At the very basis of all metaphysical theology since the dawn of time i the idea that complex comes from the simple, and that this simolicity is God. Richard Dawkins also knows this. He has had it explained to him several times, and yet still talks about the idea of God as a complex being. This is what is called BAREFACED LYING. Dawkins is just trying to trick the ignorant.
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
as atheists we wouldn't, "fall on our knees and worship them" because logically there is no need to no matter how "godlike" they seem. When you don't believe in a "superior" being; whether it is your boss or a god, life is only a question off, do I accept it
What makes Dawkin think that the universe is only 14 billion years old. Has it occured to him that the universe has always been there in some form or another. Therefore life has always been there just as matter that makes up the universe as always been there. If he thinks he can explain where life came from then he also has to explain how atoms came into existance as well as life. It has always existed! There's no beginning and there's no end. Its called infinity. No one can really understand it
maybe God doesn't interfere with earthly matters due to the importance of free will and avoiding the generation of a whole bunch of mindless drones....
haha this is hilarous because ive always thought of these things but never had anyone be able to explain what i was thinking... this guy is correct on everything
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
Topics: 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 etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
It may be better to look at it in another way. What if the possibility of life makes it inevitable in the vastness of the universe? In other words, somewhere it all had to line up and when it lines up life springs forth.
am I the only one that felt in some circumstances he actually didmake a pretty good case in a roundabout way how almost miraculously our situation is?
what no one seems to be taking into account is our mental capacity. a bird will never be able to understand the concept of a car because he doesnt have the mental capacity to do so.....all creatures have degrees of mental capacity....so,by that notion,I'm sure that there are things concerning where a deity came from that are just above our mental capacity to understand.
@glennjridge Excuse me if I misrepresent your position but you seem to be saying that our limited mental capacity makes it impossible to understand where a deity came from, i.e. a creative intelligence does exist but because we are not capable of understanding how that deity came into being. That's all well and good but why should a deity be the thing we aren't capable of understanding? Why not make exactly the same point but about natural processes of physics, for example? (CONT)
@glennjridge The problem with your argument is that it ends all inquiry. To say we can't understand where god comes from but we should believe in god halts all discussion. Whereas investigating difficult to comprehend natural processes means we can eventually (although nothing is guaranteed) know the workings of the universe. Our mental capacity is certainly limited and we can't observe everything in the universe. (CONT)
@glennjridge However, the difference between humans and other animals is we have the tools to help us see the unseen: mathematics, computers, etc. Are mental capacity, no matter how limited, is sufficient enough to comprehend the problem and devise methods for testing hypotheses and analysing results. If you want to say that's still not enough to comprehend god, you're simply building an obstacle for which you have absolutely no evidence that is even a legitimate point to make.
@Tapiola2007 we have all those things....and yet dawkins himself in another video reffers to himself as an agonostic. if this brilliant mind is unwilling to take the atheist plunge, something must be holding him back concerning mans tools in relation to the cause of all this.
@glennjridge Dawkins elaborates on this point in the God Delusion. It's not that he isn't willing to take the plunge and declare himself an atheist - he is firmly that. It is a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that as it is impossible to establish methodologically to a degree of 100% accuracy the non-existence of anything one must concede as sort of agnosticism. However, it nothing more than a technical concession. For example, we cannot prove to 100% certainty that there aren't (CONT)
@glennjridge fairies at the bottom of our gardens but does that mean we can't say we don't believe in fairies and have to declare ourselves agnostic about their existence. Of course not. We have the tools to set us on the road of atheism - the very well supported position that the universe and life are the consequence of natural processes. Those tools can't settle the matter conclusively 100% but that doesn't require us to posit a creative intelligence where there are gaps in our knowledge.
@Tapiola2007 I wouldnt put an intelligent designer in the same category as a fairy. when I see a computer sittting on a table, I dont need to see the intelligent designers that made it so that could come to be.
thats all we are. biological computers. only the tabletop is made of plastic and wires and humans are flesh bone and nerves. there was an evolution of design for a computer to b how it is, and I believe the same was for life.
@glennjridge I'm afraid you are rehashing the very old and very much debunked Watchmaker analogy. The fundamental difference between a human being (or any living organism for that matter) and a computer (or any inanimate object) is that living organisms have the ability to self-replicate. We know a computer has a designer, whether you want to consider who that is or not. However, we don't need to infer a designer for living organisms as they reproduce themselves, in number and complexity. (CONT)
@glennjridge This distinction is such a fundamental one and so vital to an understanding of nature that I'm constantly amazed by people suggesting that because cars and computers and works of art are obviously designed so too must be humans. I'm sorry to say but it is the sort of argument a child might make but not a mature educated adult. One may believe in god for many reasons but not from a design perspective. You don't seriously want to credit god with the design of the human body do you?
@glennjridge As wonderful and complex as we may seem to oursleves, our bodies most certainly were not designed. The number of flaws and basic bad features point clearly to adaptation and natural selection improving on what it has to work with. There's no going back to the drawing board and getting it right the next time. The shape of our spine and entire skeleton alone demonstrate we were once quadrapedal apes who became bipedal. A basic survey of other species is even more revealing.
@Tapiola2007 I have no problem with evolution. I just happen to follow a sense of reasoning that CS lewis put forth. "the darkened mind see's no plan,because there are far more plans than they look for",
after all thats how I see it. not only are we talking the amazing fact some speck was able to go forth and start life, we also just so happen to have food that came along for all the life,water.its just too much. science will always be like a dog chasing its tail.
@glennjridge I certainly grant the fact of our existence is an amazing, sometimes staggeringly too-good-to-be-true, event, but our wonderment at this fact shouldn't lead us to equally extraordinary claims about how it all came about. Your points about food and water are another example, like the computer, of fuzzy thinking. You're looking at the world through the lens of design or purpose: the food and water "just happen" to be here to support our type of life. Well, if you understand (CONT)
@glennjridge evolution, you'll know that we are adapted to our environment. We evolved in this world so therefore whatever is available as sources of energy and nutrition will inevitably be important to both our survival and our evolution. Our non-homo sapiens ancestors probably survived on fruit and vegetation. At some point they began to eat meat and broadened their diet. This helped them to grow, feed their development in ways that eventually led to us. We're a product of the environment.
@Tapiola2007 I know about evolution. I am talking about that not only the amazing enough fact that life somehow started,....the fact that food for this life.....also was created. this is what CS lewis is talking about.
atheists dont see the big picture...the other plans. they make nothing of the fact that fruit and vegatables also amazingly came along.
@glennjridge Fruit and vegetables have evolved like every other organic substance. They all have their own evolutionary history and they are also dependent on other organic life for their existence. The fact that humans, or more precisely our evolutionary ancestors, chose to eat them and then cultivate them is merely an aspect of adaptation in a particular ecosystem. There was no plan to make fruit and veg available for humans to eat. We certainly thrive on them now but that not amazing, is it?
@Tapiola2007 you bringing everything back to evolution again...thats the system in motion. I am before that.once again, I am talking about the fact that the concept of not only life came to be....but along with it,fruit and vegatbles also came. I dont care about the evolution of life and food. I am before that. I am talking about the concept that life was created....and it just so happens....that food was created also for the life.
@glennjridge Yes, there is a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis (the origin of life itself) but you make the leap that food was created for life - that is wrong. Life emerged through a process we don't yet understand but when there was life first on this planet it was microbial, single-celled and very simple. There was no fruit and veg as you seem to be hung up on. As live evolved, in all its forms, each life form adapted to survive in its environment. The very fact of life (CONT)
@glennjridge is still a mystery but from the point of early life to our complex living planet evolution adequately explains everything. You do understand that 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. The living organisms, including oursleves, that currently populate the planet are merely those that are best adapted to the environment. If all of it was created for life, why has so much life fallen by the wayside in the struggle to survive?
@Tapiola2007 I know creatures go extinct bcause of various factors. what atheists dont contemplate,is how "concepts" came to be. forget execution.... in that life and plants,fruit,water became physical and sprang into existence. I am talking how the concepts...the idea.... of water,plant,and life compiled themselves. you can show how they evolved...thru evolution and survival of the fittest,but how the idea for "plant' or "life" came to be is just as important as how they evolved.
@glennjridge You've lost me now. I don't understand what you mean when you say the "idea" of life, plant, water, etc. Water is not an idea - it's a chemical substance found in the universe and so happens to be crucial to our type of life. Plants are not an idea - they are living organisms. Life isn't merely an idea - it's an empirical fact of the existence of self-replicating organisms. The labels they have are what we give them. There would still be "water" in the universe if there was no life.
@glennjridge If you look at any ecosystem and the species that exist in it, they are perfectly adapted to survive there, and often there alone. Like I said, there is certainly a sense of awe and wonder when contemplating this extraordinary event we call life and I'm always ready to put my hand up for that proposition. Finding meaning is a truly human endeavour but the wonders of the natural world far outstrip any ramshackle myths about our origins. They also happen to be facts that we can know.
My objection here is people are so quick to ask, "who made the maker". But they don't realize this is a moot point. Just because someone doesn't know who made the maker, doesn't have any effect on the arguments and evidence put forth that there is a maker. Of course the arguments that state there is a maker are still flawed but simply asking something like " who created God?" (Or the maker) does not refute theistic claims anymore than asking, How did life begin, refutes evolution.
but at the same time it is the creationist who argue, "where did the matter come from?" When scientist respond that they dont know, creationist say god made it. Now when scientist ask creationist where god came from. They just say he has always been there. WHy not skip a step and say all the matter in existence was already here?
@etnies117 Do we really know that it was? We don't know anything existed prior to the big bang. So we can't actually say with certainty that matter always existed. If we're positing the big bang was the first moment in time, than we can say matter has existed as long as time has. But either way I still think asking "who created God" doesn't refute any argument put forth for God's existence. It just changes the subject.
@Drunkenprophet23 the argument usually goes like this; me:there is no god you: yes there is, where do you think you came from me:I am the product of evolution of organic chemicals you:where did those chemicals come from? me:matter created after big bang you:where did big bang come from? me: I dunno... you: it came from god me: where did god come from you: MOOT POINT!! I dont have a problem with believing in god,but the consequences of this unwarranted belief.
@etnies117 Yes that is USUALLY what theist say. But I'm not saying that. We can end at your first point. You are the product of evolution of organic chemicals. If the theist then asks "where did the chemicals come from", he has not refuted, or really disputed, that you evolved from organic chemicals, he has only changed the subject. Precisely what happens when one asks "where did God come from." It doesnt refute any argument or evidence put forth for God's existence. It just changes the subject.
The Universe is 14 billion years old, the first civilization emerged, let´s say, 7 billion years later. The second , let´s say, 5 million years after that.
When the first emerged, their scientists determined that the universe was enormous and was something like 7 billions years old.
Many individuals thought that given the inmensity and age of the universe and its quadrillion of planets , their civilization couldnt be the only one. But in fact and for the next 5 million years, it was.
A falsifiable discipline (like Science, for example) simply cannot be pitted against faith in a deity. Any proverbial equation containing the two is invalid, in that all variables of said equation have been pulled from incomparable parameters. What's green sound like? What? Exactly; you can't define a color with sound. In the same way, demanding that Science has nullified the existence of a being who's very nature supersedes Time and Space is counter-intuitive. Pretty simple concept, really.
If the crew flying a 747 were able to travel back in time and land in an english village they might be mistaken for Gods? Yeah for about maybe the first five minutes. Villagers will soon realize the crew does not have infinite knowledge, just a stupid flying machine, so they will be quickly exposed as complete frauds and con men.
@theabiotictheory Am I missing something: at what point did the crew flying the time-travelling 747 claim they were gods? I thought the point being made was that to a low-tech society beings from an extremely advanced society might appear to be gods, i.e. capable of doing the supposed impossible. Presumably the greater the technological divide, the greater the appearance of supernatural ability.
@theabiotictheory Look into John Frum and Cargo Cults that started during WWII. This is not speculation, it has actually happened within written history.
@Cougar139tweak - Thanks I read about cargo cults years ago but could not remember the name. All I remembered was the planes they copied and worshiped. I think they this is one of the most fascinating human stories I have ever come across and have just been reading about them. They even sent a U.S. war ship to try to convince them Frum was not a god but failed. They believe one day he will return and reward those that worship him - sound familiar anyone?
@WillShakespeare2007 No, it was Richard Dawkins who came across as arrogant and dismissive. Although he didn't address this point specifically, I notice whenever skeptics like Dawkins theorize on the prospect of making contact with highly advanced extraterrestrials, they seem to automatically assume if any meeting were ever to take place, that the beings encountered would be atheist. I take serious objection to such a presupposition.
@theabiotictheory - You stated that people would recognize within "5 minutes" that people with superior technology were not Gods and yet there is the example of it actually happening with cargo cults. This subject has nothing to do with atheism as the people who arrived were actually Christians and even missionaries. You are simply not big enough to accept the fact you were wrong about this and so have changed the subject.
@theabiotictheory what a bunch of nonsense... it's already an hypothesis the fact there's intelligent life in the universe apart from us, and what should we do, figure out what religion the hypothetical intelligente life believes in? really?
@theabiotictheory - I love how you made an arrogant dismissive comment and the guy came back with an actual example of it taking place. I have a first opportunity to use a phrase so beloved of the younger generation - owned!
@hexcane Moreover, thinking that our definitions of intelligence are universal can be damaging if people oversimplify it or take it too far. It encourages potentially unwarranted value judgments of individuals or even whole societies. Human diversity, thus the subject of intelligence, are very nuanced as science understands today. The quality and degree of intelligence is very diverse, just within one culture, but considering cultural effects, we should just be careful in our interpretations.
@hexcane I think you are onto a good idea, which is that people everywhere have definitions of smartness and dumbness, and without a doubt, there are common neural underpinnings which allow the formation and modulation of synapses that allows for novel and dynamic applications of reasoning. But this reasoning does not apply to every modality and the information it processes. My sister has perfect pitch and uncanny musical intelligence, but she's bad at math in spite of her best efforts.
@hexcane Sort of, but it's fuzzy. There are studies where children in Africa consistently grouped real-life objects like tools, rocks, logs, etc... according to their functional relations (wood-chopping tools go with wood), whereas children in western societies grouped objects according to linguistic categories (tools go with tools). Mandarin Chinese represents linguistically numbers in a more predictable pattern (i.e. no "teens"), which confers superior capacity for number manipulations.
If life came from a kind of soup, it still does not explain how?
Zero from zero is the only rational answer, unless you bring intelligent design into the equation. "So where then did God come from" ?
God was, is and is to be. Look around and see intelligent design around us. It could not have come into being by a kind of soup. When we make a bowl of soup? Have we later seen fish swimming in the mixture? Evolution is bad science and not truth
If life came from a kind of soup, it still does not explain how?
Zero from zero is the only rational answer, unless you bring intelligent design into the equation. "So where then did God come from " ?
God was, is and is to be. Look around and see intelligent design around us. It could not have come into being by a kind of soup. When we make a bowl of soup? Have we later seen fish swimming in the mixture? Evolution is bad science and not truth
@mark1962ish "Dawky still has not answered how life started." - So? That's not evolution. And if science can't explain something, it's pretty piss-poor to just then give up and say "God must have done it".
@AtheistBrit Nothing Poor about God. He is living, he is REAL to millions that have put their faith in the gospel and his teachings. He has done everything in providing an answer to our needs. Look and see the wonders of his design and stop kidding yourself and trying to find something that is not at all real.
@AtheistBrit Still has not answered how life started? awesome, at least biologist like Professor Dawkins is trying to solve the problem diligently with logic and reason. Theists are just mentally incompetent and educationally inapt to really dig into the question, because you guys claim to have already "found the reason". Where are your proofs, where are you justifications. WHy is the apple here, God puts it here. Why do I piss my pants? God makes me piss my pants. You may as well say IDK
@mark1962ish "The PROOF is ALL around us...OPEN YOUR EYES and know there is God who was , is and is living to the ages of ages amen."
Two things:
1. Which god are you talking about? Ah, the one YOU believe in. Okay, so everyone else who believes in a different god is wrong? And you can prove this without referring to your own holy book, yes? No, thought not.
2. The rest of your sentence is nonsense. It means nothing.
@darkpawuk: I think mark1962ish is referring to his god being infinite with the end of his statement. These batshit crazy faith heads tend to waffle such jargon a lot.
@mark1962ish Indeed, where did your god come from? You can not answer that question so by your own failing logic I can dismiss your claims as irrelevant. The fact is to say we do not know does not give license to make something up because it suites us. Science does not work that way as opposed to religion, proof is required to validate a hypothesis, a lot of proof is needed before that idea is called a theory. You have none, your gut feeling does not count, this is why ID is not science at all.
They have found a planet now that's similar to earth in many ways, and may have water. Gliese 581g. And thats "only" 20 lightyears away. But, I think we might find life in our own solar system on one of Jupiters moons - Europa.
if deep sea creatures can glow, and we can focus light coming our eyeballs then could a fish ever evolve lazer death rays? can we make that happen like we do bananas and i want one when someone does it. and electric eels evolved too so take that to the extreme too.
if deep sea creatures can glow, and we can focus light coming in, then could a fish ever evolve lazer death rays? can we make that happen like we do bananas and i want one when someone does it.
@JOLYJOLY2007 he's saying that it's probable that there is other life in the universe other than us. how does this translate into him believing in santa claus and the fsm?
People who don't believe there could be life on other planets, are exactly in the position of a newborn baby who thinks his family are the only people in the world because he hasn't seen anybody else.
@Drunkenprophet23 But scientists ARE openminded when it comes to God, they are perfectly willing to examine the evidence and declare whether or not they think its true. Notice very few scientists, not even Dawkins will tell you for sure that it isnt true 100%. The point they make is that based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that God exists.
In my experience it is religious people who are not openminded to the idea that God does not exist.
if he would just talk about facts,and not opignion,well he would talk about god....since he dosent beleve in god.he says it is something else....but the fact is all he says in this 2nd part video is that god exist......he beleves in suprem being,but he say they wasent there at the begining..what if these being create a new creation.with different matter then there own universe.they would be gods or creator...life is still unexplainable! and always will be...
ironic is that sending organic material to other planets is something that we have already done. Not with a purpose of seeding life but ....shit may happen :D
@UninstallingWindows I visited NASA on a trip to the states and actually they are very careful not to take anything to another planet or to bring anything back that might wipe us out. I think they were not careful at the times of the moon landings though. But it was serious concern with Mars.
about sending stuff to space, ive heard about space burials. although i think those are all cremated and not organic anymore, but if i remember correctly we have sent our DNA code and planetary information out into the space at the beginning of the space age.
btw when they sent probes to mars, u could send ur name and signature there too, on a computer chip :D
well, since it's such a simple element and so abuntant in the universe. people ( in his context) might believe that it's got "nothing" to it so it just might "just happen" unlike other elements proceeding it with higher A number and sophisticated structure.
it doesn't have to "explain" how it just happened but what he's saying is that people wud THINK it just because it's such a simple element. try to think about it as a general public would.
@DaveKarl The idea of simple and complex elements only makes sense in the framework of an existing universe or at least of physical or mathematical laws. In our universe as far as we've observed simple elements form first and then combine to more complex forms.
But if the question is "Why is there something and not nothing?", that falls in the realm of philosophy (or religion depending on your preference), I don't know that there's a scientific answer. Yet ;)
In the framework of our universe, the progression of simple to complex makes perfect sense.
But as to how the first reactions got started, where the laws of physics and the initial matter/energy came from.. Well CERN is trying to figure that out as we speak, as far as I'm aware there's no concrete answer to that question.
We don't even have to go as far as to fly to the middle ages. We just have to find some jungle or island tribe that has never seen modern technology and fly there which has happened in the past and the people / flying machines WERE seen as Gods or from God so there's proof of how impressionable the human race is. Just think of how bad we were thousands of years ago.
Suppose there was a civilisation that has developed faster than light travel and could leap the distance between two stars within an hour. Suppose they have a fleet of a thousand ships and only needed to scan a system for five minutes to determine if intelligent life is there. Considering the amount of stars in our galaxy alone they would still need hundreds of millions hours to see it all. Even with such insane technology they would have to search for tenthousand years.
Key word: SPECULATION = The foundation on which evolution is constructed.
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Ya, right around 2:56 she looks like she's sizing him up. Her panties were defiantly getting moist..... Once you go scholar, its gonna make you holler!!
@chiggevara I'd fuck Paula! Dawkins is a living genius and she probably get turned on by intelligence... Which would be why she wouldn't fuck with me. But I understand the attraction. Intelligent woman turn me on! Wow. Pretty off topic, back to the greatest show on earth :)
@chiggevara she is interested in science and he is one of the most respected scientists in the world, so yeah she probably feels some tingling down there
If this webpage has a designer, who designed your brain? The fool has said There is no God (Psalm 14:1)
but I say unto you, that every one who shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (Mat.5:22) who are my brethren? whosoever shall do the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother (Mat.12:48-50) but the fool has said there is no God
That lady is a fucking terrible interviewer. She has one of the great minds here, and the oppourtunity to pick his brains, and asks stupid questions that make no sense.
Yes that was ridiculous, but surley you could formulate better questions than that. Shes asking questions about things that are perfectly explained in his book, and completley intelligable to me, i dont see why it needs to be asked on national tv
I have seen it, and yes, it is absolutley ridiculous. But i can't stand these people who ask dawkins questions that are readily avaliable either a/ in his books, b/ in other books, or c/ on the internet. I would want to ask him for his personal opinions/views on things.
You're right on that but it's being hackneyed, not stupid. The questions are good but the answers are already there, that's true. But you don't have to call the woman stupid, she doesn't deserve that.
To say that they know for sure there is no life anywhere else is absurd. Out of some 400 billion stars in the galaxy, we have only explored one close enough to determinie if there is life on a planet in its orbit, and there is. Statistically, every star system we have exlpored close enough to determine the presense or absence of life, does have life. That is a 100% ratio.
Of course claiming that every star in the galaxy has life around it is equally absurd. I was just hoping to show exactly how absurd it is to expect that there is life nowhere else because we have not found it yet. We have only looked at one out of 400 billion.
say we did come across beings more advanced than us or vice versa,first thing that would come to an intelligent mind on our part as humans is to learn from them as opposed to worship,of course the people who would stoop to the level of worship are cowards,the rest of us would destroy the advanced beings if they posed a threat against us.
the difference is betwwen these beings and god is that god is believed to have created all existence so thats the key problem to religion.
I dont have a problem with religious or superstitious people, they mind their own businesses and I mind mine. If they can be productive and nice to others because of their religion, good for them, I have no issue with that.
But when they infringe upon my rights and my personal life with their distorted view of their religion, I'll punch them in the nuts and tell them to fuck off.
Religion is ok as long as you dont harm anyone with it, directly or indirectly.
Religious people in europe aren't minding their own f***ing business!
We are not even allowed to CRITICIZE Islam, or you get some crazy old communist, 80yr old, post hippie generation, LEFT wing, freedom killer, telling you are a RACIST!
Europe is pretty stupid, haha. How can the EU be so advance and developed yet so delusional when it comes to religion?
Developing countries in South East Asia and East Asia are multicutural and multireligion too, but you dont see them forcing their people to follow any religious rules or implementing them in their constitution or wage war with it.
These are DEVELOPING COUNTRIES for pete's sake, even they know better to separate religion from administration and business.
Religion is strong in America cos they need it as a moderating influence. It's a young country with no *real* self respect, only ego, which isn't the same. Without history OR religion, there'd probably be even more crime than there is already.
@thesethreekings But IQ tests are written by human beings, and it has also been proven scientifically that intelligence is arbitrary, plastic, and heavily influenced by culture and use. The philosopher John Searle has argued that traditional subjects in western philosophy, like metaphysics and epistemology, are obsolete because we "know too much." This product of scientific thought, inherently restricted to developed countries, is slowly supplanting older models of reality in said countries.
@thesethreekings While we can assay intelligence, how we interpret it is subjective. You said that IQ probably relates to propensity for religion in a country, but IQ is probably determined by something else, namely culture and access to modern educational resources. Those are caused by much larger historical trends, which in turn have broader causes related inherited sub-cortical human brain function (e.g. reptilian artifacts) that goad us to greed and conquest. It's complicated.
Asking for proof that God exists is like asking me to prove that the apple im eating tastes good. I cannot prove 100% no matter how much logic or reason I use. You will have to taste the apple yourself to know for sure. Most atheists, I believe, have not ever given Christianity a chance. They dont want to taste it. Not really. Because there is a long list of things in their minds they will have to change about themselves as a result of finding truth in it.
"Most atheists, I believe, have not ever given Christianity a chance"
Rubbish. Most atheists start out in some sort of religion, I started out as a Christian myself.
People from different religions with different gods have said the same thing, theirs nothing about yours that makes it more believable then the next. You are afraid of the truth and that is why you have religion, you want simple quick answers to a scary and mysterious universe so you use god to fill in the gaps. Illogical.
So you started out as a Christian,then you should know that Christianity is not an easy fix. It is difficult. It would be much easier for me to believe that there is no God and I am free to act and do whatever I want with no repercussions from God. And whatever it is,it is not simple. You keep using the word "believe" the expanded translation of that word when used in the Bible as in John 3:16 is "to obey" Im guessing you missed that sermon or you decided to go with the path of least resistance.
"It would be much easier for me to believe that there is no God and I am free to act and do whatever I want with no repercussions from God."
Oh you're going to try the moral argument? Then why is it the U.S. as one of the most religious countries in the world also has the most crime, high divorce and more people in prison then any other nation(a majority being Christians).
You don't need a god to be a moral person and lead a good life.
In addition, Atheists live good, moral lives without the need of an end goal like Heaven to keep them motivated. We know that there are repercussions for our actions that have nothing to do with God. We live life to the fullest because this is our only ride. Plus we realize that society as we know it is based on laws and code, and if these are broken, it makes everybody's lives shit.
Stop using the bible, it means nothing. It's an ancient text written by primitive minds. The bible itself is full of contradictions, errors and some pretty horrible things.
There is no real evidence that Jesus actually existed or did the things the bible says he did. The bible isn't a historical document it's a collection of books written over a period of many years with many different authors.
When it comes down to it Christians are actually weak. They need some sort of external source to give their life meaning, even though they don't know this thing exists.
People like religion because it gives quick answers to life and our world. But as our understanding grows and science grows Christianity will fall, it's already happening.
Statisitcs already show Christianity in decline and atheism growing.
Currently the U.S. has the least amount of atheists in the world, this is due to education. The more educated you are the less likely you are to believe in god.
In Japan very very few believe in any god, they also have some of the best education and lowest crime rates in the world, eat that up.
LOLOL ok. In the end there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, those who say to God, "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done". You know how miserable you are? I do. I used to be you. Grow up and get yourself educated. There are NUMEROUS Christians with far more intelligence than you or I. This argument is pointless apparently, I hope you see the light again. I have comfort. I have love beyond measure. And I am a child of the King. I am redeemed. You can be too.
Stastically, Christianity is shown to be on a sharp decline while atheism has been growing quickly, especially in Europe. Enjoy your shrinking religion.
Are we really that far advanced from dark age peasants?
Technology has advanced, I'm not sure humans have changed much.
betamale3 1 month ago in playlist richard dawkins origin of life
we're evolving towards divinity
mrfpercival 1 month ago
At the very basis of all metaphysical theology since the dawn of time i the idea that complex comes from the simple, and that this simolicity is God. Richard Dawkins also knows this. He has had it explained to him several times, and yet still talks about the idea of God as a complex being. This is what is called BAREFACED LYING. Dawkins is just trying to trick the ignorant.
rickmcn1986 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 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
as atheists we wouldn't, "fall on our knees and worship them" because logically there is no need to no matter how "godlike" they seem. When you don't believe in a "superior" being; whether it is your boss or a god, life is only a question off, do I accept it
itsandbits1 3 months ago
What makes Dawkin think that the universe is only 14 billion years old. Has it occured to him that the universe has always been there in some form or another. Therefore life has always been there just as matter that makes up the universe as always been there. If he thinks he can explain where life came from then he also has to explain how atoms came into existance as well as life. It has always existed! There's no beginning and there's no end. Its called infinity. No one can really understand it
MacleanTony 4 months ago
@MacleanTony true but i am pretty sure we have pretty much proven the age of the universe, since the big bang
Marioiswicked 3 months ago
maybe God doesn't interfere with earthly matters due to the importance of free will and avoiding the generation of a whole bunch of mindless drones....
quuanttum 4 months ago
maybe God is a paradox and didn't evolve in traditional terms
quuanttum 4 months ago
Stupid Richard Dawkins, God is obviously real. How does he not see? How does Dawkins not see the the love Odin has to offer?
xinic5 5 months ago
John Lennon
cheatdath 5 months ago
The Postmodernism Generator is a computer program that automatically generates postmodern essays. Gramatically correct but meaningless.
It was mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his article Postmodernism Disrobed for the scientific journal Nature and in his book A Devil's Chaplain.
Now watch a college language student reviewing a computer generated essay. He has no clue of its true origin.
/watch?v=jxQ7rONF5iE
verwoestijning 5 months ago in playlist Writers - Richard Dawkins 1941 -
haha this is hilarous because ive always thought of these things but never had anyone be able to explain what i was thinking... this guy is correct on everything
Kurasks 5 months ago
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
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: 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 etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
It may be better to look at it in another way. What if the possibility of life makes it inevitable in the vastness of the universe? In other words, somewhere it all had to line up and when it lines up life springs forth.
killer3596 7 months ago
1) Improbable things happen all the time
2) It is BECAUSE we are to witness it, study it and understand it that the world looks made with us in mind, not the other way around it ;-)
bersa888 7 months ago
I think Paula Kirby fell in love with Richard Dawkins during the interview. See how she takes a look at him ;-)
doyoublush 7 months ago
am I the only one that felt in some circumstances he actually didmake a pretty good case in a roundabout way how almost miraculously our situation is?
glennjridge 8 months ago
what no one seems to be taking into account is our mental capacity. a bird will never be able to understand the concept of a car because he doesnt have the mental capacity to do so.....all creatures have degrees of mental capacity....so,by that notion,I'm sure that there are things concerning where a deity came from that are just above our mental capacity to understand.
glennjridge 8 months ago
@glennjridge Excuse me if I misrepresent your position but you seem to be saying that our limited mental capacity makes it impossible to understand where a deity came from, i.e. a creative intelligence does exist but because we are not capable of understanding how that deity came into being. That's all well and good but why should a deity be the thing we aren't capable of understanding? Why not make exactly the same point but about natural processes of physics, for example? (CONT)
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge The problem with your argument is that it ends all inquiry. To say we can't understand where god comes from but we should believe in god halts all discussion. Whereas investigating difficult to comprehend natural processes means we can eventually (although nothing is guaranteed) know the workings of the universe. Our mental capacity is certainly limited and we can't observe everything in the universe. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge However, the difference between humans and other animals is we have the tools to help us see the unseen: mathematics, computers, etc. Are mental capacity, no matter how limited, is sufficient enough to comprehend the problem and devise methods for testing hypotheses and analysing results. If you want to say that's still not enough to comprehend god, you're simply building an obstacle for which you have absolutely no evidence that is even a legitimate point to make.
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@Tapiola2007 we have all those things....and yet dawkins himself in another video reffers to himself as an agonostic. if this brilliant mind is unwilling to take the atheist plunge, something must be holding him back concerning mans tools in relation to the cause of all this.
glennjridge 7 months ago
@glennjridge Dawkins elaborates on this point in the God Delusion. It's not that he isn't willing to take the plunge and declare himself an atheist - he is firmly that. It is a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that as it is impossible to establish methodologically to a degree of 100% accuracy the non-existence of anything one must concede as sort of agnosticism. However, it nothing more than a technical concession. For example, we cannot prove to 100% certainty that there aren't (CONT)
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge fairies at the bottom of our gardens but does that mean we can't say we don't believe in fairies and have to declare ourselves agnostic about their existence. Of course not. We have the tools to set us on the road of atheism - the very well supported position that the universe and life are the consequence of natural processes. Those tools can't settle the matter conclusively 100% but that doesn't require us to posit a creative intelligence where there are gaps in our knowledge.
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I wouldnt put an intelligent designer in the same category as a fairy. when I see a computer sittting on a table, I dont need to see the intelligent designers that made it so that could come to be.
thats all we are. biological computers. only the tabletop is made of plastic and wires and humans are flesh bone and nerves. there was an evolution of design for a computer to b how it is, and I believe the same was for life.
glennjridge 7 months ago
@glennjridge I'm afraid you are rehashing the very old and very much debunked Watchmaker analogy. The fundamental difference between a human being (or any living organism for that matter) and a computer (or any inanimate object) is that living organisms have the ability to self-replicate. We know a computer has a designer, whether you want to consider who that is or not. However, we don't need to infer a designer for living organisms as they reproduce themselves, in number and complexity. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge This distinction is such a fundamental one and so vital to an understanding of nature that I'm constantly amazed by people suggesting that because cars and computers and works of art are obviously designed so too must be humans. I'm sorry to say but it is the sort of argument a child might make but not a mature educated adult. One may believe in god for many reasons but not from a design perspective. You don't seriously want to credit god with the design of the human body do you?
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge As wonderful and complex as we may seem to oursleves, our bodies most certainly were not designed. The number of flaws and basic bad features point clearly to adaptation and natural selection improving on what it has to work with. There's no going back to the drawing board and getting it right the next time. The shape of our spine and entire skeleton alone demonstrate we were once quadrapedal apes who became bipedal. A basic survey of other species is even more revealing.
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I have no problem with evolution. I just happen to follow a sense of reasoning that CS lewis put forth. "the darkened mind see's no plan,because there are far more plans than they look for",
after all thats how I see it. not only are we talking the amazing fact some speck was able to go forth and start life, we also just so happen to have food that came along for all the life,water.its just too much. science will always be like a dog chasing its tail.
glennjridge 7 months ago
@glennjridge I certainly grant the fact of our existence is an amazing, sometimes staggeringly too-good-to-be-true, event, but our wonderment at this fact shouldn't lead us to equally extraordinary claims about how it all came about. Your points about food and water are another example, like the computer, of fuzzy thinking. You're looking at the world through the lens of design or purpose: the food and water "just happen" to be here to support our type of life. Well, if you understand (CONT)
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge evolution, you'll know that we are adapted to our environment. We evolved in this world so therefore whatever is available as sources of energy and nutrition will inevitably be important to both our survival and our evolution. Our non-homo sapiens ancestors probably survived on fruit and vegetation. At some point they began to eat meat and broadened their diet. This helped them to grow, feed their development in ways that eventually led to us. We're a product of the environment.
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I know about evolution. I am talking about that not only the amazing enough fact that life somehow started,....the fact that food for this life.....also was created. this is what CS lewis is talking about.
atheists dont see the big picture...the other plans. they make nothing of the fact that fruit and vegatables also amazingly came along.
glennjridge 7 months ago
@glennjridge Fruit and vegetables have evolved like every other organic substance. They all have their own evolutionary history and they are also dependent on other organic life for their existence. The fact that humans, or more precisely our evolutionary ancestors, chose to eat them and then cultivate them is merely an aspect of adaptation in a particular ecosystem. There was no plan to make fruit and veg available for humans to eat. We certainly thrive on them now but that not amazing, is it?
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@Tapiola2007 you bringing everything back to evolution again...thats the system in motion. I am before that.once again, I am talking about the fact that the concept of not only life came to be....but along with it,fruit and vegatbles also came. I dont care about the evolution of life and food. I am before that. I am talking about the concept that life was created....and it just so happens....that food was created also for the life.
glennjridge 7 months ago
@glennjridge Yes, there is a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis (the origin of life itself) but you make the leap that food was created for life - that is wrong. Life emerged through a process we don't yet understand but when there was life first on this planet it was microbial, single-celled and very simple. There was no fruit and veg as you seem to be hung up on. As live evolved, in all its forms, each life form adapted to survive in its environment. The very fact of life (CONT)
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge is still a mystery but from the point of early life to our complex living planet evolution adequately explains everything. You do understand that 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. The living organisms, including oursleves, that currently populate the planet are merely those that are best adapted to the environment. If all of it was created for life, why has so much life fallen by the wayside in the struggle to survive?
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I know creatures go extinct bcause of various factors. what atheists dont contemplate,is how "concepts" came to be. forget execution.... in that life and plants,fruit,water became physical and sprang into existence. I am talking how the concepts...the idea.... of water,plant,and life compiled themselves. you can show how they evolved...thru evolution and survival of the fittest,but how the idea for "plant' or "life" came to be is just as important as how they evolved.
glennjridge 7 months ago
@glennjridge You've lost me now. I don't understand what you mean when you say the "idea" of life, plant, water, etc. Water is not an idea - it's a chemical substance found in the universe and so happens to be crucial to our type of life. Plants are not an idea - they are living organisms. Life isn't merely an idea - it's an empirical fact of the existence of self-replicating organisms. The labels they have are what we give them. There would still be "water" in the universe if there was no life.
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
@glennjridge If you look at any ecosystem and the species that exist in it, they are perfectly adapted to survive there, and often there alone. Like I said, there is certainly a sense of awe and wonder when contemplating this extraordinary event we call life and I'm always ready to put my hand up for that proposition. Finding meaning is a truly human endeavour but the wonders of the natural world far outstrip any ramshackle myths about our origins. They also happen to be facts that we can know.
Tapiola2007 7 months ago
I never thought I'd ask this question,but is it possible that a god evolved by means of natural selection?
henryporter101 8 months ago
@henryporter101 Well, according to believers god is super-natural, how could nature become super-nature?
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner Good point.God is by definition something that is unnatural.
henryporter101 8 months ago
My objection here is people are so quick to ask, "who made the maker". But they don't realize this is a moot point. Just because someone doesn't know who made the maker, doesn't have any effect on the arguments and evidence put forth that there is a maker. Of course the arguments that state there is a maker are still flawed but simply asking something like " who created God?" (Or the maker) does not refute theistic claims anymore than asking, How did life begin, refutes evolution.
Drunkenprophet23 10 months ago
@Drunkenprophet23
but at the same time it is the creationist who argue, "where did the matter come from?" When scientist respond that they dont know, creationist say god made it. Now when scientist ask creationist where god came from. They just say he has always been there. WHy not skip a step and say all the matter in existence was already here?
etnies117 8 months ago
@etnies117 Do we really know that it was? We don't know anything existed prior to the big bang. So we can't actually say with certainty that matter always existed. If we're positing the big bang was the first moment in time, than we can say matter has existed as long as time has. But either way I still think asking "who created God" doesn't refute any argument put forth for God's existence. It just changes the subject.
Drunkenprophet23 8 months ago
etnies117 7 months ago
@etnies117 Yes that is USUALLY what theist say. But I'm not saying that. We can end at your first point. You are the product of evolution of organic chemicals. If the theist then asks "where did the chemicals come from", he has not refuted, or really disputed, that you evolved from organic chemicals, he has only changed the subject. Precisely what happens when one asks "where did God come from." It doesnt refute any argument or evidence put forth for God's existence. It just changes the subject.
Drunkenprophet23 7 months ago
she wants him.
MusicStudyMan 10 months ago
The Universe is 14 billion years old, the first civilization emerged, let´s say, 7 billion years later. The second , let´s say, 5 million years after that.
When the first emerged, their scientists determined that the universe was enormous and was something like 7 billions years old.
Many individuals thought that given the inmensity and age of the universe and its quadrillion of planets , their civilization couldnt be the only one. But in fact and for the next 5 million years, it was.
powerdriller10 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek
Thank for making a bad morning a fantastic one! <3
chiggevara 10 months ago
A falsifiable discipline (like Science, for example) simply cannot be pitted against faith in a deity. Any proverbial equation containing the two is invalid, in that all variables of said equation have been pulled from incomparable parameters. What's green sound like? What? Exactly; you can't define a color with sound. In the same way, demanding that Science has nullified the existence of a being who's very nature supersedes Time and Space is counter-intuitive. Pretty simple concept, really.
The5thAmendment 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when columbus came to the americas the natives thought he was a god, all he had was a big boat and guns, shut ur fuckin mouth
Shadow272010 11 months ago
when columbus got to the americas, they natives thought he and his men were gods, all they had was a big boat, shut ur fuckin mouth
Shadow272010 11 months ago
I swear Richard dawkins is going to become a Christian before he dies. Watch.
By the way God didn't just happen, God always happened for eternity.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
If the crew flying a 747 were able to travel back in time and land in an english village they might be mistaken for Gods? Yeah for about maybe the first five minutes. Villagers will soon realize the crew does not have infinite knowledge, just a stupid flying machine, so they will be quickly exposed as complete frauds and con men.
theabiotictheory 11 months ago
@theabiotictheory Am I missing something: at what point did the crew flying the time-travelling 747 claim they were gods? I thought the point being made was that to a low-tech society beings from an extremely advanced society might appear to be gods, i.e. capable of doing the supposed impossible. Presumably the greater the technological divide, the greater the appearance of supernatural ability.
Tapiola2007 11 months ago 2
@theabiotictheory Look into John Frum and Cargo Cults that started during WWII. This is not speculation, it has actually happened within written history.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak - Thanks I read about cargo cults years ago but could not remember the name. All I remembered was the planes they copied and worshiped. I think they this is one of the most fascinating human stories I have ever come across and have just been reading about them. They even sent a U.S. war ship to try to convince them Frum was not a god but failed. They believe one day he will return and reward those that worship him - sound familiar anyone?
WillShakespeare2007 10 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007 No, it was Richard Dawkins who came across as arrogant and dismissive. Although he didn't address this point specifically, I notice whenever skeptics like Dawkins theorize on the prospect of making contact with highly advanced extraterrestrials, they seem to automatically assume if any meeting were ever to take place, that the beings encountered would be atheist. I take serious objection to such a presupposition.
theabiotictheory 10 months ago
@theabiotictheory - You stated that people would recognize within "5 minutes" that people with superior technology were not Gods and yet there is the example of it actually happening with cargo cults. This subject has nothing to do with atheism as the people who arrived were actually Christians and even missionaries. You are simply not big enough to accept the fact you were wrong about this and so have changed the subject.
WillShakespeare2007 10 months ago
@theabiotictheory what a bunch of nonsense... it's already an hypothesis the fact there's intelligent life in the universe apart from us, and what should we do, figure out what religion the hypothetical intelligente life believes in? really?
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007 IMDB it I think Stepfen Fry was a part of the TV program. Great stuff.
Cougar139tweak 10 months ago
@theabiotictheory - I love how you made an arrogant dismissive comment and the guy came back with an actual example of it taking place. I have a first opportunity to use a phrase so beloved of the younger generation - owned!
WillShakespeare2007 10 months ago
@hexcane Moreover, thinking that our definitions of intelligence are universal can be damaging if people oversimplify it or take it too far. It encourages potentially unwarranted value judgments of individuals or even whole societies. Human diversity, thus the subject of intelligence, are very nuanced as science understands today. The quality and degree of intelligence is very diverse, just within one culture, but considering cultural effects, we should just be careful in our interpretations.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
@hexcane I think you are onto a good idea, which is that people everywhere have definitions of smartness and dumbness, and without a doubt, there are common neural underpinnings which allow the formation and modulation of synapses that allows for novel and dynamic applications of reasoning. But this reasoning does not apply to every modality and the information it processes. My sister has perfect pitch and uncanny musical intelligence, but she's bad at math in spite of her best efforts.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
@hexcane Sort of, but it's fuzzy. There are studies where children in Africa consistently grouped real-life objects like tools, rocks, logs, etc... according to their functional relations (wood-chopping tools go with wood), whereas children in western societies grouped objects according to linguistic categories (tools go with tools). Mandarin Chinese represents linguistically numbers in a more predictable pattern (i.e. no "teens"), which confers superior capacity for number manipulations.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
Comment removed
JonahTorn 1 year ago
argh... i think dawkin's oversteps the mark about speculating on other possible intelligent life. too many asssumptions
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
Wake up and
SMELL THAT LOVELY COFFEE....
mark1962ish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mark1962ish
" Wake up and SMELL THAT LOVELY COFFEE...."
I do quite often - knowing that it evolved here on Earth over millions of years and not pooffed into existence by some magic man...
mtbee9 1 year ago
@mark1962ish Still smelling that lovely coffee...
Brewed from a bean that evolved millions of years ago - don't you just love it!
mtbee9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawky still has not answered how life started.
If life came from a kind of soup, it still does not explain how?
Zero from zero is the only rational answer, unless you bring intelligent design into the equation. "So where then did God come from" ?
God was, is and is to be. Look around and see intelligent design around us. It could not have come into being by a kind of soup. When we make a bowl of soup? Have we later seen fish swimming in the mixture? Evolution is bad science and not truth
mark1962ish 1 year ago
Dawky still has not answered how life started.
If life came from a kind of soup, it still does not explain how?
Zero from zero is the only rational answer, unless you bring intelligent design into the equation. "So where then did God come from " ?
God was, is and is to be. Look around and see intelligent design around us. It could not have come into being by a kind of soup. When we make a bowl of soup? Have we later seen fish swimming in the mixture? Evolution is bad science and not truth
mark1962ish 1 year ago
@mark1962ish "Dawky still has not answered how life started." - So? That's not evolution. And if science can't explain something, it's pretty piss-poor to just then give up and say "God must have done it".
AtheistBrit 1 year ago 38
@AtheistBrit Nothing Poor about God. He is living, he is REAL to millions that have put their faith in the gospel and his teachings. He has done everything in providing an answer to our needs. Look and see the wonders of his design and stop kidding yourself and trying to find something that is not at all real.
mark1962ish 1 year ago
@mark1962ish "stop kidding yourself and trying to find something that is not at all real."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call psychological projection.
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
Comment removed
JonahTorn 1 year ago
@AtheistBrit Still has not answered how life started? awesome, at least biologist like Professor Dawkins is trying to solve the problem diligently with logic and reason. Theists are just mentally incompetent and educationally inapt to really dig into the question, because you guys claim to have already "found the reason". Where are your proofs, where are you justifications. WHy is the apple here, God puts it here. Why do I piss my pants? God makes me piss my pants. You may as well say IDK
SoutheGarden 9 months ago 2
@mark1962ish "The PROOF is ALL around us...OPEN YOUR EYES and know there is God who was , is and is living to the ages of ages amen."
Two things:
1. Which god are you talking about? Ah, the one YOU believe in. Okay, so everyone else who believes in a different god is wrong? And you can prove this without referring to your own holy book, yes? No, thought not.
2. The rest of your sentence is nonsense. It means nothing.
darkpawuk 1 year ago 42
@darkpawuk: I think mark1962ish is referring to his god being infinite with the end of his statement. These batshit crazy faith heads tend to waffle such jargon a lot.
guerrillaroach 9 months ago
@mark1962ish Indeed, where did your god come from? You can not answer that question so by your own failing logic I can dismiss your claims as irrelevant. The fact is to say we do not know does not give license to make something up because it suites us. Science does not work that way as opposed to religion, proof is required to validate a hypothesis, a lot of proof is needed before that idea is called a theory. You have none, your gut feeling does not count, this is why ID is not science at all.
sharper68 1 year ago
They have found a planet now that's similar to earth in many ways, and may have water. Gliese 581g. And thats "only" 20 lightyears away. But, I think we might find life in our own solar system on one of Jupiters moons - Europa.
=)
C0nstellati0ns 1 year ago 4
if deep sea creatures can glow, and we can focus light coming our eyeballs then could a fish ever evolve lazer death rays? can we make that happen like we do bananas and i want one when someone does it. and electric eels evolved too so take that to the extreme too.
e30brian 1 year ago
if deep sea creatures can glow, and we can focus light coming in, then could a fish ever evolve lazer death rays? can we make that happen like we do bananas and i want one when someone does it.
e30brian 1 year ago
Is it me, or does RD sound a bit stoned?
RightRocks 1 year ago
''I bet somewhere in the universe, there are beings even more advanced than we are...''
I guess atheists do believe in Santa Clause and the Flying-spaghetti monster after all...
I'll be right back, I'll go watch the video where Richard Dawkins feeds his unicorn...
lol...
JOLYJOLY2007 1 year ago
@JOLYJOLY2007 dumbass
superdude1722 1 year ago
@JOLYJOLY2007 he's saying that it's probable that there is other life in the universe other than us. how does this translate into him believing in santa claus and the fsm?
netskot 1 year ago
People who don't believe there could be life on other planets, are exactly in the position of a newborn baby who thinks his family are the only people in the world because he hasn't seen anybody else.
mosquitobight 1 year ago
5:56 "But it's up to all scientists to be open minded"..... except when it comes to God.
Drunkenprophet23 1 year ago
@Drunkenprophet23 But scientists ARE openminded when it comes to God, they are perfectly willing to examine the evidence and declare whether or not they think its true. Notice very few scientists, not even Dawkins will tell you for sure that it isnt true 100%. The point they make is that based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that God exists.
In my experience it is religious people who are not openminded to the idea that God does not exist.
chessfan6 1 year ago
if he would just talk about facts,and not opignion,well he would talk about god....since he dosent beleve in god.he says it is something else....but the fact is all he says in this 2nd part video is that god exist......he beleves in suprem being,but he say they wasent there at the begining..what if these being create a new creation.with different matter then there own universe.they would be gods or creator...life is still unexplainable! and always will be...
mysticalsoulqc 1 year ago
ironic is that sending organic material to other planets is something that we have already done. Not with a purpose of seeding life but ....shit may happen :D
UninstallingWindows 1 year ago
@UninstallingWindows I visited NASA on a trip to the states and actually they are very careful not to take anything to another planet or to bring anything back that might wipe us out. I think they were not careful at the times of the moon landings though. But it was serious concern with Mars.
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
@WillShakespeare2007
There are other space agencies as well.
about sending stuff to space, ive heard about space burials. although i think those are all cremated and not organic anymore, but if i remember correctly we have sent our DNA code and planetary information out into the space at the beginning of the space age.
btw when they sent probes to mars, u could send ur name and signature there too, on a computer chip :D
UninstallingWindows 1 year ago
"Something like evolution" I'm curious to know what that could be.
Back7sword 1 year ago
Her fucking stare is starting to get to me, she scares me....
DimitriGoryenko 1 year ago
What if we are the most evolved intelligent life in the universe?
TheSnorb 1 year ago
what if we are not?
sdeevooo 1 year ago
Then 'god' help us all
crabinfestation 1 year ago
Don't get it at 0:32 ?
He says:
You can't say complexity 'just happened' but you can say maybe hydrogen just happened because its relatively simple...
huh?
DaveKarl 1 year ago
high school chemistry stuff. hydrogen is the 1st element if it rings any bells
sdeevooo 1 year ago
Yeah but how does it 'just happen' ? is what I'm asking...
DaveKarl 1 year ago
well, since it's such a simple element and so abuntant in the universe. people ( in his context) might believe that it's got "nothing" to it so it just might "just happen" unlike other elements proceeding it with higher A number and sophisticated structure.
sdeevooo 1 year ago
'it's such a simple element and so abuntant in the universe....'
- But that doesn't explain how it 'just happened' ??
DaveKarl 1 year ago
it doesn't have to "explain" how it just happened but what he's saying is that people wud THINK it just because it's such a simple element. try to think about it as a general public would.
sdeevooo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'it doesn't have to "explain" how it just happened '
Yes I think you have to.
I don't understand why it would make a difference whether something is complex or simple, for it to 'just happen'.
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl The idea of simple and complex elements only makes sense in the framework of an existing universe or at least of physical or mathematical laws. In our universe as far as we've observed simple elements form first and then combine to more complex forms.
But if the question is "Why is there something and not nothing?", that falls in the realm of philosophy (or religion depending on your preference), I don't know that there's a scientific answer. Yet ;)
megamarsvin 1 year ago
@megamarsvin '...simple elements form first...'
Nope sorry, doesn't answer the question. Thats just wording it differently. How do they form? Something doesn't form out of nothing.
@megamarsvin 'But if the question is "Why is there something and not nothing?", '
But that isn't the question. Thats a completely different question.
What Dawkins said is just a really surprising thing for a scientist to say.
DaveKarl 1 year ago
In the framework of our universe, the progression of simple to complex makes perfect sense.
But as to how the first reactions got started, where the laws of physics and the initial matter/energy came from.. Well CERN is trying to figure that out as we speak, as far as I'm aware there's no concrete answer to that question.
megamarsvin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@megamarsvin '...as to how the first reactions got started.......as far as I'm aware there's no concrete answer to that question'
Exactly.
So what's Dawkins going on about when he says - 'you can say Hydrogen JUST HAPPENED' ?
DaveKarl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sagan said, "We are star stuff" and "a way for the cosmos to know itself."
All the atoms on earth and in our bodies came from supernova that blew up over 5 billion years ago.
Aren't we all just walking, talking stardust -- this cosmos become AWAKE and looking back at itself? -- and aren't we intimately connected to it all?
We are this wonder called life become AWAKE
Please enjoy the dance.
And ultimately there's nothing that separates us from others in this grand mystery. Please be kind.
goog2k 1 year ago
@~2:15
We don't even have to go as far as to fly to the middle ages. We just have to find some jungle or island tribe that has never seen modern technology and fly there which has happened in the past and the people / flying machines WERE seen as Gods or from God so there's proof of how impressionable the human race is. Just think of how bad we were thousands of years ago.
See "cargo cult" on wikipedia.
NoCrispin 1 year ago
Infinitesimal chances? I have been on one planet and it has life. That's a 100% chance of having life from my sample. :-)
Ronni3no2 1 year ago
Suppose there was a civilisation that has developed faster than light travel and could leap the distance between two stars within an hour. Suppose they have a fleet of a thousand ships and only needed to scan a system for five minutes to determine if intelligent life is there. Considering the amount of stars in our galaxy alone they would still need hundreds of millions hours to see it all. Even with such insane technology they would have to search for tenthousand years.
conoba 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Key word: SPECULATION = The foundation on which evolution is constructed.
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
sphereofinfluence247 2 years 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
she's way out of her league......
kcp77777 2 years ago 3
Is it just me, or does it seems like Paula wants to fuck Richard?
And BTW, she is a great interviewer.
chiggevara 2 years ago 47
i agree on both
JCooltrane83 2 years ago
Ya, right around 2:56 she looks like she's sizing him up. Her panties were defiantly getting moist..... Once you go scholar, its gonna make you holler!!
benthemiester 1 year ago 2
@chiggevara
Paula is so hot, she seems to be very intellectual, that's rare as.. as something that's not very common, plus she has attractive looks too.
d3st88 1 year ago 2
@chiggevara i was thinking the exact same 2 things. astute observation chi!
noodoo19 1 year ago
@chiggevara haha yea she wants him bad
muzikman182 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chiggevara "Is it just me, or does it seems like Paula wants to fuck Richard?"
Oh, I think she wants to share genetic material with him more than just a little.
Oirishmartin 1 year ago
@chiggevara
I would!
RightRocks 1 year ago
@chiggevara I'd fuck Paula! Dawkins is a living genius and she probably get turned on by intelligence... Which would be why she wouldn't fuck with me. But I understand the attraction. Intelligent woman turn me on! Wow. Pretty off topic, back to the greatest show on earth :)
KingObould 1 year ago
@chiggevara
I don't think she wants to fuck him, it's just that she has a pleasant manner and sexy voice.
kitchenaut 1 year ago
@chiggevara Who wouldn't tap that? ;-)
This is a nice change, he's talking about the topic he gives lectures on xD
GuitarRookie13 1 year ago
@chiggevara she is interested in science and he is one of the most respected scientists in the world, so yeah she probably feels some tingling down there
SteveDutchy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
If this webpage has a designer, who designed your brain? The fool has said There is no God (Psalm 14:1)
but I say unto you, that every one who shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (Mat.5:22) who are my brethren? whosoever shall do the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother (Mat.12:48-50) but the fool has said there is no God
.
conceil8 2 years ago
That lady is a fucking terrible interviewer. She has one of the great minds here, and the oppourtunity to pick his brains, and asks stupid questions that make no sense.
paulio2293 2 years ago
I do not agree. Watch the interview with Wendy Wright to determine what is stupid.
Drakon222 2 years ago
Yes that was ridiculous, but surley you could formulate better questions than that. Shes asking questions about things that are perfectly explained in his book, and completley intelligable to me, i dont see why it needs to be asked on national tv
paulio2293 2 years ago
Sorry! I meant say that she's asking stupid questions.
Drakon222 2 years ago
Professors like that stuff trust me
FreeeeS 2 years ago
I have seen it, and yes, it is absolutley ridiculous. But i can't stand these people who ask dawkins questions that are readily avaliable either a/ in his books, b/ in other books, or c/ on the internet. I would want to ask him for his personal opinions/views on things.
paulio2293 2 years ago
You're right on that but it's being hackneyed, not stupid. The questions are good but the answers are already there, that's true. But you don't have to call the woman stupid, she doesn't deserve that.
Drakon222 2 years ago 3
yeah, I thought billO did a much better job
Minkki82 2 years ago
To say that they know for sure there is no life anywhere else is absurd. Out of some 400 billion stars in the galaxy, we have only explored one close enough to determinie if there is life on a planet in its orbit, and there is. Statistically, every star system we have exlpored close enough to determine the presense or absence of life, does have life. That is a 100% ratio.
Nails077 2 years ago
Of course claiming that every star in the galaxy has life around it is equally absurd. I was just hoping to show exactly how absurd it is to expect that there is life nowhere else because we have not found it yet. We have only looked at one out of 400 billion.
Nails077 2 years ago 2
Fucking creationist spambots, everyone that rated this less than five stars should be banned.
VantekHG 2 years ago 3
say we did come across beings more advanced than us or vice versa,first thing that would come to an intelligent mind on our part as humans is to learn from them as opposed to worship,of course the people who would stoop to the level of worship are cowards,the rest of us would destroy the advanced beings if they posed a threat against us.
the difference is betwwen these beings and god is that god is believed to have created all existence so thats the key problem to religion.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
I dont have a problem with religious or superstitious people, they mind their own businesses and I mind mine. If they can be productive and nice to others because of their religion, good for them, I have no issue with that.
But when they infringe upon my rights and my personal life with their distorted view of their religion, I'll punch them in the nuts and tell them to fuck off.
Religion is ok as long as you dont harm anyone with it, directly or indirectly.
TheLamelyNamed 2 years ago 4
Religious people in europe aren't minding their own f***ing business!
We are not even allowed to CRITICIZE Islam, or you get some crazy old communist, 80yr old, post hippie generation, LEFT wing, freedom killer, telling you are a RACIST!
BLACKandASIANracists 2 years ago 2
Europe is pretty stupid, haha. How can the EU be so advance and developed yet so delusional when it comes to religion?
Developing countries in South East Asia and East Asia are multicutural and multireligion too, but you dont see them forcing their people to follow any religious rules or implementing them in their constitution or wage war with it.
These are DEVELOPING COUNTRIES for pete's sake, even they know better to separate religion from administration and business.
TheLamelyNamed 2 years ago
the ones who are socially tolerant are false,most likely even closet atheists.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
Perfectly stated! Well done.
dmr74 2 years ago
Religion is strong in America cos they need it as a moderating influence. It's a young country with no *real* self respect, only ego, which isn't the same. Without history OR religion, there'd probably be even more crime than there is already.
thesethreekings 2 years ago
The more people attend church in a state (I am talking about the states of the USA, and about actual statistics) the higher the crime rate is.
So no.
kaminarigaston 2 years ago 4
What are your thoughts on Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Why is religion so dogmatically followed in those countries, is it because of there *snicker* ego?
rudenoodle 2 years ago
Because they're poor and need religion even more than America. The lower the IQ of a country, the more they believe in God - proven.
thesethreekings 2 years ago 15
That certainly seems to be the case.
Str8eningTheCurves 2 years ago
@thesethreekings But IQ tests are written by human beings, and it has also been proven scientifically that intelligence is arbitrary, plastic, and heavily influenced by culture and use. The philosopher John Searle has argued that traditional subjects in western philosophy, like metaphysics and epistemology, are obsolete because we "know too much." This product of scientific thought, inherently restricted to developed countries, is slowly supplanting older models of reality in said countries.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
@thesethreekings While we can assay intelligence, how we interpret it is subjective. You said that IQ probably relates to propensity for religion in a country, but IQ is probably determined by something else, namely culture and access to modern educational resources. Those are caused by much larger historical trends, which in turn have broader causes related inherited sub-cortical human brain function (e.g. reptilian artifacts) that goad us to greed and conquest. It's complicated.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
Asking for proof that God exists is like asking me to prove that the apple im eating tastes good. I cannot prove 100% no matter how much logic or reason I use. You will have to taste the apple yourself to know for sure. Most atheists, I believe, have not ever given Christianity a chance. They dont want to taste it. Not really. Because there is a long list of things in their minds they will have to change about themselves as a result of finding truth in it.
TheSouthernorycle 2 years ago
"Most atheists, I believe, have not ever given Christianity a chance"
Rubbish. Most atheists start out in some sort of religion, I started out as a Christian myself.
People from different religions with different gods have said the same thing, theirs nothing about yours that makes it more believable then the next. You are afraid of the truth and that is why you have religion, you want simple quick answers to a scary and mysterious universe so you use god to fill in the gaps. Illogical.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
So you started out as a Christian,then you should know that Christianity is not an easy fix. It is difficult. It would be much easier for me to believe that there is no God and I am free to act and do whatever I want with no repercussions from God. And whatever it is,it is not simple. You keep using the word "believe" the expanded translation of that word when used in the Bible as in John 3:16 is "to obey" Im guessing you missed that sermon or you decided to go with the path of least resistance.
TheSouthernorycle 2 years ago
"It would be much easier for me to believe that there is no God and I am free to act and do whatever I want with no repercussions from God."
Oh you're going to try the moral argument? Then why is it the U.S. as one of the most religious countries in the world also has the most crime, high divorce and more people in prison then any other nation(a majority being Christians).
You don't need a god to be a moral person and lead a good life.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
In addition, Atheists live good, moral lives without the need of an end goal like Heaven to keep them motivated. We know that there are repercussions for our actions that have nothing to do with God. We live life to the fullest because this is our only ride. Plus we realize that society as we know it is based on laws and code, and if these are broken, it makes everybody's lives shit.
TheRevolverHero 2 years ago
Stop using the bible, it means nothing. It's an ancient text written by primitive minds. The bible itself is full of contradictions, errors and some pretty horrible things.
There is no real evidence that Jesus actually existed or did the things the bible says he did. The bible isn't a historical document it's a collection of books written over a period of many years with many different authors.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
When it comes down to it Christians are actually weak. They need some sort of external source to give their life meaning, even though they don't know this thing exists.
People like religion because it gives quick answers to life and our world. But as our understanding grows and science grows Christianity will fall, it's already happening.
Statisitcs already show Christianity in decline and atheism growing.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Currently the U.S. has the least amount of atheists in the world, this is due to education. The more educated you are the less likely you are to believe in god.
In Japan very very few believe in any god, they also have some of the best education and lowest crime rates in the world, eat that up.
refuckulate420 2 years ago 55
LOLOL ok. In the end there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, those who say to God, "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done". You know how miserable you are? I do. I used to be you. Grow up and get yourself educated. There are NUMEROUS Christians with far more intelligence than you or I. This argument is pointless apparently, I hope you see the light again. I have comfort. I have love beyond measure. And I am a child of the King. I am redeemed. You can be too.
TheSouthernorycle 2 years ago
Stastically, Christianity is shown to be on a sharp decline while atheism has been growing quickly, especially in Europe. Enjoy your shrinking religion.
refuckulate420 2 years ago 4
@refuckulate420 I agree 100% with you, and I am American myself. I wish that a lot more Americans would open their eyes and brains.
DMCoasters 1 year ago 2