This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bohr, Newton, Pascal, Heisenberg, Schrödinger were all religeous and a lot more intelligent as Dawkins. Intelligence is the capacity to weigh arguments in favour and against, something Dawkins appears to be uncapable of since he saw the Darwinian light.
How the fuck is this guy a RADICAL???....just because hes doesnt beleive in god??...that doesnt make any sense you fucking wanker...he makes utter sense....im English and posh like Dawkins...and i feel PITY for those who believe in god and religion....you utter cunts....go stone a woman to death for having sex....go kill a child for sneezing...go drown a woman for having a period!!!!!!!!!!...thats what religion is about...fuck GOD hes a man made entity...and therefore doesnt exist....you freaks.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The typical idiot! The accusations he fires against religions are the ones he makes against the believers in God. Pathetic, believes he is a god himself!
Dawkins an idiot? That's rich! I suggest you educate yourself. By the way, you shouldn't capitalise nouns, especially those which relate to fantasy sky-wizards
Dawkins is brilliant, but I am very afraid of less intelligent people totally misunderstanding him, as you can tell from the illiterate responses in this series of posts.
"It is evil to belive in something that you can not prove". dawkins.
Many years ago it was not possible to prove that the earth was spherical either so it was punished with death. ¿Should we draw the conclusion that because science can not prove a lot of things it does not exist?
I´m no scientist but I see a bog flaw in such reasoning.
"It is evil to belive in something that you can not prove". dawkins.
Many years ago it was not possible to prove that the earth was spherical either so it was punished with death. ¿Should we draw the "conclusion that because science can not prove a lot of things it does not exist?
I´m no scientist but I see a bog flaw in such reasoning." You don't seem to understand what dawkins is talking about...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He is one of the many scholars that think they know everything just because science dictates so. Science has been misused and also of course religion. That´s a different question. Science without religion is murder, religion wothout science is a cripple. By religion I donñt mean opportunists like the nowadays Evangelical gold diggers If i may use this expression here. Or the politically opportunistic catholics.
I believe to the contrary; I challenge my faith and justification, constantly thinking about questions of faith. I'm Catholic, scientist and I find that they aren't at loggerheads with each other.
And he also says that faith can be used as a blanket justification for evil deeds, but those evil deeds are also enacted by dictatorial (and oft atheistic) regimes like the China and the Soviet Union.
and since he is generalising with regards to the actions of religious people, judging all by the actions of a few, I do feel that the reverse can also be said to be true (however, that is also generalising, so don't expect every atheist-communist to shoot you ;)).
And while I grant you that communists didn't kill in the name of atheism, their belief in their political ideology can be easily equated with faith. And communism was atheist (sugarcandy mountain, anyone?).
"their belief in their political ideology can be easily equated with faith"
Agreed, of course. But it doesn't support your defense of religion. It just shows that any strong faith is dangerous.
As long as you're comparing communism to religion, it should come as no surprise that it's "atheist". All religions have an atheist's approach to other faiths.
Don't mic up strong and blind faith. Strong faith can take questioning, other points of view, etc. Blind faith cannot. Don't equate the two; they're different things.
I also feel that you're oversimplifying many religious commonalities. Take the Abrahamic religions. To a Jew or a Muslim, I'm a heretic, and the same can be said of them compared to me. However, a heretic, while claiming doctrinal differences, still believes in God. This means that you look for common ground and go from there.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dawkins is a liar. He knows the DESIGN of DNA and all living things PROVES the existence of God. Anyone who knows and has studied the complexity of DNA is convinced someone (God) created it. A person who knows the complexity and obvious design of DNA and still denies the existence of a Creator is either a liar or mentally ill. Dawkins is a self-absorbed creep who never addresses the countless knowledgeable and reputable scientists who disagree with him.
If you have, then you're blind. The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic "soup"? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in "10 followed by 113 zeros". But any event that has one chance in just "10 by followed by 50 zeroes" is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of "a long sequence of improbable events that transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row." What are the odds of that? Zero. "No Creator"?....ha ha ha.
The odds evidently aren't zero because here we are. Improbable though the sequence of events may have been, we exist. And remember, they happened over an incredibly long period of time.
Wow, so the 95% of the Royal Society and National Academies are just lying? Hmmm how did such a corrupt practice manage to produce the computer you're sitting at right now?
Dawkins is one of the most intelligent people of our time and has contributed to the public's understanding of science to an extent that few others have.
Where is the rest and why on earth is there music in the background? Nonetheless, thanks for uploading.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
Damnit people. Quit down thumbing these retarted comments... I wanna read them so I can make fun of them.
But because you guys keep giving these retarted comments the respect they deserve, I cant comment on them... LOL
ohgrx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bohr, Newton, Pascal, Heisenberg, Schrödinger were all religeous and a lot more intelligent as Dawkins. Intelligence is the capacity to weigh arguments in favour and against, something Dawkins appears to be uncapable of since he saw the Darwinian light.
domingoaerden 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
How the fuck is this guy a RADICAL???....just because hes doesnt beleive in god??...that doesnt make any sense you fucking wanker...he makes utter sense....im English and posh like Dawkins...and i feel PITY for those who believe in god and religion....you utter cunts....go stone a woman to death for having sex....go kill a child for sneezing...go drown a woman for having a period!!!!!!!!!!...thats what religion is about...fuck GOD hes a man made entity...and therefore doesnt exist....you freaks.
Deadlybrit 3 years ago 6
Comment removed
anetchi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The typical idiot! The accusations he fires against religions are the ones he makes against the believers in God. Pathetic, believes he is a god himself!
ricardonuno73 3 years ago
Dawkins an idiot? That's rich! I suggest you educate yourself. By the way, you shouldn't capitalise nouns, especially those which relate to fantasy sky-wizards
ReeT0ric 3 years ago 14
Dawkins is brilliant, but I am very afraid of less intelligent people totally misunderstanding him, as you can tell from the illiterate responses in this series of posts.
jeffreydebra1 3 years ago 6
i think this dude is righti dont know whqat i am but i agree whit this dude :S what does that make me ? lololol! :)
levianthan28 3 years ago
Athiest. that means your are Athiest.
I am Athiest,
mike11742069 2 years ago
"It is evil to belive in something that you can not prove". dawkins.
Many years ago it was not possible to prove that the earth was spherical either so it was punished with death. ¿Should we draw the conclusion that because science can not prove a lot of things it does not exist?
I´m no scientist but I see a bog flaw in such reasoning.
manixxxo 3 years ago
"It is evil to belive in something that you can not prove". dawkins.
Many years ago it was not possible to prove that the earth was spherical either so it was punished with death. ¿Should we draw the "conclusion that because science can not prove a lot of things it does not exist?
I´m no scientist but I see a bog flaw in such reasoning." You don't seem to understand what dawkins is talking about...
crazykb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He is one of the many scholars that think they know everything just because science dictates so. Science has been misused and also of course religion. That´s a different question. Science without religion is murder, religion wothout science is a cripple. By religion I donñt mean opportunists like the nowadays Evangelical gold diggers If i may use this expression here. Or the politically opportunistic catholics.
manixxxo 3 years ago
"Faith should not be challenged" says Dawkins.
I believe to the contrary; I challenge my faith and justification, constantly thinking about questions of faith. I'm Catholic, scientist and I find that they aren't at loggerheads with each other.
And he also says that faith can be used as a blanket justification for evil deeds, but those evil deeds are also enacted by dictatorial (and oft atheistic) regimes like the China and the Soviet Union.
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone
lawwellsy 3 years ago
and since he is generalising with regards to the actions of religious people, judging all by the actions of a few, I do feel that the reverse can also be said to be true (however, that is also generalising, so don't expect every atheist-communist to shoot you ;)).
And while I grant you that communists didn't kill in the name of atheism, their belief in their political ideology can be easily equated with faith. And communism was atheist (sugarcandy mountain, anyone?).
lawwellsy 3 years ago
"their belief in their political ideology can be easily equated with faith"
Agreed, of course. But it doesn't support your defense of religion. It just shows that any strong faith is dangerous.
As long as you're comparing communism to religion, it should come as no surprise that it's "atheist". All religions have an atheist's approach to other faiths.
thekure42 3 years ago
Don't mic up strong and blind faith. Strong faith can take questioning, other points of view, etc. Blind faith cannot. Don't equate the two; they're different things.
I also feel that you're oversimplifying many religious commonalities. Take the Abrahamic religions. To a Jew or a Muslim, I'm a heretic, and the same can be said of them compared to me. However, a heretic, while claiming doctrinal differences, still believes in God. This means that you look for common ground and go from there.
lawwellsy 3 years ago
"a heretic, while claiming doctrinal differences, still believes in God. This means that you look for common ground and go from there"
Or, more often, you look for a reason to kill each other.
thekure42 3 years ago 2
A cynical view, perhaps, but it is certainly more diplomatic than "You know nothing, so shut up and pay attention you miserable [English] sow!"
*Nods to Enrico Maxwell* ;)
lawwellsy 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is a liar. He knows the DESIGN of DNA and all living things PROVES the existence of God. Anyone who knows and has studied the complexity of DNA is convinced someone (God) created it. A person who knows the complexity and obvious design of DNA and still denies the existence of a Creator is either a liar or mentally ill. Dawkins is a self-absorbed creep who never addresses the countless knowledgeable and reputable scientists who disagree with him.
chuggachuggawoowoo 3 years ago
The same old watchmaker argument.
I did study DNA (as well as RNA, as well as protein biosynthesis). You have no clue.
observationspring 3 years ago
If you have, then you're blind. The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic "soup"? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in "10 followed by 113 zeros". But any event that has one chance in just "10 by followed by 50 zeroes" is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
chuggachuggawoowoo 3 years ago
but think of the number of galaxies and planets, and the number of years this could happen over......
spikypete 3 years ago
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of "a long sequence of improbable events that transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row." What are the odds of that? Zero. "No Creator"?....ha ha ha.
chuggachuggawoowoo 3 years ago
The odds evidently aren't zero because here we are. Improbable though the sequence of events may have been, we exist. And remember, they happened over an incredibly long period of time.
JimShadyUK 3 years ago 3
@chuggachuggawoowoo
Lol like 85% of biologists are atheists!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chuggachuggawoowoo
Wow, so the 95% of the Royal Society and National Academies are just lying? Hmmm how did such a corrupt practice manage to produce the computer you're sitting at right now?
chebob2009 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins at his core is a beautifull person if he wasn't he would keep his amazing intellect to himself.
billyx1111 4 years ago 5
I want to record this and wire it up to a special door bell marked 'Jehovah Witnesses ring this special button' lol
stuart483478 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And Richard Dawkins thinks He Is Intelligent?
I doubt it.
patcondellTGAGroup 4 years ago
"And Richard Dawkins thinks He Is Intelligent?
I doubt it."
What? He's doctor of evolutionary biology for crying out loud.
Ultrasecond 4 years ago 9
You did capitalise his pronoun, eh.
What evidence have you got that he isn't intelligent?
ellestheenlightened 4 years ago
We may disagree but your comment still raised a smile on my face.
tuktuktok 4 years ago
Please, elaborate.
ivankaramasov 3 years ago
Dawkins is one of the most intelligent people of our time and has contributed to the public's understanding of science to an extent that few others have.
DefaultPosition 3 years ago 3
good:)
juhanwill 4 years ago 2