3:19 - 3:48 DNA only points to the fact that we the we have the same source of information and have common design (that is in reference and apart form intelligent design). A common ancestor is merely an assumption that Dawkins blatantly stated as fact for which he gave no evidence for.
@TheMasterOfTheFrets No it also show how closely related we are to various species. This is why we can figure out how closely related various species are, by looking at differences and similarities in the genomes. It also allows us to precisely pinpoint where the common ancestors of different species are and gives us a timeline as to when that occured.
@fatmikecj How? If mutations are random then we can't know when, or even, if, in many cases, they have occurred. That's why we look to the fossil record.
@TheMasterOfTheFrets Basicaly we line two genomes up against each other and look at where the differences are. If we take two closely related species, say a human and a chimp and sequence their genomes we can then line the two codes up against each other. The vast majority of the code will be the same, however we can count the places where it doesn't match. If we then take a species that's more distantly related, say a gorrila, there will be more regions that don't match...
@TheMasterOfTheFrets ...the human, but the chimp will show less variation, so we know that the chimps and humans share a closer common ancestor than gorrilas and humans. Whilst mutations are random we can figure out when these branches happened by taking the average amount of time it takes for a mutation to occur and counting how many mutations have arrisen since the branching. Look up phylogenetic trees on wikipedia. Fossils are good for illustration, that's about it.
@fatmikecj But the chimp is irrelevant in the fact that it's still around today, and isn't human. Referencing genetics works great for evolution and intelligent design. A common designer would use common parts to make up all creatures which could give the illusion that we are related in an evolutionary sense. That's why I stay clear of that, because they can apply to each theory quite well
@TheMasterOfTheFrets I think I understand your point; feathers work well so god gave all birds feathers etc.
Phylogenetic maps however confirm that we have common ancestors and that closely related species have similar codes. Whilst you could say that god just arranged the genes a little differently to make species that are similar that doesn't take into account convergent evolution in which species which have near identical phenotypes have completely different genotypes.
@fatmikecj Well, it actually could, if you consider they are only similar because of a designer, or that they simply adapted differently, in which they are of the same genus, and therefor would seem as such. Therefore the real question is God' existence, and the answer to that depends on the person. That means this is no longer a discussion of science, but philosophy. We both know that philosophy is dependent on the person, meaning that the conversation is pointless at this point.
@TheMasterOfTheFrets Well then you're just saying that evolution is true, but god did it. And I agree, I can't really be bothered to open that can of worms either lol. However to say that evolution, which has literally millions of pieces of evidence to support it, is no better than intelligent design, which has been mashed around the evidence and still doesn't fit, or flies directly in the face of, most of what we know is insane.
what kind of moron biology teacher doesnt belive in evolution and the yanks wonder why they are considered to be amongst the stupidest people in the world
@thealkimista2012 You're parroting a very ignorant view of reality. Let's evaluate the validity of the theory of evolution against the theory of god-did-it.
It is actually impossible to prove any theory as fact, so all we have left by which to decide is evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (it's mechanisms are better understood than gravity); the evidence for an invisible, ineffable creator (never mind a god matching any particular doctrinal claims) - NIL.
@thealkimista2012 "to see Gods evidence the key is to be humble" No, That's just plain bullshit. In a way you are right - if you can be convinced that humility before facts is "arrogant" and "proud" then you have opened the door to credulity and self deception. If you need to be in a 'special state of mind' to see "evidence of true and living God" then you are deluding yourself and you know it.
Still, if you're 'doing as you would be done by' ...well, there are worse delusions.
@thealkimista2012 Oh, and "I used to be an atheist" is a fatuous thing to say. Every living thing begins life without a belief in gods (everyone "used to be an atheist"). I used to be a christian now I'm an atheist - am at a disadvantage in the discussion? Or do I too "understand atheist and christians"? I suspect I understand better than you because I see (with some embarrassment) the self delusion implicit in faith - if you really *understood* you would still be atheist.
@thealkimista2012 As I suspected, you were never an atheist. You can't be an atheist and hate god. Really - there is no god - love life, be free. You are right: the notion that "there must be a god" comes, in part, from the fact that we live in a world which has aspects that are beyond our capacity to easily understand (i.e. the chicken-egg--which is not the best example). But this is not evidence for god it is evidence for our reluctance to admit that we don't have an answer.
@thealkimista2012 I got the feeling that "God doesnt even exist" was directed at God to provoke him - either way, on that point, you were right.
Chicken and egg - Not a good example because it is too easy to answer: The egg came first - domestic chickens were bred from earlier egg laying birds which would not be recognisable as chickens (in a useful analogy for evolution).
Also it is generally considered by quantum physicists that Einstein was wrong about quantum uncertainty.
@thealkimista2012 I got the feeling that "God doesnt even exist" was directed at God to provoke him - either way, on that point, you were right.
Chicken and egg - Not a good example because it is too easy to answer: The egg came first - domestic chickens were bred from earlier egg laying birds which would not be recognisable as chickens (in a useful analogy for evolution).
Also it is generally considered by quantum physicists that Einstein was wrong about quantum uncertainty.
@kelco93 You still saying the chicken-egg dilema not a good example too easy
to answer for evolution right? The chicken-egg is the key to open the door to real knowledge,
what was first the chicken or the egg = what was first DNA or PROTEIN?
DNA needs certain PROTEINS in order to replicate.Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.Thats your answer
right there thats why evolution is IMPOSSIBLE and should be remove from schools.
Just so I'm clear: you currently consider it impossible that someone could produce a model which shows, hypothetically, how simple organic molecules might combine by natural processes in a sequence of simple non-miraculous steps to form DNA and proteins concurrently?
And if this hypothetical model could be produced then you would concede that evolution is not certainly impossible on those grounds?
@thealkimista2012 If somebody produced that model would you acknowledge it? (I think they have.) Or would it be too hard to see from your own little 'spiritual world'?
I acknowledge that your blessing is meant with kind intent--thank you. But you must realise that claiming an enchanted view which lifts you above the mundane vulgarities of facts and evidence, makes your prior pretension of rationality seem hollow.
Re Einstein? I prefer to "live as if everything is a miracle.”
@thealkimista2012 If somebody produced that model would you acknowledge it? (I think they have.) Or would it be too hard to see from your own little 'spiritual world'?
I acknowledge that your blessing is meant with kind intent--thank you. But you must realise that claiming an enchanted view which lifts you above the mundane vulgarities of facts and evidence, makes your prior pretension of rationality seem hollow.
Re Einstein? I prefer to "live as if everything is a miracle.”
@thealkimista2012 By the way, I was a bit surprised you didn't pick me up for saying "you were never an atheist" when in an earlier comment I said "everyone is born an atheist". I think that when superstitions get planted into the minds of children when they are very young (as occurs in religious households) it takes a great deal of persistent mental effort to get free of them. Don't give up, it's worth it--there is far more to life than eating, drinking, sex and dying.
@thealkimista2012 oh yes, a man sitting at a computer, will lecture another man on evolution, who spent in the field all his life. Thank god your kind is dying out!
@thealkimista2012 "I understand the evolution theory enough to know that is just a theory" - this statement alone demonstrates your (wilful?) ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory".
You then go on to make statements that are not only false but demonstrably laughable. You insist that science is about facts that need to be proven (it's not), and yet you will believe what you will without any proof. To then suggest that Dawkins is "full of himself" is a ridiculous irony!
@thealkimista2012 man oh man... evolution is a theory, that has many proven facts within it. There are over 250.000 peer-reviewed papers on the topic. Not to mention that there are plenty of other theories, that you no doubt accept. So there is only one conclusion - your argument is not about science, its about theology. Science contradicts your religious fairy tails, so you decided to attack them from scientific stand point. Unfortunately, you fail miserably.
@thealkimista2012 facts are not senseless. With factual information there is no sides. Its irrelevant what I think or what you think on any subject, if facts and evidence point to an answer, then that answer is right. Its simple as that. There is a whole methodology of determining truth, why are you so ignorant of it? And no, death is not the only way to know. Plenty of tools exist that let us understand past. You are simply ignoring them!
@eleminatus I am sorry yes i am so ignorant n you and dawkins are supreme
beings,please since im so so stupid n ignorant to understand explain
what was first DNA or PROTEIN? here is your answer and see your wisdom
fly back to the 1800's where it belongs,DNA needs certain PROTEINS in order to replicate.Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence,THATS A REAL FACT NOT A BOOK OF SPECULATIONS
@thealkimista2012 take you ignorance and arrogance somewhere else. All you can do is use silly fallacies like god of the gaps. Putting god into obscure fields of science. If you think you know more about biology then Dawkins, then you are just deluded. Thank god your kind is dying out!
@thealkimista2012 You claim to know what is unexplainable - that's a big call!
You claim your wisdom transcends human knowledge - that's not arrogant?
At least now you're being honest now - capitulating on the rational by admitting (proclaiming) that you think you have access to special mystical insight which transcends the rational.
The question remains - why did you begin with pretensions of rationality when you are happy to believe what can't be rationally supported?
@thealkimista2012 ha, ha. Nice! "speed of light is not the fastest speed ...therefore god."
Yes you're ahead of the rest of us because you live in you own imaginary world where you don't just know what the unknowable is, you know the unknowable!
That's fine, but please don't pretend to have an interest in a rational discussion, you just leave people feeling that they have wasted their time responding to you.
@thealkimista2012 "couldn't prove that your theory is a fact" - [sigh] it really is pointless, no matter how many times people say "theory" and "fact" refer to different aspects of knowledge there is always someone who will say "theory not 'fact', therefore false" and then, by the same methodology, concludes "God not 'fact', therefore ...true".
Spin it any way you like mate you're only deluding yourself. There's far more beauty in reality than you realise - don't cheapen it with man-made myths.
@eleminatus Colin Patterson,senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world's largest fossil collection -sixty million specimens --confessed,"If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions],fossil or living,I would certainly have included them [in my book Evolution]." His statement underscores the fact that the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists.No verifiable transitions from one species to another have as yet been found
Yes - we have compulsory religious studies. But they only teach about religion and not push any one religion. We teach about all the world's major religions as well as general spirituality issues
I believe that the universe and cosmos exists deep within the confines of Oprah Winfrey's rectum. How do you know that it doesn't? We may be microscopic matter living within the rectal orifice of another organism much larger than the cosmos we assume exists. The possibility exists??!?
I doubt they just look at space: I do physics at school and study astronomy within it (as well as method of its research and exploration, but don't make a study-unit of it), but I suppose they might do it differently in America.
@ImperialGeorge Space science probably does not include biophysics or string theory but they still should have things like mechanics, electromagnetism and so :) If is it proper Christian High. They tell them names of planets with the order in which they were created :)
im 16 years old and my schools haven't said one word about evolution. its so annoying because i want to be a scientist when i grow up, and they wont even have a class relating to evolution. literally in 5th grade i was so curious about it that i looked it up on the internet and became obsessed. it was like i discovered something not even my teachers knew. but i really wish they would teach evolution in schools.
@InfectedInHD That's shocking! In the UK evolution teaching starts at KeyStage2 - That's 11 years of age in SC2 Science and living processes and continues through to KS4 (14-16 years) where we show all the evidence including the fossil record and DNA.
It's illegal to teach creation myths as scientific fact of course.
@fingleur1 teaching small kids evolution it's quite pointless. You may force them to memorise the data... it's not good for anything. I'm from Czech Rep. I was taught Evolution when I was 7 years old. I had to memorise evolution trees of several animals which it names in Czech and Latin. When I was 9, we started with genetics which was more nothing-saying than Evolution. I did memorise everything but it does not meant anything to me. It's pointless
@fingleur1 that's enough, do they also have religion studies? By Religion Studies I a mean teaching about main religions, their values, rituals, mythology and history. Not forcing them into any. That's actually make them Atheists/Agnostics seeing Religions from "out of the box" and how it actually is.
@InfectedInHD "When I were a lad" we didn't have the internet! I had t'ride bicycle to t'local library to find out about science. And yes, I think I understood evolution pretty well before I started high school - It's really a simple concept yet the beauty in the details still makes me smile. I recently read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" it's not written for school age kids but then not too many of them are teaching themselves evolution - give it a try, he takes it to a new level!
@InfectedInHD I don't suppose "river out of Eden" is on the school curriculum?. I discovered some of Bertrand Russell's stuff on the internet recently--I think I would have enjoyed English classes much more if they had thrown a bit of his stuff into the mix (logical, funny and ethically sound). It's amazes me that the inexistence of God has been proven for over a hundred years and yet respect for religious sensibilities can still suppress any mention of it in schools.
@InfectedInHD I've heard similar stories from some other Americans and it's just astounding and unbelievable to me as a Finn. To me the teaching of evolution in schools has always been a thing I've taken for granted, but obviously it's not the same everywhere, for example on that side of the Atlantic. I think you'd have good reason to call your science teachers unprofessional and accuse them of holding information from their students. It's a disgrace.
@InfectedInHD Science is about curiosity so you're doing the right thing. Study real science as hard as you can, and go to a reputable university as soon as you can, and follow your dream.
@ikawpipa As an example of the kind of bullshit I'm talking about: WLC is "Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology". What could the word "Research" mean in that context? What possible research could you do to verify the truth value of a theological assertion? "OK I started the God-ometer, everyone start praying really hard! ...nothing, Ok lets all start blaspheming ...". Seriously - "research" is a word with a meaning, he (orTalbot) is using at a weasel word.
I really commend him for this, he is genuinely passionate about the dissemination of truth and empirical fact, the world be better as a result of your endeavours Mr Dawkins.....oh and if switched that camera off she'd bang you into next week.
@degelf1 All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans ever done for us?
@Parks646 Hi Sidney, you know what's better than a pretty girl ? A pretty girl that's smart! Great video and I"m so jealous that you got to interview Dawkings, its such a breath of fresh air to find a young lady that has an interest in science and evolution and dare I say, atheism ?.. Kudos to you and try to educate and talk to as many of your friends as you can. I wish you all the best. X.O.X Mike
Whereas if you ask me about someone killing in the name of Islam, I don't need to go back 200 years to a debatable candidate.. I can look at the news from yesterday or today. Do you see my point?
@xXsakkelaoXx Au contraire mon brave, Observational science tells us that comets evaporate and therefore are unlikely to have been around for billions of years. Observational science tells us that comets can knock each other off course and knock them or other icy blocks of space gunge into our system - becoming new comets.
@redshark618 Apparently you don't need to believe in evolution to get a science degree in biology. You just need to tell the professors what they want to hear. Seems like people who understand evolution and can pass the tests don't believe in it because the evidence doesn't fit.
Prof. Dawkins is wasting his time there. I've got two sisters who are teachers, both of whom teach evolution as a matter of fact. My elder brother works with cars, and it was never - as far as he was concerned, taken into question about where we came from as far as his understanding of the universe is. That young girl is his wrong target audience, she's a typical 16 yrs old bubble head. Prof. Dawkins needs to tackle churches and have proper support behind him. Too many nut cases out there.
@webhutspain He's not just basing his evidence off opinion like theists do. He has simply used scientific evidence which proves evolution to be true which is what we should all be doing instead of involving opinion in a debate about science.
@webhutspain You sir, are an idiot. If you had seen the evidence (hundreds of millions of fossil records including intermediate stages of evolution), you would not be so quick to foolishly judge a distinguished scientist who has viewed thousands of pieces of evidence indicating that evolution is indeed true. You are saying that science will fail because it has evidence and that religion will succeed because you believe in a magical sky magician based on a book written a thousand years ago. Fail.
@jhelppi0 I'm afraid that the reality will be quite different to what you think as well. Our current level of civilization is due to discovering how to utilize the energy in oil. The oil age is now in permanent decline. All our knowledge will intrinsically decline with it. Contemporary times are the peak of mankinds civilized status and see how many idiots are still among us. Magic Man will outlive our current knowledge quite easily as we slowly slip back to the bronze age and beyond.
we didn't evolve from animals, there are plenty of credible philosophical and scientific arguments for theism, Look up Dr. Craig and Rabbi Wolpe's debates, great substance!!
@slyer72 "plenty of credible philosophical and scientific arguments for theism" and you cite Dr. Craig and Rabbi Wolpe?! All of their arguments can pretty much be boiled down to "Reality is too hard to understand therefore God..." Sure they sugar coat it with anecdotes and allegory, but substance? No. Essentially they are preachers (bullshit salesman) with a few clever ways of presenting their product. They are very nice well intentioned men and all, but their arguments are illogical.
Dawkins thinks if says "it's a fact" enough times everyone will believe it. Dawkins is trying to hold up a crumbling building. Based on science, I give evolution 5 years and no more.
@Tittylovwr i think there's two sides to the argument, i love science because of the great things its created but if you ask the people of Hiroshima what they think about science im not so sure they would smile as much, i think if you look at science and religion they've both got many kills under there belt.and they both have people that want to use it for good and people who want to use it for bad.
@AnonymanForeverlol The human brain is plastic, and can be influenced in extaordinary ways. There are things at this point in human history that we do not know or understand, but we understand a lot at this point. More than we did 500 or 2000 years ago. What some people can't bring themselves to understand is death or the fact that we're not created. Religion fills the hole for those people, and this is dangerous if taken seriously. Islam at this moment is dangerous.
@AnonymanForeverlol All religions use the plasticity of the human mind in some ways. For many people it's extremely mild and reassures, comforts and brings people together. Doesn't infringe on education or policy processes or governance/ law in any way. And that's fine. Unfortunately when ever religion is taken far too seriously and becomes political/ judicial.. it's a major problem. It happens in Islam, Christianity does it also but to a lesser degree.
@SethHesio but surely you do not approve of absolving all individual blame because people were influenced by religion?
The point is that both science and religion are tools, worth nothing without the will to use them. Terrorists have used religion to twist people towards a goal, then used science to achieve that goal.
@AnonymanForeverlol Science is not inherently evil.. it takes people using science in a destructive way, or a destructive act. Religion on the other hand has inherent problems within it, which science doesn't have. If you follow Islam to the letter, the penalty for apostasy is death. Religion is also a bad thing because it thrives on ignorance rather than embracing progress. Science is about progress, religion isn't.
@AnonymanForeverlol People are to blame for their actions, certainly. But there are problems within certain religious texts. If I wasn't in a liberal country (like the UK or USA) I wouldn't be allowed to criticise Islam. This is how it used to be with Christianity as well, years ago, but now, right now.. people in India, Iran... are being punished for speaking against Islam, which is essentially just an ideology. You don't need to twist Islam to make people do bad things, it's in the text.
@SethHesio On the other hand, many religious people are living free lives where they dont hate others, where they get along with people of other religions and world views just fine. Judging them by the violence of others in the same creed is quite simply prejudice.
And in a liberal countries do we not find a rift between socialists and capitalists, or other non religious ideologies.
Did christians (among others ofcourse), not defend the jews against a christian enemy in WWII?
@AnonymanForeverlol Totalitarianism, fundamentalism when in put into action is dangerous. Religion which does this is particularly dangerous because you have the idea of God/ Allah on your side, which is hard to refute. You're right to bring up Cambodia. I would also bring up North Korea, untold suffering under a cult of personality. The concentration camps in NK will be akin to Auschwitz when they are finally uncovered. I agree that totalitarianism is wrong, but it's not caused by atheism.
@AnonymanForeverlol Atheism is freedom. Secular societies can exist and be prosperous. The atrocities in Cambodia, the terrifying genocide machine of the Nazi party (the Catholic church was complicit in Hitlers wrongdoings, this is just a fact that's worth noting) the barbarism of any thug leader or dictatorship is wrong, but it's not the fault of not believing in a God. Atheism is merely a rejection of the idea of a God.
@SethHesio Thats exactly my point. It would be wrong of me to assume that just because wrongs have been committed for the promotion of atheism that all atheists are like that, or that it is an fundamental part of atheism.
But just as a theist has the idea of a deity on their side, an atheist could equally and freely come to the conclusion that they are fighting for an undeniable moral right.
What about the theist who is humble so as not to assume that they know the mind of god?
@SethHesio did you know that muslims who were out on 9/12 collecting money for the victims?
Honestly, and im not attacking you because i feel like this has been a good discussion, but honestly do you not see how hurtful the prejudice of what you first said is to those moderate muslims, or even those firefighters who said prayer before they died in the towers?
Anyway i just wanna say again dont feel under attack im not trying to start a youtube war.
@AnonymanForeverlol I think the most important thing is that there is no law against offending people. Each day in the news there's something abhorrent about religion. The Catholic church has decades if not hundreds of years of systematic child abuse to account for. That for me is a fundamental problem with the way that the Vatican carries out its business, and I openly criticise that. I openly criticise Islam because it is just a religion at the end of the day, like Catholicism or anything else
@AnonymanForeverlol And a religion which requires you to pray five times a day... I question how that is moderate. It sounds more like a cult. But I think the most important thing is that in a free society we are allowed to question and criticise whatever we see as being backward or wrong or non-progressive or the enemy of civilization. For me any religion is an ideological choice and is open to criticism. To be forbidden to criticise or ridicule would be not be becoming of a free country.
@SethHesio But you dont deny that it is prejudice, do you? And im free to criticise your opinions too.
Is it more moderate to pray for death once or peace five times?
Is it more moderate to rationalise the murder of another or pray for peace 5 times?
I dont have a problem with you offending people, i have a problem with you not making the distinction between the muslim in the plane and the muslim doing charity. The christian who abuses and the christian who rescues in the towers.
@AnonymanForeverlol I think all religion should be free to be mocked and anything negative that is done in the name of that religion is part of that religion. The Catholic abuse, is a problem of the catholic church and the Vatican. The terrorism and barbarism you see in Islamic countries (Iran, Pakistan) and all over the world is a problem in Islam. If you want to live in a secular country with all the benefits that it has, you have to accept that religion is fair game for mocking.
@AnonymanForeverlol Football as a sport has millions, perhaps billions of fans. Only a small % of them are football hooligans that cause problems at matches. It is still a problem that affects the whole of football though.
@AnonymanForeverlol Praying is great for mental health. Scientific studies show that when Buddhists meditate, Nuns pray or just a non religious person sits and does a simple counting exercise, the same part of the brain lights up. It's a pleasurable thing. The point is there's a reason for religion, it was human beings initial attempts at philosophy. But we need to move forward from religion, recognise what it is. And since people kill in the name of religion, I have no problem slandering yours.
@SethHesio Even though people kill to promote atheism, you seem to have a problem with people slandering that. Youre reaction is really no different than mine, is it?
I accept that religion is as free to criticise as anything else, but people are also free to defend it. The point is that even justified criticisms should not form the basis of prejudice.
Crime is rife in black communities in the US, is it fair to judge all black people by that benchmark, or mock for that matter?
@AnonymanForeverlol You do not choose if you are black. You choose your religion though. And given the amount of misery that religion is directly responsible for, it's fair game to attack it. Islam regardless of the number of followers who are non violent, is the source of massive unrest in the world right now. And this is before I ask about apostasy, treatment of women, homosexuals etc.. but it's fair game, the same as criticising Catholicism is. I don't mind being offended by people.
@AnonymanForeverlol If you read about that man and what he did (it should tell you much of what you need to know that to even come close to citing someone committing horrific crimes in the name of atheism you have to go back over 200 years), the ridding of Catholicism from France was largely politically motivated. It was a power move because 95% of all power prior to the French Revolution resided in the followers of the Catholic church. It wasn't carried out in the name of atheism, but power.
@AnonymanForeverlol You get my point though, to come up with someone killing in the name of atheism... you couldn't really. This was a politician doing some pretty crazy things DURING the French revolution. Whereas you can ask me to name someone killing someone in the name of Islam I don't have to search at all. It's in TODAYS news.
@SethHesio Herbert promoted the cult of reason, an atheistic cult, the purges were a part of that. In one sense it is impossible for a person to kill in the name of atheism because it doesnt assert an ideology, but in another sense an atheist can kill in the name of an atheistic ideology, or to spread atheism.
I think people will kill in the name of anything at the end of the day, and in the sense that i described, atheism included.
@AnonymanForeverlol Peopl don't kill in the name of Atheism though. The only example you could come up with was 200 years old and he was someone trying to change a country and rid it of a power structure. Today, as in today... a Muslim blew himself up in Nigeria and 200 (that number keeps cropping up) people were killed in that way in Nigeria by Islamic terrorists. No one is killing in the name of atheism, that's the truth,
@SethHesio Look i see your point i really do, because atheism in its purest form cannot really compel someone to do that.
But then atheism in its purest form really isnt satisfactory for someone to live their life by, so an atheistic ideology or a philosophy goes on top of that. People are just as able to take a non religious ideology to the extreme as a religious one, like stalin.
@AnonymanForeverlol Nonsense. Atheism is merely a rejection of the idea of God (because it is a childish idea, but a comforting one) and the rejection of outdated religions. Our real worth as humans is the fact that empathy, love, appreciation of beauty in the world, kindness, hope, happiness... there is no need for a religion. Read, be kind to eachother, there is no need for there to be a belief in the supernatural or have an ancient text for you to know this is the right thing to do.
You just told me that atheism is merely a rejection of the idea of god. You then went on outline a little philosophy, thats what im talking about, atheism isnt enough, you need a philosophy or ideology on top of it to live by, like the one you told me about.
But surely its possible for an atheist, like stalin, to have an ideology that is atheistic, like communism, and reak havoc with their unflinching belief, like killing more than hitler.
@AnonymanForeverlol Empathy, love and kindness are innate to us. Having a God/ Allah as creator... it's not true, it's a myth, it's a lie and it's unnecessary. And I wouldn't be saying this if your religion wasn't responsible for so much death and destruction and misery in the world RIGHT NOW. Christianity used to be a terrible thing as well, but once it was tamed and people realised it was just a guide book and full of parables, and you should take it or leave it.. it became better.
@AnonymanForeverlol The worst thing in the world is where something as nonsensical as religion is taken as seriously as Islam is. It's an awful thing and harms civilization. If you can't see that when you watch the news, you're brain washed I'm afraid. There are other evils in the world of course, but a strict religion like Islam is not the future of the human race.
@SethHesio I never said islam is about peace, quite the contrary i think Islam is about war, thats the problem.
If islam is understood in its context (it was wartime) and with and understanding of the society of the day, as well as its shortcomings, muslims can live a devout, yet morally upstanding life.
@AnonymanForeverlol So the Koran is a flawed piece of work then? It needs to be understood in a certain context and can inspire people to murder because it was written in a time of war...? You're not making a good case for Islam here.
@SethHesio the koran is absolutely flawed i think. So is the bible and torah.
No dont make a straw man argument, you know i dont think it should be used to inspire to murder. Im saying that when we look at the time it was written, its was written in a barbaric time for a society at war, so a more advanced society where we know religions can coexist need to interpret it, look to use the good and take lesson from the bad.
I clicked this video cause I thought she was hawt.
crackhead2777888 7 hours ago
not to be rude, but DAMN she has hot legs ;)
publiusdg 22 hours ago
3:19 - 3:48 DNA only points to the fact that we the we have the same source of information and have common design (that is in reference and apart form intelligent design). A common ancestor is merely an assumption that Dawkins blatantly stated as fact for which he gave no evidence for.
TheMasterOfTheFrets 1 day ago
@TheMasterOfTheFrets No it also show how closely related we are to various species. This is why we can figure out how closely related various species are, by looking at differences and similarities in the genomes. It also allows us to precisely pinpoint where the common ancestors of different species are and gives us a timeline as to when that occured.
fatmikecj 1 day ago
@fatmikecj How? If mutations are random then we can't know when, or even, if, in many cases, they have occurred. That's why we look to the fossil record.
TheMasterOfTheFrets 1 day ago
@TheMasterOfTheFrets Basicaly we line two genomes up against each other and look at where the differences are. If we take two closely related species, say a human and a chimp and sequence their genomes we can then line the two codes up against each other. The vast majority of the code will be the same, however we can count the places where it doesn't match. If we then take a species that's more distantly related, say a gorrila, there will be more regions that don't match...
fatmikecj 21 hours ago
@TheMasterOfTheFrets ...the human, but the chimp will show less variation, so we know that the chimps and humans share a closer common ancestor than gorrilas and humans. Whilst mutations are random we can figure out when these branches happened by taking the average amount of time it takes for a mutation to occur and counting how many mutations have arrisen since the branching. Look up phylogenetic trees on wikipedia. Fossils are good for illustration, that's about it.
fatmikecj 21 hours ago
@fatmikecj But the chimp is irrelevant in the fact that it's still around today, and isn't human. Referencing genetics works great for evolution and intelligent design. A common designer would use common parts to make up all creatures which could give the illusion that we are related in an evolutionary sense. That's why I stay clear of that, because they can apply to each theory quite well
TheMasterOfTheFrets 15 hours ago
@TheMasterOfTheFrets I think I understand your point; feathers work well so god gave all birds feathers etc.
Phylogenetic maps however confirm that we have common ancestors and that closely related species have similar codes. Whilst you could say that god just arranged the genes a little differently to make species that are similar that doesn't take into account convergent evolution in which species which have near identical phenotypes have completely different genotypes.
fatmikecj 13 hours ago
@fatmikecj Well, it actually could, if you consider they are only similar because of a designer, or that they simply adapted differently, in which they are of the same genus, and therefor would seem as such. Therefore the real question is God' existence, and the answer to that depends on the person. That means this is no longer a discussion of science, but philosophy. We both know that philosophy is dependent on the person, meaning that the conversation is pointless at this point.
TheMasterOfTheFrets 11 hours ago
@TheMasterOfTheFrets Well then you're just saying that evolution is true, but god did it. And I agree, I can't really be bothered to open that can of worms either lol. However to say that evolution, which has literally millions of pieces of evidence to support it, is no better than intelligent design, which has been mashed around the evidence and still doesn't fit, or flies directly in the face of, most of what we know is insane.
fatmikecj 11 hours ago
what kind of moron biology teacher doesnt belive in evolution and the yanks wonder why they are considered to be amongst the stupidest people in the world
phillNWUK 2 days ago
Schoolboy drooling plus cretard ignorance. What a pretty combination. I despair for humanity.
BurpTheKitten 3 days ago
How can Mr. Dawkins hide his erection all the way through this??
marcohorowitz8 4 days ago
@marcohorowitz8 her thighs are smooth and soft and plush as a virgin
saigondj 4 days ago
Want to smash
hostyle0 5 days ago
So he said evolution is a fact,we are cousins with chimpanzees,well i have
to say that he is right,his understandig of life and the universe is not different than
a chimpanzee understanding,well at least a chimpanzee does not teach other
chimpanzees the same theory.This man is a liar,evolution is an unproven
theory not a fact and all
those who follow him will fall,because a blind man cannot lead another blind
man because both will fall.
thealkimista2012 5 days ago
@thealkimista2012 You're parroting a very ignorant view of reality. Let's evaluate the validity of the theory of evolution against the theory of god-did-it.
It is actually impossible to prove any theory as fact, so all we have left by which to decide is evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (it's mechanisms are better understood than gravity); the evidence for an invisible, ineffable creator (never mind a god matching any particular doctrinal claims) - NIL.
kelco93 5 days ago
@kelco93 You seem to be a very smart person,i understand evolution i
used to be an atheist therefore i understand atheist and christians,
there is a key to see Gods evidence the key is to be humble if you
atheist want to se proof of God you need to be humble,but if you
stay with your arrogance,pride and thinking that your wisdom and
knowledge are to high and your understanding of life is perfect and absolute
then you will never see the evidence of true and living God.
thealkimista2012 5 days ago
@thealkimista2012 "to see Gods evidence the key is to be humble" No, That's just plain bullshit. In a way you are right - if you can be convinced that humility before facts is "arrogant" and "proud" then you have opened the door to credulity and self deception. If you need to be in a 'special state of mind' to see "evidence of true and living God" then you are deluding yourself and you know it.
Still, if you're 'doing as you would be done by' ...well, there are worse delusions.
kelco93 5 days ago
@thealkimista2012 Oh, and "I used to be an atheist" is a fatuous thing to say. Every living thing begins life without a belief in gods (everyone "used to be an atheist"). I used to be a christian now I'm an atheist - am at a disadvantage in the discussion? Or do I too "understand atheist and christians"? I suspect I understand better than you because I see (with some embarrassment) the self delusion implicit in faith - if you really *understood* you would still be atheist.
kelco93 5 days ago
@kelco93 i was catholic 1st then atheist,now i dont have a religion
but the evidence of God made me believe that there is a God
from being catholic i went n hate God n blamed him of everything
then when i didnt see any response i hated him more n i said
God doesnt even exist,the time came when i askd myself;is life
just about eating,drinking,sex and dying?did i really came from apes?
all i can say is analize your beliefs,there is evidence of God in the chicken-egg
dilema my friend.
thealkimista2012 3 days ago
@thealkimista2012 As I suspected, you were never an atheist. You can't be an atheist and hate god. Really - there is no god - love life, be free. You are right: the notion that "there must be a god" comes, in part, from the fact that we live in a world which has aspects that are beyond our capacity to easily understand (i.e. the chicken-egg--which is not the best example). But this is not evidence for god it is evidence for our reluctance to admit that we don't have an answer.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93 Did you read the part of my comment when i said "God
doesnt even exist?
the dilema of the chicken-egg has been question even for philosophers
and you say is not a good example?even dawkins cant explain it
so if he cannot explain such a simple question how can he intent to
explain the universe? Einstein said nothing is by chance God does not play
dice with the universe,but dawkins say that the universe exist by chance
so who is right Einstein or dawkins?
thealkimista2012 3 days ago
@thealkimista2012 I got the feeling that "God doesnt even exist" was directed at God to provoke him - either way, on that point, you were right.
Chicken and egg - Not a good example because it is too easy to answer: The egg came first - domestic chickens were bred from earlier egg laying birds which would not be recognisable as chickens (in a useful analogy for evolution).
Also it is generally considered by quantum physicists that Einstein was wrong about quantum uncertainty.
kelco93 3 days ago
@thealkimista2012 I got the feeling that "God doesnt even exist" was directed at God to provoke him - either way, on that point, you were right.
Chicken and egg - Not a good example because it is too easy to answer: The egg came first - domestic chickens were bred from earlier egg laying birds which would not be recognisable as chickens (in a useful analogy for evolution).
Also it is generally considered by quantum physicists that Einstein was wrong about quantum uncertainty.
kelco93 3 days ago
@kelco93 You still saying the chicken-egg dilema not a good example too easy
to answer for evolution right? The chicken-egg is the key to open the door to real knowledge,
what was first the chicken or the egg = what was first DNA or PROTEIN?
DNA needs certain PROTEINS in order to replicate.Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.Thats your answer
right there thats why evolution is IMPOSSIBLE and should be remove from schools.
thealkimista2012 2 days ago
@thealkimista2012 DNA/Protein - a much more interesting question.
Just so I'm clear: you currently consider it impossible that someone could produce a model which shows, hypothetically, how simple organic molecules might combine by natural processes in a sequence of simple non-miraculous steps to form DNA and proteins concurrently?
And if this hypothetical model could be produced then you would concede that evolution is not certainly impossible on those grounds?
kelco93 2 days ago
@kelco93 There is nothing else to say you said it yourself
You need SOMEBODY TO PRODUCE IT.
You and I live in two different worlds,you live in a material world
you have never seen anything supernatural,i live in a spiritual world
like Einstein said; “There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; or you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
God bless you and i hope someday you allow yourself to see with the eyes of the soul
not only with your physical eyes.
thealkimista2012 2 days ago
@thealkimista2012 If somebody produced that model would you acknowledge it? (I think they have.) Or would it be too hard to see from your own little 'spiritual world'?
I acknowledge that your blessing is meant with kind intent--thank you. But you must realise that claiming an enchanted view which lifts you above the mundane vulgarities of facts and evidence, makes your prior pretension of rationality seem hollow.
Re Einstein? I prefer to "live as if everything is a miracle.”
kelco93 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thealkimista2012 If somebody produced that model would you acknowledge it? (I think they have.) Or would it be too hard to see from your own little 'spiritual world'?
I acknowledge that your blessing is meant with kind intent--thank you. But you must realise that claiming an enchanted view which lifts you above the mundane vulgarities of facts and evidence, makes your prior pretension of rationality seem hollow.
Re Einstein? I prefer to "live as if everything is a miracle.”
kelco93 2 days ago
@thealkimista2012 By the way, I was a bit surprised you didn't pick me up for saying "you were never an atheist" when in an earlier comment I said "everyone is born an atheist". I think that when superstitions get planted into the minds of children when they are very young (as occurs in religious households) it takes a great deal of persistent mental effort to get free of them. Don't give up, it's worth it--there is far more to life than eating, drinking, sex and dying.
kelco93 3 days ago
@thealkimista2012 This blind man leads many other blind people. /watch?v=MNkJ1diTxOE&feature=related
jewcyfrewt 5 days ago
@thealkimista2012 poor guy :(
hostyle0 5 days ago
@thealkimista2012 oh yes, a man sitting at a computer, will lecture another man on evolution, who spent in the field all his life. Thank god your kind is dying out!
eleminatus 4 days ago
@eleminatus i understand the evolution theory enough to know that is
just a theory,for you might be a fact but that is not science
how selfish and full of himself dawkins is that just
because he is an expert in an unproved theory he thinks he can explain everything
real science is not about beliefs is about facts,to think that the universe
was made by itself is against the laws of physics,NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING
if b4 the universe there was nothing,where all the matter came from?
thealkimista2012 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thealkimista2012 "I understand the evolution theory enough to know that is just a theory" - this statement alone demonstrates your (wilful?) ignorance of the meaning of the word "theory".
You then go on to make statements that are not only false but demonstrably laughable. You insist that science is about facts that need to be proven (it's not), and yet you will believe what you will without any proof. To then suggest that Dawkins is "full of himself" is a ridiculous irony!
kelco93 3 days ago
@thealkimista2012 man oh man... evolution is a theory, that has many proven facts within it. There are over 250.000 peer-reviewed papers on the topic. Not to mention that there are plenty of other theories, that you no doubt accept. So there is only one conclusion - your argument is not about science, its about theology. Science contradicts your religious fairy tails, so you decided to attack them from scientific stand point. Unfortunately, you fail miserably.
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus I ll put it this way,my knowledge to you is senseless,and your
knowledge to me is senseless,then who is right and who is wrong? your kind
ll say you are right and my kind ll say i am right,what then? how can we know?
you werent here 4 million years ago to say;this is how it happend and in
7,000 years no man has seen a change in any animal so the only way
to know for sure is when we die,unfortunately it ll be to late for you
since you come from apes and i come from God.
thealkimista2012 2 days ago
@thealkimista2012 facts are not senseless. With factual information there is no sides. Its irrelevant what I think or what you think on any subject, if facts and evidence point to an answer, then that answer is right. Its simple as that. There is a whole methodology of determining truth, why are you so ignorant of it? And no, death is not the only way to know. Plenty of tools exist that let us understand past. You are simply ignoring them!
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus I am sorry yes i am so ignorant n you and dawkins are supreme
beings,please since im so so stupid n ignorant to understand explain
what was first DNA or PROTEIN? here is your answer and see your wisdom
fly back to the 1800's where it belongs,DNA needs certain PROTEINS in order to replicate.Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence,THATS A REAL FACT NOT A BOOK OF SPECULATIONS
AS THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES IS.
thealkimista2012 2 days ago
@thealkimista2012 take you ignorance and arrogance somewhere else. All you can do is use silly fallacies like god of the gaps. Putting god into obscure fields of science. If you think you know more about biology then Dawkins, then you are just deluded. Thank god your kind is dying out!
eleminatus 1 day ago
@eleminatus My ignorance is wiser than Dawkins wisdom for my
wisdom does not come from men but from God.I ll call myself arrogant
and ignorant the day i try to explain the unexplainable,the day i try
to be better than the creator of the universe,the day i try to explain the
beginning of life when i wasnt even there.
1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
thealkimista2012 1 day ago
@thealkimista2012 You claim to know what is unexplainable - that's a big call!
You claim your wisdom transcends human knowledge - that's not arrogant?
At least now you're being honest now - capitulating on the rational by admitting (proclaiming) that you think you have access to special mystical insight which transcends the rational.
The question remains - why did you begin with pretensions of rationality when you are happy to believe what can't be rationally supported?
kelco93 1 day ago
@kelco93 Yes my wisdom is beyond human understanding because my
wisdom does not come from human source it comes from God,
there are forces and energies that man still dont know,the speed of light
is not the fastest speed and yet we think it is because thats the only one we know
i am ahead of all of you atheist,because i am not stuck trying to know the how
or the when life starts,the house is burning and you are trying to know how
the fire started instead of saving your life.
thealkimista2012 23 hours ago
@thealkimista2012 ha, ha. Nice! "speed of light is not the fastest speed ...therefore god."
Yes you're ahead of the rest of us because you live in you own imaginary world where you don't just know what the unknowable is, you know the unknowable!
That's fine, but please don't pretend to have an interest in a rational discussion, you just leave people feeling that they have wasted their time responding to you.
Good luck with that fire.
kelco93 22 hours ago
@kelco93 i dont feel the same way because i learned from you.
n you stated my point i am ahead while you live in a rational world
i live in a spiritual world.
n you feel that you wasted your time because you couldnt prove
that your theory is a fact,and there is not much difference between
the catholic church 500 years ago n the evolutionist,they believed
the earth was flat now you believe that we came from apes
i rather to have faith in God than to have faith in an unproven theory.
thealkimista2012 22 hours ago
@thealkimista2012 "couldn't prove that your theory is a fact" - [sigh] it really is pointless, no matter how many times people say "theory" and "fact" refer to different aspects of knowledge there is always someone who will say "theory not 'fact', therefore false" and then, by the same methodology, concludes "God not 'fact', therefore ...true".
Spin it any way you like mate you're only deluding yourself. There's far more beauty in reality than you realise - don't cheapen it with man-made myths.
kelco93 21 hours ago
@thealkimista2012 in other words, your wisdom is delusion, grounded in superstition and supernatural nonsense. Thank god your kind is dying out!
eleminatus 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleminatus Colin Patterson,senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world's largest fossil collection -sixty million specimens --confessed,"If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions],fossil or living,I would certainly have included them [in my book Evolution]." His statement underscores the fact that the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists.No verifiable transitions from one species to another have as yet been found
thealkimista2012 15 hours ago
Pretty presumptuous to say the amazing Dawkins is interviewing YOU, and not vice-versa; especially when you're a nobody.
alspageddi 1 week ago
Yes - we have compulsory religious studies. But they only teach about religion and not push any one religion. We teach about all the world's major religions as well as general spirituality issues
fingleur1 1 week ago
She feels uneasy since Dawkins is holding his hands clutched over his erection! He's trying not to stare at her legs?!?!
lifeschild1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe that the universe and cosmos exists deep within the confines of Oprah Winfrey's rectum. How do you know that it doesn't? We may be microscopic matter living within the rectal orifice of another organism much larger than the cosmos we assume exists. The possibility exists??!?
lifeschild1 1 week ago
Oooohhh Myyy! ;)
Aodanful 1 week ago
Space science: why not just call it Physics?
ImperialGeorge 1 week ago
@ImperialGeorge why not to call MDs biologists ?
85Damix 1 week ago
@85Damix
I doubt they just look at space: I do physics at school and study astronomy within it (as well as method of its research and exploration, but don't make a study-unit of it), but I suppose they might do it differently in America.
ImperialGeorge 1 week ago
@ImperialGeorge Space science probably does not include biophysics or string theory but they still should have things like mechanics, electromagnetism and so :) If is it proper Christian High. They tell them names of planets with the order in which they were created :)
85Damix 1 week ago
@85Damix
Ah, thanks. :)
ImperialGeorge 1 week ago
im 16 years old and my schools haven't said one word about evolution. its so annoying because i want to be a scientist when i grow up, and they wont even have a class relating to evolution. literally in 5th grade i was so curious about it that i looked it up on the internet and became obsessed. it was like i discovered something not even my teachers knew. but i really wish they would teach evolution in schools.
InfectedInHD 1 week ago
@InfectedInHD That's shocking! In the UK evolution teaching starts at KeyStage2 - That's 11 years of age in SC2 Science and living processes and continues through to KS4 (14-16 years) where we show all the evidence including the fossil record and DNA.
It's illegal to teach creation myths as scientific fact of course.
fingleur1 1 week ago
@fingleur1 teaching small kids evolution it's quite pointless. You may force them to memorise the data... it's not good for anything. I'm from Czech Rep. I was taught Evolution when I was 7 years old. I had to memorise evolution trees of several animals which it names in Czech and Latin. When I was 9, we started with genetics which was more nothing-saying than Evolution. I did memorise everything but it does not meant anything to me. It's pointless
85Damix 1 week ago
@85Damix We teach small children that the earth spins in space and the moon moves around it.
You don't actually learn the mathematical proofs of this until post-16. Evolution teaching should be started in primary school really.
fingleur1 1 week ago
@fingleur1 that's enough, do they also have religion studies? By Religion Studies I a mean teaching about main religions, their values, rituals, mythology and history. Not forcing them into any. That's actually make them Atheists/Agnostics seeing Religions from "out of the box" and how it actually is.
85Damix 1 week ago
@InfectedInHD "When I were a lad" we didn't have the internet! I had t'ride bicycle to t'local library to find out about science. And yes, I think I understood evolution pretty well before I started high school - It's really a simple concept yet the beauty in the details still makes me smile. I recently read Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" it's not written for school age kids but then not too many of them are teaching themselves evolution - give it a try, he takes it to a new level!
kelco93 1 week ago
@kelco93 haha yah i understood it pretty well at first, but now that im in highschool im reading "river out of Eden" and i LOVE IT!
InfectedInHD 1 week ago
@InfectedInHD I don't suppose "river out of Eden" is on the school curriculum?. I discovered some of Bertrand Russell's stuff on the internet recently--I think I would have enjoyed English classes much more if they had thrown a bit of his stuff into the mix (logical, funny and ethically sound). It's amazes me that the inexistence of God has been proven for over a hundred years and yet respect for religious sensibilities can still suppress any mention of it in schools.
kelco93 1 week ago
@InfectedInHD I've heard similar stories from some other Americans and it's just astounding and unbelievable to me as a Finn. To me the teaching of evolution in schools has always been a thing I've taken for granted, but obviously it's not the same everywhere, for example on that side of the Atlantic. I think you'd have good reason to call your science teachers unprofessional and accuse them of holding information from their students. It's a disgrace.
WeAreTheGods1 1 week ago
@InfectedInHD Science is about curiosity so you're doing the right thing. Study real science as hard as you can, and go to a reputable university as soon as you can, and follow your dream.
ClueBand 1 week ago
damn she is a cutie. dawkins banged out hard, hes hung like a dinosaur
adamk4747 1 week ago
Oh wow, Dawkins scores.
Ortheos2006 1 week ago
I wanna be like Richard Dawkins now
peoman2 1 week ago
Comment removed
peoman2 1 week ago
Comment removed
peoman2 1 week ago
@ikawpipa As an example of the kind of bullshit I'm talking about: WLC is "Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology". What could the word "Research" mean in that context? What possible research could you do to verify the truth value of a theological assertion? "OK I started the God-ometer, everyone start praying really hard! ...nothing, Ok lets all start blaspheming ...". Seriously - "research" is a word with a meaning, he (orTalbot) is using at a weasel word.
kelco93 1 week ago
I really commend him for this, he is genuinely passionate about the dissemination of truth and empirical fact, the world be better as a result of your endeavours Mr Dawkins.....oh and if switched that camera off she'd bang you into next week.
JCaesar11 1 week ago
I want Richard Dawkins to interview me..
Ryday37 1 week ago
interesting, I wonder what grade she got that semester?
danszimmy07 1 week ago
Haha, this is awesome (Y) ... Glad more and more people can except our real roots.
How'd you get a hold of Mr. Dawkins for this ?
aparks306 1 week ago
Atheist got game.
Bodywrecker 1 week ago
BABE
XZedong 1 week ago 2
Ugly
ancientpatrician 1 week ago
Atheism: Join us, we´ve got the chicks!!
ptango666 2 weeks ago 51
@ptango666 And the medicine, and the contraception, and the freedom of thought and the....
degelf1 6 days ago
@degelf1 All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans ever done for us?
kelco93 6 days ago
@Parks646 Hi Sidney, you know what's better than a pretty girl ? A pretty girl that's smart! Great video and I"m so jealous that you got to interview Dawkings, its such a breath of fresh air to find a young lady that has an interest in science and evolution and dare I say, atheism ?.. Kudos to you and try to educate and talk to as many of your friends as you can. I wish you all the best. X.O.X Mike
mikelh 2 weeks ago
I wish I were in her class :D
Falloutglitch 2 weeks ago
whoa... i wish all girls were that evolved...
sergeanthugostiglitz 2 weeks ago 28
I hope brother Dawkins got the chance to make a sexual contact with that woman. I would like, if you know what I mean!? :)
armelix73 2 weeks ago
What a charming conversation. It's so nice when civilized people can talk.
catalyst8 2 weeks ago
Cygnus ^ ^
sensualbunny1 2 weeks ago
...are you two in for a surprise!
puffrooster 2 weeks ago
Whereas if you ask me about someone killing in the name of Islam, I don't need to go back 200 years to a debatable candidate.. I can look at the news from yesterday or today. Do you see my point?
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
Americans most famous Atheists are always British
Alexispelling 2 weeks ago
Billions of years old? how about comets that don't last that long?
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Who says that the regular comets we see have been about for billions of years?
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 "Who says that the regular comets we see have been about for billions of years?"
You tell me, observational science => contradicts billions of years
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Au contraire mon brave, Observational science tells us that comets evaporate and therefore are unlikely to have been around for billions of years. Observational science tells us that comets can knock each other off course and knock them or other icy blocks of space gunge into our system - becoming new comets.
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
What a nice kid. Professor Dawkins is great as always. :)
CoreyfromEarth 2 weeks ago
A Biology teacher who doesn't believe in evolution... how the hell did she get her credentials? o_O
redshark618 2 weeks ago 5
@redshark618 From a District councilor who is a dumbass who got his credentials from a dumbass senator. it trickles down.
RottingCorpse100 2 weeks ago
@redshark618 Apparently you don't need to believe in evolution to get a science degree in biology. You just need to tell the professors what they want to hear. Seems like people who understand evolution and can pass the tests don't believe in it because the evidence doesn't fit.
mythink101 2 weeks ago
I would like to give her a practical demonstration of the most central prosess of evolution
phido79 2 weeks ago
You would think she would wear something more appropriate to an interview with Dawkins.
TheAtheistAussie 2 weeks ago
How did she get to see Dawkins?!
CJYCrystal 2 weeks ago
Prof. Dawkins is wasting his time there. I've got two sisters who are teachers, both of whom teach evolution as a matter of fact. My elder brother works with cars, and it was never - as far as he was concerned, taken into question about where we came from as far as his understanding of the universe is. That young girl is his wrong target audience, she's a typical 16 yrs old bubble head. Prof. Dawkins needs to tackle churches and have proper support behind him. Too many nut cases out there.
101truthhurts 2 weeks ago
The most interesting thing about this clip is her delightfully short skirt.
LeeBeeBee1 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain He's not just basing his evidence off opinion like theists do. He has simply used scientific evidence which proves evolution to be true which is what we should all be doing instead of involving opinion in a debate about science.
jhelppi0 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain You sir, are an idiot. If you had seen the evidence (hundreds of millions of fossil records including intermediate stages of evolution), you would not be so quick to foolishly judge a distinguished scientist who has viewed thousands of pieces of evidence indicating that evolution is indeed true. You are saying that science will fail because it has evidence and that religion will succeed because you believe in a magical sky magician based on a book written a thousand years ago. Fail.
jhelppi0 2 weeks ago
@jhelppi0 I'm afraid that the reality will be quite different to what you think as well. Our current level of civilization is due to discovering how to utilize the energy in oil. The oil age is now in permanent decline. All our knowledge will intrinsically decline with it. Contemporary times are the peak of mankinds civilized status and see how many idiots are still among us. Magic Man will outlive our current knowledge quite easily as we slowly slip back to the bronze age and beyond.
D3maine 2 weeks ago
we didn't evolve from animals, there are plenty of credible philosophical and scientific arguments for theism, Look up Dr. Craig and Rabbi Wolpe's debates, great substance!!
slyer72 3 weeks ago
@slyer72 "plenty of credible philosophical and scientific arguments for theism" and you cite Dr. Craig and Rabbi Wolpe?! All of their arguments can pretty much be boiled down to "Reality is too hard to understand therefore God..." Sure they sugar coat it with anecdotes and allegory, but substance? No. Essentially they are preachers (bullshit salesman) with a few clever ways of presenting their product. They are very nice well intentioned men and all, but their arguments are illogical.
kelco93 2 weeks ago
@slyer72 we JUST didn't evolve from animals, we still ARE animals.
as for your claim of philosophical arguments, can you name any that are applicable to science?
prognemesiss 2 weeks ago
Dawkins thinks if says "it's a fact" enough times everyone will believe it. Dawkins is trying to hold up a crumbling building. Based on science, I give evolution 5 years and no more.
webhutspain 3 weeks ago
3:40 onwards...That's exactly how i pick up chicks.
robertedge 3 weeks ago
awwwwwhhhh this poor girl that big mean teacher wont push his views on her anymore now that the great dawkins told her how it is!
XxGracexXBethelXx 3 weeks ago
thetruejatt your a dumb fuck ........the world is fucked cuz of religion......dumb ass
Tittylovwr 3 weeks ago
@Tittylovwr i think there's two sides to the argument, i love science because of the great things its created but if you ask the people of Hiroshima what they think about science im not so sure they would smile as much, i think if you look at science and religion they've both got many kills under there belt.and they both have people that want to use it for good and people who want to use it for bad.
finallyfoundtheway 3 weeks ago
@finallyfoundtheway Without science we wouldn't be having this conversation. Science flies people to the moon, religion flies people into buildings.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago 24
@SethHesio wrong. dumb muslims flie themselves into buildings. nice try though.
marineboy090 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio Would people would have flown those planes without science, or gotten to the moon without the human drive to succeed?
I think human choice is the underlying factor.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol The human brain is plastic, and can be influenced in extaordinary ways. There are things at this point in human history that we do not know or understand, but we understand a lot at this point. More than we did 500 or 2000 years ago. What some people can't bring themselves to understand is death or the fact that we're not created. Religion fills the hole for those people, and this is dangerous if taken seriously. Islam at this moment is dangerous.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol All religions use the plasticity of the human mind in some ways. For many people it's extremely mild and reassures, comforts and brings people together. Doesn't infringe on education or policy processes or governance/ law in any way. And that's fine. Unfortunately when ever religion is taken far too seriously and becomes political/ judicial.. it's a major problem. It happens in Islam, Christianity does it also but to a lesser degree.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio but surely you do not approve of absolving all individual blame because people were influenced by religion?
The point is that both science and religion are tools, worth nothing without the will to use them. Terrorists have used religion to twist people towards a goal, then used science to achieve that goal.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Science is not inherently evil.. it takes people using science in a destructive way, or a destructive act. Religion on the other hand has inherent problems within it, which science doesn't have. If you follow Islam to the letter, the penalty for apostasy is death. Religion is also a bad thing because it thrives on ignorance rather than embracing progress. Science is about progress, religion isn't.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol People are to blame for their actions, certainly. But there are problems within certain religious texts. If I wasn't in a liberal country (like the UK or USA) I wouldn't be allowed to criticise Islam. This is how it used to be with Christianity as well, years ago, but now, right now.. people in India, Iran... are being punished for speaking against Islam, which is essentially just an ideology. You don't need to twist Islam to make people do bad things, it's in the text.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio On the other hand, many religious people are living free lives where they dont hate others, where they get along with people of other religions and world views just fine. Judging them by the violence of others in the same creed is quite simply prejudice.
And in a liberal countries do we not find a rift between socialists and capitalists, or other non religious ideologies.
Did christians (among others ofcourse), not defend the jews against a christian enemy in WWII?
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio Hasnt the desire to bring atheism also resulted in oppression?
French revolution, soviet union, cambodia.
Or how about any ideology that a person believes in unflinchingly? Communism for one.
It is the absolute certainty of a person that their intentions are pure, that theirs is the only way, that leads them to persecute others.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Totalitarianism, fundamentalism when in put into action is dangerous. Religion which does this is particularly dangerous because you have the idea of God/ Allah on your side, which is hard to refute. You're right to bring up Cambodia. I would also bring up North Korea, untold suffering under a cult of personality. The concentration camps in NK will be akin to Auschwitz when they are finally uncovered. I agree that totalitarianism is wrong, but it's not caused by atheism.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Atheism is freedom. Secular societies can exist and be prosperous. The atrocities in Cambodia, the terrifying genocide machine of the Nazi party (the Catholic church was complicit in Hitlers wrongdoings, this is just a fact that's worth noting) the barbarism of any thug leader or dictatorship is wrong, but it's not the fault of not believing in a God. Atheism is merely a rejection of the idea of a God.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio Thats exactly my point. It would be wrong of me to assume that just because wrongs have been committed for the promotion of atheism that all atheists are like that, or that it is an fundamental part of atheism.
But just as a theist has the idea of a deity on their side, an atheist could equally and freely come to the conclusion that they are fighting for an undeniable moral right.
What about the theist who is humble so as not to assume that they know the mind of god?
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio did you know that muslims who were out on 9/12 collecting money for the victims?
Honestly, and im not attacking you because i feel like this has been a good discussion, but honestly do you not see how hurtful the prejudice of what you first said is to those moderate muslims, or even those firefighters who said prayer before they died in the towers?
Anyway i just wanna say again dont feel under attack im not trying to start a youtube war.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol I think the most important thing is that there is no law against offending people. Each day in the news there's something abhorrent about religion. The Catholic church has decades if not hundreds of years of systematic child abuse to account for. That for me is a fundamental problem with the way that the Vatican carries out its business, and I openly criticise that. I openly criticise Islam because it is just a religion at the end of the day, like Catholicism or anything else
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol And a religion which requires you to pray five times a day... I question how that is moderate. It sounds more like a cult. But I think the most important thing is that in a free society we are allowed to question and criticise whatever we see as being backward or wrong or non-progressive or the enemy of civilization. For me any religion is an ideological choice and is open to criticism. To be forbidden to criticise or ridicule would be not be becoming of a free country.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio But you dont deny that it is prejudice, do you? And im free to criticise your opinions too.
Is it more moderate to pray for death once or peace five times?
Is it more moderate to rationalise the murder of another or pray for peace 5 times?
I dont have a problem with you offending people, i have a problem with you not making the distinction between the muslim in the plane and the muslim doing charity. The christian who abuses and the christian who rescues in the towers.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol I think all religion should be free to be mocked and anything negative that is done in the name of that religion is part of that religion. The Catholic abuse, is a problem of the catholic church and the Vatican. The terrorism and barbarism you see in Islamic countries (Iran, Pakistan) and all over the world is a problem in Islam. If you want to live in a secular country with all the benefits that it has, you have to accept that religion is fair game for mocking.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Football as a sport has millions, perhaps billions of fans. Only a small % of them are football hooligans that cause problems at matches. It is still a problem that affects the whole of football though.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Praying is great for mental health. Scientific studies show that when Buddhists meditate, Nuns pray or just a non religious person sits and does a simple counting exercise, the same part of the brain lights up. It's a pleasurable thing. The point is there's a reason for religion, it was human beings initial attempts at philosophy. But we need to move forward from religion, recognise what it is. And since people kill in the name of religion, I have no problem slandering yours.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio Even though people kill to promote atheism, you seem to have a problem with people slandering that. Youre reaction is really no different than mine, is it?
I accept that religion is as free to criticise as anything else, but people are also free to defend it. The point is that even justified criticisms should not form the basis of prejudice.
Crime is rife in black communities in the US, is it fair to judge all black people by that benchmark, or mock for that matter?
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol You do not choose if you are black. You choose your religion though. And given the amount of misery that religion is directly responsible for, it's fair game to attack it. Islam regardless of the number of followers who are non violent, is the source of massive unrest in the world right now. And this is before I ask about apostasy, treatment of women, homosexuals etc.. but it's fair game, the same as criticising Catholicism is. I don't mind being offended by people.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio A religious person does not choose what other people of his religion do.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Who has killed to promote atheism? Give an example.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio
Jacques Hébert
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol If you read about that man and what he did (it should tell you much of what you need to know that to even come close to citing someone committing horrific crimes in the name of atheism you have to go back over 200 years), the ridding of Catholicism from France was largely politically motivated. It was a power move because 95% of all power prior to the French Revolution resided in the followers of the Catholic church. It wasn't carried out in the name of atheism, but power.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio U asked me to name someone, i did. But then again how many religous wars are politically motivated? It just seems a double standard to me
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol You get my point though, to come up with someone killing in the name of atheism... you couldn't really. This was a politician doing some pretty crazy things DURING the French revolution. Whereas you can ask me to name someone killing someone in the name of Islam I don't have to search at all. It's in TODAYS news.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio Herbert promoted the cult of reason, an atheistic cult, the purges were a part of that. In one sense it is impossible for a person to kill in the name of atheism because it doesnt assert an ideology, but in another sense an atheist can kill in the name of an atheistic ideology, or to spread atheism.
I think people will kill in the name of anything at the end of the day, and in the sense that i described, atheism included.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Peopl don't kill in the name of Atheism though. The only example you could come up with was 200 years old and he was someone trying to change a country and rid it of a power structure. Today, as in today... a Muslim blew himself up in Nigeria and 200 (that number keeps cropping up) people were killed in that way in Nigeria by Islamic terrorists. No one is killing in the name of atheism, that's the truth,
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio Look i see your point i really do, because atheism in its purest form cannot really compel someone to do that.
But then atheism in its purest form really isnt satisfactory for someone to live their life by, so an atheistic ideology or a philosophy goes on top of that. People are just as able to take a non religious ideology to the extreme as a religious one, like stalin.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Nonsense. Atheism is merely a rejection of the idea of God (because it is a childish idea, but a comforting one) and the rejection of outdated religions. Our real worth as humans is the fact that empathy, love, appreciation of beauty in the world, kindness, hope, happiness... there is no need for a religion. Read, be kind to eachother, there is no need for there to be a belief in the supernatural or have an ancient text for you to know this is the right thing to do.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio How is it nonsense?
You just told me that atheism is merely a rejection of the idea of god. You then went on outline a little philosophy, thats what im talking about, atheism isnt enough, you need a philosophy or ideology on top of it to live by, like the one you told me about.
But surely its possible for an atheist, like stalin, to have an ideology that is atheistic, like communism, and reak havoc with their unflinching belief, like killing more than hitler.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Empathy, love and kindness are innate to us. Having a God/ Allah as creator... it's not true, it's a myth, it's a lie and it's unnecessary. And I wouldn't be saying this if your religion wasn't responsible for so much death and destruction and misery in the world RIGHT NOW. Christianity used to be a terrible thing as well, but once it was tamed and people realised it was just a guide book and full of parables, and you should take it or leave it.. it became better.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol The worst thing in the world is where something as nonsensical as religion is taken as seriously as Islam is. It's an awful thing and harms civilization. If you can't see that when you watch the news, you're brain washed I'm afraid. There are other evils in the world of course, but a strict religion like Islam is not the future of the human race.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol So how do you consolidate that with the notion of Islam being about peace?
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio I never said islam is about peace, quite the contrary i think Islam is about war, thats the problem.
If islam is understood in its context (it was wartime) and with and understanding of the society of the day, as well as its shortcomings, muslims can live a devout, yet morally upstanding life.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol So the Koran is a flawed piece of work then? It needs to be understood in a certain context and can inspire people to murder because it was written in a time of war...? You're not making a good case for Islam here.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio the koran is absolutely flawed i think. So is the bible and torah.
No dont make a straw man argument, you know i dont think it should be used to inspire to murder. Im saying that when we look at the time it was written, its was written in a barbaric time for a society at war, so a more advanced society where we know religions can coexist need to interpret it, look to use the good and take lesson from the bad.
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Well the Koran is based on the bible and the torah so that follows.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol What do you think would happen if you spoke as openly as that about Islam in Iran for example?
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@SethHesio dunno they might kill me
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago
@AnonymanForeverlol Exactly.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago