Added: 1 year ago
From: richarddawkinsdotnet
Views: 139,955
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (2,449)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • funny his argument about the arms races and the designer having a conflict of interest - seems to mirror nicely the way that different countries, as George Carlin says, all mistakenly pray for god to help them win against their enemies. Someone's going to be disappointed! Which country is god siding with?!

  • I myself am an atheist and am proud to be one because of people like Richard Dawkins. Some atheists who comment on his video to ridicule theologians make me feel sick; take note of how RD addresses the person at the end of this video, this is the kind of respect we should show each other.

  • @ASH18YEARS It is an absolute necessity to ridicule theologians. Otherwise people might actually belief in the bullshit theologians peddle. Humanity did once. It was called the Dark Ages.

  • @TomFynn Absolutely, of course, what a brilliant thesis - what a fool I was... I'll be leaving now...

    Oh, sorry Tom, can I call you Tom? Before I leave I just want to ask you one more thing. How do you intend to get people interested in knowledge and education when the people who claim to be some across as sanctimonious, arrogant, cruel cunts? These people haven't got the same credence as Christopher Hitchens, just to let you know.

  • these questions are dumb

  • Poor Dawkins has to take questions from a group of morons here. I feel that we as Americans have been robbed of a proper education. He was like, I got to catch a plane, I'm outta here!

  • Mind porn. 

  • "I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs". Thats a good one!

  • 1:12:15 WTF? WHY IS HE TALKING ABOUT THAT?

  • @awesomeskier12345 Because he's answering a question in an honest way

  • Loved the speech, was let down by the public's questions.

    Very nice upload.

  • Richard Dawkins is a living treasure.

  • excellent story teller.

  • @halflifeproductionz Im willing to bet big money that you didnt finish the video. You just troll, thats all youl ever be.

  • You can always tell how smart someone is by how ugly their tie is. Damn it Richard, that is one ugly tie.

  • 74:40 wow, i had no idea he was a closet anti-semite as well

  • @Diosukekun asap someone speaks negativity about jews, they are anti semites as well, this is a practise all religions does, to deter others from question they`re doings.

    effectivily negating facts and such.

    christianity does this al lto well in UK and the U.S. wah wah we are under attack wah wah we are a minority this is bullshit.

    once we speak towards religion as it are, a scam and fraud, we get called anti-whatever.

  • 37 people went to UNC

  • Have you seen the moonhoax?

  • I have such a small penis:-(

    any suggestions?

  • @PhillipChristoph "I hope all the Christians drive you into the sea you fucks!" How very Christian of you.

  • im making it snow on Richard Dawkins :D

  • 131313 views =)

  • Go to 9:30 to skip the introduction.

  • @Lleanlleawrg Thank you :D

  • @Lleanlleawrg hey, thanks for the heads up about where to skip to get to the start of dawkins' lecture.

  • @Lleanlleawrg thanks

  • His voice doesn't fit him.. it's totally throwing me off o.O

  • Did anyone else just skip the introduction?

  • @phillipchristoph lol. you are stupid

  • theres an all knowing all powerful being who created everything for a very special branch of primate and who directly helps some, ignores others and casts most into eternal fire, i dont get whats so hard to understand about that.

  • @PhillipChristoph JUBBISM SAYS... your name means"lover of horses joshua boy" its up to you, however and other "toobers" to decide on an opinion for themselves. When science wins and we invent time travel, then the first thing it will do is get rid of all the followers of joshua, therefore removing your posts ALL OF THEM. your life -if you even end up existing!?- will have changed and you would never, ever really know. . JUBBISM says everyone is always right just never true anyhow.

  • @PhillipChristoph

    1. If there is morality in religion, how do you feel comfortable referring to people as "You fucks"? Just wondering.

    2. Driving people who disagree with you into the sea has been a hallmark of Christianity for centuries. Thankfully, you no longer have that political power. Presumably, that is where your anger comes from.

    3. Atheism does not hold as a principle the fact that there is no god, it merely asks for proof of his/her/it's existence.

  • @PhillipChristoph also, there is no hatred of god because it does not exist. There is only hatred of religiosity and those who self righteously perpetuate the myth commensurate with demonizing nonbelievers.

  • @PhillipChristoph you debase Atheists based on their hate yet you clearly express your hate for atheists. Now you know why we hate stupid religiosity; we hate the failure of reason and childlike ignorance.

  • I really hate the way Americans pronounce Duke, as in Dook. It's pronounced Dyook!!

  • @LowleyUK It's our university you should call it as we do. Also you should pronounce "Los Angeles," properly. Some different pronunciations are understandable, but mispronouncing the name of a city is not.

  • @Lingerminator

    What i took offense to was that you portrayed a specific method that you abided by as superior. In that situation, i falsely assumed you to be arrogant and only nominally "open for discussion" as so many scientists i have met are today.

    Can you see why if i assumed such that i would see no issue in reciprocating arrogance?

  • @aznbacon321 Yes i can. As someone who enjoys science as much as philosophy, I must be open to all discussion as opinion is formulated through information gathered. My personal bias towards science is because it is a technique that when proven wrong puts its hands up and admits it. If we don't we can never move forward with a comprehensive world.

  • @aznbacon321 ..view. 

  • Stiefel Free Thought Foundation @ 1:13 ......how ironic

  • Comment removed

  • If you compare it to crime and punishment then evidence based 'Theory' is like the modern criminal justice system and religion with its 'belifs' is comparable to the burning of witches based on personal feeling.Which sounds the most ill informed,dangerous and downright wrong?I don't see an inch for moment or even understanding of people who chose to live their lives this way and who infect other with their irrational 'belif'

  • Dawkins as a leader? No no and no! I am an atheist and I don't need to follow anyone.

  • @logicallunatic1 idk... I think it's natural for humans to have leaders. So we're all going to have leaders in our society no matter what... I'd much rather have an athiest and a man such as Dawkins as a leader, rather than a raging religious lunatic. Who unfortunately consist of too many of the world leaders today.

  • @TheManInBlack2003

    Well yea... I'd choose Dawkins over a religious nut anyday... my point is that he is not needed to lead any atheist group. Atheists are naturally free and independent thinkers -- no leaders required.

  • @logicallunatic1 Yea I see where you're coming from. Though I still believe it's possible to have a leader and be a free and independant thinker. Lol, It's not like he would become our king and deny us our rights to be free and independant thinkers...

  • @logicallunatic1 Dawkins is more of a figurehead. An Icon or rolemodel for us.

  • @Pr0pagandaFilms

    True, I understand that, however the only thing an atheist may share with Dawkins is a disbelief in god/gods, everything else is off the table i.e. politics, economics etc. So, I would be careful putting leaders up on pedestals to respesent the atheist movement.

  • Genius at work.

  • Great speech!

  • goddamn good book, i based my senior research paper off this book a while back.

  • @Deshwat90210 wait... what's the book called again?

  • Stiefel is German and means "Boot" or "Boots"'

    Tod means "dead"

  • i am also against abusing women wether they are from religious groups such as christians muslims or atheists

  • The problem with buddhism is that you claim it's non-religious, and then you say "he settled under a tree and meditated for 6 years only drinking water ". NO HE DID NOT. This is a common trick of old-world religions, positing easy-to-understand miracles. The human body is not capable of this. You would die of bedsores and malnutrition very early on. Such a belief is the exact same religious nonsense as the Christians and all the rest.

  • @7j8i9m haha, so true.. but, from an atheist to another, don't just fuck off to all buddhist and eastern religious thought.. There's actually some pretty good things to be gleamed from Eastern religious philosophy

  • @7j8i9m Have you ever heard of symbolism, mythology, metaphor? If the fundamentalists are making the literalist fallacy, and the atheists are arguing against their literalist model, and not the fallacy itself, then you are both two idiots arguing about a misconception.

    Reading a symbolic text literally is no less futile if you do it scientifically. It is fatuous and silly to disprove factually that which is not stated as fact.

  • @blackmichael75 Now it's symbolic? WTF? It used to be the be all and end all, the true Word Of God. Now it's only symbolic? Ah yes, of course. Science has shown us how all these miracles are so much bunkum, so that no one can still believe them to be fact and still be respected by any thinking person.

    So now it's "symbolic". Bah, still humbug. Symbolic or not.

  • @TomFynn Nah. Symbols can represent something true, some idea which might be otherwise hard to express. Something about the cycle of the seasons, or the universal human yearning for meaning. It is to literalise them which is to render them absurd. And to be a crude reductionist in the name of science is to make yourself just as bad as the religious literalist.

  • @blackmichael75 "Something about the cycle of the seasons, or the universal human yearning for meaning" You want some syrup with that waffle?

  • @TomFynn How is it waffle? Do humans not universally yearns for meaning? Do we not have a cycle of seasons? Can you not see that, by being this reductionist, you're just mirroring the approach of the religious people?

  • @blackmichael75 The "universal yearning for meaning" is an interesting human feat based on a highly evolved simulation software. It might be of historical interest to see how that software misfired with the semi-illiterate goat herders from 2000 years ago who had to work on extremely limited information about the world, but that's about it. Nothing symbolic about it.

  • @TomFynn "simulation software", now who's waffling? It IS symbolic, obviously. The creation myth, the flood myth, the dying and rising god myth, just as symbolic as the stories about the Olympian gods of ancient Greece.

  • @blackmichael75 Sorry, but *do* have a simulation software running on a neural network, That's not waffling. That's what our brain *is*

    As for "symbolic":

    Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

    Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality. .

  • @TomFynn That's your daft interpretation of what our brain is. As for the Monty Python quote, I'm not sure how that's relevant or what it's meant to prove.

  • @blackmichael75 That's not an interpretation. It's a fact. Like it or leave it.

    The point of the quote is that anything is/and/or can be symbolic of anything. That's why this symbolic talk is all waffle.

  • @TomFynn "Simulation software running on a neural network" is a fact, is it? Maybe the neural network,bit, but what constitutes the "simulation software" business?

    And no, symbols aren't just interpreted arbitrarily. They can be multi-layered but they sometimes symbolise specific things. Their ambiguous nature is part of their richness, because the universe itself is ambiguous.

  • @blackmichael75 "the universe itself is ambiguous. " I'm running out of syrup here.

  • @TomFynn What's waffly about that statement? It is ambiguous in that we don't know have certainty and don't know everything about it. And you never explained the simulation software thing, which is not so much a fact as a metaphor, ie, a symbol.

  • @blackmichael75 "ambiguous in that we don't know have certainty" Yes, known in the real world as waffle.

    Software: The sum of thresholds levels for the firing imprinted in the neurons of our brains over time.

    Simulation: The mapping of complex, multi-variate data onto a simple model.

  • @TomFynn I mis-typed, what I meant was "ambiguous in that we don't have certainty". You software simulation thing is an analogy, a metaphor, a symbol. And also, waffle.

  • @7j8i9m Most definitely, the problem is there are so many different breeds of Buddhism It's pretty misunderstood in our part of the world. But let's be honest most atheists, secularists and intellectuals would sooner stomach soft beliefs like that as opposed to beliefs like blowing yourself up in a train station will get you fast tracked to a heavenly whore house with exactly 72 virgins.

  • Fantastic, really enjoyed that.

  • @MrArpas123

    If there is a God, I will be going to hell because I don't believe in him. Period. I can't fake faith in something so incredibly nonsensical. Surely your omnipotent God would tell the difference between actual belief and just plain insurance?

    ...I just realised I'm wasting time here.

  • @Surtak You are discussing the paradoxes of Pascal's Wager. "even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. "

    How do you take out this insurance policy when you can't TRULY believe? Can an omnipotent god not see through such a charade? I could go to church every day, take the sacrament, but would I really believe it, or be deluding myself?

  • @wgfcrafty

    I'm sorry, but why are you repeating what I said? I think you need to read my post over again.

  • @Surtak I wasn't repeating it. I was giving a name to the concept of the insurance argument. I wasn't arguing with you, more arguing for what you were saying.

  • @wgfcrafty

    Ah, a bit of confusion there obviously. I'm well aware of Pascal's Wager, but it seemed to me like you misread my post somehow and were trying to argue.

    No worries then :)

  • @Surtak Nope. Can't argue with good logic.

  • @MrArpas123 That is the coward's way out. "I'm going to believe in God so I don't go to Hell." I don't need to fear a God to do the right thing, and I don't need the promise of presents if I believe in Santa and fulfill his requirements of being nice to my parents; I'll be nice to my parents because it's the right thing.

    Same thing, no?

  • @MrArpas123 A wonderful example how religion encourages tribal thinking. BTW: Nice True Scotsman fallacy there.

  • @MrArpas123 Ur? Your. you don't capatalize every word.

    It is not a title.

    You are a theist, by definition religious.

    By definition of your religion you can't know you are a true christian.

    ONLY GOD CAN KNOW.

    How do you know?

    Maybe only Mormons get into heaven?

  • The introducer is such a fucking dork.

  • 32 people believe in the great Juju

  • @MrArpas123 I can tell you're religious because you can't spell very well.

  • Dawkins is a rfeal scientist... FULL RESPECT

  • Richard begins speaking at 9:27

  • @funnyfacerful 9:44 actually....

  • another god .?shucks haven,t we had enough of old men exploiting young girls.?

  • Rick...

    Mike.... Man... You are vibrantly rabid towards inanimate theories. Fact?

    Second Law of thermos-dynamics says you're wrong, so does mr Chuck Missler,

    And Tom Horn. So does the flagellum. If we evolved why do Freemasons ( like you) want to introduce the holy grail of evil 'the triple helix. Wouldn't we just evolve that? Man, enjoy your tenure for researching cartoons.

  • @noodlesmealey A theory in your lay mind is more or less a suspicion or a guess. A scientific theory is defined as an explanation of facts and is the highest regarded acceptance of the consensus. The flagellum was debunked long long ago. The second law of therm-dynomics apparently, do not comprehend because it doesn't apply.

  • There is no god, that is clear regardless of what else you believe, i know some atheist who do not believe in the story as pitched by evolution either.

    I myself do believe evolution to be the truth but that is do to the mass amount of evidence.

  • 31 people still believe that this is all staged by almighty Satan himself. I don't feel pity for these people anymore.. I proudly laugh at them as owner of stable, healthy and non delusional brain! Some people think that I'm gifted, other that I'm a foolish servant of devil.. I rather call it being rationalist.

  • Save time and jump directly to 9:20 :))

  • dawkins needs to have his head examined

  • @mrtadreamer He does need to get his head examined so we can all know how the mind of a genius works

  • Dawkins, the question is to consist of a single protein by chance ??????replies to the question if there shall call evolution.

  • @dede1212asd

    Would you like another go at that comment, it made no sense whatsoever.

  • Dawkins, the question is to consist of a single protein by chance ??????

  • Why does he say at 0:11:7 on one planet we had life? I thought he believed in aliens.

  • There is no evidence of aliens at the moment. Nobody can say for sure there are beings out there besides us.

  • @87RongShao Yeah, but extraterrestrial life is almost certainly real considering the scale of the Universe.

  • @lotr450

    No, he says it is very probable, as does anyone with even a perfunctory education in the subject.

  • @seansalvador1 Yeah but he said"on one planet, possibly the ONLY planet" referring to earth.

  • @lotr450

    ...and this refutes what i said how exactly?

  • @seansalvador1 Forget it.

  • 58:32 - 59:09

    "It worked because we are here". Isn't that Circular reasoning? Just like this:

    "Why do you snip with your fingers?"

    "to keep the elephants away."

    "But there aren't any elephants here!"

    "Pretty effective, isn't it?"

  • @eagleeye2102 "Isn't that Circular reasoning?"

    No, the anthropic principle is not circular reasoning, clearly we are here to think about it and clearly we were not always here to think about it, so there must have been a beginning to life on Earth and whatever that beginning may be it clearly worked!

  • @seansalvador1

    It's a fact that we are here. Many speculations exists why we are here. Dawkins said "Our ancestors were only a couple of individuals, so it's hard to imagine that there children survived because of incest, but we are here so it must have worked.". You can't say that because we are here, therefore it happened. This is like saying that the Genesis account is true because we are here. This is circular reasoning.

  • @eagleeye2102 "You can't say that because we are here, therefore it happened"

    he didn't, you said it yourself, what he actually said was

    "it's hard to imagine that there children survived because of incest, but we are here so it must have worked."

    He wasn't using that as reason for his assertion that "Our ancestors were only a couple of individuals", he was using it as reason for the fact that "that there children survived because of incest".

    Which is prima facie.

  • @seansalvador1

    58:48 - 59:00

    "In some cases evidently there is because here we are"

    This is circular reasoning at the finest, but he said "in some cases" so there must be some evidence to support his view.

  • @eagleeye2102

    No, for the reasons i explained above it is not. Would you like to address what i said or simply repeat this tautology?

  • Die Evolutionstheorie, das Märchen des wissenschaflichen Zeitalters, ist ein sterbender Kadaver, das unseren Verstand vergiftet !

  • "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian!" Hilarious!!

  • @1:12 sounds like: "the stifle free thought foundation"

  • Turn up the volume!!!

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Those that have faith in a God of intervention are just look for a pat on the back and told that in the end it will all be OK. Life after death is nothing but chemical transference, entropy. Consciousness is Energy\Matter observing entropy taking place.

  • @Lingerminator

    The reason why there are MANY explanations for consciousness is because none can be definitively proven.

  • @aznbacon321

    Needless to say though, that Cartesian dualism is long dead.

  • @aznbacon321 Which is why science is the grown up way to define it.

  • @Lingerminator Yet you cannot define "individual" consciousness and what properties that defines it. If you can relate to solipsism, you will understand that "nothing exists", unless there is an observer, and how this observer comes into being (you, in your case), is a mystery of life, that cannot be explained with technical theory. It is something that would tie into the existence of a "soul", or fate, or a definition of universal consciousness that is consistent, and always present.

  • @dujl entropy dictates "individuality". Everything erodes on its own, ending in in a singular. Thus the illusion of forever is born. The self is egotistical which forms a need to 'be forever'. No prove, for or against a soul, can be formed. If theoretically there is a soul attach to "individuality" it belongs to the ego through observation, part of the self, which is slave to entropy, meaning no 'forever'. Atomically we have forever. Resurrection. But no continual observation.

  • @dujl We were stardust and will be again. Knowing we will end means an enjoyment of observation through the magic of knowledge. Giving yourself, 'forever' is just simply boring. Acceptance of end makes memory precious and observation an adventure.

  • @Lingerminator You're entitled to your opinion.

  • @dujl I state opinion on "technical theory" yes. That is were i'm at in building my world view. Which is a lifelong project. In a philosophical sense, my opinion, which i formulated before delving into reason, is that life is the universe observing its self, and life returns to the universe with a change because of observation. Which still gives ME the 'idea' that the self is not constant with its individuality. I would like to hear your opinion on why you think there is a constant individualty

  • @Lingerminator No, I agree and do believe that is true. But I believe that any individual consciousness is a universal experience, in a sense that it is experienced from different perspectives, but is always constant. Therefore it would be impossible to retain the same individuality twice, but also impossible not to experience consciousness in some way, as we become part of the whole.

  • @dujl Thank you for your thoughts!

  • @Lingerminator

    blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. If you want to be the arrogant bastard of the conversation there is nothing to ever discuss.

  • @aznbacon321 ?. I did not mean to sound arrogant. You state no "definitive prove" and as science is driven by prove it is a more comprehensive world view. Maybe i should not have use the term "grown up" and i apologize...... But to be insulting is to show an arrogance towards discussion. Blah blah...etc is arrogant. I see it to often in those that require belief and it makes me sad towards our progression as a society. That when it is challenged, those that challenge are ridiculed to discredit.

  • @aznbacon321 My use of the term"grown up", however misplaced, is a comment on the fact that most of these 'MANY' opinions were formed in the infancy of or time as intelligent beings, and as we all do in our own life, the explanations we form as children evolve or are discarded. But as i have just experienced the techniques of the playground in retort are still in full effect. :)

  • @Lingerminator That was oddly.. poetic O_O

  • Dook.

  • how did dawkins know about the spagetti monster......did he tie the knots.???

    who does he work for would be the most valid question.?

  • @mickwillie1

    He used to work for the university of Oxford, now he works for himself.

  • @seansalvador1 Still works with Oxford, works for others not just himself

  • the funny thing is that no1 rly gives a F** if god exists or not, it all comes down to whether theres life after death or not, and thats the force that drives it, had the god theory not provided that no1 would care whether you believed in it or not, but the god theory goes 1 step ahead and in addition to eternal life after death if u believe in it, also punishes with eternal damnation if you do not. Very convenient isnt it.

  • @MovieFusionist "but the god theory goes 1 step ahead and in addition to eternal life after death if u believe in it, also punishes with eternal damnation if you do not. Very convenient isnt it."

    Excellent point!!! Religion promotes the ultimate MLM scam.

  • Dawkins 9:20

  • @chaomonga Thanks for that! [:

  • @chaomonga lol when i pressed on your comment (time) i saw a blue screen with RD's name. i tot fuck is this audio only? fortunately it was not. lol

  • @chaomonga well that was quite some ado there.. lol

  • What's a dook? *chortle* Dook University eh? Heh ha.

  • why was it in recommend videos for duke nukem forever trailer? ehh