ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ย. 2006
- Richard Dawkins answers "the most simplest question" from a Liberty U student.
I direct all the people (primarily evangelicals) who don't get it and object that "he didn't answer the question" to my response at • What If?
UPDATE: NEW AND IMPROVED RESPONSE VIDEO 5/16/2007 - ตลก
I think the real question is how did the Great juju move from the mountain to the bottom of the sea?
Cultural Marxist That's precisely the power of the Great Juju.
Cultural Marxist because JUJU is omnipresent! and beyond time and space! JUJU HU AKBAR!
Allah ackbar, I'll fly a plane into your house!!!
It didn't. Juju is spiritual power imbued into tokens, not a proper name for an immaterial divine entity. The great juju of the mountain is a power effluvium very much distinct from the great juju at the bottom of the sea.
That's what diferentiates the Great Juju from other not-so-great Jujus.
I am sorry Mr. Dawkins but we cannot be wrong about his noodliness the flying spaghetti monster. Hallowed be thy sauce!
Infidel! Convert to Teapotism now or boil in tea water for eternity!
+Qutaiba Sabha Don't forget the delicious, delicious meatballs; amen.
***** LOL, good eye my friend. Not me, but my favorite physicist. Happy New Year.
+EcceSignumRex Sorry man, but ya lost me.
LOL, I dig.
“Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life."
--- Richard Dawkins
How can we trust our brain?
@@CosmicCanvas666 Good point. If Dawkins is right, then he is also wrong.
But what is it in evolution that makes the decision to keep a trait that is useful? Genuinely would like to know. There has to be an intelligence behind it, surely?
@@barryguff6893 Do you have any empirical evidence showing that this would work ?
Any geneticist will tell you that the human genome is degenerating and natural selection is not able to weed out bad mutations let alone create or evolve anything.
Alvin Plantinga makes that exact same argument and says if we are to believe our cognition was shaped the way you just explained it’s not concerned with truth judgment of ideas so evolution itself has a 50/50 chance if being wrong given that its a product of our cognition
Probably one of the most iconic responses to a question ever recorded.
…wha? This is nothing for Dawkins man. He’s got like 20 clips better than this.
too bad it was complete avoidance
It's a deflection. He never answered the question. He's not nearly as wise as he thinks he is.
And one of the most iconic pseudo intellectual non responses to a question recorded as well. Blows my mind that people take this guy seriously. He clearly has no business in philosophy and anything outside his scientific discipline. He’s out of his depth and making a fool out of himself because of it. To those that actually see through his nonsensical empty rhetoric, that is.
Yeah, he shouldn’t have left it at that. He should have made the point much clearer for the audience if he wanted to convince them. When making an argument you shouldn’t leave any gaps for your opponents to fill in on their own as they may be too blinded by dogma or incompetent to figure it out on their own. He should have continued with “if the most influential factor on your religious beliefs is the place and time you were born, how could an all knowing, perfectly just deity reward believers and punish nonbelievers eternally?” Maybe this still isn’t enough to get a point through some of the thicker skulls in the audience, but its a q&a so he probably wouldn’t want to waste too much time over-explaining a really obvious point.
If he's wrong then God has a lot of explaining to do.
+transtremm If he is wrong then the vengeful god will fry our ass anyways..
+MeLexdy or the Flying Spagetti Monster will make pasta out of us all...
+transtremm like what kind of explaining?? I'm just a seeker of what's true don't take offense!
lol
***** I don't understand you
That's why I believe in everything, just for safety...
You getting hits from using the idea of 'christianity' is like people getting hits from the idea of 'math', or 'sex' - it means nothing, i enjoy finding out the issues underneath - i think i've done 'that' - ha...
you talking to me?...
CzechRiot no - not anymore, thanks
That should explain why none of what you wrote make any sense in respect to what I wrote.
vague post -
Blessed be the holy noodles of our lord the Flying Spaghetti Monster. R'Amen
Shit post..
😆 Brilliant! I see what ye didst thither 😏 Mayhaps thou art not the originator of such wit, but still 😏
I want to like this but it is at 69 likes soo......😏😏😏
@@Yash-wm1nj damn same here :|
Rah Man New Doles are fakes! Beware the Antipasta!
The refusal to understand displayed by the theists in this comment section is astounding. The question was, at best, incomplete. "What if" can mean a number of things. It could mean...
"What does it mean for the world at large if you're wrong?"
"What will happen to you if you're wrong?"
"How will you react if you're wrong?"
And, what if he's wrong *about what?* About there not being a benevolent God? About there not being an all-powerful God? About the Christian God not being real? About any other God not being real? About Heaven not being real? About Hell not being real?
The real question was "What if you're wrong, *and I'm right?* What if my precise, personal set of beliefs on God and the afterlife turn out to be true?" which is impossible to answer, since Richard would have no way of knowing what her specific set of beliefs are. It was a childish, empty question, and it got exactly the answer it deserved.
I'm not going to pretend to know whether or not this was just her fantasizing about Richard going Hell, but for those of you here who do yearn for the eternal torture of people who disagree with you, I imagine your God would be disappointed.
The Great JuJu at the Bottom of the Sea bit killed me XDD
For some reason "The Great Juju up the mountain" was funnier because of the apparently sloppy grammar.
@@TallSilentGuynothing wrong with that grammar
I love all the christians in the comments section saying "he didnt answer the question" or "he just asked the same question". His point was that it was a dumb question because it can be applied to literally any belief. To ask that question with the mindset that you have all the answers is a display of arrogance that deserves a good tongue lashing.
What load rubbish he was too arrogant to answer question.
SativaGamer420
He and you can think it’s a dumb question all you want. He still dodged it. The answer is if he’s wrong he’s gonna have to face his creator and he’s gonna be ashamed for his rebellion.
@@thetannernation what if you wrong about muslim god?
The problem I see with Christians is that they think Christianity = religion.
So when asking "what if you're wrong?" In their minds they think that's equal to saying "what if you're wrong about the Christian god?".
@@thetannernation the point hes tryna make is theres thousands of religions in the world , and if your religions isnt the 1 in 1000 thats the right one than ur gonna have to face ur creator aswell , thats his point.
Why does he think Jewish twins live at the top of an African mountain or the bottom of the sea?
" What if you're wrong?" is a self refuting question.
The mere question alone tips their hand to the FACT they know they have no good reason to believe they are right.
Ouch.
I'll remember this as my "go-to" reply.
I heard it first from Aron Ra, of American Atheists.
Theist think this is a" got you" question and Richard answered it just right.
No, he didn't. The question was, “what if you're wrong?” nothing in that should lead u to think she is a theist. He didn't even answer it. Instead gave a genetic fallacy.
@@dozo51 He answered the question very plainly and it had nothing to do with theists. Anyone can be wrong but we all can’t be right.
Yep! He crushed it!
@@dozo51 I would be extremely interested to see if you can explain what makes his counter-argument a fallacy.
@@dozo51 you just didn't get the answer. not very bright are you? just like your big juju in the sky in which he created his image on you
She probably ran to the bathroom in tears
Why? Because he talked about pink teapots? He didnt even answer the question. He deflected it and replied with sarcasm because he can't answer it
Jonathan D'Orazio Listen up you dim witted religious fanatic. The girl asks what would happen if Dawkins atheistic beliefs are wrong so Dawkins respond by stating that she is also an atheist with regards to all religion except her own.
starfox Yes but then she looked up to Sky Daddy and he eased her pains, simultaneously proving his existence and justifying why none of it makes any sense (it is Sky Daddy's Way). ;)
starfox Why? It was just a question.
starfox serves the bitch right.
Her: what if you’re wrong
Dawkins: same to you
Instead of argueing who's wrong then when we all die we will see who is wrong.
No need in argueing about it. Let's just wait and see.
@@unclepecos845 Yes, and because you are praying to a wrong god, the real one is getting angrier every day with you.
@@unclepecos845 Cool, don't legislate based on those things we can't know if you're wrong about and I agree 110%
@@unclepecos845 only problem is religious people frequently slow down humanity.
Dawkins uses uno reverse card.
The audience clearly feel so much more comfortable about their non belief. Richard Dawkins has spoken.
They're happy to see people saying what many of them have always thought, but finally in a public forum. For years atheists had no voice on a big stage.
Atheists take comfort because they believe in the end they won't have to meet God and have Him hold them accountable for their actions. Stephen Hawking once said this "Religion is a fairytale for those who are afraid of the dark." John Lennox countered that and said this "Atheism is a fairytale for those afraid of the light." How true.
@@joeturner9219 How vacuous. Atheism isn't any sort of fairy tale at all. It is the ABSENCE of fairy tales. The refusal to accept fairytales. But atheism also says "bring me the evidence and I'll change my view"...which is something those following the teachings of iron age Arab goat herders and fishermen can't ever say.
And its silly to believe that Dawkins knows all the answers.Arrogant fool.
What a stupid arrogance to assume that deities are all the same.Thor and Zeus have never been seen but Jesus and Mohammed were real and there is proof of that.
Its not clear why biologists should know any "thruth" about religion.Its not their business.
@@joeturner9219Precisely.Atheists don't accept ANY evidence because they only want to right about their nihilistic views.Without any proof whatsoever.
Dividing humanity into two groups,theists and atheists, is plain stupid.
And the assumption that Theists must PROOVE their stance while Atheists don't have to proove anything at all,is plain illogical arrogance.No Court of law would accept such a silly view of reality.
This is actually my morning prayer everyday.
Jesus Loves you. Please stop and give your life to Him. Love nothing in this world nor anything in it. It is all temporary. Once a man to die and after that is Judgement!! Read John @ in the bible!! BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED!
@@vaytray5510 Tell your God to just fuck off. 😊
@@vaytray5510 you're wrong, the great juju of the bottom of the sea will not forgive you
@@vaytray5510 Zzzzzzzz
@@vaytray5510 there's no afterlife that is just pure nonsense! So let me get this straight you're now dead and then somehow alive tf!! There literally no evidence that a mind is fully independent from the human brain, and once you die your brain stops working and your mind cease to exist.
To everyone saying "He didn't answer the question" in a sense, you are both right and wrong.
He answered it by using the same on her.
Basically saying, it isn't as simple as being wrong about one faith. Because according to every other faith on the planet, you are wrong. You are the minority according to all other religions.
So how do you judge who is "right" or "wrong" when everyone claims to be right, and all else wrong?
RD didn't answer the question and that's a fact. When scientists cant answer the simple question: "what if you are wrong", but play and ridicule, I know what that means.
quovadis domine
Prove him wrong.
quovadis domine Its a ridiculous question asked to produce one response, and he did answer the question, it was just put in a way that is clearly too complicated for you to understand. Instead of him saying what every christian wanted to hear him say - "If im wrong then im going to hell" he showed why that type of question is stupid. There are a million different religions, and we have faith in a certain religion because we are brought up that way. What if you are wrong about the religion you have choosen, the same fate will befall you as well. Try thinking before you post absolute idiocy, or at least try and comprehend his argument.
You, Maverick Man, used an argument AD HOMINEM against me. No further comment nor debate with such arguments. Sorry.
quovadis domine " used an argument AD HOMINEM against me " oh... you poor thing, nobody is good enough to discuss religion with you. !!!
As a pastafarian, i like this. Flying Spaghetti Monster is universal. RAmen
I broke your ego. I will continue to do so ... until May.
Ramen!
He boiled for us!
This southpark reenacment is amazing.
I can literally see this kind of answer in Southpark 😂
I kinda was hoping, for all the praise I'd heard of the guy and how smart he is the South Park thing was a comedy bit not something he actually said.
She was right, it was the simplest question he could answer XD
oh, totally - either yes, no, or maybe -
nailed it -
@@eccesignumrex4482 nailed like jesus on the cross 🤣🤣🤣
Math is the answer
@@Utnapiishtim nailed just like 9 years old aisha by "prophet" muhammed
I watch this shit everyday, I swear this never gets old!
+Sebah X hahaha likewise bro.
+Sebah X Best shit on the internet
I was waiting for him to actually answer the question
+goingcommando408 you are missing the point. the question was so fucking stupid it doesn't deserve one. what we got was better.
+Tony C The question was not stupid. That actually is a good question and he gave her the answer. His answer points out that she already doesn't believe in many religions and that it's possible that she might be worshiping the wrong one. It also points out that there are so many religions that the odds are that he's not wrong. This will make her think, which is the only way someone comes to be atheist. You can't force someone, they have to find the answers themselves.
Wow the difference in comments 10 years on is crazy. So good to see how people are so much more questioning of religion
I checked the comments back in 2010
I’m sure they were pretty much the same size
My favourite comment on this subject was
_"What if Dawkins is god and he's just trolling everybody"_
@@yeshuasage3724 great to see you are also keeping an eye out
@@TonyEnglandUK 🤣🤣🤣
One of the greatest clips of TH-cam history. I watched it day 1 and I am still sharing it.
Notice how he didn't answer the question.
@@springbloom5940 lol Dawkins was so scared of all the brilliant logic. lol
@@Human_Evolution-
No, just fundamental logic. The reason he couldn't answer, is because hes a narcissist, who can't even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong.
@@springbloom5940 oh yeah for sure. Always man yeah. Lol
@@Human_Evolution-
That's exactly the depth of answer I expect from your lot.
Ah, it's so wonderful unmasking when the crowd starts giggling and laughing when the Names of (now irrelevant) gods are mentioned.
+Electric Landscapes Too true, in 1,000 years people if they still exist will laugh like that about the religions and gods of today.
@@SardonicALLY Yes
@@SardonicALLY
Yet 2000 years later, Christs name is as relevant as ever
I thought the "thug life" music was gonna start playing 1:07
+Brizzle412 help me with alittle song here im done farting for the day
No one hasn't made it yet. Be the first one to.
I made it for you th-cam.com/video/dJi_CXo_Kyw/w-d-xo.html
So this was just another way of getting at Pascal's Wager
The fact that he can spit fire 🔥 like that straight off the top of his head, unrehearsed, no note cards, no teleprompter makes this all the more beautiful
All worship the fire breathing Dawkins!!
His answer wasn't exactly brain surgery was it . I'm sure he didn't need much time to think that up . You make him sound like some sort of genius
@@michaelmarshall9132 No it wasn't exactly brain surgery. It was epic rocket science!
@@scipioafricanus5871 only in your small brains opinion
And yet Dawkins, unsurprisingly as he's not very intelligent or scientific, backed those crazy lockdowns, mask wearing, and probably mandatory vaccinations. Such a great thinker of our age, who realised he contributed nothing significant to his field, and found it more personally beneficial to attack a caricature of religion. If it weren't for this, next to nobody outside of Oxford University would know who he is. He's well educated for sure, but not especially critical in thinking.
All the people saying he didn't answer the question just don't get it. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. How do you even answer such a blatantly slanted question like that? If you're wrong, you're just wrong.
His answer was more than the question deserved.
Yeah, um - so, y do mongeese have teeth, um ... (you can't answer) ...
lol - no he can't.
Why it is a stupid question? Because out of THOUSANDS of gods that humankind has worshipped over the time Dawkins chooses to believe in only one less than her.
Liberty Prime It's a painfully stupid question
and obviously, there currently exist a shit load of religion across the globe, so that question got a shitload of different answer based on who was the right religion. and no one knows what was the correct religion that makes the question not worth answering, unless someone got the time to say every penalty each religion got in believing in the wrong god right?
The most legendary anwser in the history of mankind
it appears you ... forgot how to 1st -
Rattlesnake Bites R to DIE FOR ...@Texas Roadhouse -
they are pretty fucking good -
4.99 for an order -
Pascal's wager
This lady needs to read up on "Pascal's Wager" - then ask on what basis is she a "believer?" Then seriously, honestly, ask on what does she base that "belief" - conviction or fear?
Ironically, Pascal made that argument favouring the conclusion that it's safer to become or remain a believer. Not even a genius is safe from his or her own biases.
Hey! Lynchburg Virginia! I live supper close to there! Thanks for coming to the Bible Belt and Liberty university country Mr. Dawkins! We need more people like you visiting and showing people that maybe they should take the time to think instead of blindly following
poor girl. She thought she was standing up for her faith, or something, thought she was taking a stand for Jesus, maybe thought Jesus was speaking through her; then SLAM, public shaming 101.
Dawkins - Putting the slam into Islam.
"then I guess I will burn in hell for eternity" is only a part of the "answer". What if the christian god isn't real?
He chose not to answer the question because the question itself is stupid. There are infinitely many correct answers: what if Hinduism gods are the only real gods? what if classical Greece gods are the real gods? what if christian god is the real god? In every single case there would be an answer based on the believe.
Furthermore, what if the real god isn't something that human have ever described or imagined? Does it matter? Either way there simply isn't an correct answer to her question, and there is no way to logically proof that your answer is correct regardless of what believe you have.
Because of this, the question itself is a waste of time. The whole point is that he believed in evidence, while people he criticize believe in just faith.
Nah man you don't seem to realize that across the entire world, there are different sets of "evidence" for different believes. Religions around the globe has their own so called "evidence". The key is Quality of evidence, not just quantity.
You said you can stump him in one question: "Why are Christians here?" well buddy your question is weak. Why are other religions still here? Simply having a large group of people believing something doesn't automatically make it the truth. Following those believes without evidence simply makes you sheep.
You think other gods aren't real? people who believe in those gods says that your god isn't real! And what hilarious is that there is no logical reasoning based off empirical evidence, neither you nor him!
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
@12BJJohnson Nah I have actually answered you, you gotta amp up your reading comprehension skills buddy
I've implied the answer all along. Now read again. Ask me if you don't understand anything, just reply.
if I have to believe in God for him to love me then he's very insecure
insecure with all the fucking powers though. And he will clasp your hips with his almighty palms and destroyer you with might. Thats were Jesus v.3 comes in btw
Daniel Daniels What if you created someone and they didn't believe you existed? How would you give someone love if they didn't think you existed after you created them? Think about it.
*+Sir Usopp* Why would you assume something exists when there isn't proof of it to begin with? Don't compare it to knowing your parents exist, because you actually SEE them. You CANT see God. So not thinking God exists should be no problem.
Not to mention, who in the hell do you know that would threaten you with eternal torture for not loving them?
Your argument doesn't make any sense Scott. Around 5 billion people aren't Christian. So if God was real, its his fault that most people don't think he exists. If he wanted people to believe, why doesn't he prove himself, why doesnt he show himself, why doesnt he communicate with his creation? If God truly is real, then hes an insecure, egotistical sack of shit.
well if i really wanted them to believe in me i would let them know i exist
The question wasn't to her it was to you
The insanity is to identify with a mindless lump of flesh and blood that does not contain life at all.
I love how he sounds when he says flying tea pot
WELL - when Ollie gets busted for causing someone to harm themselves - - it's not like he ''went corporate'' - - and, they won't be willing and able to trace your part - - now, is it?
He sounds like Stewie from Family Guy when he says that.
I still come back to this in 2021 when I need a good chuckle. What a masterful take down.
That response was laced with error, and was nowhere near a "takedown."
Love it
How? All he did was use a strawman to characterize God and said belief/truth would be based on location. However, that only doesn't answer the question but it also means that he thinks that if I was born in a foreign land without any technological advancements, gravity won't exist. Truth isn't based on location. And im Indian, and im not a Hindu. He really tried to avoid the question, instead of giving his honest thoughts about it. Richards's arguments against God is so undermined and realize on people not thinking about what he just says. I'll admit I may be wrong, but im still convinced of a God. Especially the Judeo-Christian God. The evidence of the resurrection/ the reliability of the Gospel. + more
@@dozo51 If you need it explained to you, then you wouldn't get it anyway :)
I'll give you a hint, its about the burden of proof.
It's cute you are convinced of the Judeo-Christian God. At least we can agree that the other 9000 or so God's probably don't exist?
@D D Mitochonrdial Eve proves Richard Dawkins is wrong? How do you figure that?
"They were sketches of buildings such as had never stood on the face of the earth. They were as the first houses built by the first man born, who had never heard of others building before him. There was nothing to be said of them, except that each structure was inevitably what it had to be."
Bro really thought that Pascal's wager would work against one of the top horseman of atheism
Best rebuttal of all time
Exposed!
REXposed!
"I know you are, but what am I?" would have conveyed roughly the same sentiment in fewer words
Marcilla Smith
your support of chuck is appreciated -
He did more than that but fair enough lol
What if I, an atheist, am right? Then when I die, my conciousness ceases, my body decomposes into simpler compounds, and my entire life has been nothing more than a smudge on human history.
As opposed to the eternal life, joy and happiness and reunion with passed loved ones that I would, supposedly, receive if the Christian faith were correct.
It's a bleak and depressing outlook, and I can honestly say that I would very much prefer if heaven did exist.
I have no personal or emotional reason for WANTING to be an atheist, I simply arrived at that viewpoint by observing the world around me and coming to a conclusion about my faith. It's nothing personal.
I don't and will never have enough faith to be an atheist, but I have PLENTY to be a Christian. :)
***** Pretty much what Leo said. Being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with faith.
***** I see you're into the "Sam Harris" definition of atheism eh?
Although irrelevant.
Kiido11 Your opinion.
***** I'm afriad not. Being atheist means we lack any sort of belief, in any form of supernatural being or otherwise, as a matter of DEFINITION. The atheistic worldview is built around empirical facts that are scientifically proven and therefore accepted to be truth, without any kind of blind faith/belief to substantiate it.
Thought his response was a major deflection.
He was asked in a different interview, what if you go up to heaven and God reveals himself to you, what are the 2 questions you’d ask him.
He said, which God are you, and why did you make it so difficult to find you, which I thought was very honest and brave of him, especially.
At least he was willing to respond to the latter question.
His response is basically the answer to Pascal's wager, where a theist would say that it is better to believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. The essence of asking "What if you're wrong" as a way of trying to fear someone into a belief IS Pascal's wager.
Never saw someone who is so reluctant to say that he'll simply go to hell if he's wrong.
The answer was of course if I’m wrong that god doesn’t exist then god exists.
Wrong. He has answered it more times than he could probably count... which is why he probably got a bit edgy when asked again.
Richard > Pope
alphaphotoandvideo hell yeah
Yes, well, which of those two seems more desirous of truth? And which is more likely to read from a book, accepting without questioning - "yes, but what does that mean?"
sure as shite bebo bought doz tapes, doe '
Dawkina vs pope
alphaphotoandvideo Martin Luther > Richard
If I was Richard Dawkins, I would've responded "Then I'm wrong. Oh well. Next question."
RamtroStudios Damn! I was going to post something similar to this.
RamtroStudios And,if he gave that as his answer, that is at least taking accountability, but he didn't even do that.
I guess what she implied is the Pascal's wager.
He didn't answer the question. He just responded with more "what if?"
It's the Socratic method.
@@rockethead7 upVotes are shite, enjoy
RD does not care to being serious when he's having fun being a nitwit.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
A trashy question deserved no more.
If there is a god, atheists are going to heaven. God is bound to want some intelligent conversation at some point, right?
Jr Grover hahhahah that link though xD i like you alot
A sewer does more for a village than a church !
Certainly, J grover. God will be tired of cohorts of brown nosers who grovel at his feet, sing hossanas etc. and will need some excitement from atheists who will challenge his authority and his very existence.
***** Could you point to the 7 deadly sins in scripture please?
***** Such a spiteful monster is your God, - persecuting people simply because they don't believe in him, despite him not giving them any evidence, aside from the poorly communicated, dubious, inconsistent, nonsensical ramblings of primitive tribes in the Middle East.
That is not a being I could ever respect, sorry.
DROP THE FUCKING MIC!!!!
+Tjorben Eckermann lol - craig bangs dudes pretending to be ladies on the interweb ...
+EcceSignumRex no, it's got to be YOUR triangle ..
"The structures were austere and simple, until one looked at them and realized what work, what complexity of method, what tension of thought had achieved the simplicity."
As Richard, I and many others have pointed out in answering this question, the attempt to basically threaten us with Pascal's Wager doesn't work, not only for the practical reason Richard gives (i.e. the Wager is impossible to truly satisfy), but *also* for a *moral* reason. It is morally wrong for *any* being to punish any other just for not being religious or even "generically spiritual." And we have no obligation towards non-moral beings. The young lady was correct about one thing; it *is* an easy question to answer.
People in the comments are raging over that he didn't answer the question, but that's exactly what he did, it's just that as usual the religious people aren't satisfied with or they don't understand the answer.
Tim Verduin I agree if people are stupid and gullible it does not matter where they are born. New York Kabul Tirana Belfast or Manchester, if you are afraid of death and are unable to absorb simple matters of science or read the bible critically seeing it is just tribal bullshit you will remain religious all your life
Tim Verduin Agreed.His answer should have been. "I am not wrong you idiot."
it is the atheist's duty to always agree with the answer of their blind leader, regardless, this is justified with it is a holy revolution! being an ass is required.
More interesting question is: "what if atheists are right?". It means that those who believe in afterlife, live their today's (and the only) life superficially, waiting and looking forward for better afterlife.. and when they die it is too late to live. It's so sad, that most people live like that :-(
I guess you got confused. Yolo is an extreme thing, and as any extreme thing it is a bad thing. Human behaviour is successfully guided by sekular morals and individual's social relationship. On the other hand, religious people are very suggestible, and can easily be led to extremely horrible things by someone in the name of some "devine" being.
Yup. THIS life is GUARANTEED. Even if there was an afterlife, you could never know until you got there. But you know right now that you can live this life, here on Earth.
MURDR63 And of course, MURie, phucking some ethereal, wispy bit of crumpet won't, you can bet, be anything as near pleasurable as with a lovely, warm-blooded creature in the flesh -- like, say, the sort of stuff one sees in a PLAYBOY centre-fold, right!
Gazisawesome Why do atheists have to prove that god does not exist? Google Russel's teapot, it's an interesting conception. You say it gives you meaning of life. But it is an illusion. Life is it's own meaning. If you live your life in modern society, and you are happy when you make others happy, then you gonna live a wonderful life. If not, you will suffer and waste your only life on envy, anger and hatred (homophobia, racism, etc.). Your life is in your own hands.
Human life has no other meaning or destiny to it than the life of the most humble of bacteria!
All life is the result of nothing more than a co-mingling of atoms, that grew out of a mishy-mushy swamp of chemical interactions in the murky depths of a pre-biotic ocean! The only reason that humans think they are endowed with some transcendental purpose or destiny is entirely down to egomania! And that you better believe!
It takes minimal intelligence to understand he answered the question reassuring that most people on this thread can understand that.
The Christians whining about how he didn't answer the question, translation: He didn't give the answer you wanted. The stutter, fear of God moment or sudden exposition or break in composure expected answer of "oh guess I'm going to hell".
"What if you're wrong?" Translated: Oh what if you're going to burn in hell and we all told you so?
Dawkins saw through the question it was the "we told you so argument".
First he covered that geographical location religion is heavily influenced,
(most Americans perceive their religion as hereditary "oh my mother father was catholic/Methodist or whatever) whether they practice that faith is variable pretty much anyone qualifies as "Christian" in America.
Secondly he pointed a huge flaw in Christianity; a doctrine supposedly inspired of a perfect being (that's been rewritten and altered over 20 times half the original text lost in history) a perfect being such as God would not be so heavily reliant on chance as "let's roll the dice" oh born in India? Have a nice life Going to hell kid. Born in Africa? Going to hell.
Wrong time period? Going to hell. Think for five seconds before you blurt out "what if you're wrong?" Can be applied universally she was trying to get a personal response and didn't get the answer she wanted to hear.
Wrong! It was a simple question requiring a simple answer.
Dawkins says there is no God…and if he’s wrong, then there is a God. Simple!!
The man doesn’t even has the good sense to answer a simple question.
@@LarJgrip No she was asking "what if you're wrong" in the context that by pure accident everyone who doesn't embrace western Christianity will go to hell when that question applies to all.
Keep up guy.
@@rrmartin392
How do you know in which context she was asking the question? She prefaced her question by stating that it was simple, you on the other hand are adding context (your own) which complicates it.
I’m going to stick with the evidence (her preface) and reemphasize that Dawkins doesn’t have the good sense to answer a simple question and what’s more is that Dawkins is too arrogant to hypothetically consider himself to be wrong.
He can’t even answer a simple question.
@@LarJgrip But the issue is that "then there is a god" answer is implicit in the discussion itself to begin with they weren't asking about "what if you're wrong" "then there is a god" in and of itself doesn't answer anything.
Sheer accident of location and birth determined her religion and that same question "what if you're wrong" is arrogant and snide because you need to be able to apply that question universally not just western cherry picked Christianity.
You're breaking it down without understanding that discussion itself implies a strong questioning of a Christian deity.
Like I said it wasn't the answer christians wanted to hear because it acknowledges that world is a much bigger place than the arbitrary western Christianity and that infuriates them.
@@rrmartin392 well said mate
I feel like that question triggered some fear and anger in him.
Fear? Don't be silly. Anger? I doubt it. Frustration? Almost certainly. Having to state and restate the obviously ad infinitum to people who think they've come up with some great big "gotcha" moment" with their assinine question would test the patience of anyone.
"the most simplest"
While at first glance that may seem like an error, its actually not. "Simplest" can refer to a group rather than one single thing when used broadly, there the term "most simplest" merely means the most simple of those in the simplest grouping.
Except she actually meant her question her question to be the most simple of them all, not the easiest within a group of simple questions.
himynameispuky
Right, which still in no way discredits his usage of the term.
DarkOmicron This is not proper english. One can use "most simple", but not "most simplest" because the "most" in the latter creates a redundancy. it's like saying the "most highest" or the "most best".
Pierre00
I'm not going to waste my time arguing over semantics with a nobody online. Sorry to burst your bubble if you were expecting such.
Never get into a debate with a religious person. If irrefutable evidence were found tomorrow that proved god did not exist, believers would simply say "The devil put that evidence there to test our faith" and carry on believing anyway. You can't win a debate with someone like that, you just have to walk around them and leave them behind.
Why would you debate someone with a different school of thought (subjective) unless it was on a total objective level?
You do not represent yourself as a 'multi-level' kind of individual.
Why do you set yourself up for failure, or on the other hand - a self-centered pat on the back?
*****
objective - means demonstrateable .... don't forget the person needs to understand the demonstration .... y do we fail?
Tony Hall its about winning and being right with you guys isn't it did the matter in your brain want you to win?
HornetUK1 being wrong is fine that is what science is based on, trying to find something that fits and proving it wrong.Or simply being wrong and trying something else. It is painful for scientists to hear stuff about evolution or the age of the earth based on the bible and then taught to kids as the truth. This is wrong. We are not keen on a lot of stuff about religion but not giving kids a chance to find about the universe in the 21st C is a crime.
Our RE teacher showed us this thinking it made Dawkins look bad, oh the irony.
What's RE?
@Scott Scotty We had that in my school too - it was called Catholic study . I never did not attend that class because I am not Catholic. My Catholic friends were scared to say anything which was critical about anything because "angels" were watching them . Sheesh , I hope that they stop telling kids lies.
God is like Father Christmas for grown ups.
One of the greatest comebacks of this or any other age, what a legend.
Yup
I know right
Abso-lutely!!!
SLAM!!!! LOL!!!
Yup
You know they are people born in india who are Christians and or Muslims? How about you do some extended research dumbass
He admited that he could be wrong, just like everybody else can be wrong.
Christians, like all theists, NEVER admit when they are wrong, it is strictly against their religions to admit any failure of the superstitious myth they delude themselves with. If they acknowledged even one tiny little error the whole pile of myth-based bullshit would collapse under the sheer weight of its own absurdity. Theists know their beliefs are a fragile, precarious house of cards, supported only by their irrational refusal to see things as they really are, without magical rubbish sprinkled over it.
astrophonix
How come that I know plenty of christians who are capable of admitting when they are wrong? How come that even the catholic church changed its mind about certain topics over time? You are aware that many of the earliest scientists also beliefed in god and that they didn't thought there is a contradiction between science and religion? Your irrationan refusal of understanding that other worldviews can have merits makes you not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite, since you just do the same things you accuse theists would do.
You don't know any christians who would admit anything in their absurd delusion is wrong, just trivial non-religious stuff, so mdon't try to pull that one, asswipe. The Catholic church protects child abusers, so anything they claim is bullshit, but maybe you're hoping in 2,000 years time the bastards will admit that fucking kids is wrong, as that is how long it takes these decrepit, corrupt groups to admit a mistake. Religion is a fuckup, religious believers are ALL deluded liars and therefore this sick cult-based bunch of self-serving shits needs to be driven out of society and finished for good. I'm just the first one to say it, but soon there will be thousands. The time of religion is over. Time to wake up and face reality as it is, you dumbass dufus, whether you like it or not.
***** Saying Science as a whole has been debunked is complete horseshit.
Scientists will, however, spend a lot of their time trying to find contradictions in their theories, mistakes, or critical errors. TRYING to disprove themselves, while religion does the opposite.
Religion has caused more discrimination, misogyny, hate, war, violence, abandonment of intellect, and bullshit than any other source known to man. I believe that is enough of a reason to be an Anti-Theist.
Question.
Do you trust that that abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous comment you just posted made it to me?
Then you trust science.
"What if you're wrong Mr. Dawkins?"
"Well, well, what if you're wrong!!!?? Ha, owned!"
Thats a very simplistic way of thinking, especially for a supposed intellectual like Dawkins.
First of all it's not a given that being rased in a judeo-christian environment, or in india, or viking era Denmark or classical Greece means you will be of that environment's religion, only if by the fact that its demonstratively false. There are Christians in india and middle east, there were Yahweh followers during the viking age and the classical greece period, and periods long before that. There are also people, like Dawkins, who are not believers despite living in a certain environment, so on that point he's wrong, but even if we assume he isn't, the question "what if you're wrong" is still a valid question. Being a product of a certain environment, doesn't automatically make you not wrong or negate the question altogether. So if you dont mind, please dont deflect and answer the question.
The fact that everyone started cheering like seals, is further proof that most people cant think further than their own nose.
Also, is the point if your speech to convince people or to dunk on people for the purpose of getting cheers from a bunch of twenty-something year olds? Answering with a non-answer and not allowing people to respond is no way to have a discussion.
good for you..
He's not speaking in absolutes.
The fact is, there is an over 90% chance, that people are the same religion as their parents, and the dominant religion of their culture. The fact that there are Christians in India, or Pagans in the US, etc, does not disprove his point.
But his overall point, is, that the Christian girl's question is flawed. How is he supposed to know what will happen to him if he is wrong? Doesn't it depend on which of the 1000's of gods is the right one?
@@pandstar You were the first 'account' to call me an "anti-science cunt" ... now i have more science degrees than a Science thermometer.. E=hv
@@pandstar Exactly. Dawkins answer was the same as saying: "If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My being wrong wouldn't remotely suggest that any particular religion's claims about God is correct."
I want this to be shown at my funeral :-)
HAIL THE GREAT JUJU
Jesus Loves you. Please stop and give your life to Him. Love nothing in this world nor anything in it. It is all temporary. Once a man to die and after that is Judgement!! Read John @ in the bible!! BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED!
@@vaytray5510 This response completely lacks respect for the views of poster redrum. Consider:
Vishnu Loves you. Please stop and give your life to Him. Love nothing in this world nor anything in it. It is all temporary. Once a man to die and after that is Judgement!! Read the Vedas! BELIEVE IN THE LORD VISHNU AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED!
So are you now a Hindu?
The flying spagetti monster loves you please give your life to Him
@@vaytray5510 I'm sorry I won't join your cult
@@vaytray5510 Please convert to pastafarianism, open yourself to Flying Spaghetti Monster, He loves you even if you are blindly believing in wrong belief. He will fill you with noodles and meatballs. Remember, He boiled for your sins.
We honor the name of His Noodleyness in prayers. He is most Merciful, most Meatful.
Ramen 🙏
This is the simplest explanation you can give somebody, you believe what you believe, according to wherever you were born.
Is there more to this ? I would have like to see the whole program.
what if the girl was actually with dawkin's cause she did say "this might be the simplest answer for you respond" , may be she wasn't a christian she just wanted to see what he would say about that type of question that christian's usually ask, trust me its happened where I ask a question sort of like that and I am not asking the question for my own personal preference but just to ask a question even I am stumped on. Kinda of how like when I ask christian's why gay marriage isn't allowed and then they assume i am a homosexual -.-
As an Atheist, the only reason that I'm even bending toward a possible God Theory is because, who else could have created such a suave, eloquent, dynamic, well-versed, Intelligent Biologist as Richard Dawkins. This Man is on a "God" status. Maybe there is a higher BEING after all. Lol!!
you almost had me lol
What if Richard Dawkins IS God and he's just trolling everyone? o.O
😅
@@Simple1Jack Haha! Well said. I can't prove that he is not.
@@Simple1Jack lol oh man, I know your comment was a long time ago but what a superb thought!
to this day, that girl is still in therapy from that public takedown.
Each & every person will see if they're wrong when they die
Not really. Religious people will die believing they will wake up in heaven. And then they won't, but they won't know, because they're dead.
Doctor straing Strange.......thank you professor.
Probably the same feeling millions of years before you were born.
Just nothing.
@@unclepecos845 not to worry, my dumb-founded but entertaining student
Athiest usually want to argue that there is no God because they know there is a God. But you never hear of a believer wanting to argue that there is a God because there's just simply nothing to argue about. God does exist & if a person doesn't want to believe it then fine don't believe. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want.
I bet she thought she really stuck it to him.
I love the way he says"what if Im wrong , what if your wrong" in that classy british accent !
Everybody hates their Benefactor boyRex---your run of mill...
Man didn't even answer the question. He got salty for literally no reason.
The only thing theists would accept as an answer is "then I roast in the lake of boiling blood for all eternity, while you enjoy yourself, looking down on the damned, for all eternity."
Satisfied?
Now answer why we're supposed to like that theistic smug self superiority (claiming to be humble)? How are we supposed to be converted into accepting their dishonest, hedging, evasive form of belief in a god which would be satisfied with taking into heaven the people who'd swear belief in and spend all their time worshipping that petty god?
And we're supposed to be grateful to them for trying to push their religious laws over us all?
Lol, I loved this. Smart answer for a stupid question. He never stops to amaze me.
+Alex Blue TRUE. The question does not have a direct answer, since you cant bring evidence to a topic that doesnt accept evidence but "holy revelations" SO he answered in an intelligent manner, asking her the same question to her, so she may understand the question has no answer.
Wambli Padilla So true
***** That's my name, don't wear it out. 😜
***** I was being funny. Lol.
+Alex Blue He didn't answer the question: he was an actor in a movie which took him long time to to practice and finally play it. So, if so it is deceptive. Right?thanks.
The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is an atheist because He doesn't believe He was created by a God.
How can you comprehend God without his spirit
Before the millionth person says he didn’t answer the question, obviously he did. You were simply hoping he’d say then every one of your religious beliefs are correct.
Well, if he's wrong, he's wrong (only he isn't!). And if he is wrong, about there being an Almighty God, well, luckily for Dawkins, he's a forgiving God; so no harm done!
He is wrong, and whats more he, and all his minions knows it.
Trouble is, in a world with all sorts of religious indoctrinations to "choose" from. Including evolution, which one to actually believe, and follow? Whatever is Popular, or sounds good at the time?
Now, you have a choice to either be devout atheists following evolutions dogma as if it were the "gospel truth," or mixing said religions particular dogma in with a particular brand of theism.- Which IS happening more, and more, especially with atheists.
Or, you could seek to educate yourself APART from a world bent on indoctrinating, shaping YOU, and those around you, into what Academia/Church thinks is best. Yet if you pay Academia, or a particular Church to do it, all they'll do is fill your mind with whatever form of Paganism they themselves happens to believe in/follow at the time of your WILINESS to submit to their dogmatic godliness/godlessness teachings.
So in your mind, is there a 3rd choice?
Buckie, after all that, you forgot to inform as to which is the one true religion! Try again.
But to be going on with, it isn't evolution that dogma-loaded, it's religion!
But do get back to me!
Bucks Back
Why do you make the mistake of throwing atheists in with the religious? atheism is not a religion, a fanatical atheist might have similar problems to a fanatical bible basher but there psychological. The vast majority of atheists are indifferent to religion and do not as you say "follow evolutionary dogma as if it were gospel truth" Most atheists are just not superstitious and think the answer lies outside the realms of the supernatural. As for wanting to lean the workings of quantum physics to disprove god they just cant be bothered.
Stephen Fowley
I NEVER said "atheism was a religion." No, what I said was that "evolution is a religion." and that atheists are simply said religions "Parroting Minions." Or Preachers if you prefer.
Buckie...I'm back!
If Evolution is a religion, then it's the only true one!
That was a perfect response. I love Dawkins 👍🏻
Thats was a fucked response. I hate Dawkings
carlo fraiia it emphasizes the universal understanding of both religion and its truisms. If everyone thinks they are right, then are they wrong? Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong? You grew up learning one thing while the other did not. Should the other person be condemned for growing up to believe in one thing, truly believing that they are correct to die and be put in hell for what they think is right? Doesn't seem fair at all- seems very terrible and illogical that people around the world do they're best and the people who weren't lucky enough to be born into a certain faith, at this moment could find this privileged space. If we are doomed to hell what's the point of even living in the first place?
what he is saying is what if were all wrong? his point is that there are thousands of different faiths and religions so chances are 99% of theists are wrong because they all have different ideas of god
Dawkins is so limited that he did not understand the question, or he is so clever and answered without answering. The question concerned faith in the supernatural being, belief in the existence of an unknowable God. It is obvious that, like science, religion is subject to development, change, and research. People who are deprived of faith will not understand it completely, and those deprived of reason will still ridicule people of faith.
@@dariuszb7953 Dawkins went to Oxford, so I doubt "he's limited" compared to you (or me), the world is full of superstitious people. People that believe any BS, without any evidence. He's not one of 'em. Neither am I.
I'm an agnostic theist, but this answer is just facts. If you want to be 100% sure that you're worshipping the right God(s) then you'd have to worship every God who has ever been worshipped. And maybe you would still get it wrong, because maybe no religion is right.
You’re the first theist I’ve EVER read a comment from that actually knows what agnosticism is. I applaud you, sir.
If any human being says “what I do not know does not exist” is wearing the crown of ignorance.
Sadhguru
Atheists are just better.
***** No such thing as an "atheist" (no belief) so would you like to try again?
Bucks Back it's called disbelief in a claim, are you a troll?
***** Not arrogant, just better.
I'm not touching that one..
Bucks Back It's disbelief in claims of god. Not no beliefs in anything at all.
He gave the most brilliantist answer.
The answer to both questions is if she's wrong she's lost nothing but if he's wrong he's lost everything
Um, no. If she's wrong about her god of choice, then she's lost quite a lot. If there's no god, she's lost thousands of hours of her life praying to something that doesn't exist, lost 10% of her income to a church for no reason, and sacrificed her thinking faculties to believing things for no valid reason. If there is a god, and she's selected the wrong one, then (depending on which one is "correct"), she will spend the rest of eternity in a "hell" for believing in the wrong god.
@@rockethead7 um no . That tells me you're so full full of your self its not worth talking to you
@@michaelmarshall9132
YOU SAID: "That tells me you're so full full of your self its not worth talking to you"
== TRANSLATION: "I have been proven wrong, and I can't possibly come back from this devastating comment, so I'm declaring victory and running for the hills."
Bravo, dummy.
@@rockethead7 when you run for the hills keep running and don't stop . Ever
What? Have you been diagnosed yet? What's wrong with you?
if im wrong, then i will speak to saint peter or whoever and say, "i did my best to be a good man. if you wont let me in just because i didnt worship, then send me down, i want nothing to do with this place."
That’s funny. Because that’s exactly the reason why Satan was casted off by Angels and thrown in the pit of hell. So no my friend, philosophy will not save you from damnation, on the contrary, it will help you find the way to hell.
@@MrGilRoland so be it. i won’t worship something that drowned all life on earth. i can’t forgive that.
@@MrGilRoland 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣you people crack me up!
Wait a minute...! You mean The Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea DOESN'T exist?!?!? Oh, say it isn't so! (Oh, my world-view is shattered...)
Seriously though, great video; thanks for sharing!
Perfect answer.
"Wrong" about which, of thousands of mythologies?
Explains Christian hypocrisy, bigotry and delusional supremacism.
I went to the same private school as Dawkins though he is older than me. We shared the same biology teacher. Dawkins is the greatest thinker/writer in this field since Darwin.
Yes, he is. He’s one helluva science communicator, let alone actual scientist, and one of the most eloquent writers on the topic I’ve ever read. That, in itself, is probably enough to deny him his fair and proper recognition - just like Nietzsche.
@@feliscorax Lol, Nietzsche and Dawkins are polar opposites in every respect, though both men distrust religion, their reasons for doing so and their philosophies and approaches of studying things are totally different. Nietzsche is largely derided, but here are a few cool Nietzsche quotes:
"What does not kill me makes me stronger".
"Life without music would be a mistake,"
"A yes, a no, a straight line, a goal!"
"Behold the man!"
"God is dead".
:)
Nietzsche was a lover of aphorisms, as you can see from how he wrote, above. Comparable and no less rigorous than Nietzsche, yet sharing many of the same ideas as Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky was the forerunner Stirner, though he is largely unknown or not read much in the West.
While Dawkins is looking at the evolution of the human species, Nietzsche is looking at fundamental human nature, in its unalterable, deterministic form -- radically opposite to scientists' (Dawkins') necessary belief in free will. Nietzsche was much closer to Hitchens than Dawkins.
@@googleuser2609 Yes, yes, I know all that. I don't need a lecture. My comment was really about the similarity in their writing styles -- both very eloquent and articulate, poetic even, in their expression. Hitchens is more of a match for Nietzsche in personal style and idea formation, that's probably true, but what I'm alluding to in my original comment is that neither Dawkins nor Nietzsche are given as much credit as they deserve, then or now, simply because they write too well. It's the accusation that, within their respective fields, being good writers is somehow taken as a sign that they're not as rigorous as others in their discipline, i.e., philosophy/philology in Nietzsche's case and the biological sciences in Dawkins'.
I would also observe that Nietzsche is largely derided by people who have never read Nietzsche beyond the quotes you've cited: no philosopher is entirely correct, and are soon disproven because each philosopher is really only discovering philosophies that are relevant for the state of knowledge that exists in their own age, as Nietzsche himself argued; nevertheless, he's certainly more than the caricature he's been turned into -- again, usually by people who've never actually read him. But sure, jump down my throat again and tell me how wrong I am to compare the two...
Oundle is a great school and a lovely town.
@@googleuser2609 As for the similarities between Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche: go ahead and write a doctoral dissertation on the former's influence upon the latter if you wish, but I personally think they're a philosophical equivalent of convergent evolution: that they both came about in roughly the same place, at approximately the same time, and gave expression to similar ideas but that they arrived at these ideas along different intellectual developmental paths -- and did so because they themselves embodied the spiritus mundi of their own era. But, once again, what's any of that got to do with my original comment?
One of the greatest responses to a question.......ever !
It's good... but not even Dawkin's best.
He didn't actually answer the question...he gave her the reasons she's a Christian, then made a multitude of worthless statements, and then asked her the same question she asked him.
You mean because he didn't choose one to say would be the 'correct' alternative?
Take off your blinders.
.....
Rene Skou Dawkins' answer was one of the horribly demanding step of pointing out that the girl can, and really needs to answer her own question.
Also known as the Socratic Method, a valuable teaching tool meant to stimulate thinking, especially for those in need, and seemingly adverse to it.
If you ask me if 'A' is wrong, and therefore 'B' must be right, a fair answer is to address the remaining options of 'C-Z'.
Or the answer may be a colour ....... etc..
He actually assumed that he might be wrong, but she doesn't have the legitimacy to claim that her hypothesis is better. And he just demonstrated why
Oriah Livingston It was an idiotic trick question which the person had no place asking in the first place. It's not the sort of thing you answer unless you want people putting words in your mouth.
As brilliant an answer as he gave, he also avoided the question.
IF I were you ... i'd probably say: gulp ....
But he made this argument that. If HE's wrong Then everyone of AL the other religions (except one) or wrong. Cause most of them think there is only one god. That's already a big flaw and reason why THEY are al wrong. IN THE END ONLY HE CAN BE RIGHT, if you follow the road of making sense and logic.
En next to that. What would SHE had to answer him you think to the same question?
He did answer the question, only in a way that pinpoint how dumb the question is.
My Christian brother pointed this video out for me in his defense of Christianity or blind faith….I don’t think he actually watched the entire video.
it's been long gone but... dude the level of narcissism to be built on a person to surmise and debase others years of research and study in a hypothetical question of "what if you're wrong?" really adds up to represent what the hell they preach... narcissism and irrationality
Yeah. I'm sure you're full of research. Does getting welfare checks count as ''research'' /?
-
min. 10 AF.
@@eccesignumrex4482 I'm not full of research. But you do get what I mean, else you wouldn't be hurt. and what has research to do with welfare checks? please enlighten.
@@AnishDangolyestheweirdone Yeah. It's clear you're not full of research. Don't be
"This may be the most simplest one for you to answer ..." she says.
I think she was giving it to him to answer. Don't think she was a plant, but I think she knew what she was doing for us all.
Look I'm gonna say this because I feel it needs to be said.... IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER if god exists or not, although I'm pretty sure if god "the creator of the universe/universes" wanted to make himself known to us he would've done a better job than he has in assuring that we wouldn't end up creating countless versions of him that uniquely resemble the time and customs of the people who wrote the scriptures (how weird), but anyways the point is it doesn't matter and this is why. With god out of the equation whats left? Humanism. Conscious of our place in the universe, and how we effect it, as well as one another. We need to worry less about killing and fighting over who's imaginary friend is more real and instead use our capacity to feed and educate every human, create a sustainable planet, and explore the universe together as we are meant to. Because I hate to break it to you, but god (for those that believe in this notion) created stars like our sun, but these stars, much like us, do not live forever, they die, collapse, explode, and send their enriched guts all over to create new stars and planets very much like what happens to the matter of all living things. energy isn't created or destroyed, so when you die your atoms will become part of something else, so in a way you really don't die ever, but yeah back to the point. just be a good person, try to learn as much as you can every day, enjoy your life but never at the expense of others, and care for the only planet we have to live on until we find a new home or start building civilizations on other planets. we have about 4 billion years until our sun dies so that gives us a bit of time but we literally have the potential to be the first aliens, flying through space, helping other species develop, as well as developing our own. WE GOTTA THINK BIG PICTURE!!!! If you're a good person and god is just, I'm sure he will not give a fuck about how many times you got on a knee to praise him (unless your god is kanye west) or how many signs you did with your hands, or how many times you didn't eat meat, or put burning ashes on your head, or how many times you prayed, serisouly people stop acting like the unevovlved apes we are and more importantly STOP TELLING YOUR KIDS TO BELIEVE IN SHIT THAT WE HAVE NO PROOF OF!! or at the very least wait until they reach the age of reason to present these ludicrous ideas to them instead of indoctrinating them and creating an endless cycle of knowledge rejecting humans, because as I have come to learn, one paragraph of logic cannot change a lifetime of indoctrination. Please wake up everyone, thank you, goodnight
Im not one for self flattery, but this comment deserves a lot of views
Tyler Durden this... I like this
Rick Barnec 10/10 argument skills
+Rick Barnec you fucking tell him, Tyler - and his lack of utility and cogency
***** a crime? seriously are you trolling, when the fuck did i say crime.
I was brought here by doctor p-
Flying spaghetti monster
I thought of a visually striking analogy while watching this (remarkably) for the first time.
Think of how many types of chemical crystallization take place - Soy sauce (salt), honey, snowflakes, sugar, et cetera. Imagine these are put in a glass enclosure, and observing how they grow over time. It really is a 1:1 similarity with how different cultures (and religions) develop with varying values of population size, growth rate, hardness of resulting crystal (and how sharp it can be), and other factors.
It was probably the wittiest and insightful response to a snarky question I will ever see.