Religion came about, originally, when humanity was in its infancy. It is inbuilt to the human brain to want to learn and discover new things about the universe around us as we have done for 10,000 years. In those early days, right up to, realistically, the last 1000-1500 years science didn't have enough answers so people explained what was happening in, what seemed to them, feasible explanations. Go back far enough and people believed the earth was essentially a snow globe with water on the out
I don't understand why people dislike the interviewer. I think he did an excellent job of interviewing Dr. Dawkins. He made neutral and clear questions that aimed to test the soundness of Dawkins points. Would you rather he had Dawkins rant for the duration of the interview as he nodded along, eating it all up? That's how religions work. Examining possible counter-points is critical if somehting is to be accepted through rational means.
for claiming that atheism is the path to world peace, atheists sure do use some aggressive and hurtful language towards those that choose to believe in god. This comments page is the perfect agreement for the fact that although pure logical atheism may be best for the highly intelligent such as richard dawking, it definitely isn't working for some of you.
@lfeddern And what about Christians who think that all non-believers are going to burn in hell for all eternity? That's what I call aggressive and hateful.
@lfeddern What? It's ridicilous of you to imply that people being assholes is derived from the fact that they are atheists and that highly intelligent people are the only ones suited to be atheist. Did you listen to Dawkins at all during this interview?
@lfeddern I once asked a street preacher to stop yelling cruel insults at a gay couple who were shopping. He told me i was going to burn in hell for defending their heathen ways. Does that mean all religious people say such things, or that they are wrong? You think before crossing the road, try it before typing.
@reznor12 at no point did I say that religion and all religious people are perfect, only that atheism is clearly not the golden bullet that people muscular atheists claim it is, i was merely commenting on the fact that many of the negatives of religion that atheists sight as evidence of its uselessness are regurgitated by the atheists themselves. incidently although i don't actually believe in god for sure, i believe religion, even if as a placebo has merit
Corruption also is a good example of absence of faith. If one man have the precise notion that he will to the hell, he will never envolve himself in corruption. But we know that almost all corrupt claim they are religious men. If one do not believe in Justice of God, this one also do not believes in God.
Why the majority of people say that they believes in God? Because they have not choice. They simply were born in a religious system, and all that they know to do is believe, is have faith. But, is this a realy faith? I am so sorry! I think no so.
science is only a tool, like a drill or a hammer. it wont answer any questions, but u can use it to answer questions. however u can only use a tool on things that that exist now, and on things that are at least somewhat solid. therefore science will never answer questions like "where does all this come from?"
@No0bT4rD that we dont know, and we can only make intelligent guesses. think of it as a math problem. if i asked wat is 3*4.484342, u would say approximately 13.5 if u only had a couple of seconds to answer. however if u immediately say 13.5 and would not change ur mind, then that is not intelligent and its not a guess.
this is too simple tho cuz we could just use a calculator but wat im saying is that the answer is THERE and therefore we can only make intelligent guesses
I'm sorry did he just ask science to give a meaning to life? Science will never tell you "You are born to do this!" You have to chose that for yourself. Why one lives is entirely one's own choice. And I disagree that religion gives life a purpose. OK it says that we are born to pray and please the Lord(s) as it/they say but what purpose does our Lord have? What purpose does the world it tries so hard to maintain have?
@majidnba - - the alternative would be just to let RD make an uninterrupted speech while the interviewer waited in another room drinking tea - and they are not spurious and childish arguments - Hardtalk has an excellent reputation worldwide and he's their top interviewer. Remember - it's called Hardtalk not Celebrity Soapbox.
RICHARD DAWKINS - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS US ENDLESSLY."
Man Dawkings is a genius. If someone flamed me like that there is no way I would react so well. The guy never even made a point! he just changed subjects whenever he looked silly! Hard to watch!
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers.
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!
Actually I am a Muslim but not to talk about racism I'm trying to say is what if you are an atheist and when you die than there's no peace and heaven in it? At least have a religion I don't care christian or buddhist just have one and believe in god.Bible and Al Quran actually are almost the same meaning.
@GetShotxX Having a belief system akin to that doesn't automatically give you an afterlife and whatever exists does exist, simple. Essentially this means the only benefit of faith is comfort, which IMO is only for weak-minded people. Again, IMO.
@GetShotxX If the belief in an afterlife will give you comfort so be it. But it doesnt mean that it is true. I find that there is simply zero evidence to suggest that there is an afterlife. In my understanding of death, it will be much like before life. No sensation, no pain, no pleasure. Nothing for eternity. Our life is but a brief existence, one that should be enjoyed due to its finite nature. We should dedicate ourselves to contributing to life. This in essence is the spirit of religion.
All I hear when the religious complain about science not having all the answers is, "I want answers! I want them right now! Why can't you gimmie an answer?! Me! Me! ME!"
@yackon4game all i hear coming from athiests is there is no god YOU CANNOT SEE HIM SO HE IS NOT REAL. You simply have him for "comfort". So rather then us tyring to find answers that you cannot provide makes us inpatient. In all honesty it is YOU whom is inpatient deciding since you dont know where everything came from you assume that science will explain it oneday and christians, muslims, buddhists are wrong. Were not looking for answers we have our answers. You are trying to find answers.
@yackon4game and to expand if theres a gap in science why would it prove a god since religion is based of faith and if theres a lack in scientific proof then it would be taking a step back by turning to something without proof. but yeah that interviewer wasnt really understanding what he was saying
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@talhaahmed22 why do you assume I have "hatred" for god/allah? How can I hate something that I do not believe exists? Do you hate leprechauns? Do you like leprechauns?
You are correct, science cannot explain everything yet (it may never) but the important point is that it TRIES!! Religion doesn't, it attempts to cloud the issue through ignorance and a series of logical fallacies.
are you an arab? Arabs used to be the greatest scholars in the world. Do you know why that changed? ISLAM! Fact
RD absolutely bitchslapped that guy on so mny levels!
I'd have taken offense at the man talking about RD having 'faith' in science - faith is the irrational belief in the unproven. Belief and faith are different, for example I BELIEVE that Pythagoras' Theorem is true because there is a PROOF. I do not have FAITH in it, simply because I have that proof!
RD has accepted that there are certain things in this universe that science doesn't know ! RD thinks he can outsmart this invisible, mysterious power that caused a worthless piece of sperm to morph into human with an amazing brain !!!
Despite your hatred for the word God/Allah, you will admit that there was a mysterious power (no matter what you call it) that created everything ! Dawkins knows his balls aren't big enough to outsmart that ""Mysterious Power""
@talhaahmed22 that "misterious power" is actually a scientific fact we`re not yet able to explain. But hey, your people believe in the imaginary friend in the sky etc... so your opinion is worthless.
@ThreeLions89 Excuuuuse me. Don't put words into my friend's 'mouth'. It didn't say Jinggojonah. U're the dumb one. U don't deserve to be in the presence of intelligent people. Just look at the way you laugh..."buahahahaha"??WTF is that?? GROSS. My friend also says you're a bloody wanker. Is that true?
My friend, atheism stems from anti-religion ideology that Dawkins and a bunch of other like-minded pseudo-scientists have been selling for years.
Dawkins is so critical of blasphemy laws !!!! he thinks he should have the right to talk shit about holy characters of different religions.
Similarly I also want to make a film showing how Dawkins fucks his wife, how he sticks his penis down her throat and how she moans while playing with RD's 2-inch wee-wee !!!
@talhaahmed22 Of course Richard Dawkins looks baffled. I too am constantly baffled that people still believe in non-existent fantasies like gods and tooth faries and easter bunnies and santa claus and ... you get the idea?
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?
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 and the brainwashed 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?
@privetgreetings If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
When you say denying its existence you are implying that because science can't deny the possibility of the existence of a God, there is only one other alternative and that is a God existing. God has no more reason to exist than Leprechauns, witches, werewolves, vampires, etc etc. That is why some of us choose to dismiss the idea of God, and put it on the same shelf as the aforementioned with the knowledge that neither of these to most people ridiculous ideas can never be disproved.
@XiaoPow We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
On the comment of the origin of matter, physics and life science does not have a definitive answer. We may never know it, but we shouldn't give up the quest for knowledge. And to throw the ball back to you; how should your God, undeniably more complex than the complexity of its creation, first produce itself, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
I'm very confused by your arguing, as I've never claimed a God CAN NOT exist. I'm asking why you believe in something that has not, and can not currently be proved? The only "claim" I am making is that we shouldn't consider God any more likely to exist than Santa claus, the tooth fairy and so on.
@XiaoPow something that has not, and can not currently be proved?
___
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
How would we then know that there is a God, because some people claim they can hear voices? I am open to the possibility of anything, but again, regardless of your technicalities - why should I ever believe in something when there is no proof, materialistic or not, for this being? Again, we come back to the point of dismissing an idea of something until it can be proved to us that it exists.
@XiaoPow Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@1tabligh Atheists do not conclude firmly or forcibly that a deity doesn't exist. Atheists firmly and forcibly ask the religious to provide proof and evidence for the beliefs that they constantly shove down other people's throats. Atheists then conclude that no theists on the face of this planet, regardless of what religious belief they hold, can provide any inkling of evidence.
@iz2sicc Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@1tabligh I don't think Atheists deny anything. I put it this way, ¿why should I believe in god more than in ghosts or faeries? Even if some almighty force created the universe, why is it god, why not goddess, why not many gods, etc. etc. We have no better reason to believe in one or another, except for false stories that ignorant illiterate peasants from the middle east told thousands of years ago.
@MrFedericoaa1982 Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh Yes, it is. Let me put it this way, if we had 4 arms, we would consider ourselves as "miraculous" as we consider ourselves now. And we would be having this same discussion. "Is it possible that we had evolve with such wonderful 4 arms?" and I would answer, Yes, it is.
What you consider proof and demonstration is not, if you don't believe me, just read a DICTIONARY once in a while.
@MrFedericoaa1982 What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh Actually, thousands of scientists can, and not only they can, they do. You just don't understand the flaws of your argument, even after i gave you a high school level explanation. I'll try one more time. If the human kidney would be different, and by that I mean evolved in any other way, you would be giving the same argument.
@Mr..When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh You don't understand the theory of evolution that is your problem. This is not a classroom, if you want to debate something you must already be knowledgeable in the topic. I don't know what considerable is, but the bast majority of scientists are atheist or agnostics, and as Richard Dawkins says, science and religion are a contradiction, since religion is the suspension of critical thinking.
The thing with atheists is that we don't care if god exist.
@MrFedericoaa1982 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.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh The problem is that you are considering god as necessary and the source of existence. Now if we both agree that god is necessary and the source of existence, then you would be right, but we do not agree. And we are back to the question if god exists.
Even if we suppose that god exists, that would not make religion any closer to truth! As I already said, atheists don't care if god exists or not, religion is a man invention all the same, and there science can probe so.
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
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?
@MrFedericoaa1982 Then how can you delude yourself 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?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@jonathan102 To be fair. He didn't really. Those were very common questions that Dawkins have answered many times. You can see how well Dawkins handle it. It's just too easy for him really. But for the public it can't be repeated enough anyway. :)
The masses will always follow like sheep - that is what religions count on. And governments, for that matter - such fun when all the people just go "baaah baaah." Atheism is for the thinking elite.
While I agree that religion blinds people to the truth I don't think you should suggest that atheism is for the elite. The majority of people have the potential to be decent critical thinkers if they aren't brainwashed.
@madeiraunited Ah yes, but people who can think for themselves cannot get brainwashed. Unfortunately that excludes the vast majority of the 7 billion beings now overpopulating the planet.
People have been attacking the interviewers methods and questioning the nature with which he initiated the interview. He allowed Dawksins to express his views and provided alternative viewpoints that Dawksins were required to counter. He took a scientific approach to the interview and explored various alternatives to Dawkins viewpoint. He even gave theoreticals that were applicable to the future. This is how interviews should be, not pandering to the interviewee nor turn into shouting matches.
Excellent interview. Dawkins did well. A bit shaky though. It would be really really interesting if there's a round two with questions designed by Dr. Deepak Chopra. It would be a land slide victory for non-atheists. Thumbs up?
@jinggojonah What would be the point? Chopra is just another religionist who pretends that asking the same questions with a gloss of "science" on top makes it more challenging. It doesn't. He can't be rationally answered because it's the same vague and fuzzy rubbish in a different package; his manipulated science makes believers feel there is 'evidence' for god - from science no less! It's just embarrassing rubbish.
Modern organized religion is nothing more than just another socio-political movement designed to control the weak and ignorant masses. It doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love me.
I am a rational empiricist that believes in Humanity, Science & Music... I have no use for religion…
@BuzzmFrog True. Seems that anyone who dares to take on Dawkins has a prefixed mind in favor of the subjects opposition which by the way ultimately always turns nasty
My problem with this interview is that the conversation focuses on religion and not on god--why is it that those who outright deny the possibility of some sort of creator/prime mover are unable to separate the two... ?
@afterwardswhat Because the theist won't let that happen, it's their answer for "things" Strictly speaking science has been discussed over and over without religion about god between atheists all the time.
@afterwardswhat Nobody denies the possibility of God/creator because EVERYTHING is possible to exist. Probability is the one we should be looking at, not possibility. Is it possible God/Santa actually exists? Yes. Is it probable? Fuck no. Is it possible that we live in the Matrix/a world designed by God? Yes. Is it probable? Fuck no. Is it possible that there's a heaven and hell/that we'll be reborn and become another animal? Yes. Is it probable? Fuck no.
I mean, there are so many real dilemmas, the case of morality, relativism vs absolute rules, radical minorities in Europe an America, and instead of trying to find new arguments and new ways of looking at them we keep saying same old stuff, getting one result: jumping to next question about communism/"atheistic faith"/dogmatism in science. Or my fav - is it possible for you to change your mind sometime (an believe in god)? It is always possible, but who cares if the debate is right now?
Jeez, this man, Stephen Sackur, doesn't understand evolution and a concept of scientific explanation. Just listen to the first question in this part. "Selfish gene" seems to be for him some kind of consciousnesses that "drives the evolution" (ha, the transcendental force under the natural selection, check-mate, atheist!). I'd like to see somebody asking new questions, Hitler and Stalin, labeling children, good religious people and evolution are so old and already answered.
Dawkins missed a trick I think: when the point was put to him that because religion is a product of evolution it must have utility, he could have pointed out that it doesn't have to have utility *any more*. There are plenty of examples in biology of traits that were once useful but aren't any more, but which nevertheless persist, such as vestigial limbs, or even our own appendix.
What about God in other terms? Cause and efect ruling the universal balance. Paralel universes (second life posibility?). Doesnt Karma sounds like an equation in terms of physics? like: certain paterns of antrophy repeating constantly in the human behabior? like: "one lives the concecuence of the facts? (his , + his society+ family+genetic facts? etc.
when science will explain the supernatural, then it will stop been supernatural, passing to be a scientific fact. And in this same way without knowing humanity is been comin explainning God : The simphony of universe. Now Religion and God, should be put together? I think they are 2 diferent things.
@1tabligh Also the universe is not constantly progressing to more advanced states, in fact the opposite is actually happening. Take your head out of the quran and Do some research into entropy and educate yourself in reality rather than fairy tales.
@1tabligh You really aren't getting this are you? You told me just a few days ago that everything must have a cause, you are now contradicting this by saying that your God doesn't have a cause. Your can quote from the Quran as much as you want, it doesn't detract from the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed.
@dominik13579 "I'm God." Let me think about this for just a second... You have no evidence that you are God, there is no rational reason to believe you are God, but yet I cannot prove that you are not God... Hmmm, this is a tricky one... Oh well, I will just abandon my ability to think critically and believe that you must be God! All praise thee!
I couldn't tell if the interviewer was being a "devils advocate" (irony) or if he's actually a believer and was defending faith. Either way I thought he asked pretty good questions, at least better than the usual sound bites and yelling you see on television here in America.
Oxford professor,,,,.... it doesn't get any smarter than that. I was catholic but Richard Dawkins and bill maher were my inspiration for giving up my " imaginary friend" god.
He concedes that we are predisposed by darwinian evolution to be "religious" Whether or not God exists, has no bearing on how people have and continue to behave with regards to belief in God. If God does not exist, well people still believe because they evolved to. If God does exist, well people have evolved to believe this. Evolution made most this way and mutations brought about atheism. So his quarrel should be with darwinian evolution itself. RIGHT?
@hexnyc Just because we are predisposed to believe in God does not mean this belief is therefore true. Many centuries ago people were also predisposed to believe that the world was flat, and well, we all know what happened next.
@ClosedAperture you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not talking about whether god does or does not exist, this point is not relevant. I am saying that the predisposition itself is the crux of the matter. I can agree with him that in a scientific paradigm god cannot exist because the scientific method cannot make any sense of it.
@hexnyc Look we don't seem to be on the same wavelength here. Lets go ahead and say that yes, people are in predisposed to believe in a God. So what? What woudl this have to do with anything?
Much much better debate as compared to the one Dawkins had with american kid Evan Solomon. Probably because both participants were much more civilized.
This is how Bill O'Reilly and the other conservative goons should be. Ask challenging questions from the other side of the argument, and then let the guest talk; debate respectfully if necessary. If your point of view is well-justified, you never, ever need to yell and talk over people to demonstrate that (unless they give you no choice by doing the same). I suppose that's the difference between Fox and its fans, and civilized society.
@logicked You're joking of course. Sakuur here was almost identical to O'Reilly with his interruptions and deliberately stupid arguments. He deliberately misquotes Einstein, Hawkings etc. He's a mindless fascist bastard just like O'Reilly but slightly better lubed up.
@nilbud Nope. His arguments were stupid - that's the point of a program called HARDTalk. Contradict everything the guest thinks. Probably the stupidity goes a little deeper than just what was needed for the show, of course. But he didn't interrupt or yell. If he cut things short from time to time, it was to get the rest of the questions in before the end of the program. Happens on every TV show. Hour-long tedious discussions on one question only exist on the Internet...or cancelled shows.
@logicked Oh please. As if MSNBC and the rest of the leftist media doesn't do the same shit as Fox. You're actually just as bad as Fox, do you see that?
@BigxxBang Some are, of course. My statement, purely about Fox and its hosts, contains no statement about MSNBC or my political views. You ought not to cast your own habit of gross generalization onto the quite specific comments of others. O'Reilly is a particularly bad host. Conservatives on TV and in politics do tend to be more bullish in their conversational tactics, on a more regular basis. Most (not just some) Fox hosts are extremely bullish and also conservative ("conservative goons").
@coolio91a "n enormous graveyard that still exists on the outskirts of the Namibian seaside resort of Swakopmund, contains the bones of the dead that died in the German concentration camps in the late 1800s."
What is the name/location of this "enormous graveyard just outside Swakkopmund"?
"destruction of indigenous peoples"
What indigenous people was "destroyed", when, where, and by whom?
@d34d23 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?
Religion came about, originally, when humanity was in its infancy. It is inbuilt to the human brain to want to learn and discover new things about the universe around us as we have done for 10,000 years. In those early days, right up to, realistically, the last 1000-1500 years science didn't have enough answers so people explained what was happening in, what seemed to them, feasible explanations. Go back far enough and people believed the earth was essentially a snow globe with water on the out
chrisio234 2 days ago
I don't understand why people dislike the interviewer. I think he did an excellent job of interviewing Dr. Dawkins. He made neutral and clear questions that aimed to test the soundness of Dawkins points. Would you rather he had Dawkins rant for the duration of the interview as he nodded along, eating it all up? That's how religions work. Examining possible counter-points is critical if somehting is to be accepted through rational means.
darkmater4tm 1 week ago
This man is, ironically, a God!!
axeman4666 1 week ago
My car has a predisposition to move forward when the motor is running.
Does not make the exhaust a good thing. Just a byproduct from an un-perfect machine.
Such as religion being a byproduct of thought.
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
for claiming that atheism is the path to world peace, atheists sure do use some aggressive and hurtful language towards those that choose to believe in god. This comments page is the perfect agreement for the fact that although pure logical atheism may be best for the highly intelligent such as richard dawking, it definitely isn't working for some of you.
lfeddern 3 weeks ago
@lfeddern And what about Christians who think that all non-believers are going to burn in hell for all eternity? That's what I call aggressive and hateful.
Jessica616ify 3 weeks ago
@lfeddern What? It's ridicilous of you to imply that people being assholes is derived from the fact that they are atheists and that highly intelligent people are the only ones suited to be atheist. Did you listen to Dawkins at all during this interview?
jagmosa 3 weeks ago
@lfeddern I once asked a street preacher to stop yelling cruel insults at a gay couple who were shopping. He told me i was going to burn in hell for defending their heathen ways. Does that mean all religious people say such things, or that they are wrong? You think before crossing the road, try it before typing.
reznor12 2 weeks ago in playlist Interviews with Richard Dawkins
@reznor12 at no point did I say that religion and all religious people are perfect, only that atheism is clearly not the golden bullet that people muscular atheists claim it is, i was merely commenting on the fact that many of the negatives of religion that atheists sight as evidence of its uselessness are regurgitated by the atheists themselves. incidently although i don't actually believe in god for sure, i believe religion, even if as a placebo has merit
lfeddern 2 weeks ago
Corruption also is a good example of absence of faith. If one man have the precise notion that he will to the hell, he will never envolve himself in corruption. But we know that almost all corrupt claim they are religious men. If one do not believe in Justice of God, this one also do not believes in God.
marcos0723 1 month ago
Why the majority of people say that they believes in God? Because they have not choice. They simply were born in a religious system, and all that they know to do is believe, is have faith. But, is this a realy faith? I am so sorry! I think no so.
marcos0723 1 month ago
@marcos0723 But this is only a caricature. We know that exist various little things that we make which prove our absence of faith.
Do you understand where I wanna arrive?
Yes. Almost nobody realy believes in God, even though that all they say the contrary.
marcos0723 1 month ago
What's your bases for that comment ?
Super405807 1 month ago
So Deluded Dawkins
xyrans 1 month ago
science is only a tool, like a drill or a hammer. it wont answer any questions, but u can use it to answer questions. however u can only use a tool on things that that exist now, and on things that are at least somewhat solid. therefore science will never answer questions like "where does all this come from?"
No0bT4rD 1 month ago
@No0bT4rD that we dont know, and we can only make intelligent guesses. think of it as a math problem. if i asked wat is 3*4.484342, u would say approximately 13.5 if u only had a couple of seconds to answer. however if u immediately say 13.5 and would not change ur mind, then that is not intelligent and its not a guess.
this is too simple tho cuz we could just use a calculator but wat im saying is that the answer is THERE and therefore we can only make intelligent guesses
No0bT4rD 1 month ago
I'm sorry did he just ask science to give a meaning to life? Science will never tell you "You are born to do this!" You have to chose that for yourself. Why one lives is entirely one's own choice. And I disagree that religion gives life a purpose. OK it says that we are born to pray and please the Lord(s) as it/they say but what purpose does our Lord have? What purpose does the world it tries so hard to maintain have?
ArminXtosis 1 month ago
Interviewer is a moron. Probably an Anglican.
m0cachin0 1 month ago
Just look at his face @0:40
He would laaaaugh his ass off if wasn't so polite :D
Maloparic 1 month ago
Dawkins wins !
charles4hl 1 month ago
Dawkins wins!
SpidermanInLondon 1 month ago
richard
HuLk2795 1 month ago
he keeps interrupting Richard with spurious and childish arguments.
majidnba 2 months ago 40
@majidnba Indeed makes me so MAD
djekayzz 2 months ago
@majidnba Those are the only kind of arguments the religious have.
audience2 1 month ago
@majidnba I think he is pretty good, his questions may seem stupid, but he still has to ask them that we understand the guests positions.
Auraruth8 4 weeks ago 5
Comment removed
Twirlyhead 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Twirlyhead 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@majidnba - - the alternative would be just to let RD make an uninterrupted speech while the interviewer waited in another room drinking tea - and they are not spurious and childish arguments - Hardtalk has an excellent reputation worldwide and he's their top interviewer. Remember - it's called Hardtalk not Celebrity Soapbox.
Twirlyhead 3 weeks ago
0:18 Dawkin's about to smack some sense into this man XD
LolzAtMagicMuffins 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins, You have far more patience than I do. In no way could I speak to, let alone argue with, someone this stupid.
thelimecocunut 2 months ago
3:07 - Wholly illogical... or holy illogical?!?!?!?!?
3kliksphilip 2 months ago
Science isn't faith-based...moron!
FunkyWhitePimp 3 months ago
Good people will do good things; evil people will do evil things; but for a good person to do evil things, that takes religion.
Onodera1980 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Klarkster
This has been flagged as spam show
RICHARD DAWKINS - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS US ENDLESSLY."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
excellent debate, excellent host, and a new respect for the religious argument. (respect, not belief, but definitely mad respect)
umbrellaBuddha 3 months ago
Man Dawkings is a genius. If someone flamed me like that there is no way I would react so well. The guy never even made a point! he just changed subjects whenever he looked silly! Hard to watch!
zanzorander 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
England - Tue Oct 25, 2011
1) Lunchtime discussion on Oxford on the 'Oxford Debate'
2) "Is God a Delusion?" lecture with panel response (unless Dawkins shows up to debate!)
Run, Dawkins, run!! Keep running from Dr. Craig, from debate. That's the best thing you can do to keep your followers.
In case you followers don't know, he's been avoiding Dr. Craig, for he... is afraid to death of debating him! LOL... Even an atheist publicly accused him of cowardice!
Evidence: cowardice
feanando 3 months ago
Actually I am a Muslim but not to talk about racism I'm trying to say is what if you are an atheist and when you die than there's no peace and heaven in it? At least have a religion I don't care christian or buddhist just have one and believe in god.Bible and Al Quran actually are almost the same meaning.
GetShotxX 3 months ago
@GetShotxX Having a belief system akin to that doesn't automatically give you an afterlife and whatever exists does exist, simple. Essentially this means the only benefit of faith is comfort, which IMO is only for weak-minded people. Again, IMO.
ClutchHunter 3 months ago
@GetShotxX If the belief in an afterlife will give you comfort so be it. But it doesnt mean that it is true. I find that there is simply zero evidence to suggest that there is an afterlife. In my understanding of death, it will be much like before life. No sensation, no pain, no pleasure. Nothing for eternity. Our life is but a brief existence, one that should be enjoyed due to its finite nature. We should dedicate ourselves to contributing to life. This in essence is the spirit of religion.
Meeks861 3 months ago
@GetShotxX Pascal's wager, REALLY? REALLY?
MrMagedramy 3 months ago
@GetShotxX There's peace in life, if you're lucky enough to find it on your own. Some of us just can't turn off rationality.
TheBoredProle 3 months ago
All I hear when the religious complain about science not having all the answers is, "I want answers! I want them right now! Why can't you gimmie an answer?! Me! Me! ME!"
Isn't patience a virtue?
yackon4game 3 months ago 26
@yackon4game all i hear coming from athiests is there is no god YOU CANNOT SEE HIM SO HE IS NOT REAL. You simply have him for "comfort". So rather then us tyring to find answers that you cannot provide makes us inpatient. In all honesty it is YOU whom is inpatient deciding since you dont know where everything came from you assume that science will explain it oneday and christians, muslims, buddhists are wrong. Were not looking for answers we have our answers. You are trying to find answers.
lmaostfulol 3 months ago
@yackon4game haha i need an answer now ! so impatient they choose a stupid one filled with toothfairies and ghosts
MrBadApple999 2 months ago
@yackon4game and to expand if theres a gap in science why would it prove a god since religion is based of faith and if theres a lack in scientific proof then it would be taking a step back by turning to something without proof. but yeah that interviewer wasnt really understanding what he was saying
alexanderhulse 1 month ago
@yackon4game It's the Verruca Salt Syndrome.
TomVodkaCollins 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Klarkster
Nevertheless though Dawkins came though, he could've fucked up at times.
Spjungen 4 months ago
Yeh very good host. He really probed Dawkins pretty well.
Spjungen 4 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 to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 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 to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
the bbc (aka bastard board of cunts) are fucking pro government wankers
painsey 4 months ago
Wow, I actually like that interviewer. Actually asks pretty good questions. Dawkins is too smart though. I'd love to see this chap tackle a theocrat.
honsinge 4 months ago
Comment removed
babymicrobe 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 why do you assume I have "hatred" for god/allah? How can I hate something that I do not believe exists? Do you hate leprechauns? Do you like leprechauns?
You are correct, science cannot explain everything yet (it may never) but the important point is that it TRIES!! Religion doesn't, it attempts to cloud the issue through ignorance and a series of logical fallacies.
are you an arab? Arabs used to be the greatest scholars in the world. Do you know why that changed? ISLAM! Fact
herrzyklon 4 months ago
RD absolutely bitchslapped that guy on so mny levels!
I'd have taken offense at the man talking about RD having 'faith' in science - faith is the irrational belief in the unproven. Belief and faith are different, for example I BELIEVE that Pythagoras' Theorem is true because there is a PROOF. I do not have FAITH in it, simply because I have that proof!
herrzyklon 4 months ago
@herrzyklon
RD has accepted that there are certain things in this universe that science doesn't know ! RD thinks he can outsmart this invisible, mysterious power that caused a worthless piece of sperm to morph into human with an amazing brain !!!
Despite your hatred for the word God/Allah, you will admit that there was a mysterious power (no matter what you call it) that created everything ! Dawkins knows his balls aren't big enough to outsmart that ""Mysterious Power""
Dawkins is nothing
talhaahmed22 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 that "misterious power" is actually a scientific fact we`re not yet able to explain. But hey, your people believe in the imaginary friend in the sky etc... so your opinion is worthless.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89 m-i-s-t-e-r-i-o-u-s? It's mysterious. LOL. Hahahahahahaha.
jinggojonah 4 months ago
@jinggojonah someone believing in an imaginary friend laughing at someone who`s made a mistake by typing a word.... IDIOT!
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89 my imaginary and m-i-s-t-e-r-i-o-u-s friend says u're dumb.
jinggojonah 4 months ago
@jinggojonah he`s wrong and so are you. Keep on talking with your imaginary friend in YOUR CHURCHES and let intelligent people alone.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89 the Voice says you are correct about letting intelligent people alone. So, go away!
jinggojonah 4 months ago
@jinggojonah
so, your imaginary friend said: He`s correct about letting intelligent people alone. Go away jinggojonah!
buahahahaha you can`t even report what your imaginary friend tells you XD
Disgusting bible-thumping idiot.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89 Excuuuuse me. Don't put words into my friend's 'mouth'. It didn't say Jinggojonah. U're the dumb one. U don't deserve to be in the presence of intelligent people. Just look at the way you laugh..."buahahahaha"??WTF is that?? GROSS. My friend also says you're a bloody wanker. Is that true?
jinggojonah 4 months ago
@jinggojonah Your imaginary friend in the sky told you: "you`re a wanker".... he knows you too well eheheh
fucking bible-thumping idiot.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89 Mmm, using 'eheheh' instead of 'buahahaha'....that's strange (I wonder why). 'Bible-thumping'? What a joke.
jinggojonah 4 months ago
@jinggojonah you`ve got a lot of voices in your idiotic head.
Keep on talking with snakes and pretend me to keep a straight face XD
Religious idiot.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
My friend, atheism stems from anti-religion ideology that Dawkins and a bunch of other like-minded pseudo-scientists have been selling for years.
Dawkins is so critical of blasphemy laws !!!! he thinks he should have the right to talk shit about holy characters of different religions.
Similarly I also want to make a film showing how Dawkins fucks his wife, how he sticks his penis down her throat and how she moans while playing with RD's 2-inch wee-wee !!!
Haven't I got the right to do that?
talhaahmed22 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 you`re not supported by evidence and that`s what you`re going to pay for eheheheh
Looking forward for your upcoming movie with all those virgins that paedophile named Mohammed promised you.
Ahmed the dead terrorist.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
I dont get how people still say "you believe in evolution" IT IS FACT like gravity :D
evilpie1766 4 months ago
Richard looks completely baffled !!!
Keep giving these narrow-minded atheists "severe mental shocks".
I like the way the interviewer put the pseudo-scientist in deep shit
talhaahmed22 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 Where was he baffled? I thought it was well conducted and entertaining on both ends.
idunnononame 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 ohhh mister mohammad-abdallah-mustafa & CO. is fighting back XD
Fuck off muslim scum.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89
I am not fighting back !!! I feel sorry for this old atheist..
Thats all I can say----spineless coward !!! hahah
talhaahmed22 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 buahahaah you`re feeling sorry for RD? You? A muslim idiot? buahahaha
Keep on believing in your imaginary friend and let intelligent people tell the truth about it. You don`t like it? DON`T FUCKING WATCH IT!
Buahahah a fucking muslim feeling sorry for RD....while the rest of the intelligent world feels sorry for you and your kind.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@ThreeLions89 u are dumb
jinggojonah 4 months ago
@jinggojonah that`s rich coming from someone who`s added a deepak chopra`s video to his favourites buahahahahahhah
Shut up.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 go fuck allah or any other imaginary friend you disgusting terrorist.
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
@talhaahmed22 Did you actually watch this? Richard Dawkins answered every single question put to him very well.
madeiraunited 3 months ago
@talhaahmed22 Of course Richard Dawkins looks baffled. I too am constantly baffled that people still believe in non-existent fantasies like gods and tooth faries and easter bunnies and santa claus and ... you get the idea?
privetgreetings 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@privetgreetings 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 months ago
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 and the brainwashed 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 months ago
@1tabligh An atheist thinks for him/herself. A person like that cannot be brainwashed.
privetgreetings 2 months ago
@privetgreetings If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
When you say denying its existence you are implying that because science can't deny the possibility of the existence of a God, there is only one other alternative and that is a God existing. God has no more reason to exist than Leprechauns, witches, werewolves, vampires, etc etc. That is why some of us choose to dismiss the idea of God, and put it on the same shelf as the aforementioned with the knowledge that neither of these to most people ridiculous ideas can never be disproved.
XiaoPow 2 months ago
@XiaoPow We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
On the comment of the origin of matter, physics and life science does not have a definitive answer. We may never know it, but we shouldn't give up the quest for knowledge. And to throw the ball back to you; how should your God, undeniably more complex than the complexity of its creation, first produce itself, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
XiaoPow 2 months ago
@XiaoPow The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
I'm very confused by your arguing, as I've never claimed a God CAN NOT exist. I'm asking why you believe in something that has not, and can not currently be proved? The only "claim" I am making is that we shouldn't consider God any more likely to exist than Santa claus, the tooth fairy and so on.
XiaoPow 2 months ago
@XiaoPow something that has not, and can not currently be proved?
___
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
How would we then know that there is a God, because some people claim they can hear voices? I am open to the possibility of anything, but again, regardless of your technicalities - why should I ever believe in something when there is no proof, materialistic or not, for this being? Again, we come back to the point of dismissing an idea of something until it can be proved to us that it exists.
XiaoPow 2 months ago
@XiaoPow Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Atheists do not conclude firmly or forcibly that a deity doesn't exist. Atheists firmly and forcibly ask the religious to provide proof and evidence for the beliefs that they constantly shove down other people's throats. Atheists then conclude that no theists on the face of this planet, regardless of what religious belief they hold, can provide any inkling of evidence.
iz2sicc 1 month ago in playlist Atheism is great
@iz2sicc Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I don't think Atheists deny anything. I put it this way, ¿why should I believe in god more than in ghosts or faeries? Even if some almighty force created the universe, why is it god, why not goddess, why not many gods, etc. etc. We have no better reason to believe in one or another, except for false stories that ignorant illiterate peasants from the middle east told thousands of years ago.
MrFedericoaa1982 1 month ago
@MrFedericoaa1982 Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Yes, it is. Let me put it this way, if we had 4 arms, we would consider ourselves as "miraculous" as we consider ourselves now. And we would be having this same discussion. "Is it possible that we had evolve with such wonderful 4 arms?" and I would answer, Yes, it is.
What you consider proof and demonstration is not, if you don't believe me, just read a DICTIONARY once in a while.
MrFedericoaa1982 1 month ago
@MrFedericoaa1982 What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Actually, thousands of scientists can, and not only they can, they do. You just don't understand the flaws of your argument, even after i gave you a high school level explanation. I'll try one more time. If the human kidney would be different, and by that I mean evolved in any other way, you would be giving the same argument.
MrFedericoaa1982 1 month ago
@Mr..When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
1tabligh 1 month ago
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You don't understand the theory of evolution that is your problem. This is not a classroom, if you want to debate something you must already be knowledgeable in the topic. I don't know what considerable is, but the bast majority of scientists are atheist or agnostics, and as Richard Dawkins says, science and religion are a contradiction, since religion is the suspension of critical thinking.
The thing with atheists is that we don't care if god exist.
MrFedericoaa1982 1 month ago
@MrFedericoaa1982 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh What's your point? I think you've just changed topics completely.
MrFedericoaa1982 1 month ago
@MrFedericoaa1982 God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh The problem is that you are considering god as necessary and the source of existence. Now if we both agree that god is necessary and the source of existence, then you would be right, but we do not agree. And we are back to the question if god exists.
Even if we suppose that god exists, that would not make religion any closer to truth! As I already said, atheists don't care if god exists or not, religion is a man invention all the same, and there science can probe so.
MrFedericoaa1982 1 month ago
@MrFedericoaa1982 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 1 month ago
religion is a man invention
___
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 1 month ago
Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
science can probe so
____
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 1 month ago
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 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFedericoaa1982 Then how can you delude yourself 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 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
I quite like the host. He asked some challenging and intelligent questions.
jonathan102 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Klarkster
@jonathan102 To be fair. He didn't really. Those were very common questions that Dawkins have answered many times. You can see how well Dawkins handle it. It's just too easy for him really. But for the public it can't be repeated enough anyway. :)
dummychaos 4 months ago
The masses will always follow like sheep - that is what religions count on. And governments, for that matter - such fun when all the people just go "baaah baaah." Atheism is for the thinking elite.
privetgreetings 4 months ago
@privetgreetings
While I agree that religion blinds people to the truth I don't think you should suggest that atheism is for the elite. The majority of people have the potential to be decent critical thinkers if they aren't brainwashed.
madeiraunited 3 months ago
@madeiraunited Ah yes, but people who can think for themselves cannot get brainwashed. Unfortunately that excludes the vast majority of the 7 billion beings now overpopulating the planet.
privetgreetings 2 months ago
at the end...so it wouldn't be an icon that people would identify with
sd62t833 4 months ago
People have been attacking the interviewers methods and questioning the nature with which he initiated the interview. He allowed Dawksins to express his views and provided alternative viewpoints that Dawksins were required to counter. He took a scientific approach to the interview and explored various alternatives to Dawkins viewpoint. He even gave theoreticals that were applicable to the future. This is how interviews should be, not pandering to the interviewee nor turn into shouting matches.
TheDavelogan 4 months ago
Excellent interview. Dawkins did well. A bit shaky though. It would be really really interesting if there's a round two with questions designed by Dr. Deepak Chopra. It would be a land slide victory for non-atheists. Thumbs up?
jinggojonah 5 months ago
@jinggojonah
A "non-atheist" is called a theist.
A theist is someone who believes the claim that a god exists. An atheist is someone who does not.
leftovers0 4 months ago
@jinggojonah What would be the point? Chopra is just another religionist who pretends that asking the same questions with a gloss of "science" on top makes it more challenging. It doesn't. He can't be rationally answered because it's the same vague and fuzzy rubbish in a different package; his manipulated science makes believers feel there is 'evidence' for god - from science no less! It's just embarrassing rubbish.
nakedmambo 4 months ago
@jinggojonah thumbs up? Not for you dumbass!
ThreeLions89 4 months ago
Modern organized religion is nothing more than just another socio-political movement designed to control the weak and ignorant masses. It doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love me.
I am a rational empiricist that believes in Humanity, Science & Music... I have no use for religion…
DoctorAxe 5 months ago
I just watched an actual debate. I'm not used to that.
BuzzmFrog 5 months ago 15
@BuzzmFrog True. Seems that anyone who dares to take on Dawkins has a prefixed mind in favor of the subjects opposition which by the way ultimately always turns nasty
MrHelviti 3 months ago
My problem with this interview is that the conversation focuses on religion and not on god--why is it that those who outright deny the possibility of some sort of creator/prime mover are unable to separate the two... ?
afterwardswhat 5 months ago
@afterwardswhat Because the theist won't let that happen, it's their answer for "things" Strictly speaking science has been discussed over and over without religion about god between atheists all the time.
Joelit121 5 months ago
@afterwardswhat Nobody denies the possibility of God/creator because EVERYTHING is possible to exist. Probability is the one we should be looking at, not possibility. Is it possible God/Santa actually exists? Yes. Is it probable? Fuck no. Is it possible that we live in the Matrix/a world designed by God? Yes. Is it probable? Fuck no. Is it possible that there's a heaven and hell/that we'll be reborn and become another animal? Yes. Is it probable? Fuck no.
DeathKnight725 5 months ago
I mean, there are so many real dilemmas, the case of morality, relativism vs absolute rules, radical minorities in Europe an America, and instead of trying to find new arguments and new ways of looking at them we keep saying same old stuff, getting one result: jumping to next question about communism/"atheistic faith"/dogmatism in science. Or my fav - is it possible for you to change your mind sometime (an believe in god)? It is always possible, but who cares if the debate is right now?
Wgryzka 5 months ago
Jeez, this man, Stephen Sackur, doesn't understand evolution and a concept of scientific explanation. Just listen to the first question in this part. "Selfish gene" seems to be for him some kind of consciousnesses that "drives the evolution" (ha, the transcendental force under the natural selection, check-mate, atheist!). I'd like to see somebody asking new questions, Hitler and Stalin, labeling children, good religious people and evolution are so old and already answered.
Wgryzka 5 months ago
Dawkins missed a trick I think: when the point was put to him that because religion is a product of evolution it must have utility, he could have pointed out that it doesn't have to have utility *any more*. There are plenty of examples in biology of traits that were once useful but aren't any more, but which nevertheless persist, such as vestigial limbs, or even our own appendix.
CaptainChaos 5 months ago 6
you simply cant mess with dawkins.
attila33hm 5 months ago
What about God in other terms? Cause and efect ruling the universal balance. Paralel universes (second life posibility?). Doesnt Karma sounds like an equation in terms of physics? like: certain paterns of antrophy repeating constantly in the human behabior? like: "one lives the concecuence of the facts? (his , + his society+ family+genetic facts? etc.
PQUINTA6 6 months ago
when science will explain the supernatural, then it will stop been supernatural, passing to be a scientific fact. And in this same way without knowing humanity is been comin explainning God : The simphony of universe. Now Religion and God, should be put together? I think they are 2 diferent things.
PQUINTA6 6 months ago
There is no utility in it and don't call me Shirley
ThieleM 6 months ago
You know i'm Atheist, an i actually found this guys round of interview questions enjoyable.
InformationMinister 6 months ago
@1tabligh Also the universe is not constantly progressing to more advanced states, in fact the opposite is actually happening. Take your head out of the quran and Do some research into entropy and educate yourself in reality rather than fairy tales.
ClosedAperture 6 months ago
@1tabligh You really aren't getting this are you? You told me just a few days ago that everything must have a cause, you are now contradicting this by saying that your God doesn't have a cause. Your can quote from the Quran as much as you want, it doesn't detract from the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed.
ClosedAperture 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins is the man.
We must free this world from the tyranny and oppression of religion!
atheist382 6 months ago
Very good host.
escapeartist80 6 months ago 12
I don't want to brag but I'm God.
be easy folks.
peace
dominik13579 6 months ago
@dominik13579 "I'm God." Let me think about this for just a second... You have no evidence that you are God, there is no rational reason to believe you are God, but yet I cannot prove that you are not God... Hmmm, this is a tricky one... Oh well, I will just abandon my ability to think critically and believe that you must be God! All praise thee!
ClosedAperture 6 months ago
v ery intelligent and civilized host...good job
evilishevil 6 months ago
I couldn't tell if the interviewer was being a "devils advocate" (irony) or if he's actually a believer and was defending faith. Either way I thought he asked pretty good questions, at least better than the usual sound bites and yelling you see on television here in America.
BigxxBang 6 months ago 39
@BigxxBang or you could say "gods advocate" haha
thirsokewl 4 months ago
Oxford professor,,,,.... it doesn't get any smarter than that. I was catholic but Richard Dawkins and bill maher were my inspiration for giving up my " imaginary friend" god.
unchartedjdz9 6 months ago
This should be sent to Bill O'Reilly ASAP as a guide in how to conduct interviews.
balooga999 6 months ago
He concedes that we are predisposed by darwinian evolution to be "religious" Whether or not God exists, has no bearing on how people have and continue to behave with regards to belief in God. If God does not exist, well people still believe because they evolved to. If God does exist, well people have evolved to believe this. Evolution made most this way and mutations brought about atheism. So his quarrel should be with darwinian evolution itself. RIGHT?
hexnyc 6 months ago
@hexnyc Just because we are predisposed to believe in God does not mean this belief is therefore true. Many centuries ago people were also predisposed to believe that the world was flat, and well, we all know what happened next.
ClosedAperture 6 months ago
@ClosedAperture you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not talking about whether god does or does not exist, this point is not relevant. I am saying that the predisposition itself is the crux of the matter. I can agree with him that in a scientific paradigm god cannot exist because the scientific method cannot make any sense of it.
hexnyc 6 months ago
@hexnyc Look we don't seem to be on the same wavelength here. Lets go ahead and say that yes, people are in predisposed to believe in a God. So what? What woudl this have to do with anything?
ClosedAperture 6 months ago
Much much better debate as compared to the one Dawkins had with american kid Evan Solomon. Probably because both participants were much more civilized.
kgzulu 6 months ago
Brilliant!!! I love HardTalk!!!! It's unbiased and precise..The interviewer was great! and of course Dawkins did not miss a beat!!!!
saffiyahissoapy 6 months ago
al ga voditelj jebe u mozak
jasamdomo 7 months ago
This is how Bill O'Reilly and the other conservative goons should be. Ask challenging questions from the other side of the argument, and then let the guest talk; debate respectfully if necessary. If your point of view is well-justified, you never, ever need to yell and talk over people to demonstrate that (unless they give you no choice by doing the same). I suppose that's the difference between Fox and its fans, and civilized society.
logicked 7 months ago 81
@logicked You're joking of course. Sakuur here was almost identical to O'Reilly with his interruptions and deliberately stupid arguments. He deliberately misquotes Einstein, Hawkings etc. He's a mindless fascist bastard just like O'Reilly but slightly better lubed up.
nilbud 6 months ago
@nilbud Nope. His arguments were stupid - that's the point of a program called HARDTalk. Contradict everything the guest thinks. Probably the stupidity goes a little deeper than just what was needed for the show, of course. But he didn't interrupt or yell. If he cut things short from time to time, it was to get the rest of the questions in before the end of the program. Happens on every TV show. Hour-long tedious discussions on one question only exist on the Internet...or cancelled shows.
logicked 6 months ago
@logicked Oh please. As if MSNBC and the rest of the leftist media doesn't do the same shit as Fox. You're actually just as bad as Fox, do you see that?
BigxxBang 6 months ago
@BigxxBang Some are, of course. My statement, purely about Fox and its hosts, contains no statement about MSNBC or my political views. You ought not to cast your own habit of gross generalization onto the quite specific comments of others. O'Reilly is a particularly bad host. Conservatives on TV and in politics do tend to be more bullish in their conversational tactics, on a more regular basis. Most (not just some) Fox hosts are extremely bullish and also conservative ("conservative goons").
logicked 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question to atheists by Jesus Christ:
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Mooiplaats 7 months ago
Comment removed
Mooiplaats 7 months ago
@coolio91a "n enormous graveyard that still exists on the outskirts of the Namibian seaside resort of Swakopmund, contains the bones of the dead that died in the German concentration camps in the late 1800s."
What is the name/location of this "enormous graveyard just outside Swakkopmund"?
"destruction of indigenous peoples"
What indigenous people was "destroyed", when, where, and by whom?
Mooiplaats 7 months ago
This guy really just should have read dawkin's book, all of his questions would have been answered!
d34d23 7 months ago
@d34d23 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 7 months ago