The medium is well intentioned, as is the message, in those who admire him, and whom he admires and would preserve. However, the avirulent form of religion, the soil in which only the gentlest, the kindest, the most gradual change in our deepest convictions, can also give rise to the myriad evils which share their part in our necessary extinction.
The critics and evolved religions are not mortal enemies. They may be our friends yet prefigure our capacity for worse.
The word 'religion' makes most people defensive. Christianity is not about being ‘religious’ but about allowing the Lord Jesus to free us from the bondage of the world and to follow His footsteps which lead to salvation of our souls; to be ‘born again. John 3:3. There are so many religions and Christianity should not be mistaken with the confusion that religions generate.
My heart goes out to these clergy who must live their lie. I think I understand how they must feel to some degree. I keep my atheism from my father, because I know he is a true believer and it would break his heart for him to believe I am going to eternal damnation. I do think that sometimes you have to let your integrity take a back seat to someone else's emotional, let alone "spiritual" well-being.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
a surprising number of physicists and philosophers like Dennett think that string theory is an overcomplicated, inelegant, untestable, possible dead end and not worth all the great minds that are currently working on it. Philip Anderson has said that its a "futile exercise in physics" and "It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do".
look up 'why string theory is a dead end' or something similar on google... you'll find a fair number of articles explaining the critics points. I happen to agree with them.
@sciencebzzt String Theory was a proto-type. It has since evolved into the encompassing M-Theory, spearheaded by Edward Witten, Brian Greene, and Michio Kaku.
when you really get into it and learn about it, you see how clunky and inelegant string theory really is. its like postmodernist science, which is an oxymoron. its a red tape filled bureaucracy of a theory, with senseless add-ons everywhere to fill the holes and force it to work. plus, the very nature of it, being so obscure and nebulous, makes it borderline pseudoscience... with many untestable claims.
@sciencebzzt That is definitely quite a "mythbuster" for me, if what you are saying is true. (Not that I am deliberately challenging you), but so what if the theory needs to be modified? perhaps the claims are definitely not testable, but whats wrong with taking a few guesses?
@ashwinv89 they are just guesses after all, and they certainly arent going to hurt. And maybe if we do come up with a theory that fits (which with the progression of time may resemble nothing like string theory today), wouldnt we owe it to ourselves to think as much as we can to inally come up with an answer?
@ashwinv89 just because a claim is untestable doesnt mean we should dismiss it. I'm neither for nor against string theory as I do not understand it at any level near its entirety. What I want to know is why is there a reason to rip on string theorists just because their claims are outlandish?
At the same time I do agree that we should not classify "made to fit" theories as science..
@ashwinv89 That made to fit thing is at the heart of science. Lets say you ahve a theory and you can calculate some predictions. And then you meassure what happens in nature. When your predictions and the measurement (and i assume youa re measuring right) do not fit together, you have to change your theory. That way you enhance your theory until you can predict every possible outcome right. If i got it right, cern just more or less proofed string theory. Check their website.
A few eastern religions (some western ones too) try to escape words/explanation to experience god. They don't strive to prove through words etc. Such a god would have different characteristics.
The New Atheists constantly attack their secular detractors who say, "Well some people need religion. I am too clever for religion, but I can't expect that from everyone." Dawkins argues that most people can absorb a secular perspective. Well if that is true, then most people in these congregations should presumably be able to absorb sophisticated theology as well.
@friendofthefunk Sophisticated religion is what theologians and religious academics practice. It usually is quite different from what they preach to their congregations.
@Keysteeze "Sophisticated religion..usually is quite different from what they preach to their congregations." Would I always prefer the sophisticated religion to the piety of the good christian folk? The folk stories told to children are wont to outlast the tests of manhood fashions pass.
I am saddened and distraught at the way my rational and objective comment on Dennets perspective on the Evolution of God was stopped from receiving the publics judgement.
In English - the nerd in me is dying!
You don't want to lower yourself to the level of China, North Korea, Weimar and News Corp!
His derision of the Evolution of God is completely amiss. If he really has read it, he should know that the author has a scientific mind set and doesn't hold a fanatic, literal or even a hint of an agnostic belief in God.
"The fog" derives from the fact that he's talking about one of the most potent political topics of the last two thousand years and that the study of something that is so much, to so many, must be extremely considerate. The ambition of it demands a truck load of expedience.
In his interview with Bill Moyers, Robert Wright even admitted that the evolution of god is the evolution of a delusion. So in some sense, he is being deliberately obscure. I imagine because it makes it sell better!
'Love is just a word'. Is it not the word 'just' that creates a (judgment) boundary which thereof creates a deepity. You can find love in a dictionary as a word, as a concept of bringing knowledge to a future generation and the love you have to read and learn. love itself cant be found without a medium? Is the use of the word love without quotes really a mistake?
Evolutionary Conspiracy is a useful concept for every conspiracy theory, but still leaves possibilities open. Moral: 'Live in the now'
@jalen441 I got about halfway, but I'll watch the rest later today. Problem with his argument, six individuals whom he refers to as 'clergy', but then didn't define word the clergy. For example, a 'human being' has inalienable rights, but citizen, person or national are capable of specific and different rights and duties; yet all these words refer to the individual. Thats why I'm saying define it. Also six individuals not big enough scientific sample. Not to mention implication of his arguement.
Firstly, he says "preachers" several times, starting around 5:40, and is . There's no need to define "clergy". It's a very specific word with a consistent definition, as a quick google search will demonstrate.
He doesn't claim that it's a scientific experiment, but he clearly states at about 6:34 that he's conducting interviews for a pilot study.
Regarding the implications of his argument: shouldn't you wait until you've seen the whole thing to pass judgment?
However, I get the feeling those implications just make you uncomfortable, and it's easier to dismiss his argument as rubbish than to grapple with them in a real and honest way. I could be wrong, but your reaction strikes me as typical of someone who'd rather not confront a troublesome issue, instead grasping at straws to divert attention away from the actual source of his discomfort.
Also, at about 14:30 he refers to the interviewees as ministers, further clarifying the meaning of "clergy".
In case of Dennett's example of order without designer he tries to prove accidence of the whole system (universe) by an element within the system (accidental rock formations on earth). If laws of existence (physical, chemical etc) result in random appearances of high order and structure, it doesn't imply that laws themselves are accidental. Universe and everything within it COULD be created by intelligent designer.
I really like Dan Dennett. He's incredibly smart (obviously) and extremely likable. I suppose another reason why I really like him is because he has the sort of gentle soul that reminds me of the U.S. History teacher I had my Junior year in high school. The similarities are striking.
I'm watching this right now as the rest of my family has their stupid bible study. They just started singing songs to Jesus and I'm thinking "I got to get the fuck out here."
@trollforlife I admit I find certain religious activities somewhat nauseating (Look up 'Jesus Camp') but I don't hate or resent people who do them, it's their choice. The best thing you can do is respect that, as well as offer logical reasons for how you feel if they ask you. You may get some virtually patronising "Someday you will love God" comment, but getting angry and resentful won't ever help to convince them.
(And not that I think you're appearing angry, it just looks borderline)
@trollforlife That's hilarious (and ironic). I'm the black sheep in my family, as well. I remember one time I was lying in bed reading "The Necessity of Atheism" by Percy Shelley while my grandmother sat in the kitchen reading her bible.
@trollforlife I can't even imagine how hard it has been to grow up in a family like that. My parents are also quite conservative, but not very religious. Me and my brother are both atheists. And my sister is an idiotic drone/sheep who keeps drinking and partying and does what other people do. I never even speak with her.
@trollforlife its ok bro. just because someone is on a different path to fulfillness and enlightenment doesnt make it the wrong path. thats what you say. Dont argue with them, that makes you both ignorant.
I want to hear it from you. I have seen all this crap on the net and I find it amazing that anyone is fucking stupid enough to believe it. You are being control and manipulated, wake up and think for your self.
100% of peer-reviewed papers in Iran are pro-Muslim. Does that make Islam true? LOL. You evolutionists and your little white-tower schools are a joke. Wake-up to what is really going on and repent while there is yet time. Don't be such spineless cowards in the war between God and Satan. Start thinking for yourselves for a change and stand like men!
@thechessstick "Start thinking for yourselves for a change and stand like men!"
Your imagined god and his archenemy are the stuff of comic books. Put down your childish simplicity and embrace the wondrous possibilities of the cosmos. Belief takes no thought. Truth needs to be sought after. It doesn't reveal itself easily, and it certainly bears no resemblance to your little god. Of course you can feel free to simply sit there while others do all the work.
@thechessstick Well, our choice is to model our life around a book that hasn't been been updated in almost 2,000 years or stick to the book that is still being written. I chose the latter. At least this way I might be able to help write it.
@thechessstick are you joking? or do you actually bellieve what you have written? I would like to ask who is satan, and who are the worshipers of satan?
@CartesianTheist Some very good points you've made and I agree largely. I agree that some laws in the OT are situational..but not all. The health laws for example when followed add 10+ years to life even now.The economic laws would solve many problems these days.
Btw, see my channel playlist, creation-evidence for flood, 1st video for a VERY well done new seminar on the major evidence for a global flood.
@BigLundi well, we don't see him introduced, but there's one on here that at least has no Dawkins "Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren"
And I agree with that. If all religious people were more skeptical about their holy books, groups like the Wesboro baptist church and al-quaida would have a great difficulty recriuting people!
@alexicoff There are crazy people who will misuse science, religion, education, politics and other things no matter what. We don't reject science because of Josef Mengele, etc. So, there's no sense in judging Christianity by Westboro, etc. See below post as well. The 10+ years evidence is on my playlist Bible health science. Videos 1-3 are from secular sources confirming it and videos 4-6 are an intro to the actual principles (that the 1st 3 don't explain very much).
Actually I agree that religion is very often used as a means to safeguard a population that lacks the scientific, and sociological knowledge we have today. While there is a lot of superstition, there are lots of laws that make sense in a primitive society.
This is in fact one of the reasons I don't have a religion!
haha It seems that I have been misfed a false source on that one.
But regarding OT verses, your response is as expected.
So then can any part of the bible be interpreted freely? Whenever someone finds a part of the Bible that goes against today's moral standards, they claim that it is just misinterpreted.
This freedom to interpret holy texts whichever way is most comfortable is the resounding weakness of all religions in a skeptic's eyes.
I hope your misrepresentation of my argument is a misunderstanding and not malicious. I said that communism and religion are both philosophies, not that communism is a religion.
Also, I reiterate that the idea of communism doesn't BY DEFINITION aim to annihilate people.
Christianity and Islam BY DEFINITION are set to convert/destroy infidels.
The difference is that Communism needs Stalin to be evil.
Theists claim to have an infallible faith in the existence of god and yet they resort to hostility,aggression and at times violence whenever someone makes an attempt to refute their beliefs. Well I am not a psychologist but I know that their aggression stems from insecurity. If they are so convinced about their beliefs then what are they so insecure about?
@paganlordrajarshi Really? Have you never met or seen a rational, calm theist? Surely you have. Dawkin's has interviewed a few bishops who have been absolutely perfect in terms of courtesy.
It's nasty when it does happen and certainly happens more often online (where, let's face it, discussing the taste of mushrooms can result in cyber violence). Don't tar them all with the same brush. :)
@SAMagic I have had several encounters with perfectly courteous and genial people who adopt a completely different countenance when their beliefs are challenged. I know there are many theists who engage in public discourse to make their point but I was referring to the overwhelming majority. Now that I think of it I do sound a bit prejudiced in my last post and I am sorry if I have offended anyone :)
@paganlordrajarshi Well said.Indeed, it all comes down to courtesy. If you said "Some theists think this" then that would be valid, but people get offended when they're all grouped together, there are always exceptions.
On the subject of people claiming infallible faith, I'm forever amused by one Christian I met who said "Don't even _try_ to test my faith, I simply won't change at all." I think that says a lot about the systems that religion creates - or people create as a result of believing.
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Lets see...almost 85% of the world's population are believers of which approximately two thirds believe in the God of Abraham and all you can come up with is 6 clergy who are non believers. Not exactly what science would consider to be satistically significant. Bit of a stretch Dan.
@peipappy1 Your logic is flawed. Argumentum ad populum. You're appealing to a statistical majority of the population as if that proves something true; it doesn't. Otherwise things like the toothfairy would actually be true in the world of children. What Dan has done is prove that there are clergy people who are closet atheists. Science is built around evidence and proof, and Dan provided such evidence and proof. If there are 6 found by one man, there are very obviously many more out there.
"Purposefully-confusing theology" as explained to you by a philosopher, in an intentionally super-purposefully-confusing manner. Do Atheists understand the term Hypocrisy? He definitely understands "deepity".
Wow. At the end there he hits on something truly deep (not deepity lol). With most things that happen the understanding only comes through analysis afterward. Think of that in terms of conspiracy theories. Or to put it more simply: oftentimes things just happened that way.
By not using quotation marks (i.e., A History of "God": The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Karen makes her book's title a classic use-mention error.
She likes to dance between the existence of God vs. the existence of the concept of God, and regards as extremely vulgar the desire to know which one of those she means. "Willful obscurity" (Dennett's term) is exactly right. She is able to sell books to liberal believers and seekers by being obscure.
@ChollieD In the podcast Karen said that God is no being, if being is a word used to isolate individual existent things from others. Dennett equivocates by taking her to mean something that's contradicted by everything else she says in the podcast.
Not using quotation marks doesn't mean she committed the use-mention error. You may as well say Hitchens who wrote (God is Not Great) committed the use-mention error by not placing God in quotation marks.
@legodesi If God is not a being (so defined), then would that imply that God is *not* an indiv existent thing distinct from other things? and if God is not distinct, then God is identical to them. But if God is not a distinct, indiv thing, then there must be some set of (2 or more) things, s, to which God is identical. However, this entails that God is distinct from each indiv member of s, and from every set of things =/= s. So if God isn't a being, then God is a being. So God is a being.
You should listen to the podcast. Just google fresh air karen armstrong and you'll find it. It's about the first minute of the interview. If you do listen to it, and listen to her statements in context, perhaps you'll know what she meant. Armstrong, like many other literary figures, uses aphorisms and hyperbolic expressions often. It's confusing - I'm not particularly a fan of her, but that's how she writes.
@legodesi Well, I still can't tell if she means to claim that there is a self-aware creator of the universe, or not. All of her double-talk how it depends on what I mean by those words makes me want to confront her and ask if this is a fist. "Well if you mean separate from your five fingers and palm..." WHAM!
Rushdie said that Hitchens's book title was one word too long: "God is Not" would be better.
i love this man with all my mind he says all the things i have tried to say succinctly and with no self righteousness and he astounds and humbles and awes me and i just adore him... he shows me the convergence that the mess of ideology is going towards and i cant wait till critical mass of this knowledge comes to this planet becaseu that will be a wonderfull day... i could cry for joy to hear him speak. though i know that so many will not understand what is gleaned will gorw. all hail!!!
"Hello. As you know I'm Richard Dawkins. Many questioned evolution and it's validity. So I've brough a special guest. Thanks to Lawrence Krauss and his works on time travel we are now able to bring you CHARLES DARWIN!" *everyone claps and cheers*
Dennet is very Orwellian. His experiments remind one of nothing so much as those of the Soviets' to determine the etiology of the capitalist mind and so to cure the illness.
I really like philosophy....and when it comes to it....it allmost seems like a fail to even bother with at this point....so many people are indoctrinated by failed philosophies...and in order for a real philosophy to take place....So much needs to change...and in effect many would have to die once again for the new to take effect....i would like to think that the world would rather be more intelligent this time around and not commit mass genocides to get a new one in effect...Like prior times
@MadMAn12gauge religion is not philosophy...your definition of philosophy is completely wrong...this whole video is done by dennet, one of the great modern philosphers! Your using the term as people use it in everyday conversation...which again is wrong! Most philosophers are athiests! Type in 'what is philosophy in youtube', theres a nice short video called 'philosophy locic and reason', Or just Fast foward to 35:00. philosophy relies on REASON and rational arguement! WIKI IT!
and so Far...philosophy has failed miserably for world co-operation....and religion is a major philosophy that has created the borders.....
there would be no such thing as countries or states or borders....if we lived in a world that has had any good philosophy....what we been born into is a world driven by HORRIBLE philosophy....and now this is what we see today as the product of what those that cared nothing for the future but only themselves and the present
Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
@TheColossus1987 They both have constant failed theories that debunk the Bible. They are biggoted. They'd have more crediblity if they went with pure science, vs bias speculative theories.
I am disappointed in Richard Dawkin's lamentable lack of understanding of Philosophy. Doesn't he realize that 'scientist's' were originally philosophers under the discipline of Natural Philosophy? Such as with Issac Newton's first great work "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)).
@TheColossus1987 Isn't what we define as philophers now and how we would define it then different. That's how I always understood that termenology. Perhaps I'm wrong.
@TheColossus1987 Reductionistic materialism is quite offensive. It's not life, it's biology. It's not biology, it's organic chemistry. It's not organic chemistry, it's physics..........There is no mind, only the brain......etc.
See how soulless this enterprise is becoming? Lawrence Krauss made a similar remark in his "A Universe from nothing" talk. Make no mistake, many scientist (materialist) are quite hostile to philosophy.
@MadMAn12gauge Dawkins is making metaphysical statements, i.e. a responding to the idea of what is 'beyond' the field of biology and the natural world as a whole, such as talking about the existence/non-existence of the supernatural. To make the proposition: "There is no reason to believe in a supernatural existence." is not a topic in biology. Biology = the subject of natural creatures. The very concept of 'belief' or 'believing' is a matter of philosophy (i.e. epistemology).
@TheColossus1987 well it is true that that there is no reason to mix fantasy and reality man...i could care less if he says anything about fantasy vs reality...Because it is True that there is a Difference between them, it is pretty easy what is real and what is not real....And yes it is his concern when people are trying to Muscle their stupid bogus fantasy into a science classroom.... a LAck of belief and educating people about reality is not philosophy, it is a fact
@MadMAn12gauge True. Educating people about reality as a matter of fact (the fields of science) is not a matter of philosophy. People need to distinguish facts from theoretical fictions. Philosophy is simply the concern for the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and knowledge. I just think that Dawkins needs to be better versed in philosophy, rather than presume that science is the only way to analyze reality. Science takes existence for granted, philosophy ponders existence itself.
@TheColossus1987 umm, science does not take existance for granted, it infact Appretiates life more than anything, if you dont think so, look at our advancements in astronomy,medical, and ecology, ALONE....And then come back and say science takes life for granted and the well being of life for granted.
@MadMAn12gauge My use of the phrase 'for granted' was intended to indicate that science doesn't question existence itself. I didn't mean 'for granted' in the sense of it not valuing life. I fully agree with you about our advancements through science. I am not anti-science. Again, my use of 'for granted' was intended to say that science is categorically different from philosophy in how science works within the concern of what goes on in nature, not questioning existence itself (philosophy).
@TheColossus1987 my only point is, and is the only reason i never clung to the belief of a god even through baptism, and child indoctrination....i feel the strong effect that tradition holds, it doesnt excuse fantasy vs reality, i loved to read fantasy as a child and i liked many Non-fiction stories, the non-fiction ones scared me the most....religion is very much like tradition, letting go of it is like....understanding that birthdays and memorials actually dont mean anything usefull....
@TheColossus1987 hold on...science is all about questioning existance mate...i feel bad about being a bit rash...but...we will never know existance if we bend over to failure! many gaints in the past have made progress for us to climb higher! and many had their heads cut off in the name of god and are no more heard of. we live in an age that allows you and i to be able to connect, i hate to be a prick at times but i feel people should allready understand fantasy vs reality, i knew it as a kid
@MadMAn12gauge I'm simply saying that science doesn't question existence in terms of going beyond what can be empirically accounted for. It accepts existence itself as a 'given'. Science does not draw up questions like 'What is the meaning of existence?' or 'Why does anything exist at all?', or 'How should we live our lives?'. Those kinds of questions are the subject of philosophy. I'm an atheist, and so I agree that fictions should not be mistaken for accountable reality.
@TheColossus1987 well yeah...but i rather throw my hat IN with those that can Prove what they claim as fact
and not those that assert bullshit that cant be known. there is no reason to do that....the only reason to assert a religion is for personal or Clan gain vs others....it is conflict driven and desired philosophy to create slaves....philosophy is never very good in general....the only time it is good is when philosophy is able to co-exist with other philosophy for the better well-being
@dvarblo hmmm, what the..... i think you responded to the wrong person, and if that is directed at me, i dont know where you assert that i think that, i am pretty much anti-philosophy in general because, as obvious, there hasnt been one that has worked in the history of mankind, perhaps socialism, but everything else out there is complete crap...
@MadMAn12gauge lol nope! ive got the right person all right. 'socialism' is not 'a' philosophy...your still not getting it are you lol. there is no such thing as 'a philosophy'! that is NOT the definition of philosophy. Let me try...just type in 'what is philosophy' in youtube and go to philosophy, logic and reason...he just basically explains that people like you get the term mixed up...because in everyday language it has a completely different meaning.
@dvarblo perhaps you need to look at a dictionary
"socialism is an economic system and political philosophy" so before you make a statement about something you don't know...perhaps you need to look it up to make sure next time
@MadMAn12gauge lollll seriously your just as bad as a creationist trying to slate evolution! try clicking on the 'political philosophy' part and do some reading kiddo. Allways understand what your trying to slate, thats my 'philosophy'...by that way thats a joke if you still dont get it. And if you still dont get it, then iam sorry no one can help you.
@TheColossus1987 you might as well be speaking chinese because madman12gauge doesnt understand the meaning of the word 'philosophy'...i tried to point him in the right direction. but yes good comment.
@TheColossus1987 of course he does!! he was only joking when he said that at the beginning...straight after, he says 'and then i remember dan dennett'. Dawkins has great respect for philosophy, even in his documentaries he grants credit to the scientist and philosophers of the 18th century who fought to employ rational thinking in the world! 'from gallieo to david hume' were his exact words...Didnt you watch the first five minutes? he goes to dennet for help him to clarify his arguments.
Notice at 28:31 the cameraman and media are just concerned about Dan making a silly face to put in their articles and news...
In the end it's not about his messsage or evolution, its about how long you can keep an idiot happy before he drifts back into his world of stupidity.
The medium is well intentioned, as is the message, in those who admire him, and whom he admires and would preserve. However, the avirulent form of religion, the soil in which only the gentlest, the kindest, the most gradual change in our deepest convictions, can also give rise to the myriad evils which share their part in our necessary extinction.
The critics and evolved religions are not mortal enemies. They may be our friends yet prefigure our capacity for worse.
mendelbot 1 day ago
Santa Claus! :D
OyonTheAdept 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All atheists are either stubborn or stupid. End of conversation really.
patientthomist 2 days ago
Comment removed
TheAllien111 4 days ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
This has been flagged as spam show
The word 'religion' makes most people defensive. Christianity is not about being ‘religious’ but about allowing the Lord Jesus to free us from the bondage of the world and to follow His footsteps which lead to salvation of our souls; to be ‘born again. John 3:3. There are so many religions and Christianity should not be mistaken with the confusion that religions generate.
KingdomSeeker2012 6 days ago
My heart goes out to these clergy who must live their lie. I think I understand how they must feel to some degree. I keep my atheism from my father, because I know he is a true believer and it would break his heart for him to believe I am going to eternal damnation. I do think that sometimes you have to let your integrity take a back seat to someone else's emotional, let alone "spiritual" well-being.
OneWarmDragon 2 weeks ago
"As we embrace knowledge, alchemy yields to chemistry, astrology yields to astronomy and religion yields to philosophy ." Christopher Hitchens
I do hope that one day we all throw off these shackles of superstition. What a waste of time and resources.
OneWarmDragon 2 weeks ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 3 weeks ago
okay so when did Santa Clause become a philosopher?
chromeninjar3d 4 weeks ago
My previous comment on this video is:
profound, true, love itself; it's being itself; in fact, my other comment is so great, that it precludes existence!
You just need faith to see my other comment on this video!
Martinger2775 1 month ago
@Martinger2775 my other comment is a porsche lol
kingpharaohtsar 2 weeks ago
Deepities are masters of doublethink. Orwell reinforces everything Mr. Dennett is saying in 1984. Ignorance is Strength.
Crust218 1 month ago
I fucking hate religion, but I have to admit that it is an important field of story from an anthropologic, sociologic and psychologic sense.
Ebvardh 1 month ago
What's wrong with string theorists? @25:25
ashwinv89 1 month ago
@ashwinv89
a surprising number of physicists and philosophers like Dennett think that string theory is an overcomplicated, inelegant, untestable, possible dead end and not worth all the great minds that are currently working on it. Philip Anderson has said that its a "futile exercise in physics" and "It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do".
sciencebzzt 1 month ago
@ashwinv89
look up 'why string theory is a dead end' or something similar on google... you'll find a fair number of articles explaining the critics points. I happen to agree with them.
sciencebzzt 1 month ago
@sciencebzzt String Theory was a proto-type. It has since evolved into the encompassing M-Theory, spearheaded by Edward Witten, Brian Greene, and Michio Kaku.
AcruxSolus 2 weeks ago
@ashwinv89
when you really get into it and learn about it, you see how clunky and inelegant string theory really is. its like postmodernist science, which is an oxymoron. its a red tape filled bureaucracy of a theory, with senseless add-ons everywhere to fill the holes and force it to work. plus, the very nature of it, being so obscure and nebulous, makes it borderline pseudoscience... with many untestable claims.
sciencebzzt 1 month ago
@sciencebzzt That is definitely quite a "mythbuster" for me, if what you are saying is true. (Not that I am deliberately challenging you), but so what if the theory needs to be modified? perhaps the claims are definitely not testable, but whats wrong with taking a few guesses?
ashwinv89 4 weeks ago
@ashwinv89 they are just guesses after all, and they certainly arent going to hurt. And maybe if we do come up with a theory that fits (which with the progression of time may resemble nothing like string theory today), wouldnt we owe it to ourselves to think as much as we can to inally come up with an answer?
ashwinv89 4 weeks ago
@ashwinv89 just because a claim is untestable doesnt mean we should dismiss it. I'm neither for nor against string theory as I do not understand it at any level near its entirety. What I want to know is why is there a reason to rip on string theorists just because their claims are outlandish?
At the same time I do agree that we should not classify "made to fit" theories as science..
ashwinv89 4 weeks ago
@ashwinv89 That made to fit thing is at the heart of science. Lets say you ahve a theory and you can calculate some predictions. And then you meassure what happens in nature. When your predictions and the measurement (and i assume youa re measuring right) do not fit together, you have to change your theory. That way you enhance your theory until you can predict every possible outcome right. If i got it right, cern just more or less proofed string theory. Check their website.
metalmolisher666 2 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins is adorable. :)
gabsmanson666 1 month ago
Dennet is not as in your face as hitchens, but with a kindly smile he still, like Hitchens, kicks you powerfully in the bollocks.
atheistdawn 1 month ago 3
i am so glad i am free to be an atheist! freedom and freedom from religion is a wonderful thing.
atheistdawn 1 month ago
Comment removed
slyjokerg 1 month ago
Both God is Not Great and the God Delusion? Wow... WLC would go completely insane if he knew this...
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
80% percent of Earth's population is wasting their most valuable asset.
Rusvi1 2 months ago
It looks like Dan Dennet has modeled his hairstyle after Charles Darwin.
supercrazylegs1 2 months ago
A few eastern religions (some western ones too) try to escape words/explanation to experience god. They don't strive to prove through words etc. Such a god would have different characteristics.
wblakesx 2 months ago
"love" is a word... grammatically: first intention vrs 0th or 2nd intention in mirium oseph's great little book.
"God" churns the intellects of those who find religious pronouncements uncomfortable.
we test/explain things through enteroception... it feels right/faith or logic. These underlie/are the 'ground' upon which we accept ideas/sensations.
wblakesx 2 months ago
Just a question about a famous atheist that turned to a believer. Is there any insight on his decission ...Antony Flew
acyberguy 2 months ago
@ 26:15 Dennett is making a dig at Alvin Plantinga.
Hektor88 2 months ago
The New Atheists constantly attack their secular detractors who say, "Well some people need religion. I am too clever for religion, but I can't expect that from everyone." Dawkins argues that most people can absorb a secular perspective. Well if that is true, then most people in these congregations should presumably be able to absorb sophisticated theology as well.
Keysteeze 2 months ago
@Keysteeze Can you give an example of a "sophisticated religion?"
friendofthefunk 2 months ago
@friendofthefunk Sophisticated religion is what theologians and religious academics practice. It usually is quite different from what they preach to their congregations.
Keysteeze 2 months ago
@Keysteeze "Sophisticated religion..usually is quite different from what they preach to their congregations." Would I always prefer the sophisticated religion to the piety of the good christian folk? The folk stories told to children are wont to outlast the tests of manhood fashions pass.
mendelbot 23 hours ago
I'm one of those people who "dodged a bullet" by not finishing my course toward seminary. Thank god! ;)
quaternio 3 months ago
@quaternio That is great news! I'm very happy to hear this. I hope all goes very well for you!
jgonsalk 3 months ago
I am saddened and distraught at the way my rational and objective comment on Dennets perspective on the Evolution of God was stopped from receiving the publics judgement.
In English - the nerd in me is dying!
You don't want to lower yourself to the level of China, North Korea, Weimar and News Corp!
SleekMinister 3 months ago
His derision of the Evolution of God is completely amiss. If he really has read it, he should know that the author has a scientific mind set and doesn't hold a fanatic, literal or even a hint of an agnostic belief in God.
"The fog" derives from the fact that he's talking about one of the most potent political topics of the last two thousand years and that the study of something that is so much, to so many, must be extremely considerate. The ambition of it demands a truck load of expedience.
SleekMinister 3 months ago
@SleekMinister
In his interview with Bill Moyers, Robert Wright even admitted that the evolution of god is the evolution of a delusion. So in some sense, he is being deliberately obscure. I imagine because it makes it sell better!
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
'Love is just a word'. Is it not the word 'just' that creates a (judgment) boundary which thereof creates a deepity. You can find love in a dictionary as a word, as a concept of bringing knowledge to a future generation and the love you have to read and learn. love itself cant be found without a medium? Is the use of the word love without quotes really a mistake?
Evolutionary Conspiracy is a useful concept for every conspiracy theory, but still leaves possibilities open. Moral: 'Live in the now'
2Draco39 3 months ago
What a load of rubbish.
RogerLucasTango 3 months ago
Comment removed
honeyblossom17 3 months ago
@RogerLucasTango Are you referring to this entire lecture? Can you be specific about what makes it rubbish?
jalen441 3 months ago
@jalen441 I got about halfway, but I'll watch the rest later today. Problem with his argument, six individuals whom he refers to as 'clergy', but then didn't define word the clergy. For example, a 'human being' has inalienable rights, but citizen, person or national are capable of specific and different rights and duties; yet all these words refer to the individual. Thats why I'm saying define it. Also six individuals not big enough scientific sample. Not to mention implication of his arguement.
RogerLucasTango 3 months ago
Comment removed
jalen441 3 months ago
Firstly, he says "preachers" several times, starting around 5:40, and is . There's no need to define "clergy". It's a very specific word with a consistent definition, as a quick google search will demonstrate.
He doesn't claim that it's a scientific experiment, but he clearly states at about 6:34 that he's conducting interviews for a pilot study.
Regarding the implications of his argument: shouldn't you wait until you've seen the whole thing to pass judgment?
jalen441 3 months ago
However, I get the feeling those implications just make you uncomfortable, and it's easier to dismiss his argument as rubbish than to grapple with them in a real and honest way. I could be wrong, but your reaction strikes me as typical of someone who'd rather not confront a troublesome issue, instead grasping at straws to divert attention away from the actual source of his discomfort.
Also, at about 14:30 he refers to the interviewees as ministers, further clarifying the meaning of "clergy".
jalen441 3 months ago
In case of Dennett's example of order without designer he tries to prove accidence of the whole system (universe) by an element within the system (accidental rock formations on earth). If laws of existence (physical, chemical etc) result in random appearances of high order and structure, it doesn't imply that laws themselves are accidental. Universe and everything within it COULD be created by intelligent designer.
nesterboyarka 3 months ago
I really like Dan Dennett. He's incredibly smart (obviously) and extremely likable. I suppose another reason why I really like him is because he has the sort of gentle soul that reminds me of the U.S. History teacher I had my Junior year in high school. The similarities are striking.
livingdeadgrl18 3 months ago
@livingdeadgrl18 even though he believes he has no soul :-)
nesterboyarka 3 months ago
@nesterboyarka (:
livingdeadgrl18 3 months ago
I love this man!
MakaEuan 3 months ago
I don't like Dawkins, but Dennet is undeniably interesting.
SolidSnake3131 4 months ago
Evolution is confusion.
Mutations are not able to order anything. That is the reason evolution does not happen.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 4 months ago
Comment removed
jckbac9 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Incredible. Pass me a font, I want to be baptised immediately.
tommyboomboom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trollforlife lol!!! no one beats Dawkins' prose!
kahluaqueen 4 months ago
@trollforlife lol!!! no one beats Dawkins' prose!
kahluaqueen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
I'm watching this right now as the rest of my family has their stupid bible study. They just started singing songs to Jesus and I'm thinking "I got to get the fuck out here."
trollforlife 4 months ago 124
@trollforlife I admit I find certain religious activities somewhat nauseating (Look up 'Jesus Camp') but I don't hate or resent people who do them, it's their choice. The best thing you can do is respect that, as well as offer logical reasons for how you feel if they ask you. You may get some virtually patronising "Someday you will love God" comment, but getting angry and resentful won't ever help to convince them.
(And not that I think you're appearing angry, it just looks borderline)
SAMagic 4 months ago
@trollforlife they see me trollin, they hatin
jubulalau 4 months ago
@trollforlife I hear you, hard to believe I used to go to church just so I could get stars in my bible and a bag of candy at the end of the service.
srhius 4 months ago
@trollforlife That's hilarious (and ironic). I'm the black sheep in my family, as well. I remember one time I was lying in bed reading "The Necessity of Atheism" by Percy Shelley while my grandmother sat in the kitchen reading her bible.
livingdeadgrl18 3 months ago
@trollforlife They started singing songs to the concept of Jesus* :D
theone0044 1 month ago
@trollforlife lol It happens to all of us, just gotta roll with the punches man.
JayDee98765 1 month ago
@trollforlife this is god im hear acting thru a human to tell u yes get the fuck out of there lol
kingpharaohtsar 2 weeks ago
@trollforlife I can't even imagine how hard it has been to grow up in a family like that. My parents are also quite conservative, but not very religious. Me and my brother are both atheists. And my sister is an idiotic drone/sheep who keeps drinking and partying and does what other people do. I never even speak with her.
tontsa911 2 weeks ago
@trollforlife its ok bro. just because someone is on a different path to fulfillness and enlightenment doesnt make it the wrong path. thats what you say. Dont argue with them, that makes you both ignorant.
edpaone 1 week ago
I want to hear it from you. I have seen all this crap on the net and I find it amazing that anyone is fucking stupid enough to believe it. You are being control and manipulated, wake up and think for your self.
shanecox704 4 months ago
100% of peer-reviewed papers in Iran are pro-Muslim. Does that make Islam true? LOL. You evolutionists and your little white-tower schools are a joke. Wake-up to what is really going on and repent while there is yet time. Don't be such spineless cowards in the war between God and Satan. Start thinking for yourselves for a change and stand like men!
thechessstick 5 months ago
@thechessstick "Start thinking for yourselves for a change and stand like men!"
Your imagined god and his archenemy are the stuff of comic books. Put down your childish simplicity and embrace the wondrous possibilities of the cosmos. Belief takes no thought. Truth needs to be sought after. It doesn't reveal itself easily, and it certainly bears no resemblance to your little god. Of course you can feel free to simply sit there while others do all the work.
Freethinksman 5 months ago 14
@Freethinksman What makes something true? What is truth and how do you know it is truth?
allthingsarelikethis 3 months ago
@thechessstick Well, our choice is to model our life around a book that hasn't been been updated in almost 2,000 years or stick to the book that is still being written. I chose the latter. At least this way I might be able to help write it.
PaGaNM0nK 4 months ago
@PaGaNM0nK Can we have rabbits on the farm, too, George?
thechessstick 4 months ago
@thechessstick
"evolutionist" isn't a word..
Fucking retard....
JesterAzazel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesterAzazel Can we have rabbits on the farm, too, George?
thechessstick 4 months ago
@thechessstick are you joking? or do you actually bellieve what you have written? I would like to ask who is satan, and who are the worshipers of satan?
shanecox704 4 months ago
@shanecox704 Do a google search. Do you know how to do that?
thechessstick 4 months ago
@shanecox704 Satan is Lucifer a fallen Archangel and the worshipers of Satan are Satanists.
thechessstick 4 months ago
@thechessstick isn't thinking anathema to religion?
TheChipmunk2008 4 months ago
@TheChipmunk2008 No. You must be thinking of atheism. Just watch a few A. E. Wilder-Smith videos.
thechessstick 4 months ago
@CartesianTheist Some very good points you've made and I agree largely. I agree that some laws in the OT are situational..but not all. The health laws for example when followed add 10+ years to life even now.The economic laws would solve many problems these days.
Btw, see my channel playlist, creation-evidence for flood, 1st video for a VERY well done new seminar on the major evidence for a global flood.
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Strange, Dennett is always introduced by Dawkins in just about everything I've seen him in on Youtube.
BigLundi 5 months ago
@BigLundi well, we don't see him introduced, but there's one on here that at least has no Dawkins "Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren"
jdirt2019 5 months ago
@BigLundi They are probably lovers.
thechessstick 4 months ago
@CartesianTheist
And I agree with that. If all religious people were more skeptical about their holy books, groups like the Wesboro baptist church and al-quaida would have a great difficulty recriuting people!
alexicoff 5 months ago
@alexicoff There are crazy people who will misuse science, religion, education, politics and other things no matter what. We don't reject science because of Josef Mengele, etc. So, there's no sense in judging Christianity by Westboro, etc. See below post as well. The 10+ years evidence is on my playlist Bible health science. Videos 1-3 are from secular sources confirming it and videos 4-6 are an intro to the actual principles (that the 1st 3 don't explain very much).
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Actually I agree that religion is very often used as a means to safeguard a population that lacks the scientific, and sociological knowledge we have today. While there is a lot of superstition, there are lots of laws that make sense in a primitive society.
This is in fact one of the reasons I don't have a religion!
alexicoff 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist
I agree on this point, however not all religious group give people this degree of flexibility.
A lot of the loud ones in fact take a literal meaning of all their holy books, leading to a lot of intolerance and hate.
alexicoff 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist
haha It seems that I have been misfed a false source on that one.
But regarding OT verses, your response is as expected.
So then can any part of the bible be interpreted freely? Whenever someone finds a part of the Bible that goes against today's moral standards, they claim that it is just misinterpreted.
This freedom to interpret holy texts whichever way is most comfortable is the resounding weakness of all religions in a skeptic's eyes.
alexicoff 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist Mark 6:11 , Jude 5 , Deuteronomy 17:12-13 , Exodus 22:20
Amongst others refute your point that Christianity isn't hostile to nonbelievers.
My original point was that philosophies without a dictator do not fly people into buildings. I hope I've elaborated that sufficiently.
Having a celestial dictator that cannot be question is something that can be found only in religion.
alexicoff 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist
I hope your misrepresentation of my argument is a misunderstanding and not malicious. I said that communism and religion are both philosophies, not that communism is a religion.
Also, I reiterate that the idea of communism doesn't BY DEFINITION aim to annihilate people.
Christianity and Islam BY DEFINITION are set to convert/destroy infidels.
The difference is that Communism needs Stalin to be evil.
Religion just needs its scripture.
alexicoff 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist
A brilliant segue towards my next point.
Yes. Communism is a philosophy. And so is religion.
The difference is that nowhere in the tenets of communism is there eradication of non-believers, unlike the bible/Qu'ran.
The difference is that communism doesn't presuppose an authoritarian figure, whereas religion necessitates one.
All ideologies can be hijacked by dictators.
Only religion has a cosmic dictator built in.
alexicoff 5 months ago
@CartesianTheist
Philosophy doesn't fly you into buildings.
alexicoff 5 months ago
hope that i can get his books on norwegian itunes soon
hpsh68 5 months ago
Theists claim to have an infallible faith in the existence of god and yet they resort to hostility,aggression and at times violence whenever someone makes an attempt to refute their beliefs. Well I am not a psychologist but I know that their aggression stems from insecurity. If they are so convinced about their beliefs then what are they so insecure about?
paganlordrajarshi 5 months ago
@paganlordrajarshi Really? Have you never met or seen a rational, calm theist? Surely you have. Dawkin's has interviewed a few bishops who have been absolutely perfect in terms of courtesy.
It's nasty when it does happen and certainly happens more often online (where, let's face it, discussing the taste of mushrooms can result in cyber violence). Don't tar them all with the same brush. :)
SAMagic 5 months ago
@SAMagic I have had several encounters with perfectly courteous and genial people who adopt a completely different countenance when their beliefs are challenged. I know there are many theists who engage in public discourse to make their point but I was referring to the overwhelming majority. Now that I think of it I do sound a bit prejudiced in my last post and I am sorry if I have offended anyone :)
paganlordrajarshi 5 months ago
@paganlordrajarshi Well said.Indeed, it all comes down to courtesy. If you said "Some theists think this" then that would be valid, but people get offended when they're all grouped together, there are always exceptions.
On the subject of people claiming infallible faith, I'm forever amused by one Christian I met who said "Don't even _try_ to test my faith, I simply won't change at all." I think that says a lot about the systems that religion creates - or people create as a result of believing.
SAMagic 5 months ago
Comment removed
paganlordrajarshi 5 months ago
hmmmm... thats a good way to make a living. Charging people to watch me make fun of religion...
alfredozaher 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
Dan Dennet lays the smack down on String Theory!
YES!!!
St37One 5 months ago
Lets see...almost 85% of the world's population are believers of which approximately two thirds believe in the God of Abraham and all you can come up with is 6 clergy who are non believers. Not exactly what science would consider to be satistically significant. Bit of a stretch Dan.
peipappy1 5 months ago
@peipappy1 Im affaid your comment is a bit of a stretch Pappy. These things start very small. It`s obvious to most of us.
tubingtheworld 5 months ago
@peipappy1 Your logic is flawed. Argumentum ad populum. You're appealing to a statistical majority of the population as if that proves something true; it doesn't. Otherwise things like the toothfairy would actually be true in the world of children. What Dan has done is prove that there are clergy people who are closet atheists. Science is built around evidence and proof, and Dan provided such evidence and proof. If there are 6 found by one man, there are very obviously many more out there.
Falconpiss911 5 months ago 10
@Falconpiss911 "clergy people who are closet atheists" - I believe they are called 'modernists'! ;)
SAMagic 5 months ago
@Falconpiss911 Eat shit, 20 triliion flies can't be wrong ;)
toverkleet 4 months ago
"Purposefully-confusing theology" as explained to you by a philosopher, in an intentionally super-purposefully-confusing manner. Do Atheists understand the term Hypocrisy? He definitely understands "deepity".
cygmx 5 months ago
@cygmx This video will be confusing to anyone that believes in god. otherwise it is very coherent
Matos46 5 months ago
@cygmx Now that would depend on your levels of consciousness and education.
77Totems 5 months ago
@cygmx I didn't find this talk confusing at all.
sexyloser 2 months ago
Bravo Mr Dennett. " Sophism ", I believe, is the word you're looking for.." Deepity "...lol. Going to remember that one.
1isaacmusic 6 months ago
Wow. At the end there he hits on something truly deep (not deepity lol). With most things that happen the understanding only comes through analysis afterward. Think of that in terms of conspiracy theories. Or to put it more simply: oftentimes things just happened that way.
artman2oo3 6 months ago
Philosophers are the reason Dawkins has a concept of logic. Ignorant statement.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
Dennett misinterprets Karen Armstrong, which is kind of what I expected he'd do.
legodesi 6 months ago
@legodesi How so?
By not using quotation marks (i.e., A History of "God": The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Karen makes her book's title a classic use-mention error.
She likes to dance between the existence of God vs. the existence of the concept of God, and regards as extremely vulgar the desire to know which one of those she means. "Willful obscurity" (Dennett's term) is exactly right. She is able to sell books to liberal believers and seekers by being obscure.
ChollieD 6 months ago
@ChollieD In the podcast Karen said that God is no being, if being is a word used to isolate individual existent things from others. Dennett equivocates by taking her to mean something that's contradicted by everything else she says in the podcast.
Not using quotation marks doesn't mean she committed the use-mention error. You may as well say Hitchens who wrote (God is Not Great) committed the use-mention error by not placing God in quotation marks.
legodesi 5 months ago
@legodesi If God is not a being (so defined), then would that imply that God is *not* an indiv existent thing distinct from other things? and if God is not distinct, then God is identical to them. But if God is not a distinct, indiv thing, then there must be some set of (2 or more) things, s, to which God is identical. However, this entails that God is distinct from each indiv member of s, and from every set of things =/= s. So if God isn't a being, then God is a being. So God is a being.
sweenith 5 months ago
@sweenith
You should listen to the podcast. Just google fresh air karen armstrong and you'll find it. It's about the first minute of the interview. If you do listen to it, and listen to her statements in context, perhaps you'll know what she meant. Armstrong, like many other literary figures, uses aphorisms and hyperbolic expressions often. It's confusing - I'm not particularly a fan of her, but that's how she writes.
legodesi 5 months ago
@legodesi Well, I still can't tell if she means to claim that there is a self-aware creator of the universe, or not. All of her double-talk how it depends on what I mean by those words makes me want to confront her and ask if this is a fist. "Well if you mean separate from your five fingers and palm..." WHAM!
Rushdie said that Hitchens's book title was one word too long: "God is Not" would be better.
ChollieD 5 months ago
i love this man with all my mind he says all the things i have tried to say succinctly and with no self righteousness and he astounds and humbles and awes me and i just adore him... he shows me the convergence that the mess of ideology is going towards and i cant wait till critical mass of this knowledge comes to this planet becaseu that will be a wonderfull day... i could cry for joy to hear him speak. though i know that so many will not understand what is gleaned will gorw. all hail!!!
serendipidus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
This lecture is awesome.
Draginvry2 6 months ago
My favourite: 29:45 The canon of good theological spin, no3: "it should relieve skepticism without arousing curiosity."
Naturalist1979 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I deem it better than coming out of 'nothing'.
cannizzarom 6 months ago
He even looks like the darn Darwin. Yup! He did evolve from an ape ... he looks and things like one. Not me, thank God!
cannizzarom 6 months ago
@cannizzarom Came straight from mud, eh? That's MUCH better, isn't it?
GoblinXXX 6 months ago
15:21 makes even the watchers on youtube clap
arcaniondeath666 6 months ago
Drink every time he says "Uh..."
IanBritz 6 months ago
"Hello. As you know I'm Richard Dawkins. Many questioned evolution and it's validity. So I've brough a special guest. Thanks to Lawrence Krauss and his works on time travel we are now able to bring you CHARLES DARWIN!" *everyone claps and cheers*
ahhhhjjjj 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is a douche.
RyanMatthias 6 months ago
@RyanMatthias trollolololol
ThorTheOdinSon 6 months ago
Dennet is very Orwellian. His experiments remind one of nothing so much as those of the Soviets' to determine the etiology of the capitalist mind and so to cure the illness.
ThewildRageofGordon 6 months ago
@ThewildRageofGordon They don't really compare.
Thephyguy 6 months ago
I really like philosophy....and when it comes to it....it allmost seems like a fail to even bother with at this point....so many people are indoctrinated by failed philosophies...and in order for a real philosophy to take place....So much needs to change...and in effect many would have to die once again for the new to take effect....i would like to think that the world would rather be more intelligent this time around and not commit mass genocides to get a new one in effect...Like prior times
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge religion is not philosophy...your definition of philosophy is completely wrong...this whole video is done by dennet, one of the great modern philosphers! Your using the term as people use it in everyday conversation...which again is wrong! Most philosophers are athiests! Type in 'what is philosophy in youtube', theres a nice short video called 'philosophy locic and reason', Or just Fast foward to 35:00. philosophy relies on REASON and rational arguement! WIKI IT!
dvarblo 6 months ago
and so Far...philosophy has failed miserably for world co-operation....and religion is a major philosophy that has created the borders.....
there would be no such thing as countries or states or borders....if we lived in a world that has had any good philosophy....what we been born into is a world driven by HORRIBLE philosophy....and now this is what we see today as the product of what those that cared nothing for the future but only themselves and the present
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
YourUTubeMonitor 6 months ago
Comment removed
YourUTubeMonitor 6 months ago
Comment removed
pateliotes 7 months ago
lol
there is no easter bunny
*boo*
Snerttwin 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins: a certified nut.
Daniel Dennett: a crazy ol' man.
TAXtheAtheist 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist
amazing argument!
xjaskix 7 months ago
@TAXtheAtheist What's your evidence for these statements?
TheColossus1987 6 months ago
@TheColossus1987 They both have constant failed theories that debunk the Bible. They are biggoted. They'd have more crediblity if they went with pure science, vs bias speculative theories.
TAXtheAtheist 6 months ago
I am disappointed in Richard Dawkin's lamentable lack of understanding of Philosophy. Doesn't he realize that 'scientist's' were originally philosophers under the discipline of Natural Philosophy? Such as with Issac Newton's first great work "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)).
TheColossus1987 7 months ago
@TheColossus1987 Isn't what we define as philophers now and how we would define it then different. That's how I always understood that termenology. Perhaps I'm wrong.
TheSultan03 7 months ago
@TheColossus1987 Reductionistic materialism is quite offensive. It's not life, it's biology. It's not biology, it's organic chemistry. It's not organic chemistry, it's physics..........There is no mind, only the brain......etc.
See how soulless this enterprise is becoming? Lawrence Krauss made a similar remark in his "A Universe from nothing" talk. Make no mistake, many scientist (materialist) are quite hostile to philosophy.
Keysteeze 7 months ago
@TheColossus1987 dawkins is a biologist, newton was not a biologist.....explain why a biologist needs philosophy? haha
MadMAn12gauge 7 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge Dawkins is making metaphysical statements, i.e. a responding to the idea of what is 'beyond' the field of biology and the natural world as a whole, such as talking about the existence/non-existence of the supernatural. To make the proposition: "There is no reason to believe in a supernatural existence." is not a topic in biology. Biology = the subject of natural creatures. The very concept of 'belief' or 'believing' is a matter of philosophy (i.e. epistemology).
TheColossus1987 7 months ago
@TheColossus1987 well it is true that that there is no reason to mix fantasy and reality man...i could care less if he says anything about fantasy vs reality...Because it is True that there is a Difference between them, it is pretty easy what is real and what is not real....And yes it is his concern when people are trying to Muscle their stupid bogus fantasy into a science classroom.... a LAck of belief and educating people about reality is not philosophy, it is a fact
MadMAn12gauge 7 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge True. Educating people about reality as a matter of fact (the fields of science) is not a matter of philosophy. People need to distinguish facts from theoretical fictions. Philosophy is simply the concern for the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and knowledge. I just think that Dawkins needs to be better versed in philosophy, rather than presume that science is the only way to analyze reality. Science takes existence for granted, philosophy ponders existence itself.
TheColossus1987 7 months ago
@TheColossus1987 umm, science does not take existance for granted, it infact Appretiates life more than anything, if you dont think so, look at our advancements in astronomy,medical, and ecology, ALONE....And then come back and say science takes life for granted and the well being of life for granted.
MadMAn12gauge 7 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge My use of the phrase 'for granted' was intended to indicate that science doesn't question existence itself. I didn't mean 'for granted' in the sense of it not valuing life. I fully agree with you about our advancements through science. I am not anti-science. Again, my use of 'for granted' was intended to say that science is categorically different from philosophy in how science works within the concern of what goes on in nature, not questioning existence itself (philosophy).
TheColossus1987 6 months ago
@TheColossus1987 my only point is, and is the only reason i never clung to the belief of a god even through baptism, and child indoctrination....i feel the strong effect that tradition holds, it doesnt excuse fantasy vs reality, i loved to read fantasy as a child and i liked many Non-fiction stories, the non-fiction ones scared me the most....religion is very much like tradition, letting go of it is like....understanding that birthdays and memorials actually dont mean anything usefull....
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@TheColossus1987 hold on...science is all about questioning existance mate...i feel bad about being a bit rash...but...we will never know existance if we bend over to failure! many gaints in the past have made progress for us to climb higher! and many had their heads cut off in the name of god and are no more heard of. we live in an age that allows you and i to be able to connect, i hate to be a prick at times but i feel people should allready understand fantasy vs reality, i knew it as a kid
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge I'm simply saying that science doesn't question existence in terms of going beyond what can be empirically accounted for. It accepts existence itself as a 'given'. Science does not draw up questions like 'What is the meaning of existence?' or 'Why does anything exist at all?', or 'How should we live our lives?'. Those kinds of questions are the subject of philosophy. I'm an atheist, and so I agree that fictions should not be mistaken for accountable reality.
TheColossus1987 6 months ago
@TheColossus1987 well yeah...but i rather throw my hat IN with those that can Prove what they claim as fact
and not those that assert bullshit that cant be known. there is no reason to do that....the only reason to assert a religion is for personal or Clan gain vs others....it is conflict driven and desired philosophy to create slaves....philosophy is never very good in general....the only time it is good is when philosophy is able to co-exist with other philosophy for the better well-being
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge philosophy is NOT a stone table where people read off to live their lives...what on earth are you talking about.
dvarblo 6 months ago
@dvarblo hmmm, what the..... i think you responded to the wrong person, and if that is directed at me, i dont know where you assert that i think that, i am pretty much anti-philosophy in general because, as obvious, there hasnt been one that has worked in the history of mankind, perhaps socialism, but everything else out there is complete crap...
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge lol nope! ive got the right person all right. 'socialism' is not 'a' philosophy...your still not getting it are you lol. there is no such thing as 'a philosophy'! that is NOT the definition of philosophy. Let me try...just type in 'what is philosophy' in youtube and go to philosophy, logic and reason...he just basically explains that people like you get the term mixed up...because in everyday language it has a completely different meaning.
dvarblo 6 months ago
@dvarblo perhaps you need to look at a dictionary
"socialism is an economic system and political philosophy" so before you make a statement about something you don't know...perhaps you need to look it up to make sure next time
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@MadMAn12gauge lollll seriously your just as bad as a creationist trying to slate evolution! try clicking on the 'political philosophy' part and do some reading kiddo. Allways understand what your trying to slate, thats my 'philosophy'...by that way thats a joke if you still dont get it. And if you still dont get it, then iam sorry no one can help you.
dvarblo 6 months ago
@TheColossus1987 you might as well be speaking chinese because madman12gauge doesnt understand the meaning of the word 'philosophy'...i tried to point him in the right direction. but yes good comment.
dvarblo 6 months ago
@TheColossus1987 of course he does!! he was only joking when he said that at the beginning...straight after, he says 'and then i remember dan dennett'. Dawkins has great respect for philosophy, even in his documentaries he grants credit to the scientist and philosophers of the 18th century who fought to employ rational thinking in the world! 'from gallieo to david hume' were his exact words...Didnt you watch the first five minutes? he goes to dennet for help him to clarify his arguments.
dvarblo 6 months ago
Of course all Wright would have to do is say that his expression is meant to have a dualistic nature and the use-mention problem disappears.
Keysteeze 7 months ago
Notice at 28:31 the cameraman and media are just concerned about Dan making a silly face to put in their articles and news...
In the end it's not about his messsage or evolution, its about how long you can keep an idiot happy before he drifts back into his world of stupidity.
phattown213 7 months ago