Why is it so difficult for people to understand that even if they do need to be tribal there are millions of options? People can't get together to do charity work every week? They can't go to a book club? They can't work for HAbit for Humanity? It's so absurd when people bring this up as a need to be in a group. There are way more interesting groups, and much more helpful groups to be part of. Being told you are not worthy is certainly one of the worst forms of tribal bonding. HELP OTHERS
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
@Krauz85 That's exactly why religion can be so dangerous. It teaches people to believe things without any real evidence and that nothing is more important than your faith, and whatever your imaginary god might say to you, it's okay. So people who normally are rational in all other aspects of life, can be made to do terrible things.
what if, and please stay with me, what if God intented you recognize evolution as one of His greatest ideas, and what if God will be very upset about you not seeing this beautiful design through evolution and send *you* to hell because in His eyes it would be *you* who does not believe in His biggest achievement (evolution)?
Well, in that case, "god" would strike me as very vain and selfish for "sending me to hell" because I embraced logic and common sense, and chose not to believe in something for which there is literally no evidence. I lose count on how many times I say this..
Wait a second, I read through your comment again.. I thought I made it pretty obvious in that other post that I was joking? To be clear, I embrace evolution (since it's proven fact) and do not believe in god (because there is no reason to). The other post was meant as a joke, I repeat, a joke.
Dawkins is SOO politeto that Hallucination guy; i am sure a religious person facing such herecy in front of him would have sent him to ever burning hell. Dawkins is such a Gentleman!(with titanium alloy and carbon composite nerves)
Like how we look back 100 years and say how it's sad that people treated black people differently. People in the next century will look back at these videos and think the exact same thing about theists.
Perhaps the one of the pitfalls of organised religion is their universal applicability. I have not read the Bible nor any other form of scripture/writing based on religious believes, but can the ones who do remind me if for instance, the Bible mentioned the Japanese people, or Buddhism mentioned Africans or the Koran mentioned Australia. I just think it is bigoted and arrogant for religion to omit certain races and places. Why does the Christian God have to be the one and only God?
ok, but then I would believe that even the 500'000 year old human might have some problems reproducing with the human of today. Again, is this a sharp line? But i agree that ability of reproduction is probably the "sharp line" I was looking for... because you can either reproduce with someone or you cant....
...but wait....probably you can, but the offspring that arisees can't. The matter is not easy to discuss...
Have 99% of all the species on Earth really gone extinct? I find it hard to believe that all the fish, insects, birds, reptiles, mammals etc on the planet today only account for 1% of history's species.
Yes, over 99% of species. Remember, human beings have only been around for about 5 million years. Life on earth started many thousands of millions of years ago. To put this into perspective, watch Richard Dawkins' Christmas Lectures. He illustrates the points of biology beautifully with models and in great detail. There are five episodes. They are brilliant and well worth anyone's time. :)
Sorry to see you got such a bumb wrap for your question. It is a perfectly legitimate question.
I would like to debate this notion that humans are 5 millions old, or any number.
I would like to say that all life on earth that still exists today has been around since the beginning of life on earth.
Think about it... I dont like it to limit the age of the humans to some millions, when actually there was a never ending, never interrupted chain of ancestors back to the very beginning of life maybe 3-4 Billion years ago.
I understand that what you mean is that 5 million years ago the human species was more or less in its developped stadium, so that we would immediately recognize them as our ancestors if we were to see them.
But I just want to express that I do not see a starting point... I do not see why we have to draw a sharp line. So was the ape ancestor 10 million years ago so completely un-humanly that you would not count it to the age of humans?
Well yeah, 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. See each species that is the first to do something is only barely good enough at it. Each successive species is better at it and evolves from individuals of the old species, but the species as a whole goes extinct when out-competed. The species that exist today are each the best so far at what they do, or are going extinct. Think about the billions of inventions that are not used anymore compared to the millions that are.
To be honest I am somewhat disappointed that this comment has received such a poor rating. I am a physicist (in the making) and these are the types of questions we need to encourage. This person is taking an assumption/fact and going one step further to try to see the evidence that the claim is in fact true. Isn't that the whole heart of this debate? I for one say keep going. Never stop asking questions and being skeptical, even of us scientists. The answers sometimes surprise even us.
Hey, don't worry about it, man. I only made that comment as it's a plainly chilling concept, and I know the kind of troglodites out there who'll thoughtlessly thumbs down a simple question. I'm an avid reader of New Scientist and I know that if there's any chance of our species developing beyond the end of this century, it will be the scientists and the seekers who are our only real chance. The creationists will only have the opposite effect. Keep up the good work!
If you imagine the history of the evolution to look like a tree, then 99% of all branches have stopped growing sometime in the past. Like for example the many branches that represented the dinosaurs (except birds). Or the branch of the neandertals.... they completely dissapeared from earth.
If an older species managed to split and evolve into another species then that means that the branch also split and is now growing in two different directions.
If all matter is a energy wave including us, and our perception of reality is an internal interpretation of the detected frequencies of the energy waves.
Then isn't it possible that some people can detect a greater range of those energy waves than others. The same as some people can sing better than others.
In which case isn't it possible that some people are detecting 'spirit' entities that are existing on a different fequency out side of our normal perception range. I don't mean gods. :)
Yes just millions of tiny adaptations in different directions from the original species, Also known as evolution. So if we relabeled the word that would make all better some how?
Got a better example, children do not grow into adults, children just grow taller and both physically mentally mature.
"Got a better example, children do not grow into adults, children just grow taller and both physically mentally mature."
The whole creationist movement seems to be on misinformation and shabby editing please include my whole sentence not a fragment, also that line is sarcasm to compare the adaptation is evolution, that children do grow into adults and not just grow.
Dawkins must have the patience of a cunting saint to deal with witless ramblings of feeble minded cretins like that bloke.
I just wish I could have been born 200 years in the future when we will have moved forward and this sort of ignorant drivel will hopefully be cosigned to the dustbin of history along with witch burning, astrology and Uri Geller.
God bless Dawkins for his dedicated and unfailing efforts to make this so in our lifetimes.
Man has been more destructive than any animal even with this foresight. Why should I take this man point without sound evidence? You have far less evidence than the bible, which archaeology have confirmed to be correct, are they hallucinating. Tell me, how did the world begin?
So? Man is destructive because we wield great power, not because we have some thirst for destruction. Besides, even IF man is so destructive, why should it affect anything?
The bible has not been confirmed correct. There's certain archeological aspects correct, sure, but does that really matter? Spiderman mentions New York, does that make Spiderman true just because New York is real? No! The supernatural is what people care about proving or disproving, not the archeology.
Well did jesus walk the earth? we know through history (not only the bible) that He did. and when He did anything 'supernatural' there were none that disproved it, even the enemies of Jesus said He did it magic,casting out demons, by the devil.
The bible records predictions of events that could not of been predicted by chance or common sense. for example the book of Daniel (written before 530 B.C) accurately predicts the progression of Kingdoms from babylon through to the medo-persian Empire, the Greek Empire and then the Roman Empire. The bible can be trusted to be historically correct!
Big Bang. Try and pay attention, Blessedlove. And read up on it before you respond please. Don't waste our time.
(And should you really feel like saying something similar to: God created everything, then please, explain to all of us where this God came from, what took him so long to start the universe, why he was such a big fan of incest, how come he looked like arabs, asians, negroes, indians and caucasians at the same time (we were created in his image, right?) etc etc?
I think it is easy to say the world and everything in it was created by the 'Big Bang' Which I gather as being an explosion that brought order and harmony. But I have heard Mr. Dawkins say he believes a higher being, maybe from another galaxy established earth and its contents. The Bible declaires God has always existed He is infinite and eternal.
The bible also declares that earth is 6000 years old. THat every woman should sacrifice two turtles when she's having a period. That anyone from a different religion should be killed. That gays should be killed. That, since Adam & Eve procreated and populated the earth, we must all be the product of incest. etc. Do you live according to those rules too?
PS: Professor Dawkins never said he believes a higher being established earth. Never.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well my friend, you had better watch 'Expelled', because he said it!! Where does the bible say the earth is 6 thousand years and the infomation I have given you is correct, you now build on it and research. because your ideas have no prove whereas the bible does. The bible records predictions of events that could not of been predicted by chance or common sense.
I watched it and he didn't. You are reading stuff into what he did said, just like you read stuff into your bible. Show me the clip, the exact moments when according to you he said it and I will take back what I said.
Please use 'have' instead of 'of'. You are not doing yourself any favours.
Obviously you do not know the bible like some other Christians do, like those who actually read it (like I did) do, so discussing it is a pointless exercise. The bible's predictions mean nothing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thanks for the advice, I asked you a question; How did the 'Big Bang' happen? and what did Mr. Dawkins say about how the world and man came to exist? One more question why are you being so aggerssive. I am sure people can debate without bringing a harsh air to the platform.
Please, rather than ask me to explain everything to you, do yourself the favour of reading up on evolution and the Big Bang.
Science is not too big to admit that it doesn't have the answers to all the questions. At least it doesn't make up some fairy who then magically explains it all away. For now, I have had enough of you. Discussion over. Get back to me when you have actually taken the time to do your homework.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No synopsis on the topic at all. Wow! After all those intelligent and creative knock backs. Brother as you suggest I will study these vague theories, but I think you know that once Ive studied them, I will be asking people like yourself more questions! Do yourself a bigger favour and read God's Word with an opened heart and mind.
so as an infinite being, God logically can be demonstrated to be the uncaused, First Cause of everything made. To suppose that because the universe had a cause, the cause of the universe must of had a cause leads to a logical dead end. An infinite regression of finite causes does not answer the question of source; it just makes the effects more numerous.
There is no logic in what you say, so please don't use the word logically. You might as well have said that the flying spaghetti monster did it, or an invisible skydaddy, or a smurf. But you don't. That alone proves that you base your assumptions on a book of your choice, rather than on any scientific proof.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Question: "What does it mean that man is made in the image of God?"
Answer: On the last day of creation, God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness (Genesis 1:26).
The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
So was god then blind suffering from short term memory loss or suffering from multiple personality disorder/dissociative identity disorder? He created caucasians, indians, negroes, arabs and asians all in his own likeness?
We have established that apes have morals that closely resemble ours. Does that mean that he created those in his likeness, too? Proof, my friend, proof is what we need. Not assumptions based on an old story book.
Dawkins was far nicer to this loony than i could have ever been! When i was in school this guy would have been beaten silly every break until graduation!
The alternative for church would be weekly visits to the planetarium where we get presented with the newest discoveries, after that sex parties at various locations if you haven't socialized enough
Hat off to Dawkins: he keeps all his arguments rooted in science and specifically evolutionary biology.
A combination of his arguments coupled with those of, say, Christopher Hitchens - who offers a more polemical approach based on concepts such as freedom, democracy, morality - is a great way off getting into this debate and organising ones thoughts on some of the key questions.
Sadly, it seems that rationality is wasted on the indoctrinated!
Richard Dawkins is extremely well versed in the psychology of religion, as well as, Philosophy. If you want to create a viable argument about what someone else does or does not know, Pick up a couple of his books and read them! Try and argue against his reasoning.
When I began looking for answers I first took to reading the bible, then I needed to learn more about what was 'known' to be real before making an intelligent choice. The truth is: the bible is an Astro-Theological literary hybrid.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Dawkins's rationalism is not only in conflict with the theological thinking but with the postmodern one also. He believes in science: the theories he claims so loud today might be the tomorow's jokes since they don't have yet the final proofs.
And ... atheism is not the best explanation at all; it is simply clueless when it has to do with things like: purpose, direction, hope, love and the most non-material things from our lifes.
Dawkins is not that versed in this kind of things at all.
"the theories he claims so loud today might be the tomorow's jokes since they don't have yet the final proofs." might be? yes and bible is a better proof is it? proof that has no evidence at all. At least todays science as we understand makes sense based on math and evidence we can see... Also, he is not clueless when it comes to love, hate and material things in life...READ HIS BOOKS. I dont think you read them or payed too much attention to what he wrote...
Evolution remained as a solid Theory for well over a hundred years with every bit of sound scientific evidence supporting it from "dozens" of scientific disciplines, and for the last 20 yrs it has remained "a FACT", no longer a theory! And with the mapping of not just the human genome, but others as well, evolution is indisputable. Theological Thinking is Religious Reasoning = Oxymorons.
Atheism and Agnosticism are the ONLY rational approaches worthy of consideration. Have proof? present it!
Those thousands of other beliefs of which you speak of are based on 'BLIND faith". And BLIND faith is the absence of 'REASON".
Reason and Rationality are essential to human progress,
There's really not anything astonishing about my statement. All 3 of the main Abrahamic, Judeo-Islamic-christian religions are "KNOWN" to be based on much earlier Mythologies-Other characters with the same traits, performing the same 'amazing' feats and even claiming the same 'Nick-Names. More to come...
Furthermore, There is nothing Rational or Reasonable about believing in something without any proof! Atheism demands SOME form of proof! And as Dawkins said, there is at least something to discuss regarding the origins of the Universe (Deism), which is the ONLY REASONABLE stance for claiming Agnosticism.
Your question to me ("CAN YOU PROVE THAT?") is actually the question for you. ALL of the proof is on the side of not believing in Hyper-moral,Super-Sentient-Omnipotent-Omnisent Beings.
It is sad that peoples limitations lead them to corrupt an idea (Marxism, Communism, Capitalism etc. in their purest form will always fail). Some percentage of a population will excel in understanding their societal system and WILL exploit it. There is a Natural Ebb and Flow of these ideaologies that is neccessary for a society to work. They do, and MUST overlap one-another.
Reason is what allowed for all the Scientific advances that improves our lives -Gadgets are merely a collateral effect
Nothing is more contemptable and corrupted than Religion. It provides nothing more than False-Hope in something that is known to not be true.
"No absolutes" ?
Gravity!, Death!, Evolution! Even from your own observations! THINKING EVOLVES! That's why we have "POST"-Modern thinking! It evolved from Modern Thinking! Our capacity for thinking has been steadily increasing for millions of years. Just look around you! 'FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION!' Our immune systems evolve everytime we get sick!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, evolution is a belief; it was developed only to exclude God from the picture. The bigest problem during the Elinghtment, for those who rejected God, was what to put in His place.
Darwin was the one who came with the solution.
There are scientific facts that seems to fit with the evolution; however, the gaps of this theory are biger than the evedences considered for it.
You must believe in a lot of happy accidents to explain these gaps.
Evolution is not 'ONLY' a belief. Darwin's Theory, though having enormous gaps, is today, supported by dozens of Scientific Disciplines that corraborate the findings of the other. 99% of all things that have ever lived are now extinct, so obviously there are huge wholes in the fossil record, but now with the ability to map entire Genomes the evolutionary argument is indisputable. Genetic records due and will continue to fill in those very gaps. Religion has a history of being DEAD wrong.
The only thing that was the "problem" during the Enlightenment was the church's interference and reluctance to reject the multitude of Natural TRUTHS being discovered.
Furthermore, on the big holes in Scientific Theories - Religion is just an empty hole with absolutely NOTHING to support ANY of its claims. Religion is archaic and its leaders are scared and grasping at straws. PLEASE: Read "Letter To A Christian Nation" By Sam Harris-Then lets continue this conversation.
Perhaps for people you appreciate the maddening odds against the probbability of any god and yet find themselfs when distressed visualising the world through thier own 'childs eye' in the belief of the indoctrinated messages of thier youth, Compartmentalists?
Its like this.... I know as a matter of probbability that at least 99% of the claims made reguarding faith are hocum, however I was raised as a cross-christian, I grew up opposite a evangelical church, went to an anglican primary school and then a catholic high school. When I am really upset i.e: "getting the piss taken out of me" (insulted) for being ascetic by a known sex-offender, I find myself calling them a "sinner" and saying that they deserve to be in "hell".
Hm, we live in a mad world, I agree. There are two things we have to reconcile about it: the diversity ( it is amazing and I like it ! ) and unity ( we have to be united at least on the grounds of the fact that we are all humans ).
I think that's the problem with the Church also: we still have to learn to accept each other in spite of differences.
As about probability ... am not as "sure" as you regarding the 99% ...
Dyobodiu I`m sorry but your posts prove you are as dumb as it gets. To say that Dawkins theory is a fairy tale and that you dont believe in theory of evolution because it talks about something that happened millions of years is just AS DUMB as IT GETS.. Based on your thinking you should also not believe your parents that they are your parents and that you actually live in Romania, or that the earth is not flat or that stars are stars and not some bugs flying around.. You are just an IDIOT...
First of all it is not the ATHEISTS who act that way it is the HUMAN RACE. Frustration is a feeling all humans are familiar with may it be christians, muslims, jews, back in time greeks or egyptians it does not matter. The point is its like talking to a wall when it comes to you guys. There is evidence for many things you laugh at claiming we are wrong but everyday you are using the technology that was made based on this same science NOT YOUR BIBLE.. That is why you make me frustrated...
If you have to read books on philosophy and psychology of religion as you put it, to understand the bible, well what's the point of having a bible if you need an instruction manual as well? You're living in cloud cuckoo land dyobodiu, and as for professor Dawkins not reading many books on the subject of philosophy and the like, might I suggest that you address your poor spelling and open another book. A dictionary.
One day every tounge will confess YOU are GOD. One day every knee will bow. still the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose YOU now. YES THAT IS TRUE. JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY.
But you are right in one thing, Jesus is the only way if you are unable to think for yourself and im sure they will gladly choose him because when i look at my cat im not sure if he is any less happy just because he is stupid, fat and lazy.
And if you can be happy with that I fully understand how that can be heaven.
wow here you are again... just keep saying it over and over again, you may just convince someone dumb enough, like yourself perhaps! or maybe just, maybe ... oh .. oh... wait ... wait, wait , nah sorry i didnt work on me.
What you decided you can or can't afford to base your life upon is entirely your choice. It is in no way relevant to the truth of the existence of God. If your best argument for God is that you've lived your entire life by it, then I'm sorry, sir, you've wasted your life.
But there is hope! Let go and take a breath of fresh air! It's very good for you!
well especially after 2 hours of making sense without a single stutter, you end up with a kook of a comment like that, its like 'ok you haven't been listening at all, fuck off' I'm glad that happened because just like Dawkins has stated before no matter what you say some ppl just wont change their mind.
Yea. I agree. That guy is a moron... How can you sit through 2 hours of perfectly logical lecture about the lack of evidence for 'god' then ask what he has to say to someone who has seen 'god'. I'm quite impressed with Dawkins' composure. I would have just called him an idiot and told him to leave....
cold, cruel and rude crap is simply his singular opinion on how he wishes to address people, it has NOTHING to do with his LACK OF FAITH IN YOUR GOD, atheism isnt cold, cruel and rude crap, it's simply the best possible explanation for a logic mind and all its "followers" are free to be rude if they want to, but as they(and probably not you) would understand its best for the survival of his gene if he would be polite so none would be offended and kicks his ass ^^
Mathematics and Sciences generally are rigorous and difficult to learn. Only by doing so can anyone have any idea of their difficulty and their power of prediction (and their limitations too). What I find overarchingly annoying is the cheap references made to pseudo-science by the religiously inclined. Of course they only convince converted but it is intensely dishonest of them to pretend a knowledge they don't have. They discredit themselves by doing so.
I can't laugh at people like that. Yes, they have an arrogance about them but they really do believe that it's their duty to save us all and enlighten us to what they believe is the ultimate truth. They're so earnest it's heartbreaking. Yes, we have logic on our side when we say that people like this are blinded by faith but they believe just as fervently that we're the blind ones. They pity us as we do them. It's a terrible state of affairs.
Yea. My family is religious and I love them to death. These people care about their family which is why they all believe it. They really do think they are going to hell which is why they put it in their kids head at a young age.
"what was the man asking the last question trying to ask ???", SingHouse
He was trying, in his insecurity, to get Dawkins to assert validity of the belief in a god in some way. I met this kind of behaviour many times in my discussions. These people want to see you leaving some, at least small, space for their imaginary gods. Dawkins did the right thing: left nothing.
I am sure, I could keep watching him talking, without losing interest, all day! He is such an eloquent, clear, fluent and bright speaker; each of his sentences make absolute sense...unlike some of the questioners.
I don't agree with how he handled that. I agree with him being honest but I disagree with his lack of empathy. He could have given that man hope without lies.
That is the only thing that scares me about my fellow Atheists. Without compassion scientists will be no different then religious tyrants doing things because they can & not because they should. They will tout their intellectual superiority grants them entitlement. The us & uk abused eugenics long before Hitler.
I see no problem with Theists questioning the reasons for any research. All of us should. My disagreement comes when the answers have been provided, there is not risk of irreparable damage to our species or habitat & then it's halted for no logical or moral reasons.
& yes I know Dawkin's is human & I don't hold his reaction against him but he's been in this debate long to know how people break down when you strip the lies away. Most of them aren't stupid that just need something to believe in. Many give love lip service but it's a start. I think it's a gross injustice to label them stupid or crazy just as they label us immoral when it's not that black & white. Some are & some aren't.
Actually, it could be argued that an attempt to free people from their illusions is an act of kindness, and sugar-coating the truth will reduce itsz efficacy. If the man had said that he believed that Partick Thistle were going to win the Champions League this season, you would look upon him with pity. Why should this belief be any different?
Agreed & very good point. I like your Partick Thistle analogy. I'm not saying we should sugar coat it. Think about this.
Your brother is an alcoholic. He denies he has a problem & tells you drinking is his way of life & that if he stopped he would have nothing left to live for. Do you tell him he's a stupid drunk & he doesn't need alcohol, do you show him the reasons to live without it or do you push a replacement like the methadone for heroine addicts?
Of course, I would try to show him that there was another way. When you try to do this for theists, though, you're accused of being insensitive. I like your analogy, too, as being an alcoholic is very analogous to being religious, IMO.
5:10 - I'm always impressed with how unapologetic Dawkins is when he forthrightly tells religionists that, yes, their beliefs are subjective delusions, hallucinations and nothing more. I only wish I could express myself so well.
Man is not destroying the planet. That is propoganda promoted by enviromentalists who seek to halt progress and take us back to the dark ages to their idea of 'heaven', where man is without technology, laboring in his field from dawn till dark and dies at the age of 30 or less.
Don't buy into the media hype of global warming or any of that crap. Do your own research.
Don't talk rubbish. It is entirely evidence based; supported by huge majority of scientific community. Enviromentalists don't want that goal, they want to make human impact near zero which is possible. Stop being so insanly cynical and closed minded.
I'm open. Provide the data for your claims instead of using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. I don't do political, religious or scientific zealotry & Dawkins is not my Messiah. I don't buy into the media. I weigh the evidence, the words & the actions of all sides.
Support your claims otherwise you are spouting lies & attempting to spread fear.
It is the enviromentalists who appeal to emotion and spread fear, not I.
There is much disagreement amongst the scientific community on the issue. It is only the media, politicians, and the enviromentalists who pretend as if there is a scientific consensus and man made warming is a proven fact.
After looking at that site. I have not seen any evidence of any kind, especially empirical. I see no credentials or sources cited. The writing is superb & by students.
Most of it is cognitive dissonance & fallacy without sources cited for preposterous assertions & allegations that are not openly & honestly declared bias.
I ask again where is the open objective data submitted & scrutinized from both sides for the claim you make. Point me to a specific thread in compliance to objectivity.
"The people who know what's going on are saying so. I'm saying so. It's time for you to do the same." See any the logical fallacies that make up irrelevant conclusion there?
Excellent send. Thank you. My observations. 1:Damn interesting & attempted to be unbiased
2: Objective & he prefaced that there is a problem but not the problem that is alleged. 3: He called them out & then told them why
4: Compared data & explained as simply as possible for laymen 5: When questing NASA he admitted it may be a mistake although even they aren't above question.
What is the hypothesis on the drift at the poles & the expansion of the Bering Strait?
There was a warming throughout most of the last 3 centuries. It could be accountable for these phenomonas.
The point is that the warming is A) not man-made, or neglibly influnced by man at most, and B) not unusual by any means in earth's climate.
The enviromentalists just create hysteria with unbased doomsday scenarios in order to promote their purposes. Namely anti-technology, and the notion that man is not allowed to touch nature in any way for his own benefit, which is anti-man.
I don't think that anyone wants us to halt progress. I myself want to live on a CLEAN, HEALTHY planet. There is everything right in this.
Personally I haven't been convinced that global warming is a crisis - yet. But I'm open to convincing as I am very aware of my ignorance of climate science.
Well.. It might be a crisis, it may be not. Many evidents points towards volcanos and the sun's big involvement in the global warming - and if that is the case, then its difficult to say if both the sun and the volcanos will keep heating our earth up.
My Dad would have been quite impressed with that guy! I'm afraid my father is also one of those people who has "walked with the Lord" for many decades too. And I'm convinced that he will continue to believe in Christianity with the same level of conviction until the day he dies. In a way it's very sad. But how do you argue with someone who is like that? I have no idea what to say to him, or if I should even bother to bring the topic up at all.
I would like to think that there is a use and a purpose for all forms of thinking, quantifying and creatuve sentient beings, but reality has shown that people do really terrible things to one another and to themselves. This leads to a constantly unstable platform where a foundation never holds for too long.
I would like to think that there is a use and a purpose for all forms of thinking, quantifying and creatuve sentient beings-yeha there is its call survival.adjacent mechanisms to it are evolution, natural selection, genetic variation etc..
sheesh...I just reread my response to 13248396 and I am beginning to sound like those folkies that I usually find do not add to a debate...heh. Sometimes, we become that which we feel is the antithesis of ourselves.
it has been quite a personal journey to have listened to these 12 lectures of Richard Dawkins. His strengths & convictions are admirably shared & expressed. I do hope that some, if not all, of his concepts are at the least given a chance by the diverse community that has stumbled here...I do not agree with all of his concepts, but the logic & structures used to come to his understandings are useful, to say the least. Best wishes.
It is by one's own right to accept or dismiss the information that people share with one another. I respect this immensely. I find that there are very good (not all, but whichever are needed for a live one lives) tools to navigate and observe life with within the parameters of atheism and within the parameters of theism. As I am a complete supporter of free speech, I am just as passionate about freedom to access and share in the conceptualizing tools from all possible sources.
I am of the mind that senses that Richard Dawkins is not necessarily differentiating between useful theism and illogical theism. I would have hoped that a being with his intellect would not need to impose a value system on atheism and theism...but, that he would spend his energy on sharing his love for science and facts. But, I may be wrong...I am new to this level of discourse.
is not necessarily differentiating between useful theism and illogical theism- well problem is there is n otheism (includingthe useful one) that is not ilogical.. it is contradictory by its own nature.
that last dude went to the whole thing and paid for it, just to go and say that!?
freiheitsalv 1 month ago
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that even if they do need to be tribal there are millions of options? People can't get together to do charity work every week? They can't go to a book club? They can't work for HAbit for Humanity? It's so absurd when people bring this up as a need to be in a group. There are way more interesting groups, and much more helpful groups to be part of. Being told you are not worthy is certainly one of the worst forms of tribal bonding. HELP OTHERS
Reip187 2 months ago 2
I wish there were more of these discussions with Dawkins, except that they excluded the God Delusion as a topic. LOL
Reip187 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I'm glad the guy asking Dawkins the question, wasn't my dad....he is "touched"!
bermudaguy1 10 months ago 3
I think humans are tribal....needing to be in groups of like-minded....hence the success of churches.
bermudaguy1 10 months ago
The guy at 5:00 is a very smart person with no mental issues...
Krauz85 10 months ago
@Krauz85 hehehe
rotov80 10 months ago
@Krauz85 That's exactly why religion can be so dangerous. It teaches people to believe things without any real evidence and that nothing is more important than your faith, and whatever your imaginary god might say to you, it's okay. So people who normally are rational in all other aspects of life, can be made to do terrible things.
martinbondesson 5 months ago 2
the evolution THEORY is a MYTH and a FRAUD and people like richard DWAKINS should burn in hell for all iternity!!!! i
Elfenlied89 11 months ago
@Elfenlied89
what if, and please stay with me, what if God intented you recognize evolution as one of His greatest ideas, and what if God will be very upset about you not seeing this beautiful design through evolution and send *you* to hell because in His eyes it would be *you* who does not believe in His biggest achievement (evolution)?
meslud 10 months ago 2
@meslud
Well, in that case, "god" would strike me as very vain and selfish for "sending me to hell" because I embraced logic and common sense, and chose not to believe in something for which there is literally no evidence. I lose count on how many times I say this..
Elfenlied89 10 months ago
@meslud
Wait a second, I read through your comment again.. I thought I made it pretty obvious in that other post that I was joking? To be clear, I embrace evolution (since it's proven fact) and do not believe in god (because there is no reason to). The other post was meant as a joke, I repeat, a joke.
Elfenlied89 10 months ago
@Elfenlied89 God wouldn't want you to damn people to hell now would he? =)
killerboyfoolz 4 months ago
I love listening to all the different accents of the English language.
Zimnyification 1 year ago
If someone came up to me and told me they met and knew the Lord Jesus Christ personally, I'd think that person was nus.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt nus? really?
Zimnyification 1 year ago
@Zimnyification Nuts. My bad.
Klazzt 1 year ago
Dawkins is SOO politeto that Hallucination guy; i am sure a religious person facing such herecy in front of him would have sent him to ever burning hell. Dawkins is such a Gentleman!(with titanium alloy and carbon composite nerves)
sushanalone 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
Like how we look back 100 years and say how it's sad that people treated black people differently. People in the next century will look back at these videos and think the exact same thing about theists.
ElementzUK 1 year ago
Comment removed
ElementzUK 1 year ago
Thanks for uploading this, RD is a legend, we will miss him when hes gone.
Scanini 1 year ago
@Scanini "We will miss him when he's gone." This is the most pessimistic compliment I've ever heard.
Hankatu 11 months ago
@Hankatu Wow, if this is the most pessimistic comment you have ever heard then your life must be surrounded with sunshine and lollipops 24/7.
Its called life, we all die. Its not pessimistic its reality, something alot of believers have trouble coming too.
Scanini 11 months ago
@Scanini I was being humorous.
Hankatu 11 months ago
@Hankatu Sorry man, ive talked to so many believers i have lost my ability to determine sarcasm and parody from these idiots.
I take it back.
Scanini 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your reality is an installed reality.
Installed shortly after birth before your mind had a chance to build a Life Experience and Logic based Firewall to protect itself.
The Malware was then constantly reinforced by teachers,Clergy,State,Media and the rest of the infected population until it became absolute truth.
Curing this infection is difficult but with Courage and Logic it is possible.
Good Luck.
BCT071 1 year ago
the moderator looks like an ape at 2:15. the best eg 4 evolution
tm1729 1 year ago
the guy at 5 mins is just a joke.
greggcaff 1 year ago 4
@greggcaff loooool.... He's a deluded fool
supertuber97 1 year ago
Perhaps the one of the pitfalls of organised religion is their universal applicability. I have not read the Bible nor any other form of scripture/writing based on religious believes, but can the ones who do remind me if for instance, the Bible mentioned the Japanese people, or Buddhism mentioned Africans or the Koran mentioned Australia. I just think it is bigoted and arrogant for religion to omit certain races and places. Why does the Christian God have to be the one and only God?
CastorFrost 1 year ago
ok, but then I would believe that even the 500'000 year old human might have some problems reproducing with the human of today. Again, is this a sharp line? But i agree that ability of reproduction is probably the "sharp line" I was looking for... because you can either reproduce with someone or you cant....
...but wait....probably you can, but the offspring that arisees can't. The matter is not easy to discuss...
georgemargaris 1 year ago
Have 99% of all the species on Earth really gone extinct? I find it hard to believe that all the fish, insects, birds, reptiles, mammals etc on the planet today only account for 1% of history's species.
Was there that many dinosaurs?
allaboutdmagic 2 years ago
Dinosaurs weren't the only species... Dont forget all the species our current animals were BEFORE they evolved..
I'd say that sounds about true really, jesus the earth has been around for billions of years, I'm sure many species have come and gone/evolved.
scarecrow7236 2 years ago
Yes, over 99% of species. Remember, human beings have only been around for about 5 million years. Life on earth started many thousands of millions of years ago. To put this into perspective, watch Richard Dawkins' Christmas Lectures. He illustrates the points of biology beautifully with models and in great detail. There are five episodes. They are brilliant and well worth anyone's time. :)
Sorry to see you got such a bumb wrap for your question. It is a perfectly legitimate question.
0932486509 2 years ago
@0932486509 Actually it is believed that human beings as we are today have only been around for anywhere between 500,000 and 125,000 years.
BradODonnell 2 years ago
I would like to debate this notion that humans are 5 millions old, or any number.
I would like to say that all life on earth that still exists today has been around since the beginning of life on earth.
Think about it... I dont like it to limit the age of the humans to some millions, when actually there was a never ending, never interrupted chain of ancestors back to the very beginning of life maybe 3-4 Billion years ago.
georgemargaris 2 years ago
I understand that what you mean is that 5 million years ago the human species was more or less in its developped stadium, so that we would immediately recognize them as our ancestors if we were to see them.
But I just want to express that I do not see a starting point... I do not see why we have to draw a sharp line. So was the ape ancestor 10 million years ago so completely un-humanly that you would not count it to the age of humans?
georgemargaris 2 years ago
Well yeah, 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. See each species that is the first to do something is only barely good enough at it. Each successive species is better at it and evolves from individuals of the old species, but the species as a whole goes extinct when out-competed. The species that exist today are each the best so far at what they do, or are going extinct. Think about the billions of inventions that are not used anymore compared to the millions that are.
QuestionMarc 2 years ago
To be honest I am somewhat disappointed that this comment has received such a poor rating. I am a physicist (in the making) and these are the types of questions we need to encourage. This person is taking an assumption/fact and going one step further to try to see the evidence that the claim is in fact true. Isn't that the whole heart of this debate? I for one say keep going. Never stop asking questions and being skeptical, even of us scientists. The answers sometimes surprise even us.
libertarianatheist79 2 years ago
Hey, don't worry about it, man. I only made that comment as it's a plainly chilling concept, and I know the kind of troglodites out there who'll thoughtlessly thumbs down a simple question. I'm an avid reader of New Scientist and I know that if there's any chance of our species developing beyond the end of this century, it will be the scientists and the seekers who are our only real chance. The creationists will only have the opposite effect. Keep up the good work!
allaboutdmagic 2 years ago
If you imagine the history of the evolution to look like a tree, then 99% of all branches have stopped growing sometime in the past. Like for example the many branches that represented the dinosaurs (except birds). Or the branch of the neandertals.... they completely dissapeared from earth.
If an older species managed to split and evolve into another species then that means that the branch also split and is now growing in two different directions.
georgemargaris 2 years ago
I say 'spirit' entities, for want of a better description.
Valthepixie 2 years ago
If all matter is a energy wave including us, and our perception of reality is an internal interpretation of the detected frequencies of the energy waves.
Then isn't it possible that some people can detect a greater range of those energy waves than others. The same as some people can sing better than others.
In which case isn't it possible that some people are detecting 'spirit' entities that are existing on a different fequency out side of our normal perception range. I don't mean gods. :)
Valthepixie 2 years ago
Someone has been taking too much LSD:
DasKrabbe 2 years ago
Have the quantum physcists and bilologists been taking LSD, is that what you mean.
If you don't understand a comment, instead of making an idiot out of yourself, tip: STF up. ;)
Valthepixie 2 years ago
An insightful discussion by Richard Dawkins..
kurt30001 2 years ago 5
5:37 What a dork! LOL
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago 3
Did Jesus ever fart?
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution just silly misunderstanding of adaptation ;)
yourboycal 2 years ago
Yes just millions of tiny adaptations in different directions from the original species, Also known as evolution. So if we relabeled the word that would make all better some how?
Got a better example, children do not grow into adults, children just grow taller and both physically mentally mature.
whydid666 2 years ago 2
are you sure its just taller? i'll give u one chance to fix ur silly mistakes :)
yourboycal 2 years ago
"Got a better example, children do not grow into adults, children just grow taller and both physically mentally mature."
The whole creationist movement seems to be on misinformation and shabby editing please include my whole sentence not a fragment, also that line is sarcasm to compare the adaptation is evolution, that children do grow into adults and not just grow.
whydid666 2 years ago
my local pub is my secular church.
Doversreturn 2 years ago 6
God, that moderator dude was an asshole. I love how Dawkins bitch slapped him every time he pretended to ask something intelligent.
ChronoVassal 2 years ago 68
Dawkins must have the patience of a cunting saint to deal with witless ramblings of feeble minded cretins like that bloke.
I just wish I could have been born 200 years in the future when we will have moved forward and this sort of ignorant drivel will hopefully be cosigned to the dustbin of history along with witch burning, astrology and Uri Geller.
God bless Dawkins for his dedicated and unfailing efforts to make this so in our lifetimes.
tapemeister 2 years ago
Dawkins pwned that last guy gooooood.
DanRaccoon 2 years ago 4
the last guy was the embodiment to me of everything I hate about christians
Pompous self-righteous brain dead and arrogant
ignorant stubborn narrow and with the insight of a fence post
regurgitating meaningless slop because he loves the sound of his own voice
he got what he deserved
grai 2 years ago 4
@grai
You forgot that he also, typically, lacked evidence to back his claims up. Sad, indeed.
AernoutMJC 2 years ago
Man has been more destructive than any animal even with this foresight. Why should I take this man point without sound evidence? You have far less evidence than the bible, which archaeology have confirmed to be correct, are they hallucinating. Tell me, how did the world begin?
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
blessed-
So? Man is destructive because we wield great power, not because we have some thirst for destruction. Besides, even IF man is so destructive, why should it affect anything?
The bible has not been confirmed correct. There's certain archeological aspects correct, sure, but does that really matter? Spiderman mentions New York, does that make Spiderman true just because New York is real? No! The supernatural is what people care about proving or disproving, not the archeology.
DbzmasterdbzNecross 2 years ago
Well did jesus walk the earth? we know through history (not only the bible) that He did. and when He did anything 'supernatural' there were none that disproved it, even the enemies of Jesus said He did it magic,casting out demons, by the devil.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
The bible records predictions of events that could not of been predicted by chance or common sense. for example the book of Daniel (written before 530 B.C) accurately predicts the progression of Kingdoms from babylon through to the medo-persian Empire, the Greek Empire and then the Roman Empire. The bible can be trusted to be historically correct!
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
Big Bang. Try and pay attention, Blessedlove. And read up on it before you respond please. Don't waste our time.
(And should you really feel like saying something similar to: God created everything, then please, explain to all of us where this God came from, what took him so long to start the universe, why he was such a big fan of incest, how come he looked like arabs, asians, negroes, indians and caucasians at the same time (we were created in his image, right?) etc etc?
AernoutMJC 2 years ago
I think it is easy to say the world and everything in it was created by the 'Big Bang' Which I gather as being an explosion that brought order and harmony. But I have heard Mr. Dawkins say he believes a higher being, maybe from another galaxy established earth and its contents. The Bible declaires God has always existed He is infinite and eternal.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
The bible also declares that earth is 6000 years old. THat every woman should sacrifice two turtles when she's having a period. That anyone from a different religion should be killed. That gays should be killed. That, since Adam & Eve procreated and populated the earth, we must all be the product of incest. etc. Do you live according to those rules too?
PS: Professor Dawkins never said he believes a higher being established earth. Never.
AernoutMJC 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well my friend, you had better watch 'Expelled', because he said it!! Where does the bible say the earth is 6 thousand years and the infomation I have given you is correct, you now build on it and research. because your ideas have no prove whereas the bible does. The bible records predictions of events that could not of been predicted by chance or common sense.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
I watched it and he didn't. You are reading stuff into what he did said, just like you read stuff into your bible. Show me the clip, the exact moments when according to you he said it and I will take back what I said.
Please use 'have' instead of 'of'. You are not doing yourself any favours.
Obviously you do not know the bible like some other Christians do, like those who actually read it (like I did) do, so discussing it is a pointless exercise. The bible's predictions mean nothing.
AernoutMJC 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thanks for the advice, I asked you a question; How did the 'Big Bang' happen? and what did Mr. Dawkins say about how the world and man came to exist? One more question why are you being so aggerssive. I am sure people can debate without bringing a harsh air to the platform.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
Sigh. Where exactly am I aggressive?
Please, rather than ask me to explain everything to you, do yourself the favour of reading up on evolution and the Big Bang.
Science is not too big to admit that it doesn't have the answers to all the questions. At least it doesn't make up some fairy who then magically explains it all away. For now, I have had enough of you. Discussion over. Get back to me when you have actually taken the time to do your homework.
AernoutMJC 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No synopsis on the topic at all. Wow! After all those intelligent and creative knock backs. Brother as you suggest I will study these vague theories, but I think you know that once Ive studied them, I will be asking people like yourself more questions! Do yourself a bigger favour and read God's Word with an opened heart and mind.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
so as an infinite being, God logically can be demonstrated to be the uncaused, First Cause of everything made. To suppose that because the universe had a cause, the cause of the universe must of had a cause leads to a logical dead end. An infinite regression of finite causes does not answer the question of source; it just makes the effects more numerous.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
There is no logic in what you say, so please don't use the word logically. You might as well have said that the flying spaghetti monster did it, or an invisible skydaddy, or a smurf. But you don't. That alone proves that you base your assumptions on a book of your choice, rather than on any scientific proof.
AernoutMJC 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Question: "What does it mean that man is made in the image of God?"
Answer: On the last day of creation, God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness (Genesis 1:26).
The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
Blessedlove2 2 years ago
So was god then blind suffering from short term memory loss or suffering from multiple personality disorder/dissociative identity disorder? He created caucasians, indians, negroes, arabs and asians all in his own likeness?
We have established that apes have morals that closely resemble ours. Does that mean that he created those in his likeness, too? Proof, my friend, proof is what we need. Not assumptions based on an old story book.
AernoutMJC 2 years ago 4
Dawkins was far nicer to this loony than i could have ever been! When i was in school this guy would have been beaten silly every break until graduation!
The alternative for church would be weekly visits to the planetarium where we get presented with the newest discoveries, after that sex parties at various locations if you haven't socialized enough
annata12 2 years ago
Hat off to Dawkins: he keeps all his arguments rooted in science and specifically evolutionary biology.
A combination of his arguments coupled with those of, say, Christopher Hitchens - who offers a more polemical approach based on concepts such as freedom, democracy, morality - is a great way off getting into this debate and organising ones thoughts on some of the key questions.
Sadly, it seems that rationality is wasted on the indoctrinated!
Tapiola2007 2 years ago 5
That bald guy was shaking from his last hit of Jesus.
My9thMyJoy 2 years ago 4
Richard Dawkins is extremely well versed in the psychology of religion, as well as, Philosophy. If you want to create a viable argument about what someone else does or does not know, Pick up a couple of his books and read them! Try and argue against his reasoning.
When I began looking for answers I first took to reading the bible, then I needed to learn more about what was 'known' to be real before making an intelligent choice. The truth is: the bible is an Astro-Theological literary hybrid.
1lumpen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Dawkins's rationalism is not only in conflict with the theological thinking but with the postmodern one also. He believes in science: the theories he claims so loud today might be the tomorow's jokes since they don't have yet the final proofs.
And ... atheism is not the best explanation at all; it is simply clueless when it has to do with things like: purpose, direction, hope, love and the most non-material things from our lifes.
Dawkins is not that versed in this kind of things at all.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
"the theories he claims so loud today might be the tomorow's jokes since they don't have yet the final proofs." might be? yes and bible is a better proof is it? proof that has no evidence at all. At least todays science as we understand makes sense based on math and evidence we can see... Also, he is not clueless when it comes to love, hate and material things in life...READ HIS BOOKS. I dont think you read them or payed too much attention to what he wrote...
gskowal 2 years ago
Evolution remained as a solid Theory for well over a hundred years with every bit of sound scientific evidence supporting it from "dozens" of scientific disciplines, and for the last 20 yrs it has remained "a FACT", no longer a theory! And with the mapping of not just the human genome, but others as well, evolution is indisputable. Theological Thinking is Religious Reasoning = Oxymorons.
Atheism and Agnosticism are the ONLY rational approaches worthy of consideration. Have proof? present it!
1lumpen 2 years ago
You just made an astonishing exclusive affirmation about atheism and agnosticism.
CAN YOU PROVE THAT?
They are thousands beliefs in this world; it is far too much for somebody to claim that only those two are rational ans worthy of consideration.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
Those thousands of other beliefs of which you speak of are based on 'BLIND faith". And BLIND faith is the absence of 'REASON".
Reason and Rationality are essential to human progress,
There's really not anything astonishing about my statement. All 3 of the main Abrahamic, Judeo-Islamic-christian religions are "KNOWN" to be based on much earlier Mythologies-Other characters with the same traits, performing the same 'amazing' feats and even claiming the same 'Nick-Names. More to come...
1lumpen 2 years ago
Furthermore, There is nothing Rational or Reasonable about believing in something without any proof! Atheism demands SOME form of proof! And as Dawkins said, there is at least something to discuss regarding the origins of the Universe (Deism), which is the ONLY REASONABLE stance for claiming Agnosticism.
Your question to me ("CAN YOU PROVE THAT?") is actually the question for you. ALL of the proof is on the side of not believing in Hyper-moral,Super-Sentient-Omnipotent-Omnisent Beings.
1lumpen 2 years ago
Not "beliefs" - reason leads to different "paths".
Example: in my country we had marxism - it was very rational and atheistic, but it was destructive for us.
And ... as postmodern thinking is the fashion in the western world, don't forget that it basicly blasts away all the trust we could have in "reason".
No absolutes, no trust in reason, no trust even in the power of science to offer us more than gadgets.
I don't need to use the religion to undermine the atheism basis.
Reason is enough.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
It is sad that peoples limitations lead them to corrupt an idea (Marxism, Communism, Capitalism etc. in their purest form will always fail). Some percentage of a population will excel in understanding their societal system and WILL exploit it. There is a Natural Ebb and Flow of these ideaologies that is neccessary for a society to work. They do, and MUST overlap one-another.
Reason is what allowed for all the Scientific advances that improves our lives -Gadgets are merely a collateral effect
1lumpen 2 years ago
Nothing is more contemptable and corrupted than Religion. It provides nothing more than False-Hope in something that is known to not be true.
"No absolutes" ?
Gravity!, Death!, Evolution! Even from your own observations! THINKING EVOLVES! That's why we have "POST"-Modern thinking! It evolved from Modern Thinking! Our capacity for thinking has been steadily increasing for millions of years. Just look around you! 'FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION!' Our immune systems evolve everytime we get sick!
1lumpen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, evolution is a belief; it was developed only to exclude God from the picture. The bigest problem during the Elinghtment, for those who rejected God, was what to put in His place.
Darwin was the one who came with the solution.
There are scientific facts that seems to fit with the evolution; however, the gaps of this theory are biger than the evedences considered for it.
You must believe in a lot of happy accidents to explain these gaps.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
Evolution is not 'ONLY' a belief. Darwin's Theory, though having enormous gaps, is today, supported by dozens of Scientific Disciplines that corraborate the findings of the other. 99% of all things that have ever lived are now extinct, so obviously there are huge wholes in the fossil record, but now with the ability to map entire Genomes the evolutionary argument is indisputable. Genetic records due and will continue to fill in those very gaps. Religion has a history of being DEAD wrong.
1lumpen 2 years ago 4
The only thing that was the "problem" during the Enlightenment was the church's interference and reluctance to reject the multitude of Natural TRUTHS being discovered.
Furthermore, on the big holes in Scientific Theories - Religion is just an empty hole with absolutely NOTHING to support ANY of its claims. Religion is archaic and its leaders are scared and grasping at straws. PLEASE: Read "Letter To A Christian Nation" By Sam Harris-Then lets continue this conversation.
1lumpen 2 years ago 4
Perhaps for people you appreciate the maddening odds against the probbability of any god and yet find themselfs when distressed visualising the world through thier own 'childs eye' in the belief of the indoctrinated messages of thier youth, Compartmentalists?
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago
It's hard to follow you temporal-come back in a more acurate Eng.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
Its like this.... I know as a matter of probbability that at least 99% of the claims made reguarding faith are hocum, however I was raised as a cross-christian, I grew up opposite a evangelical church, went to an anglican primary school and then a catholic high school. When I am really upset i.e: "getting the piss taken out of me" (insulted) for being ascetic by a known sex-offender, I find myself calling them a "sinner" and saying that they deserve to be in "hell".
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago
Hm, we live in a mad world, I agree. There are two things we have to reconcile about it: the diversity ( it is amazing and I like it ! ) and unity ( we have to be united at least on the grounds of the fact that we are all humans ).
I think that's the problem with the Church also: we still have to learn to accept each other in spite of differences.
As about probability ... am not as "sure" as you regarding the 99% ...
dyobodiu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He is not a thinker, sorry. He has two or three ideas and just roles them endesly.
He never open a book about philosophy and psichology of religion; wherever he talks about religion we's out of subject.
When he speaks about evolutionism he's like any other priest in this world, telling nice stories and theories - that's all.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
"He is not a thinker, sorry. He has two or three ideas and just roles them endesly."
Even if that were true (which its not) then how is religion any better? Religion has only ONE idea which its followers blindly preach endlessly.
byteresistor 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I simply don't speak about religion here but about Dawkins.
I could agree Plato, Da Vinci, Hume, Kant, Russell were thinkers. Dawkins?
He worship Darwin, obviously, but is he a thinker for rolling the evolution over and over again, requesting my belief in his fairy tales?
As a Romanian I still don't know what happened in my contry in '89. Other histories have their own unknowns.
Am I supose to believe we know what happened on this earth millions years ago?
I just don't buy it...
dyobodiu 2 years ago
Dyobodiu I`m sorry but your posts prove you are as dumb as it gets. To say that Dawkins theory is a fairy tale and that you dont believe in theory of evolution because it talks about something that happened millions of years is just AS DUMB as IT GETS.. Based on your thinking you should also not believe your parents that they are your parents and that you actually live in Romania, or that the earth is not flat or that stars are stars and not some bugs flying around.. You are just an IDIOT...
gskowal 2 years ago 2
Hey, friend ... it does not worth to be so rude. Nor religion, nor atheism, nothing worth that.
I just wonder: why most of the atheists behave this way? Is it because they don't have arguments?
I will have an open discution with people who are able to do it, respecting the others and the counter opinions they might encounter.
Obviously you are not one of them ...
Bye.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
First of all it is not the ATHEISTS who act that way it is the HUMAN RACE. Frustration is a feeling all humans are familiar with may it be christians, muslims, jews, back in time greeks or egyptians it does not matter. The point is its like talking to a wall when it comes to you guys. There is evidence for many things you laugh at claiming we are wrong but everyday you are using the technology that was made based on this same science NOT YOUR BIBLE.. That is why you make me frustrated...
gskowal 2 years ago 3
If you have to read books on philosophy and psychology of religion as you put it, to understand the bible, well what's the point of having a bible if you need an instruction manual as well? You're living in cloud cuckoo land dyobodiu, and as for professor Dawkins not reading many books on the subject of philosophy and the like, might I suggest that you address your poor spelling and open another book. A dictionary.
Pezzab5 2 years ago
Thank you very much for the lecture R. D. The world needs more thinkers like you.
Tiago86kratos 2 years ago 2
One day every tounge will confess YOU are GOD. One day every knee will bow. still the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose YOU now. YES THAT IS TRUE. JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY.
fettkatt87 2 years ago
I was sitting here thinking:
YES I AGREE TO 100%, Richard Dawkins is God..
oh wait, whats that crap about Jesus in the end?
nvm
But you are right in one thing, Jesus is the only way if you are unable to think for yourself and im sure they will gladly choose him because when i look at my cat im not sure if he is any less happy just because he is stupid, fat and lazy.
And if you can be happy with that I fully understand how that can be heaven.
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is one GOD the GOD of the BIBLE! And HE is the CREATOR of everything. yes that is true. And i am not hallusinating.
fettkatt87 2 years ago
wow here you are again... just keep saying it over and over again, you may just convince someone dumb enough, like yourself perhaps! or maybe just, maybe ... oh .. oh... wait ... wait, wait , nah sorry i didnt work on me.
lukoshey79 2 years ago 2
Richard Dawkins is a rock star
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what is life, BOOM! richard dawkins head explodes.
theinsane102 2 years ago
there is a reason degree's and phd's exist. Because believe it or not, some things can't be explained or understood in 2 minutes.
Octamed 2 years ago 6
I meant it as a joke.
theinsane102 2 years ago
What you decided you can or can't afford to base your life upon is entirely your choice. It is in no way relevant to the truth of the existence of God. If your best argument for God is that you've lived your entire life by it, then I'm sorry, sir, you've wasted your life.
But there is hope! Let go and take a breath of fresh air! It's very good for you!
karlismoose12 2 years ago 6
can u tell me where i can find this lecture for download, if there is any link.
dimasluz25 2 years ago
that old man is alucinating kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
it was the funniest moment, Dawkins is Brilliant.
dimasluz25 2 years ago 11
best part is he implied he was hallucinating and then just walked away from him.
That's really the only appropriate thing to do in that situation: "Sorry, dude, you're crazy and I'm going to get far away from you now."
mdiem 2 years ago 5
well especially after 2 hours of making sense without a single stutter, you end up with a kook of a comment like that, its like 'ok you haven't been listening at all, fuck off' I'm glad that happened because just like Dawkins has stated before no matter what you say some ppl just wont change their mind.
BirdFantastic 2 years ago
Yea. I agree. That guy is a moron... How can you sit through 2 hours of perfectly logical lecture about the lack of evidence for 'god' then ask what he has to say to someone who has seen 'god'. I'm quite impressed with Dawkins' composure. I would have just called him an idiot and told him to leave....
mateodawkins 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Then you'll just prove what Atheism is: cold, cruel and rude crap.
Unfortunately it affects all its followers and destroy their minds.
Is Dawkins the one halucinating.
dyobodiu 2 years ago
cold, cruel and rude crap is simply his singular opinion on how he wishes to address people, it has NOTHING to do with his LACK OF FAITH IN YOUR GOD, atheism isnt cold, cruel and rude crap, it's simply the best possible explanation for a logic mind and all its "followers" are free to be rude if they want to, but as they(and probably not you) would understand its best for the survival of his gene if he would be polite so none would be offended and kicks his ass ^^
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago
Mathematics and Sciences generally are rigorous and difficult to learn. Only by doing so can anyone have any idea of their difficulty and their power of prediction (and their limitations too). What I find overarchingly annoying is the cheap references made to pseudo-science by the religiously inclined. Of course they only convince converted but it is intensely dishonest of them to pretend a knowledge they don't have. They discredit themselves by doing so.
PeelTower 3 years ago 7
lmfaoooo i fucking love dawkins.
aramaro311 3 years ago 11
Me too ^^
ApostateChristian 3 years ago 3
I want to have his child!
ahr8p 2 years ago 4
Same here! But it's a biological impossibility, which I'm sure would annoy him ;)
megamarsvin 2 years ago 2
5:15 lmao did anyone else die laughing? i heard some guys in the crowd laugh
AsG1989 3 years ago 2
I can't laugh at people like that. Yes, they have an arrogance about them but they really do believe that it's their duty to save us all and enlighten us to what they believe is the ultimate truth. They're so earnest it's heartbreaking. Yes, we have logic on our side when we say that people like this are blinded by faith but they believe just as fervently that we're the blind ones. They pity us as we do them. It's a terrible state of affairs.
Anab10sis 2 years ago 4
Yea. My family is religious and I love them to death. These people care about their family which is why they all believe it. They really do think they are going to hell which is why they put it in their kids head at a young age.
AsG1989 2 years ago 5
PiroNiro, if you cut this, you did a great job.
with twelve parts you rarely cut in the middle of a sentence much less a word like a lot of series on youtube.
thanks for that.
gypsyfish300 3 years ago 5
that last guy completely disregarded what mr. dawkins said in his first response. wtf. lol.
DUPERMAN99 3 years ago
That last guy was nearly in tears. That was the hardest I had laughed all day.
lolgepwnt 3 years ago
"what was the man asking the last question trying to ask ???", SingHouse
He was trying, in his insecurity, to get Dawkins to assert validity of the belief in a god in some way. I met this kind of behaviour many times in my discussions. These people want to see you leaving some, at least small, space for their imaginary gods. Dawkins did the right thing: left nothing.
viathor 3 years ago 8
what was the man asking the last question trying to ask ???
SingHouse 3 years ago
I want more!!
I am sure, I could keep watching him talking, without losing interest, all day! He is such an eloquent, clear, fluent and bright speaker; each of his sentences make absolute sense...unlike some of the questioners.
LucidSteve 3 years ago 5
and sexy !
MaikUniversum 3 years ago
I don't agree with how he handled that. I agree with him being honest but I disagree with his lack of empathy. He could have given that man hope without lies.
That is the only thing that scares me about my fellow Atheists. Without compassion scientists will be no different then religious tyrants doing things because they can & not because they should. They will tout their intellectual superiority grants them entitlement. The us & uk abused eugenics long before Hitler.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
I see no problem with Theists questioning the reasons for any research. All of us should. My disagreement comes when the answers have been provided, there is not risk of irreparable damage to our species or habitat & then it's halted for no logical or moral reasons.
What is the purpose of a liger or tigone?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
& yes I know Dawkin's is human & I don't hold his reaction against him but he's been in this debate long to know how people break down when you strip the lies away. Most of them aren't stupid that just need something to believe in. Many give love lip service but it's a start. I think it's a gross injustice to label them stupid or crazy just as they label us immoral when it's not that black & white. Some are & some aren't.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
Actually, it could be argued that an attempt to free people from their illusions is an act of kindness, and sugar-coating the truth will reduce itsz efficacy. If the man had said that he believed that Partick Thistle were going to win the Champions League this season, you would look upon him with pity. Why should this belief be any different?
hackenbollox 3 years ago 4
Agreed & very good point. I like your Partick Thistle analogy. I'm not saying we should sugar coat it. Think about this.
Your brother is an alcoholic. He denies he has a problem & tells you drinking is his way of life & that if he stopped he would have nothing left to live for. Do you tell him he's a stupid drunk & he doesn't need alcohol, do you show him the reasons to live without it or do you push a replacement like the methadone for heroine addicts?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
Of course, I would try to show him that there was another way. When you try to do this for theists, though, you're accused of being insensitive. I like your analogy, too, as being an alcoholic is very analogous to being religious, IMO.
hackenbollox 3 years ago
i think Dawkins is thinking "oh no not a nutter again..."
amsoho75gr 3 years ago
5:10 - I'm always impressed with how unapologetic Dawkins is when he forthrightly tells religionists that, yes, their beliefs are subjective delusions, hallucinations and nothing more. I only wish I could express myself so well.
whisperelmwood 3 years ago 2
Man is not destroying the planet. That is propoganda promoted by enviromentalists who seek to halt progress and take us back to the dark ages to their idea of 'heaven', where man is without technology, laboring in his field from dawn till dark and dies at the age of 30 or less.
Don't buy into the media hype of global warming or any of that crap. Do your own research.
leorana2 3 years ago
Don't talk rubbish. It is entirely evidence based; supported by huge majority of scientific community. Enviromentalists don't want that goal, they want to make human impact near zero which is possible. Stop being so insanly cynical and closed minded.
ckerton1 3 years ago
I'm open. Provide the data for your claims instead of using the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. I don't do political, religious or scientific zealotry & Dawkins is not my Messiah. I don't buy into the media. I weigh the evidence, the words & the actions of all sides.
Support your claims otherwise you are spouting lies & attempting to spread fear.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
It is the enviromentalists who appeal to emotion and spread fear, not I.
There is much disagreement amongst the scientific community on the issue. It is only the media, politicians, and the enviromentalists who pretend as if there is a scientific consensus and man made warming is a proven fact.
cont...
leorana2 3 years ago
As for evidence regarding man-made global warming, or lack of it, I'll direct you to this thread where you can find links on the issue:
(forum) (objectivismonline) (net) /index.php? showtopic=13935
remove brackets and spaces, add periods.
leorana2 3 years ago
After looking at that site. I have not seen any evidence of any kind, especially empirical. I see no credentials or sources cited. The writing is superb & by students.
Most of it is cognitive dissonance & fallacy without sources cited for preposterous assertions & allegations that are not openly & honestly declared bias.
I ask again where is the open objective data submitted & scrutinized from both sides for the claim you make. Point me to a specific thread in compliance to objectivity.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
Yes, I did read topic 13935.
"The people who know what's going on are saying so. I'm saying so. It's time for you to do the same." See any the logical fallacies that make up irrelevant conclusion there?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
hmm leorana2 seems to have blocked me or youtube is on the fritz.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
I did not block you. I think youtube doesn't like urls posted.
Check out /watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI here on youtube.
leorana2 3 years ago
Excellent send. Thank you. My observations. 1:Damn interesting & attempted to be unbiased
2: Objective & he prefaced that there is a problem but not the problem that is alleged. 3: He called them out & then told them why
4: Compared data & explained as simply as possible for laymen 5: When questing NASA he admitted it may be a mistake although even they aren't above question.
What is the hypothesis on the drift at the poles & the expansion of the Bering Strait?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
There was a warming throughout most of the last 3 centuries. It could be accountable for these phenomonas.
The point is that the warming is A) not man-made, or neglibly influnced by man at most, and B) not unusual by any means in earth's climate.
The enviromentalists just create hysteria with unbased doomsday scenarios in order to promote their purposes. Namely anti-technology, and the notion that man is not allowed to touch nature in any way for his own benefit, which is anti-man.
leorana2 3 years ago
it is the shock doctrine, the ideology, the unknown known of our soceity that produces fear.
iaeruo 3 years ago
I don't think that anyone wants us to halt progress. I myself want to live on a CLEAN, HEALTHY planet. There is everything right in this.
Personally I haven't been convinced that global warming is a crisis - yet. But I'm open to convincing as I am very aware of my ignorance of climate science.
PikemannUrge 3 years ago
Well.. It might be a crisis, it may be not. Many evidents points towards volcanos and the sun's big involvement in the global warming - and if that is the case, then its difficult to say if both the sun and the volcanos will keep heating our earth up.
Devilsnightforlife 3 years ago
lol i knew as soon as i saw the guy at 5:10 , that he was a religous nutcase, its strange how they look like loonys, u can tell them a mile off.
eddieindahouse 3 years ago 3
lol at the moron at 5:10
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
"I think you're hallucinating", lol
Intraquarkic 3 years ago
My Dad would have been quite impressed with that guy! I'm afraid my father is also one of those people who has "walked with the Lord" for many decades too. And I'm convinced that he will continue to believe in Christianity with the same level of conviction until the day he dies. In a way it's very sad. But how do you argue with someone who is like that? I have no idea what to say to him, or if I should even bother to bring the topic up at all.
TheMathGuy 3 years ago
I would like to think that there is a use and a purpose for all forms of thinking, quantifying and creatuve sentient beings, but reality has shown that people do really terrible things to one another and to themselves. This leads to a constantly unstable platform where a foundation never holds for too long.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
I would like to think that there is a use and a purpose for all forms of thinking, quantifying and creatuve sentient beings-yeha there is its call survival.adjacent mechanisms to it are evolution, natural selection, genetic variation etc..
13248396 3 years ago
sheesh...I just reread my response to 13248396 and I am beginning to sound like those folkies that I usually find do not add to a debate...heh. Sometimes, we become that which we feel is the antithesis of ourselves.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
it has been quite a personal journey to have listened to these 12 lectures of Richard Dawkins. His strengths & convictions are admirably shared & expressed. I do hope that some, if not all, of his concepts are at the least given a chance by the diverse community that has stumbled here...I do not agree with all of his concepts, but the logic & structures used to come to his understandings are useful, to say the least. Best wishes.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago 2
i see. By the way what concepts you are agaisnt?
13248396 3 years ago
It is by one's own right to accept or dismiss the information that people share with one another. I respect this immensely. I find that there are very good (not all, but whichever are needed for a live one lives) tools to navigate and observe life with within the parameters of atheism and within the parameters of theism. As I am a complete supporter of free speech, I am just as passionate about freedom to access and share in the conceptualizing tools from all possible sources.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
I am of the mind that senses that Richard Dawkins is not necessarily differentiating between useful theism and illogical theism. I would have hoped that a being with his intellect would not need to impose a value system on atheism and theism...but, that he would spend his energy on sharing his love for science and facts. But, I may be wrong...I am new to this level of discourse.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
is not necessarily differentiating between useful theism and illogical theism- well problem is there is n otheism (includingthe useful one) that is not ilogical.. it is contradictory by its own nature.
13248396 3 years ago