Hitler was not a jew his parents were christians but he turned his back on that very early
"He takes the worst ...( 1 year ago by Quietlydoesit)
"He takes the worst of religion" So you admit there is a nasty side to your faith? Yes, of course you do. You can't deny it. Islam supported the nazis. Turkey, Bosnian muslims, Albanians muslims and other Arab States...all were enthusiastic Jew killers and Serb killers too (Serbs saved thousands of Jews and US, downed pilots)
Science is an ...( 11 months ago by idemt)
Science is an amazing thing so long as the observer is objective, it's the interpretation that most of the times leads to differences. This pseudo-debate of "Religion vs Science" is just a means of getting people to choose sides and to show incompatibility between the two. Science is the means of getting to know the signs (i.e. creation) but which direction are the signs pointing? Undoubtedly towards the Creator
Dawkins would own ...( 11 months ago by ogami72)
Dawkins would own this guy in a debate!!!
I dont think so.( 11 months ago by Iftigmail)
I dont think so.
No, you admit ...( 11 months ago by soulmman)
No, you admit there's a nasty side to people following faith, and that's just people.
Oh and you're disgusting listening to, eww.
Islamic Turks ...( 11 months ago by Quietlydoesit)
Islamic Turks slaughtered Armenians,Serbians,Kurds and they stole their children too. These are historical facts. Grow up will you! Learn from history. Islam is the enemy of the world. Islam is dog shit. Fuck Islam.
English is his ...( 10 months ago by stonecoldcrazy6)
English is his first language, young boy. You clearly have nothing to say so its best you stay off the computer and avoid debates beyond your level of understanding and/or comprehension.
"he takes the worst ...( 10 months ago by foongabasthor)
"he takes the worst of religion..."
No he takes religion in its most basic and strident form.
Science is a method NOT a dogma.
Religion is Dogma independent of truth or probity.
Nazism is not a science you idiot!!
what a stupid clumsy minded religious bout of intellectual dishonesty.
Dawkins would destroy this guy in a debate.
hey where's the ...( 10 months ago by DoJaenin)
hey where's the rest? It was just starting to get interesting!
he doesn't claim ...( 10 months ago by samshou)
he doesn't claim that nazism is a science, but that the nazis believed in the "SCIENCE" of eugenics. listen more carefully. and no offense, but your points would be more easily validate if you weren't so rude.
he doesn't claim ...( 10 months ago by samshou)
he doesn't claim that nazism was a science, but that nazis adopted the "SCIENCE" of eugenics, if you listen more carefully. and no offense - but your points would be more easily validated if you presented them in a less rude manner.
"science has a lot ...( 10 months ago by foongabasthor)
"science has a lot of good in it...and a lot of bad.."
Again, Science does NOT lend itself to opaque value laden terms like "good" or "bad".
Its just a method - not a truth or dogma in its self. A Nazi can use science...so can Muslims (including Islamo-fascists). It doesn't make it bad or good.
...in contrast to religion.
i guess a better ...( 10 months ago by samshou)
i guess a better way to interpret the generalized statement of "science is good/bad" is that science, or the METHOD that is science, can lead to a "lot of good" as well as "a lot of bad" - as was manifest by the eugenics movement embraced by Nazism.
i would say that religion, or at least Islam, is not just a truth/dogma but is also a method -- it is a way of life. and like you said, depending on who is "using" it, it can lead to good and bad.
islam is not a ...( 10 months ago by foongabasthor)
islam is not a method...in the sense that it gives you techniques to allow you to make your own judgements.
it TELLS you what to believe.
Like Mo went to the 7th heaven on an intergalactic donkey.
Ther r many thngs ...( 7 months ago by Mothiur)
Ther r many thngs scienc cnt xplain yet u blieve tht it s only a mater of tme untl it wil prvide an answr. Ths s clled faith in th unseen...jst lke rligon. It s a dogma cz you wll hve hpe in it ntil you dy, evn tho it wldn't hav prvided th answrs evn by thn.
N so wht if Dwkins could dstroy hm in a dbate. I mean, Im sre I cud beat a 12 year old athist in a dbate...bt i cud be fals. And th idiot-bliev me-poseses mor knwldge at th tip of 1 of hs hair, thn Dwkins does in evry 1 of hs slfish gnes.
oh ya how about ...( 6 months ago by itsoutahere)
oh ya how about steroids and all that shitt in our food thats killing us, last time I checked thats science....
Science requires ...( 5 months ago by TheCZMan)
Science requires means. Thus no everyone can use it. Since not everything can be falsified, a society fielding a lot of scientists will be superior to push its agenda on a society fielding less or no scientists.
Science as a method can be abused. And it is all what matters.
Putting Science "VS ...( 2 months ago by descartes75)
Putting Science "VS" religion completely distorts the truth and buys into the misonceptions about religion (Islam).
Unfortunately, muslims in the west are finding themselves in the middle of a conflict between 'white religion' and the 'white science' and often try to take the side of the church. Most of what Dawkin says about religion is refuting Genesis. Of course genesis is absurd.
What do you mean, " ...( 1 month ago by bayreuth79)
What do you mean, "of course Genesis is absurd"? If you mean the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, I would agree; but there are far more sophisticated and intelligent interpretations than this. St. Augustine, who wrote more than 1500 years ago, said that the world was created at a moment of time by a single act of divine power, but that it was produced not in the form in which we know it but in its 'potentiality'. This interpretation of Genesis is similar to evolutionary view of things
Futhermore: Dawkins ...( 1 month ago by bayreuth79)
Futhermore: Dawkins attacks the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, not the more sophisticated interpretations that have been extant for centuries. Augustine, Greogory of Nyssa, etc,.
Array( 1 month ago by descartes75)
hmm NO.
Dawkings hates religion. His is not a theological objection bro, it is a fundamental objection to the very notion of creationism. I don't agree with all that he says but let's call white white.
Hmmm. You said that ...( 1 month ago by bayreuth79)
Hmmm. You said that "Most of what Dawkins says about religion is refuting Genesis" and that he objects to the "very notion of creationism". Ok, how does he refute Genesis and creationism? Not by science, but by philosophising from scientific data. Other scientists have the same scientific data and reach a different philosophic conclusion (Francis Collins, for example). "Creationism" = fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. Dawkins attacks that. He doesn't deal with Augustine, F. Collins, etc
I am a theologian- ...( 1 month ago by bayreuth79)
I am a theologian- and I have noticed in reading Dawkins (and the other 'fundamentalist' atheists) how ignorant they are of theology and the bible. As has been said before, these biased atheists simply set up a 'straw-man' which is easy to knock over. I can admire honest atheism; but I cannot admire this anger-motivated vitriol from 'fundamentalist' atheists. They only deal with the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible and hardly at all with theology. Its a mediocre critique.
Oh and you're disgusting listening to, eww.
Science as a method can be abused. And it is all what matters.
Unfortunately, muslims in the west are finding themselves in the middle of a conflict between 'white religion' and the 'white science' and often try to take the side of the church. Most of what Dawkin says about religion is refuting Genesis. Of course genesis is absurd.
Dawkings hates religion. His is not a theological objection bro, it is a fundamental objection to the very notion of creationism. I don't agree with all that he says but let's call white white.