This idiot is hilarious! Again he can't answer a simple question about the source of morality so he chastises Steve for not framing the question "properly" and tries to say that religion takes its morals from atheism and proceeds to stumble and stammer for a reasonable answer which is completely mind numb. He is exposing his stupidity on these shows. It's very simple- morality is acceptable human conduct coming from laws imposed by the law giver -God. That's where we get the LAW OF GRAVITY from
@RomeoSeal3 No offence mate but you clearly misunderstood that entire exchange. What RD did was illustrate that religious people do not, as a matter of fact, get moral values from the Bible, using the example of slavery. He didn't dodge the question, he simply pointed out that you can't shift the goal posts by leaving to one side the awful stuff in religion and saying that you get your morals from the good stuff; because that distinction iteself requires some higher criteria.
@randomguy7890,I don't think that'll serve much purpose.I'm as atheistic as they come, but bringing a set of people to form a group, when they are essentially against group-ism or adherence to an ideology doesn't make sense.Further,even though allowing people to question their beliefs,opening their mind to newer possibilities is the logical thing to do; religion,unfortunately, is here to stay, primarily because almost all constructs arise from resource deprivation,a fact that hasn't changed.
Ugh. The 'morality' argument is one I dislike. Human beings are capable of living together peacefully without desert stories that make no sense. This world would be much better without religion.
WHY does not Richard Dawkins mention the fact that we WOULD NOT SURVIVE 250 000 years of evolution if it wasn't for human solidarity. Wich is of course what morality is.
I'm an older, gay, Canadian, atheist. To compare being an atheist to being gay is ridiculous. I was tossed out of my parents home at 17 for being gay - they never cared that I was an atheist (older brother is an atheist too). I was beaten up daily in high school for being gay - nobody cared that I was an atheist. organization. Atheists could always marry in Canada. The list goes on.........I like Dawkins but disagree on this point
@cavejourney You're Canadian. That's why nobody cares about your atheism. In the U.S., polls have shown that most people would rather their daughter marry a felon than an atheist. In the U.S., an avowed atheist couldn't be elected dog catcher. Atheists are second only to terrorists on the scale of people Americans hate. It's MUCH safer to come out as gay than an atheist in the U.S.. Dawkins was talking about America when he made that statement and it is 100% true. Believe me, I know.
@cavejourney in some circles it can be just as bad. i have been disowned by my entire family for being an Atheist. i guess it does depend but i wouldn't say it's always easy to be an atheist either
Wow, this is a rare instance where Dawkins didn't answer correctly. Morality ultimately comes from our evolution. We've evolved behavioral traits such as altruism, helpfulness, and compassion because these traits helped us to survive and prosper in a group setting. It's like an unwritten social contract between individuals in our tribe and society. Sure, laws and customs and "zeitgeist" might shift the moral balance, but morality is really ingrained in our genes.
@merkleboy10 Well, in evolutionary time, the difference between today and biblical times is nothing, and since the interviewer posited that morality comes from the bible, Dawkins' only job was to refute that, which he did by contrasting today's morality w/ that of a couple thousand yrs ago. So, both in the context of the interviewer's question, as well as the negligible amount of evolutionary time between today and biblical times, it would have been irrelevant for Dawkins to reference evolution.
@smartpeoplewillagree I agree that Dawkins' reply was correct in the context of this question. But he could've gone further and mentioned the root of morality - the genetic and evolutionary basis of morality. He could've answered the more important question, "where does morality come from?"
Here's another way to refute the assertion that morality came from the bible: Are you saying that people who live in atheist countries, such as China, lack morality? What about those who lived before Christ?
@merkleboy10 Not sure if you're directing the question at me, but I'm an atheist btw... and a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. I think he decided not to mention evolution also because I don't think there is strong consensus in the scientific community about the evolutionary origins of morality and Dawkins always seems to stay away from making contestable statements, I think in part because he knows that the religious community is always looking to poke holes in his statements.
@smartpeoplewillagree The questions are directed at those who make the assertion that morality comes from the bible... I should've put them in quotes. I also agree that Dawkins likes to be safe and tries to make statements that are supported by evidence, because he's very much in the spotlight. That's why I'm glad I have the luxury to be more extreme and make hypothetical claims, for example, that morality comes from evolution. I know that the research is still ongoing. Thanks for your input.
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?
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
Religion is neither a source of morality or immorality, but rather just a little lie we tell ourselves untill we realize we've been thinking for ourselves all along.
Dawkins is correct. Most people(people that aren't hindered by a mental disorder) get their morals from the same sense, not religion. But, Richard could have taken the point further by stating that the place morals come from is the human nature of surveying things initially by emotion(even if it's subconcious), and then filtering the emotion through learned logical or illogical opinions( and btw, emotions are a beneficiary evolutionary trait).
We all get our morals from the same place, wherever that may be. But religious people put a fictional diety between them and morality and say that is coming from the diety not
Atheist's aren't moral to please this fictional diety, we get our morality straight from the source. You might even say atheist morality is purer, lol
Ignoring your callous opinion of the man based only his looks for a moment (sarcasm, I hope); he's just playing devil's advocate. It's a common interviewer's strategy. If he was talking to a theist, he'd take the non-theistic standpoint. I've seen other episodes where there's more than one guest/viewpoint and he's quite reasonable.
I also think he looks a bit like Jin from LOST. : )
I think he's doing it on purpose, playing devil's advocate all through the interview. He provokes some interesting answers this way, so it's all okay.
It's very hard to do, because the only thing that atheist share in common is the disbelief in any form of deity, hence the term atheism.
but nothing else, per say, i could be an atheist, and agree with Conservative views, or I could also be a Liberal, or a Nationalist, or a Communist. political beliefs really differ from individual to individual, whereas Conservative Christians share a lot in common, or Muslims.
Indeed it is not in the nature of atheism to organize anything in the name of atheism. Atheists do not gather together to not worship. It is a bit like everyone who is not a football fan to come together and not cheer for a team. It might be difficult to get people to come to that.
I'll answer the interviewers question about why more atheists don't pursue political power.
Here in Tennessee, our state constitution forbids atheists to run for public offices.
And another thing, it's more of character for the religious to seek power and control over others, as politicians do. So I'd be willing to bet that most atheists don't challenge these constitutions because they have no desire to be in that controlling position.
shown in the case of a religious population asked to vote on religious school Public Funding.
The Premier ( party leader for the party in power for the province} a Sunday School teacher, argued secular Humanist values against his opponent, and won a clear victory in the campaign which was almost solely about that issue.
Richard poses an, I believe, an imperative issue concerning the organizational abilities of Atheist, or rather rationalist. There has been a great many of inspirations like George Carlin or Bill Maher in the entertainment industry and social discourse, however a political party hasn't come to fore, as of yet. Is it time for sagacious individuals to secure: 1. Unity and 2. A political agenda to assist and support the people of this world. Every day people suffer and die while politicians debauch!
who is being interviewed? The reporter or the professor? Of course he will not just agree to the reporters claims but instead say his opinion. Thats what he is being interviewed for. You would understand that if his opinion was to praise the lord.
I generally agree with Dawkins about the religious not getting their morality from religious but what about the wahabi muslims? or jerry fallwell? they seem to follow the letter of the law of their holy books pretty closely
the man who called in and said he would murder his neighbor if he didn't fear god has to be lying. that man would most likely be afraid of the LAW. I thought god forgives?-but life in prison, that's scary.
All the racist, sexist, homophobic intolerant, closed minded and cirtical people I know are religious. Most of the Atheists I know are really good people. Religion is most definately not the source of moralality but very often a source of immorality.
Well, maybe not the source of immorality, but definitely the justification of immorality. I have been to "revival" church services that were designed to reach out to the *lost*. They still ended up alienating the fruits, and the flakes, the liberals, hypocrites, the weak-minded, wishy-washy fakes, and the demons. They preached love for five minutes, and then returned to business as usual: "Everyone not like us (or giving us 10 percent), is goin' to hell." No thanks.
The whole "moral" discussion is really actually ridiculous. EVERYONE gets the basis of their morals from their parents. If their parents teach them to kill others, then they probably WILL. It is not that hard to explain. Why does everyone act like Atheist's morals are all the same? And that all Christians have the same morals? There are many Christians who do HORRIBLE things that other Christians would NEVER do. Same goes for all races/religions/etc... This is not that hard to get.
Well, that's just a silly argument. If everyone got their morals only from their parents, then morals would not be a fluid concept and thus unchanging. Obviously outside forces have an influence. Have you ever heard of sociopaths? More often than not, their parents are emotionally and ethically sensible. Do you ever think things through?
Not necessarily. Usually Sociopaths have a genetic predisposition for anti-social behavior. If you look back at the family tree of most sociopathic killers there is usually a history of mental illness. Most sociopaths suffered a very disturbing upbringing such as emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Tie that in with a genetic disposition for violence and lack of a conscience and you have a sociopath.
to be honest its very un christian of you to do these things, refuse our kids into cubs boyscouts etc, refuse us ability to take public office, why what scares you about us, were just ppl, ppl that think difrent from you on maybe 1 subject, but we are often discriminated agains for it, why what harm do we do, what do you feer.
i think the reason we dont have a secular party in politics or a loby for them is because we dont care enough about forcing our none beliefe to make it an agenda, we just want to be left alone to life our life, and not be held back or targeted for our none belief, just let us work were we can and play were we can as long as it within the law, and dont pick us out as some kind of bad race of ppl that shouldent be allowed to participate in the comunity.
Mr. Dawkins is as afraid as every other athiest in the world that when they die, or when "Judgement" day comes, that they will have to meet their maker.
This explains psychologically why they wouldn't take the action of gaining political power spreading the cause of Athiests, turning it into a party means someone has to take charge of that party, which would scare the hell out of anyone that tries to do it for this fear that they all share. You have your answer Sir!
They are an ethnic group in the same sense that the Amazons are an ethnic group: Some people say they exist, but no one has really seen one. To most they are simply a campfire-side story meant to scare children.
Believing in Canadians is simply a matter of faith -- Canadians, like Russel's teapot, are just something we must remain agnostic about. This is why Dawkins mentions that he does not know about Canada. No one does; we may only imagine of something as enigmatic as Canadians.
There is no one on Earth I respect more than Richard Dawkins. That said, I find it somewhat bewildering that he cannot seem to recognize Sam Harris' point that it is difficult to get people together under the banner of an idea they reject. It's like expecting everyone whose favorite color isn't blue to team up. Now if we simply shift the word from atheism to secularism then we begin to find unity...
"I was actually on an American radio show and a man phoned in and said if he didn't believe in God he'd murder his neighbor"
LMFAO I remember that interview, I think it was with Alan Colmes, hahahahhhah then Dawkins responded to the guy with a "Well, then...you don't make a very good advertisement for Christianity" LMFAO
This idiot is hilarious! Again he can't answer a simple question about the source of morality so he chastises Steve for not framing the question "properly" and tries to say that religion takes its morals from atheism and proceeds to stumble and stammer for a reasonable answer which is completely mind numb. He is exposing his stupidity on these shows. It's very simple- morality is acceptable human conduct coming from laws imposed by the law giver -God. That's where we get the LAW OF GRAVITY from
RomeoSeal3 2 weeks ago
@RomeoSeal3 No offence mate but you clearly misunderstood that entire exchange. What RD did was illustrate that religious people do not, as a matter of fact, get moral values from the Bible, using the example of slavery. He didn't dodge the question, he simply pointed out that you can't shift the goal posts by leaving to one side the awful stuff in religion and saying that you get your morals from the good stuff; because that distinction iteself requires some higher criteria.
HarrynJessie 1 week ago
@randomguy7890,I don't think that'll serve much purpose.I'm as atheistic as they come, but bringing a set of people to form a group, when they are essentially against group-ism or adherence to an ideology doesn't make sense.Further,even though allowing people to question their beliefs,opening their mind to newer possibilities is the logical thing to do; religion,unfortunately, is here to stay, primarily because almost all constructs arise from resource deprivation,a fact that hasn't changed.
akshatsharma31187 1 month ago
Ugh. The 'morality' argument is one I dislike. Human beings are capable of living together peacefully without desert stories that make no sense. This world would be much better without religion.
thebubba12100 1 month ago
I totally agree that we atheists should organize, but whenever I talk to my friends about it, I'm the only one who seems to care about it at all...
randomguy7890 1 month ago
WHY does not Richard Dawkins mention the fact that we WOULD NOT SURVIVE 250 000 years of evolution if it wasn't for human solidarity. Wich is of course what morality is.
reanimated6 2 months ago
he's such a great talker.
DasHinchen 3 months ago
@DasHinchen and thinker ;)
Metallica891FAN 2 months ago
I'm an older, gay, Canadian, atheist. To compare being an atheist to being gay is ridiculous. I was tossed out of my parents home at 17 for being gay - they never cared that I was an atheist (older brother is an atheist too). I was beaten up daily in high school for being gay - nobody cared that I was an atheist. organization. Atheists could always marry in Canada. The list goes on.........I like Dawkins but disagree on this point
cavejourney 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cavejourney You're Canadian. That's why nobody cares about your atheism. In the U.S., polls have shown that most people would rather their daughter marry a felon than an atheist. In the U.S., an avowed atheist couldn't be elected dog catcher. Atheists are second only to terrorists on the scale of people Americans hate. It's MUCH safer to come out as gay than an atheist in the U.S.. Dawkins was talking about America when he made that statement and it is 100% true. Believe me, I know.
mdfouru 3 months ago
@cavejourney i guess Dawkins meant being atheist in the US (mainly in the Bible Belt perhaps) not in Canada.
freiheitsalv 3 months ago
@cavejourney in some circles it can be just as bad. i have been disowned by my entire family for being an Atheist. i guess it does depend but i wouldn't say it's always easy to be an atheist either
IsadoraAlluring 2 months ago in playlist izzard, fry & hitchens, dawkins, agenda
1.51 "Can't you humour me?" = "Can't I ask a bullshit question?".
lewisner 4 months ago
Wow, this is a rare instance where Dawkins didn't answer correctly. Morality ultimately comes from our evolution. We've evolved behavioral traits such as altruism, helpfulness, and compassion because these traits helped us to survive and prosper in a group setting. It's like an unwritten social contract between individuals in our tribe and society. Sure, laws and customs and "zeitgeist" might shift the moral balance, but morality is really ingrained in our genes.
merkleboy10 5 months ago
@merkleboy10 Well, in evolutionary time, the difference between today and biblical times is nothing, and since the interviewer posited that morality comes from the bible, Dawkins' only job was to refute that, which he did by contrasting today's morality w/ that of a couple thousand yrs ago. So, both in the context of the interviewer's question, as well as the negligible amount of evolutionary time between today and biblical times, it would have been irrelevant for Dawkins to reference evolution.
smartpeoplewillagree 5 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree I agree that Dawkins' reply was correct in the context of this question. But he could've gone further and mentioned the root of morality - the genetic and evolutionary basis of morality. He could've answered the more important question, "where does morality come from?"
Here's another way to refute the assertion that morality came from the bible: Are you saying that people who live in atheist countries, such as China, lack morality? What about those who lived before Christ?
merkleboy10 5 months ago
@merkleboy10 Not sure if you're directing the question at me, but I'm an atheist btw... and a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. I think he decided not to mention evolution also because I don't think there is strong consensus in the scientific community about the evolutionary origins of morality and Dawkins always seems to stay away from making contestable statements, I think in part because he knows that the religious community is always looking to poke holes in his statements.
smartpeoplewillagree 5 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree The questions are directed at those who make the assertion that morality comes from the bible... I should've put them in quotes. I also agree that Dawkins likes to be safe and tries to make statements that are supported by evidence, because he's very much in the spotlight. That's why I'm glad I have the luxury to be more extreme and make hypothetical claims, for example, that morality comes from evolution. I know that the research is still ongoing. Thanks for your input.
merkleboy10 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smartpeoplewillagree 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 3 months ago
@DerInFrageSteller its means "spirit of the time" the word Zeitgeist has been assimilated into English
Philiptanzer 5 months ago
damn, where's that radio interview, i wanna listen to it ;D
freiheitsalv 6 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 7 months ago
Can't you humor me? NO! [Go Dawkins!!]
nemorino 9 months ago 3
Back then, Sam Harris wasn't really in the scene. So glad he's helped us all realize so much about morality...
kafata1 9 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins Debates/Lectures
Religion is neither a source of morality or immorality, but rather just a little lie we tell ourselves untill we realize we've been thinking for ourselves all along.
binarysolo2 1 year ago 7
That guy has a big head!
ReligionRetard 1 year ago
Dawkins is correct. Most people(people that aren't hindered by a mental disorder) get their morals from the same sense, not religion. But, Richard could have taken the point further by stating that the place morals come from is the human nature of surveying things initially by emotion(even if it's subconcious), and then filtering the emotion through learned logical or illogical opinions( and btw, emotions are a beneficiary evolutionary trait).
jmaxwll 1 year ago 4
We all get our morals from the same place, wherever that may be. But religious people put a fictional diety between them and morality and say that is coming from the diety not
Atheist's aren't moral to please this fictional diety, we get our morality straight from the source. You might even say atheist morality is purer, lol
MeBeMat 1 year ago
This presenter is so dumb he's even got a stupid looking face. You can just tell hes totally stupid.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
@LowleyUK
Ignoring your callous opinion of the man based only his looks for a moment (sarcasm, I hope); he's just playing devil's advocate. It's a common interviewer's strategy. If he was talking to a theist, he'd take the non-theistic standpoint. I've seen other episodes where there's more than one guest/viewpoint and he's quite reasonable.
I also think he looks a bit like Jin from LOST. : )
Mayhemm007 1 year ago 2
This guy Paikin is cruisin' for a bruisin'...he has this air of douchebag you only see in televangelist hucksters and car salesmen
Hurlman418 1 year ago 2
@Hurlman418
"This guy Paikin is cruisin' for a bruisin'"
I think he's doing it on purpose, playing devil's advocate all through the interview. He provokes some interesting answers this way, so it's all okay.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 2
This is painful.
faithisfiction 1 year ago 2
yeah. about atheists gaining political power...
It's very hard to do, because the only thing that atheist share in common is the disbelief in any form of deity, hence the term atheism.
but nothing else, per say, i could be an atheist, and agree with Conservative views, or I could also be a Liberal, or a Nationalist, or a Communist. political beliefs really differ from individual to individual, whereas Conservative Christians share a lot in common, or Muslims.
luciferiexcelsil 2 years ago 2
i was going to write my explanation but nails077 already did
onlyguitar1001 2 years ago
Why atheists don't organize politically... I guess we all have an affinity for disobedience
grimwatcher 2 years ago
Indeed it is not in the nature of atheism to organize anything in the name of atheism. Atheists do not gather together to not worship. It is a bit like everyone who is not a football fan to come together and not cheer for a team. It might be difficult to get people to come to that.
Nails077 2 years ago 5
I'll answer the interviewers question about why more atheists don't pursue political power.
Here in Tennessee, our state constitution forbids atheists to run for public offices.
And another thing, it's more of character for the religious to seek power and control over others, as politicians do. So I'd be willing to bet that most atheists don't challenge these constitutions because they have no desire to be in that controlling position.
Mechelle68 2 years ago
shown in the case of a religious population asked to vote on religious school Public Funding.
The Premier ( party leader for the party in power for the province} a Sunday School teacher, argued secular Humanist values against his opponent, and won a clear victory in the campaign which was almost solely about that issue.
pointyhead1 2 years ago
Religion is about "group-thinking" (believing what everyone else believes) therefore they come together more.
Atheism is about "free-thinking" which is just the opposite.
DSAhmed 2 years ago
Richard poses an, I believe, an imperative issue concerning the organizational abilities of Atheist, or rather rationalist. There has been a great many of inspirations like George Carlin or Bill Maher in the entertainment industry and social discourse, however a political party hasn't come to fore, as of yet. Is it time for sagacious individuals to secure: 1. Unity and 2. A political agenda to assist and support the people of this world. Every day people suffer and die while politicians debauch!
seraphimra 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow this guy seems to be quite bitter. "No i just told you where we got it from. I am right and you are wrong".
FnHilarious101 2 years ago
who is being interviewed? The reporter or the professor? Of course he will not just agree to the reporters claims but instead say his opinion. Thats what he is being interviewed for. You would understand that if his opinion was to praise the lord.
omnissient 2 years ago
I generally agree with Dawkins about the religious not getting their morality from religious but what about the wahabi muslims? or jerry fallwell? they seem to follow the letter of the law of their holy books pretty closely
NegativeNick 2 years ago
I think most people wouldn't call that "morality" but instead, the lack-there-of.
Mechelle68 2 years ago
then they would be wrong, jerry fallwell has a morality even if we all think he's amoral.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
the man who called in and said he would murder his neighbor if he didn't fear god has to be lying. that man would most likely be afraid of the LAW. I thought god forgives?-but life in prison, that's scary.
kushtravels23 2 years ago
4:00 to 4:12 was brilliant,
the absolute truth at its most cruel to christians.
volound 2 years ago
All the racist, sexist, homophobic intolerant, closed minded and cirtical people I know are religious. Most of the Atheists I know are really good people. Religion is most definately not the source of moralality but very often a source of immorality.
futureboy3009 2 years ago 62
Well, maybe not the source of immorality, but definitely the justification of immorality. I have been to "revival" church services that were designed to reach out to the *lost*. They still ended up alienating the fruits, and the flakes, the liberals, hypocrites, the weak-minded, wishy-washy fakes, and the demons. They preached love for five minutes, and then returned to business as usual: "Everyone not like us (or giving us 10 percent), is goin' to hell." No thanks.
Pernic10us 2 years ago
Comment removed
bleuscorpio 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@futureboy3009 Well said. I absolutely agree.
RATIONALMIND001 1 year ago
What does that tell you? The religious people are the ones who seek power and influence, and the Atheists concede to peace.
iamericwhite 2 years ago 2
I've never seen anyone more right than dawkins
pat171985 2 years ago 2
Holy crap the host of that show is freaky looking.
sharpie443 2 years ago
that's the only thing dawkins thought about during the whole show
19775021 2 years ago
Does Richard Dawkins fear non-existence and get drunk because of it?
Velasca 3 years ago
No, he has spoken eloquently on how wonderful it is that he (and you and everyone else) get to partake in the world.
adamredwine 2 years ago
The whole "moral" discussion is really actually ridiculous. EVERYONE gets the basis of their morals from their parents. If their parents teach them to kill others, then they probably WILL. It is not that hard to explain. Why does everyone act like Atheist's morals are all the same? And that all Christians have the same morals? There are many Christians who do HORRIBLE things that other Christians would NEVER do. Same goes for all races/religions/etc... This is not that hard to get.
Martano666 3 years ago 2
Well, that's just a silly argument. If everyone got their morals only from their parents, then morals would not be a fluid concept and thus unchanging. Obviously outside forces have an influence. Have you ever heard of sociopaths? More often than not, their parents are emotionally and ethically sensible. Do you ever think things through?
depalma24 2 years ago
Not necessarily. Usually Sociopaths have a genetic predisposition for anti-social behavior. If you look back at the family tree of most sociopathic killers there is usually a history of mental illness. Most sociopaths suffered a very disturbing upbringing such as emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Tie that in with a genetic disposition for violence and lack of a conscience and you have a sociopath.
shelbymainzer 2 years ago
BEHOLD!!!! For....I.... AM....CANADIAN!!!!!
Martano666 3 years ago
hahaha
pup101 3 years ago
to be honest its very un christian of you to do these things, refuse our kids into cubs boyscouts etc, refuse us ability to take public office, why what scares you about us, were just ppl, ppl that think difrent from you on maybe 1 subject, but we are often discriminated agains for it, why what harm do we do, what do you feer.
tersse 3 years ago
i think the reason we dont have a secular party in politics or a loby for them is because we dont care enough about forcing our none beliefe to make it an agenda, we just want to be left alone to life our life, and not be held back or targeted for our none belief, just let us work were we can and play were we can as long as it within the law, and dont pick us out as some kind of bad race of ppl that shouldent be allowed to participate in the comunity.
tersse 3 years ago
Mr. Dawkins is as afraid as every other athiest in the world that when they die, or when "Judgement" day comes, that they will have to meet their maker.
This explains psychologically why they wouldn't take the action of gaining political power spreading the cause of Athiests, turning it into a party means someone has to take charge of that party, which would scare the hell out of anyone that tries to do it for this fear that they all share. You have your answer Sir!
gamersoasis 3 years ago
How would yyou know that? did you read that from a book? did he tell you or is that just your opinion
Robodisco 3 years ago
No one knows about Canada, do they?
runzombies 3 years ago
Who?
AtheistChase 3 years ago
Everyone other than Canadians, apparently.
runzombies 3 years ago
Who are the Canadians? I heard they are close to Alaska. Are they some group?
AtheistChase 3 years ago
They are an ethnic group in the same sense that the Amazons are an ethnic group: Some people say they exist, but no one has really seen one. To most they are simply a campfire-side story meant to scare children.
Believing in Canadians is simply a matter of faith -- Canadians, like Russel's teapot, are just something we must remain agnostic about. This is why Dawkins mentions that he does not know about Canada. No one does; we may only imagine of something as enigmatic as Canadians.
runzombies 3 years ago
I see.
AtheistChase 3 years ago
(a response to 4:14)
runzombies 3 years ago
There is no one on Earth I respect more than Richard Dawkins. That said, I find it somewhat bewildering that he cannot seem to recognize Sam Harris' point that it is difficult to get people together under the banner of an idea they reject. It's like expecting everyone whose favorite color isn't blue to team up. Now if we simply shift the word from atheism to secularism then we begin to find unity...
Lionspoint 3 years ago 4
i think you have the first foundations of a political party lol!
JOHNOOH 3 years ago
"I was actually on an American radio show and a man phoned in and said if he didn't believe in God he'd murder his neighbor"
LMFAO I remember that interview, I think it was with Alan Colmes, hahahahhhah then Dawkins responded to the guy with a "Well, then...you don't make a very good advertisement for Christianity" LMFAO
CaMaverick 3 years ago 36
lol
Antdog5 3 years ago