Richard Dawkins Finds Most Thinking People Are Atheists

[vincefave]

You guys love that word, cunt.  Americans only call woman, cunts.

[butterflyer01]

@tigger4chris why should I or anyone believe you? Bc you said so? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hell exists only in your teeny tiny pea brain. Surely you are headed there for being a liar. Sucks to be you.

[PHILIBOYLONDON]

@bilalqureshi21 yeah that pesky media lying about the hundreds of suicide attacks commited by Musims, usually on other Muslims. Islam is a violent religion, certainly compared with others if not all other religions. Saying Islam is the religion of peace is like saying rugby is less violent than curling. The clear majority of muslims are peacful(at least in the west) but that still doesnt take away from the violent text that is the quran, the bible is shit too.

[Mandragara]

@bilalqureshi21 (sorry for truncation) We can throw quotes back and forth all day and get nowhere. I would just like to point out that Islam is a very militant\violent religion and the last thing the world needs is more violence

[Mandragara]

@bilalqureshi21 The Quran in Sura 4:34 says: If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

We can throw b

[tigersforchrist]

Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com

[LamentationsEnd]

@tigersforchrist "I do not doubt your sincerity but you are hallucinating"

[cjs2964]

@tigersforchrist Prove it or fuck off.

[Ragnarockalypse]

If I have a son I will probably name him Richard in homage to this man.

[itsgettindrastic]

WOW love this dude.. well said Dawk..

[westsideworldwide101]

Atheists must be careful. Our principal argument is that religion separates humanity where it is bound - that is, in our biological homogeneity and our inherent ability to reason.

Religious texts do not clearly exude reason and tolerance. The state of paralysis these texts propagate is the root cause of warfare.

Atheists must be consistent in their values of reason in their challenge to religion, or else condemn ourselves to the same hypocrisies we set out to expose.

[westsideworldwide101]

Atheists must be careful. Our principal argument is that religion separates humanity where it is bound - that is, in our biological homogeneity and our inherent ability to reason.

Religious texts do not clearly exude reason and tolerance. The state of paralysis these texts propagate is the root cause of warfare.

Atheists must be consistent in their values of reason in their challenge to religion, or else condemn ourselves to the same hypocrisies we set out to expose.

[abhishekchikhale]

this is guy is my hero :)

[blah1311]

If you have internet you shouldn't even entertain the idea of religion.

[CombatRocks]

I think it was Sartre who said 'Hell is other people'. He probably should have said 'Hell is religious people' - that makes a lot more sense!!!

[darwinsdevotee2011]

Richard I am a THIRD of your age but still would ;)

[awaydaze0100]

when i read dawkins he told me i had to be not insane but mad to have faith ....charming then ..that the best i can be in his eyes is mad ..think i'll stick to what i had  before i came across him ..leasat that wayi have value in te eyes of others

[blah1311]

@awaydaze0100 So go and jump off the bridge like everyone else does.

[n0mad2012]

@awaydaze0100 In the eyes of others, or at least others with the ability to think, you will be seen as ignorant and foolish.

[PerpetuallyHighPoet]

HINDUS BELIEVE IN MILLIONS OF FORMS OF GOD, IN FACT, BILLIONS, UNFATHOMABLE FORMS OF GOD, YOU, YOUR LIFE, YOUR ABILITY TO LIVE, BREATHE REASON...IS 'GOD'....NOT IN MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT GODS, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT SIR.

[MrDubstep88]

@PerpetuallyHighPoet since you are talking only in capital letters, I will do the same so that you may understand what I say: HE IS USING A RHETORIC DEVICE CALLED 'HYPERBOLE', OR IN ENGLISH: 'EXAGGERATION'

[37thecrusader]

This is a perfect example of man worship the creature instead of God.

[PHILIBOYLONDON]

Why is it that the BBC are always so kind and inquistitive when talking to the faithful about religion, yet when they interview an athiest they become confrontational and dismissive, they imply hes the bad guy. Cunts.

[blah1311]

@PHILIBOYLONDON there was none of that here.

[PHILIBOYLONDON]

@blah1311 well theres a diff video of the same interview where theres a muslim woman in the same convo, this video starts off when she leaves. What I said applied there.

[agbeane336]

@PHILIBOYLONDON That is almost all media outlets. BBC is fifty trillion times more respectful to such people than Fox News has ever been.

[ChainsawvsDMT]

@PHILIBOYLONDON

Sorry man, if you think she was wrong for being confrontational you and the 34 people that thumbed you up are the cunts.

I'm an atheist but you more quickly get to the nitty gritty if you're confrontational. You overly sensitive cunts.

[puresatire]

@PHILIBOYLONDON lol "cunts"? Really? She IS respectful, and she asks challenging questions (which they ask of EVERYONE, not just atheists) because this is an interview where they want interesting answers. Watch the interviews of dawkins and o'reilly, THEN try and say the BBC is confrontational and dismissive. Also stop being oversensitive.

[TheOliverTaylor]

@PHILIBOYLONDON Because the atheist has the rational mind to combat the BBC's dismissive nature, while the Christian, who believes in, to quote Hitch the "celestial North Korea" at face value, requires a bubble-wrapped cocoon of anodyne journalism.

[timmy47]

@PHILIBOYLONDON trust me it's not just the BBC, they do that in north america too for the most part, if not more so seeing as america is much more religious. canada isnt as bad though,

[faustus999]

religion is a crutch for the intellectual cowards/dullards.

it gives hope to the hopeless.........those to scared to question the nonsense they 'selectively believe' or those pitiable retards who dont have the ability to question.

[CombatRocks]

@faustus999 But it's a baseless hope!! We have to educate these pitiful people for they know not what they don't know!

[bulltraderpt]

Wonderful man. My son's going to get a real treat when he asks me about religion. Thanks Richard.

[dummychaos]

@bulltraderpt All those myths is gonna excite him. :D But seriously, religion can be fun actually!

I wish I could see your son hearing or reading "Magic of reality". You're a lucky father, or mom.

[kingkonghitme]

can i be where richard is ? i'd be just happy to sit in his presence, i can listen to him forever.

[fothgt]

@kingkonghitme I'd rather sit at the feet of Jesus and hear His voice, sense His presence and be led by His Holy Spirit (Matthew 17:1-5).

[CombatRocks]

@fothgt I'd rather fly on the backs of flying pink elephants watching dragons and fairies dance around the sky while winning the lottery every other day (Combat Rock, Feb 26th, about 1.45pm).

[fothgt]

@CombatRocks And whosover confesses Me (Jesus) before men will I also confess before My Father in Heaven, and whoever denies Me (Jesus) before men him will I also deny before My Father in Heaven ( Matthew 10:32,33).

[CombatRocks]

@fothgt What the hell does that even mean???

[fothgt]

@CombatRocks It means have faith in God and embrace the One whom He has sent into the world.

[CombatRocks]

@fothgt I see. Well that's nice. A bit pointless, but nice all the same!

[n0mad2012]

@CombatRocks I may quote this passage because it is the best thing in the whole of today. You don't mind I hope?

[CombatRocks]

@n0mad2012 Which passage?

[whereisVAL]

@fothgt

The cat in the hat. (Dr Suess Cat in the hat 1:1)

[blah1311]

@fothgt I wouldn't call his spirit holy as he is the cause of all that is bad about religion and little of what is good about it. And there is not such thing as holy, it is chemical.

[kingkonghitme]

@fothgt lol dude ..to each to his own.

[ikinmoore]

I totally agree with Mr Dawkins.............religious people want to spread the word and the fools get caught up in it ! Religion is the curse of the masses.

[mamainmancj]

You can think for ever trying to disprove God because your never going to be able to lol. All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.

[MrHeadcave]

@mamainmancj

Im a thiest however i don't get how God came to earth to suffer for petty humans...?

Suffering is hard.... I thought life is a test so why should God do our "homework"? Also dose that mean i go to heaven even if im not christian, since God has payed for me??

please keep in mind im just curious and ask you with respect to you and to your faith.

Sorry if my questions seem rude to you

[Learnerwp]

@MrHeadcave Even Christopher Hitchens admired Aquinus's "Summa Theologica." Maybe you'll find the answer to your question in there. Aquinus seems to have covered all the bases.

[MrHeadcave]

@Learnerwp im not really looking for a point of view or for another ideology...

I just saw all these athiests saying crap like religious people are inferior, uneducated and stupid... i just wanted to comment against them

[CowLunch]

@mamainmancj 1. If god is omnipotent why must he suffer to rid us of sin? 2. If Jesus was the embodiment of god and resurrected, what was sacrificed in his death? 3. How does the death of Jesus trigger the opening of our path to heaven? 4. If god created everything, including sin and free will, why does he judge us for sins that were only possible because he invented them. If your response to the last one is that "it is our choice to sin" I will explain in more detail.

[CowLunch]

@CowLunch If god exists and is our creator, there is no such thing as true free will. This is because god has written the rules of the game and defined our very nature, we are what we are because god made us that way, any argument to that fact would imply that god was fallible. Any suggestion of sin being committed against god's will is false, for he not only gave us the ability to sin but the propensity and desire to sin. He made us sinners, what other force guides us than god?

[CowLunch]

@CowLunch Satan? But Satan is the creation of god, as are all things, so then his inclinations, his sins and temptations are also the work of god. God bestowed the Devil with evil. To argue these points is to say that behaviour and free will are above god, that they exist without god, and god has no power over them. Because if god created them he defined their parameters and so set the fate of all mankind.

[CombatRocks]

@mamainmancj Oh dear!!

[sebrobbo]

This woman is such a creationist. You can tell. Poor woman.

[samaroo96]

Knowing about car and how it works does not disprove car designer. Same way knowing about universe and how it works does not disprove God. We know gases in sun, law of gravity, distance of planets etc. But how they came in existence, Who created it ? Was it by evolution theory and big bang action, How Life started first ? All these are still mystery. Theists believe all were created by God, atheists believe it was by itself. Both groups have NO proof to defend their claim. So I would call their

[MichaelTheOliver]

@samaroo96 I direct you to Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger.

[MrStuff414]

@samaroo96 you're correct. Humans will never know for certain any of these things. Our best and closest estimate of reality is what we call "science". Science is humans' collective attempt at explaining the universe through observations. There is no other tool we have that bases its logic purely on observation and experimentation. "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder, evidence is not. What science provides is evidence. Religion operates on belief.

[TheChronoflare]

Why can't the presenter pronounce certain words properly? You'd think she would be able to speak english properly

[tweetmail87]

You know what I like? This kind of intelligent debates that you don’t see often

[d3r2000]

he should pin down those who believe vaguely and record all the vague understandings then put them to the test. Otherwise we should promote education of science globally.

[d3r2000]

buddha himself talked about divinity, spirtuality something we can talk about some where near panatheism on a molecular level something that inspired einstein. We have a high level of ignorance in the world.

[d3r2000]

Buddha himself was a scientist and he himself said never accept anything blindly always challenge tradition. Buddhists make the majority population of china and hindus the majority of india they a huge population compared to jews, muslims and christians.

[bestvalue]

The title of this video is misleading. Dawkins did not say "most thinking people" are atheists but that most scientists are atheists. That's not saying much. It's like saying most people brought up in the Bible belt are fundamentalist Christians. Of course most of the top scientists are atheists. The indoctrination and the peer-pressure are overwhelming. It says nothing about the truth of the existence of God.

[redjove2000]

@bestvalue Top scientists are highly educated, that is his point. The bible belt are only educated in christianity, and twist things to fit christianity. So one is nothing like the other. If you think indoctrination happens in science then you are misguided in how the scientific method works.

[bestvalue]

The man has sold millions on copies of his nonsensical book The God Delusion. You would think he could at least afford a decent haircut.

[CmdrTobs]

@bestvalue He is 70+ professor. Hair cuts are beneath him.

[Callirgos1]

0:55 " the basic religions ... "

So the "basic" ones are *right*? And they all agree on virtue of being monotheistic? Why are the Abrahamic religions "basic"? What does that make the other religions then?

She desperately needs to believe in her mommy and daddies religion or she will feel bad. So much so she is willing to spend her life looking at the world with a twisted perspective, as to not recognize all bullshit as equal bullshit.  Apparently some bullshit is just more "basic".

derp

[Jack95912]

Dawkins is not a stupid man, and his assails against religion are often times sound.

But trying to discredit religion on the premise it always results in aggression towards others ignores history. It is also a tangent that doesn't address the main question: one's belief in the super natural is irrespective of what other people choose to do in the name of a particular belief.

[Jack95912]

Dawkins has some fallacious reasoning when it comes to social ills and religion. His idea that theists 'cannot live and let live' premises that ALL theists commit aggression or proselytize. This is patently un-true.

Another thing that Dawkins is not considering is all of the human misery perpetrated by atheists. Namely, the Nazis and the Stalinists.

[TheMasteratLink]

@Jack95912 "I'd be happy to live and let live if that's what the majority of religious people do." Maybe you should listen to what he is saying and not cover your ears, you might learn something from someone much smarter than you.

[Jack95912]

@TheMasteratLink "I'd be happy to live and let live if that's what the majority of religious people do" could easily be changed to: "I'd be happy to live and let live if that's what the majority of people do."

Do you see how this makes the religious qualifier moot? Theism does not predispose anyone towards bellicosity or interventionism in others' lives anymore than any other system, as history demonstrates.

Dawkins' lament is really about humans in general, not religion.

[decaffinatedoysters]

@Jack95912

"Dawkins' lament is really about humans in general, not religion" - No, it isn't, and you're the one who has missed the point. Dawkins is against religious people who impose their ideals on others. That is what he he spent most of his career crusading against.

[Jack95912]

@TheMasteratLink BTW, if you re-examine the video, you will notice he said:

"The religious people do not keep it to themselves...they do impose it upon the rest of us..." & "I'd be happy to live and let live, if that's what the majority of religious people do."

Regardless of what he says in his books or anywhere else, these statements in this interview substantiate the tact I was taking as to his views.

[decaffinatedoysters]

@Jack95912

Let's examine your logic for a second.

-The Nazis and Soviets were atheist

-The Nazis and Soviets commited crimes against humanity

-The Nazis' and Soviets' atheism was a factor in their crimes against humanity.

Now, if Dawkins claimed that atheists could never commit morally evil acts, your logic would be sound. But he doesn't, so it isn't. Correlation =/= causation.

Never has Dawkins claimed that all theists are aggressive or that they all proselytize. Read his books.

[Jack95912]

@decaffinatedoysters said "Never has Dawkins claimed that all theists are aggressive or that they all proselytize. Read his books."

I was just addressing what he was saying in this interview.

Besides, you missed the point just as TheMasteratLink did, and I encourage you to read my response to his post to see what I mean.

[Jack95912]

@decaffinatedoysters As I told TheMasteratLink, the only thing I was highlighting was the moot nature of his assertions as regards his decision to be an atheist.

The fact that we can find theists and atheists who have committed monstrous acts and created systems that indoctrinate and dictate people's lives demonstrates that it is moot to discuss the 'live and let live' idea within the realm of theism only.

[CombatRocks]

@Jack95912 Piss poor and pathetic argument!

[Jack95912]

Agnosticism

[allyc1965]

The questions at 1.59, 2.44, 4.54 and 5.33 are simple minded and patronising.

[Mfothergillable]

Now there's someone I'd like to buy a pint

[QCBEC]

I always always always always think.

I am not atheist i don't know i let the idiot fight over what we have no clue about.

[Oldcartoons571]

@QCBEC We dont have a clue because there is no evidence for any god. We obviously shouldnt follow something without proof, simple

[QCBEC]

@Oldcartoons571 Yep but if you want peace you have to respect other people even in what you concider there stupidity.

[jimmyshitbags]

History will look upon dawkins as a revolutionary figure. He is hated by many but he's the voice of reason. All he's doing is just pointing out reality. Those that don't accept what he says are either those that lack a proper scientific understanding, or the hopelessly ignorant/deluded. There is more hope for the former than the latter.

He only comes across as condescending because of the amount of stupid, brainwashed, irrational fucking goons he has to deal with.

[JagjeetMann]

lol

[mcmln2812]

Really I so very much respect Richard Dawkins

[huwrj]

They keep asking Richard Dawkins why he's so angry and hateful and full of rage. WHAT?? Are we talking about the same person? Are they fucking retarded?

[AmunRaRocks]

Magic of Reality Rocks.

[aaqucnaona94]

Of course they are atheists - they think.

[1empathy]

Most people would rather die than think, and most people do.

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy Thats a pompus lie people tell themselves....

People think and they think in many different ways, which is partially the reason we survive as a specie today...

the fact that each and every single human has his own thoughts, ideology and ideas diversifies our knowledge and drives human creativity. Without it we would not be able to take on the challenges on this planet and the challenges of science

[1empathy]

@MrHeadcave I suppose you mean pompous? I don't accept that as I am merely quoting (bertrand russel), and it is pertinent to the video. The singular of species is also species, but if you meant to type specie then i apologise, but it makes your comment very strange.

Russel is right of course, the vast majority contribute nothing to the flourishing of mankind or to our scientific knowledge. They are content to let others (mostly through religions) do their thinking for them.

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy

thanks for correcting my typos but i consider grammar irrelevant since we are talking informally here........

That is as the west portrays them, its quite common amongst westernized minds to think themselves superior ...

However its not up to you or me to judge entire masses of people because of what we've read or seen on tv...

Scientific discoveries made by atheists is a new thing and hasn't even been around for a hundred years, its a bit hasty to consider the theists as dumb masses

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy as you were saying "they are content with letting others do their thinking for them" its actually quite inhuman of you to say this. No one can say how valuable another person's contribution to the world is because we are still incredibly young and primitive as a people.

I vigorously disagree wit your comment that they contribute nothing, look at the Islamic golden age, look at the mathematical, engineering accomplishments of Hindus.. These theists made such great leaps in their time.

[1empathy]

@MrHeadcave The scientific and mathematical advances in any age or society were made by a few, while the majority (often through no fault of their own) Lived and died in thoughtless ignorance. The accomplishments you mention were made by a few free thinking humans in spite of religion. "Western culture is only superior in that it allows more freedoms and has (usa excluded) marginalized religion.

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy Yet the most scientifically advanced country overall over the past 100 years has been America...

Also if your hypothesis is correct in that countries that marginalize religion attain more scientific or thinking individuals then should't Soviet Russia, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany be your model countries?

[1empathy]

@MrHeadcave You don't know your history. Soviet russia rejected science (look up lysenko) when it disagreed with it's ideology, china sent the intellectuals to work as peasants and elevated the uneducated to power, hitler rejected "jewish" science (ironically the scientists he drove out could have won him the war and they fled to america making it the scientific powerhouse it became post-war). Political ideologies just like religions smother freethought, so russell's quote still looks good ;o)

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy

Lol "you don't know your history" why would anyone know about "Lysenko" why should any one care...? the Soviets were a scientific country who strongly opposed religion, so for a few political reasons they favored one theory, they still kicked out lysenkoism in abt 10 years...

Also same with the NAZIs, the Nazi actually kept a great deal of jews in their staff....

what other pure "scientifically ideological" nations have existed?

[MrHeadcave]

@MrHeadcave

As for the chinese, their atheistic ideology is what allowed them to send millions upon millions of dissenters to their deaths(similarly in nazi germany, and Russia). They had no reason to care, no principal existed to protect the individual....

BTW create a constitution and rights for individuals in a purely scientific society is a political ideology to which you were against!

[carryall69]

@MrHeadcave

the chinese ideology was maoistic, which was an anti-revisionist, anti-confusianist form of marxism paired with a messianic revolutionary nationalism as trotsky called it and plenty of idealism and populism mixed in. china and mao are very large topics. to reduce it all into one term, in your case "atheism", covinces probably theists, but on the other hand, they are willing to buy into anything that serves their beliefs. it's their nature.

[carryall69]

@MrHeadcave

the same goes for the soviets. since you already mentioned the ideological restrictions on science with lysenkoism, i won't go into that. but surely one could have expected more from a "scientific country" than to remain far behind compared to the first world.

i would rather state, that both, maoism and communism were pseudoatheistic ideologies.

[carryall69]

@MrHeadcave

china under mao and the soviet union were authoritarian, unsecular single party states with no commitment to human rights at all. just classical theocratic regimes with a new religion: everything included, herecy-hunts, witch-trials, leader-worshipping and so on. not to mention adolf, who instrumentalized the latently existing antisemitism of his christian fanbase who applauded every now and then, whenever he talked about the poor arian jesus who was killed by the filthy jews.

[1empathy]

@MrHeadcave If you knew about lysenko (you don't rate knowledge) you would understand why the soviets were NOT scientific. You're wrong about the nazis ( again you don't seem to mind being ignorant). And my earlier comment still stands because western countries not only marginalized religion (usa constitutionally separates church and state, remember?) they also allowed freedom of speech/the press etc The ideologies you mentioned merely replaced magic with nonsense.

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy

wake up and get your own head out of your ass, Lysenko is a stupid example...

ofc i did't know about Lysenko(how can i be ignorant for not knowing, some random trivial thing...), i looked it up i found out the soviets outlawed opposition to his work etc.... his work was discredited ~10 years later end of story, now he lives in Ukraine...

Lol @ "your wrong about Nazis" good argument boss!

yes thats true however separating religion and state doesn't mean your marginalizing it.....

[1empathy]

@MrHeadcave I don't know what else to say. You are simply wrong about the nazis and i am correct, look it up. Lysenko is a good example of how the soviets placed ideology above science, now look up nikolai vavilov. All the while the majority of the soviet union died rather than thought just like in the rest of the world. Russel still looks good ;o)

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy

dude accept defeat...

even if there were a few examples of scientific favoritism, they did not last long and still those are the only athistic nations that have existed and look how fucked up they were. Even you are pointing out random flaws in them...

[MrHeadcave]

@1empathy

Im sick of people ranting that religious folk are less superior and they think less etc....

This only shows how foolish you really are, generalizing about ~90% of humanity(which is religious) and assuming they are all less knowledgeable than atheists.

Religions don't start war, people do!

And science and religion don't necessarily need to be at heads with each other

[CombatRocks]

@MrHeadcave But it patently obvious! Religious beliefs are based on faith, not evidence. Religious people believe because they are told to - they don't question because it is discouraged. Those of us who did ask awkward questions eventually realised that there were no sensible answers. It really is not difficult to understand that religion is merely a way of controlling people - it has nothing to do with a god or any supernatural beings. Just control - that's all!!

[rakathin]

@1empathy

Damn you! I wish I'd said that.

[lunadogwoof]

@rakathin And I wish I'd said that before you said it. Damn you tooooooo.

[rakathin]

@lunadogwoof

Damned by my own damn!

[RAJEEVGOTHE]

how eloquent one can get ! Its a pleasure listening to him