I went to different churches and as a child knew they all couldn't be true. Also, didn't like how cruel God is.. then studied Evolution and Bingo !!! Also the physicists filled in many details.. Sticking to the free, logical, humane THINKERS.
+BroodallyHonest Dawkins promotes a certain point of view- ie. atheism- which is fine, as everyone's entitle to their point of view. I disagree with that notion since I'm a theist and therefore, according to your statement, I'm "just plain ignorant". And not just me, so were Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and countless other scientists with minds far superior to that of Dawkins who were theists, "just plain ignorant" as per your statement. It's incredibly arrogant too!
It is horrible that the media doesn't try to help people understand science better. The more that you learn about primates the more sense people make. A basic understanding of evolutionary psychology has more explicative power than all the ancient religions combined.
taledarkside If anyone called you stupid for being in a religion they are wrong. If they called whatever supernatural beliefs you hold stupid, well that's on the money.
taledarkside The science degree would kind of indicate that your smart. I don't know what reason causes you to wall off superstition and make a special case for whatever religious nonsense you believe, but it's pretty clear to anyone that religious belief or lack thereof in no is indicative of intelligence. If you believe in magic people in the sky, that is a foolish belief, but many smart people share the belief. Atheism is not a cult. Simply not believing in a god. I wish I could say it was the lack of supernatural beliefs, but many atheists believe stupid things too.
No dear, I think you will find he "gets angry" at the damage belief in invisible magic men has caused the world. Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions, forced conversions of indigenous peoples, crashing planes into towers, ect ect all done specifically for religious reasons. By people striving to attain their subjective Gods "moral perfection" and citing the moral imperfection of the victims as justification 🤮🤮🤮
@@leopalce311 lol of course he didn't dear, ( he does not exist ) however lots of uneducated superstitious people who believed in this imaginary invisible being did "participate" in the crusades dear ( that's the point ) 😜
my favorite excuse. i should let people have their faiths. sure. if people werent killing and attacking each other over it. forcing government rules over it. bullying those who dont have the same views as them. and funny thing is i have a belief XD
"For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not get to know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." 1 Corinthian 1:19-21
That is true - and I am glad that you understand this (unlike the folks who come to my door every once in a while in an attempt to convert me all of the sudden).
Where did you study?! I have heard of this happening before. Its such a shame to hear this, as others have pointed out it doesnt make sense, so i can only assume there are other reasons. Chemistry is a wonderful thing and I hope one day you return to it with the same passion.
he usually has a good chance of using them as his pawn when they are older. It is so much easier to believe through faith, but to believe in nothing is even harder.
The man's absolutely correct.Theology will never get it right because each "belief" is in conflict with another "belief" and nobody has a monopoly on "truth" which is Prof. Dawkins' point.
When a man reaches a point where he seeks no solace from any creature, then he begins to relish God perfectly. Then also he will be content no matter what may happen to him. He will neither rejoice over great things nor grieve over small ones, but will place himself entirely and confidently in the hands of God, Who for him is all in all, to whom nothing ever perishes or dies, for Whom all things live, and Whom they serve as He desires. Cruz ♰ ♰ ♰
I paused, thought, and turned atheist. That's how it went for me. Faith is nothing new, nor anything that will stay. It will just go away, as more and more people get further educated. The more you know, the less you believe.
Thrown back by something the interviewer said. She insinuated, after Dawkins had said that he realized there are numerous religions and they can't all be right, that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all monotheistic and therefore can all be right at the same time.
The difference is negligible. Plus it is difficult to separate the two especially since many religious people are scientists, academics, lawyers, even doctors.
You are clearly thoughtful and respectful; I would like to continue discussing this with you outside the medium of RUclips. Is there a way that you know of to exchange email without spamming it in a public forum?
In some ways you are correct, and that standpoint is feverishly close to that of Krauss, however, I shall quote PZ Myers on this one: "I think philosophy's power is in shaping good questions, phil needs sci to ask relevant questions" And therein it lies, philosophy, in it's modern form as from Russell et al. is about questioning things in a difficult manner, rather than knowledge itself, though some still dispute science as a root of knowledge, which philosophers can counter.
Great interview. He demonstrates that he doesn't have a problem with faith or belief (unlike most of his sheep like followers) and that he's perfectly fine with certain types of theism. It is true that most thinking people are atheists but that's the key word isn't it... "most". It's really phenomenal to meet a thinking theist and since they're more rare, I'm happy to strive for that instead.
If you think Dawkins "doesn't have a problem with faith or belief", you've misunderstood. He most certainly does. As he says, he's passionate about truth, and he sees faith as being deeply incompatible with science and truth.
I was once in Bosnia and Herzegovina in a town called Visoko where there are a few naturally formed pyramids. I went on a tour through a labyrinth with a few muslims, one Czech guy who had converted to Islam was the most vocal of the lot, the others just happily kept to themselves. Cont..
you know what's fkn stupid? The fact that I'm trying over 20 times to post up this fkn link with a wide range of statistics for this study and I get error every fkn time.
"What is true is based on evidence" - You sure as hell got that right. This is why the number of religious people have been steadily dropping and continues to do so. Belief solves none of the worlds issues, belief only creates chaos, segregation, wars and all around opression of those whos belief might differ from yours. Those who dont believe are united under the same banner and can focus on important matters of life, instead of arguing wether homosexuals should be able to get married etc etc.
Watch the sun rise than set. Stars at night from the country. Deserts at night are amazing. Watching a blue whale breach. Watching my son run to me full of Love.
Cont.. when the softly spoken guide started giving a scientific reason for the pyramids formation the Czech guy got offended and said "you need to be careful what you say, he majority of us here are muslims. Where's the line in the Qu'ran that says this?" Just extraordinary really..
Absolutely. I remember how it was religion that discovered that Pluto was in fact not a planet. It was religion that discovered the earth was round. or that the earth in fact revolved around the sun. In fact. I remember when Galileo raised that question, religion embraced him and the evidence he presented. I can think of a million instances when we used to have science as the best explanation, that we NOW believe is best explained by religion. yup.
I can remember hearing the death of Hitchens and was shocked to hear a well known public figure say he would have loved to kick him to death, it truly disturbed me especially when I seen the size of his audience, I would state his name if I thought the whole religion of that person would be blamed for that clowns foolish statement which was heard by 5k+ I did confront him after the speech and he called me an obnoxious cxxt rhymes with hunt, needless to say I never returned to that building but you can hear him spew his hate on RUclips
Those ideas however don't come out of nowhere. They come out of our experience in the real world; from past and tested hypothesis. I am not arguing against imagination, I am arguing against delusion, which is like unsupported imagination.. aka: faith.
Science is very brave in saying it DO NOT have all the answers but are working towards them. Some atheist may indeed be as you say but the majority I know and see do not believe they know anything, including Richard Dawkins.
I feel sort of stupid now. I'm an atheist who was raised by two atheist parents and I barely had any deep thought of how our universe was created. Now I feel like someone who just believes whatever his parents tell him. Without the internet, I probably would've never had thought of examining how our universe was created.
You'd be surprised how much science can disprove. The Earth was once thought to be flat, and individuals once believed a magic ghost flooded the entire planet.
@TheMasteratLink BTW, if you re-examine the video, you will notice he said: "The religious people do not keep it to themselves...they do impose it upon the rest of us..." & "I'd be happy to live and let live, if that's what the majority of religious people do." Regardless of what he says in his books or anywhere else, these statements in this interview substantiate the tact I was taking as to his views.
You're right in saying Dawkins shouldn't be nose-counting but his general point was that the more educated people are (especially with regard to science), the less likely they are to believe in God or the supernatural.
I agree, if there comes a philosopher who disutes science because he thinks the a priori (from reason alone) disputes a scientific claim then the philosopher is wrong, however there are some modern philosophers who are very good at weaving the two. You have Daniel Dennett, with his book on consciousness which I am about to start, you had Bertrand Russell, who also did alot of mathematics, and so on. There is not only the silly armchair pilosophers, and we still have to argue in favour of Hume.
the problem with having a different view is that fact=/=opinion. if someone disagrees with me about matters of opinion (favorite teams, political views, etc...) then thats fine, but youre not allowed to disagree about fact. fact is fact, and its not up for different opinions.
Like ebammer13, I am agnostic, although I tend to lean toward the idea that there is some great, underlying consciousness in the universe. I get what you are saying. Science and spirituality do not need to be entirely separate. One can appreciate science and incorporate it into a broader spiritual understanding of the universe. Some hardcore atheists do tend to get a bit pompous with the assumption that all intelligent people must come to their particular conclusions.
No, I think we came here by chance. I lean heavily towards the multiverse hypothesis, because it can actually explain why we're here without the need of an external consciousness.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Einstein
As for "And If honestly you believe you are right about your beliefs, Then why would you care what someone else said?". Consider the relevant quote "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Now replace the word 'evil' with 'ignorance'. People need to speak up and expose this religious foolishness.
I asked a few preachers some rational questions and they skipped them all by using quotes like "You're falling away from the faith, let's pray". God fucking damnit! I walked out once! Save your health! Walk away!
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." -Einstein
I also noticed the PDF mentioned that Cuba and Vietnam, which are low IQ countries are not very religious and one of the countries opposed to the belief of a God. The author mentions other factors to account for this, yet fails to do this with the other 100 countries. Which kind of comes back to my original point that far more factors than faith alone determine intelligence.
@decaffinatedoysters As I told TheMasteratLink, the only thing I was highlighting was the moot nature of his assertions as regards his decision to be an atheist. The fact that we can find theists and atheists who have committed monstrous acts and created systems that indoctrinate and dictate people's lives demonstrates that it is moot to discuss the 'live and let live' idea within the realm of theism only.
well scroll up, and you'll realise that the conversation flow led to this argument. It started out from "cherry picking" To "God's unpicked laws" To "We corrected God's mistakes, hence he can't be perfect" To "No! he is perfect, it was no mistake!" To "wtf, then his law should be in today's world?" To currently... "i'm twisting words??"
=The spaghetti monster is not defined as the creator of the universe= Actually he is (after a heavy drinking session I believe the sacred story goes) but thats besides the point. As I've already explained to you, FSM is used to illustrate its logically impossible to prove a negative. If you have such a problem with definitions and numbers of believers have it this way instead: can you disprove Shivas existence? Around 900 million believe him to be creator of the universe.
@mamainmancj 1. If god is omnipotent why must he suffer to rid us of sin? 2. If Jesus was the embodiment of god and resurrected, what was sacrificed in his death? 3. How does the death of Jesus trigger the opening of our path to heaven? 4. If god created everything, including sin and free will, why does he judge us for sins that were only possible because he invented them. If your response to the last one is that "it is our choice to sin" I will explain in more detail.
maybe not in this interview but he does argue that specific religions (islam, christianity and jewism) do have "bad" doctrines and he is absolutely right
Millions of individuals in the U.S. who believe in creationism still embrace science, truth, and enlightenment. The are teachers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists. I don't think the differences are as big of a deal as many people think.
@MrHeadcave the chinese ideology was maoistic, which was an anti-revisionist, anti-confusianist form of marxism paired with a messianic revolutionary nationalism as trotsky called it and plenty of idealism and populism mixed in. china and mao are very large topics. to reduce it all into one term, in your case "atheism", covinces probably theists, but on the other hand, they are willing to buy into anything that serves their beliefs. it's their nature.
Yes indeed. And Lee Strobel from the distinguished Discovery Institute {famous throughout the world for it's intellectual contributions to science) has recently formulated a theory titled: Decantarian Unified Modular Biosingularity. Using this he has isolated the individual sub-atomic particle that was originally utilised during the creation of god. Great news, you would agree ?
Yep your right, nobody know why it travels at the speed it does, as there is nothing to say it has to travel at that speed. Same for weak and strong nuclear forces, they do not have to be as they are, as there is no predefining parameter.
As an aside, more often than not, it's the ideology of a society that shapes its science or religion rather than the other way round, as in ultra-capitalism shaped the 'evangelicals' and the 'silicon-valleys' of the US. You could argue that both have had a devastating effect on people's minds, wallets and ultimately our environment. At the end of the day it's ethics and morals that matter more than both science and religion and they are not sources for those qualities, rather, it's us.
No, you're putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say providing scientific 'answers' makes people snobbish, it's attitudes that do that, and those attitudes only last as long as the next scientific discovery overturns them. Increasingly attitudes have become hardened in the factions of science and religion and morals can be destroyed and mangled by each.
no, but science is a set of methods that allows us to try to understand many relative faces of the absolute, therefore bringing us closer to a more complete understanding of it
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/1.gif)
Always did like Dawkins. He's got such a calm, measured demeanor about things.
I went to different churches and as a child knew they all couldn't be true. Also, didn't like how cruel God is.. then studied Evolution and Bingo !!! Also the physicists filled in many details..
Sticking to the free, logical, humane THINKERS.
@@lindadavis5668 so now your religion has changed you worship evolution congratulations
'' they kill each other , dont they '' ha ha classic
a classic stupid response yes
@@craigrichardson1050 cry kid 😹
how eloquent one can get ! Its a pleasure listening to him
Anyone who has a problem with what this man is saying is just plain ignorant. It's just that simple.
+BroodallyHonest This statement of yours is reeking of ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
+Rizwan Haq Ok, so why don't you tell me what your problem is with what Dawkins said in this interview?
+Rizwan Haq Ok, so why don't you tell me what your problem is with what Dawkins said in this interview?
+BroodallyHonest Dawkins promotes a certain point of view- ie. atheism- which is fine, as everyone's entitle to their point of view. I disagree with that notion since I'm a theist and therefore, according to your statement, I'm "just plain ignorant". And not just me, so were Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and countless other scientists with minds far superior to that of Dawkins who were theists, "just plain ignorant" as per your statement. It's incredibly arrogant too!
+Rizwan Haq Well, do you think Newton and Faraday were immune to being ignorant on any subject?
It is horrible that the media doesn't try to help people understand science better. The more that you learn about primates the more sense people make. A basic understanding of evolutionary psychology has more explicative power than all the ancient religions combined.
taledarkside Evolutionary psychology is science. Addiction therapy psychology, eh, not so much.
taledarkside If you really think studying people and the way the mind works is stupid, you may be the stupid one.
taledarkside You must be, because you're the one who started calling things stupid.
taledarkside If anyone called you stupid for being in a religion they are wrong. If they called whatever supernatural beliefs you hold stupid, well that's on the money.
taledarkside The science degree would kind of indicate that your smart. I don't know what reason causes you to wall off superstition and make a special case for whatever religious nonsense you believe, but it's pretty clear to anyone that religious belief or lack thereof in no is indicative of intelligence. If you believe in magic people in the sky, that is a foolish belief, but many smart people share the belief.
Atheism is not a cult. Simply not believing in a god. I wish I could say it was the lack of supernatural beliefs, but many atheists believe stupid things too.
Ugh this atheist , thinking rationally and giving tought answers , disgusting
Life is a shit right?
Never mind, It will all turn out warm and fluffy for you in the end.
If I have a son I will probably name him Richard in homage to this man.
That journalist could give a Flying Spaghetti monster how an iPhone, car or plane works.
You don't have to know how an iPhone works but it's important to know that it doesn't work by using Magic!
And who is it exactly that believes iPhones work by Magic?
Wonderful man. My son's going to get a real treat when he asks me about religion. Thanks Richard.
thank you for spreading the truth of science!
"I am passionate believer in the truth" Richard Dawkins is a great intellectual mind. thanks Mr. Dawkins to make us see and understand the reality.
When she interrupted him after he said "they can't all be right" with that stupid question I was so mad.
Dawkins: 90% are atheists. Interviewer: But there is this one guy..... LOL
I applaud your wisdom. You are to be highly commended. Well put.
He gets angry when they tell him they believe in God.....
No dear, I think you will find he "gets angry" at the damage belief in invisible magic men has caused the world. Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions, forced conversions of indigenous peoples, crashing planes into towers, ect ect all done specifically for religious reasons. By people striving to attain their subjective Gods "moral perfection" and citing the moral imperfection of the victims as justification 🤮🤮🤮
@@trumpbellend6717 God didn't participate in the crusades......jejejejjjee
@@leopalce311 lol of course he didn't dear, ( he does not exist ) however lots of uneducated superstitious people who believed in this imaginary invisible being did "participate" in the crusades dear ( that's the point ) 😜
Really I so very much respect Richard Dawkins
Thank you Professor Dawkins for waking me up
" Religion is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance", Neil Degrassi
my favorite excuse.
i should let people have their faiths.
sure. if people werent killing and attacking each other over it.
forcing government rules over it.
bullying those who dont have the same views as them.
and funny thing is i have a belief XD
"For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not get to know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." 1 Corinthian 1:19-21
I know. I never cease to be surprised by anything science does and does not - And always in a good way.
Great interview!! I respect anyone with a thirst or love for knowledge.
That is true - and I am glad that you understand this (unlike the folks who come to my door every once in a while in an attempt to convert me all of the sudden).
Thanks to you as well. You offered some good points however I was worried at first when you were quoting Wikipedia.
Where did you study?! I have heard of this happening before. Its such a shame to hear this, as others have pointed out it doesnt make sense, so i can only assume there are other reasons. Chemistry is a wonderful thing and I hope one day you return to it with the same passion.
Good to see this man has some common sense
It is also great for scientists who want to venture beyond what is known and possible.
he usually has a good chance of using them as his pawn when they are older. It is so much easier to believe through faith, but to believe in nothing is even harder.
The spaghetti monster IS defined as the creator of the universe...
The man's absolutely correct.Theology will never get it right because each "belief" is in conflict with another "belief" and nobody has a monopoly on "truth" which is Prof. Dawkins' point.
When a man reaches a point where he seeks no solace
from any creature, then he begins to relish God perfectly.
Then also he will be content no matter what may
happen to him. He will neither rejoice over great things nor grieve over small
ones, but will place himself entirely and confidently in the hands of God,
Who for him is all in all, to whom nothing ever
perishes or dies, for Whom all things live, and Whom they serve as He desires.
Cruz
♰ ♰ ♰
To not believe in a creator is just plain foolish. The proof is all around us!
I paused, thought, and turned atheist. That's how it went for me. Faith is nothing new, nor anything that will stay. It will just go away, as more and more people get further educated. The more you know, the less you believe.
Thrown back by something the interviewer said. She insinuated, after Dawkins had said that he realized there are numerous religions and they can't all be right, that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all monotheistic and therefore can all be right at the same time.
I'm imagining a Bill O'Rielly vs Richard Dawkins grudge match. Epic.
The difference is negligible. Plus it is difficult to separate the two especially since many religious people are scientists, academics, lawyers, even doctors.
You are clearly thoughtful and respectful; I would like to continue discussing this with you outside the medium of RUclips. Is there a way that you know of to exchange email without spamming it in a public forum?
In some ways you are correct, and that standpoint is feverishly close to that of Krauss, however, I shall quote PZ Myers on this one: "I think philosophy's power is in shaping good questions, phil needs sci to ask relevant questions"
And therein it lies, philosophy, in it's modern form as from Russell et al. is about questioning things in a difficult manner, rather than knowledge itself, though some still dispute science as a root of knowledge, which philosophers can counter.
@CombatRocks I may quote this passage because it is the best thing in the whole of today. You don't mind I hope?
"So what?" Exactly. It doesn't really matter what a scientist believes or not believes.
Great interview. He demonstrates that he doesn't have a problem with faith or belief (unlike most of his sheep like followers) and that he's perfectly fine with certain types of theism. It is true that most thinking people are atheists but that's the key word isn't it... "most". It's really phenomenal to meet a thinking theist and since they're more rare, I'm happy to strive for that instead.
If you think Dawkins "doesn't have a problem with faith or belief", you've misunderstood. He most certainly does. As he says, he's passionate about truth, and he sees faith as being deeply incompatible with science and truth.
@@glennmartin9043 ten years ago I was a very different person.. I’m not sure I want to defend what that guy thought.
@@JoJaDaRu No worries!
I was once in Bosnia and Herzegovina in a town called Visoko where there are a few naturally formed pyramids. I went on a tour through a labyrinth with a few muslims, one Czech guy who had converted to Islam was the most vocal of the lot, the others just happily kept to themselves. Cont..
Which is why I said "Once there is evidence" aka "Never"
I never really expected to convert anyone via the internet, the creation for me is a good example.
you know what's fkn stupid?
The fact that I'm trying over 20 times to post up this fkn link with a wide range of statistics for this study and I get error every fkn time.
Also I offered no explanation as to how the universe can exist, merely the explanation for the beginning of life
This lady interviewer might as well just come out and say,
"I believe" and get on with her next guest.
=Have you ever practiced Biblical hermeneutics?=
Nope.
"What is true is based on evidence" - You sure as hell got that right. This is why the number of religious people have been steadily dropping and continues to do so. Belief solves none of the worlds issues, belief only creates chaos, segregation, wars and all around opression of those whos belief might differ from yours. Those who dont believe are united under the same banner and can focus on important matters of life, instead of arguing wether homosexuals should be able to get married etc etc.
Watch the sun rise than set. Stars at night from the country. Deserts at night are amazing. Watching a blue whale breach. Watching my son run to me full of Love.
Thumbs up friend. I had a long day and your comment made it a little better.
Cont.. when the softly spoken guide started giving a scientific reason for the pyramids formation the Czech guy got offended and said "you need to be careful what you say, he majority of us here are muslims. Where's the line in the Qu'ran that says this?" Just extraordinary really..
Absolutely. I remember how it was religion that discovered that Pluto was in fact not a planet. It was religion that discovered the earth was round. or that the earth in fact revolved around the sun. In fact. I remember when Galileo raised that question, religion embraced him and the evidence he presented. I can think of a million instances when we used to have science as the best explanation, that we NOW believe is best explained by religion. yup.
I can remember hearing the death of Hitchens and was shocked to hear a well known public figure say he would have loved to kick him to death, it truly disturbed me especially when I seen the size of his audience, I would state his name if I thought the whole religion of that person would be blamed for that clowns foolish statement which was heard by 5k+ I did confront him after the speech and he called me an obnoxious cxxt rhymes with hunt, needless to say I never returned to that building but you can hear him spew his hate on RUclips
Those ideas however don't come out of nowhere. They come out of our experience in the real world; from past and tested hypothesis. I am not arguing against imagination, I am arguing against delusion, which is like unsupported imagination.. aka: faith.
The same 3000 years from now. We will know a lot more than we know now.
=Why is it so hard for people not to find evidence for highly calculated design=
Because those people aren't intelligent.
That's a fantastic idea for my next book. "they came from inside the moon."
Science is very brave in saying it DO NOT have all the answers but are working towards them.
Some atheist may indeed be as you say but the majority I know and see do not believe they know anything, including Richard Dawkins.
1:01 That face will haunt my dreams for days to come
I feel sort of stupid now. I'm an atheist who was raised by two atheist parents and I barely had any deep thought of how our universe was created. Now I feel like someone who just believes whatever his parents tell him. Without the internet, I probably would've never had thought of examining how our universe was created.
Sorry, I meant Townes.
"why do you get so upset by people who believe in god, richard?" if I were dawkins being asked that I'd just drop my jaw.
Sometimes smart interviewers knowingly ask a dumb question in order to elicit a smart answer.
You'd be surprised how much science can disprove. The Earth was once thought to be flat, and individuals once believed a magic ghost flooded the entire planet.
@TheMasteratLink BTW, if you re-examine the video, you will notice he said:
"The religious people do not keep it to themselves...they do impose it upon the rest of us..." & "I'd be happy to live and let live, if that's what the majority of religious people do."
Regardless of what he says in his books or anywhere else, these statements in this interview substantiate the tact I was taking as to his views.
You know what I like? This kind of intelligent debates that you don’t see often
You're right in saying Dawkins shouldn't be nose-counting but his general point was that the more educated people are (especially with regard to science), the less likely they are to believe in God or the supernatural.
I dedicate myself to captain crunch every morning while reading the paper. I feel bad for you if cpt crunch, your lord, is not in your cereal bowl.
lol you're right, but "interrupting a book" was so funny
I agree, if there comes a philosopher who disutes science because he thinks the a priori (from reason alone) disputes a scientific claim then the philosopher is wrong, however there are some modern philosophers who are very good at weaving the two. You have Daniel Dennett, with his book on consciousness which I am about to start, you had Bertrand Russell, who also did alot of mathematics, and so on.
There is not only the silly armchair pilosophers, and we still have to argue in favour of Hume.
Why don't people put down the acutal date of the video ?
the problem with having a different view is that fact=/=opinion. if someone disagrees with me about matters of opinion (favorite teams, political views, etc...) then thats fine, but youre not allowed to disagree about fact. fact is fact, and its not up for different opinions.
Like ebammer13, I am agnostic, although I tend to lean toward the idea that there is some great, underlying consciousness in the universe. I get what you are saying. Science and spirituality do not need to be entirely separate. One can appreciate science and incorporate it into a broader spiritual understanding of the universe. Some hardcore atheists do tend to get a bit pompous with the assumption that all intelligent people must come to their particular conclusions.
this is guy is my hero :)
No, I think we came here by chance. I lean heavily towards the multiverse hypothesis, because it can actually explain why we're here without the need of an external consciousness.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Einstein
Prof David Bohm, colleague and protege of Einstein said, " Einstein had a notion of a non-personal God which created the Universe".
As for "And If honestly you believe you are right about your beliefs, Then why would you care what someone else said?".
Consider the relevant quote "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Now replace the word 'evil' with 'ignorance'.
People need to speak up and expose this religious foolishness.
I don't think he meant actually seeing a black hole, but rather, observing it by what it causes (e.g. gravitational lensing).
As I had allreay pointed out Ethics and Morality are more important than Science, Myth of Progress and Religion.
I asked a few preachers some rational questions and they skipped them all by using quotes like "You're falling away from the faith, let's pray".
God fucking damnit! I walked out once! Save your health! Walk away!
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." -Einstein
I also noticed the PDF mentioned that Cuba and Vietnam, which are low IQ countries are not very religious and one of the countries opposed to the belief of a God. The author mentions other factors to account for this, yet fails to do this with the other 100 countries. Which kind of comes back to my original point that far more factors than faith alone determine intelligence.
@decaffinatedoysters As I told TheMasteratLink, the only thing I was highlighting was the moot nature of his assertions as regards his decision to be an atheist.
The fact that we can find theists and atheists who have committed monstrous acts and created systems that indoctrinate and dictate people's lives demonstrates that it is moot to discuss the 'live and let live' idea within the realm of theism only.
well scroll up, and you'll realise that the conversation flow led to this argument.
It started out from "cherry picking"
To "God's unpicked laws"
To "We corrected God's mistakes, hence he can't be perfect"
To "No! he is perfect, it was no mistake!"
To "wtf, then his law should be in today's world?"
To currently... "i'm twisting words??"
=The spaghetti monster is not defined as the creator of the universe=
Actually he is (after a heavy drinking session I believe the sacred story goes) but thats besides the point.
As I've already explained to you, FSM is used to illustrate its logically impossible to prove a negative.
If you have such a problem with definitions and numbers of believers have it this way instead: can you disprove Shivas existence? Around 900 million believe him to be creator of the universe.
"Evil is when you torture others..." I suppose God is the most evil being in all of existence.
@mamainmancj 1. If god is omnipotent why must he suffer to rid us of sin? 2. If Jesus was the embodiment of god and resurrected, what was sacrificed in his death? 3. How does the death of Jesus trigger the opening of our path to heaven? 4. If god created everything, including sin and free will, why does he judge us for sins that were only possible because he invented them. If your response to the last one is that "it is our choice to sin" I will explain in more detail.
I try not to compare my life to a sic-fi movie. Unless it's Doctor Who.
maybe not in this interview but he does argue that specific religions (islam, christianity and jewism) do have "bad" doctrines and he is absolutely right
Millions of individuals in the U.S. who believe in creationism still embrace science, truth, and enlightenment. The are teachers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists. I don't think the differences are as big of a deal as many people think.
@MrHeadcave
the chinese ideology was maoistic, which was an anti-revisionist, anti-confusianist form of marxism paired with a messianic revolutionary nationalism as trotsky called it and plenty of idealism and populism mixed in. china and mao are very large topics. to reduce it all into one term, in your case "atheism", covinces probably theists, but on the other hand, they are willing to buy into anything that serves their beliefs. it's their nature.
Yes indeed.
And Lee Strobel from the distinguished Discovery Institute {famous throughout the world for it's intellectual contributions to science) has recently formulated a theory titled:
Decantarian Unified Modular Biosingularity.
Using this he has isolated the individual sub-atomic particle that was originally utilised during the creation of god.
Great news, you would agree ?
That conflict is disproportionately high for extremists on both sides of the argument. Dawkins is a prime example.
I totally agree, it's as much of a fact as the theory of gravity.
when was this aired?
Yep your right, nobody know why it travels at the speed it does, as there is nothing to say it has to travel at that speed. Same for weak and strong nuclear forces, they do not have to be as they are, as there is no predefining parameter.
As an aside, more often than not, it's the ideology of a society that shapes its science or religion rather than the other way round, as in ultra-capitalism shaped the 'evangelicals' and the 'silicon-valleys' of the US. You could argue that both have had a devastating effect on people's minds, wallets and ultimately our environment.
At the end of the day it's ethics and morals that matter more than both science and religion and they are not sources for those qualities, rather, it's us.
No, you're putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say providing scientific 'answers' makes people snobbish, it's attitudes that do that, and those attitudes only last as long as the next scientific discovery overturns them. Increasingly attitudes have become hardened in the factions of science and religion and morals can be destroyed and mangled by each.
no, but science is a set of methods that allows us to try to understand many relative faces of the absolute, therefore bringing us closer to a more complete understanding of it
That's completely correct.