The problem is that the media wants barbed words and controversy, so Dawkins gets the media coverage and ... effectively ... gets more people's attention. Thus he does impact the world quite a bit with his sharp and blunt method of wording. He has broken many free of the shackles of religious nonsense ... and that's a pretty hard thing to do because of the brainwashing.
@DJFLDJFL hahaha, after watching the four horsemen vid, I'm fairly certain Dawkins is a weak drinker, if a drinker at all. I feel like Dawkins would be a depressant of boozing fun. Tyson just seems like he would be down to just have fun around anyone. I like that. He reminds me of Carl Sagan in that way. I'd rather pick Dawkins brain, hence I choose him for coffee :)
The truth of the matter is the more intelligent a person is, the less persuasion they need to see the facts for what they are. By intelligent, I mean pure brain power with or without any education to back it up, and the dumb motherfuckers that need persuasion can go fuck themselves.
This is the reason why I just can't stop listening to these guys (Dawkins, Harris, DeGrasse, Hitchens...). They are feeding my brrraaaaiiiin and I LOVE IT!
I understand his point, but I would point out both him Tyson and Dawkins have different ways of approaching the same problem. Different people are reached different ways. I applaud them both, for their contributions to our understanding of the universe, but also for their picking up Sagan's torch and popularizing science.
@drgnfrc13 "Um... did anyone else notice the 12th suggested video and think "WTF?" Or was it just me?"
I'd say also #11 and 19, "Why Brown Girls like White Guys..." and "Sexy Hot Catwoman is Sexy Hot - Dragon Con 2011." Not that both of these don't look like pure quality... but at least the 12th one, O'Reilly on Hawking, has *something* to do with science (e.g. Hawking).
Mr. Tyson makes a very valid point in my opinion. Even though I agree with basically everything Dawkins says, the sharpness with which he gets his points across can at times be felt as harsh, especially when he rebukes approaches from his theist counterparts, which makes people stand-offish towards him. That doesn't make his points less valid, however, it is probably not the most effective method of delivering his insight to the masses.
Sad part is most people will remember in 50 years, persons like Lady Gaga, The Un humanitarian Steve Jobs, Marck Zuckerberg, etc. And not these fastastic human beings, I just wish so many people could expel this type of knowledge as they expel stupidity.
@SportmanCrew Intellectuals keep these names and great people alive in their teachings, their books and memoirs, not withstanding the ignorance that keeps materialism and condescension apparent. In a society where belief and disbelief can cause the destruction of so much of what the evolution of great minds can provide for us and our future. Oh and remember stupidity can be contagious.... : )
You're totally right, but, the numbers of intellectual are just not increasing, and the increase of materialistic ignorant human beings just seems to be getting higher as the education levels keep lowering. And as you just said people just like being contagiated by stupidity.
@SportmanCrew I don't agree, Sagan is still remembered and only the best bands and artists of that time are, yeah, a lot of scientists fall into the depths of the libraries, but being famous is not their goal, hence they rarely achieve it.
dawkins has always come off like a douche bag to me... even thought i agree with pretty much everything he says. Neil degrasse is totally right on this point.
What's perhaps most amazing--Dr. Tyson self-demonstrates his own argument for the role of an educator by using plain persuasion and praise to color persuasion as a desirable trait without making Dr. Dawkins overly bitter about his current mode.
Dawkins is a master at portraying himself & his intellect as being much higher & greater than he is in "actual" reality. He doesn't fool the true brilliant minds of the science & philosophy community.
@helianimal And yet he seems to have fooled (or at least silenced) Tyson, which is frustrating. Also '"actual" reality,' is a tough concept, made worse by the scare quote--because reality is tenuous and actual is not actual. Richard Feynman was the best at articulating this, but it all comes down to the fact that real science always doubts itself.
Neil Tyson is better than Dawkins, at getting the population to accept science. Dawkins does have the right view in theology, but his method will give theist fire.
Anyone else notice how Dawkins' answer used exactly the same fallacious logic that got him into the how "Elevatorgate" scandal: "there are worse examples, therefore the issue at hand is not worth discussing"?
Dawkins is a child. This is one of Dawkins' own telling him that he lacks tact, compassion, foresight, that his arrogance should maybe concern him a little, and he shrugs it off. He's not concerned about the truth, he just wants to establish his 'dominance' over people that are maybe not so fortunate as he is. And people venerate him. Stuff makes nauseous.
As an arrogant athiest. I like to humilate religous types from even wanting to utter thier nonsense. Then after they are more dosile i pass them off to far more educated people like neil to educate them. Most the time you are not going to change the mind of this kind of a delusion. But you can get them to slow down thier polluting mouth and enforcing less diluted people. Dawkins pushes back religious dogma and protects other athiest to speak with less attack.
@salukialan Language is to communicate. Spelling is just the window dressing on the points. If you are worried on how something looks. You are really missing the point.
@hellasow keep telling yourself that. If you can't spell, people aren't going to take you seriously. And you are missing the point if you think it's trivial.
@salukialan There is rarely an occasion where you can't use a spell check. Even in youtube comments, you can have google crome spell check. Spelling is more to do with memory than intellect. When posting on youtube and twitter or other social media with limited characters. Its informal. (am i dumber now>>>)Nows ifs u wantz to dizmizz logicals argumantz/fakts cuz thay mizpels welle thaut b ur lost. Plz tellz me of ur vitalz pointz of spellin
Tyson is spot on. I'm an atheist, but evangelical, pretentious, judgmental atheists like Dawkins and the millions who parrot him aggravate me and give atheists a bad name. You can't educate through condescension, you have to be mindful and respectful of your audience's beliefs and preconceived notions if you want them to keep an open mind to your message.
Dawnking is right.. An educator doesn't go around telling other peple what to do or how to think. Educators facilate learning with facts and strategies and recomendations etc. If you are interested in science you go read up on it. I did. People are too stupid by the way. Just consider the fact that most people don't read.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is such a shit head. Tyson did such an eloquent job of "peering" him; 'twas difficult, but he made do. And what does Dawkin say in response? Last two words: Fuck off. That pretty much wraps up Dawkins. He's cooked.
@9b8 "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, fuck off." It was meant for the people who refuse science, not for Tyson. Tyson and Dawkins love science.
@albigjino Right. But Tyson clearly had/has issue with Dawkin's unprofessional approach to "science" and felt compelled to call him out on it. That took guts, most people wouldn't bother. It also shows that not all of the high level science people favor Dawkins. I wouldn't doubt Mr. Michio Kiku also finds it distasteful. But, as TV folks say, it sure is good for ratings.
@9b8 Tyson is suggesting Dawkins to soften it up for the ignorant "sensitive" people. He is actually praising Dawkins' professionalism in the beginning.
@albigjino That is a very interesting view point. I especially find the 'ignorant' part interesting. There are in fact many very intelligent people, including scientists in many fields, who are far from ignorant yet don't find Dawkin's behaivor in the science community very helpful to the big picture things, only antagonistic. After all, his best arguments are mere theory (in its infancy, I might add) anyway. There is something to say about humility and respect.
@9b8 Sorry for the word "ignorant", not everybody who doesn't share Hawkins' viewpoint is ignorant. As for evolution, I don't want to start a debate here, but my opinion is that it is helping humanity a lot (ex. understanding virus mutations). I don't condone believing that God created man and everything else, but fighting the idea that evolution does exist is very counterproductive. If somebody says "God created every species, plus evolution", I find not reason to disagree.
@albigjino I couldn't agree more on the evolution part. I think science in general is a wonderful thing so long as it doesn't become taken out of context or abused. And I agree fighting against evolution, or any science, is counter-productive UNLESS there is incredibly strong evidence against it. Some folks laughed in the 30s and 40s at the idea of man walking on the moon. As soon as we become certain about something, the uncertain reveals itself. Arrogant types like Dawkins should take heed.
@9b8 You didn't understand what Dawkins was saying. Dawkins took it really well and admitted that he may not be as sensitive as he should be, but then said, that the editor of New Scientist was even less sensitive than he, Dawkins! He just told everyone to f*** off! At which Tyson can cleary be heard laughing at the punchline. Dawkins actually agreed that Tyson might have a point and then with great humility cracked a really great joke about the whole thing. I wish more people would do that
@aussiesam01 Humility? I don't think so, scooter. I see exactly what is going on as with EVERY appreance made by Dawkins. It is consitently arrogant, abrasive, offensive, repulsive, and snide. He clearly has an agenda, and it is to try to belittle every religion he can have a go at. I don't have ANY repsect for the man over and above his contribution to science. I think he is a cocky, condescending, putrid shit cake with no selfless quality. I read this guy very well.
@9b8 You so obviously don't get it, or read him very well. Where exactly did Tyson clearly "have issue with Dawkin's unprofessional approach to science? He didn't have any issue with Dawkins approach to science, only that his delivery of information might benefit from being a ittle softer.
As for your ideas of Dawkins being arrogant and condecending, your snide reference to me as "scooter" shows how hypocritical you are. Silly namecalling cuts no ice here. Now go and bark at someone else.
@aussiesam01 I called you 'scooter' because you reminded me of a boy pointing out something that he thinks is stupendous that to an elder is insignificant. You could say that it is snide or even condescending. At this point, I don't frankly give a shit; I simply spoke my opinion here. I would have never barked had you not barked by saying "you didn't understand...". Dawkins is as humble as a fart in a tin shit house. His blotchy mug is splattered everwhere as the atheist authority.
@iMrJ0nes No just Neil no matter how smart he is we don't need more arrogant pricks like Dawkins around. Because no one likes or needs arrogant pricks no matter how smart or right they are. The world could always use more badasses like Neil though.
I don'e believe in Tyson's Science but he is right when it comes to Dawkin's approach. He is rude and cannot debate any real creationi theory scientist, as he always gets stumped. He wants you to buy his books he could care less if you find meaning in life.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
Part of me thinks atheism and skepticism needs an unapologetic voice like Dawkins. When I hear him speak though, his tone is very confronting and acerbic at times.
I disagree he seems to want to be extremely meticulous and precise in his word choice so that when he speaks, there is little room for error as one would experience when playing a game of "Telephone."
@ElBarto1193 Thanks for your comment. I mean to say his utterances are the very textbook definition of circumlocution. He could have very simply said "you should also try to persuade people to pay attention to science who otherwise wouldn't have" but instead he dances his hands and talks about some sort of harmonious infolding of persuasion and understanding. Also, Richard Dawkins does go to great lengths to persuade people in taking an interest in science; see every one of his books. Q.E.D.
@RedDaVincy I can see your point. But nonverbal cues help, I do this too. I also talk to people in such a way that they cash in and check out sometimes, but it's because I want to be clear about everything I say, and give specific examples of my points. Simply saying "You should try to do it this way" doesn't explain what my reasons are for such a suggestion, and statements without reasons for suggestions lack a compelling element. Which is his goal in the conversation as is mine right now.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
I think Dawkins response was pretty good, but Neil DeGrass nailed him pretty good-- once they saw this YouTube, our local atheist chapter has a photo of Dawkins with a red-line through it... I'm not surprised. Look up "Atheist Experience Aaron Ra vitriol" and you can see an even better anti-theist smackdown on Matt Dilahunty-- one of the most hateful and dishonest atheists I have ever seen. It's people like Dawkin's that drive religious people away and galvanized... LOL LOL LOL
I think both approaches have a place - it has maybe been useful to have people like Dawkins and Hitchens who pull no punches, who show atheists are not going to be meek any more and religious views should not be given special respect or dominate areas like politics or education or hold up scientific research etc and that people have the right to say so plainly. But now they've helped open up the debate I am glad when I see people take a gentler more understanding approach.
@oliveranthonyrowland You're very right-- it would be wrong if we did not have freedom of speech and religion-- I'm happy we are... what I don't like though are anti-theists who claim they have read the Bible more than Christians-- I know they haven't when they launch off onto the standard attacks against God (killing, supporting slavery, etc...) If they knew what they were doing, there are verses in the New Testament they would know can be used to stifle a fundamentalist. But they don't.
Personally my favourite well-known atheist is Sam Harris; I find him more subtle. However re. the Bible, the NT is definitely better than the OT, but on the other hand there are those verses where Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away. Certainly the early Christians, once they had become a breakaway religion - which I don't think Jesus intended - watered down how much Christians needed to adhere to the Jewish law but Jesus seems to have mostly accepted it
@oliveranthonyrowland A misconception that anti-theist athiests make about what Jesus said and did not say is in lieu of not realizing that the vast majority of his teachings were to Jewish people-- there are plenty of references to gentiles in the NT and Jesus did help one in particular a woman who needed help with her daughter based on her faith. Gentiles are not bound by Moses Law, as maintained in Galations 6. Anti-Christians like Dawkins totally ignore this fact: he is, in fact ignorant.
And yet there are various passages that suggest he saw his mission as first and foremost to the Jews: Mark 7: 27 ( it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs), for example. Or Matthew 10 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
@oliveranthonyrowland So why then Jesus said what He said in Matthew 28:18-20? Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...? Almost every atheist I know (and many, many Christians even) have no idea of the setting of society back then... It's funny: atheists cry foul about God and slavery when, just 150 years ago it was common place. They seem to "know" what slavery was like in the Bible but they don't. Dont' even try answer: you don't know... I can tell. Ignorant.
What did I say that was ignorant? And what makes you an expert on slavery in ancient Israel? Are you saying it was OK? I know nothing about it, though it's true people tend to equate slavery with the worst cruel treatment by some of the owners of slaves in the American plantations, and, depending on what a person's master was like it was not necessarily too bad, for example in ancient Greece and Rome. Even so, someone being someone else's property seems barbaric to us now.
As to Jesus saying to make disciples of all nations, that's what's known as the Great Commission, and it's supposed to have happened after Jesus rose from the dead and before he ascended. Given I don't believe either of those things happened, I think he probably never made that statement either.
one thing though that I do remember about ancient Jewish slavery from the OT is that it says (I think Deuteronomy) that if someone beats their slave and they die, they should not be punished if the slave survives several days before dying. That doesn't sound like they had a lot of rights.
I am persuaded by the argument of the Bible scholar Geza Vermes, that these and other potentially embarrassing sayings (to the Christians) are likely to be true sayings, as otherwise why would they have invented them? As for things like the Great Commission, well you have to believe that the resurrection took place for a start, as it supposedly happened after that. Certainly Christianity once Paul influenced it said Christians were not bound by Mosaic law, but that's another matter.
I do think though that some things the tough-speaking atheists say about some of the more ridiculous aspects of religion needed saying, and that, eg. the God Delusion would have had less impact if it was called The God perfectly fine opinion that I don't happen to agree with; or if God is not Great was called God is fine for those who like that kind of thing, but he's not my cup of tea
Im an atheist, but Dawkings does not speak on my behalf. He represents a hardline of atheists that looks down on everyone else but like-minded. That doesnt build bridges...which is what we need.
@Aramis7 With all due respect being an atheist, to me, takes as much faith as one who believes in God. There are too many deep questions that right now can't be answered. If the Big Bang happened 13.5 billion years ago and nothing existed, no matter, no energy, no time and NO SPACE..no place for you and me to be located, then what caused it? Did life originate on earth or come from outerspace? Why so many rare accidents in the universe to get a star, galaxy, life? I'm agnostic! I'm stuck there.
@boblackey1 Dawkins speaks about a scale of atheism Vs. theism. 1-7 seven being COMPLETELY SURE there is no god, 1 being the opposite.
He states that he is a 6. Being completely definite there is no god is hard to do. Being almost utterly sure of it is not. So a 7 may take some faith, a six is a bit more scientifically intellectually minded.
@wgfcrafty Dawkins is like some others whom I've met on YouTube who reject the idea the Jesus even existed as a human being. He is a bit to harsh on religion for me. Dawkins feels religion is outdated and very bad for society and people who believe in God are whacky. Some I've met on YouTube hate religion and Christianity in particular, they will resort to the name calling you mentioned, call me a damn liar and a fag and that I'm really a Christian(whom they despise), not an agnostic. I'm a 4
@boblackey1 You asked "Why so many rare accidents?", Prof. Lawrence Krauss once answered a similar question with this response (and I'm paraphrasing) "The Universe is huge, and rare things happen all the time; even a universe popping into existence from nothing; in quantum physics nothing always becomes something." I also think Dawkins is harsh on religion because he has been a target of theirs for many years; since he is an evolutionary biologist. I'm sure it's not a fight he asked for.
@gravytrain84 Well Prof. Krauss is absolutely wrong. Complete nothingness is always nothing. For this universe to create itself out of nothing 13.5 billion years ago is a position even a 5 year old kid knows is wrong. That is the line Stephen Hawking is pushing now. The universe created itself out of nothing and was smaller than an atom and suddenly it exploded or inflated into what we have today which is SO BIG that almost nobody can grasp just how big it is. A farytail for adults. It's nuts.
@gravytrain84 Dr. Machio Kaku and Dr. Paul Davies (Davies did his Phd under Fred Hoyle at Cambridge) were on the same show on the science channel and BOTH said that Stephen Hawking has gone too far. Both men said they believe a God must exist. Kaku said he believes in the God of Albert Einstein and if he ask Hawking who or how did the laws of physics come to be, Stephen would have to answer "I don't know". Davies has a book "God and the New Physics" which lays out his position.
@gravytrain84 And I invite you to go to wwwdotwikipediadotorg and type in "Fred Hoyle" and read Hoyle's quote just a little ways down the page when Hoyle's goundbreaking work on how carbon is formed inside stars is discussed and Hoyle admits "there are no lucky accidents in the universe worth mentioning. It is as if some super intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics". Hoyle, who with his student Chandra Wickramasighe, Phd promotes life originating from outerspace, is closer to the truth!
@gravytrain84 This notion that the universe created itself out of nothing at the point of the big bang, and remember, according to Stephen Hawking, before the big bang it was absolutely NOTHING!! not even any space or room for you and I to be located, is a very illogical and lame attempt by atheists to avoid God having anything to do with creation and yet have a moment of creation from nothing 13.5 billion years ago. It is possible the big bang never happened, the universe is eternal & no God!
@boblackey1 A lame attempt by atheists to avoid God? At the worst, it's simply a wrong hypothesis. We have zero evidence for the existence of any god, so there are no attempts by physicists to avoid one.
The universe is eternal - you really are a disciple of Fred Hoyle's, aren't you? Steady state theory! :-) Roger Penrose as a new book out you might like, "Cycles of Time" which has a loop with no beginning or end. Evidence came in after publishing that confirmed something he predicts in it.
@gravytrain84 Here on YouTube is a six part video called "the big bang never happened" and we meet a small minority of scientists who reject the big bang and hold the universe was never created and has always existed. A notion Carl Sagan liked but couldn't accept due to big bang evidence. But these scientists such as Mr. and Mrs. Burbdige, Fred Hoyle, Arp, Gold, etc have alternative answers, some of which they think are better, for the big bang evidence including the background radition.
@boblackey1 I checked out the videos you recommended. I must say, the concepts they talked about were very interesting (namely Arp's observation of the quasar red shift). Although i'm not completely convinced by what was said, I will keep an open mind to any evidence presented in favor of that argument. I just think that the evidence of a Big Bang is too overwhelming. I also can't wait to see what the Large Hadron Collider reveals about the birth/existence of the Universe.
@gravytrain84 Yeah I agree that these minority scientists such as the two Burbdiges, Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Herman Bondi, Harold Arp, Chander Wickramasighe are probably wrong and no doubt the vast majority of scientists disagree with them and fully support the big bang. But I'm but 80% sure the big bang happened just as I'm not sure about the origin of life. See "Are We the Aliens" here on YouTube. Chander Wickramasighe, Phd, is interviewed about life from space. But others say no.
@gravytrain84 Now Hawking, Klauss and others who tell us the universe created itself out of nothing are just being silly to me. And I fully agree with Kaku, Davies and others that is going too far. And probably they are doing this due to a zeal to have creation 13.5 billions years ago and at the sametime, sidestep the possibility God did it and continue to be an athiest rather than an agnostic which makes way more scense to me than being an atheist. Frankly I really doubt there are any atheists.
@boblackey1 I see where you're going with this. You seem to be taking this down the 'religious' road and I have no interest in doing that. I agree that no one can say for sure either way that a god exists or not; which is the position of agnosticism. However, there is absolutely no evidence for such an entity; which is why many people choose to define themselves as atheists. And I'll leave it at that.
@gravytrain84 No religious road for me. Sometimes I wish I could pratice a religion and receive the peace and meaning of life that many tell me that get from their religion. I was raised in a particular religion but as early as a 12 year old, I was agnostic about what I was hearing. I do not agree that there is no evidence for such a entity. Indeed, I see lots of evidence for God in my reading of science and so do certain scientists. But it's possible that evidence may not indicate God afterall.
@gravytrain84 I've run across some scientists who are Christians or praticing Jews ( I know of one physics professor who is serious about his Judaism) Huge Ross, Phd (Astronomy) is one who is a devout Christian, has a website called Reasons to Believe which presents evidence from science for God's existence. But scientists such as Einstein, Kaku, Hoyle, Davies etc who believe in God and see God's creative power in the universe still REJECT the religions of the world as myths.
@gravytrain84 I read and study what scientists and well known so-called atheists write and say and lately I've listened to Dawkins a lot and on a 1 to 7 scale, his rejection of God is a 6. So actually his is fibbing. He's really an agnostic who is almost an atheist which is where I think most atheists really are sitting. I don't think there are really many 100% atheists. I listen to scientists who think God exists but the religions are myth and I listen to Dr. Craig(Christian) argue that...
@boblackey1 i think you are very misguided on the definitions of atheist and agnostic. A-theism = without BELIEF. A-Gnostic = without KNOWLEDGE. It is VERY possible to be both agnostic and atheist in fast most atheists are agnostic. And when we separate KNOWLEDGE from BELIEF you will realise that even religious people are agnostic because nobody has proved the existence of god. So no God does not have to exist.
@atonement19 That is what I've been saying. There are NO real atheists except for some fools that are around. Dawkins is but CLOSE to being an atheist. In his interview with Ben Stein, Stein ask him how certain he is that God does not exist. Dawkins said on a scale of 1 to 7 he is a 6. So Dawkins is actually an agnostic but just barely. When Stein ask him how life formed, Dawkins said he didn't know. How did the universe come about? he didn't know. Dawkins doesn't know the answers I want.
@boblackey1 An atheist is someone who hasn't seen convincing evidence for the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who says we can't know the answer to that question. Dawkins is clearly an atheist (also, there are more atheists than "some fools"). Ever the scientist, Dawkins is not stating its impossible that some piece of evidence comes forward tomorrow that shows there is a God. What he is stating is that no evidence has come forward yet for anyone to believe such a thing.
@duncreg Well that is not true. May I direct you to Fred Hoyle's Wikipedia page. Just a ways down Hoyle talks about why he switched to believing in a god due to SCIENTIFIC evidence. Also a Christian (not me I'm agnostic) recently directed me to Reasons To Believe. A website from Huge Ross, Phd (Astronomy) and it is loaded with scientific reasons according to this astronomer (I admit Ross is a devout Christian so may be a bit bias) says is hard core evidence for God.
@boblackey1 you are referring to agnosticism as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. i am telling you it is not. when dawkins says he is 6 he is talking about how agnostic he is. but he is STILL an atheist. it is possible to be both. Please watch this video to clarify: watch?v=cznCzPeksS0. Also, Dawkins does not know because as he has said he is a BIOLOGIST, the job of how the world came to exist is something PHYSICISTS study.
@atonement19 Ben Stein ask Dawkins HOW LIFE BEGAN!! Isn't that a good question for a biologists? And Dawkins, just like everybody else, doesn't KNOW!! Dawkins even told Stein about the panspermia idea of Fred Hoyle's where life was created by an intelligence in outerspace and rode to earth on a comet. Chandra Wickramisghe, Phd, director of the dept of astrobiology at Cardiff U. supports the same idea. Life came from SPACE. Also NOBODY knows how the universe began! It would be front page news!!
@boblackey1 How LIFE began IS something Dawkins knows. How the UNIVERSE began is not. Please state your terms clearly, those are two distinct things. I don't understand why you then go on to talk about panspermia and the others. Life did not come from space....life came from single celled plasma millions of years ago. I think you are being disingenuous with the questions you are asking trying to find faults when they are not there.
@atonement19 Dr.Wickramisghe was on TV last night, on the History channel, promoting his view with other Phd guys that life, dieases, bacteria, viruses etc all come from outerspace. The program was very compelling. When Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe first proposed this in the 1970's, they were laughed at. Now many Phd level scientists either agree or say it is possible H&W were right! Life came to earth from outerspace. Not the earth. Hoyle & Wickramisghe's book "Evolution From Space"!
Well atonement19. See the YouTube video "richard dawkins ben stein". Sorry but Dawkins does NOT know how life began either. As a matter of fact neither do YOU!! Nobody knows. Dawkins tells Stein that we simply do not know how life began and Dawkins actually mentions the theory of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe that life came from outspace and was created by an intelligence. More and more data is beginning to show that life DID NOT begin on the earth but is COSMIS in scale and is from space
@gravytrain84 God must and has to exist in his debates with famous athiests such as Klauss, Zindler, Carrier, Hitchens, Flew and dozens of other atheists Craig has debated and most are on YouTube. Craig even defends Christianity being true. I hear things in all these presentations that are interesting and carry weight with me, yet I'm NEVER fully convinced by any of them;be it an atheist, deitist or religious holder of a Phd. So for 40 years I've been an agnostic and see no change coming:-(
@gravytrain84 Overwhelming evidence? You might want to search the net for the paper by Dr. Tom Von Flandern, "The Top 30 Problems With the Big Bang". The sad truth of the BB theory is that none of its predictions have ever been confirmed when tested, and now we're up to creating entities like "dark energy" and "dark matter" to attempt to reconcile observation with theory. It's like Ptolemy's Epicycles. The Big Bang really needs to be let go and other models explored.
@boblackey1 Religion doesn't answer these questions either... well, for some it simply makes up answers, but that's not the same thing. Atheism doesn't NEED to answer questions like where everything came from. Atheism simply finds the evidence for a god unconvincing. You're using the Fallacy Of False Alternatives, suggesting that if science doesn't have an immediate answer, than Goddunnit is the only alternative.
@boblackey1 "With all due respect being an atheist, to me, takes as much faith as one who believes in God. " seriously? does it take faith to believe unicorns don't exist? does it take faith to believe ghosts don't exist? Why would someone need faith to believe in a negative assertion?
@atonement19 You are putting apples against oranges!! Ghosts and unicorns have NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe. What caused the big bang? Who caculated the laws of physics? Why is the universe tuned just right for stars to form, for galaxies to form? Why is it so unlikely for carbon to form in the universe? (See Fred Hoyle's Wikipedia page. Hoyle is the man who discovered how carbon forms) How did life form? Hoyle's student Dr. Wickramisghe was on TV last night...
@boblackey1 I dont see why it takes as much faith for you. Evidence for God so far = 0. Scientifc discoveries about how the natural world operates = millions. The fact that we dont know now, doesnt mean that we will never know.
@Aramis7 Dawkins recognizes the difficulty in uniting atheists. We are the largest belief system after Christians in America. We are viewed worse then child molesters; the bible does command people to stone us to death.
Unfortunately uniting atheists is notoriously hard. I believe Dawkins compared it to herding cats.
I think it's mostly because most atheists are not Anti-Religion, we're just indifferent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolution is a cult. It is not part of science. Evolution is a lie. Evolution is a false religion disguised as a topic in school. It should be abolished. Evolution is forced on children. That is why these children are zombies and full of hate. Evolution does not teach morals or values. It teaches that those who believe in the loving God are to be cursed and ridiculed. It teaches violence and hate. Evolution need to be abolished in the school curriculum NOW!!!!!
@hibiscusfire There wasn't a shred of truth in your comment, simply ignorant hate for evolution and I pity people like you. Instead of arguing some of it's weaknesses, which there are you attack it with flat out lies. You're a sad, sad human being and I revel in the fact that the plague that is your stupidity will hinder you from ever achieving a position where your ignorance could do serious damage.
@hibiscusfire This isn't a religious topic, this is a matter of science. Your ignorance is inexcusable here because you chose to speak on this subject. Either back up your claims with respectable material or admit that you're flaunting opinion as fact. I don't expect you to be capable of doing so, you're oh so typically deluded and moronic.
@clgrnt The Word of God and the Way of God and the Teaching of God is not delusions. All good things,all creation began from God. It was perfect from the beginning and what you see is how man ruined things over the centuries by the selfish ways and doing things the way they want. You don't even know how much was done by mere man through time that has been destroyed so it could not be duplicated. God eradicated the memory of such abominations from the face of the Earth.
@Skyheartstar777 More assertions of knowledge with nothing to back it up, spread your religious propaganda amongst other simpletons who are feeble minded enough to give you the time.
@clgrnt People who take away from God Our Heavenly Father as the Creator of the Universe are doing wrong, not anyone else.God is the Scientist,The Architect,The Engineer of this Universe.This is who it all came from first.Everyone else pieces together facts and have knowledge that they gained through their intelligence and aptitude to study these things to fit their pagan beliefs because they don't have any other reason for Creation.
Tyson > Dawkins
AMilitantAgnostic 2 days ago
The problem is that the media wants barbed words and controversy, so Dawkins gets the media coverage and ... effectively ... gets more people's attention. Thus he does impact the world quite a bit with his sharp and blunt method of wording. He has broken many free of the shackles of religious nonsense ... and that's a pretty hard thing to do because of the brainwashing.
KittenKoder 3 days ago
Awesome men talking.
Baywarish 1 week ago
I'd like to grab coffee with Dawkins, but I'd like to grab several beers with Tyson.
LOL4Polio 1 week ago 7
@LOL4Polio Wow man, opposite for me. Beers with Dawkins and watch the show, coffee with Tyson and just take in the smoooooooooooth...
DJFLDJFL 4 days ago
@DJFLDJFL hahaha, after watching the four horsemen vid, I'm fairly certain Dawkins is a weak drinker, if a drinker at all. I feel like Dawkins would be a depressant of boozing fun. Tyson just seems like he would be down to just have fun around anyone. I like that. He reminds me of Carl Sagan in that way. I'd rather pick Dawkins brain, hence I choose him for coffee :)
LOL4Polio 4 days ago
The truth of the matter is the more intelligent a person is, the less persuasion they need to see the facts for what they are. By intelligent, I mean pure brain power with or without any education to back it up, and the dumb motherfuckers that need persuasion can go fuck themselves.
sinanyazdia 1 week ago
i love these people. I feel much better knowing the world has these guys with us.
drasteek 1 week ago
This is the reason why I just can't stop listening to these guys (Dawkins, Harris, DeGrasse, Hitchens...). They are feeding my brrraaaaiiiin and I LOVE IT!
ExtrackterYT 2 weeks ago 6
I understand his point, but I would point out both him Tyson and Dawkins have different ways of approaching the same problem. Different people are reached different ways. I applaud them both, for their contributions to our understanding of the universe, but also for their picking up Sagan's torch and popularizing science.
ProblemHonorStudent 2 weeks ago
Holy shit that was beautiful!
4trahasis 2 weeks ago
Um... did anyone else notice the 12th suggested video and think "WTF?" Or was it just me?
drgnfrc13 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drgnfrc13 "Um... did anyone else notice the 12th suggested video and think "WTF?" Or was it just me?"
I'd say also #11 and 19, "Why Brown Girls like White Guys..." and "Sexy Hot Catwoman is Sexy Hot - Dragon Con 2011." Not that both of these don't look like pure quality... but at least the 12th one, O'Reilly on Hawking, has *something* to do with science (e.g. Hawking).
4trahasis 2 weeks ago
Hawkins is actually pretty damn patient and gentle most of the time. I wonder what DeGrasse Tyson might have said to Hitchens.
Xanxei1 2 weeks ago
My choice for President NDT. And Richard Dawkins for VP. I realize RD was not born in the US, but we could make an exception in his case:}
rejectorphanageX 2 weeks ago
At a Richard Dawkins lecture I attended he also related another classic quote he heard someone say (actaully 'saw' as he saw it on a T-Shirt):
'Science
WORKS
Bitches!'
LOL!
sitemountain 2 weeks ago
Science is interesting, if you dont agree, you can fuck off.
daspense 2 weeks ago 9
Blah. I hold those committed to seeking truth don't need emotional coddling.
recalibration 2 weeks ago
Mr. Tyson makes a very valid point in my opinion. Even though I agree with basically everything Dawkins says, the sharpness with which he gets his points across can at times be felt as harsh, especially when he rebukes approaches from his theist counterparts, which makes people stand-offish towards him. That doesn't make his points less valid, however, it is probably not the most effective method of delivering his insight to the masses.
Luitpold2010 2 weeks ago
Sad part is most people will remember in 50 years, persons like Lady Gaga, The Un humanitarian Steve Jobs, Marck Zuckerberg, etc. And not these fastastic human beings, I just wish so many people could expel this type of knowledge as they expel stupidity.
SportmanCrew 2 weeks ago
@SportmanCrew Intellectuals keep these names and great people alive in their teachings, their books and memoirs, not withstanding the ignorance that keeps materialism and condescension apparent. In a society where belief and disbelief can cause the destruction of so much of what the evolution of great minds can provide for us and our future. Oh and remember stupidity can be contagious.... : )
TheKnives777 2 weeks ago
@TheKnives777
You're totally right, but, the numbers of intellectual are just not increasing, and the increase of materialistic ignorant human beings just seems to be getting higher as the education levels keep lowering. And as you just said people just like being contagiated by stupidity.
SportmanCrew 2 weeks ago
@SportmanCrew I don't agree, Sagan is still remembered and only the best bands and artists of that time are, yeah, a lot of scientists fall into the depths of the libraries, but being famous is not their goal, hence they rarely achieve it.
nachoijp 1 week ago
Neil, its easier said then done.
pallfy20 2 weeks ago
dawkins has always come off like a douche bag to me... even thought i agree with pretty much everything he says. Neil degrasse is totally right on this point.
urwholefamilydied 3 weeks ago
What's perhaps most amazing--Dr. Tyson self-demonstrates his own argument for the role of an educator by using plain persuasion and praise to color persuasion as a desirable trait without making Dr. Dawkins overly bitter about his current mode.
Mahaveez 3 weeks ago
Well.. that explains a whooole lot about Mr.Tysson.
Yamagatabr 3 weeks ago
facts + sensitivity = impact.
well put, doc.
dme257 3 weeks ago 21
I love that a few people on here support Dawkins, more Tyson, and even more scientific method. Science doesn't need Dawkins; Dawkins needs science.
LeonSpinx1 3 weeks ago
Dawkins is a master at portraying himself & his intellect as being much higher & greater than he is in "actual" reality. He doesn't fool the true brilliant minds of the science & philosophy community.
helianimal 4 weeks ago
@helianimal Thank you! science and philosophy ftw!
ElBarto1193 3 weeks ago
@helianimal And yet he seems to have fooled (or at least silenced) Tyson, which is frustrating. Also '"actual" reality,' is a tough concept, made worse by the scare quote--because reality is tenuous and actual is not actual. Richard Feynman was the best at articulating this, but it all comes down to the fact that real science always doubts itself.
LeonSpinx1 3 weeks ago
Neil Tyson is better than Dawkins, at getting the population to accept science. Dawkins does have the right view in theology, but his method will give theist fire.
KevZen2000 4 weeks ago
Anyone else notice how Dawkins' answer used exactly the same fallacious logic that got him into the how "Elevatorgate" scandal: "there are worse examples, therefore the issue at hand is not worth discussing"?
Evasive and cowardly.
Birdieupon 4 weeks ago 3
@Birdieupon He said, in a humorous and self-deprecating manner, that he accepted the "rebuke." He wasn't being evasive or cowardly.
DantehMan 4 weeks ago
@Birdieupon Are you positive it was Dawkins?
dvnbrennan1 3 weeks ago
God Dawkins is such a dipshit!!!! his reply isn't even relevant.
kthcsh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins is a child. This is one of Dawkins' own telling him that he lacks tact, compassion, foresight, that his arrogance should maybe concern him a little, and he shrugs it off. He's not concerned about the truth, he just wants to establish his 'dominance' over people that are maybe not so fortunate as he is. And people venerate him. Stuff makes nauseous.
Pythagoras211 1 month ago in playlist Dawkins and Hitchens and Tyson
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” R. Dawkins
Beadwindow2020 1 month ago
I agree more with dwankins. If you one has the willingness to learn, one will learn.
numerrita 1 month ago
These are the people we need running... well.. EVERYTHING
cfezuwm 1 month ago
I wish the political environment was like that
Aldridge517 2 months ago 67
@Aldridge517 YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
scallywag1312 19 hours ago
Poor deGrasse. He mistook Dawkins for someone who actually cares about educating others. F--- off, indeed.
lpadron13 2 months ago
As an arrogant athiest. I like to humilate religous types from even wanting to utter thier nonsense. Then after they are more dosile i pass them off to far more educated people like neil to educate them. Most the time you are not going to change the mind of this kind of a delusion. But you can get them to slow down thier polluting mouth and enforcing less diluted people. Dawkins pushes back religious dogma and protects other athiest to speak with less attack.
hellasow 2 months ago
@hellasow you might want to learn to spell then.
salukialan 2 months ago
@salukialan Language is to communicate. Spelling is just the window dressing on the points. If you are worried on how something looks. You are really missing the point.
hellasow 2 months ago
@hellasow keep telling yourself that. If you can't spell, people aren't going to take you seriously. And you are missing the point if you think it's trivial.
salukialan 2 months ago
@salukialan There is rarely an occasion where you can't use a spell check. Even in youtube comments, you can have google crome spell check. Spelling is more to do with memory than intellect. When posting on youtube and twitter or other social media with limited characters. Its informal. (am i dumber now>>>)Nows ifs u wantz to dizmizz logicals argumantz/fakts cuz thay mizpels welle thaut b ur lost. Plz tellz me of ur vitalz pointz of spellin
hellasow 2 months ago
@hellasow LOL!!! The more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to overestimate your abilities.
damntull 1 month ago
i like the way he says F**K off
raazs35 2 months ago
Dawkins accepted that very gracefully. I wonder what Tyson would have to say about the methods and delivery of Christopher Hitchens, lol.
tra1215 2 months ago
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: true badass. everyone better watch out
bigjavo36 2 months ago
Tyson is spot on. I'm an atheist, but evangelical, pretentious, judgmental atheists like Dawkins and the millions who parrot him aggravate me and give atheists a bad name. You can't educate through condescension, you have to be mindful and respectful of your audience's beliefs and preconceived notions if you want them to keep an open mind to your message.
inb4frostedbutts 2 months ago
@inb4frostedbutts
I've always hated (some) atheists for this reason. It's the arrogant snarky and even hostile attitude that makes atheism a religion of it's own.
Complain about human ignorance. Don't do anything to fix it.
shoplifting1is1fun 2 months ago
@inb4frostedbutts you are really off base. The idea that you have to respect someone's religious beliefs is absolutely ludicrous.
salukialan 2 months ago
Dawnking is right.. An educator doesn't go around telling other peple what to do or how to think. Educators facilate learning with facts and strategies and recomendations etc. If you are interested in science you go read up on it. I did. People are too stupid by the way. Just consider the fact that most people don't read.
numerrita 2 months ago
If you want to help raise the consciousness of people, start with yourself.
allrightguy89 2 months ago
This was funnier than anything that was trying to be funny, that I've seen, in awhile.
HoboStrangler 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is such a shit head. Tyson did such an eloquent job of "peering" him; 'twas difficult, but he made do. And what does Dawkin say in response? Last two words: Fuck off. That pretty much wraps up Dawkins. He's cooked.
9b8 3 months ago
@9b8 "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, fuck off." It was meant for the people who refuse science, not for Tyson. Tyson and Dawkins love science.
albigjino 2 months ago
@albigjino Right. But Tyson clearly had/has issue with Dawkin's unprofessional approach to "science" and felt compelled to call him out on it. That took guts, most people wouldn't bother. It also shows that not all of the high level science people favor Dawkins. I wouldn't doubt Mr. Michio Kiku also finds it distasteful. But, as TV folks say, it sure is good for ratings.
9b8 2 months ago
@9b8 Tyson is suggesting Dawkins to soften it up for the ignorant "sensitive" people. He is actually praising Dawkins' professionalism in the beginning.
albigjino 2 months ago
@albigjino That is a very interesting view point. I especially find the 'ignorant' part interesting. There are in fact many very intelligent people, including scientists in many fields, who are far from ignorant yet don't find Dawkin's behaivor in the science community very helpful to the big picture things, only antagonistic. After all, his best arguments are mere theory (in its infancy, I might add) anyway. There is something to say about humility and respect.
9b8 2 months ago
@9b8 Sorry for the word "ignorant", not everybody who doesn't share Hawkins' viewpoint is ignorant. As for evolution, I don't want to start a debate here, but my opinion is that it is helping humanity a lot (ex. understanding virus mutations). I don't condone believing that God created man and everything else, but fighting the idea that evolution does exist is very counterproductive. If somebody says "God created every species, plus evolution", I find not reason to disagree.
albigjino 2 months ago
@albigjino I couldn't agree more on the evolution part. I think science in general is a wonderful thing so long as it doesn't become taken out of context or abused. And I agree fighting against evolution, or any science, is counter-productive UNLESS there is incredibly strong evidence against it. Some folks laughed in the 30s and 40s at the idea of man walking on the moon. As soon as we become certain about something, the uncertain reveals itself. Arrogant types like Dawkins should take heed.
9b8 2 months ago
@9b8 You didn't understand what Dawkins was saying. Dawkins took it really well and admitted that he may not be as sensitive as he should be, but then said, that the editor of New Scientist was even less sensitive than he, Dawkins! He just told everyone to f*** off! At which Tyson can cleary be heard laughing at the punchline. Dawkins actually agreed that Tyson might have a point and then with great humility cracked a really great joke about the whole thing. I wish more people would do that
aussiesam01 2 months ago
@aussiesam01 Humility? I don't think so, scooter. I see exactly what is going on as with EVERY appreance made by Dawkins. It is consitently arrogant, abrasive, offensive, repulsive, and snide. He clearly has an agenda, and it is to try to belittle every religion he can have a go at. I don't have ANY repsect for the man over and above his contribution to science. I think he is a cocky, condescending, putrid shit cake with no selfless quality. I read this guy very well.
9b8 2 months ago
@9b8 You so obviously don't get it, or read him very well. Where exactly did Tyson clearly "have issue with Dawkin's unprofessional approach to science? He didn't have any issue with Dawkins approach to science, only that his delivery of information might benefit from being a ittle softer.
As for your ideas of Dawkins being arrogant and condecending, your snide reference to me as "scooter" shows how hypocritical you are. Silly namecalling cuts no ice here. Now go and bark at someone else.
aussiesam01 2 months ago
@aussiesam01 I called you 'scooter' because you reminded me of a boy pointing out something that he thinks is stupendous that to an elder is insignificant. You could say that it is snide or even condescending. At this point, I don't frankly give a shit; I simply spoke my opinion here. I would have never barked had you not barked by saying "you didn't understand...". Dawkins is as humble as a fart in a tin shit house. His blotchy mug is splattered everwhere as the atheist authority.
9b8 2 months ago
@9b8 My final comment to you..........f*** off and bark at another car sonny
aussiesam01 2 months ago
Neil degrasse Tyson: Yo dawg, u be an asshole sometimes what up?
Richard Dawkins: AYUP. my bad?
nborges1 3 months ago 7
Where is the rest of this debate?
lewisner 3 months ago
Neil and Richard need to have a couple hundred kids each so that this species has a chance of making it out of this century.
iMrJ0nes 3 months ago 179
@iMrJ0nes At least in the US, you won´t survive for long the way ur going, the rest of the civilized world is laughing at you.
Such an unfair and horrible place to live, but most don´t seem to realize it.
RagdollRalph 2 months ago
@iMrJ0nes No just Neil no matter how smart he is we don't need more arrogant pricks like Dawkins around. Because no one likes or needs arrogant pricks no matter how smart or right they are. The world could always use more badasses like Neil though.
bigjavo36 2 months ago
@iMrJ0nes Neil and Richard Are influencing millions and hopefully a few hundred of those kids become somewhat like Neil and Richard.
hellasow 2 months ago
@iMrJ0nes Two guys making babies together, (400 at that!), I want to see that show on Jerry Springer!
kdc43 1 month ago
@iMrJ0nes yeah they should have a license to impregnate women of all races
3732334 1 month ago
@iMrJ0nes Too bad they can't mate. ;)
RottenRroses 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don'e believe in Tyson's Science but he is right when it comes to Dawkin's approach. He is rude and cannot debate any real creationi theory scientist, as he always gets stumped. He wants you to buy his books he could care less if you find meaning in life.
giovanone 3 months ago
Comment removed
giovanone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil deGrasse Tyson - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS YOU ENDLESSLY."
TheLogicalBrain 4 months ago
Part of me thinks atheism and skepticism needs an unapologetic voice like Dawkins. When I hear him speak though, his tone is very confronting and acerbic at times.
kamikrazi123 4 months ago 3
It's funny because I just watched a video in which Neil Degrasse Tyson completely rags on intelligent design.
voracious32 4 months ago
@voracious32 You don't have to disagree with one's point to disagree with his methods.
verg77 3 months ago
Tyson just doesn't know how to string together a sentence in English, and it's an affront to civilization that he shares a room with Dawkins.
RedDaVincy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RedDaVincy What the fuck are you talking about this guy is a genius!
DesiDito 4 months ago
@RedDaVincy
I disagree he seems to want to be extremely meticulous and precise in his word choice so that when he speaks, there is little room for error as one would experience when playing a game of "Telephone."
ElBarto1193 4 months ago
@ElBarto1193 Thanks for your comment. I mean to say his utterances are the very textbook definition of circumlocution. He could have very simply said "you should also try to persuade people to pay attention to science who otherwise wouldn't have" but instead he dances his hands and talks about some sort of harmonious infolding of persuasion and understanding. Also, Richard Dawkins does go to great lengths to persuade people in taking an interest in science; see every one of his books. Q.E.D.
RedDaVincy 4 months ago
@RedDaVincy I can see your point. But nonverbal cues help, I do this too. I also talk to people in such a way that they cash in and check out sometimes, but it's because I want to be clear about everything I say, and give specific examples of my points. Simply saying "You should try to do it this way" doesn't explain what my reasons are for such a suggestion, and statements without reasons for suggestions lack a compelling element. Which is his goal in the conversation as is mine right now.
ElBarto1193 4 months ago
Comment removed
SticktightFly 4 months ago
I think Neil's point was excellent, and Dawkin's response "well, other people are bigger jerks than me, so it's ok" was something of a cop out.
jlc46 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Step Right Up Ladies and Gentlemen to Evolution, The Greatest Show On Earth!
1913 - Piltdown Man, he is your ancestor and is the "missing link" that satisfied "irrefutable evidence".....
1953 - whoops, he's a planted HOAX......
1913 - 2011, No legitimate "missing link" just a series of diabolical frauds....
2011 - The Show Must Go On, Bring In the lying Hounds & Clowns, claiming to be scientists......
waketheoblivious 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interestingly enough, they are both right.
khoops66 5 months ago
I think Dawkins response was pretty good, but Neil DeGrass nailed him pretty good-- once they saw this YouTube, our local atheist chapter has a photo of Dawkins with a red-line through it... I'm not surprised. Look up "Atheist Experience Aaron Ra vitriol" and you can see an even better anti-theist smackdown on Matt Dilahunty-- one of the most hateful and dishonest atheists I have ever seen. It's people like Dawkin's that drive religious people away and galvanized... LOL LOL LOL
amberwhite122589 5 months ago
@amberwhite122589
I think both approaches have a place - it has maybe been useful to have people like Dawkins and Hitchens who pull no punches, who show atheists are not going to be meek any more and religious views should not be given special respect or dominate areas like politics or education or hold up scientific research etc and that people have the right to say so plainly. But now they've helped open up the debate I am glad when I see people take a gentler more understanding approach.
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
@oliveranthonyrowland You're very right-- it would be wrong if we did not have freedom of speech and religion-- I'm happy we are... what I don't like though are anti-theists who claim they have read the Bible more than Christians-- I know they haven't when they launch off onto the standard attacks against God (killing, supporting slavery, etc...) If they knew what they were doing, there are verses in the New Testament they would know can be used to stifle a fundamentalist. But they don't.
amberwhite122589 4 months ago
@amberwhite122589
Personally my favourite well-known atheist is Sam Harris; I find him more subtle. However re. the Bible, the NT is definitely better than the OT, but on the other hand there are those verses where Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away. Certainly the early Christians, once they had become a breakaway religion - which I don't think Jesus intended - watered down how much Christians needed to adhere to the Jewish law but Jesus seems to have mostly accepted it
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
@oliveranthonyrowland A misconception that anti-theist athiests make about what Jesus said and did not say is in lieu of not realizing that the vast majority of his teachings were to Jewish people-- there are plenty of references to gentiles in the NT and Jesus did help one in particular a woman who needed help with her daughter based on her faith. Gentiles are not bound by Moses Law, as maintained in Galations 6. Anti-Christians like Dawkins totally ignore this fact: he is, in fact ignorant.
amberwhite122589 4 months ago
@amberwhite122589
And yet there are various passages that suggest he saw his mission as first and foremost to the Jews: Mark 7: 27 ( it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs), for example. Or Matthew 10 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
@oliveranthonyrowland So why then Jesus said what He said in Matthew 28:18-20? Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...? Almost every atheist I know (and many, many Christians even) have no idea of the setting of society back then... It's funny: atheists cry foul about God and slavery when, just 150 years ago it was common place. They seem to "know" what slavery was like in the Bible but they don't. Dont' even try answer: you don't know... I can tell. Ignorant.
amberwhite122589 4 months ago
@amberwhite122589
What did I say that was ignorant? And what makes you an expert on slavery in ancient Israel? Are you saying it was OK? I know nothing about it, though it's true people tend to equate slavery with the worst cruel treatment by some of the owners of slaves in the American plantations, and, depending on what a person's master was like it was not necessarily too bad, for example in ancient Greece and Rome. Even so, someone being someone else's property seems barbaric to us now.
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
Comment removed
TrolleyDave 4 months ago
As to Jesus saying to make disciples of all nations, that's what's known as the Great Commission, and it's supposed to have happened after Jesus rose from the dead and before he ascended. Given I don't believe either of those things happened, I think he probably never made that statement either.
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
@amberwhite122589
one thing though that I do remember about ancient Jewish slavery from the OT is that it says (I think Deuteronomy) that if someone beats their slave and they die, they should not be punished if the slave survives several days before dying. That doesn't sound like they had a lot of rights.
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
I am persuaded by the argument of the Bible scholar Geza Vermes, that these and other potentially embarrassing sayings (to the Christians) are likely to be true sayings, as otherwise why would they have invented them? As for things like the Great Commission, well you have to believe that the resurrection took place for a start, as it supposedly happened after that. Certainly Christianity once Paul influenced it said Christians were not bound by Mosaic law, but that's another matter.
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
@amberwhite122589
IMO Jesus was a Jewish reformer, and had no particular plan to start a new religion or convert the world
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
I do think though that some things the tough-speaking atheists say about some of the more ridiculous aspects of religion needed saying, and that, eg. the God Delusion would have had less impact if it was called The God perfectly fine opinion that I don't happen to agree with; or if God is not Great was called God is fine for those who like that kind of thing, but he's not my cup of tea
oliveranthonyrowland 4 months ago
Humanity at it's best: intelligence, compassion, irony, wit. Maybe there's some hope for this species.
sugarfreelemonade 5 months ago 111
@sugarfreelemonade It's why I was born...
flashportalnet 1 month ago
LOL@ Professor Dawkins.
Schutzstaffel23 5 months ago
Twenty-four people can fuck off!!!
FM897 5 months ago
Neil Tyson is so awesome
D539durian 5 months ago
Im an atheist, but Dawkings does not speak on my behalf. He represents a hardline of atheists that looks down on everyone else but like-minded. That doesnt build bridges...which is what we need.
Aramis7 5 months ago in playlist Aramis7's Favorited Videos
@Aramis7 With all due respect being an atheist, to me, takes as much faith as one who believes in God. There are too many deep questions that right now can't be answered. If the Big Bang happened 13.5 billion years ago and nothing existed, no matter, no energy, no time and NO SPACE..no place for you and me to be located, then what caused it? Did life originate on earth or come from outerspace? Why so many rare accidents in the universe to get a star, galaxy, life? I'm agnostic! I'm stuck there.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 Dawkins speaks about a scale of atheism Vs. theism. 1-7 seven being COMPLETELY SURE there is no god, 1 being the opposite.
He states that he is a 6. Being completely definite there is no god is hard to do. Being almost utterly sure of it is not. So a 7 may take some faith, a six is a bit more scientifically intellectually minded.
wgfcrafty 5 months ago
@wgfcrafty Dawkins is like some others whom I've met on YouTube who reject the idea the Jesus even existed as a human being. He is a bit to harsh on religion for me. Dawkins feels religion is outdated and very bad for society and people who believe in God are whacky. Some I've met on YouTube hate religion and Christianity in particular, they will resort to the name calling you mentioned, call me a damn liar and a fag and that I'm really a Christian(whom they despise), not an agnostic. I'm a 4
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 You asked "Why so many rare accidents?", Prof. Lawrence Krauss once answered a similar question with this response (and I'm paraphrasing) "The Universe is huge, and rare things happen all the time; even a universe popping into existence from nothing; in quantum physics nothing always becomes something." I also think Dawkins is harsh on religion because he has been a target of theirs for many years; since he is an evolutionary biologist. I'm sure it's not a fight he asked for.
gravytrain84 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 Well Prof. Krauss is absolutely wrong. Complete nothingness is always nothing. For this universe to create itself out of nothing 13.5 billion years ago is a position even a 5 year old kid knows is wrong. That is the line Stephen Hawking is pushing now. The universe created itself out of nothing and was smaller than an atom and suddenly it exploded or inflated into what we have today which is SO BIG that almost nobody can grasp just how big it is. A farytail for adults. It's nuts.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 Dr. Machio Kaku and Dr. Paul Davies (Davies did his Phd under Fred Hoyle at Cambridge) were on the same show on the science channel and BOTH said that Stephen Hawking has gone too far. Both men said they believe a God must exist. Kaku said he believes in the God of Albert Einstein and if he ask Hawking who or how did the laws of physics come to be, Stephen would have to answer "I don't know". Davies has a book "God and the New Physics" which lays out his position.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 Einstein didn't have a personal god. If anything, Einstein labeled that natural laws "god".
duncreg 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 And I invite you to go to wwwdotwikipediadotorg and type in "Fred Hoyle" and read Hoyle's quote just a little ways down the page when Hoyle's goundbreaking work on how carbon is formed inside stars is discussed and Hoyle admits "there are no lucky accidents in the universe worth mentioning. It is as if some super intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics". Hoyle, who with his student Chandra Wickramasighe, Phd promotes life originating from outerspace, is closer to the truth!
boblackey1 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 This notion that the universe created itself out of nothing at the point of the big bang, and remember, according to Stephen Hawking, before the big bang it was absolutely NOTHING!! not even any space or room for you and I to be located, is a very illogical and lame attempt by atheists to avoid God having anything to do with creation and yet have a moment of creation from nothing 13.5 billion years ago. It is possible the big bang never happened, the universe is eternal & no God!
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 A lame attempt by atheists to avoid God? At the worst, it's simply a wrong hypothesis. We have zero evidence for the existence of any god, so there are no attempts by physicists to avoid one.
The universe is eternal - you really are a disciple of Fred Hoyle's, aren't you? Steady state theory! :-) Roger Penrose as a new book out you might like, "Cycles of Time" which has a loop with no beginning or end. Evidence came in after publishing that confirmed something he predicts in it.
duncreg 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 Here on YouTube is a six part video called "the big bang never happened" and we meet a small minority of scientists who reject the big bang and hold the universe was never created and has always existed. A notion Carl Sagan liked but couldn't accept due to big bang evidence. But these scientists such as Mr. and Mrs. Burbdige, Fred Hoyle, Arp, Gold, etc have alternative answers, some of which they think are better, for the big bang evidence including the background radition.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 I checked out the videos you recommended. I must say, the concepts they talked about were very interesting (namely Arp's observation of the quasar red shift). Although i'm not completely convinced by what was said, I will keep an open mind to any evidence presented in favor of that argument. I just think that the evidence of a Big Bang is too overwhelming. I also can't wait to see what the Large Hadron Collider reveals about the birth/existence of the Universe.
gravytrain84 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 Yeah I agree that these minority scientists such as the two Burbdiges, Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Herman Bondi, Harold Arp, Chander Wickramasighe are probably wrong and no doubt the vast majority of scientists disagree with them and fully support the big bang. But I'm but 80% sure the big bang happened just as I'm not sure about the origin of life. See "Are We the Aliens" here on YouTube. Chander Wickramasighe, Phd, is interviewed about life from space. But others say no.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 Now Hawking, Klauss and others who tell us the universe created itself out of nothing are just being silly to me. And I fully agree with Kaku, Davies and others that is going too far. And probably they are doing this due to a zeal to have creation 13.5 billions years ago and at the sametime, sidestep the possibility God did it and continue to be an athiest rather than an agnostic which makes way more scense to me than being an atheist. Frankly I really doubt there are any atheists.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 I see where you're going with this. You seem to be taking this down the 'religious' road and I have no interest in doing that. I agree that no one can say for sure either way that a god exists or not; which is the position of agnosticism. However, there is absolutely no evidence for such an entity; which is why many people choose to define themselves as atheists. And I'll leave it at that.
gravytrain84 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 No religious road for me. Sometimes I wish I could pratice a religion and receive the peace and meaning of life that many tell me that get from their religion. I was raised in a particular religion but as early as a 12 year old, I was agnostic about what I was hearing. I do not agree that there is no evidence for such a entity. Indeed, I see lots of evidence for God in my reading of science and so do certain scientists. But it's possible that evidence may not indicate God afterall.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 I've run across some scientists who are Christians or praticing Jews ( I know of one physics professor who is serious about his Judaism) Huge Ross, Phd (Astronomy) is one who is a devout Christian, has a website called Reasons to Believe which presents evidence from science for God's existence. But scientists such as Einstein, Kaku, Hoyle, Davies etc who believe in God and see God's creative power in the universe still REJECT the religions of the world as myths.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 I read and study what scientists and well known so-called atheists write and say and lately I've listened to Dawkins a lot and on a 1 to 7 scale, his rejection of God is a 6. So actually his is fibbing. He's really an agnostic who is almost an atheist which is where I think most atheists really are sitting. I don't think there are really many 100% atheists. I listen to scientists who think God exists but the religions are myth and I listen to Dr. Craig(Christian) argue that...
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 i think you are very misguided on the definitions of atheist and agnostic. A-theism = without BELIEF. A-Gnostic = without KNOWLEDGE. It is VERY possible to be both agnostic and atheist in fast most atheists are agnostic. And when we separate KNOWLEDGE from BELIEF you will realise that even religious people are agnostic because nobody has proved the existence of god. So no God does not have to exist.
atonement19 5 months ago
@atonement19 That is what I've been saying. There are NO real atheists except for some fools that are around. Dawkins is but CLOSE to being an atheist. In his interview with Ben Stein, Stein ask him how certain he is that God does not exist. Dawkins said on a scale of 1 to 7 he is a 6. So Dawkins is actually an agnostic but just barely. When Stein ask him how life formed, Dawkins said he didn't know. How did the universe come about? he didn't know. Dawkins doesn't know the answers I want.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 An atheist is someone who hasn't seen convincing evidence for the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who says we can't know the answer to that question. Dawkins is clearly an atheist (also, there are more atheists than "some fools"). Ever the scientist, Dawkins is not stating its impossible that some piece of evidence comes forward tomorrow that shows there is a God. What he is stating is that no evidence has come forward yet for anyone to believe such a thing.
duncreg 5 months ago
@duncreg Well that is not true. May I direct you to Fred Hoyle's Wikipedia page. Just a ways down Hoyle talks about why he switched to believing in a god due to SCIENTIFIC evidence. Also a Christian (not me I'm agnostic) recently directed me to Reasons To Believe. A website from Huge Ross, Phd (Astronomy) and it is loaded with scientific reasons according to this astronomer (I admit Ross is a devout Christian so may be a bit bias) says is hard core evidence for God.
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 you are referring to agnosticism as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. i am telling you it is not. when dawkins says he is 6 he is talking about how agnostic he is. but he is STILL an atheist. it is possible to be both. Please watch this video to clarify: watch?v=cznCzPeksS0. Also, Dawkins does not know because as he has said he is a BIOLOGIST, the job of how the world came to exist is something PHYSICISTS study.
atonement19 5 months ago
@atonement19 Ben Stein ask Dawkins HOW LIFE BEGAN!! Isn't that a good question for a biologists? And Dawkins, just like everybody else, doesn't KNOW!! Dawkins even told Stein about the panspermia idea of Fred Hoyle's where life was created by an intelligence in outerspace and rode to earth on a comet. Chandra Wickramisghe, Phd, director of the dept of astrobiology at Cardiff U. supports the same idea. Life came from SPACE. Also NOBODY knows how the universe began! It would be front page news!!
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 How LIFE began IS something Dawkins knows. How the UNIVERSE began is not. Please state your terms clearly, those are two distinct things. I don't understand why you then go on to talk about panspermia and the others. Life did not come from space....life came from single celled plasma millions of years ago. I think you are being disingenuous with the questions you are asking trying to find faults when they are not there.
atonement19 5 months ago
@atonement19 Dr.Wickramisghe was on TV last night, on the History channel, promoting his view with other Phd guys that life, dieases, bacteria, viruses etc all come from outerspace. The program was very compelling. When Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe first proposed this in the 1970's, they were laughed at. Now many Phd level scientists either agree or say it is possible H&W were right! Life came to earth from outerspace. Not the earth. Hoyle & Wickramisghe's book "Evolution From Space"!
boblackey1 5 months ago
Well atonement19. See the YouTube video "richard dawkins ben stein". Sorry but Dawkins does NOT know how life began either. As a matter of fact neither do YOU!! Nobody knows. Dawkins tells Stein that we simply do not know how life began and Dawkins actually mentions the theory of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramisghe that life came from outspace and was created by an intelligence. More and more data is beginning to show that life DID NOT begin on the earth but is COSMIS in scale and is from space
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 tl;dr Dawkins DOES know how humans came into existence but he does not know why.
atonement19 5 months ago
@boblackey1 ''More and more data...''
KK, show and explains.
Doum92 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 God must and has to exist in his debates with famous athiests such as Klauss, Zindler, Carrier, Hitchens, Flew and dozens of other atheists Craig has debated and most are on YouTube. Craig even defends Christianity being true. I hear things in all these presentations that are interesting and carry weight with me, yet I'm NEVER fully convinced by any of them;be it an atheist, deitist or religious holder of a Phd. So for 40 years I've been an agnostic and see no change coming:-(
boblackey1 5 months ago
@gravytrain84 Overwhelming evidence? You might want to search the net for the paper by Dr. Tom Von Flandern, "The Top 30 Problems With the Big Bang". The sad truth of the BB theory is that none of its predictions have ever been confirmed when tested, and now we're up to creating entities like "dark energy" and "dark matter" to attempt to reconcile observation with theory. It's like Ptolemy's Epicycles. The Big Bang really needs to be let go and other models explored.
duncreg 5 months ago
@boblackey1 Religion doesn't answer these questions either... well, for some it simply makes up answers, but that's not the same thing. Atheism doesn't NEED to answer questions like where everything came from. Atheism simply finds the evidence for a god unconvincing. You're using the Fallacy Of False Alternatives, suggesting that if science doesn't have an immediate answer, than Goddunnit is the only alternative.
duncreg 5 months ago
@boblackey1 "With all due respect being an atheist, to me, takes as much faith as one who believes in God. " seriously? does it take faith to believe unicorns don't exist? does it take faith to believe ghosts don't exist? Why would someone need faith to believe in a negative assertion?
atonement19 5 months ago
@atonement19 You are putting apples against oranges!! Ghosts and unicorns have NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe. What caused the big bang? Who caculated the laws of physics? Why is the universe tuned just right for stars to form, for galaxies to form? Why is it so unlikely for carbon to form in the universe? (See Fred Hoyle's Wikipedia page. Hoyle is the man who discovered how carbon forms) How did life form? Hoyle's student Dr. Wickramisghe was on TV last night...
boblackey1 5 months ago
@boblackey1 I dont see why it takes as much faith for you. Evidence for God so far = 0. Scientifc discoveries about how the natural world operates = millions. The fact that we dont know now, doesnt mean that we will never know.
Aramis7 5 months ago 2
@Aramis7 Dawkins recognizes the difficulty in uniting atheists. We are the largest belief system after Christians in America. We are viewed worse then child molesters; the bible does command people to stone us to death.
Unfortunately uniting atheists is notoriously hard. I believe Dawkins compared it to herding cats.
I think it's mostly because most atheists are not Anti-Religion, we're just indifferent.
wgfcrafty 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution is a cult. It is not part of science. Evolution is a lie. Evolution is a false religion disguised as a topic in school. It should be abolished. Evolution is forced on children. That is why these children are zombies and full of hate. Evolution does not teach morals or values. It teaches that those who believe in the loving God are to be cursed and ridiculed. It teaches violence and hate. Evolution need to be abolished in the school curriculum NOW!!!!!
hibiscusfire 6 months ago
@hibiscusfire Hitler mk2
Uberlaser 6 months ago
@hibiscusfire There wasn't a shred of truth in your comment, simply ignorant hate for evolution and I pity people like you. Instead of arguing some of it's weaknesses, which there are you attack it with flat out lies. You're a sad, sad human being and I revel in the fact that the plague that is your stupidity will hinder you from ever achieving a position where your ignorance could do serious damage.
clgrnt 6 months ago
@clgrnt You will see for yourself one day.
hibiscusfire 6 months ago
@hibiscusfire This isn't a religious topic, this is a matter of science. Your ignorance is inexcusable here because you chose to speak on this subject. Either back up your claims with respectable material or admit that you're flaunting opinion as fact. I don't expect you to be capable of doing so, you're oh so typically deluded and moronic.
clgrnt 6 months ago
@clgrnt Evolution is not science but a false religion.
hibiscusfire 5 months ago
@hibiscusfire You don't even have a clue what science is. Arguing evolution because it contradicts your delusions. You're pathetic.
clgrnt 5 months ago
@clgrnt The Word of God and the Way of God and the Teaching of God is not delusions. All good things,all creation began from God. It was perfect from the beginning and what you see is how man ruined things over the centuries by the selfish ways and doing things the way they want. You don't even know how much was done by mere man through time that has been destroyed so it could not be duplicated. God eradicated the memory of such abominations from the face of the Earth.
Skyheartstar777 5 months ago
@Skyheartstar777 More assertions of knowledge with nothing to back it up, spread your religious propaganda amongst other simpletons who are feeble minded enough to give you the time.
clgrnt 5 months ago
@clgrnt People who take away from God Our Heavenly Father as the Creator of the Universe are doing wrong, not anyone else.God is the Scientist,The Architect,The Engineer of this Universe.This is who it all came from first.Everyone else pieces together facts and have knowledge that they gained through their intelligence and aptitude to study these things to fit their pagan beliefs because they don't have any other reason for Creation.
Skyheartstar777 5 months ago
@clgrnt Jeremiah 33:3 - 3 ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.’
Skyheartstar777 5 months ago