One of the answers that came in below said: If more people believed in god there wouldn't so much crime and murder. Talk about a stupid and deluded answer. Let's look at Congo for example where almost the entire population is religious and yet it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world.
It seems to me that the religious peoples strategy is ranting and babbling incoherently, whilst trying to use as many big words as possible in hope that the most gullible people of the world will think it's intelligent. Abolish religion once and for all.
looking at these there has been all of two or three positive comments on prof. dawkins work, most of it has been from religious people ridiculing him, either RTÉ was being dickish or we were.
The self-absorbed rationalization of these theists is really disturbing. We don't reject death, we love death. We don't reject suffering, we embrace it and profit from it. Those at the top who claim to be so righteous are the ones who are fattening themselves at the expense of others. The sheer willful ignorance is painful. I imagine monkeys would be embarrassed to share a common ancestor with us.
Some of these people are living evidence as to why both Ireland and humanity alike are so simple minded and tunnel vision on what gives them "hope" when it's just a moral homily and that alone should be reason for god and to push their ideology onto others.
I would love to see Richard loose patience and say "OH MY GOD"... :P
My question is, if there is a God, than what is he? And why did I say "he"?. Why do we say "Our Father"? Why do we call him by all these man gestures?
Sorry for the english, I am from Sweden, hope you all get my point...
@zzBillyz Was thinking the same thing. The ginger nut loved talking about himself and his scientific buddies. Unfortunately he ran out of time. Idiot.
On the flip side, you have the guy from up north who was asking a question but didn't want an answer.
And then you have the woman who said her turning her life around was a miracle. In her case, she might as well have been brain dead. She couldn't for a moment grasp the logic that because religion helped her emotionally, doesn't make it real.
My favourite part was when that woman talked about religion giving hope, and a bit later a guy shouts at Dawkins: "You're rejecting her evidence." If anything, she gave evidence that religion is, indeed, a delusion. People are desperate for hope, meaning and comfort, so they invented religion to give them all this, and an afterlife to boot.
Regarding "Resisting Death" I think a more simple answer would have been that Matrix Revolutions tagline "Everything that has a beginning, has an end". Psychologically, we resist death because of our survival instinct... every organism struggles to live as long as possible. That's why Life is struggle. Personally, I didn't understand Richard Dawkin's answer.
It was an atheist advocating his views to a largely Christian audience. Were it the other way around, it would have been a similar response. Look at most religious videos on here, they are by and large mostly supported by atheists expressing how their stupid religious parents force them to go to church or how offended they were when someone said God bless to them.
This is not mine but I found this on a forum "Atheism is essentially an anti-religious religion, a religion of anti-religion, with it's own sacraments, (drugs, free sex) crusades, (suing religious groups, banning religious displays) saints, (Dawkins, Hitchens) and devils (Christ, preachers, etc.). It's far from a serious intellectual pursuit, it's its own rigid dogma. And the religion athiesm hates more than any is Christianity. "
@zachmo47 What a load of bollocks. Where the hell did you find a bunch of nonsense like that? We atheists don't have dogmas, we don't have sacraments and we don't sue people just for being religious. However, when the religious folk consistently try to ram their faith down our throat, we will stand up for ourselves.
@zachmo47 Good for you it's not yours, because it's junk. I can only suppose a deeply religious person found themselves unable to imagine a mindset actually free of dogmatism and therefore only could manage to see atheism as another dogma. Atheism is the absence of a theistic dogma/philosophy. An absence of something cannot be another variation of it.
They're getting on Dawkins's case about him saying it's "probable" that life exists on other planet as a speculative expression based on probability given the sheer size of the universe, but they see nothing wrong with stating that there is a God with absolute certainty when there isn't any evidence to support it whatsoever. Typical sematic crap.
yes life on another planet can be deemed probable. why do we as humans think we are special? we are examples of life on a planet, could this not be the same for other areas. why? Given statistics and the magnitude and scale of the universe, most astro physicists would say life in some capacity (intelligent or not) is inevitable. Stating life is probably is more than accurate considering we ourselves as a human species and everything around us that is living is evidence as such. crowd = morons
America, are you watching? this is how intelligent, well read people debate. They don't shout over each other, it's not the one who shouts loudest that gets the camera.
Irelend might still be under the yolk of religion but at least there's hope while they can talk like this.
Casey was definitely the best person to place in opposition to Dawkins. His outstanding logical thought process and ability to open the book and pick out a phrase that was sloppily put together by Dawkins is fantastic. Dawkins should have paid more attention to the words he put on the page. His responses of "You cannot be serious" etc. are weak. In disagreeing he should explain his reasoning instead of making pointless exclamations. I would have loved to hear more from Casey on this topic.
@vickyema read the book, he gives a reason for why he used the phrase very probably- due to the probabilities of finding life. estimates of the number of stars in the milkyway generally range from 200-400 billion. the most current estimates for the number of galaxies range from 100-200 billion. using the conservative estimates, we get 200*10^9*100*10^9=2*10^22 separate solar systems. if the probability of life arising is one in a trillion, we still have 2*10^10=20000000000 cases of life
@Gintonious I know, it's depressing. The majority of religious people (or so it seems) don't understand that a miracle is not just beating some long odds or a fortunate coincidence; a miracle is defined as the suspension of the natural order. Changing blood to wine LITERALLY would be a miracle. Raising a man from the dead after several days as a corpse LITERALLY would be a miracle. A miracle is the sort of thing you would have to see firsthand to believe.
It is probable there is life on other planets because their are billions of planets and the chance this is the only planet with life is ... you guessed it, one in a billion! Pretty simple really
@PhilJRose Too true, Phil. It's a scary thing to consider that these 'child like adults' are probably more intelligent than the majority of their kind and are actually the best representation that they have. These are the ones with the best chance of us getting through to. I'd love to spend an hour or two with Richard, the guy is evidence of natural selection in it's finest form.
Dawkins have exposed a Weakness in his argument. He was indeed too convinced that God does not Exist leading to him being criticised. This allowed the Creationists to attack on his weakness.
2. There is psychological evidence that God Exist in the minds of mere mortals. This is only human. But there is no scientific evidence. But there is also no evidence God does not exist.
The best Conclusion for both sides : God Maybe Exist, Maybe Not = We Don't Know.
1. Richard Dawkins should not have appeared so against the idea that God exist.
He is right to say there is no scientific evidence clear enough to show the existence of god.
Religious Believers however regard what they perceive as Truth, as a form of Evidence.
So, the problem here is simply definition of Evidence. Richard's Weakness is he failed to highlight that there is no evidence God does not exist, maybe it exist.
@earthfrenzy I really feel for you, going against your family must have been tough. But always remember that it's people like you who are so valuable in the atheist community. You were able to think rationally even in the face of religious extremism, which was very brave. Well done you!
Believe in a higher being. Fine if it makes you feel better. All religion is a corrupt comstruct about power and controlling the masses. If it wasn't for Constantine no one complaining on this show or around the world would even have heard of the alleged Jesus figure.
Respect to the host and the other debater for being very respectful to Dawkins and having civilized discussion and even defending him at points, but some of the audience were complete idiots... Still, I wish more Christians were like that.
@Peaceberevenged Yeah, agreed. The other guy, don't know his name was very respectful, he's the type of person I could easily be friends with despite disagreeing with him.
"Religion helps me". And yeah, what proof of its existance is that?! You see a Unicorn telling you to pay your taxes. Holy shit, I paid my taxes. Thanx Unicorn, without you I'd be nothing.
See how ridiculous the statment is when it comes to plausability for it to be actually REAL. Yeah, it might help you, but that don't make the Unicorn real now does it! What is being said here is "It's ok to say and do stupid things, as long as it helps you". You can do all the good stuff anyway! Use logic!
1:52 - Stunned silence, not because the audience finally get it but because they still don't know basic evolutionary theory and are thinking "but my granddad died, so how are we all from an unbroken lineage???". Dawkins holds his composure well in this interview, talks slow, gets his points across quickly and simply. Great stuff.
I'm getting so frustrated watching this. That idiot keeps on saying "why is it probable then" and some obvious idiots from the audience who haven't been listening the whole time start clapping. It's probable because there are an incomprehensible amount of planets in the world. Therefore there are an incomprehensible amount of chances and possibilities for the evolution of life to begin. We know that more than ever now with discoveries of earth-like planets that could easily harbour life.
it's funny because aethism is becomming just as judgemental, self-conceited and divisive as organised religion ever was. the world isn't black or white. the truth is somewhere inbetween. dawkins annoys me because he draws lines in the sand, like either you choose between santa-clause or NOTHING, when there are logical arguments for both. it also depends on how you define God, as a supernatural man or ambigous spirit that propels nature? i advocate agnosticism because its a nice middle ground.
@phoney98 agnosticism is just a cop out. Being gnostic means you KNOW there is a god. Being agnostic is not KNOWING there is a god, so technically everyone is agnostic, because nobody knows if there definitely is a god (although there probably isn't). Now, theism is BELIEVING there is a god, and atheism is NOT BELIEVING there is a god. There is a clear difference between believing and knowing. Everybody either believes or disbelieves, nobody knows or doesn't know..
@AlexanderTheHuge That question is based on the premise that he has anything to prove. Relious people make the claim of the existance of a god, so they are the ones who have to prove he does exist.
Also, he says that due to lack of that evidence he gives het hypothosis of the existance of a god less merit than the hypothosis of no god. And until that evidence in favor of the former is presented the latter has the most merit and thus is considerd as true.
This is not a weird method in any way. And not one only used by scientist. This very method is used by you and everybody else in everyday life. Will you jump out of a plane (without a parachute) when given the choice. 2 hypothises exist. In one you die and in one you live. Most of us wouldnt jump based on evidence that dying is more likely and would call anyone who would jump crazy.
@AlexanderTheHuge Thus the statement, "if you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute you will die" is true. And the other way around is considerd false. And that will remain so until evidence is presented that proves otherwise.
@AlexanderTheHuge Typically you're looking at it the wrong way. What you're saying is that he has to prove the existence of a "God", but why does he? That's like saying you have to prove to me that my dog sitting next to me right now isn't your "God".
There is absolutely no reason you have to prove that because there is absolutely no shred of evidence that it is true. Do you see the point that is being made?
@AlexanderTheHuge Small correction, I meant "Why does he have to prove that God doesn't exist", not that he does, I'm sure you still get my point though.
@AlexanderTheHuge Honestly you're being severely closed minded and quite clearly anyone with logic will see that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in an intellectual manner unfortunately.
@AlexanderTheHuge i read your replies to JaTochNietDan and you are right.
Absence of proof is not equal to proof of absence. Dawkins ,I or any atheist for that matter cannot disprove God. But does that mean , God exists ? we cannot disprove unicorns, santa claus,tooth fairy or spaghetti monsters. But they cannot be accepted as existing.
@onlyforytb Proof only exists in logic and maths. In science there's only evidence. And absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, because it perfectly corresponds with the predictions of the null hypothesis (i.e. god's non-existence).
@WilbertK13 i agree with you 50/50. Failure to disprove a null hypothesis need not mean that the null hypothesis is true.It only means we are unable to reject the hypothesis for the given problem. But that should be enough to dismiss somethings as trivial as ghosts, spirits ,god , etc.
@onlyforytb "Failure to disprove a null hypothesis need not mean that the null hypothesis is true.It only means we are unable to reject the hypothesis for the given problem."
That's why I distinguish between proof and evidence. Failure to disprove a null hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis, but it is evidence for it, and as such makes it more likely.
My rule of thumb in that issue is that as long as there are enough adult people (let's say thousands or millions) who believe in a concept, their belief makes the concept potentially true. (kind of like passing the voting minimum for a party)
Then the question stands of proving or disproving it - or stating that it can't be either proved or disproved.
@AlexanderTheHuge thanks for the reply man. the voting for a party is to gather opinion and not evidence. What you described initially is a logical fallacy and is not permissible in logic and hence,not in science. also, you said "adult people". Almost all of these adult people were conditioned to do so when they were very young and this makes it more dubious than anything.
"the voting for a party is to gather opinion and not evidence" It is "evidence" only in a sense that a concept exists in the virtual world of people's minds - hence it's worth checking it out.
What logical fallacy?! - this is a reasonable rule of thumb of WHAT to apply logic to.
"Almost all of these adult people were conditioned" - what makes you so sure YOU are not the one being conditioned? :-)
I really mean that - ask yourself honestly that question and see where it may take you
@AlexanderTheHuge I cant argue with your first point. what to apply logic to is subjective.
" this is a reasonable rule of thumb of WHAT to apply logic to " - reasonable indeed but you must ask what logic the first person used to reach that conclusion ?? he could't have said millions believe in it . if them logic he/she used seems sound and if millions agree, then one does not need to actively debunk it ,
@AlexanderTheHuge 'Almost all of these adult people were conditioned" - I think I also said "as children". that is very important. When we are young we cannot reject opinions if they are enforced like religions.
about me being conditioned, i dont bother about myself or others being conditioned after a certain age as it is not very effective :)
One of the answers that came in below said: If more people believed in god there wouldn't so much crime and murder. Talk about a stupid and deluded answer. Let's look at Congo for example where almost the entire population is religious and yet it's one of the most dangerous countries in the world.
TheCybermasterX 2 hours ago
No wonder we needed Europe and the IMF to bail us out. Irish people are still living in la la land.
PacifistPigeon 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:32
BenRyan95 2 days ago
"Good point" @ 1:18
Seriously, clown? Most people who've ever exist have died already.
MrBigzKY 3 days ago
It seems to me that the religious peoples strategy is ranting and babbling incoherently, whilst trying to use as many big words as possible in hope that the most gullible people of the world will think it's intelligent. Abolish religion once and for all.
M4rkh0lm 4 days ago 3
Watching these morons was flat out painful.
JadedRockStar84 5 days ago
looking at these there has been all of two or three positive comments on prof. dawkins work, most of it has been from religious people ridiculing him, either RTÉ was being dickish or we were.
maboroshi1986 5 days ago
These sheeple need a new shepherd, it being commonsense. Although I fear they are more stubborn and somewhat more retarded than regular sheep. :/
lololridethebike 1 week ago
The self-absorbed rationalization of these theists is really disturbing. We don't reject death, we love death. We don't reject suffering, we embrace it and profit from it. Those at the top who claim to be so righteous are the ones who are fattening themselves at the expense of others. The sheer willful ignorance is painful. I imagine monkeys would be embarrassed to share a common ancestor with us.
MarkRosengarten 1 week ago
ITS A MIRICAL HAHAHAHAHAAHAH I LAUGHED SO HARD AT THIS BITCH
therealluckystrik3r 1 week ago
1:40 Audience gets super depressed. Lol I love The Dawks.
TheBaconized 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheBaconized 1 week ago
5:50 wow, are we really that stupid and narrow minded that we applaud THAT.
jaymaccool 1 week ago
That one guy from Northern Ireland really needs to learn to be patient.
republicofsandles 1 week ago
Some of these people are living evidence as to why both Ireland and humanity alike are so simple minded and tunnel vision on what gives them "hope" when it's just a moral homily and that alone should be reason for god and to push their ideology onto others.
krikenn 2 weeks ago
I would love to see Richard loose patience and say "OH MY GOD"... :P
My question is, if there is a God, than what is he? And why did I say "he"?. Why do we say "Our Father"? Why do we call him by all these man gestures?
Sorry for the english, I am from Sweden, hope you all get my point...
MrIlleism 2 weeks ago
go on Dawkins, yup ya boyo!
eamoselwardo 2 weeks ago
The only thing some of these Irish people have going for them is their accent.
hubomba 2 weeks ago
I see irish ppl are stupid
Plutoniummatt 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hahah 'you cannot be serious' ,
Thepicturelamp 2 weeks ago
What's with all these people giving their life stories and not asking a damn question?
zzBillyz 2 weeks ago 2
@zzBillyz Was thinking the same thing. The ginger nut loved talking about himself and his scientific buddies. Unfortunately he ran out of time. Idiot.
On the flip side, you have the guy from up north who was asking a question but didn't want an answer.
And then you have the woman who said her turning her life around was a miracle. In her case, she might as well have been brain dead. She couldn't for a moment grasp the logic that because religion helped her emotionally, doesn't make it real.
liamarioeire 2 weeks ago
AHHHHHHHHHH these people are incredibly stupid.
trikstarik 2 weeks ago 2
He was a bear.
SamCoreJ 3 weeks ago
Some of the things that are said in the scrolling text makes me want to bang my head against my desk because the statements are so ignorant
15Gracieface 3 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins here is like an atheist Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, getting attacked from all sides
huwrj 3 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
What is this? The Irish Idiot Convention? Fucking hell.... this is terrible!!!
huwrj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 3 weeks ago
My favourite part was when that woman talked about religion giving hope, and a bit later a guy shouts at Dawkins: "You're rejecting her evidence." If anything, she gave evidence that religion is, indeed, a delusion. People are desperate for hope, meaning and comfort, so they invented religion to give them all this, and an afterlife to boot.
Jennyfisch 3 weeks ago 3
Cmon, "many planets with very similar conditions to earth" would do it!
lucasmontec 3 weeks ago
Baloo is bear. :D
ShmeeSLG 3 weeks ago
Regarding "Resisting Death" I think a more simple answer would have been that Matrix Revolutions tagline "Everything that has a beginning, has an end". Psychologically, we resist death because of our survival instinct... every organism struggles to live as long as possible. That's why Life is struggle. Personally, I didn't understand Richard Dawkin's answer.
saeedzafaar 4 weeks ago
@HalfEatenDimSim
It was an atheist advocating his views to a largely Christian audience. Were it the other way around, it would have been a similar response. Look at most religious videos on here, they are by and large mostly supported by atheists expressing how their stupid religious parents force them to go to church or how offended they were when someone said God bless to them.
yafb317 1 month ago
Why are all the theists so hostile? The atheists always are calm and in control. Religion is bullshit, but makes a good placebo for some.
HalfEatenDimSim 1 month ago
Nope, there is a god...
And it's RICHARD DAWKINS!!!
PrimaveraPictures 1 month ago
Comment removed
PrimaveraPictures 1 month ago
Oh the babbling superstitious idiots.
RoscoeT99 1 month ago
My goodness! A national slightly more backward than the Americans! I can hardly believe it!
TPQ1980 1 month ago
not one of these religious believers come up with one valid point? coincidence? i think not
rizladizla 1 month ago 2
He's a bear.
Oh4Chrissake 1 month ago
Ugh, I hate to think this is what Mr Dawkins thinks is standard for Irish people.
Dubhuir 1 month ago
@Dubhuir At least Irish people have an excuse for believing that stuff...they are drunk. Wocka wocka wocka.
Snakepliskinist 1 month ago 2
@Snakepliskinist Thats made my day lol
bailer4life 1 month ago
Why do people argue against Dawkins with no intent of listening to reasonable fact based arguments
fromaginator1 1 month ago
@fromaginator1 Because "GAWD & Jeezes" told them to. Why else?
RoscoeT99 1 month ago
The semi-bald man with the glasses is a babbling fool. Talk about rant.
olden89c 1 month ago 23
This has been flagged as spam show
5:49 dawkins' reaction is class. as if he is thinking: "i'd love to slap these religious retards"
1984LizardKing 1 month ago
listening to pat kenny seriously makes me cringe
freedom71000 1 month ago
watching the ignorant comments on the bottom of the screen is depressing. it is hard to live among so many deluded people
justjulie37 1 month ago
This is not mine but I found this on a forum "Atheism is essentially an anti-religious religion, a religion of anti-religion, with it's own sacraments, (drugs, free sex) crusades, (suing religious groups, banning religious displays) saints, (Dawkins, Hitchens) and devils (Christ, preachers, etc.). It's far from a serious intellectual pursuit, it's its own rigid dogma. And the religion athiesm hates more than any is Christianity. "
zachmo47 1 month ago
@zachmo47 What a load of bollocks. Where the hell did you find a bunch of nonsense like that? We atheists don't have dogmas, we don't have sacraments and we don't sue people just for being religious. However, when the religious folk consistently try to ram their faith down our throat, we will stand up for ourselves.
weelittledragon 1 month ago
@weelittledragon I couldn't agree more
justjulie37 1 month ago
@zachmo47 And you believed that?
satchito 1 month ago
@zachmo47 Good for you it's not yours, because it's junk. I can only suppose a deeply religious person found themselves unable to imagine a mindset actually free of dogmatism and therefore only could manage to see atheism as another dogma. Atheism is the absence of a theistic dogma/philosophy. An absence of something cannot be another variation of it.
bongolongo 1 month ago
I don't think they know what the word "Probable" means.
Innukii 1 month ago
there is evidence of aliens so ha
jackvincent90 1 month ago
@jackvincent90 Let me guess... Area 51? Great.
bongolongo 1 month ago
They're getting on Dawkins's case about him saying it's "probable" that life exists on other planet as a speculative expression based on probability given the sheer size of the universe, but they see nothing wrong with stating that there is a God with absolute certainty when there isn't any evidence to support it whatsoever. Typical sematic crap.
Mahdai 1 month ago 5
@Mahdai Agree. The fact that they even use the concept of probability when they believe in a god is laughable.
kelly4187 1 month ago
was it just me? or was that sooooo interesting
lol
reemabadge 1 month ago
Comment removed
eraldb12 1 month ago
If there is something godlike in the world, it's Richard's patience.
plix3r 1 month ago 114
I feel for him so much, poor Richard, having to deal with these morons all day long.
shawnanthony1992 1 month ago 6
wow, some of these people are really desperate for Dawkins to be wrong, regardless if he is are not.
daiklaive 1 month ago 2
That audience is extremely unintelligent
mostretardedawards 1 month ago 5
dawkins is a genious no doubt about it, his intelligence is too much for alot of people to understand.
juren669 1 month ago 3
The best analysis I've seen on Youtube that deals with this issue. Me fellow watchers, please refer me to other such clips.
TheNickcompton 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Being rational requires no faith. Just enough sense to be able to differentiate a fairy tale that makes us feel fuzzy and warm inside, from reality
publiusdg 1 month ago
the irish are all completely retarded
jman7152 1 month ago
@jman7152 no just a lot of us believe in religion
kalen190 1 month ago
yes life on another planet can be deemed probable. why do we as humans think we are special? we are examples of life on a planet, could this not be the same for other areas. why? Given statistics and the magnitude and scale of the universe, most astro physicists would say life in some capacity (intelligent or not) is inevitable. Stating life is probably is more than accurate considering we ourselves as a human species and everything around us that is living is evidence as such. crowd = morons
Marzattacz 1 month ago
hes looking at religion on the left side of the brain logical while every one els is looking at it from the right side emotions
scamps137 1 month ago
America, are you watching? this is how intelligent, well read people debate. They don't shout over each other, it's not the one who shouts loudest that gets the camera.
Irelend might still be under the yolk of religion but at least there's hope while they can talk like this.
mrswinkyuk 1 month ago
To argue that morals come from religion is disgraceful
Twilleh 1 month ago
Casey was definitely the best person to place in opposition to Dawkins. His outstanding logical thought process and ability to open the book and pick out a phrase that was sloppily put together by Dawkins is fantastic. Dawkins should have paid more attention to the words he put on the page. His responses of "You cannot be serious" etc. are weak. In disagreeing he should explain his reasoning instead of making pointless exclamations. I would have loved to hear more from Casey on this topic.
vickyema 1 month ago
@vickyema read the book, he gives a reason for why he used the phrase very probably- due to the probabilities of finding life. estimates of the number of stars in the milkyway generally range from 200-400 billion. the most current estimates for the number of galaxies range from 100-200 billion. using the conservative estimates, we get 200*10^9*100*10^9=2*10^22 separate solar systems. if the probability of life arising is one in a trillion, we still have 2*10^10=20000000000 cases of life
TheYetoRieck 1 month ago
3:07 the presenter is like "no, just shut up"
Cal8881 1 month ago
"its a MIRACLE" quote of an idiot
Gintonious 1 month ago
@Gintonious I know, it's depressing. The majority of religious people (or so it seems) don't understand that a miracle is not just beating some long odds or a fortunate coincidence; a miracle is defined as the suspension of the natural order. Changing blood to wine LITERALLY would be a miracle. Raising a man from the dead after several days as a corpse LITERALLY would be a miracle. A miracle is the sort of thing you would have to see firsthand to believe.
amida41 1 month ago
you can't inherit genes from someone who wants to die because they're DEAD
dumbnetworks 1 month ago
Weak.
nikkijaneallison 1 month ago
It is probable there is life on other planets because their are billions of planets and the chance this is the only planet with life is ... you guessed it, one in a billion! Pretty simple really
Hulkamania4eva 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins must get so frustrated dealing with these child like adults so unable to grasp the most simple logical ideas.
PhilJRose 1 month ago 88
@PhilJRose Too true, Phil. It's a scary thing to consider that these 'child like adults' are probably more intelligent than the majority of their kind and are actually the best representation that they have. These are the ones with the best chance of us getting through to. I'd love to spend an hour or two with Richard, the guy is evidence of natural selection in it's finest form.
TheSoulOfMisterE 2 weeks ago
The man has not better argument than to pick on an adjective in Richard's book?
yinstube 1 month ago 2
Dawkins have exposed a Weakness in his argument. He was indeed too convinced that God does not Exist leading to him being criticised. This allowed the Creationists to attack on his weakness.
2. There is psychological evidence that God Exist in the minds of mere mortals. This is only human. But there is no scientific evidence. But there is also no evidence God does not exist.
The best Conclusion for both sides : God Maybe Exist, Maybe Not = We Don't Know.
I BELIEVE I'm undebunkable. Try.
smellyfry 1 month ago
All the people are not completely wrong.
The reason is simple.
1. Richard Dawkins should not have appeared so against the idea that God exist.
He is right to say there is no scientific evidence clear enough to show the existence of god.
Religious Believers however regard what they perceive as Truth, as a form of Evidence.
So, the problem here is simply definition of Evidence. Richard's Weakness is he failed to highlight that there is no evidence God does not exist, maybe it exist.
smellyfry 1 month ago
Historians desperately attempt to teach Neo-nazis about Holocaust.
Scientists desperately attempt to teach religious people about evolution.
ThisIDIsTheLongestID 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
2:25 Young person? His hair-line says different..
Jessica616ify 1 month ago
Comment removed
Jessica616ify 1 month ago
He's a bear...
Noise509 1 month ago
Goodness, I get fed up of the same stupid arguments for religion, I can't imagine how tireless it must be for Dawkins, Harris and Dennett.
indie4life23 1 month ago in playlist More videos from aveeno2010
I can tell you growing up in a irish catholic family as a atheist was hard.
earthfrenzy 1 month ago
@earthfrenzy I really feel for you, going against your family must have been tough. But always remember that it's people like you who are so valuable in the atheist community. You were able to think rationally even in the face of religious extremism, which was very brave. Well done you!
Jessica616ify 1 month ago
@Jessica616ify :)
earthfrenzy 1 month ago
He's majorly outnumbered but he kicks their ass every time.
LewyAlsoDraws 1 month ago
these are 30+ year old who haven't had proper education on evolution
good thing we learn it at school now
HaloSparta 1 month ago
the fuck Pat? Santa Claus isn't a religious figure hahaha About 50% of the idea of "Christmas" is pagan anyway
xprettypenguinsx 2 months ago
I think if there is a God, he probably loves what Richard Dawkins is doing in raising the consciousness of mankind.
InfinityDz 2 months ago
what! santas not real?!
tacotinman 2 months ago
"As a young person..."
Hahaha! What are you, like 40?
ChaoticSupernova 2 months ago 3
Hahaha.. You cannot be serious!
Sinekyre14 2 months ago
"As a young person..."
Wow. This attitude to blatant evidence told me all I needed to know about this guy's views...
TheBruggs 2 months ago 3
I love the question at the end about the Jungle Book after that huge debate.
Stalagmighty 2 months ago
Sheeple and lemmings blindly following each other over the cliff.
youpumpertube 2 months ago
Audience know NOTHING !
RICHARD DAWKINS TALK WITH PROOF !
kissacdcstore 2 months ago
oh god the ignorance hurts so much.
But Richard Dawkins is so amazing, not only for his views, but for keeping his cool in front of those idiots... i couldnt take it !
ErKa44 2 months ago
ugh, I couldn't enjoy this. Too much stupid.
MuikuliWander 2 months ago 3
I don't know if I could've kept my cool as well as mister Dawkins. Of course, he has heard the same argumentations over and over again.
crealnej 2 months ago 3
RICHARD DAWKINS IS MY GOD !
kissacdcstore 2 months ago
@kissacdcstore but he exists :/
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
good host.
TheYogscastFTW 2 months ago 2
Speculation is not evidence
TheNormankingdom 2 months ago
Believe in a higher being. Fine if it makes you feel better. All religion is a corrupt comstruct about power and controlling the masses. If it wasn't for Constantine no one complaining on this show or around the world would even have heard of the alleged Jesus figure.
Loomer27 2 months ago
my brain hurts after listening to so much stupidity,..
janjohandealgenman 2 months ago 2
Dumb bitch in audience:- "I'm religious.........IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!"
Fuck off.
supermaroilogan 2 months ago 7
@supermaroilogan I lol'd so hard
richienrg 2 months ago
Respect to the host and the other debater for being very respectful to Dawkins and having civilized discussion and even defending him at points, but some of the audience were complete idiots... Still, I wish more Christians were like that.
Peaceberevenged 2 months ago
@Peaceberevenged Yeah, agreed. The other guy, don't know his name was very respectful, he's the type of person I could easily be friends with despite disagreeing with him.
JdL1495 2 months ago
MAX LOL at Dawkins, clearly on the edge of exploding at the idiocy infront of him.
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! LOoooll
schumiisking 2 months ago 69
He's a bear Baloo is a bear...what do i win?
suspectoftheft 2 months ago
The guest who sat next to Richard thought he could stump Richard by asking a very asinine question.Richard's reply was very reasonable and logical.
wowamonn 2 months ago
People are so fucking stupid and uneducated I may say.
menriquex 2 months ago
I'm pretty sure Dawkin's is one of the shape shifting lizard men David Icke talks about.
DroopSack 2 months ago
head, meet wall.
basstard013 2 months ago
Richard looked so cute at the end of this vid :)
10zerOne0 2 months ago
this is an audience of morons
m1ll10n1977 2 months ago 100
@m1ll10n1977 All but one.
supermaroilogan 2 months ago
I think the question at the very end shows how stupid the viewers are to watch such a biased show
samsonmathew7000 2 months ago
the people asking these ridiculously stupid questions frustrate me, even I can answer these questions
samsonmathew7000 2 months ago 2
I used to be a religious idiot, then I took an arrow too the knee.
maggru91 2 months ago
"Religion helps me". And yeah, what proof of its existance is that?! You see a Unicorn telling you to pay your taxes. Holy shit, I paid my taxes. Thanx Unicorn, without you I'd be nothing.
See how ridiculous the statment is when it comes to plausability for it to be actually REAL. Yeah, it might help you, but that don't make the Unicorn real now does it! What is being said here is "It's ok to say and do stupid things, as long as it helps you". You can do all the good stuff anyway! Use logic!
ProdigyBigBoss89 2 months ago
audience is full of nutters.
antoireland09 2 months ago 2
FFS! Theists can't even tell the difference between speculation and assertion. THAT is where the gullibility originates.
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago
"this is America" ... ROFL... that is good evidence
kruminjanis 2 months ago
1:52 - Stunned silence, not because the audience finally get it but because they still don't know basic evolutionary theory and are thinking "but my granddad died, so how are we all from an unbroken lineage???". Dawkins holds his composure well in this interview, talks slow, gets his points across quickly and simply. Great stuff.
MrCrowley45 2 months ago
In the audience, I've only seen one person with a shred of rationality and intelligence, and she was in part 1...i think.
Forlo12345 2 months ago
@Forlo12345 nevermind...two smart people in the audience.
Forlo12345 2 months ago
I'm getting so frustrated watching this. That idiot keeps on saying "why is it probable then" and some obvious idiots from the audience who haven't been listening the whole time start clapping. It's probable because there are an incomprehensible amount of planets in the world. Therefore there are an incomprehensible amount of chances and possibilities for the evolution of life to begin. We know that more than ever now with discoveries of earth-like planets that could easily harbour life.
JaTochNietDan 2 months ago
Possibility vs. Probability. Most just don't fucking understand it.
mrfrenik 2 months ago
it's funny because aethism is becomming just as judgemental, self-conceited and divisive as organised religion ever was. the world isn't black or white. the truth is somewhere inbetween. dawkins annoys me because he draws lines in the sand, like either you choose between santa-clause or NOTHING, when there are logical arguments for both. it also depends on how you define God, as a supernatural man or ambigous spirit that propels nature? i advocate agnosticism because its a nice middle ground.
phoney98 2 months ago
@phoney98 agnosticism is just a cop out. Being gnostic means you KNOW there is a god. Being agnostic is not KNOWING there is a god, so technically everyone is agnostic, because nobody knows if there definitely is a god (although there probably isn't). Now, theism is BELIEVING there is a god, and atheism is NOT BELIEVING there is a god. There is a clear difference between believing and knowing. Everybody either believes or disbelieves, nobody knows or doesn't know..
IceManSudan 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins is ridiculing the people of faith for believing in God without scientific evidence of his existence.
He is apparently absolutely sure that there is no God.
Question: Does Richard have scientific evidence that proves beyond any doubt that there is no God?
AlexanderTheHuge 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge That question is based on the premise that he has anything to prove. Relious people make the claim of the existance of a god, so they are the ones who have to prove he does exist.
Also, he says that due to lack of that evidence he gives het hypothosis of the existance of a god less merit than the hypothosis of no god. And until that evidence in favor of the former is presented the latter has the most merit and thus is considerd as true.
XxtreborobertxX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XxtreborobertxX "That question is based on the premise that he has anything to prove."
Of course he has - he claims with absolute certainty that there is no God anywhere to be found. Not a single God. nor a trace of God - nothing!
This is a very straightforward statement, and the onus is on him to prove it.
If he makes such a statement without watertight scientific proof, then ... he is no more than a big mouthed fool.
AlexanderTheHuge 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge
This is not a weird method in any way. And not one only used by scientist. This very method is used by you and everybody else in everyday life. Will you jump out of a plane (without a parachute) when given the choice. 2 hypothises exist. In one you die and in one you live. Most of us wouldnt jump based on evidence that dying is more likely and would call anyone who would jump crazy.
XxtreborobertxX 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge Thus the statement, "if you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute you will die" is true. And the other way around is considerd false. And that will remain so until evidence is presented that proves otherwise.
XxtreborobertxX 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge Typically you're looking at it the wrong way. What you're saying is that he has to prove the existence of a "God", but why does he? That's like saying you have to prove to me that my dog sitting next to me right now isn't your "God".
There is absolutely no reason you have to prove that because there is absolutely no shred of evidence that it is true. Do you see the point that is being made?
JaTochNietDan 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge Small correction, I meant "Why does he have to prove that God doesn't exist", not that he does, I'm sure you still get my point though.
JaTochNietDan 2 months ago
@JaTochNietDan
Ok, normally I wouldn't bother replying to this cause it's trivial, but I'll spare a minute for you.
See if I am claiming that a certain figure is a triangle I have to prove it, (with accepted geometrical proof)
If I don't have such proof and you are claiming, that I don't have a proof that it's a triangle then you don't need to prove anything.
If on the other hand you decide to go further and claim that it IS NOT a triangle, you WILL need to provide a proof.
Its called logic.
AlexanderTheHuge 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge Honestly you're being severely closed minded and quite clearly anyone with logic will see that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in an intellectual manner unfortunately.
JaTochNietDan 2 months ago
@JaTochNietDan
Well, I provided you with the explanation, unfortunately I cannot provide you with the wits required to understand it.
(do you even know what geometry is ? :-)
AlexanderTheHuge 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge I don't understand why you are still responding as a pseudo intellectual.
JaTochNietDan 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge i read your replies to JaTochNietDan and you are right.
Absence of proof is not equal to proof of absence. Dawkins ,I or any atheist for that matter cannot disprove God. But does that mean , God exists ? we cannot disprove unicorns, santa claus,tooth fairy or spaghetti monsters. But they cannot be accepted as existing.
onlyforytb 2 months ago
Comment removed
onlyforytb 2 months ago
@onlyforytb Proof only exists in logic and maths. In science there's only evidence. And absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, because it perfectly corresponds with the predictions of the null hypothesis (i.e. god's non-existence).
WilbertK13 2 months ago
@WilbertK13 i agree with you 50/50. Failure to disprove a null hypothesis need not mean that the null hypothesis is true.It only means we are unable to reject the hypothesis for the given problem. But that should be enough to dismiss somethings as trivial as ghosts, spirits ,god , etc.
onlyforytb 2 months ago
@onlyforytb "Failure to disprove a null hypothesis need not mean that the null hypothesis is true.It only means we are unable to reject the hypothesis for the given problem."
That's why I distinguish between proof and evidence. Failure to disprove a null hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis, but it is evidence for it, and as such makes it more likely.
WilbertK13 2 months ago
@onlyforytb
My rule of thumb in that issue is that as long as there are enough adult people (let's say thousands or millions) who believe in a concept, their belief makes the concept potentially true. (kind of like passing the voting minimum for a party)
Then the question stands of proving or disproving it - or stating that it can't be either proved or disproved.
AlexanderTheHuge 2 months ago
@AlexanderTheHuge thanks for the reply man. the voting for a party is to gather opinion and not evidence. What you described initially is a logical fallacy and is not permissible in logic and hence,not in science. also, you said "adult people". Almost all of these adult people were conditioned to do so when they were very young and this makes it more dubious than anything.
onlyforytb 2 months ago
@onlyforytb
"the voting for a party is to gather opinion and not evidence" It is "evidence" only in a sense that a concept exists in the virtual world of people's minds - hence it's worth checking it out.
What logical fallacy?! - this is a reasonable rule of thumb of WHAT to apply logic to.
"Almost all of these adult people were conditioned" - what makes you so sure YOU are not the one being conditioned? :-)
I really mean that - ask yourself honestly that question and see where it may take you
AlexanderTheHuge 1 month ago
@AlexanderTheHuge I cant argue with your first point. what to apply logic to is subjective.
" this is a reasonable rule of thumb of WHAT to apply logic to " - reasonable indeed but you must ask what logic the first person used to reach that conclusion ?? he could't have said millions believe in it . if them logic he/she used seems sound and if millions agree, then one does not need to actively debunk it ,
onlyforytb 1 month ago
@AlexanderTheHuge 'Almost all of these adult people were conditioned" - I think I also said "as children". that is very important. When we are young we cannot reject opinions if they are enforced like religions.
about me being conditioned, i dont bother about myself or others being conditioned after a certain age as it is not very effective :)
onlyforytb 1 month ago
@AlexanderTheHuge He doesn't have any scientific proof that unicorns don't exist, but we all know they are fictional.
IceManSudan 2 months ago
@IceManSudan
If more than a billion people say that unicorns exist, you better provide a damn good waterproof evidence that they don't.
That is, if you claim you are 100% sure that all those billion people are wrong.
Besides, are you REALLY that sure that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe? On some unicorn friendly planet...
That is not against the laws of physics, is it?
AlexanderTheHuge 2 months ago