Over-generalization of atheists by theists

Original upload date: 30 June 2009

chrisizq, thank you for being an idiot. It gave me something to make a video about. Just my little talk on a gross misconception of atheists not having a purpose in life and believing that everything is an "accident."

Hell's Angel - Mother Teresa, Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60
Hell's Angel - Mother Teresa, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkcDgeYBdk
Hell's Angel - Mother Teresa, Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGuzFUeDDgY

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mochapeach
Subscribe to me on BlogTV: http://www.blogtv.com/people/the-peach

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• xxxthepeachxxx
• the
• peach
• xxxpeachxxx
• talks
• about
• over-generalizing
• atheists
• not
• one
• of
• my
• best
• videos
• but
• it
• was
• popular
• so
• i'm
• reuploading
• atheism
• bible
• debate
• philosophy

[PrettyMurky]

@emaan456 So to clarify: You don't read or respond to the views of others; so no, it is not worth trying to communicate with you.

As you're so keen on holy scripture in place of thought; I'll say goodbye with this:

God's final message to creation was "We apologise for the inconvienience" - HHGtG 4:42

[emaan456]

@PrettyMurky "256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower."

Al-Quran:02

[PrettyMurky]

@emaan456 I can't blame the authors of that book; it was written some time ago, so they wouldn't know about things like the Lenski E. Coli experiment. However you don't have that excuse; especually as I told you about it yesterday. I know that the only book you like to read is the Quran, but if you're not even going to read my comments, can you tell me why I should bother trying to communicate with you?

[emaan456]

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nil. Indeed If we suppose 500 trillion shaking per second (5x10^14) which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave length between 0.4 and 0.8 microns). We find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe is about10^243 billions of years.Human destiny,P.34

[emaan456]

@PrettyMurky (Cont) Regarding Evolution

And how was it that innumerable member of each species reproduced themselves and became widespread throughout the land and the oceans? Is it really conceivable that within such a short span of time, a superior creature like Man could have evolved from inferior living organisms, and all just by the merest chance???

[emaan456]

J.W.N Sullivan puts the earth’s age at two thousand million years- a moderate estimate by his own account. When a period of Trillions and Trillions of years would be required for a single non living proteinous molecule to develop in a purely random way, we have to ask ourselves how more than ten lakh species of animals with fully developed bodies, and more than 2 lakh species of plants could have originated upon the surface of earth within the relatively short period of thousand million years???

[emaan456]

@PrettyMurky Sir Arthur Keith, who is himself a staunch supporter of organic evolution, did not regard the theory of evolution either as an empirical or inferential fact, but as “A BASIC DOGMA OF RATIONALISM”

A reputed Encyclopedia on science describes Darwinism as a theory based on, Explanation without Demonstration

(Revolt Against reason,P.112)

[emaan456]

@PrettyMurky According to the A.E Mander,

“We may say that the finding a theory is like discovering the patterns into which a number of particular facts and the general laws which govern them will fit. It is like putting together the piece of jigsaw puzzle from which one or more pieces are missing. When we have fitted together all the pieces available, we can see what the missing piece must be like to enable them to fit into gaps.”(Clearer thinking,P.123)

[emaan456]

@PrettyMurky Reality is not only what can be seen or demonstrated!

It was Newton who first deduced the law of gravitation and today it is accepted as a scientific fact throughout the world. Newton, in a letter to Bentley, comments on its nature on purely empirical point of view. “It is incomprehensible that inanimate and insensitive matter can exert a force of attraction on another without any (visible) contact, without any medium between them.” (Works of Bentley,V.3,P.221)

[emaan456]

@PrettyMurky Scientists are also men of Faith!

Of all the facts in the universe of fact, we can know some, relatively few, by sense perception. But how can we come to know of others? By inference, or reasoning.

Inference or Reasoning is a mode of thinking, staring from something known, we end by forming a belief that there exist a certain fact hitherto unknown….And the reasoning process is valid because the universe of facts is rational.

A.E Mander, Clearer thinking, P .50