Richard Dawkins Discusses Evolution with Creationist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Richard dawkins owns again.
Educational Purposes
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news repor
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
The other man deserves my respect. Although he had no points or arguments, that's the kind of treatment and respect that we atheists expect from theists. Bravo.
Yes, he was very kind and polite.
I've never really looked at it that way, but yeah, he was, wasn't he?
I mean, even when Dawkin's reply to Mr. Conder's incredibly heart touching story ending with the question "Am I deluded [in respects to this heartwarming story]?" with "Well, probably-" I think Mr. Conder seemed slightly hurt, but he was not vindictive about it at all, nor did it seem to make him dismissive to what Dawkins was saying, which are the two major replies to something like that that screw with an entire conversation with most creationists.
Later, Dawnkins casually described Jesus as "ignorant of science" (or really, "[understandably] ignorant of [our modern] science"), which clearly struck a nerve, getting a very stern, defensive reply out of Conder, "Jesus was *not* ignorant", where he insisted on interrupting something Dawkins was saying. But interruption is not intrinsically bad in debate, provided it's not too negatively disruptive. That is, it's perfectly forgivable, especially considering that he was interrupting Dawkins slightly.... "talking down to him" for lack of a better term.
In fact, I'd say given the circumstances that Dawkins may have been slightly egging on that sort of response. Dismissively describing on the side "oh btw Jesus didn't know dick about science anyway as I was saying" was antagonistic. Now, it may have just been a slip of the tongue i.e. describing something that's obviously true without grasping that saying it quite the way you're about to say it may spark a defensive response... But it seems like Conder generally did this far less.
I'd say Conder's biggest sin was dismissing Dawkin's eloquent explanation for the evolution of the eye. It got a pretty frustrated reply out of Dawkins, and rightfully so. But... Well, the conversation didn't just explode into Facebook-styled cancer, like _Well it's bloody outrageous that you'd just dismiss my giant fucking explanation!_ *Hold the fuck on now, let me explain an anecdote I have of a time I was volunteering in-* _Whatever you're about to say, don't bother, I'm not impressed by anecdotes and neither is any respectable person_ *Why the hell should I respond to your explanation of the evolution of the eye if you won't even listen to anything I'm trying to-* * * * Dawkins throws chair at Conder. Conder breaks a beer bottle over Dawkin's head who recoils before proceeding with a closed-fist spinning backhand. Conder tackles Dawkins to the wall, who is then tackled by security to the wall before Dawkins tackles all three of them to the floor. The livestream feed cuts out. It later goes viral. * * *
Anyway, both parties were pretty awesome in mannerism, but I'm especially impressed with Howard Conder.
I too would take a good imbecile over an ill-mannered intellectual. When I'm doing anything other than alluding to the truth of reality. But when reality is being studied, combed over, and/or explained, I need the intellectual to talk and the imbecile to listen.
I don't necessarily agree with Conder, but his manner was very respectful. He asked honest questions. He is a pleasant person.
But.. I understand Dawkins' frustration. I don't think Dawkins was rude or insensitive at all but asking just as honest questions and making honest points.
Dawkins is learned on what the Bible says. The same cannot be said about Conder and evolutionary science. It is hard to debate someone with absolutely no knowledge in what they are debating against. It is in some sense like debating a child.
I agree with this. Is it copyrights that made this interview cut off at the end?
"The earth is around 6,000 years old"
So... the earth was created roughly 2,000 years after beer was invented?
God got wasted af
That’s really funny 👍🏻
Daroff
mama always said most of us are here cuz someone got too drunk
Fr rho
@Christopher Koester Source? I think you are full of crap.
The main argument here goes like this...
Creationist:
I had a special supernatural experience that, while coincidental, the emotions of the moment and the circumstances converged to fill me with a special feeling which continues to make me happy to think that a deity decided to select me (and not you) for a special beam from the ceiling. A beam that channeled an "electrical force" through by body into someone else. Basically, I'm special.
Dawkings:
I'm using my intelligent brain to properly understand nature and not fool myself into thinking an illusion is real. The creationist should be able to do this too. I'm not especially different than him, but his environment has utterly tricked him by taking advantage of human ego and motions.
The creationist in this video is simply not as intelligent as Dawkings. The creationist has been fooled as a result of an insufficient understanding of whatever he thinks he experienced. That's all there is to it.
Actually it goes this way: How did intelligent life emerge from lifeless matter? Atheist: Please don't ask intelligent questions.
sylmarmusic2012 That's bullshit. Atheist says that we have a pretty damn good idea and we'll let you know in the next few years because we're very close to the answer. We already know something like 98% of the answer.
The creationist says that there is no reason to try to figure out the remaining 2% because it was magic.
I think the intelligent response is clearly not the creationist. The creationist loves the question because they can lie about having the answer.
sylmarmusic2012
What a stupid boy you are. Christians are aware of zero percent of the answer. To say that God did it is to say if a red dog had a square ass he could shit bricks. Yeah, if. We're not sure of the answer. You're sure of your delusion. That's all there is to it, boy.
sylmarmusic2012 That is ridiculous. Atheists actually want to know how it came to be instead of throwing their hands up and giving it an answer in a 3000 year old book written by a carpenter in Palestine. Just because science does not know the answer yet does not make your god true or anything he allegedly created.
Please pardon my directness here, but please make corrections to the grammar and syntax of your sentences. I would like to support your argument, but your writing style denigrates your intelligence and could stand to bring ridicule to you and those that support you. If it's a consolation, I make many errors when writing, but I always come back to correct them, for reasons of educating others for whom English is a second language, for reasons of reputation (chiefly mine, but also for those who would support me), and for reasons of credibility. After we do that, I will erase my comment and give you a thumbs-up. Thanks, Mate.
I really love this guy that is interviewing richard. He is just a sweet old guy, and even though I disagree with what he believes. He is so genuine it just gives me hope to humanity. The guy really does want us to have this after life he believes in and he doesn't care if we think that's stupid, he still offers it. That takes real strength and I can appreciate it.
I was going to write a very similar comment but then read yours and perhaps it is just easier to agree with what you said :) I would also like to add that if all Christians were like this, I would not mind them at all.
Robert Andersson Yikes.
If living to the age of 65 and being as completely clueless as he is is less important than the fact that he's a nice guy, there is no hope for humanity.
Dennis Keller I agree, that's why I think its important that we offer him the fact that we feel he is wasting his life. There are always 2 sides to each coin.
"There are always 2 sides to each coin."
Not sure what you mean here.
Dennis Keller What I mean is from an open minded perspective is, we both have valid arguments in the atheist vs religion thing. (no matter how you look at it).
side 1 (religious side): He thinks we have an eternal soul that is going to go to the worst possible place in the universe and he wants to save it by offering something as small as information.
side 2: We think he is completely wasting his time. There is no point is saving something that we don't know exists can't prove exists or doesn't exist. So we don't want him to waste his life working towards the invisible nothingness. When he could make a difference in this world and help us keep the human race alive and well. Keep us learning and finding out real answers. (you can see I am slightly biased on the atheist side, as he is towards religion ah ha)
Granted we have a lot more physical evidence and its more compelling on our side (Which is why I am not on side 1 ha ha). It doesn't really matter what side of the coin you are on. It always seems obvious on that side, because that's the only side you can actually see.
Me and you are on side 2 of the coin, sure we are angry because of the fact they treat us like "the devil" and that we are misslead/stupid, but we are kind of doing the exact same thing as them and that's the reason we have such a big issue with religion (at least that's mine).
I think the best way to persuade someone to listen to you, is to listen to them first. The only real way to change someone else's mind is if your mind is willing to change as well. This was how I became the way I am now.
This guy is really cool, because of the fact he actually is listening to the other side of the coin. Even if he isn't quite as open minded as he should be. He is genuinely listening and attempting to understand.
I think he is wasting his life and it hurts me to see such a lovely guy be so devoted to this nothingness we have all been tricked into at least once in our life, but I can at least understand him. Just because I disagree with him, doesn't make us enemies.
The patience of Dawkins could be used as a proof of a divine gift :P
entirely opposite
Kassandra Echebima Your detailed and extensive response, together with the clear and unambiguous choice of words has left me in a complete state of awe and... confusion ¬¬
very good
@@nachoijp seemed pretty straight forward to me
@@nachoijp using big words doesn't make you smarter either
Int: "Am I deluded?"
RD: "Probably, yes."
You gotta love it when he straight talks!
My kitchen countertops are older than 6000 years old.
The look on Richard's face while the interviewer is telling of his experience is a bloody beauty.
cheers
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Glad you like the video. I would prefer that rather than clicking spam on comments you disagree with, downvote the comment and or reply with your ideas. Spamming the comments only makes it harder for me to sort through the actual spam and the opposing opinions. Do not link videos, websites, or channels in the comment section unless it is to back up a claim. keep on discussing/debating and most important enjoy the video - Jack
The video title is a bit harsh. I've watched most or all of this video before and as far as I remember, the host of the show was very humble and gracious throughout and so doesn't deserve any kind of ridicule.
Jamieishere1
Jamieishere1 I agree to an extent, he is a nice guy and all but this is an intellectual debate and is to be judged in the spectrum of intelligence. like Peter Orsome said the man says some pretty idiotic things.
The Atheist Database More videos, please! :P
IconoclastZeitgeist Do not worry, i'm working on one now! I've been unactive for a while unfortunately, but that is soon to change ;)
*This is how i imagine the conversation between Adam & God went.*
*Adam.* "So you made the universe out of nothing?
*God.* "Yes"
*Adam.* "Did you make me from nothing?"
*God.* "No i used some sand."
*Adam.* "Can you make me a wife please?"
*God.* "Yes."
*Adam.* "Are you going to make her from nothing?"
*God.* "No"
*Adam.* "Oh ok, more sand usage is it?"
*God.* "No, i'm going to use one of your ribs"
*Adam.* "WTF!!"
This is far more believable than us coming from an ancestor of an animal we share 98.8% DNA with.. Right? !!!
It also depends on what chapter you read. Sometimes Eve is also made of sand....
***** Oh, Eve being made of sand too makes it much more believable !!!
No, I'm going by what the Bible says, but inn conversational form!
I'm guessing you haven't read the bible.
First God made man, or the male, out of the dust of the earth, and infused a rational soul into him; and then out of one of his ribs made a female, or woman, who was presented to him as his wife, that so their species might be propagated; and only one male and one female were created, to show that hereafter a man was to have at a time no more wives than one; see Malachi 2:15 for all that is said in the following chapter, concerning the formation of man out of the dust of the earth, and the making of woman out of his rib, and presenting her to him, and his taking her to be his wife.
You're either a complete idiot, who is too stupid to comprehend anything I have said.
Or you're a wannabe troll.
Either of those is not the sort of person I can have a conversation with.
***** That's because the Bible is a ridiculous book.
The look on Richard's face when that man was going on and on for what seemed like forever about his "electrical spirit of God" story was priceless. The dookie question took the cake though. I've never heard anyone use the, "we shit therefore evolution is false" argument. The eye is amazing...but shit? I'm not sure why Richard agreed to speak to this man and I suspect he was asking himself that very question during the interview.
The problem with the interviewer, and really with all 'creationists' who base their beliefs on scripture, is that they immediately acknowledge that they will not accept new information. The interviewer flat-out says that he HAS to believe in a young earth BECAUSE he is a Christian. In other words, his arbitrary choice of religious faiths dictates the limits of his understanding and therefore precludes him from learning anything that contradicts what he's chosen he is going to believe. Science is always trying to find better answers, investigate and seek rational theories based upon objective criteria. Relying on 'faith' to answer a complicated question is like trying to determine the chemical composition of a rock by the way it sounds.
Sadly so. Clearly religion comes in the way of human progress, regardless of whether or not God exists.
I used to be that guy. Oops
fairly good point but not so great an example : for instance, anyone can understand that, say, Mic Jagger is made by roughly 98% of LSD
Regardless of the interviewer being religious or not, I really respect him for the way he goes about treating Richard Dawkins.
I agree. The title of the video clip is totally misleading. These two gentlemen were having a civilised discussion. Neither were interested in crushing his opponent in argument but rather to expand and explain his position.
The interviewer's story was basically a story about creationists discovering static electricity exists.
What a nice creationist :)
i like how the whole dispute goes very nicely and gently
What a stupid creationist.
@@emilengen7825 bruh
Best moment: 36:39 "Am I deluded?" "Probably, yes."
I appreciate the eloquence of both men.
Its refreshing to listen to a peaceful exchange! :p
*****
I've got to say I don't care whether people are being civil. I want an all out fight. See who is left standing :)
This guy seems is so relaxed and friendly, but then so is Richard Dawkins. He got gently owned.
He is only relaxed and friendly because he is comfortable in his ignorance and will defend that ignorance to his dying breath.
David Manhart
Well you can't blame him for being brainwashed. If he was completely confident about religion he wouldn't have a show where he is trying to prove it to himself.
I like when this guy called Richard Dawkins "one of the worlds leading atheists". As if not believing in peoples magical claims of supernatural beings requires a leader. It would have been more clear if he had said "one of the worlds foremost rational thinkers".
And implying that everybody else who believes in a god are unrational thinkers? not a smart move I reckon..
Edit: would be the truth though ;)
Joey b* irrational
Thanks mate, not my native language. Learn something everyday :)
One good false implication deserves a rational implication in response I guess. ;)
Good point
This interview highlights how people can be misguided yet not necessarily evil. A lovely man through and through.
It's actually quite an interesting interview, not for what Dawkins says, but the interviewer is honest enough to try and explain why he struggles to accept Dawkins answers. It's very easy to see the "wall" that his faith creates and his inability to get passed it regardless of logic, reason and factuall knowledge.
Did you see Dawkins face when he heard the question about “leaking”. He was just thinking what the hell i am doing with that moron”
A calm, patient, civilized creationist discussing religion with Richard Dawkins... on RUclips. ...I think someone just broke the Internet.
This interview was a breath of fresh air compared to most of the religious/atheist debates I've come across. It makes me want to learn more about people's accounts of spiritual experiences: to better understand and respect their position, instead of reinforcing the impression that religious beliefs are just a symptom of irrational resistance to knowledge.
The introductory statement from the host was surprisingly open minded and very humble. Must be a "British Gentleman" thing.
It's embarassing to see how a nice old guy can be that ignorant and foolish. Dawkins showed an incredible patience. He must have felt compassion for his interviewer.
What patience?
@@alfredtinker6928 ....well, he didn't hit him with a whip, did he
...the only embarrassing thing here is your comment : this nice old guy is most certainly not ignorant or foolish. Unless you are unaware of the meaning of ignorance (...which btw would make you ignorant). This nice old guy CHOSE to believe in something ("in Jesus", as he put it). Maybe he's deluded. Maybe you can call him an asshole for doing so. But it's unfair to call him "ignorant".
On another footnote, why on earth should Dawkins "be patient" with him? He didn't argue against evolution or science or whatnot - he simply explained why he BELIEVES in "creation by a supreme being". I'm an agnostic myself and I more or less am of the opinion that IF there's some kind of creator, he/she/it couldn't care less about humans the way humans hope for - so I'm not supportive of creationists, but I can understand the difference between ignorance and choice (even a lame choice).
It's like watching a lion sensitively taking a gazelle apart
Interviewer, nice guy but ignorant. My toes curled up with embarrassment for him. RD was his usual polite self and could have destroyed the interviewer but refrained from doing so. Instead Richard's logic owned the interviewer.
Poor Mr. Dawkins. He had a great power of will sitting through this.
Lmao. The look on Dawkins face when the guy explained how an electrical charge ran down his body. Priceless.
Richard is a hero for Education. Education has always been oppressed by mystics. Too bad that Religionist are the Rulers of the World. They are the Lawmakers, the Politicians and most horrifically our school Teachers in our formative years. The more I understand the bible, the further I drifted from it and embraced evolution. Seriously.
Religion has only recently been the oppressors of knowledge. Many examples of certain religions suppressing science have been deeply skewed and the religious authorities in question misrepresented. A good example of this is what happened to Gallileo.
Gallileo was imprisoned for teaching a heliocentric view of the universe. We now know he was (almost) right in that the Earth does orbit the Sun. He was jailed for his teachings by the Church but most people assume he was jailed for the wrong reason. The REAL reason he was jailed was not because the heliocentric model went against the Bible but because he had no proof that what he said was true, yet continued to teach the heliocentric model simply because he presumed it was right or better. At the time, astronomers did not have good enough equipment or detailed enough observations to back this up. Had he had proof, the Church would have gladly corrected itself. He had no proof. This, however, was not the entire reason he was jailed. He was mostly jailed because, in addition to teaching science that was not proven, he also spoke out against the Church and said the Pope was a false pope.
The whole "Its not in the Bible so its not true" movement is a very recent thing. In fact, the theory of Evolution was initially embraced by the Catholic Church as proof of God's divine plan... This viewpoint was redacted at the advisement of a church official who believed it would be best to separate science from religion.
***** I'm not arguing with you, but would you happen to have a source for that part about the church initially embracing evolution? I'd just like to read about it and have a source to give others.
iREPda609
funny that you would mention that. monastery had often been the very center of learning and knowlage when all others turned into oblivion.
The monks studied medicine and plants, to bether understand the world that God had given them.
Some people belived that math was the way of God. (some did belive it was satansism to....)
***** Sooo....I guess you forgot about the countless atheists that were burnt at the stake for supporting the idea that the Earth orbits the sun?
You cannot defend religion and be right.
Metholus Caedes "to better understand the world that God had given them."
As they were doing such, with the idea of "God" in their minds, they were not able to ACTUALLY learn about the world around them; rather they gained the ability to jam some knowledge they found into the skeletal structure of their religious beliefs. They were not scientists, rather they were curious monks who probably needed some a reassurance they could find in the real world to attempt to support their ridiculous, insane Biblical claims.
We are past the point of discovering simple science that we can simply meld into religion and say they both work. Numerous discoveries within recent decades have no way to fit in with religion, due to direct observation of the universe disproving every claim thus far religion has challenged science with.
Science will always work because it is right. Religion will only work when you gather enough of the uneducated to be spoon-fed its bullshit.
Debating evolution with creationist is the same as debating astrophysics with astrologist.
Ričardas Marozas I think i've heard that quote before, it sure is true :)
*Scrolls down to comment section* well this should be good
"How do you explain that? Was I deluded?"
"Probably, yes."
LoL.
25:25 i've almost pissed myself from laughter...
Ikr? That was one of those rare moments where simple /facepalm just doesn't cut it.
***** Did you really just delete your comment? Really?
anik558 Winning an Atheist Vs Religion debate is easy..
...Be the Atheist.
***** Bring on your arguments for a god.. Bring your best.. Ill take your best, rip it up, & shit it out.
Ive never lost a debate. ever.
***** Nice one. & may i be the first to thank you, i like people that do my job for me.
You admit that it is just a story.
Thanks again.
***** What are you using to enforce that its a true story?
The Bible? Oh because in a library Religious books are never in the Non Fiction section. They arent considered fact.
I happily await your evidence that its a true story, you're not the type of person that just believes any old bullshit you're told right?
So i imagine you have loads of evidence for a god.. right?
Wrong, the bible is not an historical document.
You dont need to put forth any evidence because you dont have any.. oh ok. thanks then.
The universe & everything in it including you was made by magic monkeys with special magic dust. this is true because its written in a book. I dont need to give any evidence cos is just true. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Well that's how you sound.
You dont know enough about your religion to even debate me properly.
Please dont reply to me.
If that's not clear then google "dont reply".
Only retarded people reply after being asked not to.
I AM DONE..
.. & I HAVE WON.
The title is rude and misleading. Neither man convinced the other, so there was no ownage- unless you agree with any one of them- in which case the ownage took place in your mind.
With that said, I did like the debate. Thank you for posting it. Consider renaming it with a more neutral title.
desi srbine
These debates are not there to convince the debaters, they are made to convince the viewers. In that regard, Dawkins absolutely owned the arguments.
Sadly, most videos with Dawkins have exaggerated titles.
How can you say it is rude and misleading? In each case where Conder tries to parrot old Creationist yarn on the shortcomings of evolution, Dawkins adequately addresses them. Conder’s demeanor is apologetic right from the get go as he essentially states that he isn’t intellectual enough to handle the questions that he knows are going to come up. Then when Dawkin’s redirects him to a point he conveniently ignores, Conder goes on a rant about how he received the spirit despite his rigid English upbringing.
It is an embarrassing performance for Conder when one views this exchange in the context of two people discussing the origins of life. On the one hand Conder claims to be unimpressed by Dawkins’ explanation of the eye, yet he is perfectly happy to “witness” away with a revisionist narrative that is painful to listen to.
Dawkins’ victory in this exchange comes from the fact that the never shies away from Conder’s predictable line of questioning and also because he rather easily nudges Conder into a corner that Conder moves toward himself right at the start of this “interview”.
yea its rude, but its not very misleading at all. the creationist dude just rambles on about his experiences with electric powers.
What an impressive interviewer. Fair and refreshing.
Richard Dawkins is a hero. He will fight for the truth until his last breath, as Christopher Hitchens did. I hope (at least) after some decades people will recognize the great work these men do.
this is a great interview both sides treating each other with respect and dignity, this is what argument between atheists and Christians.
I agree, this was enjoyable to watch, although it should have been entitled "When an unstoppable force meets and immovable move".
I love how God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, yet in the Garden of Eden just after they eat the fruit, God is walking through and he calls out "Where are you?", and then he says "Who told you that you were naked?, and "Did you eat the fruit that I told you not to eat?".
Why is God asking these questions? He already knows, and why couldn't he see Adam in the Garden? Seriously wtf?
also if he is meant to be all knowing then he should have allready known that adam and eve would have eaten the fruit.
fullmoonwolf95
In the way I see it, its the best and only option.
im not a bible believing christian, but i used to be. how i always thought of it, he wasn't asking because he didnt know the answer, he asked it, to judge their responses or to add to their "shaming". like saying "did you poop on the floor? BAD DOG!"
yes but you don't know the dog has pooped on the floor untill you see the poop and the dog hiding in its bed. if yoiu knew the dog would poop there before it poops then let the damn dog out
Shoopypit Well maybe, but it doesn't answer why God couldn't find Adam, considering he is omnipresent... EVERYWHERE. And of course omniscient so he already knows where Adam is.
Also its funny how God just watched Eve get tempted by the snake, and then watched him eat the fruit, and then watched Adam eat the fruit... And they didn't even know what they were doing was wrong/disobedient UNTIL they ate the fruit...
What a great debate. No insulting of each other and simply talking and sharing their views. People need to learn no matter how much you share "proof" for you side of evolution or creation the opposite side will rarley come to believe the opposite. People will remain in the area they feel comfortable and believe in.
the look on Dawkins face at 31:50. Priceless
That's the look Dawkins often gets when someone says something so ignorant to him.
He has another face when he was talking to Bill O'Reily and Dawkins just looked stunned by Bill's stupidity. XD
Debating creationists is already giving them too much credit.
Up until recently I would have disagreed, but after watching this video, and the video with Ham and Bill Nye.
How can you debate someone who wont let anything, such as any fact, evidence, observation, or reason, influence their beliefs.
Quite simply, I do not think you can.
What ever happened to accepting new ideas? How much of a bigot can you be to claim you know everything? Obvious no one can know everything!
EXPLOSIVEEGG
"How much of a bigot can you be to claim you know everything?" This is what creationists do, they claim to have the answer. (real) scientists/atheists only believe in what evidence they have, until then the best answer one can give is "we don't know yet", not "a God for which there is no evidence for did it".
The creationist who debated Bill Nye did so with class and restraint, but it was no less mis-guided and deluded. Bill Nye demonstrated that a rational thinking Atheist's views will change when they are shown evidence to support a new theory, the creationist (I forget his name) proved that his views will not change, no matter what evidence he is shown.
That alone is pretty much why it is a complete waste of time to debate a creationist, because you could literally prove them wrong with evidence and they still won't accept it.
Darwin's first requirement for natural selection is to have diversity in the individual species. This conversation is an excellent example of the vast diversity of neurological functioning within the human species.
bingo.
It's so nice to hear gentlemen speaking educationally about things. I guess it is a British thing.
dawkins is too smart for this man lol
stan gore instead of just posting that everywhere, why don't you tell us why he is so stupid....
stan gore the fact that you state that Dawkins is dumb makes you a complete
farce with no place in the real world,Dawkins is one of the smartest , well spoken geneticists in the world,, dismissing him is just the way of completely deluded people to carry on their Fairy tale beliefs
- Jesus Christ was not ignorant.
- Well...
What Richard meant is that Jesus was ignorant *about science*, specifically. He was not meaning to insult Jesus, but rather he intended to specify that Jesus didn't live in an environment that would involve him in (or allow understanding for) proper scientific research. Unfortunately the creationist didn't understand that, and immediately went on to defend Jesus by specifying that "Jesus is not ignorant".
Chase twohundredmph liar liarliar Ben Barkay Guys I was just quoting... Richard's "well..." reaction was priceless. Of course Jesus (if he ever existed) must have been extremely ignorant. Nobody knew anything at all back then, especially in that area.
An example of a theist and an atheist talking past each other. If Jesus was divine, then he was not ignorant. If Jesus was not divine, then he was as ignorant as any other 1st century peasant. Divinity is the real question.
TheTalinus Or he could have been one of the X-Men, chances are about the same (though I'm not sure how this would have affected his ignorance).
reezlaw My comment was not aimed towards you in specific, but to the other readers in general. It just appeared like a good spot to make this clarification to others who may have misunderstood Richard's exact point in the claim :)
I would like to see the rest of the interview...
Interviewer: "Am I Deluded?"
Dawkins: "Probably, yes."
Fucking had me in tears laughing.
I'm amazed at the friendliness in this debate. Normally Dawkins debates are increasingly hostile.
If you were scientifically brilliant and talking to intellectual midgets, you'd be hostile as well. :P
Dawkins isn't hostile at all, he sepaks clearly and people don't like it, the common folk prefers vague definitions that allow them to intepret it however they want
I didn't mean Dawkins was hostile, just his debates, normally the opposition.
Oh, well in his documental "The root of all evil" most of the people interviewed were polite, even one or two muslims. But yes many are rude to him, but he doesn't out him self at their level.
"It's a simple question because I'm a simple man" No......Shit......
This is a perfect example of creationist fingers in ears "LA LA I'm Not Listening".
Now that I have finished this interview my forehead is now dented in from all the facepalms on the behalf of the sheer ignorance of the interviewer. It's so funny that I began the video laughing at him and by the end of the video I was literally in tears because I feel so sad about the fact that this man may very well go from birth to death believing something that is so irrefutably incorrect it is astounding. Very sad.
still, I find him very polite and humble to accept his intellect inferiority to Dawkins and he definitely was much better than various other religious hard heads Dawkins have come across.
where's the sad part? he believes this stuff (mainly because he WANTS to believe it, probably), and he's happy with it. good for him, i'd say. what's so great about the truth?
iseeicyicetea You all should youtube some videos on what Ravi Zacharias has said in response to Richard Dawkins. I don't know why the two of them have never publicly debated each other, but they should.
iseeicyicetea "what's so great about the truth?" Are you kidding me? Don't wash your hands, don't go to the doctor, stop watching tv, youtube and surfing the net. All of those things came out of science and truth...
JayPixx77 obviously hasn't heard of kosher laws.
The title really says the most important thing... "discusses". Not debate, not argue, not bash each other in the face. A Discussion. How Refreshing!
Was a good discussion until 25:24 when he asked ''How do I take a leak if I have to wait million years to do that?''
The look on Richards face 25:32 priceless
Hello
They was leaking, but not the evolved way as we are leaking, thats obviosly, isen't it ?
+Dan X Are you afraid of science? Don't you think its amazing we could visit other planets in the future? Why is it bad to cure cancer, aids etc?
Is it bad to have internet so you can talk to the entire world? Science isn't constantly trying to find evidence for god. The people that try to make science fit in there religion are.
But leading mass amounts of people to believe they must follow magical trails doesn't help it. It only leads them to paths where they are more easily manipulated.
Dan X I think there is more etic and morale in secular Laws, like animal protection, womans rights, no Capital punishment, ect.ect. no stoning, no hand cutting, no sodoma and Gomorra,
31:51 The funniest expression ever. lol
"How would you describe this? Am I deluded?"
"Probably, yes."
Died.
Tactful as always, Richard haha
Dawkins is hilarious. Love him. I wish him a speedy recovery too.
They are so civil and polite with each other. It is wonderful to see two gentlemen trying to have a civil conversation even if they stand on opposite sides of the topic of discussion.
I agree...
After watching this, I suppose we have to come to the realization that some people are beyond understanding. If you don't want to know, you never will. Loved the decent, no yelling conversation. It's cool that Richard sits for these kind of things, and attempts to explain.
How Richard Dawkins sat there all that time with a straight face and the patience of a saint (pun intended) while this silly man prattled on is what's amazing. What a fool.
While Dawkin's eye argument is true, I prefer the vermiform appendix argument. As a vestigial organ with no impact other than to occasionally get infected and cause pain and the need for removal or death, it appears to be a significant design flaw in humans (that is, if you believe in creationism rather than the fact that it is a vestigial organ with a lost purpose). A skilled and omniscient designer would never put such a flaw in his greatest creation, thus the existence of this organ demonstrates that god is either non-existent, sadistic (creating a painful and pointless design flaw in a sentient creation) or a piss-poor designer (and not perfect).
His very lengthy description of how the human eye came to be was not an argument against creative design; the original question was literally asking how a complex eye came to be.
Gradual advancements based upon natural selection winnowing out the less effective adaptations and letting the more effective have a higher chance to reproduce--after generations of this, the eye gradually developed form a simple light sensor, to a motion sensor, to a complex sensory input.
The Progressive Cynic - Regarding your opinion on the Appendix being a wasteful organ and therefore couldn't be evidence of a intelligent Designer. You might want to check out this article. "WEB MD Health News - Jennifer Warner. Oct. 12, 2007 -- The lowly appendix may have a purpose after all. New research suggests that the seemingly useless organ provides a safe haven for good bacteria to hang out in the gut. Although the study stops short of providing direct proof of this proposed purpose for the appendix, researchers say there's a strong case to be made for the appendix based on new information about the role of bacteria in intestinal health. The abundance of circumstantial evidence makes a strong case for the role of the appendix as a place where the good bacteria can live safe and undisturbed until they are needed," researcher William Parker, PhD, assistant professor of experimental surgery at Duke University Medical Center, says in a news release."
You know what else is a design flaw? The fact that we even have to shit or piss. Or the fact that we need to eat (not to mention we have to eat each other to live). I mean, christians claim to have an all powerful omniscient god and this is the best he can come up with? Fucking nail in the coffin.
Scott Williams
Keywords: "Suggest", "may have", "stops short of providing direct proof"
Interesting to note, but it's not quite proof yet.
Besides, if the organ is constantly getting infected and has caused many deaths simply by preforming it's, perhaps, intended function, then it's not an optimal design.
Kind of like the airway and food intake rout being the same damn hole. If it's design, then it's simply atrocious. God wouldn't get through engineering school with that kind of shoddy design.
The patience and restraint shown by Dawkins for the last 10 minutes is nothing short of phenomenal...
Dawkins spends 12 minutes talking about the eye, explaining how a complex organ can develop incrementally over millions of years, and then the guy asks essentially the same question about a different organ *facepalm*
This is a much, MUCH better debate then you would be likely see here on TV in the US. There is actually more listening than yelling.
That's a very good point. In the US what we see on the largest cable news network are stories about people smelling Jesus, seeing him in their toast in the morning and something about a war on Christmas.
I have bad news for them.
The war on Christmas has been waged and won long ago.... The toy and jewerly industries won.
I guess the shamefull part would be that until this year .. it was just the "opinion" talking heads that stupped this low with their books. Now we have a person that almost just yesterday that was an old man's heartbeat away from being President.
As for the first point.
That's the problem with discussing things with people that have made a choice to believe in fantacy. Sir Richard has spoken about a rule he has about talking with creationists .. I'm happy he breaks this rule here and there. :) It's fun to watch and educational.
May Big Tea Pot and Little Tea Pot bless you and have a great day!
i want a secular, intelligent and strong america... without this military industrial complex and the debt based money beeing printed (in god we trust :D) and flooded into healthy economies... making them allies and sick.
america is sick... people need to stand up and fight this mess.
"I didn't have to intellectualize my belief in god" lol
Very few of us are knowledgeable enough to truly understand the process by which the universe came into being, or even the exact biology of evolution. Thankfully, many are smart enough to understand that claiming "God did it" is a way, not only of refusing true knowledge, but ending any efforts at learning or a grasp of the facts. Humans with imagination and curiosity are comfortable with the unknown and thereby leave a path to learning. That path is paved by scientific thought. Listen to the discussion....most 9 year olds have a better imagination than this poor man.
I have to say, A very very nice discussion. Those two show that you do not have to fight and put words in someones mouth to argue this topic. well played both of them.
25:27 Man I've been waiting millions of years for this shit!
Tyndale Isreal I searched all of your sources, and all I was able to find are creationist websites. Is there any way that I could get you to provide some kind of links to the original source material?
Tyndale Isreal What the HELL is your point? God! I made a freaking joke in a small comment which you probably didn't even go to the correct time to learn the context and realize that it was HILARIOUS! :P It sounds like you're trying to say that NOBODY knows how old the earth is? If THAT is your point, then obviously it is not 5000 years old! Try making a bit more of your own comment instead of citing 3 other comments that are unrelated and unclear.
Translation:
"Scientists, like all humans, occasionally make mistakes which are corrected by others. This makes science impossible."
No! That is one of science's core values! Because every theory presented is peer reviewed by other scientists-depending on the theory it could be reviewed by thousands of other scientists, upon which a consensus is reached as to whether to theory is valid or if somebody has successfully disproven it then it is discarded along with the millions of other species that have lived on this earth. It is pretty easy to disprove many theories and nobody ever hears from them again. However, evolution has withstood scientific scrutiny for over 150 years and has been reviewed by thousands of scientists without being disproven so therefore a consensus has been reached that it is a fact.
Jim Lawton Well thousands of scientists agreed the world was flat at one time, that the earth was millions then a billion, now 5 billion yrs old. So it doesnt mean its fact! Science means proof from observation! Not majority of minds! So we all came from nothing that exploded into everything, and is expanding into more nothingness. We and our thoughts and everything we know is a result of star dust! If this doesnt rase eyebrows to evelutions silly magical start, then continue your fairytale beliefs. Tinker Bell also uses star dust. Because evolution cant be disproven doest mean its correct, acording to science you should prove it exists, and for 150 yrs, and with all our science breakthroughs you still cant. Oh and according to your logic for 4 thousand yrs you couldn't disprove gods existance there for its a fact god does exist! So maybe just maybe your wrong.
27:36 - The creationist really doesn't want to answer this question and it probably is one of the toughest questions for any religious person to answer.
Why do you chose to believe a book written 1000's of years ago by someone who cannot be confirmed rather than what the human kind as a collective knows today? That's the one question that they can't answer with some bullshit quote from the bible.
Well I'm a Muslim and there is a simple answer I would give about my holy book.
If you can recognize that the words are God's words then that is more reliable. Science is not always the truth and that is a fact, 100 years ago we believed that the sun was stationary.
CuriousFear
You didn't answer.. Why do you chose to believe that the truth is what's written in a book more than 1000 years old?
c0der1020 Because I have reason to believe that the book is sacred and out of human proportions and I can debate with you on that, but that's not the point here.
And what would that reason be? That's my whole point. You just dodged the question in a new way..
+c0der1020 The reason (at least for me) is because the bible is both historically and scientifically accurate. It mentions real kings and real historic places and even historic events, such as the fall of Babylon. Then you compare what it states as facts and what other cultures in those times based as facts:
1. The bible states the earth is round, whereas many believed it was flat.
2. It says the earth is "suspended over nothing", unlike many religions, one of which thought that it was held up by a turtle.
Then there's the prophecies but tbh this is a RUclips comment section, not a debate forum so I'll stop there😂
This gentleman (not Dawkins) has his brain encased in a club foot. "I hear what you're saying, but this is what I believe." He clearly completely ignores any evidence provided because it goes against his beliefs.
This is no way to live. I have my own beliefs, but they change every 5-10 years as life experience and more education tells me otherwise.
Going through your life purely based on a belief system is like driving and only being able to see out the front of your car. That is where you're going, don't you dare look the other way, for you might find other roads that interest you.
Thank you for this, I'm just leaving Christianity because I'm just starting to question things. This really helps.
You should check out Christopher Hitchens
Thank you for the recommendation. I've read that Christopher Hitchens is very inflammatory in discussing the subject. I want to keep away from that type of view but I'll check him out.
Same here man. What's your reasons for leaving if you don't mind me asking? :)
Just having an experience with corrupted ministers in church. Homophobia, and using the Bible for whatever purpose needs to be realized at the time.
Also I didn't experience any changes in my life. I wasn't happy at all man.. I used to wish I wasn't "saved" as they say just to be free of the burden that Christians says you must endure. Pick up your cross and follow him etc.
My pastor used to preach about adam and steve, and mens beards rubbing together, it's not right. misogynistic at times. Just a whole bunch of manipulative stuff. Maybe I'll write a book.
It's a hard thing to come out of. I feel lied to and foolish for believing in all the stuff for so long. Most of my friends "Christians" are not really there anymore or think I've lost my way. Sad. It's sad what religion can do.
I'm so sorry to hear about all that bro :( This is the problem with christianity. They pick and choose the scriptures they want to live by. I myself am bisexual and I would not dare to tell any of my family members all because of this religious indoctrination that being gay or bisexual is 'from the devil'. The problem with christians is that they are so indoctrinated they just do not see how nasty they can come across.
There is no christian or muslim god. They are made up, and the fact that me and you have found this out so early, is a blessing to be honest.
I believe that in your case and mine, things WILL get better. What type of denomination did you come from?
How, how, how is Dawkins still awake at the end of this vid? Now I understand why some christians get nailed to crosses.
I would like to nail some christians…..girls…….if you know what I mean wink wink.
Why did it stop mid sentence??? Is there a part 2????
Regardless a faith this man had an experience that many call a godly experience, and that's like the main thing that keeps them believing, it is that undeniably overwhelming feeling, that many have... unexplainable for me, but just because I can't explain ,doesn't mean I'm going to fill the gap with god.
When we look in to how everything has evolved, from molecules to humanbeings, and within the human nervous system and all the things which are so remarkeable but now have been explained. Surely science would be able to explain the lighting bold(or whatever nonscence) coming out of his back.
Mate, you cannot flip this argument. There is no way of proofing it, for f sakes, blue light, 6000 years old earth, man in the sky, walking on water. DAMN!
wow amazing comment lol :) I was also introduced to Christianity as a child Methodist/ Baptist/Jehovah's witness you name it. I think people have their own reasons for believing or not believing. I can say with confidence the god of any book is fiction never the less that isn't to say the same for a god in general. their are ways to dismiss any holy book because they all deal with history and prophecies that never come true. on the other hand without the book their is no way to prove or disprove of a god or some deity or higher being. ME i'm just thankful to nature for us humans being as smart as we are and at the end of the day i'm just happy to be living.
cameron lavergne
as you should. THAT is the right attitude. I reckon the main reason for bitching on religion is in the early days scientists where pretty much condemned by the church so their "truth" would prevail. One of the main reasons I like my home country(holland) since it was a free haven for people who had other thoughts on the existance of everything that would oppose the church (or religion for that matter)
Entire conversation was too good and engaged me from start to end. I really forget to blink my eyes. I am also learning astrology from past one and half year. Prof. Hariharan's astrology books helped me a lot.
Wow, that presenter was REALLY simplistic. The same uneducated responses and appeals to emotion we always see.
"I'm a simple man." "I don't really know." "I'm not as intelligent as you." Oh come on! I hate this kind of rhetoric tricks. Dishonest and proving the weakness of one's position.
I really struggle to understand how any adult human with even a basic level of intelligence can believe in any kind of God or this Creationist nonsense.
this is exactly how a discussion between a creationist and an evolutionist should go. Very respectful
Dawkins kind of sounds like Stewy Griffin.
Shouldn't christians be happy when family members die? Or even look forward to it?
as I once heard a priest say at a funeral..."our faith says that he's with God but this is a truly awful thing. Its a confusing time because we believe, as a good man, he is at peace but that doesn't make it any easier to deal with today
But they'd be in paradise. Wouldn't that override a desire to keep them, hell, wouldn't that prompt loved ones to throw themselves in harms way, for a good cause, in order to join them sooner? O.o
Edward Ferguson Actually, the Bible is pretty clear about having to believe without doubt, as it says in a few places that you're pretty much screwed if you doubt at all. For example:
James 1:6,7 - But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
Romans 14:23 - But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Matthew 22:37 - Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
So, as for the first statement, that "that level devotion is rarely seen outside of terrorist level Muslim believers", if that is the case, then you're not Christian according to your own Bible, or, in the very least, your belief is for naught. Secondly, if you have doubts, or do not 100% believe, you should investigate why you have them, there is likely something to why, as logic is a good friend of the human mind, and if something is illogical,you'll catch it subconsciously, and it's either due to a lack of understanding, or said thing being illogical. I've found the latter to be true in the case of religion for me, and I like to help people find a strong footing in science if I can, so feel free to ask some questions, if you like ^.^
I guess I didn't mention it clearly, I am somewhere between atheist and agnostic depending on the conversation. But I am saying from my experience growing up in a very Christian household, that the reason that they don't "look forward" to their friends dying is even if they are "in heaven", they still miss them here on earth .
Please remove the word 'OWNS'. It's detrimental to those who want to make a reasonable case against creationists. It is never about humiliating people...
This is how a discussion should be, bo yelling no cursing, just common sense and understanding towards each other!
The fact that the creationist in this video thinks that scientists ever believed that we had bladders before we had a way of emptying them, that we were already human before we had reproductive organs, shows that he lacks even a basic understanding of evolution.
How else could he ask such a spectacularly stupid question?!
To me it shows a complete lack of logic.
So, how did reproductive systems evolve? Did the male and female evolve at the same time?
Im making a new series were I debunk various claims by creationists and anti-scientists! I will upload every few days ~ Jack
Geliefde Liefde Hello Geliefde Liefde, rather than making a whole video on this, I will lead you to a small article on the subject by MIT. Obviously a reputable source.
web.mit.edu/kardar/www/teaching/projects/dna_packing_website/entropy.html
If you have any questions, make sure to _research_ your question and look for *sources*.
Geliefde Liefde you didn't even read the link answering your question. haha you just close your ears and scream the same question that has been answered many times already.
Geliefde Liefde haha, yea I bet (*sarcasm*) If you really knew what evolution says you wouldn't call yourself a former evolution*ist*, just like I am not a special and general theory of relativity*ist* or a germ*ist*. Can you please explain what you think evolution by natural selection actually is.
Geliefde Liefde It is the fact that a population's genetics is plastic to the environment because reproductive success is correlated to varieties. Because of this *fact* , we know that dynamic environments will produce a dynamic gene pool. This also includes migrating to new environments and such. I would like you to define what new "information" means, if it means that "new" genes are "new" information then any type of mutation would be considered new information. This is because a mutation (any type: Substitution, insertion, deletion, frameshift) changes the codons thus changing the amino acids in proteins. Many of these are neutral to reproductive success, some are negative and others are positive.
Geliefde Liefde Looks like I should make a full video on this topic if this is so difficult to understand lol
Richard's face at 31:25, 31:51, and 34:10. LOL
his face during that whole spirit anecdote is hilarious
Ofcourse Richard owns... because he's right!
He "owns" because he won't debate anyone who actually knows what he is talking about. No offense to the interviewer.
Argotha ruclips.net/video/1P-929oSyjk/видео.html
I guarantee Matt Dillahunty would destroy any Christian apologist you can name in a debated. He’s debated multiple Christians who “knew what they were talking about.”
I have issues with someone who stands to debate someone on a specific issue using their book as reference for materials to argue against yet openly states they havent even read it or considered the arguments made in it. Proclaiming ignorance before a discussion even starts automatically states you arent even going to listen to whats being said since like Hitchens said and many others... "You have assumed the answer before asking the question."
These are the religious people I love. They are completely respectful of atheists, and understand that everyone can have differing opinions.
Why would god make that Creationist dyslexic and also make his only communication with humanity in the form of a book?!
I don't get how someone can ask someone like Richard Dawkings to come down and talk to them, just so they can pretty much let him talk and finally say "Meh, don't care, got Jesus". At least listen to the points he makes before starting some fairytale story about how he felt electricity flow down his back or a story about concrete slabs. To me, this sums up the ignorance of the world, which just makes me sad.
And that in itself is a good thing, though it doesn't make it okay. Even a non-intellectual person can acknowledge that they are wrong about something can they not?
I agree but I also think he was pretty genuine and did his best. It was a very peaceful debate and that makes me happy tbh
I remember clips from this debate. I don't think i'll stay and watch it, it's cringe worthy. It's embarrassing watching this creationist. I doubt he has read many arguments against his position.
God is so amazing, these debates are really nourishing.
Whilst they argue their points and what not, both give glory to God in their views of how amazing life is...
The definition my eyes can view at, and at the rate of which they process the images... WOW!!
The wiser creationists? now there's an oxymoron.
The guy just comes off as extremely uneducated and close minded. You have to feel kinda bad for him.
My astonishment by his stupidity disables me to feel any sympathy.
"Revelation TV".. That's such a funny name! Hey, old man, be sure to tell us when the" revelation" happens.. so we don't miss it..! (But anyway, what's a serious scientist like Dawkins doing on such a nut-case TV channel?)
Becouse the "nutcases" don't watch documentaries or discussions with him on it because they already know there right so why bother thinking about it. Secondly rational television programs invite religious people onto telavison to try and get a second point of view so I think its excellent that he has come to discuss this on thier own channel, right at the heart of those who really need to hear it.
Leading other nut cases on.
I am so impressed that Richard was able to sit quietly through those stories ! ! ! The man of steel, SUPERHUMAN powers of eyelid control...
I fell right asleep when he went on from the electric bolts in his back.
But let him finish! 👉🏻
This guy's a simple fellow. But he knows it. He's kind and humble and respectful of Dawkins. (Dawkins, though arrogant at times, is ALSO very respectful and kind, so I'm not picking).
What's sad is this. How mean all the people are in these comments. This man is clearly wrong about evolution. He doesn't grasp it, and maybe even can't. But it's hard to watch this and not come away knowing he is gentle. All the atheists here love to sit and act like Christians are a bunch of horrible bigots, while insulting and ridiculing this man. (It's fine to ridicule his ideas. But not the man.)
Maybe just maybe, a lot of people are assholes. Christians and atheists. Christians aren't automatically bad people. Even if you disagree with them
Would it not be better to spend our time trying to understand the nature of the physical Universe rather than putting all this energy in to disagreeing?
In a lot of ways, our ability to understand nature is vastly inhibited by the constant counter-effort of these particular ideologies.
We raise our children from a young age, to attend school. In fact, the first 18 years of their lives are used for mandatory schooling and education. Without this education, our future would be very damaged from a scientific/mathematical/societal/economical standpoint. These ideologies are similar to a person who has somehow missed a vital part of education.
This "un-education" is damaging to our future in respects to not providing the proper foundation for our global community to advance. The efforts here in "disagreeing" are actually efforts to educate our community in order to provide a foundation for success where one may otherwise be lacking.
So in many ways, no - it is not better to put this effort into understanding the universe around us. This is for the simple reason that in order to understand such a complex system, it takes generations of research and study, so we need to maintain the integrity of the knowledge that we will leave behind to the next generations. If we don't do this, we end up losing precious time.
No it wouldnt. lol.
*****
I think you are missing the point by starting to talk about education.
BountyFlamor on the contrary, I am addressing the point directly with information which responds to the content of the question in a logical manner. The point of the question was "would it not be better to spend time trying to understand the nature of the physical universe [rather than arguing against religious people who disagree with modern science]"
To this question i responded "no", thus answering the question asked. Then I clarified my point with mention of how the interference of widespread ignorance regarding science in the modern day is detrimental to the development of the future of science research thus holding it back from what it could become; cures, understanding of physics, manipulation of biochemistry to remedy negative defects in the body, etc etc.
To channel my message so you can better understand my point, Flamor, I should say only this: It is up to future generations to research and make the world flourish - would it not be better to have a widespread acceptance of fact, and a more scientific approach to refining theories into laws? would this not make the pursuit of knowledge much easier?
The simple answer is yes, and we can only have this if at this moment we debate; not simply to disagree, but to make viewers of the debate understand. To help spread knowledge to places that are otherwise hidden from it.
Religion is preventing scientific pursuit - this is a fact. Ignoring this fact won't make it go away.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, why don’t you work 24/7 instead of wasting your time on RUclips, honestly the stupidity of people
I wonder about that believer's IQ: perhaps around 90?
I feel sorry for Dawkins having to bear that feeble-minded...
Robert Nilsson
it seems to me that what is appealing in religions, for average people (for whom emotions are predominant), is that they continue the role of the parents, who "create", protect, guide and judge the young human, (our childhood being the longest among living beings)
This point profits to (and is therefore encouraged by) religious (or political) manipulators who know that reverting adults to children also makes them more dependant and submissive.
Islam is officially the religion of the submitted!!!
IQ of 90 is within standart deprivation.. also people who brag about iq (or any other way insulting others based on it) are losers.
Hakan Karaağaç
donc, si je comprends bien ta profondeur (de croyant vexé de voir qu'on a détécté son infantilisme!!!!), les psychologues qui évaluent des QI sont des loosers?
Le croyant EST UN LOOSER: tu accuses les autres d'être ce que tu es...
nidieu nimaitre i am an atheist, i never really said i was a believer , i was merely stating a flaw i speculated. Nevertheless pleasure talking to you
Hakan Karaağaç
I do sincerely think that, to believe in a merciful god that produces earthquakes and plagues where innocent people suffer, and leaves this world be as it is, one must have at least part of one's mind in a sore state!
I call that being childish and refusing to grow up and being stupid.
as an atheist İ LOVE THIS GUY, HOWARD CONDER, we like you, so gentle, calming, genuine, sweet looking old man that anyone can confuse for being their grandpa. lovely, i dont understand why people think down of this man, he seems to be great, also love the channel
This was great stuff and a simple debate for Dawkins, cringe-worthy on the creationists behalf. You have to leave them to it I'm afraid, it's close to insanity.