Knock knock "Who's there?" "It's Jesus let me in" "Why do you want in?" "I want to save you" "Save me from what?" "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in"
Absolutely fantastic! Such a privilege to hear and watch this presentation. Richard Dawkins is an important voice in the rational atheist community. Many thanks also to Michael Shermer for hosting an excellent interview. Huge respect for both of you.
wish dawkins would read more of his hate mail, if any of u havnt heard it stop whatever it is ur doin and go find some, best shit iv heard on ytube in a while, long live dawkins !
I am together with these two , except their beliefs regarding Trump. As a non-theist I consider God poetically as the highest good. So I like the poetic phrase "God bless America"
What will be happening *after* we die? Lots of things, they just won't include the one that has died - and so we can conclude that, if you no longer exist, but life still continues to be what *does* exist, then: the experience of whatever organism happens to be born after you've ceased to exist will be the experience that comes after yours.
@Bob Rabbins Both end and beginning. As I pointed out, because you'll no longer exist and because there will be births in the universe after you've gone, then it follows that your ending will be followed by a new organism's beginning. That new life will be what comes after this one. You'll no longer be around anymore to stop that from being the case.
A great way for our atheist movement to grow is to identify ourselves as such. Don't be ashamed or apologetic! I am an atheist and I say it. If we are atheists, we need to come out as atheists. The atheist term is clear, concise and to the point. It is a good word---use it!
I agree with you, but we must also stress the fact that we, for the majority I suppose, identify as atheist only because in almost all societies to be religious is the default position.
Humans are so gullible even if well meaning. 1300 gods and different places or things that happen to you after death. So where you were born is generally is what you are convinced those scriptures created you and tells you of your after life. The simple logic of all diff versions people cant grasp and that the universe or universes is where we might get to the start of all that mess. Anyway soon the new telescope will be launched and view closely at those planets a dozen light years away and detect life gasses in the atmospheres? What then for god and our centre of everything we claim? special? No, just another life form as science predicted and all other has come true, what about that last one?
Why are "skeptics" skeptical of religion but never skeptical of skepticism itself? If skeptics question everything and don't just jump into a belief system blindly, why is it that they can't see their own irony of blindly jumping onto the skepticism bandwagon with no more evidence for the non-existence of God than a theist has for the existence of God? Why are they even called "skeptics"? A better term would be "atheist".
We have many Republicans who want to return American to the social and business era of the 1880s where workers were at the complete lack of mercies of business and there were no government social services safety nets for the poor or the ill and disabled.
Mr. Dawkins has it inverted . One does not outgrow God , no. One begins in young adulthood realizing Religion is B.S. and spend their next few decades acquiring , seeking , and finding naught of God. Then some of us , the true of heart , and the dedicated , and the determined , after putting themselves through literal Hell on Earth looking for Truth , and God. Finding Wisdom tells you Truth is a tough animal to cage , and reality is even a harder errant Beast to tame , but God . Once Wise the seeker finds God in such an obvious place hysterical laughter is the best way to express his discovery that God was in his own Heart from his inception as a Human Being. However the thirty yrs. of seeking were necessary to obtain the Wisdom necessary to understand God. Reading the Bible , and saying your prayers every Sunday in neither sufficient , or necessary to know God. You must Live in the real World. You must harass Death like a Gamma Male who is never going to get anything but a restraining order from Her. And like the mighty Gamma you will say corny shit like Shakespeare quotes from the one hundred and fifty foot court ordered radius you must stay away from Ms. Death. Knowing that someday she will give you a pity fuck just to make you go away.
As a new word for atheists, given that "humanists" is already taken and "brights" sounds too self-congratulatory, how about "hominists"? This would still fall foul of the "anthropocentric" objection, but I don't see that as a serious problem as having an opinion about origins implies reflectiveness, which I don't think could reasonably be claimed for any other species.
@Cyborg Who would then decide which are the domains of science and which are the domains of "woo woo"? Clearly the enlightenment and the scientific method have been instrumental in the innovation we see in society, regardless of whatever critiques you may have in terms of today's world. Things like the reduction of infant mortality rates and decreases in deaths from diseases that were an epidemic in the not too distant past should be laid at the feet of enlightenment thinking (Basically, Steven Pinkers work). So, I would guess that you would have "faith" in science in many aspects of your life, so where do we draw the line and say that science no longer has a say? Where is this threshold?
@Cyborg LMAO That is just woo woo crazy. You cannot show with any empirical evidence that the mind is non-physical. All empirical evidence that is actually credible shows that the mind is a product of the physical brain. Full stop. Anything else is purely made up woo woo bullshit. We've moved on from the 19th century and the old philosopher's wandering imaginings about things they didn't know a jot about. We have FMRIs and methods of testing how the brain works. We have neuoscience that has made enormous leaps in our knowledge of the brain. There is no such thing as scientism. That is a made up word that woo woo wanna-a-bes use to think they should be taken seriously when rational people can see right through that BS.
Is it true what they say about Richard Does he know all there is; all the time Does he understand religion, does he know why people pray Is he sympathetic with ‘m, when he puts them down in every way Is it true what they say about Richard When on tour there are sure books to sign You can see how their eyes glisten, when they shake his paw But he says they just won’t listen, but what would they be listening for? Is it true what they say about Dicky Well it seems that he deems we’re not strong Do we laugh, do we look, like he says in every book If we do, then our world must be wrong? (Tune "Is it true what they say about Dixy).....
Mr. Shermer, I would like to know what you think about the "Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism" by the German philosopher (and secular activist) Michael Schmidt-Salomon. It's a short read and summarizes the best take on modern humanism I've come across so far.
Our evolving atheists, Search for who authored the following, "Are there good reasons to believe in God? I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments"
. @Pacer... Not so fast now. Even Shermer now acknowledges there are strong arguments in favor of theism. It would be amusing to be a fly on the wall and hear what he has to say about the piffle he used to peddle in support of atheism. And there were, and still are, fools that eat it up. Just like moronic clapping seals.
@@Pacer... Did you not take the time to search for those quotes. They are from Michael Shermer. Atheists are apparently blinkered (you) or speak out of both sides of their mouths (Shermer).
Maybe some. Not sure I would put you in that group, though. The Jewish people for sure don't, if we judge the situation in the Middle East realistically.
You should see that there is a sinful nature in all of mankind. This also demands having and accounting and a perfect provision and covering for these intentional despicable acts of human beings. Matter is neither good nor bad, it is the (actual) intent of the human heart that is either good or bad.
Eyes would obviously suggest the collection box is being watched or 'kept an eye on'! Flowers would be imply or evoke a hippy sentiment such as 'freedom' ie free! Don't need to be a doctor or professor to get that!!!
Theist: In the absence of certainty, it makes more sense to err on the side of belief than unbelief. Pascal’s wager boils down to the following: "In case there is a gODD, better stay on his gODD side!!!" Atheist: Simply says that he believes the opposite, that in the absence of certainty he will follow reason... The believer can candy-ass, just in case there is a gODD, and while the believer is candy-assing the atheist will continue doing his everyday duty, without worrying in the slightest that he will be torched one day...
why ? why in the world would anyone wanna do that. god is the pathway to religion. and religion is the pathway to wealth. where religion cant reach wealth cant as well. go take a good look
Can one treat social memes like science? Sure. Constructs can be built, factor analyses run and structural equation models produced. Confidence and significance measured and error reported.
While everyday earthliness is indeed merciless consumption, man contains divine sense of harmony too. Therefore isn't it wise all religions revise humanhood wholesomeness into effectual divine process result , therewith here and now all peoples including atheists attain divine self sense and divine life purpose ?
Finally a decent interview that makes clear the author’s positions. Shermer seems to be uniquely able to move an author away from his or her main points to the irrelevant. I rarely have the slightest idea what a book is about after his muddled interviews. It’s not that it doesn’t ever happen - but it’s not often. I admire Shermer’s work, but these interviews frequently seem to completely go off the rails.
@@nobodyspecial2835 Of course I am! Michael Shermer was owned by Craig with ease (you can look it up on RU-vid), and Dawkins just gave a series of excuses that didn't actually work as to why he wouldn't debate him.
@@nobodyspecial2835 No, actually, he and Michael debated very specific points and Craig was right about a lot of it. But you want to *dismiss* Craig because you think he was indoctrinated (whatever you even mean by that). That's obviously ad hominem.
Religion is defined as Irrational explanations for reality. This is really no explanation. On the other hand Science is defined as rational explanations for reality. There are many religious folks today though and many are humanists/atheists.
If we were to isolate one deity. Oh, there are so many. Which one? Hmm. Let’s try Yahweh cum Jesus. One could put up a fair case Jesus was a Jew. Well, wasn’t he? Yes, a Jew, who came to fulfil the Torah and perhaps bring forward the End Days in Rome, while living in the Second Temple period. OK, this sounds fine for small Jewish sect. What next? What next? What was up-to-date in Jerusalem City? Pauline Christianity; that’s what! Here, I think there can be a fair case to say Pauline Christianity borrowed from the prior Jewish sect to create a separate faux religion that has come down though history. Moving into the Rabbinical period, there is evidence of a division between the Jewish sect and the light handed Christians in the gospels and, with Emperor Nerva making distinctions between the original and the plagiarised in 98, with changes to Roman Law. Moreover, Latinisation grew under Hadrian, and, eventually, Constantine and Theodosius. Ah, but, let’s not forget the beginning of this paragraph: Jesus lived and died as a Jew. Of course, Jesus wasn’t divine, but if he was, he didn’t die for the Christians. In truth, modern Christians are living a falsehood stolen from a falsehood.
A multiverse appeals to more and more and more and greater and greater power that came from a greater and greater power ... which proves an infinite potential ...which is the DEFINITION of God.
@Bob Rabbins We can understand that all power comes from a greater power. What is so hard to understand about that? The true God is defined as all powerful, all knowing and everywhere.
@Bob Rabbins You are not making sense. How do I know that intelligence requires a greater intelligence? Because it does. How do I know that power requires a greater power? Because it does. No power can come from an equal or lesser amount of power and no intelligence can come from an equal or lesser amount of intelligence. We can't even back engineer ourselves and much less make power to make matter to dilate time and distance. The same source of infinite power is the source of infinite wisdom and understanding and both are demonstrated to you in nature.
What you do is based on the truth or lies that you believe. It has nothing to do with the physical world. It has to do with eternal truth as to what is good intent or bad intent which is based on what you believe whether it is true or false. Atheism, of course, is very far from true. You believe there are no powers (gods). You are unaware that all powers get their power from a greater (and greater) power. ...and GET OUT OF YOUR ECHO CHAMBER!!!
Jungle Jargon, you keep posting these assertions of assumed axioms, that you don't understand that your tenets is just a projection of the archetypes of fatherhood and creation archetype. There is no god, no real creation, but only what we project. NOW STOP IT!
@@kenphil8389 If you were not created, you would not exist. Let's be real now and why do you think you need to silence me? I am not the one being irrational the way you believe in magical matter. Why don't you stop it? Back up your belief in magical matter or say nothing because you can prove nothing so you can TELL ME NOTHING.
Almighty Allah Created Man.Allah says in HOLY Qur'an: " Verily We created Man of potter's clay of dark mud altered. (Qur'an,15:26) dark clay which produces a sound like pottery.Taking verses 26 and 29 together,I understand the meaning to be: that man's body was formed from wet clay moulded into shape and then dried unroll it could emit sound; that it was then further fashioned and completed: that into the animal form thus fashioned was breathed the spirit of Allah, which gave it a superiority over other Creation: and that the order for obedience was then given. (1)Clay Minerals and Origin of Life. (2)Genetic Takeover: and the mineral origin of life, Seven Clues of the Origin of Life. (3) The life Puzzle: on crystals and organisms and on the possibility of crystal as an ancester.
Michael said, "some truth is true". HAHA! Truth has nothing to do with science as everyone has their own and it's subjective. Science is objective or observer independent. In order for science to be that way we must remove the observer from the process. We explain phenomena rationally with the use of objects. You can't do physics without objects.
Ideally that is true that science is observer independent. The problem we have today is the method part and the results (interpretation) part of the process. I don't know if he was referring to that when he said some truth is true. The most interesting part of physics today imo is computers creating formulas from data.
People have their own ideas about truth, but something is true regardless of anyone's ideas (observer independent, right?). What we call gravity exists and operates according to certain rules. We can discover and describe how it works, maybe even use the rules for our own ends, but we can't change the rules. We use science to gain verifiable knowledge, and we can call that truth. If gravity isn't true, then nothing is. So I disagree with your claim that truth has nothing to do with science.
@@biologicalengineoflove6851 Truth is a concept not an object therefore it is always dependent on observers. Truth is not out there somewhere in space floating around waiting to be discovered. So no, it is not observer independent. Truth is a interlinked with another concept called proof. proof is analyzed by none other than our human sensory system which is limited and subjective. It has no place in objective science. In science we explain a phenomena and after that then science is over. The conclusion, is it possible or not?
@@williamrunner6718 Hmmm...We may be in the weeds, but I enjoy the philosophical conversation. Thank you for making me think. In your original comment you claimed that science is observer independent. Now you are saying that truth, as a concept, is observer dependent. Of course truth is a concept, and concepts are observer dependent. However, what this concept, 'truth,' represents is "that which is in accordance with reality." Reality will be in accordance with itself regardless of there being an observer. So, what science accepts as truth now will still be truth even if we go extinct, and there is no one else to conceive of truth (not truth as every falsifiable scientific idea, but truth in the broad sense of what is in fact real about reality and including, no less, truth that is waiting to be discovered). The concept itself is observer dependent, but that which the concept represents includes the observer and the surrounding, independent reality. It seems to me you have it backwards. What's actually true is true independent of the observer, the observer can do only his or her best (with a limited and subjective sensory system). Proof is primarily a mathematical term, but a scientific definition of knowledge might be "confirmed facts which are disprovable, but have yet to be disproved." There is only reasonable certainty, never absolute certainty, in science. Yes, science is the tool we use to explain phenomena about the universe, which includes us but is also independent from us. Since science is merely a tool, it is necessarily observer dependent.
