How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
@quietus28 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
That point of faith is a strong thing. Whenever I debate with religious people, it usually boils down to, "you have to have faith." After that phrase is uttered, it's as if logic and reason are rendered void. The person believes, because they believe. They were taught it, so they will teach others. So much circular reasoning and logical fallacies, yet that doesn't matter. It reminds me of Adam Savage, "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Now if your aim is to propoagandaize in favour of evolution, that obviously is the best seduction technique, but if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is...
Part 6 was just uploaded by richarddawkinsdotnet. If you can't find it, click on the playlist for this series (should appear at the top of the column of videos to the right) and that playlist includes it now.
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
omfg... had i checked if this series was on a playlist... i would have saved so much time.. zzzz im so stupid... i had been alt tabbing the whole time while playing my game...
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I used to be an atheist until I came to the realization that we came from God and that the big bang was God ejaculating after watching some internet heaven porn....
i want mithras cartoons showing him as the true savior of our world and the one who took away our sins. He slayed the divine bull and split its blood for your souls!!!
convert your children, Mithras is the light of the world
How many more times will Dawkins make the mistake of claiming that the existence of God is a scientific question? It isn't. The question of the existence and nature of God is purely philosophical. Of course, since Dawkins is a scientist, he doesn't understand philosophy and prefers to pretend that it doesn't exist.
As i said, a theist god can intervene into reality as described by its followers. This are indeed scientific claims, you can find many of them in holy scriptures.
You can not disprove him of course, but you cant dispove an unlimited number of things usually an idea in science doesnt start by disproving sth.. Again, as a deist you might get away but as a theist you make scientific claims.
Doesnt change the fact that a claiming a theist god exist is a scientific claim. We can disprove his interventions in reality. That's why there have been no miracles anymore.
Of course people start to change their definition of god to a non scientific one.
@mymom1234 Any claim that uses the word "god" is necessarily a religious or a philosophical claim. To say otherwise is to say that intelligent design should be taught in schools, because whether true or false, it is at least a legitimate scientific theory.
A legitimate scientific theory goes through a process of independant testing and repeating. Not one scientific paper with evidence was even proposed. Creationist know they wouldnt stand a chance with no prove (i dont think they would be able to ever find sth), so they are abusing the legal way.
Please look up the definition of a theistic and deistic god, else this discussion is meaningless.
@mymom1234 It is that lack of proof that makes me want creationism taught in science classes. It cannot stand under scientific scrutiny. I propose giving creationists what they want is the quickest means of destroying the non-sense.
I love the frankness of Richard, it draws me in when he says stuff like "...if your aim is to kill religion, like mine is...". Good on ya Richard, one day it will happen, I hope.
Krauss always has this quirky grin on his face. What a great presenter! Great post! 1:00 haha imagine how you'd react if you were a theist, you'd probably think Dawkins and all his colleagues and supporters were demon spawns, if not the devil himself.
@crusader4fun thousands of years ago, our life expectancy is 20-25 yrs old. If you pass that age, you owe your extended life to science. Scince didnt invent abortion. Animals do this before we humans evolve from chimp. God dont create suffering, he doesnt created everything. Man created God in the 1st day. Science is reality, God is imaginary.
Imaginary is something YOU WISH for that isn't really there. Reality is, when you stop believing in it, IT DOESNT GO AWAY.
@crusader4fun The Earth want to kill us with earthquake, volcano, tsunami, lightning, etc. And guess what? The Universe wants to kill us too with meteor, blackhole, solar flair, unstable orbit that can lead to planetary collision. And in the future, our Milky way will collide with Andromeda. If you're an intelligent "thinking" person, you wont design a world like that. What more? 2,000+ babies die everyday, why?
Elizabeth Fritzl - She pray for 24 years, heaven watches.
@crusader4fun “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator” – Adolf Hitler
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Blood sacrifice, holy wars, terrorism, discrimination against homosexuals and women.
Do you really need anyone else to tell you that killing, stealing and hurting people is wrong?
What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
Also,
Islam is a religion of peace which teaches that it is proper to eliminate people who question its peacefulness. They also considered woman as a second grade human being.
@crusader4fun Religion is the biggest lie in human history. It has been responsible for more deaths throughout human history than all other unnatural causes combined. For a thousand years the Church was a tyrannical dictatorship that used religion to control the uneducated masses. Free your minds and come into the 21st century
Krauss is correct in saying that Dawkins' is reaching people who are already atheists (or almost so) and who require confidence to say so. Krauss' "seduction" approach may work better for the US population where Dawkins just seems to rub people the wrong way. "Good cop, bad cop" is a neat way of putting it.
@LsBaba I agree with you almost fully on your reiteration of Krauss' statement. However, I never realized I was on the edge of atheism. His logic made believable by his respectable credentials eventually led me to "realize" what was the truth. I guess you could say that Dawkin's approach & (along with Christopher Hitchens') plain talk delivery is what brought on my "epiphany." Now the result is that I have the info to talk this talk with my own family. The knowledge then spreads.
@liyhann I've never been very religious but into early adulthood I would have said I was Christian. I'm 50 now and (amazingly) it's only in the past year or so that I've realized I'm an atheist. Dawkins has been my main source of information, together with a wide spectrum of others. I believe the term "atheist" carries negative vibes for many, esp the religious, and I prefer to call myself a secular humanist (implies atheism). I agree with you on the need to arm yourself to put the atheist case.
@liyhann (continuing) I'm in the UK, and the British Humanist Association's recent Census Campaign has been a key factor for me (the question "What is your religion?"). The web is a great game changer too. It allows atheists to connect and build confidence to "come out". We need to have our "elevator pitch" prepared and ready to explain in the face of an inquisitive theist or agnostic. All the best :)
@LsBaba I've a similar story. Realized probably a year ago after attending a local Unitarian Universalist church and several of its adult programs (most notably the Science, Religion and Reason seminars) I went there thinking I was a "Christian" but feeling really angry about that label & what I always felt was a really very nasty belief system when it came right down to it. I bought Hitch's book, saw lots of videos (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris) It just kind of dawned on me. Huh. I guess I'm atheist
One of the best arguments against religion was made clear by Thunderf00t.
"Eternal life would be a curse. Sure, it would be fun for the first million years, maybe even a billion. But what about the trillion years after that? And eternity after that? And eternity after that? It would NEVER end. Mortality puts urgency to life. It gives life MEANING. Without it, there would be no reason to do anything."
@redshark618 yes ok i see your point but a hardcore believer still might say, that is how it is and so be it. Just because you dont like the idea of living forever doesn't mean its not true. Just the same as an atheist would say, just because you like the idea of an eternal afterlife doesn't mean its true.
@redshark618 which one? lol i was just surprised you said the thunderf00t argument was the reason you lost your religion. It's like you feel you have to like the idea of being an atheist as opposed to a believer. It's like you don't care which is actually true.
@IdDioTiK well, I never said that. I was on the fence for a while. Every piece of evidence supports evolution, with none for religion. It's not that i "like" the idea of atheism, I believe it because it's true. And now I really despise religion.
I dis-agree with the seduction method. People need to be smashed in the face with evolutionary evidence and physics so they can finally see how stupid their after life lala land and god ideas are.
Please could somebody expain - I love watching these brilliant man but as I'm not a native speaker some meanings sometimes escape me and I sort of missed the joke on the "No child's behind left"
I take it it's a phrase that also has a sexual meaning? They seem sort of embaressed about it. Please help, I'm clueless. x-D
@Biathine George Bush had an educational slogan called "No child left behind" meaning that no child would be abandoned in the educational system - teachers would continue to try with all children. "No childs' behind left" means no childs' bottom left untouched.
I can't see how it's a good idea to tell people that you don't have to be an atheist in order to believe in evolution. The idea of a god that set it all up is kind of a markery to the whole idea of evolution and natural selection.
If you believe in the evolution-fact and still believe in god, then you don´t get evolution at all. Evolution in its essence does not leave any room for a god.
@hansjaeger1 i cant claim to understand evolution completely although i feel have a good grasp of the concept but how does it not leave any room for god? if an intelligent creator could set the parameters of existence and let it unfold itself, evolution would be just a process within them parameters.
@keggg1234 No, because evolution not only describes the nature of all biological processes , it describes all chemical and physical processes from the big bang onwards. So, one would be unnecessarily injecting some sort of conscious prime mover (aka God) and this would be invoking metaphysics and not science. :)
@SINTAXFREE Not quite so: what caused the Big Bang? It's understood that we now enter into an 'infinite regression' scenario; however, worthy of mention given your apparent certitude. The laws of probability do not leave much room for keggg1234's comment, but there is a small margin that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss - that too would be unscientific. :) Now if you then make the HUGE leap to mono-theism/an Abrahamic faith, that margin erodes almost completely before our very eyes.
@SINTAXFREE I believe you have either misunderstood Dawkins' interpretation of 'infinite regress' or possibly my intended use. The universe exists; therefore it must have been caused by something. But that something must have been caused by something else, and that must have been caused by something else, and so on. I used this in the sense that Dawkins does: it explains nothing and adding a "God" to the equation just enters into further 'infinite regress'. My point, is that this...
@SINTAXFREE this argument is sufficient for Dawkins, and most others, to conclude that the probability for a 'designer' is extremely low, however we CANNOT be certain. Remember Dawkins' scale from 1 - 7; 7 being the most convinced atheist, 1 the most devout believer? As you'll probably recall, he classes himself as a 5 or 6. I just think that as this movement continues to gain traction, it's important for us to be cautious in our application of certitude; it makes our position stronger...
@SINTAXFREE It means, in all seriousness, that we contemplate more interesting elements of the question, rather than stooping to the levels on which Abrahamic doctrines flourish. That's not to say they shouldn't be engaged too, but deducing Abraham from the real question, which you and I have discussed, wonderfully highlights the primitive, self-serving nature of their belief. Quite frankly, it reduces their position to absolute lunacy, it's correct tag.
@jonwalksred If you read the 1st page Google take you to when you type: big-bang-fortunecity , it explains that the laws of cause and effect as we normally use them, do not apply on the sub-atomic scale(It's a good read). Also, Dawkins is a 6(Defacto Atheist) on his scale but this is not because he lacks the type of certainty that could be attained from more evidence. He is referring to the fact that it's impossible to be %100 certain of anything in the absolute philosophical sense.
@SINTAXFREE I think this article supports my case: it covers two totally contradictory theories originating from the unfathomable world of quantum physics. Regardless, the postulation of a creator invokes the infinite regress argument; it doesn't solve anything. That said, I employ the due caution that is inherent and necessary in the 'science and reason' community. I see no reason to evoke a designer, but cannot, yet, completely dismiss the notion - let's face it, we can't be 100% about much.
@jonwalksred Where is the contradiction? It's not that "we can't be %100 about much" rather, we can't be about %100 about anything, ever! However, we can be just as certain about this as we can be about anything else that we are are certain of.
@SINTAXFREE We're now arguing about semantics, SINTAX! Of course we can't be 100% about anything. Insofar as my statement on the subject would simply read: there is extremely little evidence to imply a designer. The contradiction: theory 1 - from something; theory 2 - from nothing. Listen, thanks for your time and the info you shared. I feel that our positions are basically one and the same. I was simply trying to make a point about certitude; I obviously picked the wrong opponent! Thanks again!
@jonwalksred I agree that the position we have taken could be incorrect so, it would not be wise to imply certitude however, unless everything we know about the universe is wrong, I think we can be quite certain that the theist position is false. I don't mean to seem argumentative but the point is that there is not just "very little evidence", or even just zero evidence, it's that the theist position is contradictory to the evidence.
@SINTAXFREE I couldn't agree more, but you have mentioned that naughty word: theism! I did not, and would not, EVER, argue for any sort of validity or margin for doubt on that point. Never in one's wildest dreams could one arrive at a theist's conclusion. I only posited that it would be unscientific to completely dismiss a deist's position - a prime mover with no further influence or intervention. That said, our discrepancy is so negligible I'd side with you rather than a theist or deist any day
@jonwalksred So yes, we can rationally dismiss the theory that a non-physical(yet somehow conscious) entity of inherent complexity, who existed outside of time and space, created the universe. On the other hand, it's not only perfectly logical but probable that the universe exploded out of the singularity from the quantum vacuum(commonly referred to as 'nothing') By the way there are some great vids about the universe from nothing and on the infinite regress and the cosmological arguments.
@SINTAXFREE Also, the contradiction simply doesn't exist. The "1-from something" position refers to metaphysical nonsense(as I'm sure you'd agree) whereas, the "2-from nothing" position refers to quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, which really isn't 'nothing' in the truest sense of the word. I realize we aren't arguing opposite points of view but I think it's important to be clear about our position.
@SINTAXFREE You're certainly making me think, my friend. I quote Sam Harris: "No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself." Not to shirk, but I don't understand quantum theory/physics well enough to comment so I bow to superior minds.
@SINTAXFREE Would you be so kind as to forward links to the vids? I would very much like to educate myself more on this topic. BTW. do you have any thoughts on some of Rupert Sheldrake's theories? Again, easily dismissible, but a couple do make me wonder: Morphic Resonance in relation to evolution, the laws of nature also being subject to evolution and "the sense of being stared at". He's not popular in the traditional science sphere, but innovative thinkers are often mistakenly sidelined.
@jonwalksred It's not possible to post links in the comment section on Youtube so, I will have to send them to you in a personal message when I have some time. It would be better to communicate through messages anyway. As far as Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance is concerned, I would recommend the page and linked articles from Skeptic's Dictionary.(Google morphic resonance + skeptic dictionary and go to first page) Basically you'll find that it doesn't pass the sniff test.
@jonwalksred ie. I am not %100 sure that anyone or anything actually exists. Perhaps, more information could come out in the future that would make me certain that God created me and only me and everything else is part of the matrix in my head
@jonwalksred ie. I am not %100 sure that anyone or anything actually exists. Perhaps, more information could come out in the future that would make me certain that God created me and only me and everything else is part of the matrix in my head
i totally agree that neither persons approach is preferable, they definately target different audiences.... i think Krauss' approach would appeal to a much larger audience but, personally speaking, the approach that Dawkins has taken was equally legitimate and it was certainly the one which led me to think the way i do now... thank "god" we have people like Krauss and Dawkins :) Science FTW :)
Both are wrong! It's entirely possible that someone can respond to the hard answer when they've been brought up from birth devout! There is a reflex action, a backlash they're not accounting for!
I wonder if we could ever see anything like this on Fox News. Probably not, unfortunately my fellow Americans are much more interested in American Idol than intellectual stimulation. Sad.
@senortony1111 unfortunately the whole world is disinterested in intellectual stimulation like this... relatively speaking, the American population is the most interested and accommodating of these intellectual debates.
@zasterguava The American population is the one most in need of being confronted with such debates - a whole lotta god botherin' goin' on, laawd have mersah!
@zasterguava FACTUALLY speaking: according to a study published in Science, comparing data from 32 European countries, Turkey, Japan and the US the only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).
A Harris poll asking: "Thinking now about religion, would you say that you are a believer in any form of God or any type of supreme being?": Great Britain 35% France 27 %, Italy 62 %, Spain 48%, Germany 41%, United States 73%.
@fctchk I will propose that a far higher percentage of God believers in America are deists as opposed to theists. Russia has one of the highest atheist rates in the world, but you really think Russia is more liberal and enlightened?
New Pew survey (July 9, 2009) on science and religion: "The United States is a highly religious nation, especially by comparison with most Western industrialized democracies. Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), a higher power i.e. deism (12%) neither (4%) and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition."
Your proclamations and "proposals" appear to be faith, not fact, based.
Whose population is in greater need of de-godbothering the US or Russia?
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
Erm, why am I seeing people referring to these men as "Mr. Dawkins" and "Mr. Krauss"? I'm sure they both dropped the "Mr" from their titles three decades ago when they became doctors.
Dr. Richard Dawkins & Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
I know I'm being pedantic, but they did go to a lot of trouble to earn those titles, so please go to the small amount of trouble of using them.
@Boy192 Part 1 Erm, why am I seeing people referring to these men as "Mr. Dawkins" and "Mr. Krauss"? I'm sure they both dropped the "Mr" from their titles three decades ago when they became doctors.
Dr. Richard Dawkins & Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
I know I'm being pedantic, but they did go to a lot of trouble to earn those titles, so please go to the small amount of trouble of using them."
RESPONSE
- I have a zoology PhD, personally and professionally, title usage is (CONTINUED)
- ...interchangeable and acceptable in so doing. By this I mean being called by name alone (NOT using Mr) or being called by my title (Dr). Note also that as both Dawkins and Krauss are tenured professors (current or emeritus), there is a further option of being titled Dr or Prof. Clearly Prof is more senior, but the individual may choose not to use it. Incidentally Prof has a different meaning here in the UK than in the US - it has more senior and prestigious weight.
@Boy192 to insist on using those titles is to imply that these men are as shallow and petty as the god of the old testament of whom mr. dawkins is so fond of speaking. they are men. hard working, very intelligent men. but men nonetheless. my decision to address them as mr, dr, or simply rich and lawry has no bearing on the amount of respect i hold for their work.
@brakzorak86 While I personally wouldn't mind if people referred to me as "cuntface" for the rest of my life, I do understand the implications of being called as such. When people call scientists "mister" it generally implies a lack of respect, or ignorance in regard to the scientist's academic achievements.
@brakzorak A typical case example is John DeBerry of Tennessee's House Education Committee who basically told an Earth and environmental scientist that her commentary on biological evolution was just an opinion, that those prefixes and suffixes on her name (Dr.; BSc., Hons., PhD. etc.) meant nothing, and that her opinion was no better than his (he holds no scientific qualifications). That's grossly fucking wrong.
@Boy192 there's a huge difference between thinking that what those prefixes indicate means nothing and thinking that using the prefixes themselves means nothing. the fact that they have the education/credentials/experience that they have means everything to me and i respect them immensely for their works in their fields. however i don't need to call them Dr. every time i speak to or about them. i can respect them in other ways. not adding the prefix in no way takes away from my respect for them
@brakzorak86 Okay, well, thank you for your view. My point was not that you should worship their credentials and refer to them as doctor all the time in the way that Muslims say "as-salaamu alaykum, peace be upon him and all ten of his little piggies" every time they refer to the prophet Muhammad in a phrase, but that IF people were going refer to them as "Mister", as if to add some formality to their address, they should at least use their proper titles.
@Boy192 i can agree with that point. if youre going to say mr then you might as well say doctor. i dont always think that its a problem if you say mr though. thank you for responsibly and calmly stating your case. i hate when youtube conversations get unnecessarily out of hand. anyway, at least we both respect their work and can appreciate what they've done- even if we show our appreciation in different ways.
@brakzora I find a big problem I have is that people misinterpret me, particularly over-looking hints of reservation and exceptions in the points I'm trying to make, or by extrapolating my words too far. It happens a lot, and it's quite frustrating. I agreed with what you were saying, but it just wasn't quite what I was getting at, and I didn't want to debate over something that was trivial and basically agreed on anyway. A slight difference in mind frequency. Anyway, thanks for your courtesy.
I cant leave God out of the equation. The lampost may not be good nor evil, but my perception of it IS. Scientific results change depending on whos looking, its in the theory of probability.
@bachrock1 Science is not the theory of probability, Perhaps at the quantum level with the heisenberg uncertainty principle but for the vast amount of science it is black and white. If I did an experiment to show that mercury expands when heated up and contracts when cooled down, every other person in the world who did the same experiment will get the same results. Please read up on the scientific model of observation, prediction and repeatability. Thanks.
@guild1981 science is the observation of phenomena and the reporting of learned results to others. If you observe the curvature of electrons beaming through space at a constant rate for one million years you have an equation, as soon as one breaks sequence you have a singularity or probability therefor becoming a level of consciousness. Einstein worked on formulating the equations of gravity and electromagnetism for 35 years to no avail. He did not consider the importance of digital conscious
As for the debate about which tactic is best for getting the point across, I think they are all critical by presenting the arguments from different perspectives. It is this multi-prong approach that will have the greatest impact on creating a new Zeitgeist. Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, Dennett, Shermer, etc. are all making excellent contributions. This ship is rapidly getting up to speed and will be virtually impossible to stop.
I don't know why people are comparing the two scientists intelligence. One undoubtedly is more intelligent than the other, but they're both incredibly bright minds trying their best to educate and to make the world a better place. Discussing who might have 8 more IQ points is completely pointless and trivializes the entire discussion.
Me, personally, I'm just thankful that they're both doing what they do and doing it so thoughtfully. It's a big inspiration to me.
@nyblake If God made the universe and the method he uses was the bigbang, how would you tell the difference? If God uses evolution to create all the species, how would you know? How would you know if there is a God involve or not? The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical (way more than zebra to a horse).
Btw, FYI, the Church of England apologized to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theory of evolution. Google it!
this is like when those two dragonball z characters connect and become one; a more powerful character. dawkins + krauss = super sayain kraskins. pow pow die god dieee
Dawkins caved a little too much at the suggestion that his approach doesn't get results. It does. Minds CAN change, no matter how brainwashed we might think a person is; I'm living proof of it.
@Grak70 Let me clarify that: some people need to be seduced, some people need to be bashed in the face with a brick. I was in the latter category and it worked. I really think the scientific community overplays the idea that religious people cannot be persuaded by showing them how ridiculous their beliefs are.
I agree with Krauss, Dawkins helps those who are receptive to those ideas to speak out in public. I don't think Dawkins convinces many who are close minded, but very few people can anyway...
@PhilosophyHippo I have discovered a way of persuading closed minded people. It has been established that heavy metals in the environment affect brain function. I have achieved results using dosages between .22 and .357 magnum.
Richard doesn't want to KILL religion. He wants to TORTURE it with a death of a thousand gaping wounds.
If richard wanted to kill religion he'd jump all over the question of the underlying law of nature. (Google it)
The underlying law of nature makes fairy tales obsolete. It does this when its question is taken seriously, let alone upon identifying what it is, understanding it and finally applying it, which all 7-billion people can easily do, including all future generations.
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
We need desperately to make education relevant, meaningful and joyful for students. Whether it's taught inside or outside the school, religion is a big part of what is retarding scholastic achievement as I see it, because it teaches kids to be uncritical thinkers and to accept an authoritarian belief system divorced from reason. We are in a race for time until religious zealotry and fundamentalism engulf the world in destruction. The New Atheism offers the best hope to overcome it.
Especially when theists seek to undermine the advancement of human knowledge and the progress of science by forcing the teaching of creationism in schools, it pays to have as many committed atheists as possible to counter their efforts.
So... Lawrence softens them up and Dawkins pulls them to our side ;)
doomsdayprogrock 4 days ago
Back to bad cop for Dawkins I guess, we need a replacement contrarian.
lordcodicus 4 days ago
Haha I love Dawkins!
VanQuishi 3 weeks ago
@VanQuishi The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Wouldn't that same logic apply to belief in a god?
quietus28 2 weeks ago
@qu..God and Empirical Logic.
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@quietus28 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
That point of faith is a strong thing. Whenever I debate with religious people, it usually boils down to, "you have to have faith." After that phrase is uttered, it's as if logic and reason are rendered void. The person believes, because they believe. They were taught it, so they will teach others. So much circular reasoning and logical fallacies, yet that doesn't matter. It reminds me of Adam Savage, "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
onslaught147 1 month ago
what was the line?!!!!!!????
CareFreeWherever 1 month ago
@CareFreeWherever No child's behind left, an alteration of the line "no child left behind." Commenting upon church abuse cases
JackWilsonVideos 3 weeks ago
The video from the link has been removed.
But the original is back on the official channel.
You can search it for yourself or just copy-paste this:
/watch?v=n83AsJ-Dg08
miloibrado 1 month ago 3
@miloibrado Thanks man!
weefeatures 1 month ago
@ 3:45 "It's about time that politicians understood that"
No Lawrence, politicians don't understand anything of slightest significance other than votes.
jolohmm 1 month ago
But doesn't saying "You don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution" perpetuate the negative social stigma surrounding atheism?
ArcadianGenesis 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
hahahaha oh god, I love Richard.
0:50
Now if your aim is to propoagandaize in favour of evolution, that obviously is the best seduction technique, but if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is...
hahahahaha
1:30 "... and I'll turn them all into atheists!"
Joe22c 2 months ago
Kill religion!!!
allermann1 2 months ago
I thought he was going to say "If you go to the Church, you should tell them to teach the controversy of evolution"
gamerunknown 2 months ago
WTF??? The 6th video is 'private'???
BannorPhil 2 months ago
hitchens should be flattered that dawkins thinks of him as one of the most eloquent people he's ever heard. monumental compliment!
faddakill000 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Part 6 was just uploaded by richarddawkinsdotnet. If you can't find it, click on the playlist for this series (should appear at the top of the column of videos to the right) and that playlist includes it now.
Jotto999 3 months ago
Yeah! The motto of the Catholic Church! "No child's behind left!" That is so sick, but oh soooooooooo true!!!
BigFatHeretic 3 months ago 5
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
omfg... had i checked if this series was on a playlist... i would have saved so much time.. zzzz im so stupid... i had been alt tabbing the whole time while playing my game...
880330145789 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I WAS THE BAD COP UNTIL CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS CAME ALONG. HAHA SOO TRUE
zrinkalebo 6 months ago 80
I used to be an atheist until I came to the realization that we came from God and that the big bang was God ejaculating after watching some internet heaven porn....
acjones810 6 months ago 4
@acjones810 Where can I get that porn?
SonOfNye 6 months ago
@SonOfNye you'll need to get a 4d tv mate to view this porn :S lol
MarcowaR 5 months ago
Comment removed
AKhellbindeR 6 months ago
I love both of these guys but it just sounds like they're each giving each other hand jobs.
pacifiedfools 7 months ago
@pacifiedfools They're just two very smart people. It's easy for them to agree.
philnov8 7 months ago
i want mithras cartoons showing him as the true savior of our world and the one who took away our sins. He slayed the divine bull and split its blood for your souls!!!
convert your children, Mithras is the light of the world
kelbykross1 7 months ago
@kelbykross1 Fuk off.
MJFAN666 7 months ago
@MJFAN666 :)
kelbykross1 7 months ago
How many more times will Dawkins make the mistake of claiming that the existence of God is a scientific question? It isn't. The question of the existence and nature of God is purely philosophical. Of course, since Dawkins is a scientist, he doesn't understand philosophy and prefers to pretend that it doesn't exist.
ErnilEnNaur 7 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
Almost all people who believe in god have a definition of him which includes many scientific claims. You can get away as a deist but not as a theist.
mymom1234 7 months ago
@mymom1234 Regardless of what people believe about God(s), he/she/it is not something that science can study.
ErnilEnNaur 7 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
As i said, a theist god can intervene into reality as described by its followers. This are indeed scientific claims, you can find many of them in holy scriptures.
You can not disprove him of course, but you cant dispove an unlimited number of things usually an idea in science doesnt start by disproving sth.. Again, as a deist you might get away but as a theist you make scientific claims.
mymom1234 7 months ago
@mymom1234 If you cannot disprove them, then they're not scientific claims. All scientific claims must be falsifiable.
ErnilEnNaur 7 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
Doesnt change the fact that a claiming a theist god exist is a scientific claim. We can disprove his interventions in reality. That's why there have been no miracles anymore.
Of course people start to change their definition of god to a non scientific one.
mymom1234 7 months ago
@mymom1234 Any claim that uses the word "god" is necessarily a religious or a philosophical claim. To say otherwise is to say that intelligent design should be taught in schools, because whether true or false, it is at least a legitimate scientific theory.
ErnilEnNaur 7 months ago
@ErnilEnNaur
A legitimate scientific theory goes through a process of independant testing and repeating. Not one scientific paper with evidence was even proposed. Creationist know they wouldnt stand a chance with no prove (i dont think they would be able to ever find sth), so they are abusing the legal way.
Please look up the definition of a theistic and deistic god, else this discussion is meaningless.
mymom1234 7 months ago
@mymom1234 It is that lack of proof that makes me want creationism taught in science classes. It cannot stand under scientific scrutiny. I propose giving creationists what they want is the quickest means of destroying the non-sense.
SonOfNye 6 months ago
"well I was the bad cop until Christopher Hitchens came along"
Czeckie 7 months ago
I love the frankness of Richard, it draws me in when he says stuff like "...if your aim is to kill religion, like mine is...". Good on ya Richard, one day it will happen, I hope.
Baeloth 7 months ago
@crusader4fun actually if you look for "eugenics religion" in google you will be the one suprised.
DemokritosAbdera 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The real world, as it actually is, is not evil"
ekuwa69 8 months ago
Hitchens, Krauss, Dawkins - ARE LEGENDARY
willd3rbeast 8 months ago
Krauss always has this quirky grin on his face. What a great presenter! Great post! 1:00 haha imagine how you'd react if you were a theist, you'd probably think Dawkins and all his colleagues and supporters were demon spawns, if not the devil himself.
TubeFreakification 8 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Krauss always has this quirky grin on his face. What a great presenter! Great post!
TubeFreakification 8 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
I love how someone laughed after "reputable clerygman". The ironyy
g0tcadaver 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crusader4fun The fool goes on faith----->the wise go on evidence ;)
The fool believes everything he reads----->the wise test, defend, verifiy, analyse, debate and show things to be correct with evidence
The fool goes on faith----->but denies other faiths
The fool ---->believes absurdities ------>the wise laugh at absurdities
The greatest of fools are the ones led by faith, for they are blind and led over the edge of the cliff...the wise see (evidence) the cliff
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@crusader4fun thousands of years ago, our life expectancy is 20-25 yrs old. If you pass that age, you owe your extended life to science. Scince didnt invent abortion. Animals do this before we humans evolve from chimp. God dont create suffering, he doesnt created everything. Man created God in the 1st day. Science is reality, God is imaginary.
Imaginary is something YOU WISH for that isn't really there. Reality is, when you stop believing in it, IT DOESNT GO AWAY.
Think.
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@crusader4fun The Earth want to kill us with earthquake, volcano, tsunami, lightning, etc. And guess what? The Universe wants to kill us too with meteor, blackhole, solar flair, unstable orbit that can lead to planetary collision. And in the future, our Milky way will collide with Andromeda. If you're an intelligent "thinking" person, you wont design a world like that. What more? 2,000+ babies die everyday, why?
Elizabeth Fritzl - She pray for 24 years, heaven watches.
watch?v=Ph6et2pZfrQ
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@crusader4fun Observation: Wow, what a nice world we live in
Religious claim: God must have made it
Intellectual response: we don't know, let's find out...
So who needs to prove their point?
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@crusader4fun “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator” – Adolf Hitler
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Blood sacrifice, holy wars, terrorism, discrimination against homosexuals and women.
Do you really need anyone else to tell you that killing, stealing and hurting people is wrong?
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@crusader4fun You sure about that?
Deuteronomy 3:1-7
Chronicles 21:9-14
What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
Also,
Islam is a religion of peace which teaches that it is proper to eliminate people who question its peacefulness. They also considered woman as a second grade human being.
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
@crusader4fun Religion is the biggest lie in human history. It has been responsible for more deaths throughout human history than all other unnatural causes combined. For a thousand years the Church was a tyrannical dictatorship that used religion to control the uneducated masses. Free your minds and come into the 21st century
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago 2
Krauss is correct in saying that Dawkins' is reaching people who are already atheists (or almost so) and who require confidence to say so. Krauss' "seduction" approach may work better for the US population where Dawkins just seems to rub people the wrong way. "Good cop, bad cop" is a neat way of putting it.
LsBaba 9 months ago
@LsBaba I agree with you almost fully on your reiteration of Krauss' statement. However, I never realized I was on the edge of atheism. His logic made believable by his respectable credentials eventually led me to "realize" what was the truth. I guess you could say that Dawkin's approach & (along with Christopher Hitchens') plain talk delivery is what brought on my "epiphany." Now the result is that I have the info to talk this talk with my own family. The knowledge then spreads.
liyhann 9 months ago
@liyhann I've never been very religious but into early adulthood I would have said I was Christian. I'm 50 now and (amazingly) it's only in the past year or so that I've realized I'm an atheist. Dawkins has been my main source of information, together with a wide spectrum of others. I believe the term "atheist" carries negative vibes for many, esp the religious, and I prefer to call myself a secular humanist (implies atheism). I agree with you on the need to arm yourself to put the atheist case.
LsBaba 9 months ago
@liyhann (continuing) I'm in the UK, and the British Humanist Association's recent Census Campaign has been a key factor for me (the question "What is your religion?"). The web is a great game changer too. It allows atheists to connect and build confidence to "come out". We need to have our "elevator pitch" prepared and ready to explain in the face of an inquisitive theist or agnostic. All the best :)
LsBaba 9 months ago
@LsBaba I've a similar story. Realized probably a year ago after attending a local Unitarian Universalist church and several of its adult programs (most notably the Science, Religion and Reason seminars) I went there thinking I was a "Christian" but feeling really angry about that label & what I always felt was a really very nasty belief system when it came right down to it. I bought Hitch's book, saw lots of videos (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris) It just kind of dawned on me. Huh. I guess I'm atheist
liyhann 9 months ago
Part 6 on the channel is broken. To see it, go to
/watch?v=xu5XdhhN8Qw#t=4m58s
StrikaAmaru 10 months ago 35
This has been flagged as spam show
@StrikaAmaru
It no longer exists.
BarrySlisk 2 months ago
@StrikaAmaru why did u close ur account. ?:P
thcci 1 month ago
@StrikaAmaru that link no longer works, just copy/paste
Lawrence Krauss Discussion (6/12) - Richard Dawkins
into the search.
yakjedi 2 weeks ago
What book is Krauss referring to!?
VideoJargon 10 months ago
@VideoJargon The God Delusion by Dawkins
meloveoasis 10 months ago
@meloveoasis Thanks!
VideoJargon 10 months ago
@meloveoasis Wait, if you go to 5:56 he says "one of my favourite lines in his [Hitchen's] book..."
VideoJargon 10 months ago
One of the best arguments against religion was made clear by Thunderf00t.
"Eternal life would be a curse. Sure, it would be fun for the first million years, maybe even a billion. But what about the trillion years after that? And eternity after that? And eternity after that? It would NEVER end. Mortality puts urgency to life. It gives life MEANING. Without it, there would be no reason to do anything."
This is the one point that killed my religion.
redshark618 10 months ago
@redshark618 yes ok i see your point but a hardcore believer still might say, that is how it is and so be it. Just because you dont like the idea of living forever doesn't mean its not true. Just the same as an atheist would say, just because you like the idea of an eternal afterlife doesn't mean its true.
IdDioTiK 10 months ago
@IdDioTiK are you saying it IS true??
redshark618 10 months ago
@redshark618 which one? lol i was just surprised you said the thunderf00t argument was the reason you lost your religion. It's like you feel you have to like the idea of being an atheist as opposed to a believer. It's like you don't care which is actually true.
IdDioTiK 10 months ago
@IdDioTiK well, I never said that. I was on the fence for a while. Every piece of evidence supports evolution, with none for religion. It's not that i "like" the idea of atheism, I believe it because it's true. And now I really despise religion.
redshark618 10 months ago 2
@redshark618 ok dude looks like we cleared that one up. peace
IdDioTiK 10 months ago
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
nordhorny 10 months ago
I dis-agree with the seduction method. People need to be smashed in the face with evolutionary evidence and physics so they can finally see how stupid their after life lala land and god ideas are.
LambdaQuarks 10 months ago
Comment removed
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
Comment removed
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
it was great to hear his view on Christopher Hitchens
lelkish 1 year ago
aaam. AAAAA! aaam UUM AAA!
TomValedro 1 year ago
Please could somebody expain - I love watching these brilliant man but as I'm not a native speaker some meanings sometimes escape me and I sort of missed the joke on the "No child's behind left"
I take it it's a phrase that also has a sexual meaning? They seem sort of embaressed about it. Please help, I'm clueless. x-D
Biathine 1 year ago
@Biathine George Bush had an educational slogan called "No child left behind" meaning that no child would be abandoned in the educational system - teachers would continue to try with all children. "No childs' behind left" means no childs' bottom left untouched.
jamesrands 1 year ago
@jamesrands Oh, of course! Thank you :-)
Biathine 1 year ago
I can't see how it's a good idea to tell people that you don't have to be an atheist in order to believe in evolution. The idea of a god that set it all up is kind of a markery to the whole idea of evolution and natural selection.
If you believe in the evolution-fact and still believe in god, then you don´t get evolution at all. Evolution in its essence does not leave any room for a god.
hansjaeger1 1 year ago
@hansjaeger1 i cant claim to understand evolution completely although i feel have a good grasp of the concept but how does it not leave any room for god? if an intelligent creator could set the parameters of existence and let it unfold itself, evolution would be just a process within them parameters.
keggg1234 1 year ago
@keggg1234 No, because evolution not only describes the nature of all biological processes , it describes all chemical and physical processes from the big bang onwards. So, one would be unnecessarily injecting some sort of conscious prime mover (aka God) and this would be invoking metaphysics and not science. :)
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE Not quite so: what caused the Big Bang? It's understood that we now enter into an 'infinite regression' scenario; however, worthy of mention given your apparent certitude. The laws of probability do not leave much room for keggg1234's comment, but there is a small margin that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss - that too would be unscientific. :) Now if you then make the HUGE leap to mono-theism/an Abrahamic faith, that margin erodes almost completely before our very eyes.
jonwalksred 11 months ago
Comment removed
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@jonwalksred Yes, quite so! Type INFINITE-REGRESS-Argument-for-Creation-REFUTED into google and go to the first page.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE I believe you have either misunderstood Dawkins' interpretation of 'infinite regress' or possibly my intended use. The universe exists; therefore it must have been caused by something. But that something must have been caused by something else, and that must have been caused by something else, and so on. I used this in the sense that Dawkins does: it explains nothing and adding a "God" to the equation just enters into further 'infinite regress'. My point, is that this...
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE this argument is sufficient for Dawkins, and most others, to conclude that the probability for a 'designer' is extremely low, however we CANNOT be certain. Remember Dawkins' scale from 1 - 7; 7 being the most convinced atheist, 1 the most devout believer? As you'll probably recall, he classes himself as a 5 or 6. I just think that as this movement continues to gain traction, it's important for us to be cautious in our application of certitude; it makes our position stronger...
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE It means, in all seriousness, that we contemplate more interesting elements of the question, rather than stooping to the levels on which Abrahamic doctrines flourish. That's not to say they shouldn't be engaged too, but deducing Abraham from the real question, which you and I have discussed, wonderfully highlights the primitive, self-serving nature of their belief. Quite frankly, it reduces their position to absolute lunacy, it's correct tag.
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@jonwalksred If you read the 1st page Google take you to when you type: big-bang-fortunecity , it explains that the laws of cause and effect as we normally use them, do not apply on the sub-atomic scale(It's a good read). Also, Dawkins is a 6(Defacto Atheist) on his scale but this is not because he lacks the type of certainty that could be attained from more evidence. He is referring to the fact that it's impossible to be %100 certain of anything in the absolute philosophical sense.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE I think this article supports my case: it covers two totally contradictory theories originating from the unfathomable world of quantum physics. Regardless, the postulation of a creator invokes the infinite regress argument; it doesn't solve anything. That said, I employ the due caution that is inherent and necessary in the 'science and reason' community. I see no reason to evoke a designer, but cannot, yet, completely dismiss the notion - let's face it, we can't be 100% about much.
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@jonwalksred Where is the contradiction? It's not that "we can't be %100 about much" rather, we can't be about %100 about anything, ever! However, we can be just as certain about this as we can be about anything else that we are are certain of.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE We're now arguing about semantics, SINTAX! Of course we can't be 100% about anything. Insofar as my statement on the subject would simply read: there is extremely little evidence to imply a designer. The contradiction: theory 1 - from something; theory 2 - from nothing. Listen, thanks for your time and the info you shared. I feel that our positions are basically one and the same. I was simply trying to make a point about certitude; I obviously picked the wrong opponent! Thanks again!
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@jonwalksred I agree that the position we have taken could be incorrect so, it would not be wise to imply certitude however, unless everything we know about the universe is wrong, I think we can be quite certain that the theist position is false. I don't mean to seem argumentative but the point is that there is not just "very little evidence", or even just zero evidence, it's that the theist position is contradictory to the evidence.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE I couldn't agree more, but you have mentioned that naughty word: theism! I did not, and would not, EVER, argue for any sort of validity or margin for doubt on that point. Never in one's wildest dreams could one arrive at a theist's conclusion. I only posited that it would be unscientific to completely dismiss a deist's position - a prime mover with no further influence or intervention. That said, our discrepancy is so negligible I'd side with you rather than a theist or deist any day
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@jonwalksred So yes, we can rationally dismiss the theory that a non-physical(yet somehow conscious) entity of inherent complexity, who existed outside of time and space, created the universe. On the other hand, it's not only perfectly logical but probable that the universe exploded out of the singularity from the quantum vacuum(commonly referred to as 'nothing') By the way there are some great vids about the universe from nothing and on the infinite regress and the cosmological arguments.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE Also, the contradiction simply doesn't exist. The "1-from something" position refers to metaphysical nonsense(as I'm sure you'd agree) whereas, the "2-from nothing" position refers to quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, which really isn't 'nothing' in the truest sense of the word. I realize we aren't arguing opposite points of view but I think it's important to be clear about our position.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE You're certainly making me think, my friend. I quote Sam Harris: "No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself." Not to shirk, but I don't understand quantum theory/physics well enough to comment so I bow to superior minds.
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@SINTAXFREE Would you be so kind as to forward links to the vids? I would very much like to educate myself more on this topic. BTW. do you have any thoughts on some of Rupert Sheldrake's theories? Again, easily dismissible, but a couple do make me wonder: Morphic Resonance in relation to evolution, the laws of nature also being subject to evolution and "the sense of being stared at". He's not popular in the traditional science sphere, but innovative thinkers are often mistakenly sidelined.
jonwalksred 11 months ago
@jonwalksred It's not possible to post links in the comment section on Youtube so, I will have to send them to you in a personal message when I have some time. It would be better to communicate through messages anyway. As far as Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance is concerned, I would recommend the page and linked articles from Skeptic's Dictionary.(Google morphic resonance + skeptic dictionary and go to first page) Basically you'll find that it doesn't pass the sniff test.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonwalksred ie. I am not %100 sure that anyone or anything actually exists. Perhaps, more information could come out in the future that would make me certain that God created me and only me and everything else is part of the matrix in my head
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonwalksred ie. I am not %100 sure that anyone or anything actually exists. Perhaps, more information could come out in the future that would make me certain that God created me and only me and everything else is part of the matrix in my head
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
@jonwalksred Or for another approach type: big-bang-fortunecity into Google and go to the first page.
SINTAXFREE 11 months ago
i totally agree that neither persons approach is preferable, they definately target different audiences.... i think Krauss' approach would appeal to a much larger audience but, personally speaking, the approach that Dawkins has taken was equally legitimate and it was certainly the one which led me to think the way i do now... thank "god" we have people like Krauss and Dawkins :) Science FTW :)
Myster36 1 year ago
Both are wrong! It's entirely possible that someone can respond to the hard answer when they've been brought up from birth devout! There is a reflex action, a backlash they're not accounting for!
TimothyStuartRiches 1 year ago
They both have a different accent!
LordStilte 1 year ago
I wonder if we could ever see anything like this on Fox News. Probably not, unfortunately my fellow Americans are much more interested in American Idol than intellectual stimulation. Sad.
senortony1111 1 year ago
@senortony1111 unfortunately the whole world is disinterested in intellectual stimulation like this... relatively speaking, the American population is the most interested and accommodating of these intellectual debates.
zasterguava 1 year ago
@zasterguava The American population is the one most in need of being confronted with such debates - a whole lotta god botherin' goin' on, laawd have mersah!
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk This is nonsense. Again... America, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, is one of the most enlightened liberal countries in the world.
zasterguava 1 year ago
@zasterguava FACTUALLY speaking: according to a study published in Science, comparing data from 32 European countries, Turkey, Japan and the US the only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).
A Harris poll asking: "Thinking now about religion, would you say that you are a believer in any form of God or any type of supreme being?": Great Britain 35% France 27 %, Italy 62 %, Spain 48%, Germany 41%, United States 73%.
Amen.
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk I will propose that a far higher percentage of God believers in America are deists as opposed to theists. Russia has one of the highest atheist rates in the world, but you really think Russia is more liberal and enlightened?
zasterguava 1 year ago
@zasterguava
New Pew survey (July 9, 2009) on science and religion: "The United States is a highly religious nation, especially by comparison with most Western industrialized democracies. Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), a higher power i.e. deism (12%) neither (4%) and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition."
Your proclamations and "proposals" appear to be faith, not fact, based.
Whose population is in greater need of de-godbothering the US or Russia?
fctchk 1 year ago
@zasterguava In the world perhaps, but certainly not among already developed nations.
Kuriku24 1 year ago
7:16 reputable clergyman? oxymoron much?
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk ... watch Dawkins interview with Father George Coyne
apoplexy1974 1 year ago
4:58 haha!
HiAdrian 1 year ago
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
Erm, why am I seeing people referring to these men as "Mr. Dawkins" and "Mr. Krauss"? I'm sure they both dropped the "Mr" from their titles three decades ago when they became doctors.
Dr. Richard Dawkins & Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
I know I'm being pedantic, but they did go to a lot of trouble to earn those titles, so please go to the small amount of trouble of using them.
Boy192 1 year ago 7
@Boy192 Just 'Dawkins' OK? :D Seriously, you're right. Mr. is a title, snatched for the common man. You are only a Mister when you matter.
TimothyStuartRiches 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Boy192 Part 1 Erm, why am I seeing people referring to these men as "Mr. Dawkins" and "Mr. Krauss"? I'm sure they both dropped the "Mr" from their titles three decades ago when they became doctors.
Dr. Richard Dawkins & Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
I know I'm being pedantic, but they did go to a lot of trouble to earn those titles, so please go to the small amount of trouble of using them."
RESPONSE
- I have a zoology PhD, personally and professionally, title usage is (CONTINUED)
nordhorny 1 year ago
@nordhorny Part 2
- ...interchangeable and acceptable in so doing. By this I mean being called by name alone (NOT using Mr) or being called by my title (Dr). Note also that as both Dawkins and Krauss are tenured professors (current or emeritus), there is a further option of being titled Dr or Prof. Clearly Prof is more senior, but the individual may choose not to use it. Incidentally Prof has a different meaning here in the UK than in the US - it has more senior and prestigious weight.
nordhorny 1 year ago
@Boy192 to insist on using those titles is to imply that these men are as shallow and petty as the god of the old testament of whom mr. dawkins is so fond of speaking. they are men. hard working, very intelligent men. but men nonetheless. my decision to address them as mr, dr, or simply rich and lawry has no bearing on the amount of respect i hold for their work.
brakzorak86 7 months ago
@brakzorak86 While I personally wouldn't mind if people referred to me as "cuntface" for the rest of my life, I do understand the implications of being called as such. When people call scientists "mister" it generally implies a lack of respect, or ignorance in regard to the scientist's academic achievements.
Boy192 6 months ago
@brakzorak A typical case example is John DeBerry of Tennessee's House Education Committee who basically told an Earth and environmental scientist that her commentary on biological evolution was just an opinion, that those prefixes and suffixes on her name (Dr.; BSc., Hons., PhD. etc.) meant nothing, and that her opinion was no better than his (he holds no scientific qualifications). That's grossly fucking wrong.
Boy192 6 months ago
@Boy192 there's a huge difference between thinking that what those prefixes indicate means nothing and thinking that using the prefixes themselves means nothing. the fact that they have the education/credentials/experience that they have means everything to me and i respect them immensely for their works in their fields. however i don't need to call them Dr. every time i speak to or about them. i can respect them in other ways. not adding the prefix in no way takes away from my respect for them
brakzorak86 6 months ago
@brakzorak86 Okay, well, thank you for your view. My point was not that you should worship their credentials and refer to them as doctor all the time in the way that Muslims say "as-salaamu alaykum, peace be upon him and all ten of his little piggies" every time they refer to the prophet Muhammad in a phrase, but that IF people were going refer to them as "Mister", as if to add some formality to their address, they should at least use their proper titles.
Boy192 6 months ago
@Boy192 i can agree with that point. if youre going to say mr then you might as well say doctor. i dont always think that its a problem if you say mr though. thank you for responsibly and calmly stating your case. i hate when youtube conversations get unnecessarily out of hand. anyway, at least we both respect their work and can appreciate what they've done- even if we show our appreciation in different ways.
brakzorak86 6 months ago
@brakzora I find a big problem I have is that people misinterpret me, particularly over-looking hints of reservation and exceptions in the points I'm trying to make, or by extrapolating my words too far. It happens a lot, and it's quite frustrating. I agreed with what you were saying, but it just wasn't quite what I was getting at, and I didn't want to debate over something that was trivial and basically agreed on anyway. A slight difference in mind frequency. Anyway, thanks for your courtesy.
Boy192 6 months ago
I cant leave God out of the equation. The lampost may not be good nor evil, but my perception of it IS. Scientific results change depending on whos looking, its in the theory of probability.
bachrock1 1 year ago
@bachrock1 Science is not the theory of probability, Perhaps at the quantum level with the heisenberg uncertainty principle but for the vast amount of science it is black and white. If I did an experiment to show that mercury expands when heated up and contracts when cooled down, every other person in the world who did the same experiment will get the same results. Please read up on the scientific model of observation, prediction and repeatability. Thanks.
guild1981 1 year ago
@guild1981 science is the observation of phenomena and the reporting of learned results to others. If you observe the curvature of electrons beaming through space at a constant rate for one million years you have an equation, as soon as one breaks sequence you have a singularity or probability therefor becoming a level of consciousness. Einstein worked on formulating the equations of gravity and electromagnetism for 35 years to no avail. He did not consider the importance of digital conscious
bachrock1 1 year ago
As for the debate about which tactic is best for getting the point across, I think they are all critical by presenting the arguments from different perspectives. It is this multi-prong approach that will have the greatest impact on creating a new Zeitgeist. Hitchens, Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, Dennett, Shermer, etc. are all making excellent contributions. This ship is rapidly getting up to speed and will be virtually impossible to stop.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Strangle my hope and make me pray
To a god i've never seen but who I've betrayed?
To the people who lived the afterlife,
In a place I'll never be till I'm crucified.
DaveCJay 1 year ago
Part 6 which doesn't work, continues here, at 4:58 in this video:
/watch?v=xu5XdhhN8Qw#t=4m58s
JDoucette 1 year ago
I don't know why people are comparing the two scientists intelligence. One undoubtedly is more intelligent than the other, but they're both incredibly bright minds trying their best to educate and to make the world a better place. Discussing who might have 8 more IQ points is completely pointless and trivializes the entire discussion.
Me, personally, I'm just thankful that they're both doing what they do and doing it so thoughtfully. It's a big inspiration to me.
nyblake 1 year ago 29
@nyblake what do you mean one is undoubtedly more intelligent than the other? who is it? lol
cardmastad 9 months ago
@cardmastad
I was trying to avoid that, actually- but usually the physicists are the brightest people in the world. Especially esteemed ones like Krauss.
nyblake 9 months ago
@nyblake If God made the universe and the method he uses was the bigbang, how would you tell the difference? If God uses evolution to create all the species, how would you know? How would you know if there is a God involve or not? The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical (way more than zebra to a horse).
Btw, FYI, the Church of England apologized to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theory of evolution. Google it!
MrBabyMaddox 8 months ago
this is like when those two dragonball z characters connect and become one; a more powerful character. dawkins + krauss = super sayain kraskins. pow pow die god dieee
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
sadly the next part doesn't work
SubMeSub 1 year ago
I wish they would use science and technology to sync the audio and video.
dogman7777 1 year ago 2
Dawkins caved a little too much at the suggestion that his approach doesn't get results. It does. Minds CAN change, no matter how brainwashed we might think a person is; I'm living proof of it.
Grak70 1 year ago 6
@Grak70 Let me clarify that: some people need to be seduced, some people need to be bashed in the face with a brick. I was in the latter category and it worked. I really think the scientific community overplays the idea that religious people cannot be persuaded by showing them how ridiculous their beliefs are.
Grak70 1 year ago
I agree with Krauss, Dawkins helps those who are receptive to those ideas to speak out in public. I don't think Dawkins convinces many who are close minded, but very few people can anyway...
PhilosophyHippo 1 year ago 2
@PhilosophyHippo I have discovered a way of persuading closed minded people. It has been established that heavy metals in the environment affect brain function. I have achieved results using dosages between .22 and .357 magnum.
gamesbok 1 year ago
The out of sync sound is bothering me.
QwoPhasaArius 1 year ago
dude, 66,666 views YES!
NewtonsStudent 1 year ago
Hitchen's is KING. Smartest drunk i know.
lashkaretoiba 1 year ago 6
"Kill Religion", Dawkins is my fucking hero
4ThomasAllan 1 year ago 64
Richard doesn't want to KILL religion. He wants to TORTURE it with a death of a thousand gaping wounds.
If richard wanted to kill religion he'd jump all over the question of the underlying law of nature. (Google it)
The underlying law of nature makes fairy tales obsolete. It does this when its question is taken seriously, let alone upon identifying what it is, understanding it and finally applying it, which all 7-billion people can easily do, including all future generations.
bando8000 1 year ago
@bando8000 STOP SPAMMING
psycoelement 1 year ago
Finally I find a video of Dawkins that explains the philosphical twist about the statement: You can believe in god and believe in evolution.
This always just killed me mentally when people said it.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
what is the motto from Hitchens? I can't hear what he says
ryko26 2 years ago
@ryko26
"No child's behind left"
undefinedego 1 year ago 2
thanks
ryko26 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
lol I'm sure you have "evidence"
maddtappin 1 year ago
the selfish gene is an excellent book really brings a great understanding of nature
Nibielari 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
The video is slightly out of sync.
But yeah, paying religion lip service isn't my taste. Not gonna care though as long as it gets people out of the stupidity of religon.
xXshinzoXx 2 years ago 2
We need desperately to make education relevant, meaningful and joyful for students. Whether it's taught inside or outside the school, religion is a big part of what is retarding scholastic achievement as I see it, because it teaches kids to be uncritical thinkers and to accept an authoritarian belief system divorced from reason. We are in a race for time until religious zealotry and fundamentalism engulf the world in destruction. The New Atheism offers the best hope to overcome it.
humphs75 2 years ago 5
perfectly well said! If only a much larger percentage of the population agreed . . .
MrSchrooder 2 years ago 2
Especially when theists seek to undermine the advancement of human knowledge and the progress of science by forcing the teaching of creationism in schools, it pays to have as many committed atheists as possible to counter their efforts.
humphs75 2 years ago