computer simulation? i find that to be absolutely nonsensical. i watched through the wormhole first episode, i can't believe it was considered even a theory by scientists. what a fucking joke!
There is no objective purpose to the universe to an atheist. It just is. After that, any purpose is purely subjective and up to, or as the cliche goes: "Life is what you make it."
I believe that there is no "actual" purpose. I believe that we are a result of opposits. you see when opposites collide there is a reation, i believe that there cannot be nothing without something and something without nothing, and when these to collide there is a reaction, and that reaction is inavitable. life is a like the grey area between ying and yang. life is energy. for instance a hot cloud meets cold lighting is created("energy") we are energy.
I think the point of "purpose" is in opposition to the nihilistic worldview rather than an atheistic one: theism just pushes the question further back, it doesn't resolve it (just as theism doesn't resolve the objective/relative moral problem); Kierkegaard knew that. Of course, the simple answer is that we are all individuals and can set our own purpose in the universe and that certain schemas are more useful than others: solipsism isn't particularly useful as we'd starve. Neither is bigotry.
If you could never feel pleasure again, would you continue to live? There may be a nobler pursuit, that of gaining knowledge, but what if no human could benefit emotionally, either from the beauty of the truth revealed or of the practical benefits of the technology it permits? Evidence suggests that even those absolutely committed to discovering the truth would have no capacity to do so without the existence of dopamine in their brains.
@gamerunknown That's like drug addicts, we need that shit in order to want to do something and reinforce our interest in it. If it were we do things because we really want to we would be more free and stoned as we are right now.
Emotions must not be our driving force but rather a secondary effect of what we do, a consequence of our actions.. not the ultimate reason behind it.
I think this was addressed by Harris and Dawkins in the Four Horsemen discussion, drawing inspiration from George Bernard Shaw (that a believer is happier than a sceptic...) and Brave New World. However, there is no better answer than the soporific one from a Utilitarian standpoint. The issue of drug use in ignoring reality is only a problem when it causes greater harm to others than working to improve their happiness in the world...
But if one's research led to taking 5 years off the average lifespan of every individual born on Earth in the next decade, we'd be causing far more damage than if we went on a shooting spree or perhaps even instigated a war (say 80m lifeyears taken in Iraq war, compared to 117m births so far this year [*~50]). Again, while it is impossible to derive an "ought" from the fact that humans require pleasure (dopamine) to function, it is equally impossible to ignore it.
Ehm if there is a universe that just calculate Pi doesn't mean that is it's reason to be, it just means that's what it HAPPENS so be. If you believe that things must have a propose you can't believe in evolution as a random event (Why something simpler as a universe come to exist would need a propose and evolution don't ? ).
As human beings we design artefacts to be used for a certain function. This is where the concept of purpose comes from: from creation with intent. Outside of our collective consciousnesses, the concept of purpose does not and cannot exist. If consciousness were not to exist then purpose would be a totally bizarre notion. Whyever should the universe have a purpose?
I loved the statement by Krauss "perhaps the Universe is to figure out pie to 100000000 decimal places". I put myself in an astranged camp of being a kind of "Atheist with faith". He tapped into one of my main hypotheses with that statement. But I disagree that, that "why" is an unimportant issue. I'd say it's the most important issue of all. Or, rather IS there a WHY? I think that question drives all others, including the HOW... If you take my meaning.
Well, yes, the earth and sun both revolve around a common center of gravity, but that center of gravity lies deep within the sun. So, the sun has a tiny wobble due to the earth revolving around it, but the sun has a bigger wobble due to Jupiter revolving around it. Actually, all the planets make the sun wobble a little bit, some planets more than others, with Jupiter being the chief culprit!
@BigFatHeretic Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that things can happen at all with time? That it is simply a necessary dimension for events to occur, just as length, width and height are necessary dimensions for space and objects to exist?
I'm just inquiring, I actually don't know much about that kind of thing.
@Jotto999 Well, I sort of meant it as a humorous comment. It's like, another old saying "WORK is nature's way of saying screw you!" or life's a bitch and then you die. Actually, life is not a bitch. Life's a virgin! A bitch is easy!!!
Is there any person on earth who has purpose to their lives? I am sure most would agree there are, even if they themselves have not yet found purpose for their own. Are we not part of the universe? Indeed we are. It follows that there is therefore purpose to the universe. The difference of course is that the purpose is not objectively imposed from without, but rather subjectively created from within.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
@The Awe and Wonder Guy: I would tend to agree that awe and wonder was important in the propagation of religion, but I don't think there will be a time when the public gets bored of all the same stupid stuff seen on TV, mainly because there will always be a new public. The members of the public are always dying and being born, and changing what they're interested in when they get bored, there is so much crap out there that they just don't get bored.
That's the joke of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. There was an advanced civilization that was capable of building a machine capable of answering the question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything," but the computer could only come up w/"42" as the answer because that same civilization wasn't UNadvanced enough to find the right question to answer.
Clearly, we live on a flat world balanced on the backs of four elephants which, in turn, stand on the back of a giant turtle. People only need to look at their feet to see the shell that belongs to the Great A'Tuin.
This is the key to everything - there's no purpose to the universe or life within the bounds of the universe. Our universe is purely "material" - forms of energy blindly following the "rules" that they *must* follow. Everything else comes out of that - suns, planets, life. We cannot know what's outside our universe, but in this universe, this is the way it is.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Damn. It's just like the debates they were trying to get away from. Just as they're getting to a substantive difference between them, it's time for audience questions.
Does any one take the same position as the second to last (was he the first?) question-er? That we shouldn't emphasize the "woohoo" of science (like religion apparently does), but instead on the usefulness and seriousness of it? (or whatever it was that he said). Dawkins and Mr. Physics didn't really give his thought any consideration..
@SubtleChaotic Why not emphasize both the wohoo and the usefulness? I don't agree with what the old man said, that emotions are destructive. Positive emotions towards science must be one of the most useful emotions of them all.
You have to appreciate how two people can disagree, and have a reasonable discussion... It's a shame that only the intelligentsia can do this anymore.
They keep mentioning atheists... How about us agnostics? I sit on the fence when it comes to the discussion about some deity that governs the universe. Their may be or their may not be. Atheist in some sense, are like religious people. Making claims without any evidence. Atheism believes there is no god. Well without evidence, you can't say that is a fact. Which is why I'm agnostic. I just say "I don't know" and move on with my life.
@daylight0912 Atheism is not like religion. Religious people are the ones making the claim that a God exists with no evidence, the burden of proof is on them. We refute those claims with reality and science. Is science just random assertions as well? If you are on the fence about this, then you might as well classify yourself as an atheist because religion requires blind faith to your deity. And these two guys do not claim to know it all, they accept what is beyond our understanding.
@buttface112211 Please comprehend my words before commenting back to me. I never said atheism was a religion. I said they act like religious people, making claims without proof. You can't prove god doesn't exist so to say 100 percent he doesn't exist is making a illogical claim. Any rational person knows that. Even Dawkins says he's 6.9 on a scale of 7 sure that god doesn't exist. He can't be 100 percent sure. I sit on the fence because it's the rational thing to do. Maybe you should do the same
@daylight0912 Rational is to believe in the supernatural and fairytales with not physical evidence? You can't prove that God does exist either, therefore the burden of proof is on the ones that claim he exists. I am yet to be presented with irrefutable evidence that supports his existence. For the reasons people say I should believe, I will not because they are all fallacious arguments.
@daylight0912 Nor can you prove that Zuis or Thor don't exist. But you can say the probability that Zius, Thor and God exist is very, very small. Do you sit on the fence about the existence of Zuis and Thor?
Sorry, no. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnostics say that the answer of whether or not there is a god or gods is unknowable. Atheists lack belief in a god or gods, and don't necessarily claim to know one way or another.
@daylight0912 The problem is as an agnostic you're considering religion as possible truth by default. This shouldn't be the case any more than being agnostic about pixies as we haven't proved they don't exist either.
Atheism doesn't have to provide proof as atheism by definition is a lack of a belief due to evidence. I understand exactly how you think you're stance is neutral, but it's only only neutral if atheism was a faith like religion is.
7.03: I'm glad this guy wasn't my science teacher. I would have hated it. Dude, we are humans. What? You want us to be drones finding out stuff because we 'have' to survive. Get a life. Science is awesome. As LK says, it should be held right up there with the arts. You're expressing yourself through theories and calculations etc. If you go through life without feeling anything then what's the point. That guy just seems bitter as he has accepted that this is all beyond our understanding, for now
Check out 6.20. That's the most uncomfortable setting I've ever seen two scientists in. They look like a Jew and a Muslim someone just put a leg of ham in from of
@MikeWtf Well they could discuss the purpose of a pig (they's good eetin). Purpose can be likened to usefulness. What is the purpose of a pig suckling its young? Is she not still "good eetin". Depends on your point of view and is interchangeable. Is someone praying to their god supposed to believe they faith is interchangeable, could it be a computer god?
Dogma in evidence based assumption is logical. There is an infinite number of possible causalities which are not. The more dogmatic the investigator, so it follows the more accurate the assumption. Assumptions made exclusive of evidence are not worth assuming at all.
Purpose is, and always will be, purely subjective. What is the purpose of money to a man who has just jumped off a ten story building or to a world that only uses credit cards?
If the “purpose” of the universe was revealed tomorrow then what is to stop anybody from saying, “that's not what I intended”. Only by submitting the ownership the universe to a higher authority can you be in the mindset to declare ultimate purpose (and I for one don't).
The problem Richard ran in to in responding to the question of "purpose" is because he didn't 'long-hand' the definition, which would make obvious the ridiculum of the question:
Purpose: the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
Which presupposes creation. So as different as the terms are in pronunciation, they are the same thought!, just in different stages, and therefore, the reason Richard is frustrated for not making this connection. Emotionally, he knows
8:40 that guy whos asking the question isn't wrong technically. the earth and the sun do a revolution around a centre of gravity point, so grammaticaly its fa,lse. that said the centre of gravity , for the sun having so much mor emass than earth, that centre of mass lies within the sun. so you'l se a wobble in the sun while an earth doing a complete orbit around the centre of gravity and not the sun itself.
I want to kiss Richard for his answer to the question of 'purpose.' I have always responded to the question, 'What is the meaning of life?' with, 'What is the meaning of that question?'
@Saerain I will have to agree with you there on the vague question. You will have to forgive my uncle he is just a geneticist at Stanford University. lmao though if you watch the beginning Lawrence already knows exactly what Richard is going to say after reading his books/knowing the man so he interjects and takes the question first.
The purpose is happening now, whatever the universe does, always has been always will be .
youtube,these scientists,people questioning purpose, the sun,star and moon, galaxies dying and being born, Purpose is all thats happening at all times.
WOW thats my uncle asking the first question of this video. What the hell are the odds I would see a blood relative in a youtube video while trolling the internet. The cosmos smiles down on me.
I'm sorry, but the comment from the man at the end was one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. "emotions are destructive to humanity, there should be no sense of awe and wonder in the universe, only facts..."
what a hideously boring person this man must be, and what an oppresively depressing view of existrence this man must have!!!
I take the existentialist view on purpose, among other things. what is the objective meaning of life? from a scientific standpoint there isn't one, since purpose would assume some conscious sentient bing having a reason for it. it's up for me to decide as an individual what meaning I GIVE TO life.
The thing that the first questioner said about emotion and the feeling awe is wrong, I think. That's exactly what the religious think about the non religious (scientists being many of these). They walk into a cathedral with it's very high ceiling and feel like there's something way bigger than them, and even myself as a non religious like those kind of spaces feel that way inside a cathedral, but a cathedral can never compete with the universe. It's just impossible.
@jeanclaudevandamme jeanclaudevandamme was licking his mom’s hairy butthole when he heard the icecream truck. jeanclaudvandamme stopped licking his mom’s nasty gash and ran outside to buy icecream but realized he was out of foodstamps luckily Bob Saget was the one selling icecream and he gave jeanclaudevandamme free frosting all over his face. Since then everytime jeanclaudevandamme walks into Baskin Robbins he yells “I scream U scream we all scream for Bob Sagets Splooge
@jeanclaudevandamme jeanclaudevandamme was licking his mom’s hairy butthole when he heard the icecream truck. jeanclaudvandamme stopped licking his mom’s nasty gash and ran outside to buy icecream but realized he was out of foodstamps luckily Bob Saget was the one selling icecream and he gave jeanclaudevandamme free frosting all over his face. Since then everytime jeanclaudevandamme walks into Baskin Robbins he yells “I scream U scream we all scream for Bob Sagets Splooge
Theyre assuming that what governments tell us about space and time are correct, which we all know that everything we think we know is probably lies, so are they basing their findings on all the lies??
People who say atheism is a religion, or evolution is a religion, clearly have no understanding of either. It's not even worth arguing the point. One might as well debate quantum mechanics with a flat-earther, a Christian, or a chimp (and really, what's the difference?). Their starting place is just so impossibly low. And I don't feel like wasting my time discussing the finer points of 8 vs. 9 shiny reindeer with adults for whom remedial education texts are a waste of good bonfire fuel.
@TomValedro non stamp collecting is a hobby because it has a dogma and that dogma is the belief that there are no stamps worth collecting and non stamp collecting follows that dogma.
Doesn't follow so well now, does it? Try using some punctuation next time so you don't look so much like a retard.
@theartsig Maybe a non stamp collector thinks that there are stamps worth collecting but he's just too lazy to collect them. Atheists have an ideology which says that their belief that there is no god is better than other peoples belief that there is, hence it's completely the same as a religion.
They're rejecting the claim that there is a god, it's not the other way around, sorry.
Think of it like this, if you reject the claim that there is fairies, then you have no ''dogma''. There's nothing past the point that you're rejecting a claim. That's it.
@rrpauldoran So does this mean that U may believe in god but U just reject it? That an atheist can believe in god but is just rejecting the belief?
Atheists make a thesis, the thesis being that god does not exist, and that thesis which they make makes Atheism a religion. And being religious does not require a belief in God as I'm sure you already know.
You wouldn't ask what's the purpose of a star is, because it was simply caused by the laws that work in this universe. There is no purpose in a rock or a comet.
The same thing goes for life, we are more or less like any other object in the universe, we came to be through all these natural processes that govern this world, the only difference is that we are simple more 'complex' than a rock. That's all.
THEN, that's where ethicists pick up, and declare why morality is actually a concept that is important and how humans can go about exploring it in a good, productive way.
Well, yes, but you could say that ethics or moral philosophy begun with the first human ancestor that pondered on the fact that he doesn't want to kill members of his own tribe/group.
Of course there was no such thing as everything in evolution is gradual. As is the development of moral values.
I encourage for you to check out this video of lecture by Sarah Hrdy:
watch?v=IGTtdcTn2Vk
Her books also show a very interesting theory about how and why we are a very social species.
@S0chan Recent theories suggest anything that is possible given enough time as long as it does not contrevene the laws of physics. If this is true, then life was inevitable. Further supported by the discovery of protiens in metor's and new planets in other solar systems, suggesting life is probably very common in the Universe. Evolution has given us the ability to pass on learning unlike any other species, maybe we are the result of a universe trying to understand itself?
Purpose is a human construct, excellent as it may be. All other things simply exhibit behaviour.
But, a basic way of all things exists, which is also excellent. That is, the underlying law of nature.
As the way of all things, the underlying law of nature reveals this way and thereby presents us the option and opportunity to adjust to the law fully or apply it to a certain degree.
Purpose cannot be accurately described or understood without knowledge of the underlying law of nature. Google it.
Are you aware of or are you familiar with the underlying law of nature? Specifically?
Few people have determined what it is, although everyone can, and it's worth understanding. You can Google it.
You see, on the surface it sounds familiar. The next step, however, is to go ahead and identify the underlying law of nature firsthand, for ourselves, each one of us, so that some arbitrary 'authority' doesn't decide for us, try to manipulate us or rob us of what's ours.
you know what i am a scientist and i have been studying theology and some rooth of languages astronomy anthropologyect.. and all is pointing of delusionnal religion ,no god exist all is delusion enslavement and controle of man kind by is own kind for the power and controle,i invite you to see god delusion from richard dawkins here in you tubeand if you want it more let me know i ll tell you all my research is all about,you ll be more than surprise what i know
Yes, Dawkins' books and films are excellent. And in answer to your invitation, I own this book and I've watched the corresponding film numerous times. 5-stars. Thank you.
So, back to the subject. Have you heard of the underlying law of nature?
It was discovered only very recently, so most people have not heard of the underlying law of nature, let alone identified what it is.
As a scientist you have a very deep interest is the laws of nature, yes?
Its been studied and proven that animals feel empathy towards their own kind, empathy being fundamental to morality. Utilitarianism is a good moral code, but again isn't perfect because morality is objective. This whole argument comes down to happiness and survival, so wouldn't we be morally obliged to hook up somebody we love to a happiness machine and keep them alive? Also Richard Dawkins speaks his mind very well in this segment.
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Any purpose to anything is imagined. Just like any deity. So if Mr Dawkins would like to see religion disappear then all philosophical nonsense needs to be discarded. This includes
silly notions of morality, law, values and meaning.
your logic doesnt make any sense. he isnt saying it's imagined he's saying it's something we've created - morality, laws, values and meaning exist because we value them as human beings. because we've evolved socially in the last 100,000 years of our existence to move beyond the chaos of nature to a more egalitarian society. if you dont agree then you're quite literally a sociopath.
Of course the value of something exists. That is a bizarre, postmodern, relativistic road you're going down. As Sam Harris points out beliefs & values are our representations of the world as we observe it.
I don't even know what to make of your comment regarding nature being neither intelligent nor able to design nor create. Did your parents not lay down to conceive you? Or would you have us believe that like Horace, Hercules and that fellow Jesus you were born a virgin?
"As Sam Harris points out beliefs & values are our representations of the world as we observe it."
Values are based on belief and are no more real than any deity, You should be embarrassed to quote such a delusional hypocrite who's supposed powers of reason allowed such an obvious oversight.
That which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
When you resort to ad hominem attacks you really expose the weakness of your position. Incidentally you didnt dispute the point.
It's extraordinarily easy to prove values exist: the Allies defeated the Nazis, slavery was abolished, women gained the right to vote, etc. Conversely, corrupted values are illustrated by the Inquisition, the Taliban, fanatical settlers on the West Bank etc.
I get the strong sense that you're someone who hasn't thought very critically about your position.
@khan0890 You contradict yourself there. Obviously the nazis had _different_ values, but they were values non the less. The same goes for those who invented slavery (or at least kept it going) or anything else you take as an example. They were humans just like the people who opposed those ideas. To you, executing handicapped people may be immoral. To a nazi it's the only moral thing to do. The bottom line is - "good" values in any objective sense don't exist, and they change over time.
like the previous apologist you show a breathtakingly poor ability to understand what i've written. i never said the nazis had no values - i said they had "corrupted values."
of course good values exist in an objective sense. to argue otherwise suggests you are completely & utterly morally bankrupt. it is wrong - in absolute and objective terms - to mutilate the genitals of a girl in the name of religion and i dont give a fuck what some tribe in africa or fictional book says.
@khan0890 Aye..but that's the point. "Corrupted" is just your personal opinion about them. I'm not defending nazi values but you have to zoom out a to realize that you yourself are a product of society and were brought up to think a certain way.
I'm guessing you haven't studied law. You can wiki "Natural law" and "Positive law". The problem with natural law is that there's absoutley no way to prove the existance of it. The only conclusion we can draw is unfortunatly that it's man-made.
Objective morality is one of the dumbest ideas to ever come out of religion, and boy is that a big list.
Who are you to decide if the Nazis values were 'corrupted'? Your very opinion is a value judgment. Just because your values differ from theirs, and even if the rest of the world did as well, does not inherently make them bad, simply different and disagreed with.
are you fucking kidding me? where are you nutjobs coming from? Oberlin College?
i simply cannot comprehend how a human being in the 21st Century doesn't believe that the Nazis were objectively immoral. Of course it's a fucking value judgment! that's what morality is.
And your seriously making the position that I cannot judge the morality of Nazi values? My goodness... go tell your bullshit postmodern theory to a Holocaust survivor, see what happens.
I am not implying that I think Nazis were right in what they did. However, just the fact that "I think" anything about it, is in itself a value judgement. Just because I judge them to be bad does not make it objectively so. Everyone, absolutely everyone, has slight subjective differences of opinion. If that is the case then how can any one thing ever be 'objectively' true? Indeed, how can objective morality even be a sensible concept when morality is dictated by the subjective individual?
@stojadinovicp You do know that laws change with time don't you? And that laws differ from clulture to culture?
Here in Sweden during the age of the Vikings, beastiality was punishible by death. Murder on the other hand had no punishment at all (the kin could avenge him if they chose to). Now in 2009 beastiality is legal and can be found in porn, while murder is the most serious crime of all.
Things change. Values and moral in any objective sense don't exist and never did.
@stojadinovicp How is "do no harm" as an absolute objective moral rule? Pretty poor to be honest. Lions don't seem to care much about it. Would you claim that they, and all other preditors including us humans, are "evil" since we kill to eat?
Lots of things you consider immoral such as theft, murder, rape etc. exists among animals as well. It doesn't make it "right" but if us humans did not exist, nobody would be there to argue in terms of right or wrong anyway. So just face it, it's man-made
WHAT??? LIONS??? ANIMALS??? Are they evolved to be intellectually advanced enough to even consider morality as a concept? You just wrote a lot of pretty stupid stuff than needs no answering.
@stojadinovicp Haha so anything or anyone who can't consider morality as a concept cannot commit an immoral act? What difference does it make - Murder is murder, theft is theft.
Maybe you start reading a bit more about it and study law instead of thinking that the world functions in accordance with your personal feelings.
Hwo do you intend do describe morality to a lion? If you insist on bringing in the animals into this discussion then nothing is moral and morality simply does not exist... We invented it, nothing more...
No, no... I sad IFF we attempt to bring animals into it. Since we do not and should not, then we are able to have morality and apply it to human beings and their actions. Morality, as I see it, is also part of our intellectual evolution. being self-aware and able to reason provides us with the requirements for defining and applying morality and it's rules...
@stojadinovicp ok fine, but we humans are also animals in the biological sense. Self-awareness can be found amongst other primates also, such as chimps. You've never seen a dog be ashemed and show regret over something it did when you yell at it for example?
@Viconiuz: well... when a dog passes the Turing test ;) we can consider that :) until that I will assume that the dog is simply scared that you won't give him food :)
yes animals have morality... one closely documented case is of a cub killer lioness. when the pride was gone she killed and ate the cubs of the pride. for a while the pride was clueless to this loss of cubs, then she was caught by another authoritative part of the pride and the dots were joined and they killed this "child killer" because this was a horrible detrimental effect to the life of the pride.
I'm not saying it is not true, just asking for references... However, why is this labeled as morality? They simply killed her for attacking their pride, their prides future, this can better be described as defense rather than morality. I'm sorry, but the concept of morality is purely man made and requires a certain level of consciousness that even religious freaks do not posses ;P
computer simulation? i find that to be absolutely nonsensical. i watched through the wormhole first episode, i can't believe it was considered even a theory by scientists. what a fucking joke!
halflifeproductionz 5 days ago
6:20 synchronized... looking?
Eniacbc 2 weeks ago
lol 6:18
jonasianbuddy 4 weeks ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Where's part 6???
lardhat 1 month ago 6
@lardhat
Search for: Lawrence Krauss Discussion (6/12) - Richard Dawkins
Nilguiri 2 weeks ago
@lardhat go for the playlist !!!
babylonoise 2 weeks ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
no kidding its true u can read by urself
thcci 1 month ago
about 8:30 i want to remind that a quote from einstein book of speacial relativity entrance
-i hope u enjoy the book :P
thcci 1 month ago
There is no objective purpose to the universe to an atheist. It just is. After that, any purpose is purely subjective and up to, or as the cliche goes: "Life is what you make it."
Olikiscrazy 1 month ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
I believe that there is no "actual" purpose. I believe that we are a result of opposits. you see when opposites collide there is a reation, i believe that there cannot be nothing without something and something without nothing, and when these to collide there is a reaction, and that reaction is inavitable. life is a like the grey area between ying and yang. life is energy. for instance a hot cloud meets cold lighting is created("energy") we are energy.
allermann1 2 months ago
I think the point of "purpose" is in opposition to the nihilistic worldview rather than an atheistic one: theism just pushes the question further back, it doesn't resolve it (just as theism doesn't resolve the objective/relative moral problem); Kierkegaard knew that. Of course, the simple answer is that we are all individuals and can set our own purpose in the universe and that certain schemas are more useful than others: solipsism isn't particularly useful as we'd starve. Neither is bigotry.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
6:15 bahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
stewartruns240s 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
6:26 I couldn't agree more with him, emotion are destructive and we should put them behind thinking.
DraskyVanderhoff 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
@DraskyVanderhoff
If you could never feel pleasure again, would you continue to live? There may be a nobler pursuit, that of gaining knowledge, but what if no human could benefit emotionally, either from the beauty of the truth revealed or of the practical benefits of the technology it permits? Evidence suggests that even those absolutely committed to discovering the truth would have no capacity to do so without the existence of dopamine in their brains.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown That's like drug addicts, we need that shit in order to want to do something and reinforce our interest in it. If it were we do things because we really want to we would be more free and stoned as we are right now.
Emotions must not be our driving force but rather a secondary effect of what we do, a consequence of our actions.. not the ultimate reason behind it.
DraskyVanderhoff 2 months ago
@DraskyVanderhoff
I think this was addressed by Harris and Dawkins in the Four Horsemen discussion, drawing inspiration from George Bernard Shaw (that a believer is happier than a sceptic...) and Brave New World. However, there is no better answer than the soporific one from a Utilitarian standpoint. The issue of drug use in ignoring reality is only a problem when it causes greater harm to others than working to improve their happiness in the world...
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@DraskyVanderhoff
But if one's research led to taking 5 years off the average lifespan of every individual born on Earth in the next decade, we'd be causing far more damage than if we went on a shooting spree or perhaps even instigated a war (say 80m lifeyears taken in Iraq war, compared to 117m births so far this year [*~50]). Again, while it is impossible to derive an "ought" from the fact that humans require pleasure (dopamine) to function, it is equally impossible to ignore it.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
Ehm if there is a universe that just calculate Pi doesn't mean that is it's reason to be, it just means that's what it HAPPENS so be. If you believe that things must have a propose you can't believe in evolution as a random event (Why something simpler as a universe come to exist would need a propose and evolution don't ? ).
DraskyVanderhoff 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
WTF??? The 6th video is 'private'???
BannorPhil 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As human beings we design artefacts to be used for a certain function. This is where the concept of purpose comes from: from creation with intent. Outside of our collective consciousnesses, the concept of purpose does not and cannot exist. If consciousness were not to exist then purpose would be a totally bizarre notion. Whyever should the universe have a purpose?
wingman6191 2 months ago
Comment removed
wingman6191 2 months ago
Comment removed
wingman6191 2 months ago
p.s. last question KICKED ASS!! XD
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
I loved the statement by Krauss "perhaps the Universe is to figure out pie to 100000000 decimal places". I put myself in an astranged camp of being a kind of "Atheist with faith". He tapped into one of my main hypotheses with that statement. But I disagree that, that "why" is an unimportant issue. I'd say it's the most important issue of all. Or, rather IS there a WHY? I think that question drives all others, including the HOW... If you take my meaning.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
The is epic
jl931 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
in understanding nature:
function comes first.
purpose comes last. *notice how i say "last" rather than "second" lol*
kaishininjou 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Well, yes, the earth and sun both revolve around a common center of gravity, but that center of gravity lies deep within the sun. So, the sun has a tiny wobble due to the earth revolving around it, but the sun has a bigger wobble due to Jupiter revolving around it. Actually, all the planets make the sun wobble a little bit, some planets more than others, with Jupiter being the chief culprit!
BigFatHeretic 3 months ago
Time dose have a purpose! Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once!
BigFatHeretic 3 months ago 2
@BigFatHeretic Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that things can happen at all with time? That it is simply a necessary dimension for events to occur, just as length, width and height are necessary dimensions for space and objects to exist?
I'm just inquiring, I actually don't know much about that kind of thing.
Jotto999 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
@Jotto999 Well, I sort of meant it as a humorous comment. It's like, another old saying "WORK is nature's way of saying screw you!" or life's a bitch and then you die. Actually, life is not a bitch. Life's a virgin! A bitch is easy!!!
BigFatHeretic 3 months ago
@BigFatHeretic Ah, I see. I'm sorry, I tend to over analyze everything.
Jotto999 3 months ago
Is there any person on earth who has purpose to their lives? I am sure most would agree there are, even if they themselves have not yet found purpose for their own. Are we not part of the universe? Indeed we are. It follows that there is therefore purpose to the universe. The difference of course is that the purpose is not objectively imposed from without, but rather subjectively created from within.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper Beautifully said my friend
Cherrypoppins18 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@The Awe and Wonder Guy: I would tend to agree that awe and wonder was important in the propagation of religion, but I don't think there will be a time when the public gets bored of all the same stupid stuff seen on TV, mainly because there will always be a new public. The members of the public are always dying and being born, and changing what they're interested in when they get bored, there is so much crap out there that they just don't get bored.
daemonowner 3 months ago
@1robin
That's the joke of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. There was an advanced civilization that was capable of building a machine capable of answering the question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything," but the computer could only come up w/"42" as the answer because that same civilization wasn't UNadvanced enough to find the right question to answer.
So they built Earth to compute the question. Lol
macgeek2004 3 months ago
Clearly, we live on a flat world balanced on the backs of four elephants which, in turn, stand on the back of a giant turtle. People only need to look at their feet to see the shell that belongs to the Great A'Tuin.
FlyingBandicoot 3 months ago
@FlyingBandicoot i know seriously! some people are so stupid and irrational!!
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 3 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy And you surely are a drop-out of the unseen university who only knows a single spell ^^
M0rdH0rst 3 months ago
This is the key to everything - there's no purpose to the universe or life within the bounds of the universe. Our universe is purely "material" - forms of energy blindly following the "rules" that they *must* follow. Everything else comes out of that - suns, planets, life. We cannot know what's outside our universe, but in this universe, this is the way it is.
waperboy 4 months ago
What a situation we are all stuck in! Alive in a universe without a clue to why , where or what is happening, yet we can ask the questions!
1robon 5 months ago
fuck yea dawkins gave my life meaning
human453 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
5:19 Fuckin' Matrix up in here! ooooooooOOoOOOooOOoOOOoOOoooOOo
Ninvus2 7 months ago
Damn. It's just like the debates they were trying to get away from. Just as they're getting to a substantive difference between them, it's time for audience questions.
TheNatealator 7 months ago
Does any one take the same position as the second to last (was he the first?) question-er? That we shouldn't emphasize the "woohoo" of science (like religion apparently does), but instead on the usefulness and seriousness of it? (or whatever it was that he said). Dawkins and Mr. Physics didn't really give his thought any consideration..
SubtleChaotic 8 months ago
@SubtleChaotic Why not emphasize both the wohoo and the usefulness? I don't agree with what the old man said, that emotions are destructive. Positive emotions towards science must be one of the most useful emotions of them all.
MatsEP 6 months ago
@MatsEP
I guess what he was trying to say was that bringing emotion into something purely objective is destructive. -But yeh, it's not a very good point..
SubtleChaotic 6 months ago
That last guy's question was brilliant. xD
NiNj4xNUTZz 8 months ago
You have to appreciate how two people can disagree, and have a reasonable discussion... It's a shame that only the intelligentsia can do this anymore.
Callirgos1 8 months ago
I wish Wendy Wright was here..hahaha..I would love to hear.. "SHUT THE FUCK UP BIATCH"
freedomland11 9 months ago
Calling Atheism religion is like calling Bald a hair color.
KEEETARO 9 months ago
@KEEETARO this is one of the most eloquent metaphors i have encountered. im giving you props on this one
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
They keep mentioning atheists... How about us agnostics? I sit on the fence when it comes to the discussion about some deity that governs the universe. Their may be or their may not be. Atheist in some sense, are like religious people. Making claims without any evidence. Atheism believes there is no god. Well without evidence, you can't say that is a fact. Which is why I'm agnostic. I just say "I don't know" and move on with my life.
daylight0912 10 months ago
@daylight0912 Atheism is not like religion. Religious people are the ones making the claim that a God exists with no evidence, the burden of proof is on them. We refute those claims with reality and science. Is science just random assertions as well? If you are on the fence about this, then you might as well classify yourself as an atheist because religion requires blind faith to your deity. And these two guys do not claim to know it all, they accept what is beyond our understanding.
buttface112211 9 months ago
@buttface112211 Please comprehend my words before commenting back to me. I never said atheism was a religion. I said they act like religious people, making claims without proof. You can't prove god doesn't exist so to say 100 percent he doesn't exist is making a illogical claim. Any rational person knows that. Even Dawkins says he's 6.9 on a scale of 7 sure that god doesn't exist. He can't be 100 percent sure. I sit on the fence because it's the rational thing to do. Maybe you should do the same
daylight0912 9 months ago
@daylight0912 Rational is to believe in the supernatural and fairytales with not physical evidence? You can't prove that God does exist either, therefore the burden of proof is on the ones that claim he exists. I am yet to be presented with irrefutable evidence that supports his existence. For the reasons people say I should believe, I will not because they are all fallacious arguments.
buttface112211 9 months ago
@daylight0912 Nor can you prove that Zuis or Thor don't exist. But you can say the probability that Zius, Thor and God exist is very, very small. Do you sit on the fence about the existence of Zuis and Thor?
Botie2 9 months ago
@daylight0912 Observation: wow, what a nice world we live in
Religious claim: Allah must have made it
Atheist response: we don't know, let's find out...
So who needs to prove their point?
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@MrBabyMaddox You're wrong. Agnostic say we don't know. Atheist say they know.
daylight0912 8 months ago
@daylight0912
Sorry, no. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnostics say that the answer of whether or not there is a god or gods is unknowable. Atheists lack belief in a god or gods, and don't necessarily claim to know one way or another.
SearynSever 8 months ago
@SearynSever Maybe you should google the definition of atheist and learn something.
daylight0912 8 months ago
@daylight0912 The problem is as an agnostic you're considering religion as possible truth by default. This shouldn't be the case any more than being agnostic about pixies as we haven't proved they don't exist either.
Atheism doesn't have to provide proof as atheism by definition is a lack of a belief due to evidence. I understand exactly how you think you're stance is neutral, but it's only only neutral if atheism was a faith like religion is.
Atheism can be agnostic in a sceptical sense.
villainandfox 9 months ago
I wish I had gone to a university that hosted events with guests of this caliber.
retroprodigy40 10 months ago
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
nordhorny 10 months ago
7.03: I'm glad this guy wasn't my science teacher. I would have hated it. Dude, we are humans. What? You want us to be drones finding out stuff because we 'have' to survive. Get a life. Science is awesome. As LK says, it should be held right up there with the arts. You're expressing yourself through theories and calculations etc. If you go through life without feeling anything then what's the point. That guy just seems bitter as he has accepted that this is all beyond our understanding, for now
jimjimthehumanbin 11 months ago
6:19-6:20 both of them :D
Zdzis19mis92 11 months ago 2
Check out 6.20. That's the most uncomfortable setting I've ever seen two scientists in. They look like a Jew and a Muslim someone just put a leg of ham in from of
MikeWtf 1 year ago
@MikeWtf Well they could discuss the purpose of a pig (they's good eetin). Purpose can be likened to usefulness. What is the purpose of a pig suckling its young? Is she not still "good eetin". Depends on your point of view and is interchangeable. Is someone praying to their god supposed to believe they faith is interchangeable, could it be a computer god?
Pitfytr 1 year ago
Dogma in evidence based assumption is logical. There is an infinite number of possible causalities which are not. The more dogmatic the investigator, so it follows the more accurate the assumption. Assumptions made exclusive of evidence are not worth assuming at all.
Pitfytr 1 year ago
Purpose is, and always will be, purely subjective. What is the purpose of money to a man who has just jumped off a ten story building or to a world that only uses credit cards?
If the “purpose” of the universe was revealed tomorrow then what is to stop anybody from saying, “that's not what I intended”. Only by submitting the ownership the universe to a higher authority can you be in the mindset to declare ultimate purpose (and I for one don't).
Bravowon 1 year ago
6:19 - Synchronize Swatches boys!!
hpotter2310 1 year ago
the fat guy at the end has aspergers.
KiNPiN1835 1 year ago
As an exercise, try to explain the "purpose" of something that hasn't been created. Dirt can SERVE a purpose, but it wasn't created for one.
trumanhw 1 year ago
The problem Richard ran in to in responding to the question of "purpose" is because he didn't 'long-hand' the definition, which would make obvious the ridiculum of the question:
Purpose: the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
Which presupposes creation. So as different as the terms are in pronunciation, they are the same thought!, just in different stages, and therefore, the reason Richard is frustrated for not making this connection. Emotionally, he knows
trumanhw 1 year ago
6:19 double watch check
gunsty69 1 year ago
Part 6?
bfoaliali 1 year ago
8:40 that guy whos asking the question isn't wrong technically. the earth and the sun do a revolution around a centre of gravity point, so grammaticaly its fa,lse. that said the centre of gravity , for the sun having so much mor emass than earth, that centre of mass lies within the sun. so you'l se a wobble in the sun while an earth doing a complete orbit around the centre of gravity and not the sun itself.
sushanalone 1 year ago
I want to kiss Richard for his answer to the question of 'purpose.' I have always responded to the question, 'What is the meaning of life?' with, 'What is the meaning of that question?'
Saerain 1 year ago
@Saerain I will have to agree with you there on the vague question. You will have to forgive my uncle he is just a geneticist at Stanford University. lmao though if you watch the beginning Lawrence already knows exactly what Richard is going to say after reading his books/knowing the man so he interjects and takes the question first.
arguewithcraig 1 year ago
I only listen to what dawkins has to say because the other guy likes to listen to his own voice just a little bit too much
SteveDutchy 1 year ago
"Is there a purpose to the universe"
The purpose is happening now, whatever the universe does, always has been always will be .
youtube,these scientists,people questioning purpose, the sun,star and moon, galaxies dying and being born, Purpose is all thats happening at all times.
coochicrook 1 year ago
Purpose demands planing so the question is begging the question.
Faidros62 1 year ago
Oh, Lawrence! Purpose? Really?
ctw005 1 year ago
intelligent design is a cult
lukeism2 1 year ago
WOW thats my uncle asking the first question of this video. What the hell are the odds I would see a blood relative in a youtube video while trolling the internet. The cosmos smiles down on me.
arguewithcraig 1 year ago 11
@arguewithcraig 1:1, evidently.
Saerain 1 year ago
@Saerain and no the odds would not be fixed unless you believe in some sort of predestination of which you would not have proof :P
arguewithcraig 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but the comment from the man at the end was one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. "emotions are destructive to humanity, there should be no sense of awe and wonder in the universe, only facts..."
what a hideously boring person this man must be, and what an oppresively depressing view of existrence this man must have!!!
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
I take the existentialist view on purpose, among other things. what is the objective meaning of life? from a scientific standpoint there isn't one, since purpose would assume some conscious sentient bing having a reason for it. it's up for me to decide as an individual what meaning I GIVE TO life.
mightyafrowhitey 1 year ago
lol the guy at the end.
captcarl2 1 year ago 2
The thing that the first questioner said about emotion and the feeling awe is wrong, I think. That's exactly what the religious think about the non religious (scientists being many of these). They walk into a cathedral with it's very high ceiling and feel like there's something way bigger than them, and even myself as a non religious like those kind of spaces feel that way inside a cathedral, but a cathedral can never compete with the universe. It's just impossible.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
Dawkins - INTP
Krauss - ENTP
jeanclaudevandamme 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme testing
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme testing
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme testing
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme testing
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme testing
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme jeanclaudevandamme was licking his mom’s hairy butthole when he heard the icecream truck. jeanclaudvandamme stopped licking his mom’s nasty gash and ran outside to buy icecream but realized he was out of foodstamps luckily Bob Saget was the one selling icecream and he gave jeanclaudevandamme free frosting all over his face. Since then everytime jeanclaudevandamme walks into Baskin Robbins he yells “I scream U scream we all scream for Bob Sagets Splooge
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeanclaudevandamme jeanclaudevandamme was licking his mom’s hairy butthole when he heard the icecream truck. jeanclaudvandamme stopped licking his mom’s nasty gash and ran outside to buy icecream but realized he was out of foodstamps luckily Bob Saget was the one selling icecream and he gave jeanclaudevandamme free frosting all over his face. Since then everytime jeanclaudevandamme walks into Baskin Robbins he yells “I scream U scream we all scream for Bob Sagets Splooge
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
Theyre assuming that what governments tell us about space and time are correct, which we all know that everything we think we know is probably lies, so are they basing their findings on all the lies??
mariek12 1 year ago
People who say atheism is a religion, or evolution is a religion, clearly have no understanding of either. It's not even worth arguing the point. One might as well debate quantum mechanics with a flat-earther, a Christian, or a chimp (and really, what's the difference?). Their starting place is just so impossibly low. And I don't feel like wasting my time discussing the finer points of 8 vs. 9 shiny reindeer with adults for whom remedial education texts are a waste of good bonfire fuel.
theartsig 1 year ago 111
chimp probably smarter!
scrooge38 1 year ago 3
@theartsig atheism is a religion because it has a dogma and that dogma is the belief that there is no god and atheism follows that dogma.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro non stamp collecting is a hobby because it has a dogma and that dogma is the belief that there are no stamps worth collecting and non stamp collecting follows that dogma.
Doesn't follow so well now, does it? Try using some punctuation next time so you don't look so much like a retard.
theartsig 1 year ago
@theartsig Maybe a non stamp collector thinks that there are stamps worth collecting but he's just too lazy to collect them. Atheists have an ideology which says that their belief that there is no god is better than other peoples belief that there is, hence it's completely the same as a religion.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
Atheism is the absence of belief, therefore it has no dogma, and is in fact the absence of dogma as well.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran No, atheisms dogma is that god doesn't exist.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
No. Atheists aren't making an assertion, they are rejecting the notion of a god(s)...that's it.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran They are making an assertion that god doesn't exist. That's the atheists dogma, I don't understand what's the big deal about it?
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
It's not a big deal, it's just that you're confused on what atheism is.
Atheism doesn't claim anything, it's the rejection of a claim. You can't call a negation a ''dogma''.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran Sure I can, as I said before and I repeat: Atheisms dogma is that there is no god. You are just confused, it's alright.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
Maybe this will help clear this up for you.
You said that "They are making an assertion that god doesn't exist. "
NO. Atheists are NOT making ANY assertion. They are REJECTING the claim that "god exists."
If an atheist thinks they are making a claim, then they themselves do not understand what the definition of an atheist is.
Atheists are not claiming something, they are rejecting something.
So there is no dogma.
You're confused.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rrpauldoran Do you believe that god exists?
TomValedro 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran They are claiming that there is no god.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
They're rejecting the claim that there is a god, it's not the other way around, sorry.
Think of it like this, if you reject the claim that there is fairies, then you have no ''dogma''. There's nothing past the point that you're rejecting a claim. That's it.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran So does this mean that U may believe in god but U just reject it? That an atheist can believe in god but is just rejecting the belief?
Atheists make a thesis, the thesis being that god does not exist, and that thesis which they make makes Atheism a religion. And being religious does not require a belief in God as I'm sure you already know.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
Rejecting a belief is the same thing as not believing it, I was just using that terminology.
Atheism is not a religion, it is simply, again, the rejection (or disbelief) in a god(s).
I would recommend reading the following as it explains it better than I probably can:
atheist-community . o r g /faq/#atheism_is_religion
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran So you are rejecting/believing in the belief of God but not God?
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
What?
An atheist rejects the existence of a god(s).
^^That is the same thing as saying "An atheist doesn't believe in a god(s)."
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@rrpauldoran Does God exist in your opinion?
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro
Can't say for sure, of course, but I believe theres a better change a God doesn't exist than does.
rrpauldoran 1 year ago
@theartsig the funniest part of that was, 'bon fire fuel'. :)
JayDee98765 1 year ago
Comment removed
theartsig 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins has made evolution into a religion.
darkfur35 1 year ago
why can t it be the porpus of life is simply life into itself
mystisme 1 year ago
Because life is most probably just an 'accident'.
You wouldn't ask what's the purpose of a star is, because it was simply caused by the laws that work in this universe. There is no purpose in a rock or a comet.
The same thing goes for life, we are more or less like any other object in the universe, we came to be through all these natural processes that govern this world, the only difference is that we are simple more 'complex' than a rock. That's all.
S0chan 1 year ago 70
i totally agree with you,thats what the phrase meant
mystisme 1 year ago
THEN, that's where ethicists pick up, and declare why morality is actually a concept that is important and how humans can go about exploring it in a good, productive way.
judaserebus 1 year ago
Well, yes, but you could say that ethics or moral philosophy begun with the first human ancestor that pondered on the fact that he doesn't want to kill members of his own tribe/group.
Of course there was no such thing as everything in evolution is gradual. As is the development of moral values.
I encourage for you to check out this video of lecture by Sarah Hrdy:
watch?v=IGTtdcTn2Vk
Her books also show a very interesting theory about how and why we are a very social species.
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan Amen, sir.
ASmexes10 1 year ago
@S0chan Recent theories suggest anything that is possible given enough time as long as it does not contrevene the laws of physics. If this is true, then life was inevitable. Further supported by the discovery of protiens in metor's and new planets in other solar systems, suggesting life is probably very common in the Universe. Evolution has given us the ability to pass on learning unlike any other species, maybe we are the result of a universe trying to understand itself?
Botie2 9 months ago
Purpose is a human construct, excellent as it may be. All other things simply exhibit behaviour.
But, a basic way of all things exists, which is also excellent. That is, the underlying law of nature.
As the way of all things, the underlying law of nature reveals this way and thereby presents us the option and opportunity to adjust to the law fully or apply it to a certain degree.
Purpose cannot be accurately described or understood without knowledge of the underlying law of nature. Google it.
bando8000 1 year ago
it s another way to put it thats what i meant by my phrase
mystisme 1 year ago
@mystisme
Thanks.
Are you aware of or are you familiar with the underlying law of nature? Specifically?
Few people have determined what it is, although everyone can, and it's worth understanding. You can Google it.
You see, on the surface it sounds familiar. The next step, however, is to go ahead and identify the underlying law of nature firsthand, for ourselves, each one of us, so that some arbitrary 'authority' doesn't decide for us, try to manipulate us or rob us of what's ours.
bando8000 1 year ago
you know what i am a scientist and i have been studying theology and some rooth of languages astronomy anthropologyect.. and all is pointing of delusionnal religion ,no god exist all is delusion enslavement and controle of man kind by is own kind for the power and controle,i invite you to see god delusion from richard dawkins here in you tubeand if you want it more let me know i ll tell you all my research is all about,you ll be more than surprise what i know
mystisme 1 year ago
@mystisme
Yes, Dawkins' books and films are excellent. And in answer to your invitation, I own this book and I've watched the corresponding film numerous times. 5-stars. Thank you.
So, back to the subject. Have you heard of the underlying law of nature?
It was discovered only very recently, so most people have not heard of the underlying law of nature, let alone identified what it is.
As a scientist you have a very deep interest is the laws of nature, yes?
bando8000 1 year ago
The audience member saying that emotions for us is destructive, I find to be staggering.
Our oldest human emotional trait, empathy, is by far the most life sustaining, all important survival tool we have.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
loony alert
ryko26 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Its been studied and proven that animals feel empathy towards their own kind, empathy being fundamental to morality. Utilitarianism is a good moral code, but again isn't perfect because morality is objective. This whole argument comes down to happiness and survival, so wouldn't we be morally obliged to hook up somebody we love to a happiness machine and keep them alive? Also Richard Dawkins speaks his mind very well in this segment.
TehOwnerer999 2 years ago
i highly recommend reading the selfish gene by dawkins. it is absolutely one not to miss
Nibielari 2 years ago
@Nibielari sure i'll give it a go :D
TehOwnerer999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
The big guy in the audience was awesome. It's been a while since I laughed that hard while watching a lecture/forum debate.
Zubinen 2 years ago
I dont agree with dawkins view on purpose.
timmyzeus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Any purpose to anything is imagined. Just like any deity. So if Mr Dawkins would like to see religion disappear then all philosophical nonsense needs to be discarded. This includes
silly notions of morality, law, values and meaning.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
your logic doesnt make any sense. he isnt saying it's imagined he's saying it's something we've created - morality, laws, values and meaning exist because we value them as human beings. because we've evolved socially in the last 100,000 years of our existence to move beyond the chaos of nature to a more egalitarian society. if you dont agree then you're quite literally a sociopath.
khan0890 2 years ago
"he isnt saying it's imagined he's saying it's something we've created"
Nature is not intelligent, nor does it design. Therefore it certainly does not create.
"morality, laws, values and meaning exist because we value them as human beings."
Wow, imagine that. So do religions. It's all belief. The value of something does not exist.
It's the belief something has imaginary value.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago 2
Of course the value of something exists. That is a bizarre, postmodern, relativistic road you're going down. As Sam Harris points out beliefs & values are our representations of the world as we observe it.
I don't even know what to make of your comment regarding nature being neither intelligent nor able to design nor create. Did your parents not lay down to conceive you? Or would you have us believe that like Horace, Hercules and that fellow Jesus you were born a virgin?
khan0890 2 years ago
"Of course the value of something exists"
prove it.
"As Sam Harris points out beliefs & values are our representations of the world as we observe it."
Values are based on belief and are no more real than any deity, You should be embarrassed to quote such a delusional hypocrite who's supposed powers of reason allowed such an obvious oversight.
That which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
When you resort to ad hominem attacks you really expose the weakness of your position. Incidentally you didnt dispute the point.
It's extraordinarily easy to prove values exist: the Allies defeated the Nazis, slavery was abolished, women gained the right to vote, etc. Conversely, corrupted values are illustrated by the Inquisition, the Taliban, fanatical settlers on the West Bank etc.
I get the strong sense that you're someone who hasn't thought very critically about your position.
khan0890 2 years ago
@khan0890 You contradict yourself there. Obviously the nazis had _different_ values, but they were values non the less. The same goes for those who invented slavery (or at least kept it going) or anything else you take as an example. They were humans just like the people who opposed those ideas. To you, executing handicapped people may be immoral. To a nazi it's the only moral thing to do. The bottom line is - "good" values in any objective sense don't exist, and they change over time.
Viconiuz 2 years ago
like the previous apologist you show a breathtakingly poor ability to understand what i've written. i never said the nazis had no values - i said they had "corrupted values."
of course good values exist in an objective sense. to argue otherwise suggests you are completely & utterly morally bankrupt. it is wrong - in absolute and objective terms - to mutilate the genitals of a girl in the name of religion and i dont give a fuck what some tribe in africa or fictional book says.
khan0890 2 years ago
@khan0890 Aye..but that's the point. "Corrupted" is just your personal opinion about them. I'm not defending nazi values but you have to zoom out a to realize that you yourself are a product of society and were brought up to think a certain way.
I'm guessing you haven't studied law. You can wiki "Natural law" and "Positive law". The problem with natural law is that there's absoutley no way to prove the existance of it. The only conclusion we can draw is unfortunatly that it's man-made.
Viconiuz 2 years ago
Objective morality is one of the dumbest ideas to ever come out of religion, and boy is that a big list.
Who are you to decide if the Nazis values were 'corrupted'? Your very opinion is a value judgment. Just because your values differ from theirs, and even if the rest of the world did as well, does not inherently make them bad, simply different and disagreed with.
Vire70 2 years ago
are you fucking kidding me? where are you nutjobs coming from? Oberlin College?
i simply cannot comprehend how a human being in the 21st Century doesn't believe that the Nazis were objectively immoral. Of course it's a fucking value judgment! that's what morality is.
And your seriously making the position that I cannot judge the morality of Nazi values? My goodness... go tell your bullshit postmodern theory to a Holocaust survivor, see what happens.
khan0890 2 years ago
I am not implying that I think Nazis were right in what they did. However, just the fact that "I think" anything about it, is in itself a value judgement. Just because I judge them to be bad does not make it objectively so. Everyone, absolutely everyone, has slight subjective differences of opinion. If that is the case then how can any one thing ever be 'objectively' true? Indeed, how can objective morality even be a sensible concept when morality is dictated by the subjective individual?
Vire70 2 years ago
wow, how stupid do you have to be to make such a moronic [and completely illogical] connection between imaginary friends and morality and law???
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
@stojadinovicp You do know that laws change with time don't you? And that laws differ from clulture to culture?
Here in Sweden during the age of the Vikings, beastiality was punishible by death. Murder on the other hand had no punishment at all (the kin could avenge him if they chose to). Now in 2009 beastiality is legal and can be found in porn, while murder is the most serious crime of all.
Things change. Values and moral in any objective sense don't exist and never did.
Viconiuz 2 years ago
DO NO HARM! How's that for an absolute objective moral rule? And the ONLY one as well...
And the fact that murder was not punishable in Sweden only says that Sweden's laws were wrong and immoral at that time, nothing more!
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
@stojadinovicp How is "do no harm" as an absolute objective moral rule? Pretty poor to be honest. Lions don't seem to care much about it. Would you claim that they, and all other preditors including us humans, are "evil" since we kill to eat?
Lots of things you consider immoral such as theft, murder, rape etc. exists among animals as well. It doesn't make it "right" but if us humans did not exist, nobody would be there to argue in terms of right or wrong anyway. So just face it, it's man-made
Viconiuz 2 years ago
WHAT??? LIONS??? ANIMALS??? Are they evolved to be intellectually advanced enough to even consider morality as a concept? You just wrote a lot of pretty stupid stuff than needs no answering.
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
@stojadinovicp Haha so anything or anyone who can't consider morality as a concept cannot commit an immoral act? What difference does it make - Murder is murder, theft is theft.
Maybe you start reading a bit more about it and study law instead of thinking that the world functions in accordance with your personal feelings.
Viconiuz 2 years ago
Hwo do you intend do describe morality to a lion? If you insist on bringing in the animals into this discussion then nothing is moral and morality simply does not exist... We invented it, nothing more...
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
@stojadinovicp My point exactly
Viconiuz 2 years ago
No, no... I sad IFF we attempt to bring animals into it. Since we do not and should not, then we are able to have morality and apply it to human beings and their actions. Morality, as I see it, is also part of our intellectual evolution. being self-aware and able to reason provides us with the requirements for defining and applying morality and it's rules...
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
@stojadinovicp ok fine, but we humans are also animals in the biological sense. Self-awareness can be found amongst other primates also, such as chimps. You've never seen a dog be ashemed and show regret over something it did when you yell at it for example?
Viconiuz 2 years ago
@Viconiuz: well... when a dog passes the Turing test ;) we can consider that :) until that I will assume that the dog is simply scared that you won't give him food :)
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
yes animals have morality... one closely documented case is of a cub killer lioness. when the pride was gone she killed and ate the cubs of the pride. for a while the pride was clueless to this loss of cubs, then she was caught by another authoritative part of the pride and the dots were joined and they killed this "child killer" because this was a horrible detrimental effect to the life of the pride.
harlosik13 2 years ago
@harlosik13: references please?
I'm not saying it is not true, just asking for references... However, why is this labeled as morality? They simply killed her for attacking their pride, their prides future, this can better be described as defense rather than morality. I'm sorry, but the concept of morality is purely man made and requires a certain level of consciousness that even religious freaks do not posses ;P
stojadinovicp 2 years ago