@@MarjorainMD Yes, if it was in heaven, where everything is perfect and not that other horrible place where it will be complete isolation and suffering..
@@davewalt1781 I don't feel inclined to read religious texts. I don't believe in immaculate conception, walking on water, mitacle cures, resurrection of the dead, 2 adult human being popping into existence. Or any other juvenile stuff from any religion.
It's infuriating for all of us who have come to the realization that a space ghost living somewhere in the clouds is probably not the most realistic answer to these questions about human origins.
@@adam2aces Imagine how Christians feel. 🤷♂️We have to hear your constant straw-men while you claim intellectual superiority even though you don’t understand our arguments to begin with. That’s also quite annoying. 😐
@@adam2aces And that's how you discredit yourself :/ I am atheist, but that kind of complete misrepresentation of what many educated, intelligent Christians would consider to be "god" is just stupid...
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS There is a ton of evidence for God and the Bible. God said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, so man is without excuse." The billions and billions of stars, where did the material come from and how did the stars form? How did the human body form? Gases exploding that are able to design and create? I await your reply.
@@steinhogger That’s true, and there’s a lot of evidence that Jesus Christ is trustworthy so let’s not dismiss him without evidence that he isn’t trustworthy. Are you interested in the evidence?
@@davewalt1781 Sad that you lack the mental capacity to understand. If you actually believe in heaven, why waste time here. Go get involved in insanely risky recreational activities. You seem rather dim, so it shouldn't take long.
By "it", I presume you mean Richard himself. I saw him a few weeks ago in Portland, Oregon- a far left war zone of a city that the U.S. Secret Service has, for years, nicknamed "Little Beirut." He had the backbone to announce that there are exactly two sexes, and to believe one is other than that which they are biologically is a delusion. Professor Dawkins didn't seem feeble in my opinion. Aged, yes, but not feeble. He was as sharp and articulate as ever.
@davidhart9106 I wanted to go watch his last show but I wish he was just still an educational evolutionary biologist I don't care about current gender politics
First of all the frase 'Survival of the fittest' is not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer. Secondly it is often misunderstood (Dawkins too?) and fit here does not mean strong or dominant but fitting into environment or circumstances. Then it makes perfect sense because fitting can be also achieved by co-operation and respecting other people.
You are dead right about the misunderstanding of the term FITTEST. Perhaps survival of the best-adapted would be better. Of course Dawkins understands this! By the way, its PHRASE not frase. George Pell has questionable validity in any discussion on morals.
I think the underlying connotation they may be referring to would be, a society where only the smartest, or healthiest individuals are allowed to get advantage or preference, and the weak, vulnerable, unhealthy would be left to die or care on their own. Yea it would be an unpleasant society to live in.
A genius. And with a lot of guts to enter the domain of religious zealots and make his point with so much gusto. Him and Christopher Hitchens, absolutely brilliant minds.
I love the religious people commenting here. The same old weak arguments. I am sure Hitchens would be laughing at these comments. He would just say something like "what an utterly ridiculous question" and everyone would laugh. ;) My intellectual hero..
But he lost the war. We are here to prove to God that we have faith, not for God to prove anything to us, Hawkins and all his followers are failing that test badly.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS The only reason that you would say such a thing is because you are a quitter and you know it. Let's say you want to buy a home. Lots of hard work and you get your reward. The same with God, no work, no seeking, no reward. I know, I received my reward. Poor you, no chance when you quit. Sorry, but true.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS When you quit looking you will never find like I did. I wonder, are you a quitter at everything you do or just the most important things? Gee, I looked for God for5 minutes and He wasn't there so He can't exist. What nonsense. Grow up, quit selling yourself short.
He's just stooo-pid. 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/
@@WhoThisMonkey Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as an influential figure not just because of his contributions to evolutionary biology, but also due to his ability to communicate complex scientific ideas to the general public. His work, particularly in popularizing concepts like the 'selfish gene' and his advocacy for science and rational thinking, has had a significant impact on both the scientific community and public discourse. Over the years, Dawkins has received numerous awards, such as the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest, which highlight his contributions to both science and its communication. His importance can be seen in how his ideas have shaped modern evolutionary theory and inspired countless people to explore science more deeply. Basically, Dawkins is not only one of the greatest in science, but also one of the greatest to make people like you understand science. - ChatGPT.
@@jasonq8523Excellent response Jason, I’ve been following Professor Dawkins since reading “The god Delusion” in late 2006, after this classic I had to get everything else he wrote, “The Selfish Gene” also a classic, his patience and perseverance with the public explaining these topics are nothing short of remarkable, love how he takes the complexities of evolutionary biology and transmit it to the masses and layman (like myself) for us to understand. In my humble opinion, Richard Dawkins is a beacon of light 💡 and hope in a world obscured by traditions, delusions and fallacy.
As an atheist, I can see how somemone religious may have a life which is full of anger: praying to a God that doesn't answer, expecting things to go well, even not understanding tragedy when they've lived a life following rules that must be obeyed. Punishing themselves often comes along. I still think it is harder to be an atheist, but I can't deny the inherent pain of being religious. I also would like to add that many religious people do not follow that path by choice, unfortunately. And, because of that, I make an effort not to judge. Great video. Thanks.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I really do appreciate that you make an effort not to judge others but I do take issue with some of what you said. I don’t mean any disrespect and you seem like a decent person. When I was an atheist, I had an easier time sleeping at night because I assumed that my loved ones as well as myself were headed to the same place, the grave. I thought that I didn’t have to do anything because nothing mattered. Now that I’m a Christian, I am haunted by the thought of my loved ones who aren’t Christian having to suffer for eternity and I’m burdened with the mission of evangelism. I think that is a much heavier burden to bear. I take issue with your characterization of praying to a God that doesn’t answer. Christians are supposed to understand that God knows infinitely more than we do and that what we often receive from God is the ability to be at peace with God denying our requests.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think atheism is hard because it involves thinking of ourselves as no longer existing after death and that our lives are inherently meaningless because the universe will end in a heat death. However I think that Christianity is exactly the opposite of wishful thinking. I often wish I could go back to believing that God didn’t exist.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think biblically literate Christian’s understand tragedy far more than the average Atheist does. Half of the Psalms are of prayers lamenting how God seems to favor the wicked. Ecclesiastes makes a very strong case that life is meaningless because we all have to die. Job is told as a story of a man who suffered immensely even though God Himself said that Job wasn’t being punished, he just had to suffer and never find out why. There’s a book of the bible called Lamentations. Most of the prophets mourned the destruction of Israel and our own Lord was crucified for the sin of the world.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp Again, I really do appreciate that you try not to judge others and I really can see that in your comments and you seem to me to be a decent person. I only take issue with what appears to be a misunderstanding about what Christians believe and how we live. I hope you understand that I’m not at all offended and that I’m not trying to offend you. I’m simply voicing my opinion and hopefully I’ve done that respectfully and I invite you to look at the Christian faith through that lens, and, of course, I invite you to put your trust in my Lord Jesus Christ. If you have any disagreement with anything I said, please let me know and I would love to hear your opinion.
@@matthewharrell398 I appreciate so much everything you just said. Made me think and question my own words. The fact that you were so respectful is unusual and leads to what I'm doing now: show gratitude. I would say our ideas are not that different. You're right, tragedy is an important/significant part for christians, and quite a difficult burden, and I think I didn't make an effort to take that more into consideration. However, you won't find many atheists that at least will consider some of the things I mentioned. My brother took his own life last year. I really hope he is no longer existing and having a consciousness. I won't enter in what science has to say on this topic or religion. I will say this, though: I find it hard to believe in a God that would allow so much suffering. You seem better informed than me when it comes to the Bible. Maybe you can share what lead you to become christian -if you feel comfortable about it-. I hope you understood everything, as spanish is my first language. Thank you again.
Worshiping any being that claims to have killed every person on earth except selected 8 to tell the story how he wants is insane. Don't tell me that in "the flood" no innocent babies drowned which is painful.
Theists usually defend it by saying those kids, babies and fetuses came from evil and wicked people and were already lost. Why couldnt god intervene? Why drowning? He seems to like seeing people suffer.
@@robotaholic It’s a very emotionally troubling story to believe in, but it is at least logically consistent that a morally good God could do such a thing. If God is infinite in knowledge, His judgments would be incomprehensible to limited human beings and we shouldn’t be surprised when we see His judgments and are appalled at them because we cannot see what God sees.
@@matthewharrell398mass murder of children is 'logically consistent' with a 'morally good god'? That's some simone biles- level mental gymnastics there. You've got a glaring 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy as well. Utter nonsense.
@@walterwanderley383 If a man is put in prison for preying on children, should he be arrested even if he has a wife and children? Of course he should even if the family will suffer as a result. Sadly, children often suffer for the sins of their parents.
I am an atheist because - none of the books on religion are logical. IMO, they are fairy stories to cause fear, violence, delusion, ignorance. None of it makes sense. I just find it all ridiculous & although I respect the right of others to follow certain faiths, I find it arrogant for these believers to tell me I will go to hell because I cannot accept the laws of belief, worship etc.
@@mezlay2 If the apostles were lying about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, why wouldn’t they come clean when their lives were threatened with a humiliating and torturous death?
@@Lost_Delos Thanks for your nice reply. My beliefs are totally based on God's Word, the Bible. God is neither fragile nor shallow. God created all things, so He is Almighty and powerful.
@davewalt1781 I apologize for my prior tone. My question is sincere. Would you say you're a reasonable and sincere person? If so, I'd like to have a conversation about your beliefs, and perhaps we could come to an understanding. I'd like a basic understanding of who you are. Are you a Christian? What made you choose your religion? Were you born into it?
We were/are truly “blessed” to have Hitchens & Dawkins in this world. Great orators, incredible minds of unparalleled value for the causes of reason & logic.
@@___Kelli___ unless William Lane Craig is around. When he’s around, Hitchens gets Hitch slapped in the debate and Richard Dawkins runs crying to mommy! 😂😂😂
One thing that frustratingly never gets brought up in these interviews is that if there is a god, then what made God???. And surely a god would be far more difficult and complex to have somehow spontaneously arrived on the scene than even a universe
@@AntiDogmatism-f8k If something created God, what created that thing? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? Now we have an infinite number of things that create other things.
There has to be a higher being without one Ducati , Laverda, MV Augusta Moto Guzzi etc would never exist !!!!! ...... This is a fact what I'm telling you !!!!🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘
There are some very salient points people should know. Mankind as Homo Sapiens, have been around for about 250,000 years, while the concept of god, has been around for only about 6,000 years, some say 5,000. It doesn't matter. Call it 5,000 years since god made itself known to mankind. Some questions need to be asked about that. Why did god reveal itself just to one ethnic group, those that spoke Hebrew? Many of them worshipped other gods. Even towards the end of the life of Moses, as they travelled nearing the end of their 40 year desert journey, STILL the Hebrew people were worshipping other gods. How can such importance be put on a god that bungled its creation and blamed that bungle on man? I refer to the ridiculous concept of 'original sin', which is a downright lie. God bungled the manufacture of man by failing to put in him the knowledge of right and wrong, Man had to take that knowledge by eating the forbidden fruit. Therefore, god was responsible for the fall. So, what we have is, a very young god against a quite old group of hominids called Homo Sapiens or mankind. 245,000 years older to be almost precise. That puts the god concept in the realm of bullshit.
Dawkins is one of the good guys. One either understands evolution (and genetics) and thus biology or one does not. One must take the time to resd Darwin and the modern biologists or just not understand biology. That's fine but by taking that path one should not criticize the science that so far explains much of how organisms operate. One cannot assume a religious posture and try to understand reality. It is not possible. The Bible and other holy books are literature and cannot be interpreted as history. Because the events therein are not events. They are stories, like Alice in Wonderland or The Three Bears.
Your belief system is flawed . It has so many holes in it . For example, why would the Creator of the Cosmos, care , if l , an evolved ape , one of billions , on a speck of dust in the vastness of the universe , grovelled to him , or not? He sounds like a total jerk . I try and avoid jerks . And consequently, l want nothing to do with your god. The greatest infanticide in the history of fiction .
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
What consists of progress in religion? Like you couldn’t smoke or dance now you can as Christians? Like the Methodists used to be. Catholics couldn’t divorce, ? But other Christians can.
I agree with Mr Dawkins I would much prefer an intelligent creator if one is found than the god as described in any religious book. An intelligent creator and god are very different. A force like in star wars movies for example existed but it made no judgements even though some evil people used it in an evil way.
@@matthewharrell398 I would disagree . I would be surprised if an intelligent creator existed that would care whether someone sins or not while looking after the universe. We might learn more in the future about the universe qualities that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever in our current understanding. i guess we will never know.
I am a Christian , I believe in the God of the Bible and I believe that he is the creator of this universe , the earth and everything that exists on it. But I agree and understand many things that Richard Dawkins said . Religions dirty and distort the name of God , the laws and commandments of God for us humans and this makes many people hate God . I do not believe in religions , I hate religions and even the name religions I don't like .
I'm curious because I used to be a Christian what you think when you read something like the baptism of Jesus. A voice came from the heavens and said this is my son with whom I am pleased. If Jesus is God who was this voice? Was Jesus performing ventriloquism and why was he trying to convince people that he was a son of God and not God himself? There are just too many things in that book that don't make sense.
@@JonHarrington9075 God makes the rules, so why did he invent this morality play? He invented it because humans are impressed with drama. Men created God and that's why he is a drama queen.
Dawkins is a materialist. For him the physical or elemental is fundamental to reality. He knows nothing about consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy; is it fundamental)? and nothing about Mind (is it elemental; does it emerge with quantum events)? He knows something about the physical; matter; the gross elemental and he extrapolates that to be the nature of reality which he sees as one-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. Consciousness; (fundamental); Mind: (elemental emerging with quantum events); and the cellular or gross physical; elemental, also emerging with quantum events. To see one dimension as the nature of reality is benighted in today’s world; this perspective was posited in the mid-nineteenth century; it was dumb then and it is dumb now.
@@Lordidude It is not a matter of proving it is a matter of not seeing elements as causal to consciousness; mind and evolution; randomly to a non-existent prototype. That has not been proven. Without consciousness and mind what could come into existence and how? Where did it all come from; the atheistic problem of ‘something from nothing’ of philosophy. As well physicists see all as flux as a mirage. It has been said that what is manifest is a dream lacking reality; although it seems real to us. A materialist will find that hard to credit but the onus is on materialism to say how life began; life itself not physical life which could not have started from nothing. If not conscious and mind then what?
@@Lordidude I posted already but maybe this post will show up next to what it is responding to. My answer: Explain consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy). There is no evidence it is elemental and it cannot be ‘reduced; observed; or studied by being put in a vial in a lab as all else can. Everything, even mind, is elemental emerging with quantum events and can be studied. That is why consciousness is ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. So consciousness is non-physical; non-elemental, otherwise it would not be the hard problem. That is the answer to your question.
@ALavin-en1kr Consciousness is tied to a physical brain and electrochemical processes. We have mapped language, ambidextrouity, personality, beliefs, and much more on different parts of the brain. Consciousness is a byproduct of a physical brain. All the evidence shows that. None of the evidence suggests anything else. What is your non-physical explanation for consciousness?
@@Lordidude It is the hard problem for philosophy as they agree it is not elemental. You can map the brain all you want and determine what the varies parts do but you cannot see what is not physical or elemental. Not knowing about electricity you could take your laptop apart and try to understand how ‘the parts’ make it work and you are not going to find it. The reality is consciousness is fundamental; mind is elemental and the physical is a grosser or denser elemental composed of the macro elements. Why philosophy is willing to admit that consciousness is not element-based and science is not there yet is because science is in reality material science; the study of matter; it sees matter the gross elements as fundamental to reality. In a quantum world that is now being assessed and questioned.
Nobody can believe in a GOD, & nobody can disbelieve in a GOD because nobody can understand anything unknowable & unreachable, one would have to be like a GOD himself to understand it. A thimble can only take in a thimble full of water (knowledge), it can't take in the ocean of knowledge.
Unknowable and unreachable? Belief isn’t knowing as The Bible learns, ’blessed be thou who believes without ”knowing” Telling us belief in that sense is superior to ”knowing” _It speaks to the inner core of the independent ’self’, not the beliefs 0:02 0:02 generated by outer influence (s) Outside-guiding towards an individual 0:02 standpoint (soulsearching) Is not influence it is just a blessing
How is it Richard Dawkins treats as a matter of course that there is no intelligence in the Universe/existence, yet at the same time he takes if for granted that the cells of the human brain, by exchanging information, do create intelligence? If so, then why should it be so difficult to assume that everything else in the universe (exchanging information) can also create an intelligence of some kind, even if such is beyond the understanding of Richard Dawkins, and all other human beings, to understand? By exerting his denial of the logical, Richard is, in a way, acknowledging that a probability is worthy of being denied? ‘Though it would be hard sell on the lecture circuit, so best not to have it asked by the Dorothea Dixers..
He doesn’t take it for granted that the cells of the human brain create intelligence. That’s a fact. Damage the cells in the brain and intelligence is damaged.
The evolution of matter over time lead to the intelligence in life forms from the matter in the universe. You are agreeing with Richard Dawkins. When a human being starts out as a single cell in the womb they are not conscious or intelligent, but yet consciousness develops over time. The evidence in every single scenario demonstrates that intelligence and consciousness evolves over time and not the other way around. Is it your position that there was a superior intelligence in the universe that for some reason decided to create lesser intelligence and put that in life forms? Is this univere intelligence you're speaking of some kind of underachiever that wants to produce lesser intelligence?
@@TywysogCraig It's sad that you just fell into something mentioned in this very video. Your god is the god of the gaps. It should be obvious to the entire planet by now. That gap continues to close. Do you actually think for a second that due to this gap you can suddenly assert your fairy tale magical man in the sky as the answer with exceedingly insufficient evidence to back it up? A hundred conflicting religions on earth attempt to do the exact same BS you are likely pulling to spread their lies. It's time to grow up and take some accountability for the results of your actions.
Tywy, let's say you were right. Does that mean Gary gets to barge into the conversation and claim life-elves caused life? It doesn't. Unless Gary has evidence life-elves did that, they seem entirely off topic and irrelevant. Well *did you provide evidence a god caused life?* You didn't. You won't. You can't. So you don't know it's true. Some of us are honest about not knowing. We don't believe. I hope you join us in caring about truth.
_"At the molecular level, geochemistry is indistinguishable from biochemistry. Life is just ions cascading across membranes due to their electromagnetic potential - it really is as simple as that."_ - Professor Brian Cox
they invented something to explain life which is something so weird that there is nothing to explain about it (I mean wha is it? timless spaceless, what does that mean. it’s not made of anything- what is that?) and they think they’ve solved all problems 😂😂 we atheïst are trying to make religious people figure out there is no god but honestly, there are things only a few people understand
@@rotorblade9508 It does not logically follow that we can’t understand something, therefore it doesn’t exist. Timeless and spaceless means that he is not limited to space and time.
@@matthewharrell398 yes, I see, so if you don’t understand something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but I don’t see what you could formulate anything about it except pure speculation
@@rotorblade9508 Good! However I have to argue that we have historical and philosophical evidence, not proof, but evidence that God exists and that there is very little evidence that He does not. Would you be interested in hearing me out?
@@DeliaFasta96 An argument from personal incredulity is the idea that something isn’t true just because you find it difficult to believe based on a feeling. He states he finds it hard to believe as a mathematician, meaning his disbelief is grounded in knowledge and stems from mathematical probability, not his feelings. If my wife tells you she finds RNA world hypothesis hard to believe it will be an argument from personal incredulity, the idea just feels wrong to her so she assumes it is. When I say I find it hard to believe it is not a fallacy because I don’t think this based on what I feel but on my knowledge of organic chemistry.
@@houstandy1009 Knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences and even biology won’t get you anywhere in determining how a living cell came about and whether or not there is a god. Organic chemistry also cannot explain the origins of life. Therefore, JL’s assessment is based on an argument from incredulity.
@@houstandy1009 No offence, but that ‘everything someone doesn’t believe is an argument from incredulity’ is obvious nonsense. There are allegations that can, at least theoretically, be factually proven or refuted, and hypotheses that elude verification / falsification. This is a generally known fact. Therefore, your latest comment is disingenuous.
By denying existence of GOD without separating the crucial difference between 1) The Creator of the universe and 2) the one demanding prayers and subordination to the rules, supposed to have been delivered by that Creator (but, in practice, always invented by some humans), Richard is doing a disservice to the task of GETTING RID OF THE RELIGIONS, because it is only the second function of GOD that needs to be denied, while the former, as a NON-PERSONAL entity is implied in any rational explanation of the existence of the universe. It need not be denied. Even science has only changed the name of THE CREATOR from GOD to NATURE, while retaining its role as The Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe. Otherwise science cannot DISCOVER LAWS OF NATURE. On the contrary, by claiming the existence of immutable, inevitable amd irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE with all the EVIL intact, Science only provides very rational EXPLANSTIONS justifying all the evil as they exist ~ thus contributing, inadvertantly though, to perpetuate them. Thus Science, as it exists at present, is a far more destructive religion than all the conventional religions taken together. As QM clearly shows: THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE TO BE DISCOVERED. Nature permits us to design the laws we consider most appropriate to SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE on this earth and, only thereafter, analyze phenomena selectively to find THE MEANS to implement the laws we want nature to follow. EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH. Lack of this realization is the reason why the humsn race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
Friend, if you had evidence of a god, you wouldn't have immediately retreated to the term "creator" (which means any person/thing that causes something to exist; I'm the creator of this comment. Am I a god? I'm not, so then you hopefully see just how far you've retreated off topic by using the term "creator", yeah?) Well a god is a pretty specific category of being. It's not just *any cause.* Google "god definition" if you don't know what people mean by the word.
@@majmage Your response clearly shows you failed to comprehend the essence of my comment. You remind me Mark Twain's advice: Never argue with fools. They'd drag you down to their level and beat you convincingly through their superior experience.
@@mykrahmaan3408 Nothing makes it clearer who's on the side of truth than the one who rushes to hurl insults. Your original comment is frankly a mess of bad ideas. Some are bad because they're just irrelevant, like how you're simultaneously wrong to say science can't predict when something will harm life function (ever hear of a small branch of science called "medicine"?), and also even if you weren't wrong it'd be irrelevant because it'd be an unknown (and do unknowns help us prove a god exists? Of course not. Unknowns make it clear we _don't_ know a god exists, in fact. They take us steps _away_ from belief being reasonable.)
He said why is the color of jealousy lol 😂and no one catches that the real question is what is the color of jealousy. Why do you feel jealousy is the question bro Dawkins is just stupid sometimes 😅 .
@@abduljabaar9655 same here my friend, Lennox is no scientist, he may be a good Mathematician but it doesn’t preclude him from being deluded. Thank you, best regards to you.
Ideologies,even religious,are out of date! If you look to Jesus ,you will find He is against ideologies,mostly religious ones!!! He is for salvation of the people in bankruptcy!!!
First point = Spell his name correctly, Richard Dawkins. It is in the bloody title of the video, how lazy are you? So even within the first two words of your sentence, you have let yourself down. Second point = I really don't need one. Your laziness in not spelling his name correctly shows, you don't really mean what you say and you are the usual empty jar believer with nothing to add to any conversation.
Dawkins is not intelligent says the person who believes in an invisible ghost that uses magic powers too make people out of mud 😆 it's the talking snake that's where all our problems came from 🤣 if we could just find that darn talking snake we could really change the world for the better 🙄
Anonymous comment from a modern day biologist He said I had written a good post, here is an answer from an anonymous biologist asked about his belief in evolution. “To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures-everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
One cannot believe in evolution any more than one can "believe" water is wet. Evolution is a repeatable and measurable observation. Arguing that it somehow doesn't exist is just bizarre.
Evolution is proven beyond doubt. You think biologists make up data for funding? They would be discovered immediately by other biologists. There are many biologists in every country around the world that don’t rely in government funding.
Unfortunately Atheism has become an anthem, seems not to hold forth the idea of non-belief in belief. Atheism is in many ways a monolith of the mind, the singularity which cannot accommodate other thoughts and ideas. That in itself negates the idea of atheism - rational and logical thought. #Ethics is a drive and atheists by no mean hold the keys to that lock.. (read the comment, it is a conversation, which is what science is all about). Secularism is meant to protect people from excesses, it by no means gives anyone the right to negate or oppress others..
Pell looks really impressed. hanging onto the old beliefs. "god" or whatever god is to you is beyond human comprehension, hard to define. Just be a good person, be yourself and don't hurt anyone - enjoy the ride. So many wars have been fought over who's imaginary friend is right, we are the same underneath, from the same "source". Personally i like Delores Cannon's view on "god" - an unimaginable source of light and power - the "source" of all things. The 3 big unknowns - creation, inner space and outer space. Perhaps we will never know.
And where was your God during these atrocities? 1 Kings 18:27 "At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” This is Elijah mocking the other people's god because a God that does nothing is no God at all! Funny how the Christian God fits this bill so perfectly! You have provided evidence of what we would expect to happen in a godless world. Unless you are suggesting that your God intentionally had Christian slaughtered by Stalin and the likes 😆 I would suggest you not use this line of argumentation.
@@adam2aces so just to get this straight, God freed the Jews from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, condescended from heaven, took on human flesh, died by crucifixion, rose from the dead, and this is nothing to you?
@@lepidoptera9337 Whichever you like. It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you’re right and the billions of people who worship other gods are wrong.
Bible says a lot worse in those collection of books than simply "holy book" - it is a collection of horror stories which would make the writers of Hammer Horror films blush
Dawkins didn't have any, "Best points." He was truly a false teacher. The Bible is God's Word and Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. You can believe Dawkins or you can believe God. As for me, give me Jesus.
@@davewalt1781 Yes, and my point is that slavery was fine with Jesus. We consider slavery to be an abhorrent crime, today, no matter how well they might be treated. This is also the word of God - Exodus - “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Dawkins, science popularizer. He is completely uninterested in philosophy, and he reduces some of man's grandest thoughts and feelings to trifles and silliness. He replaces that grandeur with colorless, odorless materialism. He makes grand claims of knowledge which are dust a few years later. Then he doesn't have the character to admit he was wrong.
If you are scientifically illiterate you may find it all dull and colourless. For those of us that aren’t… the observable, measurable and explainable universe provides more colour and grandeur than any religion can.
Ok Richard, what else could you be saying? The ONLY thing that you can hitch your credibility to is your boring repetitious claim to being disciple of Darwin’s conclusions, when no-one is seriously challenging your views however, that is not enough for you is it? To retain the popularity, that you are hooked on, you must maintain the illusion that only you are capable of understanding things which a vast majority take for granted? Most people accept that what you are saying about evolution is true, what I do not accept is your blatant denial of the peripheral influences and forces at work, that exist around evolution, yet are just as real as evolution. Evolution does not, and cannot stand alone, to say or think it does, is like saying that bricks are all that makes a house, while disregarding the lives, dramas hopes and dreams that fulfil the house? Richard, I understand your frustration, but your insults change nothing………..nothing? DB: Are we living in Russia where every question is removed by a self-styled demigod who only allows people who march to his tune? What is the point a of inviting people to comment and then deleting the comments they make, for no other reason than they ask questions, that Richard Dawkins is unable to answer.
Richard Dawkins has dedicated his career to advancing our understanding of evolution through clear, evidence-based explanations. While his focus is on the science, he has never claimed it explains everything. It's always the ignorant religious people who claim they have an old book that explains everything. Dawkins’ commitment to evidence and rational discourse remains crucial, especially in a world where misinformation can spread easily. - ChatGPT
Ok, so I just heard Richard Dawkins's basically say it was selfish of Jesus to die trying to save the world. If anyone can logically explain the reason why all of Jesus disciples died claiming they saw him after he was murdered, be my guest. Or if you can explain Isaiah 53 which was written about 700 years before Jesus died, or if you could explain Psalm 22 which talks about Jesus crucifixion before crucifixion was invented, be my guest. Some internet sources will say that Psalm 22 was written after crucifixion was invented on the basis that "They could not have described crucifixion before it was invented". But if you look at the material the paper was made out of, a lot of sources will say it is older than crucifixion. No one would argue that Psalm 22 was written hundreds of years before Jesus was even born, same thing to Isaiah 53. I am amazed time and time again I hear Christians tell Richard Dawkins's what we actually believe, and then he turns around and tries to tell us what we believe after we just told him we don't believe that. 1. Christians don't believe that non-Christians are completely evil. You can be a Christian and be bitter towards other people, or an atheist and love more people. 2. No one is perfect except for Jesus. God wants us to live in a perfect world and this world is broken. 3. Being bad doesn't cause you to go to Hell, sin causes you to die. Jesus is the only person who can make us perfect again. People will say "Why is it that Jesus is the only way to heaven?", well, if the Christian Trinity is the only God, then who else would you possibly expect to see on the other side if there is no other God. All of us have sinned and if we repent and ask for Jesus to forgive us, then he will. 4. Jesus had to express his love for us somehow. Love always requires sacrifice. If God let us into heaven without someone making the payment for it, it's like he's saying "Oh yeah, you verbally and physically abused people. Ok, no big deal. Come on in." But his utter rage was poured out into Jesus so that we can get to a point of where God literally does not even remember our sins because Jesus paid for them. 5. If God never became man, then it sounds like his struggles were nothing like ours at all, and even if we got to heaven, we never would feel his love, because he can't relate to us and we can't relate to him. We would still feel just as empty as this world makes us feel. 6. God of the Gaps is equivalent to Science of the gaps, the two basically get no where trying to argue with each other. Endorphins and other chemicals in the brain to make us feel good or bad definitely exist, but is that all that love is? Do you only love someone because the chemicals in your brain tell you to? Is evolution the only reason anyone is good or bad to another person? Or are people merely living their lives in a way that it seems like everything they do only benefits them. Science can't explain consciousness. Christianity has a basis - God gave us our consciousness. th-cam.com/video/xnzDk_MHo5g/w-d-xo.html
Unfortunately, Dawkins makes strong arguments against things he knows nothing about. Such a shame, because he's clearly intelligent. But he also clearly has no clue about the topics that he is trying to dismantle. Unfortunately this makes him look completely ridiculous. Read "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath to see just how much he misunderstands.
His knowledge is encyclopaedic, just because his opinions don’t agree with the indoctrinated drones of religion doesn’t mean it is absent or incorrect. Give his books a good read and if you still think you know better write one yourself.
Do you understand what you proclaim to exist? He is well educated and has carried out research on this topic. Have you? You clearly just hold on to things you have been told and are from an ancient book. Well, here is a sad fact for you to swallow up; There is no research that has yielded results suggesting that people who pray/belong to any religion live better lives than those who don't pray/belong to a religion. Think about it. And try to be honest with yourself then you will learn how to come out of that delusional stuff.
Talk about lazy philosophy... this guy is the opium of the semi intellectuals. Though I must agree, christianity is absolutely hilarious. The one true religion is Islam ❤
You were indoctrinated to believe it, under the threat of physical punishment. You are not better, your religion is as bad as any other, if not the worst.
What a clever comment you have made😂 At least he doesn't believe in a book that has 30 verses containing dragons, 9 versus containing unicorns, talking trees, crying stones, a talking donkey, and a talking snake. The sad thing is you don't have to be too clever to realize this is a book of fiction which puts those who believe in it in an even less than clever position!
Richard is full of fallacious arguments. Despicable from a professor of Oxford. 1. Not many but ALL, of the best values of humanity belong to Christianity and they are not borrowed! Christianity is an extension of Judaism. No other religion was before the Hebrew, with Yahweh some 3,800BC of the Old Testament. No other god offered the tree of life, as well as the tree of knowledge, (FREE WILL) before Yahweh! 2. During Cain and Able we discover killing (MURDER) somewhere around 3,700BC, is immoral. 3. The next oldest recorded religion is Sumerian Polytheism around 3,500BC, who practiced human sacrifice! 4. As far as atrocities, that Richard likes to just divisively throw forward, Yahweh is the CREATOR! So destroying, killing and obliterating a civilisation that practices human sacrifice is JUSTIFIED. But even so… Yahweh gave every civilisation 100s of years to repent and cease their immorality. This is called MERCY and FORGIVENESS. As the CREATOR He has every right to destroy. But He shows MERCY and gives them eons of a second chance and was willing to FORGIVE. 5. We do not tell children they are going to hell for being bad. Every knowledgable and practicing Christian knows, ALL CHILDREN go to Heaven! NO EXCEPTION! 6. It is very obvious, that without the Bible, you will become the same immorally divisive character Richard Dawkins just displayed. And that was straight of the cuff, by a professor of Oxford, preaching to YOU!
Number 5. is not true because my Christian mother told me I would go to hell if I let boys touch me when I was a young girl! The world would be much better off without religions!
@spyrosstivactas2300 Appreciate the grammar lesson, will correct accordingly. However, I do think your brain-washed beliefs of a "creator" are of much graver concern than the misuse of a word. Would you be saying the same thing if you were born into an entirely different belief system? Surely they can't all be right......most likely that none are.....
@@MrUnderwurlde yes of course I would. I was an atheist who studied science. But instead of being a bigot, I then studied religion. Jesus made far more reliable truth claims than Dawkins. Dawkins based his belief on assumptions, evidence, theories and models. That is why we now have abortions and gender fluidity. You really believe that homosexuality is not the slightest bit immoral? All that is antithetical to human survival. Dawkins is now calling himself a ‘cultural Christian’, like that is a thing.
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins
So you are going to rejeYct God because of Dawkins? You will get to spend eternity with him.
@@davewalt1781 I’d love to spend an eternity with Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and Spinoza and Carl Sagan and Raquel Welch and Marilyn Monroe.
@@MarjorainMD Yes, if it was in heaven, where everything is perfect and not that other horrible place where it will be complete isolation and suffering..
Dawkins didn't understate a lot of things.
Dawkins was 100% wrong about God, the most important thing.
My blood pressure normalises when I hear RD speak.
he speaks beautiful english 😊 amazing
Read the Bible and your blood pressure will normalize.
@@davewalt1781 I don't feel inclined to read religious texts. I don't believe in immaculate conception, walking on water, mitacle cures, resurrection of the dead, 2 adult human being popping into existence. Or any other juvenile stuff from any religion.
@@davewalt1781 how?
then you are just as lost as he is, sad.
It *must* be infuriating for Richard Dawkins to try and hold in intelligent conversation with a brick wall intelligence.
It's infuriating for all of us who have come to the realization that a space ghost living somewhere in the clouds is probably not the most realistic answer to these questions about human origins.
@nonwokewhere's your god? Nowhere?
Then it doesn't exist, simpleton...
@@adam2aces Imagine how Christians feel. 🤷♂️We have to hear your constant straw-men while you claim intellectual superiority even though you don’t understand our arguments to begin with. That’s also quite annoying. 😐
LoL - you cannot hate what doesn't exist.
@@adam2aces And that's how you discredit yourself :/
I am atheist, but that kind of complete misrepresentation of what many educated, intelligent Christians would consider to be "god" is just stupid...
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens ❤
There is a ton of evidence for God and the Bible and zero evidence for everything else. So Hitchens was wrong again.
I should have said Dawkins, but it's true for Hitchens also. Both false teachers.
@@davewalt1781
Yet you cannot prove them wrong.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS There is a ton of evidence for God and the Bible. God said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, so man is without excuse." The billions and billions of stars, where did the material come from and how did the stars form? How did the human body form? Gases exploding that are able to design and create? I await your reply.
@@steinhogger That’s true, and there’s a lot of evidence that Jesus Christ is trustworthy so let’s not dismiss him without evidence that he isn’t trustworthy. Are you interested in the evidence?
A great compilation. Thank you!
It's just ashame nothing of it is true.
@@davewalt1781 Sad that you lack the mental capacity to understand. If you actually believe in heaven, why waste time here. Go get involved in insanely risky recreational activities. You seem rather dim, so it shouldn't take long.
I just attended Richard Dawkins last show in SF. It is old and feeble now. Natural aging of course, but its sad to see my mentor fade away.
For real my dream is too see him before it’s to late😢 I love him
By "it", I presume you mean Richard himself. I saw him a few weeks ago in Portland, Oregon- a far left war zone of a city that the U.S. Secret Service has, for years, nicknamed "Little Beirut." He had the backbone to announce that there are exactly two sexes, and to believe one is other than that which they are biologically is a delusion.
Professor Dawkins didn't seem feeble in my opinion. Aged, yes, but not feeble. He was as sharp and articulate as ever.
@davidhart9106 I wanted to go watch his last show but I wish he was just still an educational evolutionary biologist I don't care about current gender politics
Excellent compilation
First of all the frase 'Survival of the fittest' is not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer. Secondly it is often misunderstood (Dawkins too?) and fit here does not mean strong or dominant but fitting into environment or circumstances. Then it makes perfect sense because fitting can be also achieved by co-operation and respecting other people.
You are dead right about the misunderstanding of the term FITTEST. Perhaps survival of the best-adapted would be better. Of course Dawkins understands this! By the way, its PHRASE not frase.
George Pell has questionable validity in any discussion on morals.
I think the underlying connotation they may be referring to would be, a society where only the smartest, or healthiest individuals are allowed to get advantage or preference, and the weak, vulnerable, unhealthy would be left to die or care on their own. Yea it would be an unpleasant society to live in.
@@TubeArmadillo respecting others is not the core-value of religion.
dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, I don't think he gets it wrong, buddy 😂
A genius. And with a lot of guts to enter the domain of religious zealots and make his point with so much gusto. Him and Christopher Hitchens, absolutely brilliant minds.
@nonwoke
Where did this alleged God come from?
Who or what created it?
@nonwoke
So you do think something can come from nothing.
Got it 👍
Thanks 🤝
It's just a shame that both are leading people to eternal destruction.
I love the religious people commenting here. The same old weak arguments. I am sure Hitchens would be laughing at these comments. He would just say something like "what an utterly ridiculous question" and everyone would laugh. ;) My intellectual hero..
@@andrematarazzo We will see if Hitchens and Dawkins will be laughing on Judgment Day.
Richard Dawkins won this debate.
But he lost the war. We are here to prove to God that we have faith, not for God to prove anything to us, Hawkins and all his followers are failing that test badly.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS We are here to prove to God who we are, how do you think you are doing so far?
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS The only reason that you would say such a thing is because you are a quitter and you know it. Let's say you want to buy a home. Lots of hard work and you get your reward. The same with God, no work, no seeking, no reward. I know, I received my reward. Poor you, no chance when you quit. Sorry, but true.
@@jeff_forsythe
All Gods are imaginary.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS When you quit looking you will never find like I did. I wonder, are you a quitter at everything you do or just the most important things? Gee, I looked for God for5 minutes and He wasn't there so He can't exist. What nonsense. Grow up, quit selling yourself short.
my favourite videos one of the most important scientist
He's just stooo-pid.
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/
Why is he one of the most important scientists?
Yes, he is awesome... But I just wondered how you quantified that.
What about Denis Nobel?.
@@WhoThisMonkey Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as an influential figure not just because of his contributions to evolutionary biology, but also due to his ability to communicate complex scientific ideas to the general public. His work, particularly in popularizing concepts like the 'selfish gene' and his advocacy for science and rational thinking, has had a significant impact on both the scientific community and public discourse. Over the years, Dawkins has received numerous awards, such as the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest, which highlight his contributions to both science and its communication. His importance can be seen in how his ideas have shaped modern evolutionary theory and inspired countless people to explore science more deeply. Basically, Dawkins is not only one of the greatest in science, but also one of the greatest to make people like you understand science. - ChatGPT.
@@jasonq8523Excellent response Jason, I’ve been following Professor Dawkins since reading “The god Delusion” in late 2006, after this classic I had to get everything else he wrote, “The Selfish Gene” also a classic, his patience and perseverance with the public explaining these topics are nothing short of remarkable, love how he takes the complexities of evolutionary biology and transmit it to the masses and layman (like myself) for us to understand.
In my humble opinion, Richard Dawkins is a beacon of light 💡 and hope in a world obscured by traditions, delusions and fallacy.
Brilliant!
Offtopic:
11:48 - is that Andie MacDowell?
Sure was
@@blairtelford8596 Thanks! 🙏
As an atheist, I can see how somemone religious may have a life which is full of anger: praying to a God that doesn't answer, expecting things to go well, even not understanding tragedy when they've lived a life following rules that must be obeyed. Punishing themselves often comes along. I still think it is harder to be an atheist, but I can't deny the inherent pain of being religious. I also would like to add that many religious people do not follow that path by choice, unfortunately. And, because of that, I make an effort not to judge.
Great video. Thanks.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I really do appreciate that you make an effort not to judge others but I do take issue with some of what you said. I don’t mean any disrespect and you seem like a decent person. When I was an atheist, I had an easier time sleeping at night because I assumed that my loved ones as well as myself were headed to the same place, the grave. I thought that I didn’t have to do anything because nothing mattered. Now that I’m a Christian, I am haunted by the thought of my loved ones who aren’t Christian having to suffer for eternity and I’m burdened with the mission of evangelism. I think that is a much heavier burden to bear. I take issue with your characterization of praying to a God that doesn’t answer. Christians are supposed to understand that God knows infinitely more than we do and that what we often receive from God is the ability to be at peace with God denying our requests.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think atheism is hard because it involves thinking of ourselves as no longer existing after death and that our lives are inherently meaningless because the universe will end in a heat death. However I think that Christianity is exactly the opposite of wishful thinking. I often wish I could go back to believing that God didn’t exist.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think biblically literate Christian’s understand tragedy far more than the average Atheist does. Half of the Psalms are of prayers lamenting how God seems to favor the wicked. Ecclesiastes makes a very strong case that life is meaningless because we all have to die. Job is told as a story of a man who suffered immensely even though God Himself said that Job wasn’t being punished, he just had to suffer and never find out why. There’s a book of the bible called Lamentations. Most of the prophets mourned the destruction of Israel and our own Lord was crucified for the sin of the world.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp Again, I really do appreciate that you try not to judge others and I really can see that in your comments and you seem to me to be a decent person. I only take issue with what appears to be a misunderstanding about what Christians believe and how we live. I hope you understand that I’m not at all offended and that I’m not trying to offend you. I’m simply voicing my opinion and hopefully I’ve done that respectfully and I invite you to look at the Christian faith through that lens, and, of course, I invite you to put your trust in my Lord Jesus Christ. If you have any disagreement with anything I said, please let me know and I would love to hear your opinion.
@@matthewharrell398 I appreciate so much everything you just said. Made me think and question my own words. The fact that you were so respectful is unusual and leads to what I'm doing now: show gratitude.
I would say our ideas are not that different. You're right, tragedy is an important/significant part for christians, and quite a difficult burden, and I think I didn't make an effort to take that more into consideration. However, you won't find many atheists that at least will consider some of the things I mentioned.
My brother took his own life last year. I really hope he is no longer existing and having a consciousness. I won't enter in what science has to say on this topic or religion. I will say this, though: I find it hard to believe in a God that would allow so much suffering. You seem better informed than me when it comes to the Bible. Maybe you can share what lead you to become christian -if you feel comfortable about it-. I hope you understood everything, as spanish is my first language. Thank you again.
Worshiping any being that claims to have killed every person on earth except selected 8 to tell the story how he wants is insane. Don't tell me that in "the flood" no innocent babies drowned which is painful.
Theists usually defend it by saying those kids, babies and fetuses came from evil and wicked people and were already lost.
Why couldnt god intervene? Why drowning? He seems to like seeing people suffer.
@@robotaholic It’s a very emotionally troubling story to believe in, but it is at least logically consistent that a morally good God could do such a thing. If God is infinite in knowledge, His judgments would be incomprehensible to limited human beings and we shouldn’t be surprised when we see His judgments and are appalled at them because we cannot see what God sees.
@@matthewharrell398mass murder of children is 'logically consistent' with a 'morally good god'? That's some simone biles- level mental gymnastics there. You've got a glaring 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy as well. Utter nonsense.
@@walterwanderley383 If a man is put in prison for preying on children, should he be arrested even if he has a wife and children? Of course he should even if the family will suffer as a result. Sadly, children often suffer for the sins of their parents.
@@matthewharrell398 More utter nonsense from you. Explain how god killing children is morally good?
I am an atheist because - none of the books on religion are logical. IMO, they are fairy stories to cause fear, violence, delusion, ignorance. None of it makes sense. I just find it all ridiculous & although I respect the right of others to follow certain faiths, I find it arrogant for these believers to tell me I will go to hell because I cannot accept the laws of belief, worship etc.
@@steveath Well except, of course, the Bible. The Bible is mostly a compilation of historical chronicles and obviously, it’s true.
@@matthewharrell398 I don’t agree but respect your views.
@@steveath oh, okay awesome! Back at ya! 👍👍
@@matthewharrell398I don't see how its so obvious?
@@mezlay2 If the apostles were lying about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, why wouldn’t they come clean when their lives were threatened with a humiliating and torturous death?
Love Mr Dawkins tie
It’s still better than the collar of the nonce sitting next to him
It's the only good thing.
@davewalt1781 You can't help yourself, can you? You need to assert your fragile view by these shallow comments.
@@Lost_Delos Thanks for your nice reply. My beliefs are totally based on God's Word, the Bible. God is neither fragile nor shallow. God created all things, so He is Almighty and powerful.
@davewalt1781 I apologize for my prior tone. My question is sincere. Would you say you're a reasonable and sincere person? If so, I'd like to have a conversation about your beliefs, and perhaps we could come to an understanding. I'd like a basic understanding of who you are. Are you a Christian? What made you choose your religion? Were you born into it?
Best point ever!!
7:45 Dawkins is exercising a lot of patience answering that question...
I'm a big fan of Dawkins. I don't agree with him all the time, but he's a great man.
Richard Dawkins is a great bloke sure he has some flaw’s but who doesn’t if I became prime minister Dawkins would be head of education
How about prime minister of false religions.
@@davewalt1781
That's Kent Hovind.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Amen
@@davewalt1781
I'm glad you acknowledge that I'm right. 🤝
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Yes, you are right if Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, otherwise you are lost.
9:46 is that questioner Sam Bankman Fried? 😆
he obviously likes that tie
Whos the last debater with him on 92Y?
The god of the gaps gets smaller all the time.
The trick is the following: Look at the children: They know, that there is no Santa Claus AND they believe in him!
Hitchens and Dawkings. The Dynamic Duo. Great people of logic. 🇦🇺 😊
It's Dawkins, not Dawkings! 😊
We were/are truly “blessed” to have Hitchens & Dawkins in this world. Great orators, incredible minds of unparalleled value for the causes of reason & logic.
@@rexpayne7836 For an edgy 13 year old. 😆😂🤣
@@___Kelli___ unless William Lane Craig is around. When he’s around, Hitchens gets Hitch slapped in the debate and Richard Dawkins runs crying to mommy! 😂😂😂
@@matthewharrell398Wow lol. That's clearly not what happened in reality, so you saying that is seriously massive cope.
George Pell knows all about sin.
One thing that frustratingly never gets brought up in these interviews is that if there is a god, then what made God???. And surely a god would be far more difficult and complex to have somehow spontaneously arrived on the scene than even a universe
They just say god has always existed
Touched on implicitly in some of the earlier clips.
Admit it, you didn't watch the video did you?
@@jamariousjohns9234 What’s wrong with that answer?
@@AntiDogmatism-f8k If something created God, what created that thing? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? Now we have an infinite number of things that create other things.
What about Denis Nobel?.
There has to be a higher being without one Ducati , Laverda, MV Augusta Moto Guzzi etc would never exist !!!!! ...... This is a fact what I'm telling you !!!!🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘
😂😂😂😂
There are some very salient points people should know.
Mankind as Homo Sapiens, have been around for about 250,000 years, while the concept of god, has been around for only about 6,000 years, some say 5,000. It doesn't matter.
Call it 5,000 years since god made itself known to mankind.
Some questions need to be asked about that.
Why did god reveal itself just to one ethnic group, those that spoke Hebrew? Many of them worshipped other gods. Even towards the end of the life of Moses, as they travelled nearing the end of their 40 year desert journey, STILL the Hebrew people were worshipping other gods.
How can such importance be put on a god that bungled its creation and blamed that bungle on man?
I refer to the ridiculous concept of 'original sin', which is a downright lie.
God bungled the manufacture of man by failing to put in him the knowledge of right and wrong, Man had to take that knowledge by eating the forbidden fruit. Therefore, god was responsible for the fall.
So, what we have is, a very young god against a quite old group of hominids called Homo Sapiens or mankind. 245,000 years older to be almost precise.
That puts the god concept in the realm of bullshit.
99% no God but God bless Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins is one of the good guys. One either understands evolution (and genetics) and thus biology or one does not. One must take the time to resd Darwin and the modern biologists or just not understand biology. That's fine but by taking that path one should not criticize the science that so far explains much of how organisms operate. One cannot assume a religious posture and try to understand reality. It is not possible. The Bible and other holy books are literature and cannot be interpreted as history. Because the events therein are not events. They are stories, like Alice in Wonderland or The Three Bears.
WHO created your creator?
IKEA
The True Believer tells us that God exists outside of time, so your question is flawed.
@@Garrison169 your belief system is flawed . With holes in it that you could drive a 747 through .
Your belief system is flawed . It has so many holes in it . For example, why would the Creator of the Cosmos, care , if l , an evolved ape , one of billions , on a speck of dust in the vastness of the universe , grovelled to him , or not?
He sounds like a total jerk . I try and avoid jerks . And consequently, l want nothing to do with your god.
The greatest infanticide in the history of fiction .
Nothing exists outside time.
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
What consists of progress in religion? Like you couldn’t smoke or dance now you can as Christians? Like the Methodists used to be. Catholics couldn’t divorce, ? But other Christians can.
I agree with Mr Dawkins I would much prefer an intelligent creator if one is found than the god as described in any religious book. An intelligent creator and god are very different. A force like in star wars movies for example existed but it made no judgements even though some evil people used it in an evil way.
@@silverfire01 The force doesn’t sound intelligent if it’s not making judgments on evil.
@@matthewharrell398 I would disagree . I would be surprised if an intelligent creator existed that would care whether someone sins or not while looking after the universe. We might learn more in the future about the universe qualities that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever in our current understanding. i guess we will never know.
@@silverfire01 I’m compelled to believe that a creator that interacts with its creation is way more intelligent than one that doesn’t.
@@matthewharrell398 we will have to agree to disagree.
@@silverfire01 okay. 👍
2:50 such a dumb question riddled with false assumptions and a lack of understanding..
th-cam.com/video/uP7gllVHNic/w-d-xo.html Isn't that also an argument of personal incredulity?
Dawkins ,also!!
Yes and what about the evolution Theory Patrick Andrews had back in 1995 ? Around 10 years later the science of DNA proved he was right.
I guess he is the best we got... since Hitchens died.
@@horus4862 straw-men and low hanging fruit is the best you have? 😂
I am a Christian , I believe in the God of the Bible and I believe that he is the creator of this universe , the earth and everything that exists on it. But I agree and understand many things that Richard Dawkins said . Religions dirty and distort the name of God , the laws and commandments of God for us humans and this makes many people hate God . I do not believe in religions , I hate religions and even the name religions I don't like .
Read your Bible thoroughly and become completely disgusted...
I'm curious because I used to be a Christian what you think when you read something like the baptism of Jesus. A voice came from the heavens and said this is my son with whom I am pleased. If Jesus is God who was this voice? Was Jesus performing ventriloquism and why was he trying to convince people that he was a son of God and not God himself? There are just too many things in that book that don't make sense.
@@JonHarrington9075 God makes the rules, so why did he invent this morality play? He invented it because humans are impressed with drama. Men created God and that's why he is a drama queen.
You've put yourself in a difficult position. Without a religion how do you know what your god wants? How do you know if it exists at all?
@@carguy99 Well so far I really like this guy in the Bible. His name is Jesus Christ and I find him very impressive and good!😊
🧡🧡🧡
Yeah? Just watch the interview Piers Morgan with this guy
Ikr Morgan was annihilated.
Yep, I would call it a schooling as supposed to an interview. Dawkins did well to hide his exasperation with Piers’ ignorance.
Dawkins is a materialist. For him the physical or elemental is fundamental to reality. He knows nothing about consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy; is it fundamental)? and nothing about Mind (is it elemental; does it emerge with quantum events)?
He knows something about the physical; matter; the gross elemental and he extrapolates that to be the nature of reality which he sees as one-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. Consciousness; (fundamental); Mind: (elemental emerging with quantum events); and the cellular or gross physical; elemental, also emerging with quantum events.
To see one dimension as the nature of reality is benighted in today’s world; this perspective was posited in the mid-nineteenth century; it was dumb then and it is dumb now.
Prove that something else than the physical exists first. Otherwise your conment id worthless.
@@Lordidude It is not a matter of proving it is a matter of not seeing elements as causal to consciousness; mind and evolution; randomly to a non-existent prototype. That has not been proven. Without consciousness and mind what could come into existence and how? Where did it all come from; the atheistic problem of ‘something from nothing’ of philosophy. As well physicists see all as flux as a mirage. It has been said that what is manifest is a dream lacking reality; although it seems real to us. A materialist will find that hard to credit but the onus is on materialism to say how life began; life itself not physical life which could not have started from nothing. If not conscious and mind then what?
@@Lordidude I posted already but maybe this post will show up next to what it is responding to. My answer: Explain consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy). There is no evidence it is elemental and it cannot be ‘reduced; observed; or studied by being put in a vial in a lab as all else can. Everything, even mind, is elemental emerging with quantum events and can be studied. That is why consciousness is ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. So consciousness is non-physical; non-elemental, otherwise it would not be the hard problem. That is the answer to your question.
@ALavin-en1kr Consciousness is tied to a physical brain and electrochemical processes.
We have mapped language, ambidextrouity, personality, beliefs, and much more on different parts of the brain.
Consciousness is a byproduct of a physical brain. All the evidence shows that. None of the evidence suggests anything else.
What is your non-physical explanation for consciousness?
@@Lordidude It is the hard problem for philosophy as they agree it is not elemental. You can map the brain all you want and determine what the varies parts do but you cannot see what is not physical or elemental. Not knowing about electricity you could take your laptop apart and try to understand how ‘the parts’ make it work and you are not going to find it. The reality is consciousness is fundamental; mind is elemental and the physical is a grosser or denser elemental composed of the macro elements. Why philosophy is willing to admit that consciousness is not element-based and science is not there yet is because science is in reality material science; the study of matter; it sees matter the gross elements as fundamental to reality. In a quantum world that is now being assessed and questioned.
Nobody can believe in a GOD, & nobody can disbelieve in a GOD because nobody can understand anything unknowable & unreachable, one would have to be like a GOD himself to understand it. A thimble can only take in a thimble full of water (knowledge), it can't take in the ocean of knowledge.
Unknowable and unreachable? Belief isn’t knowing as The Bible learns, ’blessed be thou who believes without ”knowing” Telling us belief in that sense is superior to ”knowing” _It speaks to the inner core of the independent ’self’, not the beliefs 0:02 0:02 generated by outer influence (s) Outside-guiding towards an individual 0:02 standpoint (soulsearching) Is not influence it is just a blessing
All Gods are imaginary.
How is it Richard Dawkins treats as a matter of course that there is no intelligence in the Universe/existence, yet at the same time he takes if for granted that the cells of the human brain, by exchanging information, do create intelligence?
If so, then why should it be so difficult to assume that everything else in the universe (exchanging information) can also create an intelligence of some kind, even if such is beyond the understanding of Richard Dawkins, and all other human beings, to understand?
By exerting his denial of the logical, Richard is, in a way, acknowledging that a probability is worthy of being denied?
‘Though it would be hard sell on the lecture circuit, so best not to have it asked by the Dorothea Dixers..
He does not claim there is no intelligence in existence, says that existence was not created by an intelligence because there is no evidence for it
He doesn’t take it for granted that the cells of the human brain create intelligence. That’s a fact. Damage the cells in the brain and intelligence is damaged.
The evolution of matter over time lead to the intelligence in life forms from the matter in the universe. You are agreeing with Richard Dawkins. When a human being starts out as a single cell in the womb they are not conscious or intelligent, but yet consciousness develops over time.
The evidence in every single scenario demonstrates that intelligence and consciousness evolves over time and not the other way around.
Is it your position that there was a superior intelligence in the universe that for some reason decided to create lesser intelligence and put that in life forms? Is this univere intelligence you're speaking of some kind of underachiever that wants to produce lesser intelligence?
5:05 no you can't, nobody can show the inorganic becoming organic.
Don't let them fool you
Or even try to school you
@@TywysogCraig define organic
@@WillowAndTheRest self replocating life. Alive. Not a rock or rocky soup. No 2 or 3 celled organisms either
@@TywysogCraig It's sad that you just fell into something mentioned in this very video. Your god is the god of the gaps. It should be obvious to the entire planet by now. That gap continues to close.
Do you actually think for a second that due to this gap you can suddenly assert your fairy tale magical man in the sky as the answer with exceedingly insufficient evidence to back it up? A hundred conflicting religions on earth attempt to do the exact same BS you are likely pulling to spread their lies. It's time to grow up and take some accountability for the results of your actions.
Tywy, let's say you were right. Does that mean Gary gets to barge into the conversation and claim life-elves caused life? It doesn't. Unless Gary has evidence life-elves did that, they seem entirely off topic and irrelevant. Well *did you provide evidence a god caused life?* You didn't. You won't. You can't.
So you don't know it's true.
Some of us are honest about not knowing. We don't believe.
I hope you join us in caring about truth.
_"At the molecular level, geochemistry is indistinguishable from biochemistry. Life is just ions cascading across membranes due to their electromagnetic potential - it really is as simple as that."_
- Professor Brian Cox
they invented something to explain life which is something so weird that there is nothing to explain about it (I mean wha is it? timless spaceless, what does that mean. it’s not made of anything- what is that?) and they think they’ve solved all problems 😂😂
we atheïst are trying to make religious people figure out there is no god but honestly, there are things only a few people understand
@@rotorblade9508 It does not logically follow that we can’t understand something, therefore it doesn’t exist. Timeless and spaceless means that he is not limited to space and time.
@@matthewharrell398 yes, I see, so if you don’t understand something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but I don’t see what you could formulate anything about it except pure speculation
@@rotorblade9508 Good! However I have to argue that we have historical and philosophical evidence, not proof, but evidence that God exists and that there is very little evidence that He does not. Would you be interested in hearing me out?
@@rotorblade9508 Did you get my response?
He is wrong about it being an argument from personal incredulity
Then please expose the flaw in his comment and explain why he’s wrong.
@@DeliaFasta96 An argument from personal incredulity is the idea that something isn’t true just because you find it difficult to believe based on a feeling.
He states he finds it hard to believe as a mathematician, meaning his disbelief is grounded in knowledge and stems from mathematical probability, not his feelings.
If my wife tells you she finds RNA world hypothesis hard to believe it will be an argument from personal incredulity, the idea just feels wrong to her so she assumes it is.
When I say I find it hard to believe it is not a fallacy because I don’t think this based on what I feel but on my knowledge of organic chemistry.
@@houstandy1009 Knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences and even biology won’t get you anywhere in determining how a living cell came about and whether or not there is a god. Organic chemistry also cannot explain the origins of life. Therefore, JL’s assessment is based on an argument from incredulity.
@@DeliaFasta96 erm no.
Based on your definition everything someone doesn't believe is a argument from incredulity
@@houstandy1009 No offence, but that ‘everything someone doesn’t believe is an argument from incredulity’ is obvious nonsense. There are allegations that can, at least theoretically, be factually proven or refuted, and hypotheses that elude verification / falsification. This is a generally known fact. Therefore, your latest comment is disingenuous.
Jesus is for the last in the world... For those in need. If you don't, good... Enjoy!
Jesus is a fictional character.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS I hope you enjoy the fiction then
By denying existence of GOD without separating the crucial difference between
1) The Creator of the universe
and
2) the one demanding prayers and subordination to the rules, supposed to have been delivered by that Creator (but, in practice, always invented by some humans),
Richard is doing a disservice to the task of GETTING RID OF THE RELIGIONS, because it is only the second function of GOD that needs to be denied, while the former, as a NON-PERSONAL entity is implied in any rational explanation of the existence of the universe.
It need not be denied.
Even science has only changed the name of THE CREATOR from GOD to NATURE, while retaining its role as The Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe.
Otherwise science cannot DISCOVER LAWS OF NATURE.
On the contrary, by claiming the existence of immutable, inevitable amd irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE with all the EVIL intact, Science only provides very rational EXPLANSTIONS justifying all the evil as they exist ~ thus contributing, inadvertantly though, to perpetuate them.
Thus Science, as it exists at present, is a far more destructive religion than all the conventional religions taken together.
As QM clearly shows:
THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE TO BE DISCOVERED.
Nature permits us to design the laws we consider most appropriate to SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE on this earth and, only thereafter, analyze phenomena selectively to find THE MEANS to implement the laws we want nature to follow.
EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH.
Lack of this realization is the reason why the humsn race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
Friend, if you had evidence of a god, you wouldn't have immediately retreated to the term "creator" (which means any person/thing that causes something to exist; I'm the creator of this comment. Am I a god? I'm not, so then you hopefully see just how far you've retreated off topic by using the term "creator", yeah?)
Well a god is a pretty specific category of being. It's not just *any cause.* Google "god definition" if you don't know what people mean by the word.
All Gods are imaginary.
@@majmage
Your response clearly shows you failed to comprehend the essence of my comment.
You remind me Mark Twain's advice:
Never argue with fools. They'd drag you down to their level and beat you convincingly through their superior experience.
@@mykrahmaan3408 Nothing makes it clearer who's on the side of truth than the one who rushes to hurl insults.
Your original comment is frankly a mess of bad ideas. Some are bad because they're just irrelevant, like how you're simultaneously wrong to say science can't predict when something will harm life function (ever hear of a small branch of science called "medicine"?), and also even if you weren't wrong it'd be irrelevant because it'd be an unknown (and do unknowns help us prove a god exists? Of course not. Unknowns make it clear we _don't_ know a god exists, in fact. They take us steps _away_ from belief being reasonable.)
He said why is the color of jealousy lol 😂and no one catches that the real question is what is the color of jealousy. Why do you feel jealousy is the question bro Dawkins is just stupid sometimes 😅 .
When you have no logical answer ,go to the only salvation ,Jesus Christ!!
Jesus is a fictional character.
“I find that impossible to believe.” Sad. Just sad. Some people have a mouth, a mic, and prominent position. And that’s it.
@@abduljabaar9655 There’s absolutely nothing sad about Science and knowledge through data analysis. As an atheist I want to know, not believe.
@@MarjorainMD I agree with you. I just expressed my disappointment with John Lennox.
@@abduljabaar9655 same here my friend, Lennox is no scientist, he may be a good Mathematician but it doesn’t preclude him from being deluded.
Thank you, best regards to you.
Donkey, who thinks he evolved from a monkey, now all he has to find are the connecting zebra stripes. 😂😂😂
We evolved from an ape not a monkey.
Your childlike scientific ignorance is duly noted.
@@Glasschin2.0
homo sapiens are apes.
10:07 brain is not braining
Wahahaha, love how this comment came up at the same time that dude was having a old seizure
🤣 that was such a great shot
@danogunner it's not a coincidence, dude. It's programming
Ideologies,even religious,are out of date! If you look to Jesus ,you will find He is against ideologies,mostly religious ones!!! He is for salvation of the people in bankruptcy!!!
Jesus is a fictional character.
Believing in an imaginary friend
Richard Dawkings is the most silly person i've seen in a while
You're obviously projecting.
First point = Spell his name correctly, Richard Dawkins. It is in the bloody title of the video, how lazy are you? So even within the first two words of your sentence, you have let yourself down. Second point = I really don't need one. Your laziness in not spelling his name correctly shows, you don't really mean what you say and you are the usual empty jar believer with nothing to add to any conversation.
Dawkins is not intelligent says the person who believes in an invisible ghost that uses magic powers too make people out of mud 😆
it's the talking snake that's where all our problems came from 🤣 if we could just find that darn talking snake we could really change the world for the better 🙄
Believeless unbelievableness😅
Rest in peace Mr Dawkins
He's still alive
@@samuelmyers5084nah, have you not hear?
@@elpoodoo3099
He's still alive.
I believe God exist but not everything in bible i believe
How many gods exist?
600 exist apparently so everyone is an atheist to the other 599 religions
are the same with his worst points
Anonymous comment from a modern day biologist
He said I had written a good post, here is an answer from an anonymous biologist asked about his belief in evolution. “To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures-everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
OK, so one fringe lunatic's opinion. That's not worth much against the entire body of evidence for biology 😂
One cannot believe in evolution any more than one can "believe" water is wet. Evolution is a repeatable and measurable observation. Arguing that it somehow doesn't exist is just bizarre.
Evolution is proven beyond doubt. You think biologists make up data for funding? They would be discovered immediately by other biologists. There are many biologists in every country around the world that don’t rely in government funding.
@@ToothbrushMan
Water isn't wet.
Water is the liquid, for something to be wet it has to be surrounded by liquid, the liquid itself isn't wet.
@WhoThisMonkey Water is wet. Good grief.
What did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have in common? Neither of them could win a debate against William Lane Craig. 🤣🤣🤣
Urmmm, not sure what debates you were watching or what you were smoking at the time…
@@Captain101-x1o I was watching the debate where he Hitch slapped him. And I don’t do drugs because I’m not an atheist. Lol 😂
@@Captain101-x1o The debate against William Lane Craig, and I don’t do drugs because I’m not an atheist. Lol😂
Lane Craig lost both.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS 57 minutes and 16 seconds. Look at Hitchens face. He lost! Dawkins never debated Craig. Dawkins is afraid to debate him.
God exists, and He has given me the privilege to discover Him.
Hallucinations dont count🙂
All Gods are imaginary.
Unfortunately Atheism has become an anthem, seems not to hold forth the idea of non-belief in belief. Atheism is in many ways a monolith of the mind, the singularity which cannot accommodate other thoughts and ideas. That in itself negates the idea of atheism - rational and logical thought. #Ethics is a drive and atheists by no mean hold the keys to that lock.. (read the comment, it is a conversation, which is what science is all about). Secularism is meant to protect people from excesses, it by no means gives anyone the right to negate or oppress others..
You shouldn't go on the internet while drunk. ;-)
Pell looks really impressed. hanging onto the old beliefs. "god" or whatever god is to you is beyond human comprehension, hard to define. Just be a good person, be yourself and don't hurt anyone - enjoy the ride. So many wars have been fought over who's imaginary friend is right, we are the same underneath, from the same "source". Personally i like Delores Cannon's view on "god" - an unimaginable source of light and power - the "source" of all things. The 3 big unknowns - creation, inner space and outer space. Perhaps we will never know.
morals....where did the big three get theirs....Stalin Mao and Pol Pot....
Given their apparent like of genocide maybe they got them from the god of the bible.
And where was your God during these atrocities? 1 Kings 18:27 "At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” This is Elijah mocking the other people's god because a God that does nothing is no God at all! Funny how the Christian God fits this bill so perfectly! You have provided evidence of what we would expect to happen in a godless world. Unless you are suggesting that your God intentionally had Christian slaughtered by Stalin and the likes 😆 I would suggest you not use this line of argumentation.
Where do terrorists get theirs?
@@adam2aces The point is that they were all atheists.
@@adam2aces so just to get this straight, God freed the Jews from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, condescended from heaven, took on human flesh, died by crucifixion, rose from the dead, and this is nothing to you?
I jave evidence of God
God is a father, not a friend.
@@alexfilma16 I already have a real father. I don't need a fake second one. Pass. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 You can’t prove god is fake.
@@alexfilma16 Which one? We invented so many of them. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Whichever you like. It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you’re right and the billions of people who worship other gods are wrong.
The Bible has never said "holy book".
Bible says a lot worse in those collection of books than simply "holy book" - it is a collection of horror stories which would make the writers of Hammer Horror films blush
@johnking5174 they're humanity in the wrong. God, by definition doesn't have to do evil himself, He's transcendentally good.
Richard dawkins ,,BEST points ho ho ho ha ha ha i do like people that say daft things
Like you.
Darwin is out of date!!!
Dawkins didn't have any, "Best points." He was truly a false teacher. The Bible is God's Word and Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. You can believe Dawkins or you can believe God. As for me, give me Jesus.
This has to be parody
Jesus told slaves to obey and honor their masters. Is this an idea that came from God's mouth, or from the culture of the time?
@@Garrison169 Jesus also said for the masters to respect and treat their slaves properly.
@@davewalt1781 Yes, and my point is that slavery was fine with Jesus. We consider slavery to be an abhorrent crime, today, no matter how well they might be treated.
This is also the word of God -
Exodus - “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
you sure you're the right sect? i mean there are 45000. you could easily be in the wrong one
The religion of Atheism and the religion of Marxism.😂
I think your profile picture says enough about you
As opposed to the religion of an invisible space ghost who lives in the clouds and filthy authoritarianism😂
Religions have beliefs. Atheists don't believe there is a god. Atheism is no more a religion than abstinence is a sexual position. - Bill Maher
Dawkins, science popularizer. He is completely uninterested in philosophy, and he reduces some of man's grandest thoughts and feelings to trifles and silliness. He replaces that grandeur with colorless, odorless materialism. He makes grand claims of knowledge which are dust a few years later. Then he doesn't have the character to admit he was wrong.
Name one of his grand claims that has turned to dust a few years later!
What bible
If you are scientifically illiterate you may find it all dull and colourless. For those of us that aren’t… the observable, measurable and explainable universe provides more colour and grandeur than any religion can.
Were you drunk when you posted that nonsense?
I sometimes think you theists post comments so stupid to invite ridicule. So I will oblige,,,try to evolve !!
Ok Richard, what else could you be saying? The ONLY thing that you can hitch your credibility to is your boring repetitious claim to being disciple of Darwin’s conclusions, when no-one is seriously challenging your views however, that is not enough for you is it? To retain the popularity, that you are hooked on, you must maintain the illusion that only you are capable of understanding things which a vast majority take for granted?
Most people accept that what you are saying about evolution is true, what I do not accept is your blatant denial of the peripheral influences and forces at work, that exist around evolution, yet are just as real as evolution. Evolution does not, and cannot stand alone, to say or think it does, is like saying that bricks are all that makes a house, while disregarding the lives, dramas hopes and dreams that fulfil the house?
Richard, I understand your frustration, but your insults change nothing………..nothing?
DB: Are we living in Russia where every question is removed by a self-styled demigod who only allows people who march to his tune?
What is the point a of inviting people to comment and then deleting the comments they make, for no other reason than they ask questions, that Richard Dawkins is unable to answer.
You dont realise you have mental health issues and it wont let you realise the univesre is 13 billion years ago thats a fact
Richard Dawkins has dedicated his career to advancing our understanding of evolution through clear, evidence-based explanations. While his focus is on the science, he has never claimed it explains everything. It's always the ignorant religious people who claim they have an old book that explains everything. Dawkins’ commitment to evidence and rational discourse remains crucial, especially in a world where misinformation can spread easily. - ChatGPT
Ok, so I just heard Richard Dawkins's basically say it was selfish of Jesus to die trying to save the world. If anyone can logically explain the reason why all of Jesus disciples died claiming they saw him after he was murdered, be my guest. Or if you can explain Isaiah 53 which was written about 700 years before Jesus died, or if you could explain Psalm 22 which talks about Jesus crucifixion before crucifixion was invented, be my guest. Some internet sources will say that Psalm 22 was written after crucifixion was invented on the basis that "They could not have described crucifixion before it was invented". But if you look at the material the paper was made out of, a lot of sources will say it is older than crucifixion. No one would argue that Psalm 22 was written hundreds of years before Jesus was even born, same thing to Isaiah 53.
I am amazed time and time again I hear Christians tell Richard Dawkins's what we actually believe, and then he turns around and tries to tell us what we believe after we just told him we don't believe that.
1. Christians don't believe that non-Christians are completely evil. You can be a Christian and be bitter towards other people, or an atheist and love more people.
2. No one is perfect except for Jesus. God wants us to live in a perfect world and this world is broken.
3. Being bad doesn't cause you to go to Hell, sin causes you to die. Jesus is the only person who can make us perfect again. People will say "Why is it that Jesus is the only way to heaven?", well, if the Christian Trinity is the only God, then who else would you possibly expect to see on the other side if there is no other God. All of us have sinned and if we repent and ask for Jesus to forgive us, then he will.
4. Jesus had to express his love for us somehow. Love always requires sacrifice. If God let us into heaven without someone making the payment for it, it's like he's saying "Oh yeah, you verbally and physically abused people. Ok, no big deal. Come on in." But his utter rage was poured out into Jesus so that we can get to a point of where God literally does not even remember our sins because Jesus paid for them.
5. If God never became man, then it sounds like his struggles were nothing like ours at all, and even if we got to heaven, we never would feel his love, because he can't relate to us and we can't relate to him. We would still feel just as empty as this world makes us feel.
6. God of the Gaps is equivalent to Science of the gaps, the two basically get no where trying to argue with each other. Endorphins and other chemicals in the brain to make us feel good or bad definitely exist, but is that all that love is? Do you only love someone because the chemicals in your brain tell you to? Is evolution the only reason anyone is good or bad to another person? Or are people merely living their lives in a way that it seems like everything they do only benefits them. Science can't explain consciousness. Christianity has a basis - God gave us our consciousness.
th-cam.com/video/xnzDk_MHo5g/w-d-xo.html
Unfortunately, Dawkins makes strong arguments against things he knows nothing about. Such a shame, because he's clearly intelligent. But he also clearly has no clue about the topics that he is trying to dismantle. Unfortunately this makes him look completely ridiculous. Read "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath to see just how much he misunderstands.
I'm sure "The Dawkins Delusion" plays really well among those who are already convinced that Dawkins is ridiculous.
His knowledge is encyclopaedic, just because his opinions don’t agree with the indoctrinated drones of religion doesn’t mean it is absent or incorrect.
Give his books a good read and if you still think you know better write one yourself.
Do you understand what you proclaim to exist? He is well educated and has carried out research on this topic. Have you? You clearly just hold on to things you have been told and are from an ancient book. Well, here is a sad fact for you to swallow up; There is no research that has yielded results suggesting that people who pray/belong to any religion live better lives than those who don't pray/belong to a religion. Think about it. And try to be honest with yourself then you will learn how to come out of that delusional stuff.
He got under your skin hey ? 😅
Talk about lazy philosophy... this guy is the opium of the semi intellectuals. Though I must agree, christianity is absolutely hilarious. The one true religion is Islam ❤
So you believe your prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two?
Enjoy your opium too man.
F Islam!
Christianity is hilarious says the man who believes Muhammad flew off on a flying horse😂
Islam is delusional, and dangerous.
You were indoctrinated to believe it, under the threat of physical punishment. You are not better, your religion is as bad as any other, if not the worst.
Richard is hardly a clever person...
What a clever comment you have made😂
At least he doesn't believe in a book that has 30 verses containing dragons, 9 versus containing unicorns, talking trees, crying stones, a talking donkey, and a talking snake. The sad thing is you don't have to be too clever to realize this is a book of fiction which puts those who believe in it in an even less than clever position!
Dawkins doesn't claim to be clever. He merely states the obvious, to the chagrin of the believer.
I'm gonna guess he's smarter than you
Says the subscriber of Matt Winger. Ironic.
Richard is full of fallacious arguments. Despicable from a professor of Oxford.
1. Not many but ALL, of the best values of humanity belong to Christianity and they are not borrowed! Christianity is an extension of Judaism. No other religion was before the Hebrew, with Yahweh some 3,800BC of the Old Testament. No other god offered the tree of life, as well as the tree of knowledge, (FREE WILL) before Yahweh!
2. During Cain and Able we discover killing (MURDER) somewhere around 3,700BC, is immoral.
3. The next oldest recorded religion is Sumerian Polytheism around 3,500BC, who practiced human sacrifice!
4. As far as atrocities, that Richard likes to just divisively throw forward, Yahweh is the CREATOR! So destroying, killing and obliterating a civilisation that practices human sacrifice is JUSTIFIED. But even so… Yahweh gave every civilisation 100s of years to repent and cease their immorality. This is called MERCY and FORGIVENESS. As the CREATOR He has every right to destroy. But He shows MERCY and gives them eons of a second chance and was willing to FORGIVE.
5. We do not tell children they are going to hell for being bad. Every knowledgable and practicing Christian knows, ALL CHILDREN go to Heaven! NO EXCEPTION!
6. It is very obvious, that without the Bible, you will become the same immorally divisive character Richard Dawkins just displayed.
And that was straight of the cuff, by a professor of Oxford, preaching to YOU!
Number 5. is not true because my Christian mother told me I would go to hell if I let boys touch me when I was a young girl! The world would be much better off without religions!
What a load of old rubbish you spout. Never "ceases" to amaze me how vulnerable the human mind can be.
@@MrUnderwurlde ‘ceases’ not seizes! And I agree, Dawkin followers do show how vulnerable the human mind can be.
@spyrosstivactas2300 Appreciate the grammar lesson, will correct accordingly. However, I do think your brain-washed beliefs of a "creator" are of much graver concern than the misuse of a word. Would you be saying the same thing if you were born into an entirely different belief system? Surely they can't all be right......most likely that none are.....
@@MrUnderwurlde yes of course I would. I was an atheist who studied science. But instead of being a bigot, I then studied religion. Jesus made far more reliable truth claims than Dawkins. Dawkins based his belief on assumptions, evidence, theories and models. That is why we now have abortions and gender fluidity. You really believe that homosexuality is not the slightest bit immoral? All that is antithetical to human survival. Dawkins is now calling himself a ‘cultural Christian’, like that is a thing.