Richard Dawkins interviewed by BBC's John Humphreys

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 You don't know what you talking about. One unfortunately cannot get away from the fact that it was Atheists in power in Russia who had the intent of spreading their Atheistic doctrine throughout the world, and in turn fucked up the world causing more deaths and misery than all the wars of mankind combined. And then you get some cleaver dick at Oxford trying to tell us that "God probably does not exist", and you believe him. No wonder Atheism did not take off as expected.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver You are making baseless assertions again. There is no such thing as an "atheist doctrine" and Russia's intent was not to spread atheism throughout the world; their intent was to spread their version of communism, led by an authoritarian oligarchy. And you are resorting to ad hominem attacks again when it comes to Dawkins and other atheists.

Based on your continued ad hominem attacks and unfounded assertions, I have decided to block you.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Furthermore, the statement made by an eminent Oxford Professor that God probably does not exist, is not just irresponsible, it is also wreckless especially in the volitile world that we are living in today, and has fuckall to do with Science or Atheism, and was merely used to sell his book. Atheists, like all Religions should be more critical about themselves that just to accept any shit some Professor tells them. Russia is a good example of how Atheists fucked up the world.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Russia is NOT a good example of atheism "fucking up" the world. That type of comment is highly irresponsible and dangerous because it is not based on any facts whatsoever. As I've mentioned many times before, atheism has NO doctrine, dogma, or ideology; therefore, it cannot be used as a scapegoat for the actions of despots and tyrants who happened to be atheist. Russia was never an atheist nation; its rulers were interested in power and suppressed religion for that purpose.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Based on the evidence, or lack thereof, god probably does NOT exist; that is a statement based on facts and can hardly be called irresponsible or reckless. Are you saying that Dawkins does not have the right to voice his concerns about religious belief?  Do you think atheists should just keep their opinions to themselves? If so, what does that say about YOU?

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 What don't you understand about the flaud survey? The USA is about 100 times bigger than Denmark, it has many different cultural and religious groups, and economic groups, it cannot possibly be compared with a tiny country like Denmark, please use your logic. I refer you to the Newsweek survey which was done a few years ago where it was conclusively determined that Religous people are more happy and content and fulfilled humans being than non religious people.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver The Newsweek survey showed no correlation between religion and happiness; it only showed individual self-identified religious affiliation. That survey also indicated that non-religious self identification was on the rise and had doubled since the late 90's.

People are free to believe what they want. If that belief makes them happier, so be it. My earlier point is still valid; belief without evidence is not truth; it is deceptive and delusional.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 You are correct this debate is a waste of time. I am trying to tell you that your facts which you claim relates to happiness is irrelevant as it was not conducted in the proper manner. The USA cannot be compared with Denmark because they are hugely different, not only in size, economics, cultural differences, history etc, whereas Denmark in comparision is a tiny homogenious society with one culture and history and background. No reasonable person takes such a survey seriously.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver The survey is not irrelevant. The methodology used is pretty straightforward; comparisons are made using statistics on crime rates, level of homelessness, level of education, level of teen pregnancy, level of economic stability, and questions about overall happiness. Just because you don't LIKE the study does not mean the methodology is incorrect. If you have expertise in this area perhaps you could enlighten me further?

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Was it not Dawkins who constantly criticize the Christian Fundamentalists for mix science with Religion? This is now exactly what Dawkins is doing when he talks about God. A proper scientist talks about science, that it. Leave God for the Philosphers and Theologians, it is a vast subject on its own which Dawkins is not qualified in, hence the reason why he looks like a crown not taken too seriously by relevant scholars.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Your logic is flawed on this matter once again. Dawkins' criticisms are based on evidence whereas theologian assertions are based on faith and wishful thinking. He critiques theologians who try to assert mix science with religion because they do so using methods that are intellectually dishonest. So far, no theologian has been able to back up their assertions with any science, but they like to SAY that science backs them up. Dawkins simply calls them out on this type of stuff.

[thereisariver]

Joeyramone63 OK, lets start from the beginning. Which country do you think is bigger, the USA or Denmark?

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver This is getting ridiculous; I already explained to you why Scandinavian countries are ranked higher than the US and many other countries in overall happiness and I gave you sources. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

You have claimed that atheists are negative, pessimistic, more likely to be alcoholic, and have no meaning in their lives; but it's the same drivel that's been heard from religious apologists and you can't justify it.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 I am afraid that you are not as sharp as I though you were, with respect. I suggest you rather compare Russia with the USA as they are of similar background, instead of comparing the vast USA with Denmark.

Also, Dawkins has lost credibility with lots of Atheists by bringing God into the arguement and making wild unscientif statements about the existence of God. He must either be a scientist or become a theologian, but he cannot be both. But he was just trying to sell his book.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Ah yes, back to ad hominem attacks when you can't back your position. Are you trying to get blocked? I am suggesting that Russia is not an atheist country and I used Denmark as an example of a country which has a majority population of atheists. My methodology is sound, you have not shown yours to be sound. If you're going to make wild assertions you need to be able back them up, and that goes for your comments about Dawkins too.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Dawkins has not lost any credibility with atheists. You're just making stuff up again. Give it a rest.

Where is there some kind of rule that says someone must be a theologian to critique religion? It seems to me that the best critics of religion would be those who are NOT convinced of their claims. Therefore, an atheist scientist would be an excellent choice for someone who can be honestly critical of religious claims.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Your statistics relating to happiness are very limited as it relates to countries. I think that you are cleaver enough to work it out for yourself, the USA is about 100 times greater than Denmark with a vast aray of peoples, cultures, religions, histories, economic sectors and is largely a land of immigrants. Whereas Denmark is a small country, a small population, all white people with the same culture and background. Compare the USA with Russia rather to get a better idea.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Russia is not the equivalent of Denmark when trying to compare a society that is mostly atheistic to one that is mostly religious; the fact is that Russia is actually mostly religious and it was the Communist Party that suppressed religion in order to invoke state powers and authority. Denmark and other Scandinavian countries exemplify the example because their populations are comprised of a majority of people who CHOOSE to not believe in any gods.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 My reference to Dawkins being a clown is meant in relation to his comment that God probably does not exist. This is silly and unscientific and not useful to the debate whereby he has lost some credibility to sell his book.  He is a good Biologist, but he is not a Theologian or Philosopher and he does have a tendency to over simplify matters, like a typical Biologist. There is a mystery to life which we don't fully understand and which me must respect, as Albert Einstein did.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Dawkins comment that God probably doesn't exist is based on evidence; as such, it is not sill and unscientific. In fact, it is a very rational conclusion. Since the Scientific Method is the best and most accurate methodology we have to study the natural world, there is no need to presume a god in order to "understand" those things that science has not yet answered. Einstein understood that and did not believe in a personal god.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Even if all the Religions in the world are mostly wrong (which I believe they are) and the universe was created over billions of years through evolution (which I believe is the case) it still does not prove that God does not exist. The best that any Atheists can argue is to say that there is no imperical evidence supporting the existence of God, but that one cannot therefore exclude the possiblity that He does exist. Even Albert Einstein kept the option open of there being a God.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver I think most atheists are open to evidence; I know I am. However, it is not the responsibility of the atheist to "prove" that there is no god. Throughout history believers have only been able to make unsubstantiated claims about their gods; none of those claims have ever been convincing enough for everyone to believe them without "faith". When faith is the requirement for belief, the claim is by definition unbelievable.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Historically Atheists were always well respected, even by religious people, because Atheists like Albert Einstein did not mix religion with science and only worked with what they could observe. Unfortunately Atheism today has become somewhat of a pop cult where clowns like Dawkins bring God into the equation, but I realise this is only to react a stir to sell his book, which is fair enough, and which has worked to an extent, but is somewhat dishonest and disingenious, I think.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver You really should try to refrain from ad hoc attacks; calling Dawkins a "clown" is hardly a good way to make a point. From my perspective people like Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Neil deGrasse Tyson should be applauded for bring science, reason, and rationality to the forefront of modern culture. Without people like these publishing books and talking about rational thought, there would be no discussion going on. Now people are talking about it, and that's a good thing.

[JoeyRamone63]

@JoeyRamone63 Edit:  "bringing"

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Although you are correct that the burden of proof rests upon the one who makes the claim that God exists, the same burden of proof rests upon the one who claims God does not exist. This is where Atheists like Dawkins have done harm to the movement where they bring God into the equation. Atheism is simply the absense of belief, we don't believe in believing, so what has the existence or non existence of God got to do with it? Your data refers to countries, not groups.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver It's not a 50/50 proposition; in other words, it's not equally likely that god exists as it is that one does not exist. There is no burden of proof for one who does not believe; if the claim that a god exists has not been proven through sufficient evidence, there is no reason to believe it. As a skeptic, when somebody makes a claim without having evidence my first question would be "is it true?". If it cannot be shown to be true, there's no reason to believe it.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver I approach your claims the same way. When you claim atheists are negative and pessimistic I'm going to challenge that claim because you have presented no evidence. The study I mentioned earlier is based on countries that were polled about happiness in several categories; the fact that the highest-ranked countries are predominately atheist shows a correlation between atheism and happiness; but it also shows a link between social democracy and happiness.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Research has shown that Religious people are generally more happy, content, and fullfilled and give more to the poor than non religious people, thats a fact. Whether it is true or not whether God exists is irrelevant, it is whether one is happy in this life. Atheists are generally pesimistic and negative about life. Your assumption that God probably does not exist is mendacious, as we simply don't know and is based on guesing, which is not very scientific.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver You're making claims without citations again; can you provide any fact-based justification for your claims at all? I disagree that atheists are pessimistic and negative; that claim has absolutely NO justification whatsoever. I already showed you a study that disproves that claim. The burden of proof for the existence of a god rests with the ones making the claim; if they can provide no evidence, then such a thing probably does not exist. Think about this logically.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 I agree with you that Science and Reason are the only ways of understanding our world and universe. However the problem modern man has today, after overcoming the struggles of hunger, shelter, protection which has plagued us for millions of years, is to find meaning in life. The person who can find meaning in life will survive, which Science and Reason cannot offer. The number one crime in the Scandinavian countries is related to alcohol abuse which has become the atheists opium

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver And we go right back to the concept of delusion when it comes to the so-called "meaning of life". Religion does not provide real true answers to that question; it only provides presumptions and assertions about an after-life. Oh, and if you don't follow their rules you are going to "hell"; how loving is that? You are also presuming that alcohol is the "atheists opium"; that's not based on evidence; where does any study say that atheists are more likely to be alcoholics?

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Science and Reason actually do provide answers to the meaning of life; they help you understand that there probably is no "after-life" and, therefore, you should live the one life you have as if it is your only life. Different people will choose to live their lives different ways; everyone will have their own concept of "meaning" and they are free to pursue that meaning. Hopefully, they will do it in a way that is not based on delusion.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Religion is indeed an escape from reality, but so what? The biggest problem of modern man will be to find meaning in life, and the specie who will be able to do so, will survive. The Scandinavian countries have a huge problem with alcohol abuse, one of the highest in the world, which is testament of a meaningless existence. Do yourself a favour and go to a Southern Baptist Church in the USA and listen to the music, and you will find people who have found meaning in their lives.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver You can find "huge problems with alcohol abuse" anywhere; that's not a testament to a "lack of meaning" in your life; sorry, but unless you find a reliable study that verifies that assertion, you are just making unfounded claims. Uplifting music can be found in lots of places, not just churches. My point is that I believe REASON and SCIENCE are the best ways to understand our world and the universe at large. I prefer the things I believe to be based on actual fact, not fantasy.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Where did you get the idea that Scandinavian countries have a "huge problem" with alcohol abuse? You might want to do some more research; for example, look at the Happy Planet Index's most recent study from 2006 and you'll find Denmark is #1 and the USA is #23 (Go to bit[dot]ly/STHqi for the study). Also, I think you'll find that alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, and divorce rates are higher in the states that are more religious and more conservative.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 It was the famous Atheist, Karl Marx, who coined the phrase, "Religon is the Opinium of the masses", not me; you should know that. It was Karl Marx who also wrongly predicted more than 100 years that within 100 years Religion would completely die out, when people become educated and will see that Religion is a scam. It would be interesting to know how you determine your probability that God does not exist? Atheists don't say God does not exist, they just don't believe.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver I don't disagree with the quotation; I think it's fairly accurate--I'm saying that religion is delusional and an escape from reality. While Marx's prediction did not happen yet, I think it's trending that way. Look at the Scandinavian countries; they average above 90% atheists. When I say that gods probably do not exist, I mean that no evidence has ever shown any gods to exist; if there were evidence for a god, I would be open to reviewing it.

[GowanBray]

Rule 1 for producers and interviewers: If you get to interview Dawkins, you allot more than 3 minutes. Actually I suspect that once it got to holding the cardinal to the same standard as others, Humphrys bailed out as he could not defend his position.

[JoeyRamone63]

@GowanBray The more time Dawkins gets, the more ammunition he has to lob at his opponents.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 If you are dying of cancer and in pain, and the Doctor wants to give you an Opium shot to ease your pain, I don't think you will tell him not to because of fear it makes you "delutional". Religion is the Opium of the people, but so what? There are lots of other Opiums Atheists use to make life more bearable, hence the reason I have moved away from being too critical about Religion as it has a valid purpose in our post modern world where to find meaning is the biggest challenge.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver So, you're comparing the pain of cancer to life in general? Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. While it may be true that many people need to have a "higher power" in order to feel good about their lives, that is still not a reason to believe in something that probably doesn't exist. A drunk person may be happier than a sober one, but I'd rather be sober when I'm pondering the philosophies of life.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 I realise and agree that Atheism is the absense of belief and that it does not have doctrines or dogma, but it essentially still is a philosophy in the sense of how one views the world. Instead of turning to God for answers, you rely on your intellect for answers. If one believes that God provides the answers, rightly or wrongly, it gives a person purpose in life that his life is somehow in the hands of a higher being. I would argue this is good, and its better than no belief.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver No, atheism is not a philosophy and it does not define any type of a world view. If you think it does, please provide a specific example of an atheist world view. I base my world view on humanist principles; I'll send you a separate note about that.

If a person feels better about their life by believing in a higher power, I think that they are deluding themselves. This type of belief is not a good thing, since it is basically a denial of reality.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 Although I agree with the arguments put forward by Dawkins, his use of the word "delution" is inappropriate, and was used to create a reaction to sell his book, which duly worked. Atheism has not taken off as well as Karl Max had predicted it would, because although it works in theory, in practice it does not work. I would argue that Religion is in fact good for you, that it gives one purpose in life, to which there is enough scientific supporting evidence. Just look at the USA.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Your argument is still not logically sound. You are referring to atheism as if it were comparable to religion...it is not. Atheism does not have doctrines or dogma and does not make any claims to give you a "purpose" in life. Atheism is simply the non-belief in a supernatural higher power. You cannot make a claim that "in practice it does not work" because there is actually no way to test atheism against claims that nobody makes for atheism.

[JoeyRamone63]

@JoeyRamone63 The USA is a secular country founded on a secular constitution. If you want to look at a theocratic country to test your theory that religion makes people happier and gives them a purpose in life, why don't you look at Iran? I think you'll see that your argument falls apart rather quickly when you look at this argument realistically.

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamone63 You could not have put it across more eloquently. Whereas Atheists, like Dawkins, try to argue that Religious people are "deluded" and ignorant, the opposite is in fact true. They are happy, successful, progressive, balanced, just compare the USA with an Atheist state like Russia to get an idea. As an Atheist myself, I have moved away from this position, because although I agree with the arguments, it does not help me to make sense of life and give me meaning in life.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver Dawkins does not assert that religious people are ignorant. However, he does say that their beliefs are delusional and technically he is correct. How else would you describe a belief in a higher power that is based on nothing but faith that such a thing exists? That definitely qualifies as a delusion.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver As for the assertion that religious people are happier, etc.; there is no statistic that supports this argument, and Russia is not a good example of an "atheist" country; in fact, Russia's atheist "movement" during the Cold War was based on the State having full power over the citizens, including religions. A better example would be Denmark which has statistically been proven to have happier people who are more satisfied with their lives than religious countries.

[thereisariver]

gavsmith 1980 The problem of Evolutionary man, which I accept, is no longer than the environment or lack of food or danger, as all these we have overcome, the main challenge of Evolutionary man now is trying to find meaning in life. The humans who can find meaning in life will survive, the rest will die. And this is the purpose of religion, is to give meaning to mankind. It is not so much whether it is true or not, but whether it gives one meaning. Unfortunately, atheism cannot give this.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver In the end, you are right...atheism cannot provide a "meaning for life". Unfortunately, you use poor reasoning and logic to arrive at this conclusion. The reason atheism can't do this is that it does NOT TRY to do so. Atheism is a rejection of the claims made by religion; it is a lack of belief in those claims because they are not convincing. Religion, on the other hand, also does NOT provide any answers to the meaning of life; religion can only make unfounded assertions.

[pblip]

Once again the same arguments are used against the same arguments... ad infinitum... I'd like to hear some more reflective conversations on the subject. There are only a limited number of arguments for or against the existence of a so-called god so after a while it seems pointless to debate in that way... just a thought.

[thereisariver]

@brainbuster 1000 You may be correct that Sweden is more beautiful than the USA, but the USA still put a man on the moon, and Sweden just makes good cars. Don't fool yourself, it is a fact that there is no good in being an Atheist, it is negative and depressing, while religious people are far more happy and fullfilled. It is an unfortunately fact.

[gavsmith1980]

@thereisariver

so it's a fact that religious people tend to be more happy and fulfilled than an atheist?

well that supports my view on things; the comforting lie is far more attractive to most humans than the hurtful truth.

there is no good in being an atheist?

well if you mean an atheist doesn't do good things "because they fear god," then yes, that's true.

as long as that's it, and you don't believe or attempt to infer that an atheist doesn't do good things.

[RaleighRoyal]

"I wish we had more time for this..." - no you don't: saved by the bell I would say!

[thereisariver]

I agree with you that Dawkins is an exceptional Biologist, and I wrote him an email apologising for my uninformed and antogonistic attitude towards him as a person, which was unfounded, and unChristian. I now consider myself as a Darwinist Evolutionist but also a Creationist in the sense that I believe there is no doubt that the world originated through the process of evolution as held by Dawkins, but that God was the author or the planner of the first atom or cell which started the universe.

[thereisariver]

Hicksie52 The world will be a very poor place without religion, as it plays a vital part in people's lives, inspite of all the shortcomings and failures. Think about the beautiful art, and music which was inspired by people by God, and compare this to what Atheism has offered the world, statues of Stalin and doom and gloom. As the Philosopher said, if God does not exist, then we better create one. We need to create a God of love and forgiveness and peace. Appreciate the spell check.

[Hicksie52]

Stalin began his career at the Tiflis Theological Seminary - it was a place seriously into obedience and authority'. I think you'll find the main planks of the Bolshevik Revolution were 'All Power to the Soviets' and 'Bread Peace, Land', not Atheism. It was noted that the Orthodox Church sided with property rather than the people.The problem with religion nowadays is that fundamentalists want to force their narrow views on secular societies. Dawkins,quite rightly, feels he has to say something.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver. You're very good at making assertions about religion and atheism that are misguided and ill-informed. There would be beautiful art and music without religion. Atheism has never been a "philosphy" that was used maliciously; that's a straw man argument and is not based on any evidence. Like I said before, atheism is simply the non-acceptance of any and all god claims without evidence. Period. I hope to see you modify your arguments so they are not based on just assertions.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver: Why do we need to "create" a god of love and forgiveness and peace? So far, the human race has been trying to do this for countless thousands of years without success; it's been unsuccessful because no one society can "create" a god that's universally accepted and willingly displaces existing religions. We would be better off without "gods" so we can concentrate on actual humanist values.

[Hicksie52]

Stalin begam his career at the Tiflis Theological Seminary - a place seriously into obedience and authority. The main planks of the Bolshevik Revolution were 'All Power to the Soviets!' and 'Bread, Peace and Land', NOT Atheism. It was noted the Orthodox Church sided with property rather than the people. The problem with religion nowadays is that fundamentalists want to force their narrow views on secular societies. Dawkins, quite rightly feels he has to say something against these bigots...

[thereisariver]

@shakercoola  JuJu?? Lol

[Hicksie52]

We've responded to your points, why do put your old comments at the top? It's twice you've done this now! Now what are we to conclude? Is the debate over?

[Hicksie52]

Looking forward to hearing more pearls of wisdom from you!

[shakercoola]

@thereisariver That's poppycock. Michelangelo would have produced the same works of art regardless!!!!!!!!!! You can have a faith in consciousness without believing some great JuJu up the mountain written by ignorant desert nomads.

[Brainbuster1000]

@thereisariver There is more beauty in Sweden, an Atheist country, than in America.

[thereisariver]

Hicksie52 Hicksie baby, who says I am a Christain, where did you dream this one up again? I am critical about everything including Christianity and Atheism, and any other shit that is taught to us, especially by a professor from Oxford who speaks in a pompis voice trying to bullshit everyone that God "probably" does not exist, when he should rather be sticking to science, which he appears by his record is not very good at it.

[Hicksie52]

Like I say, why are you so defensive?If Dawkins is so poor at his job, people won't read him and he'll lose his job (dream on). Sorry, I thought you were a Christian, because on your Youtube page your favourites include songs entitled 'No one ever cared for Me like Jesus' and 'Jesus, Just the mention of your name'. Obviously you don't listen to the words,but clearly you have a very sophisticated and developed musical taste! PS You could brush up on your spelling, it's 'pompous' not 'pompis'.

[heavyrocklegend]

Atheism is not taught, it is a stance of believe, and Richard Dawkins is an exceptional evolutionary zoologist, read his scientific books and dont make judgments on a book of non-scientific arguments and experimental philosophy e.g. The God Delusion.

[thereisariver]

Hicksie52 Hicksie baby, if you studied sociology you would realise that more than 100 years ago Karl Marx predicted that it would take 100 years for mankind to become what he called "enlightened" and that people would shed the shackles of religion, which he claimed is the opinion of the masses. Unfortunately he was wrong, it did not happen, Atheism has not taken off as he had hoped, it has become a big failure. In fact the most successful and happy societies are religious societies.

[Hicksie52]

For someone so 'secure' in his religion, you come across as an incredibly defensive and unhappy person. Not a great advertisement for Christianity..."I appreciate your quaint traditions and superstitions. I, on the other hand,am an evolved being, who deals solely with the source of light which exists in all of our hearts. That Middle Man stuff, it's wacky and I appreciate it, gotta run, there's a voice calling me...hehehe". Bill Hicks, Revelations.

[thereisariver]

Hicksie52 Hicksie baby, you need to stop acting like an arrogant asshole and learn to think through issues, instead of accepting everything a professor tell you that sounds good. Even if all the religions are wrong, it still does not prove that God does not exist. Not even Einstein dared declare that God does not exist, like Dawkins does. That is why he must get the prize for asshole of the year, with you in a very close second. Case closed.

[Hicksie52]

Wow! I've never met such an amazing intellectual as you. You call someone an A*****e and then proclaim you've won the debate. You must have people hanging on your every word. As I say, think of God as a kind of Santa Claus - great story, wonderful ritual, but totally false!!

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver

It's not any atheist's responsibility to prove the non-existence of any god. That responsibility belongs to the person making the claim. That's why NO atheist will claim that they have proof that gods don't exist. Atheists simply don't accept the god claims without evidence. Dawkins and other published atheists are, therefore, not trying to claim that there are absolutely no gods...just that they aren't convinced about any religious claims that a god or gods exist.

[thereisariver]

The major flaw of Dawkins is that he acquates Evolution with the non existence of God, as many Atheists do. Evolution is just the a possible manner in which God could have created the earth, it has no relation to the existence or non existence of God. As an atheist, he should not even be discussing the topic of God, as he is a non believer, and non believers don't believe, so his comments are irrelevant, and useless, hence the reason non of his peers have commented favourably on his book.

[Hicksie52]

'No-one ever cared for me like Jesus'! Oh dear, you need to hear a little bit of Bill Hicks, mate...!

[thereisariver]

JoeyRamonee63: You are correct, but the point is why is a Scientist delving into a hugh area he clearly knows nothing about, nor is he adequately trained in those fields. Surely the good Professor should stick to science, and not mix religion and science, the same he accuses fundamentalist Christians of doing. The point is that if you can't get attention by your brilliant scientific discoveries, the best is to write a controversial book about God claiming their is no scientific evidence.

[JoeyRamone63]

He is an Evolutionary Biologist and Zoologist. That means that he has to deal with people who deny evolution; therefore, he has a vested interest in responding to the deniers in any way that is appropriate. That includes challenging them to provide evidence for their claims as well as showing the evidence for the scientific theories.

[thereisariver]

When a Professor like Dawkins needs to write a book about God to try and argue He does not exist, it is clear how desperate he is for attention. He has not attained much on the Scientific field, in comparision to Einstein, not theories were named after him, and yet he now claims to be an authority on God, and wants to bullshit all the Youtubers that God does not exist. And most Youtubers fall for this con. Why do you think none of his peers have commented on his book? What an asshole.

[JoeyRamone63]

@thereisariver:

Dawkins point is not so much in proving that "God" does not exist; his point is that there is absolutely NO scientific evidence that ANY gods exist.

[Hicksie52]

In your dreams 'thereisariver'!! He's written a book because he can't believe that in the early 21st century people like you still believe in 'sugar candy mountain'. He also worries about the fact that a lot of religious action today is carried out by extremists that go around causing havoc in the name of the 'king' of their sugar candy mountain. Get real. 'God' is a bit like 'Santa Claus' He don't exist! PS you're the desperate one, calling Dawkins an 'A*****e! Personal abuse? You've lost!!

[PinkandDeadly]

Humphrys once asked the Queen for an interview.

Her response "If one were going to be interviewed by anyone, it wouldn't be you."

True story.

[thereisariver]

Dawkins is an asshole. He must stick to Science and not delve into something he clearly does not know something about. Can he explain to us how an atom works? The bottom line is we don't really know how an atom works, we just believe we know. That is what theories are all about, it takes belief in them, things we cannot prove.

Dawkins can't make it in the scientific field so he now has to try something else, what an asshole.

[MrSyrett]

You're a clueless moron.

[Pungopingu]

That was a awesome, total win for Richard Dawkins! 5/5

[dubzy81]

i'm sick of this trendy atheist brigade, i'm not a religious man and totally believe in evolution etc, but they are guilty of boring preaching themselves.

[JoeyRamone63]

So, you think the response to theism is to just stay silent? Dawkins and other popular atheist authors (Hitchens, Harris, et. al.) serve to provide thoughtful, intelligent arguments that are a response to theism. Without their work, that voice wouldn't be heard at all. Their voices are much needed in the overly-religious environment in which we currently reside. It's not preaching; it's education based on reason, science, and critical thinking.

[dubzy81]

no it's preaching and selling lots of books

[norsef]

And how exactly would people get the message if they weren't able to buy the book?

Is any author a sellout for charging money?

The religious morons of the world have been doing thier best to destroy man kind for centuries. Now we finally have the knowledge to break free.

Terrorism, crusades, anti science, dogma, accepted bigotry towards other faiths, indoctrination, rampant homophobia, violence towards women, female repression, honour killings and religious leaders dictating politics.

[ZachRose88]

@norsef Don't forget violence and misguided opposition to abortion clinics and planned parent hood, blocking scientific research like stem cell research, destroying historical documents and structures, etc. Those might be able to fit in under some of the umbrella terms you mentioned, but I had to put out some specifics as well. : )

[JoeyRamone63]

Sorry, you're wrong.  You haven't presented a well-reasoned justification for your assertion. Until you do, it's just that; an assertion.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Dawkins' names says it all: He's a dawk with a capital letter.

Honestly, though, he's an absolute fool of the first brigade - and I don't say that because I'm a theist, he simply is... sad, really.

[JoeyRamone63]

Hmmm.....let's see; he's an ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and popular science writer. He holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and is a professorial fellow of New College, Oxford. He has also written 9 books and received numerous awards and degrees. Yes, that is quite sad; I see what you mean >:D

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Your sardonic comments will get you nowhere -

Yes, well quoted from Wikipedia, but upon closer inspection, it is apparent he has his feet of clay.

He is a bitter, atrabilious old man; blinded by his close-minded intelligence: He does not deign to believe in a higher authority - a superior being; the "invisible man" he likes to refer to.

His pretexts are ones based on conjecture and controversy, too. Yet he continues to shred and mock the beliefs of others; he is, as I already said, a Dawk.

[JoeyRamone63]

Non-belief in a 'higher authority' does not make one close-minded; it merely asks the question "where's the evidence?". While Dawkins has mountains of evidence for evolution, you persist in labeling him as bitter and close-minded; yet you offer no proof that he is wrong.

Unlike you, Dawkins and other atheists do not issue ad hominem personal attacks that have no merit; to mock a belief is not to mock the believer per se. Is your higher authority so weak that you must defend it?

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

That is just the thing, Dawkins does mock the believer; in his book, 'The God Delusion', he states that any theist or angnostic who reads it will finish it an athesit: That in and of itself is a demeaning, contrascending and disrespectful statement.

Oh yes, and you speak of personal attacks as though I have some sought of agenda, Dawkins' life revolves around forcing his views on others. He can not and will not stop until he has brainwashed the entire planet.

[JoeyRamone63]

yaoiyaoiyaoi123 said "he states that any theist or angnostic who reads it will finish it an athesit: That in and of itself is a demeaning, contrascending and disrespectful statement"

It's not a personal attack on anybody; if he said that a specific person was stupid for believing, than that would be a personal attack.

"Dawkins' life revolves around forcing his views on others."

Prove it. Nobody is forcing you to watch his videos or read his books. Since when is science "brainwashing"?

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

First of all, I never claimed it was a "personal" attack. However, it is still disrespectful. Fact.

Secondly, you have stated the obvious: Of course nobody is being "forced" to read his books or take heed of what he is saying, thankfully, but for what reason does he spend his life holding seminars, writing books, and everything else? Do you think it's to convert the atheists? No.

[JoeyRamone63]

Why does a 'belief' deserve respect? If it can't be proven with testable evidence, it should be criticized. It shouldn't make any difference whether the belief is religious or not. When someone tells you that wheat-grass juice is good for your blood because the chlorophyll creates new hemoglobin, do you just believe it or do you approach it with skepticism?

Dawkins' goal is primarily to educate people. If his readers have an epiphany and decide it's silly to believe, that's just a bonus.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

You have just proved yourself to be a very ignorant, rude person. You compare the belief in a superficial theory, to the historical and fundamental belief in Religion?

As for "testable evidence", there is plenty. The same, however, can not be said for evolution; or at least, nothing remotely sane.

Dawkins' goal is not just to enlighten, it extends beyond that. He becomes angry and distorted when confronted with 'non-believers'.

[JoeyRamone63]

"You have just proved yourself to be a very ignorant, rude person."

An ad hominem attack on me does nothing to back up your claims. Science is younger than religion, but has more credibility.

You haven't yet given any specific examples of evidence for your beliefs, nor have you shown that any scientifically accepted evidence for evolution wasn't valid.

Dawkins, I think, excels at rational and clear thinking. If he becomes 'angry' at any point...well, that just shows that he is human.

[JoeyRamone63]

Evolution is backed up by evidence; are you saying that the fossil record, DNA, human genome mapping, endogenous retro-viruses, and biology are all wrong?

"Historical and fundamental" are argumentum ad populem. Just because a religion is popular and has been around for a couple of thousand years does not mean it is based on reality . By that argument we would all be worshiping Ra, Isis, Zeus, or Mithras which have all been around much longer than the Abrahamic gods.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

No, I am not claiming that fossil record, DNA, human genome mapping (excuding moral implications) etc. are wrong per se.

My comment regarding the historical and fundamental aspects of religion was in no way, argumentum ad populum; I have no idea how you deduced that - how do those adjectives, in any sense, imply that?

A concept could still be historical and fundamental disregarding whether it was true or not.

[JoeyRamone63]

Human genome mapping has no "moral implications" of which I am aware; what do you mean by that? Evolution is the very foundation of all biological sciences; if you agree that the evidence is not wrong, per se, then what basis do you have for saying the evolution is wrong?

Your statement about religion being historical and fundamental implies that it has credibility for those reasons; I don't agree with that simply because so much of religion is based on legends and folklore.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

The use of (one use of, that is) human genome mapping in order to determine any defects of a foetus, and thus abort it is, in my opinion, immoral.

If I can witness an apple falling from a tree to the ground, could I really deny the existence of gravity?

It's the same with those aforementioned concepts. I cannot, in and of themselves, deny them.

However, evolution is fickle thing - and you cannot say otherwise; why else would the matter be so controversial and debated constantly?

[JoeyRamone63]

Gene testing can be used to identify markers for many diseases; however, it looks like that procedure is currently only being used to test eggs prior to implantation during in vitro fertilization. I understand the ethical dilemma when using genes to decide on abortion. However, I think I could argue that it would be more ethical to terminate a pregnancy that has a high risk factor for a fatal disease than to carry it to term, forcing the child to face undue suffering later.

[JoeyRamone63]

Evolution is only controversial among those who are unaware of how solid the evidence is and/or those who deny the evidence because it goes against their religious beliefs. There is NO controversy amongst qualified scientists. If you have read anything that is anti-evolution from a scientist, you might want to check out their agenda; it's likely that their beliefs prevent them from accepting the evidence--Jonathan Sarfati is an excellent example of this.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Furthermore, you spoke of evidence? The evidence is staggering: but I hope you did not expect me to give an account of its vastness here in these little boxes?

It is there, infallible, unwavering. It puts the theory of evolution and other such ridiculous theorums in their places.

Do you really expect me to believe that we evolved from a rock? Do you expect me to believe scientists who rant on about a theory that states evrything exploded from nothing?

I don't think so.

[JoeyRamone63]

@yaoiyaoiyaoi123:

Your comment indicates that have very little understanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not say that we came from rocks; that's ridiculous. The Big Bang Theory does not say that everything exploded from nothing; it says that there was a rapid expansion of space-time from a highly condensed state. Scientists have measured the age of the universe down to Plank time; microseconds after the Big Bang. Since Darwin, evidence for evolution continues to grow.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Stop for a moment and think for yourself; rather than parroting the theories and opinions of others.

You think the concept of us evolving from a rock is ridiculous? Then you have contradicted your belief in evolution. What do you think we evolved from, fully formed organisms?

As for the Big Bang theory, that's even more ludicrous. You think a bunch of rocks and dust exploded out of "Space Time" and formed perfect galaxies with perfect, spherical planets and everything else?

[JoeyRamone63]

"Stop for a moment and think for yourself; rather than parroting the theories and opinions of others."

I don't "parrot" anything; I read TalkOrigins and the Berkeley Evolution web sites. I consider myself to be a critical thinker and a skeptic. If the evidence doesn't exist, the 'theory' is not scientific.

Again, evolution does not say that we evolved from rocks. It says that the diversity of life can be explained by adaptations to the environment via natural selection.

(more)....

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Yes, but natural selection could only take place in living organisms.

You have not explained yourself clearly; so what came before entities that could reproduce through natural selection?

Are you trying to say they were spewed out by the Big Bang?

[JoeyRamone63]

Now you're talking about abiogenesis, which is actually separate from evolution. Abiogenesis basically states that life's building blocks, amino acids, come from base nucleotides when carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorous bind together. Once those molecules bind together, all you need is a source of energy like a deep-see volcanic vent or lightning in order to fuel the chemical reactions necessary for single-celled organism to live. And yes, lab experiments have confirmed this.

[JoeyRamone63]

should be "deep-sea"

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Abiogenesis, or the Frankenstein concept as I like to call it, is, like so many other scientific ideologies, utterly flawed. The theory was fabricated to satisfy the large loop hole occuring from the other deception of evoultion.

But on the topic of elements, I suppose there's another theory out there as to how they came about? (Not accounting for Hydrogen).

[JoeyRamone63]

An ideology is more of a philosophical construct than a scientific one. It doesn't really apply to science, except perhaps for a way to describe the Scientific Method. Like the Big Bang and ekpyrotic universe model, it abiogenesis is a theory based on the evidence that we currently have. Like all scientific theories, it is subject to modification as we learn more. Calling it 'utterly flawed' and 'fabricated' is incorrect and misleading. How is evolution a 'deception'? Cite sources please.

[yaoiyaoiyaoi123]

Evolution is a theory that objects religion. So, it safe to dub it an ideology.

No, my calling it utterly flawed and fabricated is not misleading. Evolution is what's misleading - and it is simply not possible for me to write a huge dissertation here thereof. Nor will it do to choose a select choice of certain (facts), either.

[JoeyRamone63]

Evolution does not "object" to religion; it has no agenda. Some people feel that their religious beliefs are threatened by evolution, therefore they object to it for that reason.

Like any scientific theory, the theory of evolution must hold up to scrutiny and challenges. The fact that it has withstood 150 years of challenges is evidence that it is a strong theory. The fact that the evidence from multiple branches of science continues to support the theory also strengthens it.

[JoeyRamone63]

The Big Bang Theory is the best explanation we have for the formation of the universe. It works for me, because it is based on scientific evidence. The Theory of Relativity explains how planets, solar systems, and galaxies form based on their related mass and gravity's affect on that mass.

What makes you believe that planets and galaxies are 'perfectly formed'? There are destructive as well as constructive events happening in the universe constantly.

[BulletMagnetOWI]

John Humphreys puts on a great interview here, it might have gone places had they been allotted more time.

[tomwallace666]

If there is a "god", he would most certainly be Richard Dawkins. Living legend, Humphryes was destroyed.

[jonnieR27]

Outstanding!

[eddadude2]

religion isn't politics or science. different modes of verification. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, but hearing him talk about theology is like reading an article on the meaning of life in OK magazine.

[AtticusRebma]

Why is it a "different mode of verification"? Reality is reality. Facts are facts.

[eddadude2]

because religion shouldn't be about metaphysics, it should be about psychological and social benifits. look at don cupitt.

[AtticusRebma]

Then religions should stop making metaphysical claims. They should stop claiming that there is life after death, etc. I won't hold my breath.

[eddadude2]

u dont need 2 hold ur breath, as iv sed, a lot of them already have stoppd doin this. also, ur interpretin these thins as a literal metaphysical claim; look at jung, its healthy to promulgate these views for our psyche, look at new theistic views about life after death bein a metaphor for what we make of our life on earth.

[yaja212]

Richard Dawkins is the biggest douche in the universe.

[JoeyRamone63]

Thanks for your opinion. Got anything useful to say?  A critique, perhaps, of something that was said in the video? If not, then your comment was a pointless waste of time.

[yaja212]

i say again, he is a douche. what's his proof against the existence of God(s), then? he says there's no proof for it, right? if there's no proof for it nor against it, then it must be possible. THAT is what religion is. The FAITH in the existence of some divine entity/entities. The BELIEF in a higher power. Neither side has proof, so neither side can be wrong. please note that i'm not talking about evolution. that isn't proof against religion or a God, it just disproves creationism.

[JoeyRamone63]

Ha! You're funny. Here's the deal; "God" is a construct. Something that was invented by Bronze Age people who had no idea how things worked. So they invented gods to help explain things. If you believe in the Christian God, then you have to believe that he's omniscient and omnipresent. However, if man has free will then the Christian God cannot be omniscient and vice versa. It's a direct contradiction and it invalidates the idea of an all-knowing God.

[yaja212]

to be fair, i never said i believe in the Christian God. I'm Hindu.

and please don't talk down to me like i'm a child. can you just explain to me why Atheists in general are so nasty and condescending towards others? That's not an insult, I honestly want to know why you're all so hostile.

[JoeyRamone63]

Atheists, in general, prefer to have constructive and intellectual discussions.

I'm not the one who left a comment calling someone a "douche" without actually having anything constructive to say in said comment.

I only responded in a tone that I thought you could understand...you leave a childish comment you deserve a condescending reply. That's all there is to it. If, instead, you had left a comment that was thought-provoking and intelligent, I would have responded in kind.

[yaja212]

well thank goodness for this new wave of Atheistm, then. intellectualism has been dead until Dawkins opened his trap and you all jumped on the bandwagon.

[JoeyRamone63]

Well, someone had to do it sooner or later. The US has been going through a wave of anti-intellectualism and anti-science for long enough. It's time we started to actually do something about improving our schools, educating our kids about science, and letting go of superstition; don't you think?

[yaja212]

well, i'm lucky enough to be attending a secular private school right now (rising sophomore) so i know what you mean, since i'm getting an ideal education. I don't want to argue online anymore (dude lame) so just be nice to religious people, k? they're not going to listen to you if you're disrespectful. in fact tell Prof. Dawkins that as well. you'd all get a lot more done.

[JoeyRamone63]

I think 'arguing' has progressed to 'discussing' which is much better IMO. I agree that Dawkins is direct (to put it nicely); but he's taken that approach for a reason. Sometimes people need that kind of directness instead of the wishy-washy approach of 'respecting' religion. I agree with Dawkins, Harris, PZ Myers, and other outspoken atheists that religion has been afforded too much respect and it's having a negative effect on society. I applaud them for helping people see that.

[norsef]

Aww, I think it's kinda cute he has an imaginary friend at his age.

[Sondre7]

Haha... great own by dawkins there

[drummer2474]

how is he owned? they agreed..

[jazzx251]

Humphreys got owned.

[HaroldThinks]

Brilliant - cut down by reason

[indignant99]

What a bonehead interviewer!