That attempts by seduction are needed suggests a frightening fundamentalism at work when it comes to religious belief. This may be mainly an American problem, going by Dr Krauss's remarks. In any case, I think it's disingenuous to try tacking on a science atop religious nonsense in the hope that at least the nonsense will now have complement. Ironically, Dr Krauss bemoans just the converse of this when he mentions the demand that the 'controversy' be taught. Prof. Dawkins has the right of it.
FINALLY, a scientist (Krauss) addresses the issue of knowledge of science for the very few, "How do you expect to get support for science and an understanding of science if it's not accessible?" This is one of the main problems and needs to be addressed
O.o Man, I can't believe that 40% of Americans believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. Over here in Australia they teach us evolution as a fact and about the big bang. I would be very hard pressed to find anyone in my year level (year 11) that doesn't believe in evolution. Many people couldn't care less about religion over here. It's hard to imagine living with creationism being the normal belief, at least for people my age anyway.
I brought up this point today with a friend critisizing Hitchens' & Dawkins' approach & why I prefer the tact of people like Fry & Harris. The moment you say someone's belief/oppinion is rediculous or stupid (which they frequently do) the defence mechanisms of thier adversaries kick in & they are instantly drawn into conflict with the position. I think that's pretty basic human psychology of which both Dawkins & Hitchens should be more mindful of. It doesn't help their arguement.
@MrLittletomdj I think there is a place for strident atheism. Granted most people will cower back into cognitive dissonance at first but a strongly placed seed may be more likely to take serious root than a kind and gentle "agree to disagree" mentality. I think, of course, this will vary from person to person.
@FlintboyG We're not entirely at odds on this. When Hitchens calls out circumcision as immoral, wicked and evil in a forceful tone, he hammers that point home. Hats off to that! Forcefulness is not my gripe though. Insults & adhominen attacks are. Hitchens certainly illustrates clearly that no harmony can be reached between many current religious dogmas and diplomacy. "This is wrong & you can & should understand why" is my prefered approach. It's not as if I practice what I'm preaching though.
@MrLittletomdj I agree with you, a more aggressive approach forces them back into their shell to defend their stance at all cost. It becomes a war, whereas a Harris approach seems to be more constructive way for them to listen and be less defensive as he's not oppressing or insulting them.
notice at the end how dawkins gets very emotional when Krauss tells the story of the students who came up to him after he said that you dont have to be an atheist to believe in evolution
WHAT THE HELL!!! Did he say that 50% percent do not know that the earth revolves around the sun? I read somewhere that it was about 20% percent. But 50% percent??? America is in deep shit! HELP ME RICHARD DAWKINS!!! HELP ME!!! COME AND TAKE ME OUT OF THE USA! I'LL DO ANYTHING! I'LL SHINE YOUR SHOES, I'LL MOW YOUR LAWN! I'LL SERVE YOU IN ANY WAY I CAN! JUST COME AND GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE! I live in El Paso Texas! Please! Send me a PM! I'm scared! Get me outta here!!! Pretty please!
@greycloud24 Well, that's still scary, knowing that so many people in the USA are so stupid! Bill O'Reily of FOX NEWS doesn't even know why "the tide goes in and the tide goes out" and he's making more money than I ever will. By the way, I checked out your channel and I have just now subscribed.
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
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
If you have a "sound fail" don't watch the discussion from the playlist but instead hit every video after the other with no playlist open.That should fix it.
@SCAREDBANANA Because they are very intelligent, yet are very intolerant towards religion, which is extremely unwise to be. First of all because all evidence on earth points to creation of mankind by off world beings, as the Mesopotamian scripture tells us, and basicly every other old religious book. And they say that because it is true. Like all stories on earth about the builders of the pyramids worldwide. Let's ignore all that. Pretend that all these historical anomalies are nonsense.
@CamoKhan2000 : Yes, let's. The older these scriptures get the more unlikely it is for them to hold any true significance. These texts were all written by pre-science era civilisations and more we find out the less impressive these texts become. They literally had no idea about what they tried to make sense of or are you saying we should put time in to see if the sun is actually a chariot ridden by a god trying to catch the moon? Being first doesn't make you right...
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
It is 5 am and I keep telling myself...just this last part...uhhh it will be daylight and probably I will finished these two men discussing. I can't stop.
Science is still "making the story" while religion already has it's story finished so it has massive amounts of time to propagate it. Actually that's the main thing it does.
The "stalk THEORY" is child friendly, it's fine to sorta shutup the questions from those annoying little brats, likewise creationism is for children, stops them from asking too many questions.
The sex THEORY and evolutionary THEORY are for the grownups :)
@TurboDally *stork. Also it's psychologically cruel to lie to your kids at such a young age. You wouldn't convince them that God exists only to tell them the exact opposite when they're 18.
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
I only have a high school education and what Mr. Krauss describes at 2:00 is exactly what I suffer from with many topics. It is very easy for me to see creationism is false; however, I am completely lost when it comes to topics like economics. For example our financial crises. One side says it was gov't deregulation and the other side says it was too many unqualified people getting home loans. I'm uneducated so to me, they both make good points and it seems so nuanced, I wind up completely lost.
@teedesigns when you look at the financial collapse, dont view it as greedy borrowers, greedy banks, OR greedy deregulating politicians. consider greedy borrowers, greedy banks, AND greedy deregulating politicians.
Most people I've heard who accept both theism and evolution don't really accept evolution as science understands it. They tend to think evolution was 'guided' by the hand of God, which completely removes the whole point of Darwin's achievement of explaining evolution by chance variation and non-chance natural selection. Therefore theistic evolutionists may accept 'evolution' of a kind, but they are rejecting DARWINIAN evolution.
@sam51092 the problem is there is not one evidence of god and until then you must have an open mind. Science doesnt deny a chance of god they only say no evidence says such exist. When people think they already have an answer "god" then you have no reason to search for the truth.
@ounb That doesn't change the fact that most theistic evolutionists don't actually understand evolution. So I have to wonder what they'd think if they did understand it. I have to wonder if they'd be like me and think it's pretty suspicious that God happened to choose the one means of achieving his creation that doesn't require his existence, and the one means that guarantees maximum suffering... we can't pretend there's no conflict here.
@sam51092 Does the fact (in your mind) that there is no God, change your view on suffering? In other words, since there is no God, there really is no reason to be upset about suffering. Suffering just is!
@sam51092, In other words, if God exists, then he damn well better abide by your criteria and expectations of what a God should be? My, how full of yourself you are!
@WSGAC Uh, not MY criteria and expectations, but yours: namely, the criteria and expectations that God be all-powerful and all-good. If your God is either not all-powerful and/or not all-good, then there's no problem. But if he is, then there is.
@sam51092 Again, in other words, if God exists then he damn well better abide your criteria and expectations of what a God should be! The silly pot telling the potter how he should run the potters wheel! My, how full of yourself you are!
@WSGAC Ah, yes. The time honored fundamentalist tactic of 'If you don't know how to answer someone's point but are too pig-headed to admit it, just endlessly repeat your original point as if they hadn't said anything!' Well I might now go do something more productive than talking to you. Like, talking to a brick. Goodbye, have a nice life.
@sam51092, Well, there really was no point! It was just a rant. I simply pointed out the self-centeredness at the core of his rant. A brick like yourself has a hard time keeping up. You have a nice life too, brick!
All those begats were never written to be literally added up, they actually form a rather splendid acrostic, someone must have sat down and thought long and hard to produce it but that's all it is, now you can believe Adam existed 6000 years ago if you like, but wasn't that supposed to be in "Eden" and not on earth?
I went to a church of England primary school and was taught about the bible and other religions, and I never believed in God, to me it was just a story to make us get along with each other. Our world is complex and needs a complex answer and science provides those answers, for instance whats the smallest thing in the universe? Religion can't answer you, but science can, science can also explain other things that religion can't, therefore i believe in science, facts and logic.
@jeanclaudevandamme@jeanclaudevandamme jeanclaudevandamme was licking his mom’s hairy butthole when he heard the icecream truck. jeanclaudvandamme stopped licking his mom’s nasty gash and ran outside to buy icecream but realized he was out of foodstamps luckily Bob Saget was the one selling icecream and he gave jeanclaudevandamme free frosting all over his face. Since then everytime jeanclaudevandamme walks into Baskin Robbins he yells “I scream U scream we all scream for Bob Sagets Splooge
@EldonGuyre I agree. It's silly to presume that debate should necessarily involve competition. I think many would prefer a debate that simply informs.
thats because WE are made of matter/space/time, hence "we" {i.e. the conciousness} shows us that it is self evident and existant, which is exactly what its components are{i.e. components of conciousness/feeling are exactly what the constructs of the universe are IN THEMSELVES}.
@leonheartmm you just kind of made a bunch of assumptions with no proof. My theory is that the rulers of the world are actually galactic lizards that are enslaving us and they put dumb ideas in your brain..
@OrderoftheWhiteHand You are making a larger assumption with the lizard-lords, therefore the more intelligent position is to side with leonheartmm who makes less significant/numerous assumptions.
no i didnt, you merely showed ur ignorance of philosophy and epistemology and veiled it with an idiotic reply against my statement in an effort to feel smarter than you really are. nuthing more.
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
@Ridabu Only poor ppl who have to watch 240p experiences the sound fail. Rich ppl in third world countries like South Africa, watches 360p and 720p. , download 360p and downloads Lawrence Krauss's AAI 2009 talk on Origins. All at the same time. Move to a thrird worldo country, or get a better job.
The sun also signifies enlightenment. Even in Christianity, which you seem to believe in, the sun is used to denote heavenly glory. Are you really suggesting that Dawkins is a satanist?
I think you underestimate the average intelligence level of the majority of people who find enjoyment in these discussions. If that is what you are suggesting, then take it somewhere else.
The notion of design is a delusion in the first place.
Nature is not intelligent nor does it design therefore neither intelligence nor design exist in the first place. Every causal effect event is the result of environmental influence. It's the mechanics of how things change/evolve.
Quantum Physics is showing a behaviour beyond anything that makes sense in the current understanding of how we came to be. Most would call these findings delusional as well.
In other words what is being seen is not how we might expect things to behave, and yet it is happening and nobody understands why. If one was to speak of what they are seeing with quantum physics they might be called delusional. Especially if they were unable to demonstrate it. And even then to the non scientist it may be to hard to grasp these findings. And yet they are real and I believe will begin to show us what is really going on as a whole.
Yeah I'm really sorry, I responded to your first post about quantum physics being delusional, then I saw that you had posted another one. What I meant was that Quantum physics can not be called "delusional" because you can predict the bahaviour of particles, and different scientists have gotten the same results independent of each other.
And I agree that we will surely get answers by using it more in the future.
No, see Quantum Physics is showing behaviour beyond current understanding through experimental results. I agree that most would call this a delusion, but not because it is one, but because the majority will herd in fear of change
(Every causal effect event is the result of environmental influence)
So how did the environment come to be? Is there an intelligence before things take physical form. It sure seems Quantum physics is pointing in this direction. Consciousness before form! I guess it depends on what YOU call intelligence, or consciousness for that matter.
2. that is a misinterpretation and psudeoscientifically simple interpretation{no doubt u read it sumwhere nd rent responsible for it} of quantum mechanics.
form IS conciousness. or rather, form is a convenient fiction{of perception} of the inherently dual physical entities in the world of which the self evident nature is conciousness. {i.e. conciousness is the real FORM of what matter is merely our interpretation as subjective observers}.
the proofs of monism are very long. but ill try to illustrate it with an example. all that you SEE "i.e. matter/space/time" is merely a reflection of YOU or rather, the physical changes that occur in YOUR brain as a result of input from outside. thus it goes to reason that our "concepts" of "matter/space" are not really what matter/space are "in themselves".
but then what are matter/space/time, can we know them at all outside our conception of them?
Why, what story were u told? I always thought it was a dude hiding in the bushes with a pair of binoculars who jumps out and makes mum pregnant then runs away
Look, I know there is going to be a bit of backlash to this comment, but isn't the reason that evolution is called a "theory" is because the distinction between a "theory" and a "law" (fact) is that a "law" is demonstrable and reproducible? Evolution is a fine collection of evidence, to be sure, but given the immense time-frames required for significant evolution to occur makes it difficult if not impossible to demonstrate with real subjects. Just a thought, please don't flame me for asking :P
na, like we know plate techtonics is a fact but we still call it a theory not a law. its the thiests grasping at straws instead of coming up with a clever scientific argument
I guess another example, YerTalkingKrap, is learning a trade eg plumbing or auto mechanics. The students have practical instruction and they also have theory, even though it's fairly well established how pipes and engines work.
Just requires a lot of generations to see. They can produce thousands of generations in bacteria and can monitor change that occurs. For example, a strain of resistant bacteria (I think to chlorine) was produced after thousands of of selective breedings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Heeers Darrrwin
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, letter to Mr bentham admits, When we decend into details we can prove that no one species has changed ( i.e. We cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.
even supposing that you weren't just yanking that quote out of context where it means something else, we have, what? 150 years since darwin. it speaks volumes to me that your criticism centers around a misrepresentation of 150 yr old science.
i'm a little surprised to see your negative count on the thumbs up/down scoreboard!! i hope that it is not because you used strong descriptive words to drive home a very good point! unfortunately i suspect that is the reason! if it's any consolation, i think you worded your point very well!
Krauss is absolutely right at the end here. In America, churches are less moderate than in the UK. My faith makes no comments on science, but their have been Church leaders in the past that have publicly spoken against evolution. It is sad to because there are many Christians in the United States that have no problem with the theory of evolution while their are still many Christian apologetics publicly condemning it.
Despite the intellect that these two espouse, the fact that they engage in sniveling mockery and belittlement of others indicate a level of insecurity and uncertainity that is troubling. If their theories are so slam-dunk and factual, this would not be necessary.
If religionists were not so obtuse and obstinant, this blunt instrument would not be required. If pointing out someone's failings constitutes belittlement, so be it.
It's like holding up the entire class because of the drooling retard in the back. It's more than unfair, it's harmful to society.
More likely, its due to pretentious arrogance. While lambasting mouth breathing religionists, atheists engage in no less a diatribe of self-ascribed infallibility. Both sides are sickening.
your right, it shouldn't be, but people don't think that way. It's like trying to teach a 5 years old about how an airplane wings exactly works. You have to have many discussions, and get really simple.
tardbuster007, to some extent they do play to a gallery, because sensible people expect two highly intelligent men to scoff at such backward thinking.
That attempts by seduction are needed suggests a frightening fundamentalism at work when it comes to religious belief. This may be mainly an American problem, going by Dr Krauss's remarks. In any case, I think it's disingenuous to try tacking on a science atop religious nonsense in the hope that at least the nonsense will now have complement. Ironically, Dr Krauss bemoans just the converse of this when he mentions the demand that the 'controversy' be taught. Prof. Dawkins has the right of it.
yasiru89 2 weeks ago
If you study music you'll know it's the theory of music. I guess music doesn't exist.
jamespiperca 2 weeks ago
"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it." Well said Mr. Krauss.
grant50 2 weeks ago
FINALLY, a scientist (Krauss) addresses the issue of knowledge of science for the very few, "How do you expect to get support for science and an understanding of science if it's not accessible?" This is one of the main problems and needs to be addressed
crowesarethebest 4 weeks ago
O.o Man, I can't believe that 40% of Americans believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. Over here in Australia they teach us evolution as a fact and about the big bang. I would be very hard pressed to find anyone in my year level (year 11) that doesn't believe in evolution. Many people couldn't care less about religion over here. It's hard to imagine living with creationism being the normal belief, at least for people my age anyway.
Zmaster108 1 month ago in playlist Richard Dawkins 2
9:15 to 9:17 Dawkins prooving evolution by becoming a monkey....
ErikHultin1 1 month ago
The "sleazier" one Krauss referred to had to be David Berlinski.
eswyatt 2 months ago
I brought up this point today with a friend critisizing Hitchens' & Dawkins' approach & why I prefer the tact of people like Fry & Harris. The moment you say someone's belief/oppinion is rediculous or stupid (which they frequently do) the defence mechanisms of thier adversaries kick in & they are instantly drawn into conflict with the position. I think that's pretty basic human psychology of which both Dawkins & Hitchens should be more mindful of. It doesn't help their arguement.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
@MrLittletomdj I think there is a place for strident atheism. Granted most people will cower back into cognitive dissonance at first but a strongly placed seed may be more likely to take serious root than a kind and gentle "agree to disagree" mentality. I think, of course, this will vary from person to person.
FlintboyG 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
@FlintboyG We're not entirely at odds on this. When Hitchens calls out circumcision as immoral, wicked and evil in a forceful tone, he hammers that point home. Hats off to that! Forcefulness is not my gripe though. Insults & adhominen attacks are. Hitchens certainly illustrates clearly that no harmony can be reached between many current religious dogmas and diplomacy. "This is wrong & you can & should understand why" is my prefered approach. It's not as if I practice what I'm preaching though.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj I agree with you, a more aggressive approach forces them back into their shell to defend their stance at all cost. It becomes a war, whereas a Harris approach seems to be more constructive way for them to listen and be less defensive as he's not oppressing or insulting them.
weefeatures 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
Dawkins view wouldent held up in an american court? thats just retarded, and you guys still execute ppl......
fnuttskallen 3 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
notice at the end how dawkins gets very emotional when Krauss tells the story of the students who came up to him after he said that you dont have to be an atheist to believe in evolution
AdamBatayneh 3 months ago
WHAT THE HELL!!! Did he say that 50% percent do not know that the earth revolves around the sun? I read somewhere that it was about 20% percent. But 50% percent??? America is in deep shit! HELP ME RICHARD DAWKINS!!! HELP ME!!! COME AND TAKE ME OUT OF THE USA! I'LL DO ANYTHING! I'LL SHINE YOUR SHOES, I'LL MOW YOUR LAWN! I'LL SERVE YOU IN ANY WAY I CAN! JUST COME AND GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE! I live in El Paso Texas! Please! Send me a PM! I'm scared! Get me outta here!!! Pretty please!
BigFatHeretic 3 months ago
@BigFatHeretic Its called the Religous right and the tea party that draws all the Palins in America.
toyprius 3 months ago
@toyprius Well, maybe we'll get lucky, and all the members of The Mad Hatter's Tea Party will get in line to drink the Kool Aid!
BigFatHeretic 3 months ago
@BigFatHeretic its 50% that don't know that it takes a year for the earth to revolve around the sun. they don't understand the definition of a year.
greycloud24 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
@greycloud24 Well, that's still scary, knowing that so many people in the USA are so stupid! Bill O'Reily of FOX NEWS doesn't even know why "the tide goes in and the tide goes out" and he's making more money than I ever will. By the way, I checked out your channel and I have just now subscribed.
BigFatHeretic 2 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
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
If you have a "sound fail" don't watch the discussion from the playlist but instead hit every video after the other with no playlist open.That should fix it.
denispkpk 3 months ago 3
Two smart people talking. How can you beat that!! More videos like this.
SCAREDBANANA 3 months ago 3
@SCAREDBANANA They are dumber then a horse's ass.
CamoKhan2000 3 months ago
@CamoKhan2000 Why you say that?
SCAREDBANANA 3 months ago
@SCAREDBANANA Because they are very intelligent, yet are very intolerant towards religion, which is extremely unwise to be. First of all because all evidence on earth points to creation of mankind by off world beings, as the Mesopotamian scripture tells us, and basicly every other old religious book. And they say that because it is true. Like all stories on earth about the builders of the pyramids worldwide. Let's ignore all that. Pretend that all these historical anomalies are nonsense.
CamoKhan2000 3 months ago
@CamoKhan2000 : Yes, let's. The older these scriptures get the more unlikely it is for them to hold any true significance. These texts were all written by pre-science era civilisations and more we find out the less impressive these texts become. They literally had no idea about what they tried to make sense of or are you saying we should put time in to see if the sun is actually a chariot ridden by a god trying to catch the moon? Being first doesn't make you right...
pinkdeath82 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
9:15 you mad bro?
philnov8 7 months ago
How can these guys' brains both fit in the same room? lol.
ZachRose88 7 months ago 4
@5:20, Krauss says, "The purpose of education is actually not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it." Beautiful!
dorosatt 7 months ago 8
'when did you stop beating your wife?' lol
mahmoudyzadeh 9 months ago
9:15
Dawkins Rage!
BlckSbthMan 10 months ago 4
Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL
nordhorny 10 months ago
The stork theory of reproduction. LOL
ejenglin 10 months ago 5
It is 5 am and I keep telling myself...just this last part...uhhh it will be daylight and probably I will finished these two men discussing. I can't stop.
LambdaQuarks 10 months ago 5
@LambdaQuarks That happens to me far too often.
justtryharder 8 months ago
These guys are prophets.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
Science is still "making the story" while religion already has it's story finished so it has massive amounts of time to propagate it. Actually that's the main thing it does.
Dochot11 1 year ago
the poster behind dawkins make him look like a saint...coincidense ?
hansjaeger1 1 year ago
@hansjaeger1 not a coincidence, they call it providence :p
ohf27 9 months ago
The "stalk THEORY" is child friendly, it's fine to sorta shutup the questions from those annoying little brats, likewise creationism is for children, stops them from asking too many questions.
The sex THEORY and evolutionary THEORY are for the grownups :)
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally *stork. Also it's psychologically cruel to lie to your kids at such a young age. You wouldn't convince them that God exists only to tell them the exact opposite when they're 18.
yousefamar 1 year ago
i wonder who were those 18 people who dislike it and why?
legolasgreenleaff 1 year ago
@legolasgreenleaff Uneducated American religious fanatics who go around all day giving Richard Dawkins videos thumbs down on youtube.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago 5
Krausses approach is to educated people, which is very noble, but Dawkins shows people how to educate themselves by throwing off false reasoning.
Bravowon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
urgencyharviefcem 1 year ago
@urgencyharviefcem Ya totally, screw thermo-dynamics. Perpetual motion is in no way false.
TheFuneralDancer 1 year ago
I only have a high school education and what Mr. Krauss describes at 2:00 is exactly what I suffer from with many topics. It is very easy for me to see creationism is false; however, I am completely lost when it comes to topics like economics. For example our financial crises. One side says it was gov't deregulation and the other side says it was too many unqualified people getting home loans. I'm uneducated so to me, they both make good points and it seems so nuanced, I wind up completely lost.
teedesigns 1 year ago
@teedesigns when you look at the financial collapse, dont view it as greedy borrowers, greedy banks, OR greedy deregulating politicians. consider greedy borrowers, greedy banks, AND greedy deregulating politicians.
manonthemount 1 year ago
Most people I've heard who accept both theism and evolution don't really accept evolution as science understands it. They tend to think evolution was 'guided' by the hand of God, which completely removes the whole point of Darwin's achievement of explaining evolution by chance variation and non-chance natural selection. Therefore theistic evolutionists may accept 'evolution' of a kind, but they are rejecting DARWINIAN evolution.
sam51092 1 year ago
@sam51092 the problem is there is not one evidence of god and until then you must have an open mind. Science doesnt deny a chance of god they only say no evidence says such exist. When people think they already have an answer "god" then you have no reason to search for the truth.
ounb 1 year ago
@ounb That doesn't change the fact that most theistic evolutionists don't actually understand evolution. So I have to wonder what they'd think if they did understand it. I have to wonder if they'd be like me and think it's pretty suspicious that God happened to choose the one means of achieving his creation that doesn't require his existence, and the one means that guarantees maximum suffering... we can't pretend there's no conflict here.
sam51092 1 year ago
@sam51092 Does the fact (in your mind) that there is no God, change your view on suffering? In other words, since there is no God, there really is no reason to be upset about suffering. Suffering just is!
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC There's no problem explaining the existence of suffering if there's no God, if that's what you mean. It's only paradoxical if there is a God.
sam51092 1 year ago
@sam51092, In other words, if God exists, then he damn well better abide by your criteria and expectations of what a God should be? My, how full of yourself you are!
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC Uh, not MY criteria and expectations, but yours: namely, the criteria and expectations that God be all-powerful and all-good. If your God is either not all-powerful and/or not all-good, then there's no problem. But if he is, then there is.
sam51092 1 year ago
@sam51092 Again, in other words, if God exists then he damn well better abide your criteria and expectations of what a God should be! The silly pot telling the potter how he should run the potters wheel! My, how full of yourself you are!
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC Ah, yes. The time honored fundamentalist tactic of 'If you don't know how to answer someone's point but are too pig-headed to admit it, just endlessly repeat your original point as if they hadn't said anything!' Well I might now go do something more productive than talking to you. Like, talking to a brick. Goodbye, have a nice life.
sam51092 1 year ago
@sam51092, Well, there really was no point! It was just a rant. I simply pointed out the self-centeredness at the core of his rant. A brick like yourself has a hard time keeping up. You have a nice life too, brick!
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC wow. Lol you were pwnt and you don't even realize it. Thats sad.
HellsGate9999 1 year ago
@HellsGate9999, Yeah, I've been crying for days!
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC as it should be. ^_^
HellsGate9999 1 year ago
At 5:16 "The purpose of education is actually not to validate ignorance but to overcome it."
Pure Gold!
fusedchromosome 1 year ago 4
these guys are so awesome
CheStillFighting 1 year ago
The video/sound out of sync problem seems to have been fixed. Thank God for that.
WeirdGuy4928 1 year ago 22
All those begats were never written to be literally added up, they actually form a rather splendid acrostic, someone must have sat down and thought long and hard to produce it but that's all it is, now you can believe Adam existed 6000 years ago if you like, but wasn't that supposed to be in "Eden" and not on earth?
Mike51020 1 year ago
I went to a church of England primary school and was taught about the bible and other religions, and I never believed in God, to me it was just a story to make us get along with each other. Our world is complex and needs a complex answer and science provides those answers, for instance whats the smallest thing in the universe? Religion can't answer you, but science can, science can also explain other things that religion can't, therefore i believe in science, facts and logic.
Thatsthebadger1 1 year ago 16
@Nyte2771 whoa hey there Captain Slow, looks like someone missed the meme train!
SODEMO2007 1 year ago
Anyone else notice that the amount of views decreases as the interview parts increase. Very sad.
gilbert99 1 year ago
@gilbert99 People on the internet have a very short attention span.
LtShock 1 year ago
Geniuses
jeanclaudevandamme 1 year ago
@jeanclaudevandamme testing
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
@jeanclaudevandamme @jeanclaudevandamme jeanclaudevandamme was licking his mom’s hairy butthole when he heard the icecream truck. jeanclaudvandamme stopped licking his mom’s nasty gash and ran outside to buy icecream but realized he was out of foodstamps luckily Bob Saget was the one selling icecream and he gave jeanclaudevandamme free frosting all over his face. Since then everytime jeanclaudevandamme walks into Baskin Robbins he yells “I scream U scream we all scream for Bob Sagets Splooge
TheBaconlaser 1 year ago
FUCKIN' MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?!
SODEMO2007 1 year ago 3
who gives a shit that its out of sync, important is what they say...
yoblfor 1 year ago
@yoblfor I don't think its out of sync, I think this is the quantum mechanics kicking in :)
urbanguerrilla64 1 year ago 13
@urbanguerrilla64 Replay it and see if it change :P
DraskyVanderhoff 2 months ago in playlist Lawrence Krauss Discussion - Richard Dawkins
This format is superb. This is the way it should be.
EldonGuyre 1 year ago 158
@EldonGuyre I agree. It's silly to presume that debate should necessarily involve competition. I think many would prefer a debate that simply informs.
jeanclaudevandamme 1 year ago 3
and that was an ad hominem so you fail.
OrderoftheWhiteHand 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would give anything to have a beer with these guys
AsG1989 1 year ago 43
Careful, that's exactly what got G.W. elected.
judaserebus 1 year ago
@AsG1989 is that the best thing you can say
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
@AsG1989 Even your ability to process beer?
tijnerkamp1 1 year ago
thats because WE are made of matter/space/time, hence "we" {i.e. the conciousness} shows us that it is self evident and existant, which is exactly what its components are{i.e. components of conciousness/feeling are exactly what the constructs of the universe are IN THEMSELVES}.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
@leonheartmm you just kind of made a bunch of assumptions with no proof. My theory is that the rulers of the world are actually galactic lizards that are enslaving us and they put dumb ideas in your brain..
OrderoftheWhiteHand 2 years ago
@OrderoftheWhiteHand You are making a larger assumption with the lizard-lords, therefore the more intelligent position is to side with leonheartmm who makes less significant/numerous assumptions.
showABCshow 1 year ago
@showABCshow look up David Icke. He makes an incredibly convincing case for lizard lords
OrderoftheWhiteHand 1 year ago
no i didnt, you merely showed ur ignorance of philosophy and epistemology and veiled it with an idiotic reply against my statement in an effort to feel smarter than you really are. nuthing more.
leonheartmm 1 year ago
@leonheartmm lol, I have a b.a. in philosophy.....
OrderoftheWhiteHand 1 year ago
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight................. and that REALLY shows from the quality of your replies doesnt it?
leonheartmm 1 year ago
@leonheartmm "nUthing more" <- sounds like he infuriated you. That's enough for me.
StevenBradleyScott 1 year ago
@leonheartmm I follow, but I'm not sure I understand your point.
StevenBradleyScott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
lmao @tokintmash. thats the most ridiculous thing ive heard since someone i knew at work read a dan brown novel and took it to be fact
kristopopins 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
sound fail
Ridabu 2 years ago 29
@Ridabu why you think its sound that fail? In my opinion its video fail. Their motion is little slow so its vid that is of sync :]
7BeAsT9 1 year ago
@Ridabu try lowering quality of video.
8Zeitgeist 8 months ago
@Ridabu Only poor ppl who have to watch 240p experiences the sound fail. Rich ppl in third world countries like South Africa, watches 360p and 720p. , download 360p and downloads Lawrence Krauss's AAI 2009 talk on Origins. All at the same time. Move to a thrird worldo country, or get a better job.
19RedLineR74 7 months ago
@19RedLineR74 This looks like time consuming blabbering resulting in a not so funny reply.. U FAIL, sir
Ridabu 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wonder what sort of God that should be, who did not create the world?
There is one though, who did not create it but wants to rule over it. His name is Lucifer.
What is His symbol? It is The Sun. Can you see The Sun somewhere here in this video? Sure! And interestingly enough it comes (again) with a Pyramid :)
Did you notice Dawkings also said His goal is to destroy the religion. Interesting.
Be aware, those selling you evolution (or behind that movement) are not at all atheists themselves.
tokintmash 2 years ago
The sun also signifies enlightenment. Even in Christianity, which you seem to believe in, the sun is used to denote heavenly glory. Are you really suggesting that Dawkins is a satanist?
I think you underestimate the average intelligence level of the majority of people who find enjoyment in these discussions. If that is what you are suggesting, then take it somewhere else.
sfmike20 2 years ago 6
Can you deny He said this or can you deny The Sun and a Pyramid here in this video?
Please give me a verse from The Bible where The Sun signifies enlightenment.
tokintmash 2 years ago
Or heavenly glory.
tokintmash 2 years ago
The symbol of Lucifer is Venus, not the Sun. Lucifer, after all, means the brilliant one, referring to the morning and evening star.
JPO1618 2 years ago
lol hard at the stork thing
pstlwhppd 2 years ago 5
5:52 WTF?
plainlake 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe they re antichrist, maybe thery re right ! I don t know oO
croatianmannheim 2 years ago
The notion of design is a delusion in the first place.
Nature is not intelligent nor does it design therefore neither intelligence nor design exist in the first place. Every causal effect event is the result of environmental influence. It's the mechanics of how things change/evolve.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago 7
Quantum Physics is showing a behaviour beyond anything that makes sense in the current understanding of how we came to be. Most would call these findings delusional as well.
timmyzeus 2 years ago
^
heh!
rtakshatra 2 years ago
In other words what is being seen is not how we might expect things to behave, and yet it is happening and nobody understands why. If one was to speak of what they are seeing with quantum physics they might be called delusional. Especially if they were unable to demonstrate it. And even then to the non scientist it may be to hard to grasp these findings. And yet they are real and I believe will begin to show us what is really going on as a whole.
timmyzeus 2 years ago
no...there is proof that it is correct
Holgmeister 2 years ago
Comment removed
timmyzeus 2 years ago
Yeah I'm really sorry, I responded to your first post about quantum physics being delusional, then I saw that you had posted another one. What I meant was that Quantum physics can not be called "delusional" because you can predict the bahaviour of particles, and different scientists have gotten the same results independent of each other.
And I agree that we will surely get answers by using it more in the future.
Holgmeister 2 years ago
No, see Quantum Physics is showing behaviour beyond current understanding through experimental results. I agree that most would call this a delusion, but not because it is one, but because the majority will herd in fear of change
chaoticfutility 2 years ago
(Every causal effect event is the result of environmental influence)
So how did the environment come to be? Is there an intelligence before things take physical form. It sure seems Quantum physics is pointing in this direction. Consciousness before form! I guess it depends on what YOU call intelligence, or consciousness for that matter.
timmyzeus 2 years ago
"So how did the environment come to be?" All things are "coming into being" continuously.
"Is there an intelligence before things take physical form. "
Good question. But first we must ask what intelligence/sentience is and what if anything is.
According to the atheist mantra:
(Nature is not intelligent nor does it design)
Intelligence and design do not exist.
This would then force the re-examination of human culture/leaning/meaning ect.
That is conveniently avoided.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
Baked,
Check out Krauss' lecture on "something from nothing"
Jimpsterr 2 years ago
1. from other enviornments
2. that is a misinterpretation and psudeoscientifically simple interpretation{no doubt u read it sumwhere nd rent responsible for it} of quantum mechanics.
form IS conciousness. or rather, form is a convenient fiction{of perception} of the inherently dual physical entities in the world of which the self evident nature is conciousness. {i.e. conciousness is the real FORM of what matter is merely our interpretation as subjective observers}.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
@leonheartmm prove it. if you can't, its worthless and has just as much credit as the matrix being real.
OrderoftheWhiteHand 2 years ago
the proofs of monism are very long. but ill try to illustrate it with an example. all that you SEE "i.e. matter/space/time" is merely a reflection of YOU or rather, the physical changes that occur in YOUR brain as a result of input from outside. thus it goes to reason that our "concepts" of "matter/space" are not really what matter/space are "in themselves".
but then what are matter/space/time, can we know them at all outside our conception of them?
yes we can.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
that was brilliant, that stalk example was genius
richiechickennuggets 2 years ago
Actually, richiechickennuggets, it was the stalk versus the stork...
thomasnonsense 2 years ago
Why, what story were u told? I always thought it was a dude hiding in the bushes with a pair of binoculars who jumps out and makes mum pregnant then runs away
richiechickennuggets 2 years ago
Binoculars? Bushes? You wouldn't happen to be my brother by any chance?
thomasnonsense 2 years ago
Look, I know there is going to be a bit of backlash to this comment, but isn't the reason that evolution is called a "theory" is because the distinction between a "theory" and a "law" (fact) is that a "law" is demonstrable and reproducible? Evolution is a fine collection of evidence, to be sure, but given the immense time-frames required for significant evolution to occur makes it difficult if not impossible to demonstrate with real subjects. Just a thought, please don't flame me for asking :P
YerTalkingKrap 2 years ago
na, like we know plate techtonics is a fact but we still call it a theory not a law. its the thiests grasping at straws instead of coming up with a clever scientific argument
richiechickennuggets 2 years ago
I stand corrected - I honestly thought that was the distinction, my apologies.
YerTalkingKrap 2 years ago
^_^ lovely
richiechickennuggets 2 years ago
I guess another example, YerTalkingKrap, is learning a trade eg plumbing or auto mechanics. The students have practical instruction and they also have theory, even though it's fairly well established how pipes and engines work.
thomasnonsense 2 years ago
Just requires a lot of generations to see. They can produce thousands of generations in bacteria and can monitor change that occurs. For example, a strain of resistant bacteria (I think to chlorine) was produced after thousands of of selective breedings.
poncho5554 2 years ago
9:19 Dawkins gets really pissed.
dirtyhyde8 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins should watch this!
watch?v=BKmdIdQg3Ks
:D
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
out of sync
angeloribeiro2000 2 years ago 2
''I disagree with your 'security blanket' analogy.''
Well, more Isaac Asimov's than mine, but fair enough.
kitchenaut 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Heeers Darrrwin
Darwin, My Life and Letters Vol. 1, page 210, letter to Mr bentham admits, When we decend into details we can prove that no one species has changed ( i.e. We cannot prove that a single species has changed); nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the ground work of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.
valu777 2 years ago
even supposing that you weren't just yanking that quote out of context where it means something else, we have, what? 150 years since darwin. it speaks volumes to me that your criticism centers around a misrepresentation of 150 yr old science.
epic fucking fail.
andrewridgway 2 years ago 2
Too stupid to understand science?
Try religion.
Thats your best attempt to discredit thousands and thousands of scientists. You are a moron!
stemcgolf 2 years ago 2
Darwin is not a messiah. 90% of everything he ever did might have been lies. He may have been a drunkard, a thief, a murderer, anything.
Evolution is fact. Attacking the source can never change that.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evilootion is a fiction of a perverted & deluded person who wishes to deny the truth and run to sin from God our creator
valu777 2 years ago
/sigh
ultimatumjs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wake up to Jesus
valu777 2 years ago
He's dead, he's not coming back.
nolobede 2 years ago 3
Stop the bullshit and wake up for the truth of proven things. BTW, you misspelled evolution. Santa says hi!
JmSantos78 2 years ago
i'm a little surprised to see your negative count on the thumbs up/down scoreboard!! i hope that it is not because you used strong descriptive words to drive home a very good point! unfortunately i suspect that is the reason! if it's any consolation, i think you worded your point very well!
gogoogagaa 2 years ago
Thank you :)
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
I HATE how out of sync this discussion is from this video onwards!!
creebefu 2 years ago 17
Just look away and pretend it's a radio show.
They're not doing anything more interesting visually than just sitting there anyway - and you know what they look like, so that's not a problem.
Near a window?
Just look out and stare at the beauty of nature or something, whilst listening. :D
KlaxonCow 2 years ago 5
play solitaire as i'm doing it now. :D
grands0nz0rZ 2 years ago 2
Yesterday I was watching another video debate Christopher Hitchen Video and it was also out of sync, Strange
tenshady 2 years ago
probably god's work ;)
maikkel81 2 years ago
Of course Ohio has to want creationism talk along side evolution. Damn you my home state! Arrrrg!
brothaman4578 2 years ago 2
Krauss is absolutely right at the end here. In America, churches are less moderate than in the UK. My faith makes no comments on science, but their have been Church leaders in the past that have publicly spoken against evolution. It is sad to because there are many Christians in the United States that have no problem with the theory of evolution while their are still many Christian apologetics publicly condemning it.
AcademicTheologian 2 years ago
Two old nerdy scientists sitting around talking about seduction. I love it.
ThePersistenceofTime 2 years ago 3
Richard Dawkins is very intimidating - such an intelligent person.
MrRobertCover 2 years ago 16
That doesn't make him intimidating. He's quite pleasant.
mistertakeda 2 years ago 16
Hes not an intimidating at all. Hes kind and well spoken.
thetruth117 2 years ago 10
Sound and image don't match in this video :/
Baalsaack 2 years ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
Despite the intellect that these two espouse, the fact that they engage in sniveling mockery and belittlement of others indicate a level of insecurity and uncertainity that is troubling. If their theories are so slam-dunk and factual, this would not be necessary.
tardbuster007 2 years ago
Lets be honest, it is necessary :)
Guarding 2 years ago 20
Yeah I agree; it's necessary because bloody creationists make it necessary :]
DevJL 2 years ago 12
If religionists were not so obtuse and obstinant, this blunt instrument would not be required. If pointing out someone's failings constitutes belittlement, so be it.
It's like holding up the entire class because of the drooling retard in the back. It's more than unfair, it's harmful to society.
12stringsforme 2 years ago 11
Comment removed
tardbuster007 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More likely, its due to pretentious arrogance. While lambasting mouth breathing religionists, atheists engage in no less a diatribe of self-ascribed infallibility. Both sides are sickening.
tardbuster007 2 years ago
your right, it shouldn't be, but people don't think that way. It's like trying to teach a 5 years old about how an airplane wings exactly works. You have to have many discussions, and get really simple.
Omid45 2 years ago
If there's anything more pointless than shooting the messenger I'm yet to hear of it.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
tardbuster007, to some extent they do play to a gallery, because sensible people expect two highly intelligent men to scoff at such backward thinking.
kitchenaut 2 years ago
Dawkins is brilliant
0309194m 2 years ago 5
Rothchild....when i hear that name i become very wary. what's the Rothchilds first time?
Poonard 2 years ago