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. 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. Atheism doesn't address well explored hypothesis like collective consciousness or offer anything rational for individuals that exhibit true para-normal abilities. Science, like religion, won't change human nature just like Communism eliminates dictators or Capitalism workes best without regulations. Dawkins' absolute "believe" in science is just as dangerous as the faith of extremist Jews, Muslims and Christians. 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").
Dawkins expresses a lot of European Enlightenment beliefs and implicitly assumes that those ideals are shared throughout all of society. No one can claim to understand science without first understanding its roots in the European Enlightenment and natural philosophy. Talking about "faith in science" is like saying you have "faith" that if you drop a rock it will hit the ground.
I enjoyed this documentary, I almost fell down laughing at some points at the sheer lunacy of the fanatics Dawkins displayed for us. 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. 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. For the questions he asked are so simple,fundamental,profound and logical which irritated the shit 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. The stupidity and naivete of people is so abrasively in my face each day, I can't even stand it. 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. Perfection is static, and since no stasis occurs in the universe it therefore cannot be perfect. Definitely worth watching if you're interested in the opposing view of religion and society. 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. 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. Nobody noticed that Pator Ted Haggard in the first video was the same Pastor Ted Haggard that was caught with crystal meth and a gay hooker in a motel room.
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. 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. His view is a scientific one so he is a bit biased, other than that I like his blunt attitude towards religious belief. 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.
Check out George Carlin's bit on The Ten Commandments for an interesting rebuttal to your statement. 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. 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'. 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 .
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.
Every time there is a court case people swear on this "Bible" and every time SOMEBODY is LYING!!!
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.
Though I agree with most of what Richard Dawkins says, I also agree that he often seems arrogant.
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.
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. 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? Dawkins will go to hell for this , he will go directly to hell, he will not pass heaven and he will not pick up 200 virgins. The Dark Ages lasted for about 800 years (not sure, because I forgot about my history class).
Science is not faith, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence, peer reviewed and tested. All that is vile, aggressive, violent and deluded is sadly demonstrated through this documentary. Every single time a religious person is in an argument about faith or god, they are on the defense. Why are all of the religious people in this discussion hellbent on proving whether or not a god can exist? The whole point is that whether you believe in the catholic, lutheran, hindu, shinto, muslim, jewish or whichever god depicted in past, present or future religions, that god can not, will not and hasn't ever existed. I'm so thrilled that the time has come for humanity to finally grow up and start cleansing itself from the poison that is not religion, but indeed the seed from which it grew, blind faith.
PS: Science is about being wrong, and loving it because you have a chance to figure even more stuff out. Does anyone realize how much courage Professor Dawkins has to venture into the public arena and the lion's den with this message of freedom from supernatural superstition?
In scientific terms, a 'theory' isn't the same thing we mean in everyday speech when we're talking about a hunch or a guess. Facts are simply descriptions about the natural world; things like 'what' and 'how, when, and where'. I used to believe in free speech until I started reading comments from the public in sites like this. I would like to make a comment in reference to Lary Nine's point, in helpfully trying to make us understand Dawkins point of view. The problem of coarse is Dawkins sells himself as a scientist, therefore words such as , "believed that fervently" and "encourage them" are not words that should be used to describe the mindset of a scientist. Faith and Science should never be combined, though this does not mean they should be at war. My last point I would like to make is that I believe both groups are feeling threatened by each other. I hope my views are coherent; this is the first time I have ever really written any thing on the Internet.
Last Call's comments on this seem typical of the arrogance held by so called Christians andother religious maniacs, typicaly closed off to others opinions as they realise it will only make them realise how pathetic their beliefs are - have you even watched the Film!!
I said I was not a scientist, I said evolution has causes me to evaluate my faith, which basically means I am taking it as Scientific truth. Good luck mate, I really did not mean to cause offense, I am sorry you have taken what I wrote in that way, I certainly did not intend it. Anyhow, I 'get' your thoughts on the matter, but I'm not confused, deluded, angry, condescending, unhappy, lost, lonely, ignorant about the world or the cosmos.
The El-Ghazl factory in Mahalla is Egypt's largest textile company with more than 20,000 workers. In January 2011, workers there were among the first to protest - prompting the mass protests that in turn developed into a revolution and led to the departure of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president. As a leading expert in the study of hormones, John Wass explains the true definition and involvement of the hormones in all of our daily operations. In addition to the many scientific observations supporting the importance of the hormones, in this documentary, John Wass also takes us through some of the more interesting - even quirky - history surrounding this chemical substance.
The Fantastical World of Hormones is an interesting study of the history and deeper definition of the hormones and the significant role they play in our bodies, our lives, and in the advancement of the sciences, particularly those focused on curing diseases and further explaining how our bodies function. It tells us that the pituitary gland controls the hormones (it is usually known as the 'leader of the endocrine orchestra'). When Wass leads us to the rather cuddly lady talking about Leptin, we suddenly start talking about how it is supposed to regulate fat in the body.
One should also be very wary of trying to make out that genes control everything (or anything) and that humans are subject to their genes.This is patently not true in life (it may in the laboratory). You're right, it ends slightly wacky in suggesting that hormones might be the ones controlling us, and in its (mild) emphasis on hoping for miracle cures. However, i find your comment getting a bit wacky too (if i may say so), even before halfway through.
First of all - i looked it up - the pituitary does indeed produce leptin, but the point they are making here is that leptin is also made outside of the gland (in fat cells for example) and that leaves the regulatory aspect of the pituitary in debate. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here, but could you reconsider some of your statements here? As someone with a pituitary disorder, I've done some research into endocrinology and, repeatedly, have been awestruck by the majesty of the brain's hormonal feedback loop and how it regulates hormone production. This documentary presented some useful history, but was patchy and overly anecdotal in its presentation of the endocrine system.


HOWEVER appears very male orientated, with testosterone mentioned often while oestrogen only in passing. I was a bit shocked when I heard and saw you say that obesity was a genetic problem „mutations in genes“. You make it sound as if obese persons need only take leptin and their problems will be gone.
If a person has more fat cells than normal, then the person should be producing more leptin.
I know what is blocking the leptin, very well, because I have used myself as an experiment for the last two and a half years. I lost weight (normal) and have developed a natural appetite for healthy food and dislikes for trendy food (processed). Every point you made is so ridiculous that I don't believe you legitimately believe it yourself. Disapointed that I didn't really learn anything new from this, I guess I was hoping it would be much more in-depth about chemestry and microbiology.
I too showed a remarkable recovery, but not from obesity but from several personality disorders, but also caused and fixed by teaching my body to like healthier food and not crave sugars and starch as much.
When charismatic terrorist Adam Qasim escapes from MI5 custody during a routine handover, the Head of Counter Terrorism, Sir Harry Pearce (Peter Firth) - is blamed. With MI5 on its knees in the wake of the Qasim debacle and facing controversial reform, former officer Will Holloway (Kit Harington) is brought back to uncover the truth they feared – Harry’s still alive. We've gathered together the best Thai restaurants in Manchester, and a few from a little further afield - did your favourite make the list? Chinese and Indian restaurants are all over Greater Manchester, in fact there are probably several take away outlets not far from your house. But while these two cuisines are now a firm part of the British palate Thai food is on the rise. While people have been turning their hands to a Thai Red Curry at home for a number of years, there are far fewer authentic restaurants to choose from.
But for those who love nothing more than a Massaman curry or stir-fried Morning Glory (dona€™t be alarmed, ita€™s just a vegetable) there are some fantastic choices in Manchester as well as some from surrounding areas that were just too good to miss off the list.
It used to be one of Manchestera€™s best kept secrets but now it is a firm favourite among most Manchester diners.
One of five venues around the UK the Manchester branch has made an effort to fit into its upmarket location just off King Street. The menu aims to bring customers food form all across Thailand, inspired by owner Kim Kaewkraikhota€™s love and expeirence of food, growing up in northern Thailand and moving around the country. For fans of fish and seafood there is a lot on offer, including one of the chefa€™s signature dishes Thai Fishermana€™s Soup Shabu Shabu.
Wendy is the star of her eponymous restaurant, entertaining her guests as she dresses up as Dame Shirley Bassey and belts out Elvis tunes all night long.
Visitors to Thailand often proclaim the street food is better than any Thai restaurant in the UK. With their taster platters and regional dishes Thai Khun is a great way to experience real Thai cooking, without the cost of the flight. Injecting a little Thai into Chinatown this restaurant, where you can bring your own alcohol, finds a balance between authentic Thai food and more mainstream dishes. The extensive range of dishes make this one a winner, along with the generous saving you make by bringing your own beer.
Dona€™t worry, despite having the name Wendy, a€?Elvis Basseya€™ will not be making an appearance at this restaurant. This is one we had to travel a little further for, but ita€™s only one tram journey from the city centre, and well worth the trip.
This has become a staple restaurant for visitors of The Rock in Bury, and regularly plays host to family functions and parties. Their focus on fast, healthy, Thai cooking means their menu is perfect for those looking to grab a quick bite, while their Thai inspired cocktails also make it great for a boozy dinner with friends. The cancer of gang violence has intensified to a horrifying degree in El Salvador, and the government has entered into an increasingly bloodthirsty war in an effort to contain it.
Two major gangs rule the streets of El Salvador, and their reign of violence is merciless and extreme. VICE News correspondent Danny Gold boldly ventures out with law enforcement during several of their nightly raids, during which the oppressive threat of impending violence hangs thick in the air. This documentary was a very interesting watch, it is easy to see that the interviewer is biased against the gangs (who can blame him really), but he does make the effort of at least showing the argumentative positions of gang members and the gang as a whole. As sam said there is a very sad level of history repeating a violent cycle in this situation, in a country that so "recently" ended a civil war based around similar reasoning.
I think one of the scariest messages within the documentary was the idea of terrorism (and anti terrorist ideology and legislation) being applied to the issue within a domestic context and unto the poor and disenfranchised who have been given little or no options but to join one side of the fence as a soldier or worker (for the government or the gangs, or both).
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. 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.
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. Dawkins believes (rightly so) that religion has been a source of unchecked and endless intolerance and destruction throughout history. 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.
People participate in the religious structure because it satisfies (what is often legitimate) needs and desires. 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.
However, although i agree with his arguments, Dawkins has little people skills when it comes to interviewing. At least I think that was a question, but questions usually have that weird "?" thing at the end to distinguish them from statements. When thou departs this mortal coil thou shall getteth everything thou wanteth, (including free cable). Interesting part about children and the idea that religious teachings are akin to mental child abuse. 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. Because you reason doesn't mean life is meaningless with void, life is meant to be enjoyed to it's fullest.
Maybe it was just the gift of life friendly elements that are plentiful throughout our universe , no more , no less !
You cannot say whether a mullah or priest is a fraud or not, since there cannot be any physical evidence in this regard.
After all, he may have been a radical priest who was then spoken about and then as his legend grew, the stories grew. God may exist, he may not, he might exist but not be who you think he is… It’s all a bunch of nonsense. 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. Science now tells us (against there will of course), that string theory leads physicists directly to a creator of some kind. And to me is going to create shockwaves in both the religious and the scientific communities. The fact that once we find out that the moon is older than us we accept it, this is our new theory, that is what I love about science it is always expanding never fixed.
But he should take into consideration now the Muslim religion, and see if he can falsify something. Put yourself in the non-believer's shoes for a moment and pretend you believe what Richard Dawkins does---do you see it? This film shows Dawkins at his best and presents his broad examination of religious belief, what he quite accurately calls "the elephant in the room" in most modern social debates. It's the difference between my opinion of Richard Dawkins' personal motives and the opinions of many others. A Scientific Theory is a whole collection of objective observations, facts and testable experimental data with positive outcomes. Science cannot answer the big "Why" questions and the holy books of the religions cannot be read as scientific journals. As a Christian, evolution has caused me to evaluate my theology, which I must admit has been demanding emotionally. It seems to me most people in the world are trying to make their opinion heard, resulting in no one really listening to one another. I can not prove it as I am not a scientist, so I have faith in the "true" scientific commmunity to stay true to there profession and only present facts as established through the scientific method. But you quoted something I wrote about Dawkins' mindset and the people who dislike him---I tried to get them to see his motivations from a different angle.
So I thought you were going to say something to refute or reject the idea that I was making--- that Dawkins had caring motives, as a teacher, to reach out and correct misunderstanding about areas of science of which he is an acknowledged expert.
As a scientifically trained person, I'm not at all at war with religion but I've found that religious people are often angry at me for nothing I did to them.
They are a brave people, and it seems they now know the power of the people is greater than the power of the state.
Feel free to contact us at please enable javascript to view with your scoops, comments or advertising inquiries.
Whether it is the severe importance of a particular diet or exercise, or the impact of stress and sleep deprivation on our bodies and thinking processes, we often turn our heads from the research, the numbers, and the findings.
He explains, in more basic terms, the hormone's involvement in our cell stimulation and development. From castration to the discovery of insulin, Wass shares some of the strange tales involved in the study and attempted extraction of the hormones.
Going on such a journey with John Wass may lead not only to a greater understanding of such an important, natural chemical substance, but it may impact how we view and appreciate the continued progress of the sciences. If the pituitary regulates hormones it must regulate Leptin (since they are calling it a hormone). If those who do so (believe in the gene hypothesis) would look at the Human Genome Project, they would discover that it is the body that regulates the genes.
As Barbara Seaman stated about the oral contraceptive pill and HRT: "Oestrogen = the greatest experiment ever performed on women " - and yet this wide-scale experiment doesn't even rate a mention.
Perhaps carefully examining the effects of sugar and starch intake aswell as the respons in leptin production is a good way of approaching this. Just as diabetus might be genetic, or caused by bad lifestyle or even by a virus or antibiotic that killed the betacells. But there are also a number of affordable set menus - providing a number of main meals to share - which is after all how Thai food should be eaten. Which is why Thai Khun have taken their inspiration from the popular road-side vendors and the, often surprisingly intricate, flavours and cooking styles.


Michelin star it aina€™t, but for a relaxed evening with quality Thai cooking, ita€™s perfect.
Law enforcement has deemed all gang members and their associates as terrorists, and this reclassification has the potential to empower even greater fear, casualties, injustice and societal destabilization.
In a country of just under six million people, one murder occurs every hour, and 11 percent of the population have connections to the gangs either as members or citizens who are reliant upon them for their livelihood. These gangs are divided in their quests to control territory, but united in a shared war against police. That same atmosphere of dread permeates the streets of El Salvador as Gold struggles to connect with ordinary citizens who are too frightened to comment on the carnage they must contend with on a daily basis. Even sadder is the final solution response that people in the area feel they have been pushed to when it is as the police officer described "the poor fighting the poor". 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's book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail.
But his faith in science is sometimes lacking in the same objectivity he applies to religion. It's something that's been proven time and time again - a rock that is dropped will fall to the ground. Do you people realize the perfection of yourselves and the universe - it could be made by God or not, I don't know. 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). Anyway, I don't think anyone can answer your question, as that would require us to see into the future. If a scientist had faith in his preferred hypothesis he would have to discard this hypothesis when evidence refuted it.
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.
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.
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. 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. I don't think that someone would argue that the number of innovations made in the last 100 years alone are far greater than 1900 years before that. It says the universe is extremely well tuned and the slightest change in any of the underlying principles would not allow life or the universe itself to form in the first place.
I believe it was the vedic scripts that said "science and religion will both lead us down the same path to the same conclusion". The world would surely be a better place without religion as far as some wars and conflict is concerned.
Anyone who knows what reason is will clearly see that the starting point of reason is assumption. But I still think that the biggest problem is to replace religion (which is an experiment with my life to experience what I initially assumed is true) with blind faith.
I find him to be a patient, articulate and candid man who burns with the righteous zeal of truth seeker and is a brilliant educator. The authors or the "Devine" author is mainly interesting in explaining The "why", within the context of the time they were written, in a way the reader would understand. Also feelings regarding the history of the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and Science, in the past, still run deep. It reminds me of many people in a nightclub all talking at the same time, with very loud music playing in the background. In the past, the powers that be used religion and religious langauge to gain the support of the masses,towards their cause. Tell me, who's writing reflects a more rational mindset, less emotional language, and a more considered arguement.
Such an observation, as broad as it may seem, can similarly be applied to our understanding of the hormones.
Whether referring to our metabolism and appetite, or our emotional reactions to stimuli, or how we behave from situation to situation, hormones are involved in the performance. Beyond these personal connections, however, Wass also delves into the importance of the hormone in many scientific breakthroughs and medical treatments, including but not limited to the current, hot topic of obesity and the curing of this epidemic.
I do share your concern with wrong diagnoses when a doctor doesn't want to confront a patient with bad lifestyle, like we refuse to do with the deadly effects of prolongued stress and instead we treat the symptoms, like tense muscles with stress or leptin with obesity, when we could simply show the cause and guide the patient to a more healthy and ultimately a longer and happier life. But the grub is decent, there is plenty of choice and it is perfect if you are up for a party. The viability of this conflict, and the moral considerations which surround it, serves as the basis for the new documentary from Vice News titled Gangs of El Salvador. This nefarious intent has expressed itself in a scourge of police station car bombings, and specific factions of gangs whose roles have been relegated to law enforcement death squads. Others refuse to speak out against an organization that provides them with more lucrative opportunities than any legitimate industries operating in the country. History will repeat itself when those in power are absolutely curropted by the power they will never cease to yield.
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.
Religion keeps people like gays and lesbians from being treated as equals, and religion denies certain groups of people freedoms that they should be free to have. Because on a rational scale , the documentary has to be biased to reveal the biased religion on the other side. If there was such a thing as god, our existence would be that gods greatest shame, and the universe would implode. 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. After all, what adult with no undue pressures would believe in the Scriptures if not already predisposed at a formative age? Not to mention the role science as an institution plays in establishing the truthfulness of a theory.
Do we *really* believe the books written hundreds of years after his time that he had a *real* magic sword?
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?
None of them mine but the funny part is, they all have the same amount of “proof” to back them up. 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! Im pretty sure it was labeled a religion so the other religions could say it was heathen in nature. Ask yourself, if Jesus had a conversation with Dawkins do you think he would threaten to call the police on him and kick him off his land?
The recent hostilities between the two fields are a result of both parties moving into the domain of the other.
Typically, when an individual is confronted with the term, "hormone," he or she will think of emotional responses and sexual awakenings. And maybe, his suggestions are merely a form of motivation to keep him going, if anything more? And that hormones control a whole deal seem to fit the picture, but to suggest therefore it controls all, is to much of a leap.
Let's just hope that the doctors involved have gotten curious by the results and will study it in larger groups.
While the police's declaration of war on the gangs is understandable given the nature of the threats against them, and the vast majority of the public regard it as a necessary step, others believe it has only worked in further stoking the flames of chaos and bloodshed. Unforunately, he is very negative in his approach and argues that faith has not done any good in the world.
Dr.Dawkins says, along these lines, why do people think there is much more in the after-life?
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. 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. You cannot save anyone, not even your own child, unless you simply introduce them to a priest who can persuade them. And yet,if we follow this theory all the way to the end,again it leads to one creative force of some kind. For example Creationists trying to get their beliefs taught in science classes and scientists like Dawkins claiming God does not exist and religion has been a negative force within mankind. Instead of "God" we have "Democracy" instead of "Faith" we have "Freedom", instead of the "Devil" we have "Terror". That means if religions were not present or they were not preventing science to develop, we would be 1900 technologically more advanced (according to my example). And yet, attaching ourselves to science or religion or anything else ,leads us to exactly what is happening in this thread. Id much rather argue about everything and live in constant fear and confusion till the day I die ,how about you? Some people find him humble and caring, others find him arrogant and mean-spirited and these reactions speak more to our own teleological POV. I do not believe this has been proven by scientific method and doubt it would ever be able to. When Afganistan and to a lesser extent Iraq started, the majority of population of America and Britain were for the war. I wouldn't doubt he filtered what actually the preacher said to him, because it wasn't shown on the tape. 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. I must therefore have a certain degree of "faith" in the scientific community and I believe people like Dawkins are damaging the reputation of science. In my opinion, he is as close to a fundamentalist within science as the Creationist's in America are to Christianity. Both groups, of coarse, fuelled by the media, are harmful to both communities and also their relationship with each other.



To birds storm survival is only natural
Emergency management jobs usa academic

Rubric: Solar Flare Survival



Comments

  1. Sibelka
    The children all sorts of security guidelines, including how.
  2. 665
    Smart Meals Storage Free Sample they will be ready to do the job necessary, unless.
  3. AISHWARYA_RAI
    Mommy Mundo, and Mommy Mundo has not investigated.
  4. Aysel
    Effects of the weapon and much less so with the electromagnetic consequences.