Originally posted by JoshF
Can you hear that??? That is the sound of the wave of atheist butt hurt that is ready to come crashing into this thread. Pretty good video with some
pretty good points. I personally do not believe in a personified god but Im open to the idea of a god of sorts.
You always manage to slip in some derogatory or otherwise offensive statement in nearly all your posts that I've seen. I know you're new, but get
over yourself. The boards are better without people voicing out intolerance.
Just think about it.
Also, no one's "Butt Hurt" about this video. It's not even that clever.
First, he's making moral claims about science. That's a vast misappropriation. Science is not about morality. It can help us have the knowledge to
make moral decisions, but morality is a different subject. Science really can't be blamed for any immorality, though can be thanked for the knowledge
that helps us be moral.
So his video falls apart right there.
He also claims Dawkins was focusing on the worst of morality from religion. Dawkins was mostly looking at the facts and evidences. not moralities. If
you want to compare the worst of science to the worst of religion, I really want to see how any scientific knowledge is comparable to slaughtering
virgins as sacrifices, destroying entire cities, men, women, children, babies, (livestock), just for having different beliefs. Burning non-believers
alive, killing family members for religious honor. Ect.
He talks about our top soil eroding, and he's right. But the point he's making is wrong. For one, the reason we know our top soil is eroding is by
scientific analysis. We'd still be pumping our land full of nutrients and killing it if we didn't further gain knowledge of the damages it causes.
There's nothing moral or immoral about knowing that we can use certain nutrients to get more out of our land. There's nothing moral or immoral about
knowing that it damages the land. What's moral or immoral, is what we do with the knowledge. However, we're better off knowing than not.
He mentions the 20th century killers being non-religious, fighting for ideologies instead. For the most part, he's right. Though, he leaves out that
the most known killer from that time, Adolf Hitler, was a devout catholic who repeatedly stated he thought he was doing God's will.
He also blames science for eugenics. Eugenics is the knowledge that some gene's are better than others. There's nothing immoral about that. I suffer
from some genetic disorders, I'll be the first to say than not all genes are equal. Class Warfare caused the mentality in the U.S. And in Germany, it
was ideology and religion that decided that Jews genes were inferior, that they shouldn't reproduce, and that they should be killed. It wasn't
scientific, it was taking a basic scientific fact(Which, hitler probably didn't understand that well in the first place, given that he rejected
evolution and banned text books teaching it) and mending it to suit immoral religious means. That's not a fall on sciences part. I mean, hitlers
hatred of the Jews, was inspired by the writings of Martin Luther(The founder of the Lutheran Religion), who hated them because of their religious
beliefs of not accepting who Luther thought was the Son of God(Some chap named Jesus, he believed).
So this guy's attempt at blaming the holocaust on Science is false. Very false.
This guy, his video
is on the Internet
, after being filmed by a Camera
in a Lighted
room. I'm sure he drove home in his
afterwards, and watched some TV
. Seriously, is he really trying to argue that science is wrong, or immoral? You know someones not
worth criticizing when they try attacking our objective pursuit of knowledge that has Given so much, and told us even more.
He might as well be attacking learning and thinking directly.
Again, the point of Dawkins work, is that there's not facts or evidences to support religious beliefs. This guy ignores that. He'd have a really
hard time saying there's no facts or evidences for scientific beliefs(since science is made by looking at facts and evidences). He'd also have a
hard time trying to say (islam, in this case) has evidence for being true. It's a belief, but not one that the evidence supports, same with other
So, this is a horrible rebuttal. He doesn't really say anything that truthfully runs counter to The God Delusion. In fact, The God Delusion could be
used by itself as a rebuttal to this guys claims.
How many who've watched this video and agree'd with it, have actually read The God Delusion? I'm quite sure it's there's very few, if any, who