Wow, why so harse? He spoke the truth about our society and how the religious wrongly turn away from Dawkins. Without a tactful approach we (atheists) will not get anyone to listen. Yes I agree the truth should prevail. However childhood indoctrination and constant ritual reinforcement is hard to pull people away from. Religions are cults and are prevalent in nearly all human societies. How do you wake these people from their delusion? Not by yelling.
Ignorant middle class fool spouts his ignorant 'fluffy bunnies' view of the world... He knows NOTHING of the fascist bullies that science is up against. Treat decent people with respect - treat right wing scum with the same contempt they project on others... WAKE UP YOU LOON... Where the FUCK has 'appeasement' gotten on global warming, challenging free markets, species destruction, resource exploitation, peak oil, evolution, gay rights you name it. YOU ARE UP AGAINST ANTIREALITY SCUM...
A fairly accurate analysis of the Dawkins effect I'd say although I think he missed a crucial result of the "new atheism"; the fact that there have been these few "strident" intellectuals being so vocal in their opposition has made it far more socially acceptable to criticise religion in a more gentle way. They've pushed back the barriers a bit- and it's a very valuable thing.
I am also an appeaser of religion. However, if I get into talking with a fundie or someone that attacks my atheism, I find it to be my moral obligation to drive their hubris into the dirt.
Give this guy a break with the harsh ratings and actually watch his whole video.. He's not arguing against Dawkins, he's explaining why some people view him as such a polarizing figure. He also makes suggestions on how to explain science without giving the other side unwarranted ammunition. He's speaking from a communications standpoint not arguing against evolution.
I think the best way to disprove religion is to build a perfectly workable time machine, then systematically allow humans to go back in time to the key points in the formation of each of them. Then we can find out the truth once an for all.
Why do we need to respect something that has no evidence? This is silly, of course evolution will undermine religion because you cnt have ur cake and eat it to. This kind of pseudo logic is laughable
i dont get what hes on about, respect for religion? why SHOULD we respect religion? warfare and religion have gone hand in hand for milenia. religion has held back science and morality for a very long time now, and continues to do so. religion preys upon people's nature to gain power and money. respect for religion, what a load of crock.
@Sickopath333 so what you're saying is that women shouln't have rightsd to make decisions about their own bodies? religious lobbies pushing for the banning abortion have load to desperate women turning to illegal abortions, of which an unnacceptable percentage result in mortality for women. religious lobbying towards abstinence education and less sexual education has also lead to more teen pregnancies and transmission of STIs. girls taking chastity vows are more likely to engage in high risk act
@dandil It isn't their bodies I'm concerned with, but the life inside, which isn't their body. Yes, it's a shame all those desperate women never turned to condoms or birth control pills with the same urgency that they will then turn to alleyway abortionists for. If only they had thought about the consequences of their actions first instead of tossing morality to the wayside and having unprotected sex with a boyfriend like atheism says is perfectly ok. You don't need to be responsible either.
@Sickopath333 in high risk activities such as unprotected anal sex. you should do a little research about reality before you play the emotion card of "you're killing babies" which simply isnt true, a fetus is not a self aware, concious creature. its mother is and should have priority.
@dandil Yes, the "mother," which I will only use loosely in this circumstance. She has priority because she has a consciousness. Question though: when does consciousness arise? It's clearly before birth, seeing as that isn't a miraculous event in which the baby then gains awareness, but that's besides the point. Perhaps you should look into the research yourself seeing as how those supposed trends about sex ed. being better than abstinence programs are showing not to be the case.
@Sickopath333 interesting study about failure to precent HIV:Underhill, K., Operario, D. and Montgomery, P. (2007) Reporting deficiencies in trials of abstinence-only programmes for HIV prevention, AIDS 21 266-267. another about how abstinence education does not delay sexual encounters in teens: Dicenso A, Guyatt G, Willan A et al. (2002) Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 324 1426-1435.
@dandil I would agree that abstinence only programs are not that effective; it ignores the reality we deal with in modern society that teenagers are having sex a lot more often than in past years. However, programs that focus on both protective measures and abstinence are effective, which I feel to be a more comprehensive and effective method for the subject. Some kids do just want to have sex and follow their hormones, but several also want to explore their emotional/relational needs.
@Sickopath333 the peer review literature is quite clear on how badly religiously based abstinence only programs area failing to prevent STIs and teen pregnancies. you can't just tell teens not to have sex, having sex is the second biggest drive in life for humans, second only to survival, and sometimes even overriding fear that contributes to survival. religious organizations are putting kids at risk by not teaching them about safe sex, and increasing the number of teen pregnancies.
@dandil Abstinence, Sex, and STD/HIV Education Programs for Teens: Their Impact on Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy, and Sexually Transmitted Disease. Douglas Kirby (2007). Student evaluation of sex education programs advocating abstinence. By: Olsen, Joseph, Weed, Stan, Adolescence, 00018449, Summer92, Vol. 27, Issue 106. I also believe that sex ed. should be blunt about how males and females to varying extents will be manipulative and tell any number of lies for sexual conquests.
@Sickopath333 I went over the articles posted. the first said that sex ed classes mostly reduced risky behaviour and increased contraceptive use, or had no impact. (1 program had negative impact, statistically insignificant). the second is an opinion piece by students, and opinion pieces are NOT admissable as evidence of anything. I've kinda lost track of what you're trying to argue. your notion if people being manipulative is wrong, both genders have VERY active sex drives during adolescence
@dandil If the second piece is so worthless why was it accepted into a peer-reviewed journal? The whole concept that science doesn't admit opinion and is so thorough with its peer-review material is crumbling apart! Try not to quote what parts you liked. Seriously though, if you want to make the argument that because people have physical drives we should direct our policy and law to concede to their whims rather than trying to control them, you're in for a very volotile (sp.) society.
@Sickopath333 opinion is NOT admissable because it just isn't fact. its your opinion that abstinence education will work, its statistical fact that it doesn't. it was peoples opinion that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. its fact that its not, on both cases. most people think concepts of quantum theory are ludicrous, but their opinion doesn't influence the validity of quantum theory. supressing out sex drives is unhealthy. look up lacigreen, learn and explore your sexuality ;)
@dandil And quantum theory isn't valid because the scientists studying it think they've got a clue what they're talking about. We won't probably know anytime soon if what they say is just nonsensical or right, but someone who thinks what they say is junk isn't really that idiotic considering what they claim. Not the more conservative claims, but the ones like, if you fully believed in it you could walk on water. Nobody ever died or suffered from keeping their virginity or not masturbating.
@Sickopath333 wrong, we know its true. quantum theory accounts for the way the semiconductors in the computer ur using work. physics has evolved to understand quantum theory quite well, and experiments have been performed to validate it. (see double slit experiment for individual photons and photoelectric effect) also, 9/10 of americans have sex before marriage, it seems obvious to me that a) abstinence programs arent convincing, and b) sexual education is important for most of the population
@dandil So every single claim by quantum theory is true? I don't think so; you can't give one example and then say that validates everything else. If you disagree then I suppose you believe that if someone had absolutely no doubts in their mind that they could walk on water (because that is what some theorists say about quantum theory). Again, the double slit experiment is only one aspect of quantum theory. Okay then, if sex. ed. is so convincing why aren't pregnancy rates dropping?
@Sickopath333 because the focus is on abstinence in the areas where they arent dropping, the areas that introduced sex ed in recent years are showing improvement and areas that have had it for many years obviously will have steady results. as for walking on water, the only claim ive ever heard like that is in the bible ;) find me one serious physicist that has published a paper in a serious peer reviewed journal that claims this.
@dandil I'm talking in general though; across America you would predict sex ed. is the norm over abstinence only, and yet our national figures aren't that good. I believe it was from a video titled What the Bleep do we Know? I have no idea how typical those ideas presented in the film are in the scientific realm, but I found them to be pretty absurd myself. Seemingly it was all based on evidence, just taken to an extreme I suppose. I don't have a copy though, so I can't quote names.
@Sickopath333 surprisingly, no theres alot of focus on abstinence education, particularly in the southern, religious states. I live in Canada so i don't really know from first hand experience what its like in the states, but here the religious schools bregugingly accepted a mixed education emphasizing abstinence but offering sex ed as well
That science is antithetical to religion or unsubstantiated belief - though "polarizing" - isn't something to criticise. Honestly, what the fuck does Nisbet say in nearly five minutes of his horseshitting around? Fucking communications professors...
Richard Dawkins didn't start the conflict between science and religion, but he certainly made it more respectable to be an outspoken atheist. When he says that studying evolution tends to lead to a more critical approach to religious belief, he's not being disingenuous, he's simply being honest about a well-documented trend. If that's enough to send a religious mob into a frenzy, then I can't imagine how anyone can think the problem is Dawkins and not a widespread, grotesque lack of education.
Did he tan before this interview. Afraid the white background would make him appear white.
tylersetterberg2323 2 days ago
i wonder if people will still be listening to this joker in 45 years...
exitsattherear 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how science "might" be used to argue against science? is this guy high? its certainly not a question of it "might" be used against science...
RawSwedishMeatball 2 months ago
Wow, why so harse? He spoke the truth about our society and how the religious wrongly turn away from Dawkins. Without a tactful approach we (atheists) will not get anyone to listen. Yes I agree the truth should prevail. However childhood indoctrination and constant ritual reinforcement is hard to pull people away from. Religions are cults and are prevalent in nearly all human societies. How do you wake these people from their delusion? Not by yelling.
Indydds 2 months ago in playlist More videos from bigthink
Ignorant middle class fool spouts his ignorant 'fluffy bunnies' view of the world... He knows NOTHING of the fascist bullies that science is up against. Treat decent people with respect - treat right wing scum with the same contempt they project on others... WAKE UP YOU LOON... Where the FUCK has 'appeasement' gotten on global warming, challenging free markets, species destruction, resource exploitation, peak oil, evolution, gay rights you name it. YOU ARE UP AGAINST ANTIREALITY SCUM...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago in playlist More videos from bigthink
A fairly accurate analysis of the Dawkins effect I'd say although I think he missed a crucial result of the "new atheism"; the fact that there have been these few "strident" intellectuals being so vocal in their opposition has made it far more socially acceptable to criticise religion in a more gentle way. They've pushed back the barriers a bit- and it's a very valuable thing.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago in playlist More videos from bigthink
I am also an appeaser of religion. However, if I get into talking with a fundie or someone that attacks my atheism, I find it to be my moral obligation to drive their hubris into the dirt.
TheBoredProle 4 months ago
you cant just teach pure science its way too complex, there has to be interpretation by scientists (like Dawkins) at some point.
i think people jumped the -1 gun. atheism is only the first step, you gotta pay attention to make it work
cycophile 4 months ago in playlist More videos from bigthink
Give this guy a break with the harsh ratings and actually watch his whole video.. He's not arguing against Dawkins, he's explaining why some people view him as such a polarizing figure. He also makes suggestions on how to explain science without giving the other side unwarranted ammunition. He's speaking from a communications standpoint not arguing against evolution.
insomniacbob381 5 months ago in playlist More videos from bigthink
I think the best way to disprove religion is to build a perfectly workable time machine, then systematically allow humans to go back in time to the key points in the formation of each of them. Then we can find out the truth once an for all.
IsolationInstigation 7 months ago
Below the belt indeed.
bjarczyk 8 months ago
Why do we need to respect something that has no evidence? This is silly, of course evolution will undermine religion because you cnt have ur cake and eat it to. This kind of pseudo logic is laughable
moroney1 8 months ago
who is this nobody, i've never heard of him!
silverfox2358 8 months ago
i dont get what hes on about, respect for religion? why SHOULD we respect religion? warfare and religion have gone hand in hand for milenia. religion has held back science and morality for a very long time now, and continues to do so. religion preys upon people's nature to gain power and money. respect for religion, what a load of crock.
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil Yeah, we should have let women kill their unborn babies for decades now; what were we religious fools thinking?
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 so what you're saying is that women shouln't have rightsd to make decisions about their own bodies? religious lobbies pushing for the banning abortion have load to desperate women turning to illegal abortions, of which an unnacceptable percentage result in mortality for women. religious lobbying towards abstinence education and less sexual education has also lead to more teen pregnancies and transmission of STIs. girls taking chastity vows are more likely to engage in high risk act
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil It isn't their bodies I'm concerned with, but the life inside, which isn't their body. Yes, it's a shame all those desperate women never turned to condoms or birth control pills with the same urgency that they will then turn to alleyway abortionists for. If only they had thought about the consequences of their actions first instead of tossing morality to the wayside and having unprotected sex with a boyfriend like atheism says is perfectly ok. You don't need to be responsible either.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 in high risk activities such as unprotected anal sex. you should do a little research about reality before you play the emotion card of "you're killing babies" which simply isnt true, a fetus is not a self aware, concious creature. its mother is and should have priority.
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil Yes, the "mother," which I will only use loosely in this circumstance. She has priority because she has a consciousness. Question though: when does consciousness arise? It's clearly before birth, seeing as that isn't a miraculous event in which the baby then gains awareness, but that's besides the point. Perhaps you should look into the research yourself seeing as how those supposed trends about sex ed. being better than abstinence programs are showing not to be the case.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 interesting study about failure to precent HIV:Underhill, K., Operario, D. and Montgomery, P. (2007) Reporting deficiencies in trials of abstinence-only programmes for HIV prevention, AIDS 21 266-267. another about how abstinence education does not delay sexual encounters in teens: Dicenso A, Guyatt G, Willan A et al. (2002) Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 324 1426-1435.
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil I would agree that abstinence only programs are not that effective; it ignores the reality we deal with in modern society that teenagers are having sex a lot more often than in past years. However, programs that focus on both protective measures and abstinence are effective, which I feel to be a more comprehensive and effective method for the subject. Some kids do just want to have sex and follow their hormones, but several also want to explore their emotional/relational needs.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 the peer review literature is quite clear on how badly religiously based abstinence only programs area failing to prevent STIs and teen pregnancies. you can't just tell teens not to have sex, having sex is the second biggest drive in life for humans, second only to survival, and sometimes even overriding fear that contributes to survival. religious organizations are putting kids at risk by not teaching them about safe sex, and increasing the number of teen pregnancies.
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil Abstinence, Sex, and STD/HIV Education Programs for Teens: Their Impact on Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy, and Sexually Transmitted Disease. Douglas Kirby (2007). Student evaluation of sex education programs advocating abstinence. By: Olsen, Joseph, Weed, Stan, Adolescence, 00018449, Summer92, Vol. 27, Issue 106. I also believe that sex ed. should be blunt about how males and females to varying extents will be manipulative and tell any number of lies for sexual conquests.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 I went over the articles posted. the first said that sex ed classes mostly reduced risky behaviour and increased contraceptive use, or had no impact. (1 program had negative impact, statistically insignificant). the second is an opinion piece by students, and opinion pieces are NOT admissable as evidence of anything. I've kinda lost track of what you're trying to argue. your notion if people being manipulative is wrong, both genders have VERY active sex drives during adolescence
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil If the second piece is so worthless why was it accepted into a peer-reviewed journal? The whole concept that science doesn't admit opinion and is so thorough with its peer-review material is crumbling apart! Try not to quote what parts you liked. Seriously though, if you want to make the argument that because people have physical drives we should direct our policy and law to concede to their whims rather than trying to control them, you're in for a very volotile (sp.) society.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 opinion is NOT admissable because it just isn't fact. its your opinion that abstinence education will work, its statistical fact that it doesn't. it was peoples opinion that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. its fact that its not, on both cases. most people think concepts of quantum theory are ludicrous, but their opinion doesn't influence the validity of quantum theory. supressing out sex drives is unhealthy. look up lacigreen, learn and explore your sexuality ;)
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil And quantum theory isn't valid because the scientists studying it think they've got a clue what they're talking about. We won't probably know anytime soon if what they say is just nonsensical or right, but someone who thinks what they say is junk isn't really that idiotic considering what they claim. Not the more conservative claims, but the ones like, if you fully believed in it you could walk on water. Nobody ever died or suffered from keeping their virginity or not masturbating.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 wrong, we know its true. quantum theory accounts for the way the semiconductors in the computer ur using work. physics has evolved to understand quantum theory quite well, and experiments have been performed to validate it. (see double slit experiment for individual photons and photoelectric effect) also, 9/10 of americans have sex before marriage, it seems obvious to me that a) abstinence programs arent convincing, and b) sexual education is important for most of the population
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil So every single claim by quantum theory is true? I don't think so; you can't give one example and then say that validates everything else. If you disagree then I suppose you believe that if someone had absolutely no doubts in their mind that they could walk on water (because that is what some theorists say about quantum theory). Again, the double slit experiment is only one aspect of quantum theory. Okay then, if sex. ed. is so convincing why aren't pregnancy rates dropping?
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 because the focus is on abstinence in the areas where they arent dropping, the areas that introduced sex ed in recent years are showing improvement and areas that have had it for many years obviously will have steady results. as for walking on water, the only claim ive ever heard like that is in the bible ;) find me one serious physicist that has published a paper in a serious peer reviewed journal that claims this.
dandil 8 months ago
@dandil I'm talking in general though; across America you would predict sex ed. is the norm over abstinence only, and yet our national figures aren't that good. I believe it was from a video titled What the Bleep do we Know? I have no idea how typical those ideas presented in the film are in the scientific realm, but I found them to be pretty absurd myself. Seemingly it was all based on evidence, just taken to an extreme I suppose. I don't have a copy though, so I can't quote names.
Sickopath333 8 months ago
@Sickopath333 surprisingly, no theres alot of focus on abstinence education, particularly in the southern, religious states. I live in Canada so i don't really know from first hand experience what its like in the states, but here the religious schools bregugingly accepted a mixed education emphasizing abstinence but offering sex ed as well
dandil 8 months ago
That science is antithetical to religion or unsubstantiated belief - though "polarizing" - isn't something to criticise. Honestly, what the fuck does Nisbet say in nearly five minutes of his horseshitting around? Fucking communications professors...
thegorillaintheroom 8 months ago
I don't like his hair or his fake tan.
mckjw002 9 months ago
This man just compared Dawkins to Billo Reilly.
That's below the belt, man. Below the belt.
DaDoctaBoom 9 months ago 26
@DaDoctaBoom yeah totally:
"Brute force I can stand, but brute reason! - it's unfair, hitting below the intellect" - Oscar Wilde
r022218 9 months ago
Richard Dawkins didn't start the conflict between science and religion, but he certainly made it more respectable to be an outspoken atheist. When he says that studying evolution tends to lead to a more critical approach to religious belief, he's not being disingenuous, he's simply being honest about a well-documented trend. If that's enough to send a religious mob into a frenzy, then I can't imagine how anyone can think the problem is Dawkins and not a widespread, grotesque lack of education.
Provoker7 9 months ago 24
@Provoker7
My thoughts exactly.
d3st88 9 months ago