Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Interesting documentary; I may not agree with everything or with Dawkins' anti-religion agenda; but science should be used to assess our constructs of morality


Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life Episode 1 Richard Dawkins (Subs) - YouTube

[faye]

do you mean , like your idea....."i believe there should be a subversive group in all muslim countries who assassinate these people to purge society......like ninja or hashashin from midievel times."?
like other muslims, who don't think the same as yourself?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Not exactly, since it is not merely difference but the impact and harm caused by their mentality.

[faye]

and if a 14 year old chose to dispute your particular belief about morality, etc, would they have to be assassinated by your neo-hashashins?

[randolph85]

eh

there's smug atheism which i don't like and then there's smug atheism with a british accent which is 10x worse.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

and if a 14 year old chose to dispute your particular belief about morality, etc, would they have to be assassinated by your neo-hashashins?

No, they'd be sent home to their parents to have sense beaten into them.

[pashtanajan]

The beginning of the video turned me off: "More and more realize that there is no God." Realize or come to believe? There is no factual evidence proving God or disapproving God, therefore the producers of the video have no merit in what they're saying. Atheism, just like any other religion (yes I said religion) is a belief. Atheism is the belief in no religion, and in this day and age it has evolved into its own religion. It used to be an individualistic kind of thing back in the day, but now it like Christianity or any other religion, has followers that clique together and hold an anti-religious banner.

You'll see that many scientists of now and before (like Albert Einstein) don't blatantly say there is no God, as it is illogical to hold a stance on anything that is not proven with facts (not theories). I laugh at atheist scientists or extremely religious scientists, as they're both nonsensical in their beliefs.

[MostafaM]

Atheism is the denial of believing in a higher creator.

It´s not believing in God´s non-existence.

Nobody knows what or who caused the big bang but there is scientific evidence that everything happening in this universe is the will of a higher creator.

[pashtanajan]

Atheism is the denial of believing in a higher creator.

It´s not believing in God´s non-existence.

Nobody knows what or who caused the big bang but there is scientific evidence that everything happening in this universe is the will of a higher creator.

That's a paradox. But yes, you're right in the fact that there has to be a cause for an effect. The cause being a higher deity in this instance. Of course, as humans we know very little, and we can only rely on our limited sensory system to arrive at a truth (therefore the truth we see is muddled and not really the truth).

EDIT: Oh yes, and the Big Bang is a theory, we can't say it really happened. Of course, a scientific theory is based on many observations that come to arrive at such a theory with logic. However, I stay away from firmly believing in any theory. Believing a 100% in science is like believing a 100% in a religion –one must be moderate in how firmly they believe in something, and they should be open-minded to other possibilities that may arise. Many theories (that most of the scientific community had firmly believed in) have now been disproven, and who knows? Perhaps, decades from now the Big Bang may be disproven as well. I like to learn about theories -but that's it, they're just theories.

[MostafaM]

It´s not.

Denying something is based on subjective and/or objective facts.
It can be arguemented with reasonable criterion.

Believing in something is purely subjective and not based on any kind of comprehensible facts or theories.

[pashtanajan]

It´s not.

Denying something is based on subjective and/or objective facts.
It can be arguemented with reasonable criterion.

Believing in something is purely subjective and not based on any kind of comprehensible facts or theories.

You just mentioned denying something is based on subjective and/or objective facts. Therefore, denying something can be also equated to believing that something is not there.

Definition of deny:
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

[MostafaM]

You just mentioned denying something is based on subjective and/or objective facts. Therefore, denying something can be also equated to believing that something is not there.

Definition of deny:
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

A subjective fact can be reasonable, too.

Believing in something can´t be argued for in a logical way.

Denying something with reason is equal to refuting it.

Scientifically, the "will of God that expresses itself in all aspects of this universe" can be refuted because there is no theory to describe it nor can that theory ever be backed by repeatable experiments.

God himself has to reveal himself to allow the equation:

believing in god = undeniable existence of god

There is not other way to scientifically back it up.

[pashtanajan]

A subjective fact can be reasonable, too.

Believing in something can´t be argued for in a logical way.

Denying something with reason is equal to refuting it.

Scientifically, the "will of God that expresses itself in all aspects of this universe" can be refuted because there is no theory to describe it nor can that theory ever be backed by repeatable experiments.

God himself has to reveal himself to allow the equation:

believing in god = undeniable existence of god

There is not other way to scientifically back it up.

First of all, a subjective fact is a contradiction – the two words cannot go together. A subjective statement cannot be a fact. A fact, in itself, is objective.

Furthermore, you can believe in something and you can also prove it with objective facts.

A belief is:

1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

So, holding a belief has nothing to do with not being able to prove it with logic.

What I'm saying is, science can only prove or disapprove what it can see. Therefore, the endeavour some scientists are making in order to refute religious beliefs is nonsensical in the aspect that it can not be denied or refuted with science. Furthermore, science is based on what is seeable from the eyes of a human being. Therefore, philosophically speaking using science as a tool will help you arrive at a so called 'fact' or 'truth' that you've arrived at with your limited sensory system. Technically speaking, everything you see is an illusion – firmly believing in science and/or a religion is nonsensical.

Also, I believe Richard Dawkins (alongside many other scientists) is trying to persuade the masses into believing that there is no God or higher deity in play in the universe. Most atheist/irreligious Scientists believe that if the world is to become irreligious or heavily atheist, then it would become a better world. However, that is not the case – though religion has caused a lot of bloodshed and war, without it the mass population of the world will have nothing to believe in (a moral higher divine code of law(s) that most governmental institutions are based on). Having no religion in the world will wreak more havoc than having a world with it. It's better to have people believe (even if their beliefs are not true) in whatever it is they believe in than nothing at all. To be a 'good' atheist means you must be highly emotionally intelligent. Unfortunately, not a lot of people are emotionally intelligent in this world (they need something 'higher' and 'holier' than themselves in order to be 'good').

Anyway, I think I'm going off tangent.

[MostafaM]

Pashtanajan,

pure objectivism doesn´t exist because everything a human being does is based on his own understanding, his own background etc.
A subjective fact, a theory or an understanding of a thing can be confirmed with reason and after checking the essence of it, it can become an "objective fact".

Yes, you can believe in something but the moment you prove it with facts, it becomes knowing and not believing anymore.

[Breshna]

I couldn't watch it, its been banned in this Country.