenting on certain things we as "Brits" can be proud of, we ain't got much else lol.
V0lpes 5 months ago
I wd comment on the content itself, ( insightful, inspiring etc :) ) but I feel my views would become a drop in the ocean so to to speak, as such, I say how proud I'm to hail from the same country as prof. Dawkins. I cant recall who said it, but 1 of the few things UK citizens can be proud of atm is that we have Darwin on our money, (the £10 note), at least we recognise brilliance, & have given rise to great minds, Dawkins & Hawkings to name the prominent two, I imagine I'll be corrected :)
V0lpes 5 months ago
ive just heard about the american atheists sueing over a 9/11 cross and i gotta tell you it truly makes me laugh.If one is truly an atheist one shouldnt giva a damn about some cross going up to memorialize the victims lost in 9-11. it happend to our nation whether you believe in the invisible man upstairs or not. seriously why would one go through the trouble of sueing over something that means nothing to them. Its a fucking joke! they just need something to bitch about i guess.
TheJessward 6 months ago
i hate when people ask him for advice,,jeez ask him about science
chrlskrkl 6 months ago
@chrlskrkl He specifically requested people ask their advice type questions at the end in lieu of delivering the 4th part of his lecture.
dog1dog2 5 months ago
Festive shirt.
STRANGEJAMES85 6 months ago
i want him as my dad lol
MrJaysChannel 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins truly is one of a kind. If I were to choose a person to be the singular universal teacher of every child on earth, then my first choice would absolutely and undoubtedly be Richard Dawkins.
lmos26 6 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
William Craig. I'd like to see the lauded "four horsemen" come again, this time with their guns loaded. Armed to the teeth with rigorous analysis, as they display footage of William Craig making his fallacious case; prepared to demonstrate where, when, why & how his reasoning fails. EXPOSE the most finished & highly revered example of Christian Apologists, & you will change minds. It could EASILY be done, and w/ the weight & scope of influence THEIR words carry, it'd be well worth the effort.
mouthyweasel 6 months ago
That STEIN guy is quite slow, isn't he?
Mirata87 6 months ago 5
I hate to nit pick, but it is improper to introduce him as Mr. Dawkins, call him Professor or Doctor. The same gaffe was made when he was introduced at my school.
Tm0g762 7 months ago
@Tm0g762 Your school? Lucky asshole!
HerlockSholmes123 7 months ago
@Tm0g762 doesnt really matter. Were all the same.
MrJaysChannel 6 months ago
Did Star Ocean: Till the End of Time come to anyone elses mind when hegave the theory that we may be a computer program?
elvebrothergenju 8 months ago
I lost 10 points off my IQ from that thing with Tony Blair. I he truly gave that speech or wrote that as a speech, I have lost all hope for the people who even smiled at it.
elvebrothergenju 8 months ago
The shirt he is wearing explains all the answers.
MrAnimated 8 months ago
@Bill4Banco Caps lock is right there on your computer...try pushing it. And being conservative is the same thing as being close-minded and not open to other opinions..
nikklazz 8 months ago
@SymmetricStrings Many thanks.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@SymmetricStrings Tell me how to find that.
gamesbok 8 months ago