He believes God doesn't exist even though it's not possible to prove that God doesn't exist & never will be. Therefore, it's an unscientific, faith based belief, but he'll mock those who take the opposite position. There's a better chance of finding evidence of existence of God than there ever will be of finding evidence of absence. Dawkins is in a belief/faith based state of mind too , he just doesn't refer to it as a religion. I think the only approach thats in line with scientific inquiry & the spirit of science would be to be agnostic, otherwise its belief & faith regardless of what side you fall on.
@@EastwoodFPS I agree. I have personal evidence of gods existence. Therefore I believe. One thing is certain aiming my thoughts and actions towards the principals of the Bible have improved my life in many ways.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. - Romans 1:22-32
There are many evidences that lead to the Bible being true and Gods creation. Like historical evidemces like eyewitneses (12 Apostles). The Ashely Beds Phosophate that has many different kind of animal bones including Dinosaurs with human bones.
I know a lot of atheists who refuse to look at evidence. When they unleashed the experimental agent known as the Covid vaccine, the fda website said that they didn’t know if the efficacy would last longer than two months… yet people were coerced (a Nuremberg violation) by threat of job loss, for something that turned out not to work, and yet it’s still being pushed and few atheists I’ve presented to, are interested in evidence… they claim to have faith in the medical system. And refuse to look at any evidence contrary to the lies they’ve been told. They get triggered if their faith in pharmaceutical products is diminished. My entire in law family got their shots and got Covid… oh but it decreases the severity… is there evidence for that statement? No. Do they ask for evidence? No. Yeah, just Christians are the idiots who don’t require proof. Im not buying that BS.
What caused the universe? And was the cause an uncaused cause? If you were to give that a name, what would you call it? *Something that caused intelligible life* Ill let you come to your own conclusion
@@joe5959??? you are ignorant. There is something called science and the scientific process. That uses rational and then experiment the validity of the hypothesis. Religions are nothing more than a very poorly thought hypothesis that you were indoctrinated to believe in since you were a child. If you were born in a different family with a different religion, you would believe in that religion instead, but guess what, reality does not care in what culture you were raised. Your comment shows and proves how mentally lazy you really are.
@@joe5959You people always say such stupid shit instead of actually engaging with what was said. You're ignorant, and instead of denying that you started asking fucking moronic questions. The universe may be eternal, or may have come about from some natural cause, or sure it may have even been created, but of those options only the natural answer has evidence to support it. You used the word "cause" because you think it makes your god claim stronger, but it doesn't. If I drown in a lake, the cause of my death was water entering my lungs and making it impossible for me to breathe, and yet the water isn't intelligent, now is it? Your argument was pathetic, no one would come to the conclusion that a god exists just by reading your argument, and the best part is that even if you people could prove an intelligent mind created the universe, you'd be one tiny little fraction of a step closer to proving it was a god, or your specific god, or universe hopping pixies. Your argument wouldn't even prove the conclusion you're drawing.
@@Logiconfire??? the crusades, hitler was a devoted christian, israel and hamas, all the terrorists attacks. what nonsense are you talking about? I guess that is your belief.
@@lb7625He was. Is just that christians distanced themselves because of the backlash, and are trying to change history. But he was christian, oh well as christian as any politician can be 😂.
There is the morality without god if you can't admit that then your The fool without knowledge Fools take no pleasure in learning or understanding Just there emotions views Proverbs 18:2
I could not agree more! Religion has no place in government institutions, especially our schools, poisoning the minds of the upcoming generations with nonesense
Exactly, this reminds me of what Voltaire reportedly once said, "Those who can convince you with absurdities, can convince you to commit atrocities." This applies to faith perfectly.
Is actually the opposite. Religion creates culture. And culture creates the environment that makes organised thought possible. Every city in the beginning was built around a church or holy place. University in Europe has its beginnings in monks. Those monks are the reason why we even have aristoteles. Because they transcriped his teachings in tomes. And he is the father of logic and systematic scientific thought in the west. Sorry but a dismissive white and black thinking is just the opposite of critical thinking. It's hypocritical.
@@biekgiek religion is a human universal that binds people together. It creates narrative structure which binds community's and create value structures. So yes it creates culture. One component of religion is the create of rituals. Rituals are habits of community that establish order in the community. By being believed to reflect a pattern that is outside of the community and reflect the very way reality is structured. Even in your worldview not people as such create religion. But is something that emerges in community through distrubuted cognition.
@@IbadassI I didnt? Thank you for incorrectly assuming. Lets, for arguments sake, say I havent though. Please furnish some context that would make this IN ANY WAY ACCEPTABLE to a modern educated man? You have the floor...
@@IbadassI Who created God? And if your answer is God is eternal, youre just inserting a middle man. If God can be eternal, why cant the conditions which created the universe be? Oh, who created those conditions? Well who created god? Oh God is eternal? Well the conditions which created the universe are eternal. Your argument is easily falsifiable.
@@jknowstheway1462 My, my, what a wonderful conundrum it seems you have woven. Unfortunately any other condition/particle/thing, if it can be defined, means it has limits. Limited "things" cannot be around forever in the past if we exist. Because infinitely regressing backwards would mean nothing now would happen, like you discussing this thread for example, because the primordial past would be infinitely long. Therefore there has to be an undefinable "something" that has no limits would be a necessary being.
Don’t blame the material. Literally taking such expressions as true rather than as metaphor is due to the developmental stage that many humans are currently operating from. Spirituality begins when belief including the atheistic belief is dropped and one goes beyond thought and self to the depths.
@@ivanvincent7534 There's no such thing as an Atheistic belief, as Atheism stems from disbelief and skepticism more often than whatever else motivated the individual personally. And excuses wouldn't be needed if these religious texts didn't get so much wrong consistently. Even if believers were to all follow one religion, it still wouldn't work to show how that one is the truth as supported by verified credible good evidence. So, what is spirituality? On the surface, if there's any depth atall, it's a blanket term that covers over the unknown with a concept that's equally invalid. No different than a person who seen a UFO claims it was aliens from someplace else. The U in UFO means unidentified, as it isn't known and therefore cannot lead to, it's aliens as the first or best explanation for the sightings. As that would mean it's actually identified and confirmed as alien which has not been the case. 🤷🏼 How can you be so confident and comfortable being so wrong?
And yet Christians we’re the first to create a hospital Christians all around the world help people I see more Christian’s helping than atheists sure we’ve done some bad things but hasn’t everyone Stalin was an atheist does that mean every atheist is a communistic murdering maniac no
@@alexsass6539 rwanda, the most catholic nation on earth. Church instrumental in genocide.stalin trained as a priest and used his skills to slaughter 20 million people. Religion poisons everything
Dawkins is not changing anybody. It’s just a debate. Somebody who truly believes in their faith will not be moved by the musings of a mortal who believes he’s qualified to talk about a matter he has no real understanding of.
Or its either the greatest story ever told OR its the truth. The beautiful thing is you get to decide. Just because someone is an intellectual doesn't make them right.
@@tabithawhitaker9273 take a serious look at history, and you'll see that no matter how "beautiful" the story told by religious representatives, the truth about any religious organisation is ugly. And part of it is how the faith is used to force people into set moulds, and to define a "us"+"them" dichotomy that not only tolerates, but actively promotes hate and discrimination.
@@agnesmetanomski6730 You are mistaken God for the problems of "man" and I completely identify with that. Listen its up to you to decide but you don't get to decide for others. In my opinion God is alive and well but you obviously feel differently. Its up to you! And because its popular or trendy to hate God i expect nothing less. ✌❤🙏
@@tabithawhitaker9273 Oh,, I have no problem letting others decide whether they want to believe in some God or not. But by your own words, ie. a person does not get to decide for others what they believe in, children should not have ANY contact with any form of religion until they're 18 and can decide for themselves. And the ones usually trying to shove their opinions down the throat of others are not the ones who do not adhere to any faith, but rather the ones that do.
Richard Dawkins is the person who coined the term "meme" to describe concepts that reproduce by transmission from one mind to another. The concept of faith is one which is pathogenic but successfully reproduces despite the harm it causes to its host organism.
Agreed.The blind evil perpetrated in the name of Islam has been a curse on the world. How many innocent people have been lost in the last 30 years alone?
@@joealyjim3029 as well as in the name of "Patria". M. Dawkins is the first I've heard mentioning patriotism together with religious faith. About time someone did.
Love how you select Islam but dont mentioned the hundred of millions colonised and murdered by European Christendom from Europe to Africa to the America’s. Millions upon millions Murdered and robbed but let me guess your historical knowledge goes as far back as 9:11 Muppet
That's why it must be forbidden to teach religion to little kids at school. They'll believe whatever comes out of the mouth of an adult they respect. And most of them will still believe it as adults
@@orlandocarrillo7132 Quite the opposite; all religions should be taught, without preference or favor. The trick isn’t to tell young people what to think, or what not to think, but rather HOW to think. Teach young people how to exercise skepticism, how to critically discern truth from fiction, and then present them with ALL forms of religious material. Unreasonable beliefs will lose their hold.
quite the opposite, no religion should be taught. What could be taught is the history of religions and that is something different. There the kids will learn among other things how for example the catholic church was always a tool and worked together with the rulers as a mafia in a pursuit of power and money. They would learn why people in the former european colonies (south america, africa) believe in god. Mainly because their ancestors were threatened to death if they didn't convert. That's different than teaching religion.
@@orlandocarrillo7132 they shouldn’t teach evolution theory either because it’s based off speculation and can never be proven however they teach it like it’s a fact and also with out religion u don’t have objective morality. Atheistic beliefs will lead to more crimes because there is nothing wrong with murder rape and other things religion has said and tought objectively as evil
@@briley2177 by doing that you'll prep them readily to embrace Islam. ;) you do not want to teach your kids how to think, and how to discern truth from fiction, this is a recipe for them embracing Islam.
@@Programm4r Calling atheists 'religious' is a trite argument. Right up there with telling ex christian atheists they were 'never really saved'. Whatever
I am a staunch Christian and I agree with him. Blind, unexamined faith can lead to terribly destructive things. If you have no reason to believe something yet do, you are going to be much more likely to lash out at the challenge instead of think through it logically. This can be seen whenever you try to argue with a dumb person.
Same here devout Catholic and I absolutely agree with this statement. My only problem with Dawkins here is that he wrongly defines faith as believing in something without evidence. That is not at all the definition of faith especially in the Christian sense. Faith came from the Greek word pistus which meant trust. Believing in something with good reason.
Let me put this straight. Do you believe a human can be born without sperm being involved? If the answer is yes, it's called faith, and it is ignorance.
@@samuelblack4792 There is only good reason to have faith if you wrongly define reasoning though. Reason requires logic, and logic requires evidence. If you don't want to use proper logic and reason, that's okay, but don't claim reason or logic The faulty logic path for faith based thinking is circular. God is real therefore x reason for belief is true. Then x reason for belief is true therefore it proves God is real. The fault lies in using an illogical poorly reasoned conclusion of "God is real = true" with no evidence/premises and using that to fill out the rest of the logical premises and conclusions truth values of your faith without ever proving it is true, then using those truth values as the premises for the argument "God is real is true" when the only reason the premises can be true is if you already determined God is real If you really think you have good reason to believe in a God you are showing an incredible lack of logic and reasoning skills. NO IDEA can be sacred if you are using reason. This means that if you cannot back up your idea with any valid evidence, it should be discarded as not supported. And affirmative claims bear the burden of proof
It would not be evil if they keep it to themselves. The evil comes from using your faith to justify violent acts against others. People are free to wallow in their ignorance as long as they stay in their own sty.
I don't think the concept of faith itself is bad. Atleast having faith on something like for example having faith in believing that someone will do the right or moral thing or hoping that your favourite sports team wins. Though what I'm thinking off could be classified more as hope than faith.
Many years ago, a pastor tried to convert me and said have faith. I told him to sell his house and bet it on a horse. He said that he doesn't know anything about the horse and then I smiled.
@@deidara_8598 Indeed, watch the part where Dawkins explains how a closed mind cannot be rationalised with or course corrected. When people believe without doubt that God is with them they can commit evils without contrition.
Based on the comments here, very few of you are capable of processing basic logic and have just completely proven Dawkins point by twisting it to fit you're own particular narratives. SMH How many comments here do not even fit with what he actually said. 😒
Fools, if you buy this premise. We put faith in a hundred things every day without evidence, but these assumptions allow you to traverse your daily decision making and survive the world.
That's the thing - every day! We put faith in things that happen all the time, meaning it's very reasonable to believe they will continue to happen. Religions are not the same. They are founded on religious books which claim extraordinary events that allegedly happened once in the past and were written down. Are we supposed to believe those stories the same way we believe repetitive things of mundane life?
Why is it.... that whenever I watch videos discussing or debating about religion, the non-believer is always the sincere and genuine one while the believer seems not. Could just be a coincidence but... That's how it appears to me. Like the Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig debate.
Dawkins left open the discussion concerning the nature of the "evidence" needed to support a theistic claim, dawkins is no philosopher, he attributes the words evil and good outside of their ontological sphere and there's no way an atheist can have a basic anchorage for morality, let alone a practical procedure in which we can prove the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being
Morality is most likely a mix of genetics and learned behavior with or without an explicit believe in gods. Morality is a form of sophisticated altruism, and altruism has evolved many many times in the animal kingdom. The world in which you live, where morality must come from religion, exists only between your ears.
@@09patrick22barnes95 primal consciousness is exhaustive of reality, not right or wrong, we could have solved excessive population rates if your version of impulse based morality was highly applied, we can just go back to my comment and see that i was only discussing the simple fact an atheist cannot objectively judge a moral value in hindsight, your definition of "genetics and learned behavior" morality is truely beneath my notice as it has no bases and no intrinsic purpose for all that matters, let me ask you a question you will most likely give the worst take on -what was the driving force (conceptual or impirical) that shaped human behavior and morality into the thing it is now? In other words why is it good to punish jack when he steals from john?
There is no way theists can anchor morality in God in any coherent or compelling way. Least of your problems on that front is that you can't actually demonstrate your god exits.
@@CyeOutsideri feel sorry that you got the two concepts of legitimacy and anchorage mixed up in your head, simply put, metaphysical truths are different to conceptual truths, conceptual truths are the product of talking several distinct elements into a unified whole, a metaphysical truth stands on it's own autonomously, so for you to suggest that the inability to demonstrate God (which is not true btw) can affect the sense of moral anchorage towards deity is plain pathetic
Actually from what I hear (not coming sure though) logos was one of the first words used for God. In other words, God is the logos that started the universe. Everyone seems to forget that sometimes religion and science can go hand in hand with each other.
I totally agree with this man faith without evidence is blind faith and there is no such thing and if you do have blind faith then you are deluding yourself and those who follow you or living in a delusion State
The wrong thing you said was the word blind faith…blind faith is simply faith. Having faith is already being blind. Having faith is a delusion that was forcefully demanded and inspired by our ancient leaders in order to gain influence and power over its populations.
What a baseless and utterly false opinion. People do things for all reasons. If one did not have religion to justify their evil then they’d find another justification. The problem isn’t religion. It’s people. Smh.
@@philscott3759 and? Your point is moronic because it still proves my point, PEOPLE are the problem. So blaming religion like Dawkins here is what’s called a CONFLATION. Lol SMFH 🤦♂️
The problem is people, but religion makes that problem worse. It clearly is the case that religious people routinely commit atrocities thinking they're doing gods work. One example is the Catholic Chuch banning condoms in the context of third world countries experiencing AIDS epidemics. How many have people died needless, cruel, painful deaths because of that preachment? That's a crime only religion could commit.
The devil is an admirable figure he is like prometheus who was cursed for rebelling against the tyrannical god zeus who like yahweh was a rapist and murderer
Brainwashing. Religious people can’t quite grasp the fact that they’ve been brainwashed. Religious people are the perfect example of how brainwashing works. Brainwashing is not just about tricking the mind its about making you desire to believe what you’ve been taught is correct no matter what, no matter what logic says, no matter what the truth is, they’ve branded it under the disguise of having faith. Religions are proven to be ancient brainwashing tools used by past leaders to provide them influence and power over its population. “If you don’t do this in a certain way you will go to hell”, “If you don’t this do this in a certain way it’s a sin and god will find you punishment”. “If you do this in a certain way god will reward you”, “If you do this in a certain way god will save you”. its an almost perfect scheme. Today humans still create this brainwashing techniques but we don’t call it religion any longer and we don’t based it upon the fictional and the spiritual any longer. I know what you religion folks are thinking right now god will send people in your life to test your faith and you shall not cede to it you must keep believing, you must keep believing, you must keep believing always no matter what or god will find you punishment. Thats is one of the most impressive principles of brainwashing at its finest the people who created religion knew precisely what they were doing. Always prepare them for the inevitable confrontation with people who will speak truth to them that is one of the most important rules of brainwashing. It’s astonishing and terrifying at the same time. I know that the grand majority of religious people will chose to ignore and not take this statement to heart as it takes a ridiculous amount of mental strength, suffering and determination to undo brainwashing. Most individuals as an innate defense mechanism will never allow themselves to be subjugated to such process they will chose to ignore it like a kid would ignore a warning from their teacher. Because the truth of human kind is that as long as they feel happy and safe they will most of the time chose to ignore the truth. And thats why usually the ignorants are also the happiest but bottom line you are still living under a lie a safe delusion. But then you also understand why modern nations such as western countries, China, Russia and Japan and every country and society that doesn’t have its political and educational system attached to a fictional and old minded brainwashing scheme of centuries ago is so much more developed than countries whose education and politics is bound to religion such as most Muslim countries for example…Modern societies of today in the west, China, Russia, Japan and others of the sort its about innovation of ideas while others such as in the middle east it’s about preservation of ancient ideas. Muslim countries will always be far below the rest of the world in science, societal development and general quality of life as long as they don’t realize that religion was made to be appreciated and not followed blindly like a cult. You are only gonna push yourself down as long as you keep preserving ideas of centuries ago completely outdated for todays reality and needs. Innovation is the birth of new information and information is the source of power and there is barely to almost none of it in Muslim middle eastern countries pushed by their enforcement of religion in both politics and education.
I think we need to change the word “faith” into “source: trust me bro”. I think people will catch on sooner why faith isn’t such a noble thing after all. I’d rather not know an answer to a question than to not being able to question an answer.
Faith without (Dawinks approved) evidence. Evidence can literally be anything, the evidence that a person accepts as “acceptable” evidence is subjective. More Dawkins weasel words…
Mate scientific evidence isn't somthing that you "accept as true" it is true because of it's clear explainable and viewable existence. When you believe in somthing with it, all you are doing is taking a geuss at what could be *NOT AT WHAT IS* Do you understand now?
@@user-ze6yk4sd5g untrue on both accounts. “Scientific evidence” relies on man’s fallible senses. You can believe something that is objectively true, and it can actually be true. Just become something is described as “scientifically proven” means nothing.
Fundly enough data shows that ppl with blind faith are way more happy than those without, is because they don’t have to question everything, only a brain drain that hasn’t changed a damn thing, in reality if it had changed things for the better then the earth wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in, wouldve remained pristine…the words becoming civilised all illusion … yet we all love Richard … a plus
But then, why does it matter if one chooses to believe in a religion, and lets say that, you are correct and we really do just die, and stay dead, then why would it matter what one believes, as long as your not hurting anyone, if we just end we just be dead, As you say we do?
Exactly. Throughout history religion (especially Christianity) has been about blind faith. They only focused on what the Bible said and completely forgot about what Jesus said.
The thing is that even Hasan (the religious debator) even quoted Joseph Joubert in his book *win every argument* : “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” So in someways he definitely agrees with dawkin here on principle, the degree is determined how staunch he is in adhering to his own faith.
You either take faith in a religious figure or take faith in a scientist. Either way, you are putting your trust in someone or something you don't fully understand.
@@ptvm Exactly my point, both religion and science contain books which a person reads, yet can't verify for themselves, so faith is required in both. One can only use their logic and reasoning to determine which is the truth.
@@amounwadjaai Science doesn't provide proofs, it only gives evidence which a person can decide the truthfulness for themselves using logic: www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/amp/
And beyond your lack of understanding of science, even using your logic it is still flawed. You can become a scientist. You can't become a religious figure.
Yeah but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a creator. I think John Lenex said something about God acting as a sort of "logos" that set the universe in motion.
The problem is that religious people have a different definition/standard of what constitutes evidence..and their gullible/indoctrinated selves think that scriptural dogma & faith suffice as evidence. You cannot reason with the vast majority of people of faith.
Ignorance is a breeding ground for evil action but I don't think ignorance Itself is evil, I don't think religion should be banned I just think there should be better education in schools that makes kids open minded and respectful but also skeptical
Faith is not the belief of something without evidence so you can really end up anywhere when basing an argument on a false premise. That said, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian/theist because of matter cannot be created nor destroyed that means all this was floating around somehow and then smashed together. Answer me this: Where did the stuff come from.
@@Ana_crusis The way my church defines it is: "Trust that God is who He says He is, has done all that He's promised to do, and will do all that He's promised to do." My church vehemently argues against "blind faith", which is how the term faith is often used in typical speech. "My team is losing 50-0!" "Oh, just have faith!" This usage has grossly misinterpreted the meaning of it. The first definition I gave has two parts. 1) You must know who God says He is, and determine for yourself, given your life experiences, if God's character truly sounds accurate and real in the universe we live in. 2) You must know God's promises and determine if they have truly been upheld. For example, God promised Abraham to make him a father of all the nations, going so far as to say that his descendants would outnumber thr stars in the sky and the sand on the Earth. Look at today where we now have nearly 8 billion people alive, and that doesn't even include all the other people that have lived through history. If you know His character, and you find Him to be true to His promises, then you can have faith that He will do what He says He'll do. Like when a good, faithful friend says "I'll be there", you can count on them to show up. It's not a coin toss as to whether they will or not.
@@oddatsea9398 your church's definition is blind faith. What they are saying to you is believe in a god without any evidence of his existence. That is the only position that a religious person can have. none of you have any proof or have ever had any proof that there is a God at all. If you trust that there is a God on the basis of faith alone with no evidence which is your church's definition that is exactly the same as Dawkins definition and indeed of anybody's definition because it is the standard definition of religious faith. It's no good you going on at me or other people about what God Said and what he promised to us and what Abraham is going to do because all of those things and your belief in them come after the fact that you have blind faith in god's existence. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any of the things that you believe. A person's belief that their football team may finally win is quite possibly based on far more evidence than you have for the existence of God. There may be all kinds of statistics and facts about the players and their stamina, style of playing etc etc which might lead a person to think that the team will eventually score more points.
@@Ana_crusis Except, no, it's literally not blind faith. Here's the checklist detailed in case you missed it. 1) Read about His promises 2) Determine if those promises have been fulfilled, based off of your own life experiences. 3) Read about His character and actions 4) Determine if those characteristics and actions are evident in your life experiences. Even science follows a similar ruleset. 1) Hypothesize 2) Test and determine if results accurately reflect what was expected. Who drops a ball and expects it to go up? No one, because based on previous life experiences, we expect a dropped ball to fall down. I can logically prove God exists with a thought experiment. If I were a drawing in a flipbook, how would my 3D version interact with my universe (the flipbook)? Then I extrapolate that up so my 2D version becomes 3D and my 3D version becomes 4D. From this thought experiment, the fundamental, inmutable characteristics of God can be described. He would be omnipresent since He can span the entirety of the "flipbook". He would be omnipotent since He would essentially be the artist, able to draw and conjure up anything at His will. He would be omniscient since He would know the entire story of the flipbook from front the back since He drew it. He would be eternal since He exists out of our dimension of time. As stated previously, He knows the front and the back of the flipbook, the Creation and the Extinction of that universe. It'd be foolish from the artist's perspective for the drawing to deny the artist's existence. The artist created it, yet has no way of directly interjecting expect to add himself to the flipbook, like what God did when He took on flesh in the form of Jesus Christ. Other than a direct interjection like that, which still did not convince many of the people of his day, the artist would only be able to act, and from those actions, we can determine the artist's character. If the artist smites all blonde people, then we can determine the artist loathes blondes.
@@oddatsea9398 I don't need to read it you are kidding yourself . Your faith is entirely a matter of belief without evidence. And no science does not proceed in the same way at all it's actually becoming rather tiresome hearing you God botherer types constantly say this. The only reason you have some checklist that you think makes any sense at all is because you have blind faith that there is a God that the checklist applies to you have no evidence to think that, you just have faith that he exists.
dont blame religion, its just human is the most wicked and devilish creature, we can use anything as a reason and tool of destruction, then act innocent and blame other
@@ryanobrien2383 yes. Teaching morality, social responsibility, self-sufficiency, tolerance, love, and faith in a loving Creator definitely makes humans worse.
@@poposheesho Yet those same values were absolutely useless in preventing the religious people from doing bad things, and I don't want to hear a platitude how they weren't the true christians.
@@thejarjosh Well unlike religion, science has to use more of a leap to figure out what kinds of people it should hate, where as religion has its own law which demands that if someone breaks it, that's who I should hate.
No matter what is taught and believed, there will always be evil men doing evil things. But in order for good men to do evil things you need faith. This is a paraphrase of someone else's quote
Sheep are in the many, if you would follow religion then you're already going against your God by using internet, technology and medicine. Please stop using these if you're religious and follow your faith for healing and not the devil.
@@hatoftricks7132 I don't what religion are you talking about, but I am confident its not mine. All the current science you are currently studying were invented by my religion follower in their golden age. Lol, even the numbers you are currently writing 1234567890 were invented by a Muslim Scientiest. Its okay to be ignorant, but its a huge mistake for an ignorant person to think he is all knowing :)
Here is a tiny food of thoughts and a simple search in youtube would have saved both of us a lot of hustle ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JZDe9DCx7Wk.html
Yes, most people know religion is bollox. So many unfortunate people surrounded by nonsense and see no way out of it, especially when getting out of it is dangerous for your well-being. Religion poisons everything.
@@WHATSUP7049 Is that a serious question? Literally 90% of religious people online shove their religion down people’s throats. In some countries you’re killed if you disagree with their norm.
@@yami_leke the only reason I warn people about hell is because I don’t want them to go there. Imagine you saw someone about to be run over by an 18 wheeler wouldn’t you do everything in your power to get them to move ? This is free country everybody has the right to speak their mind and everybody has the right not to listen…so there is no way anybody can shove there religion down anybody’s throat
A tool for doctrine? Most people don’t get their doctrine from their faith. They get their faith from their doctrine; which, contrary to Richard Dawkins’ assertions, requires evidence.
His argument doesn’t make sense, the BIGGEST killers in the world were proclaimed atheists (which is a belief with no faith) and the biggest wars EVER in history had nothing to do with faith at all, in-fact some of the best things to happen to humanity is motivated by faith. If you look at history and real world application then Richard Dawkins idea of faith crumbles, it’s all well and good saying provocative statements that sound cool to promote your belief and help reaffirm your hardcore fans, but these statements mean nothing if it doesn’t actually happen. The biggest evil in the world is HUMAN nature no matter the belief, even atheism, if there’s an ideology then there will be humans who will take it too far and cause evil in the name of it.
@@bottomline7923 yes I do believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution go ahead mock me laugh at me I get it to believe that something came from nothing betta fish crawled out of the sea along with another fish turned into a giraffe turned into a monkey evolved into a man without proof which I know you don't believe and here you are today takes faith and you have been lied to and deceived about this whole topic it's time to open your eyes and seek the truth you'll be amazed at what you find I wish you the best and save your snide remarks I've heard them all
@@bobbycarlucci6158 I wasn't mocking you and I don't think my remark was snide. Mocking and snide are things seem to be your court. I was politely suggesting something instead of saying flat out that your remark was.... well, it was many things but smart. The fact is, there is ample evidence to support evolution, zero to support the notion of an all seeing, all knowing creator. Faith is about belief, science is about evidence and facts. Sadly, too many Christians want to make faith about proof because science and morals have brought some of the most standard teachings under question. Slavery, flat earth and the age of the earth are just a few.. I'd suggest that you are likely easily offended because truth sings in your heart..
@SilentNoise Dawkins said that if he is in a situation where he cant convince someone that this person is wrong because that person does not think the by Dawkins prefered way it means that person is evil. And the thing is that if anyone is only allowed to think in the parameters which you define, you are always right. In essence Dawkins said: The way i see the world is the right way and everyone who disagrees is automaticly evil. Which is the essence of fashism.
I have a hard time seeing why people claim this guy was so incredibly intelligent, when to me his thought process is erratic and irrational. Logic is not the friend of atheism.
@SilentNoise I ready your verbose reply twice to try to understand your frame of reference. I conclude that you for some reason started from a place of confusion and you've simply moved deeper into a confused state. Number one WHO doesn't know Richard Dawkins, the most famous atheist in the world, barring every dictatorial/murderous communist leader. Number two, I know I come from a position of privilege as my parents raised me to know and love God. But to live In a world, surrounded by the evidence of the existence of God, including both undeniable natural and archaeological evidence and reject Him out of hand, is illogical. People choose within themselves to seek truth or arrogantly choose their "truth". Dawkins rejected God and you also are choosing currently to set Him aside despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I find it ludicrous that you take your time to lecture me on being rigid in my beliefs. You can't even see that you are foisting your ignorance on me. Keep in mind, the same fire that consumes poor Dick Dawkins, waits patiently for you. Might want to reconsider your dismissal of your Creator.
You don't have to accept my personal faith, but I also don't have to accept your denial of my personal faith. It is why these conversations really need never happen in the first place. What I do in private with my faith is my own biz and what you do in private with your atheism is yours.
I believe one of the greatest forms of evil is ignorance and I think this is a form of that . I don't think it's people of faiths intent to implement evil but I think evil is an inevitable outcome of a perceived lack of necessity to understand or tolerate difference.
I agree. There's something about the lack of awareness, for example about God's word, that ould be filled with intrusive thoughts. With that said, I think true faith takes no effort. The evidence he's looking for is for example free will and the individual's sovereignty.
Without transcedant revelation that people are beholden to (with it a higher law), all sorts of evil takes place. If you think religion leads to evil, just wait until you see what non-religion leads to. Spoiler alert: we already know, because it's happened in the past. Millions upon millions of people die (and worse).
He doesn’t think you’re evil. Just that faith is evil. Faith is a terrible pathway to truth. A Christian’s faith is indistinguishable from the faith of a Muslim. If you care what is actually true, you wouldn’t use faith.
@@Ryan-nt9ib You’re way off on this one. Besides, atheism involves faith too. Don’t you have faith that the chair you sit on won’t break or turn into a plant or fly away? Science requires faith. The scientific method even requires faith. Atheism is dying, my guy.
@@DeAngelo77 In a strong field in this video’s comment section, you might have just uttered the dumbest comment. Atheism requires no faith. Do you need faith to not believe in Bigfoot? Do you need faith to not accept the religious claims of other religions you don’t believe in? I have trust my chair will hold. That’s not faith. There’s an actual difference between the colloquial use of faith and religious faith. Don’t combined the two out of convenience. Anyone who says “science requires faith” or the “scientific method requires faith” is an ignoramus to the highest degree. Btw statistically, atheism is growing. I know you’re grasping to have some semblance of an argument, but no need to lie.
It's coupled with a lot more than that. It's also coupled with existential fear, stubborn ignorance and absolute loyalty. Believing something without or contrary to evidence takes extreme dedication and a good hiding place for your head
@@chadleach6009Reason is all good and all, until humans cherry pick and distort them to the point of deception. Reason is great, but we also need to uphold morals. Where does secularism base it's morals on?
The issue with Richard Dawkins' statement about faith as belief without evidence is that it presents a simplistic and incomplete understanding of the concept of faith and how it operates within religious traditions. Here are some specific points of critique: 1. Mischaracterization of faith: Dawkins defines faith solely as belief without evidence, implying that religious individuals and communities base their beliefs on blind acceptance or ignorance. However, this overlooks the nuanced and multifaceted nature of faith, which can involve a range of factors including personal experiences, philosophical reasoning, historical evidence, and the interpretation of sacred texts. Faith is not solely about disregarding evidence but can involve a broader spectrum of intellectual and experiential considerations. 2. Ignoring different forms of evidence: Dawkins' statement implies that faith exists in opposition to evidence and rational argumentation. However, religious individuals often interpret their religious experiences, philosophical reasoning, and community traditions as forms of evidence supporting their beliefs. While this may not align with empirical or scientific evidence, it does not mean that religious believers are devoid of all evidential considerations in forming their faith. 3. Disregard for philosophical and theological debates: Dawkins' statement dismisses the rich history of philosophical and theological engagement that has shaped religious traditions. Many religious believers have engaged in extensive debates and intellectual discourse to examine and defend their beliefs. Faith, in this context, is not an abandonment of reason but an active participation in ongoing discussions and interpretations within religious communities. 4. Oversimplification of religious discourse: Dawkins suggests that belief without evidence shuts down the possibility of argumentation and critical engagement. However, religious individuals and scholars engage in rigorous debates, apologetics, and theological discussions that involve reasoning, interpretation, and reflection. Dismissing faith as inherently non-argumentative overlooks the diversity of perspectives and the rich intellectual tradition within religious communities. 5. Neglecting personal and subjective aspects of faith: Faith is often a deeply personal and subjective experience for individuals, and it goes beyond purely intellectual reasoning. It can encompass emotional, existential, and transcendent dimensions that may not be fully captured by an evidence-based approach. Dawkins' focus on empirical evidence fails to account for the deeply personal and transformative nature of religious faith for many individuals. In summary, Dawkins' characterization of faith as belief without evidence oversimplifies the concept and fails to acknowledge the range of intellectual, experiential, and philosophical considerations that can inform religious belief. It overlooks the diversity of religious perspectives and disregards the personal, subjective, and philosophical aspects of faith that play a significant role in the lives of religious individuals and communities.
@@karlmason6145 how are you to claim something is evil without the existence of God don’t you need both to explain each concept. I mean if he’s saying you can get evil things from the miss use of religion yah I would agree with that but I think that validates a god if people can exploit it.
@@ThePaintedHope how is that it seems like you wouldn’t bring good or evil up at all if you don’t believe in God if your an atheist shouldn’t you think it doesn’t matter either way. I mean if you don’t believe in anything what’s the point of argument anyway
Whoever seeks a faith other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. Quran 3:85. This guy and others are going to lead you astray and once you’ve lost, there’s no coming back for second chances.
I wouldn’t say that faith is inherently evil, but I would say that it has a greater potential and proclivity for evil than any other type of thinking, because it can easily convince you for whatever reason that others deserve to die or be treated inhumanely. The worst is when you believe that someone speaks for your deity, and thus you take their word as absolute, and they can make you commit evil acts because nothing else matters in the face of your faith.
I agree with him 💯% Faith, or the possibility that make faith possible are maybe one of the worste thing that exist. Imagine a world with all of these people being mostly rational when they argue, who stop being full emotional and accept that they can be wrong, and the one who are right aren't arrogant and accept humbly that. That people seek the truth instead of what they wanted to believe without any evidence, that people try to know better instead of cherching to know foolish things like what color my socks should be or who is this person who are invited at my neighbour ? Cherching truth instead of opinion without fondation.
ATHEISM is a RELIGION, ISLAM is the only RATIONAL religion ATHEISM, like most religion, is a BELIEF SYSTEM, based on certain precepts, rational and/or IRRATIONAL concepts. Atheism is therefore a religion, no matter how much the atheists want to dispute it. Atheism is also IRRATIONAL, a BIGOTRY and IDIOTIC. It is based on NONSENSICAL belief that SOMETHING is created by NOTHING which is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD. The fact is that only NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. No rational person can rebut this. A UNIQUE, INFINITELY POWERFUL, INFINITELY WISE, INFINITELY INTELLIGENT UNCREATED being must DEFINITELY have CREATED the WHOLE UNIVERSE which is almost INFINITELY complex, almost INFINITELY gigantic - the universe that is HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of LIGHT-YEARS in diameter containing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of STARS, some of which are more than a BILLION times larger than our SUN, TRILLIONS of planets and other celestial beings. A being who is INFINITELY POWERFUL, who can do EVERYTHING she/he desires to do as per verses of the QUR'AN: "إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ " "Behold, ALLAH (the CREATOR) has the power to will anything. " (The Qur'an Chapter 2: Verse 20, 2:109, 24:45 and other verses) "وَاللّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ" "..... and ALLAH has the power to to will anything." (The Qur'an 5:40, 8:41, 59:6 and many other verses) ABSOLUTELY, "nothing" could not have created such a UNIVERSE! Also only the same "BEING" who is INFINITELY WISE and INFINITELY INTELLIGENT could have created such a universe as per the QUR'AN: "اللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ " "And ALLAH is ALMIGHTY, INFINITELY WISE." (Qur'an 2:240, 5:38, 8:67, 31:27 and many other verses) ATHEISM is therefor a RELIGION that is ABSURD, IRRATIONAL and IDIOTIC. To my DEAREST ATHEIST and NON-MUSLIM friends, If there is no GOD (which is irrational), EVERYBODY (atheist or non-atheist) will be SAFE. WHAT IF THERE IS GOD, the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE - the INFINITELY Powerful, Wise, Intelligent, ALL-KNOWLEDGEABLE (OMNISCIENT), EVERYONE of the ATHEISTS and those who do NOT WORSHIP HER/HIM according to the MANUALS SHE/HE PRESCRIBES will be in by far, the BIGGEST TROUBLE in her/his life! IMAGINE YOU ARE FACING THE INFINITELY POWERFUL, WISE, INTELLIGENT, ALL-KNOWING EMPEROR, what TANGIBLE excuses can you all give HER/HIM? NONE WHATSOEVER! Absolutely NONE! WHY ISLAM is the only RATIONAL religion This is a huge topic in itself that can cover thousands upon thousands of pages. However it is enough for me to quote the following Mandarin-translated verses of the QUR'AN: 求真主 从受刑罚的恶魔上保护我。 伊斯兰教的古兰经汉译选 “奉至仁至慈的真主之名. 一切赞颂全归真主 ~ 全宇宙的主， 至仁至慈的主， 报应日的主， 我们只崇拜你，只求你祐助, 求你引导 我们上正路，你所祐助者的路， 不是受谴怒者的路， 也不是迷误者的路.” (Chapter 1) “…真主是创造万物的，也是监护万物的。” (39:62) “…真主是万能的，是至睿的。”(2:240) “…真主确是全聪的，确是全知的。”(2:181) “…真主确是至赦的，确是至慈的。”(2:182) 奉至仁至慈的真主之名. “真主，除他外绝无应受崇拜的；他是永生不灭的， 是维护万物的；瞌睡不能侵犯他，睡眠不能克服他； 天地万物都是他的；不经他的许可，谁能在他那里替 人说情呢？他知道他们面前的事，和他们身后的事； 除他所启示的外，他们绝不能窥测他的玄妙；他的御权力/帝国权力 （IMPERIAL AUTHORITY），包罗天地。天地的维持，不能使他疲倦。他确是 至尊的，确是至大的。”(2:255) 奉至仁至慈的真主之名. “你说：他是真主，是独一的主； 真主是万物所仰赖 的； 他没有生产，也没有被生产； 没有任何物可以 做他的匹敌。” (112:1-4) “众人啊！我确已从一男一女创造你们，我使你们成 为许多民族和宗族，以便你们互相认识。在真主看来 ，你们中最尊贵者，是你们中最敬畏者。真主确是全 知的，确是彻知的。” (49:13)。 ‘你说：“我的礼拜，我的牺牲，我的生活，我的死亡，的 确都是为真主 ~ 全宇宙的主。 他绝无伙伴，我只奉到这 个命令，我是首先顺服的人。”’ ‘你说：“真主是万物的主，我能舍他而另求一个主吗？”各 人犯罪，自己负责。一个负罪的人，不负别人的罪。然后 ，你们将来要归于你们的主，而他将把你们所争论的是非 告诉你们。 他以你们为大地的代治者，并使你们中的一部分人超越另 一部分人若干级，以便他考验你们如何享受他赏赐你们的 恩典。你的主确是刑罚神速的，他确是至赦的，确是至慈 的。’(6:162-165) “信道的男女互为保护人，他们实施善禁止恶，谨守拜功 ，完纳天课，服从真主及其使者，这等人真主将怜悯他们 。真主确是万能的，确是至睿的。真主应许信道的男女们 将进入下临诸河的乐园，并永居其中，他们在常住的乐园 里，将有优美的住宅，得到真主的更大的喜悦。这就是伟 大的成功。”(9:71-72) “信道而且行善者，是乐园的居民，他们将永居其中。” (2:82) “伪信的男女，彼此是同类的，他们实施恶禁止善，紧握 双手，（不肯施舍），他们忘记了真主，主也忘记了他们 。伪信者就是放肆者。 真主应许伪信的男女和不信道者 ，他们将入火狱，并永居其中，火狱是足以惩治他们的。 真主已诅咒他们，他们将受永恒的刑罚。”(9:67-68) 奉至仁至慈的真主之名. “以时光盟誓，一切人确是在亏 折之中，惟信道而且行善，并以真理相劝，以坚忍相勉的 人则不然。” (Chapter 103) 古兰经汉译选 (Translation of Selected Verses of the Qur’an) 全古兰经汉译www.islamicity.com/cqse/cqse_s.htm
I'd only disagree with the 'It's private' part of the statement. Private faith? That's all you. Go for it. The problem is those who think their faith means other people have to behave a certain way. Not private.
