I have a question. I haven't read the entire bible and I don't profess knowledge of everything in it, but from what I know of Hell wouldn't it be more plausible that the Devil wouldn't torture you for eternity? I was just curious because if you pissed off God enough to be damned to eternity in Hell, why would the devil torture you? Doesn't he hate God? If he does, wouldn't he be happy with you pissing God off. Also if the Devil's goal is to get rid of God, which is what I assume is his goal (again I don't know for sure), wouldn't he work with all of the people who are now angry with God for excommunicating them from Heaven and try to create an army to take God down? I mean if I were the Devil I wouldn't be trying to torture people for eternity ESPECIALLY if God told me to. I'm not a believer in God, Satan, or the BIble so in the end this doesn't really matter to me, but I guess I'm a bit curious.
I cannot believe I missed this! I was practically within walking distance of Lawrence Krauss AND Richard Dawkins and I freaking missed it! Even worse, I know one of the questioners (and don't much care for them).
the usa's problem and future downfall is because our education system does not teach science well or insist on every student taking science courses. we are fast loosing our standing in the world in many areas but especially in education and most especially in science education
The most beautiful discussion among my scientist heroes... I really think this is a quality conversation, comparing many other similar discussions between (Danett, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens... etc)... and I give credit to Lawrence, because of his interesting dialectical skills.. I am longing to hear Lawrence and Danett in such beautiful discussion.
Maybe it's something that has yet to be able to explained? Why do we have to fill religion with that void? At least science will admit that there's still questions to be answered.
I don't know what to think of being immortal. The concept of an eternity is terrifying, but living through it, seeing the universe over the course of millions of years, seeing evolution unfold.
Nothing wrong with suspending common sense, it tends to be problematic (think of all the absurdities that have been justified by "common sense" in the past), so suspending it from time to time is good practice. As for having faith in the minds of a select few, that's ridiculous, and goes completely against the grain of science. You're more than welcome to do the research yourself, come to your own conclusions, and if you can prove them wrong then excellent! Science welcomes that too :)
This video is fine example of how our world education system has become so shitty, these brilliant scientists have to travel from continent to continent to teach elementary science concepts to these university students.
it depends on the definition of the word. If you accept the force that caused the universe is called god, then so be it. That does not mean it has intelligence, design, purpose, or anything to do with humans. You could call gravity god, or the electromagnetic force. The trouble is religion is based on words and science is based ultimately on numbers and the relationship between observations.
Religion would say, you MUST believe this because I said, don't question it. Science says, I know it doesn't sound right, but here is what I found out and here is why, please prove me wrong if you can. It's up to the person if they want to do the research themselves or believe what is being told, not blindly believing what was stated as fact.
That questioner around 1:10 has taken most of what's on the Internet too literally. Most are meant for humor or inspiration. I always joke that Neil deGrasse Tyson is my God. This is just being playful if not poking a little fun at religion. It does not mean I literally pray to NGT. I wish I was at this discussion so I could tell that questioner to get a sense of humor.
Looking at it from a distance, I would say with all the evidence and study put into science it is a lot more transparent than believing something that was delegated in a book thousands of years ago and then not studied or examined by the people that believe in it.
I think that's a little disingenuous. There's nothing inherent in religion that says you must not question it, just as there is nothing inherent in science that says everyone should do their own research. A lot of what most us would know about science is what we've learnt from others - we haven't conducted empirical research ourselves at all. It's a completely false dichotomy, to say religion = unthinking devotion and science = rational empirical individually-founded truth.
Wow. This is so refreshing to watch. Finally two normal smart people having a normal discussion without some religious nuthead spewing their bs-guts on issues. I wonder why I havent found this Dawkins-footage sooner.
I totally agree and think that most people follow religions as is it so much more comfortable than actually learning,progressing consequently evolving. The once truth seeking human has therefore found something it can exchange that curiosity and stay infantile. Science has a bad reputation as people not involved actually think they know what they are talking about.
He means "nothing" from ancient Greek point of view is the empty space. Empty space is different from what really nothing means because empty space is not nothing it is something bcoz it has weight. What matters is science will be always open to more evidence while staying in the established information on how universe works. I hope God will appear so that I will be 100% sure that He created everything if He does exist. That what science is all about there's evidence and it works.
Please , elaborate [2] . How a solid theory that explains so many questions of biology with so many evidences and proofs is "dumb" by your pespective ?
As a tertiary educated adult who did research into religion I can categorically say you're wrong. At every stage I challenged what I was told, and was encouraged to do so. However, I did so with an open mind, something Dawkins and yourself have obviously refrained from doing. You have fallen victim to the same concept that you criticise,ie, believing what you are told, not what is truth. Don't let arrogance destroy your search for truth.
The only belief claims that remain for religion are those that cannot be tested. An important difference between science and religion is that in science untestable beliefs are considered worse than wrong. Theories that depend on such claims are adjusted or dismissed. But you cannot have a religion *without* untestable belief claims. Instead of throwing the bad beliefs out, religion must move these untestable beliefs about reality beyond any kind of reality check by calling them sacred. (2/2)
1:12:55 "Science can prove things to be absolutely false." Technically wrong I think, though I think we are fine to accept this to be true for practical purposes, philosophically the truths of yesterday are not necessarily the truths of tomorrow. It's a bit of a burden having to quality this sort of thing every time I'll admit, but I think it's better for science not to associate with absolutes - leave that to the 'faithful'.
The best evidence for the existence of GOD (a supernatural source - by supernatural im mean a timeless-space-less-immaterial ultimate power) that has started the cosmos into existence from non-existence the fact tht there IS existence with laws we call nature, what force "BANGED" this into existence at the big Bang! i say this is evidence of a super natural a force greater than nature able to bring nature into existence i await a direct coherent rebuttal to the above straight forward reasoning
How can a Scottish accent be an English accent; and, likewise, an Australian accent? A Birmingham accent might be considered the worst English accent, as Birmingham is in England; an Australian accent, on the other hand, might be considered 'foreign' in England.
you need to get rid of your religious narrow view and get a clear mind before you can see that they are exactly on point and the opposite of judgemental
....my response part 2...... Than, just notice what bunch of empty flow of meaningless words is that speach. Listen to: 0:16:05 to 0:16:30 and than: 0:18:40 to 0:19:05 - the same guy says things exactly opposite to each other, and of course says both of those thesis with beeing so full of himself. One of the main thesis: religion is an nonsens, but "scientific" fairy tails about the begining of the universe are true, although define the common sense...:) What a shame for a human reason....
![SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss [HD] 02-04-12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YUe0_4rdj0U/mqdefault.jpg)
![SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss [HD] 02-04-12](/img/tr.png)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
The only person that could have made this an extraordinary event was Christopher Hitchens, he was a gentleman, a scholar and an inspiration to reason.
I have a question. I haven't read the entire bible and I don't profess knowledge of everything in it, but from what I know of Hell wouldn't it be more plausible that the Devil wouldn't torture you for eternity? I was just curious because if you pissed off God enough to be damned to eternity in Hell, why would the devil torture you? Doesn't he hate God? If he does, wouldn't he be happy with you pissing God off. Also if the Devil's goal is to get rid of God, which is what I assume is his goal (again I don't know for sure), wouldn't he work with all of the people who are now angry with God for excommunicating them from Heaven and try to create an army to take God down? I mean if I were the Devil I wouldn't be trying to torture people for eternity ESPECIALLY if God told me to. I'm not a believer in God, Satan, or the BIble so in the end this doesn't really matter to me, but I guess I'm a bit curious.
I cannot believe I missed this! I was practically within walking distance of Lawrence Krauss AND Richard Dawkins and I freaking missed it! Even worse, I know one of the questioners (and don't much care for them).
Look for:
Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell on Q&A (10-4-2012)
I came for Richard, I stayed for Lawrence
must be such a breath of fresh air for Dawkins to be in the company of intelligent people for a change
the usa's problem and future downfall is because our education system does not teach science well or insist on every student taking science courses. we are fast loosing our standing in the world in many areas but especially in education and most especially in science education
The most beautiful discussion among my scientist heroes... I really think this is a quality conversation, comparing many other similar discussions between (Danett, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens... etc)... and I give credit to Lawrence, because of his interesting dialectical skills.. I am longing to hear Lawrence and Danett in such beautiful discussion.
Maybe it's something that has yet to be able to explained? Why do we have to fill religion with that void? At least science will admit that there's still questions to be answered.
I don't know what to think of being immortal. The concept of an eternity is terrifying, but living through it, seeing the universe over the course of millions of years, seeing evolution unfold.
Skip the intro 2:30
Excellent. Two great minds speaking sense. The world needs more of this.
Nothing wrong with suspending common sense, it tends to be problematic (think of all the absurdities that have been justified by "common sense" in the past), so suspending it from time to time is good practice. As for having faith in the minds of a select few, that's ridiculous, and goes completely against the grain of science. You're more than welcome to do the research yourself, come to your own conclusions, and if you can prove them wrong then excellent! Science welcomes that too :)
This video is fine example of how our world education system has become so shitty, these brilliant scientists have to travel from continent to continent to teach elementary science concepts to these university students.
He's a physicist, he can wear whatever he wants ;P
Gotta love the pink Converse, lol.
the evolutionary use of "cousin" IS different from the standard use, not that it is excuse for the cardinal or what ever he was.
it depends on the definition of the word. If you accept the force that caused the universe is called god, then so be it. That does not mean it has intelligence, design, purpose, or anything to do with humans. You could call gravity god, or the electromagnetic force. The trouble is religion is based on words and science is based ultimately on numbers and the relationship between observations.
"Speak for yourself!"
Religion would say, you MUST believe this because I said, don't question it. Science says, I know it doesn't sound right, but here is what I found out and here is why, please prove me wrong if you can. It's up to the person if they want to do the research themselves or believe what is being told, not blindly believing what was stated as fact.
One of the greatest dicussions I have ever seen. Thank you.
Because there ISN'T a need for religion. It's a waste of time and continues to delay our progress as a species.
That questioner around 1:10 has taken most of what's on the Internet too literally. Most are meant for humor or inspiration. I always joke that Neil deGrasse Tyson is my God. This is just being playful if not poking a little fun at religion. It does not mean I literally pray to NGT. I wish I was at this discussion so I could tell that questioner to get a sense of humor.
Looking at it from a distance, I would say with all the evidence and study put into science it is a lot more transparent than believing something that was delegated in a book thousands of years ago and then not studied or examined by the people that believe in it.
Haha I've watched that Q+A episode 5 times, heard the reference to this speech and never thought to find it. Cheers ANU!
I think that's a little disingenuous. There's nothing inherent in religion that says you must not question it, just as there is nothing inherent in science that says everyone should do their own research. A lot of what most us would know about science is what we've learnt from others - we haven't conducted empirical research ourselves at all. It's a completely false dichotomy, to say religion = unthinking devotion and science = rational empirical individually-founded truth.
Or, you can actually learn the equations and do the math yourself. No faith is required once you understand the evidence.
Wow. This is so refreshing to watch. Finally two normal smart people having a normal discussion without some religious nuthead spewing their bs-guts on issues. I wonder why I havent found this Dawkins-footage sooner.
I totally agree and think that most people follow religions as is it so much more comfortable than actually learning,progressing consequently evolving. The once truth seeking human has therefore found something it can exchange that curiosity and stay infantile. Science has a bad reputation as people not involved actually think they know what they are talking about.
He means "nothing" from ancient Greek point of view is the empty space. Empty space is different from what really nothing means because empty space is not nothing it is something bcoz it has weight. What matters is science will be always open to more evidence while staying in the established information on how universe works. I hope God will appear so that I will be 100% sure that He created everything if He does exist. That what science is all about there's evidence and it works.
Oy Vey... greatest part of this video (1:14:04). It's not a philosophical question... that's the whole point.
Please , elaborate [2] . How a solid theory that explains so many questions of biology with so many evidences and proofs is "dumb" by your pespective ?
Thank you for uploading. Such an interesting conversation that has truly broadened by mind.
Nice shoes, Lawrence :D
great discussion thanks for sharing it with us !
Absolute excellence. This is the new enlightenment!!
As a tertiary educated adult who did research into religion I can categorically say you're wrong. At every stage I challenged what I was told, and was encouraged to do so. However, I did so with an open mind, something Dawkins and yourself have obviously refrained from doing. You have fallen victim to the same concept that you criticise,ie, believing what you are told, not what is truth. Don't let arrogance destroy your search for truth.
One word: Brilliant.
Richard Dawkins held a debate with a creationist. (Search Q&A George Pell)
It's like playing chess with a pigeon. ~Awesome guy
I like Lawrence Krauss. I find his arguments a lot more convincing than Dawkins.
Haha these two are more philosophers than scientists in this talk!
Some people are just made to be ruled.
No. You have to look at evidence.
brilliant video!
The only belief claims that remain for religion are those that cannot be tested.
An important difference between science and religion is that in science untestable beliefs are considered worse than wrong. Theories that depend on such claims are adjusted or dismissed.
But you cannot have a religion *without* untestable belief claims. Instead of throwing the bad beliefs out, religion must move these untestable beliefs about reality beyond any kind of reality check by calling them sacred.
(2/2)
1:12:55 "Science can prove things to be absolutely false." Technically wrong I think, though I think we are fine to accept this to be true for practical purposes, philosophically the truths of yesterday are not necessarily the truths of tomorrow. It's a bit of a burden having to quality this sort of thing every time I'll admit, but I think it's better for science not to associate with absolutes - leave that to the 'faithful'.
The best evidence for the existence of GOD (a supernatural source - by supernatural im mean a timeless-space-less-immaterial ultimate power) that has started the cosmos into existence from non-existence
the fact tht there IS existence with laws we call nature, what force "BANGED" this into existence at the big Bang! i say this is evidence of a super natural a force greater than nature able to bring nature into existence
i await a direct coherent rebuttal to the above straight forward reasoning
And please Richard, get another tie :)
TEAM LIQUID
What about Buddhism?
I have to suspend common sense and have faith in the minds of a select few physicists? Sounds like religion to me..
How can a Scottish accent be an English accent; and, likewise, an Australian accent? A Birmingham accent might be considered the worst English accent, as Birmingham is in England; an Australian accent, on the other hand, might be considered 'foreign' in England.
you need to get rid of your religious narrow view and get a clear mind before you can see that they are exactly on point and the opposite of judgemental
I feel bad for the cardinal. They were talking mad shit. I bet he cried when he watched this.
Guy with Team Liquid Shirt!
awesome!
Please, elaborate.
too true!
29:15
This talk never gets old.
Who was he saying was immortal? 27:50
evolution theory just dumbs you down
Oh i'd love if richard dawkins got to see that comment.
....my response part 2......
Than, just notice what bunch of empty flow of meaningless words is that speach. Listen to: 0:16:05 to 0:16:30 and than: 0:18:40 to 0:19:05 - the same guy says things exactly opposite to each other, and of course says both of those thesis with beeing so full of himself.
One of the main thesis: religion is an nonsens, but "scientific" fairy tails about the begining of the universe are true, although define the common sense...:)
What a shame for a human reason....
How can you discuss about nothing? You can not make anything from nothing. This is as foolish as what the religions are claiming.
69th like. \o/
Got here from /r/atheism.
This is as stimulating as watching a discussion between Behe and Lennox. Snooze.