@Unorthodox5000 Really? And why is that? There is absolutly no evidence pointing to the existence of your "God" wheras science has a perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of the world.
@thesquareof4 Can science prove that God does not exist? Didn't think so. In your opinion it might be "perfectly reasonable" to believe that something came from nothing; doesn't make sense to me and in my opinion only a fool would believe it, just like only a fool would believe that morality is relative.
@Unorthodox5000 Asking whether science can prove whether God doesn't exist is silly. You may as well say that because science cannot disprove the existence of magical invisible unicorns that they exist aswell. Saying that you don't believe something came from nothing is also useless. What created your "God" then? As to whether morallity being relative it is.
Dawkin's final response to the teachers really sums up the problem. Scientist or no... factual truth is not subjective, and should not be regarded as such.
he keeps talking about the "evidence" what evidence is there? Do you know why people are trying to get rid of God ? Because if you acknowledge His existence you will be responsible for your actions, but we don't like that idea. We want to do whatever we want. Don't we? Besides if you do compare the evidence and look hard enough without being bias, you will find out that it actually requires more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.
@sancho316 "Do you know why people are trying to get rid of God ? Because if you acknowledge His existence you will be responsible for your actions"
Don't be silly. One thing is that existence of God would not make us any more or less morally responsible than we already are, at best you could establish a fascist dictatorship, but the very idea that people's beliefs about what's true about reality would be guided by personal preferences about responsibility is just insane.
@sancho316 Your argument can be parodied with things like "We know why most people don't accept the theory of gravity, don't we? It's because people want to be able to levitate and just do whatever they want." Amusingly, to the degree that you have a point, it seems to apply to yourself. Namely that you take some comfort in the idea of God, and that you therefore have decided to believe it exists without a shred of evidence.
@Gnomefro yes i decided to believe in God , because everything makes sense and has a purpose, besides evolution is just another religion anyway that we choose to believe. I mean till this day there is no actual scientific proof, they are just theories.
@sancho316 "Besides if you do compare the evidence and look hard enough without being bias, you will find out that it actually requires more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God."
Ask yourself why "God" is not considered science, and is not the foundation of modern biology. The answer to that question is part of the reason why you are outageously wrong.
@genericman12345 there are many specific examples. # Penny D., Foulds L. and M. Hendy. 1982. "Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein frequences". Nature, nº 297, 1982, pp.197-200.
# Arbogast BS & Slowinski JB (1998) Pleistocene speciation and the mitochondrial DNA clock. Science 282: 1955a.
@genericman12345 Because examples of it are so obvious that they shouldn't need to be pointed out. We are amazingly similar to Apes for example. This supports evolution by showing how we share a common ancestor.
I don't really see what Mr. Dawkins is getting at: they give the scientific explanation in school and nothing else, as they should, and that's that. What does he want more?
@TheRacistsMustDie "I don't really see what Mr. Dawkins is getting at: they give the scientific explanation in school and nothing else, as they should, and that's that. What does he want more?"
He doesn't want anything more. The problem is that this is not the case. Creationism is being taught in all sorts of homeschooling, private schools and there has been a huge political push to get Creationism into public schools in the US as well.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
i'm with the teachers here. religion has nothing to do with science. you can't prove or disprove it with "evidence". proving belongs to science. almost all religious people and scientists do not realize this and it's getting old. (and i am not religious)
Let's say tonight you look in the sky and you see 100 moons forming the words: "God did this" and the nasa confirms these moons are really there...they popped into existence out of nothing. would this not qualify as scientific evidence (inductive) for God ?
@MoralityIsAReligion since that would not be in accordance with the laws of physics, no. i would probably start being a believer but it would not have been science that convinced me.
If you do not acknowledge evolution because of religion, you do not only believe that religion has nothing to do with science, but that they're incompatable. Religion and science are compatable, as seen with the position of the Catholic Church and many other moderate religious institutions. This isn't about smacking down religion, this is about making sure children understand that science, whether in or out of religion, is true. It's not merely "one way of looking at the world".
It might offend some fundamentalists, but so what? Fundamentalism is inherently wrong. I'll take the complaints of some parents over sacrificing their children's ability to access scientific education.
@BloggerMusicMan a man walking on water is incompatible with science. just one of countless examples. if only fundamentalists believe in such stories i agree with you. but i'm afraid that also moderate christians believe in it. then again, if you do see the bible as only allegories and symbols, i.e. not in someone literally performing the physically impossible, then your religious belief might coincide with science. i know that some christians hold that kind of belief.
If I were a Christian arguing Jesus' miracles as compatable with nature, which I don't, I would probably argue that miracles are exceedingly rare events which violate the laws of nature. Just because there happened to be one instance of a man breaking the laws of nature (resurrection, walking on water, etc) doesn't mean that science in general is therefore bunk. Francis Collins has argued this. Again, I don't really buy it, but I guess that's a way you could reconcile the two....
@BloggerMusicMan i think most scientists would reject that explanation. if the rules of nature have been broken once this means that there is some more powerful force than physical cause and effect at play. such a potential more powerful force would render the laws of physics relative. all knowledge we have built on the basis of it would be null and void because they could be broken any time.
@ShowtekGER Physicist John Wheeler said, "[The black hole] teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blown-out flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as 'sacred,' as immutable, are anything but." The two are not irreconcilable, it just means that under ordinary circumstances the laws of physics hold fast, and it takes extraordinary circumstances to break them. It also doesn't require a god.
I feel sorry for those teachers. Being one of them I will tell you that this fear is common place in US public schools. Not being fearful, like me, gets you an awful lot of political grief. At least one fundy a year goes after me. I just get better at my rhetoric, like; "Believe whatever you want, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and unambiguous. We are all African apes-of some sort."
that is not very much different of what priests have been doing for the past centuries, I mean, what he's done to the teachers.
It is obvious though, that Dawkins, in his passion, isn't able to grasp the difficulties of dealing with a big group of students, with different backgrounds and maybe with religious parents. Darwin's very comparison is proof of how difficult dealing with this in everyday life can be for the teachers. This type of education is hard cause it depends on others.
It's painful to see the acrobatics the teachers go through to justify what they're doing (or not doing) without admitting they're afraid of making a stand.
Dawkins is a disgrace to this world. We the people need imaginary friends to get through the day. Thinking for ourselves takes too much effort and we have the illusion to vote for puppet presidents ans PM's. We have the choice to blame others for our errors and on any god given day ask for forgiveness. How dare Dawkins bring science and reason into my life. My imaginary God takes care of me and loves me. Shame on you Dawkins for picking on people that can't be reasoned with.
Of course. I am a big fan of Dawkins and Hitchens. You have to check out my ' 1 GOD MORE TUNE ' Type it in the search and enjoy. One of the best songs I ever wrote.
Meh, I'm kind of upset how people confuse multiculturalism with relativism, and how political correctness is obstructing scientific progress. Even though I may find Dawkins to be somewhat arrogant and pushy I may have to agree with him that this phenomena that is happening in education is pure nonsense and bullshit.
@philonous09 Dawkins is *passionate*, and that is not to be confused with "arrogant." You may hear him as arrogant, but I submit that is because you are not used to plain speaking about religion. How is it that the biggest purveyor of pure, made-up nonsense has to be "respected"?? What an insane world we inhabit!
@hznfrst I'm quite use to the plain criticism on religion, and I'm personally critical of religion as much as Dawkins. So no, I do not think religion should be "respected", I think it is subjected to as much criticism as anything else in the world. However I think criticisms against religion should strive to be more constructive, rational, and civil, than simply ridiculing and demonizing religions. We should always demonstrate the errors of religion with rational disinterest like Socrates.
@philonous09 Dawkins is the most civil critic of religion you'll find anywhere, and his criticism is eminently rational considering the damage done by this form of insanity for thousands of years. As for "rational disinterest," ask any woman or homosexual or atheist how that works out for them in muslim countries or the bible belt in the US! You and Socrates need to climb down from your ivory towers - and humor can be a powerful and legitimate weapon too.
@hznfrst By "rational disinterest" I meant evaluating something as true or false; In that context its more about whether religious explanations of universe are well supported by evidence and reasons, and so far I don't think there really is any compelling grounds. So "rational disinterest" is important in assessing whether religious claims are true or not. However it doesn't mean we should be insensitive to suffering of others, because objectivity is not the same as compromising empathy.
@hznfrst I think we should care about people who are suffering from people with religious prejudice, but I also think we should focus on criticizing religious claims as unsupported and failed hypothesis, both play an important role in being an atheist. I disagree that Dawkins is the "most civil critic", I do think that he is a controversial critic and a strong critic that knows how to get people's attention. I respect Dawkins, but the way he does things is not my style.
@hznfrst Also, my opinion on Dawkins has slowly changed over those three months, so I don't really see him as negatively as I did before. I respect him for his passion to promote science, including the scientific method, but I still don't share his dream of the world without religions. I think it's unrealistic to think that soon we will have a world without religion, and I think religion will be around for a very long time whether we like this or not.
@xxcarademonoxx If you watch a youtube video (four horsemen) Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens were talking about the world without religion. Hitchens said he wouldn't want one since he wouldn't have anyone to argue with, but Dawkins strongly believed that we should have the world without religion. I agree with him that it's probably better to have a world without religion, but unfortunately I think we're going to be stuck with religion for more than a lifetime.
"Who could blame them?" It's a tough spot to be in, and I don't envy them. Not everyone has the constitution to put up with the kind of friction they would no doubt face day in and day out.
I agree with him. Perhaps the highly irrational and superstitious can memorize a bunch of facts and know many things, but to be a truly great thinker requires more honesty and rigor than that. Charles Darwin didn't say "I don't believe this because it goes against my religion", and he become the founder of evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins likewise didn't say "I dun wanna believe that organisms are opportunistic survival machines, I want to believe that nature is the ultimate force for good"
They were true to themselves, true to the evidence, true to their scientific method, true to their epistemology, and true to the truth despite and personal qualms or outside criticism. And they are great men for it. I don't want to say that the religious evolution deniers are stupid, but they are potential in bound in shackles.
Anybody who doesn't beleive in gravity is invited to jump out of a 10th floor window.. Richard Dawkins is awesome
thesquareof4 2 days ago
Atheists are fools
Unorthodox5000 1 month ago
@Unorthodox5000 Really? And why is that? There is absolutly no evidence pointing to the existence of your "God" wheras science has a perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of the world.
thesquareof4 2 days ago
@thesquareof4 Can science prove that God does not exist? Didn't think so. In your opinion it might be "perfectly reasonable" to believe that something came from nothing; doesn't make sense to me and in my opinion only a fool would believe it, just like only a fool would believe that morality is relative.
Unorthodox5000 2 days ago
@Unorthodox5000 Asking whether science can prove whether God doesn't exist is silly. You may as well say that because science cannot disprove the existence of magical invisible unicorns that they exist aswell. Saying that you don't believe something came from nothing is also useless. What created your "God" then? As to whether morallity being relative it is.
thesquareof4 1 day ago
What is this guys point
He makes no real case against religion but is a shocking bore
lmadigan1971 2 months ago
Dawkin's final response to the teachers really sums up the problem. Scientist or no... factual truth is not subjective, and should not be regarded as such.
VenomOXP 3 months ago 2
he keeps talking about the "evidence" what evidence is there? Do you know why people are trying to get rid of God ? Because if you acknowledge His existence you will be responsible for your actions, but we don't like that idea. We want to do whatever we want. Don't we? Besides if you do compare the evidence and look hard enough without being bias, you will find out that it actually requires more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.
sancho316 3 months ago
@sancho316 "Do you know why people are trying to get rid of God ? Because if you acknowledge His existence you will be responsible for your actions"
Don't be silly. One thing is that existence of God would not make us any more or less morally responsible than we already are, at best you could establish a fascist dictatorship, but the very idea that people's beliefs about what's true about reality would be guided by personal preferences about responsibility is just insane.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@sancho316 Your argument can be parodied with things like "We know why most people don't accept the theory of gravity, don't we? It's because people want to be able to levitate and just do whatever they want." Amusingly, to the degree that you have a point, it seems to apply to yourself. Namely that you take some comfort in the idea of God, and that you therefore have decided to believe it exists without a shred of evidence.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro yes i decided to believe in God , because everything makes sense and has a purpose, besides evolution is just another religion anyway that we choose to believe. I mean till this day there is no actual scientific proof, they are just theories.
sancho316 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sancho316 "Besides if you do compare the evidence and look hard enough without being bias, you will find out that it actually requires more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God."
Ask yourself why "God" is not considered science, and is not the foundation of modern biology. The answer to that question is part of the reason why you are outageously wrong.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
Why doesn't he give specific examples as to how evolution has been proven?
genericman12345 4 months ago
@genericman12345 there are many specific examples. # Penny D., Foulds L. and M. Hendy. 1982. "Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein frequences". Nature, nº 297, 1982, pp.197-200.
# Arbogast BS & Slowinski JB (1998) Pleistocene speciation and the mitochondrial DNA clock. Science 282: 1955a.
etc. etc.
futebolarte3 3 months ago
@genericman12345 Because examples of it are so obvious that they shouldn't need to be pointed out. We are amazingly similar to Apes for example. This supports evolution by showing how we share a common ancestor.
thesquareof4 1 day ago
I don't really see what Mr. Dawkins is getting at: they give the scientific explanation in school and nothing else, as they should, and that's that. What does he want more?
TheRacistsMustDie 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRacistsMustDie "I don't really see what Mr. Dawkins is getting at: they give the scientific explanation in school and nothing else, as they should, and that's that. What does he want more?"
He doesn't want anything more. The problem is that this is not the case. Creationism is being taught in all sorts of homeschooling, private schools and there has been a huge political push to get Creationism into public schools in the US as well.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
i'm with the teachers here. religion has nothing to do with science. you can't prove or disprove it with "evidence". proving belongs to science. almost all religious people and scientists do not realize this and it's getting old. (and i am not religious)
ShowtekGER 5 months ago
@ShowtekGER
Let's say tonight you look in the sky and you see 100 moons forming the words: "God did this" and the nasa confirms these moons are really there...they popped into existence out of nothing. would this not qualify as scientific evidence (inductive) for God ?
MoralityIsAReligion 5 months ago
@MoralityIsAReligion since that would not be in accordance with the laws of physics, no. i would probably start being a believer but it would not have been science that convinced me.
ShowtekGER 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShowtekGER
What you see with your eyes is science. It's empirical observation.
MoralityIsAReligion 4 months ago
@ShowtekGER
If you do not acknowledge evolution because of religion, you do not only believe that religion has nothing to do with science, but that they're incompatable. Religion and science are compatable, as seen with the position of the Catholic Church and many other moderate religious institutions. This isn't about smacking down religion, this is about making sure children understand that science, whether in or out of religion, is true. It's not merely "one way of looking at the world".
BloggerMusicMan 4 months ago
@ShowtekGER
It might offend some fundamentalists, but so what? Fundamentalism is inherently wrong. I'll take the complaints of some parents over sacrificing their children's ability to access scientific education.
BloggerMusicMan 4 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan a man walking on water is incompatible with science. just one of countless examples. if only fundamentalists believe in such stories i agree with you. but i'm afraid that also moderate christians believe in it. then again, if you do see the bible as only allegories and symbols, i.e. not in someone literally performing the physically impossible, then your religious belief might coincide with science. i know that some christians hold that kind of belief.
ShowtekGER 4 months ago
Comment removed
LoyolaBand 4 months ago
@ShowtekGER
If I were a Christian arguing Jesus' miracles as compatable with nature, which I don't, I would probably argue that miracles are exceedingly rare events which violate the laws of nature. Just because there happened to be one instance of a man breaking the laws of nature (resurrection, walking on water, etc) doesn't mean that science in general is therefore bunk. Francis Collins has argued this. Again, I don't really buy it, but I guess that's a way you could reconcile the two....
BloggerMusicMan 4 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan i think most scientists would reject that explanation. if the rules of nature have been broken once this means that there is some more powerful force than physical cause and effect at play. such a potential more powerful force would render the laws of physics relative. all knowledge we have built on the basis of it would be null and void because they could be broken any time.
ShowtekGER 4 months ago
@ShowtekGER Physicist John Wheeler said, "[The black hole] teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blown-out flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as 'sacred,' as immutable, are anything but." The two are not irreconcilable, it just means that under ordinary circumstances the laws of physics hold fast, and it takes extraordinary circumstances to break them. It also doesn't require a god.
squamish4244 2 months ago
@ShowtekGER
Sorry, I made the comment on the wrong account the first time.
BloggerMusicMan 4 months ago
Dawkins belittling those teachers was humiliating for them. Dawkins comes across as wanting to brainwash children, not teach them science.
WC3POchannel10A 5 months ago
I feel sorry for those teachers. Being one of them I will tell you that this fear is common place in US public schools. Not being fearful, like me, gets you an awful lot of political grief. At least one fundy a year goes after me. I just get better at my rhetoric, like; "Believe whatever you want, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and unambiguous. We are all African apes-of some sort."
dwolfcoach 7 months ago
"Science will win, because it works." -- Stephen Hawking
ZachRose88 7 months ago 3
that is not very much different of what priests have been doing for the past centuries, I mean, what he's done to the teachers.
It is obvious though, that Dawkins, in his passion, isn't able to grasp the difficulties of dealing with a big group of students, with different backgrounds and maybe with religious parents. Darwin's very comparison is proof of how difficult dealing with this in everyday life can be for the teachers. This type of education is hard cause it depends on others.
No he
byamboy 8 months ago
It's painful to see the acrobatics the teachers go through to justify what they're doing (or not doing) without admitting they're afraid of making a stand.
SierraSierraFoxtrot 8 months ago
Dawkins is a disgrace to this world. We the people need imaginary friends to get through the day. Thinking for ourselves takes too much effort and we have the illusion to vote for puppet presidents ans PM's. We have the choice to blame others for our errors and on any god given day ask for forgiveness. How dare Dawkins bring science and reason into my life. My imaginary God takes care of me and loves me. Shame on you Dawkins for picking on people that can't be reasoned with.
kansaimagic 8 months ago 2
@kansaimagic pleaseeeeee tell me you're being sarcastic....
OooGodOfWarooO 7 months ago
@OooGodOfWarooO
Of course. I am a big fan of Dawkins and Hitchens. You have to check out my ' 1 GOD MORE TUNE ' Type it in the search and enjoy. One of the best songs I ever wrote.
kansaimagic 7 months ago
Those cowardly teachers made me cringe - what pathetic babies, unwilling to stand up for reality. How do they sleep at night?
hznfrst 8 months ago
Meh, I'm kind of upset how people confuse multiculturalism with relativism, and how political correctness is obstructing scientific progress. Even though I may find Dawkins to be somewhat arrogant and pushy I may have to agree with him that this phenomena that is happening in education is pure nonsense and bullshit.
philonous09 11 months ago
@philonous09 Dawkins is *passionate*, and that is not to be confused with "arrogant." You may hear him as arrogant, but I submit that is because you are not used to plain speaking about religion. How is it that the biggest purveyor of pure, made-up nonsense has to be "respected"?? What an insane world we inhabit!
hznfrst 8 months ago
@hznfrst I'm quite use to the plain criticism on religion, and I'm personally critical of religion as much as Dawkins. So no, I do not think religion should be "respected", I think it is subjected to as much criticism as anything else in the world. However I think criticisms against religion should strive to be more constructive, rational, and civil, than simply ridiculing and demonizing religions. We should always demonstrate the errors of religion with rational disinterest like Socrates.
philonous09 8 months ago
@philonous09 Dawkins is the most civil critic of religion you'll find anywhere, and his criticism is eminently rational considering the damage done by this form of insanity for thousands of years. As for "rational disinterest," ask any woman or homosexual or atheist how that works out for them in muslim countries or the bible belt in the US! You and Socrates need to climb down from your ivory towers - and humor can be a powerful and legitimate weapon too.
hznfrst 8 months ago
@hznfrst By "rational disinterest" I meant evaluating something as true or false; In that context its more about whether religious explanations of universe are well supported by evidence and reasons, and so far I don't think there really is any compelling grounds. So "rational disinterest" is important in assessing whether religious claims are true or not. However it doesn't mean we should be insensitive to suffering of others, because objectivity is not the same as compromising empathy.
philonous09 8 months ago
@hznfrst I think we should care about people who are suffering from people with religious prejudice, but I also think we should focus on criticizing religious claims as unsupported and failed hypothesis, both play an important role in being an atheist. I disagree that Dawkins is the "most civil critic", I do think that he is a controversial critic and a strong critic that knows how to get people's attention. I respect Dawkins, but the way he does things is not my style.
philonous09 8 months ago
@hznfrst Also, my opinion on Dawkins has slowly changed over those three months, so I don't really see him as negatively as I did before. I respect him for his passion to promote science, including the scientific method, but I still don't share his dream of the world without religions. I think it's unrealistic to think that soon we will have a world without religion, and I think religion will be around for a very long time whether we like this or not.
philonous09 8 months ago
@philonous09 i think Dawkins was trying to say that a world without religions will be a better place and I agree with he
xxcarademonoxx 8 months ago
@xxcarademonoxx If you watch a youtube video (four horsemen) Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens were talking about the world without religion. Hitchens said he wouldn't want one since he wouldn't have anyone to argue with, but Dawkins strongly believed that we should have the world without religion. I agree with him that it's probably better to have a world without religion, but unfortunately I think we're going to be stuck with religion for more than a lifetime.
philonous09 8 months ago
"Who could blame them?" It's a tough spot to be in, and I don't envy them. Not everyone has the constitution to put up with the kind of friction they would no doubt face day in and day out.
phinny5608 1 year ago
I agree with him. Perhaps the highly irrational and superstitious can memorize a bunch of facts and know many things, but to be a truly great thinker requires more honesty and rigor than that. Charles Darwin didn't say "I don't believe this because it goes against my religion", and he become the founder of evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins likewise didn't say "I dun wanna believe that organisms are opportunistic survival machines, I want to believe that nature is the ultimate force for good"
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago
@StabbyRaccoon
They were true to themselves, true to the evidence, true to their scientific method, true to their epistemology, and true to the truth despite and personal qualms or outside criticism. And they are great men for it. I don't want to say that the religious evolution deniers are stupid, but they are potential in bound in shackles.
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago