It wasnt al-Ghazalis fault that muslim society adopted his idea that math is evil and made it doctrine. He was long gone by the 16th century.

It was the fault of the muslim religous authorities, but you cant say that in one sentence, if you are a muslim, even today. You have to go on and on for half an hour, naming all the muslim famous scientists, just like you would have to name all the famous russian scientists if you were a russian professor talking to a russian audience.

Even if 17th century muslim society had a Newton or Leibniz or Kopernik or Kepler and they managed to publish, what impact would their discoveries have had if they could not be used in practice for religious reasons?

It hardly matters who invented the lightbulb, if you have to keep using candles for religious reasons.

Another problem with NDTs words in this video, he tells us that 50% of scientists believe in god/are religious, and this is somehow proof there is no contradiction, or that science does not lead to non-belief. But this is a laughable failure of statistical analysis by NDT. I think the 50% number seems quite high, like he has been using a really bad sift on who qualifies as scientist (is it anyone with a science degree on any level?) But fine, lets make it 50% of scientists in the US. The takeaway from that is that the number of religous is MUCH LOWER than in the general population.
T
he general population is like 85% religious. That means that if 100 people go get a science degree, 85 will be religious, and 35 of them will lose their faith on the way to becoming a scientist. That means that if you study science, and you are religious, theres a 40%
chance youll lose your faith along the way. (This doesnt take into account that many of the 15% non-religious are probably already scientists, so the general population number is probably even higher.)

If you make it all the way to the National Academy of Sciences, a whooping 78 out of the 85 will have lost their faith. Thats about as damning for the no-contradiction/conflict-hypothesis as you can get.

Its like arguing that most drunk drivers never actually crash, therefore alcohol-intake does not influence your driving skills.

I've probably made it clear here several times that I'm fairly religious, and that at the moment, I'm not convinced evolution is the correct explanation for our existence as humans. But it certainly doesn't mean I'm ignorant in the subject. I've studied it for many years, both in school and out. Although it's not my area of expertise (physics was my focus), I'm most definitely not uninformed. Now there may come a time in the future that I am sufficiently convinced, and change my viewpoints regarding evolution. Will that be a problem for me? I don't think so. Not everything in the Bible is literal, and my interpretation of certain parts may be off. But for now, I don't believe in evolution.

But my disbelief is certainly no hindrance to my education, my understanding of science, or my contribution to society, and it would be insulting to assume otherwise. There are plenty of other Christians (and other religous folks) that are the same. The issue is that the fundamentalists are causing everyone problems, as they usually do, by refusing to accept the teaching of such material, and I certainly don't agree with that.

As a Christian parent, by all means, let your kid learn about evolution, and if you don't agree with it, explain to them why. (Parents are teachers too.) The child may not grow up agreeing with the viewpoint, but they won't be ignorant of it.

I never said that wealth will always automatically lead to atheist enlightenment or a relaxed religous believe where you can accept and incorporate science and knowledge. But being no longer poor (not as an individual, but as a whole society) helps. Much!

I disagree

Religion has plenty to teach us. It appropriately mirrors the evolution of the consciousness...the development of species-wide psychological tendencies throughout the history of humanity.

In order to understand where we are now, we need to understand where we've been, and why.

What religion teaches us is exactly where we are in the development of the consciousness -- and in short, we're idiots, a mere 10,000 years into cognition. We're evolutionary infants. Much, much dumber than we like to think we are.

Dawkin's would probably agree that he's dickish when it comes to religion. No qualms with that: religion is quite deserving of reactionary spite.

However where Dawkin's plays the fool is in being just as arrogant in his steadfastness that there is no "God". Just as arrogant as any relig-idiot with his iron belief system.

Where he could remedy the situation is to allow for a different concept of "God" - one not based on the idea that God is a being, like you and I. This primitive conceptualization is retarded on the surface, and self-serving at best.

To many, "evolution" is GOD - a beautiful process of life and continuing intellectual complexity that is potentially infinite.

This concept of God is inclusive, not exclusive and divisive.

>> ^spoco2:
I'm amazed that @shinyblurry can, with a straight face, (well, I assume he's not sniggering) suggest that it's inconceivable that while we've seen that when matter and anti-matter come together they cancel each other out and form 'nothing' the reverse cannot possibly happen.


Directing you to a general reply, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

>> ^spoco2:
And yet God 'just is'. You cannot fathom that something that we HAVE OBSERVED would seem to logically go the other way also, and yet are happy to accept a notion of an omnipotent bearded man existing for all eternity.... so just giving up on the concept of time and saying 'he just was, and is'.


No one has given up on the concept of time. The evidence indicates that time had an absolute beginning:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

If time had an absolute beginning, that means that whatever created the Universe is timeless (as well as spaceless, powerful, immaterial and transcendent). Meaning, the evidence points to an eternal first cause of the Universe. That is already matching up to a description of God and His attributes. Also, God is not a bearded man; you came to that conclusion because of religous imagery, not what scripture says. What scripture says is that God is a spirit.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't get how you think you have any point of argument. Sure, I can completely get that people can conceive that there is some higher power, that's fine. But to think there's any infinitesimally small shred of logic or reason contained in that belief that is any more reasoned than what science is coming up with is baffling.


I'm glad to hear that you can allow for belief in a higher power. Though, it doesn't sound like you are very familiar with the logical arguments for the existence of God. The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe.

>> ^spoco2:
You believe that, you also think it's your mission to convert others, but you know what? Trying to argue it out, thinking that you have some logical gotcha is just futile. You know the best way to bring people to your way of thinking? Be compassionate, lead by example, do good works, help others. DO NOT PREACH. Seriously, some of the nicest people I know actually have their own church, they run it, they created it. But they DO NOT preach AT ALL to us, they don't try to convert us at all. But they are helpful, kind, caring people who are wonderful to be around, and when they bow their heads and pray and make speeches thanking their lord during their birthday parties and other celebrations it doesn't grate, because it's not done in any way that's trying to rope in us unbelievers.


I agree with you, that a Christian should do good works. That is the fruit of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, Christians are also commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel. We are supposed to do both, not one or the other. There are specific, spiritual reasons for why this is so. Your friends sounds like excellent Christians, however, if you were to die tomorrow, and they had never told you the gospel, they will answer for that at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. Christianity does not come by osmosis; faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>> ^spoco2:
Please take that as a way to spread your word, Do Good Deeds. We like to watch videos like this because it's two people discussing some really deep questions and we like to know what scientists think about these things that are in their field of expertise. I would just as much like to watch a discussion between theologians about morality and differing religions and how they think their teachings fit in there. As long as it wasn't a case of 'if you don't believe in me you are doomed to hell', just 'I believe that following these commandments will lead to a better life', or 'I don't take the story of Noah to be a factual account, but more a parable with a lesson'.


There is a difference between having a debate, and telling someone the gospel. However, why would you expect someone to compromise, or water down what they believe? You've felt very comfortable in telling me exactly what you believe, and what I should be doing, and how I should be doing it, yet I must censor myself for the sake of your sensitive ears? Do you think I am going to obey God, or man?

DFT,

I think Sam is prepared to make the distinction between moderate and radical Islam - and I believe he does. Still, it is true that he writes that religious moderation creates the foundation for religious extremism.

The problem is Hedges is greatly misrepresenting Sam's sentiment. He does not present the scenario in the detail or terms that Sam does in regard to the nuclear first strike or the use of torture. To generalize as he has done paints Sam's comments as advocating for a nuclear first strike against 'muslims'. That simply isn't true.


I think Sam would say if any group (religous, political, ideological) came to power somewhere in the world and had the means and will to deploy WMD we may be forced into a 'First Strike'.

I agree with you that the Middle East despises the US for its constant violence and meddling in their affairs. However, it seems that a perverted form of Islam is still used to motivate many of the 'foot soldiers.' It really isn't an either/or. You have blow back that expresses itself through the regional religion.

Chris Hedges, like David Eagleman, wants to represent the 'new atheists' as something that they are not - closed minded zealots with a blood-thirst. Having read of Sam and Hitchens' work do you really believe that represents them?


The smearing that Hedges is doing is similar to how atheist were dealt with near the turn of the 20th century when they were grouped with the unpopular fascist, socialist/communist, and darwinist. "Stalin was a socialist atheist, look what he did!"

Are Sam and Hitchens intolerant of people or of bad ideas? There is a big difference, and I reckon it is the latter.



Furthermore - Hedges here states that there is nothing in "human nature or human history to support that we are collectively morally moving forward as a species." (2:01 in the video) Really? Has Hedges bothered to read Sam's book Moral Landscape?

Steve Pinker on the Myth of Violence

Does Hedges posit then that we cannot progress morally? Slavery has been abolished, women were finally given the right to vote and equal rights, violence is on the decline globally... yet we are not collectively improving morally? Sorry Chris but the evidence is not in your favor.



I am pleased to see atheist coming back out. Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Thomas Huxley, Richard Ingersoll...Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. Marching foward.

In closing - All opinions matter, but informed opinions matter more. That is why knowledge is good and ignorance is evil.

-Kevin

Is your religion spreading peace and happiness in the world, empowering people and bringing them together, providing social and psychological support in tough times, and promoting equality and justice? No? Then you need to make changes. ... My position has been and continues to be that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil.

Well said. IMO this is a key truth that the (what I call) 'militant atheist' movement seems to deliberatly ignore because it is somewhat inconvenient to their self-image. Populations of human beings have a spectrum of individuals in them that run a gammut from 'good' to 'bad'. This is true of religions, sciences, governments, political parties, charities, businesses, or whatever else you care to name.

It must be said that militant atheists love to cherry-pick the 'bad' followers of religion, and try as much as possible to ignore the 'good' ones. Are there a lot of bad people who belong to religions? Sure. Do they do bad things in the name of God? Of course. To an atheist, what is a simple statement becomes a illogical grand condemnation of both religion in general, and God as a concept as somehow culpable (to blame) for all the bad things that those people did.

But there are 'bad' atheists too. If all those bad 'God people' were instead atheists, would atheism be to blame? I rather think that militant athiests would deny such a ridiculous statement. And yet many atheists of this militant stripe refuse to follow the same logic and allow people of faith the same leeway. That says something.

As a person of faith, I freely admit my own faults. But I see both God and 'religion' as a means towards self-improvement. I obtain great strength from faith, and have learned many things from both the philosophies of Christianity as well as from the examples of those who follow a religous life. Involvement in religion has provided my with many opportunities for service to others. Put simply - religions and God can lead people to a life of self-sacrifice, improvement, and service to others that they would not otherwise have found.

What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, and I'll rightfully ignore any argument that says otherwise.

if you obtuse definition of god doesn't account for hearing our thoughts and damning our souls, its worth fuck all in a religous sense and we can all go back to worshiping the sun, which is the real entity responsible for our existance

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
With the "OnKneesforJesus" in the corner of the video, I'm assuming they thought this video exposed Dawkins in some way, or maybe it showed O'Reilly had nailed him.
Ass handing is in the eye of the beholder.

If you look at the other videos on the OnKneesforJesus youtube channel, it's obvious that the poster is no friend of organized religion. I suspect the name of the channel is sarcastic.

I have seen the light of OnKneesforJesus at youtube and blogspot. It's cute how they're up to their 4th iteration of the youtube channel, no doubt due to rabid religous complaints and threats.

Under your scenerio, if God exists then your reasoning is fundementally flawed and filled with error. In that case, I have the claim to reason and logic and it is far more likely I am correct.

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^shinyblurry:
As a former agnostic materialist secular type who has seen both sides of the fence, I would characterize the way the world is set up presently as a type of matrix. I marvel at the grand deception being perpetrated..Satan is truly an unparalled genius amongst all the created beings. On the surface it appears one way, and people who are totally committed to it can't tell there is anything wrong..but people who aren't living for it can see there is something fundementally wrong with the world, and can perceive in some manner that it is a deliberate illusion created by the powers that be. These people are seeking to be liberated from it, and want to know the truth. They are seeking the one who made it all, and controls it all..and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.
As far as I can tell, you have no way of knowing that you are the one who is "right" and we are the ones being "wrong". What if this belief you are following is in fact the great delusion you were telling us about and we - atheists - who use our "god given" reason are the ones who will be reigned by "him - the Lord" or in other words, reigned solely by reason itself.
To put it simple:
Great question in life:
Can you think for yourself?
No? Go to hell (on earth)! (decisions dictated by religous beliefs)
Yes? Live happily ever after (on earth). (decisions dictated by reason and reason alone)

>> ^shinyblurry:

As a former agnostic materialist secular type who has seen both sides of the fence, I would characterize the way the world is set up presently as a type of matrix. I marvel at the grand deception being perpetrated..Satan is truly an unparalled genius amongst all the created beings. On the surface it appears one way, and people who are totally committed to it can't tell there is anything wrong..but people who aren't living for it can see there is something fundementally wrong with the world, and can perceive in some manner that it is a deliberate illusion created by the powers that be. These people are seeking to be liberated from it, and want to know the truth. They are seeking the one who made it all, and controls it all..and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.

As far as I can tell, you have no way of knowing that you are the one who is "right" and we are the ones being "wrong". What if this belief you are following is in fact the great delusion you were telling us about and we - atheists - who use our "god given" reason are the ones who will be reigned by "him - the Lord" or in other words, reigned solely by reason itself.
To put it simple:

Great question in life:
Can you think for yourself?
No? Go to hell (on earth)! (decisions dictated by religous beliefs)
Yes? Live happily ever after (on earth). (decisions dictated by reason and reason alone)

If an aethist kills a religious family because he fears that the religous person is spreading murderous dogma, then it is aethism's fault? I cannot buy the cata-logic you use... then that means that every murder is something's fault...

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 15th, 2006" href="http://videosift.com/member/campionidelmondo"><STRONG style="COLOR: #2180e2">campionidelmondo
Again, being crazy doesn't mean you're violent. Crazed violence needs a catalyst.
      1.)   She wouldn't have thought to murder her kids [today at least] if she didn't think the world was ending.
      2.)   Her religion made her think the world was ending.
Therefore, her religion is to blame for her crazed violent episode.
Religion fucks people's minds up. Plain & simple.
If you wanna defend "Spirituality", that's a whole other topic.

You guys know about the thumbprint initiation? It's where someone takes a few hundred doses of LSD crystal. Very impressive stories here:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/1427364/fpart/1/vc/1

Usually the person is deemed ready by those who can tell.They are taken care of before and after the print by the family, this may take up to a week before your functioning again. Sometimes skeptics are printed, but their reactions are usually very, very shattering. It's hard when your whole belief system explodes and the truth is revealed. You basically have to start from scratch. All those years you thought you knew the truth and God, then in a matter of minutes you find you didn't know shit, then you die. . This is all related to first prints. Repeated prints later are less traumatic and not nearlly as shattering.

[...]

It's affected me on so many different levels. Mentally it has changed my whole outlook on life and my perception of the world. Spiritually it has given me the absolute faith in eternity that can only be had from being eternity. My philosophy's are all based on my experiences. I no longer see the world as a bunch of seperate species and things, but a connected matrix of biology and energy that flows to and from a core that is the pure light of unconditional love.
Physically it's affected me in that you never come back down completely.
But why would you anyway? You can't look at the truth and then pertend you didn't see it and that it doesn't exist.
A thumbprint is a life long commitment.
As for visual activity ,it's constant. But I hardly notice it anymore.
Eternity is in the here an now. So is my life, so they constantly flow together or against each other. Meditation is key for me now.
I no longer consider my physical reality my true reality.

Shit man I can't explain this stuff Learyfan. It's just not possible.
The more I explain ,the more I need to explain what I was trying to explain
I guess you could sum it up as Robert Hunter did after his night of 250,000mcg.
"I died 1000 deaths"
Thats what it really is, death. Most people live there lives unsure about what happens when we die. Even the most devoutlly religous have anxiety about the big moment.
I don't , I welcome it. Thats how its changed me.

This is a moral question. It is akin to the problem of the anvil perched over the head of a unsuspecting by-standard. The question is are you morally responsible for actions that are not your own. Does inaction find you as responsible as the action itself. I find this level of moral responsibility impossible. It assumes you are morally obliged to everyone in the world before yourself. I don't think this can be resolved, and all actions end up being immoral, even seemingly moral ones. And to that end, two people killing each other whom have no prearranged understanding of mutual protection isn't something that is morally obliged to respond with. I am not saying there are no grounds for supporting their defense, just that it isn't justifiably through base line application of my own set of moral aptitudes. Personally, I would get involved if it was my own body on the line for doing so, but I could never support action that put others in that role for me. I would view it as entirely immoral. In addition, I rationally understand that taking sides in a civil war is a very risky proposition. Our history of regime change is piss poor. So with all that said, I think this is a poor choice. I sympathize, if it wasn't for the French support in our own war, we might still be English today...it was because of the medaling I don't support that we exist today. However, I can't let the ends justify the means, and such, can't support this action of the president. I would of advised my congressman to vote against such an action...though such action wasn't needed as we don't really have Representatives when it comes to war.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^kceaton1:
Derp.
Ron Paul needs to look up obligations for the U.N. and the security council.
ALSO, he should look up NATO some time. This is nothing more than someone that is concerned about politics and rules, but doesn't give a rats ass about watching a people slaughtered. Nice conscience; for a religous, creationist, with an agenda of his own.

Because if your aren't bombing people into the dust, you don't care about people.

Then, what do you suggest? Two people are killing each other, or trying to do so.
One has a gun, the other has an anti-acid tablet and is yelling for help. Do you idly watch or get involved?
Make no mistake, I know people will die.