Joe Rogan Experience #1366 - Richard Dawkins

Share
Embed
  • Published on Oct 22, 2019
  • Richard Dawkins, FRS FRSL is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. His latest book "Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide" is available now.

Comments • 20 268

  • Polumathēs
    Polumathēs 3 hours ago +1

    Joe should interview David Wood

  • Stevie Dalpe
    Stevie Dalpe 10 hours ago

    thexvid.com/video/zwP6wo2Gnwo/video.html

  • NPC -30
    NPC -30 21 hour ago

    I find myself moving away more and more from Richard Dawkins as soon as he starts talking about politics.

  • kagzfx
    kagzfx 22 hours ago +1

    Rogan only attacks Christianity for some reason..

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C Day ago

    Dorkins is a waste of time? Where is the virtue and morals and ethics in science that denies all religious thought or philosophy?

  • ahmad Al Ahmad
    ahmad Al Ahmad Day ago

    Make an interview with Saajid lipham.

  • Eagle Nebula
    Eagle Nebula Day ago

    2 of my favorite people discussing, nice.

  • wubba lubba lub lub

    OH FUCK, it finally happened!! THANK GOD!

  • Dickie Goodman
    Dickie Goodman Day ago

    Darwin embedded the practice of violent competition in his theory and that’s actually what has been adopted by the whole world. It doesn’t even matter if we can prove evolution. The problem is Darwin cursed humanity to a world devoid of mutual aid and cooperation which is actually far more representative of nature than survival of the strongest. Therefore Darwins theory was inherently flawed. Just one more false religion or cult😂

  • Bintoro Andy
    Bintoro Andy 2 days ago

    joe, please get ravi zacharias and john lennox

  • Mike Stirewalt
    Mike Stirewalt 2 days ago

    I think as intelligent and sophisticated a mind as Dawkins', together with the many upper level intellectuals that move in and have passed through his world, he can hardly have avoided conscious expanding molecules in his long life. If I believed his claim that he hasn't experienced psychedelics I would have to wonder what is missing in his willingness to explore within. Since there is still so much retrograde baggage associated with these substances - at least in the minds of the ignorant masses and particularly in the minds of the religious wackos - he is probably just unwilling to give his detractors the ammunition they would surely use. He's just being wise.

  • Domi !
    Domi ! 2 days ago +2

    faith is believing something for the sole reason of self comfort.

  • Domi !
    Domi ! 2 days ago +2

    as long as there is fear & ignorance .. people will buy into faith

  • Domi !
    Domi ! 2 days ago +1

    Richard Dawkins.. the king of reason

  • Jesper Meisel
    Jesper Meisel 3 days ago

    Dawkins and Joe did some dmt after this interview together, you see the cut early. joe asks him, -you want some absolute dmt? dawkins replied - very well yes, i do.

  • Alexander Kale
    Alexander Kale 3 days ago +1

    12:09 "Whenever someone is ridiculously anti-gay, I assume they are gay" - What does that say about people who are ridiculously anti-religion? (^.^)

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago

      @RCMYSM
      Good one! Dumbass.

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      Obviously you are gay!

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago +2

      @Alexander Kale
      Clearly, the analogy doesn't carry over. Does your dumb ass think that everybody that's strongly outspoken against rape, is secretly _for_ rape??? You have got to be one of the dumbest human beings alive....

      "I am getting the impression you are taking this much more serious than I am."
      -Your dumb ass says this, as if it has any bearing on your idiotic argument...

    • Alexander Kale
      Alexander Kale 3 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg Clearly not. We have two cases. In one case observing a man raging against gays leads you to presume he himself is gay. In the other, a man raging against religion does somehow *not* allow you to presume him to be religious.
      In order for this to not be a logical contradiction, one would have to postulate that the two cases are somehow fundamentally different, despite looking rather similar in principle.
      Besides, I am getting the impression you are taking this much more serious than I am.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago +1

      @Alexander Kale
      You clearly failed Logic class...

  • Kev 420
    Kev 420 3 days ago

    Richard Dawkins is the man.

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago

    I think I invented a few words in my time, but unlike Dawkins it's not written in a book, but rather on the interwebs...

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago

    Science is often guilty of the exact thing Dawkins criticizes the scriptures for, for example reducing the population what do you call that already?... I think we can conclude there is both truth present in science and the scriptures as there is falsehood... Debate won. Nice try Dawkins.

    • Pero
      Pero Day ago

      @Joseph C We're going around in circles because you haven't adressed why faith should be aplicable for justifying a belief when scientific evidence isn't availible. You just keep dismissing science by pointing out that science is used for bad purposes and that not all science is actually scientific in execution.
      Justify why faith would be a reliable path to truth, it's you who's keeping the circle closed..

    • Joseph C
      Joseph C Day ago

      @Pero We're going around in circles now. All good. You have your opinion and that's fine. I agree to some extent. To some extent I also disagree. Zen and the art of motorcycle is a book I really enjoyed, and it touches on the same issue without being "religious".

    • Pero
      Pero Day ago

      @Joseph C I'm talking about the scientific process here (the scientific method). Which is more testable, repeatable, more objective and generally more precise and useful for justifying what could be true than faith is.

    • Joseph C
      Joseph C Day ago

      @Pero There is fake science too.

    • Pero
      Pero Day ago

      @Joseph C Again, you're trying to make it about 'good' and 'bad', when it's not about that. It's about justifying belief in something using science or faith which isn't the same as informed trust or any kind of confidence based on a reasonable amount of evidence.

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago

    Another funny thing is that wahhabi, or religious hierarchies in islam are prone to handing out pamphlets about science in the Quran instead of the Quran itself and letting people form their own interpretation of the scriptures.

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago

    I think Dawkins is confused about the news of anti islamic opinion in the mid east... There is a growing number of people who are anti islamic extremists, like anti wahhabi, or anti religious hierarchy, or anti muslim brotherhood...

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago

    Hey Joe Rogan, it would be great if you could interview Ahmed Subhy Mansour... that would be awesome. You could include some of the points put forth by Dawkins... Wow!

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago

      You think Joe should invite a pedophile worshiping piece of shit on to the show??? Yeah, no.

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago

    Quality, the pursuit of perfection, this is a point faith and science have in common... This is the only way you can argue with Dawkins. He doesn't address that. But anyway. Moral values, yes, Dawkins doesn't take into account the fact that there are many values in the scriptures, instead he emphasises the idea of stoning adulterers or whatever. But I for one discard these interpretations. For example on issues of imperialism, I believe scriptures can and have been manipulated to justify such actions as spreading religion by the sword. Anyway. You can't debate with Dawkins unless you are famous, otherwise he just ignores it. Direct democracy for example is prescribed by the Quran, I think that is of a high moral value.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago

      "Quality, the pursuit of perfection, this is a point faith and science have in common... "
      -According to.. _you?_ LOL!
      "Dawkins doesn't take into account the fact that there are many values in
      the scriptures, instead he emphasises the idea of stoning adulterers or
      whatever. "
      -So your dumb ass thinks stoning adulterers falls under the "perfection" your dumb ass is speaking of? You aren't that bright, are you?
      " But I for one discard these interpretations."
      -I know, you idiots disgard everything you don't like, and pretend it doesn't exist. This is the definition of willful ignorance.
      "I believe scriptures can and have been manipulated to justify such actions as spreading religion by the sword."
      -But yet your dumb ass doesn't believe the literal God in the scriptures is.... You are such a fucking hypocrite, it's just sad.
      "Direct democracy for example is prescribed by the Quran, I think that is of a high moral value."
      -LOL! No, it's not. Women aren't allowed to do _anything._ You are so fucking clueless.

  • Joseph C
    Joseph C 3 days ago +1

    Muslims do believe in Jesus... As a prophet and not as God... But they believe in Jesus.

  • Raven Six
    Raven Six 4 days ago

    Great, now that more and more people believes that God doesn't exist.. people can finally pretty much do what they want, like rob banks or rich people, rape, abort unwanted children, etc... I mean why not? If there's no God and no devil and hell to pay for. Why worry about jail time if you have nothing to lose for. And why worry about death if it's what you say like turning off the switch. 😂

    • RoninTF2011
      RoninTF2011 2 days ago +1

      Self projecting? You know, religions don't come up with new sets of morals. They only codify the morals that already exsist in their societies...and often add a layer oof senseless ritual to it. According to the bible...rape , murder and robbery was considered ok anyway.
      Our morals come from our sense of empathy, and this was necessary for us to be able to develop as social species...no devine magic intervention needed.

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      These atheists grew up and nowlive in a predominantly theistic society.
      Speaking of growing up, you should try it sometime.
      You're like a petulant child.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago

      Your idea that atheism invalidates morals, is just a misconception. Atheists tend to have better morals, and this is proven by U.S. prison statistics. If what you say were true, prisons would be filled with atheists, but they aren't. Also, when atheists behave better, they do it because it's good, instead of doing it out of the fear of Hell. Dumbass.

  • 973 IndigoChildren
    973 IndigoChildren 4 days ago

    Damn this was COLD Joe 👌🏽

  • Matthew LEVI
    Matthew LEVI 4 days ago

    Azusa Street 1906-1909 proves the existence of God!!!

  • Matthew LEVI
    Matthew LEVI 4 days ago

    2 foolish people. In the last days....

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago +1

      @RCMYSM
      "You think we think God is in the sky?
      Ignoramus!?"
      -I'm an Ignoramus, because I can read what you idiotic Bible says? Sure thing, Dumbass!

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      You think we think God is in the sky?
      Ignoramus!

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 4 days ago +1

      Oh right, the guys that _don't_ have an invisible friend in the sky, are the fools... LOL! You Religitards fucking crack me up!

  • tony
    tony 5 days ago

    “Do you think it’s possible to give people secular structure?”
    Yes, it’s called politics.

  • John Cotton
    John Cotton 6 days ago

    John Lennox owns Dawkins lol carry on

  • Neo Joto
    Neo Joto 6 days ago +4

    *talking about spending eternity in heaven*
    Joe: *out of nowhere* have you tried psychedelics?

  • Chris Bauer
    Chris Bauer 6 days ago

    Damn I gotta git me a DNA tie🙌

  • Trevor Murray
    Trevor Murray 6 days ago +2

    government being the most dangerous superstition.

  • Naive 6
    Naive 6 6 days ago

    It seems to be clear that a God in the sense of a miracle-working, interventionist deity does not exist, as no evidence of his miracle working interventionist activity can be found. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
    Obviously it cannot be excluded that some kind of "god" (whatever that is supposed to be) exists outside of our universe. But even if this were the case, it follows from basic scientific principles like the conservation of energy, that such a "god" cannot interact with the physical world in any way. In particular, he cannot write books, nor can he put thoughts (which consist of electric currents in the brain) into people's heads. This shows that, whether or not god exists, religion is wrong.
    GOD-DELUSION4LIFE👍🇱🇷🕊🙋👍

  • Shinobi Engineer
    Shinobi Engineer 7 days ago

    Thank you... BOTH !!! ✌🤓👍

  • T C
    T C 7 days ago

    Can we get Dr. Sam Parnia on please!

  • Ray Murphy
    Ray Murphy 7 days ago +1

    I actually like Dawkins. And I've read his books. But he's guilty of what Jordan Peterson accused Sam Harris and other New Atheists of. He hasn't outgrown religion. He has never seriously considered it. It's like me saying I've outgrown My Little Pony because I've never been a fan.

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      Christianity is false, therefore God doesn't exist?
      Nice logical fallacy..smh!

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 6 days ago

      " He has never seriously considered it."
      -How do you figure that???
      " It's like me saying I've outgrown My Little Pony because I've never been a fan."
      -No, it's nothing like that. He never stated his reason for being an atheist is that he's never been a fan of Christianity...

    • RoninTF2011
      RoninTF2011 6 days ago

      How do you determine that Dawkins did not seriously consider religion? Why do you think that his title "outgrowing religion" onyl apllies to him personally?

  • kyle penna
    kyle penna 7 days ago

    Politics of religion is BS. The community and the sense that there is something bigger than yourself is a beautiful thing.

    • RoninTF2011
      RoninTF2011 6 days ago

      Well and true, but why should that community be based on a believe in some made up beeing?

    • Mark Terrain
      Mark Terrain 7 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg it's a dichotomy.. if it's true this being tortures people for eternity, then it's true that it also sends people to paradise for eternity

    • kyle penna
      kyle penna 7 days ago

      Nah idk what you are talking about. To me it’s about something bigger than us, ideas like collective consciousness and how every living thing is connected as such. I didn’t say anything about torture.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 7 days ago

      A bigger thing that tortures people for eternity, is a _beautiful_ thing????

  • Any Minor World That Breaks Apart

    I was really looking forward to this but I cant stand that croak in Dawkins voice. Its so annoying I cant even listen anymore. He needs a lozenge

  • No Nami
    No Nami 8 days ago

    Dawkins: Don't you think the lights go out? Rogan: IDK. ... Therein lies the fundamental problem Dawkins as a scientist makes. You can't put God in a test tube or under a microscope. You either believe, or you don't. God is a personal belief, which has nothing to do with scientific evidence. How can you even demand such a thing when God is beyond the physical realm which science deals with?

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 4 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      Okaaay, a simple wrong would have done just fine, but...uh!

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 4 days ago

      @RCMYSM
      Wow, good one.... Loser.

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 5 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      What you just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent comment, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 7 days ago

      "You can't put God in a test tube or under a microscope."
      -How do you figure that? God is supposed to be all powerful, and thus wouldn't be limited in any way. You aren't that bright, are you?
      "God is a personal belief, which has nothing to do with scientific evidence."
      -God is either real, or he isn't. That's perfectly valid to want to find out for sure.
      "How can you even demand such a thing when God is beyond the physical realm which science deals with?"
      -Your dumb ass is just _asserting_ that he's beyond science. Did you dumb ass get that factoid out of the Bible? No, you are just making shit up.

  • Roberto Jordão
    Roberto Jordão 8 days ago +3

    13:46 What a weird moment. I think Joe went from laughing to "is this old man dying in my office!?"

  • J Phoenix
    J Phoenix 8 days ago +9

    "Has anyone you've ever debated ever had any good points?"
    "No"

    • Ro Ems
      Ro Ems 2 days ago

      Joseph C
      Science and morality have no relationship at all. We don’t get our morals from religions anyway. Secular morality is much more superior than any religious model, and happens to be what most scientists believe in anyway.

    • Ro Ems
      Ro Ems 2 days ago

      RCMYSM
      The existence of anything and everything is a scientific one. You don’t just get to exclude something because there is no evidence for it.

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago +1

      @Joseph C
      I was referring to Dawkins description in the video of his book. He omitted the Quran, just saying!
      Yes, you are correct. There is no good or evil science, there is a higher value. So much so that even science is supposed to be constricted by ethic panels.
      To me Dawkins is silly and unscientific. The question of the existence or nonexistence of God is not a scientific one.

    • Joseph C
      Joseph C 3 days ago

      @RCMYSM I did not notice, as I have not read it. Science can lead to bad and good decisions. If we had no moral values, we could easily use science to justify the most immoral of things.

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      @Joseph C
      Notice how when describing his new book he avoids something, wondering why?

  • Scepticul
    Scepticul 8 days ago

    Bring Eckhart Tolle

    • J King
      J King 7 days ago

      too expensive

  • Garry Williams
    Garry Williams 8 days ago

    Thankyou both.

  • Grega P
    Grega P 8 days ago

    Some religious hacker tried to mess with this stream several times. All praise Jaime, the God of Cyber, who does not bow
    to such feeble malicious attempts!

  • Michael Corsale
    Michael Corsale 8 days ago +1

    This guys whole argument falls down with his refusal to take psychedelics

  • FRETZ
    FRETZ 9 days ago +1

    Sometimes I wish joe would simplify his commentary when he talks to intelligent people. Especially for the deaf and hard of hearing communities. The subtitles must be horrendous lol.

  • WHATSHOULD MYNAMEBE
    WHATSHOULD MYNAMEBE 9 days ago

    Don’t mind me.. just looking for the South Park comments.

  • RiSEiNSiDE
    RiSEiNSiDE 9 days ago

    IDIOT! Trying DMT on your deathbed isn’t wise you close minded chickenshit! Might be a connection between religion and DMT?

    • Mark Terrain
      Mark Terrain 7 days ago

      Like wtf is he thinking! that would be horrible 🤣

  • T C
    T C 9 days ago

    Completely believing or not believing at all is just crazy. This guy may be very intelligent but acting like you know for certain about death is extremely ignorant. People on both spectrums are looking for comfort because we all fear the unknown.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago

      @RCMYSM
      "Haven't seen you on the Santa Claus or unicorn video comments section, why is that? Oh! I know!"
      -Well why don't you share with us, and make a fool out of yourself!

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      @asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      Haven't seen you on the Santa Claus or unicorn video comments section, why is that? Oh! I know!

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 6 days ago

      @T C
      " Look up Dr. Sam Parnia. Please & let me know what you think."
      -I'm not buying it, until it's replicated under laboratory conditions, and peer-reviewed.

    • T C
      T C 7 days ago

      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg Look up Dr. Sam Parnia. Please & let me know what you think.

    • T C
      T C 8 days ago

      No ones talking about Santa Claus. I’m not talking about Jesus either.
      But acting like you know for certain that when you die nothing happens it’s plain stupid. How do we know we don’t wake up as a baby again?
      I also thought science has proven that energy doesn’t just go away but always continues? Aren’t we energy?

      It always seems that people far on either side of the spectrum end up being closed minded that dismiss anything.
      “Don’t find silly stories comforting”
      You must not have read what I said or you cant comprehend it.
      Weather you believe in a creator or you believe death is the end, neither side really knows but acts for certain that they do bc knowledge is comforting & the unknown is scary.
      I’m just a person that decided a long time ago to not make my mind up about anything and just enjoy the moment.

  • jigga jaw
    jigga jaw 9 days ago +1

    Eh, I think dawkins really wasted his time bashing religion for so long. It's going to change and eventually, die out anyway. Dawkins or no dawkins. And he never really seemed to understand its place in the world or why it existed in the first place. He claimed to and gave it his best shot, but it's pretty clear he didn't understand it. He says early in the interview "I don't know what they psychological reason for it is". Well that right there, dawkins ol boy, kinda disqualifies most of your career here. Don't ya think? I mean come on. You're gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than that. At least fucking understand your enemy. I'm a little bit disgusted here..

    • RCMYSM
      RCMYSM 3 days ago

      Yep, from a strictly evolutionary point of view, you have to argue that religion is a necessity for human development.
      As they like to say, look at the facts.

  • Daniel Pinheiro Barreto

    Joe it would be awesome to have professor Yuval Noah Harari on the show!
    He is an Israeli historian and a professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of the popular science bestsellers Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Two great books that talk a lot about religion and what drives humans to believe in things we made up (among a lot of other subjects).

  • Sue Kirchner
    Sue Kirchner 9 days ago +2

    This guy was a total terd.

  • Smartphones Laptops
    Smartphones Laptops 9 days ago +7

    We want Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins together.

  • Smartphones Laptops
    Smartphones Laptops 9 days ago +10

    My hero Richard Dawkins,
    He has more to talk about than religion,

    • Frosty31
      Frosty31 Day ago

      @Eelis Juvonen I wonder what he comes up with....
      Jk I don't care.

    • Eelis Juvonen
      Eelis Juvonen Day ago

      @Frosty31 "Well god is real" Wow, you sure got him. No way he's gonna come back from that!

    • Frosty31
      Frosty31 2 days ago

      @Smartphones Laptops well you brought up physics as if you understand it and practice it.
      If you don't have post high school education, just say so.

    • Smartphones Laptops
      Smartphones Laptops 2 days ago

      @Frosty31 is that your opinion or you study?
      That's interesting if it's not your opinion because you asked me my education level.

    • Smartphones Laptops
      Smartphones Laptops 2 days ago

      @Frosty31 my education level is connected to my job , my job is measuring people by heart.

  • Malik Arran
    Malik Arran 9 days ago +9

    "Do you have any experience with psychedelics? Would you be interested?"
    LoL, damn Joe.

    • madgick3
      madgick3 3 days ago +1

      funny that he asked though, because Dawkins was on Sam Harris podcast after this and they spoke about it there too. Sounded a lot like he's going to try some LSD in the near future

  • donkee
    donkee 9 days ago +1

    47:26 I can attest to this claim made by Dawkins; there is a large (and increasing) number of 'Cultural Muslims' or 'Traditional Muslims' so to speak, who abide by many of the foundational principles of Sharia law, who willingly attend Islamic education and who, in a way, see themselves as members of the Islamic world, yet they have a very wobbly belief in the afterlife and the Islamic canon as put forth in the Quran - they choose not to abandon their cultural heritage but at the same time cannot conceive of the idea of there being a supreme being who transcends time and space and precedes the creation of the universe as there is simply not enough valid evidence to support that. I find that such people are most numerous in parts of the islamic conquered world (Europe primarily).

  • Montreal Repair Center
    Montreal Repair Center 9 days ago +2

    Who is here for Richard Dawkins???

    • Maruchan Nuudle
      Maruchan Nuudle 9 days ago +1

      I was here for Dickhard Rawkins. I was mistaken

  • Yato Yoboku
    Yato Yoboku 10 days ago

    We do live in a Republic.

  • Malachi
    Malachi 10 days ago

    Look up James Tour if you want truth.

    • Malachi
      Malachi 3 days ago

      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg I know my stance and I would totally debate if I had time, I’m done with all of my exams on the 13th so if you want to debate then I’m open to it. I agree there are some ignorant Christians but there are also many ignorant atheists. I am studying biochemistry and I like to look at all the possibilities. A lot of evolutionary science makes sense and I could see why you would believe it. Again it’s the organic chemistry part that doesn’t add up and it’s just too hard to believe with what I know. It’s also hard to dispute the history of Jesus and the fact that most of the disciples were killed in horrific ways for what you call a lie. If you met me in real life I’m sure you wouldn’t say I’m ignorant and you’d probably have a little more respect. As abiogenesis goes I’ll look into it later today if you watch the video by James Tour. I’ll still look into it even if you don’t look in to what I believe because I seek the truth.

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 3 days ago

      @Malachi
      " I’m not trying to debate right now as I have finals all week."
      -Well if you aren't prepared to defend the bullshit you are spewing, then shut the fuck up.
      " I’ve given you a video with my argument"
      -No, this is somebody else's argument, and this isn't how debates work. Why can't you get these simple points through your thick skull?
      "he’s a very credible scientist who is calling out the ignorance of all other scientists."
      -Yet the fact remains, that his argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy, which you have not refuted in any way.
      "If they came up with a valid theory for how organic molecules formed and
      created proteins and those proteins bonded perfectly to create life
      then maybe I’d jump on your atheist train."
      -No, you Religitards will remain cemented in your brainwashed state no matter what.
      "Until then an intelligent designer is the only explanation that seem logical. "
      -It's only logical in the minds of people that don't actually know anything about Logic, which is practically _all_ Creationists.
      "What argument did I miss?"
      -You haven't refuted the idea that Creationists tend to be scientifically ignorant, or the idea that Abiogenesis makes sense.

    • Malachi
      Malachi 3 days ago

      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg I’m not trying to debate right now as I have finals all week. I’ve given you a video with my argument, he’s a very credible scientist who is calling out the ignorance of all other scientists. If they came up with a valid theory for how organic molecules formed and created proteins and those proteins bonded perfectly to create life then maybe I’d jump on your atheist train. Until then an intelligent designer is the only explanation that seem logical. What argument did I miss?

    • asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
      asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg 4 days ago

      @Malachi
      "watch his 22 minute video on how the origin of life has not yet been explained and tell me if anything he said is wrong."
      -No, that's an appeal to authority fallacy, and that's just not how debates work. Formulate your own arguments. I can tell you right now, his entire argument is an argument from ignorance.
      "Then tell me your theory on how organic molecules were formed before life."
      -It's not mine, it's scientist's theory. Also, a lack of an explanation, doesn't disprove it.
      Also, you failed to address my arguments. Don't be a coward.