I wish Dawkins would have come and talked to me as a child. All he's doing here is stating fact. Is there anyone in the 21st century who claims to be a critical thinker who would back a 2,000 year old anonymously written manuscript over modern day science? It just doesn't make sense.
but isn't the dillemma that we really don't know where we come from and that we also cannot prove there is no god?? off course we can't prove there is and the prove off where we come from is not sufficient ....not precise... ...should we just believe there is more out there? NO! But it's food for tought...i believe we cannot explain everything (yet? mmmm) organised religion is not the answer, but the dogma's of science aren't either...i belive we humans can do greater things...spiritualy & free
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is doing it again....he is thinking evolution excludes God, but it doesn't. I don't quite appreciate it when he uses evolution as a way to justify why religions are wrong.
@Casshyr it's because it's not required. God is not a scientific concept, it's a made up thing no scientist can prove or disprove. If something doesn't need to explain the process, then it best be left out due to the fact that if it doesn't explain anything, it has no purpose to be used. Science never said God did anything, and he is just giving them science. I'm sorry if that disappoints you. God has no relationship to reality as we know it thus far in the scientific literature :)!
@Entertainmentwf agree, except Dawkins is basically using evolution as a justification for why God doesn't exist. Tell that to scientists like Francis Collins! Evolution has NOTHING to do with God. Evolution only disproves creationism, but you cannot use it to disprove the idea of God (nor does it enforce God). Dawkins often get the two mixed up: he mixes religious fundamentalists with other theists. There was a video where a theist says "why are you pushing away those who are on ur side"
@Casshyr evolution does disprove some religious doctrine and points out some contradictions and fallacies. once enough fallacies are pointed out we can determine whether that religion is reasonable to believe in or not
@Casshyr its one of his reason. One of his million. And realistically you can hide behind the fact that evolution does not exclude God. But ultimately in the jeudo-christianity is clear on how humans were created- unless your going to stray from the norm and say it is yet another symbolic message ?
@jazzyjeff1282 "But ultimately in the jeudo-christianity is clear on how humans were created- unless your going to stray from the norm and say it is yet another symbolic message ?" => I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to defend for them, but i should point out that over 50% of Christians do accept evolution, and many parts of Bible are already interpreted symbolically, they simply extend this to evolution. Cheap shot i know..t as long as they accept science, i'm fine with it.
@Casshyr if u try to fit in god in evolution u really dont know what evolution is,even if thr is a god he is not required for evolution,anyway god is nuthing more than a fairytale
@thescorpionking2020 Actually being a graduate student in bioinformatics I do know a lot about evolution theory. And no I personally am not a theistic evolutionist, but one cannot use evolution theory to debunk God, since evolution theory says nothing about God's existence (or lack of existence). Evolution theory only contradicts against creationism, not God. There is a reason why scientists like Francis Collins have no problem being both a scientist and a Christian.
@Casshyr Evolution neither excludes or includes God because hes a made up entity that's invisible to all five senses which is why he cant be applied to science. Besides Dawkins is referring to organised religion here, hes not talking about God specifically.
@MrGuy1332 agree on the first part..but if you listen to Dawkins's choice of word, he often treat the word God as equivalent to organized religion. And he also often merged creationists along with rest of other theists who otherwise gladly embrace scientific theories. Dawkins is a good scientist, but like many scientific nerds (lol), he is not a good debater on issues concerning religion/philosophy/society imo. He often gives off the wrong impression and uses poor choice of words.
@Casshyr Well I'd beg to differ, unless you're better than him. I've been at it for a long time, and I wish I were as good as Dawkins at public speaking. Who said you need to know a lot of theology to discuss the concept of God. God is a petty and easy thing to throw aside if you got a background in science. It's literally the retarded child of arguments. It only gets prop up because gullible fellows believe it without evidence. It is of theists (of all kinds) to demonstrate it first...
@Entertainmentwf Well I'm a shitty debater lol so I don't claim I'm better. But did u actually read his book "God Delusion"? Majority are pretty childish interpretations. I don't say God does exist, but his view on the Bible really clearly show someone who obviously has not even attend 1 proper Bible session. I have been to church for over 10 years, attending Bible camp and so on. To me, if u want to debate against Christians, at least get the interpretation right, don't make up ur own, right?
@Entertainmentwf "God is a petty and easy thing to throw aside if you got a background in science" => actually no it's not. God, by most religious definition, is beyond the physical natural world. Science can only study what is in this world. But God, the way it's commonly defined, is not part of this world. So u can't use science to disprove God. You can only use science to disprove ideas within a religion, like creationism. But God and creationism are not the same thing. See MrGuy's post too
God is real right...ok hey how about this. The bible mentions something about pray and you can move mountains. I think jesus said this im not sure. So go ahead, pray and move a mountain. Its ok, i'll wait. Or is jesus a liar?
@LibnanGR You were to understand that has hundred/thousand, not a hundred thousand. As the book has been rewritten as recently as a few hundred years, and it's older components are a few thousand years old. Good try though, don't think you're quite ready for Dawkins yet, but good try :D
Indeed, well, one could go further. There is evidence of humans as early as 150,000 years ago who were buried in conditions which resemble religious rituals. (Being buried with tools and red ochre, which were of course valuable and useful at the time). Whether it was some form of primative religion/superstition though is unknown. The Venus Statues were some 40,000 years ago. Dawkins brought up a point once, though skirted it. That all people, of all cultures, discover god. Why?
@LibnanGR "discover god" with a small g, or large? Keller theorised the reason primitive humans without the scientific method come to conclusions of divine beings is due to the limbic systems in our brain (the oldest part of the brain found in all vertebrates, present and historic) releasing instinctive information which the evolved human cortex tries to process logically, but struggles due to emotion and instinct having no logical frame of reference.
This explains why deities frequently reflect their culture, and gods are chopped and changed to suit agendas. Ankhenaten invented monotheism to create an authoritarian regime in Egypt, for example. The Catholic church actually did this openly when canonising the Christian bible and decided what was holy and "true" and what was not to suit their agenda as an empire. Deities reflect fears and desires of the people who invent them.
Also, the evidence for evolution, and I'll admit I don't know as much about it as I should seems perculiar
What we find is animals with comparative physiology, have comparative DNA. But, we have come to the conclusion that in cases where some animals have comparative physiology and features (very close), do in fact not have a direct lineage or near common ancestry. Supposedly because there is a niche, two seperate species evolved into two similar (though incompatible) species.
When he mentions that the book was written way back and ppl didnt know...of course they didnt,and this totally shows that god spoke through the scriptures with his eternal knowledge.Not mans wisdom,but gods.
Not one single prophecy hasnt been fullfilled that was to be fullfilled in the past.Gods words doesnt return to him empty.
@FlashmoreGash "ppl didnt know...of course they didnt,and this totally shows that god spoke through the scriptures with his eternal knowledge." You know these drugs you are taking? Stop taking them.
@FlashmoreGash Perhaps but what morals are you talking about? the christian one with all that it entails. the muslim one with maimings and stonings and such, hindu, jewish? You have to be more specific.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
I didn't say "paper." I said 16 essays. Which brings me to my next point. Essays have a wide variety of genres and it is a very vague word. It can means a variety of different sources. Peer-reviewed in the sense that 60+ scientists, together, participated in this project, with multiple editors, and a variety of authors.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "undecidable." If you mean not able to be proved or disproved, than all of science in undecidable. A theory cannot be proven, but supported.
@virtualguitarist Wait so you are saying even though he has given specific evidence and no one has anything to say in defence of their beliefs that he still loses?
@virtualguitarist How is he exactly a coward? I don't recall him doing anything cowardly actually. He openly puts his views out there and inspires many people who want to be scientists, and the general public with science. That is a huge feat to jump into because the public is quite ignorant on my levels so being able to do this publicly is important. This is coming from a fellow scientist.
Of course no one takes any "holy book" as EVIDENCE for God's existence. Dawkins ought to know this. The Bible, for instance, is not in the realm of evidence, or science. It is in a completely different field. No one should consider the Bible as evidence, but that does not mean there is NO evidence for God's existence. There is a lot of evidence that Dawkins chooses not to pay attention to as evidence (EVIDENCE, not proof) for God's existence.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Maybe if you come up with a good reason for why you think what I said was funny, I can explain to you in a more simplistic manner what I meant. Because obviously you are "ROFL" at something you do not entirely understand.
@anjwht Well, then present your evidence, as it is common practice in science. So. Any citation to an article in a peer-reviewed professional journal? Phys. Rev.? Nature? Science? Astronom. J.?
"Science and the Spiritual Quest: New Essays by Leading Scientists"
16 peer reviewed essays
"Astronomer Allan Sandage, for instance, contends that science and religion are separate closets in the same house, and that both must depend upon models to direct their understandings of the mysteries that lie behind reality."
from the description. read it.
Martinez J. Hewlett, Michael Ruse, John Lennox, Francis Collins, John Barrow--all present evidence.
@anjwht Essays...facepalm. And the citations of articles in serious scientific journals, detailing the measurement procedures, their field notes and experimental findings, together with a rigorous mathematical treatment of a theoretical description, including corroborating results from independent working groups?
There is a book called "100 authors against Einstein." Pointless of course. A 100 times zero is still zero.
@TomFynn Thank you! I think you put it nicely. I honestly lost my patience with the ignorance he has. I think it's pathetic when an individual (as anjwht) dismisses an ENTIRE branch of Science, then goes on a tangent to claim that essays are peer-reviewed and should be taken seriously. Even when a scientist takes the nice time out of his research time to tell him he's wrong and should go learn more about Science.
Sorry. I just wanted to seem smart because you guys are obviously way smarter. I'm sorry I wasted your time trying talk about things that I don't fully understand. You guys both make really good points. And I'm rather embarrassed.
No. Because I don't have any citations. I just wanted to seem like I knew what I was talking about. Obviously, I was wrong. It's kind of embarrassing. Sorry.
Kennith R. Miller, Robert Bakker (paleontologist), Henry Schaefer III, Owen Gingerich, Ian Barbour, Charles Hard Townes (physicist), are just a few men who ALL presented not only new, peer-reviewed research, but also presented great evidences for the existence of God.
Shall I go on?
Arthur Peacocke (biochemist), Weizsäcker (nuclear physicist), Theodosius Dobzhansky (a famous Russian deist scientist), Arthur Compton (who won Nobel Prize in physics).
@anjwht I hate to butt in, but the claim of any God is undecidable. I'm quite sure unless these individuals studied foundations of formal science they would understand this!
I took a look at the "paper" (it's actually a book!) you shovelled out, it has NO evidence for what you are claiming actually. It's a collection of commentaries FROM A CONFERENCE. You do realise even journals accept essays right? They don't need to actually be right, they could be just input on a particular topic.
Like I said, a theory cannot be proved. It can be supported. Evolutionary theory cannot be proved or disproved, but it can be supported. The claim of Evolutionary theory is certainly not undecidable. It is strongly supported. And so are claims for the existence of God. Whether you like it or, there is certainly reason to believe in God based on evidence. Just like there is reason to believe evolution based on the evidence. Peace.
I didn't say "paper." I said 16 essays. Which brings me to my next point. Essays have a wide variety of genres and it is a very vague word. It can means a variety of different sources. Peer-reviewed in the sense that 60+ scientists, together, participated in this project, with multiple editors, and a variety of authors.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "undecidable." If you mean not able to be proved or disproved, than all of science in undecidable. A theory cannot be proven.
@anjwht An essay doesn't hold the same merit as a paper. An essay can simply be somebody discussing a particular problem, or their views on a particular.
The bedrock of computer science for example is very much a discourse for which one can prove or disprove important claims.
I guess you just disregarded an entire branch of science I guess. Formal Sciences are very much at the core of all of science. Empirical Science is not the only game in town, and it would be ignorant to say so. FAIL
"The bedrock of computer science for example is very much a discourse for which one can prove or disprove important claims."
Computer science deals with mathematics, which proves things. You are talking about the mathematical realm. A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can also be disproven. God has not been disproven and cannot be proven. So. Where are we? Fail? Seriously?
this man is my hero, he can remain polite in front of infinite stupidity and self assurence as well as dismantle their shambling arguments with devastating logic.
This is far from devastating logic. It is logical that no one uses any "holy book" as evidence. That is just common sense. What is illogical is that you assume that "infinite stupidity" is the characterization of all religious folks. There are good, logical argument for the existence of God's existence, whether you know them or not. They do exist. And so people believe based on evidence. Real evidence, not holy books. Just as you believe in whatever you believe.
This is far from devastating logic. It is logical that no one uses any "holy book" as evidence. That is just common sense. What is illogical is that you assume that "infinite stupidity" is the characterization of all religious folks. There are good, logical argument for the existence of God's existence, whether you know them or not. They do exist. And so people believe based on evidence. Real evidence, not holy books. Just as you believe in whatever you believe.
This is far from devastating logic. It is logical that no one uses any "holy book" as evidence. That is just common sense. What is illogical is that you assume that "infinite stupidity" is the characterization of all religious folks. There are good, logical argument for the existence of God's existence, whether you know them or not. They do exist. And so people believe based on evidence. Real evidence, not holy books. Just as you believe in whatever you believe.
@anjwht As a theoretical computer scientist who works in foundations (i.e. logic), I will tell you the common notion of a God is UNDECIDABLE based on the principles of logic. You can prove that using Godel numberings, and Cantor's diagonalization. What are often described as 'good arguments for God' all fail in one way or another in Mathematical Logic badly. Infact I recall taking a graduate course in Symbolic Logic where we literally used God "arguments" as the whipping boy the entire term.
"What are often described as 'good arguments for God' all fail in one way or another in Mathematical Logic badly."
Actually that is not true at all. You assume too much, and quite frankly I'm not sure you entirely understand what it means for an argument to be a "good argument." You have this preconceived notion that all arguments for God's existence are contradictory to modern science. I'm a Christian and trust the Big Bang theory, Evolutionary theory, and actual SCIENCE.
The problem is that there is an ignorance of both sides of the argument for God's existence. Both sides have adequate reason to believe in either side.
The fact that people construe this as "bullying" is hilarious and way off the mark.. Dawkins was direct, succinct, and informative. In fact, bullying would be perfectly synonymous with religious practice, alongside emotional blackmail.
@TheChristChris absolutely true ever since i revealed that i am a atheist i've gotten my stuff stolen and my homework was ocassionally "misplaced" by the person collecting them.
@HAHAHAHAHA300 Exactly, and as soon as you say anything negative against chrisitanity or any religion, you are vilified. What happened to freedom of speech? You can't say anything nowadays without someone being offended and trying to take that right from you, or being ostracised in some form or another., "World gone mad".. It's 2011 FFS! We're not all gonna agree but everyone should have the right to say what they think without any repercussions, from any side of the argument. Debate is good.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
In regards to Dawkins "bullying" the students towards the end of the video... Evidence can be hard to hear if it contradicts everything that you have been brought up to believe. However, saying that people should discount evidence in favour of scripture in no way benefits humanity. By all means you can hold that view, but others are in no way obliged to respect it.
@Gr33nkiwi That is far from the reality of the matter. He's a scientist presenting factual information. Go apply logical fallacies somewhere else please.
@Gr33nkiwi He won't allow lol? He acknowledges and always encourages it? Have you ever actually talked to the man yourself? He's the great scientist for what he does. He is open minded like all great scientists.
Actually you are correct about one thing, Christians do infact force their religion on people typically because the cultural normal supposes they can which is illogical.
LOL, mind I say, you should learn some social skills, calling scientists idiots will get you nowhere in life.
As Richard Dawkins forces his lack of religion onto others.
People like you are just like Christians, you just mindlessly believe what science says. How can you be a "free-thinker!!!" when you just spew out the same stuff scientists do.
@Gr33nkiwi Okay you either are incredibly ignorant of what you are discussing or heavily delusional of reality. Either that or a troll.
LOL, 'mindlessly believe' you say? Go learn grade school science please, you give humanity a bad name. Science is a discipline which is not about belief.*sighs*. That's right us scientists who work years upon years (including myself) on important things that are even allowing you to leave comments on this video are just a bunch of 'beliefs' *sarcasm*.
@Gr33nkiwi Of course I did, it was ridiculously idiotic. You have a scientist telling you the facts and you continue to ramble incoherently about things you clearly do not understand.
Science does not prove God's existence at the same level as Christian proves God's existence. Neither is an absolute, therefore both are possible.
Until science somehow proves God does not exist in an absolute way you have no right to say that people who believe in God are point-blank wrong. (And vice versa.)
You are just as narrow-minded to believe that you are right and they are wrong, PERIOD.
@Gr33nkiwi lol. Go learn computability theory.. come back and have this conversation again. Such a claim is undecidable. Hence it's useless to a scientist nor anybody since you'll NEVER PROVE IT.
@Gr33nkiwi There's a certain level of irresponsibility that comes along with believing in something supernatural that cannot be proven, for which there is no scientific evidence.
Absolute is not, in essence, possible- thus the use of the word "scientific theory." Ignoring something on the grounds that it is not absolute, then, is truly dumb.
@Gr33nkiwi The burden of proof belongs to the believer not the non beleiver. In your statement if you replace the word god with the flying pink unicorn you can really see how silly it sounds. If i said theres a flying pink unicorn that orbits mars and if you dont beleive in his awesome pinkness you will be tourtured forever, you would say prove it, you wouldnt just beleive it. The burden of proof is yours.
@Gr33nkiwi Actually, Science DOES proove that the God of Christianity, Islam, etc DO NOT exist. How? Solely because we know that Evolution happened, and there are no Religions that include that. I mean, if the Bible or the Qu'ran is the word of God, don't you think that he would include that in his scriptures?
Therefore, there is no Religion that has an existing God.
@Gr33nkiwi The definition of "fundamentalist" is someone who rigidly believes the teachings of a single religious book that claims to be inspired by God.
No, a fundamentalist in someone who rigidly believes in one truth because of one source. For Christians it's the bible, and Christianity is the most popular example; it is NOT the only definition.
@kansaimagic you are sincierly the biggest moron i have ever known. You would follow orders and not ask questions like the typical american sh*t you are. When your father tells you to kill someone, you are saying you are too stupid and simplistic to be a resppnsible human being and ask why. No, you would just murder and murder just because someone told you to. Hey, thats probably why YOU need the bible to tell you how to behave because you have just shown to be a sick excuse for a human being.
@kansaimagic you are sincierly the biggest moron i have ever known. You would follow orders and not ask questions like the typical american shit you are. When your father tells you to kill someone, you are saying you are too stupid and simplistic to be a resppnsible human being and ask why. No, you would just murder and murder just because someone told you to. Hey, thats probably why YOU need the bible to tell you how to behave because you have just shown to be a sick excuse for a human being.
@kansaimagic you are sincierly the biggest moron i have ever known. You would follow orders and not ask questions like the typical american shit you are. When your father tells you to kill someone, you are saying you are too stupid and simplistic to be a resppnsible human being and asl why. No, you would just murder and murder just because someone told you to. Hey, thats probably why YOU need the bible to tell you how to behave because you have just shown to be a sick excuse for a human being.
@kansaimagic so essentially what you're saying is is tht YOU need to live a lie and through some fairy tale in order to be happy? What a disgusting way of living. I'd rather live happy with my own exostance than be happy because i need a follow a book. Your logic is flawed and obviously pulled out of ur ass
Who does Richard Dawkins think he is? Some of us want to believe in bullshit if it makes us happy. Let us have our virgin births and pedophile prophets because we need them to get through the day. If I want to believe in a goddamn talking snake so be it. The flying Spaghetti Monster is on my side because he boiled for my sins and I believe it. What kind of world would we live in if we ALL asked questions. Let's keep it simple and no matter what they say BELIEVE IT!
@atheistrocker100 He`s not asking for them to believe what he says, he`s telling them the facts. Knowledge is a disjoint discourse from Belief and far stronger one since it is factual.
@atheistrocker100 that's the way he always talks on these subjects. I guess he could be a bit more sugary for the kids, but having debated so many loonies over time must have had and impact on his attitude
@atheistrocker100 religion should not be taken seriously. the fact that some of those kids believe in a magic invisible man is preposterous enough, and to say that I deserve to burn for eternity for not believing it is more of an insult than what dawkins was doing.
Challenging downright inane beliefs is not the same as bullying. But if you've been indoctrinated into it as a child (far too many are), which is the almost the only way you CAN subscribe to such nonsense, having it challenged may SEEM like bullying. This doesn't change the fact that it needs challenging.
@atheistrocker100 "omg he actually looks quite scary near the end. I agree with what he says, but its as if hes bullying the kids to believe as he does."
Bullying ?
I will tell you what bullying is all about.
I had compulsory Christian religion and worshiping all my school years, no other option was contemplated.
I had corporal punishment (wiped on my backside), if I did not "behave".
I never learn't anything about the big bang or evolution in school.
@saintpine "I had corporal punishment (wiped on my backside), if I did not "behave"." lol you were punished for misbehaving, but you would class that as bullying. Get a grip
@atheistrocker100 hes not really bullying them, personally i believe that he was being very forward about it to prove even more how stupid it is to put a holy book over evidence. He was just emphasising his point :D
If I were presented, day-in and day-out with the sort of nonsense that gets thrown at Prof. Dawkins by way of 'reasoned' argument, I too might be inclined to be a little worked up (salt water and fresh water, anyone?)
He is one of the very few proponents of the true scientific method who manages to remain polite in the face of the mediaevalism which still underpins modern, fundamentalist attitudes to religion.
The real tragedy is that these are modern schoolkids, in what is universally recognised as one of the most culturally and technologically advanced nations in the world!.
I could easily despair for the future of humanity!!!
I think he does react genuinely when people reel off silly beliefs, it must be frustrating somewhat to listen to superstitious and outlandish beliefs but I guess the rewards are worth it financially. But I imagine it can also be a bit of a anti-climax to know that some people will just happily wear blinkers and perpetuate the greatest lie ever told, no matter how much proof they are presented with
See Braininskulls spoof of Dawkins ringing the Atheist Experience as a convert!
There is no scientific evidence that any god exists, as there is no evidence that unicorns or elves exist. There is also the moral argument: The god of the Torah, Bible and Koran is genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic, gynaephobic and sadistic. Why would any sane person want to worship that god.
sounds like some one is talking to the devil ! the devil has you and all of you atheist fooled . and i see he has blessed your mouth with dirty insults . you are the devils workers . how dare you go to war with God . it would better if you were never born ! what will you do oh man of the earth when the fire rains from the sky . and you see the face of the creator of heaven and earth . as you see the power of man trimble from the power . and might of the almighty God !
i wonder what they said about that, shame the video cuts out. wish he'd have come to my school, ive always been an atheist but still it would have been great to hear him talking about some of the wonders of science though i probably wouldnt have understood it at the time
seems to me that the religious girl's parents told her that she should try and question dawkins. there's nothing wrong with questioning something, that's thinking critically and is definitely encouraged, but questioning the evidence that Dawkins is presenting and saying "i was brought up to believe it" is a really bad answer.. indoctrination at it's finest...
Dawkins makes many great points!! I hate how faith traps you in an unbreakable line of thinking that makes you unwilling to discover the truth. I feel sorry for people who are slaves to faith, and I hate the church for pushing it onto children. Where's your inner strength? Are you that wrapped around the church's finger that you can't break free of what they told you and think for yourself? Faith is truly a sickness. I hope in some years doctors will classify it as a mental disorder.
lol, he did get hilariously in their faces there. I think I would too if I ever encountered kids so proud of ignoring evidence in favour of what mummy and daddy say.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet.... The more champions we have like them the better this world will be and less apocalyptic due to Bronze age myths.
I love this dude
TheJediJeep 3 days ago
this man is a legend
AKking27 3 weeks ago
Wheres the rest!? I wanna see who's arrogant enough to try and defend that position.
clayton9m 1 month ago
@Casshyr I see Dawkins more as using evolution to exclude creationism here, not directly god.
Avalanche1311 1 month ago
I wish Dawkins would have come and talked to me as a child. All he's doing here is stating fact. Is there anyone in the 21st century who claims to be a critical thinker who would back a 2,000 year old anonymously written manuscript over modern day science? It just doesn't make sense.
JeremiahCrow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but isn't the dillemma that we really don't know where we come from and that we also cannot prove there is no god?? off course we can't prove there is and the prove off where we come from is not sufficient ....not precise... ...should we just believe there is more out there? NO! But it's food for tought...i believe we cannot explain everything (yet? mmmm) organised religion is not the answer, but the dogma's of science aren't either...i belive we humans can do greater things...spiritualy & free
MrCalathea 2 months ago
He is absolutely my hero now
1IrishWarning 2 months ago
BAM
crazyrahul97 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is doing it again....he is thinking evolution excludes God, but it doesn't. I don't quite appreciate it when he uses evolution as a way to justify why religions are wrong.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr it's because it's not required. God is not a scientific concept, it's a made up thing no scientist can prove or disprove. If something doesn't need to explain the process, then it best be left out due to the fact that if it doesn't explain anything, it has no purpose to be used. Science never said God did anything, and he is just giving them science. I'm sorry if that disappoints you. God has no relationship to reality as we know it thus far in the scientific literature :)!
Entertainmentwf 3 months ago 3
@Entertainmentwf agree, except Dawkins is basically using evolution as a justification for why God doesn't exist. Tell that to scientists like Francis Collins! Evolution has NOTHING to do with God. Evolution only disproves creationism, but you cannot use it to disprove the idea of God (nor does it enforce God). Dawkins often get the two mixed up: he mixes religious fundamentalists with other theists. There was a video where a theist says "why are you pushing away those who are on ur side"
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr I don't think he did anything like that at all in this video... He just was pointing out facts.
Entertainmentwf 3 months ago 4
@Casshyr evolution does disprove some religious doctrine and points out some contradictions and fallacies. once enough fallacies are pointed out we can determine whether that religion is reasonable to believe in or not
blindedbro 4 weeks ago
@Entertainmentwf is there a full version of this? link?
Murder0redruM 2 months ago
@Casshyr its one of his reason. One of his million. And realistically you can hide behind the fact that evolution does not exclude God. But ultimately in the jeudo-christianity is clear on how humans were created- unless your going to stray from the norm and say it is yet another symbolic message ?
jazzyjeff1282 3 months ago
@jazzyjeff1282 "But ultimately in the jeudo-christianity is clear on how humans were created- unless your going to stray from the norm and say it is yet another symbolic message ?" => I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to defend for them, but i should point out that over 50% of Christians do accept evolution, and many parts of Bible are already interpreted symbolically, they simply extend this to evolution. Cheap shot i know..t as long as they accept science, i'm fine with it.
Casshyr 3 months ago
@Casshyr indeed indeed
MrCalathea 2 months ago
@Casshyr if u try to fit in god in evolution u really dont know what evolution is,even if thr is a god he is not required for evolution,anyway god is nuthing more than a fairytale
thescorpionking2020 2 months ago
@thescorpionking2020 Actually being a graduate student in bioinformatics I do know a lot about evolution theory. And no I personally am not a theistic evolutionist, but one cannot use evolution theory to debunk God, since evolution theory says nothing about God's existence (or lack of existence). Evolution theory only contradicts against creationism, not God. There is a reason why scientists like Francis Collins have no problem being both a scientist and a Christian.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Evolution neither excludes or includes God because hes a made up entity that's invisible to all five senses which is why he cant be applied to science. Besides Dawkins is referring to organised religion here, hes not talking about God specifically.
MrGuy1332 1 month ago
@MrGuy1332 agree on the first part..but if you listen to Dawkins's choice of word, he often treat the word God as equivalent to organized religion. And he also often merged creationists along with rest of other theists who otherwise gladly embrace scientific theories. Dawkins is a good scientist, but like many scientific nerds (lol), he is not a good debater on issues concerning religion/philosophy/society imo. He often gives off the wrong impression and uses poor choice of words.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@Casshyr Well I'd beg to differ, unless you're better than him. I've been at it for a long time, and I wish I were as good as Dawkins at public speaking. Who said you need to know a lot of theology to discuss the concept of God. God is a petty and easy thing to throw aside if you got a background in science. It's literally the retarded child of arguments. It only gets prop up because gullible fellows believe it without evidence. It is of theists (of all kinds) to demonstrate it first...
Entertainmentwf 1 month ago
@Entertainmentwf Well I'm a shitty debater lol so I don't claim I'm better. But did u actually read his book "God Delusion"? Majority are pretty childish interpretations. I don't say God does exist, but his view on the Bible really clearly show someone who obviously has not even attend 1 proper Bible session. I have been to church for over 10 years, attending Bible camp and so on. To me, if u want to debate against Christians, at least get the interpretation right, don't make up ur own, right?
Casshyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Entertainmentwf "God is a petty and easy thing to throw aside if you got a background in science" => actually no it's not. God, by most religious definition, is beyond the physical natural world. Science can only study what is in this world. But God, the way it's commonly defined, is not part of this world. So u can't use science to disprove God. You can only use science to disprove ideas within a religion, like creationism. But God and creationism are not the same thing. See MrGuy's post too
Casshyr 1 month ago
Unnecessarily aggressive in my opinion, although I agree with what he says.
jbat100 3 months ago
God is real right...ok hey how about this. The bible mentions something about pray and you can move mountains. I think jesus said this im not sure. So go ahead, pray and move a mountain. Its ok, i'll wait. Or is jesus a liar?
IIxBLAZziiN69x 3 months ago
LMFAOOOO nice!!!
IIxBLAZziiN69x 3 months ago
A few hundred thousand years eh?
Well, Mr Dawkins. I think you'll find that Homosapien Sapien hasn't even been around for a few hundred thousand years. Haw, haw, haw.
I'd like to debate Dawkins some day.
LibnanGR 3 months ago
@LibnanGR You were to understand that has hundred/thousand, not a hundred thousand. As the book has been rewritten as recently as a few hundred years, and it's older components are a few thousand years old. Good try though, don't think you're quite ready for Dawkins yet, but good try :D
ShoelaceNoose 3 months ago
@ShoelaceNoose
Indeed, well, one could go further. There is evidence of humans as early as 150,000 years ago who were buried in conditions which resemble religious rituals. (Being buried with tools and red ochre, which were of course valuable and useful at the time). Whether it was some form of primative religion/superstition though is unknown. The Venus Statues were some 40,000 years ago. Dawkins brought up a point once, though skirted it. That all people, of all cultures, discover god. Why?
LibnanGR 3 months ago
@LibnanGR "discover god" with a small g, or large? Keller theorised the reason primitive humans without the scientific method come to conclusions of divine beings is due to the limbic systems in our brain (the oldest part of the brain found in all vertebrates, present and historic) releasing instinctive information which the evolved human cortex tries to process logically, but struggles due to emotion and instinct having no logical frame of reference.
ShoelaceNoose 3 months ago
This explains why deities frequently reflect their culture, and gods are chopped and changed to suit agendas. Ankhenaten invented monotheism to create an authoritarian regime in Egypt, for example. The Catholic church actually did this openly when canonising the Christian bible and decided what was holy and "true" and what was not to suit their agenda as an empire. Deities reflect fears and desires of the people who invent them.
ShoelaceNoose 3 months ago
@ShoelaceNoose
Also, the evidence for evolution, and I'll admit I don't know as much about it as I should seems perculiar
What we find is animals with comparative physiology, have comparative DNA. But, we have come to the conclusion that in cases where some animals have comparative physiology and features (very close), do in fact not have a direct lineage or near common ancestry. Supposedly because there is a niche, two seperate species evolved into two similar (though incompatible) species.
LibnanGR 3 months ago
dont argue with this man. he knows far more words than you ;)
wombastic88 3 months ago 13
When he mentions that the book was written way back and ppl didnt know...of course they didnt,and this totally shows that god spoke through the scriptures with his eternal knowledge.Not mans wisdom,but gods.
Not one single prophecy hasnt been fullfilled that was to be fullfilled in the past.Gods words doesnt return to him empty.
FlashmoreGash 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FlashmoreGash "ppl didnt know...of course they didnt,and this totally shows that god spoke through the scriptures with his eternal knowledge." You know these drugs you are taking? Stop taking them.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@FlashmoreGash This statement is pure nonsense, your book is full of ridicolous claims and you know it, for
instance where is the mountain where you can see all the realms of the Earth?
MultiKronblom 4 months ago
@MultiKronblom You are morally ignorant.
FlashmoreGash 4 months ago
@FlashmoreGash Perhaps but what morals are you talking about? the christian one with all that it entails. the muslim one with maimings and stonings and such, hindu, jewish? You have to be more specific.
MultiKronblom 4 months ago
Comment removed
FlashmoreGash 4 months ago
@FlashmoreGash
Wtf does that mean?
squallz13 3 months ago
@squallz13 What?
FlashmoreGash 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
I didn't say "paper." I said 16 essays. Which brings me to my next point. Essays have a wide variety of genres and it is a very vague word. It can means a variety of different sources. Peer-reviewed in the sense that 60+ scientists, together, participated in this project, with multiple editors, and a variety of authors.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "undecidable." If you mean not able to be proved or disproved, than all of science in undecidable. A theory cannot be proven, but supported.
anjwht 4 months ago
Dawkins owns no one.
virtualguitarist 5 months ago
@virtualguitarist Wait so you are saying even though he has given specific evidence and no one has anything to say in defence of their beliefs that he still loses?
Kirkzzy 5 months ago
@virtualguitarist DAWKINS OWNS ALL.
noshabibis 4 months ago
@noshabibis Dawkins is a coward, that can't be to good when even atheists agree.
virtualguitarist 4 months ago
@virtualguitarist How is he exactly a coward? I don't recall him doing anything cowardly actually. He openly puts his views out there and inspires many people who want to be scientists, and the general public with science. That is a huge feat to jump into because the public is quite ignorant on my levels so being able to do this publicly is important. This is coming from a fellow scientist.
Entertainmentwf 4 months ago
@virtualguitarist Dawkins is a coward? Why because he brings out the truth backed by evidence and logic? The TRUTH hurts the delusional people.
noshabibis 4 months ago 19
Of course no one takes any "holy book" as EVIDENCE for God's existence. Dawkins ought to know this. The Bible, for instance, is not in the realm of evidence, or science. It is in a completely different field. No one should consider the Bible as evidence, but that does not mean there is NO evidence for God's existence. There is a lot of evidence that Dawkins chooses not to pay attention to as evidence (EVIDENCE, not proof) for God's existence.
anjwht 5 months ago
@anjwht Evidence for God? LOL, ROFL, LMAO. Troll harder.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Maybe if you come up with a good reason for why you think what I said was funny, I can explain to you in a more simplistic manner what I meant. Because obviously you are "ROFL" at something you do not entirely understand.
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht Anyone who claims that there is evidence for God is funny by default.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn
yes, that makes perfect sense. And anyone who is that judgmental is not worth my time.
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht Well, then present your evidence, as it is common practice in science. So. Any citation to an article in a peer-reviewed professional journal? Phys. Rev.? Nature? Science? Astronom. J.?
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn
Are you serious? haha, okay.
"Science and the Spiritual Quest: New Essays by Leading Scientists"
16 peer reviewed essays
"Astronomer Allan Sandage, for instance, contends that science and religion are separate closets in the same house, and that both must depend upon models to direct their understandings of the mysteries that lie behind reality."
from the description. read it.
Martinez J. Hewlett, Michael Ruse, John Lennox, Francis Collins, John Barrow--all present evidence.
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht Essays...facepalm. And the citations of articles in serious scientific journals, detailing the measurement procedures, their field notes and experimental findings, together with a rigorous mathematical treatment of a theoretical description, including corroborating results from independent working groups?
There is a book called "100 authors against Einstein." Pointless of course. A 100 times zero is still zero.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn Thank you! I think you put it nicely. I honestly lost my patience with the ignorance he has. I think it's pathetic when an individual (as anjwht) dismisses an ENTIRE branch of Science, then goes on a tangent to claim that essays are peer-reviewed and should be taken seriously. Even when a scientist takes the nice time out of his research time to tell him he's wrong and should go learn more about Science.
Entertainmentwf 4 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
Sorry. I just wanted to seem smart because you guys are obviously way smarter. I'm sorry I wasted your time trying talk about things that I don't fully understand. You guys both make really good points. And I'm rather embarrassed.
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht Thank you, I accept your apology.
Entertainmentwf 4 months ago
Comment removed
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht Seriousness is not subjective, in the same way that astronomy is science and astrology is bullshit.
So, I take it there are no such citations forthcoming?
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn
No. Because I don't have any citations. I just wanted to seem like I knew what I was talking about. Obviously, I was wrong. It's kind of embarrassing. Sorry.
anjwht 4 months ago
@TomFynn
The list goes on:
Kennith R. Miller, Robert Bakker (paleontologist), Henry Schaefer III, Owen Gingerich, Ian Barbour, Charles Hard Townes (physicist), are just a few men who ALL presented not only new, peer-reviewed research, but also presented great evidences for the existence of God.
Shall I go on?
Arthur Peacocke (biochemist), Weizsäcker (nuclear physicist), Theodosius Dobzhansky (a famous Russian deist scientist), Arthur Compton (who won Nobel Prize in physics).
Need more?
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht I hate to butt in, but the claim of any God is undecidable. I'm quite sure unless these individuals studied foundations of formal science they would understand this!
I took a look at the "paper" (it's actually a book!) you shovelled out, it has NO evidence for what you are claiming actually. It's a collection of commentaries FROM A CONFERENCE. You do realise even journals accept essays right? They don't need to actually be right, they could be just input on a particular topic.
Entertainmentwf 4 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
Like I said, a theory cannot be proved. It can be supported. Evolutionary theory cannot be proved or disproved, but it can be supported. The claim of Evolutionary theory is certainly not undecidable. It is strongly supported. And so are claims for the existence of God. Whether you like it or, there is certainly reason to believe in God based on evidence. Just like there is reason to believe evolution based on the evidence. Peace.
anjwht 4 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
I didn't say "paper." I said 16 essays. Which brings me to my next point. Essays have a wide variety of genres and it is a very vague word. It can means a variety of different sources. Peer-reviewed in the sense that 60+ scientists, together, participated in this project, with multiple editors, and a variety of authors.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "undecidable." If you mean not able to be proved or disproved, than all of science in undecidable. A theory cannot be proven.
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht An essay doesn't hold the same merit as a paper. An essay can simply be somebody discussing a particular problem, or their views on a particular.
The bedrock of computer science for example is very much a discourse for which one can prove or disprove important claims.
I guess you just disregarded an entire branch of science I guess. Formal Sciences are very much at the core of all of science. Empirical Science is not the only game in town, and it would be ignorant to say so. FAIL
Entertainmentwf 4 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
"The bedrock of computer science for example is very much a discourse for which one can prove or disprove important claims."
Computer science deals with mathematics, which proves things. You are talking about the mathematical realm. A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can also be disproven. God has not been disproven and cannot be proven. So. Where are we? Fail? Seriously?
anjwht 4 months ago
@anjwht Your ignorance makes me sad. Telling a Theoretical Computer Scientist and Science Educator bullshit.
Entertainmentwf 4 months ago
this man is my hero, he can remain polite in front of infinite stupidity and self assurence as well as dismantle their shambling arguments with devastating logic.
HAHAHAHAHA300 5 months ago
@HAHAHAHAHA300
This is far from devastating logic. It is logical that no one uses any "holy book" as evidence. That is just common sense. What is illogical is that you assume that "infinite stupidity" is the characterization of all religious folks. There are good, logical argument for the existence of God's existence, whether you know them or not. They do exist. And so people believe based on evidence. Real evidence, not holy books. Just as you believe in whatever you believe.
anjwht 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HAHAHAHAHA300
This is far from devastating logic. It is logical that no one uses any "holy book" as evidence. That is just common sense. What is illogical is that you assume that "infinite stupidity" is the characterization of all religious folks. There are good, logical argument for the existence of God's existence, whether you know them or not. They do exist. And so people believe based on evidence. Real evidence, not holy books. Just as you believe in whatever you believe.
anjwht 5 months ago
@HAHAHAHAHA300
This is far from devastating logic. It is logical that no one uses any "holy book" as evidence. That is just common sense. What is illogical is that you assume that "infinite stupidity" is the characterization of all religious folks. There are good, logical argument for the existence of God's existence, whether you know them or not. They do exist. And so people believe based on evidence. Real evidence, not holy books. Just as you believe in whatever you believe.
anjwht 5 months ago
@anjwht As a theoretical computer scientist who works in foundations (i.e. logic), I will tell you the common notion of a God is UNDECIDABLE based on the principles of logic. You can prove that using Godel numberings, and Cantor's diagonalization. What are often described as 'good arguments for God' all fail in one way or another in Mathematical Logic badly. Infact I recall taking a graduate course in Symbolic Logic where we literally used God "arguments" as the whipping boy the entire term.
Entertainmentwf 5 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
"What are often described as 'good arguments for God' all fail in one way or another in Mathematical Logic badly."
Actually that is not true at all. You assume too much, and quite frankly I'm not sure you entirely understand what it means for an argument to be a "good argument." You have this preconceived notion that all arguments for God's existence are contradictory to modern science. I'm a Christian and trust the Big Bang theory, Evolutionary theory, and actual SCIENCE.
anjwht 4 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
The problem is that there is an ignorance of both sides of the argument for God's existence. Both sides have adequate reason to believe in either side.
anjwht 4 months ago
the funny thing is, i went to catholic schools and i never believed a word of it! how is that even possible?!
jadagod 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fact that people construe this as "bullying" is hilarious and way off the mark.. Dawkins was direct, succinct, and informative. In fact, bullying would be perfectly synonymous with religious practice, alongside emotional blackmail.
TheChristChris 6 months ago 14
@TheChristChris Very well put!
Entertainmentwf 6 months ago
@TheChristChris absolutely true ever since i revealed that i am a atheist i've gotten my stuff stolen and my homework was ocassionally "misplaced" by the person collecting them.
HAHAHAHAHA300 5 months ago
@HAHAHAHAHA300 Exactly, and as soon as you say anything negative against chrisitanity or any religion, you are vilified. What happened to freedom of speech? You can't say anything nowadays without someone being offended and trying to take that right from you, or being ostracised in some form or another., "World gone mad".. It's 2011 FFS! We're not all gonna agree but everyone should have the right to say what they think without any repercussions, from any side of the argument. Debate is good.
TheChristChris 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Eh..truth is the truth. As long as he's not telling a lie, then that's good.
killerboyfoolz 7 months ago
Dawkins is a boss!
Ying123Yang1 7 months ago
In regards to Dawkins "bullying" the students towards the end of the video... Evidence can be hard to hear if it contradicts everything that you have been brought up to believe. However, saying that people should discount evidence in favour of scripture in no way benefits humanity. By all means you can hold that view, but others are in no way obliged to respect it.
joshdw92 7 months ago
@joshdw92 Thank you, very well put.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
This dudes as big a fundamentalist as the people he hates.
Gr33nkiwi 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi That is far from the reality of the matter. He's a scientist presenting factual information. Go apply logical fallacies somewhere else please.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
Why, it's true. He won't allow people to believe what they want, but then complains that Christians force their religion on people.
P.S. it's spelled Dwakins idiot.
Gr33nkiwi 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi He won't allow lol? He acknowledges and always encourages it? Have you ever actually talked to the man yourself? He's the great scientist for what he does. He is open minded like all great scientists.
Actually you are correct about one thing, Christians do infact force their religion on people typically because the cultural normal supposes they can which is illogical.
LOL, mind I say, you should learn some social skills, calling scientists idiots will get you nowhere in life.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
As Richard Dawkins forces his lack of religion onto others.
People like you are just like Christians, you just mindlessly believe what science says. How can you be a "free-thinker!!!" when you just spew out the same stuff scientists do.
Gr33nkiwi 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi Okay you either are incredibly ignorant of what you are discussing or heavily delusional of reality. Either that or a troll.
LOL, 'mindlessly believe' you say? Go learn grade school science please, you give humanity a bad name. Science is a discipline which is not about belief.*sighs*. That's right us scientists who work years upon years (including myself) on important things that are even allowing you to leave comments on this video are just a bunch of 'beliefs' *sarcasm*.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
Love how you deleted my post. ;)
Gr33nkiwi 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi Of course I did, it was ridiculously idiotic. You have a scientist telling you the facts and you continue to ramble incoherently about things you clearly do not understand.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
@Entertainmentwf
Interesting how you won't allow for free speech.
Science does not prove God's existence at the same level as Christian proves God's existence. Neither is an absolute, therefore both are possible.
Until science somehow proves God does not exist in an absolute way you have no right to say that people who believe in God are point-blank wrong. (And vice versa.)
You are just as narrow-minded to believe that you are right and they are wrong, PERIOD.
Gr33nkiwi 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi lol. Go learn computability theory.. come back and have this conversation again. Such a claim is undecidable. Hence it's useless to a scientist nor anybody since you'll NEVER PROVE IT.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi There's a certain level of irresponsibility that comes along with believing in something supernatural that cannot be proven, for which there is no scientific evidence.
Absolute is not, in essence, possible- thus the use of the word "scientific theory." Ignoring something on the grounds that it is not absolute, then, is truly dumb.
TheSecretEye 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi The burden of proof belongs to the believer not the non beleiver. In your statement if you replace the word god with the flying pink unicorn you can really see how silly it sounds. If i said theres a flying pink unicorn that orbits mars and if you dont beleive in his awesome pinkness you will be tourtured forever, you would say prove it, you wouldnt just beleive it. The burden of proof is yours.
TouchMyHandHoles 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi Actually, Science DOES proove that the God of Christianity, Islam, etc DO NOT exist. How? Solely because we know that Evolution happened, and there are no Religions that include that. I mean, if the Bible or the Qu'ran is the word of God, don't you think that he would include that in his scriptures?
Therefore, there is no Religion that has an existing God.
colie577 7 months ago
@Gr33nkiwi The definition of "fundamentalist" is someone who rigidly believes the teachings of a single religious book that claims to be inspired by God.
smellslikechildren1 7 months ago
@smellslikechildren1
No, a fundamentalist in someone who rigidly believes in one truth because of one source. For Christians it's the bible, and Christianity is the most popular example; it is NOT the only definition.
Gr33nkiwi 7 months ago
Does anybody know where this comes from?
TheMasteratLink 7 months ago
@TheMasteratLink Genius of Charles Darwin, the extra section of Interviews. I believe you can still find them on Richard Dawkins dot net.
Entertainmentwf 7 months ago
@kansaimagic you are sincierly the biggest moron i have ever known. You would follow orders and not ask questions like the typical american sh*t you are. When your father tells you to kill someone, you are saying you are too stupid and simplistic to be a resppnsible human being and ask why. No, you would just murder and murder just because someone told you to. Hey, thats probably why YOU need the bible to tell you how to behave because you have just shown to be a sick excuse for a human being.
DrTheKay 8 months ago
@kansaimagic you are sincierly the biggest moron i have ever known. You would follow orders and not ask questions like the typical american shit you are. When your father tells you to kill someone, you are saying you are too stupid and simplistic to be a resppnsible human being and ask why. No, you would just murder and murder just because someone told you to. Hey, thats probably why YOU need the bible to tell you how to behave because you have just shown to be a sick excuse for a human being.
DrTheKay 8 months ago
@kansaimagic you are sincierly the biggest moron i have ever known. You would follow orders and not ask questions like the typical american shit you are. When your father tells you to kill someone, you are saying you are too stupid and simplistic to be a resppnsible human being and asl why. No, you would just murder and murder just because someone told you to. Hey, thats probably why YOU need the bible to tell you how to behave because you have just shown to be a sick excuse for a human being.
DrTheKay 8 months ago
@kansaimagic so essentially what you're saying is is tht YOU need to live a lie and through some fairy tale in order to be happy? What a disgusting way of living. I'd rather live happy with my own exostance than be happy because i need a follow a book. Your logic is flawed and obviously pulled out of ur ass
DrTheKay 8 months ago
Dawkins OWNS HARD!
Cormac123456789 8 months ago
Who does Richard Dawkins think he is? Some of us want to believe in bullshit if it makes us happy. Let us have our virgin births and pedophile prophets because we need them to get through the day. If I want to believe in a goddamn talking snake so be it. The flying Spaghetti Monster is on my side because he boiled for my sins and I believe it. What kind of world would we live in if we ALL asked questions. Let's keep it simple and no matter what they say BELIEVE IT!
kansaimagic 8 months ago
omg he actually looks quite scary near the end. I agree with what he says, but its as if hes bullying the kids to believe as he does.
atheistrocker100 8 months ago 40
@atheistrocker100 He`s not asking for them to believe what he says, he`s telling them the facts. Knowledge is a disjoint discourse from Belief and far stronger one since it is factual.
Entertainmentwf 8 months ago 2
@atheistrocker100 that's the way he always talks on these subjects. I guess he could be a bit more sugary for the kids, but having debated so many loonies over time must have had and impact on his attitude
darkmater4tm 8 months ago
@atheistrocker100 ....
TheMasteratLink 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 Thats how you have you to look, when talking to brainwashed children.
TouchMyHandHoles 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 religion should not be taken seriously. the fact that some of those kids believe in a magic invisible man is preposterous enough, and to say that I deserve to burn for eternity for not believing it is more of an insult than what dawkins was doing.
Dacurath 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 i disagree, sir, because if you tolerate willful ignorance, you might as well be encouraging it.
Calebmoyer 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100
Challenging downright inane beliefs is not the same as bullying. But if you've been indoctrinated into it as a child (far too many are), which is the almost the only way you CAN subscribe to such nonsense, having it challenged may SEEM like bullying. This doesn't change the fact that it needs challenging.
fedtsten 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 "omg he actually looks quite scary near the end. I agree with what he says, but its as if hes bullying the kids to believe as he does."
Bullying ?
I will tell you what bullying is all about.
I had compulsory Christian religion and worshiping all my school years, no other option was contemplated.
I had corporal punishment (wiped on my backside), if I did not "behave".
I never learn't anything about the big bang or evolution in school.
saintpine 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintpine "I had corporal punishment (wiped on my backside), if I did not "behave"." lol you were punished for misbehaving, but you would class that as bullying. Get a grip
atheistrocker100 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 it must be frustrating to see potentially brilliant children being dumbed down with bullshit.
sacredgeometry 7 months ago
@atheistrocker100 hes not really bullying them, personally i believe that he was being very forward about it to prove even more how stupid it is to put a holy book over evidence. He was just emphasising his point :D
MrFluffytoilet 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100
If I were presented, day-in and day-out with the sort of nonsense that gets thrown at Prof. Dawkins by way of 'reasoned' argument, I too might be inclined to be a little worked up (salt water and fresh water, anyone?)
He is one of the very few proponents of the true scientific method who manages to remain polite in the face of the mediaevalism which still underpins modern, fundamentalist attitudes to religion.
He is a profoundly great man, and hardly a bully.
BunrakukenIII 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 he doesn't want them to believe as he does he just wants them to base their beliefs on the real world.
Al3xX420 5 months ago
@atheistrocker100 nah, just pissed that parents raise there children to be so fucking stupid
wearestarstuffsagan 5 months ago
I would have been honored to have Richard Dawkins talk at my school.
KayoteThunder 8 months ago 2
where is this video from, i need to see what happens after!!
maximilianitoaguirre 8 months ago
The real tragedy is that these are modern schoolkids, in what is universally recognised as one of the most culturally and technologically advanced nations in the world!.
I could easily despair for the future of humanity!!!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
look at the girl at 1:04 omg im an idiot
jakeyalmighty 8 months ago
Where's the rest of this video?
88dizi88 8 months ago
i respect with dawkins on every point, and yet he still comes off as an ass
CorrerPorVida 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CorrerPorVida
"i respect with dawkins on every point, and yet he still comes off as an ass"
And just how do you think you sound with an asinine comment like that?
Pigdowndog 8 months ago
@CorrerPorVida
I think he does react genuinely when people reel off silly beliefs, it must be frustrating somewhat to listen to superstitious and outlandish beliefs but I guess the rewards are worth it financially. But I imagine it can also be a bit of a anti-climax to know that some people will just happily wear blinkers and perpetuate the greatest lie ever told, no matter how much proof they are presented with
See Braininskulls spoof of Dawkins ringing the Atheist Experience as a convert!
Lawlessuk 8 months ago
All life on Earth was created by Extraterrestrials. Our ancestors called them gods, angels, cherubs, etc
EVOLUTION and GOD = BIG FAIL
prototypo 8 months ago
@prototypo If you are right then the Aliens still would of had to evolve naturally on their planet.
ahhhhjjjj 8 months ago
@prototypo Okay. Nice little splutter of words there. Where's the evidence?
palmerpoop 8 months ago
I wish i could high five Dawkins :(
CrazyWoWGamer 9 months ago
There is no scientific evidence that any god exists, as there is no evidence that unicorns or elves exist. There is also the moral argument: The god of the Torah, Bible and Koran is genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic, gynaephobic and sadistic. Why would any sane person want to worship that god.
roac7777 9 months ago
those kids don't realise how lucky they are!!
missxcecelia 9 months ago
if this classroom is a reflection of the future we are doomed
Innovater6 9 months ago
Where is this scene from? Which documentary I mean...Thanks
slyester33 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sounds like some one is talking to the devil ! the devil has you and all of you atheist fooled . and i see he has blessed your mouth with dirty insults . you are the devils workers . how dare you go to war with God . it would better if you were never born ! what will you do oh man of the earth when the fire rains from the sky . and you see the face of the creator of heaven and earth . as you see the power of man trimble from the power . and might of the almighty God !
thinkalott33 10 months ago
Damn I really wanted to see what happened next.
mxlexrd 10 months ago 28
@mxlexrd Richard Dawkin sidekicked the first girl in the head.
DannyDojo 8 months ago
i wonder what they said about that, shame the video cuts out. wish he'd have come to my school, ive always been an atheist but still it would have been great to hear him talking about some of the wonders of science though i probably wouldnt have understood it at the time
jhibbitt1 10 months ago
I bet those 2 dislikes are from that girl and guy he owned. XD
ZaneChannel 10 months ago 3
seems to me that the religious girl's parents told her that she should try and question dawkins. there's nothing wrong with questioning something, that's thinking critically and is definitely encouraged, but questioning the evidence that Dawkins is presenting and saying "i was brought up to believe it" is a really bad answer.. indoctrination at it's finest...
jaylias 10 months ago
Okay. Its official. Dawkins is now my favorite scientist EVAR
Evnyofdeath 11 months ago 3
lol this would never happen in American schools.
lemmelul 11 months ago
@lemmelul
lol he would probably get arrested in the South, or at least banned from the school systems.
johnmichalak85 10 months ago
Can someone please let me know what this clip was taken from? Be keen to see more.
thrasher10000 11 months ago
@thrasher10000 The Genius of Charles Darwin Episode 2
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
@LesPaul2006 Excellent, thanks for that!
thrasher10000 10 months ago
@thrasher10000 several of dawkins series has these clips. my favorite is "has science buried god"
theres also the "faithschool menace"
petrino 10 months ago
oh my god why did the video end, i waned to hear the kids reply after dawkins smashed them with that speech hahaha
llHyRaXll 11 months ago
Dawkins makes many great points!! I hate how faith traps you in an unbreakable line of thinking that makes you unwilling to discover the truth. I feel sorry for people who are slaves to faith, and I hate the church for pushing it onto children. Where's your inner strength? Are you that wrapped around the church's finger that you can't break free of what they told you and think for yourself? Faith is truly a sickness. I hope in some years doctors will classify it as a mental disorder.
VitalSigns1 11 months ago
lol, he did get hilariously in their faces there. I think I would too if I ever encountered kids so proud of ignoring evidence in favour of what mummy and daddy say.
BoooDave 11 months ago
I love how serious he always is, even with young teens. His demeanor at 1:26 to the end is hilarious (wide eyed, stepping forward provocatively)
feee99 11 months ago
@feee99 LMAOOO werdd!!!! im reading The God Delusion!
joby92 11 months ago
Old Dick Dawkins speaks the only sense I have ever known, the bollocks we are brought up with is totally laughable,good on ya DD.
zimmy81 1 year ago
yehh, what was awesome whats this from ?
yob771 1 year ago
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet.... The more champions we have like them the better this world will be and less apocalyptic due to Bronze age myths.
Wrahns 1 year ago
@Wrahns Agreed. You're a legend mate.
ReturnedGrazzt 1 year ago