HA HA HA, LAH LAH LAH...... Well it didn't, and doesn't, look like the Earth is rotating and it sure didn't, and doesn't, feel like the Earth is rotating.
@BelieveandtrustJesus jaja yeah we like to see people die in the name of the atom jajajajaajaj guess what i can say, something you can't even imagine look at these powers and be amaze!!! you,god,jesus,santa,satan,lucifer,saint michael and everyone in heaven and in hell can suck my dick :) guess what fuck heaven and hell fuck Jesus and Satan :) both suck ass! and I stop respecting you and your belive the moment you said that stupid thing you said asshole!
@BelieveandtrustJesus A theory by definition is supported by evidence. You clearly do not understand the validity of a theory. And even if everything science knows is inncorect by some aspect. it is 100 times better that the ancient superstitions that support sexism rascism, infantacide, rape, murder, slavery. I could literally go on past my character limit. I really wish there was a way to make you understand. Actually i would settle for just the de-brainwashing. Good luck in your wasted life.
@BelieveandtrustJesus Not a single word you have said has any truth to it... I have no idea where to begin. Your religion is keeping the human race from evolving. If there was a god He surly wouldn't stand for my blasphemy, and most certainly he would give at least one piece of evidence in regard to his/her existence. YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD! lying to our children and spreading your jesus filth! "you can do what you want now because a dude was murdered along time ago" NONSENSE.
Why does Mr. Dawkins always feel the need to attack believers? What is wrong with living fulfilling life for something you believe to be true and sacred even if it doesn't always agree with worldy views? Why not just let us believe what we believe?
@AirHeer2013 he, like many atheists, say that they would be fine with religion existing, as long as it stayed within the home or the church where it is practiced. however, religion is very much a part of many aspects of our society, and interferes with scientific advancements, causes violence and bigotry, etc. if the religious did not do those things, perhaps there would not be as many nonbelievers as there are, and Dawkins wouldn't have to do what he does.
the title is missleading... I thought that dawkins would attack intuition... see in my view the definition of intuition should be the instantaneous understanding of a present subject by instantaniously going through the entire history of ones own life to understand the principles behind... (Metaphysical it could be a connection of 'Akasha' (library of gaia/earth)... Pineal gland)... AND in my view faith isn't bad, believe is (as it is similar/different to critical thinking, but with no bases)
evolution is a theory , therefore its evidence is based on faith, that makes it a religion.! u atheists are just the same as those religious brain washed people that u vehemently despise ! what an increasing level of queerness, just like this man, queer through and through.!
Intuition is a inherent sense..! it serves us well to use it..!
No... that's wrong... The theory of evolution means that their is a scientific idea which has been shown to be probable. Theory in this sense means theorum, as in idea. An entire chapter is dedicated to this misaprehension in his book, and is the talking point of many many other chapters in other books, all of which explain it.
@Avatar2050 you debunked what that you need a working mind? I love your Freudian slip it was brilliant and it made my day. When will theists learn that assertions are NOT facts.Evolution is not based on faith , but testable evidence(fact) and its supported by all real science independently. I dont know why im bothering its not like you have the mental faculty's to distinguish facts from faith.
@Avatar2050 Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of that fact, supported by evidence and its ability to predict observable phenomena. Intuition tells us the earth is flat and doesn't move, that illness is caused by "bad" air and devils and that the supernatural is real, that is queer.
I agree. Who knows. Sometimes th genius is best know for the most ingenius things. Some times the answers are alot easier than you might think. Not everything needs to be overly analyized. Its good to hear ones theory,but I think its good to develope it first then figure it out when we have a better I dea of what it is. hat do you think?
If he disagress with intuition saying that we were wrong to assume that the sun revolved arround the sun i beg a differ. The guy who discovered that the sun was stationary had intuition and it told him that the earth went around the sun. That same intuition was proven right. Intuition is correct if you know how to listen to it.
@TomFynn What is that voice called? Intuition. I think in my opinion that it is a sence. Intuition I cant say where it comes from I understand how intuition is real. Personaly I know,but I cant speak for anyione else.Just think of a time your intuition told you something and you didnt know what it was,but it realy had your attention.Sometimes you know.You might find out latter,but your intuition knew when you didnt.What is intuition?
@kren2012 Basically an unfinished analysis run of the brain on the facts available. Unfinished because it has not been refined enough for the speech system to have anything to feed on. But whatever it is, confirmation of what my intuition tells or rather suggests on the basis of hard, positive evidence is still necessary.
@kren2012 The question of life (and the origin thereof) has been answered by the theory of evolution. If we can't answer the question "what is intuition" it just might be because we are asking the wrong question.
@kren2012 To be honest I haven't the foggiest. Stephen Pinker or Daniel Dennett might be the ones to ask.
But generally if one is stumped for answers it pays to check whether one is asking the right question. The shift from "What is gravity?" to "How is the measurement of time and space affected in non-uniformly moving systems?" lead to General Relativity.
Unfortunately, to do that shift, it generally takes a genius.
True Free energy devices exist,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
Like most materialists, Dawkins over- simplifies religion so that it can be rediculed. Can he not ridicule it in its true stature? I've been fifty-seven years INSIDE the Catholic church and have never been discouraged from thinking.
Why did he need to downgrade faith- it is not arrogant at all. Paul wrote that he only knew one thing. Spiritual people are only aware of being led and everything else all other supposedly known facts are open to being changed by experience. In fact dont forget the scientific method actually came out of similar methods the ancient hebrews had for discerning the will of God with surety. Faith teaches humility not arrogance. Nobody of faith limits creation nor God.
@terryahh Faith teaches arrogance that one's own beliefs are better than other people's beliefs. It is this arrogance that causes "God" to order his people to perform genocide. It is this arrogance that causes Christians to try to force everyone else follow their moral code. It is this arrogance that makes Christians condemn everyone else to hell. Yes, faith does teach arrogance.
@mrcynic77 Exactly. And their constant attack of homosexuals and constant attempt to change laws to enforce their morality down everyones throat is so predictable. Even God would not do this. He gave an opportunity to reject Him and these war mongerers should reflect on why a God who wants them to kill everyone else is the One for them too. What's up with that? Why not Buddha? Too peaceful?
@terryahh In so far and you can look to one as the Pope or Church or authority faith has vulnerability to being infiltrated. It always falls into the wrong hands. Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely those words did not change with the passage of time history will attest. Religion is no exception. The people will be susceptible to fear brokers who will play them like a harp and succeed in taking their liberties and enslaving them.Then using their association for profit.
@terryahh Except when they kill Gods people by the hundred thousands ie the Catholic Church. The history speaks for itself and this history isn't going to be forgotten. They just about wiped out the Indigenous. Unless they let up and let others express their free will just as God has said then they will continue to be mocked. If God allowed it who is the Church to butchers his people? Who? Not His church not his Pope.
The patterns of conformation in your neurons, are what make you, you. Individual molecular components are irrelevant when compared to the patterns they produce.
we are not necesarily living in middle-world : i think anything and everything would naturally always assume itself 'the middle' on all dimensions : much like pre-geocentric astronomical thinking etc
for any observer you can only see so far in macro or micro - all observers think themselves in the middle.
IS the statment about not a single atom in your body being there at the time or whatever actually true? I would believe flesh cells and hair and shit regenerates pretty frequently but how about things such as teeth
to be wise is to know that there is NO LEDGE for the brains which is KNOW LEDGE. you know you know much when you recognize you know NOTHING. I am not a religious zealot and a do not cast aside a HIGHER POWER. Science observes, shows and then proves the more you know, the less you know. So I continue to rely on science to reveal through action (revelation) while understanding the THE MOST HIGH is ALL. this is after all why we are able to utilize cognitive skills and processes
@shogunmetic Yes well said. I like this approach. Because some who praise science reveal to be a slave of Science who only ever dare imagine or perceive a realm or theory only after Science's stamp of approval. But what these people forget is they still don't know everything. Dabbling in everything and thereby discovering the interconnectivity of All is a better barometer for Gnosis.Besides in some fields they've expressed infinity we'll know what they know if we look under every rock.
Atheists and humanists ask: "If God exists, why doesn't He show Himself?"
The Sciences, when they cannot get at a truth or express a fact in the formulae and measures proper to their realm; cannot deny its existence or prove its non-existence, at least until a test is devised which will demonstrate its impossibility and unfeasibility; they must pro tempore put it in their "awaiting solution" tray. ...
Do all the things which we accept, of whose existence we are convinced, owe our acknowledgement to our own existence or acquaintance or perception of them?
Is it a proof of God's non-existence that He cannot be sensed physically and His qualities cannot be discerned corporeally? ....
@drche420 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter? ...
@drche420 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@drche420 FYI, 1tabligh directly copies and pastes philosophical arguments from a web site called al islam (dot) org
:D
1tabligh, I just want to tell you, and you may already know, there was once an illustrious history of beautiful philosophy, science, math, art and culture in the Arab world and surely something to be proud of. But they didn't do it with your approach. They were being more like the atheists you argue with.
@drche420 No sorry I should have been a bit more clear, I was telling you about the user 1tabligh, who you were talking with, and how he dishonestly cuts and pastes arguments verbatim from an Islam educational website with philosophical arguments. So the last response was to you but it wasn't about you, it was about 1tabligh.
All materialists know that a great many of the teachings we hold firmly, derive their compulsion from judgement and facts that are neither perceptible by sense nor familiar. On the stage of being, there are innumerable invisible objects. Advances of modern science and knowledge have discovered myriads of such facts from infinite distances to infinitesimal hadrons and quarks. ...
One problem which is preoccupying scientists today is the change of mass into energy and vice versa. All visible bodies transfer energy to each other with a change in their own appearance, like the burning of wood. There is a transfer of energy. But this energy, which is the pivot for the vast majority of actions and consequences in the orderliness of the universe - how are we to assess it by sight or by touch?
Why does being able to visibly see it so important to you? Are you asking, "Why aren't these experiments able to be conducted in the narrow sliver of wavelengths that make up the visible spectrum of light?"?
I don't see how visibly seeing the matter or energy makes a difference at all.
[Our 4th Imam 'Ali Zaynu 'l-Abidin as-Sajjad in the 55th Litany of Vol. 2 of his works nonetheless adumbrated the concept in the antiphons of the section:
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of heaven.
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of the worlds.
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of the sun and the moon....
Umm, yeah. However the use of fallacious was a little redundent, what with the fact that opinions are called such because they are an individuals viewpoint, prone to bias and usually lacking a watertight set of supporting arguments.
On the other hand, It made the sentence flow beautifully, so who am I to argue. And to those who thumbed me down for saying his viewpoint was an "opinion", I thought athiests LIKED to question everything and not follow blindly? I smell irony in your actions.
@Hiddeknight0 Plus, the important thing is that he backs up what he has to say with EVIDENCE. He doesnt just point to some subjective experience he had and say "I had this private realization that I can't prove in any way so now you all to believe what I say." lol
Well, I'm lost for words. Speaking as an atheist, I think you've all missed the point fucking brilliantly. All of you are saying "all of his points are based on evidence."
No, not all of them are. Notice that Richard dawkins NEVER says "there is no god." This isn't because he secretly worhips an angry old sky man every night, it's because as an even and open minded man, he never says something is a certainty without certain proof either way, unlike most people here, christian and atheist alike
My brain rebooted at 1:47 lol. I enjoy richards lectures because he has a great humble quality, and he doesn't feel the need justify his opinions, because that's just what they are.
Speaking as an Agnopstic atheist, I don't believe in any human god, I think it's ignorant and vain of us to assume we already know what makes the universe tick and also assume that entity is our "BFF". On the other hand, I also admit that there COULD be a higher power out there, and my assumption is that if there is, it's infinitely more complex and astounding than anything our relatively infantile species can imagine.
I didn't argue that god created evolution or vice versa, as I don't believe in God and I don't worship science.
As for the Pheonix lights, I've heard of them, although it is just one of many Unidentified Flying Object sightings around the world. I'm sure there's life out there in the universe, it's ignorant not to, but any life with the capability to travel at lightspeed would still take hundreds of years to get here. even then, would they want to?
the pheonix lights were witnessed by thousands, video taped by hundreds. that's a little different then a few random sightings, right? besides, what is a hundred years for one sentient, immortal being?
i buy into the singularity. i think immortal robots are the next step in human evolution, so it's easy to postulate AI would also evolve elsewhere in the universe. not that they would be interested in communicating with us, but the earth is probably more interesting than mars for any uber-galactic super intelligence. with all the frailties of biological organisms, it just seems unrealistic that the pheonix lights are an ach for little green men.
Light speed travel isn't possible. Only something without mass can achieve the speed of light. The heavier somthing is the further from the speed of light it's maximum velocity is.
However there is speculation that the possibility to modify space time exists, allowing two points in space to become one and allowing the travel over vast gaps of space instantaneously.
There is undoubtably other life in the universe, I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise.
"traveling at light speed" is just a little faster to write than " whilst actual light speed travel isn't possible"
As for the possibility of modifying space time itself, you're in the realm of quantum mechanic there, which is (I'm told) the scientific and mathematical equivalent to trying to take apart the titanic with no blueprints and a bent paperclip.
This is all going to be way ahead of our lifetimes anyway, so best not to speculate really
Speculation leads to experimentation which leads to discovery!
And yes Quantum Mechanics are impossible to grasp (So I'm told as well)
"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics."
150 years ago Nuclear energy seemed to be a distant reality..... and look at the progress of computers in the last 15 years! I bet within my lifetime we will see new forms of propulsion, maybe not bending space and creating wormholes, but who knows! :)
Very true, call me small minded but I'm not sure that prodding at the very fabric of the universe itself is something that should be done BEFORE we know what we're doing ;)
very true as regards most experimentation, however taking a pair of bolt cutters to the fabric of existence should have as many chances for error removed as possible before anyone does anything, call me cautious, but I like my current set of dimensions and scale of time.
Saying it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light is quite arrogant. Scientists thought it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound at once point, remember?
I'm not saying that I know how, I'm saying don't use words like "impossible".
Particularly when you then go on about speculation in changing space and time for travel purposes.
lol watching sci-fi.... no friend, more like reading about different theories by recognized scientists.
NOTHING is impossible, scientifically of course - however some things have such a minuscule chance of happening it's within reason for logic sake to deem them impossible.
It's possible that right now, you or I will turn into a toad. It's so improbable I would be apt to say it's impossible in a typical conversation.
Arrogant? You're the one saying Einstein is wrong.... lol
My point is you say one thing is impossible, that very little testing has been done on, due to being unable, and the low chance of it working, to then say another thing, teleportation, which very little testing has been done on, due to being unable, and the low chance of it working, is possible.
The amount of theoretical energy it would take to bend space time enough to cross two points would be enough to obliterate the universe. Think it's safe to give people that to travel with?
Just so you know, it has been found something moves faster than light...space. The expansion of space actually moves faster than the speed of light, so a current theory on how to break the light barrier is to build a type of warp drive that would allow the ship to ride a wave of space, kind of like a surfer rides a wave of water.
It may very well be possible to go faster than the speed of light but there no way for matter to go that fast. If any matter goes at the speed of light it becomes energy.
Speed of light is the speed a stationary has in dimention of time. If it starts to move in space you get a vectoral velocity whose speed is again C. Therefor you have to make time side of the vector 0 to achive C in space, which means you would have infinte mass as well.
Er....atoms are not 'made up' of electrons, and electrons are 1836 times less massive than protons (and even lighter when compared to neutrons). The nucleus is by far the most important part of an atom, and if he was talking about electrons why didn't he mention them, hmm? How difficult would that have been? I have a physics degree so I don't need to look at videos for info.
Why would Dawkins say that, when it's obviously not true? The fine strcuture of the brain does not get 'replaced' over time, the calcium in your bones is fixed( for men, at least), as is your tooth enamel.
scientific discovery eminates from the intuition. I find it interesting that the fathers of contemporary science and mathematics had mystical and theological beliefs and experience of 'other worldly' enteties.
Dawkins has gotten it wrong. The notion of the flat earth came from an OBSERVATION by the best known tool of measurement at the time called the 'eye'. This is why science should not justify its arrogence because all tools of observation derive from the mind of man. Eastern cultures and Pythagoras knew of the spherical nature of the world before western science, however their intuitive notions and perspectives on nature are shunned by science and are branded as superstition.
"however their intuitive notions and perspectives on nature are shunned by science and are branded as superstition."
Yes they are shunned by science to an extent. I'd agree with you. Science has every reason to do this from what I understand.
Atheists go on science more than philosophy you see. We're not science followers because of atheism, we're atheists because of science (and a little philsophy thrown in for good measure.)
So was pythagoras wrong although he didn't use empirical observation, the answer is no, he wasn't wrong. Empirical observation is something that is ever changing, the potential for nuclear energy and mobile telephony always existed however if you went back in time and showed a mobile phone to a a person of the midle ages they would think you where a witch. It seems that the 'arrogant' atheistic science paradigm doesn't leave room for such scenarios within its thinking. History has not ended.
Oh look, my intuitive sense of the meaning of words got it wrong! I meant to say "my intuitive sense of TYPING got it wrong (or did I, intuively I'm not sure.)
Let me just observe what the correct spelling and and correct word should be. Then observe it again and again just to sure it up.
In a sense what Dawknis is referring to as intuition one could also deem as common sense. Before the rational of the necessery observation one could be forgiven for the thinking a flat earth was common sense. Science refers to the things such as the behaviour of light particles in the quantum slit experiment as counter intuitive, but a closer approximation would be to say 'counter common sensical', the universe is alot queeree than we could suppose, intution is about feeling not supposition.
People in the middle ages would think you were a "witch" because of christianity telling them exactly what WAS and what was NOT natural.
Stop making examples of classical religion inspired fear and small mindedness, only to try and pin it on Science in general, you fraud you.
Also, the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. That means we think christians are ignorant to assume they know all the answers, but we admit the possibility of a higher power beyond our understanding.
On the other hand, Galileo WAS jailed by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric theory.
He was actually threatened with execution for arguing that the earth was not at the centre of the glaxy/universe.
So whilst I myself know that the flat earth/church argument is false, it IS true that in the 17th century, you could be killed by catholics if you stood by a correct argument. yes, killed, galileo was to be executed unless he recanted what he said. Total fucking madness,
leezus83... science did not exist until the 16th century. The scientific method, as we know it, was totally unknown to Pythagoras' contemporaries.
To say that Pythagorean perspectives on nature [were] shunned by science is like saying Stephen Hawking disagreed with Socrates.
I suggest you read a little bit more before you say such nonsense.
In ancient Greece the use of the senses was shunned because it was believed that the senses "deceive" you. That's why the emphasis was on logic = word...
...that's why so many scientific disciplines still end with the suffix "-logy," because they started out not as sciences but as philosophical disquisitions (Biology, Archeology, Zoology, etc.).
Yeah, you're right, modern science shuns Pythagoras!
Which is why mathematicians still use the Pythagoras theorem on a day to day basis.
MODERN western Science accepts all possibilities until proven otherwise. MEDIEVAL western Science was religiously biased. Please bear in mind that it is christianity that shuns anyything it sees as conflicting, and never betters itself. Scientists on the other hand, glady admit when they're wrong.
I think there's a key problem with that. To put it bluntly, most humans don't exactly have a lot of potential.
The best we can do is to make sure the ones who DO have potential get the maximum chance of exploiting their potential.
But I don't think suitable systems to do so would appeal to Americans much, because of the sink or swim culture in the US. Someone who has a great brain, but a poor background or other problems is unlikely to thrive in the US.
i've seen people who ask "who created god?" and many other questions that challange faith to be quickly sushed and brainwashed into thinking like the majority.. i for one have been given hell [so to speak] for being and free thinker.. for being atheist.. and not comforming to their beliefs..
i dont do it for rebelion... i just want truth and in america... where i live.. that is very hard to get...
and keep being a free thinker, there are plenty of them in the U.S too, just look through your academia. It is such a shame that the country with the greatest potential to unlock so many mysteries is bogged down with so much dark ages thinking. But its not the same everwhere and the U.S is changing.
While Shamans and the indiginous may have said they "knew" such things, they've made no testable theories, presented no evidence and provided no predictions which were reproducably successful. On the other hand, scientists were able to meet all such criteria. Any fool can venture a guess, but backing the guess up via empirical methodology is the key. Also, quantum physics was NOT posited by shaman, nor indiginous.
And thus, "Things to Come", by: H.G. Wells, comes true. "And if were no more than animals, we must snatch each little scrap of happiness, and live, and suffer, and pass, mattering no more than all the other animals do or have done. It is this, or that. All the universe or nothing. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?" The puppet Dawkins, is an Idiot.
@camino1ca I'm sorry, I missed the "comment argument" that you had, but what douchey book of proverbs did you get "It is an idiot who speaks and makes no point" from?
NO true atheist would worship any man or any thing! That's what religious people do, didn't you know? Atheism is about thinking for yourself, the total opposite! So if you worship Dawkins or Darwin or whatever, you've become something else than atheist.
Yes, and that lack of belief leads to thinking for yourself and evaluating information in an objective way, improving critical thinking skills etc. The rejecting of supernatural beliefs is simply the first step in that process
Well I listened again and yes, fundamentalism is irrational. The quote "whatever we you are... is not the stuff of which you are made ", could be used to argue for "religion". Suppose someone does believe that there is truth that an analytical mind can't grasp. As long as they don't claim that their intuition tells them irrational things are true, and that it gives them authority, what's it got to do with Dawkins? I can't even tell if he's saying that they would be obviously irrational or not.
We seem to have evolved with an inherent tendency to believe that Richard Dawkins is making a point. I've listened to this twice and I can't find one.
He started by asking the question whether there was truth ungraspable by any mind. He didn't answer it, I don't know what he was implying. He shouldn't quote Wittgenstein if he's trying to say mysticsm is irrational. What he's good at is useful but limited metaphors like the selfish gene. Apart from that it's mostly just "I'm so clever, I'm so clever I'm so clever".
He quoted Wittgenstein to make the point that, even if something seems irrational or ridiculous to us it actually can be true if it's backed up by evidence and science. If not, then it's most likely isn't true
Well, the only thing the quote seems to be saying to me is, that a counter-intuitive suggestion could seem intuitive if you thought about it. What seems irrational or ridiculous varies from person to person. What about Buddhists who came up with the idea of emptiness before physics did? People who reject the supernatural seem to define it as something that they're too clever to take seriously. If Dawkins was implying that there is truth beyond the power of reason, then that seems spooky to me.
Yes, we are too clever to take religion seriously, but not without good reasons to do so, right? It's all about research and not taking things on faith
I don't want to get into an argument. I know apologists for religion can be huffy and condescending, and I have been like that in the past. That's definitely not a good idea on youtube. I fear slipping into that mode. I talked to two or three rational materialists (or whatever), in comment sections here. I'm nothing special, I know that, but they really didn't seem, to me, to address what I said to them. They just seemed to dismiss anything that didn't sound, to them, realistic and hard-headed.
okay, I will just say this: what did I not adress in your comment? i simply said that to belive something you need good reason to do so. Is that not a valid point to you? Why rely on faith rather than using logic and reasoning?
Sorry, just seen your comment. Well, I wasn't referring to you, just indulging in angst really. However, I don't think you addressed either of my points. I think the Buddhist philosophers were using logic and reasoning. Also, the point I made about the vagueness of Dawkins' metaphysics re the question of whether reality can, in principle, be completely rationally known - or known by any other means. To use logic and reasoning you must have faith in your logic and reasoning.
The lowdown according to me - transcendence is just the subjective part of experience. We might feel that everything is explainable because we constantly find that what we thought was mysterious eg emotions, can be explained objectively. That is an illusion though, the explanation is really a description, the subjective awareness is now at a different point. The subject has to see itself as object. The objects are what we call natural, the combination of them is supernatural.
Objects are not separate from subject. The boy kicked the ball. What was the boy at that time? He was "kicking the ball". That's the noun that described him at that point.
Geron, the problem with transcendence is that if our "models" constructed by our observations can predict what our future observations will be as well as what our past observations were, then it effectively eliminates the ineffable, the transcendant and the supernatural.
Because anything that the model fails to "include" would be things that have NO effect on any aspect of reality and are thus no different from fantasy.
They describe future observations as well AS past ones, but not as WELL. Models get outdated because, they predict more accurately than the old ones, but need more accurate measurements, which reveal fresh anomalies. I think that esoteric philosophies ARE compatible with a lot of scientific thinking, and is psychologically useful, which insisting that reality only consists of the models that are made of it, isn't, (for some at least) - and that's not surprising if it isn't actually true.
"Middle World"... Midgard?
RICHARD DAWKINS IS A VIKING!!!!
BarefootAnthropology 1 week ago
HA HA HA, LAH LAH LAH...... Well it didn't, and doesn't, look like the Earth is rotating and it sure didn't, and doesn't, feel like the Earth is rotating.
pompousprick 2 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus jaja yeah we like to see people die in the name of the atom jajajajaajaj guess what i can say, something you can't even imagine look at these powers and be amaze!!! you,god,jesus,santa,satan,lucifer,saint michael and everyone in heaven and in hell can suck my dick :) guess what fuck heaven and hell fuck Jesus and Satan :) both suck ass! and I stop respecting you and your belive the moment you said that stupid thing you said asshole!
boricua316 3 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus Says the brainwashed sheep
thenofxer 4 months ago 2
@BelieveandtrustJesus A theory by definition is supported by evidence. You clearly do not understand the validity of a theory. And even if everything science knows is inncorect by some aspect. it is 100 times better that the ancient superstitions that support sexism rascism, infantacide, rape, murder, slavery. I could literally go on past my character limit. I really wish there was a way to make you understand. Actually i would settle for just the de-brainwashing. Good luck in your wasted life.
thenofxer 4 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus Not a single word you have said has any truth to it... I have no idea where to begin. Your religion is keeping the human race from evolving. If there was a god He surly wouldn't stand for my blasphemy, and most certainly he would give at least one piece of evidence in regard to his/her existence. YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD! lying to our children and spreading your jesus filth! "you can do what you want now because a dude was murdered along time ago" NONSENSE.
thenofxer 4 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus
sorry I forgot it's impossible to demonstrate FACTS to religious nutcases.
Zorgonia 4 months ago
@BelieveandtrustJesus
Believing in Jesus, a made up story that plagiarises old pagan myths is a faith, you moron.
If you think science is a faith or lies, don't use a computer, a car, a TV, a plane, electricity or any modern appliance made thanks to Science.
You are braindead!
Zorgonia 4 months ago
If there is a god please strike the dumbass below.
dkthg 4 months ago
@dkthg Sorry bud, I can't find any evidence:(
thenofxer 4 months ago
God is an obsolete idea, and has been since the renaissance
irr3v 6 months ago
Why does Mr. Dawkins always feel the need to attack believers? What is wrong with living fulfilling life for something you believe to be true and sacred even if it doesn't always agree with worldy views? Why not just let us believe what we believe?
AirHeer2013 9 months ago
@AirHeer2013 he, like many atheists, say that they would be fine with religion existing, as long as it stayed within the home or the church where it is practiced. however, religion is very much a part of many aspects of our society, and interferes with scientific advancements, causes violence and bigotry, etc. if the religious did not do those things, perhaps there would not be as many nonbelievers as there are, and Dawkins wouldn't have to do what he does.
bronxbombers98 9 months ago
Dawkins got a new book out called "Monkey See, Monkey Do"
FOBmzunguREPTILICUS 10 months ago
Just read his book its fucking brilliant!
pandorachild 10 months ago
the title is missleading... I thought that dawkins would attack intuition... see in my view the definition of intuition should be the instantaneous understanding of a present subject by instantaniously going through the entire history of ones own life to understand the principles behind... (Metaphysical it could be a connection of 'Akasha' (library of gaia/earth)... Pineal gland)... AND in my view faith isn't bad, believe is (as it is similar/different to critical thinking, but with no bases)
2Draco39 10 months ago
In both cases it the sun going around the earth or the earth around the sun would look exactly the same.
TheFactOfEvolution 10 months ago
@TheFactOfEvolution Wouldnt the stars not spin then?
Forserean 8 months ago
@Forserean if the earth would be stationary yes
or the earth can spin slowly on its axis and the sun can spin around the earth and it'll look the same
good point non the less, I didnt spot that one
TheFactOfEvolution 7 months ago
1:20 HAHAHA omg this is pure funny =))
cr4yv3n 1 year ago
evolution is a theory , therefore its evidence is based on faith, that makes it a religion.! u atheists are just the same as those religious brain washed people that u vehemently despise ! what an increasing level of queerness, just like this man, queer through and through.!
Intuition is a inherent sense..! it serves us well to use it..!
Avatar2050 1 year ago
@Avatar2050 Your miscomprehension of scientific method is amusing, but ultimately depressing when so many misuse it as a 'debatable point'.
Benjawang 1 year ago
@Avatar2050
No... that's wrong... The theory of evolution means that their is a scientific idea which has been shown to be probable. Theory in this sense means theorum, as in idea. An entire chapter is dedicated to this misaprehension in his book, and is the talking point of many many other chapters in other books, all of which explain it.
148grs 11 months ago
@Avatar2050 poor theist, stick to the bible because real science requires a working mind.
pandorachild 10 months ago
@pandorachild no i debunked that too kiddo, stick to your playstation because reality and truth require deprogramming..
Avatar2050 9 months ago
@Avatar2050 you debunked what that you need a working mind? I love your Freudian slip it was brilliant and it made my day. When will theists learn that assertions are NOT facts.Evolution is not based on faith , but testable evidence(fact) and its supported by all real science independently. I dont know why im bothering its not like you have the mental faculty's to distinguish facts from faith.
pandorachild 9 months ago
@Avatar2050 Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of that fact, supported by evidence and its ability to predict observable phenomena. Intuition tells us the earth is flat and doesn't move, that illness is caused by "bad" air and devils and that the supernatural is real, that is queer.
1empathy 6 months ago
The things on the wall behind him look like spaghetti monsters..
shelbycobra131 1 year ago
It is always fascinating to listen to Richard Dawkins, no matter how many times have I read or listened to his most common arguments.
minotarr 1 year ago
"Middle world." Damn, what a beautiful and eloquent image. THAT is a teacher. Great job Sir Dawkins.
That's right, I just knighted him.
dangerics 1 year ago
I agree. Who knows. Sometimes th genius is best know for the most ingenius things. Some times the answers are alot easier than you might think. Not everything needs to be overly analyized. Its good to hear ones theory,but I think its good to develope it first then figure it out when we have a better I dea of what it is. hat do you think?
kren2012 1 year ago
If he disagress with intuition saying that we were wrong to assume that the sun revolved arround the sun i beg a differ. The guy who discovered that the sun was stationary had intuition and it told him that the earth went around the sun. That same intuition was proven right. Intuition is correct if you know how to listen to it.
kren2012 1 year ago
@kren2012
Intuition can tell you where to look, but in itself it is no more "right" or "wrong" than a "strong inner conviction".
TomFynn 1 year ago
@TomFynn What is that voice called? Intuition. I think in my opinion that it is a sence. Intuition I cant say where it comes from I understand how intuition is real. Personaly I know,but I cant speak for anyione else.Just think of a time your intuition told you something and you didnt know what it was,but it realy had your attention.Sometimes you know.You might find out latter,but your intuition knew when you didnt.What is intuition?
kren2012 1 year ago
@kren2012 Basically an unfinished analysis run of the brain on the facts available. Unfinished because it has not been refined enough for the speech system to have anything to feed on. But whatever it is, confirmation of what my intuition tells or rather suggests on the basis of hard, positive evidence is still necessary.
Intuition alone is not enough.
TomFynn 1 year ago
@TomFynn Agreed. The question to that answer is about as hard to answer as the question for life. We might never know.
kren2012 1 year ago
@kren2012 The question of life (and the origin thereof) has been answered by the theory of evolution. If we can't answer the question "what is intuition" it just might be because we are asking the wrong question.
TomFynn 1 year ago
@TomFynn how do you think we should ask it?
kren2012 1 year ago
@kren2012 To be honest I haven't the foggiest. Stephen Pinker or Daniel Dennett might be the ones to ask.
But generally if one is stumped for answers it pays to check whether one is asking the right question. The shift from "What is gravity?" to "How is the measurement of time and space affected in non-uniformly moving systems?" lead to General Relativity.
Unfortunately, to do that shift, it generally takes a genius.
TomFynn 1 year ago
does anyone else see those noodley appendages in the background?
red00devil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
True Free energy devices exist,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
lavernedi 1 year ago
Like most materialists, Dawkins over- simplifies religion so that it can be rediculed. Can he not ridicule it in its true stature? I've been fifty-seven years INSIDE the Catholic church and have never been discouraged from thinking.
isleofmann1 1 year ago
The universe is homosexual.
JRPeyesatsne 1 year ago
@JRPeyesatsne
you mean the universe acts posh, pushes its penis into other universes' assholes and spreads universal AIDS ?
sooperfukker 1 year ago
Why did he need to downgrade faith- it is not arrogant at all. Paul wrote that he only knew one thing. Spiritual people are only aware of being led and everything else all other supposedly known facts are open to being changed by experience. In fact dont forget the scientific method actually came out of similar methods the ancient hebrews had for discerning the will of God with surety. Faith teaches humility not arrogance. Nobody of faith limits creation nor God.
terryahh 1 year ago
@terryahh Faith teaches arrogance that one's own beliefs are better than other people's beliefs. It is this arrogance that causes "God" to order his people to perform genocide. It is this arrogance that causes Christians to try to force everyone else follow their moral code. It is this arrogance that makes Christians condemn everyone else to hell. Yes, faith does teach arrogance.
mrcynic77 1 year ago
@mrcynic77 Yes this is true.
abby495 1 year ago
@mrcynic77 Exactly. And their constant attack of homosexuals and constant attempt to change laws to enforce their morality down everyones throat is so predictable. Even God would not do this. He gave an opportunity to reject Him and these war mongerers should reflect on why a God who wants them to kill everyone else is the One for them too. What's up with that? Why not Buddha? Too peaceful?
abby495 1 year ago
@terryahh In so far and you can look to one as the Pope or Church or authority faith has vulnerability to being infiltrated. It always falls into the wrong hands. Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely those words did not change with the passage of time history will attest. Religion is no exception. The people will be susceptible to fear brokers who will play them like a harp and succeed in taking their liberties and enslaving them.Then using their association for profit.
abby495 1 year ago
@abby495 'Fear broker'. That's a great term!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@SIMKINETICS Thanks. So appropriate for these times.
abby495 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abby495 I'm afraid so!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@terryahh to claim to know what an all-powerful, all-knowing god that works in "mysterious ways" wants, which is as arrogant as it gets.
sanriver12 1 year ago
@terryahh Except when they kill Gods people by the hundred thousands ie the Catholic Church. The history speaks for itself and this history isn't going to be forgotten. They just about wiped out the Indigenous. Unless they let up and let others express their free will just as God has said then they will continue to be mocked. If God allowed it who is the Church to butchers his people? Who? Not His church not his Pope.
abby495 1 year ago
The patterns of conformation in your neurons, are what make you, you. Individual molecular components are irrelevant when compared to the patterns they produce.
OspacemarineO 1 year ago
...OR are there things that aren't even PART of the Universe that we can't possibly understand?
DoKtaTre 1 year ago
See what happens when you are smart? Its like torture...
Jason29n 1 year ago
1000
lennartik 1 year ago
we are not necesarily living in middle-world : i think anything and everything would naturally always assume itself 'the middle' on all dimensions : much like pre-geocentric astronomical thinking etc
for any observer you can only see so far in macro or micro - all observers think themselves in the middle.
im not say we arent - but not necesarily right ?
quosmo1 2 years ago
they must of heard me
they took the apple(with the bite out of it) out of frame!
tr6tpdwn 2 years ago
Wow.... "you weren't there", he just blew my mind.
Nemesis000000 2 years ago
3:19 LOL
read, dud read
VyckRo 2 years ago
IS the statment about not a single atom in your body being there at the time or whatever actually true? I would believe flesh cells and hair and shit regenerates pretty frequently but how about things such as teeth
paulio2293 2 years ago
to be wise is to know that there is NO LEDGE for the brains which is KNOW LEDGE. you know you know much when you recognize you know NOTHING. I am not a religious zealot and a do not cast aside a HIGHER POWER. Science observes, shows and then proves the more you know, the less you know. So I continue to rely on science to reveal through action (revelation) while understanding the THE MOST HIGH is ALL. this is after all why we are able to utilize cognitive skills and processes
shogunmetic 2 years ago
@shogunmetic Yes well said. I like this approach. Because some who praise science reveal to be a slave of Science who only ever dare imagine or perceive a realm or theory only after Science's stamp of approval. But what these people forget is they still don't know everything. Dabbling in everything and thereby discovering the interconnectivity of All is a better barometer for Gnosis.Besides in some fields they've expressed infinity we'll know what they know if we look under every rock.
abby495 1 year ago
@abby495 I am awesome. ....HUMANITARIAN ....
_______
Atheists and humanists ask: "If God exists, why doesn't He show Himself?"
The Sciences, when they cannot get at a truth or express a fact in the formulae and measures proper to their realm; cannot deny its existence or prove its non-existence, at least until a test is devised which will demonstrate its impossibility and unfeasibility; they must pro tempore put it in their "awaiting solution" tray. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Do all the things which we accept, of whose existence we are convinced, owe our acknowledgement to our own existence or acquaintance or perception of them?
Is it a proof of God's non-existence that He cannot be sensed physically and His qualities cannot be discerned corporeally? ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Yes.
drche420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drche420 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drche420 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@drche420 FYI, 1tabligh directly copies and pastes philosophical arguments from a web site called al islam (dot) org
:D
1tabligh, I just want to tell you, and you may already know, there was once an illustrious history of beautiful philosophy, science, math, art and culture in the Arab world and surely something to be proud of. But they didn't do it with your approach. They were being more like the atheists you argue with.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin
?
I'm atheist.
drche420 1 year ago
@drche420 No sorry I should have been a bit more clear, I was telling you about the user 1tabligh, who you were talking with, and how he dishonestly cuts and pastes arguments verbatim from an Islam educational website with philosophical arguments. So the last response was to you but it wasn't about you, it was about 1tabligh.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin
Oh, sorry.
drche420 1 year ago
All materialists know that a great many of the teachings we hold firmly, derive their compulsion from judgement and facts that are neither perceptible by sense nor familiar. On the stage of being, there are innumerable invisible objects. Advances of modern science and knowledge have discovered myriads of such facts from infinite distances to infinitesimal hadrons and quarks. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
One problem which is preoccupying scientists today is the change of mass into energy and vice versa. All visible bodies transfer energy to each other with a change in their own appearance, like the burning of wood. There is a transfer of energy. But this energy, which is the pivot for the vast majority of actions and consequences in the orderliness of the universe - how are we to assess it by sight or by touch?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Why does being able to visibly see it so important to you? Are you asking, "Why aren't these experiments able to be conducted in the narrow sliver of wavelengths that make up the visible spectrum of light?"?
I don't see how visibly seeing the matter or energy makes a difference at all.
drche420 1 year ago
[Our 4th Imam 'Ali Zaynu 'l-Abidin as-Sajjad in the 55th Litany of Vol. 2 of his works nonetheless adumbrated the concept in the antiphons of the section:
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of heaven.
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of the worlds.
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of the sun and the moon....
1tabligh 1 year ago
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weight of darkness and light.
"Holy and Transcendent art Thou, our Creator and Preserver:
Thou knowest the weights of air and of shadow."]
1tabligh 1 year ago
Umm, yeah. However the use of fallacious was a little redundent, what with the fact that opinions are called such because they are an individuals viewpoint, prone to bias and usually lacking a watertight set of supporting arguments.
On the other hand, It made the sentence flow beautifully, so who am I to argue. And to those who thumbed me down for saying his viewpoint was an "opinion", I thought athiests LIKED to question everything and not follow blindly? I smell irony in your actions.
pamew 2 years ago
Who says anyone follows him blindly?
I personally agree with most of what he says so I'm fine with listening with what he has to say.
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago 56
@Hiddeknight0 Plus, the important thing is that he backs up what he has to say with EVIDENCE. He doesnt just point to some subjective experience he had and say "I had this private realization that I can't prove in any way so now you all to believe what I say." lol
ZachRose88 6 months ago 2
Well, I'm lost for words. Speaking as an atheist, I think you've all missed the point fucking brilliantly. All of you are saying "all of his points are based on evidence."
No, not all of them are. Notice that Richard dawkins NEVER says "there is no god." This isn't because he secretly worhips an angry old sky man every night, it's because as an even and open minded man, he never says something is a certainty without certain proof either way, unlike most people here, christian and atheist alike
pamew 2 years ago
My brain rebooted at 1:47 lol. I enjoy richards lectures because he has a great humble quality, and he doesn't feel the need justify his opinions, because that's just what they are.
pamew 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His quote on faith 6:50
Wait, evolution and the big bang are based on faith....
Dejavu12321 2 years ago
No, they are based on evidence.
greylights888 2 years ago 22
no there not theres alot of evidence on the two gets your facts straight
mobby32 2 years ago
if you don't understand the evidence, YOU may have to take it on faith. but it doesn't WE are taking it on faith.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
Speaking as an Agnopstic atheist, I don't believe in any human god, I think it's ignorant and vain of us to assume we already know what makes the universe tick and also assume that entity is our "BFF". On the other hand, I also admit that there COULD be a higher power out there, and my assumption is that if there is, it's infinitely more complex and astounding than anything our relatively infantile species can imagine.
pamew 2 years ago
there is a higher power. google "the pheonix lights" and you can see it. god didn't create evolution. evolution created god.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
I didn't argue that god created evolution or vice versa, as I don't believe in God and I don't worship science.
As for the Pheonix lights, I've heard of them, although it is just one of many Unidentified Flying Object sightings around the world. I'm sure there's life out there in the universe, it's ignorant not to, but any life with the capability to travel at lightspeed would still take hundreds of years to get here. even then, would they want to?
pamew 2 years ago 2
the pheonix lights were witnessed by thousands, video taped by hundreds. that's a little different then a few random sightings, right? besides, what is a hundred years for one sentient, immortal being?
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
Oh, so now you're saying that a few glowing lights in the sky in a V formation was actually physical evidence of god?
Geez.
pamew 2 years ago
no. that's not what i'm saying.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
So, what is your exact point?
that a few thousand people saw some glowing lights.
So far that's all you've given me.
pamew 2 years ago
i buy into the singularity. i think immortal robots are the next step in human evolution, so it's easy to postulate AI would also evolve elsewhere in the universe. not that they would be interested in communicating with us, but the earth is probably more interesting than mars for any uber-galactic super intelligence. with all the frailties of biological organisms, it just seems unrealistic that the pheonix lights are an ach for little green men.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
Well I certainly can't say you have an uninteresting point of view.
pamew 2 years ago
Light speed travel isn't possible. Only something without mass can achieve the speed of light. The heavier somthing is the further from the speed of light it's maximum velocity is.
However there is speculation that the possibility to modify space time exists, allowing two points in space to become one and allowing the travel over vast gaps of space instantaneously.
There is undoubtably other life in the universe, I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise.
cpynch 2 years ago
I know, I was speaking in a roundabout fashion.
"traveling at light speed" is just a little faster to write than " whilst actual light speed travel isn't possible"
As for the possibility of modifying space time itself, you're in the realm of quantum mechanic there, which is (I'm told) the scientific and mathematical equivalent to trying to take apart the titanic with no blueprints and a bent paperclip.
This is all going to be way ahead of our lifetimes anyway, so best not to speculate really
pamew 2 years ago
Speculation leads to experimentation which leads to discovery!
And yes Quantum Mechanics are impossible to grasp (So I'm told as well)
"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics."
150 years ago Nuclear energy seemed to be a distant reality..... and look at the progress of computers in the last 15 years! I bet within my lifetime we will see new forms of propulsion, maybe not bending space and creating wormholes, but who knows! :)
cpynch 2 years ago
Very true, call me small minded but I'm not sure that prodding at the very fabric of the universe itself is something that should be done BEFORE we know what we're doing ;)
pamew 2 years ago
Exploration and experimentation always come before knowing the outcome.
If we knew the outcome before we did it, we wouldn't need to do it in the first place ;)
cpynch 2 years ago
very true as regards most experimentation, however taking a pair of bolt cutters to the fabric of existence should have as many chances for error removed as possible before anyone does anything, call me cautious, but I like my current set of dimensions and scale of time.
pamew 2 years ago
Maybe if we start playing with space\time we can kick in a dimension where it rains Megan Fox :D
cpynch 2 years ago
I hope not, the world economy would be drained by bills for tanning studios and shoes :|
on the PRACTICAL side, yes, yum yum :)
pamew 2 years ago
Everything gets 'heavier' as it goes faster.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I think you've been watching too much sci-fi.
Saying it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light is quite arrogant. Scientists thought it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound at once point, remember?
I'm not saying that I know how, I'm saying don't use words like "impossible".
Particularly when you then go on about speculation in changing space and time for travel purposes.
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
lol watching sci-fi.... no friend, more like reading about different theories by recognized scientists.
NOTHING is impossible, scientifically of course - however some things have such a minuscule chance of happening it's within reason for logic sake to deem them impossible.
It's possible that right now, you or I will turn into a toad. It's so improbable I would be apt to say it's impossible in a typical conversation.
Arrogant? You're the one saying Einstein is wrong.... lol
cpynch 2 years ago
My point is you say one thing is impossible, that very little testing has been done on, due to being unable, and the low chance of it working, to then say another thing, teleportation, which very little testing has been done on, due to being unable, and the low chance of it working, is possible.
The amount of theoretical energy it would take to bend space time enough to cross two points would be enough to obliterate the universe. Think it's safe to give people that to travel with?
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
Just so you know, it has been found something moves faster than light...space. The expansion of space actually moves faster than the speed of light, so a current theory on how to break the light barrier is to build a type of warp drive that would allow the ship to ride a wave of space, kind of like a surfer rides a wave of water.
Tehmaster16ofgames 2 years ago
It may very well be possible to go faster than the speed of light but there no way for matter to go that fast. If any matter goes at the speed of light it becomes energy.
dakotadenverdexter 2 years ago
@dakotadenverdexter
Theoretically, it's possible to convert it back to matter in the correct order.
Theoretically.
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
Theoretically yes but then going the speed of light is also theoretical.
dakotadenverdexter 2 years ago
@dakotadenverdexter
not only theorically, we achieved that in many occations(not counting the minute ones). The Kinetic energy of 1/2 C electron is mostly mass.
doganaktas 2 years ago
@dakotadenverdexter
that is a good BS.
Speed of light is the speed a stationary has in dimention of time. If it starts to move in space you get a vectoral velocity whose speed is again C. Therefor you have to make time side of the vector 0 to achive C in space, which means you would have infinte mass as well.
doganaktas 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrJamesyboi121 2 years ago
Er....atoms are not 'made up' of electrons, and electrons are 1836 times less massive than protons (and even lighter when compared to neutrons). The nucleus is by far the most important part of an atom, and if he was talking about electrons why didn't he mention them, hmm? How difficult would that have been? I have a physics degree so I don't need to look at videos for info.
FactualTruthProvider 2 years ago
4:40-5:20
*Head explodes*
BradanKAnderson 2 years ago
Why would Dawkins say that, when it's obviously not true? The fine strcuture of the brain does not get 'replaced' over time, the calcium in your bones is fixed( for men, at least), as is your tooth enamel.
Unless I'm missing something....
FactualTruthProvider 2 years ago
I'm sure you are lol, but regardless, he was quoting someone else anyway, and it was just to get across a point, it didn't have to be true.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
I'm NOT cleaning that up!
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
I really belive in God, but I admire Dawkins´ work
ikelaw 2 years ago
scientific discovery eminates from the intuition. I find it interesting that the fathers of contemporary science and mathematics had mystical and theological beliefs and experience of 'other worldly' enteties.
leezus83 2 years ago
Science teaches us many things that go against our intuition: Eg. the world is NOT flat like our intuition tells us or once told us.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago 3
Dawkins has gotten it wrong. The notion of the flat earth came from an OBSERVATION by the best known tool of measurement at the time called the 'eye'. This is why science should not justify its arrogence because all tools of observation derive from the mind of man. Eastern cultures and Pythagoras knew of the spherical nature of the world before western science, however their intuitive notions and perspectives on nature are shunned by science and are branded as superstition.
leezus83 2 years ago
"OBSERVATION"
Science is empirical observation.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
"however their intuitive notions and perspectives on nature are shunned by science and are branded as superstition."
Yes they are shunned by science to an extent. I'd agree with you. Science has every reason to do this from what I understand.
Atheists go on science more than philosophy you see. We're not science followers because of atheism, we're atheists because of science (and a little philsophy thrown in for good measure.)
That's the way I see it atm.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago 4
So was pythagoras wrong although he didn't use empirical observation, the answer is no, he wasn't wrong. Empirical observation is something that is ever changing, the potential for nuclear energy and mobile telephony always existed however if you went back in time and showed a mobile phone to a a person of the midle ages they would think you where a witch. It seems that the 'arrogant' atheistic science paradigm doesn't leave room for such scenarios within its thinking. History has not ended.
leezus83 2 years ago
"Empirical observation is something that is ever changing"
Yes but it corrects itself. Intuition doesn't in the case of e.g. a flat earth.
Science trumps intutiion easily!
Also if we're using intuition I could just say: "intuitively, I believe I AM an invincible god!" I'm correct because I intuitively believe it.
Now for the empirical observation part:
Try jumping off a roof and see if you're still a god.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago 3
*Oh look, my intuitive sense of spelling of "intutiion" got it wrong once out of three times!
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
Oh look, my intuitive sense of the meaning of words got it wrong! I meant to say "my intuitive sense of TYPING got it wrong (or did I, intuively I'm not sure.)
Let me just observe what the correct spelling and and correct word should be. Then observe it again and again just to sure it up.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
In a sense what Dawknis is referring to as intuition one could also deem as common sense. Before the rational of the necessery observation one could be forgiven for the thinking a flat earth was common sense. Science refers to the things such as the behaviour of light particles in the quantum slit experiment as counter intuitive, but a closer approximation would be to say 'counter common sensical', the universe is alot queeree than we could suppose, intution is about feeling not supposition.
leezus83 2 years ago
"intution is about feeling not supposition."
Yes i understand that but thanks
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
People in the middle ages would think you were a "witch" because of christianity telling them exactly what WAS and what was NOT natural.
Stop making examples of classical religion inspired fear and small mindedness, only to try and pin it on Science in general, you fraud you.
Also, the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. That means we think christians are ignorant to assume they know all the answers, but we admit the possibility of a higher power beyond our understanding.
pamew 2 years ago
well if they went by the eye they did not pay attention because you can see the curve of the earth when in the ocean or at the beach.
mikelf77 2 years ago
Ieezus83, you're an ignoramus.
The sphericity of the Earth has been known in the East and West for over 2,000 years.
The Catholic Church never claimed that the Earth was flat. It's a myth. Google "umberto eco" and "flat earth" and you'll get plenty of info on this.
Narwal88 2 years ago
On the other hand, Galileo WAS jailed by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric theory.
He was actually threatened with execution for arguing that the earth was not at the centre of the glaxy/universe.
So whilst I myself know that the flat earth/church argument is false, it IS true that in the 17th century, you could be killed by catholics if you stood by a correct argument. yes, killed, galileo was to be executed unless he recanted what he said. Total fucking madness,
pamew 2 years ago
leezus83... science did not exist until the 16th century. The scientific method, as we know it, was totally unknown to Pythagoras' contemporaries.
To say that Pythagorean perspectives on nature [were] shunned by science is like saying Stephen Hawking disagreed with Socrates.
I suggest you read a little bit more before you say such nonsense.
In ancient Greece the use of the senses was shunned because it was believed that the senses "deceive" you. That's why the emphasis was on logic = word...
Narwal88 2 years ago
...that's why so many scientific disciplines still end with the suffix "-logy," because they started out not as sciences but as philosophical disquisitions (Biology, Archeology, Zoology, etc.).
Narwal88 2 years ago
Yeah, you're right, modern science shuns Pythagoras!
Which is why mathematicians still use the Pythagoras theorem on a day to day basis.
MODERN western Science accepts all possibilities until proven otherwise. MEDIEVAL western Science was religiously biased. Please bear in mind that it is christianity that shuns anyything it sees as conflicting, and never betters itself. Scientists on the other hand, glady admit when they're wrong.
pamew 2 years ago
4:44-5:20 That blows my mind!
quinn2469 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Bible talks about Evolution to know what I'm talking about watch all of Omega Theory & judge for your self...
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
Darkfoster22 - I did and it doesn't. Looks like your judgement sucks. sssh now. Let the adults speak.
mattyabsley 2 years ago 2
Ah... Unlocking human potential...
I think there's a key problem with that. To put it bluntly, most humans don't exactly have a lot of potential.
The best we can do is to make sure the ones who DO have potential get the maximum chance of exploiting their potential.
But I don't think suitable systems to do so would appeal to Americans much, because of the sink or swim culture in the US. Someone who has a great brain, but a poor background or other problems is unlikely to thrive in the US.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 11
you are so right!
i've seen people who ask "who created god?" and many other questions that challange faith to be quickly sushed and brainwashed into thinking like the majority.. i for one have been given hell [so to speak] for being and free thinker.. for being atheist.. and not comforming to their beliefs..
i dont do it for rebelion... i just want truth and in america... where i live.. that is very hard to get...
victorisda69king 2 years ago 3
and keep being a free thinker, there are plenty of them in the U.S too, just look through your academia. It is such a shame that the country with the greatest potential to unlock so many mysteries is bogged down with so much dark ages thinking. But its not the same everwhere and the U.S is changing.
peterogr 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG dawkins acknowledges the fact that we live in an illusion made by our brain!!?
OMG dawkins acknowledges quantum fysics?!
these things have been known by shamans and indiginous people all over the world for thousands of years, yet now science is catching up.
colloredbrothers 2 years ago
While Shamans and the indiginous may have said they "knew" such things, they've made no testable theories, presented no evidence and provided no predictions which were reproducably successful. On the other hand, scientists were able to meet all such criteria. Any fool can venture a guess, but backing the guess up via empirical methodology is the key. Also, quantum physics was NOT posited by shaman, nor indiginous.
CodeSculptor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And thus, "Things to Come", by: H.G. Wells, comes true. "And if were no more than animals, we must snatch each little scrap of happiness, and live, and suffer, and pass, mattering no more than all the other animals do or have done. It is this, or that. All the universe or nothing. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?" The puppet Dawkins, is an Idiot.
Howie47 2 years ago
It does not seem that you have actually refuted any of Dawkins arguements.
It is an idiot who speaks and makes no point.
camino1ca 2 years ago 36
@camino1ca I'm sorry, I missed the "comment argument" that you had, but what douchey book of proverbs did you get "It is an idiot who speaks and makes no point" from?
instereovideos 1 year ago
how ironic, my friend and I were just talking about single celled organisms, good sir, would you like to borrow a brain cell? yours seems lonely.
Ocoton 2 years ago 4
this is so brilliant it makes me laugh! mm. richard dawkins.
glebber 2 years ago 5
Its funny how atheist people are become a cult. the worship this man.
killzone72 2 years ago
NO true atheist would worship any man or any thing! That's what religious people do, didn't you know? Atheism is about thinking for yourself, the total opposite! So if you worship Dawkins or Darwin or whatever, you've become something else than atheist.
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
You're wrong, atheist is about a lack of belief.
killzone72 2 years ago
Yes, and that lack of belief leads to thinking for yourself and evaluating information in an objective way, improving critical thinking skills etc. The rejecting of supernatural beliefs is simply the first step in that process
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
killzone
THE worship this man
we respect him for his intelligence, reaserch and critical thinking
me1513 2 years ago
Well I listened again and yes, fundamentalism is irrational. The quote "whatever we you are... is not the stuff of which you are made ", could be used to argue for "religion". Suppose someone does believe that there is truth that an analytical mind can't grasp. As long as they don't claim that their intuition tells them irrational things are true, and that it gives them authority, what's it got to do with Dawkins? I can't even tell if he's saying that they would be obviously irrational or not.
gerontodon 2 years ago
We seem to have evolved with an inherent tendency to believe that Richard Dawkins is making a point. I've listened to this twice and I can't find one.
gerontodon 2 years ago
He started by asking the question whether there was truth ungraspable by any mind. He didn't answer it, I don't know what he was implying. He shouldn't quote Wittgenstein if he's trying to say mysticsm is irrational. What he's good at is useful but limited metaphors like the selfish gene. Apart from that it's mostly just "I'm so clever, I'm so clever I'm so clever".
gerontodon 2 years ago
He quoted Wittgenstein to make the point that, even if something seems irrational or ridiculous to us it actually can be true if it's backed up by evidence and science. If not, then it's most likely isn't true
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
Well, the only thing the quote seems to be saying to me is, that a counter-intuitive suggestion could seem intuitive if you thought about it. What seems irrational or ridiculous varies from person to person. What about Buddhists who came up with the idea of emptiness before physics did? People who reject the supernatural seem to define it as something that they're too clever to take seriously. If Dawkins was implying that there is truth beyond the power of reason, then that seems spooky to me.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Yes, we are too clever to take religion seriously, but not without good reasons to do so, right? It's all about research and not taking things on faith
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago 2
I don't want to get into an argument. I know apologists for religion can be huffy and condescending, and I have been like that in the past. That's definitely not a good idea on youtube. I fear slipping into that mode. I talked to two or three rational materialists (or whatever), in comment sections here. I'm nothing special, I know that, but they really didn't seem, to me, to address what I said to them. They just seemed to dismiss anything that didn't sound, to them, realistic and hard-headed.
gerontodon 2 years ago
okay, I will just say this: what did I not adress in your comment? i simply said that to belive something you need good reason to do so. Is that not a valid point to you? Why rely on faith rather than using logic and reasoning?
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago
Sorry, just seen your comment. Well, I wasn't referring to you, just indulging in angst really. However, I don't think you addressed either of my points. I think the Buddhist philosophers were using logic and reasoning. Also, the point I made about the vagueness of Dawkins' metaphysics re the question of whether reality can, in principle, be completely rationally known - or known by any other means. To use logic and reasoning you must have faith in your logic and reasoning.
gerontodon 2 years ago
The lowdown according to me - transcendence is just the subjective part of experience. We might feel that everything is explainable because we constantly find that what we thought was mysterious eg emotions, can be explained objectively. That is an illusion though, the explanation is really a description, the subjective awareness is now at a different point. The subject has to see itself as object. The objects are what we call natural, the combination of them is supernatural.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Objects are not separate from subject. The boy kicked the ball. What was the boy at that time? He was "kicking the ball". That's the noun that described him at that point.
gerontodon 2 years ago
Geron, the problem with transcendence is that if our "models" constructed by our observations can predict what our future observations will be as well as what our past observations were, then it effectively eliminates the ineffable, the transcendant and the supernatural.
Because anything that the model fails to "include" would be things that have NO effect on any aspect of reality and are thus no different from fantasy.
CodeSculptor 2 years ago
They describe future observations as well AS past ones, but not as WELL. Models get outdated because, they predict more accurately than the old ones, but need more accurate measurements, which reveal fresh anomalies. I think that esoteric philosophies ARE compatible with a lot of scientific thinking, and is psychologically useful, which insisting that reality only consists of the models that are made of it, isn't, (for some at least) - and that's not surprising if it isn't actually true.