there is not just the "mad scientist" and the "meant good gone wrong scientist" in hollywood, there is also the "loser in social life but key saving character scientist that nobody takes serious"
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I could never come to terms with the fact that scientists do not get more praise, admiration and funding from society. As C. Porco says, it is the scientific discoveries that we all benefit from. All of us, every day! Why is it that masses practically worship movie stars (acting being a job like any other) while scientist are not only underappreciated but even scrutinised? Top Hollywood actors get 30-70 mln $ for a movie, imagine how many scientific grants this would make...
@crimulus And for anyone who wants a closer cut to the beautiful source quote from Symphony of Science "Onward to the Edge", jump to 38:08 , or if you want to get straight there jump to 39:00 . Highly recommend watching the whole thing though, this is incredible.
if you seriously think that the Supernatural is moar interesting than the Natural, you should probably take a look at the Natural first. check out The Pillars of Creation, Fractals, or the Cat's Eye Nebula. Those things exist regardless of whether you believe in them or not. They're true for everyone
@petree50 According to the new "planet" definition... the Earth or any other culturally accepted celestial body in our solar system fails the litmus test for "planet" as they fail to "clean up their orbit"!
Pluto is planet, along with a whole list of larger objects such as Sedna!
LOL I think Dawkins is sharp as an obsidian scalpel most of the time but at the very end he is clueless as to what to do when Porco tried to take his hand.
there are personality types people are born with..there are people who lead with logic, and people who lead with feeling..no matter what, there will always be logical people, and illogical people.
I disagree with Dawkins. Prof Jocelyn Bell, the discoverer of Pulsars is obviously the inspiration for the character of Ellie Arroway, right down to her PhD suppevisor getting a Nobel Prize at her expense
You might disagree with him, but he's still right. Carolyn Porco was an adviser for the movie Contact and Carl Sagan himself made the comparison for Jodie Foster to base the character on.
"scientific" than atheism. By modern definitions of a scientific theory, agnosticism is a false position to take because either an hypothesis is falsifiable and supportable or disprovable by evidence, which should be found sooner rather than later before the theory comes into the margins of science, or if it does not meet these criteria (god definitons that ARE falsifiable have ALL been rejected and unfalsifiable definitions don't NEED to be rejected). End of rant.
This woman needs to get a better education in philosophy and recent history of the scientific method if she claims scientists necessarely need to be agnostic about things like the god hypothesis. UNFALSIFIABLE claims do not count as valid testable hypotheses, hence they can be discarded immediately until someone provides us with positive evidence of this hypothesis which is falsifiable and which is empirical. I hate nothing more than scientists who say agnosticism is more "logical" or
Can you imagine a movie about Alexander von Humboldt's journey to South America? The tropical beauty of the continent, the dangers of the adventures, the almost obsessive character of Humboldt himself, the themes are manifold.
Spectacular video! I was especially taken by the image of the Earth through Saturn's rings.
As Richard Dawkins said, Caroline Porco may well be the new spokesperson to continue to bring science to the masses. Her speech really cut to the heart of the matter.
I hope that the movement toward the studies of the cosmos and our world will overshadow the hopelessly negative, superstitious, dogma of religious myth. It's time to move forward!
Other recent movies have depicted scientists in a positive light as well, such as Inception, Iron Man, and many others. Meanwhile in news media, scientists and researchers are always the people who reporters go to for answers that can't be found anywhere else. The way I see it, scientists are viewed as the most honest and trust worthy people in the world by almost everybody.
A disagree with the speaker in this video. If anything (at least recently) scientists are more often portrayed as the sole solution to the world's problems, and if they are depicted as the cause, they are later shown to be the solution as well. Even Avatar was a story of an evil corporation trying to take over a planet, and the biggest opposition there came from the scientists working for the corporation.
i think this has the "cool" factor that would make any kid extremely curious about science. amazing point about hollywood's important portrayal of science itself. there is so much to work with as carolyn porco articulates. this is definitely a workable idea to get young minds fascinated in science as obviously everyone watching this is. and the carl sagan comparison was apt, mr. sagan was an extremely important ambassador of science.
Re TV science fiction, some of you know of Richard Dawkins' cameo appearance, as himself, in Doctor Who a couple of years ago ("The Stolen Earth").
We've just had a series finale of DW and I chuckled at this: a little girl paints pics of a sky with stars & her aunt/guardian is worried. Everyone *knows* there's no such thing as stars (don't ask) & she's afraid the child will grow up to join one of those crazy star cults: "And I don't trust that Richard Dawkins!"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She wants Hollywood movies depicting; "the person who dedicates his or her whole life, (80 hrs/week) making tremendous sacrifices (bow ties & delivery pizza again) to find out some simple (1 cell critter) fundamental (what? Fundie?) truth (yea, Fundie!) however small it might be (microscopic) about the nature of nature (too much nature for movie - thats documentary) only proved in the end (Grand Finale = exhibit A?) to be wrong (hero wrong? sad ending?)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
films with "fiction" after the word science
Long hours of looking at amoebas, eating pizza while wearing a bow tie & proved definitely wrong by the fashion police. All in a Wild, Wild Kingdom setting... & Fundamentalism too? Movie goers find it more entertaining to pay for the $15,000 Coke & the $25,000 Pop Corn, to where they'll be going back for 3rds
In Hollywood, science films must have fictional space ships shooting many lasers & blowing a bunch of shit up. Big fictional boobs work too
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She can leave drops of syrup and other food bits on the kitchen floor. Also, set out Roach Motels and other roach traps
If after a period of time, the drops of syrup and other food bits are still undisturbed and there exist no roaches within the traps... then her roaches have moved on to greener pastures, having better cooking and real Canadian Maple syrup
She said, "one encourages uncritical acceptance of ideas & the other seriously discourages it"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"the danger is that uncritical thinking has been, and is still, extremely prevalent"
Through critical thinking, I have arrived at a particular understanding that the uncritical thinkers have yet to understand. Which is...
Since man is limited in his powers & abilities, is why any creation or construct of man, is also limited in its powers & capabilities. Thus, Science, although a fantastic tool, is indeed limited in its applicability
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
However, the materialist has concluded that the entirety of existence/reality is determined by the applicability limitations of Science
Thus the arrogance from ignorance of the Materialist is revealed. Since if the whole of existence is determined by the limits of science. Then, science is applicable to the whole of existence. Thus, apparently, man has created a tool which is unlimited in its power & ability. Which in turn, would make man omnipotent, for his tool's powers are his own
Science is limited in its applicability, but not as limited as religion would like it to be. And places where it isn't applicable are taken up by other noble pursuits...leaving no room for religion
@Chuichupachichi "I have arrived at a particular understanding that the uncritical thinkers have yet to understand" Sorry, but that hugely arrogant statement sounds more like just cut'n'pasting "killer anti-science" arguments. As does "Thus the arrogance from ignorance of the Materialist is revealed"
Assuming *you* know better is ignorant arrogance
Material & philosophical science is potentially unlimited; it's the pursuit of truth. If you can't demonstrate it, it's just an opinion
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just think, since science is an extremely recent creation, in relation to the extent of time past. It would mean that during all of the time prior to when science was created, the whole of reality, by pure chance, simply happened to exist at a measure that is precisely the same to which science, upon its arrival, would be applicable
I'm not even going to ask! Yea, I know, for if "Abiogenesis, Ancestral Bacterial Forebearers & 4 legged whales are plausible in their probabilities"...bla bla bla
@Chuichupachichi Another thing: it's unclear what you mean by this:
"Yea, I know, for if "Abiogenesis, Ancestral Bacterial Forebearers & 4 legged whales are plausible in their probabilities"...bla bla bla "
but if you don't know that evolutionary throwback whales and dolphins are occasionally found with back legs, albeit rather small and useless, then the fool you make of yourself with your mockery only serves to demonstrate one of the problems with wilfull ignorance.
wow those are actual pictures taken in space of Saturn by the Cassini space craft. The picture quality nowadays is incredible especially since this is in space.
...A catholic parent may have a gay son or daughter, and in the majority of cases they don't care - they still love 'em and accept it. But they still stay religious even the ideas are vehemently opposed, why? The fact is they don't really think about their beliefs to any great degree, if they we're trenchent believers they'd disown their child or kill them, but most don't give a crap and the slight possibility of hellfire is enough to keep them just about connected.
I absolutely agree with her idea that religion is an embedded cultural phenomenon. A bit like the language you speak or the food you eat, you won't really question it or think about it that much - you just speak it and eat it respectively in the same way you believe it. You're brought up to do all the above things. Think about it for a second, the vast majority of religious people in the world are liberal, not too serious believers, they pick and choose based on their circumstances...
Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennet/Harris has written and debated for years about this matter. This lovely lady pealed herself to the core of the issue in 40 minutes.
Probably the most objective, cut through lecture I've ever has the pleasure of listening to.
What movies and TV shows has this lady been watching? On TV, and in the movies, I've seen a great number of heroic scientists, who were anything but frumpy, nerdy, or evil. This goes back to movies and shows from the 1950s. Entertainment fare with evil, or nerdy scientists is usually campy, or humorous, at best.
how many people were inspired by movies ? they guys who invented google were inspired by star track, planes and cars inspired by star wars, astro boy inspirering robotics!!!!
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
"When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable"- Michio Kaku
Wonderful. Wonderful to hear vocalised ideas and expressions that I have felt for years. I wonder how many other people have subversively been thinking on the same wavelength and how lucrative this serious science in Hollywood might be, although if I were a producer I might have been turned on to the idea until the word "arduous" was mentioned... more than once ;)
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins
google it, look it up etc...
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable.
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins
google it, look it up etc...
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable.
no, the concept of quantum fluctuations is something. watch "the evolution of confusion" by dan dennett and pay particular attention to the segment about "use mention error". also watch "a universe from nothing" by lawrence krauss, if you haven't already, for what quantum fluctuations actually are
You obviously don't understand what quantum fluctuations are, and apparently didn't understand "use mention error" either. Quantum fluctuations are litterally something coming from nothing. The concept of "quantum fluctuations" is something (a concept), but a quantum fluctuation is not a thing in and of itself. And "God did it" is not an answer. It's a cop-out.
@moonlightbateman - I just hope it's not the bible that you are basing your ideal of whatever "god" is...he was a scientist, if he/she existed at all.
@fergy1982 According to what? The bible was plagiarized and still doesn't hold the test of time...it's time to grow up and stop believing in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, santa claus, jesus, god, etc....just watch "jesus camp" over and over until you see what this brainwashing does to kids. It's sick abuse.
If there EVER was anything supernatural, it, she, he would SURELY be smart enough to not base their proof on such a unbelievable book.
You are wrong. Just because something coming from nothing does not happen in your everyday life, it does not mean it is impossible at all. Learn something about quantum electrodynamics.
When Carolyn stopped speaking and everyone started clapping, I thought exactly what Richard said afterwards. She really is like a female Carl Sagan. Those eloquent words which accompanied those beautiful images moved me to tears.
most scientists worth their salt would say something like "its seems highly improbable that a god exists" but never "i know". you only get 100% certainties in mathmatics, all the other disciplines of science are left open for future corrections. such as if we discovered a physical material that did not conform to the laws of gravity. the theory would no longer be ALL objects attract each other. it would be most matter attracts, we know that levitanium does not.
We need to instill in our young daughters that science and technology are not exclusive to the male race just like make up and fashion and looking pretty is not exclusive to women, I mean look at the irony of this, our little girls spend their time, mind power and energy on looking pretty and who ends up getting rich & famous in fashion, & beauty industry? okay there's Vera Wang, Donna Karan & Donnatella but Kors, Lauren, Max Factor, & the majority of the couture houses in Paris is by men,
@WavegirlThinks I recon people are always motivated by emotion. So what we need is the appropriate positiove emotional regard for knowledge and the philosophy of science, and perhaps a productive emotional aversion to irrationality as a valid basis for knowledge.
In a way I think that is a must to survive. I saw a program with a person where the emotional center in the brain was damaged, that person could spend hours evaluating which cereal to buy.
@ejswe Think I must've seen the same program, or a similar one. However, WavegirlThinks is not wholly correct when she says "not logic". Rather, it is CLEARLY a balance of both emotion AND logic that people base their 'views' on. This holds for the religious as well as the non-religious.
I agree, mostly. My comment was mainly to correct a sexist comment by robertwc82 (above mine), who said "most woman, i find, base their veiws on emotions not logic."
There are many who base at least some of their views on emotion and then (poorly) rationalise it out. Many people also reject admitted logic because they dont like it. But you're right, mainly people use some combination of reason and emotion. And yes, non-believers are not immune.
That was a rather blunt and simplistic claim. This is a SCIENCE channel, and as such, I think you should explain what kinds of views you're talking about, then provide a clear argument supported by sufficient evidence. After all, emotions can be accompanied by logical thought and vice-versa. This request for clarification applies just as well to the reply WavegirlThinks posted, however glad I am that she reprimanded your apparent sexism. (I'm a man, by the way.)
i dont about it in great detail but woman seem to prefer to use their right hemisphere of the brain responsible for creativity, imagination men prefer to use the left hemisphere responsible for logic, language ect.
google "Neurobehavioral Hemispheric prefrences" or "brain hemisphere male female". is it sexest to say only females can get pregnant too?
I don't know loads about it yet, either, though I do hope to study neuroscience in grad school. Yes, the neurophysiology of men and women is a bit different in ways, but I think a higher proportion of women than is currently represented in our society is capable of learning to be effective scientists. I think, as nogod65 implied, social stigma is mostly at fault, not psychological differences. Besides, creativity and imagination are no less important than logic and reason in science.
Also, I apologize if you took that as an accusation of being sexist. There's a big difference between a sexist person and a sexist remark. I meant to say that your statement seemed to contain more opinion than fact, and that it could be perceived as slightly sexist since you provided no argument or statistical evidence. Your analogy is flawed, however. We're discussing cognitive abilities, which vary much more than anatomy (ability to get pregnant) between individuals and the two [main] genders.
well, it is just an opinion but its an opinion based on observation and the observations of others (such as scientists) it wasnt based on me thinking my sex is superior
Maybe at first I implicitly accused you of sexism, but I have already apologized and clarified my argument. I thought the discussion had moved beyond that. I'm not sure you read my reply closely enough, because you didn't address my points about social stigma ("science is not a cool career for girls") and the importance of creativity and imagination in science. At any rate, I understand what you're saying, but I would still like to see statistics.
@nogod65 I partially agree with your statement... except that I think we need to instill science in ALL young people. As a guy myself, I can say most of them don't give a good goddamn about science. If we had a larger part of the population focused on science, I think that would be a huge benefit to society.
Anyone could be excused for thinking that those in power actually want the general population to remain stupid. Loved the end of the video, truly touching, thanks so much.
@tomwash1 I love the ending too. I don't Richard Dawkins was being over enthusiastic when he said that "we have found the female Carl Sagan" so much in agreement.
More and more women are entering universities and going onto all sort of wonderful scientific and leadership graduate colleges :) More women than men these days in North America! Ahhh progress.
i'm not sure i necessarily agree with dr. wolfgang von porco's assessment of hollywood's negative portrayal of scientists and the harmful impact that would have on up and coming young scientists.
firstly, two words...star trek...gene roddenberry and his gang of renown portrayed science and scientists favorably.
secondly, if you're really interested in a career in science whether biology, astronomy or physics are you really going to be dissuaded because of some dopey hollywood movie?
@dwdeclare it's not about being dissuaded by a dopey movie, all she's asking is that Hollywood do a better job in promoting science so young impressionable movie goers who are thinking of a life in the sciences can take with them a positive view of what it's like to be a scientist. Can you mention other movies other than Star Trek vs. the evil Scientists movies? I rest my case.
there are some great documentaries on space exploration and evolutionary biology out there to educate people about what is known about life and our place in the cosmos.
hollywood is about fantasy and distraction (and making money). it is not a medium for providing ethical and scientific instruction to impressionable movie goers or anyone else for that matter and i am not convinced that it ought to be.
Why are you all going on and on about Dawkins? he gave the intro. Surely Ms. Porco is the main speaker. An entity that may have started the big bang may or may not exist, but the Holy books certainly does not exist. If it did exist it would be so horrid that we would have to take arms against it.
Any man who stands for progress has to criticize, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith. Item by item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith. If after considerable reasoning one is led to believe in any theory or philosophy, his faith is welcomed.
His reasoning can be mistaken, wrong, misled and sometimes fallacious. But he is liable to correction because reason is the guiding star of his life. But mere faith and blind faith is dangerous: it dulls the brain, and makes a man reactionary.
Freedom Fighter Bhagat Singh in Why am I an atheist?
31:25 Thank you. I have been saying it for years and that made me look creepy in the eyes of the neighbours.
What upsets me is when sport entertainers begin to dedicate their victories to supporters sharing a particular religion and this way advertising religious propaganda. I am disgusted from the greatest MMA fighter who ever lived Fedor Emelianenko when he after the win over Rogers instead of only discussing the fight was brainwashed into dedicating the victory to the believers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Warsel - well, proof or evidence that supports the atheistic position that you defend? What other positions do you hold with out evidence to back them up? The belief in any poosition that is based on the lack of evidence has no rational basis? Is not atheism simply faith? If you believe logic exist, atheism is illogical. Is it not?
Your sentence: "The belief in any position that is based on lack of evidence has no rational basis" I exactly what I and every atheist would ascribe to immediately.
We are asking: where is your evidence for your claim of the existence of a god?
Since nobody can bring any evidence, atheists reject that hypothesis and say: as long as you don't present evidence, we won't believe you and don't think you are correct in your assertions.
Otherwise anybody could make up claims about anything..
good explanation, mate! I still don't know how people don't understand such easy logical reasonings... That's good to have patient people like you to. I am fed up and unfortunately lost patiente and don't discuss anymore with anyone who clearly lacks knowledge or at least lacks the will to acquire them...
Warsel - when did I mention god? But I would agree the the belief in god is based on faith and the idea that truth exist. Atheism can not reject any hypothesis, not sure why you said that. The lack of belief is really silly because you have been exposed to the idea of god and and have made a decision to accept or reject it. You either believe or not or you're not sure. This entire lack of belief thing is not logical. What do you mean "WE". Yes, my point, anyone can make up any claim. True.
there is not just the "mad scientist" and the "meant good gone wrong scientist" in hollywood, there is also the "loser in social life but key saving character scientist that nobody takes serious"
plspirit81 2 days ago
I could honestly marry this woman, and I love her hair. She's intellectually a comfort to be around.
saltzmann1 3 weeks ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference
32:27 - symphony of science
HoldenIOW 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
HoldenIOW 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE IS NO GOD!!!
Christoere 2 months ago
Now I remember why I don't own a television and don't go to the movies anymore.
Arikiel 2 months ago 2
I love to listen to her speak, she seems a very warm person... but that vein on her neck, damn, it irritates me. Sorry for this low comment :P
adaseth 2 months ago
@adaseth Thanks a bunch - I hadnt noticed until I read your irrelevant post!
1212JackJohnson 1 month ago
@1212JackJohnson sorry :P I just spoil things for people. Do you think this might be why I have no friends?
adaseth 1 month ago
Where is the sound guy!!!
mellowkey 2 months ago
Again, thank you Carolyn. Big fan of your team's work, they have provided non-stop inspiration to our lives!
xchimino2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Um, wasn't the main character from "Contact" based on Jill Tarter? And Porco was the consultatn? Or was it based on both of them?
Whatever :D
twooffour 3 months ago
Dr. Wolfgang von Porco, will you marry me?
deedubya286 4 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
Melodysheep!
AwesomeHaHaAnime 4 months ago 7
Aww, she wanted a hug but Dawkins was too busy being a good host with the clapping. :-(
Alnarpae 4 months ago
Did she go for a high five at the end?
tehAdmrl 5 months ago
I adore Carolyn Porco and I want her for myself.
RatchetScientist 5 months ago
Science is fun,if you cant understand it you can fuck off :)
Collector604 5 months ago
@Collector604 Fine I will
4ROoi 4 months ago
@4ROoi
:P
Collector604 4 months ago
I could never come to terms with the fact that scientists do not get more praise, admiration and funding from society. As C. Porco says, it is the scientific discoveries that we all benefit from. All of us, every day! Why is it that masses practically worship movie stars (acting being a job like any other) while scientist are not only underappreciated but even scrutinised? Top Hollywood actors get 30-70 mln $ for a movie, imagine how many scientific grants this would make...
Nesule1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
For those of you who found this video because you were looking for the source clip of the Symphony of Science video (story of us), it starts at 32:12
crimulus 6 months ago 29
@crimulus And for anyone who wants a closer cut to the beautiful source quote from Symphony of Science "Onward to the Edge", jump to 38:08 , or if you want to get straight there jump to 39:00 . Highly recommend watching the whole thing though, this is incredible.
yko487 1 month ago
if you seriously think that the Supernatural is moar interesting than the Natural, you should probably take a look at the Natural first. check out The Pillars of Creation, Fractals, or the Cat's Eye Nebula. Those things exist regardless of whether you believe in them or not. They're true for everyone
Sebastianisgreat 6 months ago
She claims to be a scientist but doesn't know Pluto is a planet? Shame...
kc0itf 7 months ago
@kc0itf Pluto is no longer classified as a planet though...
petree50 6 months ago
@petree50 According to the new "planet" definition... the Earth or any other culturally accepted celestial body in our solar system fails the litmus test for "planet" as they fail to "clean up their orbit"!
Pluto is planet, along with a whole list of larger objects such as Sedna!
kc0itf 6 months ago
LOL I think Dawkins is sharp as an obsidian scalpel most of the time but at the very end he is clueless as to what to do when Porco tried to take his hand.
TheAnubisDrake 8 months ago
Erin Driscoll!!
twooffour 8 months ago
there are personality types people are born with..there are people who lead with logic, and people who lead with feeling..no matter what, there will always be logical people, and illogical people.
itzahazylife 9 months ago
Her speech is more intellectual than Richard Dawkins' speech but less funny.
ZeroSuitKing 10 months ago
Excellent video. For me, Brian Cox has picked up the reigns from Carl Sagan. No disrespect intended towards Carolyn, enjoy her as well. :)
Desdenova262 10 months ago
It's funny how thanks to hollywood my world view was largely shaped by a green muppet in a swamp.
roysanjuro 10 months ago
I disagree with Dawkins. Prof Jocelyn Bell, the discoverer of Pulsars is obviously the inspiration for the character of Ellie Arroway, right down to her PhD suppevisor getting a Nobel Prize at her expense
moloned 11 months ago
@moloned
You might disagree with him, but he's still right. Carolyn Porco was an adviser for the movie Contact and Carl Sagan himself made the comparison for Jodie Foster to base the character on.
3rkid2 10 months ago
@moloned
Interesting, because now I'm reading it's Jill Tarter :D
twooffour 3 months ago
Just simply excellent. From the Voyager vids I have from the 80's to Cassini, and what a finnish, what an image from Saturn. Superb.
BunkyOhare 1 year ago
"scientific" than atheism. By modern definitions of a scientific theory, agnosticism is a false position to take because either an hypothesis is falsifiable and supportable or disprovable by evidence, which should be found sooner rather than later before the theory comes into the margins of science, or if it does not meet these criteria (god definitons that ARE falsifiable have ALL been rejected and unfalsifiable definitions don't NEED to be rejected). End of rant.
Insanity12345 1 year ago
This woman needs to get a better education in philosophy and recent history of the scientific method if she claims scientists necessarely need to be agnostic about things like the god hypothesis. UNFALSIFIABLE claims do not count as valid testable hypotheses, hence they can be discarded immediately until someone provides us with positive evidence of this hypothesis which is falsifiable and which is empirical. I hate nothing more than scientists who say agnosticism is more "logical" or
Insanity12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Factual Asian brides are there **busizz4me.info**
DonsanUsake569 1 year ago
Can you imagine a movie about Alexander von Humboldt's journey to South America? The tropical beauty of the continent, the dangers of the adventures, the almost obsessive character of Humboldt himself, the themes are manifold.
Schensue 1 year ago
Religion = Fear
aquablue66 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Date a naughty woman online benaughtyman.info
lalafortesknm 1 year ago
Oops! Her name is Carolyn, not Caroline! Sorry!
Impalamark64 1 year ago
Spectacular video! I was especially taken by the image of the Earth through Saturn's rings.
As Richard Dawkins said, Caroline Porco may well be the new spokesperson to continue to bring science to the masses. Her speech really cut to the heart of the matter.
I hope that the movement toward the studies of the cosmos and our world will overshadow the hopelessly negative, superstitious, dogma of religious myth. It's time to move forward!
Impalamark64 1 year ago
the ending comments were moving. Im going to get started on my trig home work.
Dracanic 1 year ago
2.21 gigawatts!
itsabomberscope 1 year ago
@itsabomberscope BTTF?
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
Does it really take this caliber of people to realize these things? Cant believe they're wasting there breath on things so apparent.
monkeypainter808 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
faerydhhlo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
hungarylnnjsd 1 year ago
Other recent movies have depicted scientists in a positive light as well, such as Inception, Iron Man, and many others. Meanwhile in news media, scientists and researchers are always the people who reporters go to for answers that can't be found anywhere else. The way I see it, scientists are viewed as the most honest and trust worthy people in the world by almost everybody.
Erverino 1 year ago 2
A disagree with the speaker in this video. If anything (at least recently) scientists are more often portrayed as the sole solution to the world's problems, and if they are depicted as the cause, they are later shown to be the solution as well. Even Avatar was a story of an evil corporation trying to take over a planet, and the biggest opposition there came from the scientists working for the corporation.
Erverino 1 year ago
i think this has the "cool" factor that would make any kid extremely curious about science. amazing point about hollywood's important portrayal of science itself. there is so much to work with as carolyn porco articulates. this is definitely a workable idea to get young minds fascinated in science as obviously everyone watching this is. and the carl sagan comparison was apt, mr. sagan was an extremely important ambassador of science.
tomitstube 1 year ago
Comment removed
selearemus 1 year ago
39:00 - 40:38 made me cry of happiness
selearemus 1 year ago
Jill Harter is the woman who the character of Ellie was based.
SaganAppreciationSoc 1 year ago
Fantastic. A female Carl Sagan, loved that comment.
Apple7676766 1 year ago 5
Re TV science fiction, some of you know of Richard Dawkins' cameo appearance, as himself, in Doctor Who a couple of years ago ("The Stolen Earth").
We've just had a series finale of DW and I chuckled at this: a little girl paints pics of a sky with stars & her aunt/guardian is worried. Everyone *knows* there's no such thing as stars (don't ask) & she's afraid the child will grow up to join one of those crazy star cults: "And I don't trust that Richard Dawkins!"
queenastilon 1 year ago
Thanks to RDF for posting this footage. Another great talk.
ToxicWastoid 1 year ago
Thank You, Carolyn, You are a pure joy.
aberdown 1 year ago
Wow. I got goosebumps at 39:11, and I was in tears at the end. Science never ceases to humble and amaze me.
kevthegreat55 1 year ago 7
I'm an aspiring science fiction novelist and screenwriter so this was a very illuminating and emotional speech for me. Brilliant woman.
SolidSnake032486 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Amateur.
mick4711 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She wants Hollywood movies depicting; "the person who dedicates his or her whole life, (80 hrs/week) making tremendous sacrifices (bow ties & delivery pizza again) to find out some simple (1 cell critter) fundamental (what? Fundie?) truth (yea, Fundie!) however small it might be (microscopic) about the nature of nature (too much nature for movie - thats documentary) only proved in the end (Grand Finale = exhibit A?) to be wrong (hero wrong? sad ending?)
Now we know why Hollywood makes
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
films with "fiction" after the word science
Long hours of looking at amoebas, eating pizza while wearing a bow tie & proved definitely wrong by the fashion police. All in a Wild, Wild Kingdom setting... & Fundamentalism too? Movie goers find it more entertaining to pay for the $15,000 Coke & the $25,000 Pop Corn, to where they'll be going back for 3rds
In Hollywood, science films must have fictional space ships shooting many lasers & blowing a bunch of shit up. Big fictional boobs work too
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She can leave drops of syrup and other food bits on the kitchen floor. Also, set out Roach Motels and other roach traps
If after a period of time, the drops of syrup and other food bits are still undisturbed and there exist no roaches within the traps... then her roaches have moved on to greener pastures, having better cooking and real Canadian Maple syrup
She said, "one encourages uncritical acceptance of ideas & the other seriously discourages it"
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"the danger is that uncritical thinking has been, and is still, extremely prevalent"
Through critical thinking, I have arrived at a particular understanding that the uncritical thinkers have yet to understand. Which is...
Since man is limited in his powers & abilities, is why any creation or construct of man, is also limited in its powers & capabilities. Thus, Science, although a fantastic tool, is indeed limited in its applicability
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
However, the materialist has concluded that the entirety of existence/reality is determined by the applicability limitations of Science
Thus the arrogance from ignorance of the Materialist is revealed. Since if the whole of existence is determined by the limits of science. Then, science is applicable to the whole of existence. Thus, apparently, man has created a tool which is unlimited in its power & ability. Which in turn, would make man omnipotent, for his tool's powers are his own
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Comment removed
eastatheist 1 year ago
Science is limited in its applicability, but not as limited as religion would like it to be. And places where it isn't applicable are taken up by other noble pursuits...leaving no room for religion
eastatheist 1 year ago 4
@Chuichupachichi "I have arrived at a particular understanding that the uncritical thinkers have yet to understand" Sorry, but that hugely arrogant statement sounds more like just cut'n'pasting "killer anti-science" arguments. As does "Thus the arrogance from ignorance of the Materialist is revealed"
Assuming *you* know better is ignorant arrogance
Material & philosophical science is potentially unlimited; it's the pursuit of truth. If you can't demonstrate it, it's just an opinion
queenastilon 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just think, since science is an extremely recent creation, in relation to the extent of time past. It would mean that during all of the time prior to when science was created, the whole of reality, by pure chance, simply happened to exist at a measure that is precisely the same to which science, upon its arrival, would be applicable
I'm not even going to ask! Yea, I know, for if "Abiogenesis, Ancestral Bacterial Forebearers & 4 legged whales are plausible in their probabilities"...bla bla bla
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Another thing: it's unclear what you mean by this:
"Yea, I know, for if "Abiogenesis, Ancestral Bacterial Forebearers & 4 legged whales are plausible in their probabilities"...bla bla bla "
but if you don't know that evolutionary throwback whales and dolphins are occasionally found with back legs, albeit rather small and useless, then the fool you make of yourself with your mockery only serves to demonstrate one of the problems with wilfull ignorance.
queenastilon 1 year ago
wow those are actual pictures taken in space of Saturn by the Cassini space craft. The picture quality nowadays is incredible especially since this is in space.
Afarrell18 1 year ago 2
The way she ended was extremely poetic.
questionsamson 1 year ago
...A catholic parent may have a gay son or daughter, and in the majority of cases they don't care - they still love 'em and accept it. But they still stay religious even the ideas are vehemently opposed, why? The fact is they don't really think about their beliefs to any great degree, if they we're trenchent believers they'd disown their child or kill them, but most don't give a crap and the slight possibility of hellfire is enough to keep them just about connected.
johnmacward 1 year ago 4
I absolutely agree with her idea that religion is an embedded cultural phenomenon. A bit like the language you speak or the food you eat, you won't really question it or think about it that much - you just speak it and eat it respectively in the same way you believe it. You're brought up to do all the above things. Think about it for a second, the vast majority of religious people in the world are liberal, not too serious believers, they pick and choose based on their circumstances...
johnmacward 1 year ago 2
If she has a daughter i will marry her
horryclutch 1 year ago
I would marry her not her daughter. Imagine the debates, talks and discussions you could have with her looking at the stars!
flyingfisbeefilms 1 year ago
Absolutely amazing.
Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennet/Harris has written and debated for years about this matter. This lovely lady pealed herself to the core of the issue in 40 minutes.
Probably the most objective, cut through lecture I've ever has the pleasure of listening to.
soskid 1 year ago 31
Amazing . We certainly need a new Carl
Segan. Absolutely beautiful and moving pictures and words.
rrrrmm1 1 year ago
What movies and TV shows has this lady been watching? On TV, and in the movies, I've seen a great number of heroic scientists, who were anything but frumpy, nerdy, or evil. This goes back to movies and shows from the 1950s. Entertainment fare with evil, or nerdy scientists is usually campy, or humorous, at best.
Teflon65 2 years ago
That speech was breathtaking!!! I give her two thumbs up and a standing ovation!
Beeza2996 2 years ago 6
Does Dawkins have glaucoma?
godofthisshit 1 year ago
@godofthisshit I have no idea, why?
Beeza2996 1 year ago
how many people were inspired by movies ? they guys who invented google were inspired by star track, planes and cars inspired by star wars, astro boy inspirering robotics!!!!
deanfenech 2 years ago
wow, tell the cleaning staff to take 5 - this is nearly unwatchable as a result.
r.
theReasonists 2 years ago
Why would anyone give me a thumbs down for this comment???? Stop rattling plates and spoons!! haha
theReasonists 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
"When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable"- Michio Kaku
God is possible. Atheism is not.
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
Wonderful. Wonderful to hear vocalised ideas and expressions that I have felt for years. I wonder how many other people have subversively been thinking on the same wavelength and how lucrative this serious science in Hollywood might be, although if I were a producer I might have been turned on to the idea until the word "arduous" was mentioned... more than once ;)
FortisConscius 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins
google it, look it up etc...
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable.
God is possible. Atheism is not.
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Richard Dawkins
google it, look it up etc...
Atheism is the belief in nothing, something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility.
When you eliminate the impossible, what remains is not only possible, but probable.
God is possible. Atheism is not.
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
watch this /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
the laws of physics allow a flat universe to come into existance from nothing due to quantom fluctuations.
Spoiler: Our universe is of the flat kind.
KaX321 2 years ago
@KaX321
quantum fluctuations are something :}
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
no, the concept of quantum fluctuations is something. watch "the evolution of confusion" by dan dennett and pay particular attention to the segment about "use mention error". also watch "a universe from nothing" by lawrence krauss, if you haven't already, for what quantum fluctuations actually are
smthngdffrnt 2 years ago
@smthngdffrnt
I have, quantum fluctations, dark matter, dark energy (although only theoretical) all constitute something.
Something coming from nothing remains an impossibility.
Atheists it seems will accept any answer, no matter how unlikely or theoretical, except for one...God
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
@moonlightbateman
You obviously don't understand what quantum fluctuations are, and apparently didn't understand "use mention error" either. Quantum fluctuations are litterally something coming from nothing. The concept of "quantum fluctuations" is something (a concept), but a quantum fluctuation is not a thing in and of itself. And "God did it" is not an answer. It's a cop-out.
smthngdffrnt 2 years ago 4
All that just to say that I'm right, a quantum fluctuation is something.
Something coming from nothing is impossible!
Care to try again? (lol)
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
@moonlightbateman
No, thanks. Your carousel of idiocy is making me nauseous, so I think I'll get off here. Enjoy being willfully ingorant.
smthngdffrnt 2 years ago 3
Before you get off, if you define God as a quantum fluctuation, then you have to admit that God is possible.
In a very real way, you also make things like miracles (quantum fluctuations) possible as well!
Thanks!
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
@moonlightbateman - I just hope it's not the bible that you are basing your ideal of whatever "god" is...he was a scientist, if he/she existed at all.
r.
theReasonists 2 years ago
God could never be a scientist because god has to be super natural.
fergy1982 2 years ago
@fergy1982 According to what? The bible was plagiarized and still doesn't hold the test of time...it's time to grow up and stop believing in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, santa claus, jesus, god, etc....just watch "jesus camp" over and over until you see what this brainwashing does to kids. It's sick abuse.
If there EVER was anything supernatural, it, she, he would SURELY be smart enough to not base their proof on such a unbelievable book.
TheReasonists
theReasonists 2 years ago
if you can explain how a miracle works(quantum fluctuations) it stops being a miracle. If I claim to see an F16 I can't say it is an UFO anymore.
fergy1982 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Miracles, quantum fluctuations, quantum mechanics- all different words for the same thing...
With God, all things are possible, and thus, probable!
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moonlightbateman - Something coming from nothing remains an impossibility - that applies to "god" as well. You can't have it both ways.
r.
theReasonists 2 years ago
god is as good an explanation as the flying spaghetti monster.
fergy1982 2 years ago
You are wrong. Just because something coming from nothing does not happen in your everyday life, it does not mean it is impossible at all. Learn something about quantum electrodynamics.
lagerbaer 2 years ago
One aspect of God is quantum mechanics and another is quantum electrodynamics:)
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
@moonlightbateman That's because the idea of god is silly.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Wow- a pro-Saddam atheist. I'll bet you loved Stalin and Mao as well! That is why atheism seems so silly- atheists tend to be nut jobs:)
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
"Praise Science!"
"Their answer to the great question is illogical. The United Atheist Allience is the only choice"
-South Park
Athiest2009 2 years ago
When Carolyn stopped speaking and everyone started clapping, I thought exactly what Richard said afterwards. She really is like a female Carl Sagan. Those eloquent words which accompanied those beautiful images moved me to tears.
Boy192 2 years ago
Her favorite movie is about her, big surprise.
Jimpsterr 2 years ago
I am searching for that increadible eclipse image on Ciclops. but cannot find it. has anyone found it ???
exconguitar 2 years ago
most scientists worth their salt would say something like "its seems highly improbable that a god exists" but never "i know". you only get 100% certainties in mathmatics, all the other disciplines of science are left open for future corrections. such as if we discovered a physical material that did not conform to the laws of gravity. the theory would no longer be ALL objects attract each other. it would be most matter attracts, we know that levitanium does not.
robertwc82 2 years ago
30:20 summarize it all. Great talk.
imougy 2 years ago 3
We need to instill in our young daughters that science and technology are not exclusive to the male race just like make up and fashion and looking pretty is not exclusive to women, I mean look at the irony of this, our little girls spend their time, mind power and energy on looking pretty and who ends up getting rich & famous in fashion, & beauty industry? okay there's Vera Wang, Donna Karan & Donnatella but Kors, Lauren, Max Factor, & the majority of the couture houses in Paris is by men,
nogod65 2 years ago 11
most woman, i find, base their veiws on emotions not logic.
robertwc82 2 years ago
Most PEOPLE, I find, base their views on emotions not logic.
WavegirlThinks 2 years ago 23
@WavegirlThinks I recon people are always motivated by emotion. So what we need is the appropriate positiove emotional regard for knowledge and the philosophy of science, and perhaps a productive emotional aversion to irrationality as a valid basis for knowledge.
Tuathalful 1 year ago
@WavegirlThinks
In a way I think that is a must to survive. I saw a program with a person where the emotional center in the brain was damaged, that person could spend hours evaluating which cereal to buy.
ejswe 1 year ago
@ejswe Think I must've seen the same program, or a similar one. However, WavegirlThinks is not wholly correct when she says "not logic". Rather, it is CLEARLY a balance of both emotion AND logic that people base their 'views' on. This holds for the religious as well as the non-religious.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@wonkothemagicelf
I agree, mostly. My comment was mainly to correct a sexist comment by robertwc82 (above mine), who said "most woman, i find, base their veiws on emotions not logic."
There are many who base at least some of their views on emotion and then (poorly) rationalise it out. Many people also reject admitted logic because they dont like it. But you're right, mainly people use some combination of reason and emotion. And yes, non-believers are not immune.
WavegirlThinks 1 year ago
@WavegirlThinks they also make decisions in life based on their emotions, not facts and evidence.
rustyscrapper 1 year ago
@ robertwc82:
That was a rather blunt and simplistic claim. This is a SCIENCE channel, and as such, I think you should explain what kinds of views you're talking about, then provide a clear argument supported by sufficient evidence. After all, emotions can be accompanied by logical thought and vice-versa. This request for clarification applies just as well to the reply WavegirlThinks posted, however glad I am that she reprimanded your apparent sexism. (I'm a man, by the way.)
Beeza2996 2 years ago 2
i dont about it in great detail but woman seem to prefer to use their right hemisphere of the brain responsible for creativity, imagination men prefer to use the left hemisphere responsible for logic, language ect.
google "Neurobehavioral Hemispheric prefrences" or "brain hemisphere male female". is it sexest to say only females can get pregnant too?
robertwc82 2 years ago
I don't know loads about it yet, either, though I do hope to study neuroscience in grad school. Yes, the neurophysiology of men and women is a bit different in ways, but I think a higher proportion of women than is currently represented in our society is capable of learning to be effective scientists. I think, as nogod65 implied, social stigma is mostly at fault, not psychological differences. Besides, creativity and imagination are no less important than logic and reason in science.
Beeza2996 2 years ago 3
Also, I apologize if you took that as an accusation of being sexist. There's a big difference between a sexist person and a sexist remark. I meant to say that your statement seemed to contain more opinion than fact, and that it could be perceived as slightly sexist since you provided no argument or statistical evidence. Your analogy is flawed, however. We're discussing cognitive abilities, which vary much more than anatomy (ability to get pregnant) between individuals and the two [main] genders.
Beeza2996 2 years ago
well, it is just an opinion but its an opinion based on observation and the observations of others (such as scientists) it wasnt based on me thinking my sex is superior
robertwc82 2 years ago
Maybe at first I implicitly accused you of sexism, but I have already apologized and clarified my argument. I thought the discussion had moved beyond that. I'm not sure you read my reply closely enough, because you didn't address my points about social stigma ("science is not a cool career for girls") and the importance of creativity and imagination in science. At any rate, I understand what you're saying, but I would still like to see statistics.
Beeza2996 2 years ago
@nogod65 I partially agree with your statement... except that I think we need to instill science in ALL young people. As a guy myself, I can say most of them don't give a good goddamn about science. If we had a larger part of the population focused on science, I think that would be a huge benefit to society.
LockeXIII 1 year ago
Anyone could be excused for thinking that those in power actually want the general population to remain stupid. Loved the end of the video, truly touching, thanks so much.
tomwash1 2 years ago 4
@tomwash1 I love the ending too. I don't Richard Dawkins was being over enthusiastic when he said that "we have found the female Carl Sagan" so much in agreement.
nogod65 2 years ago 3
We need more women in science and technology, maybe we're too busy raising boys to men scientist.
nogod65 2 years ago 4
More and more women are entering universities and going onto all sort of wonderful scientific and leadership graduate colleges :) More women than men these days in North America! Ahhh progress.
maryjane9999 2 years ago
@maryjane9999 In Saddam's Iraq more women than men were undergraduates when he fell.
gamesbok 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Goodness, she is so hot.
kidigus 2 years ago
i'm not sure i necessarily agree with dr. wolfgang von porco's assessment of hollywood's negative portrayal of scientists and the harmful impact that would have on up and coming young scientists.
firstly, two words...star trek...gene roddenberry and his gang of renown portrayed science and scientists favorably.
secondly, if you're really interested in a career in science whether biology, astronomy or physics are you really going to be dissuaded because of some dopey hollywood movie?
dwdeclare 2 years ago 3
@dwdeclare it's not about being dissuaded by a dopey movie, all she's asking is that Hollywood do a better job in promoting science so young impressionable movie goers who are thinking of a life in the sciences can take with them a positive view of what it's like to be a scientist. Can you mention other movies other than Star Trek vs. the evil Scientists movies? I rest my case.
nogod65 2 years ago 2
there are some great documentaries on space exploration and evolutionary biology out there to educate people about what is known about life and our place in the cosmos.
hollywood is about fantasy and distraction (and making money). it is not a medium for providing ethical and scientific instruction to impressionable movie goers or anyone else for that matter and i am not convinced that it ought to be.
dwdeclare 2 years ago
@dwdeclare Geez, Hollywood movies are more accesible than those "great documentaries" to young minds duhhh, get it?
nogod65 2 years ago
Excellent lecture. Agree about the points on religion, particularly liked the comparison to ethnicity.
PersonallyOptimistic 2 years ago
The end part was so touching too.
PersonallyOptimistic 2 years ago
wonderful wonderful wonderful
braindoodle89 2 years ago
Good stuff, but "nature herself?" Please, let's not personify nature, and divide people further.
mortald 2 years ago
I've had a huge crush on Carolyn Porco for years.
SpaceCaptainDaddy 2 years ago
Why are you all going on and on about Dawkins? he gave the intro. Surely Ms. Porco is the main speaker. An entity that may have started the big bang may or may not exist, but the Holy books certainly does not exist. If it did exist it would be so horrid that we would have to take arms against it.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago
Any man who stands for progress has to criticize, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith. Item by item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith. If after considerable reasoning one is led to believe in any theory or philosophy, his faith is welcomed.
g0jeeta 2 years ago
His reasoning can be mistaken, wrong, misled and sometimes fallacious. But he is liable to correction because reason is the guiding star of his life. But mere faith and blind faith is dangerous: it dulls the brain, and makes a man reactionary.
Freedom Fighter Bhagat Singh in Why am I an atheist?
g0jeeta 2 years ago
I think the only thing I find wrong here is that he said said something positive about that movie.
Terrible terrible movie.
Great video.
qwijyboNZ 2 years ago
Marry Me!?
mogdogmog 2 years ago 2
What, are we supposed to be impressed about the contact reference.
BeatleEDs 2 years ago
man, this is almost scary, my line of thinking the last few years are so similar it feels like she's reading my mind
0xFE 2 years ago
Terrific speaker and content, I'm looking forward to hearing more from her
AdrianHorn 2 years ago 8
For some speakers there just aren't enough youtube stars :(
Nerusai 2 years ago 11
31:25 Thank you. I have been saying it for years and that made me look creepy in the eyes of the neighbours.
What upsets me is when sport entertainers begin to dedicate their victories to supporters sharing a particular religion and this way advertising religious propaganda. I am disgusted from the greatest MMA fighter who ever lived Fedor Emelianenko when he after the win over Rogers instead of only discussing the fight was brainwashed into dedicating the victory to the believers.
gespilk 2 years ago 2
simply stunning :)
sonus03 2 years ago
Proof, proof, proof but atheism has no proof. My worldview is that dichotomies are illusory.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
..has no proof of what?
Warsel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Warsel - well, proof or evidence that supports the atheistic position that you defend? What other positions do you hold with out evidence to back them up? The belief in any poosition that is based on the lack of evidence has no rational basis? Is not atheism simply faith? If you believe logic exist, atheism is illogical. Is it not?
TodaysThought 2 years ago
Your sentence: "The belief in any position that is based on lack of evidence has no rational basis" I exactly what I and every atheist would ascribe to immediately.
We are asking: where is your evidence for your claim of the existence of a god?
Since nobody can bring any evidence, atheists reject that hypothesis and say: as long as you don't present evidence, we won't believe you and don't think you are correct in your assertions.
Otherwise anybody could make up claims about anything..
Warsel 2 years ago 2
good explanation, mate! I still don't know how people don't understand such easy logical reasonings... That's good to have patient people like you to. I am fed up and unfortunately lost patiente and don't discuss anymore with anyone who clearly lacks knowledge or at least lacks the will to acquire them...
Cheers
cafiristanemperor 2 years ago
Warsel - when did I mention god? But I would agree the the belief in god is based on faith and the idea that truth exist. Atheism can not reject any hypothesis, not sure why you said that. The lack of belief is really silly because you have been exposed to the idea of god and and have made a decision to accept or reject it. You either believe or not or you're not sure. This entire lack of belief thing is not logical. What do you mean "WE". Yes, my point, anyone can make up any claim. True.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey, if I may ask, have you ever had a conversation with God?
If you are interested, Google: Yada Yahweh, A Conversation W/: God.
There's not a scientist yet that has disputed what God put forth.
Please read some of it, You will find the truth there, gaurantee it.
I was all but gone from God till I happened on these pages and my life is changing before my eyes.
Peace, and hope you take a look.
materialclassified 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
materialclassified - ok, I will. My Faith in GOD is unwavering.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
Which one? Zeus? Thor? Ahura Mazda? FSM? IPU? Bast? Ra? Brahma? Etc...
fairguynova 2 years ago 6
fairguynova - Are you saying Zeus does not exist?
TodaysThought 2 years ago