@mysunnybird If you haven't already, read 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. It focuses less on the basis of faith and more on its effects, plus it's more leanly written and I'd say easier to read. Amazing book.
Also, did he really say you can disprove the Easter bunny and Spaghetti Monster? How?? They might be based on creatures long ago which existed but were barely seen.
He says the inability to prove God's not real isn't good enough reasoning for belief, but said believing in God is tragic as we don't rely on evidence. Lacking proof of God does not mean it's tragic to have faith - it's often personal evidence. Is it tragic to believe in the Big Bang? You can't prove that, either!
@Sapphire848 But faith is by definition a belief in something without evidence, whereas the Big Bang has a substantial amount of evidence backing it up, relatively speaking of course. One should suspend judgment on both until they have reviewed the evidence themselves. The problem being that even when you understand the Big Bang, the mind still boggles at the implications, but believing in God requires little to no intellectual responsibility. Which one will an intellectually lazy person choose?
@gamegloss That's a good point to bring up. Faith isn't always without evidence, but it I agree it lacks substantial/convincing evidence for the general public, but that's why it's personal evidence. Experiences which lead to spirituality whether they're scientists or not. Also, you're right in the comparison of evidence, but I chose my words carefully: he spoke of the lack of proof, not evidence, choosing one over the other which I found highly unscientific.
@Sapphire848 I have no problem with religious people relegating their beliefs to being faith-based. That is absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned.
I won't even try to challenge the beliefs of someone who makes that admission unless they are willing to participate in a debate, they behave in an unacceptable manner as a result of those beliefs, or they attempt to impose their beliefs on other people, distortion the truth in order to do so.
@gamegloss That's good. I'm the same and I wish all people were like that. I'm tired of feeling the pressure amongst Christian friends when they think I'm yet to find my way (because it's not based on the Bible). I hope my response didn't sound anything other than continuing a friendly conversation. I told you a bit about my reasons to help explain why I'm spiritual.
My overall point is that Dawkins shouldn't say one is wrong when it can't be disproven.
@gamegloss (2nd part) I'd also like to add that it's not a matter of which one. One can believe in much that scientists have demonstrated or given us evidence for but, for many people, seeing the beauty in scientific discovery and how the world might have been constructed is what convinces them more of the existence of a creator. Not a man - energy of some form.
Btw, I'm not religious. I'm Spiritual with my own choices, therefore can chose what to believe by makes more sense to me.
Also, did he really say you can disprove the Easter bunny and Spaghetti Monster? How?? They might be based on creatures long ago which existed but were barely seen.
He says the inability to prove God's not real isn't good enough reasoning for belief, but said believing in God is tragic as we don't rely on evidence. Lacking proof of God does not mean it's tragic to have faith - it's often personal evidence. Is it tragic to believe in the Big Bang? You can't prove that, either!
Also, did he really say you can disprove the Easter bunny and Spaghetti Monster? How?? They might be based on creatures long ago which existed but were barely seen.
He says the inability to prove God's not real isn't good enough reasoning for belief, but said believing in God is tragic as we don't rely on evidence. Lacking proof of God does not mean it's tragic to have faith - it's often personal evidence. Is it tragic to believe in the Big Bang? You can't prove that, either!
I see the same classic misunderstanding as what Prof. Lennox spoke of reg. Hawking's 'The Grand Design': the dispute should never be whether belief in God is a suffient explanation or whether science is suffient because something needs to use these laws of physics!
I admire some of his attitude: he understands beauty of life, but it doesn't have to be less beautiful by the belief in more being out there. The survival instinct could be programmed into us by God to make us relish every moment.
The"First Awakened Human", In the "Human Race", have to be "Reengineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING GOD, FEARFUL yet LOVING , If Your Break The Law, You'll be Trown into the BURNING HELL literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE / Primate, As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Dont Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the begining of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfill Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Pls Explain >>>
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now....
Evolution is always happening. YOU are a transitional human being. People will dig you up in millions of years and think you look like an alien. Does that make sense to you?
I think the thing with evolution was people didn't even think of questioning the idea of creationism as just like dawkins said "it seemed utterly self-evident that there could not be any scientific explanation for the origin of life" but I think keeping that in mind we should be willing to question other things taken for granted in our understanding of everything.
Such as, our assumption that reality actually exists, maybe nothing exists and its all an illusion.
God is a fictitious fabrication devised by human beings for power and control. Man needs support for his fears and is open to domination by theologian authoritarian figures. Mankind hasn't the intellectual capacity to discern the existence of a god or not. It's all thoughtless conjecture.
And, and the pioneer of darwin's research here is going around the world to do Xsavior job, haha, not my cup of tea, I retired after my boxes are stolen and disagreed with right at my face. bull crap.
Having both boxes is only an ability. LIke the way Muslims will punish people with death penalty. It is only an ability to do it, but not a fact to carry out the punishment. This ability is what disproves science. And turns Science into science fiction. Many a times, the modern megatron will exercise its power to have both boxes, yours and mine, and there is no need to argue with it. because in the end, the megatron guards the knowledge it chooses to share with the world.
The topic at now is how to have both boxes, the agree and the disagreed ones. And to do this is simple, just copy it from the opinion one voices out. And you can then choose to agree or disagree and have both. But then again, according to facts, only one holds true. But to argue about facts is not a human failure, to argue about opinions is actually an ability. To trust ones own innocence like one actually has it without having to feel pain and despair, is an inability to have both boxes. Yours
If we look at the time, where Darwin'sjob is laughed at, and humans still have not achieved the knowledge to genetic engineering and curing illnesses, then we pay tribute to the science that fought for its success. At times where the science is achieved, and religion no longer is found as a close enemy to take the research down, then people can basically forget the history. It is considered a near history, I do not see the conflict. One thinks, others agree or disagree when hear those words as s
Science cures, not exorcism. The god is delusion at a very important degree. It cures to know that medicine is the real remedy, and medicine comes from science. God has gone through Emily Rose's death to prove itself bogus. And Science always important than religion. Especially when someone falls ill.
All I have to say to this is, where is the proof of evolution? there are too manny missing links and holes on evolution. For something to be a law following the scientific method you have to be able to replicate it time and again, there is no recent history of any evolution, therefore evolution still a theory and not a law. If you drop a penny does it fall to the ground every time? Law of gravity. It's so simple. Prove evolution time and again, in this age, and I'll buy into it.
@mannyjre .It has been proven, time and again. Look at the fossil record as one example. "Theory" has two main meanings by the way. When you say evolution is "still a theory" you are implying that it is "theory" as in, " It's JUST a theory" like a hypothesis that hasn't been proven. The other MAIN meaning of the word theory is something that is the BEST conclusion or hypothesis around that has been proven the BEST explanation, period, in essence..a FACT. That is what the THEORY of evolution is.
@mannyjre lmao a scientific theory doesn't become a law. In science, a theory is already as high as it will ever go. It doesn't get upgraded to law, nor does it become a fact. It will remain a theory even if the evidence is all there, just like cell theory or germ theory. You don't know what you are talking about.
@mannyjre You pulled a classic ignorant question, why evolution is not happening today? Evolution is a gradual process, earth is over 4 billion years old, we're being scientifically observing nature for three to four human life cycles which is just a drop in ocean of time. Humans are much taller than 1 thousand years ago, just a small example of evolution, if human race survive for millions of years we would look a lot different than todays human.
@dmarkham123 The fastest example of evolution that I can think of is building muscles. One goes to the gym and perform heavy exercises several times during a period of time. The body acknowledges the tougher existence and adapt to it by developing more muscles. Why would a god do that?
I can see that Mr Dawkins is just seeing things just in the surface and he is not trying to sub-dive so to see what's under, because it is not benefits him!!
Human society has seemed to break natural selection. Since we allow intellectually and physically weak people to reproduce, I feel that the human race will regress in the next few thousand years. I'm not saying that we should slaughter mentally handicapped people. I'm just noting that our society has broken natural selection.
@MrTk118 Evolution isn't so much about who is the strongest, but who adapts to their environment and the changes that accumulate while doing so. If natural selection is somewhat broken with humans it's not that handicapped people get to fuck, but that humans bend nature to their needs (ie fur coats instead of growing a furrier one). Plus we have a much easier way to interbreed with our neighbors snuffing out most mutations. Also the human species is around 30kish yrs old. So very young.
@misterever good point, but by strongest i mean adaptability, and the weaker of the human race are not always as weak as they appear to be, such as have a genetic advantage but no will to attain its full ability.
@MrTk118 Well the advantage really depends on what pressures the environment places upon the organism. Atm the thriving traits are sexual selection and the ability to procure sympathy from others. Like you say, what appears weak isn't necessarily so. One of humanities keenest adaptations seems to be the ability to care for those that are injured and to a point show concern for each other. Probably will be a very long time before any huge changes occur in humanity on a large scale.
@mistereveready very true my friend, now-days it seems more sexual-selection than most, or who can provide the best life-style. maybe culture has become a form of man made natural-selection as most of life's hardships are now social.
@MrTk118 Cultural natural-selection, you say. We generally have no problem with selecting mates within our social class. With this in mind, consider trailer parks. Not everyone has set their standards for a mate to "supermodel" or "successful businessman".
@MrTk118 No, it has. In a natural society, with natural selection, only the strongest survive. In our society, everyone survives. There's enough supplies and resources for everyone, if they want to go earn them. So, the weaker people are staying alive, and reproducing. So, in maybe 10,000 years if you look at the top 50% of people on this planet as far as physical and mental ability, those would be the only people on the planet a few thousand years ago. Do you understand?
It's good to see an interviewer who is mainly concerned with helping Richard Dawkins state his case in a way the viewer can understand and process, rather than trying to attack and confuse the arguments.
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx Try to influence your friends to feel the same about intelligence. If a large enough portion of the populace are attracted to intelligence, the rest will soon follow suite and 'God' knows the world needs it.
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx If you're leaving the world in a better state than if you had never existed, I would say you're fulfilling one of the key purposes of life (though perhaps not all of them). Oddly enough I didn't need religion to figure that one out on my own when I was a child.
@TheSelfishAltruist ..not logical to be be spending my precious free time on you tube but that is human behaviour for you...seems that philosophy as Marcus Aurealis said is all we can really call our own , unless it is in my DNA to be writing this now ?...discuss
Dawkins must have realised by now that religious people are not going to be influenced by any reason or logic rather he will have observed the common pyschological response of retrenchement deeper into threatened beliefs.....the impossibility of his task does not mean he should not do it because without reason and logic we go back to the middle ages...the problem will not go away but surely we are duty bound to save children from molestation and brainwashing by these people?
@couthyband I actually am optimistic. Church attendance is waining, it is clear a secular government is better for society, and as people get more educated about science they tend to not believe crazy thoughts. personally I want philosophy taught to small kids... we need to teach them epistemology (the study of how we know what is real) - it needs to be hammered into them (I don't care if you call this brainwashing) that empirical evidence is the only way to determine what is true.
@royrodel yes, evolution hasn't been proven but neither has the theory of gravity. Being a theory doesn't discredit something to the degree you make it out to be it only makes you looks stupid.
@bbqman64 Hello.... actually Evolution has been proven, much more so then gravity. The only evidence for gravity is that bodies of mater move towards each other in a predicatble way... yet we know absolutelty zero on how this force works. It is amazing if you think about it. Bodies of matter billions of miles apart somehow interact with each other across space in a way we dont understand.... I fucking love reality as it is. To me that is the real magic. Fuck gods, demons, talking snakes etc.
@bbqman64 name calling tsk tsk I seem to have struck a raw nerve
why has any evolutionist never been awarded the Nobel prize?,
now as far as I am aware this Dawkins dude is a TV celebrity from Britain who is looked upon as being some kind of joker Now you may not realize it but evolution is a serious debate and clowns like this do it more harm than good
@royrodel He is easily and i mean easily cause i read a lot about him and watched his video same As Christopher Hitchens just that Dawkins heavily gets his evidence form Biology while Hitchens Destroy pathethic theists and their arguments.
no scientist has ever proven the THEORY of evolution
why has any evolutionist never been awarded the Nobel prize
and why does Dawkins believe in wee green men?
Albert Ensien said
I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts,
@royallighting7 An intelligent designer wouldn't have made some of the stupidity we see in design. For example, a designer would not have put the nerve connecting the brain to the voice box of a Giraffe so that it went from the brain through over 15 feet of distance to loop around an artery and travel all the way back to the voice box.
Instead, this nerve would have gone directly from the brain to the voice box, rather then taking that 15 foot detour.
Dawkins seems to believe in a god of the gaps. He keeps saying that once "science" discovers something about nature then you do not need God. What he fails to realise is that knowing how something seems to work does not in anyway remove God to any degree.
As for science explaining everything. That is evidently false.
Science cannot explain Art, Poetry, Human Language, Mathematics, Science, Theology, Human Thought, What I was thinking 5 minutes ago etc etc.
@Surfxeo Sceince does explain all (or at least most of these things), it certainly explains sceince and mathematics. In terms of art and poetry, like so much, this is up for debate, there is a huge amount of scholarship on evolution and the creation of art and literature (look up Brian Boyd "On the origin of stories")...I agree, science has its limits, but these are far from answered by religion.
@JordanMargetts You cannot explain science with science. That is arguing in circles.
Science originated first when Christians became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver. C.S. Lewis
The great scientists were not materialistic naturalists, you cannot defend materialistic naturalism as you have to employ philosophy to begin with, which philosophy isn't by definition.
@Surfxeo This is absurd. People are 'materialists' (such a silly label) because nothing beyond material has ever been observed (im not talking concepts, or thoughts) im talking about the supernatural. I personally am acutely aware that if god suddenyl appeared, he would be made of 'something' as he exists, and is therefore part of reality, and therefore a part of the universe and therefore a part of NATURE. the mere fact you have a word that is opposite of nature, is simply a word trick.
@TheSelfishAltruist What is absurd is your assumption that noone has ever witnessed the supernatural. You cannot justify that assumption with your limited knowledge and experience. And when people record their spirtual experience you will not except it based on your presuppocision that materialism is all there is.
Since God has always said HE was created the "Material" world HE would not be part of that MATERIALISM. God is a Spirit not made of flesh which is temporal.
@Surfxeo What bugs me about you guys is this. Tings like radiowaves, or light, or the mircalce of childbirth could be seen as 'magical' and to ancient people they were.. but we now know the processes behind this magic. Dont you see that reality is magical as it is. Planets, stars, people... these are real things that we can observe. Why do you want to add in all this magical stuff that no one can detect or prove when reality as it is is so amazing already. It bothers me you take it for granted
@TheSelfishAltruist For Your Informtation spirital people do not call it supernaturalism as you call it. It is called Spiritual. You should stop your word games.
@Surfxeo No... because I am interested in spiritual things, such as meditation etc... that is not the same as the supernatural. The supernatural is things that are opposite of natural... (hence why it is 'super' natural). Things such as real magic, gods, angels, devils, the paranormal are supernatural... all of these things have not been demonstrated, cannot be proven and lack any credible evidence. They should all be put in the same box and discarded.
@TheSelfishAltruist Super does not mean opposite. Super means beyond or superior. You have your definitions mixed up.
Love is spiritual, so is hate, envy, commitments etc. The spiritual is more than the physical and touches us on a deeper level. The human soul is a spirit, even animals have their own spirits. But the human soul has the image of God in our spirit and this is where own experience, knowledge, being comes from. Man is both flesh and spirit. God is only spirit.
@Surfxeo I agree that the human soul is a unique special thing, but it is NOT in anyway supernatural. We know the consciousness comes from the material parts of the brain, because if you stuck a pick axe in someones head, their consciousness will be affected. There is no reason to think that it is somehow magical or supernatural. There is no evidence. Neuroscience clearly shows that whilst we cannot pin down consciousness in the brain, it is 100% definitely a manifestation of the brain.
@Surfxeo 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?' - Douglas Adams.
What is real is already the real magic.. we dont need this bullshit about angels, or gods, demons, heaven, hell, spirits etc etc... they do not exist. They are ancient myth. Dont you see this? Its 2011 buddy, we know so much as it is, its time to let this stuff go! We dont need it, it benefits no one. Its been holding man back for centuries.
@TheSelfishAltruist It is 2011 so you should let go of your ancient greek naturalistic materialism and show some love and compassion to your fellow man instead of concentrating on material gain.
I don't see atheists going to Africa or india and setting up schools, sticking up for the locals and dying for their beliefs.
Materialism is not a good trait to hold, it has never benefitted mankind.
@Surfxeo Ancinet Greece? I never knew anything about the greeks until I was in my teens. I just think that in our everyday lives we use evidence for everything, where we live, how to drive a car, how we know our names, even have evidence of peoples love to us... yet for some reaons many people suddenly just believe in thigns there is no evidence for, such as god, angels, and talking snakes.... I have always struggled to understand this switch form a normal rational person, to these mad beliefs.
@TheSelfishAltruist But our "modern" lives in our culture cannot be super-impossed on another culture from another time. What you have to do is use the evidence from that culture from that time to understand their culture and history. And you do that by going to the earliest evidence from that time.
As for God, angels and demons, there is plenty of evidence in our lives to and from looking at history, science or even art that what we know does not limit what there exists.
@TheSelfishAltruist We have evidence from the past that tells us what happened by what is happening is you are laying your modern ideas of naturalistic materialism as a defence mechanism so as not to believe in God. And as I have demonstrated that naturalistic materialism is not a viable belief system to defend the view there is no God.
You give me the impression that the only God you would believe in would be a "created" God and not God the Creator. Correct me if I am wrong.
@Surfxeo I dont have any philosophical commitment to anything. For me its very simple. Evidence for things is what means they exist. No evidence means they do not exist (maybe we cant detect things yet, but no point believing an infinate number of assertions that may be true).... I am open to any god, if I believed there was evidence. There is not. What you guys dont need to get is that you cnt just choose what to believe, the evidence decides it. How on earth does art prove god btw?
@TheSelfishAltruist We all seek evidence. But you cannot throw away evidence when it doesn't suite your world view.
For instance, before the 20th century and we had the internet, tvs, etc... if he used your ideas for evidence you would not believe Australia existed because all the evidence you would have had would have been second hand. If that. Mostly you would have read it from written materials.
We have such materials from the time of Christ who said he is God.
@Surfxeo Your argument isn't really valid, for one reason - even if TheSelfishAltruist didn't have first-hand evidence for Australia, SOMEBODY would have evidence for Australia, because they had either been there, or lived there, or seen it, etc. and they could prove their argument for Australia's existence by presenting that evidence to a non-believer.
@Surfxeo Ok lets review the evidence. For Australia: Ive met lots of Australians, I know people who have gone there, seen their pictures, seen the adverts for the place, drink their lagers and seen videos of kangaroos. I can safely assume it exists.... For Christ being god: Four contradictory gospels that were chosen hundreds of years after out of a possible 16. These gospels were written decades after the proposed events, and make claims thaht are backed up NO WHERE ELSE by no historian?
@Surfxeo The Bible makes claims that are not true, such as the age of the earth or the origins of man (as we now know about the evolution). When Jesus rose from the dead all of the graves of Jerusalem opened and all the dead people came alive.... and no historian from the period (there were many) managed to catch this event? On top of this, the bible has been re written, re edited numerous times. It cites no specific dates for when Jesus was born or died. one gospel has him nailed to a tree.
@Surfxeo I am open to the evidence. I actually love the character of Jesus (humble, help the poor), and I WANT him to be a real man,... but the evidence just doesn't stand up. Im inclined to think he probably did exist but we know so little about him, but the fact 2 gospels have him born at different periods etc etc... makes me (and should you) raise some serious questions. Paul of Tarsus is the only other person out of the bible who mentions him, and he sees a dead Jesus walking down the road.
@TheSelfishAltruist I'm not using art, music, poety as proof of God but more as evidence of the existance of our knowledge and experience of something more than ourselves. Part of our shared spiritual being.
I believe to know oneself you much know God first as He is the mold from which we are made. I think the morals which we all share are a stronger proof for God as He is the moral law giver. We have this knowledge of good and evil in us all.
@Surfxeo I was a Christian, and apart from all the heaven hell stuff, I could prob buy into Jesus being lord as I like the guy... so its no use telling me I discard evidence based on my world view. I study medical science. Id love it if all the drugs made worked, and saved lives, but sometimes they just don't no matter how plausible they seemed. I judge everything on the data given. I want them to work, but I accept they dont... You want God to be real but like me you got to accept that he isnt,
@Surfxeo Knowledge of good and evil? Piranhas when feeding all go in a circle and share the food evenly, the look after their young, and dont eat other piranhas. Cows mourn their dead for hours. Monkeys carry their dead babies on them in grief. Chimpanzes hold ceremonies for dead relatives. Tigers protect their young, and will give their lives if neccesary. Chimps have been known to drown to save their family member. Did god put knowledge of right and wrong into them as well?
@Surfxeo See the difference is this idea of god given morality is just lazy thinking. By looking at the world around us we can understand where morals come from. A society where people murdered and raped each other would fail very quickly. A society where we cooperate, look after each other (and maybe have a little bit of self interest thrown in) would be beneficial to us individually, and to everyone else's. Morals have evolved, just like they did in all other species of animal. This is a fact
@Surfxeo No one has ever claimed science can explain Poetry, so you are attacking a position that no one holds... and is the age old straw man that I think you have picked up from Dr Craig. Science is the only method to discovering truths about nature, because science at its core is about explaining nature.. thats the point. if god exists, then he scientifically can be proven (I could see him maybe, which is a form of evidence)
@TheSelfishAltruist Science at its core is not about explaining nature in anyay. Science is about finding law in nature which man can harness what we find in naturefor the good of mankind.
Science cannot answer why life originated, how it came to be in it's present form. It cannot be done scientifically. We can only look at things scienfically in the present time. If you go beyond the present you either have to employ history or philosophy.
@Surfxeo Why do you think there is an answer to the question of 'why' life evolved. Why do I get up in the morning, why do bacteria live in the toilet. The why question is subjective and down to my own interpretations. Bacteria to me have no purpose, but if they could think they would disagree. If god made us, there is a HOW to be answered. He would have used a process which can be explained (whether we can understand it is irrelevant). This is a scientific question. Thats obvious to me.
@ButtSauceversion1 Your logic is flawed. You obviosly think that if we explain something scientifically that it somehow removes God. It does nothing of the kind. Science only work on the "how?" questions; not the "why?" questions. And it doesn't touch anything that is not materialistic in nature.
Your naturalistic materialism philosophy is not based on science. Your precommitment to materialism concluded God does not exist even before the question. You are arguing in cirlces.
@Surfxeo I myself am skeptical of most things. That obviously includes religion. You talk of science like it is a religion when it's based on evidence and data gained from hundreds of years of experimentation. I don't understand what you mean by "why questions". Give me an example. Why are there natural distasters? Why are we here? Myself, as an atheist, can't see how religion answers those questions.
@ButtSauceversion1 I don't think science will ever explain "why" we are here. There may be no reason "why" we are here. Many claim that there HAS to be a reason why we're here, but who says there has to be? There may or may not be, but that's yet another unanswered question.
@TheSecrecyOfSolitude I appreicate the reply and like to see that you are open minded. I can't even begin to approach the "why are we here?" question. I don't see anyone being able to give any answer to that question. The question itself I find flawed because before you ask it you're implying that the universe has some latent meaning beneath what we can see or observe, e.g. god, buddha, flying spahgetti monster.
Richard Dawkins speaks nothing but perfect logic. The world would probably be much less violent and everyone would probably be a lot more intelligent. It's a shame people grow up with God or Allah, etc. and they don't think or question what they believe and have no plans to even let the thought pass their mind that they might be wrong.
@soldierofdec You cannot come back with a logical and evidential argument. All you have to go by is, "Well you're wrong and I'm right and that's why you're a fucking idiot." Your argument makes no progression with the entire debate and you just let yourself look like a degenerate fool.
@soldierofdec I don't really know if you're being genuine or just trolling. If you are being genuine then you're one of the biggest idiots I've ever talked to. If you're trolling then you're still a fucking idiot. So all in all, congratulations on being an idiot.
Your just a little scroat hair faggot boy thats part of a faggot Athiest cult where all members worship faggots like Dawkins or Hitchens with their faggot gay English accents that trick faggots twats like you into listening to them but in reality they dont know jack shit because their gay little faggot boy freaks like you, ;O hahahahaha @ you faggot fairy gimp boy, you have a hardon for Richard Fuckwit Dawkins, LOL.
@soldierofdec Yeah, it seems to me that you're just trolling because I don't think someone could match a real life stupidity like you're conveying. On the off chance of you actually being this retarded, Dawkins speaks complete good sense and religious people can't come back to it with any sort of thought out evidence apart from, "Oh, I feel it so it's a fact." Anyway, trolling or not, you're pathetic.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papacy cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM til Bible's destroyed folks
@Bobahat@Bobahat I would have to disagree with you on that point. Craig is easily considered one of the greatest debaters in the world. If you look at the arguments based on their merit I think it is quite evident that Craig was superior in both the Harris and Hitchens debate. The Hitchens debate especially, have you seriously watched the debate, Hitchens was just out-classed in all respects. Even many atheists agree:
@thejoey1407 Craig has been eaten alive by both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens so far. I'm sure Dawkins would have no trouble with him either. The reason why Dawkins doesn't want to debate Craig is that Dawkins is interested in science and doesn't want to waste time debating people who have nothing to back up their claims whatsoever.
@Bobahat unfortunately I was unable to send you the link I wanted as youtube won't allow it but it is found on commonsenseatheism. Craig backs up his claims quite sufficiently, it is the logic in others he has debated with who he has deemed to be invalid (This is not to say that there are not good arguments for atheism, rather, Craig seems to do a very good job of exposing his opponent, not necessarily the belief)
@Kinin4 Care to expand. I do not think that is being very fair to Craig. In what way is he illogical to the extent of the analogy you have given? What makes Craig so special is that unlike other Christians or even unlike many religious apologists, Craig plays strictly by the rules of logic and does it well. I don't say this because I am religious (I am not) I only say this because I have a lot of respect for his ability to defend of view which over the years has seemed to be on a decline.
@Kinin4 I hope Kinin4 doesn't mind me answering this one. Evidence speaking it is quite evident that an Easter Bunny or Santa Claus does not exist. We know Santa does not live in the north pole and there is no evidence of him delivering presents on December 25. In a different sense, many of the arguments which advocate for the existence of God state claims through a process of deduction which concludes that the physical world is not all that exists. (Cont'd)
I could use the very same processes of deduction to show that Santa does indeed exist.
At the beginning, every claim in every field is on the same level as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny unmtil it has supporting evidence (dialectical prestidigitation does not count).
It is not I who have to justify my claim that God is like Santa; it is the theists who have to justify the claim that god ISN'T like Santa.
@Kinin4 There are a great deal of arguments which advocate the existence of a God. You are right Santa is on the same field until proven otherwise. My point is that there are many arguments that advocate for existence of God and if correct they would automatically refute the claim that Santa is the same. If you are looking for a good argument for the existence of God, consider the Kalam Cosmological argument. My point being that if an argument like this is true Santa is not like God. (Cont'd)
Cosmological Argument: "The Universe is fine-tuned. Things are not fine-tuned unless they are made by an intelligence. Therefore, there is a universal, transcendent being which created the universe, which we call god."
Gift Argument: "All things operate together arbitrarily; things 'give' each other themselves; the laws of Physics did not have to be the way they are, Gravity could easily have taken care of Quantum Physics. Nonetheless, we see two separate laws working together in perfect harmony, lending their principles to each other when one is shortcoming. Then there is also the innate desire to give charitably, which is ingrained in our biological makeup.
Gift Argument: "All things operate together arbitrarily; things 'give' each other themselves; the laws of Physics did not have to be the way they are, Gravity could easily have taken care of Quantum Physics. Nonetheless, we see two separate laws working together in perfect harmony, lending their principles to each other when one is shortcoming. Then there is also the innate desire to give charitably, which is ingrained in our biological makeup.
@Kinin4 Fair Enough, point taken. However, the gift argument, I don't think addresses the question of ultimate cause: How can something come from nothing? In relation to your argument the question is: How did this perfect harmony arise? I think it is here we will come to a crossroads. Dawkins himself agrees that the origin of the universe cannot be explained "yet"but he believes that science will overcome it.
This interviewer seems to have read the book quite thoroughly already.
Nargleberry 6 days ago
The best book I have ever read.......Love it !!!
mysunnybird 1 week ago
@mysunnybird If you haven't already, read 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. It focuses less on the basis of faith and more on its effects, plus it's more leanly written and I'd say easier to read. Amazing book.
Nargleberry 6 days ago
I'm not sure why, but one of my posts has been entered 3 times :S That wasn't me. I'm not sure what happened. I only just noticed...
Sapphire848 1 week ago
Comment removed
scooby0225 1 week ago
Also, did he really say you can disprove the Easter bunny and Spaghetti Monster? How?? They might be based on creatures long ago which existed but were barely seen.
He says the inability to prove God's not real isn't good enough reasoning for belief, but said believing in God is tragic as we don't rely on evidence. Lacking proof of God does not mean it's tragic to have faith - it's often personal evidence. Is it tragic to believe in the Big Bang? You can't prove that, either!
Sapphire848 1 week ago
@Sapphire848 But faith is by definition a belief in something without evidence, whereas the Big Bang has a substantial amount of evidence backing it up, relatively speaking of course. One should suspend judgment on both until they have reviewed the evidence themselves. The problem being that even when you understand the Big Bang, the mind still boggles at the implications, but believing in God requires little to no intellectual responsibility. Which one will an intellectually lazy person choose?
gamegloss 1 week ago
@gamegloss That's a good point to bring up. Faith isn't always without evidence, but it I agree it lacks substantial/convincing evidence for the general public, but that's why it's personal evidence. Experiences which lead to spirituality whether they're scientists or not. Also, you're right in the comparison of evidence, but I chose my words carefully: he spoke of the lack of proof, not evidence, choosing one over the other which I found highly unscientific.
Sapphire848 1 week ago
@Sapphire848 I have no problem with religious people relegating their beliefs to being faith-based. That is absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned.
I won't even try to challenge the beliefs of someone who makes that admission unless they are willing to participate in a debate, they behave in an unacceptable manner as a result of those beliefs, or they attempt to impose their beliefs on other people, distortion the truth in order to do so.
Religious beliefs should be a private matter.
gamegloss 1 week ago
@gamegloss That's good. I'm the same and I wish all people were like that. I'm tired of feeling the pressure amongst Christian friends when they think I'm yet to find my way (because it's not based on the Bible). I hope my response didn't sound anything other than continuing a friendly conversation. I told you a bit about my reasons to help explain why I'm spiritual.
My overall point is that Dawkins shouldn't say one is wrong when it can't be disproven.
Sapphire848 1 week ago
@gamegloss (2nd part) I'd also like to add that it's not a matter of which one. One can believe in much that scientists have demonstrated or given us evidence for but, for many people, seeing the beauty in scientific discovery and how the world might have been constructed is what convinces them more of the existence of a creator. Not a man - energy of some form.
Btw, I'm not religious. I'm Spiritual with my own choices, therefore can chose what to believe by makes more sense to me.
Sapphire848 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also, did he really say you can disprove the Easter bunny and Spaghetti Monster? How?? They might be based on creatures long ago which existed but were barely seen.
He says the inability to prove God's not real isn't good enough reasoning for belief, but said believing in God is tragic as we don't rely on evidence. Lacking proof of God does not mean it's tragic to have faith - it's often personal evidence. Is it tragic to believe in the Big Bang? You can't prove that, either!
Sapphire848 1 week ago
Also, did he really say you can disprove the Easter bunny and Spaghetti Monster? How?? They might be based on creatures long ago which existed but were barely seen.
He says the inability to prove God's not real isn't good enough reasoning for belief, but said believing in God is tragic as we don't rely on evidence. Lacking proof of God does not mean it's tragic to have faith - it's often personal evidence. Is it tragic to believe in the Big Bang? You can't prove that, either!
Sapphire848 1 week ago
I see the same classic misunderstanding as what Prof. Lennox spoke of reg. Hawking's 'The Grand Design': the dispute should never be whether belief in God is a suffient explanation or whether science is suffient because something needs to use these laws of physics!
I admire some of his attitude: he understands beauty of life, but it doesn't have to be less beautiful by the belief in more being out there. The survival instinct could be programmed into us by God to make us relish every moment.
Sapphire848 1 week ago
When he mentioned The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I laughed.
TheFrozenthia 2 weeks ago
@TheFrozenthia
Dont mock the Flying Spaghetti Monster - you heathen
yetikeeper 1 week ago
I was studying to be a priest.
But then I realized I loved fucking 19 year old pussy.
Not 6 year old buttholes.
johnnymexica 2 weeks ago
Atheists are in delusion...
SuatA91 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The"First Awakened Human", In the "Human Race", have to be "Reengineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING GOD, FEARFUL yet LOVING , If Your Break The Law, You'll be Trown into the BURNING HELL literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE / Primate, As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Ordeal1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dont Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the begining of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfill Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Pls Explain >>>
Ordeal1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now....
Ordeal1000 2 weeks ago
Just curious...Who is the interviewer here? What program? What network? He looks familiar.
dearthworm 2 weeks ago
I can prove GOD!
I call my right shoe my God
Want to see my shoe?
championkoppie 3 weeks ago
you should read sociologys explenation for God(s) a great book is Social theory
MrSweden09 4 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is hugely over rated as a debater and commentator
FuroraCeltica 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Read the book Dawkins Delusion - Dawkins' arguments are embarrassingly juvenile.
webhutspain 1 month ago
Evolution is always happening. YOU are a transitional human being. People will dig you up in millions of years and think you look like an alien. Does that make sense to you?
thinkboutit 1 month ago 3
I think the thing with evolution was people didn't even think of questioning the idea of creationism as just like dawkins said "it seemed utterly self-evident that there could not be any scientific explanation for the origin of life" but I think keeping that in mind we should be willing to question other things taken for granted in our understanding of everything.
Such as, our assumption that reality actually exists, maybe nothing exists and its all an illusion.
AntiSpeciesistWorld 1 month ago
he always looks ticked off until hes ripping religion. that's what makes him so damn great :D
benedictdegwyn 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a fictitious fabrication devised by human beings for power and control. Man needs support for his fears and is open to domination by theologian authoritarian figures. Mankind hasn't the intellectual capacity to discern the existence of a god or not. It's all thoughtless conjecture.
lifeschild1 1 month ago
And, and the pioneer of darwin's research here is going around the world to do Xsavior job, haha, not my cup of tea, I retired after my boxes are stolen and disagreed with right at my face. bull crap.
icemindreallife 1 month ago
I dont care, they hacked my box, and framing me. HAHA
icemindreallife 1 month ago
Having both boxes is only an ability. LIke the way Muslims will punish people with death penalty. It is only an ability to do it, but not a fact to carry out the punishment. This ability is what disproves science. And turns Science into science fiction. Many a times, the modern megatron will exercise its power to have both boxes, yours and mine, and there is no need to argue with it. because in the end, the megatron guards the knowledge it chooses to share with the world.
icemindreallife 1 month ago
The topic at now is how to have both boxes, the agree and the disagreed ones. And to do this is simple, just copy it from the opinion one voices out. And you can then choose to agree or disagree and have both. But then again, according to facts, only one holds true. But to argue about facts is not a human failure, to argue about opinions is actually an ability. To trust ones own innocence like one actually has it without having to feel pain and despair, is an inability to have both boxes. Yours
icemindreallife 1 month ago
If we look at the time, where Darwin'sjob is laughed at, and humans still have not achieved the knowledge to genetic engineering and curing illnesses, then we pay tribute to the science that fought for its success. At times where the science is achieved, and religion no longer is found as a close enemy to take the research down, then people can basically forget the history. It is considered a near history, I do not see the conflict. One thinks, others agree or disagree when hear those words as s
icemindreallife 1 month ago
If religion talks about the faith, do you want to go fight them? No.
But if religion took the life of Emily Rose and stuff, then you save them.
But it is like faith holds, until the last resort.
OMG, what has my comments come into?
icemindreallife 1 month ago
Science cures, not exorcism. The god is delusion at a very important degree. It cures to know that medicine is the real remedy, and medicine comes from science. God has gone through Emily Rose's death to prove itself bogus. And Science always important than religion. Especially when someone falls ill.
icemindreallife 1 month ago
He's been in the world without any Creator what makes him think of such thought.
MsLovelymoments 1 month ago
All I have to say to this is, where is the proof of evolution? there are too manny missing links and holes on evolution. For something to be a law following the scientific method you have to be able to replicate it time and again, there is no recent history of any evolution, therefore evolution still a theory and not a law. If you drop a penny does it fall to the ground every time? Law of gravity. It's so simple. Prove evolution time and again, in this age, and I'll buy into it.
mannyjre 1 month ago
@mannyjre .It has been proven, time and again. Look at the fossil record as one example. "Theory" has two main meanings by the way. When you say evolution is "still a theory" you are implying that it is "theory" as in, " It's JUST a theory" like a hypothesis that hasn't been proven. The other MAIN meaning of the word theory is something that is the BEST conclusion or hypothesis around that has been proven the BEST explanation, period, in essence..a FACT. That is what the THEORY of evolution is.
Rtystic 1 month ago
@mannyjre lmao a scientific theory doesn't become a law. In science, a theory is already as high as it will ever go. It doesn't get upgraded to law, nor does it become a fact. It will remain a theory even if the evidence is all there, just like cell theory or germ theory. You don't know what you are talking about.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@mannyjre You pulled a classic ignorant question, why evolution is not happening today? Evolution is a gradual process, earth is over 4 billion years old, we're being scientifically observing nature for three to four human life cycles which is just a drop in ocean of time. Humans are much taller than 1 thousand years ago, just a small example of evolution, if human race survive for millions of years we would look a lot different than todays human.
dmarkham123 1 month ago 5
@dmarkham123 The fastest example of evolution that I can think of is building muscles. One goes to the gym and perform heavy exercises several times during a period of time. The body acknowledges the tougher existence and adapt to it by developing more muscles. Why would a god do that?
LoverofLiszt 1 month ago
I heard dawkins doent believe in evolution anymore.
darkfur35 1 month ago
I can see that Mr Dawkins is just seeing things just in the surface and he is not trying to sub-dive so to see what's under, because it is not benefits him!!
imperialman1988 1 month ago
Human society has seemed to break natural selection. Since we allow intellectually and physically weak people to reproduce, I feel that the human race will regress in the next few thousand years. I'm not saying that we should slaughter mentally handicapped people. I'm just noting that our society has broken natural selection.
seanpull 1 month ago 2
@seanpull that's true.
JohnF30Music 1 month ago
@seanpull no it has not, because most of those people tend to breed together and most of the stronger people do the same
MrTk118 1 month ago
@MrTk118 Evolution isn't so much about who is the strongest, but who adapts to their environment and the changes that accumulate while doing so. If natural selection is somewhat broken with humans it's not that handicapped people get to fuck, but that humans bend nature to their needs (ie fur coats instead of growing a furrier one). Plus we have a much easier way to interbreed with our neighbors snuffing out most mutations. Also the human species is around 30kish yrs old. So very young.
mistereveready 1 month ago
@misterever good point, but by strongest i mean adaptability, and the weaker of the human race are not always as weak as they appear to be, such as have a genetic advantage but no will to attain its full ability.
MrTk118 1 month ago
@MrTk118 Well the advantage really depends on what pressures the environment places upon the organism. Atm the thriving traits are sexual selection and the ability to procure sympathy from others. Like you say, what appears weak isn't necessarily so. One of humanities keenest adaptations seems to be the ability to care for those that are injured and to a point show concern for each other. Probably will be a very long time before any huge changes occur in humanity on a large scale.
mistereveready 1 month ago
@mistereveready very true my friend, now-days it seems more sexual-selection than most, or who can provide the best life-style. maybe culture has become a form of man made natural-selection as most of life's hardships are now social.
MrTk118 1 month ago
@MrTk118 Cultural natural-selection, you say. We generally have no problem with selecting mates within our social class. With this in mind, consider trailer parks. Not everyone has set their standards for a mate to "supermodel" or "successful businessman".
GuacamoleKun 1 month ago
@MrTk118 No, it has. In a natural society, with natural selection, only the strongest survive. In our society, everyone survives. There's enough supplies and resources for everyone, if they want to go earn them. So, the weaker people are staying alive, and reproducing. So, in maybe 10,000 years if you look at the top 50% of people on this planet as far as physical and mental ability, those would be the only people on the planet a few thousand years ago. Do you understand?
seanpull 1 month ago
Comment removed
seanpull 1 month ago
God Delusion is an excellent book!
youdontsayhey 1 month ago 2
It's good to see an interviewer who is mainly concerned with helping Richard Dawkins state his case in a way the viewer can understand and process, rather than trying to attack and confuse the arguments.
waori 1 month ago 4
This is such a beautiful video and probably one of the best I've seen of Mr. Dawkins.
JeremiahCrow 2 months ago 2
Lol'd at the flying spaghetti monster.
JeremiahCrow 2 months ago 3
I love this man. He talks so rationally. Everything what he says has an explanation.
wirgiukass 2 months ago
Just got his book for New Year 2012!
Metzuyan1980 2 months ago
its a great book hope you enjoy it MagMag96
crkingston 2 months ago
Just got this book for christmas! :D
MagMag96 2 months ago 43
@MagMag96 I think he would be happy with that irony XD
GenoTheMailler 2 months ago
@MagMag96 thats hilarious
Dirtdog1589 5 days ago
I have such a nerd girl crush on him. <3 his intelligence is so sexy.
xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx 2 months ago 26
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx I'm with ya on that one :)
kittycattrashbag 2 months ago
@kittycattrashbag haha :3 nerds are awesome.
xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx 2 months ago
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx Try to influence your friends to feel the same about intelligence. If a large enough portion of the populace are attracted to intelligence, the rest will soon follow suite and 'God' knows the world needs it.
KhadaKuraki 1 month ago
@KhadaKuraki I try very very much. Most of my friends are interested in those things. I try so incredibly hard to change the world in my small town.
xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx 1 month ago
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx If you're leaving the world in a better state than if you had never existed, I would say you're fulfilling one of the key purposes of life (though perhaps not all of them). Oddly enough I didn't need religion to figure that one out on my own when I was a child.
KhadaKuraki 1 month ago
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx can't you keep it in your pants for like a second? moron
zomgtheykilledkennyo 4 days ago
@xXxBlueEyedAngelxXx His intelligence?Wow, now idk who is biger fool, he, or you ...-.- moron ...
AnaximanderLindemann 1 day ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
@TheSelfishAltruist ..not logical to be be spending my precious free time on you tube but that is human behaviour for you...seems that philosophy as Marcus Aurealis said is all we can really call our own , unless it is in my DNA to be writing this now ?...discuss
couthyband 2 months ago
richard dawkins is gangsta, he lays down the law
juren669 2 months ago
Dawkins must have realised by now that religious people are not going to be influenced by any reason or logic rather he will have observed the common pyschological response of retrenchement deeper into threatened beliefs.....the impossibility of his task does not mean he should not do it because without reason and logic we go back to the middle ages...the problem will not go away but surely we are duty bound to save children from molestation and brainwashing by these people?
couthyband 2 months ago
@couthyband I actually am optimistic. Church attendance is waining, it is clear a secular government is better for society, and as people get more educated about science they tend to not believe crazy thoughts. personally I want philosophy taught to small kids... we need to teach them epistemology (the study of how we know what is real) - it needs to be hammered into them (I don't care if you call this brainwashing) that empirical evidence is the only way to determine what is true.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@royrodel yes, evolution hasn't been proven but neither has the theory of gravity. Being a theory doesn't discredit something to the degree you make it out to be it only makes you looks stupid.
bbqman64 2 months ago
@bbqman64 Hello.... actually Evolution has been proven, much more so then gravity. The only evidence for gravity is that bodies of mater move towards each other in a predicatble way... yet we know absolutelty zero on how this force works. It is amazing if you think about it. Bodies of matter billions of miles apart somehow interact with each other across space in a way we dont understand.... I fucking love reality as it is. To me that is the real magic. Fuck gods, demons, talking snakes etc.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@bbqman64 name calling tsk tsk I seem to have struck a raw nerve
why has any evolutionist never been awarded the Nobel prize?,
now as far as I am aware this Dawkins dude is a TV celebrity from Britain who is looked upon as being some kind of joker Now you may not realize it but evolution is a serious debate and clowns like this do it more harm than good
royrodel 2 months ago
@royrodel are you serious?
PointlessSteel 2 months ago
@PointlessSteel completely
Dawkins is bad for evolution
royrodel 2 months ago
@royrodel He is easily and i mean easily cause i read a lot about him and watched his video same As Christopher Hitchens just that Dawkins heavily gets his evidence form Biology while Hitchens Destroy pathethic theists and their arguments.
Mindaugas7100 2 months ago
@royrodel Actually, Dawkins is one of the most prominent biologists in the world and his work has spawned an entire field of inquiry called memetics.
And just about every person who has ever won a Nobel Prize in Biology has been an "evolutionist".
VersaMusic 2 months ago
We don't know from Darwin that it isn't luck
no scientist has ever proven the THEORY of evolution
why has any evolutionist never been awarded the Nobel prize
and why does Dawkins believe in wee green men?
Albert Ensien said
I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts,
royrodel 2 months ago
I don't understand how Dawkins can know how probable the existence of an intelligent designer is.
royallighting7 2 months ago
@royallighting7 An intelligent designer wouldn't have made some of the stupidity we see in design. For example, a designer would not have put the nerve connecting the brain to the voice box of a Giraffe so that it went from the brain through over 15 feet of distance to loop around an artery and travel all the way back to the voice box.
Instead, this nerve would have gone directly from the brain to the voice box, rather then taking that 15 foot detour.
I hope you understand.
manarazer 2 months ago
@manarazer that doesn't seem to say anything about the probability of an intelligent designer.
royallighting7 2 months ago
@royallighting7 Ill tell you... it is zero.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist and you know this how?...
royallighting7 2 months ago
@royallighting7 know what?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
Dr.William Lane Craig gave a very accurate review of this book.
YeshuaisShekinah 2 months ago
First time I've ever seen someone interview Dawkins without looking like an ignorant idiot.
1IrishWarning 2 months ago
Dawkins seems to believe in a god of the gaps. He keeps saying that once "science" discovers something about nature then you do not need God. What he fails to realise is that knowing how something seems to work does not in anyway remove God to any degree.
As for science explaining everything. That is evidently false.
Science cannot explain Art, Poetry, Human Language, Mathematics, Science, Theology, Human Thought, What I was thinking 5 minutes ago etc etc.
Science has recognisable limits.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo Sceince does explain all (or at least most of these things), it certainly explains sceince and mathematics. In terms of art and poetry, like so much, this is up for debate, there is a huge amount of scholarship on evolution and the creation of art and literature (look up Brian Boyd "On the origin of stories")...I agree, science has its limits, but these are far from answered by religion.
JordanMargetts 2 months ago
@JordanMargetts You cannot explain science with science. That is arguing in circles.
Science originated first when Christians became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver. C.S. Lewis
The great scientists were not materialistic naturalists, you cannot defend materialistic naturalism as you have to employ philosophy to begin with, which philosophy isn't by definition.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo This is absurd. People are 'materialists' (such a silly label) because nothing beyond material has ever been observed (im not talking concepts, or thoughts) im talking about the supernatural. I personally am acutely aware that if god suddenyl appeared, he would be made of 'something' as he exists, and is therefore part of reality, and therefore a part of the universe and therefore a part of NATURE. the mere fact you have a word that is opposite of nature, is simply a word trick.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist What is absurd is your assumption that noone has ever witnessed the supernatural. You cannot justify that assumption with your limited knowledge and experience. And when people record their spirtual experience you will not except it based on your presuppocision that materialism is all there is.
Since God has always said HE was created the "Material" world HE would not be part of that MATERIALISM. God is a Spirit not made of flesh which is temporal.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo What bugs me about you guys is this. Tings like radiowaves, or light, or the mircalce of childbirth could be seen as 'magical' and to ancient people they were.. but we now know the processes behind this magic. Dont you see that reality is magical as it is. Planets, stars, people... these are real things that we can observe. Why do you want to add in all this magical stuff that no one can detect or prove when reality as it is is so amazing already. It bothers me you take it for granted
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist For Your Informtation spirital people do not call it supernaturalism as you call it. It is called Spiritual. You should stop your word games.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo No... because I am interested in spiritual things, such as meditation etc... that is not the same as the supernatural. The supernatural is things that are opposite of natural... (hence why it is 'super' natural). Things such as real magic, gods, angels, devils, the paranormal are supernatural... all of these things have not been demonstrated, cannot be proven and lack any credible evidence. They should all be put in the same box and discarded.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist Super does not mean opposite. Super means beyond or superior. You have your definitions mixed up.
Love is spiritual, so is hate, envy, commitments etc. The spiritual is more than the physical and touches us on a deeper level. The human soul is a spirit, even animals have their own spirits. But the human soul has the image of God in our spirit and this is where own experience, knowledge, being comes from. Man is both flesh and spirit. God is only spirit.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo I agree that the human soul is a unique special thing, but it is NOT in anyway supernatural. We know the consciousness comes from the material parts of the brain, because if you stuck a pick axe in someones head, their consciousness will be affected. There is no reason to think that it is somehow magical or supernatural. There is no evidence. Neuroscience clearly shows that whilst we cannot pin down consciousness in the brain, it is 100% definitely a manifestation of the brain.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@Surfxeo 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?' - Douglas Adams.
What is real is already the real magic.. we dont need this bullshit about angels, or gods, demons, heaven, hell, spirits etc etc... they do not exist. They are ancient myth. Dont you see this? Its 2011 buddy, we know so much as it is, its time to let this stuff go! We dont need it, it benefits no one. Its been holding man back for centuries.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist It is 2011 so you should let go of your ancient greek naturalistic materialism and show some love and compassion to your fellow man instead of concentrating on material gain.
I don't see atheists going to Africa or india and setting up schools, sticking up for the locals and dying for their beliefs.
Materialism is not a good trait to hold, it has never benefitted mankind.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo Ancinet Greece? I never knew anything about the greeks until I was in my teens. I just think that in our everyday lives we use evidence for everything, where we live, how to drive a car, how we know our names, even have evidence of peoples love to us... yet for some reaons many people suddenly just believe in thigns there is no evidence for, such as god, angels, and talking snakes.... I have always struggled to understand this switch form a normal rational person, to these mad beliefs.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist But our "modern" lives in our culture cannot be super-impossed on another culture from another time. What you have to do is use the evidence from that culture from that time to understand their culture and history. And you do that by going to the earliest evidence from that time.
As for God, angels and demons, there is plenty of evidence in our lives to and from looking at history, science or even art that what we know does not limit what there exists.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist We have evidence from the past that tells us what happened by what is happening is you are laying your modern ideas of naturalistic materialism as a defence mechanism so as not to believe in God. And as I have demonstrated that naturalistic materialism is not a viable belief system to defend the view there is no God.
You give me the impression that the only God you would believe in would be a "created" God and not God the Creator. Correct me if I am wrong.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo I dont have any philosophical commitment to anything. For me its very simple. Evidence for things is what means they exist. No evidence means they do not exist (maybe we cant detect things yet, but no point believing an infinate number of assertions that may be true).... I am open to any god, if I believed there was evidence. There is not. What you guys dont need to get is that you cnt just choose what to believe, the evidence decides it. How on earth does art prove god btw?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist We all seek evidence. But you cannot throw away evidence when it doesn't suite your world view.
For instance, before the 20th century and we had the internet, tvs, etc... if he used your ideas for evidence you would not believe Australia existed because all the evidence you would have had would have been second hand. If that. Mostly you would have read it from written materials.
We have such materials from the time of Christ who said he is God.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo Your argument isn't really valid, for one reason - even if TheSelfishAltruist didn't have first-hand evidence for Australia, SOMEBODY would have evidence for Australia, because they had either been there, or lived there, or seen it, etc. and they could prove their argument for Australia's existence by presenting that evidence to a non-believer.
jjobie 2 months ago
@Surfxeo Ok lets review the evidence. For Australia: Ive met lots of Australians, I know people who have gone there, seen their pictures, seen the adverts for the place, drink their lagers and seen videos of kangaroos. I can safely assume it exists.... For Christ being god: Four contradictory gospels that were chosen hundreds of years after out of a possible 16. These gospels were written decades after the proposed events, and make claims thaht are backed up NO WHERE ELSE by no historian?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago 2
@Surfxeo The Bible makes claims that are not true, such as the age of the earth or the origins of man (as we now know about the evolution). When Jesus rose from the dead all of the graves of Jerusalem opened and all the dead people came alive.... and no historian from the period (there were many) managed to catch this event? On top of this, the bible has been re written, re edited numerous times. It cites no specific dates for when Jesus was born or died. one gospel has him nailed to a tree.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@Surfxeo I am open to the evidence. I actually love the character of Jesus (humble, help the poor), and I WANT him to be a real man,... but the evidence just doesn't stand up. Im inclined to think he probably did exist but we know so little about him, but the fact 2 gospels have him born at different periods etc etc... makes me (and should you) raise some serious questions. Paul of Tarsus is the only other person out of the bible who mentions him, and he sees a dead Jesus walking down the road.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist I'm not using art, music, poety as proof of God but more as evidence of the existance of our knowledge and experience of something more than ourselves. Part of our shared spiritual being.
I believe to know oneself you much know God first as He is the mold from which we are made. I think the morals which we all share are a stronger proof for God as He is the moral law giver. We have this knowledge of good and evil in us all.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo I was a Christian, and apart from all the heaven hell stuff, I could prob buy into Jesus being lord as I like the guy... so its no use telling me I discard evidence based on my world view. I study medical science. Id love it if all the drugs made worked, and saved lives, but sometimes they just don't no matter how plausible they seemed. I judge everything on the data given. I want them to work, but I accept they dont... You want God to be real but like me you got to accept that he isnt,
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@Surfxeo Knowledge of good and evil? Piranhas when feeding all go in a circle and share the food evenly, the look after their young, and dont eat other piranhas. Cows mourn their dead for hours. Monkeys carry their dead babies on them in grief. Chimpanzes hold ceremonies for dead relatives. Tigers protect their young, and will give their lives if neccesary. Chimps have been known to drown to save their family member. Did god put knowledge of right and wrong into them as well?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@Surfxeo See the difference is this idea of god given morality is just lazy thinking. By looking at the world around us we can understand where morals come from. A society where people murdered and raped each other would fail very quickly. A society where we cooperate, look after each other (and maybe have a little bit of self interest thrown in) would be beneficial to us individually, and to everyone else's. Morals have evolved, just like they did in all other species of animal. This is a fact
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@Surfxeo No one has ever claimed science can explain Poetry, so you are attacking a position that no one holds... and is the age old straw man that I think you have picked up from Dr Craig. Science is the only method to discovering truths about nature, because science at its core is about explaining nature.. thats the point. if god exists, then he scientifically can be proven (I could see him maybe, which is a form of evidence)
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist Science at its core is not about explaining nature in anyay. Science is about finding law in nature which man can harness what we find in naturefor the good of mankind.
Science cannot answer why life originated, how it came to be in it's present form. It cannot be done scientifically. We can only look at things scienfically in the present time. If you go beyond the present you either have to employ history or philosophy.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo Why do you think there is an answer to the question of 'why' life evolved. Why do I get up in the morning, why do bacteria live in the toilet. The why question is subjective and down to my own interpretations. Bacteria to me have no purpose, but if they could think they would disagree. If god made us, there is a HOW to be answered. He would have used a process which can be explained (whether we can understand it is irrelevant). This is a scientific question. Thats obvious to me.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@Surfxeo So because we can't answer every question about life right now God exists? I really hope that's not what you're suggesting.
ButtSauceversion1 2 months ago
@ButtSauceversion1 Your logic is flawed. You obviosly think that if we explain something scientifically that it somehow removes God. It does nothing of the kind. Science only work on the "how?" questions; not the "why?" questions. And it doesn't touch anything that is not materialistic in nature.
Your naturalistic materialism philosophy is not based on science. Your precommitment to materialism concluded God does not exist even before the question. You are arguing in cirlces.
Surfxeo 2 months ago
@Surfxeo I myself am skeptical of most things. That obviously includes religion. You talk of science like it is a religion when it's based on evidence and data gained from hundreds of years of experimentation. I don't understand what you mean by "why questions". Give me an example. Why are there natural distasters? Why are we here? Myself, as an atheist, can't see how religion answers those questions.
ButtSauceversion1 2 months ago
@ButtSauceversion1 I don't think science will ever explain "why" we are here. There may be no reason "why" we are here. Many claim that there HAS to be a reason why we're here, but who says there has to be? There may or may not be, but that's yet another unanswered question.
TheSecrecyOfSolitude 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@TheSecrecyOfSolitude I appreicate the reply and like to see that you are open minded. I can't even begin to approach the "why are we here?" question. I don't see anyone being able to give any answer to that question. The question itself I find flawed because before you ask it you're implying that the universe has some latent meaning beneath what we can see or observe, e.g. god, buddha, flying spahgetti monster.
ButtSauceversion1 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins speaks nothing but perfect logic. The world would probably be much less violent and everyone would probably be a lot more intelligent. It's a shame people grow up with God or Allah, etc. and they don't think or question what they believe and have no plans to even let the thought pass their mind that they might be wrong.
adamrobinson7295 2 months ago
I slap the faggot Richard Dawkins on the sabbath.
soldierofdec 2 months ago
@soldierofdec lol...the earth will be better off without you my friend
TyShredder 2 months ago
@soldierofdec You cannot come back with a logical and evidential argument. All you have to go by is, "Well you're wrong and I'm right and that's why you're a fucking idiot." Your argument makes no progression with the entire debate and you just let yourself look like a degenerate fool.
adamrobinson7295 2 months ago
@adamrobinson7295
You are a raging faggot, go and suck Hitchens cock you little gimp biatch.
soldierofdec 2 months ago
@soldierofdec I don't really know if you're being genuine or just trolling. If you are being genuine then you're one of the biggest idiots I've ever talked to. If you're trolling then you're still a fucking idiot. So all in all, congratulations on being an idiot.
adamrobinson7295 2 months ago
@adamrobinson7295
Your just a little scroat hair faggot boy thats part of a faggot Athiest cult where all members worship faggots like Dawkins or Hitchens with their faggot gay English accents that trick faggots twats like you into listening to them but in reality they dont know jack shit because their gay little faggot boy freaks like you, ;O hahahahaha @ you faggot fairy gimp boy, you have a hardon for Richard Fuckwit Dawkins, LOL.
soldierofdec 2 months ago
@soldierofdec Yeah, it seems to me that you're just trolling because I don't think someone could match a real life stupidity like you're conveying. On the off chance of you actually being this retarded, Dawkins speaks complete good sense and religious people can't come back to it with any sort of thought out evidence apart from, "Oh, I feel it so it's a fact." Anyway, trolling or not, you're pathetic.
adamrobinson7295 2 months ago
@adamrobinson7295 I'm straight and I have no shame in admitting I get the odd hard on for Dawkins.. how could you not?
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago 3
@soldierofdec Someone is failing at covering up their own latent homosexuality. ;P
ButtSauceversion1 2 months ago
tremendous book.. slight off key notes here and there, but overall its a tremendous read.
luishomeroremohsiul 3 months 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 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papacy cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM til Bible's destroyed folks
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh poor atheists,
Here is "Debate- Islam or Atheism- Hamza Andreas Tzortzis vs President of American Atheists "
watch?v=mjgmSQbDcQI
akeello 3 months ago
How dare he lump the Flying Spaghetti Monster with those other fake gods!
BobMcCob 3 months ago
Being an atheist is a hard work' you have to act kids beliefs if they are serious.
HolyDeSade 3 months ago
Praise the Lord <3
I love God. God hates your souls...
L1LD1C3R07 3 months ago
The world's most famoused atheist?
Triipticz 3 months ago
Seemed like a theist interviewer, but unlike most , he seemed very open minded and not defensive
test123ok 3 months ago
That was a very good interview :)
raindropsneverfall 3 months ago
@Bobahat @Bobahat I would have to disagree with you on that point. Craig is easily considered one of the greatest debaters in the world. If you look at the arguments based on their merit I think it is quite evident that Craig was superior in both the Harris and Hitchens debate. The Hitchens debate especially, have you seriously watched the debate, Hitchens was just out-classed in all respects. Even many atheists agree:
thejoey1407 3 months ago
richard dawkins the moron
UgotShit4Brains 3 months ago
William Lane Craig would eat Dawkins alive in a debate
thejoey1407 3 months ago
@thejoey1407 Craig has been eaten alive by both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens so far. I'm sure Dawkins would have no trouble with him either. The reason why Dawkins doesn't want to debate Craig is that Dawkins is interested in science and doesn't want to waste time debating people who have nothing to back up their claims whatsoever.
Bobahat 3 months ago
@Bobahat unfortunately I was unable to send you the link I wanted as youtube won't allow it but it is found on commonsenseatheism. Craig backs up his claims quite sufficiently, it is the logic in others he has debated with who he has deemed to be invalid (This is not to say that there are not good arguments for atheism, rather, Craig seems to do a very good job of exposing his opponent, not necessarily the belief)
thejoey1407 3 months ago
@thejoey1407
Yeah. Sure.
The same way flat-earthers would eat geologists alive in a debate.
Kinin4 3 months ago
@Kinin4 Care to expand. I do not think that is being very fair to Craig. In what way is he illogical to the extent of the analogy you have given? What makes Craig so special is that unlike other Christians or even unlike many religious apologists, Craig plays strictly by the rules of logic and does it well. I don't say this because I am religious (I am not) I only say this because I have a lot of respect for his ability to defend of view which over the years has seemed to be on a decline.
thejoey1407 3 months ago
GOD IS NOT ESTER BUNNY AND ONE CAN NOT ARGUE BY ANALOGY. AN EDUCATED FOOL THIS MAN IS.
CristoofRomania 3 months ago
@CristoofRomania
Back up your claims before you make assertions.
Why is the Easter-bunny not analogous to god, evidence-speaking?
Kinin4 3 months ago
@Kinin4 I hope Kinin4 doesn't mind me answering this one. Evidence speaking it is quite evident that an Easter Bunny or Santa Claus does not exist. We know Santa does not live in the north pole and there is no evidence of him delivering presents on December 25. In a different sense, many of the arguments which advocate for the existence of God state claims through a process of deduction which concludes that the physical world is not all that exists. (Cont'd)
thejoey1407 3 months ago
@thejoey1407
I could use the very same processes of deduction to show that Santa does indeed exist.
At the beginning, every claim in every field is on the same level as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny unmtil it has supporting evidence (dialectical prestidigitation does not count).
It is not I who have to justify my claim that God is like Santa; it is the theists who have to justify the claim that god ISN'T like Santa.
Kinin4 3 months ago
@Kinin4 There are a great deal of arguments which advocate the existence of a God. You are right Santa is on the same field until proven otherwise. My point is that there are many arguments that advocate for existence of God and if correct they would automatically refute the claim that Santa is the same. If you are looking for a good argument for the existence of God, consider the Kalam Cosmological argument. My point being that if an argument like this is true Santa is not like God. (Cont'd)
thejoey1407 3 months ago
@thejoey1407
Cosmological Argument: "The Universe is fine-tuned. Things are not fine-tuned unless they are made by an intelligence. Therefore, there is a universal, transcendent being which created the universe, which we call god."
Kinin4 3 months ago
@thejoey1407
Gift Argument: "All things operate together arbitrarily; things 'give' each other themselves; the laws of Physics did not have to be the way they are, Gravity could easily have taken care of Quantum Physics. Nonetheless, we see two separate laws working together in perfect harmony, lending their principles to each other when one is shortcoming. Then there is also the innate desire to give charitably, which is ingrained in our biological makeup.
(continued)
Kinin4 3 months ago
@thejoey1407
Gift Argument: "All things operate together arbitrarily; things 'give' each other themselves; the laws of Physics did not have to be the way they are, Gravity could easily have taken care of Quantum Physics. Nonetheless, we see two separate laws working together in perfect harmony, lending their principles to each other when one is shortcoming. Then there is also the innate desire to give charitably, which is ingrained in our biological makeup.
(continued)
Kinin4 3 months ago
@Kinin4 Fair Enough, point taken. However, the gift argument, I don't think addresses the question of ultimate cause: How can something come from nothing? In relation to your argument the question is: How did this perfect harmony arise? I think it is here we will come to a crossroads. Dawkins himself agrees that the origin of the universe cannot be explained "yet"but he believes that science will overcome it.
thejoey1407 3 months ago
Comment removed
Kinin4 3 months ago