Born, lived and raised in the ghetto and was laughed at and mocked (as a child) for talking or thinking such things. Worse still was the fear of physical harm because of being raised catholic. I digress; the enjoyment I feel listening to this dude is euphoric.
They've always been frightened of reality and so attach themselves to belief systems. Religions in America, like most other places, is on a massive downturn year on year.
@@Omnicient. Good point and statistics have confirmed this. However, I believe while religious Americans are smaller in numbers, they have become more aggressive, judgmental, racist and culturally exclusive. In other words, opposing that Jesus supposedly taught while considering themselves superior.
Indeed he is my favorite Atheist these days. TBH He was close to being a second in the days of the late great Hitch, I always loved RD's way of teaching us,educating us, This is what I love most about Him, and His style of getting the job done ..
That could very well come from those who know the jig is up as we, and they, learn more about human psychology. If they're confident in their religion they should be less threatened; less aggressive. I know someone who reminds me so much of the people in the village I was brought up in who are passionate about being Christian but their actions show the direct opposite. A friend is 'playing the system' and trying to get as much as possible out of it and told him that is not a very Christian; that he is doing what most religious do which is comfort themselves in cushioned delusions as they stand by and let their true selves do the opposite. They're too half-wittish and ill educated to know everything that is fundamental is under surfaces.
WOW! Richard Dawkins have super good aging genes! His father became 94 and his mother is still alive at 96? Incredible. Hopefully we'll see him live at least as long as his "creators" ;).
@@davidbanner6230 Eh? His English seems fine to me. Clearly he meant Dawkins' father and mother got to a ripe old age so hopefully he will too with the inherited aging genetics.
Richard Dawkin's needs to be nominated for a knighthood IMHO. He's an amazing man, on so many levels, and he is utterly righteous in his approach versus the evils and darkness of faith and the cancer it has spread through our population.
@@wulphstein I'm curious. How is Dawkins a scam artist? What snake oil did he sell to the detriment of his victims? Or do you just not know what a 'scam' is and simply fling that empty accusation at people you personally dislike? Do explain. I'm sure it'll be entertaining. Don't worry, we'll laugh at you, not with you.
I admit liking Richard Dawkins, but I'm saying this without bias: This man has clarity in his thoughts and words and when you look into his eyes, you see that clarity.
I say this with great respect, I think Richard Dawkins, like Sir David Attenborough is a national treasure and like David Attenborough should carry the title of Sir. I believe he has been a tireless advocate for truth and we, all rational inquiring minds, owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I've seen four of this channels videos and they've been spectacular, the science of fireworks, lighting a match with water, the beautifully animated and narrated one on crystallography + an interview with a man who is a source of inspiration for me. So cheers RI, I have aspirations of science when I enter university education soon.
The interviewer here did a really fantastic job of being knowledgeable without coming across as arrogant; of being leading without coming across as indulgent. Nice work.
Of course it's science! Science introduced me to Dawkins. I am a very hard working person and am a member of the Institute Of Physics, The Royal Institution, Engineers club, you name it. The problem is that my enthusiasm sometimes hides my true motives. I enjoy science because it explains the world, I like dawkins because he shows how science isn't for "nerds" and isn't "boring". Trust me.
He used computers pretty well in the early 90s in his lectures, especially to young students. He used them to make programs that show how evolution works, etc... I dont know who programmed them but it shows his love of computers, they werent so common in teaching back then I think.
If only, we here in America... could retain a President who was literally "thinking aloud," rather than reading scripted teleprompters. So ingenuine. Completely agree with listening to a lecturer's content rather than writing... possibly anything other than proper names of studies or techniques, etc. Anatomy, however, did dictate note-taking for the sake of focusing on material to be tested. Again, the US' teaching to testing content rather than an overall (*nevermind applied*) comprehension. P.S.) As a student, I always carried extra pens (and pencils)... and would have gladly lent one to the future Professor Dawkins.
41:42 His description of treating the mind of an animal as a black box, making precise predictions of its behaviour, testing and adjusting the model seems to apply just as well to investigating AI as it does to animals.
Listing to Dawkins talk about his time in College makes me soo want to go back to school for my BA and maybe MA in Biology.. I just can't afford too :(
“The real world is beautiful “.... not for those suffering from a debilitating illness like dementia or cancer, nor for their friends and relatives. And not for the countless animals suffering in the labs trying to find cures for them. Not for those suffering in countries like Syria, Yemen or Myanmar racked by famine, disease and war. Not for the countless domestic animals suffering on fur and factory farms and their counterparts in the wild (which live a brutal existence struggling to survive. No wonder the belief in an afterlife is so alluring.
Great interview, often find Dawkins' manner a little grating but he deals with science and facts up against superstition and religion so i imagine it's hard not to seem like that. Theres a series of books in the UK at the moment causing a bit of a buzz that have been pushed by him - it features a visionary, atheist, humanitarian, working-class genius politician. It's called the chronicles of hope, first chapter free on the website and includes a speech on religion that's genius, worth checking out
Atheism may be the bones of humanity, but religion and belief, is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion, ………… and everything that makes life worthwhile. THINK ABOUT IT..
David Banner "is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion" You couldn't tell an atheist from a theist based on these things. Debunked.
that my friend was a joke. he made a joke. you took it serious and then write a stupid comment. lern to detect jokes and sarcasm its really helpful in life
It takes ideal circumstances for a body to fossilised - assuming the it isn’t consumed and scattered by scavengers, most bodies simply rot. The Earth’s surface is changed by earthquakes, volcanos, floods, erosion, tsunamis etc. The few fossils that there were to begin with may be destroyed or buried under tonnes of dirt, ash & debris. Consider the likelihood of digging in the right spot and finding one of the RARE fossils Now ask again, “Where are the human ancestral relics?”
Of course “An appeal to wonder” is quite a crafty play on words that would naturally be attractive to (so-called) creationists, in that it implies a recognition, and a kind of reverence, to the wonders of the Universe
When I am homeless in the wet and cold, and when my life seems more then I can hold, where can I turn to ease my plight, I’m freezing still, no hope in sight, yet still there’s evolution…..all that’s left for me…
1:00:14 - If we want to speak about some "selfishness" of the gene, then we would also need to a priori claim that the gene has a sense of self awareness and community, which is ridiculous. Looking at the gene without looking at its DNA level, is a position from where we'd choose to look at it as an observer (not the gene itself), so as to appreciate pedigrees for instance; it's like looking a the gene's mechanisms at a "more macro" level (it's not like looking at some "personality" as if it had a sentient characteristic).
You either didn't read _The Selfish Gene_ or you did not understand it. Specifically, you missed the point where Dawkins explicitly stated that the gene doesn't have consciousness and his explanation is not truly teleological. He points out that thinking about the gene *as if* it had a purpose it gives us a short-cut into understanding the strictly mathematical explanation behind that *apparent* purpose. The human brain has evolved (or was given by gawd, if you prefer that explanation) the ability to see agency behind events. This is useful for survival because, often, there *is* an agency behind events (like a lion wanting to eat you) and there is little penalty for seeing agency where there isn't one (thunderstorms are caused by an angry magic sky fairy). Talking about the gene being selfish is a short-cut to understanding its behaviour and the mechanisms behind it.
that argument about free will is classical. the modern understanding would be to cite stochastic models and chaos theory, as well as point to the question of collapsed waveforms. what dawkins is saying - and it is perfectly rational, perfectly descartian - is that our thoughts and feelings and behaviours must be wholly determined by everything else that's ever happened in the universe, before hand. it's a literal statement of determinism. but, if we acknowledge that we are all unique entities, that our brains are autonomous identities in the sense that we are standalone organisms, then the question of free will reduces to the question of whether the experiment is repeatable - and some doubt needs to be cast on the question. in perfectly controlled conditions, will humans always react the same way? it's really _not_ an empirical question. and, while a descartes or a locke would have said "clearly.", our understanding of determinism is a little different, post-heisenberg. our brains are computers, but they are not turing machines. they must be quantum computers, because they follow the rules of quantum mechanics, but we don't even understand the functioning well enough to state as much in any meaningful sense. if we can come up with some kind of demonstration that our brains do not respond identically to identical stimulus, and that whatever randomness that occurs is localized to us as standalone organisms, then free will may find itself brought back from the brink by the uncertainty of quantum physics.
This is something Einstein wrote about the state of wonder that science brings to the intelligent mind.. "I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a Subtle Spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this Illimitable Superior Spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." "To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of TRUE religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men." "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." "Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing. Similarly, physics and psychology are only different attempts to link our experiences together by way of systematic thought." "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter." - "I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified." "Matter is spirit reduced to point of visibility." - "It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware." "Matter is Energy ... Energy is Light ... We are all Light Beings." - "We are slowed down sound and light waves, a walking bundle of frequencies tuned into the cosmos. We are souls dressed up in sacred biochemical garments and our bodies are the instruments through which our souls play their music." The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." - Albert Einstein BUT.. I WONDER IF DAWKIN'S WOUL;D AGREE...
@@schmetterling4477 Albert wants you to know - "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein Many atheists that I have come across... believe Einstein was an also atheist.. Yet.. how wrong they are.... The idea that Albert was an atheist is just wishful thinking that many atheists share.. if fact.. he was outspokenly against both the beliefs of the literal christians and the atheists.. because they are based on false assumptions that come from reading a book.. written by poet philosophers.. but understood by many only LITERALLY. For example.. when I say my love is like a red red rose.. it is true.. metaphorically speaking.. if you get my drift.. but foolish to understand it literally.. don't you agree? Women who resemble flowers do not exist.. in a literal sense.. Concerning atheist and literal christian beliefs.. Joseph Campbell wrote - "Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors. Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” The image of something supernatural arises from confusing symbolism with supernatural.. metaphors with miracle stories.. and poetry with prose.. GOD - is basically a word for the poets.. THE BOTTOM LINE BEING... “We living beings all belong to one another, we are all actually members.. or aspects.. of a single Being, which we may in western terminology call God, while in the Upanishads it is called Brahman.”- Erwin Schrödinger “We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” ― Buddha "The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God." - Corpus Hermeticum
Your're right, its so simple. God is a Spaghetti Monster...I totally get it now. Evolution explains everything. There's no great mystery to life- just evolution and God's a Spaghetti Monster. Thank you.
Can someone explain the joke about the entry to the USA to me? (Around 4m), he said something akin to: "ill but hardings response"? I really can't make sense of it >.
An ’Upside’ of Atheism. A question sometimes asked, by people probing the motivation of Atheists is : Why, if as they claim, they care enough to want to bring “truth” to misguided followers of religion, yet their caring is not enough involve them charitable work? Such work is almost exclusively left to people of religious persuasion? However, there may be a facet to Atheism which seems to have escaped the reasoning of Atheist, in their public debates, defending the Atheist position? It is this: Setting aside the Charlatans who pretend Atheism as a convenient way of being important, there is something noble about Atheists who are sincere in what they believe, yet still do good works, knowing that there can be no spiritual rewards for what they do, as they do not believe in anything….
I live in Australia and work in charities/ community services. Very few believers in my work, ever. I'm thinking your claim only holds true for your culture.
DAWKINS ACTAULLY BROUGHT ME TO THINK ABOUT INFORMATION ABOUT LAMARK AND ABOUT EPIGENETICS....AT FIRST THERE WAS INFORMATION.......AND MEMORY AND THE WAY HOW TO DEAL WITH INFORMATION AND HOW TO REACT TO INFORMATION...........HOW TO STORE INFORMATION...AND HOW TO STORE BILLIONS OF INFORMATION.......
No greats come and go but there is always that other person who rises up to take that persons place. So yes there is hope after Richards death whenever that happens. I do believe there will be someone to rise up and continue on.
Such a nice man, wish, as a pensioner, I could afford to come up to London to see Richard. Why all the name calling? If you disagree, that's fine, but if you have no argument, other than anme calling, then shut up Peralisc!
Private Eye magazine (no.1350, p27) on R Dawkins' autobio 'An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist.' "Profoundly irksome...The self-absorption is extraordinary...It all feels like punishment for our being gullible enough to hope for a memoir that reflects and examines rather than huffs and harangues. Hast we offended He? God knows. For all but the most devout Dawkinists, this is purgatory."
Plato said reality is created in the mind and if we can change our mind we can change our reality?` Does that not make perfect sense, in that if our reality is being held within the makeup of our brain function, and we can change that function by believing enough, or having faith, then how is that different from SOMEONE saying “If you have enough faith, you can say to the mountain cast thyself into the sea, and it shall be done”? Now, I don’t know if it is appropriate to ask Richard Dawkins, or his sidekicks, to respond to such a genuine question, for he never comes from behind his myriads of pseudonym’s, or he says that he never debates creationists, which is a lie since he has posted videos of him doing just that. Which means all he has to do is to call everyone who asks questions “creationists” and he doesn’t have to answer any questions, apart from the Dorothea Dixers arranged for him?
If Mr Dawkins is wrong then he would probably say, Oh there is a God, well praise be. If you others are wrong, your whole world falls apart. You will have to find something else to believe in. Knowing you are all on your own having to take responsibility for what you do and that no man on a cloud is about to save you from your hideous existence. How about getting off your knees, opening your eyes and working hard for humanity for a change.....
Science has already came quite far in creating artifical cells. sciencedaily com/releases/2013/10/131001131223.htm There is also 'man made' DNA used to produced antibiotics and so on...which you have probably used.
Well, if i may... Try to watch this movie on youtube: aXtnYnoutKk It's (i think) my most favourite physicist - Richard Feynmann. I just love the fun he gets from finding things out;) And i love his Quote: 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.'
If the gene don't have many enemies around then a weak one could survive in that area. or say if it's good at mass amount of breeding. some culture people have larger families to out number the odds. or as our biggest main countries today seems to have less in the family but living longer cause of our science knowledge. but lacking the eurge to mat to survive longer.. umm sorry for the lack of proper wording, just putting in some input the best way I could say for my theory of it.
"nothing is impossible" Ok. So how's the changing lead into gold coming? Some things are just not possible - and if it Is - its because of science - gods been mute all along. Yet gets so much credit.
Ah! But transmutation IS possible, not through a chemical reaction, but through a nuclear reaction. Bad example then, but I see what you mean. My real point is that "nothing is impossible" is indeed stupid IF you take it as an absolute statement. Don't you think you overlook the context, though? To show why your critique is invalid in its present form, let me use a quote from... the Bible: "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1). It would be stubborn and/or intellectually dishonest to use that against the Bible, simply because any quote has to be put into context. OF COURSE, the Bible is not in contradiction whith iself IN THAT PASSAGE, and neither is Dawkins when saying "nothing is impossible"
why this self celebration? RI should talk about SCIENCE, not about how good, how nice, how brilliant someone is. I do like Mr Dawkins books, but i really do not care if he is rich, if he is poor, where he was living when he was a boy and so on. why should anyone care? please go back to SCIENCE.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Born, lived and raised in the ghetto and was laughed at and mocked (as a child) for talking or thinking such things. Worse still was the fear of physical harm because of being raised catholic. I digress; the enjoyment I feel listening to this dude is euphoric.
The more I learn about this man the more I find commonality. He is truly a breath of fresh air in an American society gone religiously amok.
They've always been frightened of reality and so attach themselves to belief systems. Religions in America, like most other places, is on a massive downturn year on year.
@@Omnicient. Good point and statistics have confirmed this. However, I believe while religious Americans are smaller in numbers, they have become more aggressive, judgmental, racist and culturally exclusive. In other words, opposing that Jesus supposedly taught while considering themselves superior.
Indeed he is my favorite Atheist these days. TBH He was close to being a second in the days of the late great Hitch, I always loved RD's way of teaching us,educating us, This is what I love most about Him, and His style of getting the job done ..
That could very well come from those who know the jig is up as we, and they, learn more about human psychology. If they're confident in their religion they should be less threatened; less aggressive. I know someone who reminds me so much of the people in the village I was brought up in who are passionate about being Christian but their actions show the direct opposite. A friend is 'playing the system' and trying to get as much as possible out of it and told him that is not a very Christian; that he is doing what most religious do which is comfort themselves in cushioned delusions as they stand by and let their true selves do the opposite. They're too half-wittish and ill educated to know everything that is fundamental is under surfaces.
Long Live our Dawkins... national treasure he is ..
He is an international treasure
Wow! national teasure of the year....
WOW! Richard Dawkins have super good aging genes! His father became 94 and his mother is still alive at 96? Incredible. Hopefully we'll see him live at least as long as his "creators" ;).
Densegrandeduvan : English second language, is it?
Densegrandeduvan .....Do you mean 2.8 bilion years or something.....?
@@davidbanner6230 Eh? His English seems fine to me. Clearly he meant Dawkins' father and mother got to a ripe old age so hopefully he will too with the inherited aging genetics.
Richard Dawkin's needs to be nominated for a knighthood IMHO. He's an amazing man, on so many levels, and he is utterly righteous in his approach versus the evils and darkness of faith and the cancer it has spread through our population.
Dawkins is a scam artist
I do not know if we would care for a knighthood given the monarch's roots in Catholicism (or was it Christianity?)
Takes one to know one my cyber friend...You rock!
@@wulphstein I'm curious. How is Dawkins a scam artist? What snake oil did he sell to the detriment of his victims? Or do you just not know what a 'scam' is and simply fling that empty accusation at people you personally dislike?
Do explain. I'm sure it'll be entertaining. Don't worry, we'll laugh at you, not with you.
@@wulphstein drive by theist comment. Why bother of you won't defend your point?
The only con artists are those in holy orders
I admit liking Richard Dawkins, but I'm saying this without bias: This man has clarity in his thoughts and words and when you look into his eyes, you see that clarity.
I say this with great respect, I think Richard Dawkins, like Sir David Attenborough is a national treasure and like David Attenborough should carry the title of Sir. I believe he has been a tireless advocate for truth and we, all rational inquiring minds, owe him a great debt of gratitude.
RD=Richard Dawkins=liberator. Thank you sir.
I've seen four of this channels videos and they've been spectacular, the science of fireworks, lighting a match with water, the beautifully animated and narrated one on crystallography + an interview with a man who is a source of inspiration for me. So cheers RI, I have aspirations of science when I enter university education soon.
Salute from Egypt, Dr Richard is a hallmark.
The interviewer here did a really fantastic job of being knowledgeable without coming across as arrogant; of being leading without coming across as indulgent. Nice work.
The Eggbuster agree, perhaps because he’s also a great science author and broadcaster, Dr Adam Rutherford.
Of course it's science! Science introduced me to Dawkins. I am a very hard working person and am a member of the Institute Of Physics, The Royal Institution, Engineers club, you name it.
The problem is that my enthusiasm sometimes hides my true motives.
I enjoy science because it explains the world, I like dawkins because he shows how science isn't for "nerds" and isn't "boring".
Trust me.
RI as always you deliver “education” thank you
Why is "education" in quotations marks? You think that Dawkins delivers fake education? Or you just abuse quotation marks?
He used computers pretty well in the early 90s in his lectures, especially to young students. He used them to make programs that show how evolution works, etc...
I dont know who programmed them but it shows his love of computers, they werent so common in teaching back then I think.
excellent interviewer
+Symmetrie Bruch For once... They normally abuse Dawkins to profile themselves.
Outstanding overview of the modality of the science. . .
Adam Rutherford has some EXCELLENT books himself
Richard is so soft spoken
If only, we here in America... could retain a President who was literally "thinking aloud," rather than reading scripted teleprompters. So ingenuine. Completely agree with listening to a lecturer's content rather than writing... possibly anything other than proper names of studies or techniques, etc. Anatomy, however, did dictate note-taking for the sake of focusing on material to be tested. Again, the US' teaching to testing content rather than an overall (*nevermind applied*) comprehension. P.S.) As a student, I always carried extra pens (and pencils)... and would have gladly lent one to the future Professor Dawkins.
Fantastic, wish I'd been there, but thank you RI for these incredible videos!
Yes, we can only hope the opinions he shares, become as popular as some religions.
Good to see you watched the first 30 seconds and left with that conclusion.
41:42 His description of treating the mind of an animal as a black box, making precise predictions of its behaviour, testing and adjusting the model seems to apply just as well to investigating AI as it does to animals.
A superb discussion. Put a smile on my face, Dawkins as good as ever and Rutherford right on the mark.
Listing to Dawkins talk about his time in College makes me soo want to go back to school for my BA and maybe MA in Biology.. I just can't afford too :(
“The real world is beautiful “.... not for those suffering from a debilitating illness like dementia or cancer, nor for their friends and relatives. And not for the countless animals suffering in the labs trying to find cures for them.
Not for those suffering in countries like Syria, Yemen or Myanmar racked by famine, disease and war.
Not for the countless domestic animals suffering on fur and factory farms and their counterparts in the wild (which live a brutal existence struggling to survive.
No wonder the belief in an afterlife is so alluring.
Two of my favourite humans. Fantastic
Yes, Richard F, is one of my favourites. I think the best think about him besides his mental prowess, is his character. A very lovable man.
Awesome video and great books too. More!
Great interview, often find Dawkins' manner a little grating but he deals with science and facts up against superstition and religion so i imagine it's hard not to seem like that. Theres a series of books in the UK at the moment causing a bit of a buzz that have been pushed by him - it features a visionary, atheist, humanitarian, working-class genius politician. It's called the chronicles of hope, first chapter free on the website and includes a speech on religion that's genius, worth checking out
I love the interviewer. He seems a lovely man.
Great guy sadly all great men pass away. So while he lives and thanks to the enternet future generations. Will be able to hear him.
Atheism may be the bones of humanity, but religion and belief, is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion, ………… and everything that makes life worthwhile.
THINK ABOUT IT..
David Banner
"is the flesh, the warmth, the laughter, the poetry, the music, the dinner parties, the appreciation of beauty, the compassion"
You couldn't tell an atheist from a theist based on these things.
Debunked.
It's a pity the audio volume was kept so low in this video. What were they thinking? One has to strain at nearly every word. Madness.
You can always turn on the closed captions.
Oh, there aren't any closed captions. :(
Use a wireless speaker
Nice to see a video where he does not have to defend himself. You can appreciate the true intellectual that is antitheist.
I am the guy a 1:08:11
I will be a scientist!
THANK-YOU DAWKINS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
I'm a bit late here but Thank You :)
I don’t understand, how did he achieve such a drastic change from the way he looked on Family Feud ? 🤯
PS bought HB book and Kindle so I can read, whilst wife is asleep. Over half wa through. I hope to see the second volume.
A case example of the poverty cycle that should be present in the societies of such people for generations to come
awesome.sad i missed this one :(
though i'll be there to watch this coming "friday evening discourse". yay
Dawkins is a legend, the true great-grandchild of Darwin
Bravo!
Mindless applause! Who would expect anything more? Only a fool!
Stephen Fry is at the top of my list as well
Dworkins certainly gives a good sermon, to be sure, quite rousing!
I know this dosnt have to do whith this video but can you guys of the royal institute make a video of the theory of strings. Thanks
that my friend was a joke. he made a joke. you took it serious and then write a stupid comment. lern to detect jokes and sarcasm its really helpful in life
LOL, I love those counter arguments you came up with!
Euphoric
I love Richard Dawkins,he is my source of intelligence
29:12 "fabulous book by the way."
dawkins is fabulous.
It takes ideal circumstances for a body to fossilised - assuming the it isn’t consumed and scattered by scavengers, most bodies simply rot.
The Earth’s surface is changed by earthquakes, volcanos, floods, erosion, tsunamis etc. The few fossils that there were to begin with may be destroyed or buried under tonnes of dirt, ash & debris.
Consider the likelihood of digging in the right spot and finding one of the RARE fossils
Now ask again, “Where are the human ancestral relics?”
Of course “An appeal to wonder” is quite a crafty play on words that would naturally be attractive to (so-called) creationists, in that it implies a recognition, and a kind of reverence, to the wonders of the Universe
Существуют ли подобные ведущие в русскоязычном информационном пространстве?
Столь эрудированные и подготовленные к интервью?
When I am homeless in the
wet and cold, and when my life seems more then I can hold, where can I turn to
ease my plight, I’m freezing still, no hope in sight, yet still there’s
evolution…..all that’s left for me…
You could ask social services to help you with getting a room in the shelter.
@@schmetterling4477 Are you so naïve, or just plain dumb..?
90 minutes of a mic wire slipping nicely in and out of Richard's shirt collar.
good to know his parents ages. we should have years left to enjoy clinton dawkins.
1:00:14 - If we want to speak about some "selfishness" of the gene, then we would also need to a priori claim that the gene has a sense of self awareness and community, which is ridiculous. Looking at the gene without looking at its DNA level, is a position from where we'd choose to look at it as an observer (not the gene itself), so as to appreciate pedigrees for instance; it's like looking a the gene's mechanisms at a "more macro" level (it's not like looking at some "personality" as if it had a sentient characteristic).
You either didn't read _The Selfish Gene_ or you did not understand it. Specifically, you missed the point where Dawkins explicitly stated that the gene doesn't have consciousness and his explanation is not truly teleological. He points out that thinking about the gene *as if* it had a purpose it gives us a short-cut into understanding the strictly mathematical explanation behind that *apparent* purpose.
The human brain has evolved (or was given by gawd, if you prefer that explanation) the ability to see agency behind events. This is useful for survival because, often, there *is* an agency behind events (like a lion wanting to eat you) and there is little penalty for seeing agency where there isn't one (thunderstorms are caused by an angry magic sky fairy). Talking about the gene being selfish is a short-cut to understanding its behaviour and the mechanisms behind it.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Buying this book today along with Stephen Hawking's new biography. Cannot wait to read Appetite for Wonder.
that argument about free will is classical. the modern understanding would be to cite stochastic models and chaos theory, as well as point to the question of collapsed waveforms.
what dawkins is saying - and it is perfectly rational, perfectly descartian - is that our thoughts and feelings and behaviours must be wholly determined by everything else that's ever happened in the universe, before hand. it's a literal statement of determinism.
but, if we acknowledge that we are all unique entities, that our brains are autonomous identities in the sense that we are standalone organisms, then the question of free will reduces to the question of whether the experiment is repeatable - and some doubt needs to be cast on the question.
in perfectly controlled conditions, will humans always react the same way? it's really _not_ an empirical question. and, while a descartes or a locke would have said "clearly.", our understanding of determinism is a little different, post-heisenberg.
our brains are computers, but they are not turing machines. they must be quantum computers, because they follow the rules of quantum mechanics, but we don't even understand the functioning well enough to state as much in any meaningful sense.
if we can come up with some kind of demonstration that our brains do not respond identically to identical stimulus, and that whatever randomness that occurs is localized to us as standalone organisms, then free will may find itself brought back from the brink by the uncertainty of quantum physics.
Mr. Dawkins, you're my motivation to promote the creator. Thank you.
This is something Einstein wrote about the state of wonder that science brings to the intelligent mind.. "I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a Subtle Spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this Illimitable Superior Spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of TRUE religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."
"Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing. Similarly, physics and psychology are only different attempts to link our experiences together by way of systematic thought."
"Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter." - "I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."
"Matter is spirit reduced to point of visibility." - "It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware."
"Matter is Energy ... Energy is Light ... We are all Light Beings." - "We are slowed down sound and light waves, a walking bundle of frequencies tuned into the cosmos. We are souls dressed up in sacred biochemical garments and our bodies are the instruments through which our souls play their music."
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." - Albert Einstein
BUT.. I WONDER IF DAWKIN'S WOUL;D AGREE...
So basically Einstein told you that he is an atheist who gets his kicks from the laws of nature. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Albert wants you to know - "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
Many atheists that I have come across... believe Einstein was an also atheist.. Yet.. how wrong they are.... The idea that Albert was an atheist is just wishful thinking that many atheists share.. if fact.. he was outspokenly against both the beliefs of the literal christians and the atheists.. because they are based on false assumptions that come from reading a book.. written by poet philosophers.. but understood by many only LITERALLY.
For example.. when I say my love is like a red red rose.. it is true.. metaphorically speaking.. if you get my drift.. but foolish to understand it literally.. don't you agree?
Women who resemble flowers do not exist.. in a literal sense..
Concerning atheist and literal christian beliefs.. Joseph Campbell wrote - "Every myth is psychologically symbolic. Its narratives and images are to be read, therefore, not literally, but as metaphors. Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”
The image of something supernatural arises from confusing symbolism with supernatural.. metaphors with miracle stories.. and poetry with prose.. GOD - is basically a word for the poets..
THE BOTTOM LINE BEING...
“We living beings all belong to one another, we are all actually members.. or aspects.. of a single Being, which we may in western terminology call God, while in the Upanishads it is called Brahman.”- Erwin Schrödinger
“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.” ― Buddha
"The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God." - Corpus Hermeticum
Which part of what he says do you disagree with?
Your're right, its so simple. God is a Spaghetti Monster...I totally get it now. Evolution explains everything. There's no great mystery to life- just evolution and God's a Spaghetti Monster. Thank you.
I wouldn't trust an obscure and totally illogical ancient book to explain everything.
Can someone explain the joke about the entry to the USA to me? (Around 4m), he said something akin to: "ill but hardings response"?
I really can't make sense of it >.
Notes taking helps me concentrate.
So Gilbert's response was that the reason for entering was the British Broadcast Coorporation?
Still don't see why it's funny though >.
Yeah I was responding to someone who said Stephen Fry is a homosexual and something.. cant remember. Think YT just messed up
An ’Upside’ of Atheism.
A question sometimes asked, by people probing the motivation of Atheists is : Why, if as they claim, they care enough to want to bring “truth” to misguided followers of religion, yet their caring is not enough involve them charitable work? Such work is almost exclusively left to people of religious persuasion?
However, there may be a facet to Atheism which seems to have escaped the reasoning of Atheist, in their public debates, defending the Atheist position?
It is this: Setting aside the Charlatans who pretend Atheism as a convenient way of being important, there is something noble about Atheists who are sincere in what they believe, yet still do good works, knowing that there can be no spiritual rewards for what they do, as they do not believe in anything….
I live in Australia and work in charities/ community services. Very few believers in my work, ever.
I'm thinking your claim only holds true for your culture.
DAWKINS ACTAULLY BROUGHT ME TO THINK ABOUT INFORMATION ABOUT LAMARK AND ABOUT EPIGENETICS....AT FIRST THERE WAS INFORMATION.......AND MEMORY AND THE WAY HOW TO DEAL WITH INFORMATION AND HOW TO REACT TO INFORMATION...........HOW TO STORE INFORMATION...AND HOW TO STORE BILLIONS OF INFORMATION.......
Your keyboard is broken.
@@schmetterling4477 yes
@@daliborbartos1396 Get a new one.
@@schmetterling4477 no haste
@@daliborbartos1396 Now.
Richard Dawkins is still alive..
No greats come and go but there is always that other person who rises up to take that persons place. So yes there is hope after Richards death whenever that happens. I do believe there will be someone to rise up and continue on.
dictionary is your friend
Dawkins American accent!!! Finally!
Such a nice man, wish, as a pensioner, I could afford to come up to London to see Richard. Why all the name calling? If you disagree, that's fine, but if you have no argument, other than anme calling, then shut up Peralisc!
Private Eye magazine (no.1350, p27) on R Dawkins' autobio 'An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist.'
"Profoundly irksome...The self-absorption is extraordinary...It all feels like punishment for our being gullible enough to hope for a memoir that reflects and examines rather than huffs and harangues. Hast we offended He? God knows. For all but the most devout Dawkinists, this is purgatory."
Why isn't today's education like it was before? :(
Good on you mate, same here XD
Plato
said reality is created in the mind and if we can change our mind we can change
our reality?`
Does that not make perfect sense, in that if our reality is being held within
the makeup of our brain function, and we can change that function by believing
enough, or having faith, then how is that different from SOMEONE saying “If you
have enough faith, you can say to the mountain cast thyself into the sea, and
it shall be done”?
Now, I don’t know if it is appropriate to ask Richard Dawkins, or his
sidekicks, to respond to such a genuine question, for he never comes from
behind his myriads of pseudonym’s, or he says that he never debates creationists,
which is a lie since he has posted videos of him doing just that. Which means
all he has to do is to call everyone who asks questions “creationists” and he
doesn’t have to answer any questions, apart from the Dorothea Dixers arranged
for him?
Plato was an idiot. What else you got? ;-)
...was Gilbert Harding`s response....
If Mr Dawkins is wrong then he would probably say, Oh there is a God, well praise be. If you others are wrong, your whole world falls apart. You will have to find something else to believe in. Knowing you are all on your own having to take responsibility for what you do and that no man on a cloud is about to save you from your hideous existence. How about getting off your knees, opening your eyes and working hard for humanity for a change.....
thats like saying being homeless is a profession
Why Darwin sat on his discovery so long: didn't want to upset his wife, they say.
Science has already came quite far in creating artifical cells. sciencedaily com/releases/2013/10/131001131223.htm
There is also 'man made' DNA used to produced antibiotics and so on...which you have probably used.
Well, if i may... Try to watch this movie on youtube: aXtnYnoutKk
It's (i think) my most favourite physicist - Richard Feynmann. I just love the fun he gets from finding things out;) And i love his Quote: 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.'
Exactly! Deceiving the public with "facts" and "statistics" and "the truth..." gotta love deceivers :)
Please add arabic to subtitles
good that you think that! prob. helps, hm?
If the gene don't have many enemies around then a weak one could survive in that area. or say if it's good at mass amount of breeding. some culture people have larger families to out number the odds. or as our biggest main countries today seems to have less in the family but living longer cause of our science knowledge. but lacking the eurge to mat to survive longer.. umm sorry for the lack of proper wording, just putting in some input the best way I could say for my theory of it.
If physics of the universe is social it's certain to produce a God then us.
1:10:13
haha, I only came up with the last one. Be my guest!
a reference to religion within the opening line. what a fucking surprise
What about Mr.Bean?
in the stone age mankind is and whase more deadlier
now* ;)
"nothing is impossible"
Ok. So how's the changing lead into gold coming?
Some things are just not possible - and if it Is - its because of science - gods been mute all along. Yet gets so much credit.
Ah! But transmutation IS possible, not through a chemical reaction, but through a nuclear reaction. Bad example then, but I see what you mean.
My real point is that "nothing is impossible" is indeed stupid IF you take it as an absolute statement. Don't you think you overlook the context, though?
To show why your critique is invalid in its present form, let me use a quote from... the Bible: "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1). It would be stubborn and/or intellectually dishonest to use that against the Bible, simply because any quote has to be put into context. OF COURSE, the Bible is not in contradiction whith iself IN THAT PASSAGE, and neither is Dawkins when saying "nothing is impossible"
Changing lead into Gold is perfectly doable with enough energy.
You care - therefore his time is not over.
why this self celebration? RI should talk about SCIENCE, not about how good, how nice, how brilliant someone is.
I do like Mr Dawkins books, but i really do not care if he is rich, if he is poor, where he was living when he was a boy and so on. why should anyone care? please go back to SCIENCE.