Search:

F1 Racing Formula One Racing F1 Car Racing Grand Prix Racing F1 Kart Racing McLaren Racing Team Williams F1 Team Ferrari F1 Racing Renault F1 Team F1 Racing Cars Racing School F1 Racing Game BMW F1 Racing Indy Car Racing

Beyond Belief '06 - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Formula 1 Racing
Formula 1 Racing Formula 1 Racing
Formula 1 Racing

Sunday, November 5th - Neil deGrasse Tyson gives examples of the apparent un-intelligent design of the cosmos.***CORRECTION - the date in the titles is correct. the day is not. this took place on sunday.***www.beyondbelief2006 orgtherareoften.blogspot.com

Channel: Howto & Style
Uploaded: November 24, 2006 at 4:02 am
Author: baneoffafnir

Length: 05:38
Rating: 4.83
Views: 33429

Tags: 2006  Atheism  Belief  Beyond  Dawkins  deGrasse  Design  Harris  Intelligent  Neil  Religion  Richard  Sam  Science  Tyson  

Video Url:


Embed Code:

Video Comments

pecierpoldo (September 6, 2008 at 1:53 pm)
Haha, a witty quote. But I have to disagree. Einstein's mythical figure in anything outside physics is only a recent development. At the height of Einstein's fame in the 1910's, many Christians hated Einstein for his bold statement of his belief in a non-personal God (or his non-belief in a personal God, if you'd like it that way); many people disagreed with Einstein's theological belief. That was before he was Christianized.And who else can you quote on pantheism except Einstein & Spinoza?
chenalos (September 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm)
Quite right, and As Studs Turkel said:"I like quoting Einstein. Know why? Because nobody dares contradict you. "
pecierpoldo (September 4, 2008 at 5:06 pm)
I completely agree.As the great pantheist Einstein has said, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity."Of course we know Einstein was pertaining to Buddhism.
GAIJAKE (September 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm)
lololol, i wins dis intornet argumnt coz lil athist gots nuttin' beta 2 do den argu wit thists on intornet, wen all me do is mak amvs, dis athist is al lyk rararararar but i move away prud to b a thist cos he ent gon chang me cos i strng lyk dat mayn, also i take da morl hi grund cos eiter ways i win dis cos eiter he 'spond nd i tink he idot, or he don spond and i mayke it lok lyk me win cos he got nuttin' to say in sponse.Also I don't have anything better to do than respond to you on youtube.
chenalos (September 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm)
It's misleading and dangerous for anyone to think that their concept of God and the nature of God as being one in the same. To many preachers have used their God concept to manipulate others. It is quite dangerous.My argument is that we all share the same perception. And that there is a purpose and reason and a validity for that perception.
chenalos (September 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm)
And think about it really, all my youtube submissions are stupid Anime Music Videos, If you've got better things to do than bug an AMV editor, just go do them. Hey everybody, go watch my AMVs, give me a low score maybe God will keep them 5-star anyway.(Hint: He won't)
GAIJAKE (September 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm)
Wow, all my points have been destroyed, fantastic, this has got to be the best day ever, thinking that you've won a debate or are the better debater because I used the term bullshit proves that I am always wrong.
chenalos (September 3, 2008 at 5:10 pm)
Being the first to resort to the word "Bullshit" I conclude you suck at debating.I will not intertube fight with your ranting.
GAIJAKE (September 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm)
This is because humans demand knowledge even if it is unsatisfactory, unproven, or just false, this is why the idea of higher beings are created, to explain what we don't currently know, I disagree with the fact that this is done, as it can just end curiousity, the only fact it doesn't is because humans also compartmentalise and ignore that they are believing two contradictory things.
GAIJAKE (September 3, 2008 at 4:44 pm)
Based on the fact that the premises are false, and the steps of reasoning aren't all logically valid, you may as well have just said the conclusion and said it was true regardless of what anyone disagreeing says, it would still obviously be invalid to do that, but would have saved you time, and me responding, as there would be no point responding to someone who would say something like that, just like how I am not going to respond to No29Smirnoff's comment at the bottom of the page.

Formula 1 Racing © 2007 All Rights Reserved.