@@davewalt1781 I don't feel inclined to read religious texts. I don't believe in immaculate conception, walking on water, mitacle cures, resurrection of the dead, 2 adult human being popping into existence. Or any other juvenile stuff from any religion.
@@RichieRichMD Yes, if it was in heaven, where everything is perfect and not that other horrible place where it will be complete isolation and suffering..
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS There is a ton of evidence for God and the Bible. God said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, so man is without excuse." The billions and billions of stars, where did the material come from and how did the stars form? How did the human body form? Gases exploding that are able to design and create? I await your reply.
@@steinhogger That’s true, and there’s a lot of evidence that Jesus Christ is trustworthy so let’s not dismiss him without evidence that he isn’t trustworthy. Are you interested in the evidence?
It's infuriating for all of us who have come to the realization that a space ghost living somewhere in the clouds is probably not the most realistic answer to these questions about human origins.
@@adam2aces Imagine how Christians feel. 🤷♂️We have to hear your constant straw-men while you claim intellectual superiority even though you don’t understand our arguments to begin with. That’s also quite annoying. 😐
@@adam2aces And that's how you discredit yourself :/ I am atheist, but that kind of complete misrepresentation of what many educated, intelligent Christians would consider to be "god" is just stupid...
It's completely mad that fully grown adults are still debating this. When is the debate on whether or not unicorns, dragons, mermaids, the tooth fairy etc exist?
I agree to a point. There are still some fundamental questions that remain unanswered, however I really cannot understand people who still (in 2025) take ancient scriptures so literally
@@jeff_forsythe The only way you will spread your wonderful practice is by making someone believe in the first place. How can I hate a God if I have no evidence one even exists?
@@davewalt1781 Sad that you lack the mental capacity to understand. If you actually believe in heaven, why waste time here. Go get involved in insanely risky recreational activities. You seem rather dim, so it shouldn't take long.
@@wuggle1405 Every Word of the Bible is God's Word. God gave you free will, you can accept God and the Bible or you can reject God and the Bible. As for me, give me Jesus.
First of all the frase 'Survival of the fittest' is not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer. Secondly it is often misunderstood (Dawkins too?) and fit here does not mean strong or dominant but fitting into environment or circumstances. Then it makes perfect sense because fitting can be also achieved by co-operation and respecting other people.
You are dead right about the misunderstanding of the term FITTEST. Perhaps survival of the best-adapted would be better. Of course Dawkins understands this! By the way, its PHRASE not frase. George Pell has questionable validity in any discussion on morals.
I think the underlying connotation they may be referring to would be, a society where only the smartest, or healthiest individuals are allowed to get advantage or preference, and the weak, vulnerable, unhealthy would be left to die or care on their own. Yea it would be an unpleasant society to live in.
There's a world of difference between describing Nature as it is and prescribing how Human Society should be organized. I have never been able to understand why these two totally different things keep being mixed up in such discussions. Darwing was a Naturalist, not a Moralist or a Sociologist. Deriving moral conclusions from what he discovered about nature is like seeing aesthetic opinions in Newton's demonstration of how light refracts.
By "it", I presume you mean Richard himself. I saw him a few weeks ago in Portland, Oregon- a far left war zone of a city that the U.S. Secret Service has, for years, nicknamed "Little Beirut." He had the backbone to announce that there are exactly two sexes, and to believe one is other than that which they are biologically is a delusion. Professor Dawkins didn't seem feeble in my opinion. Aged, yes, but not feeble. He was as sharp and articulate as ever.
@davidhart9106 I wanted to go watch his last show but I wish he was just still an educational evolutionary biologist I don't care about current gender politics
I am an atheist because - none of the books on religion are logical. IMO, they are fairy stories to cause fear, violence, delusion, ignorance. None of it makes sense. I just find it all ridiculous & although I respect the right of others to follow certain faiths, I find it arrogant for these believers to tell me I will go to hell because I cannot accept the laws of belief, worship etc.
@@mezlay2 If the apostles were lying about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, why wouldn’t they come clean when their lives were threatened with a humiliating and torturous death?
A genius. And with a lot of guts to enter the domain of religious zealots and make his point with so much gusto. Him and Christopher Hitchens, absolutely brilliant minds.
I love the religious people commenting here. The same old weak arguments. I am sure Hitchens would be laughing at these comments. He would just say something like "what an utterly ridiculous question" and everyone would laugh. ;) My intellectual hero..
Worshiping any being that claims to have killed every person on earth except selected 8 to tell the story how he wants is insane. Don't tell me that in "the flood" no innocent babies drowned which is painful.
Theists usually defend it by saying those kids, babies and fetuses came from evil and wicked people and were already lost. Why couldnt god intervene? Why drowning? He seems to like seeing people suffer.
@@robotaholic It’s a very emotionally troubling story to believe in, but it is at least logically consistent that a morally good God could do such a thing. If God is infinite in knowledge, His judgments would be incomprehensible to limited human beings and we shouldn’t be surprised when we see His judgments and are appalled at them because we cannot see what God sees.
@@matthewharrell398mass murder of children is 'logically consistent' with a 'morally good god'? That's some simone biles- level mental gymnastics there. You've got a glaring 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy as well. Utter nonsense.
@@walterwanderley383 If a man is put in prison for preying on children, should he be arrested even if he has a wife and children? Of course he should even if the family will suffer as a result. Sadly, children often suffer for the sins of their parents.
He's just stooo-pid. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@WhoThisMonkey Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as an influential figure not just because of his contributions to evolutionary biology, but also due to his ability to communicate complex scientific ideas to the general public. His work, particularly in popularizing concepts like the 'selfish gene' and his advocacy for science and rational thinking, has had a significant impact on both the scientific community and public discourse. Over the years, Dawkins has received numerous awards, such as the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest, which highlight his contributions to both science and its communication. His importance can be seen in how his ideas have shaped modern evolutionary theory and inspired countless people to explore science more deeply. Basically, Dawkins is not only one of the greatest in science, but also one of the greatest to make people like you understand science. - ChatGPT.
@@jasonq8523Excellent response Jason, I’ve been following Professor Dawkins since reading “The god Delusion” in late 2006, after this classic I had to get everything else he wrote, “The Selfish Gene” also a classic, his patience and perseverance with the public explaining these topics are nothing short of remarkable, love how he takes the complexities of evolutionary biology and transmit it to the masses and layman (like myself) for us to understand. In my humble opinion, Richard Dawkins is a beacon of light 💡 and hope in a world obscured by traditions, delusions and fallacy.
Before I stumbled upon Richard Dawkins, I thought I was the only person in the world who thought like that, so it is reassuring to know there are others too!
As an atheist, I can see how somemone religious may have a life which is full of anger: praying to a God that doesn't answer, expecting things to go well, even not understanding tragedy when they've lived a life following rules that must be obeyed. Punishing themselves often comes along. I still think it is harder to be an atheist, but I can't deny the inherent pain of being religious. I also would like to add that many religious people do not follow that path by choice, unfortunately. And, because of that, I make an effort not to judge. Great video. Thanks.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I really do appreciate that you make an effort not to judge others but I do take issue with some of what you said. I don’t mean any disrespect and you seem like a decent person. When I was an atheist, I had an easier time sleeping at night because I assumed that my loved ones as well as myself were headed to the same place, the grave. I thought that I didn’t have to do anything because nothing mattered. Now that I’m a Christian, I am haunted by the thought of my loved ones who aren’t Christian having to suffer for eternity and I’m burdened with the mission of evangelism. I think that is a much heavier burden to bear. I take issue with your characterization of praying to a God that doesn’t answer. Christians are supposed to understand that God knows infinitely more than we do and that what we often receive from God is the ability to be at peace with God denying our requests.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think atheism is hard because it involves thinking of ourselves as no longer existing after death and that our lives are inherently meaningless because the universe will end in a heat death. However I think that Christianity is exactly the opposite of wishful thinking. I often wish I could go back to believing that God didn’t exist.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think biblically literate Christian’s understand tragedy far more than the average Atheist does. Half of the Psalms are of prayers lamenting how God seems to favor the wicked. Ecclesiastes makes a very strong case that life is meaningless because we all have to die. Job is told as a story of a man who suffered immensely even though God Himself said that Job wasn’t being punished, he just had to suffer and never find out why. There’s a book of the bible called Lamentations. Most of the prophets mourned the destruction of Israel and our own Lord was crucified for the sin of the world.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp Again, I really do appreciate that you try not to judge others and I really can see that in your comments and you seem to me to be a decent person. I only take issue with what appears to be a misunderstanding about what Christians believe and how we live. I hope you understand that I’m not at all offended and that I’m not trying to offend you. I’m simply voicing my opinion and hopefully I’ve done that respectfully and I invite you to look at the Christian faith through that lens, and, of course, I invite you to put your trust in my Lord Jesus Christ. If you have any disagreement with anything I said, please let me know and I would love to hear your opinion.
@@matthewharrell398 I appreciate so much everything you just said. Made me think and question my own words. The fact that you were so respectful is unusual and leads to what I'm doing now: show gratitude. I would say our ideas are not that different. You're right, tragedy is an important/significant part for christians, and quite a difficult burden, and I think I didn't make an effort to take that more into consideration. However, you won't find many atheists that at least will consider some of the things I mentioned. My brother took his own life last year. I really hope he is no longer existing and having a consciousness. I won't enter in what science has to say on this topic or religion. I will say this, though: I find it hard to believe in a God that would allow so much suffering. You seem better informed than me when it comes to the Bible. Maybe you can share what lead you to become christian -if you feel comfortable about it-. I hope you understood everything, as spanish is my first language. Thank you again.
@@Lost_Delos Thanks for your nice reply. My beliefs are totally based on God's Word, the Bible. God is neither fragile nor shallow. God created all things, so He is Almighty and powerful.
@davewalt1781 I apologize for my prior tone. My question is sincere. Would you say you're a reasonable and sincere person? If so, I'd like to have a conversation about your beliefs, and perhaps we could come to an understanding. I'd like a basic understanding of who you are. Are you a Christian? What made you choose your religion? Were you born into it?
Dawkins is one of the good guys. One either understands evolution (and genetics) and thus biology or one does not. One must take the time to resd Darwin and the modern biologists or just not understand biology. That's fine but by taking that path one should not criticize the science that so far explains much of how organisms operate. One cannot assume a religious posture and try to understand reality. It is not possible. The Bible and other holy books are literature and cannot be interpreted as history. Because the events therein are not events. They are stories, like Alice in Wonderland or The Three Bears.
You truly prove talk is cheap. You can say anything you want and Truth means nothing to you. Tell me how organisms designed and created the universe and everything in it. Those organisms are really powerful. Have you ever read one word in the Bible? No one has ever been able to disprove the Bible.
How are you doing the measurements?? New gaps are continually being discovered because we seek and we find. This also is evidence of a great Creator: new gaps are continually being created. I believe Isaac Newton already knew this.
@ the gaps in our knowledge always existed. This is not evidence of a creator, every time in history when someone hypotheses was a god was responsible, when we found the actual answer not once has it ever been a god responsible.
There are some very salient points people should know. Mankind as Homo Sapiens, have been around for about 250,000 years, while the concept of god, has been around for only about 6,000 years, some say 5,000. It doesn't matter. Call it 5,000 years since god made itself known to mankind. Some questions need to be asked about that. Why did god reveal itself just to one ethnic group, those that spoke Hebrew? Many of them worshipped other gods. Even towards the end of the life of Moses, as they travelled nearing the end of their 40 year desert journey, STILL the Hebrew people were worshipping other gods. How can such importance be put on a god that bungled its creation and blamed that bungle on man? I refer to the ridiculous concept of 'original sin', which is a downright lie. God bungled the manufacture of man by failing to put in him the knowledge of right and wrong, Man had to take that knowledge by eating the forbidden fruit. Therefore, god was responsible for the fall. So, what we have is, a very young god against a quite old group of hominids called Homo Sapiens or mankind. 245,000 years older to be almost precise. That puts the god concept in the realm of bullshit.
@@SJG-pt4yp Everything I wrote about god, I got from the bible. If you bothered to read the bible thoughtfully yourself, you too would know, just as I do.
We were/are truly “blessed” to have Hitchens & Dawkins in this world. Great orators, incredible minds of unparalleled value for the causes of reason & logic.
@@___Kelli___ unless William Lane Craig is around. When he’s around, Hitchens gets Hitch slapped in the debate and Richard Dawkins runs crying to mommy! 😂😂😂
One thing that frustratingly never gets brought up in these interviews is that if there is a god, then what made God???. And surely a god would be far more difficult and complex to have somehow spontaneously arrived on the scene than even a universe
@@AntiDogmatism-f8k If something created God, what created that thing? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? Now we have an infinite number of things that create other things.
I find it odd that with myself I find it absolutely incredible and hard to believe the world is a globe flying through space, and I find it incredibly hard to believe that we weren't created by intelligent design. It is so hard to believe because of how incredible it is. My brain, then breaks that down and sees it as something beautiful, and love so much hearing from well spoken scientists explaining it in understandable analogy...then theres people that just say WELL THATS PROOF OF GOD SCIENCE IS DUMB 😂
It nice to finally see a well-balanced summary. The world/universe is amazing, and we need to admit we don’t know the answer to everything. The beauty and mystery should inspire us to learn though… everyone asks questions at some point in their life, yet people are posting comments like “How dare you question God” or similar!
But he lost the war. We are here to prove to God that we have faith, not for God to prove anything to us, Hawkins and all his followers are failing that test badly.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS The only reason that you would say such a thing is because you are a quitter and you know it. Let's say you want to buy a home. Lots of hard work and you get your reward. The same with God, no work, no seeking, no reward. I know, I received my reward. Poor you, no chance when you quit. Sorry, but true.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS When you quit looking you will never find like I did. I wonder, are you a quitter at everything you do or just the most important things? Gee, I looked for God for5 minutes and He wasn't there so He can't exist. What nonsense. Grow up, quit selling yourself short.
There has to be a higher being without one Ducati , Laverda, MV Augusta Moto Guzzi etc would never exist !!!!! ...... This is a fact what I'm telling you !!!!🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘
Your belief system is flawed . It has so many holes in it . For example, why would the Creator of the Cosmos, care , if l , an evolved ape , one of billions , on a speck of dust in the vastness of the universe , grovelled to him , or not? He sounds like a total jerk . I try and avoid jerks . And consequently, l want nothing to do with your god. The greatest infanticide in the history of fiction .
How is it Richard Dawkins treats as a matter of course that there is no intelligence in the Universe/existence, yet at the same time he takes if for granted that the cells of the human brain, by exchanging information, do create intelligence? If so, then why should it be so difficult to assume that everything else in the universe (exchanging information) can also create an intelligence of some kind, even if such is beyond the understanding of Richard Dawkins, and all other human beings, to understand? By exerting his denial of the logical, Richard is, in a way, acknowledging that a probability is worthy of being denied? ‘Though it would be hard sell on the lecture circuit, so best not to have it asked by the Dorothea Dixers..
He doesn’t take it for granted that the cells of the human brain create intelligence. That’s a fact. Damage the cells in the brain and intelligence is damaged.
The evolution of matter over time lead to the intelligence in life forms from the matter in the universe. You are agreeing with Richard Dawkins. When a human being starts out as a single cell in the womb they are not conscious or intelligent, but yet consciousness develops over time. The evidence in every single scenario demonstrates that intelligence and consciousness evolves over time and not the other way around. Is it your position that there was a superior intelligence in the universe that for some reason decided to create lesser intelligence and put that in life forms? Is this univere intelligence you're speaking of some kind of underachiever that wants to produce lesser intelligence?
@@adam2aces More than a single cell, I would conclude. And by those cells multiplying and becoming a being, they must have a dormant - built in - intelligence, even if inaccessible...
What consists of progress in religion? Like you couldn’t smoke or dance now you can as Christians? Like the Methodists used to be. Catholics couldn’t divorce, ? But other Christians can.
The day we stepped on the moon, religions should have been dumped in a landfill. The universe is so enormous even if someone tries to reach us with the speed of light from its edge, it will never reach us! It can only reach us from the observable universe, which is smaller than the actual universe.
*1-* "Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." *2-* "Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few." *3-* "Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book claims it's the holy truth." *4-* "The delusional religious are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt." *5-* "The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own." *6-* "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled." *7-* "It's difficult to free the religious from the chains they revere." *8-* “To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.” *9-* "The death of dogma is the birth of morality." *10-* "Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
Dawkins is not intelligent says the person who believes in an invisible ghost that uses magic powers too make people out of mud 😆 it's the talking snake that's where all our problems came from 🤣 if we could just find that darn talking snake we could really change the world for the better 🙄
I agree with Mr Dawkins I would much prefer an intelligent creator if one is found than the god as described in any religious book. An intelligent creator and god are very different. A force like in star wars movies for example existed but it made no judgements even though some evil people used it in an evil way.
@@matthewharrell398 I would disagree . I would be surprised if an intelligent creator existed that would care whether someone sins or not while looking after the universe. We might learn more in the future about the universe qualities that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever in our current understanding. i guess we will never know.
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
If there is no accountability, no hell , then why would I need morality or humanity in the first place ?. If there is no God I'm not answerable to anyone , I will do what I want,
@Yochif to live in society, and doing whatever I want , no God, no hell, no accountability, no rules, no moral obligations. I'll do every illicit thing.
Morality was hand-picked from ancient scriptures in the first place! Being a good person because you fear reprisal is actually less moral than being a good person because you really want to be
Some people naturally love life and other folks who are not animals like you describe yourself as. But not everyone. It sounds like you are in the second group. What secret desires do you harbor where exists the ought against others? Weaklings need a God. And should not be allowed to vote. They live life having demonized good and innocent people from their less evolved state.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Revelation 4:11
:It seems to me that Richard has given more credence to religion, that anyone before, all those that have preceded him in that endeavour…perhaps that what his purpose has been…? Most of the earlier and medieval people attempted to justify religion with mystical stories and pseudo magic, which encouraged speculation and mistrust as being concocted by charlatans and liars, whereas Richard challenged those conclusions and explanations with demands for scientific corroborating evidence…. This has encouraged people to look for ways of augmenting the beliefs, wanted to preserve, with explanations beyond what they had been told by holy men, and scriptures… Such as the function of consciousness and perception and other scientific ventures, and in many cases, they found conclusions that offered explanations, of some reasonable value…?
Richard Dawkins was not answerable when a Muslim kid ask him question that Quran have a true step by step description of the development of the embryo stages . You can check video title - Richard Dawkins teaches evolution to religious students ... Search & see
Dawkins is a materialist. For him the physical or elemental is fundamental to reality. He knows nothing about consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy; is it fundamental)? and nothing about Mind (is it elemental; does it emerge with quantum events)? He knows something about the physical; matter; the gross elemental and he extrapolates that to be the nature of reality which he sees as one-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. Consciousness; (fundamental); Mind: (elemental emerging with quantum events); and the cellular or gross physical; elemental, also emerging with quantum events. To see one dimension as the nature of reality is benighted in today’s world; this perspective was posited in the mid-nineteenth century; it was dumb then and it is dumb now.
@@Lordidude It is not a matter of proving it is a matter of not seeing elements as causal to consciousness; mind and evolution; randomly to a non-existent prototype. That has not been proven. Without consciousness and mind what could come into existence and how? Where did it all come from; the atheistic problem of ‘something from nothing’ of philosophy. As well physicists see all as flux as a mirage. It has been said that what is manifest is a dream lacking reality; although it seems real to us. A materialist will find that hard to credit but the onus is on materialism to say how life began; life itself not physical life which could not have started from nothing. If not conscious and mind then what?
@@Lordidude I posted already but maybe this post will show up next to what it is responding to. My answer: Explain consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy). There is no evidence it is elemental and it cannot be ‘reduced; observed; or studied by being put in a vial in a lab as all else can. Everything, even mind, is elemental emerging with quantum events and can be studied. That is why consciousness is ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. So consciousness is non-physical; non-elemental, otherwise it would not be the hard problem. That is the answer to your question.
@ALavin-en1kr Consciousness is tied to a physical brain and electrochemical processes. We have mapped language, ambidextrouity, personality, beliefs, and much more on different parts of the brain. Consciousness is a byproduct of a physical brain. All the evidence shows that. None of the evidence suggests anything else. What is your non-physical explanation for consciousness?
@@Lordidude It is the hard problem for philosophy as they agree it is not elemental. You can map the brain all you want and determine what the varies parts do but you cannot see what is not physical or elemental. Not knowing about electricity you could take your laptop apart and try to understand how ‘the parts’ make it work and you are not going to find it. The reality is consciousness is fundamental; mind is elemental and the physical is a grosser or denser elemental composed of the macro elements. Why philosophy is willing to admit that consciousness is not element-based and science is not there yet is because science is in reality material science; the study of matter; it sees matter the gross elements as fundamental to reality. In a quantum world that is now being assessed and questioned.
So.... let Dawkins have his full say on absolutely everything, but don't publish the responses of the people who don't agree with him. This seems like a serious bias on the part of the creator of this video!
Nobody can believe in a GOD, & nobody can disbelieve in a GOD because nobody can understand anything unknowable & unreachable, one would have to be like a GOD himself to understand it. A thimble can only take in a thimble full of water (knowledge), it can't take in the ocean of knowledge.
Unknowable and unreachable? Belief isn’t knowing as The Bible learns, ’blessed be thou who believes without ”knowing” Telling us belief in that sense is superior to ”knowing” _It speaks to the inner core of the independent ’self’, not the beliefs 0:02 0:02 generated by outer influence (s) Outside-guiding towards an individual 0:02 standpoint (soulsearching) Is not influence it is just a blessing
@@DeliaFasta96 An argument from personal incredulity is the idea that something isn’t true just because you find it difficult to believe based on a feeling. He states he finds it hard to believe as a mathematician, meaning his disbelief is grounded in knowledge and stems from mathematical probability, not his feelings. If my wife tells you she finds RNA world hypothesis hard to believe it will be an argument from personal incredulity, the idea just feels wrong to her so she assumes it is. When I say I find it hard to believe it is not a fallacy because I don’t think this based on what I feel but on my knowledge of organic chemistry.
@@houstandy1009 Knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences and even biology won’t get you anywhere in determining how a living cell came about and whether or not there is a god. Organic chemistry also cannot explain the origins of life. Therefore, JL’s assessment is based on an argument from incredulity.
@@houstandy1009 No offence, but that ‘everything someone doesn’t believe is an argument from incredulity’ is obvious nonsense. There are allegations that can, at least theoretically, be factually proven or refuted, and hypotheses that elude verification / falsification. This is a generally known fact. Therefore, your latest comment is disingenuous.
God was the King of Israel, but Israel rejected him. They wanted a king just like their neighboring countries. So God, through Samuel gave them a king, Saul. God could not relinquish his role as Israel's King, Savior and Lord, God has to fulfill them as His Son, Jesus Christ. Israel crucified him thereby rejecting Him as their King a second time around. God did not choose to be crucified. ( But He knew beforehand that He would be. ) "..Not my will but yours. " -Matthew 26:39 . That crucifixion worked for the benefit for the Gentiles. " If their ( Israel ) rejection is the reconciling of the world. What would their ( Israel ) acceptance be but life from the dead. " - Romans 11:15 MBA
By denying existence of GOD without separating the crucial difference between 1) The Creator of the universe and 2) the one demanding prayers and subordination to the rules, supposed to have been delivered by that Creator (but, in practice, always invented by some humans), Richard is doing a disservice to the task of GETTING RID OF THE RELIGIONS, because it is only the second function of GOD that needs to be denied, while the former, as a NON-PERSONAL entity is implied in any rational explanation of the existence of the universe. It need not be denied. Even science has only changed the name of THE CREATOR from GOD to NATURE, while retaining its role as The Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe. Otherwise science cannot DISCOVER LAWS OF NATURE. On the contrary, by claiming the existence of immutable, inevitable amd irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE with all the EVIL intact, Science only provides very rational EXPLANSTIONS justifying all the evil as they exist ~ thus contributing, inadvertantly though, to perpetuate them. Thus Science, as it exists at present, is a far more destructive religion than all the conventional religions taken together. As QM clearly shows: THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE TO BE DISCOVERED. Nature permits us to design the laws we consider most appropriate to SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE on this earth and, only thereafter, analyze phenomena selectively to find THE MEANS to implement the laws we want nature to follow. EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH. Lack of this realization is the reason why the humsn race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
Friend, if you had evidence of a god, you wouldn't have immediately retreated to the term "creator" (which means any person/thing that causes something to exist; I'm the creator of this comment. Am I a god? I'm not, so then you hopefully see just how far you've retreated off topic by using the term "creator", yeah?) Well a god is a pretty specific category of being. It's not just *any cause.* Google "god definition" if you don't know what people mean by the word.
@@majmage Your response clearly shows you failed to comprehend the essence of my comment. You remind me Mark Twain's advice: Never argue with fools. They'd drag you down to their level and beat you convincingly through their superior experience.
@@mykrahmaan3408 Nothing makes it clearer who's on the side of truth than the one who rushes to hurl insults. Your original comment is frankly a mess of bad ideas. Some are bad because they're just irrelevant, like how you're simultaneously wrong to say science can't predict when something will harm life function (ever hear of a small branch of science called "medicine"?), and also even if you weren't wrong it'd be irrelevant because it'd be an unknown (and do unknowns help us prove a god exists? Of course not. Unknowns make it clear we _don't_ know a god exists, in fact. They take us steps _away_ from belief being reasonable.)
I am a Christian , I believe in the God of the Bible and I believe that he is the creator of this universe , the earth and everything that exists on it. But I agree and understand many things that Richard Dawkins said . Religions dirty and distort the name of God , the laws and commandments of God for us humans and this makes many people hate God . I do not believe in religions , I hate religions and even the name religions I don't like .
I'm curious because I used to be a Christian what you think when you read something like the baptism of Jesus. A voice came from the heavens and said this is my son with whom I am pleased. If Jesus is God who was this voice? Was Jesus performing ventriloquism and why was he trying to convince people that he was a son of God and not God himself? There are just too many things in that book that don't make sense.
@@JonHarrington9075 God makes the rules, so why did he invent this morality play? He invented it because humans are impressed with drama. Men created God and that's why he is a drama queen.
Richard Dawkins should 1) Review the recent developments around Darwins theory and how it is discredited by the world's foremost scientists 2) don't generalize religion as being a hindrance to knowledge and progression. He clearly has not looked into Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. Go school yourself in the wonders of the oldest religion in the world!
Re:1) B*ll*cks! I wonder why you haven't bothered to name just one of "the world's foremost scientists". Anyway, even school kids know that "Darwin's theory" is ancient history. Science has moved on (and how!) since the 1860s Re:2) “Religion teaches you to be satisfied with non answers. It’s a sort of crime against childhood.” Richard Dawkins.
@@maylingng4107 I absolutely agree, I’m just genuinely puzzled as to why religious people expect everyone to know their scriptures, and if they realise they themselves are atheists towards every other religion’s scriptures having dismissed them all (if they’ve read them all).
Dawkins admitted only intelligence has ever been shown to create specified coded information such as found in living cells. He then stated on camera it's likely a higher alien intelligence created it. So take that for what it's worth. No god aka intelligent creator but yes to an intelligent alien creator???? That my friends is called mumbo jumbo logic😂
He said no such thing 😂 He said an alien life could have seeded life on earth but that alien would still be evolved and needs an explanation. He said a case could be made for a deist god though he doesn't believe it but a case could be made for that. Why lie?
@jameswright... sorry but he did admit only intelligence has been proven to create specified information which directs functionality such as found in dna. ( which is a fact as we speak) and he,did,say he cannot explain away this fact which is why he said is possible intelligence created it. But really dawkins has no clue on such matters anyways as he doesn't know the,chemistry at all. His rendition of a non intentional creator is opinion based on dogma. I just brought his name up because he is an outspoken evangelist for his faith while he simultaneously bashes other peoples faith .
@@JimWilliams-s8z You are twisting things round, making things up and redefining words at will. If you can’t be honest, there’s no point in wasting time on any valid points you may have
Dawkins Lied The issue atheists have is, They Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it God is simply the Existence of Love we all acknowledge. Everybody Believes Love exists Simple. But infinite in Power and Expression. To ignore the Reality of that Is not only Unfortunate It’s Shameful
The mindless echo chamber represented in the comments is actually more frustrating than listening to Dawkins himself. The mounting evidence against a Darwinian mechanism leading to life makes these statements absurd in the extreme. - the information present in DNA, the fine tuning of the cosmos, even just the formation of stars and the heavier elements, the chemistry necessary for any living cell and consciousness itself all scream out that a natural/materialistic explanation is insufficient, and that it didn’t all just happen by itself.
Nonsense. The formation of the universe and everything in it occurred by natural means with no creator involved. Can you list one evidence for a creator?
@ - One hallmark of a valid scientific theory is falsification. The complexity and fine tuning of all things in the universe and the digital information in DNA both serve to falsify your theory. The chemistry needed for life could not happen by itself in a prebiotic (or any other) environment. The dual layers of the lipid cell membrane cannot be recreated by scientists in the lab, let alone the formation of at least 200 amino acids to form the most simple protein. Even though amino acids are both right and left handed, only left handed aminos can be used to make a protein or the fold won’t work. Finally, the instructions to arrange the amino acids are coded into certain genes, tha have to be read and encoded by RNA and then built by other cellular structures inside the cell. - ONE CELL, is a factory, and more complex than any machine ever developed by man. And you think this all happened following a big bang, where something the size of a proton exploded for no reason into hydrogen and some helium, then condensed into septillions of stars where the heavier elements were formed and coughed out into space forming planets. Who’s religious????
Oh dear. The good ol' Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy again. WhatTF has your so-called "Darwinian mechanism leading to life" to do with descent with inherited modification aka evolution? I assume you mean abiogenesis, which indubitably occurred at least once (with us as the evidence). Evolution accounts for present day biodiversity. It required the existence of some simple bio- before it could start making it more diverse.
they invented something to explain life which is something so weird that there is nothing to explain about it (I mean wha is it? timless spaceless, what does that mean. it’s not made of anything- what is that?) and they think they’ve solved all problems 😂😂 we atheïst are trying to make religious people figure out there is no god but honestly, there are things only a few people understand
@@rotorblade9508 It does not logically follow that we can’t understand something, therefore it doesn’t exist. Timeless and spaceless means that he is not limited to space and time.
@@matthewharrell398 yes, I see, so if you don’t understand something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but I don’t see what you could formulate anything about it except pure speculation
@@rotorblade9508 Good! However I have to argue that we have historical and philosophical evidence, not proof, but evidence that God exists and that there is very little evidence that He does not. Would you be interested in hearing me out?
Ideologies,even religious,are out of date! If you look to Jesus ,you will find He is against ideologies,mostly religious ones!!! He is for salvation of the people in bankruptcy!!!
I support the Idea of existence of God but not bible,,if by any chance a man create another full grown human being I would have the courage to say that there is no creator.it is madness to believe that bible is the word of God or believe that God descended from heaven in form of Jesus Christ to come and save humans from their sins.
@@TywysogCraig It's sad that you just fell into something mentioned in this very video. Your god is the god of the gaps. It should be obvious to the entire planet by now. That gap continues to close. Do you actually think for a second that due to this gap you can suddenly assert your fairy tale magical man in the sky as the answer with exceedingly insufficient evidence to back it up? A hundred conflicting religions on earth attempt to do the exact same BS you are likely pulling to spread their lies. It's time to grow up and take some accountability for the results of your actions.
Tywy, let's say you were right. Does that mean Gary gets to barge into the conversation and claim life-elves caused life? It doesn't. Unless Gary has evidence life-elves did that, they seem entirely off topic and irrelevant. Well *did you provide evidence a god caused life?* You didn't. You won't. You can't. So you don't know it's true. Some of us are honest about not knowing. We don't believe. I hope you join us in caring about truth.
_"At the molecular level, geochemistry is indistinguishable from biochemistry. Life is just ions cascading across membranes due to their electromagnetic potential - it really is as simple as that."_ - Professor Brian Cox
@@abduljabaar9655 same here my friend, Lennox is no scientist, he may be a good Mathematician but it doesn’t preclude him from being deluded. Thank you, best regards to you.
I am glad that these are some of his "best points" against religion. First and foremost, religion is a totally different matter than God. And second, for someone that has truly studied the Bible (not read it, but study it in-depth), all of his arguments are practically childs play to answer. Edit: before somebody says that i mentioned the Bible, so i myself speak about religion and not God, i have to inform you that the Bible is a relationship between man and God. Not a religion.
*A Question for Christians* Christians claim that there is only one true god. This one and true god is the god of the bible. Jesus is the son of this one true god, but Jesus is one and the same as the god of the bible. After all there are not two gods, are there? Add to this the holy spirit, and now we have the Trinity, 3 entities in one comprising the one true god. So whether we call it god, or Jesus, we are talking about the one and only entity that is god. Thus having been said, we look at the deeds of this one true god (Jesus). This god, Jesus, drowned almost all the people of earth including millions of infants and babies, burned two cities full of children, cast plagues on entire nations murdering thousands of babies and children, ordered genocide for entire tribes, but allowed the young virgins to live and made them available for mass rape. Are we still talking about the one true god? If yes, does this god have a split personality, one good side and one evil side? Is the good side unaware of the actions of the evil side? The question is: Why do Christians worship and pray to such a genocidal maniac? I would love to have an answer.
@maylingng4107 There is only one God, that is correct. You are talking about some events in the Old Testament. There is actually a whole book written for those exact questions, it's called "Why does the God of the Old Testament seem so Violent and Hateful" by Richard p. Belcher. He answers your questions in-depth and in a much better way than I probably will. I just looked the book up, it is still available in Amazon if you are interested. The point is, the world was practically drowned in sin, they ignored warnings after warnings, they were sacrificing infants to their fake gods by practically melting them alive in fire, fathers abusing their sons and daughters. Your conclusion, that God "Must" be injust or have a split personality is such a shallow way of thinking. Lastly, Cliffe Knechtle is an incredible theologist that answers pretty much every one of your questions on RUclips. Him and his son go on university tours and answer every question posed by students and professors about God both in the New and in the Old testament. My advice to you is as such. Do not reject God because you think you might know better than just to trust an entity. God is all loving, all good and all just. If you are looking for answers then you are on the right path. You just need to look for those answers at the right place. I hope that you find what your soul needs in your journey of answering your questions. May God guide you!
@@maylingng4107 I already answered your question but RUclips doesn't seem to like facts... Anyway, since I cannot repeat what I said previously, try and search up Cliffe Knechtle and his son, who both are theologists and do an incredible job answering complicated questions. And there is also a book called "why does God in the Old testament seem so violent and hateful" by Richard p. Belcher. If I say anything more than that, RUclips deletes it. I hope you find your answers there. May God guide you.
@maylingng4107 I am sorry I cannot answer that. I have already replied 2 times and both comments I made got deleted. Look like RUclips doesn't like facts about God. Anyway, try and look up Cliffe Knechtle. An incredible theologist that digs deep into complicated matters in the Bible. There is also a book called "why does God in the Old testament seem so Violent and Hateful" by Richard p. Belcher. I hope God guides you to the answers you seek.
@@m4rbletv Do not make me laugh! Cliffe Knechtle is an uneducated snake oil salesman who peddles his religion for money. If you wish to have an intelligent conversation, you have to do a lot better than list con men like Knechtle for reference.
He said why is the color of jealousy lol 😂and no one catches that the real question is what is the color of jealousy. Why do you feel jealousy is the question bro Dawkins is just stupid sometimes 😅 .
First point = Spell his name correctly, Richard Dawkins. It is in the bloody title of the video, how lazy are you? So even within the first two words of your sentence, you have let yourself down. Second point = I really don't need one. Your laziness in not spelling his name correctly shows, you don't really mean what you say and you are the usual empty jar believer with nothing to add to any conversation.
Unfortunately Atheism has become an anthem, seems not to hold forth the idea of non-belief in belief. Atheism is in many ways a monolith of the mind, the singularity which cannot accommodate other thoughts and ideas. That in itself negates the idea of atheism - rational and logical thought. #Ethics is a drive and atheists by no mean hold the keys to that lock.. (read the comment, it is a conversation, which is what science is all about). Secularism is meant to protect people from excesses, it by no means gives anyone the right to negate or oppress others..
My blood pressure normalises when I hear RD speak.
he speaks beautiful english 😊 amazing
Read the Bible and your blood pressure will normalize.
@@davewalt1781 I don't feel inclined to read religious texts. I don't believe in immaculate conception, walking on water, mitacle cures, resurrection of the dead, 2 adult human being popping into existence. Or any other juvenile stuff from any religion.
@@davewalt1781 how?
then you are just as lost as he is, sad.
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins
So you are going to rejeYct God because of Dawkins? You will get to spend eternity with him.
@@davewalt1781 I’d love to spend an eternity with Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and Spinoza and Carl Sagan and Raquel Welch and Marilyn Monroe.
@@RichieRichMD Yes, if it was in heaven, where everything is perfect and not that other horrible place where it will be complete isolation and suffering..
Dawkins didn't understate a lot of things.
Dawkins was 100% wrong about God, the most important thing.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens ❤
There is a ton of evidence for God and the Bible and zero evidence for everything else. So Hitchens was wrong again.
I should have said Dawkins, but it's true for Hitchens also. Both false teachers.
@@davewalt1781
Yet you cannot prove them wrong.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS There is a ton of evidence for God and the Bible. God said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, so man is without excuse." The billions and billions of stars, where did the material come from and how did the stars form? How did the human body form? Gases exploding that are able to design and create? I await your reply.
@@steinhogger That’s true, and there’s a lot of evidence that Jesus Christ is trustworthy so let’s not dismiss him without evidence that he isn’t trustworthy. Are you interested in the evidence?
It *must* be infuriating for Richard Dawkins to try and hold in intelligent conversation with a brick wall intelligence.
It's infuriating for all of us who have come to the realization that a space ghost living somewhere in the clouds is probably not the most realistic answer to these questions about human origins.
@nonwokewhere's your god? Nowhere?
Then it doesn't exist, simpleton...
@@adam2aces Imagine how Christians feel. 🤷♂️We have to hear your constant straw-men while you claim intellectual superiority even though you don’t understand our arguments to begin with. That’s also quite annoying. 😐
LoL - you cannot hate what doesn't exist.
@@adam2aces And that's how you discredit yourself :/
I am atheist, but that kind of complete misrepresentation of what many educated, intelligent Christians would consider to be "god" is just stupid...
It's completely mad that fully grown adults are still debating this. When is the debate on whether or not unicorns, dragons, mermaids, the tooth fairy etc exist?
I agree to a point. There are still some fundamental questions that remain unanswered, however I really cannot understand people who still (in 2025) take ancient scriptures so literally
I know God exists, no debating whatsoever, worthless.......................Falun Gong
@@jeff_forsythe Yet you are posting in a RUclips comments section. What exactly are you hoping to achieve, or are you just trolling?
@@wuggle1405 I am spreading the wonderful practice, Falun Dafa and the word of God, what are you doing, hating God, why?
@@jeff_forsythe The only way you will spread your wonderful practice is by making someone believe in the first place. How can I hate a God if I have no evidence one even exists?
A great compilation. Thank you!
It's just ashame nothing of it is true.
@@davewalt1781 Sad that you lack the mental capacity to understand. If you actually believe in heaven, why waste time here. Go get involved in insanely risky recreational activities. You seem rather dim, so it shouldn't take long.
@@davewalt1781 Such as? Finding the occasional good verse in the bible?
@@wuggle1405 Every Word of the Bible is God's Word. God gave you free will, you can accept God and the Bible or you can reject God and the Bible. As for me, give me Jesus.
First of all the frase 'Survival of the fittest' is not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer. Secondly it is often misunderstood (Dawkins too?) and fit here does not mean strong or dominant but fitting into environment or circumstances. Then it makes perfect sense because fitting can be also achieved by co-operation and respecting other people.
You are dead right about the misunderstanding of the term FITTEST. Perhaps survival of the best-adapted would be better. Of course Dawkins understands this! By the way, its PHRASE not frase.
George Pell has questionable validity in any discussion on morals.
I think the underlying connotation they may be referring to would be, a society where only the smartest, or healthiest individuals are allowed to get advantage or preference, and the weak, vulnerable, unhealthy would be left to die or care on their own. Yea it would be an unpleasant society to live in.
@@TubeArmadillo respecting others is not the core-value of religion.
dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, I don't think he gets it wrong, buddy 😂
There's a world of difference between describing Nature as it is and prescribing how Human Society should be organized. I have never been able to understand why these two totally different things keep being mixed up in such discussions. Darwing was a Naturalist, not a Moralist or a Sociologist. Deriving moral conclusions from what he discovered about nature is like seeing aesthetic opinions in Newton's demonstration of how light refracts.
Excellent compilation
I just attended Richard Dawkins last show in SF. It is old and feeble now. Natural aging of course, but its sad to see my mentor fade away.
For real my dream is too see him before it’s to late😢 I love him
By "it", I presume you mean Richard himself. I saw him a few weeks ago in Portland, Oregon- a far left war zone of a city that the U.S. Secret Service has, for years, nicknamed "Little Beirut." He had the backbone to announce that there are exactly two sexes, and to believe one is other than that which they are biologically is a delusion.
Professor Dawkins didn't seem feeble in my opinion. Aged, yes, but not feeble. He was as sharp and articulate as ever.
@davidhart9106 I wanted to go watch his last show but I wish he was just still an educational evolutionary biologist I don't care about current gender politics
I am an atheist because - none of the books on religion are logical. IMO, they are fairy stories to cause fear, violence, delusion, ignorance. None of it makes sense. I just find it all ridiculous & although I respect the right of others to follow certain faiths, I find it arrogant for these believers to tell me I will go to hell because I cannot accept the laws of belief, worship etc.
@@steveath Well except, of course, the Bible. The Bible is mostly a compilation of historical chronicles and obviously, it’s true.
@@matthewharrell398 I don’t agree but respect your views.
@@steveath oh, okay awesome! Back at ya! 👍👍
@@matthewharrell398I don't see how its so obvious?
@@mezlay2 If the apostles were lying about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, why wouldn’t they come clean when their lives were threatened with a humiliating and torturous death?
7:45 Dawkins is exercising a lot of patience answering that question...
A genius. And with a lot of guts to enter the domain of religious zealots and make his point with so much gusto. Him and Christopher Hitchens, absolutely brilliant minds.
@nonwoke
Where did this alleged God come from?
Who or what created it?
@nonwoke
So you do think something can come from nothing.
Got it 👍
Thanks 🤝
It's just a shame that both are leading people to eternal destruction.
I love the religious people commenting here. The same old weak arguments. I am sure Hitchens would be laughing at these comments. He would just say something like "what an utterly ridiculous question" and everyone would laugh. ;) My intellectual hero..
@@andrematarazzo We will see if Hitchens and Dawkins will be laughing on Judgment Day.
Worshiping any being that claims to have killed every person on earth except selected 8 to tell the story how he wants is insane. Don't tell me that in "the flood" no innocent babies drowned which is painful.
Theists usually defend it by saying those kids, babies and fetuses came from evil and wicked people and were already lost.
Why couldnt god intervene? Why drowning? He seems to like seeing people suffer.
@@robotaholic It’s a very emotionally troubling story to believe in, but it is at least logically consistent that a morally good God could do such a thing. If God is infinite in knowledge, His judgments would be incomprehensible to limited human beings and we shouldn’t be surprised when we see His judgments and are appalled at them because we cannot see what God sees.
@@matthewharrell398mass murder of children is 'logically consistent' with a 'morally good god'? That's some simone biles- level mental gymnastics there. You've got a glaring 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy as well. Utter nonsense.
@@walterwanderley383 If a man is put in prison for preying on children, should he be arrested even if he has a wife and children? Of course he should even if the family will suffer as a result. Sadly, children often suffer for the sins of their parents.
@@matthewharrell398 More utter nonsense from you. Explain how god killing children is morally good?
Offtopic:
11:48 - is that Andie MacDowell?
Sure was
@@blairtelford8596 Thanks! 🙏
Yes
my favourite videos one of the most important scientist
He's just stooo-pid.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ruclips.net/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/видео.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Why is he one of the most important scientists?
Yes, he is awesome... But I just wondered how you quantified that.
What about Denis Nobel?.
@@WhoThisMonkey Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as an influential figure not just because of his contributions to evolutionary biology, but also due to his ability to communicate complex scientific ideas to the general public. His work, particularly in popularizing concepts like the 'selfish gene' and his advocacy for science and rational thinking, has had a significant impact on both the scientific community and public discourse. Over the years, Dawkins has received numerous awards, such as the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest, which highlight his contributions to both science and its communication. His importance can be seen in how his ideas have shaped modern evolutionary theory and inspired countless people to explore science more deeply. Basically, Dawkins is not only one of the greatest in science, but also one of the greatest to make people like you understand science. - ChatGPT.
@@jasonq8523Excellent response Jason, I’ve been following Professor Dawkins since reading “The god Delusion” in late 2006, after this classic I had to get everything else he wrote, “The Selfish Gene” also a classic, his patience and perseverance with the public explaining these topics are nothing short of remarkable, love how he takes the complexities of evolutionary biology and transmit it to the masses and layman (like myself) for us to understand.
In my humble opinion, Richard Dawkins is a beacon of light 💡 and hope in a world obscured by traditions, delusions and fallacy.
Thankyou Richard Dawkins
Before I stumbled upon Richard Dawkins, I thought I was the only person in the world who thought like that, so it is reassuring to know there are others too!
Yes, thank you Dawkins for leading so many people into hell.
As an atheist, I can see how somemone religious may have a life which is full of anger: praying to a God that doesn't answer, expecting things to go well, even not understanding tragedy when they've lived a life following rules that must be obeyed. Punishing themselves often comes along. I still think it is harder to be an atheist, but I can't deny the inherent pain of being religious. I also would like to add that many religious people do not follow that path by choice, unfortunately. And, because of that, I make an effort not to judge.
Great video. Thanks.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I really do appreciate that you make an effort not to judge others but I do take issue with some of what you said. I don’t mean any disrespect and you seem like a decent person. When I was an atheist, I had an easier time sleeping at night because I assumed that my loved ones as well as myself were headed to the same place, the grave. I thought that I didn’t have to do anything because nothing mattered. Now that I’m a Christian, I am haunted by the thought of my loved ones who aren’t Christian having to suffer for eternity and I’m burdened with the mission of evangelism. I think that is a much heavier burden to bear. I take issue with your characterization of praying to a God that doesn’t answer. Christians are supposed to understand that God knows infinitely more than we do and that what we often receive from God is the ability to be at peace with God denying our requests.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think atheism is hard because it involves thinking of ourselves as no longer existing after death and that our lives are inherently meaningless because the universe will end in a heat death. However I think that Christianity is exactly the opposite of wishful thinking. I often wish I could go back to believing that God didn’t exist.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp I think biblically literate Christian’s understand tragedy far more than the average Atheist does. Half of the Psalms are of prayers lamenting how God seems to favor the wicked. Ecclesiastes makes a very strong case that life is meaningless because we all have to die. Job is told as a story of a man who suffered immensely even though God Himself said that Job wasn’t being punished, he just had to suffer and never find out why. There’s a book of the bible called Lamentations. Most of the prophets mourned the destruction of Israel and our own Lord was crucified for the sin of the world.
@@JoshuaThomasMoserSharp Again, I really do appreciate that you try not to judge others and I really can see that in your comments and you seem to me to be a decent person. I only take issue with what appears to be a misunderstanding about what Christians believe and how we live. I hope you understand that I’m not at all offended and that I’m not trying to offend you. I’m simply voicing my opinion and hopefully I’ve done that respectfully and I invite you to look at the Christian faith through that lens, and, of course, I invite you to put your trust in my Lord Jesus Christ. If you have any disagreement with anything I said, please let me know and I would love to hear your opinion.
@@matthewharrell398 I appreciate so much everything you just said. Made me think and question my own words. The fact that you were so respectful is unusual and leads to what I'm doing now: show gratitude.
I would say our ideas are not that different. You're right, tragedy is an important/significant part for christians, and quite a difficult burden, and I think I didn't make an effort to take that more into consideration. However, you won't find many atheists that at least will consider some of the things I mentioned.
My brother took his own life last year. I really hope he is no longer existing and having a consciousness. I won't enter in what science has to say on this topic or religion. I will say this, though: I find it hard to believe in a God that would allow so much suffering. You seem better informed than me when it comes to the Bible. Maybe you can share what lead you to become christian -if you feel comfortable about it-. I hope you understood everything, as spanish is my first language. Thank you again.
The irony of discussing the old testament while sharing a room with an enormous 60 million year old fossilised dinosaur skeleton
Brilliant!
Whos the last debater with him on 92Y?
Love Mr Dawkins tie
It’s still better than the collar of the nonce sitting next to him
It's the only good thing.
@davewalt1781 You can't help yourself, can you? You need to assert your fragile view by these shallow comments.
@@Lost_Delos Thanks for your nice reply. My beliefs are totally based on God's Word, the Bible. God is neither fragile nor shallow. God created all things, so He is Almighty and powerful.
@davewalt1781 I apologize for my prior tone. My question is sincere. Would you say you're a reasonable and sincere person? If so, I'd like to have a conversation about your beliefs, and perhaps we could come to an understanding. I'd like a basic understanding of who you are. Are you a Christian? What made you choose your religion? Were you born into it?
Dawkins is one of the good guys. One either understands evolution (and genetics) and thus biology or one does not. One must take the time to resd Darwin and the modern biologists or just not understand biology. That's fine but by taking that path one should not criticize the science that so far explains much of how organisms operate. One cannot assume a religious posture and try to understand reality. It is not possible. The Bible and other holy books are literature and cannot be interpreted as history. Because the events therein are not events. They are stories, like Alice in Wonderland or The Three Bears.
You truly prove talk is cheap. You can say anything you want and Truth means nothing to you. Tell me how organisms designed and created the universe and everything in it. Those organisms are really powerful. Have you ever read one word in the Bible? No one has ever been able to disprove the Bible.
Wrong.
The god of the gaps gets smaller all the time.
How are you doing the measurements??
New gaps are continually being discovered because we seek and we find.
This also is evidence of a great Creator: new gaps are continually being created.
I believe Isaac Newton already knew this.
@ the gaps in our knowledge always existed.
This is not evidence of a creator, every time in history when someone hypotheses was a god was responsible, when we found the actual answer not once has it ever been a god responsible.
@
Enjoy answer finding. I do. I enjoy the searching too.
(No new answers to your comments from me.)
There are some very salient points people should know.
Mankind as Homo Sapiens, have been around for about 250,000 years, while the concept of god, has been around for only about 6,000 years, some say 5,000. It doesn't matter.
Call it 5,000 years since god made itself known to mankind.
Some questions need to be asked about that.
Why did god reveal itself just to one ethnic group, those that spoke Hebrew? Many of them worshipped other gods. Even towards the end of the life of Moses, as they travelled nearing the end of their 40 year desert journey, STILL the Hebrew people were worshipping other gods.
How can such importance be put on a god that bungled its creation and blamed that bungle on man?
I refer to the ridiculous concept of 'original sin', which is a downright lie.
God bungled the manufacture of man by failing to put in him the knowledge of right and wrong, Man had to take that knowledge by eating the forbidden fruit. Therefore, god was responsible for the fall.
So, what we have is, a very young god against a quite old group of hominids called Homo Sapiens or mankind. 245,000 years older to be almost precise.
That puts the god concept in the realm of bullshit.
You know with your infinite wisdom God bungled something…. Are you God?
@@SJG-pt4yp Everything I wrote about god, I got from the bible.
If you bothered to read the bible thoughtfully yourself, you too would know, just as I do.
99% no God but God bless Richard Dawkins.
Hitchens and Dawkings. The Dynamic Duo. Great people of logic. 🇦🇺 😊
It's Dawkins, not Dawkings! 😊
We were/are truly “blessed” to have Hitchens & Dawkins in this world. Great orators, incredible minds of unparalleled value for the causes of reason & logic.
@@rexpayne7836 For an edgy 13 year old. 😆😂🤣
@@___Kelli___ unless William Lane Craig is around. When he’s around, Hitchens gets Hitch slapped in the debate and Richard Dawkins runs crying to mommy! 😂😂😂
@@matthewharrell398Wow lol. That's clearly not what happened in reality, so you saying that is seriously massive cope.
he obviously likes that tie
9:46 is that questioner Sam Bankman Fried? 😆
George Pell knows all about sin.
His appeal was upheld, he was acquitted.
Richard Dawkins is a great bloke sure he has some flaw’s but who doesn’t if I became prime minister Dawkins would be head of education
How about prime minister of false religions.
@@davewalt1781
That's Kent Hovind.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Amen
@@davewalt1781
I'm glad you acknowledge that I'm right. 🤝
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Yes, you are right if Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, otherwise you are lost.
One thing that frustratingly never gets brought up in these interviews is that if there is a god, then what made God???. And surely a god would be far more difficult and complex to have somehow spontaneously arrived on the scene than even a universe
They just say god has always existed
Touched on implicitly in some of the earlier clips.
Admit it, you didn't watch the video did you?
@@jamariousjohns9234 What’s wrong with that answer?
@@AntiDogmatism-f8k If something created God, what created that thing? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? Now we have an infinite number of things that create other things.
I find it odd that with myself I find it absolutely incredible and hard to believe the world is a globe flying through space, and I find it incredibly hard to believe that we weren't created by intelligent design. It is so hard to believe because of how incredible it is. My brain, then breaks that down and sees it as something beautiful, and love so much hearing from well spoken scientists explaining it in understandable analogy...then theres people that just say WELL THATS PROOF OF GOD SCIENCE IS DUMB 😂
It nice to finally see a well-balanced summary. The world/universe is amazing, and we need to admit we don’t know the answer to everything. The beauty and mystery should inspire us to learn though… everyone asks questions at some point in their life, yet people are posting comments like “How dare you question God” or similar!
Richard Dawkins won this debate.
But he lost the war. We are here to prove to God that we have faith, not for God to prove anything to us, Hawkins and all his followers are failing that test badly.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS We are here to prove to God who we are, how do you think you are doing so far?
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS The only reason that you would say such a thing is because you are a quitter and you know it. Let's say you want to buy a home. Lots of hard work and you get your reward. The same with God, no work, no seeking, no reward. I know, I received my reward. Poor you, no chance when you quit. Sorry, but true.
@@jeff_forsythe
All Gods are imaginary.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS When you quit looking you will never find like I did. I wonder, are you a quitter at everything you do or just the most important things? Gee, I looked for God for5 minutes and He wasn't there so He can't exist. What nonsense. Grow up, quit selling yourself short.
What about Denis Nobel?.
There has to be a higher being without one Ducati , Laverda, MV Augusta Moto Guzzi etc would never exist !!!!! ...... This is a fact what I'm telling you !!!!🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘🤘
😂😂😂😂
Best point ever!!
WHO created your creator?
IKEA
The True Believer tells us that God exists outside of time, so your question is flawed.
@@Garrison169 your belief system is flawed . With holes in it that you could drive a 747 through .
Your belief system is flawed . It has so many holes in it . For example, why would the Creator of the Cosmos, care , if l , an evolved ape , one of billions , on a speck of dust in the vastness of the universe , grovelled to him , or not?
He sounds like a total jerk . I try and avoid jerks . And consequently, l want nothing to do with your god.
The greatest infanticide in the history of fiction .
Nothing exists outside time.
The looks on the religious people in the audience. Hilarious.
How is it Richard Dawkins treats as a matter of course that there is no intelligence in the Universe/existence, yet at the same time he takes if for granted that the cells of the human brain, by exchanging information, do create intelligence?
If so, then why should it be so difficult to assume that everything else in the universe (exchanging information) can also create an intelligence of some kind, even if such is beyond the understanding of Richard Dawkins, and all other human beings, to understand?
By exerting his denial of the logical, Richard is, in a way, acknowledging that a probability is worthy of being denied?
‘Though it would be hard sell on the lecture circuit, so best not to have it asked by the Dorothea Dixers..
He does not claim there is no intelligence in existence, says that existence was not created by an intelligence because there is no evidence for it
He doesn’t take it for granted that the cells of the human brain create intelligence. That’s a fact. Damage the cells in the brain and intelligence is damaged.
The evolution of matter over time lead to the intelligence in life forms from the matter in the universe. You are agreeing with Richard Dawkins. When a human being starts out as a single cell in the womb they are not conscious or intelligent, but yet consciousness develops over time.
The evidence in every single scenario demonstrates that intelligence and consciousness evolves over time and not the other way around.
Is it your position that there was a superior intelligence in the universe that for some reason decided to create lesser intelligence and put that in life forms? Is this univere intelligence you're speaking of some kind of underachiever that wants to produce lesser intelligence?
@@adam2aces More than a single cell, I would conclude. And by those cells multiplying and becoming a being, they must have a dormant - built in - intelligence, even if inaccessible...
I have to take 'blood pressure" tabs....
What consists of progress in religion? Like you couldn’t smoke or dance now you can as Christians? Like the Methodists used to be. Catholics couldn’t divorce, ? But other Christians can.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins. I don't agree with him all the time, but he's a great man.
I second that. To be fair, I don’t think Dawkins would want everyone to agree with him all the time, that is why he encourages critical thinking.
The day we stepped on the moon, religions should have been dumped in a landfill. The universe is so enormous even if someone tries to reach us with the speed of light from its edge, it will never reach us! It can only reach us from the observable universe, which is smaller than the actual universe.
Ohh dear Lord we really did step on the Moon and then (cos no God) lost the technology from the 60’s to go back!
@@SJG-pt4yp Lost the technology to go back?! What on earth are you talking about?
*1-* "Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
*2-* "Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few."
*3-* "Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book claims it's the holy truth."
*4-* "The delusional religious are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
*5-* "The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own."
*6-* "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled."
*7-* "It's difficult to free the religious from the chains they revere."
*8-* “To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
*9-* "The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
*10-* "Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
This is proof positive of the fact that you can’t reason people out of positions they weren’t reasoned into to begin with.
Dawkins is not intelligent says the person who believes in an invisible ghost that uses magic powers too make people out of mud 😆
it's the talking snake that's where all our problems came from 🤣 if we could just find that darn talking snake we could really change the world for the better 🙄
The trick is the following: Look at the children: They know, that there is no Santa Claus AND they believe in him!
Well, obviously they stop believing once they know that there is no Santa Claus!
I agree with Mr Dawkins I would much prefer an intelligent creator if one is found than the god as described in any religious book. An intelligent creator and god are very different. A force like in star wars movies for example existed but it made no judgements even though some evil people used it in an evil way.
@@silverfire01 The force doesn’t sound intelligent if it’s not making judgments on evil.
@@matthewharrell398 I would disagree . I would be surprised if an intelligent creator existed that would care whether someone sins or not while looking after the universe. We might learn more in the future about the universe qualities that absolutely makes no sense whatsoever in our current understanding. i guess we will never know.
@@silverfire01 I’m compelled to believe that a creator that interacts with its creation is way more intelligent than one that doesn’t.
@@matthewharrell398 we will have to agree to disagree.
@@silverfire01 okay. 👍
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “to him who sits on the throne and to the lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
If there is no accountability, no hell , then why would I need morality or humanity in the first place ?. If there is no God I'm not answerable to anyone , I will do what I want,
To live in society?
@Yochif to live in society, and doing whatever I want , no God, no hell, no accountability, no rules, no moral obligations. I'll do every illicit thing.
That is the very first problem that he mentioned in the video. Did you actually watch it before writing your comment?
Morality was hand-picked from ancient scriptures in the first place! Being a good person because you fear reprisal is actually less moral than being a good person because you really want to be
Some people naturally love life and other folks who are not animals like you describe yourself as. But not everyone. It sounds like you are in the second group. What secret desires do you harbor where exists the ought against others? Weaklings need a God. And should not be allowed to vote. They live life having demonized good and innocent people from their less evolved state.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
Revelation 4:11
I know that monomyth too.
@ you can bow now, or you can bow when it’s too late. But make no mistake you will bow before the King of Kings the Alpha and Omega JESUS.
@@Tammy.37.37 Actually, He will say you never knew him. His teachings are not your threats. Guess who's standing outside the narrow gate?
We shall see!
@@Tammy.37.37 The kingdom is here now. If you're waiting, you're not following. You're worshiping. Have at it. I already know now.
Dawkins use of the word privilege with respect to our existence is interesting because the word suggests gratitude, but to whom?
How does that follow? And why does there need to be a whom?
@@fibonacimike4110 Perhaps you can tell me why being alive is a privilege?
:It seems to me that Richard has given more credence to religion, that anyone before, all those that have preceded him in that endeavour…perhaps that what his purpose has been…? Most of the earlier and medieval people attempted to justify religion with mystical stories and pseudo magic, which encouraged speculation and mistrust as being concocted by charlatans and liars, whereas Richard challenged those conclusions and explanations with demands for scientific corroborating evidence…. This has encouraged people to look for ways of augmenting the beliefs, wanted to preserve, with explanations beyond what they had been told by holy men, and scriptures… Such as the function of consciousness and perception and other scientific ventures, and in many cases, they found conclusions that offered explanations, of some reasonable value…?
Richard Dawkins was not answerable when a Muslim kid ask him question that Quran have a true step by step description of the development of the embryo stages .
You can check video title - Richard Dawkins teaches evolution to religious students ... Search & see
Ah the Quran… if it was all true, or all false, it would have value. It’s just a book written with 7th century logic
Yes and what about the evolution Theory Patrick Andrews had back in 1995 ? Around 10 years later the science of DNA proved he was right.
Dawkins is a materialist. For him the physical or elemental is fundamental to reality. He knows nothing about consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy; is it fundamental)? and nothing about Mind (is it elemental; does it emerge with quantum events)?
He knows something about the physical; matter; the gross elemental and he extrapolates that to be the nature of reality which he sees as one-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. Consciousness; (fundamental); Mind: (elemental emerging with quantum events); and the cellular or gross physical; elemental, also emerging with quantum events.
To see one dimension as the nature of reality is benighted in today’s world; this perspective was posited in the mid-nineteenth century; it was dumb then and it is dumb now.
Prove that something else than the physical exists first. Otherwise your conment id worthless.
@@Lordidude It is not a matter of proving it is a matter of not seeing elements as causal to consciousness; mind and evolution; randomly to a non-existent prototype. That has not been proven. Without consciousness and mind what could come into existence and how? Where did it all come from; the atheistic problem of ‘something from nothing’ of philosophy. As well physicists see all as flux as a mirage. It has been said that what is manifest is a dream lacking reality; although it seems real to us. A materialist will find that hard to credit but the onus is on materialism to say how life began; life itself not physical life which could not have started from nothing. If not conscious and mind then what?
@@Lordidude I posted already but maybe this post will show up next to what it is responding to. My answer: Explain consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy). There is no evidence it is elemental and it cannot be ‘reduced; observed; or studied by being put in a vial in a lab as all else can. Everything, even mind, is elemental emerging with quantum events and can be studied. That is why consciousness is ‘the hard problem’ for philosophy. So consciousness is non-physical; non-elemental, otherwise it would not be the hard problem. That is the answer to your question.
@ALavin-en1kr Consciousness is tied to a physical brain and electrochemical processes.
We have mapped language, ambidextrouity, personality, beliefs, and much more on different parts of the brain.
Consciousness is a byproduct of a physical brain. All the evidence shows that. None of the evidence suggests anything else.
What is your non-physical explanation for consciousness?
@@Lordidude It is the hard problem for philosophy as they agree it is not elemental. You can map the brain all you want and determine what the varies parts do but you cannot see what is not physical or elemental. Not knowing about electricity you could take your laptop apart and try to understand how ‘the parts’ make it work and you are not going to find it. The reality is consciousness is fundamental; mind is elemental and the physical is a grosser or denser elemental composed of the macro elements. Why philosophy is willing to admit that consciousness is not element-based and science is not there yet is because science is in reality material science; the study of matter; it sees matter the gross elements as fundamental to reality. In a quantum world that is now being assessed and questioned.
Yeah? Just watch the interview Piers Morgan with this guy
Ikr Morgan was annihilated.
Yep, I would call it a schooling as supposed to an interview. Dawkins did well to hide his exasperation with Piers’ ignorance.
Just THINK!
So.... let Dawkins have his full say on absolutely everything, but don't publish the responses of the people who don't agree with him. This seems like a serious bias on the part of the creator of this video!
0:38 💯
I'm a yewish anti-god individual living in Calgary 2025
2:02 see above 😂
W
It takes a large bowl of word salad to feed a straw man like John Lennox
What would be a better way, if you, Mr. Dawkins were God, a better way to save humankind than a bloody and gory death on the cross ?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Nobody can believe in a GOD, & nobody can disbelieve in a GOD because nobody can understand anything unknowable & unreachable, one would have to be like a GOD himself to understand it. A thimble can only take in a thimble full of water (knowledge), it can't take in the ocean of knowledge.
Unknowable and unreachable? Belief isn’t knowing as The Bible learns, ’blessed be thou who believes without ”knowing” Telling us belief in that sense is superior to ”knowing” _It speaks to the inner core of the independent ’self’, not the beliefs 0:02 0:02 generated by outer influence (s) Outside-guiding towards an individual 0:02 standpoint (soulsearching) Is not influence it is just a blessing
All Gods are imaginary.
Richie is not arrogant... too smart... people hate intelligence, wit,success, hard work.... too bad
I guess he is the best we got... since Hitchens died.
@@horus4862 straw-men and low hanging fruit is the best you have? 😂
PAULLS..WHO CHANGE CHRISTIANITY
2:50 such a dumb question riddled with false assumptions and a lack of understanding..
He is wrong about it being an argument from personal incredulity
Then please expose the flaw in his comment and explain why he’s wrong.
@@DeliaFasta96 An argument from personal incredulity is the idea that something isn’t true just because you find it difficult to believe based on a feeling.
He states he finds it hard to believe as a mathematician, meaning his disbelief is grounded in knowledge and stems from mathematical probability, not his feelings.
If my wife tells you she finds RNA world hypothesis hard to believe it will be an argument from personal incredulity, the idea just feels wrong to her so she assumes it is.
When I say I find it hard to believe it is not a fallacy because I don’t think this based on what I feel but on my knowledge of organic chemistry.
@@houstandy1009 Knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences and even biology won’t get you anywhere in determining how a living cell came about and whether or not there is a god. Organic chemistry also cannot explain the origins of life. Therefore, JL’s assessment is based on an argument from incredulity.
@@DeliaFasta96 erm no.
Based on your definition everything someone doesn't believe is a argument from incredulity
@@houstandy1009 No offence, but that ‘everything someone doesn’t believe is an argument from incredulity’ is obvious nonsense. There are allegations that can, at least theoretically, be factually proven or refuted, and hypotheses that elude verification / falsification. This is a generally known fact. Therefore, your latest comment is disingenuous.
God was the King of Israel, but Israel rejected him. They wanted a king just like their neighboring countries. So God, through Samuel gave them a king, Saul. God could not relinquish his role as Israel's King, Savior and Lord, God has to fulfill them as His Son, Jesus Christ. Israel crucified him thereby rejecting Him as their King a second time around. God did not choose to be crucified. ( But He knew beforehand that He would be. ) "..Not my will but yours. " -Matthew 26:39 . That crucifixion worked for the benefit for the Gentiles. " If their ( Israel ) rejection is the reconciling of the world. What would their ( Israel ) acceptance be but life from the dead. " - Romans 11:15 MBA
By denying existence of GOD without separating the crucial difference between
1) The Creator of the universe
and
2) the one demanding prayers and subordination to the rules, supposed to have been delivered by that Creator (but, in practice, always invented by some humans),
Richard is doing a disservice to the task of GETTING RID OF THE RELIGIONS, because it is only the second function of GOD that needs to be denied, while the former, as a NON-PERSONAL entity is implied in any rational explanation of the existence of the universe.
It need not be denied.
Even science has only changed the name of THE CREATOR from GOD to NATURE, while retaining its role as The Power that determines the flow of all events in the universe.
Otherwise science cannot DISCOVER LAWS OF NATURE.
On the contrary, by claiming the existence of immutable, inevitable amd irrefutable LAWS OF NATURE with all the EVIL intact, Science only provides very rational EXPLANSTIONS justifying all the evil as they exist ~ thus contributing, inadvertantly though, to perpetuate them.
Thus Science, as it exists at present, is a far more destructive religion than all the conventional religions taken together.
As QM clearly shows:
THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE TO BE DISCOVERED.
Nature permits us to design the laws we consider most appropriate to SUSTAIN EVIL FREE LIFE on this earth and, only thereafter, analyze phenomena selectively to find THE MEANS to implement the laws we want nature to follow.
EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH.
Lack of this realization is the reason why the humsn race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking (and still continuing), is yet to derive the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when that phenomenon may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such ~ which, in fact, SHOULD be the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge.
Friend, if you had evidence of a god, you wouldn't have immediately retreated to the term "creator" (which means any person/thing that causes something to exist; I'm the creator of this comment. Am I a god? I'm not, so then you hopefully see just how far you've retreated off topic by using the term "creator", yeah?)
Well a god is a pretty specific category of being. It's not just *any cause.* Google "god definition" if you don't know what people mean by the word.
All Gods are imaginary.
@@majmage
Your response clearly shows you failed to comprehend the essence of my comment.
You remind me Mark Twain's advice:
Never argue with fools. They'd drag you down to their level and beat you convincingly through their superior experience.
@@mykrahmaan3408 Nothing makes it clearer who's on the side of truth than the one who rushes to hurl insults.
Your original comment is frankly a mess of bad ideas. Some are bad because they're just irrelevant, like how you're simultaneously wrong to say science can't predict when something will harm life function (ever hear of a small branch of science called "medicine"?), and also even if you weren't wrong it'd be irrelevant because it'd be an unknown (and do unknowns help us prove a god exists? Of course not. Unknowns make it clear we _don't_ know a god exists, in fact. They take us steps _away_ from belief being reasonable.)
he knows what hes talking about
I am a Christian , I believe in the God of the Bible and I believe that he is the creator of this universe , the earth and everything that exists on it. But I agree and understand many things that Richard Dawkins said . Religions dirty and distort the name of God , the laws and commandments of God for us humans and this makes many people hate God . I do not believe in religions , I hate religions and even the name religions I don't like .
Read your Bible thoroughly and become completely disgusted...
I'm curious because I used to be a Christian what you think when you read something like the baptism of Jesus. A voice came from the heavens and said this is my son with whom I am pleased. If Jesus is God who was this voice? Was Jesus performing ventriloquism and why was he trying to convince people that he was a son of God and not God himself? There are just too many things in that book that don't make sense.
@@JonHarrington9075 God makes the rules, so why did he invent this morality play? He invented it because humans are impressed with drama. Men created God and that's why he is a drama queen.
You've put yourself in a difficult position. Without a religion how do you know what your god wants? How do you know if it exists at all?
@@carguy99 Well so far I really like this guy in the Bible. His name is Jesus Christ and I find him very impressive and good!😊
ruclips.net/video/uP7gllVHNic/видео.html Isn't that also an argument of personal incredulity?
Each to their own.. I am not an atheist.
Richard Dawkins is a gem ..
His views on homosexuality sucks.
Richard Dawkins should
1) Review the recent developments around Darwins theory and how it is discredited by the world's foremost scientists
2) don't generalize religion as being a hindrance to knowledge and progression. He clearly has not looked into Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism. Go school yourself in the wonders of the oldest religion in the world!
No scientist has discredited the theory of evolution. That is just a lie!
Re:1) B*ll*cks! I wonder why you haven't bothered to name just one of "the world's foremost scientists". Anyway, even school kids know that "Darwin's theory" is ancient history. Science has moved on (and how!) since the 1860s
Re:2) “Religion teaches you to be satisfied with non answers. It’s a sort of crime against childhood.” Richard Dawkins.
So... how are we supposed to know which religion/scriptures to follow, as it would take more than a lifetime to read all of them?
@@wuggle1405
It is very easy. All religions are based on lies and myths. You should ignore all of them and just move on!
@@maylingng4107 I absolutely agree, I’m just genuinely puzzled as to why religious people expect everyone to know their scriptures, and if they realise they themselves are atheists towards every other religion’s scriptures having dismissed them all (if they’ve read them all).
Dawkins admitted only intelligence has ever been shown to create specified coded information such as found in living cells. He then stated on camera it's likely a higher alien intelligence created it. So take that for what it's worth. No god aka intelligent creator but yes to an intelligent alien creator???? That my friends is called mumbo jumbo logic😂
Did he really say that it is likely? Or did he just say that it is something that we can't rule out?
He said no such thing 😂
He said an alien life could have seeded life on earth but that alien would still be evolved and needs an explanation.
He said a case could be made for a deist god though he doesn't believe it but a case could be made for that.
Why lie?
@jameswright... sorry but he did admit only intelligence has been proven to create specified information which directs functionality such as found in dna. ( which is a fact as we speak) and he,did,say he cannot explain away this fact which is why he said is possible intelligence created it. But really dawkins has no clue on such matters anyways as he doesn't know the,chemistry at all. His rendition of a non intentional creator is opinion based on dogma. I just brought his name up because he is an outspoken evangelist for his faith while he simultaneously bashes other peoples faith .
@@JimWilliams-s8z You are twisting things round, making things up and redefining words at will. If you can’t be honest, there’s no point in wasting time on any valid points you may have
Dawkins Lied
The issue atheists have is,
They Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it
God is simply the Existence of Love
we all acknowledge.
Everybody Believes Love exists
Simple. But infinite in Power and Expression.
To ignore the Reality of that
Is not only Unfortunate
It’s Shameful
The mindless echo chamber represented in the comments is actually more frustrating than listening to Dawkins himself.
The mounting evidence against a Darwinian mechanism leading to life makes these statements absurd in the extreme. - the information present in DNA, the fine tuning of the cosmos, even just the formation of stars and the heavier elements, the chemistry necessary for any living cell and consciousness itself all scream out that a natural/materialistic explanation is insufficient, and that it didn’t all just happen by itself.
Just out of curiosity, did you watch the video?
@ - Well, it’s been a while back, but yes, I watched it….out of curiosity, why do you ask?
Nonsense. The formation of the universe and everything in it occurred by natural means with no creator involved. Can you list one evidence for a creator?
@ - One hallmark of a valid scientific theory is falsification. The complexity and fine tuning of all things in the universe and the digital information in DNA both serve to falsify your theory.
The chemistry needed for life could not happen by itself in a prebiotic (or any other) environment. The dual layers of the lipid cell membrane cannot be recreated by scientists in the lab, let alone the formation of at least 200 amino acids to form the most simple protein. Even though amino acids are both right and left handed, only left handed aminos can be used to make a protein or the fold won’t work. Finally, the instructions to arrange the amino acids are coded into certain genes, tha have to be read and encoded by RNA and then built by other cellular structures inside the cell. - ONE CELL, is a factory, and more complex than any machine ever developed by man.
And you think this all happened following a big bang, where something the size of a proton exploded for no reason into hydrogen and some helium, then condensed into septillions of stars where the heavier elements were formed and coughed out into space forming planets.
Who’s religious????
Oh dear. The good ol' Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy again.
WhatTF has your so-called "Darwinian mechanism leading to life" to do with descent with inherited modification aka evolution? I assume you mean abiogenesis, which indubitably occurred at least once (with us as the evidence). Evolution accounts for present day biodiversity. It required the existence of some simple bio- before it could start making it more diverse.
Go Dawkins Go
Bill Maher's best point
ruclips.net/video/Vw7aAdH3I4c/видео.html
they invented something to explain life which is something so weird that there is nothing to explain about it (I mean wha is it? timless spaceless, what does that mean. it’s not made of anything- what is that?) and they think they’ve solved all problems 😂😂
we atheïst are trying to make religious people figure out there is no god but honestly, there are things only a few people understand
@@rotorblade9508 It does not logically follow that we can’t understand something, therefore it doesn’t exist. Timeless and spaceless means that he is not limited to space and time.
@@matthewharrell398 yes, I see, so if you don’t understand something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but I don’t see what you could formulate anything about it except pure speculation
@@rotorblade9508 Good! However I have to argue that we have historical and philosophical evidence, not proof, but evidence that God exists and that there is very little evidence that He does not. Would you be interested in hearing me out?
@@rotorblade9508 Did you get my response?
Jesus is for the last in the world... For those in need. If you don't, good... Enjoy!
Jesus is a fictional character.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS I hope you enjoy the fiction then
Ideologies,even religious,are out of date! If you look to Jesus ,you will find He is against ideologies,mostly religious ones!!! He is for salvation of the people in bankruptcy!!!
Jesus is a fictional character.
When you have no logical answer ,go to the only salvation ,Jesus Christ!!
Jesus is a fictional character.
I support the Idea of existence of God but not bible,,if by any chance a man create another full grown human being I would have the courage to say that there is no creator.it is madness to believe that bible is the word of God or believe that God descended from heaven in form of Jesus Christ to come and save humans from their sins.
5:05 no you can't, nobody can show the inorganic becoming organic.
Don't let them fool you
Or even try to school you
@@TywysogCraig define organic
@@WillowAndTheRest self replocating life. Alive. Not a rock or rocky soup. No 2 or 3 celled organisms either
@@TywysogCraig It's sad that you just fell into something mentioned in this very video. Your god is the god of the gaps. It should be obvious to the entire planet by now. That gap continues to close.
Do you actually think for a second that due to this gap you can suddenly assert your fairy tale magical man in the sky as the answer with exceedingly insufficient evidence to back it up? A hundred conflicting religions on earth attempt to do the exact same BS you are likely pulling to spread their lies. It's time to grow up and take some accountability for the results of your actions.
Tywy, let's say you were right. Does that mean Gary gets to barge into the conversation and claim life-elves caused life? It doesn't. Unless Gary has evidence life-elves did that, they seem entirely off topic and irrelevant. Well *did you provide evidence a god caused life?* You didn't. You won't. You can't.
So you don't know it's true.
Some of us are honest about not knowing. We don't believe.
I hope you join us in caring about truth.
_"At the molecular level, geochemistry is indistinguishable from biochemistry. Life is just ions cascading across membranes due to their electromagnetic potential - it really is as simple as that."_
- Professor Brian Cox
“I find that impossible to believe.” Sad. Just sad. Some people have a mouth, a mic, and prominent position. And that’s it.
@@abduljabaar9655 There’s absolutely nothing sad about Science and knowledge through data analysis. As an atheist I want to know, not believe.
@@RichieRichMD I agree with you. I just expressed my disappointment with John Lennox.
@@abduljabaar9655 same here my friend, Lennox is no scientist, he may be a good Mathematician but it doesn’t preclude him from being deluded.
Thank you, best regards to you.
Dawkins ,also!!
I am glad that these are some of his "best points" against religion. First and foremost, religion is a totally different matter than God. And second, for someone that has truly studied the Bible (not read it, but study it in-depth), all of his arguments are practically childs play to answer.
Edit: before somebody says that i mentioned the Bible, so i myself speak about religion and not God, i have to inform you that the Bible is a relationship between man and God. Not a religion.
*A Question for Christians*
Christians claim that there is only one true god. This one and true god is the god of the bible. Jesus is the son of this one true god, but Jesus is one and the same as the god of the bible. After all there are not two gods, are there? Add to this the holy spirit, and now we have the Trinity, 3 entities in one comprising the one true god.
So whether we call it god, or Jesus, we are talking about the one and only entity that is god. Thus having been said, we look at the deeds of this one true god (Jesus). This god, Jesus, drowned almost all the people of earth including millions of infants and babies, burned two cities full of children, cast plagues on entire nations murdering thousands of babies and children, ordered genocide for entire tribes, but allowed the young virgins to live and made them available for mass rape.
Are we still talking about the one true god? If yes, does this god have a split personality, one good side and one evil side? Is the good side unaware of the actions of the evil side? The question is: Why do Christians worship and pray to such a genocidal maniac? I would love to have an answer.
@maylingng4107 There is only one God, that is correct. You are talking about some events in the Old Testament. There is actually a whole book written for those exact questions, it's called "Why does the God of the Old Testament seem so Violent and Hateful" by Richard p. Belcher. He answers your questions in-depth and in a much better way than I probably will. I just looked the book up, it is still available in Amazon if you are interested.
The point is, the world was practically drowned in sin, they ignored warnings after warnings, they were sacrificing infants to their fake gods by practically melting them alive in fire, fathers abusing their sons and daughters.
Your conclusion, that God "Must" be injust or have a split personality is such a shallow way of thinking.
Lastly, Cliffe Knechtle is an incredible theologist that answers pretty much every one of your questions on RUclips. Him and his son go on university tours and answer every question posed by students and professors about God both in the New and in the Old testament.
My advice to you is as such. Do not reject God because you think you might know better than just to trust an entity. God is all loving, all good and all just. If you are looking for answers then you are on the right path. You just need to look for those answers at the right place. I hope that you find what your soul needs in your journey of answering your questions. May God guide you!
@@maylingng4107 I already answered your question but RUclips doesn't seem to like facts... Anyway, since I cannot repeat what I said previously, try and search up Cliffe Knechtle and his son, who both are theologists and do an incredible job answering complicated questions. And there is also a book called "why does God in the Old testament seem so violent and hateful" by Richard p. Belcher. If I say anything more than that, RUclips deletes it. I hope you find your answers there. May God guide you.
@maylingng4107 I am sorry I cannot answer that. I have already replied 2 times and both comments I made got deleted. Look like RUclips doesn't like facts about God. Anyway, try and look up Cliffe Knechtle. An incredible theologist that digs deep into complicated matters in the Bible. There is also a book called "why does God in the Old testament seem so Violent and Hateful" by Richard p. Belcher. I hope God guides you to the answers you seek.
@@m4rbletv
Do not make me laugh! Cliffe Knechtle is an uneducated snake oil salesman who peddles his religion for money. If you wish to have an intelligent conversation, you have to do a lot better than list con men like Knechtle for reference.
are the same with his worst points
Richard Dawkins best points.
Shortest clip in history then.
I believe God exist but not everything in bible i believe
How many gods exist?
600 exist apparently so everyone is an atheist to the other 599 religions
He said why is the color of jealousy lol 😂and no one catches that the real question is what is the color of jealousy. Why do you feel jealousy is the question bro Dawkins is just stupid sometimes 😅 .
🧡🧡🧡
Donkey, who thinks he evolved from a monkey, now all he has to find are the connecting zebra stripes. 😂😂😂
We evolved from an ape not a monkey.
Your childlike scientific ignorance is duly noted.
@@Glasschin2.0
homo sapiens are apes.
Believing in an imaginary friend
Richard Dawkings is the most silly person i've seen in a while
You're obviously projecting.
First point = Spell his name correctly, Richard Dawkins. It is in the bloody title of the video, how lazy are you? So even within the first two words of your sentence, you have let yourself down. Second point = I really don't need one. Your laziness in not spelling his name correctly shows, you don't really mean what you say and you are the usual empty jar believer with nothing to add to any conversation.
Keep on covering up your crap Richard....you understand FKall ...
So presumably you know more than a world-leading evolutionary biologist and Oxford professor?
Unfortunately Atheism has become an anthem, seems not to hold forth the idea of non-belief in belief. Atheism is in many ways a monolith of the mind, the singularity which cannot accommodate other thoughts and ideas. That in itself negates the idea of atheism - rational and logical thought. #Ethics is a drive and atheists by no mean hold the keys to that lock.. (read the comment, it is a conversation, which is what science is all about). Secularism is meant to protect people from excesses, it by no means gives anyone the right to negate or oppress others..
You shouldn't go on the internet while drunk. ;-)
Believeless unbelievableness😅