The Root Of All Evil?
The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45-minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK. Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.
His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous. Dawkins’s book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail. (Excerpt from en.wikipedia.org)
Part 1
Part 2
I like his point that absolute faith very often leads down a ruinous path. I also like his point that dismissing reason as the correct basis on which to formulate our beliefs, in favour of ‘faith’ leads to division between peoples.
However, I believe he fails to see his own unwavering faith in science. For any “scientific fact”, if you haven’t seen the data, understood the experimental method and controls, and evaluated the statistics on which the conclusion is based, you are taking that ‘fact’ on faith, and faith alone.
In the documentary, he goes around the world interviewing people with strongly held (indoctrinated) religious beliefs, but then, mostly, mutes what they are saying, and ‘paraphrases’ it in voice-over. I’m not sure why it irked me, I probably would not have cared what they were saying, or would have been incensed by their lunacy.
Worth a watch though.
The language is the indoctrination.
Good observational work. Dawkins believes (rightly so) that religion has been a source of unchecked and endless intolerance and destruction throughout history. But his faith in science is sometimes lacking in the same objectivity he applies to religion.
Scientists, like mullas, priests, etc. share the same human nature. They can be impartial or be opportunists. There is regular news of researchers and scientists who, funded by special interest, minimize the negative and inflate the positive in forwarding the agenda of their financial benefactors.
And while faith has it’s dark places, there are many who become better, more responsible and more constructive because of that faith.
Dawkins goes too far in creating a ‘black’ and ‘white’ contrast between science and religion.
The foundation history of the Mormon faith, for example, is one of the most discredited in the western world. But most Mormons you’ll meet are often honest to a fault.
Atheism doesn’t address well explored hypothesis like collective consciousness or offer anything rational for individuals that exhibit true para-normal abilities. And ‘science’ is largely responsible for horrendous missteps like Eugenics.
Science, like religion, won’t change human nature just like Communism eliminates dictators or Capitalism workes best without regulations.
We have to stop creating divisions and start looking for common ground.
I agree with what was stated by “Shane” and “Paul” here.
Dawkins’ absolute “believe” in science is just as dangerous as the faith of extremist Jews, Muslims and Christians. I am sure that he would not object to genetic engineering, stem cell research etc.
Drawing a black and white picture is bad journalism. If one decides to make a documentary one should be fair to all sides.
A documentary should gave the viewer the chance to make up his own mind, this is clearly lacking, I believe it should not be called that (“propaganda” is more appropriate”).
For his blatant bias the “documentary” deserves no more that 1 out of 5 Stars.
Best Regards,
Der Oberst
I admire Dawkin’s courage but not his methods. Where I think Dawkins, and most science in general fail is that it seems to have forgotten its roots in natural philosophy. The major fault-line of science is that no one is given an education that guides the student through the chain of reasoning that led to the diverse number of scientific disciplines that we now have. We’re given brisk coverage of Galileo’s trial without understanding why it was such a big deal at the time. Only with great effort can a person learn the intermediary debates that underpin much of our understanding today.
Dawkins expresses a lot of European Enlightenment beliefs and implicitly assumes that those ideals are shared throughout all of society. He creates a lot of tension and conflict by mowing over that fundamental debate that used to give science and religion common ground for rational discussion. He ultimately portrays himself as a man completely ignorant about the fundamental philosophical support of science while getting his feathers all riled up without understanding why.
No one can claim to understand science without first understanding its roots in the European Enlightenment and natural philosophy.
at least science dont have to believe in some fantasy god or base their whole moral’s on a book written by a bunch of old thinkers. the ultimate truth is, the human mind can be maniupulated no matter how smart or inteligent we might be, history proves this. i believe that the reason religion have been around all these centuries, is due to fact that its been passed on from generation to generation, therefor, making it seem authentic to us. but a time will come in the far future when absolute faith in religion will cease to exist, and become totally irellevant.
I fear some hear ate missing the obvious.
Any real research involves publication and pear revision.
Faith in the unknown, and empirical data, are opposites.
i disagree with “Der Oberst” absolute believe in science is not as dangerous as absolute believe in religion. No one has ever really died in the name of science as people have in the name of religion. Science tries to look at the world uniformly. Religion keeps people like **** and lesbians from being treated as equals, and religion denies certain groups of people freedoms that they should be free to have.
i am appalled by the pseudo-intellectual garbage in the comments above..
to insult dawkins method based on your utopian ideals that science and religion deserve equal status shows how uneducated you all are. it literally screams ignorance. dawkins does not have faith in science. indeed he would certainly agree that unlike fabricated stories, science requires no faith to explain truth. furthermore if any of you starbucks philosophers bothered to learn what the scientific method IS AT ALL you would see that it is specifically designed to DISPROVE A HYPOTHESIS. to sit there and give credit to any faith structure by equating baseless incredibility with peer reviewed evidence is a pathetic.
as for not going into ‘depth’ about enlightenment views…dawkins assumed his audience would be educated. he wouldn’t need to spend time rehashing what people already knew. it would have been insulting to do so…clearly he never counted on you guys.
bottom line. you should be ashamed of yourselves.
haha this bloke is the silliest man ive ever seen. he really doesnt get it. i feel for the guy
Things proven by the scientific method can be proved by anyone anywhere anytime. It’s much like when you have a recipe for a cake, anyone can reproduce it.
Talking about “faith in science” is like saying you have “faith” that if you drop a rock it will hit the ground. That is simply not faith. It’s something that’s been proven time and time again – a rock that is dropped will fall to the ground.
I dont need to have faith that the rock will hit the ground. It’s been scientifically proven.
I enjoyed this documentary, I almost fell down laughing at some points at the sheer lunacy of the fanatics Dawkins displayed for us.
BUT
For all of his talk on science, this documentary is WAY to biased to be science. If this was a pure scientific concept, I would immediate be asking for the percentages of people that think like this, how many are fanatical how many are just believers, how many are just regular people that every once in a while try to touch something they think is greater than themselves.
As well his approach to the people he interviewed was WAY to harsh at times I could see a dimly lit windowless room, Dawkins in a trench coat and hat, the interviewee strapped to a chair and Dawkins pointing a spotlight in his face.
In any case enjoyed it just kinda defeats his purpose a bit by being too absurdly biased.
4/5
a mostly serious and good watch.
i really enjoyed that he pointed at the fact of abusing children mentally through teaching them beliefs.
-1 pt., tings i didn’t like that much:
dawkins didn’t seem to be prepared to handle certain types of people,
for the documentary sometimes cuts to another scene whenever he isn’t able to cope with his interview partners “arguments”.
sorry, but that’s not how to deal with these things.
i also wish he had more interview partners on the same topic to show that a single religious belief always varies within itself,
but also to point at certain fundamental parts that are deeply engraved and not negotiable.
(well, at least he points out that all the religions are generally the same: instruments of control).
in addition i really doubt the “fact” that morals are encoded within human genes.
i believe in no such thing, chimpanzees may have social behavioral patterns, we don’t.
is there any proof for us being moral by default?
please tell me, i will also try to look it up myself.
… and last but not least again this terrible manipulating music, i want to watch an intelligent documentary, not a musical that tries to openly bias it’s viewers, really can’t stand it.
to X:
dawkins is an evolutionary biologist by profession. the ‘moral code’ he is referring to makes sense when considered from this perspective.
we all come programmed with instructions on how to survive. it is called genetic memory and is in your dna. this is commonly referred to as instinct. for example this is how babies know to suckle for nutrition.
with this in mind you can couple it with natural selection. lets say you have a giant tribe of early man, and they are all homocidal. one small faction breaks away and decides NOT to kill each other. the homocidal group will eventually die off and the other group will eventually expand. the offspring of group b will have their parents upbringing and memory (nature + nurture) instilled in them. you give that a few thousand years and voila.
of course there are going to be traces of group a, thats why there are still killers among us. they are the minority though. however it is important to note that most people who kill do so for religious reasons. ie they have to convince themselves or be convinced that there is a reason they should kill. there is a lot more group b dna.
this is of course a simplified explanation but i hope it served to explain what is meant when biologists use that term.
Thats pretty interesting III, never thought of moral encoding like that before ..:)…need to read more on that:)
This documentary is a good watch for those who are much more in an antagonistic phase in their lives than being an absolute atheist.
I did find some of the fundamentalist morons to be extremely pathetic in their ignorant fallacy and calling dawkin’s question’s about religion as an intellectual ignorance.
Personally I would have enjoyed this documentary further more if dawkins went a little further of equally examining fundamentalists from many other religions like hinduism,islam ,jews ,etc than just restricting most of his interviews on Christian fundamentalist and bible discussions. This documentary surely can be said as biased and why not. Thats the day dawkins wants it. Because on a rational scale , the documentary has to be biased to reveal the biased religion on the other side.
For the questions he asked are so simple,fundamental,profound and logical which irritated the **** out of those who didnt want to understand the reason for the existence of these questions rather just have some sort of an answer for it and just for the heck of it which by far explains the lunacy that religion creates.
Lolz to that part where the guy in the end says chimps are like MS-DOS and humans are like Windows 2000.
I guess rational and compassionate humans are like “Macintosh” and the religious ones are somewhere in Windows 95 zone :P
This film although not perfect demostrated well how we basically brainwash our children. Eventhough I’m a card carrying Atheist, its almost impossible to erase the religious teachings of my upbringing. In the beginning of life children are the victims of religion, in the end we are all victims of wishful thinking and superstition. Well worth my time.
Dawkins the poster child for drooling atheist’s the world over. Very entertaining if you enjoy fictional/spinal tap type doco’s, then this is for you.
it seems everyone has missed a big point to this…..
altho i agree with him genraly obviously me being an atheist but what i dont agree with is how he like teachers (and indeed the majority of the religeous populous) he imposes his beleifs on peolpe he sees as less enlightened than him, and him saying that religeon cant live side by side with science is rubbish, tell the head of the human genome project who is an out and out christian.also if he is questioning the morality of holy figures and idols, do some research into his idol darwin, he had some crazy imoral ideas about creating a master race!!!! (heard that somewhere before) he also backed steralisation of women who had handicapd or less interlectual parents or siblings. what i surgest is to live and let live. also i thought id **** myself when that jewish guy called him a fundamenatlist belever in darwinism, which i thought myself just as he said it lmao
oh and darwins other theory was that imbreeding would be the seeds of this master race so guess what he did….. eugh
and you know what…… his theory there was way off. I mean imagine what the christians would do with this info…. talk about a smear campaign lmao
Part 1, 41:25 the terrorist supporter speaks the truth. Too bad no one realizes.
It’s not about proving atheism right or religion wrong. People participate in the religious structure because it satisfies (what is often legitimate) needs and desires. If atheism or non religiousness wants to thrive (I hope they do) they too should form an institution/culture of intentional community, aggressive positivity, etc. We can satisfy the needs of people without compromising the truth. The atheist community focuses too much on truth, but people join religion because of love.
ah but Sam doesnt that cause segregation?
id pref everyone to keep there beleifs to themselves and not impose them on others.
a beleif can be dangerous where an idea cant.
doubt is humble
Its interesting that even some of the intelligent comments here are doused with naivety. The comparison of Dawkins faith in science; to faith in religion is irrelevant. The scientific method is strictly policed by the most intelligent of our species, constantly trying to prove the theory of his/her peers incorrect by continuous testing, thereby garnering evidence. Therefore any lasting theory has been so well tested, with continuous positive results, you can damn near call it fact. You don’t need faith in truth. Also, I guarantee that Dawkins is well versed in any field of study he might happen to mention. You don’t go into the battlefield un-armed. I urge you to do some research on Dawkins, maybe watch some of his amazing interviews which are available on youtube. While you’re at it, since this topic is obviously of interest to those of you here; do yourselves a favor and check out Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as well.
The stupidity and naivete of people is so abrasively in my face each day, I can’t even stand it. The reality of every facet of human existence is so corrupt and damaging, that our complete demise is the only worthwhile goal of the planet. The only beauty left in this world, is that which humanity played no part in. If there was such a thing as god, our existence would be that gods greatest shame, and the universe would implode.
A very profound thought O. Von Thomas
“If there was such a thing as god, our existence would be that gods greatest shame, and the universe would implode.”
I agree also, Vlatko.
“We must question the story logic of having an all- knowing, all powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” (Gene Roddenberry).
God, God, God, blame him/her (we have to be politically correct :)) for everything. How extremely convenient. Do you people realize the perfection of yourselves and the universe – it could be made by God or not, I don’t know. And neither does Mr. Dawkins (because if he knew everything he would be something like a god).
All of you people are so convinced in your own attitudes and beliefs, you don’t even realize what’s in the core of existence – BALANCE. You all are so dichotomous you don’t realize that thesis and antithesis equal synthesis. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Perfection is static, and since no stasis occurs in the universe it therefore cannot be perfect. Species go extinct, stars burn out and the universe will expand until it collapses. The nature of all things is cyclic and changing; evolving. The most ignorant attitude of all is to believe in your own perfection as an entity.
To O. Von Thomas,
Well, I see perfection different than you, but that’s just me. If I’m ignorant because of that, it’s OK, you have the right to your own opinion. Just like everybody else.
Definitely worth watching if you’re interested in the opposing view of religion and society. However, although i agree with his arguments, Dawkins has little people skills when it comes to interviewing. I would much rather watch an intelligent discussion between a believer and a non believer than a partially arrogant scientist belittling those who he interviews (i think the Christian pastor really nailed it on the head with what he says to Dawkins).
So when can they prove that this theory of evolution is a FACT.
Good question, Sally. At least I think that was a question, but questions usually have that weird “?” thing at the end to distinguish them from statements. Anyway, I don’t think anyone can answer your question, as that would require us to see into the future. And if anyone knew when evolution would be proven as fact, then we would already know it was a fact, because in order for it to be proven factual in the future, it would have to be factual now. So I guess the answer is sometime between right now and the end of the universe. Or never. One of those.
God rules!
“well I wouldnt know anything about the Nuremberg Rallies…” Ig-norant hi-ck
“So when can they prove that this theory of evolution is a FACT.”
Its hard to believe so many people on here are so ignorant and proud of it, to bad it’s not part of your specific cult to be rational and inquisitive.
P.S. – Faith is not required nor wanted in science, this is one of the stupidest things ive read and its a repeated meme on these posts. If a scientist had faith in his preferred hypothesis he would have to discard this hypothesis when evidence refuted it. The person that proposes a hypothesis must also provide a way to disprove it.
Anybody that undervalues their life to the point where they have to make up a ‘am in the sky’ to give their life meaning, purpose and fulfillment is an absolute failure.
Religion kills everything that makes humans great, individuality, tolerance, respect for other viewpoints and the evolution of science (as well as the science of evolution) to name a few.
Religion, as well as it’s followers in any shape or form sickens me, and proves to me the sheer level of gullible people, who appearanlty are incapable of rational thought.
I went to Ralph Ellis website and i think it’s true about what he wrote about in his books.I asked these so-called Christians in here that”where from Cain’s wife came?”since there was only 3 being left on earth,nobody answered me yet,the bible said that he went to the land of the lost and there he had a wife.According to my research,that land was were the apes settled and he intermarried with them.Now let’s talk about Jesus,them Christians don’t even realize that,if Christ was a Jew,why is that they always portrayed him as white with blue or sometimes greens eyes,just check every picture of him and you’ll see what i’m talking about here.Also there is sometimes the”sun” on top of his head or other times there is only the cross and the sun rising on top of it with this phrase”He is risen”,this is about the sun.What about “Sunday=sun+day”:this is the day of the sun which is the first day of the week and they all claimed that is the 7th day,we all know that according to their Bible,he kept the Jews sabbath which was Saturday,some even say that it is the day of the lord because Jesus was risen on Sunday morning,yea right,it’s all about the sun god because on the 22nd of December the sun disappear on the southern atmosphere and reappear on the 25th of December(Christmas)on the northern atmosphere,that’s why they say that Jesus was dead and risen after 3 days and also the birth of Jesus.If someone doesn’t believe me,why don’t you go check this verse in your own Bible”Psalms84:11,For the Lord God is a”sun” and shield”;How could it be shepherd outside feeding the flock outside during Winter?We don’t even know nothing about him from his 17 years to his 29 years of ages,where is his record here people?what did he do between that time?If someone may like to check out this too”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDdBlO3XauA”
I am the true lighteth! When thou departs this mortal coil thou shall getteth everything thou wanteth, (including free cable). Give me your minds (and send be a cheque payable to “The Divine Spaghetti Monster who liveth in the skyeth” and post to PO Box 777) and I shall send thee an information pack including a picture book, and a free sticky badge with my divine image upon it. Eat of my body and drink my red wine… don’t forget the parmesan and the garlic bread.
Nobody noticed that Pator Ted Haggard in the first video was the same Pastor Ted Haggard that was caught with crystal meth and a *** hooker in a motel room. Apparently been with this *** hooker for 3 years.
Very good doc. Interesting part about children and the idea that religious teachings are akin to mental child abuse. Its of course pretty intuitive that a child’s brain is disposed to believing all that is taught to it from authority figures, which is why most religions begin their indoctrinations at extremely early ages. After all, what adult with no undue pressures would believe in the Scriptures if not already predisposed at a formative age?
What part of it makes any bloody sense?!?!
A good corollary film is “Jesus Camp”, which explores this subject further.
Dawkins picks up the philosophers hammer, that has been lying in a ditch somewhere, and pummels at religion for the house of glass it really is. What it basically comes down to is this: do we encourage people to beliefs that are ******/wrong/irrational, or not? Dawkins is one of the reasons I have faith in humanity. Thank you for your wonderful argument against irrationality.
Should we compare the faith of inelastic theological systems, with the faith in accumulation of empirical factual data that can be tested…….
religion has no credibility if the bible the koran the tora or any mystical book, where on trial it would certainly not be considered “evidence” of any kind. so why do people base their personal lives on it?? strange
and they do so in the most hypocritical of ways as well..
fyi 20 min in the interview with ted haggard, he later came out saying he had homosexual desires……lol
A very good watch.
I could not disagree with a single thing Dawkins said, even though I was fully prepared to do so.
Bad thing about religions is you can’t be freeking neutral, it is either a religion or “atheism” that is equally treated as one by society.
I wish there was space for spiritual privacy, to believe in whatever you wish without having to state it with your clothes, behavior and social circles.
Religion and moral may coexist but the first isn’t the prerequisite of the later.
All Hail the chinese Teacup from outer Space!
Very good Documentary.
His view is a scientific one so he is a bit biased, other than that I like his blunt attitude towards religious belief.
All religion’s are guidelines NOT fact.
What’s happened to this website? It look like it’s on windows safe mode or something.
I enjoyed the videos and appreciated the concern of atleast one person with a different approach towards life, though I do not approve of this. All the religions (or so they call themselves) fail to distinguish the principles (or DHARMA) of living from the religious code of conduct to be implemented (to inculcate discipline) in the society. I would rather request all those at the helms of all the “RELIGIONS” to teach and spread SPIRITUALISM and the basic tenets of “DO NOT KILL; DO NOT STEAL; DO NOT TELL LIES; DO NOT SHOW DISGUST TOWARDS ANY ONE; DO NOT COVET THE LOVE OR FIDELITY OF ANOTHER PERSON’S SPOUSE; DO NOT COVET ANOTHER PERSON’S WEALTH”—THESE AND THESE ALONE WILL ENSURE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PURIFICATION”, MUTUAL RESPECT AMONGST THE PEOPLE AND BALANCE IN THE NATURE.
@satyanarayana
Check out George Carlin’s bit on The Ten Commandments for an interesting rebuttal to your statement.
Typical athiests create all knowing statements… that there is no all knowing being is one of them. Everything they read about religion in the news is filtered by those who have no rules. Unforunately, he is very negative in his approach and argues that faith has not done any good in the world. Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other religions have shaped science. I wouldn’t doubt he filtered what actually the preacher said to him, because it wasn’t shown on the tape. Lieing is not acceptable in science. Then he also says a peaceful parade at Lourdes is “dangerous”! We all struggle with our own “world view” because it was shaped by our world we grew up in. Don’t accept that every religion or person has the same answers that come in his video.
Very worthwhile film. The culmination of the two documentaries at the end of part 2 is inspiring.
dawkins does come off as arrogent or forceful in his beliefs but I think that is what is needed to lead the way for more rational thinking and to challenge the thousands of years of blind faith.
I love Richard Dawkins. I think I’m in love with him, actually.
Who else wanted to wipe the smile of Ted Haggards face?
it’s funny how some of the smartest people on earth that lives and breath science make the wrong conclusion of not only seeing God in their work and even rejecting God. It’s funny that the creationists that obvious to everyone else lacking in scientific knowledge actually make the right conclusion and acknowledge God the creator. Talk about a dog who bites the hand who feeds him.
Atheism has been tried and tested in USSR and it failed. It only makes sense in theory but doesn’t work in real life when you’re dealing with human beings. Eugenic and, genocide are just some of the inevitable conclusion that one can come up with when one think life is just one big accident. One owes nothing to other human beings if survival of the fittest is the rule, after all, anything that one do to ensure one’s survival is permissible in the harsh life of survival of the fittest, if genocide of one group of people ensure peace of one’s family, in the atheist world, it’s totally ok, as long as one do not genocide one own’s people thus ensuring one’s group to survive and evolve. Human rights, morals, ethics are empty and has no basis to one’s survival hence one has no reason to live by it. If you reject God and still think you’re moral and ethical, then you’re just a theoretical atheist. Wake up and live in the real world, who’s gonna protect that big head of yours when all hell brake loose in atheistic society?
All you religees have let your beliefs get in the way of seeing the facts and obviously the point Dawkins is making which is based on reason and facts. Pity.
After reading the comments above(or below me whichever way this is posted) I have noticed that most viewers are missing the single point, it’s at the end of the film where he addresses the fact that accepting hard evidence for reality leads to a more fulfilled life with appreciation of the moment, the ‘now’. Because you reason doesn’t mean life is meaningless with void, life is meant to be enjoyed to it’s fullest. Not waiting out the process to go to an after-life which doesn’t exist. It’s extremely disturbing that a large portion of the population lives in this manner. Dr.Dawkins says, along these lines, why do people think there is much more in the after-life? How much more can you possibly want?
IMO religion is a tool created by men to control other men by taking advantage of their prime evil fears of disapproval or damnation by the creators or creator . Religion if too strictly followed ,
can cause brilliant minds to follow instead of lead .
Maybe it’s not religion that the creator gave us , if there is a creator . Maybe it was just the gift of life friendly elements that are plentiful throughout our universe , no more , no less !
the person who most fascinated me was cohen,
the new york jew, moved/raised in a west bank settlement,
and ultimately became a rabid islamofascist.
can you imagine HIS family reunions?
religion is a menagerie. some of the beasties
are gentle, some not so much.
Shane I disagree. If a paper is written about a new discovery in nuclear chemistry, I do not have to understand how the experiments were done, or the concepts behind it. That’s what the peer review process is for in the scientific process. Others who are expert in the field review the new paper, looking for errors and flaws under every rock.
When the pope came out and said (in the 1950′s) that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven/’the sky’, there was no peer review. Only nods. The pope is incapable of error. Scientists are.
Deeply disappointed that such a well educated man could be sooooo arrogant.A statement he made several times made me laugh though.The world being 4.5 billion years old,the age of the earth is constantly being changed,i’m sure that 20 years ago dawkins probably made the statement that it was 2.5 billion years old.He wanted to bet the guy it would still be considered that old in 10 years thats a bet I would have jumped on.At 35 minutes on part 2 he quotes a man that says a good man does good an evil man does evil,it takes religion to make a good man do evil.I wonder how many good men there would be if there was no religion.I do agree that corrupt evil men have taken advantage of good religious people.When evil,greedy men want war they organize a tragedy.Pearl harbour,911,london 77,oklahoma city,gulf of tonkin and on and on. Good religious men like JFK RFK MLK all shot to remove them from influencing the path of mankind.Mr Dawkins ask yourself how many good men would there be without any religious guidance?Just because evil men have learned that the power of faith can be perverted does not mean we should eliminate all faith,it means we should eliminate the perverters of it.Also the maya are well known for their calendars and their impressive accuracy,they say the earth is more like 16 billion yrs old I’m inclined to believe them.Science has been proven wrong so many times I find most scientific experts and their organisations hide and deny new info that does’nt suit them.Your your own worst enemies.
“In their heart, there is a disease and God increases their disease, a painful doom is theirs because they lie”(Quran 2: 10).
an afterthought.I wonder now that a wooden ship,huge wooden ship was found by chinese and turkish christians 13000 ft up mt ararat.What is science going to do with it.?Also I have noticed that some hairs have been found where yeti’s are regularly seen,these hairs were tested and were found to be unknown the place that tested them had over 30000 different hair samples and couldnt find anything that matched,a new species?not supposed to exist science says just like science can’t explain a ship in a glacier on ararat.
The difference between science and religion is that science is based on proven facts. Nothing is taken at face value. No idea or theory is said to be true without evidence. There is a saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. This is the difference between religion and science. Religion teaches us to accept things as “fact” without any testable evidence based solely on “faith”.
It’s true that some scientists do falsify data, but the simple fact that you KNOW they did and that they got caught differentiates science from religion. You cannot say whether a mullah or priest is a fraud or not, since there cannot be any physical evidence in this regard. Also, it is true that some scientific theories may be articles of faith for a public uneducated in that particular scientific domain, but the idea is that IN PRINCIPLE you can test that theory and see whether it is true or false. Not to mention the role science as an institution plays in establishing the truthfulness of a theory.
What Jesus preached and the miracles he is said to have performed isn’t necessarily true. After all, he may have been a radical priest who was then spoken about and then as his legend grew, the stories grew. Much like King Arthur and Round Table. Do we *really* believe the books written hundreds of years after his time that he had a *real* magic sword? Come on, he may have existed, and had a nice sword, probably made of a stronger material than the common swords of the day, but not magical. It’s a nice story that got embellished. And we write books about it, hundreds of years later. Maybe in a few hundred years, people will worship King Arthur, and his Knights will be his angels, and Merlin will be his 2nd in command, and Mordred can be Satan.
But oh wait, I’m sorry, if Arthur actually *does* magically return from Avalon (heaven) to restore Camelot, and bring peace and prosperity to the earth, the Christians will make him out to be the anti-christ… Lol
But oh! Wait! Arthur wasn’t the only one who was said to return! Maybe Quetzalcoatl, or some other “heathen” god… Here’s the real question, if some false god *does* show up one day, how would we tell the difference? For all we know, Satan’s greatest trick wasn’t making people believe he didn’t exist, maybe it could be having you believe that he’s god, and causing you to fear questioning his religion to the point where you will follow him even if your mythical god showed up right in front of you.
There’s just too many possibilities to count. God may exist, he may not, he might exist but not be who you think he is… It’s all a bunch of nonsense. In just one post I showed several different beliefs. None of them mine but the funny part is, they all have the same amount of “proof” to back them up. Zero. All you can do is live your life as best as you can, and hope for the best. After all, even your bible says two things that show that it can’t be proven to anyone.
1) NOBODY will come to believe in god and the church unless god calls them. So arguing will never save anyone’s soul. If you convert someone by arguing a point, you have just proven that you are in the wrong version of Christianity by your own bible. Because it says: “How can he hear except by a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent?” So only a priest can have a hope of converting ANYONE! You cannot save anyone, not even your own child, unless you simply introduce them to a priest who can persuade them.
2) The bible and god are matters of FAITH! This is the most important part, if the bible itself (and therefore god him/her/itself) says that it’s all about faith, then by *definition* it CAN NOT be proven! The bible itself states that faith is the belief in things UNSEEN! Therefore the bible SAYS that it can’t be proven. STOP TRYING!!!
You want proof the bible is bull? Ok, fine, here it is:
Every time there is a court case people swear on this “Bible” and every time SOMEBODY is LYING!!! Does your “God” ever strike them down? NO! Because he either isn’t real, or doesn’t care. Either way, the bible is wrong.
In November 2006, prostitute and masseur Mike Jones alleged that Haggard had paid Jones to engage in sex with him for three years and had also purchased and used crystal methamphetamine.[1] A few days later Haggard resigned from all of his leadership positions after he admitted his sexual infidelity and methamphetamine use.
After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. In February 2007, one of those ministers, Tim Ralph, said that Haggard “is completely heterosexual.”[2] Ralph later said he meant that therapy “gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side.” As of early 2009, Haggard continues to receive counseling, and now he says that he is a “heterosexual with issues.”[3] On June 1, 2010 Haggard announced that he intended to start a new church in Colorado Springs.[4]
Though I agree with most of what Richard Dawkins says, I also agree that he often seems arrogant. At any rate, I do agree that dogmatic, fundamentalist religions are the greatest evil and danger facing the human race.
However, I also think that faith and reason are both important. I like what Einstein said about the two: “Reason without faith is lame and faith without reason is blind.” It is not easy to achieve a perfect balance between faith and reason, but personally, I would rather err towards being lame than towards being blind.
Without faith that honest but critical searching for and testing of evidence will result in the discovery of truth and improving our understanding of the world around us, there would be little or no motivation to pursue or practice science. The essential difference between science and religion is that in science, faith must always be tempered by and subordinate to evidence and reason, while in religion it is the other way around. Religion too often insists that faith must always trump evidence and reason when there is a conflict between them. This often guarantees that error, when it occurs, will be perpetuated indefinitely.
Stalin and Mao were not religious and how many people did they kill? Dawkins you tool, if there was no religion the world would be full of crackpots like them. Stick your head back up your own backside.
back for one more.A classic problem I have with the scientific lobby to totally monopolize all teaching,a great example is the creation of the moon which was taught to me and obviously millions more,it was thrown off by the earth.It is,as far as science is concerned a piece of the earth.Recently though it has been proven that the moon is twice the age of the earth.8 billion plus years to the earths supposed 4.5 billion years.I personally don’t believe the earth is 4.5 billion 16.4 more than likely.Still DIFFERENT than earth,but it’s taught in school as gospel,pun intended,if science wanted more credibility it would STOP TEACHING THEORY AS FACT wait until some is PROVEN TESTED true before introducing it to schools for consumption as fact.Truth is if they did that there would be very little to teach.Obviously i’m speaking of evolution science,and anthropological science history of MAN.Chemistry is provable,stick with current lab proven science no theory or conjecture allowed.As for religion its a good thing corrupted beyond belief.Its created small groups of lunatics,so has science by the way,science is responsible for some horrific human ills.Created viruses,poisons,so called medicines thalidamide a good example there are many more.GREED is the culprit here not faith.
the age of the moon is ~4.5 billion years old. where did you hear it was 8+????
the earth is only ~4.5 also….the universe is only ~13.75 billion years old…so how can the earth be older than the universe? where are you getting these ideas???
the moon has been tested and dated to the age i gave, also the universe and earth and our solar system. they are tested and dated like you say they should be yet you ignore it and make your own ideas up…
evolution has been proven through testing also…have you been living under a rock? what makes you think there are no tests for anthropology or evolution? what is your level of education?
science isnt the problem in those instances. the fact that science was able to produce those results means it works…how humans use that knowledge is the problem. not how they acquire it.
First of all the moons age was proven by one scientist using a brand new method,tungsten based and this was only 5yrs ago,the 8 billion year mark is just one estimate I’ve heard, I’ll be damned if I can remember where now.I will keep looking,I don’t just throw s*** out there unless it’s backed by someone. I also remember one scientist claiming that with the moons steady movement away from earth, its been calculated that the moon would be touching the earth 1.4 billion years ago.
Also there are many scientific theories about dust accumulation and rock and meteorite buildup over the years making moon-rock testing to age the moon dubious.What I’m saying is the scientific community isn’t sure about the moon, how can you be?What test did our geniuses use to age the universe? Actually the Mayans claim the universe earth with it to be 16.4 billion yrs considering the accuracy of their calenders,why not.Level of education has nothing to do with intelligence,actually too much “education” can stunt and limit growth. Doctorates get boxed in.
When something like workers buried with honor at Giza,wasn’t slaves that built pyramids proven recently.They don’t know what to say.How many amazing articles and whole sites are tossed out or lost, I can’t count the screw ups in the 8 yrs I’ve been researching. I can build a list if you’d like I find most don’t want it.
I need to clarify the age of the universe is based mostly on measured expansion from the big bang till now.The same method used on the moon and earth the moons steady movement away from earth.Shows the moon to be no older than 1.4 billion yrs.You can’t have it both ways measured expansion is either right or wrong can’t be both.Also you say the moon was tested,you and I both know thats a lie,a great example of what i’m talking about,a few surface rocks gathered 40 yrs ago were tested.The theory the moon is a part of the earth comes from,”It must be where else could it have come from”luckily for science common sense rules most of the time,what worries me is the rest,Don;t get me started on lucy