Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
God controls evolution so you don't need to try to use it anymore . There aren't any atheist and none of you are fooling anyone . Nobody is that stupid . Just a bunch of kids trying to be elite .
Dawkins/Hichens spent their entire lives dropping arguments that were presented to; and addressed by the Catholic Church 12H years ago. My church needs to do a much, MUCH better job in letting these hacks know that their ingenious concepts have already been noted and debunked. Historically, Dawkins/Hichens pts. aren’t even the challenging ones! It is, however, always entertaining to hear someone argue their own insignificance, while using the significance of their intellect to persuade.
@mdstalla Wow, I didn't know the Catholic church discovered genetics and palentology 1200 years ago. Some one needs to contact the Nobel Prize people. Watson and Crick need to give back their Nobel prizes.
@edwardschlosser1 Yes, because you know how much the Catholic Church rejects concepts like dinosaurs and genetics. It makes it hard getting an education at one of our top Jesuit Universities; or a job at one of our 1,500 top research hospitals worldwide. Maybe these Catholics should return their Nobel Prizes in Science: Erwin Schrodinger, Guglielmo Marconi, Alexis Carrel, John Eccles, Joseph Murray, François Mauriac, Sigrid Undset, Kim Dae-Jung, Adolfo Perez Esquivel…
First of all, even if all those people were devout christians, that changes nothing to alter the fact that the church has always looked to stifle independent thought and oppossed scientific advances on a regular basis. Ever since the days of Copernicus.
Secondly, being born a Catholic does not mean that you are automatically religious. Schrödinger most definately was no Catholic for instance.
The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
Humans throughout the world will eventually accept evolution as fact. They just have to go through the same stages that a terminally ill person goes through:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
Most of the world today is stuck in the "denial" stage, while the developed world is, for the most part, in the "bargaining" stage (e.g. "maybe God CREATED evolution!").
Only an enlightened few are in the "acceptance" stage. Patience, my friends.
Dawkins' dogma is anti-Dawrinianism. In denying Darwin in politics, he is advocating a future in which "humans", if they can then be called such, evolve which no longer possess the capacity to over-ride their own genetic self-interest in service of a larger good. It is an inevitable outcome of ignoring human biodiversity and the principles of evolution in political deliberations about humanity's impact on the planet.
Darwin wrote numerous times that natural selection was much diminished in civilised societies so to infer that politics is a Darwinian process rooted in natural selective processes is pure narrative. There have been 10+ schools of thought trying to Darwinise culture over the last 151 years and they have all failed.
.
Sure, we could run our political system along Darwinian lines but that would be the artificial (man's methodical selection) adopting, not natural selection jabowery.
You seem to be confused about the difference between evolution (which has no foresight) and development (a human directed process, which has foresight). Don't worry you are not alone in this basic, yet fundamental mistake.
.
It is precisely the emergence and extension of cultural history away from the evolutionary process that creates this tension between artificial/natural (organic), which is why evolutionary theory struggles to account for cultural change and will continue to do so.
First of all you were the one who initiated comment with the telling "bollocks" so taking your tone I responded at your level, which I had to come down a lot of stairs to get at.
.
What's Gib being British got to do with it? The fact that you even have to ask that question tells me where you are in this area. There is no 'just' in atom bombs dumby and your words would legitimise atomic weapons if people paid attention to them. Totally ridiculous? Is that an argument?
And Gibraltor isn't part of Britain because of any organic and/or natural process but by human history, culture and social processes. Remember, Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was all about 'artificial selection' which is deliberate human design, while the metaphorised process in nature, (natural selection) is the illusion of design.
.
Be careful in stating that everything is natural because in one swoop you legitimise all kinds of things for people to avoid responsibility
"He resolutely refused to use artificial fertisliers" says Dawkins about his own father at the beginning of this video, have you even listened to it 'Aard of hearing'. Synthetic and artificial have two dual meanings:
(1) human, man-made
(2) non-natural
.
Am I saying then that with behaviourally modern humans we have the emergence of a new dimension of behaviour? Absolutely, and over the last 151 years evolutionary theory has struggled with humankind and culture: artificial but no less real.
It is you that is the dimwit and in a fleeting moment of clarity you could see your own baffoonery and so you removed your dimwited, ultra-light point. I'm not saying that humans are beyond causality but culture/second nature is a different dimension from organic nature, again, Dawkins father didn't like artificial (human made, non-organic) you removing dimwit.
Gee, you've taken scientific minimalism to new depths with that one quarter-wit. So atom bombs are natural? Humans pump 90 million tonnes of pollutants into the air each and every day, is that natural? Artificial intelligence, is that nautral? Fake boobs, are they natural? Guns, are they natural? Satellites, Are they natural?
.
Artificial means 'of human' but not natural. Art, artifact, article, articulation, artisan, artist, the arts - artificial and very human dumb assym.
Dawkins is well known for his candid criticism of creationism and intelligent design, yet he contradicts himself by saying " ...you might find a signature of some sort of a Designer, and that Designer could well be a Higher Intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe.."
@salaf83 "yet he contradicts himself by saying " ...you might find a signature of some sort of a Designer..."
.
I can't believe that people are still reporting Ben (the Weasle) Stein's egregious use of a thought experiment to generate a quote that he could quote-mine as "proof" that Dawkins believes that life originated from extraterrestrials.
.
Stein asked essentially " *what if* there were irrefutable proof on an intelligent design, how might that be explained"? Got that salaf? "WHAT IF"
I think this is an important video/audio because it's clear when it comes to human we are the only 'artificial' the planet has ever seen. Darwin even began the first chapter of 'Origin' explaining man's methodical selection and/or artificial selection before metaphorising 'natural selection' for the preserving mechanism he saw in nature over geological time
Art, artisan, artist, artifact, article, the arts, articulation (7000 languages) to understand humans is to grasp artificial
Dawkins concedes/acknowledges it himself here that the social world of humankind operates on its own imperatives, rules and values beyond the reach of the gene and/or natural selection.
Darwin wrote numerous times that natural selection is much diminished in civilised man. We are the only species who can say this from 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years
Believe in God or not but human exceptionalism is right there in the record (and Dawkins own words) for everyone to see
You are postulating that love is from god. You also postulate that the universe is a design. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Show evidence that love is from god, show evidence that the universe is a design, show evidence there is a god to begin with so you can argue for the first 2 notions. Try to do this without using logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
Mr. Dawkins' theory of evolution lends itself to a belief in God(s). He would have us believe that there are no higher intelligences (call them by whatever name you like) in a universe teaming with billions of galaxies. If, in a short span of 300 years, we have arrived almost to a point of creating life and immortality, what powers could we attain in another thousand, million, billion years?
The notion of God(s) is a logical adjunct to the theory of Evolution.
@HANK0000 lets take this bit by bit.according to evolution,d world came out of nothing & man is simply dancing to our DNA's.if that is true then the question of evil and morality should not arise.for instance, if someone gets up to kill an innocent baby for food on what grounds do you call that evil if he is simply dancing to his DNA?& we are all aware that no two DNA's are similar,not even identical twins so what moral framework do you have to define good and evil?
I was referring to how with religion, your meaning of life controls your mind. And where do you pull your ideas out of? Without God, you know that the chance that you were ever born is extremely slim, and with one tiny different variable, your parents would have had another kid. And do you feel/taste/see/smell/hear anything before you came into existence? Well it's the same after death. Eternity is harder to imagine for me than nothingness.
We evolved to develop morality. Some animals have some morality, although it is usually only to family. I substitute the explanation of the existence of everything from God with science, I substitute the (mind-controlling, freedom opressing) meaning of life from God with my own meaning of life, and instead of an afterlife, there is nothing. Just like before you were born.
Contradictions? How is saying there is no God and also complaining about problems in the world a contradiction? So you think that us nonbelievers think that there is no meaning to life because there is no God? No, you are foolishly wrong. And how does morality require a God? Please elaborate on how morality requires a God, because I see no contradiction in morality without a God.
Humans are different, Humans are unique, and in many ways Humans transcend nature.
We are the revolutionaries, the enemies of a uncompassionate, unforgiving, unthinking natural world. Nature is our enemy, and yet it is our womb. Do we submit to it, or destroy it? I say, we master it as we master all others forms of our complex existence.
Human beings are the vicious masters of our savage domain, yet even in it, we can feel love. Beautiful.
Listen to the video, Dawkins starts of by slighting the idea of "artificial fertilisers"
'Artificial' is what humankind bring to the table. Without humans there is no artificial in nature and observable Universe. Remember the first chapter of 'Origin' was about 'artificial selection' from which Darwin metaphorised 'natural selection' in the nature setting
151 years and evolutionary theory hasn't been able to account for culture, and that's because artificial is different from nature
"And the word 'natural' had an almost sacred resonance..." as different from artificial. I'd listen to the first 30 seconds again.
Human exceptionalism is both a good and bad thing and you could do well to rein in your view a little. Human destruction of natural habitats accelerating the natural extinction rate by 100-1,000 times according to Edward O. Wilson is an artificial rate.
If you say it's all nature you not only make it natural and normal, you legitimate this destruction.
Dreamer by name and Dreamer by second nature, clearly. There is a difference between artificial and natural. Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was about 'artificial selection' (and/or mans methodical selection) from which he metaphorised 'natural selection.'
The difficulty is one of meaning and this is the informational range of humankind, however your position of denying artificial and synthetic only shows how fragile your approach is to these matters.
You fail to see my point. Evolutionary theory has strong explanatory power in the organic setting of nature yet breaks down when it comes to the social world of humankind and the lack of a credible theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective over the last 151 endorses this view, and that's not something that's going to change anytime soon. Are humans part of the living world? Yes. The material world? Yes. Is there a difference in dimension between natural and artificial? Yes
And artificial will continue to be a difference in dimension from evolutionary theory as long as it remains beyond the measure of evolutionary theory, which I have stated (and the record is quite clear on this) is 151 years old, and counting.
'Natural' can be cosmic, organic, or even just common (cultural). You need to be more specific in what you are saying. I'm not saying that culture doesn't have material laws, but they are different from the imperatives of evolution.
In order to truly know if you can create an "artificial" being, we would have to simulate the chemical reactions within a similarly complex intellectual architecture as the human brain.
If we were able to create an synthetic replica of the Human brain, along with the chemical conditions that it posesses, even then I would doubt that we could obtain the same level of essence that Human beings posess.
It is quite clear to me that emotions are not reducable to only chemical equations.
Brilliantly elucidated. An understanding of the processes of evolution can best inform human behaviour and help us work towards a more sustainable future for humanity and the entire biosphere.
We're now far too powerful and numerous to not place limits on the sort of behaviours which are actually conferred upon us by natural selection.
Agnostics and atheists really are a special breed if idiot. They spend there valuable human life trying to disprove the existence of their creator with a mind that the creator has given them. They use their mouth to minimize and refute His existence. They are like the dog who has gone mad trying to kill his well wishing owner. It is no wonder that agnostics and atheists have readily been compared to eunuchs and inbreeds............they are a special breed of idiot.
Haladhara1: We spend our lives trying to disprove the existence of God? Christians spend their lives filling in questions that are not yet answered by saying God did it, you don't have any rational answers. You also spend your life worshipping a fictional dickhead who either can't put an end to evil, or doesn't want to put an end to evil, therefore shouldn't be called a God.
Charles Darwin is a genius, Dawkins is a dickhead. Placing them side to side as if they're anything alike is an insult to Charles Darwin's image. 1 star for doing that:
Have you read his book The Extended Phenotype? It's not fair to compare scientists who lived in completely different eras of scientific knowledge, but I think Darwin would have loved the ideas Dawkins puts forth in this book. I highly recommend it. Dawkins has only just recently become the celebrity atheist. But he has always been a brilliant biologist.
Dickhead or not, Dawkins is impressive and gives an interesting talk here.
His points on biology (and criticisms of religion) are more compelling than his policy arguments but he's still interesting and makes excellent points here.
to make such a comment like that below dindragon must be demon posessed murderer who as Jesus said is the "child of you father the devil who was a murderer from the beginning" as he referred to the Pharisees and people who love to secretly murder and deceive. and WHO seem to be happy about it ..You are wrong and you KNOW IT.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
3:18 "If we do not plan for the future no other species will do..."
I do not think that is accurate. Other species have the required brain mass to make plans for the future. Though dolphin plans are to play and laugh and sing all day jumping out of the water and act silly with no particular reason, while chimp plans consist of climbing trees, eating bananas and mass masturbation.
True in principle but not exactly the kind of planning that will save the human race from itself. Although any rescue plan that involves mass masturbation has my vote, feasible or not ;)
Even religious people who dislike Dawkins's anti-religious literature should at least admit that he writes and speaks beautifully and passionately. Some of my favorite books are his popular science works like The Extended Phenotype, The Selfish Gene, and Unweaving the Rainbow; his tone and clarity are breathtaking.
I disagree. I would respect him more if he would take a flail and go around mauling religious freaks... at least it would be more effective in vanishing the plague of religion....
reason?... why use that? Rationalist are using it for about 400 years since the Renaissance and it doesn't work! Not on religious biggots at least!
This literary style with which you speak of Dawkins it is true is in his work and this is a problem because at times he weaves literary prose and cavalier metaphor together with scientific knowledge which at times is more 'popular' than 'science'.
His crude cut & paste pseudo-theory of 'memetics' was an ill-advised foray into culture and he later conceded in the Extended Phenotype that he hadn't done enough reading on culture. What an admission.
This strength which you see Jeremy is also a weakness because he is prone to cavalier metaphor and musings which are a real stretch to be called science, and I cite 'memetics' his cut and paste dogma in trying to Darwinise culture
It's a shame that all this poster boy for anti-theism stuff will no doubt temper his claim to be one of his generation's greatest communicators of science and in particular evolution, although as time goes on his faith in gene-centrism looks misplaced
@jeremyhartwood I don't think he speaks beautifully at all. He speaks condescendingly towards all mankind. The way he talks about people is anti-human . And, of course he's condescending towards God, who he just refuses to believe, claiming there is no evidence. There is PLENTY of evidence for God and scanty evidence for human natural selection. 'SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE you ignorant moron!!', say the atheists, chanting after Dawkins. If only you could see how stupid that statement is.
@334286 what the fuck? umm you cant be condecending toward something that doesnt exist,he is just being that way toward mythology because there are actually still people around (for w/e reason) that cant tell fantasy from reality and are stuck in their little dungeons and dragons childish roleplaying nonsense
@334286 actually he is not condescending to humans, he is saying the fact that we can reason and plan that we are special and should use these abilities to overcome the natural tendencies of short term greed and selfishness for the sake and the betterment of the whole. basically use our powers of foresight to better not only all humans (regardless of beliefs) but the whole world...
Actually, untwerf, go watch AAI convention 07, can't remember the name of the speaker, but a man doing a speech on suicide terrorism provides evidence that suicide is an innate possibility of behavior in all of us.
along the same lines as contraception being anti-darwinian and things of this nature being a sign that we can escape the selfishness of our genes i'd like to mention suicide.
there's no way that our genes want us to commit suicide so doing so is an "act of defiance". So in a perverse kind of way suicide can give us hope about our nature in the sense that we are not slaves to our genes!
Oh, but there is a way. This might come out as cruel, but just for the sake of conversation: It's quite easy to imagine that an attribute of the genes can be their ability to self-terminate if they are no good. This would be portrayed as a feeling of inadequacy and lack of hope in the person as a result from a long evolutionary process. I'm not saying it's true, not even probable. Just saying it's possible to think of a way.
good point. it's possible. But I've studied suicide trends out of interest (no I ain't suicidal just an interest). The weird thing is that there seems to be zero correlation between people's feeling of hopelessness or inadequacy and any actual objective "defects" in the person. For genes, surely inadequate means you can't survive or replicate appropriately. Yet there are legions of models, rock stars, interesting pple who kill themselves. + e.g. suicide in rich sweden more than in bangladesh
You would know from studying suicide that it is often a hereditary phenomenon thus indicating a genetic connection. There could be other reasons for suicide being transferred between generations such as upbringing for instance, so heredity is probably not the only cause. There are many reasons why Sweden have such a high suicide rate. Far to many to mention here. Finally, being rich among the rich does not automatically give a sense of purpose in life.
suicide IS selected for in the case of over population.
sad but true.
we are more then the sum of our genes just as we are more then the sum of our neurons. and no, i don't mean that in any supernatural superstitious sense. i mean that in an emergent behavior sense.
haha, I somewhat agree, but lemmings was a bad example. That myth arose when biologists doing an experiment put a lemming on a rotating wheel and, instead of continuing to run on it like a treadmill, it jumped off the edge. Not suicidal, just stupid.
actually the myth was started by walt disney and his stupid movie "Wild Wilderness". but thats another story.
you are correct lemmings do not create giant mass suicide plunges. they do her migration mechanics in groups with 10 minute breaks in between the groups. most of these lemmings will die.
suicide still is selected for in specific cases.the most plausible explanation is the urge to sacrifice ones self for the group. if this genetic legacy goes a stray you have higher suicide rates.
different sources for the same basic principle, but I agree. It seems to be very much an inate utilitarian belief, whereby the sacrifice of one benefits the cause of the many however, when too many condone and even imitate that sacrifice, it becomes somewhat ridiculous.
It would have rational basis in that occassion cause lemmings in their population zenith are TOO FREAKIN' MANY! Overpopulation was many disdvantages... but altruism or self-sacrifice is not the case here...it is just mass behaviour and mimicry that forces individual lemmings to exaustion, unnesecairy risk, being trumbled or accidentaly pushed over a cliff by a crowded herd...
suicide is beneficial... if performed by religious fanatics... Reasonable Arabs are lucky bastards! I wish our local religious fucktards would blow themselves up too...
cayetonoluis: As for "ignoring the overwhelming evidence for evolution" in regard to the origin of life, Dawkins declares on camera in Expelled that he has no idea how the universe and life in general has appeared on earth. Read the Origin, it does not explain how life has appeared on earth. Read also only the first three chapters in Michael Denton's "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis" and find out that evidence points to the obvious fact that the theory of evolution is actually completely flawed.
"Read also only the first three chapters in Michael Denton's "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis" and find out that evidence points to the obvious fact that the theory of evolution is actually completely flawed."
Denton's book is itself a fraud. Sorry, but you're going to have to be a bit more well-read than that.
"Read the Origin, it does not explain how life has appeared on earth."
And nor would one expect it to, given that very little was known in Darwin's day about organic molecules. So this "problem" is in fact nothing but a disingenuous deflection on your part. You know perfectly well that the game has moved on since Darwin. And in any case, creationism explains precisely nothing. It's just a place-holder for our ignorance.
Dennett is one of Richard Dawkins cronies. Dawkins is so irrational in the way he attempts to make his case that you can never go past reading one or two pages of his books. It becomes so obvious it is a waste of time.
So, organic molecules explain how life has appeared on earth. That's a new one!!! Do you even know what life is? Do you understand the concept of life? Is consciousness a product of natural selection? Just because religion is so bad it does not mean evolution is true science.
"So, organic molecules explain how life has appeared on earth. That's a new one!!!"
Predictably, like all ignorant creationists, you equate the origin of life with all subsequent evolution. In your enfeebled mind, you imagine that a failure to explain how life originated constitutes a failure on the part of evolutionary theory in its entirety. And no, organic molecules BY THEMSELVES don't explain how life arose; they're just one part of the problem.
More so that you, that's for sure. I understand that life changes, that it adapts to contingencies, that it's dynamic rather than static, and that we can observe this change happening today. You understand none of that.
"I understand that life changes, that it adapts to contingencies, that it's dynamic rather than static, and that we can observe this change happening today. You understand none of that."
This is not the definition of life. You get an F in philosophy and an B+ in composition (but it does not count).
"like all ignorant creationists" .... "In your enfeebled mind"
A true Dawkins crony, anyone who does not think like you is an idiot, stupid and wicked (his words). And I'm not even a creationist.
Nor did I say it was. I speaking about the nature of life. There is no universally agreed upon definition. But as for what I said, it illustrates some things that are fundamentally important about life, such as its mutability, responsiveness to change.
"A true Dawkins crony, anyone who does not think like you is an idiot, stupid and wicked (his words)."
That was in response to something you said, not for disagreeing with Dawkins. Lean the difference.
And what I was responding to, if you'll recall (though clearly you're more interested in insinuating things rather than verifying them) was your equating of the origin of life with all subsequent evolution. Like I said, in your enfeebled mind, you think that a failure to account adequately for the origin of life marks a failure on the whole of evolutionary theory. This is a classic creationist tactic, and like all such tactics, it comes laced with a lie.
The problem with Dawkins ten-minute rambling is that science proves we are not a product of "Darwinian evolutionism". Therefore, since the premises for his discourse are false and based on his belief in evolution, his reasoning is also highly defective. Dawkins will have to first explain why natural selection has created a man that uses only 10% of his brains' capacity. Until then, we will have to play it safe and admit that we have no idea how man and life in general has appeared on earth.
"Dawkins will have to first explain why natural selection has created a man that uses only 10% of his brains' capacity."
That's actually a popular misconception, and even if it were true, the onus would be on you to show why God would create a being that only uses 10 percent of its brain's capacity.
"Until then, we will have to play it safe and admit that we have no idea how man and life in general has appeared on earth. "
So ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution? I think not.
cayetanoluis: The reality of the fact that is that at any given time we use only a small portion of our brains (if it is 10% or more that's, indeed, debatable). Who said that that "God created a being"? I didn't. So, the onus is on you to explain how natural selection has produced a brain that functions selectively at the appropriate capacity.
"And in any case, creationism explains precisely nothing. It's just a place-holder for our ignorance."
My friend, I do not preach creationism. Do you?
Your darling Dawkins admits he has no idea how life has began on earth. You claim your new science does. Get together and make up your minds.
To say that Denton's book is a fraud is childish, yet I do have respect for a child's pure soul. You're thinking is that if someone does not BELIEVE in evolution, he/she must be a creationist.
"Your darling Dawkins admits he has no idea how life has began on earth."
He thinks it probably came about along the lines of a general idea he outlines in his books (the ones that you can't get past the first pages of) but he acknowledges that many important details haven't been worked out yet. Scientists ALL admit this but they have some idea of the general outline
It's not a question of "belief". It's a question of facing up to a very simple fact: that evolutionary theory binds together the whole of biology into a coherent edifice. This knowledge is actually utilised every day in several fields (like agriculture, disease control and pathology, medicine, ecology, and even computer science).
"you never got past one or two pages of his books, so you have no idea whether or not he's "irrational"."
If the premises of one's theory are false, why bother read the other 350 pages? "You said that the theory of evolution is a fraud" (therefore, you conclude, I am a creationist)
You were indoctrinated in high school/college to believe that only creationists are against evolution. Totally false, there are thousands of open-minded non-theist scientists who have spoken against it.
"If the premises of one's theory are false, why bother read the other 350 pages?"
The premises that you've misconstrued. It's no wonder they're "wrong". And so it goes, in a vicious cycle, until you just end up misunderstanding pretty much everything he says.
"Totally false, there are thousands of open-minded non-theist scientists who have spoken against it."
They've "spoken out" against certain aspects of evolution, not the theory in its entirety Evolution itself is simply not in doubt
deagala: Am I to understand that if I am aware of the Illuminati allegedly controlling our lives, I will not get that "wicked surprise" this year? How this actually work?
Flawed theory of evolution? Flawed!? How about flawed theory of creation? Who created GOD? How about that GAP, you can't explain? So, what theory is flawed? Until you see just flaws in other side, but don't see (and not concernded to see) in your own, we can't discusss further with creationists...
"I want to know about what atheists think about..."
Well atheists tend to be individual thinkers so no single atheist can answer on behalf of all atheists. So my individual answer would be it's a silly idea that isn't supported by evidence.
"Neanderthals mixed with Cro-magnon, which turned into us in the last tens of thousands of years!"
Who says that? Where did you get that idea from? Evolutionary theory certainly doesn't state that.
If there was evidence and it was testable via the scientific method that we were "an alien creation by reptilian Draconian beings" of course it would make sense to try to understand it further. As it is though, i don't believe it to be a very strong argument.
Darwinism isn't science, it's philosophy. To teach this philosophy/THEORY as legitimate science demeans those who would dedicate their lives to solving the problems of Mankind through analysis and the application of physical laws.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Richard Dawkins is wrong because he dosn't realise that religion evolves. Every religion teaches the same Love Thy Neighbour which is more important than anything Einstein or Darwin taught. By neighbour that includes all
creation. Love also evolves. The shame is that no religion practises Gods first law.
Love thy Neighbour. Or to say it better Love all Creation.
It was something a little more acceptable than it would be now. Not condoning it, but even some of the most progressive founders of the US constitution had slaves.
awesome speech. Something funny is that that thing about human brain evolution remembered me all those sci-fi movies with supercomputers taking the control over their basic functions (wargames, terminator, matrix, etc...) :P
Darwin seriously considered entering the ministry after dropping out of medical school. One of the few books he took on the famous "beagle" was the Bible.
I recently read Origin of Species. I get the strong impression he was a "deist". He repeatedly refers to a "creator" who intiated the first living organism.
Look, it's clear he was not a "bible believer", but he's a complex guy.
Indeed! I've waited so long to actually get a chance to use hitler in an argument, sadly, it wasn't at all as wonderfull as it's cranked up to be.
Anyways, even if it's true it's useless. It might be interresting to talk about, but in the end, it serves no practical use. Having an adjective that could be used to describe anything isn't something we're in need of.
But mightn't other beings than humans rely on for example symbiotic relatinship, which may well be quite unselfish, at least in the short view. Moreover, in't it true that every parent, human or not, cares, in rather unselfish manner. Pets, such as dogs, and even pigeons can be altruistic with their owners. A dog or cat pet can protest against injustices against their owners - and I would be very,very surprised if not almost all pet owners (at least of those kinds of pets) would have agree.
This is so revolutionary, even if there was a God humans can use their immense brain power to over-ride the natural processes that were endowed. It is scientifically proven that humans only use 33% of our brains on average. Imagine if we used even 70% we could have full spectrum dominance of space, earth and our senses including greed and maybe a substantive peace. Humans would recognize even if there is a God we dont need it we have super computer brains. Lets hope our brains evolves into gods.
To say that, you must PROVE they don't deduce. Good luck with that. Even without reasoning, it is a learned behavior that requires a prediction of the future. Foresight.
And what makes you think that OUR foresight isn't instinct? Instinct is preprogrammed behavior. Are we not preprogrammed for speculation? Certainly we do not need to be taught to "look ahead".
Other animals DO seem to have some amount of foresight. Many animals will not reproduce when there are insufficient resources to support it. Female dolphins will not mate while they are supporting offspring though they are fully capable of doing so.
Some animals change their normal paths through the wilderness to avoid humans. Learned behavior or not, it involves at least a processing of "I see humans a lot there. They are likely to be there again. I will avoid that area." In a limited way, that is foresight. Ours is just many orders of magnitude more advanced.
I'm just reluctant to give humans any exclusive quality. I don't think we HAVE any exclusive qualities, just very advanced qualities.
That is not really foresight either. An animal avoiding an area is simply acting on self preservation instinct and memory of what was in an area. Foresight would be if the animal used deductive reasoning and came to a conclusion such as "if there are humans in this area, it is reasonable they may also be in that area across the mountain so I will avoid both areas."
That isn't foresight, that is instinct. It is an evolutionary advantage to take care of one offspring and give it a better chance of survival than to try and care for 2 offspring.
The dolphin did not 'choose' to do it that way, it didn't give any thought to it. It just did what it instincts told it to do.
Dawkins seemed to be a bit lost. If a non-intelligent purposeless process, without foresight called evolution can create an intelligent purposeful creature with foresight (humans). Then you needed not compartmentalize your mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. The natural world itself can provide explanation for the uniqueness of human beings. Which is what Daniel Dennett claims by the way.
He feels it necessary to compartmentalize his mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. What Dennett claims is that no it is not needed. There is a darwinian explanation even for our anti-darwinian tendencies. Richard Dawkins has trouble realizing that.
I think it's less an issue of compartmentalization and more that Dawkins realizes the way the word "darwinian" is used colloquially.
It's the same distinction he has with evolution: a theory AND a fact. That's not compartmentalization, he's just neutralizing the political use of the word.
Haven't read Dennett's bit, though. Bet it's interesting.
Of course Dawkins realises that there is a Darwinian explanation for our anti-darwinian tendencies. All life is Darwinian. He's just saying that we have evolved to a certain point that allows us to have foresight, and to predict outcomes etc. This allows us to 'break out' of our Darwinian/natural selection cage, allowing us to act contrary to our own genes if we desire to do so. The terms darwinian and anti-darwinian just make it easier for the general public to understand.
>>just adding to my post: I should have put "...allowing us to act contrary to the propagation of our own genes..." instead of just "contrary to our own genes".
That is possible I agree. But he has not said all that. You have. It might just be that you are reading things into his words because you are just a big fan of Dawkins. And any way we are still left with providing a natural explanation as to how we are able to break out of the darwinian agenda forced on by natural selection on to our genes. Saying that we have a brain that is capable of doing that is just the beginning.
Dawkins made such good points until the end where he started to make a case for global socialism. It just makes a further case in my mind that he's more about promoting an agenda in science, rather then genuine scientific reasoning. This also plays into his calls for atheists to organize politically and lobby governments for change. No thanks on atheist utopias.
If we fight nature, as he suggests, the universe will serve us back our asses on a platter, just like in communism and socialism.
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
11 people marked this "dislike" simply because of who's speaking and not because of the content.
warren52nz 4 months ago
God controls evolution so you don't need to try to use it anymore . There aren't any atheist and none of you are fooling anyone . Nobody is that stupid . Just a bunch of kids trying to be elite .
mollymu1 5 months ago
You creationists are so deluded and fortunately that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence!!
jjoneil73 6 months ago 2
Those who do not have an education in the sciences will always seek answers through superstsion. Superstition requires far less thinking.
edwardschlosser1 7 months ago
Dawkins/Hichens spent their entire lives dropping arguments that were presented to; and addressed by the Catholic Church 12H years ago. My church needs to do a much, MUCH better job in letting these hacks know that their ingenious concepts have already been noted and debunked. Historically, Dawkins/Hichens pts. aren’t even the challenging ones! It is, however, always entertaining to hear someone argue their own insignificance, while using the significance of their intellect to persuade.
mdstalla 7 months ago
@mdstalla Wow, I didn't know the Catholic church discovered genetics and palentology 1200 years ago. Some one needs to contact the Nobel Prize people. Watson and Crick need to give back their Nobel prizes.
edwardschlosser1 7 months ago
@edwardschlosser1 Yes, because you know how much the Catholic Church rejects concepts like dinosaurs and genetics. It makes it hard getting an education at one of our top Jesuit Universities; or a job at one of our 1,500 top research hospitals worldwide. Maybe these Catholics should return their Nobel Prizes in Science: Erwin Schrodinger, Guglielmo Marconi, Alexis Carrel, John Eccles, Joseph Murray, François Mauriac, Sigrid Undset, Kim Dae-Jung, Adolfo Perez Esquivel…
mdstalla 7 months ago
@mdstalla
First of all, even if all those people were devout christians, that changes nothing to alter the fact that the church has always looked to stifle independent thought and oppossed scientific advances on a regular basis. Ever since the days of Copernicus.
Secondly, being born a Catholic does not mean that you are automatically religious. Schrödinger most definately was no Catholic for instance.
Surtak 4 months ago
The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
Mossinator5000Deluxe 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
Love the Darwin picture.
LesPaul2006 11 months ago
Humans throughout the world will eventually accept evolution as fact. They just have to go through the same stages that a terminally ill person goes through:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
Most of the world today is stuck in the "denial" stage, while the developed world is, for the most part, in the "bargaining" stage (e.g. "maybe God CREATED evolution!").
Only an enlightened few are in the "acceptance" stage. Patience, my friends.
ejdf870 11 months ago
I feel like this guy has bee recording my exact thoughts and capitalizing on it
He should be burned for witch craft! get out of my head Dawkins!!
funrizwan 1 year ago
Dawkins' dogma is anti-Dawrinianism. In denying Darwin in politics, he is advocating a future in which "humans", if they can then be called such, evolve which no longer possess the capacity to over-ride their own genetic self-interest in service of a larger good. It is an inevitable outcome of ignoring human biodiversity and the principles of evolution in political deliberations about humanity's impact on the planet.
jabowery 1 year ago
@jabowery
Darwin wrote numerous times that natural selection was much diminished in civilised societies so to infer that politics is a Darwinian process rooted in natural selective processes is pure narrative. There have been 10+ schools of thought trying to Darwinise culture over the last 151 years and they have all failed.
.
Sure, we could run our political system along Darwinian lines but that would be the artificial (man's methodical selection) adopting, not natural selection jabowery.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@jabowery
You seem to be confused about the difference between evolution (which has no foresight) and development (a human directed process, which has foresight). Don't worry you are not alone in this basic, yet fundamental mistake.
.
It is precisely the emergence and extension of cultural history away from the evolutionary process that creates this tension between artificial/natural (organic), which is why evolutionary theory struggles to account for cultural change and will continue to do so.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@talking our of your assym,
First of all you were the one who initiated comment with the telling "bollocks" so taking your tone I responded at your level, which I had to come down a lot of stairs to get at.
.
What's Gib being British got to do with it? The fact that you even have to ask that question tells me where you are in this area. There is no 'just' in atom bombs dumby and your words would legitimise atomic weapons if people paid attention to them. Totally ridiculous? Is that an argument?
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@out of your assym,
And Gibraltor isn't part of Britain because of any organic and/or natural process but by human history, culture and social processes. Remember, Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was all about 'artificial selection' which is deliberate human design, while the metaphorised process in nature, (natural selection) is the illusion of design.
.
Be careful in stating that everything is natural because in one swoop you legitimise all kinds of things for people to avoid responsibility
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
"He resolutely refused to use artificial fertisliers" says Dawkins about his own father at the beginning of this video, have you even listened to it 'Aard of hearing'. Synthetic and artificial have two dual meanings:
(1) human, man-made
(2) non-natural
.
Am I saying then that with behaviourally modern humans we have the emergence of a new dimension of behaviour? Absolutely, and over the last 151 years evolutionary theory has struggled with humankind and culture: artificial but no less real.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Aard of hearing
.
Aardvarked wrote this and then deleted it:
.
@naturalpreservation Artificial isn't the opposite of natural, dimwit
.
It is you that is the dimwit and in a fleeting moment of clarity you could see your own baffoonery and so you removed your dimwited, ultra-light point. I'm not saying that humans are beyond causality but culture/second nature is a different dimension from organic nature, again, Dawkins father didn't like artificial (human made, non-organic) you removing dimwit.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@out of your assym,
Gee, you've taken scientific minimalism to new depths with that one quarter-wit. So atom bombs are natural? Humans pump 90 million tonnes of pollutants into the air each and every day, is that natural? Artificial intelligence, is that nautral? Fake boobs, are they natural? Guns, are they natural? Satellites, Are they natural?
.
Artificial means 'of human' but not natural. Art, artifact, article, articulation, artisan, artist, the arts - artificial and very human dumb assym.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist Bumper Stickers:
FictionStickers-dot-com
TheFictionGuy 1 year ago
Dawkins is well known for his candid criticism of creationism and intelligent design, yet he contradicts himself by saying " ...you might find a signature of some sort of a Designer, and that Designer could well be a Higher Intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe.."
salaf83 1 year ago
Comment removed
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@salaf83 "yet he contradicts himself by saying " ...you might find a signature of some sort of a Designer..."
.
I can't believe that people are still reporting Ben (the Weasle) Stein's egregious use of a thought experiment to generate a quote that he could quote-mine as "proof" that Dawkins believes that life originated from extraterrestrials.
.
Stein asked essentially " *what if* there were irrefutable proof on an intelligent design, how might that be explained"? Got that salaf? "WHAT IF"
Noisegator 1 year ago
well at least Darwin does look like a chimp....
WTU208 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"for there to be morality there has to be a moral giver"
another sad victim of the mental molestation of the creationists
how pitiful
"morals" are an inbuilt part of the human mind
if you need to be taught to say stop a baby from falling to its death your a sick pearson indeed
Dreamerx47 1 year ago 2
How about in the geysers of Yellowstone NP? How did those proteins get there, eh?
BenKenobie47 1 year ago
@BenKenobie47
I think this is an important video/audio because it's clear when it comes to human we are the only 'artificial' the planet has ever seen. Darwin even began the first chapter of 'Origin' explaining man's methodical selection and/or artificial selection before metaphorising 'natural selection' for the preserving mechanism he saw in nature over geological time
Art, artisan, artist, artifact, article, the arts, articulation (7000 languages) to understand humans is to grasp artificial
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Can a protein form by chance?
ReplyToDawkins 1 year ago
Dawkins concedes/acknowledges it himself here that the social world of humankind operates on its own imperatives, rules and values beyond the reach of the gene and/or natural selection.
Darwin wrote numerous times that natural selection is much diminished in civilised man. We are the only species who can say this from 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years
Believe in God or not but human exceptionalism is right there in the record (and Dawkins own words) for everyone to see
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
You are postulating that love is from god. You also postulate that the universe is a design. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Show evidence that love is from god, show evidence that the universe is a design, show evidence there is a god to begin with so you can argue for the first 2 notions. Try to do this without using logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
byteresistor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. Dawkins' theory of evolution lends itself to a belief in God(s). He would have us believe that there are no higher intelligences (call them by whatever name you like) in a universe teaming with billions of galaxies. If, in a short span of 300 years, we have arrived almost to a point of creating life and immortality, what powers could we attain in another thousand, million, billion years?
The notion of God(s) is a logical adjunct to the theory of Evolution.
444age 1 year ago
brilliant!
arash3589 1 year ago
@HANK0000 lets take this bit by bit.according to evolution,d world came out of nothing & man is simply dancing to our DNA's.if that is true then the question of evil and morality should not arise.for instance, if someone gets up to kill an innocent baby for food on what grounds do you call that evil if he is simply dancing to his DNA?& we are all aware that no two DNA's are similar,not even identical twins so what moral framework do you have to define good and evil?
Rhelm7 2 years ago
I was referring to how with religion, your meaning of life controls your mind. And where do you pull your ideas out of? Without God, you know that the chance that you were ever born is extremely slim, and with one tiny different variable, your parents would have had another kid. And do you feel/taste/see/smell/hear anything before you came into existence? Well it's the same after death. Eternity is harder to imagine for me than nothingness.
HANK0000 2 years ago
We evolved to develop morality. Some animals have some morality, although it is usually only to family. I substitute the explanation of the existence of everything from God with science, I substitute the (mind-controlling, freedom opressing) meaning of life from God with my own meaning of life, and instead of an afterlife, there is nothing. Just like before you were born.
HANK0000 2 years ago
Contradictions? How is saying there is no God and also complaining about problems in the world a contradiction? So you think that us nonbelievers think that there is no meaning to life because there is no God? No, you are foolishly wrong. And how does morality require a God? Please elaborate on how morality requires a God, because I see no contradiction in morality without a God.
HANK0000 2 years ago
Amazing speech.
Humans are different, Humans are unique, and in many ways Humans transcend nature.
We are the revolutionaries, the enemies of a uncompassionate, unforgiving, unthinking natural world. Nature is our enemy, and yet it is our womb. Do we submit to it, or destroy it? I say, we master it as we master all others forms of our complex existence.
Human beings are the vicious masters of our savage domain, yet even in it, we can feel love. Beautiful.
ImperialLegionTV 2 years ago
we "are" nature
nothing we will ever do will change that fact
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamer
Listen to the video, Dawkins starts of by slighting the idea of "artificial fertilisers"
'Artificial' is what humankind bring to the table. Without humans there is no artificial in nature and observable Universe. Remember the first chapter of 'Origin' was about 'artificial selection' from which Darwin metaphorised 'natural selection' in the nature setting
151 years and evolutionary theory hasn't been able to account for culture, and that's because artificial is different from nature
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Dreamer
Difference does not mean detached however.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Dreamer
"And the word 'natural' had an almost sacred resonance..." as different from artificial. I'd listen to the first 30 seconds again.
Human exceptionalism is both a good and bad thing and you could do well to rein in your view a little. Human destruction of natural habitats accelerating the natural extinction rate by 100-1,000 times according to Edward O. Wilson is an artificial rate.
If you say it's all nature you not only make it natural and normal, you legitimate this destruction.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
im saying that EVERYTHING is natural
every action done anywhere originates from nature therefore its natural
even if humans create something that "nature" (as if its something outside us) could not do it still originates from nature therefore its natural
that was my only point and it has nothing to do with what humans think is right or wrong
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47
Dreamer by name and Dreamer by second nature, clearly. There is a difference between artificial and natural. Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was about 'artificial selection' (and/or mans methodical selection) from which he metaphorised 'natural selection.'
The difficulty is one of meaning and this is the informational range of humankind, however your position of denying artificial and synthetic only shows how fragile your approach is to these matters.
Deny on.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
you fail to see my point even when its so simple
give me 1 example of something that is separate from nature
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47
You fail to see my point. Evolutionary theory has strong explanatory power in the organic setting of nature yet breaks down when it comes to the social world of humankind and the lack of a credible theory of culture from the evolutionary perspective over the last 151 endorses this view, and that's not something that's going to change anytime soon. Are humans part of the living world? Yes. The material world? Yes. Is there a difference in dimension between natural and artificial? Yes
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47
And artificial will continue to be a difference in dimension from evolutionary theory as long as it remains beyond the measure of evolutionary theory, which I have stated (and the record is quite clear on this) is 151 years old, and counting.
'Natural' can be cosmic, organic, or even just common (cultural). You need to be more specific in what you are saying. I'm not saying that culture doesn't have material laws, but they are different from the imperatives of evolution.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Comment removed
Aardvarked88 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47
If it was as simple as you'd like to think, there would be no reason for Dawkins to clarify what 'nature' in the early 21st Century.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
So if brains can override there genetic programing then that I wonder that if one day AI computers can one day override there programing.
If a machine can be self aware, then is there a soul and are we nothing more then electrical sparks between brain cells.
With this line of thinking i can see why a theist would take false comfort in belief in souls and god.
whydid666 2 years ago
obviously, machines too have souls
coturnix19 2 years ago
In order to truly know if you can create an "artificial" being, we would have to simulate the chemical reactions within a similarly complex intellectual architecture as the human brain.
If we were able to create an synthetic replica of the Human brain, along with the chemical conditions that it posesses, even then I would doubt that we could obtain the same level of essence that Human beings posess.
It is quite clear to me that emotions are not reducable to only chemical equations.
ImperialLegionTV 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dull. Lacks any valuable solution. Not worth anyone's time.
JasonHeriford 2 years ago
Brilliantly elucidated. An understanding of the processes of evolution can best inform human behaviour and help us work towards a more sustainable future for humanity and the entire biosphere.
We're now far too powerful and numerous to not place limits on the sort of behaviours which are actually conferred upon us by natural selection.
thefutureisvegan 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Agnostics and atheists really are a special breed if idiot. They spend there valuable human life trying to disprove the existence of their creator with a mind that the creator has given them. They use their mouth to minimize and refute His existence. They are like the dog who has gone mad trying to kill his well wishing owner. It is no wonder that agnostics and atheists have readily been compared to eunuchs and inbreeds............they are a special breed of idiot.
Haladhara1 2 years ago
Haladhara1: We spend our lives trying to disprove the existence of God? Christians spend their lives filling in questions that are not yet answered by saying God did it, you don't have any rational answers. You also spend your life worshipping a fictional dickhead who either can't put an end to evil, or doesn't want to put an end to evil, therefore shouldn't be called a God.
HANK0000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Charles Darwin is a genius, Dawkins is a dickhead. Placing them side to side as if they're anything alike is an insult to Charles Darwin's image. 1 star for doing that:
Agnosticism>Atheism
ogirv101 2 years ago
-Darwin vs. Dawkins: yeah, I get your point. It's not a fair comparison. Darwin is one of the greatest scientist in history.
-Agnosticism>Atheism: You may be right. But, that's out of scope for this video.
ndjarnag 2 years ago
Have you read his book The Extended Phenotype? It's not fair to compare scientists who lived in completely different eras of scientific knowledge, but I think Darwin would have loved the ideas Dawkins puts forth in this book. I highly recommend it. Dawkins has only just recently become the celebrity atheist. But he has always been a brilliant biologist.
jeremyhartwood 2 years ago 2
Dickhead or not, Dawkins is impressive and gives an interesting talk here.
His points on biology (and criticisms of religion) are more compelling than his policy arguments but he's still interesting and makes excellent points here.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Comment removed
patrickledford420 1 year ago
to make such a comment like that below dindragon must be demon posessed murderer who as Jesus said is the "child of you father the devil who was a murderer from the beginning" as he referred to the Pharisees and people who love to secretly murder and deceive. and WHO seem to be happy about it ..You are wrong and you KNOW IT.
timoteotime 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Nature is awesome.
Ludde365 2 years ago
3:18 "If we do not plan for the future no other species will do..."
I do not think that is accurate. Other species have the required brain mass to make plans for the future. Though dolphin plans are to play and laugh and sing all day jumping out of the water and act silly with no particular reason, while chimp plans consist of climbing trees, eating bananas and mass masturbation.
DINDRAGON 2 years ago
True in principle but not exactly the kind of planning that will save the human race from itself. Although any rescue plan that involves mass masturbation has my vote, feasible or not ;)
megamarsvin 2 years ago
Even religious people who dislike Dawkins's anti-religious literature should at least admit that he writes and speaks beautifully and passionately. Some of my favorite books are his popular science works like The Extended Phenotype, The Selfish Gene, and Unweaving the Rainbow; his tone and clarity are breathtaking.
jeremyhartwood 2 years ago 37
I disagree. I would respect him more if he would take a flail and go around mauling religious freaks... at least it would be more effective in vanishing the plague of religion....
reason?... why use that? Rationalist are using it for about 400 years since the Renaissance and it doesn't work! Not on religious biggots at least!
DINDRAGON 2 years ago
@jeremyhartwood
This literary style with which you speak of Dawkins it is true is in his work and this is a problem because at times he weaves literary prose and cavalier metaphor together with scientific knowledge which at times is more 'popular' than 'science'.
His crude cut & paste pseudo-theory of 'memetics' was an ill-advised foray into culture and he later conceded in the Extended Phenotype that he hadn't done enough reading on culture. What an admission.
"We are literally unique" - RD
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@jeremyhartwood
This strength which you see Jeremy is also a weakness because he is prone to cavalier metaphor and musings which are a real stretch to be called science, and I cite 'memetics' his cut and paste dogma in trying to Darwinise culture
It's a shame that all this poster boy for anti-theism stuff will no doubt temper his claim to be one of his generation's greatest communicators of science and in particular evolution, although as time goes on his faith in gene-centrism looks misplaced
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@jeremyhartwood Right on man. His prose is incredible.
bennyv04988 1 year ago
@jeremyhartwood I don't think he speaks beautifully at all. He speaks condescendingly towards all mankind. The way he talks about people is anti-human . And, of course he's condescending towards God, who he just refuses to believe, claiming there is no evidence. There is PLENTY of evidence for God and scanty evidence for human natural selection. 'SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE you ignorant moron!!', say the atheists, chanting after Dawkins. If only you could see how stupid that statement is.
334286 11 months ago
@334286 Haters gonna hate!
pimpymcdougall 10 months ago
@334286 what the fuck? umm you cant be condecending toward something that doesnt exist,he is just being that way toward mythology because there are actually still people around (for w/e reason) that cant tell fantasy from reality and are stuck in their little dungeons and dragons childish roleplaying nonsense
MadMAn12gauge 6 months ago
@334286 actually he is not condescending to humans, he is saying the fact that we can reason and plan that we are special and should use these abilities to overcome the natural tendencies of short term greed and selfishness for the sake and the betterment of the whole. basically use our powers of foresight to better not only all humans (regardless of beliefs) but the whole world...
DjDedan 4 months ago
Actually, untwerf, go watch AAI convention 07, can't remember the name of the speaker, but a man doing a speech on suicide terrorism provides evidence that suicide is an innate possibility of behavior in all of us.
judaserebus 2 years ago
Dan (Daniel) Dennett is the speaker's name.
GMLSX 2 years ago
great speech bravo.
tghetto5 2 years ago
along the same lines as contraception being anti-darwinian and things of this nature being a sign that we can escape the selfishness of our genes i'd like to mention suicide.
there's no way that our genes want us to commit suicide so doing so is an "act of defiance". So in a perverse kind of way suicide can give us hope about our nature in the sense that we are not slaves to our genes!
untwerf 2 years ago
Oh, but there is a way. This might come out as cruel, but just for the sake of conversation: It's quite easy to imagine that an attribute of the genes can be their ability to self-terminate if they are no good. This would be portrayed as a feeling of inadequacy and lack of hope in the person as a result from a long evolutionary process. I'm not saying it's true, not even probable. Just saying it's possible to think of a way.
janformanek 2 years ago
good point. it's possible. But I've studied suicide trends out of interest (no I ain't suicidal just an interest). The weird thing is that there seems to be zero correlation between people's feeling of hopelessness or inadequacy and any actual objective "defects" in the person. For genes, surely inadequate means you can't survive or replicate appropriately. Yet there are legions of models, rock stars, interesting pple who kill themselves. + e.g. suicide in rich sweden more than in bangladesh
forestskog 2 years ago
You would know from studying suicide that it is often a hereditary phenomenon thus indicating a genetic connection. There could be other reasons for suicide being transferred between generations such as upbringing for instance, so heredity is probably not the only cause. There are many reasons why Sweden have such a high suicide rate. Far to many to mention here. Finally, being rich among the rich does not automatically give a sense of purpose in life.
janformanek 2 years ago
look up lemmings.
suicide IS selected for in the case of over population.
sad but true.
we are more then the sum of our genes just as we are more then the sum of our neurons. and no, i don't mean that in any supernatural superstitious sense. i mean that in an emergent behavior sense.
addmoreice 2 years ago
haha, I somewhat agree, but lemmings was a bad example. That myth arose when biologists doing an experiment put a lemming on a rotating wheel and, instead of continuing to run on it like a treadmill, it jumped off the edge. Not suicidal, just stupid.
Sack42 2 years ago
actually the myth was started by walt disney and his stupid movie "Wild Wilderness". but thats another story.
you are correct lemmings do not create giant mass suicide plunges. they do her migration mechanics in groups with 10 minute breaks in between the groups. most of these lemmings will die.
suicide still is selected for in specific cases.the most plausible explanation is the urge to sacrifice ones self for the group. if this genetic legacy goes a stray you have higher suicide rates.
addmoreice 2 years ago
different sources for the same basic principle, but I agree. It seems to be very much an inate utilitarian belief, whereby the sacrifice of one benefits the cause of the many however, when too many condone and even imitate that sacrifice, it becomes somewhat ridiculous.
Sack42 2 years ago
It would have rational basis in that occassion cause lemmings in their population zenith are TOO FREAKIN' MANY! Overpopulation was many disdvantages... but altruism or self-sacrifice is not the case here...it is just mass behaviour and mimicry that forces individual lemmings to exaustion, unnesecairy risk, being trumbled or accidentaly pushed over a cliff by a crowded herd...
DINDRAGON 2 years ago
suicide is beneficial... if performed by religious fanatics... Reasonable Arabs are lucky bastards! I wish our local religious fucktards would blow themselves up too...
DINDRAGON 2 years ago
cayetonoluis: As for "ignoring the overwhelming evidence for evolution" in regard to the origin of life, Dawkins declares on camera in Expelled that he has no idea how the universe and life in general has appeared on earth. Read the Origin, it does not explain how life has appeared on earth. Read also only the first three chapters in Michael Denton's "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis" and find out that evidence points to the obvious fact that the theory of evolution is actually completely flawed.
sorellman 2 years ago
"Read also only the first three chapters in Michael Denton's "Evolution:A Theory in Crisis" and find out that evidence points to the obvious fact that the theory of evolution is actually completely flawed."
Denton's book is itself a fraud. Sorry, but you're going to have to be a bit more well-read than that.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
"Read the Origin, it does not explain how life has appeared on earth."
And nor would one expect it to, given that very little was known in Darwin's day about organic molecules. So this "problem" is in fact nothing but a disingenuous deflection on your part. You know perfectly well that the game has moved on since Darwin. And in any case, creationism explains precisely nothing. It's just a place-holder for our ignorance.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
Dennett is one of Richard Dawkins cronies. Dawkins is so irrational in the way he attempts to make his case that you can never go past reading one or two pages of his books. It becomes so obvious it is a waste of time.
So, organic molecules explain how life has appeared on earth. That's a new one!!! Do you even know what life is? Do you understand the concept of life? Is consciousness a product of natural selection? Just because religion is so bad it does not mean evolution is true science.
sorellman 2 years ago
"Dennett is one of Richard Dawkins cronies. "
Actually, Dawkins sees Dennett as his intellectual superior.
"Dawkins is so irrational in the way he attempts to make his case that you can never go past reading one or two pages of his books."
Translation: you never got past one or two pages of his books, so you have no idea whether or not he's "irrational".
cayetanoluis 2 years ago 2
"So, organic molecules explain how life has appeared on earth. That's a new one!!!"
Predictably, like all ignorant creationists, you equate the origin of life with all subsequent evolution. In your enfeebled mind, you imagine that a failure to explain how life originated constitutes a failure on the part of evolutionary theory in its entirety. And no, organic molecules BY THEMSELVES don't explain how life arose; they're just one part of the problem.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago 3
"Do you understand the concept of life?"
More so that you, that's for sure. I understand that life changes, that it adapts to contingencies, that it's dynamic rather than static, and that we can observe this change happening today. You understand none of that.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago 2
"I understand that life changes, that it adapts to contingencies, that it's dynamic rather than static, and that we can observe this change happening today. You understand none of that."
This is not the definition of life. You get an F in philosophy and an B+ in composition (but it does not count).
"like all ignorant creationists" .... "In your enfeebled mind"
A true Dawkins crony, anyone who does not think like you is an idiot, stupid and wicked (his words). And I'm not even a creationist.
sorellman 2 years ago
"This is not the definition of life."
Nor did I say it was. I speaking about the nature of life. There is no universally agreed upon definition. But as for what I said, it illustrates some things that are fundamentally important about life, such as its mutability, responsiveness to change.
"A true Dawkins crony, anyone who does not think like you is an idiot, stupid and wicked (his words)."
That was in response to something you said, not for disagreeing with Dawkins. Lean the difference.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
And what I was responding to, if you'll recall (though clearly you're more interested in insinuating things rather than verifying them) was your equating of the origin of life with all subsequent evolution. Like I said, in your enfeebled mind, you think that a failure to account adequately for the origin of life marks a failure on the whole of evolutionary theory. This is a classic creationist tactic, and like all such tactics, it comes laced with a lie.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago 2
The problem with Dawkins ten-minute rambling is that science proves we are not a product of "Darwinian evolutionism". Therefore, since the premises for his discourse are false and based on his belief in evolution, his reasoning is also highly defective. Dawkins will have to first explain why natural selection has created a man that uses only 10% of his brains' capacity. Until then, we will have to play it safe and admit that we have no idea how man and life in general has appeared on earth.
sorellman 2 years ago
"Dawkins will have to first explain why natural selection has created a man that uses only 10% of his brains' capacity."
That's actually a popular misconception, and even if it were true, the onus would be on you to show why God would create a being that only uses 10 percent of its brain's capacity.
"Until then, we will have to play it safe and admit that we have no idea how man and life in general has appeared on earth. "
So ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution? I think not.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
cayetanoluis: The reality of the fact that is that at any given time we use only a small portion of our brains (if it is 10% or more that's, indeed, debatable). Who said that that "God created a being"? I didn't. So, the onus is on you to explain how natural selection has produced a brain that functions selectively at the appropriate capacity.
sorellman 2 years ago
We might only use 10 percent of our brains to achieve conscious thought, but we use the rest of it to do other things.
"So, the onus is on you to explain how natural selection has produced a brain that functions selectively at the appropriate capacity."
Read Dennett.
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
"And in any case, creationism explains precisely nothing. It's just a place-holder for our ignorance."
My friend, I do not preach creationism. Do you?
Your darling Dawkins admits he has no idea how life has began on earth. You claim your new science does. Get together and make up your minds.
To say that Denton's book is a fraud is childish, yet I do have respect for a child's pure soul. You're thinking is that if someone does not BELIEVE in evolution, he/she must be a creationist.
sorellman 2 years ago
"My friend, I do not preach creationism"
You said that the theory of evolution is a fraud
"Your darling Dawkins admits he has no idea how life has began on earth."
He thinks it probably came about along the lines of a general idea he outlines in his books (the ones that you can't get past the first pages of) but he acknowledges that many important details haven't been worked out yet. Scientists ALL admit this but they have some idea of the general outline
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
It's not a question of "belief". It's a question of facing up to a very simple fact: that evolutionary theory binds together the whole of biology into a coherent edifice. This knowledge is actually utilised every day in several fields (like agriculture, disease control and pathology, medicine, ecology, and even computer science).
cayetanoluis 2 years ago
"you never got past one or two pages of his books, so you have no idea whether or not he's "irrational"."
If the premises of one's theory are false, why bother read the other 350 pages? "You said that the theory of evolution is a fraud" (therefore, you conclude, I am a creationist)
You were indoctrinated in high school/college to believe that only creationists are against evolution. Totally false, there are thousands of open-minded non-theist scientists who have spoken against it.
sorellman 2 years ago
"If the premises of one's theory are false, why bother read the other 350 pages?"
The premises that you've misconstrued. It's no wonder they're "wrong". And so it goes, in a vicious cycle, until you just end up misunderstanding pretty much everything he says.
"Totally false, there are thousands of open-minded non-theist scientists who have spoken against it."
They've "spoken out" against certain aspects of evolution, not the theory in its entirety Evolution itself is simply not in doubt
cayetanoluis 2 years ago 14
@cayetanoluis a single true survive a million on lies
legolasgreenleaff 1 year ago
deagala: Am I to understand that if I am aware of the Illuminati allegedly controlling our lives, I will not get that "wicked surprise" this year? How this actually work?
sorellman 2 years ago
Flawed theory of evolution? Flawed!? How about flawed theory of creation? Who created GOD? How about that GAP, you can't explain? So, what theory is flawed? Until you see just flaws in other side, but don't see (and not concernded to see) in your own, we can't discusss further with creationists...
ricardas83 2 years ago
"I want to know about what atheists think about..."
Well atheists tend to be individual thinkers so no single atheist can answer on behalf of all atheists. So my individual answer would be it's a silly idea that isn't supported by evidence.
"Neanderthals mixed with Cro-magnon, which turned into us in the last tens of thousands of years!"
Who says that? Where did you get that idea from? Evolutionary theory certainly doesn't state that.
Cro-Magnon = Homo sapien.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
If there was evidence and it was testable via the scientific method that we were "an alien creation by reptilian Draconian beings" of course it would make sense to try to understand it further. As it is though, i don't believe it to be a very strong argument.
Larwick 3 years ago 2
Dammit! Why do the hippie douchebags in Greenpeace have to discredit science just by being present?
scourfish 3 years ago
The theory of Gravity is another Communist plot!
krausmoscow1 3 years ago
This is suppose to be a secret, Will you quit telling people or we'll never get this plot accomplished...
stevethul1 3 years ago
im pretty sure gravity is real.. its fact. theres a natural force that effects us all and they named it gravity, thats the story of gravity. boosh!
andyrexik 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
On YouTube "20 Ways to Promote the Lies of Evolution"
ATBINTC 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwinism isn't science, it's philosophy. To teach this philosophy/THEORY as legitimate science demeans those who would dedicate their lives to solving the problems of Mankind through analysis and the application of physical laws.
procommenter 3 years ago
He got to the bit about 'headonistic pleasure', then I drifted off into my own thoughts.
gamesbok 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Richard Dawkins is wrong because he dosn't realise that religion evolves. Every religion teaches the same Love Thy Neighbour which is more important than anything Einstein or Darwin taught. By neighbour that includes all
creation. Love also evolves. The shame is that no religion practises Gods first law.
Love thy Neighbour. Or to say it better Love all Creation.
Peter Baxter
petebax1 3 years ago
when Jesus said "Love Thy Neighbour" he ment "love your fellow jew"
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
You can "love thy neighbor" and still care for the truth. Moralitiy is completely independent of religion.
shaolinmonk15 3 years ago 10
shao, completely agree.
Luigi84289 3 years ago
christianity's 'love thy neighbour' itself comes from people. it's an innately present idea in human nature
spotlitkiss 3 years ago
Not when you understand the parable that follows it doesn't!!
dooyeweerd 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i think dawkin is one of darwins imbred children (he had them, fact), look at this, darkin, dawkins.. very strange.
BestVideosEver01 3 years ago
really? I haven't heard that slander before.
killerbandit 3 years ago 2
well, Darwin did marry his cousin...
ndjarnag 3 years ago
It was something a little more acceptable than it would be now. Not condoning it, but even some of the most progressive founders of the US constitution had slaves.
killerbandit 3 years ago
you might find it interesting:
Abraham of the Old testament married his half sister, Sarah. Funny, they never talk about that in sunday school...
ndjarnag 3 years ago
Einstein aswell. The question is, is it morally wrong? If it offends you, then why?
Organjic 3 years ago
Yes!
humanist7117 3 years ago
awesome speech. Something funny is that that thing about human brain evolution remembered me all those sci-fi movies with supercomputers taking the control over their basic functions (wargames, terminator, matrix, etc...) :P
naurbrannon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL Darwin wasn't an atheist.
grazon 3 years ago
yes he was! more propaganda from the mystical beliefs of the desert people.
houghton101 3 years ago 2
LOL and what's your source?
grazon 3 years ago
Darwin seriously considered entering the ministry after dropping out of medical school. One of the few books he took on the famous "beagle" was the Bible.
I recently read Origin of Species. I get the strong impression he was a "deist". He repeatedly refers to a "creator" who intiated the first living organism.
Look, it's clear he was not a "bible believer", but he's a complex guy.
check out:
"watch?v=NKL0fZQEbuM"
If you have any evidence he was an atheist, I
would like to know.
ndjarnag 3 years ago
He was agnostic/deist I think
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
lol desert people. :)
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
Indeed! I've waited so long to actually get a chance to use hitler in an argument, sadly, it wasn't at all as wonderfull as it's cranked up to be.
Anyways, even if it's true it's useless. It might be interresting to talk about, but in the end, it serves no practical use. Having an adjective that could be used to describe anything isn't something we're in need of.
Munkatten 3 years ago
So, hitler was just, natural selection then.
I mean, if we can't use the words natural and unnatural, we would have to make up new words to take their place.
Unnatural could instead be "stuff-humans-did"
Natural could be "stuff-humans-can't-be-blamed-for"
Or you know... we could just keep the words the way they are and stop whining about them being confusing?
Munkatten 3 years ago
But mightn't other beings than humans rely on for example symbiotic relatinship, which may well be quite unselfish, at least in the short view. Moreover, in't it true that every parent, human or not, cares, in rather unselfish manner. Pets, such as dogs, and even pigeons can be altruistic with their owners. A dog or cat pet can protest against injustices against their owners - and I would be very,very surprised if not almost all pet owners (at least of those kinds of pets) would have agree.
vilsefint 3 years ago
This is so revolutionary, even if there was a God humans can use their immense brain power to over-ride the natural processes that were endowed. It is scientifically proven that humans only use 33% of our brains on average. Imagine if we used even 70% we could have full spectrum dominance of space, earth and our senses including greed and maybe a substantive peace. Humans would recognize even if there is a God we dont need it we have super computer brains. Lets hope our brains evolves into gods.
theone1087 3 years ago
one of the best Dawkins talks, he sounds like a prophet.
indusdolphin 3 years ago
Dawkins is an amazing scientist. He should stay away from politics, because apparently he is unable to use his own rational towards politics.
ghengisconrad 3 years ago 3
Religion is practiced mostly by the uneducated...like G Bush
ormonclark 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh my god(irony implied), Charles Dawkins in a douche bag! I thought someone fighting against Theist morons couldn't be half bad.
The enemy of my enemy is apparantly not my friend.
ghengisconrad 3 years ago
KurNorock,
To say that, you must PROVE they don't deduce. Good luck with that. Even without reasoning, it is a learned behavior that requires a prediction of the future. Foresight.
And what makes you think that OUR foresight isn't instinct? Instinct is preprogrammed behavior. Are we not preprogrammed for speculation? Certainly we do not need to be taught to "look ahead".
ericv00 3 years ago
Other animals DO seem to have some amount of foresight. Many animals will not reproduce when there are insufficient resources to support it. Female dolphins will not mate while they are supporting offspring though they are fully capable of doing so.
But it is still a great talk from Dr. Dawkins.
ericv00 3 years ago
I wouldn't say that's the same as human foresight.
It sounds more like instict to me.
Munkatten 3 years ago
Some animals change their normal paths through the wilderness to avoid humans. Learned behavior or not, it involves at least a processing of "I see humans a lot there. They are likely to be there again. I will avoid that area." In a limited way, that is foresight. Ours is just many orders of magnitude more advanced.
I'm just reluctant to give humans any exclusive quality. I don't think we HAVE any exclusive qualities, just very advanced qualities.
ericv00 3 years ago
That is not really foresight either. An animal avoiding an area is simply acting on self preservation instinct and memory of what was in an area. Foresight would be if the animal used deductive reasoning and came to a conclusion such as "if there are humans in this area, it is reasonable they may also be in that area across the mountain so I will avoid both areas."
KurNorock 3 years ago
That isn't foresight, that is instinct. It is an evolutionary advantage to take care of one offspring and give it a better chance of survival than to try and care for 2 offspring.
The dolphin did not 'choose' to do it that way, it didn't give any thought to it. It just did what it instincts told it to do.
KurNorock 3 years ago
Dawkins seemed to be a bit lost. If a non-intelligent purposeless process, without foresight called evolution can create an intelligent purposeful creature with foresight (humans). Then you needed not compartmentalize your mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. The natural world itself can provide explanation for the uniqueness of human beings. Which is what Daniel Dennett claims by the way.
82abhilash 3 years ago
... so why is Dawkins "lost"?
mejdrich 3 years ago
He feels it necessary to compartmentalize his mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. What Dennett claims is that no it is not needed. There is a darwinian explanation even for our anti-darwinian tendencies. Richard Dawkins has trouble realizing that.
82abhilash 3 years ago
I think it's less an issue of compartmentalization and more that Dawkins realizes the way the word "darwinian" is used colloquially.
It's the same distinction he has with evolution: a theory AND a fact. That's not compartmentalization, he's just neutralizing the political use of the word.
Haven't read Dennett's bit, though. Bet it's interesting.
mejdrich 3 years ago
That is also possible yes.
82abhilash 3 years ago
82abhilash,
Of course Dawkins realises that there is a Darwinian explanation for our anti-darwinian tendencies. All life is Darwinian. He's just saying that we have evolved to a certain point that allows us to have foresight, and to predict outcomes etc. This allows us to 'break out' of our Darwinian/natural selection cage, allowing us to act contrary to our own genes if we desire to do so. The terms darwinian and anti-darwinian just make it easier for the general public to understand.
kytok 3 years ago
>>just adding to my post: I should have put "...allowing us to act contrary to the propagation of our own genes..." instead of just "contrary to our own genes".
kytok 3 years ago
That is possible I agree. But he has not said all that. You have. It might just be that you are reading things into his words because you are just a big fan of Dawkins. And any way we are still left with providing a natural explanation as to how we are able to break out of the darwinian agenda forced on by natural selection on to our genes. Saying that we have a brain that is capable of doing that is just the beginning.
82abhilash 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is an idiot. He honestly believes that humans are more intelligent then animals. Only humans would come up with darwinisom.
kylbowles 3 years ago
Yeah cuz we all know animals have nuclear power and that they've been on the moon.
Munkatten 3 years ago
Dawkins made such good points until the end where he started to make a case for global socialism. It just makes a further case in my mind that he's more about promoting an agenda in science, rather then genuine scientific reasoning. This also plays into his calls for atheists to organize politically and lobby governments for change. No thanks on atheist utopias.
If we fight nature, as he suggests, the universe will serve us back our asses on a platter, just like in communism and socialism.
FlowCell 3 years ago
There is no such thing as unnatural, all things are in nature.
Humans are animals (we sure as hell are not plants or minerals... only one choice left). We are a great ape and nothing more.
rkzenrage 3 years ago