Richard Dawkins reads the new preface to The God Delusion

[DatSkinnyWhiteGirl]

i lovvvee himmmm

[CaptChrisT]

Richard Dawkins wearing shorts and a tshirt i quite amusing to me

[2timmy4u]

Those are some mighty fine shorts Mr.Dawkins is wearing.

[roscogre]

He certainly has the legs for it.

Not all of us can pull off shorts like that.

[markmywords24]

HAHAHAHA oh my lanta. That name for "god" = sky daddy is genius haha. wow.

[facilisdescenus]

Richard Dawkins in shorts!!!!!

[the12packweb]

And they are such old man shorts!

[MatthewHudghton]

if Richard Dawkins only lives once and believes morals are relative and holds a materialistic world view, why does he do things like this?

if the brain i just a biological machine made of moving molecules etc. whats the logical and intellectually honest reason to follow those impulses at all?

how can you justify it being better than sitting in the corner of a room and whistling for 40+ years, if there is no objective purpose in life and your just a process of atoms occurring in the universe

[nobagav]

just out of curiosity... where did Dawkins ever write or speak about believing in moral relativism?

[RabidApe]

"why does he do things like this?"

Because HE thinks it's a good idea. (rather than because he thinks his Invisible Sky Daddy will torture him forever if he doesn't)

"whats the logical and intellectually honest reason to follow those impulses at all?"

Because we don't have any other choice?  If you know a way to navigate the world without your brain or body, I'm all ears!

"how can you justify it"

Who says he needs to?

[MatthewHudghton]

but if he can't justify it then isn't he being intellectually dishonest in his actions, he criticizes the motives of others when he has no real honest motives from his world view, when you actually examine it.

[RabidApe]

"no real honest motives from his world view"

Huh?

What is he being dishonest about?

...and what is this 'worldview' you speak of?

Have you "actually examined it"? If yes, provide details and preferably quotes from the man himself.

[MatthewHudghton]

sorry, was just assuming he held a materialistic worldview eg. no supernatural element to anything, including human life, basically meaning we're just biological machines - I'm pretty sure that he does hold that view :)

[RabidApe]

Uh huh.

We are biological machines. Conscious, thinking, feeling, improbable, and precious biological machines.

Now what?

What is he being dishonest about?

[MatthewHudghton]

i'm saying he's being intellectually dishonest in his actions (say teaching God doesn't exist) because if you follow through a materialistic world view from the basic principles in it, you can not assign any fundemental value to anything and so can't come up with a good reason or motive to carry out any action. as even your thoughts or human life would ultimately be defined as a atomic/quantum process that is occurring in space, akin to say a star exploding or wood burning. if you get me :)

[MatthewHudghton]

although it sounds very harsh to put it that way i think its the ultimate and honest result of the materialistic world view. If you follow it through - some people skip looads of steps ahead and start saying well natural selection means that humans are valuable because they're carrying through genes etc.(but just to argue, why does natural selection matter or the survival of the human race matter (according to the materialistic worldview)as it is just another atomic process occurring in space.

[RabidApe]

Knowing "why" you have a feeling doesn't automatically, invariably, and irrevocably negate the feeling itself.

I know that the reason shit smells bad is because it's been programmed into our brains by our evolutionary history.

That doesn't make it stink any less.

I know the reason food tastes good is because that reaction has been programmed into our brains by our evolutionary history.

That doesn't keep me from eating out.

[RabidApe]

see also:

watch?v=DkaOYcdh97s

[Fehlgriff]

@Matthew: yes from the "what is" (the universe is material) follows no "what ought to be" (You should not kill). Moral justification for our norms and values are always subjective, 'cause we can't objectively find such things from looking at the world (-> is-ought problem).

However Dawkins is not only a materialist but also a humanist, who values life and civilization . I don't see a problem in him being both. They are not alternative world views on the contrary they complement each other well.

[MatthewHudghton]

yeah i think the whole humanist thing is incompatible with materialism as your saying i think humanism is right because i'm think its right, there isn't actually any justification for it thats from a absolute perspective, so its silly and hypocritical when a materialistic humanist tries to say its wrong for someone else to do something as there own view system, from first principles, doesn't even accommodate for any such thing, and so they're being intellectually dishonest.

[Fehlgriff]

Well I disagree. While it may be that a materialistic world view does not implay moral values, it certainly doesn't mean, that you are unable to hold such values. I mean, materialism is more an epistemological standpoint, humanism covers the ethical scope.

It seems to me that you are arguing that materialism implies moral relativism. However if there's no objective truth to be found in morality that doesn't mean that all views are equal. no we can only value things from our own POV.

[MatthewHudghton]

but isn't that just carrying your materialistic world view as far as you want to carry it in reasoning and then your pretending it doesn't exist when you try and justify your actions or views?

[Fehlgriff]

for the most part of our lives the materialistic world view doesn't matter (which doesn't mean that it's wrong, but we simply don't need it - a worker has to earn his money if the earth is orbiting the sun or vice versa). When it comes to justifying our position we can't use a materialistic view because - as i said - it is not an ethical view. from the way things are, we cannot say how things ought to be. it's different realm.

[Fehlgriff]

How is my action justified when I deny morality itself? I'd only neglect the notion that we can say somethings are better than other, which would end in moral relativism. But we humans are not blank slates. We are born with a intuitive sense of justice (as children we complain if our siblings get a bigger piece of cake) and grow up in a culture/society/peer group that shape our moral values. We can also invent reasons to justify those values, but we cannot derive them from objective reality.

[themediocrenontheist]

@MatthewHudghton "why does natural selection matter or the survival of the human race matter (according to the materialistic worldview)as it is just another atomic process occurring in space." - M.H.

If you believe any of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, Islam) then you are like me (a Secular Humanist) in that you do not acknowledge animals as having souls, or being in the image of a god. Do any Christians, Muslims, or Jews care about pets? Why bother? Why care?

Why not?

[RabidApe]

I can come up with plenty of good reasons - I just don't claim that the reasons are "perfect" or "absolute".

YOU seem to think that's a problem.

I don't.

Even IF there was such a thing as an "absolute standard", we still use our "IMPERFECT" (whatever that means) and SUBJECTIVE minds to understand and aspire to it, so I think the net result would be the same, anyway.

If there IS an "absolute standard", why do you think YOU know it better than me?

[themediocrenontheist]

@MatthewHudghton Dawkins does not say that no interpretation of God can possibly exist. There are certain doctrines which I believe to be demonstrably false, but even Dawkins claims to be a 6.9 of 7 atheist; he knows that claiming for 100% that no supreme being initiated the universe is an irrational claim until incontrovertibly determined. However, what he will not do is acknowledge a specific interpretation of said god on little/no evidence, or worse, evidence to the contrary.

[86itachi]

Dawkins in shorts? Wow, he is truly human.

[CooFrank]

1 star because he was wearing shorts.

Also I hate him.

[Junsku]

What's wrong with shorts? It could be hot in there!

And... Love thy neighbor, f00l!

[jakemoxxx]

haha "self-degrading", "self-diminishing"??

chill, it's just a youtube account name...

[dileepvr]

Yeah.

I remember people in "Starship Troopers" referring to each other as "ape". It sounded quite cool.

[SilverRedIndigo]

Look at the username you have chosen for yourself.

How self-degrading. How self-diminishing.

There is no dignity, no respect for or recognition of the magnificence of your existence in it.

Are you not humiliated and degraded to be referred to by such a designation?

Look at what they've done to you. You call yourself RabidApe.

They cannot do that to those who know they are aspects of God.

D2

[TRUECHARITY]

So instead you have so brilliantly chosen to call yourself:

"Shiny-grey, red, and that purplish-blue sort of color"

[SilverRedIndigo]

As someone who knows there is a God, I don't feel any need to convince you.

I know you'll grow into knowing God just as surely as the 10 yr old boy who thinks girls are disgusting grows into the 16 year old who can know what love is.

I'm not asking you to go my way.

I'm just warning you that this man is an agent of the NWO, the worst of them, the transhumanists.

He could never have gotten so far if he didn't have a lot of backing and if someone wasn't behind his "message".

D2

[RabidApe]

"I'm just warning you that this man is an agent of the NWO, the worst of them, the transhumanists."

...evidence?

[SilverRedIndigo]

I see that you've been trained to require empirical evidence at the expense of being able to infer.

You are being reduced to the level of inanimate object.

You're being told that you're very rational demanding concrete evidence for everything, but you are, in so doing, being reduced to the level of a concrete block.

The people who are bankrolling him are not showing all their cards and he won't be so foolish as to tag a specific ideology onto what he says.

Think Infer See

D2

[RabidApe]

yeahhh  I infer that you're frickin nuts.

Take your conspiracy theory and shove it.

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

You complete psychopath!! Tell me how you know God exists then??? You 100% do not know!!! Dawkins is a great man who is doing great things towards opening peoples minds to the bullshit that is religion! Without religion the human race would be free! Religion has been holding us back for too long!!!

[dileepvr]

Dawkins IS a great man. But I liked him better when he was publishing purely scientific literature. I feel he's wasting his time trying to tackle the creationism problem.

Or is it just that the creationism problem hasn't affected my part of the world?

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

Yeh true! Fair play to the guy! He is, like many of us, sick and tired of religious bullshit and wants to speak out about it! Its just a shame that most people are fucktarded and religious so he is just going to get a lot of negative attention!

[woodster2k1]

@YaMumYaNanYaGran FREE OF WHAT? lol, it would only get worse

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

@woodster2k1 Free of superstition and myth which clouds logic and reason. The religiously motivated obstruction of stem cell research is just one of many real world examples.

[woodster2k1]

@YaMumYaNanYaGran give me more examples...

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

@woodster2k1 Religiously motivated wars (There are people in the American government who secretly want a nuclear holocaust because they believe Jesus will come back). Every single terrorist attack that takes place anywhere at any time. Religiously motivated rapes (Gangs of Muslim men who rape women not covered from head to toe). Arranged marriages and honor killings. The perpetuation of homophobia. The church's resistance to science which is well documented throughout all of history.

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

@woodster2k1 And religion fosters non thinking and ignorance. What is better:

1) A world full of dumb people who cant think for themselves.

2) A world full of educated and free thinking individuals.

If you think its number 1 then there is no hope for you at all.

[woodster2k1]

@YaMumYaNanYaGran lol, did you realize what you wrote? That is a ridiculous statement you made

[YaMumYaNanYaGran]

@woodster2k1 explain....

[SilverRedIndigo]

Please see my video "The Greatest Illusion".

Dawkins is doing a wonderful service to man and God alike.

He is "killing" faith and belief.

No one should believe in God or make do with faith.

The purpose of life is to *know* God.

I wish Dawkins every success in "killing" faith and belief, for they are the primary stumbling blocks to knowledge of God.

D2

[SilverRedIndigo]

The reward of eternal life and fear of death are *not* the provenance of religious sentiment.

And proof of that is the rejection of transhumanism by so many.

Most people would choose to die than to have their lives artificially extended by scientists who motives are questionable.

Please see my video "The Greatest Illusion".

D2

[RabidApe]

That's not a good "proof".

Nobody suggests that anyone will ever outlive the planet and/or sun and/or galaxy and/or universe.

Even if aging were defeated and all diseases eliminated, people could still be killed through accidents and violence.

An extended life span - even if it were extended to millions, billions, or trillions of years - is NOT the same as an "eternal" one.

[SilverRedIndigo]

The transhumanists are already doing human experimentation involving "uploading" consciousness onto a computer. Thus, the person would have no mortal body to be damaged.

Presumably, once the person's intellect was enhanced, they could then devise methods to further the life still.

So the vain hope is for artificial immortality.

Would you want to be a subject in that experimentation, BTW?

[RabidApe]

Would you "artificially extend" your life with things like antibiotics, blood transfusions, x-rays, or chemotherapy?

What about air conditioning or electricity?

Is there something inherently bad about "artificial"?

[SilverRedIndigo]

These are excellent examples. All of them have "kickbacks". They start out being helpful, but then actually weaken our ability to ward off disease and harm us in other ways.

We don't know how transhumanism may harm us and all "treatments" have limitation and side effects.

Yet, they tout it as science's ability to provide an alternative way of attaining eternal life.

D2

[fritleyfrisp]

The Benny Hinn of atheism.

[RabidApe]

the Gomer Pile of trolls.

[fritleyfrisp]

Can I not be Latka Gravas?

[Jslimbaugh]

The best comment on YouTube, like, ever.

[Gettinghitonattheban]

End the end just be yourself, and you'll do just fine.

[Scjrd91]

In the "God Delusion" Dawkins says life doesn't owe us anything, try telling that to the victims of the holocaust, 9/11, and children who are born with cancer and fatal illnesses. They're born against their own will and suffer immediately or have very limited control over their environment. Dawkins, the same guy who says in his book that there are godlike aliens, how could he make such an assumption without evidence, that's faith. Atheists believe in crap too.

[RabidApe]

"Dawkins, the same guy who says in his book that there are godlike aliens"

To say that something is POSSIBLE is not the same thing as saying "it is so". I'll bet you >9,000 internets that Dawkins never claimed such beings DO definitely exist.

"how could he make such an assumption without evidence"?

he didn't!

[Scjrd91]

Its funny, you reply to a comment made 3 months ago. He made an assumption without evidence. He ASSUMED. Read carefully:

"There are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like." Very probably, meaning high in probability.

>I'll bet you >9,000 internets that Dawkins never claimed such beings DO definitely exist.

You don't have to, just read the book dude. If something is highly probable it more than likely exists.

[RabidApe]

"How could science (explaining the natural world) ever tell anyone about the supernatural?"

I imagine it can't - but I can't help but wonder how your natural brain with its natural capacities could know the first thing about 'the supernatural'.

Also, how would you verify your conclusions?

[ScienceHLogic5]

EXACTLY. Well put Rabid Ape. Thank you.

[thwonk121]

RabidApe

It's interesting how we filter evidence through the grid work of our presuppositions often subconsciously. I could be wrong, but I imagine that if you saw an actual miracle first hand or heard convincing testimony of one, you'd disbelieve it based upon your presuppositions of how you see the world. So I hear you say there's no evidence for the supernatural, but I ask you, what evidence would you actually find admissible in the court of your mind?

[RabidApe]

If I "saw an actual miracle first hand", then doesn't that mean that my natural eyes picked up natural photons and sent a natural electrical signal which gets naturally interpreted by my natural brain?

I don't like the word 'supernatural' - if I saw someone resurrected after being dead for three days I wouldn't call it 'supernatural' because it's obviously 'natural' on some level if my natural senses can discern it.

[thwonk121]

I think you have a misconception of what a supernatural occurrence is. Just because there is a natural component (like say a natural body being resurrected after three days) doesn't mean it's a natural occurrence. If you wouldn't call something like that supernatural, what would you call it?

[RabidApe]

"If you wouldn't call something like that supernatural, what would you call it?"

'of unknown mechanism', or 'by an unknown process' works just fine!

Was sunshine 'supernatural' before we understood nuclear fusion?

[DickJohnson3434]

Are you kidding me?

By this argument, God can't do anything to convince you. Even if he wrote a message in the sky, apparently you would consider that natural because air was involved?

What if he immediately transported you to the other end of the galaxy and back? What if he gave you superman's powers for an afternoon?

It's one thing to require extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, it's quite another thing to reject extraordinary evidence.

[Staunts]

"Even if he wrote a message in the sky, apparently you would consider that natural because air was involved?"

This is a "If things were different they'd be different" arguement. Of course seeing a message appear in the sky would be amazing, but that doesn't happen, so what does your hypothesis really prove? If I saw a lepricaun, yeah maybe I'd believe in them, but that's not proof of lepricauns.

[DickJohnson3434]

"This is a "If things were different they'd be different" arguement...but that doesn't happen, so what does your hypothesis really prove?"

I don't understand your point. What is it you think I'm trying to prove?

I'm merely saying a supernatural event would be evidence of the supernatural. Many incomprehensible events may appear supernatural but a bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven for example, would be a comprehensibly supernatural event.

[RabidApe]

relax, guy!

Those kind of things would do a lot to convince me of the existence of something that we would call 'supernatural'.

I eagerly await such an example.

[DickJohnson3434]

"I eagerly await such an example."

youtube dot com/watch?v=dlxL6ZeACaM

[RabidApe]

David Blaine is a false prophet!

You must repent and ask Criss Angel to cum into your heart!

[DickJohnson3434]

I find Chris Angel to be an ideological bigot.

[RabidApe]

...dare I ask what you find David Blaine to be, if not a performer?

[DickJohnson3434]

I was making fun of Jim Callahan.

youtube dot com/watch?v=8kAdZcbfiGY

[thwonk121]

You mention:

"but I can't help but wonder how your natural brain with its natural capacities could know the first thing about 'the supernatural'."

That's a good question. I'm not sure either, it may have something to do with the fact that we are made in the image of our creator. We have rational minds with the ability to know truth, if not all truth and we are also each given immortality, if not eternality.

[RabidApe]

"we are also each given immortality"

whatever gave you THAT idea?

[thwonk121]

Well, that's a revealed doctrine, and not something you could figure out by gazing at the stars or something. What I mean is we are all destined to spend eternity in heaven or hell, so in a sense, you've never met a mere mortal, as C.S. Lewis said.

[RabidApe]

"revealed doctrine" is indistinguishable from "somebody made this shit up"...

"you've never met a mere mortal"

huh?

Are you asserting the existence of an immortal soul?

If so, do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Extra bonus points if you can describe this 'soul', explain to me how I might discern it's properties, and how it's existence could be proven or falsified.

[thwonk121]

It sounds like from your response that you rule out the supernatural a priori. So it's no wonder you will never find any evidence for the supernatural. It makes me wonder about the reasons for your own strong agnosticism (if not atheism). Frederick Nietzsche once said, "If they prove this god of the Christians, we shall believe in him all the less." His problem sure wasn't evidence. His disbelief was volitional and emotional, certainly not evidential.

[RabidApe]

"How could you come up with the idea that atheism is true based upon science?"

This is why I don't like the word 'atheism'. I believe in things based on science, yes - and if I don't see evidence for something, I don't believe it. I happen to not take stock in any of the popular mythologies of human history. Do you have a reason that I should?

[RabidApe]

"are all little more than atheistic apologetics books."

"Since evolution explains the way we got here, God doesn't exist."

ummmmmm... that's not the impression I got!

[mikezephyr]

lol love dawkins in casual wear fukin beats any dressed-up, made-up formal "reverend"

[NikitaLion]

Awesome shit man.

[thwonk121]

I really loved his book. You really can't beat a pseudo-scientist turned amateur philosopher. :)

[PetrusDaniel]

right on the money with that, very good remarc.

[ScienceHLogic5]

Yeah I'm sure Oxford University would allow Dawkins to hold the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science based on his lack of scientific knowledge.

[thwonk121]

They sure didn't give him the chair for his philosophy and theological scholarship. It's funny, because he's only popular for popularizing atheism (a philosophy) not science.

[RabidApe]

"he's only popular for popularizing atheism (a philosophy) not science"

Sorry, man - I was a fan of Dawkins LONG before he wrote the "God Delusion".

"The Selfish Gene" is probably my all-time favorite book, and is the only book that I felt compelled to read for a second time IMMEDIATELY after I finished it the first time.

If it weren't for "The Selfish Gene", I probably wouldn't have:

1) read "The God Delusion"

2) started calling myself 'atheist'

3) joined youtube

[thwonk121]

If you've read "The Selfish Gene" you know that it as well as "The Blind Watchmaker," "Climbing Mt. Improbable," are all little more than atheistic apologetics books. He makes the case that "Since evolution explains the way we got here, God doesn't exist." (huhh?)

I'm curious. How in the world could you come up with the idea that atheism is true based upon science in the first place? How could science (explaining the natural world) ever tell anyone about the supernatural?

[RabidApe]

I assume the words "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Extended Phenotype" don't mean much to you either, eh?

There is a whole world that exists outside of American prime-time TV!

It's true that Dawkins didn't appear on O'Reilly or Colbert until after publishing "The God Delusion", but PLENTY of folks knew of him before then.

[shugyosha11]

Falwell said 9/11 was God's punishment for our sinfulness; he had his own private jet with DONATIONS he paid no taxes on(for that one he better pray he's wrong about hell); he said the antichrist is already present among us, and is an adult male Jew, while all the time fawning on the worst apocalyptic fanatics of Jewery in the West Bank. Getting the picture

[LddStyx]

Is the church any better!?

[VonHelton]

WOW! Comparing Falwell, who never killed no one, to Khomemi, who killed hundreds by his own hand? If this is the best atheists have, you guys are in real trouble!

0.o

[alienjesus2012]

fact? you must be confused.

[safedawn]

Or Horus, or Dionysis, or Tamuz, or Mythra. Many myths did exist long periods of time however, the above mentioned didn't torture and kill heretics like in the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the bloody Protestant Reformation, then the Witch burnings. Fear had something to do with it. What about that Christian Camp??? The psychological ramifications remain ingrained.

[Israfel85]

That does not make him less intelligent.

[degaussingthegodhead]

Plus, British people tend to pronounce many english words differently.

[Israfel85]

Never thought of that, good point.

[DaveJonesBSNews]

Got any proof. For it to be a fact, it requires proof. His book makes arguements based on logic, reason and facts. You make a statement based on what?

For anyone to believe you, you must provide evidence. (and if you use the bible, that requires evidence of truth).

[FuckHerDeadBody]

he needs kicking in the balls.

[DeletedDelusion]

This is so true. The book hasn´t been translated to german yet, there was a preview article of the Spiegel, the title was "It´s all gods fault". By reading it the views of the articles author were very obvious. He realy tried very hard to stay "objective".

Besides that atheism is a non-issue in the german speaking part of Europe. The germans haven´t recovered from the "wir sind Papst(we´re pope)" yet.

[FuckHerDeadBody]

Deleted. what do you mean? the germans are atheist?

[DeletedDelusion]

According to Wiki, non-religious people, including atheists and agnostics amount to 28.5% of the population. Thats quiet a lot compared to Switzerland.

However, I sense catholics agined new popularity in the media since Mister Ratzinger has become pope.

[AgnosticApe]

Deleted. are you from Germany? if so what is the situation, are people religious?

[SkepticPhenomenology]

East Germany is one of the least religious places in the enhtire world, and even west germans are not very religious at all.

[DeletedDelusion]

No, I´m Swiss. Germany is our big neighbour.

We get plenty of german media here (tv/radio/ newspaper) so I can olny talk about what´s in the media. With the german working colleagues, this issue never was risen. I wouldn´t know who is catholic and who is protestant.

People normaly just don´t talk about religion.

[kurtilein3]

according to studies that are used as a source by wikipedia, the amount of atheists/agnostics in the german population is about 45%. and the theists we have in germany are mostly very moderate. religion really isnt an issue here, many people openly describe themselves as atheist when you ask them. the churches are loosing more and more people because the younger people tend to be less religious, the german pope has only slowed that down a little bit on the catholic side. im living in munich.

[kurtilein3]

of my 20 closest friends here in munich only about 5 are religious, most consider themselves agnostic, and again perhaps 5 openly describe themselves as strong atheist. however, i appear to be the only antitheist so far.

[DeletedDelusion]

Interesting.

Well when I read the Spiegel and an article is called "STEM CELL LAW, Church whants to block the SPD", or about the atempt for granted day nursery, then the influence seems bigger.

Here in Switzerland the religuous right whanted to block DJ Bobo´s vampire song. Now how silly is that?

Have you read Dawkins book?

[kurtilein3]

ive seen every dawkins video that is available on youtube, but i dont have the book yet. i just finished ``Fermat's last theorem´´ by simon singh, and at the moment im reading his book about the big bang. his writing style is incredible, fermats last theorem is a masterpiece. it describes 2400 years of mathematical progress that finally lead to one of the greatest mathematical proofs ever made, it never gets boring and always describes the people involved and the historical background.

[DeletedDelusion]

interesting

[Tranxhead]

True words. I'm growing to like Dawkins more.

[rozeboosje]

Ah damn. I just sat through PiroNiro's 6-parter and here I see you've put three of them in the one vid. Great all the same.

[nonbreeder]

That ending was beautiful.

[PolliFaxToaster]

<3 <3 <3

[Atheistron]

Fantastic!

[eswyatt]

Point: always wait for the paperback.

[MaxInfidelis]

"You are just as much of a fundamentalist as those you criticize." No please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism that never will.

[Brainmold]

Yep.

[Katalyzt]

Heh

[teabowbraine]

At least he isn't wearing socks : )

[Namari12]

Didn't he say something about the crew of the ship in there somewhere? And something about giving the spanish version to the 'nature guides'? He's probably camping or something XD

[lamnaa]

My pet dino t shirt! Where can i get them.

[winstonjen]

Brilliant video. Viva la Secularism!

[zawam]

Dawkins is my hero

[Ashetheraven]

He's just liberated :D

[amazingdavidman]

I've always thought "I'm an atheist but" is very similar to the oft repeated "I'm a feminist but", about which much has been written. Society at large keeps us from voicing our opinions by providing radical insane charicatures of activists as the norm, which people are reluctant to be associated with. Associating any expression of atheist and feminist thought with militant theist/man hating is one of the greatest successes of conservative pundits.

[TawntheAtheist]

"Associating any expression of atheist and feminist thought with militant theist/man hating is one of the greatest successes of conservative pundits."

Yes, hence the popular misuse of Agnosticism.

[TheBlindWatchmaker]

I saw this before. It's funny that the Spanish version says "the ILLUSION of god."

[mazvaz101]

rofl ya