What an extraordinary man. I feel i can learn a lot from him. I have been an athiest proud since i was 13 and my pet died young. The sheer pain i felt was incredible and i knew instantly there was no god. The more i looked into it and the older i got the more laughable the whole thing became. I now am 23 and an anti-thiest. I wish we could give Dawkins a huge platform for the world to listen.
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
Evidence is so so so wide spread. You need to just once, open your mind to the evidence, as you did when you found god probably (unless you grew up with the stories stuffed into your throat as a child, in which case theres no chance!), and visit museums, read other books, learn with an evidencial view, and you will see that the chance of a designer is so difficult and near impossible to prove beyond a story, that it cannot compare with what science and common sense tells us!! Dawk bless us all
Even without the fossil record which is immense proof of evolution, there would still be enough evidence to show that evolution is fact. Evolution is everywhere and if you just opened your eyes you could see it. Its in flowers, insects, mammals, bacteria and every other living organism. Things are constantly adapting. You're wrong, period! :-)
@jiffin8687 DNA is the last nail of the unable-to -die Creationalism in terms of evidence. DNA and Genetics are the greatest proof of Evolution. Understanding of that ends the unproductive debate.unless, that you are a gullible,small,uneducated and delusional mind is your description in the most polite manner. grow up
@jiffin8687 Correct! Every single discipline that has ever been brought to bear on the question of why does nature look and work the way it does has come to exactly the same conclusion: it can only have happened the way it did because of a long process of evolution. Any other explanation that doesn't include evolution and a proper geological time scale is just infantile. Of course, evolution doesn't disprove god but it certainly puts a huge burden of proof on those who advocate god.
You seem to be very confused yourboycal. I doubt you have ever honestly looked at the evidence for evolution otherwise you would see that it is overwhelming. Also you don't seem to have any idea of how proof works in the scientific method.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
evolution is nothing more then a confusion with adaptation , period. one micro can be observed macro cant period , if you got a problem with that go ask the 50 million year old shark why its the same today , to the 50 million year old turtle , or the 125 million year old dragon fly ,
We cant actually go and ask the shark, or the turtle, or the dragon fly because we have evolved and developed language. By examining the fossil record we can see at what point in time we started communicating by speech.
Evolution is not a confusion of adaptation. You are confused or misinformed, period. There is as much evidence (proper scientific, testible, peer-reviewed evidence) for evolution as gravity. Unfortunatly the time scales involved are too complex for some people to understand.
If the chance of life forming on a planet is 1 in a billion (arbitrary large number) the statistical probability of life occuring in the universe is as close as can be to certain because there are a billion billion planets out there (figure from the god delusion).
As a species we can think how amazingly lucky we are to exist given the odds of 1 in a billion, but it had to happen somewhere. The fact we exist is not proof of a creator just like the uniqueness of events is not proof of anything.
@jiffin8687 Life as such even one in a billion is quite abundunt in universe,intelligent life is even rare, considering the timelines and life time of stars even impossible to coexist in relative proximity. the problem is our estimates are pretty vague, but atleast we are trying not believeing in fairy tales, hugging books and hailing 10 good ways of being Hypocritical in life!
I think you mean a billion billion stars! We still don't know how many planets there are- I think they've only counted about 600. I think most scientists do assume there will be billions, they're just a bit harder to see than stars!
So what you are essentially saying is because time exists I'm indoctrinated? Sounds like a very indoctrinated response. I trust the good people reading this can understand that if your definition of identical events means precisely identical then given that time exists no two events can be identical. However this in no way proves anything and is a very backward way of thinking.
This grammer is some of the worst I have ever seen, half the time I have no idea what Leivinn20 actually means. It seems that he is constantly repeating the same mantra, a mantra that has been indoctrinated into him. His points are either incorrect or inconsequential. From what I can gather you could help yourself a lot Leivinn by reading the god delusion or god is not great or the greatest show on earth
No event repeats itself because the sheer number of variables we can account for make no event the same. Time is a pretty big way of defining two similar events as different or the exact position of all the cells in your body at the time.
Random events such as a dice roll are very simplified. The only out come we care about is the number that comes up.
Thus we have a random number between 1 and 6, are these events the same in such a detail I was using above? no but those differences don't matter because we only care about the number that comes up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Repeat: The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and it begins in our consciousness, it not begins in subatomic particles. The atomic model is a *model* came from our perception.
And show me your proof that our consciousness is anything other than just our brain which is exactly what your trying to say.
You have absolutely no reason to think that anything comes from a "spirit". No matter how much you want God to be true that won't make it so and jumping through loops of fire to try and prove it isn't working.
*Spirit* is the *substance* that originate everything, therefore is invisible, this case is as a fish made with only water and it live in the water, we could not see it; can you see an atom?. The brain has an order because without order is impossible create, but that order dont explain how operate the brain, the free thinking process. Have seen your two leaves alike, or two fingerprints alike?.
The God is not a empty concept, for example: 1) is impossible to induce a mutation to simian for turn so smart like a human being, 2) is impossible make o redevelop a method for that the human beings can to live always in the outer space, 3) is impossible create a living beings came from organics substance. 4) is impossible reply identically any event.
Arguably some of those aren't impossible, but who cares what does that have to do with anything.
God is not an empty concept, the concept of God has done a lot throughout history. But just because the concept of God is there doesn't mean it is true. If that were the case so are many Gods that have ever existed in our minds.
Can you to reply identically a event twice?, the events in a series are equally probable to occur?, can you to prove the random exists?, and finally: are you thinking autonomously?, bye. No more debate.
You can say no more debate but its not the end. WHY do any of these things prove God? you've failed to explain that many times now and just keep reiterating it.
Okay 1 point, no event is ever the same, why would that prove God?
The most I can figure from it is there are many variables the world is complex.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheism cannot deny to God because cannot deny to the intelligence. If the random movement of cerebral subatomic particles determines our thoughts, really we can decide and be conscious beings?. Atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption not verifiable. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on idea not verifiable. Due to this, he is lying. My evidence is the people, the persons do science. The subatomic particles moves by Design and these let us be objectives.
You are using circular `logic`, we aren`t the first cause or universal cause. What or who determines your answer?, - the movement of particles, the nature, or you decide?, Is your process of reasoning autonomous?, yes or not?, to be or not to be?.
Simpler: Our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???, do you can see the dilemma?, the creationist believe this: our consciousness is autonomous (The information theory) . About my grammar: you are wraith, I studied English language many years ago, and used a Britain method. My logic is not retarded.
After all science has shown us how can you have the audacity to doubt it?
I'm sorry but the "style" of science and truth points to all natural means. The best you can do with super natural theories (magic) is to infer them from the thoughts in your mind which I longer ago accounted to the surplus value of our primate mind.
Simpler: Our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???, do you can see the dilemma?, the creationist believe this: our consciousness is autonomous (The information theory) . For example: During the reproduction process, the genes are not distributed randomly, they self-reorder to respond to environment, as does software.
The Bible was written using anthropocentric language, our words are not only sound; they are information; `tatata` is a sound but is not information, the Bible says this: the universe was formed by word of God. The anthropocentric language is useful for transmit massages a several cultures in any age. Because of this we use the theory of information for explain the universe. Please, do think about: our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???
But now your taking credit for something you accuse of me taking on faith.
If you want to use reason and rationality to affirm your bronze age mysticism then you have to take the avalanche of evidence that points to it BEING bronze age mysticism.
I`m not trying to prove the `bronze age mysticism`, I`m presenting my arguments for support to creationism. Some examples: 1) the DNA is information and only the intelligence produces information, to producer information using a random method is impossible. 2) the gens aren`t randomly distributed during the reproduction`s process, they are reorder to respond to the environment. 3) Our consciousness interacts with the environment. The theory of information is the best explanation.
It is not natural dilemma, it came from human mind, and all conscious human being must resolve it one time during his/her life. If the answers is *I determinate my thoughts* then God exits, If the answer is *I not determinate my thoughts* then?!?!?!?!?!?, that`s the atheist. Richard Hawkins is a liar, believe it or not. Thanks.
If the phrase *Human free-will is not evidence of God* is true, the cause-effect principle is not true, and neither is true the unity of the universe. Do you taste the flavors?, do you feeling the wing?, are you conscious about these?.
The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and begins in our consciousness, it is not begins in subatomic particles. If Richard says: my thoughts depend on the movement of subatomic particles (MSP), then, the atheism is only product of the MSP. If he says: my thoughts no depend on the MSP, then, the subatomic particles are capable to moves according to the design (spirit), and the atheism is false. If my consciousness exists then God exists, the causal principle is continuous.
I`m not talking about how is constructed the brain, or how is its anatomy; I`m talking about how operate o functions it. Simpler: are free your thinking process or not is free?, are you capable to consciously taste the flavors?.
Exactly, you and me are self-conscious (we are conscious about our consciousness), and we are conscious about the flavors, therefore God exists. The thinking process is autonomous, it`s spirit. ¿What is the sugar`s flavor? sweet?, then what is the sweet flavor? , - like sugar?, - please!. The flavor exists our consciousness and come from spirit of God, they are information.
We are self aware therefore God. Sorry you are so very wrong in your thinking.
We are conscious of the flavours through experience. Sugar is sweet because it reacts a certain way on our tongue not because some spirit informs us that it is sweet.
Does the spirit of God also give us information about what we see and hear? We don't know what something feels like its god telling us what it feels like.
First time I heard Dawkins gice a good description of what Natural selection is. That is Natural selection is basically the Selective breeding process happening naturally. That in nutshell is how Natural selectionworks.
I think that woman is distracted by the thought of nibbling on his nuts...hold it back lady you're making it obvious and I don't think that his wife would appreciate that :P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I dont like how the conversation is obviously scripted and has been rehearsed. I prefer the debate style where the speakers have to be prepared for anything.
I guess its good in the sense that Dawkins gets to say everything he wants to this way.
Acting in favour of either family kin,or those who are expected to be able to return the favour should one need it, is NOT altruism. Dawkins falls here for the blurring of the term by those who wish to promote it along with other valid concepts. Real altruism means sacrificing one's own values / well being / property in order to help someone else from which the one expect NOTHING in return for said sacrifice. That's why it's an evil concept and should NOT be confused with caring for one's family
Self sacrifice to benefit kin is explained as the evolutionary origin of altruism, not what altruism is. His argument is that historically, all the people someone would meet would be closely related and/or someone you are likely to meet again and therefore in a position to reciprocate (not that that is a conscious thought on the pact of the benefactor, but rather the inevitable result). Nowadays, we still have that behaviour but benefiting from it is less likely.
Dawkins knows that apparent altruism is actually self-interest. Read his books.
Oh, and caring for family is merely the most obvious apparent-altruism caused by selfish genes. Human "altruism" is mediated by oxytocin, the same hormone responsible for maternal care.
I have to really feel sorry for Dawkins people keep asking him the same questions over and over again. You just wish the interviewers would read the books.
silicondoc wrote "suck it up in PC doof glory". wow! what an intelligent statement, from a self proclaimed scientist no less. looks more like you have a degree in rudeness, disrespect and megalomania, hmm kinda like the god of the old testament.
actually, modern molecular evidence shows that there is more genetic variation between individuals of a particular "race" (read:skin color) than there are btw individuals of different races. there are races or subspecies in the animal kingdom, but there is nowhere near enough difference btw humans to put them in this category. keep our blinders on? we will, and focus only on the evidence.
Thankfully we have come a long way from Darwin. Unlike you I have many books to learn from, books by Sam Harris, Prof Dan Dennett, Chris Hichens, and of course Dawkins to name a few. What have you got, the 1800 year old ramblings of a young race trying to understand a mad world. God is delusion. When sunday school children can teach this to thier teachers, there must be something wrong.
If hateful and spiteful bigoted people would get the hell out of your religion, maybe it could undergo the kind of reformation it needs to fit in to a cooperative and peaceful society- this is what Islam is in need of do you agree? Thomas Jefferson was in favor of cutting and editing the bible down to a non-supernatural book of Jesus' mostly peaceful philosophies that would have demoted him to a mere human like Ghandi...
Even if Jesus were believed a mere human along with Ghandi and Confucious, I think we would be better served to take a little wisdom here and there from all the philosophers thru history that offered hope to humanity and it's progress. Jesus- (if he existed at all), was just one such teacher. 'We should embrace them all' as Joseph Campbell once said.
You impress me as a liberal Christian with good intent megamarsvin, and can recognize bigots for what they are- they infect and corrupt your religion and I'm glad you speak up and criticize the nutjobs in your midst! Aayan Hirschi Ali is doing the same thing and it's quite admirable and encouraging to see that there may be hope for groundbreaking reformation in all religions.
Silicondic- The only reason you or any other theist attempts to link Hitler to Darwinism is to demonize Evolution because it's this annoying little FACT that won't go away!
Read the history on Hitler- The Catholic church bankrolled the Nazis! Hitler never once denounced his catholicism OR belief in the Christian God and in private letters, referred to God many times. And for those who worship Hitler? Look to the Ku Klux Klan- a fundamentalist religious cult if there ever was one! Either you're ignorant or you're a compulsive LIAR!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Catholic priesthood was the single most proffession held captive in concentration camps.
Suggesting Hitler would've been a devout Catholic is just ridiculous. His idea of what "God" should be had nothing to do with catholicism. One could argue that he used the Catholic church for his own plans at best...
Hitler did what he did because of a bizarre belief system that he held (supremacy of the aryan race). That has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection works by small mutations in a species and whether those mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous. the advantageous mutations are kept (selected) the ones that aren't are not. You need to understand what your talking about. I read comments like yours and sadly realize that ignorance is still alive and well in the world...
Keep babbling mate, we aren't impressed by your empty points. You try to sound smart by using scientists' lingo when really you are missing the point and the definititions altogether.
silicondoc your a moron! Your entire knowledge of science obviously comes from a book 4500 years old. Go get educated before you have the temerity to comment on the work of scientists. Your god does not exist and evolution is the proof.
Take care of that throat there Richard. I think his voice is hoarse from all the public speaking straining his vocal chords to their limits. All for the enlightenment of those who would just open their minds at least a little! I so admire this man!!!
wow thanks man, great answer to my question without looking like a snobby, grumpy retard who has nothing better to do than to troll youtube and point out people's mistakes.
glad to see the grammar police are doing their job.
PS. The article entitled Atheist Evangelist at the Washington Post has details of his ecstasy use.
All you have to do is Google his name plus the correct spelling of ecstasy and you'll find it. If you misspell the word, you won't. Simple as that. Whetehr I'm a grumpy troll or a retard is immaterial. If you don't spell the word correctly you probably won't find what you're looking for.
If you like Dawkins check out his appearance on "The Big Questions" that aired 4/06/08. He must have been screaming to himself at the utter insanity discussed on this program! A word of warning- this is hard to watch (watch the whole program!)
Yeah, thats the one. It really shows what passes as religious logic, completely bonkers. Its hard to debate/discuss anything with people who still think the devil is real, or the Earth is 6,000 years old, and still question evolution. Complete madness!
I knew of Lalla, his wife, before I ever heard of him! I'm a huge fan of Dr. Who, well the baker years, and most episodes where made before I was born.
More importantly, I think it's high-time society put science and education at the forefront of everyday life and forget agout those pieces of shit (fictional) "reality" programs that do nothing but inhibit intellectual growth.
Paula is so charming and prompts RD in a constructive way. This is an excellent format for RD to present his ideas much better than a straightforward lecture.
Get that man some honey and lemon!
I like Paula Kirby. She's an intelligent and good-humoured woman, and sounds like Sue Panda.
WiggyWittgenstein 1 month 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 think Paula has the hots for Dawkins! And rightfully so, he's a very intriguing, intelligent and kind man :)
martinbondesson 4 months ago
What an extraordinary man. I feel i can learn a lot from him. I have been an athiest proud since i was 13 and my pet died young. The sheer pain i felt was incredible and i knew instantly there was no god. The more i looked into it and the older i got the more laughable the whole thing became. I now am 23 and an anti-thiest. I wish we could give Dawkins a huge platform for the world to listen.
sam8110 5 months ago
has any creationist watched this and thought otherwise on their beliefs?
sam8110 5 months ago
@sam8110 probably not, but they probably have clicked on this video just to press dislike
72dew 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
Her laugh is absolutely repulsive.
TheBlackLagooner 2 years ago
I think it's cute. And her voice is so sexy. I bet she has thorn tats on her hips. Oh ya, baby! <3
Piscivorus 2 years ago 4
@TheBlackLagooner
As are you.
WiggyWittgenstein 1 month ago
Evidence is so so so wide spread. You need to just once, open your mind to the evidence, as you did when you found god probably (unless you grew up with the stories stuffed into your throat as a child, in which case theres no chance!), and visit museums, read other books, learn with an evidencial view, and you will see that the chance of a designer is so difficult and near impossible to prove beyond a story, that it cannot compare with what science and common sense tells us!! Dawk bless us all
deanmsc2002 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
deanmsc2002 2 years ago
Even without the fossil record which is immense proof of evolution, there would still be enough evidence to show that evolution is fact. Evolution is everywhere and if you just opened your eyes you could see it. Its in flowers, insects, mammals, bacteria and every other living organism. Things are constantly adapting. You're wrong, period! :-)
jiffin8687 2 years ago 48
@jiffin8687 DNA is the last nail of the unable-to -die Creationalism in terms of evidence. DNA and Genetics are the greatest proof of Evolution. Understanding of that ends the unproductive debate.unless, that you are a gullible,small,uneducated and delusional mind is your description in the most polite manner. grow up
sushanalone 1 year ago
@jiffin8687 all 2 thumbs and 10 toes up
sushanalone 1 year ago
@jiffin8687 Correct! Every single discipline that has ever been brought to bear on the question of why does nature look and work the way it does has come to exactly the same conclusion: it can only have happened the way it did because of a long process of evolution. Any other explanation that doesn't include evolution and a proper geological time scale is just infantile. Of course, evolution doesn't disprove god but it certainly puts a huge burden of proof on those who advocate god.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
Comment removed
jiffin8687 2 years ago
You seem to be very confused yourboycal. I doubt you have ever honestly looked at the evidence for evolution otherwise you would see that it is overwhelming. Also you don't seem to have any idea of how proof works in the scientific method.
jiffin8687 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution is nothing more then a confusion with adaptation , period. one micro can be observed macro cant period , if you got a problem with that go ask the 50 million year old shark why its the same today , to the 50 million year old turtle , or the 125 million year old dragon fly ,
yourboycal 2 years ago
Actually we can observe "macro" evolution and evolution doesn't require things to change.
Sea turtles are actually about half the size today as they were 50mil years ago.
If sharks haven't changed why would that make evolution false?
shunt19 2 years ago 3
We cant actually go and ask the shark, or the turtle, or the dragon fly because we have evolved and developed language. By examining the fossil record we can see at what point in time we started communicating by speech.
Evolution is not a confusion of adaptation. You are confused or misinformed, period. There is as much evidence (proper scientific, testible, peer-reviewed evidence) for evolution as gravity. Unfortunatly the time scales involved are too complex for some people to understand.
jiffin8687 2 years ago 13
If the chance of life forming on a planet is 1 in a billion (arbitrary large number) the statistical probability of life occuring in the universe is as close as can be to certain because there are a billion billion planets out there (figure from the god delusion).
As a species we can think how amazingly lucky we are to exist given the odds of 1 in a billion, but it had to happen somewhere. The fact we exist is not proof of a creator just like the uniqueness of events is not proof of anything.
jiffin8687 2 years ago 31
@jiffin8687 I did a little research. That number "a billion billion planets" is actually pretty conservative.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@jiffin8687 Life as such even one in a billion is quite abundunt in universe,intelligent life is even rare, considering the timelines and life time of stars even impossible to coexist in relative proximity. the problem is our estimates are pretty vague, but atleast we are trying not believeing in fairy tales, hugging books and hailing 10 good ways of being Hypocritical in life!
sushanalone 1 year ago
@jiffin8687
I think you mean a billion billion stars! We still don't know how many planets there are- I think they've only counted about 600. I think most scientists do assume there will be billions, they're just a bit harder to see than stars!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
So what you are essentially saying is because time exists I'm indoctrinated? Sounds like a very indoctrinated response. I trust the good people reading this can understand that if your definition of identical events means precisely identical then given that time exists no two events can be identical. However this in no way proves anything and is a very backward way of thinking.
jiffin8687 2 years ago 11
This grammer is some of the worst I have ever seen, half the time I have no idea what Leivinn20 actually means. It seems that he is constantly repeating the same mantra, a mantra that has been indoctrinated into him. His points are either incorrect or inconsequential. From what I can gather you could help yourself a lot Leivinn by reading the god delusion or god is not great or the greatest show on earth
jiffin8687 2 years ago 5
If any event never repeat idencally, how knows you that the random exists?, that`s *indoctrinated*
Leivinn20 2 years ago
No event repeats itself because the sheer number of variables we can account for make no event the same. Time is a pretty big way of defining two similar events as different or the exact position of all the cells in your body at the time.
Random events such as a dice roll are very simplified. The only out come we care about is the number that comes up.
shunt19 2 years ago
Thus we have a random number between 1 and 6, are these events the same in such a detail I was using above? no but those differences don't matter because we only care about the number that comes up.
shunt19 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Repeat: The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and it begins in our consciousness, it not begins in subatomic particles. The atomic model is a *model* came from our perception.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
And show me your proof that our consciousness is anything other than just our brain which is exactly what your trying to say.
You have absolutely no reason to think that anything comes from a "spirit". No matter how much you want God to be true that won't make it so and jumping through loops of fire to try and prove it isn't working.
shunt19 2 years ago 2
*Spirit* is the *substance* that originate everything, therefore is invisible, this case is as a fish made with only water and it live in the water, we could not see it; can you see an atom?. The brain has an order because without order is impossible create, but that order dont explain how operate the brain, the free thinking process. Have seen your two leaves alike, or two fingerprints alike?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
We can't see the wind but we can see its effect and measure its effect. We can do this and rule out alternative solutions.
You don't understand how the brain works so substituting "spirit" is not the answer.
*Mana* is the *substance* that originates in everything, therefore is invisible, without it we cannot do ANYTHING.
Sorry its not spirit its Mana you cannot deny this now. Mana is what does everything not Spirit.
shunt19 2 years ago 2
The God is not a empty concept, for example: 1) is impossible to induce a mutation to simian for turn so smart like a human being, 2) is impossible make o redevelop a method for that the human beings can to live always in the outer space, 3) is impossible create a living beings came from organics substance. 4) is impossible reply identically any event.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
So what?
Arguably some of those aren't impossible, but who cares what does that have to do with anything.
God is not an empty concept, the concept of God has done a lot throughout history. But just because the concept of God is there doesn't mean it is true. If that were the case so are many Gods that have ever existed in our minds.
shunt19 2 years ago 2
Can you to reply identically a event twice?, the events in a series are equally probable to occur?, can you to prove the random exists?, and finally: are you thinking autonomously?, bye. No more debate.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
You can say no more debate but its not the end. WHY do any of these things prove God? you've failed to explain that many times now and just keep reiterating it.
Okay 1 point, no event is ever the same, why would that prove God?
The most I can figure from it is there are many variables the world is complex.
shunt19 2 years ago
No more debate, you must let to readers analyze this.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism cannot deny to God because cannot deny to the intelligence. If the random movement of cerebral subatomic particles determines our thoughts, really we can decide and be conscious beings?. Atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption not verifiable. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on idea not verifiable. Due to this, he is lying. My evidence is the people, the persons do science. The subatomic particles moves by Design and these let us be objectives.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Wrong. Not even close.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
You are using circular `logic`, we aren`t the first cause or universal cause. What or who determines your answer?, - the movement of particles, the nature, or you decide?, Is your process of reasoning autonomous?, yes or not?, to be or not to be?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Your logic is as retarded as your grammar.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
Simpler: Our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???, do you can see the dilemma?, the creationist believe this: our consciousness is autonomous (The information theory) . About my grammar: you are wraith, I studied English language many years ago, and used a Britain method. My logic is not retarded.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
After all science has shown us how can you have the audacity to doubt it?
I'm sorry but the "style" of science and truth points to all natural means. The best you can do with super natural theories (magic) is to infer them from the thoughts in your mind which I longer ago accounted to the surplus value of our primate mind.
Take the leap dude!
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Simpler: Our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???, do you can see the dilemma?, the creationist believe this: our consciousness is autonomous (The information theory) . For example: During the reproduction process, the genes are not distributed randomly, they self-reorder to respond to environment, as does software.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Don't doubt the science because its within out minds!
Your not one of those people who think of it like Reason vs. The Bible
There are ways of objectively checking that reality and objective truth meets our standards for science.
And I don't listen to what Creationists say.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
The Bible was written using anthropocentric language, our words are not only sound; they are information; `tatata` is a sound but is not information, the Bible says this: the universe was formed by word of God. The anthropocentric language is useful for transmit massages a several cultures in any age. Because of this we use the theory of information for explain the universe. Please, do think about: our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???
Leivinn20 2 years ago
But now your taking credit for something you accuse of me taking on faith.
If you want to use reason and rationality to affirm your bronze age mysticism then you have to take the avalanche of evidence that points to it BEING bronze age mysticism.
You can't have it both ways.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
I`m not trying to prove the `bronze age mysticism`, I`m presenting my arguments for support to creationism. Some examples: 1) the DNA is information and only the intelligence produces information, to producer information using a random method is impossible. 2) the gens aren`t randomly distributed during the reproduction`s process, they are reorder to respond to the environment. 3) Our consciousness interacts with the environment. The theory of information is the best explanation.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
There is no dilemma.
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago
Is your answer:*There is no dilemma.* a result from random movement of particles or is your consciousness autonomous?, how you can knows it?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Sorry, I mean: or is autonomous your consciousness?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Well, we can be autonomous and remain conscious.
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago
It is not natural dilemma, it came from human mind, and all conscious human being must resolve it one time during his/her life. If the answers is *I determinate my thoughts* then God exits, If the answer is *I not determinate my thoughts* then?!?!?!?!?!?, that`s the atheist. Richard Hawkins is a liar, believe it or not. Thanks.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Human free-will is not evidence of God.
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago
If the phrase *Human free-will is not evidence of God* is true, the cause-effect principle is not true, and neither is true the unity of the universe. Do you taste the flavors?, do you feeling the wing?, are you conscious about these?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
If the sky is blue then God exists. Why does free will prove God and even more so why would the lack of this mean cause effect is untrue.
God is true therefore God is true?
shunt19 2 years ago
The first step of the scientific method is the observation, and begins in our consciousness, it is not begins in subatomic particles. If Richard says: my thoughts depend on the movement of subatomic particles (MSP), then, the atheism is only product of the MSP. If he says: my thoughts no depend on the MSP, then, the subatomic particles are capable to moves according to the design (spirit), and the atheism is false. If my consciousness exists then God exists, the causal principle is continuous.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Are you assuming the consciousness is something more than just our brain function?
What I think you're saying is, if our consciousness is something more than just our brain then God exists.
However you have no way of showing that our consciousness is anything other than just the mechanics within our brain.
shunt19 2 years ago 2
I`m not talking about how is constructed the brain, or how is its anatomy; I`m talking about how operate o functions it. Simpler: are free your thinking process or not is free?, are you capable to consciously taste the flavors?.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Am I free to think? I fail to see where or how any of this could even remotely prove the existence of God.
Conscious- Knowing and perceiving; with awareness
I am aware this chocolate tastes sweet therefore God exists. What?
shunt19 2 years ago 3
Exactly, you and me are self-conscious (we are conscious about our consciousness), and we are conscious about the flavors, therefore God exists. The thinking process is autonomous, it`s spirit. ¿What is the sugar`s flavor? sweet?, then what is the sweet flavor? , - like sugar?, - please!. The flavor exists our consciousness and come from spirit of God, they are information.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
We are self aware therefore God. Sorry you are so very wrong in your thinking.
We are conscious of the flavours through experience. Sugar is sweet because it reacts a certain way on our tongue not because some spirit informs us that it is sweet.
Does the spirit of God also give us information about what we see and hear? We don't know what something feels like its god telling us what it feels like.
shunt19 2 years ago 2
Excuse me, I mean: *The flavor exists IN our consciousness and come from spirit of God, they are information*.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your logic is as retarded as your grammar.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
JESUS SAVES! The rest of the party takes damage. :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Centuries? Millennia would be better timespan.
wimscheers 2 years ago
How did she know it was Lincoln? He did not even start quoting him... lol
gskowal 2 years ago
Not Lincoln, it's Mencken, H. L. Mencken.
nirtseg 2 years ago
JESUS SAVES!!!!!!! But DARWIN scores on the rebound. hahahaha
alfredosb 2 years ago 12
JESUS SAVES! because he shops at Wal-Mart.
- Pablo Francisco
andyrooney11 2 years ago 10
As someone said earlier on another video, 'Ahhh, pure brain candy'! :) Articulate, deliberate, considered - a pleasure to listen to.
karlismoose12 3 years ago 5
First time I heard Dawkins gice a good description of what Natural selection is. That is Natural selection is basically the Selective breeding process happening naturally. That in nutshell is how Natural selectionworks.
papdooh 3 years ago 2
6.46 fake laugh
SingHouse 3 years ago
I think that woman is distracted by the thought of nibbling on his nuts...hold it back lady you're making it obvious and I don't think that his wife would appreciate that :P
andyrooney11 2 years ago
lol she def has a huge crush on him
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
Yeah, you're the only one.
zenepick 3 years ago
I don't know. I think Paula has a fun outfit. Her shoes are sexy though.
mdiem 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I dont like how the conversation is obviously scripted and has been rehearsed. I prefer the debate style where the speakers have to be prepared for anything.
I guess its good in the sense that Dawkins gets to say everything he wants to this way.
mccote 3 years ago
well, it is a lecture
mdiem 3 years ago 8
Acting in favour of either family kin,or those who are expected to be able to return the favour should one need it, is NOT altruism. Dawkins falls here for the blurring of the term by those who wish to promote it along with other valid concepts. Real altruism means sacrificing one's own values / well being / property in order to help someone else from which the one expect NOTHING in return for said sacrifice. That's why it's an evil concept and should NOT be confused with caring for one's family
leorana2 3 years ago
Self sacrifice to benefit kin is explained as the evolutionary origin of altruism, not what altruism is. His argument is that historically, all the people someone would meet would be closely related and/or someone you are likely to meet again and therefore in a position to reciprocate (not that that is a conscious thought on the pact of the benefactor, but rather the inevitable result). Nowadays, we still have that behaviour but benefiting from it is less likely.
BulletMagnetOWI 3 years ago
Dawkins knows that apparent altruism is actually self-interest. Read his books.
Oh, and caring for family is merely the most obvious apparent-altruism caused by selfish genes. Human "altruism" is mediated by oxytocin, the same hormone responsible for maternal care.
bdf2718 3 years ago
I have to really feel sorry for Dawkins people keep asking him the same questions over and over again. You just wish the interviewers would read the books.
narbularity 3 years ago
silicondoc wrote "suck it up in PC doof glory". wow! what an intelligent statement, from a self proclaimed scientist no less. looks more like you have a degree in rudeness, disrespect and megalomania, hmm kinda like the god of the old testament.
jedimasterzeke 3 years ago
Scientist my arse. What and where have you published Silicondoc, pray tell?
Slabbers 3 years ago
Hey, I'm a scientist too, and I'm publishing this very second.
Valelacerte 3 years ago
Like "Darwinism" itself, social darwinism does not advocate or justify, but merely explains conduct.
Aldelirium 3 years ago
actually, modern molecular evidence shows that there is more genetic variation between individuals of a particular "race" (read:skin color) than there are btw individuals of different races. there are races or subspecies in the animal kingdom, but there is nowhere near enough difference btw humans to put them in this category. keep our blinders on? we will, and focus only on the evidence.
raveryyyy 3 years ago 4
Lol, you could just as well say "I am a scientist, therefore I am not a theist." :P
xXAkridXx 3 years ago
Thankfully we have come a long way from Darwin. Unlike you I have many books to learn from, books by Sam Harris, Prof Dan Dennett, Chris Hichens, and of course Dawkins to name a few. What have you got, the 1800 year old ramblings of a young race trying to understand a mad world. God is delusion. When sunday school children can teach this to thier teachers, there must be something wrong.
120casst 3 years ago 3
wouldn't this idea have more to deal with genetic drift more than the idea of exterminating a bunch of people selectively?
even if darwin determined something as a flaw, that would be a personal opinion not a scientific statement.
garith21 3 years ago
Thats one of the dumbest things I've read in a while and I've read some dumb shit from the god-squad. How do you not fall over more?
Talking shit does not change reality Silicondoc.
120casst 3 years ago 2
You can keep using insults to try to make your point but right and wrong are, sadly for you, not determined by how many insulting words you know.
Whether you get in to heaven or not I would argue is. What would Jesus think of you calling your poor misguided brothers retards?
megamarsvin 3 years ago
If hateful and spiteful bigoted people would get the hell out of your religion, maybe it could undergo the kind of reformation it needs to fit in to a cooperative and peaceful society- this is what Islam is in need of do you agree? Thomas Jefferson was in favor of cutting and editing the bible down to a non-supernatural book of Jesus' mostly peaceful philosophies that would have demoted him to a mere human like Ghandi...
Swa6543 3 years ago
Even if Jesus were believed a mere human along with Ghandi and Confucious, I think we would be better served to take a little wisdom here and there from all the philosophers thru history that offered hope to humanity and it's progress. Jesus- (if he existed at all), was just one such teacher. 'We should embrace them all' as Joseph Campbell once said.
Swa6543 3 years ago
You impress me as a liberal Christian with good intent megamarsvin, and can recognize bigots for what they are- they infect and corrupt your religion and I'm glad you speak up and criticize the nutjobs in your midst! Aayan Hirschi Ali is doing the same thing and it's quite admirable and encouraging to see that there may be hope for groundbreaking reformation in all religions.
Swa6543 3 years ago
Actually I was referring to the first guy whose comment got thumbed down too much. I'm actually an atheist too. ;)
Sorry for the confusion.
megamarsvin 3 years ago
Silicondic- The only reason you or any other theist attempts to link Hitler to Darwinism is to demonize Evolution because it's this annoying little FACT that won't go away!
Swa6543 3 years ago
Read the history on Hitler- The Catholic church bankrolled the Nazis! Hitler never once denounced his catholicism OR belief in the Christian God and in private letters, referred to God many times. And for those who worship Hitler? Look to the Ku Klux Klan- a fundamentalist religious cult if there ever was one! Either you're ignorant or you're a compulsive LIAR!
Swa6543 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Catholic priesthood was the single most proffession held captive in concentration camps.
Suggesting Hitler would've been a devout Catholic is just ridiculous. His idea of what "God" should be had nothing to do with catholicism. One could argue that he used the Catholic church for his own plans at best...
Hohlmackenreiter 3 years ago
...Like preists and such do. ;)
baillou2 3 years ago
Hitler did what he did because of a bizarre belief system that he held (supremacy of the aryan race). That has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection works by small mutations in a species and whether those mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous. the advantageous mutations are kept (selected) the ones that aren't are not. You need to understand what your talking about. I read comments like yours and sadly realize that ignorance is still alive and well in the world...
crazykb 3 years ago 3
How is Dawkins not smart or an idiot. How does he bend the truth? You sound like a gibbering fool...
crazykb 3 years ago 5
Keep babbling mate, we aren't impressed by your empty points. You try to sound smart by using scientists' lingo when really you are missing the point and the definititions altogether.
tommyk77 3 years ago 2
silicondoc your a moron! Your entire knowledge of science obviously comes from a book 4500 years old. Go get educated before you have the temerity to comment on the work of scientists. Your god does not exist and evolution is the proof.
enniskillenatheist 3 years ago 12
"young earth creationists are idiots"
so true!!!!!
lastneandertal 3 years ago 6
Take care of that throat there Richard. I think his voice is hoarse from all the public speaking straining his vocal chords to their limits. All for the enlightenment of those who would just open their minds at least a little! I so admire this man!!!
Swa6543 3 years ago 6
Good job I wasn't looking up anything "whether"-related as I wouldn't have found it.
RebelVoDKa 3 years ago
can someone tell me where i can find info about sam harris and his ecstacy use??
sylviabombs15 3 years ago
First of all, you'll have to learn how to spell ecstasy, then you can Google it.
RebelVoDKa 3 years ago
What are you an English teacher? lol
120casst 3 years ago
wow thanks man, great answer to my question without looking like a snobby, grumpy retard who has nothing better to do than to troll youtube and point out people's mistakes.
glad to see the grammar police are doing their job.
fuckin hero
sylviabombs15 3 years ago
Actually RebelVodka is right.
MrFacet 3 years ago
There's a 'g' on the end of fucking.
PS. The article entitled Atheist Evangelist at the Washington Post has details of his ecstasy use.
All you have to do is Google his name plus the correct spelling of ecstasy and you'll find it. If you misspell the word, you won't. Simple as that. Whetehr I'm a grumpy troll or a retard is immaterial. If you don't spell the word correctly you probably won't find what you're looking for.
RebelVoDKa 3 years ago
Alright mate, calm down. We know its not your fault you dropped out of high school english.
syrett76 3 years ago
ecstasy is a porn mag in czech rep. differently spelled tho... ;-)
pikechris1 3 years ago
so whats the spelling for the porn mag :)
Might as well check it out, theres a lot of really hot chicks in the Czech rep.
120casst 3 years ago
If you like Dawkins check out his appearance on "The Big Questions" that aired 4/06/08. He must have been screaming to himself at the utter insanity discussed on this program! A word of warning- this is hard to watch (watch the whole program!)
watch?v=FNzw-Ae8oX4
otissimo9 3 years ago 2
Is that the one that poses the question "Is the Devil real?" and a bunch of loons were saying, yes, he was?
I bet Professor Dawkins had words with his agent after that.
RebelVoDKa 3 years ago
Yeah, thats the one. It really shows what passes as religious logic, completely bonkers. Its hard to debate/discuss anything with people who still think the devil is real, or the Earth is 6,000 years old, and still question evolution. Complete madness!
120casst 3 years ago 5
Boy you said it! ...Like talking to a wall!
Swa6543 3 years ago
Good grief..'The Devil' What a typical insane and ignorant scapegoat for avoiding the responsibility for our own evil!
Swa6543 3 years ago 6
I knew of Lalla, his wife, before I ever heard of him! I'm a huge fan of Dr. Who, well the baker years, and most episodes where made before I was born.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
It's time for society to put silly superstition back in the toy box with the stuffed animals and nightlite.
CultofScientology 3 years ago 6
More importantly, I think it's high-time society put science and education at the forefront of everyday life and forget agout those pieces of shit (fictional) "reality" programs that do nothing but inhibit intellectual growth.
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago 5
Can't wait for the Q&A session.
tomwash1 3 years ago 3
I started with Q&A, best part.
CultofScientology 3 years ago
The professor is on top form in this discussion!
polluxandcastor 3 years ago 8
Paula is so charming and prompts RD in a constructive way. This is an excellent format for RD to present his ideas much better than a straightforward lecture.
JoJeck 3 years ago 10
Definately, it's very well structured.
PPartisan 3 years ago 5
Don't forget to share these with clergy 0:>
sciencedoggy 3 years ago 2
Thanks for the posts.
Dying to see the rest.
Savagecuntfart 3 years ago 3
it is always a delightful to watch Richard Dawkins
thank you PiroNiro
love peace and happiness
gautamagaroo 3 years ago 4
thanks
nirvaaa 3 years ago 2
5/5
gautamagaroo 3 years ago 2
Im loving these vids
AnotherAtheistGuy 3 years ago 2