I think this gay gene thing is totally wrong. I think it has to do with psychology and brain development being locked in homosexual mode as it were, just as the brain usually snaps into heterosexual mode.
@iliveon - Of course! It's various hormones that shape *mental* sexuality/psychology; they help to shape the wiring and functioning of the brain. The question then becomes... what are the factors that determine these particular hormones at birth through puberty and adulthood. Nature and nurture (genetics and the developmental/growth environment, respectively) have varying levels of influence on the outcome. It is not logical to promote one over the other. Genetics cannot be ruled out.
@CaptHandsome42 Of course it has a biological process to it, which all leads back to genes, but for real people. Gay people don't have genes different from us, there is no protogayonco gene.
@loner1878 so we have a disagreement, I'm basically the atheist in this situation lol... give me the evidence :P I have the American psychological society behind me... what do you have?
You made the claim, which puts the responsibility of producing evidence on you.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Get off your lazy ass and do some research.
LOL, did you mean the American Psychological ASSOCIATION? You can't even get their name right. And no, they're not behind you at all. What a pathetic claim XD
26:33-26:44 I know it's no surprise that he would say that, but I still love Richard Dawkins for doing so. I've been saying that since I was 17 and a half, and yet people *coughMormonextendedfamilycough* still refuse to get it.
Clay molecules as a possible precursor to replication of life....I believe their is forgotten knowledge we already have access to. I'm not religious but doesn't the bible refer to man being created from "clay"???? I was our intellectuals would cross discipline lines and cooperate to relearn these forgotten revelations or at least perhaps decode what knowledge may be locked in ancient writings.
@mcapps1 No. It says that man was raised from the dust of the ground and had the breath of life put into him. There is nothing about clay and RNA forming vesicles and becoming self-propagating.
@StormZephyr Thx...you're right. I was thinking of Prometheus. "Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his clay figure."
My point was that it may take scientists and philosophers should talk to each other to find similarities. These are blunt clues I'm referring to and the scientific method of discovery would not apply, I only mean that the texts could possibly validate our new discoveries in so far as we've known them (discoveries) before.
@mcapps1 I doubt that these vague scriptures and ancient writings are anything more than interpretations that coincide with our modern understanding of how the world works.
@mcapps1 What I'm saying is that anything sufficiently vague to yield no useful predictive information can nonetheless be bent in its perceived meaning to be in accordance with modern knowledge. Case in point: Ready any of the "miracles of the Quran" apologetics that some Muslims bandy about. The Quran does not actually show real knowledge of the Big Bang, for example, but verses from it could be interpreted such that it appears to.
...GOD. This is simply how it is with us, the religious people! How do they do it now? There is nowhere for them to GO!!! They have lost! Not only that, but this argument comes in 3 more of these, even taking away their "famous" Flying Spaghetti Monster! So here it is... logics are even conquered by the Religious... When will science fall too (..eeek..!)??!!
...be with God after death! Now, I think the Atheists _only_ attack lies in empirical findings and possibly description... Pushing for more and more description. But what we do? Yes, "this is all I can say! Perhaps it will be the "ghost nature" of the Holy Ghost that takes us there!" There is not much more that we need to do. We cite God's given principles on Universe and all in it and if we comply with these set of rules, following the best of advise and our best thinking, we GET TO BE WITH ...
To support the Modal 4-fold God further: Just a pre-emptive strike today: let's say that the Atheists (or anyone else) has an objection to one of the 4-fold arguments by the 1st premise. We take fx. Nec. Ethics -> Poss. God. Now how can they object? First, I've chosen the far less pretentious modality of possible God. This may be the first nut for these Atheists. Then I make the logical implication as is normal for people who believe in God, namely that Ethics makes you able/accepted to...1/2or3
...Carbon-14 (C-14) method in place either! Thus, I think one can expect most or all "reasonable religious people to reject or do away with the old notions of "religious truths" and that it's not serious to bother to hold these old views AGAINST religious people _unless_ they promote these stupid ideas of "these ancestors of ours, these simpletons!" Alright? Put the idiocy to the anachronistic religious people...! But then again, some of you... :-D
@Gorteenminogue. I've also written this formerly on Facebook: You need to remember that when the Bible was written some 1500 years ago they were... forgive me, simpletons...! They probably sat there and babbled over numbers and said "give me a big number!" and the answer from the buddy was "6000?". Alright, that's a big number, my good man, it is now written! This is the way the Bible came into being. They had no clue over 900 000 things and so on... And they certainly didn't have the ...
@Gorteenminogue. Religious does in fact _entail_ as category all of the followers of religions even though I don't bother with the smallest and absurd, like those cults... I need a citing for why Muslims can't believe in evolution. The Quran is indeed the word of Allah as the Bible is the word of God if not only the 10 Commandments "from a burning bush on a mountain"! There is great reformed Islam in Turkey. Perhaps you can check with them... You shouldn't forget about the"moderateMuslims"either
...meant to take care of some of the Biblical logics that is integral to the various religions, most, I think if they bother to adjust the argument to their particular religion. This is also mostly the "knowledge entailment of "Heaven"", perhaps as reincarnation of Buddhism or so... Likewise, Allah and Yahweh for God, or inifinity, more informally for that matter. Welcome to the Religions! :-)
@BartJBols. You may claim that the knowledge entailment lies _inside scientific_ claims, but this is far fetched as one can't follow the souls (if they exist) to Heaven in any version of it. This knowledge entailment is therefore meant as personal knowledge, first and foremost. It's therefore also thoroughly _outside_ science since this addresses the Biblical claim "of getting to Heaven", logically. The knowledge entailment of the religious people is therefore not a scientific claim, but is ...
@BartJBols. I'm not sure I intended it so hard, that is, where that one place is for Atheists to update on the debates. It has just been an introductory note to ask for a 1 place, since I don't know what sites are peculiar for Atheism. 2nd: you should understand by now that Religion lies _outside_ Science and that this is mostly a matter of metaphysics and logics under the discussion of God. Truth can be equally held by all sides here, there is no problem with this... Cheers!
To say it simply: to be religious is to accept a bigger meal, science AND religion! The Atheists are necessarily left with only (so and so...) science!
One thing more over this "evolution theory" (as if it could be crucial whatsoever): There is NO religious _duty_ to stay WITH the description of fx. the Bible (by Noah's Ark and the 6000 year old planet) as such. The core of Religious belief is ethics, meaning, true description and a possible knowledge entailment! Thus, every Religious person can _accept science w/o qualms and PLACE Religion on TOP of this, w/o any (formal) problem whatsoever! Cheers!
@LeonardoFOlsnesLea You seem to be confusing the word 'Religious' with 'Christian'. Muslims , for example, can not believe in evolution because it contradicts the Koran, which, as I'm sure you know, is the word of Allah.
... and the fact that Religious (God) belief is now undeniably _serious_ and also (possibly) _non_dogmatic, depending on how the Religious people define their partic. religious belief, by the same Modal God argument, that their Religious views (on a minimal basis, at least) has to be accepted. This posting is thus for the flow of information and I look forward to seeing how the World develops! Merry Christmas (and a Happy New Year)!
I want to know about one place that I can write to and be certain that every Atheist has read it and understand the current standing of Religious belief (of God, also Allah/Yaweh, Jewish God, first and foremost) so that they can't be in ignorance plausibly! The question is: is there one? Another may be: do they refuse the discussion whatsoever (some of them, the Atheists)? This goes in light of my argument for a 4-fold Modal God, that God is _now_, undeniably, logical (out of possibility) ...
@LeonardoFOlsnesLea there is no 1 place where all atheists gather or take information or leadership from... just as there is no 1 place like this for any religion
god will never be something logic, since the definition of a god is "someone to stand above the earthly things, including logic and reason" and that goes in clear cut contradiction with science, and atheism therefore mostly comes out of a devotion to science and truth from the person
i dont see how you can reconcile literally nothing with processes producing something. those processes must be something for them to exist and accomplish anything no? i dont understand how people can juggle the two concepts.
@payasoinfeliz It's very counterintuitive yes, but quantum mechanics has proven itself time and time again- in fact it produces literally the most spot on predictions in all of science (a theory's predictive power is the way we know whether it constitutes fact or not) and quantum mechanics shows that 'nothing' will literally ALWAYS produce something. It can't be condensed into a youtube comment so I recommend reading Hawking's new book or some Lawrence Krauss. Or search youtube for the latter :)
@ilytopy how can they know its in fact nothing though? perhaps they just fail to detect whatever is producing something. i think this hypothesis flies in the face of the english language. traditionally, nothing would not be a term one applies to a producer or process. i dont doubt scientists are observing something spectacular and bewildering, but im happily stubborn on this issue--at least as it relates to semantics.
Really respecy Dawkins, what a great role model for atheism. For such an intelligent person devoted to your work you remain very classy and seem comfortable while public speaking. Thank you for replacing my faith in a * god * with a faith in mankind.
This is actually one of the most interesting "on stage interviews" I've heard with Dawkins. Very educational for a mere commoner like myself and really a great job by the interviewer.
I think the "prime number" transmission idea is actually flawed. If we can see recursive sequences in nature at all, such as the Fibonacci sequence, why would it be a stretch to imagine that another recursive sequence like Prime numbers could be seen there as well?
@Aldelirium [perfect] fractals don't actually exist in nature, genius, so the idea that there are structures infinitely more complex than life in the universe is drivel. Why do people who know nothing bother putting forward their 2 cents as though it were fact?
@BeRational the two comments were separate ideas moron. and i didnt say that there are structures infinitely more complex than life. i said that there are infinite systems that are more complex than life. learn how to read dumb nuts.
@BeRational the two comments were separate ideas moron. and i didnt say that there are structures infinitely more complex than life. i said that there are infinite systems that are more complex than life. learn how to read dumb nuts.
I live 3 miles from UMD!!!! How did I miss this one!! AmunRa say it aint so. Hopfully I will get to see and hear him on March 24th 2012 at the Reason Rally in DC.
I love how this conversation is more technical than usual! Richard can really showcase his knowledge here, not just tell babies that Santa isn't real...
@Richardgwm - "Intelligence is an evolutionarily inferior trait."
.
Which explains why we're one of the more successful complex life forms on the planet (of course, bacteria, which have poor SAT scores, beat us, but...) Hey, bigger brains is our evolutionary trick. We can't attack a tiger barehanded and win - but we can invent a rifle that changes the odds. Besides, as a species, we don't need everyone to be intelligent. Look at the Republican party. Just enough individuals to improve things.
@47f0 I think he or she is not talking about human intelligence compared to other species' intelligence, but rather human intelligence compared to human intelligence. Some humans are really smart for humans, and some are pretty retarded for humans. Thus, his or her point that more intelligent humans are less likely to reproduce is plausible since when you are intelligent enough, you understand that the Earth is overpopulated and that reproducing is a crime against humanity...
@xmaneater - Probably the single defining attribute of our species is our intelligence. Therefore, I'd like to argue that taking your intelligence out of the gene pool is the actual crime against humanity. Besides, if anyone has a chance of solving population-related issues, it's probably not going to be the the least smart among us. Left to our own devices, we dummies will breed ourselves to extinction. We need smart people making smart babies that will solve some of these problems.
@Reformed2005 Sorry i posted that comment before i let Dawkins finish. (I had actually heard him give that explanation, which i think is a pretty plausible one, a few times before. I just forgot.)
@steelstan39 - I don't know, but I have an idea. To begin with, sex is something nature is still experimenting with. There are vertebrates species with no males, for example. Other species swap gender at various points in their life cycle. But, as a confirmed "breeder", I suspect there may be an advantage to having a few members of a given gene set who aren't tied up with the time, energy and resource demands of offspring, and can devote more energy to group defense or resource gathering.
@47f0 Sorry i didn't let Dawkins finish before posting that comment. (I had actually heard him give that explanation, which i think is pretty plausible, a few times before. I just forgot.) thanks anyway
"I totally agree with you and have nothing to add." What an awesome thing to say. I'm stoned right now and i gotta tell ya one of my favorite things about smoking weed is that if i watch sports or debates or anything competitive i build up these in depth personas about the people involved. The guy was so happy when Dawkins said that haha. Awesome, thankyou Dawkins.
Because in times past, not even that long ago, you were obligated to get married and have kids.
It was a social pressure, and your interests were secondary.
So homosexuals had kids.
Also, men having sex with men isnt unusual at all. The Samurai of japan considered it honorable, and I dont know the frequency, but they had relations with other men before they settled down with a woman.
@waltermh111 Its likely that many people who label themselves homosexual are actually bisexual and for whatever reason identify best with one sex in a more sexual way to the lack of desire for romanticism for the other sex. The feeling just didnt click for them though it doesnt have to mean it cant.
Its true that the prevalance is beyond random mutation levels I guess and I dont know what established hypothesis mine matches closely with, and it is a complex issue, but there it is.
not sure about that fecal theory, i mean recreational hallucinatory drugs would be the WORSE thing to use on the plains of ancient africa with lions, cheetahs running around looking for an easy meal. what better to eat than a stoned out of it's mind ape-man??? that stuff probably came into use after we became farmers...
@DjDedan Professor Dawkins, Terrence McKenna spent most of his time eating psychedelic fungus and staring at equalizers. What do you think about his theory that our ape ancestors developed their consciousness from eating the feces of other animals? LOL That stoner made my night.
Religious people should listen to Dawkins talk more about biology rather than God. He blows my mind when I listen to him talk about this stuff. I also love his many books on evolutionary biology.
Later this month Dawkins finally goes to see Lane Craig and then the hosts go "Okay Dr Dawkins is here to discuss the points of the God Delusion with Dr Craig."
Craig: "D... Discuss not my winning debate format?"
@eastariel "Science does a good job at explaining physical life at ever deeper levels, but it can never get to the bottom of those mysteries." Then tell me another method that could possibly find solutions to those mysteries. Saying God did it does not further our understanding of those mysteries (even if God exists).
OMG-richard dawkins so rules at 30 minutes on- he is REALLY being an Evolutionary BIologist - pure science demonstrated by a human- this is so his epic video
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
My lifelong battle with religions has led me to adopt four of them. I'm considering adding a fifth: Pastafarianism, worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Religions are like the NFL. Religions suit up and run out onto the field to compete, the crowds cheering them on.
If people didn't have religion as a tool to work through their issues, they'd use something else -- maybe politics.
Religion helps to absorb some of the hostility that could be directed at our efforts to fix the world's problems.
I'm guessing your goal is to focus people's attention away from God trying to fix the world's problems, and trying to focus people's attention instead on people fixing the world's problems.
Maybe you're just rejecting religion and not the creation and its creator.
@eastariel «Religion is a superstition that belongs to the “sinister, spoiled, selfish childhood of our species”. Of course, a five-year-old with an imaginary friend is cute. A twenty-five year old with an imaginary friend is just disturbing. Put simply, it’s time to grow up, and put away these childish things.» [cit. of an article about God is Not Great by Hitchens]
@gabrieleprotopapa There is more to life than what we can see and what our minds can observe. It's good to reach into the unknown with our shared imagination and expanded senses.
@eastariel You can reach into whatever you want, but if you do care whether what you've imagined is true or not, then you have to rely on verifiable facts. In alternative you may just enjoy the vacuous bliss of a perpetual daydreaming.
@eastariel Personal experience has no other value that the one it has for the perceiver. You seriously need to stop digging into new age/eastern pseudo-religion mumbo jumbo and read some science book, my friend. It will blow your mind.
To Cartomancer and Luis_Cayetano from RD dot net, the liberal moderator decided to ban me from posting responses to what you said. Apparently being an atheist and supporter of Richard Dawkins isn't enough. If you don't follow liberal ideology 100% you must be silenced at all costs.
@loner1878 oops. I got that "error" message so posted twice to Dorkins.
FACTS
1. The Earth is flat ... or is it?
2. Time is constant ... or is it?
3. God is in a book ... or is He/She?
4. People are bad ... or are we?
5. We can't have world peace ... or can we?
As far as I'm concerned, the only "facts" are questions. "WE DON'T KNOW" is the only fact we can really trust. Truth is bigger than we realize and always expands beyond our reach.
Science must remember humility; and religion should, also.
@loner1878 I'm just being honest here. It's possible you don't understand what I mean. So I'll use different words.
Compared to infinity -- the expansive reality of our universe, our perceptions are flat. That's so we can navigate our lives on this planet and focus in on this little space-time world stage.
Science knows the world is elliptical, genius. It was scientists who figured that out to begin with.
Excuse me? You think science "oversimplifies" things? You've obviously never set foot in a biologu, physics or chemistry classroom. Stay ignorant, buddy.
@eastariel Make up mysteries and the claim that science can ever get "to the bottom of it". Talk abbot begging the question. Science has got to the bottom of quite a lot of mysteries. Religion on the other hand never has found out anything, yet makes unfounded, outrageous claims about reality *as if they were absolutely true*.
And then it has the gall to advise others on "humility.
@eastariel Science does not 'over'' simplify things. It develops models of reality and continuously adds to these models in order to get a more detailed and accurate account of natural phenomena. If anything, it tends toward increasing complexity (just like biology!)
@eastariel "Science tends to oversimplify things"? Fail. Science has no such tendency, it is a process of inquiry intended to elucidate true knowledge of natural phenomena. You are grossly misinformed about science and are unqualified to speak on it, though you may of course do so if you wish to display your ignorance publicly. What tends to simplify things is religion. 'God did it'. Doesn't get much simpler!
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could support it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
@eastariel No it doesn't because he just acid attacked her face for talking to her neighbour. But seriously, love is chemically mediated neural activity and we know that that exists. God is also chemically mediated neural activity, so in that sense God exists, but only in the minds of some humans.
@8yankee "Dawkins has gone off the rails"? He pointed out that nothing happened to that woman nor was she forced to feel threatened. If someone else wants to feel smart or superior because they think they have been able to be more logical or moral than Richard Dawkins, it doesn't mean you should believe what they're saying or spread it around. I feel threatened every time I get near a busy street on foot, but I'm not able to stop people from driving. He asked her out and she said no. "The End"
@DKshad0w Well, to be fair, it was considered a prime for a long time and have even been referred to as such in mathematical literature quite recently (Like ten years ago).
What he says about teaching evolution at age six or seven is nothing strange at all. We were shown the classic monkey-to-man picture in second grade, I think it was. We had this cool time line across the upper part of one of the walls, stretching from the trilobites up to the mammals. The teachers even made it a point to show us all that there were a few fossilized trilobites in some of the stone stairs and floors. Really quite non-dramatical, yet extremely cool to a eight year old kid.
I am a huge fan of Richards and have probably watched 99% of his material on YouTube. One wish that I have is that he would speak more about random mutation. I mean I guess I could go to school and learn about it but I've learned just about everything else on evolution from him; I'd like to hear this from him as well. And I know he does touch on it here and there but I don't have a complete understanding of it.
(cont.) From what I do understand, it is a HUGE contributor to evolution but yet I get the feeling he forgets about it always focusing on Natural Selection. I understand Natural Selection perfectly, but it doesn't explain how brand new organs can come about in a species, is that where Random Mutation steps in? For instance, and maybe you guys can answer this for me, when he is speaking about the fish that has 4 eyes,
Knowing we evolved over millions of years is far more inspiring, and gives life more meaning than any religion can ever offer.
We are "organic" and not derived from some conjuration of magic or special powers.
northoforacle 2 weeks ago
I love this man, he is my idol!
TheVarsh86 3 weeks ago
RNA DNA, male female.
Men are great at turning things into something useful while women are great at giving birth!
Makes perfect sense.
WiseWeeabo 1 month ago
@WiseWeeabo
Troll begone.
loner1878 3 weeks ago
@loner1878 Valid argument come forth.
WiseWeeabo 3 weeks ago
I think this gay gene thing is totally wrong. I think it has to do with psychology and brain development being locked in homosexual mode as it were, just as the brain usually snaps into heterosexual mode.
iliveon 1 month ago
@iliveon - Of course! It's various hormones that shape *mental* sexuality/psychology; they help to shape the wiring and functioning of the brain. The question then becomes... what are the factors that determine these particular hormones at birth through puberty and adulthood. Nature and nurture (genetics and the developmental/growth environment, respectively) have varying levels of influence on the outcome. It is not logical to promote one over the other. Genetics cannot be ruled out.
BigMTBrain 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
@iliveon You are distilling and abbreviating 20 years of genetic study. Speculation is fine...but please don't sound ignorant while doing it.
CaptHandsome42 1 month ago
@CaptHandsome42 Of course it has a biological process to it, which all leads back to genes, but for real people. Gay people don't have genes different from us, there is no protogayonco gene.
iliveon 1 month ago
@CaptHandsome42 Is that you Haggart?
Inb4Reach 1 month ago
@iliveon
You think or you have something to back it up with?
loner1878 3 weeks ago
@loner1878 you got a gene to back it up with?
iliveon 3 weeks ago
@iliveon
You made the statement, so back it up.
And its obvious you're cluless of much recent research that indicate a genetic basis for homosexuality (not "a" gene, but rather a variety, FYI).
loner1878 2 weeks ago
@loner1878 I said I think it is wrong, I am waiting for positive evidence, send me some or shut the fuck up
iliveon 2 weeks ago
@iliveon
So you have no evidence for your own view, you admit it. You shut the fuck up.
loner1878 2 weeks ago
@loner1878 so we have a disagreement, I'm basically the atheist in this situation lol... give me the evidence :P I have the American psychological society behind me... what do you have?
iliveon 2 weeks ago
@iliveon
You made the claim, which puts the responsibility of producing evidence on you.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Get off your lazy ass and do some research.
LOL, did you mean the American Psychological ASSOCIATION? You can't even get their name right. And no, they're not behind you at all. What a pathetic claim XD
loner1878 2 weeks ago
@loner1878 How do you explain the gay 'gene' being in other animals?
iliveon 2 weeks ago
@iliveon
The fact that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.
loner1878 2 weeks ago
@loner1878 and how would that make sense? Man, you don't know what you are talking about
iliveon 2 weeks ago
@iliveon
It makes a lot of sense. You really have your head up your ass on this one.
loner1878 2 weeks ago
@loner1878 i think it is behavioral/hormonal less genetic
iliveon 2 weeks ago
@iliveon
You think or you know?
loner1878 1 week ago
OH MY SHIT I'M THE KID AT 1:08:00 WHO ASKS HIS FAVORITE COLOR AND STUFF I'M SO GLAD THIS IS ON YOUTUBE
DantehMan 1 month ago
26:33-26:44 I know it's no surprise that he would say that, but I still love Richard Dawkins for doing so. I've been saying that since I was 17 and a half, and yet people *coughMormonextendedfamilycough* still refuse to get it.
wanderingchild17 1 month ago
Clay molecules as a possible precursor to replication of life....I believe their is forgotten knowledge we already have access to. I'm not religious but doesn't the bible refer to man being created from "clay"???? I was our intellectuals would cross discipline lines and cooperate to relearn these forgotten revelations or at least perhaps decode what knowledge may be locked in ancient writings.
mcapps1 1 month ago
@mcapps1 "I believe there..." and "I wish our intellectuals..."
mcapps1 1 month ago
@mcapps1 No. It says that man was raised from the dust of the ground and had the breath of life put into him. There is nothing about clay and RNA forming vesicles and becoming self-propagating.
StormZephyr 1 month ago
@StormZephyr Thx...you're right. I was thinking of Prometheus. "Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his clay figure."
My point was that it may take scientists and philosophers should talk to each other to find similarities. These are blunt clues I'm referring to and the scientific method of discovery would not apply, I only mean that the texts could possibly validate our new discoveries in so far as we've known them (discoveries) before.
mcapps1 1 month ago
@mcapps1 I doubt that these vague scriptures and ancient writings are anything more than interpretations that coincide with our modern understanding of how the world works.
StormZephyr 1 month ago
@StormZephyr "interpretations that coincide with our modern understanding of how the world works" That was my point.
mcapps1 1 month ago
@mcapps1 What I'm saying is that anything sufficiently vague to yield no useful predictive information can nonetheless be bent in its perceived meaning to be in accordance with modern knowledge. Case in point: Ready any of the "miracles of the Quran" apologetics that some Muslims bandy about. The Quran does not actually show real knowledge of the Big Bang, for example, but verses from it could be interpreted such that it appears to.
StormZephyr 1 month ago
on teaching your kids evolution at an early age and being a fish, can you imagine how difficult its going to be getting them to eat fish?
1upguy0 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
Get out
mriblys 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...GOD. This is simply how it is with us, the religious people! How do they do it now? There is nowhere for them to GO!!! They have lost! Not only that, but this argument comes in 3 more of these, even taking away their "famous" Flying Spaghetti Monster! So here it is... logics are even conquered by the Religious... When will science fall too (..eeek..!)??!!
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
Comment removed
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
...be with God after death! Now, I think the Atheists _only_ attack lies in empirical findings and possibly description... Pushing for more and more description. But what we do? Yes, "this is all I can say! Perhaps it will be the "ghost nature" of the Holy Ghost that takes us there!" There is not much more that we need to do. We cite God's given principles on Universe and all in it and if we comply with these set of rules, following the best of advise and our best thinking, we GET TO BE WITH ...
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
To support the Modal 4-fold God further: Just a pre-emptive strike today: let's say that the Atheists (or anyone else) has an objection to one of the 4-fold arguments by the 1st premise. We take fx. Nec. Ethics -> Poss. God. Now how can they object? First, I've chosen the far less pretentious modality of possible God. This may be the first nut for these Atheists. Then I make the logical implication as is normal for people who believe in God, namely that Ethics makes you able/accepted to...1/2or3
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
...Carbon-14 (C-14) method in place either! Thus, I think one can expect most or all "reasonable religious people to reject or do away with the old notions of "religious truths" and that it's not serious to bother to hold these old views AGAINST religious people _unless_ they promote these stupid ideas of "these ancestors of ours, these simpletons!" Alright? Put the idiocy to the anachronistic religious people...! But then again, some of you... :-D
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
@Gorteenminogue. I've also written this formerly on Facebook: You need to remember that when the Bible was written some 1500 years ago they were... forgive me, simpletons...! They probably sat there and babbled over numbers and said "give me a big number!" and the answer from the buddy was "6000?". Alright, that's a big number, my good man, it is now written! This is the way the Bible came into being. They had no clue over 900 000 things and so on... And they certainly didn't have the ...
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
@Gorteenminogue. Religious does in fact _entail_ as category all of the followers of religions even though I don't bother with the smallest and absurd, like those cults... I need a citing for why Muslims can't believe in evolution. The Quran is indeed the word of Allah as the Bible is the word of God if not only the 10 Commandments "from a burning bush on a mountain"! There is great reformed Islam in Turkey. Perhaps you can check with them... You shouldn't forget about the"moderateMuslims"either
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
...meant to take care of some of the Biblical logics that is integral to the various religions, most, I think if they bother to adjust the argument to their particular religion. This is also mostly the "knowledge entailment of "Heaven"", perhaps as reincarnation of Buddhism or so... Likewise, Allah and Yahweh for God, or inifinity, more informally for that matter. Welcome to the Religions! :-)
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
@BartJBols. You may claim that the knowledge entailment lies _inside scientific_ claims, but this is far fetched as one can't follow the souls (if they exist) to Heaven in any version of it. This knowledge entailment is therefore meant as personal knowledge, first and foremost. It's therefore also thoroughly _outside_ science since this addresses the Biblical claim "of getting to Heaven", logically. The knowledge entailment of the religious people is therefore not a scientific claim, but is ...
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
@BartJBols. I'm not sure I intended it so hard, that is, where that one place is for Atheists to update on the debates. It has just been an introductory note to ask for a 1 place, since I don't know what sites are peculiar for Atheism. 2nd: you should understand by now that Religion lies _outside_ Science and that this is mostly a matter of metaphysics and logics under the discussion of God. Truth can be equally held by all sides here, there is no problem with this... Cheers!
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
Great Video. Thanks for Posting.
pipsondemand1 2 months ago
To say it simply: to be religious is to accept a bigger meal, science AND religion! The Atheists are necessarily left with only (so and so...) science!
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
One thing more over this "evolution theory" (as if it could be crucial whatsoever): There is NO religious _duty_ to stay WITH the description of fx. the Bible (by Noah's Ark and the 6000 year old planet) as such. The core of Religious belief is ethics, meaning, true description and a possible knowledge entailment! Thus, every Religious person can _accept science w/o qualms and PLACE Religion on TOP of this, w/o any (formal) problem whatsoever! Cheers!
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
@LeonardoFOlsnesLea You seem to be confusing the word 'Religious' with 'Christian'. Muslims , for example, can not believe in evolution because it contradicts the Koran, which, as I'm sure you know, is the word of Allah.
Gorteenminogue 2 months ago
... and the fact that Religious (God) belief is now undeniably _serious_ and also (possibly) _non_dogmatic, depending on how the Religious people define their partic. religious belief, by the same Modal God argument, that their Religious views (on a minimal basis, at least) has to be accepted. This posting is thus for the flow of information and I look forward to seeing how the World develops! Merry Christmas (and a Happy New Year)!
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
I want to know about one place that I can write to and be certain that every Atheist has read it and understand the current standing of Religious belief (of God, also Allah/Yaweh, Jewish God, first and foremost) so that they can't be in ignorance plausibly! The question is: is there one? Another may be: do they refuse the discussion whatsoever (some of them, the Atheists)? This goes in light of my argument for a 4-fold Modal God, that God is _now_, undeniably, logical (out of possibility) ...
LeonardoFOlsnesLea 2 months ago
@LeonardoFOlsnesLea there is no 1 place where all atheists gather or take information or leadership from... just as there is no 1 place like this for any religion
god will never be something logic, since the definition of a god is "someone to stand above the earthly things, including logic and reason" and that goes in clear cut contradiction with science, and atheism therefore mostly comes out of a devotion to science and truth from the person
BartJBols 2 months ago
seeing other comments makes me feel better.. thought i was the only one who gets a good time out of watching a 1 1/2 of dawkins
TheLizziedorsett 2 months ago 5
i dont see how you can reconcile literally nothing with processes producing something. those processes must be something for them to exist and accomplish anything no? i dont understand how people can juggle the two concepts.
payasoinfeliz 2 months ago
@payasoinfeliz It's very counterintuitive yes, but quantum mechanics has proven itself time and time again- in fact it produces literally the most spot on predictions in all of science (a theory's predictive power is the way we know whether it constitutes fact or not) and quantum mechanics shows that 'nothing' will literally ALWAYS produce something. It can't be condensed into a youtube comment so I recommend reading Hawking's new book or some Lawrence Krauss. Or search youtube for the latter :)
ilytopy 2 months ago
@ilytopy how can they know its in fact nothing though? perhaps they just fail to detect whatever is producing something. i think this hypothesis flies in the face of the english language. traditionally, nothing would not be a term one applies to a producer or process. i dont doubt scientists are observing something spectacular and bewildering, but im happily stubborn on this issue--at least as it relates to semantics.
payasoinfeliz 2 months ago
people born with extra limbs all the time. that girl in india had like 6 limbs and her parents only had 4.
payasoinfeliz 2 months ago
Really respecy Dawkins, what a great role model for atheism. For such an intelligent person devoted to your work you remain very classy and seem comfortable while public speaking. Thank you for replacing my faith in a * god * with a faith in mankind.
RebirthWoWGuild 2 months ago
Doesn't everyone learn about evolution in elementary school? I did - in a very simple way of course.
stoikr 3 months ago
I was there best day of my life!!! Love Richard Dawkins :D
amaruchi89 3 months ago
This is actually one of the most interesting "on stage interviews" I've heard with Dawkins. Very educational for a mere commoner like myself and really a great job by the interviewer.
Visiondrugs1 3 months ago
Dawkins bits from 4:40 onwards ^_^
thebigbadjohnsmith 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
RICHARD DAWKINS > GOD
cheatdath 3 months ago
I think the "prime number" transmission idea is actually flawed. If we can see recursive sequences in nature at all, such as the Fibonacci sequence, why would it be a stretch to imagine that another recursive sequence like Prime numbers could be seen there as well?
ProjectFreeSelf 3 months ago
Sat down with a sandwich. Only took one bite the entire time. Very engaging interview.
TheReelNeel 3 months ago 13
I would have loved to have watched this video but I was transfixed by his tie for the whole thing.
Finty290 3 months ago
Instead of saying the duplication has mistakes, one should say that there are 'dicrepancies' in the replication.
MisterEvil1 3 months ago
brilliant forever
mp3talon 3 months ago
non living fractals are pre genetic replicators.
Aldelirium 3 months ago
@Aldelirium [perfect] fractals don't actually exist in nature, genius, so the idea that there are structures infinitely more complex than life in the universe is drivel. Why do people who know nothing bother putting forward their 2 cents as though it were fact?
BeRational 3 months ago 3
@BeRational the two comments were separate ideas moron. and i didnt say that there are structures infinitely more complex than life. i said that there are infinite systems that are more complex than life. learn how to read dumb nuts.
Aldelirium 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeRational the two comments were separate ideas moron. and i didnt say that there are structures infinitely more complex than life. i said that there are infinite systems that are more complex than life. learn how to read dumb nuts.
Aldelirium 3 months ago
complexity isnt exclusive to biology. there are infinite systems in the universe far more complex than life.
Aldelirium 3 months ago
I live 3 miles from UMD!!!! How did I miss this one!! AmunRa say it aint so. Hopfully I will get to see and hear him on March 24th 2012 at the Reason Rally in DC.
wowamonn 3 months ago
awesome!
Jalenxx 3 months ago
How can anyone ever question the overwhelming evidence of evolution after reading and listening to Richard D
Teach evolution in grade 1 ...
pmacgowan 3 months ago
This guy sounds like a retard compared to Dawkins, and yet he is a Ph.D... That just shows how much Dawkins is intelligent. He really is a genius.
xmaneater 3 months ago
I love how this conversation is more technical than usual! Richard can really showcase his knowledge here, not just tell babies that Santa isn't real...
xmaneater 3 months ago 21
@xmaneater XD lol!
fugazi0311 2 months ago
Intelligence is an evolutionarily inferior trait. The more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to reproduce.
Richardgwm 3 months ago
@Richardgwm - "Intelligence is an evolutionarily inferior trait."
.
Which explains why we're one of the more successful complex life forms on the planet (of course, bacteria, which have poor SAT scores, beat us, but...) Hey, bigger brains is our evolutionary trick. We can't attack a tiger barehanded and win - but we can invent a rifle that changes the odds. Besides, as a species, we don't need everyone to be intelligent. Look at the Republican party. Just enough individuals to improve things.
47f0 3 months ago 2
@47f0 I think he or she is not talking about human intelligence compared to other species' intelligence, but rather human intelligence compared to human intelligence. Some humans are really smart for humans, and some are pretty retarded for humans. Thus, his or her point that more intelligent humans are less likely to reproduce is plausible since when you are intelligent enough, you understand that the Earth is overpopulated and that reproducing is a crime against humanity...
xmaneater 3 months ago
@xmaneater - Probably the single defining attribute of our species is our intelligence. Therefore, I'd like to argue that taking your intelligence out of the gene pool is the actual crime against humanity. Besides, if anyone has a chance of solving population-related issues, it's probably not going to be the the least smart among us. Left to our own devices, we dummies will breed ourselves to extinction. We need smart people making smart babies that will solve some of these problems.
47f0 3 months ago
Haven't heard that Terence Mckenna theory for a while. I happen to agree with that.
ExtremeBogom 3 months ago
Oh, nevermind, haha. I posted that last one before letting him finish his retort.
steelstan39 3 months ago
I wonder what the evolutionary explanation for homosexuality could be. Anybody know?
steelstan39 3 months ago
@steelstan39 My observation is that species which display homosexual behaviour tend to be highly social and complex; Bonobos, Dolphins, Humans etc
Reformed2005 3 months ago
@Reformed2005 Sorry i posted that comment before i let Dawkins finish. (I had actually heard him give that explanation, which i think is a pretty plausible one, a few times before. I just forgot.)
steelstan39 3 months ago
@steelstan39 - I don't know, but I have an idea. To begin with, sex is something nature is still experimenting with. There are vertebrates species with no males, for example. Other species swap gender at various points in their life cycle. But, as a confirmed "breeder", I suspect there may be an advantage to having a few members of a given gene set who aren't tied up with the time, energy and resource demands of offspring, and can devote more energy to group defense or resource gathering.
47f0 3 months ago
@47f0 Sorry i didn't let Dawkins finish before posting that comment. (I had actually heard him give that explanation, which i think is pretty plausible, a few times before. I just forgot.) thanks anyway
steelstan39 3 months ago
"I totally agree with you and have nothing to add." What an awesome thing to say. I'm stoned right now and i gotta tell ya one of my favorite things about smoking weed is that if i watch sports or debates or anything competitive i build up these in depth personas about the people involved. The guy was so happy when Dawkins said that haha. Awesome, thankyou Dawkins.
steelstan39 3 months ago
On the issue of homosexuality
Why has it survived and become this prevalent?
Because in times past, not even that long ago, you were obligated to get married and have kids.
It was a social pressure, and your interests were secondary.
So homosexuals had kids.
Also, men having sex with men isnt unusual at all. The Samurai of japan considered it honorable, and I dont know the frequency, but they had relations with other men before they settled down with a woman.
waltermh111 3 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
@waltermh111 Its likely that many people who label themselves homosexual are actually bisexual and for whatever reason identify best with one sex in a more sexual way to the lack of desire for romanticism for the other sex. The feeling just didnt click for them though it doesnt have to mean it cant.
Its true that the prevalance is beyond random mutation levels I guess and I dont know what established hypothesis mine matches closely with, and it is a complex issue, but there it is.
waltermh111 3 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
27:00
No Richard. 6 and 7 year olds would just scratch their heads.
eyebal 4 months ago
not sure about that fecal theory, i mean recreational hallucinatory drugs would be the WORSE thing to use on the plains of ancient africa with lions, cheetahs running around looking for an easy meal. what better to eat than a stoned out of it's mind ape-man??? that stuff probably came into use after we became farmers...
DjDedan 4 months ago
@DjDedan Professor Dawkins, Terrence McKenna spent most of his time eating psychedelic fungus and staring at equalizers. What do you think about his theory that our ape ancestors developed their consciousness from eating the feces of other animals? LOL That stoner made my night.
EvolvedParadigm 4 months ago
The talk begins at 4:25
Bobahat 4 months ago 2
may God have mercy on your souls
GMapocolypse 4 months ago
@GMapocolypse there is no god, so shut the fuck up. We're learning here
NTonks1 4 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet 3
Lookin' classy, Richard.
SuperZuescannon 4 months ago
Religious people should listen to Dawkins talk more about biology rather than God. He blows my mind when I listen to him talk about this stuff. I also love his many books on evolutionary biology.
torontoBluejays87 4 months ago
this gets so intricate <3 this! thank you for posting this so much
robotaholic 4 months ago in playlist robotaholic's favorites 2
Richard gets a bit of his NERD on in this one. LUV him!!!
KRAUCH74 4 months ago 27
45:55 1 isn't a prime number!!!
kalair 4 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet 2
The difference is:
Chihuahua looks at wolf and thinks: Granddad.
Wolf looks at chihuahua and thinks: lunch.
TomFynn 4 months ago
Later this month Dawkins finally goes to see Lane Craig and then the hosts go "Okay Dr Dawkins is here to discuss the points of the God Delusion with Dr Craig."
Craig: "D... Discuss not my winning debate format?"
He then turns pale and vomits.
ganados0 4 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
1:02:37... This question is answered perfectly.
TheBubzieWubzie 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eastariel "Science does a good job at explaining physical life at ever deeper levels, but it can never get to the bottom of those mysteries." Then tell me another method that could possibly find solutions to those mysteries. Saying God did it does not further our understanding of those mysteries (even if God exists).
HentaiFundamentalist 4 months ago
OMG-richard dawkins so rules at 30 minutes on- he is REALLY being an Evolutionary BIologist - pure science demonstrated by a human- this is so his epic video
robotaholic 4 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 to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
I'm so glad I got to attend this when I was at UMD :)
loner1878 4 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 to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
He invented the meme?!?!?!
I love this guy!!!!
chrismx24 5 months ago
@chrismx24 He invented the word "meme", but memes themselves have existed since the beginning of humanity.
sexyloser 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My lifelong battle with religions has led me to adopt four of them. I'm considering adding a fifth: Pastafarianism, worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Religions are like the NFL. Religions suit up and run out onto the field to compete, the crowds cheering them on.
If people didn't have religion as a tool to work through their issues, they'd use something else -- maybe politics.
Religion helps to absorb some of the hostility that could be directed at our efforts to fix the world's problems.
eastariel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
guess what God exists
GMapocolypse 5 months ago
@GMapocolypse guess what youre a fucking moron
nic1357 4 months ago
Richard,
I'm guessing your goal is to focus people's attention away from God trying to fix the world's problems, and trying to focus people's attention instead on people fixing the world's problems.
Maybe you're just rejecting religion and not the creation and its creator.
eastariel 5 months ago
@eastariel Nope.
gabrieleprotopapa 5 months ago
@gabrieleprotopapa What do you think his motivation might be for fighting religion?
eastariel 5 months ago
@eastariel «Religion is a superstition that belongs to the “sinister, spoiled, selfish childhood of our species”. Of course, a five-year-old with an imaginary friend is cute. A twenty-five year old with an imaginary friend is just disturbing. Put simply, it’s time to grow up, and put away these childish things.» [cit. of an article about God is Not Great by Hitchens]
gabrieleprotopapa 5 months ago 2
@gabrieleprotopapa There is more to life than what we can see and what our minds can observe. It's good to reach into the unknown with our shared imagination and expanded senses.
eastariel 5 months ago
@eastariel You can reach into whatever you want, but if you do care whether what you've imagined is true or not, then you have to rely on verifiable facts. In alternative you may just enjoy the vacuous bliss of a perpetual daydreaming.
gabrieleprotopapa 5 months ago
@gabrieleprotopapa We can trust our own experiences.
eastariel 5 months ago
@eastariel Personal experience has no other value that the one it has for the perceiver. You seriously need to stop digging into new age/eastern pseudo-religion mumbo jumbo and read some science book, my friend. It will blow your mind.
gabrieleprotopapa 5 months ago
To Cartomancer and Luis_Cayetano from RD dot net, the liberal moderator decided to ban me from posting responses to what you said. Apparently being an atheist and supporter of Richard Dawkins isn't enough. If you don't follow liberal ideology 100% you must be silenced at all costs.
RyuHayabusa06 5 months ago
Richard Dorkins is trying to disprove God through deductive logic.
That's like trying to disprove the existence of stars with a microscope.
eastariel 5 months ago
@eastariel
You are a double posting idiot with an insult ability of a 5th grader.
loner1878 4 months ago
@loner1878 Huh? What do you mean "double posting"? You mean, like you just did -- two comments in a row?
As far as "insult ability," I just try to be as gentle as I can with my words.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel
A double posting is when you post the same message twice - which you did on the last page, genius.
Gentle aka laughable. "Dorkins" aw, did you come up with that all by yourself?
loner1878 4 months ago
@loner1878 oops. I got that "error" message so posted twice to Dorkins.
FACTS
1. The Earth is flat ... or is it?
2. Time is constant ... or is it?
3. God is in a book ... or is He/She?
4. People are bad ... or are we?
5. We can't have world peace ... or can we?
As far as I'm concerned, the only "facts" are questions. "WE DON'T KNOW" is the only fact we can really trust. Truth is bigger than we realize and always expands beyond our reach.
Science must remember humility; and religion should, also.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel
You think the earth might be flat? Wow...
loner1878 4 months ago
@loner1878 Our perceptions are flat, not the Earth.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel
Drop the bullshit.
loner1878 4 months ago
@loner1878 I'm just being honest here. It's possible you don't understand what I mean. So I'll use different words.
Compared to infinity -- the expansive reality of our universe, our perceptions are flat. That's so we can navigate our lives on this planet and focus in on this little space-time world stage.
eastariel 4 months ago
@loner1878 Anyways, it's not really round; it's more of an elliptical form.
Science tends to oversimplify things.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel
Where did I use the word "round?"
Science knows the world is elliptical, genius. It was scientists who figured that out to begin with.
Excuse me? You think science "oversimplifies" things? You've obviously never set foot in a biologu, physics or chemistry classroom. Stay ignorant, buddy.
loner1878 4 months ago
@loner1878 Yes, science oversimplifies things. It gives things definitions instead of understanding.
"It's gravity." Right. So what is gravity, really -- at the deepest level? Nobody knows.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel Why should it matter? That's a nonsense question, like "what is the sound of purple?"
Pilaf1984 4 months ago
@Pilaf1984 What's nonsense is claiming a complete understanding of something as mysterious as gravity.
Science does a good job at explaining physical life at ever deeper levels, but it can never get to the bottom of those mysteries.
My point is: science needs to maintain open-minded humility.
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel Make up mysteries and the claim that science can ever get "to the bottom of it". Talk abbot begging the question. Science has got to the bottom of quite a lot of mysteries. Religion on the other hand never has found out anything, yet makes unfounded, outrageous claims about reality *as if they were absolutely true*.
And then it has the gall to advise others on "humility.
Bah, humbug.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@eastariel Science does not 'over'' simplify things. It develops models of reality and continuously adds to these models in order to get a more detailed and accurate account of natural phenomena. If anything, it tends toward increasing complexity (just like biology!)
ianman6 4 months ago
@eastariel "Science tends to oversimplify things"? Fail. Science has no such tendency, it is a process of inquiry intended to elucidate true knowledge of natural phenomena. You are grossly misinformed about science and are unqualified to speak on it, though you may of course do so if you wish to display your ignorance publicly. What tends to simplify things is religion. 'God did it'. Doesn't get much simpler!
ianman6 4 months ago
@loner1878 Why put a roof on infinity? Why not include a Creator as a possibility?
eastariel 4 months ago
@eastariel
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could support it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
-Stephen Hawking
loner1878 4 months ago
@eastariel
Ever wonder what created the creator?
loner1878 4 months ago
Richard Dorkins is trying to disprove God through deductive logic.
That's like trying to disprove the existence of stars with a microscope.
eastariel 5 months ago
Richard Dorkins,
I have a question for you. There's a man in Pakistan named Rasheed who loves his wife very much.
You have never experienced this love between Rasheed and his wife. You cannot see it or put it under your microscopic brain activity.
So here's the question. Does Rasheed's love for his wife exist?
eastariel 5 months ago
@eastariel in what do you base his love ? actions? loyalty ? his words? chemical reactions on the brain?? and ask yourself what is love?
jay1jayf 5 months ago
@eastariel No it doesn't because he just acid attacked her face for talking to her neighbour. But seriously, love is chemically mediated neural activity and we know that that exists. God is also chemically mediated neural activity, so in that sense God exists, but only in the minds of some humans.
cheed38 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 5 months ago
@8yankee "Dawkins has gone off the rails"? He pointed out that nothing happened to that woman nor was she forced to feel threatened. If someone else wants to feel smart or superior because they think they have been able to be more logical or moral than Richard Dawkins, it doesn't mean you should believe what they're saying or spread it around. I feel threatened every time I get near a busy street on foot, but I'm not able to stop people from driving. He asked her out and she said no. "The End"
delataylor 5 months ago
WRONG! 1 is not a prime number! Learn some maths noob!
DKshad0w 5 months ago
@DKshad0w Well, to be fair, it was considered a prime for a long time and have even been referred to as such in mathematical literature quite recently (Like ten years ago).
Scurmicurv 5 months ago
What he says about teaching evolution at age six or seven is nothing strange at all. We were shown the classic monkey-to-man picture in second grade, I think it was. We had this cool time line across the upper part of one of the walls, stretching from the trilobites up to the mammals. The teachers even made it a point to show us all that there were a few fossilized trilobites in some of the stone stairs and floors. Really quite non-dramatical, yet extremely cool to a eight year old kid.
Scurmicurv 5 months ago
@100GODSNOPEACE
Are you saying you'd prefer evolution by the death of children rather than changing our environment? Hitler had the same bad idea.
Aaberg123 5 months ago
@100GODSNOPEACE ... What?
Ceenymeeny 5 months ago
Richard appears unhappy at the start of the interview.
HowardWolowitzFan 5 months ago
here's my view on natural selection... smart people should get more sex!!!
gfdadefuin 5 months ago
@gfdadefuin
If only...
logicallunatic1 5 months ago in playlist logicallunatic1's Favorited Videos
that interviewer is weird like hell :p but he's cool hehe I like him
SteveDutchy 5 months ago
@SteveDutchy haha he's probably a bit starstruck he's interviewing dawkins.
gfdadefuin 5 months ago
Kenny Rogers @ 1:02:41
temite80 5 months ago
Why is the host constantly squirming in his seat when Dawkins is answering?
temite80 5 months ago
@temite80 He's probably interviewing his personal hero. I'd be nervous myself.
subpoprec 5 months ago
I am a huge fan of Richards and have probably watched 99% of his material on YouTube. One wish that I have is that he would speak more about random mutation. I mean I guess I could go to school and learn about it but I've learned just about everything else on evolution from him; I'd like to hear this from him as well. And I know he does touch on it here and there but I don't have a complete understanding of it.
braandon241 5 months ago
(cont.) From what I do understand, it is a HUGE contributor to evolution but yet I get the feeling he forgets about it always focusing on Natural Selection. I understand Natural Selection perfectly, but it doesn't explain how brand new organs can come about in a species, is that where Random Mutation steps in? For instance, and maybe you guys can answer this for me, when he is speaking about the fish that has 4 eyes,
braandon241 5 months ago