Richard Dawkins' Best Arguments! (American Reacts)

[@stevesymonds7724]

"He was an evolutionary biologist". He still is. He might be eighty but he's still going strong and still writing.

[@hays9008]

He is 80 and alive

[@iainprendergast8311]

Maybe he’s evolved

[@sos83]

Had to stop the video after that line like have I missed something, do I need to check if he's still alive. You should not scare people like that :D

[@JoshBabin]

Fuckin scared the shit out of me for a second...

[@Stefus87]

@@sos83 Hehe, I also had to scroll down to see if I was the only one noticing this.

[@spartakas659]

Richard Dawkins is the true example of an intelligent man. Love him.👏🏻👏🏻

[@m.b.g.musicproduction9658]

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Fry. All Treasures of Great Britain! Rip Christopher, you are so greatly missed!

[@2fast2block]

Wow, so those losers are your treasures. Poor loser you. 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.

[@freethinker--]

I agree, the UK has some great critical thinkers,even some modern British comedians are great thinkers of logic and reason, probably why the UK is more skeptical of religion in modern times.

[@freethinker--]

@@2fast2block Everything is a product of cause effect, nothing supernatural. No proof of any god claim,but you would disagree I'm sure.

[@troubadour1562]

Try Lawrence Kraus and Sam Harris, both from US. Great communicators too

[@martindean5119]

Witnessing a young intelligent open minded American reacting to and learning of concepts for the first time from speeches from intellectual giants is unique as far as I’m aware and unmissable.

[@szabados1980]

He surely no longer fits the stereotype 96% of the world has about Americans. 👍

[@vilebrequin6923]

Absolutely 💯. These videos have taken a very thought-provoking turn.

[@VivaCohen]

🙄

[@marioluigi9599]

Indeed kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac

[@pinball1970]

@@szabados1980 Yeah he is a good lad. I have watched the Hitch one and battle of Britain

[@roonietunes60]

This video is such a revelation. This review by a young American gives me hope.

[@2fast2block]

There is NO hope for fools. 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.

[@matt_white]

@@2fast2block Pseudo-scientific, presuppositional bollocks

[@rosieharris3176]

@@2fast2block If what you say is true, then something must have created God. What created God? And what created the thing that created God? And what created that? Of course creation can happen by natural means - it happens every minute of every day! How do you imagine YOU were created?! Or do you not perceive pregnancy and childbirth as "natural"?

[@innit1407]

@@2fast2block Any evidence for this god you talk about? No? I didn't think so.

[@davidpisachubbe7869]

@@rosieharris3176 I wasn't created by nothing. From nothing comes nothing. You atheist have all failed to demonstrate that it is not rational to believe that a creation requires a Creator. It is only irrational to believe that something can come from nothing and this is exactly what atheist believe.

[@unicyclist97]

The first time I discovered Dawkins was reading The Selfish Gene and then The God Delusion. Those books completely turned my life around and got me out of the cult. He is making a real difference in the world ❤

[@marioluigi9599]

WELL congratulations... Now you've joined the new cult and dogma of Darwininism.

[@marioluigi9599]

Though micro-evolution is true and obvious when we look at things like variations in birds' beak sizes or human skin colour, the idea of speciation is a whole other can of worms that current evolution theory does not explain. The main problem is the mathematical inconsistencies. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac

[@permets2apollox453]

@@marioluigi9599 "micro-evolution makes sense but speciation is nonsense." Ah yes, "taking a step makes sense, but walking a mile is nonsense"

[@marioluigi9599]

@@permets2apollox453 No. It's more like, diluting your blue watercolour makes sense, but creating red from your blue is nonsense. The more Melanin you have, the browner your skin and eyes are. That's changeable... but you can't get green alien skin colour from melanin. That's nonesense

[@hareecionelson5875]

@@marioluigi9599 " diluting your blue watercolour makes sense, but creating red from your blue is nonsense" At what point in a rainbow does red become orange, orange become yellow? there is no part of a rainbow where you can say "this part here is red, but this part right next to it is orange" What you are calling "microevolution" is the shades of a colour, but you are completely ignoring the fact that if you push shades of a colour far enough, they can end up as different colours to what you started with (macroevolution)

[@eamonquinn5188]

I am so delighted that you have an open mind, I hope there are as many as you young people questioning what they have been told all their lives! It's hard for a country to grow up, but just look at Ireland over the last 20 years. I am now proud to be Irish, rather than just, Irish. x

[@CHIBBZ-54]

I'm also Irish and loved watching the people of our Country not afraid anymore to use their own minds...I was brought up in an open minded exploratory minded family...there were some religious in my family but they let us be free and open minded...My Dad once said to me a few years before he passed that" Religion is not your belief...its a belief instilled in your mind by someone else's unproven belief " ☘

[@zybch]

@@CHIBBZ-54 Yep. Its a mind-virus that serves no purpose in the current world other than to consume resources better used elsewhere, and justify history's absolute worst behaviours.

[@scottcrosby-art5490]

Genius of our time, he's a biologist by trade but he's also one of the greatest debators ever

[@lauz-im3ov]

Joel, I think it's time. You're finally ready for Douglas Adams... "Best of Douglas Adams Amazing Arguments and Clever Comebacks" by Agatan Foundation Adams was a comedy sci-fi author who was fascinated by science, technology, evolution and religion. He was very good friends with both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry. His way with words was simply unparalleled.

[@margaretnicol3423]

42

[@khymaaren]

@@margaretnicol3423 We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

[@2fast2block]

@@AFNacapella In the beginning God created. Richard has no clue how it happened otherwise. 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.

[@AlFresco3442]

@@2fast2block "Richard has no clue how it happened." ...and neither do you, you utter clown.

[@col8547]

@@2fast2block Wow, really, so, where did this God come from then?

[@m_h_1988]

Loving this series of best arguments reactions you've got going on Joel, more of this please :)

[@user-qk8vq2sm1n]

Great video - also just so everyone knows - Dawkins is still alive, the intro 'he was an evolutionary biologist' suggests he isn't lol

[@michaelcolbourn6719]

Or retired

[@99fruitbat94]

A friend of mine had parents who were Christians and very active in their local church . Truly nice people . However they completely baffled me when they asked me , with much concern , if I didn't believe in God where was my anchor in life 😶 Me , I am my anchor plus family and friends . What other anchor do I need ? Thank you for the video 👍❤️

[@escobarlisle6007]

They may of meant your moral anchor, all of western morality is built upon religious ideas, it may have not been true but you can't deny the benefits religious people seem to possess

[@geoffmower8729]

I had a female friend who regarded me as her brother who over the years I had helped move house a number of times after her many failed relationships and I have helped her out financially more than once. She saw a thank you letter from the blood bank that I had in a frame on the shelf in my office, they had sent it to me to thank me for my 100th donation and she said that she should really start donating. She said god will reward you for your donations. Over the whole 20 years I had known her she had never talked about religion. Then I told her I was an atheist and the first words out of her mouth were you dreadful person you'll burn in hell. Shortly after that she stopped all contact with me unfriended me on facebook and would not return my calls.

[@escobarlisle6007]

@@geoffmower8729 that's just a sign she was full of shite, Christianity is about forgiveness and tolerance

[@99fruitbat94]

@@escobarlisle6007 I can definitely deny any sense of morals owned by any one religious people . 43 years working in health care has taught me that morels don't stop you from dumping your elderly relatives into the Care System . Don't get we wrong , I love my patients , but whatever the religious belief you may have . We in the care field don't have to have a belief situation.

[@escobarlisle6007]

@@99fruitbat94 I think the trouble is theres are alot of fake religious people out there that do it just to virtue signal, Im a firm believer of the old ways, religion that's based on money isn't a religion at all

[@JohnDoe-tw8es]

Richard is a brilliant man. So well spoken.

[@matthill3293]

As a Christian, I love Dawkins. I spent so long hearing Christians talk about how he's evil and all that malarky but once you sit down and actually listen to him, you realise that regardless of where you stand on Religion, he isn't evil at all. He's a polite, kind and generous man who shows a lot of respect to his opponents in debate even when they don't show it to him. His debates with Professor Jon Lennox are brilliant. Both brilliant people. A fine example of how people can show respect and admiration for one another despite strongly disagreeing.

[@jackwhitbread4583]

Thank you, Dawkins does not deserve the vitriol of so many who claim that he is a strident and deeply unpleasant human being when I have never once witnessed him ever being disrespectful or rude. He's an incredibly intelligent man and his books have given me many hours of enjoyment. It's nice to see a Christian who is not blinded by their faith that they cannot show respect or tolerance to an atheist who does not agree with the Christian faith

[@matthill3293]

@@jackwhitbread4583 I must admit, I was at first, just going by what other people had said but once I sat down and listened to him, I came to realise that he's not "anti faith" at all, it's just that he doesn't personally believe. Whenever Dawkins is brought up at our church in conversation, I always tell people to actually listen to him rather than just go on what you hear from others.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@matthill3293 Nonsense, he is anti-faith, as far as meaning religion.

[@davidrhodes5245]

Non religious people, scientists, geologists, archeologists, astrologists ..etc..etc.. all strive, or want to find the answers to why things are the way they are. Evolution, space, time, etc... Evolution itself shows us that we will never have all the answers, but isn’t it remarkable, and fascinating, that we are able to wonder in awe about so many things, and know that there will be things we couldnt even imagine......Religious people ?...GOD DID IT !!!..... No matter what humanity may learn in history to come, no matter how hard we try to learn and discover.....Religious people, without any ACTUAL proof.... GOD DID IT !!!...... To quote the classic line.....”Thank God i’m not religious” 😂

[@glastonbury4304]

All you can do is respect each others points of view, science itself has been proved completely wrong as we develop

[@2fast2block]

You're a loser like Dawkins so shut the F up. 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.

[@Stefus87]

@@2fast2block I read the first line and ignored the rest. Good job wasting your time.

[@robclaridge6236]

"Ricky Gervais And Stephen Go Head-To-Head On Religion" is a nice short one and very eloquent too.

[@2fast2block]

And their heads don't add up to much just like Dawkins is a loser too. 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.

[@seraphinaaizen6278]

@@2fast2block "Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." No he doesn't. Creation out of literal nothing is a religious concept. It isn't really advocated for by anyone else. "Real science says nothing does nothing." Science offers no commentary of 'nothing', since we don't have a 'nothing' in order to examine it and see what it is or isn't capable. "We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy." That applies to our local presentation of the universe. It may not necessarily apply to whatever state the universe existed prior to the Big Bang (if 'prior' to the Big Bang is even a coherent concept). "Creation cannot happen by natural means." Woooooooooa there, buddy. You're going to have to join the dots there, because nothing you said up until this point justifies that assertion. "This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created." ......No....it doesn't. Again: Nothing you've said up until this point justifies that assertion. Please justify it now. Preferable with evidence that supports that supernatural creator (and you've got a long way to go in order to get there). But heck, I'd settle for a syllogism. Because if you think you've made one, you haven't. "When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction." The guy who is accusing other people of "resorting to science fiction" is resorting to literal MAGIC as part of his own 'explanation'.....yeah.. "Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it." Well sure, if you just accept that "magic exists" then you can make up whatever explanation you want. But I actually care whether or not the explanation is true, not just whether you can make something up. "We can't get anything from "literally nothing."" Prove it? How many nothings have you examined? "We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God." Okay, you seriously need to read something other than creationist apologetics websites. Because your "arguments" barely rise to the level I would expect from facebook memes. You just jump from one unfounded assertion and non-sequitur to another, and you don't even appear to know how to MAKE an argument, let alone how to make one that's valid and sound. You've just posted up a gish-gallop of nonsense without making any attempt to justify even ONE of your assertions. Please do so now.

[@2fast2block]

@@seraphinaaizen6278 just one of your loser replies... "No he doesn't. Creation out of literal nothing is a religious concept. It isn't really advocated for by anyone else." Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.” Dawkins' "literally nothing": kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4WWlZmGhMl0j7c Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time. Krauss, “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical-just get over it.” “But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe - so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013) “We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011) Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Yes, you are a liar and a loser. You're happy about that.

[@robclaridge6236]

@@2fast2block Erm ok. So who created god then? Thank you for your detailed reply, but I'm still not convinced.

[@eddiegallagher1572]

Ricky Gervais talking to Richard Dawkins is one to look at. Keep up the good work

[@EdDueim]

I love the way Dawkins, Fry and Hitch come out swinging. They are more intelligent and way more erudite than anyone they are likely to encounter and they know it. I recall one encounter I have seen from way back. Hitch was doing an American tour, local stations. There was a pastor he really didn't like and when the pastor said "Christopher, I don't think of you as enemy." Hitch replied, "Then you don't know an enemy when you see one."

[@chrisf8021]

Sam Harris has done some interesting podcasts with Ricky Gervais. Gervais also won the Dawkins award recently and their talk is worth a watch.

[@2fast2block]

As if such an award is to be proud of. 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.

[@chrisf8021]

@@2fast2block Dawkins teaches no such thing about the universe (citation required). The rest of what you wrote was garble and needs...well evidence again.

[@generichuman2044]

@@2fast2block I didn't bother reading your babble because you lied just a couple of sentences in. Maybe try to understand people and their positions before going on a rant

[@lornaanne9242]

My five year old granddaughter came home recently and was crying because a teacher told her and her classmates that 'baby Jesus's died because of them. Shocking to a developing heart and mind, i believe religious education ought to be a parents choice in education.

[@zybch]

No. It shouldn't even be mentioned to a child until they have the mental facility to tell bullshit from reality. Inculcating religion in a young mind is simply child abuse.

[@BedsitBob]

He *WAS* an evolutionary biologist? I think you'll find he still is.

[@chrisbanks5925]

Incredible intellects like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins can open your mind to so many things.

[@2fast2block]

Shut up, loser, you don't even think much. 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.

[@gary9886]

well done and well explained, you cant argue with evaluation!!!! this man is outstanding!!!!

[@tonygriffin_]

Try Professor Dawkins' many excellent books. His latest one is "Outgrowing god: a beginners guide" and is a great step forward on the road of reason and logic. Also "The God Delusion". His science books are superb too, from his brilliant first one, " The Selfish Gene" onwards. Great to see you're exploring the Agatan Foundation collection as they have many great ones. PS Always avoid Deepak Chopra and his wordy nonsense, as Richard schools him in 8.35

[@danic9304]

Climbing Mount Improbable is my favourite of his books. He's such a wonderful writer

[@tonygriffin_]

@@danic9304 Yes, it is excellent...especially when being told by a believer that the eye is a miracle and you want to refute their belief with evidence for its evolution.

[@anserbauer309]

'The Greatest Show in Earth' is a personal favourite, because it demonstrates the majesty of the natural world, without necessarily going into and addressing the minutiae of religious fundamentalist belief.

[@timothywilliams4089]

@@tonygriffin_ I've read many of both his and Hitchens' books,....absolutely wonderful, and can recommend Hitch's 'Portable atheist' as a great source of early thinking, and Also the work of AC Grayling.

[@2fast2block]

Tony, Richard is a loser and so are his clueless followers. 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.

[@danielswood]

Richard Dawkins is such a highly knowledgeable guy. And amazingly well-read! I adored Hitch - but progression in the arguments he spoke about is very well catered for in several that follow, including RD.

[@astronowolf]

Great to see you continuing down this road of discovery. Make sure that you take in some entire lectures. There is a much to learn from hearing an argument you disagree with, and form your own argument against it.

[@2fast2block]

He's a loser. 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.

[@astronowolf]

@@2fast2block Dawkins doesn't teach anything of the sort because he's an evolutionary biologist, and not a cosmologist. I'm also not on board with your logic of x is true, so therefore Y is also true. Even if you're right about X (Laws of Thermodynamics) it doesn't make Y (a supernatural creator) true. It's merely a hypothesis, that needs evidence.

[@doddridge121]

Good to see a young American with an open mind. These are powerful debates, at the heart of civilization in 2022. So many of us are indoctrinated by religion. It takes a lot of strength and commitment to counter these faith-based beliefs. It means encountering strong opposition from those who will use any, and constantly changing arguments to try to keep up with new discoveries. Evidence is the only winner. Good work.

[@clintoncarver1926]

Wow, I'm glad I found your channel. Very refreshing. Your overall grasp of all this is remarkable. You might enjoy comedian George Carlins routine on religion.

[@marsbolt3424]

Hey Joel, if you haven't seen it already you should check out Australian comedian/musician Tim Minchin give a valedictorian speech, called 9 Life's Lessons. You'll love it.

[@richardbelben7075]

Only just found your channel but it’s good to see an American who can thing for himself, really cool man 👍👍👍

[@pinball1970]

The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene are classics

[@slaphead55]

Do watch 'Love Letters to Richard Dawkins' where he reads some of the hate mail he's sent by Christians. It's hilarious. 😂

[@2fast2block]

I hate him for his lying and you losers take him seriously. 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.

[@musicbruv]

@@2fast2block Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha .

[@2fast2block]

@@musicbruv this is the evidence from a loser that somehow proved me wrong... "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ." Dawkins would be proud of how you're a loser like he is.

[@Betleyman7853]

@@2fast2block So where did God come from. Any exception you can make for the existence of God can just as easily apply to the universe. Check out Roger Penrose's latest theory of an eternal self reproducing universe. No god required.

[@chrisf8021]

The argument at 10:18 is a key one, distinguishing between 'people who happen to be religious' and religious thinking itself-deliberately and hypersensitively confusing the two is a defense mechanism to protect religion from criticism. Then (vaguely) touching on the idea that belief without evidence combined with an arbitrary personal interpretation-which mild mainstream religion teaches-guarantees, across a population, that some people will do harmful things precisely in the name of religion. We see it all the time, both extreme and also non-violent cases. And your comment about how the difficult problems mentioned are currently uncertain: the god-of-the-gaps religious types just love that because that's the only place they can smuggle the godly non-explanation back in. There are plenty of video clips of Dawkins talking about this. Even as little as a few years ago, various 'knowledge gaps' had god smuggled in (e.g. the bacterial flagellum), and we've filled them in with science, and the religious advocators have had to admit they were wrong. They move on to another gap. A god is never required. As Dawkins points out in other videos, a complex origin (a god) is a non-starter because you're left with the same unanswered question: what is the origin of that complexity? Complexity comes late in the universe; origins are always simple self-explanations (albeit sometimes hard to figure out).

[@ChristopherStendeck]

Deepak Chopra has a lot of valid and interesting things to say on the subject of philosophy (especially Eastern philosophy). His quotes in this genre are useful and sometimes profound. But he is dramatically out of his depth when talking about actual sciences, such as evolutionary biology or cosmology. That he has the confidence to debate anyone on these topics is remarkable. If you care to submit yourself to anything he has to say in such debates, you'll see his technique is to bring a figurative velvet bag of pseudoscientific, new-age words borrowed from his lectures on meditation, pick 3 or 4 at random, and string them into a sentence. He rarely draws breath without using the words "Trascendental", "Spiritual", or "Oneness". If you ask me the only people who applaud his statements are those pretending to know what on Earth he's talking about. This stuff has a place, but it's not in scientific debate.

[@FahadAyaz]

15:20 I think you underestimate the level of stupidity and stubbornness some people have. We need at least twice that amount of time! 😄

[@xXscreamingkoalaXx]

Thanks for checking out Dawkins. He's considered the most serious and scientific of the atheists. The others are more entertaining with their arguments.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

What? No. That's not even close. Dawkins is a hack. There are plenty of serious atheist philosophers put there like Paul Draper and Graham Oppy but Dawkins is not one of them.

[@FeelGoodVideos21]

Very different reaction one thing I do very much like about your channel is the variety in what you react too. Keep up the great work and I will continue to watch and wish you all success with your channel!

[@2fast2block]

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.

[@improvesheffield4824]

Reacting to some of his old lectures, especially the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, would be good (might be a bit of a busman’s holiday while you’re at college though 😱🥴). Dawkins is not as good a linguist as Hitch was but his science and understanding of evolution is spot on!

[@khymaaren]

He is not a wordsmith, true, but he counters that with reason, scientific knowledge and the conviction to pass that on to as many people as possible.

[@beejay2498]

Do not miss out Anthony Grayling when it comes to enjoying the art of articulating the English language.🇬🇧

[@rynslev]

i remember seeing him live when i was in secondary school and he was very eloquent, although the one thing i remember best was when one student asked if you could be religious and a scientist and he replied not in any way could that work

[@hareecionelson5875]

Well, not without an impressive amount of cognitive dissonance.

[@palantir135]

Nightwish album ‘Endless forms most beautiful’ is an album based on Dawkins works. You can see and hear him at the end of the song The greatest show on earth in the live at Wembley concert.

[@caseyclover1647]

"He was an evolutionary biologist", this guy gave me a mini heart attack, I had to look up whether Dr. Dawkins was still kicking or not. I admire Richard Dawkins and this dude made me incredibly sad for a minute

[@nickfergy1611]

Broooo you're next level 🔥🔥 your reactions are perfect.

[@greghill7759]

For anyone wishing to understand the flaws and the irrational nature of religion, I can recommend "The God Delusion" by Mr Dawkins, and "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. Both books give well-argued points written in accessible language.

[@jackmabel6067]

Please don't forget the splendid anti-religious writings of the 19th Century American agnostic Colonel Robert Ingersoll. Thanks!

[@johnlanham4050]

I believe that Arthur C Clarke first said that advances is the future would seem like magic to an earlier civilisation.

[@IvysPoison1987]

1:40 what cracks me up about this is Richard had an entire album based on his work

[@dereknewbury163]

Pushing the right buttons again, JPS, as a lifelong atheist this was right up my street. A belief in a supernatural deity has long seemed to me to be utterly absurd and without any reasonable justification. My understanding is that religion arose because early people sought to understand their origins and the natural phenomena that they encountered. Somewhere along the line, some people began to realise that claiming access to such knowledge represented power. From there it is but a short step to the postulation of a god(s) and the claim that some individuals knew how to intercede with such deities giving them even more power within their communities. Marx was right, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

[@nektekket852]

Absolutely! I've been atheist for 50+ years, and I haven't heard an original argument for the existence of "gods" for about 45 years now....

[@BBKing1977]

I really want to see your reaction to the Tim Minchin video "Thank You God". I think you'll enjoy how he uses humour and cutting sarcasm to make his point. (Plus he's a hell of a musician!)

[@mathewbeechey6088]

the journey you are on gives me hope. keep learning. Test the statements. there will only be one winner.

[@paulybarr]

Good video. BTW Not 'he WAS an evolutionary biologist'- he IS. He is still alive.

[@Pappa_66]

Thank you for reacting to this great video and man. If you like music there is a very famous Finnish band "Nightwish" which is/was collaborating very closely with Mr. Dawkins writing songs based on his "world view" and theories and books. So far as one of their greatest song is called "The Greatest Show On Earth" which is a whole story of "the creation of the universe and humankind" according Dawkins. He is personally "performing" with the band like in live concert on Wembley Arena in England. And he is "speaking" his famous quotes in their songs. Or another very famous scientist Eugene Shoemaker like in their song "Shoemaker". He is the only human (so far) whose ashes are buried on the moon (well not all of the ashes).

[@coot1925]

The argument that the universe is itself sentient is ridiculous. A good analogy is this.... If you put 20 mice in a bag you can say that the mice are sentient, but you can't say that the bag is sentient. It's just a place which contains sentient beings.

[@royw-g3120]

Post COVID we should see a bit more of Dawkins, he is not an idiot and kept himself safely isolated.

[@madams2312]

Great clip, keep up the good work

[@hape3862]

He is still alive!

[@markstevenson1646]

Yes

[@dereknewbury163]

Citation needed

[@markstevenson1646]

@@dereknewbury163 you have the word of an English man, the only citation you'll ever need, good day sir

[@dereknewbury163]

@@markstevenson1646 With deepest respect, sir, utter bollocks reply.

[@markstevenson1646]

@@dereknewbury163 really, well just remember that without stupidity there would be no intelligence and without ugliness there would be no beauty so I guess the world needs people like you after all, good day sir

[@PhillipLWilcher]

When Oscar Wilde once said: "Religion is the curse of Christianity", to greater effect he was actually saying that Love is never the curse of Life.

[@minhearg8331]

In 1962, in his book “Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible”, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated his famous Three Laws, of which the third law is the best-known and most widely cited: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

[@ChocoLater1]

Dawkins is hated by many because he has the ability to break the buble of lies people live in.

[@2fast2block]

No, I hate him because he IS the liar. 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.

[@ChocoLater1]

@@2fast2block Here we go. You've just proven what I said. He is breaking that bubble you live in.

[@2fast2block]

@@ChocoLater1 this was somehow evidence to prove me wrong... "Here we go. You've just proven what I said. He is breaking that bubble you live in." You ARE such a F-ing loser. You did nothing to prove me wrong.

[@simplicityistheultimatesop6571]

@@ChocoLater1 Dawkins is a fool with a degree in stupidity,he was humiliated by a twelve years old Muslim girl when he tried to regurgitate ignorance about religion in a class room.is this guy your best defense for atheism?

[@ChocoLater1]

People like you never help humanity to move forward. You insult people at the earliest opportunity when someone disagree with you.

[@DjAlanBarratt]

Watch - Richard Dawkins reads hate mail 🤣

[@nuntichaapsiram2560]

I am impressed that you are exploring your mind! Keep at it.

[@2fast2block]

Yeah, keep at being clueless. 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.

[@nuntichaapsiram2560]

@@2fast2block maroon!

[@captvimes]

Props to you. At a time when science is not being accepted during a gobal event by the same people that wont accept these arguments.

[@shawnupright7088]

I'm a 58-year Old Hippie (highly intelligent people pursuing inner enlightenment) I'm coming across a bright young man as yourself gives me hope that the inquisitive mind is not dead in America's youth, thank you, I needed that. 👍

[@worthalook4870]

Always a great watch Dawkins

[@robertcartier5088]

In the past, whenever we attributed something we didn't understand to a god, and later came to understand that it wasn't a god, we would adjust our knowledge base accordingly, as we should. Whenever we attributed something to a scientifically proven solution to a mystery, at no point ever has it been the case that we later discovered that we were wrong, and that it was attributable to a god after all. Not once. That should tell us everything we need to know to become skeptical about everything religions tell us. It's not enough to ask if it is true... we must ask how is it true!

[@timothypanngam2249]

Great stuff

[@michael_177]

I used to listen to a lot of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc when I was younger.

[@MrsMillwall]

Nth I don't know anyone who practices religion, don't know anyone who says Grace, go church etc. England isn't very religious

[@jackchisnall9316]

In 100 years we will have more scientific explanations but it will still not persuade those of blind faith.

[@diddledeeye132]

True believer syndrome. Its a thing.

[@dave_goldcrest]

Asking if religion is true is like asking if myth is true or if art is true. Myths aren't literally true but they contain moral lessons and psychological insights which have a profound effect on cultures and individuals. I tend to think the same way about religion.

[@OriginalPuro]

Sir Richard Dawkins doesn't give arguments, he presents facts.

[@jaynesleigh4722]

A very thought provoking video thank you for reacting to this Joel. I agree with him but I do think you have to allow for the fact that people will still look to spirituality when science and other humans have failed them in order to cope with whatever is happening to them, such as during war or terminal illness . When there is nothing else. Belief in a higher power will continue while there is suffering in the world. Religion organised by humans is the problem because it clings onto a past version of events as absolute truth.

[@seanpittaway5341]

People are not perfect they do mess up. Science isn't a promise its a search for the truth or a cure. God is a promise that will not ever be proven! And going from the top where people mess up, I'll make my own mind up because then I can only blame myself

[@Chez114]

15:20 It's already incredibly difficult to argue against our current scientific understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution. In 100 years, these same arguments will continue, however, to persist because two things will always be true about dogmatic religious believers 1. They will always refuse to have an honest look at the evidence for evolution and against their own stance 2. People who cling onto faith for comfort will always battle to let go of their belief if it means being faced with an uncomfortable truth about our own mortality and how truly alone we very well may be in the known universe

[@dandan2776]

So glad there is still plenty of Americans that have brains and aren't brainwashed by religion

[@Muongoing.97c]

“All the way to part 5?” Oh you sweet summer child.

[@FTFLCY]

The hold religion has on people has always baffled me. I was brought up Christian, went to Church from an early age. I clearly remember being in Sunday School aged about 9 or 10, and saying "I just don't believe this anymore" and stopped going for good. I'd never take advice on anything from a religious person, for if they can swallow it all so unquestioningly then their sense of critical thinking must be severely impaired. Same goes for Brexiteers.

[@godamid4889]

When you indoctrinate children before they can speak it isn't surprising religions have a hold on people. It should be seen for what it is - child abuse. The mental distress created by placing their false guilt and dependency on kids is unforgiveable. Religious people are like generational abuse victims, it's all they know, so they see no problem doing it to their own children.

[@2fast2block]

@@godamid4889 child abuse? You believe things with NO evidence and then you have the gall to act as if you care about truth? You're a joke like all you losers are. 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.

[@godamid4889]

@@2fast2block if it was that good religion wouldn't need to fool children. It would stand on its own feet convincing adults. The rest of your post is rubbish. It doesn't make sense. But if you boil away the garbled nonsense, you are still left with the same question - but who created the creator?

[@2fast2block]

@@godamid4889 since you love being a joke in your loser life, copy and paste any parts of your gassy reply that got around what I wrote rather than running from it.

[@Tbone.357]

@@2fast2block Odin is very disappointed in you. Dolt

[@dansmif]

Great clips, but this definitely wasn't the best of Dawkins. One of my favourite clips is the epic reaction when a girl asks him "what if you're wrong" (South Park even did a skit based on it!). You should also react to Richard reading out his hate mail - it's hilarious! And if you can resist the urge to scream, watch the one with the "show me the evidence" woman who doesn't think evolution is real.

[@2fast2block]

You're a loser like Dawkins so stop pretending you think. 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.

[@dansmif]

​@@2fast2block You say "We can't get anything from 'literally nothing'", yet in the same breath you tell us stories about how a magical being poofed the universe into existence out of nothing. I can see why this level of cognitive dissonance would leave you deranged 😂 You're also wrong about Richard Dawkins - he's an evolutionary biologist, not a cosmologist. His area of expertise goes as far back as the origins of life on Earth, not the universe. True, he often mentions the latest theories of the origin of the universe, but inflation theory doesn't propose the universe popping into existence out of nothing - just that the universe was previously much smaller than it is today. With big bang theory, even a singularity is not "nothing". At the moment nobody (including you) knows what happened prior to the big bang. It might not even make sense to talk about "prior" to the big bang if time also began at that point. It could be just as silly as asking "what's north of the north pole".

[@steveparker8065]

I personally don't have an invisible, omnipotent Daddy in the sky, I prefer to use logic, compassion and reason to determine my worldview and actions. However, I do believe in a spiritual part of humanity, universal intelligence built into the building blocks of life. Chemical processes indicate we are simply part of the universe trying to understand itself.

[@girlsdrinkfeck]

seems u just use the word spirit as a way to define what isnt understood about physics, which is fine i suppose

[@steveparker8065]

@@girlsdrinkfeck lol you must be Irish with a name like that. Or a fan of Father Ted. Or both. I suppose what I mean by spirituality is a sense of self in the universe, of something bigger, community, intuition, feelings, the interconnectedness of all things - to steal from Douglas Adams. I doubt we'll ever know everything and very much doubt we have the senses or capacity no matter how much science evolves.

[@girlsdrinkfeck]

@@steveparker8065 i know what u mean, but everything can be explained by science eventually ,spirituality is just a word we use to fill the gap of the uncertain until we do know :)

[@litterpicker1431]

@@girlsdrinkfeck You don't know that everything can be explained by science eventually. Thus far, the more answers we find, the more questions we have. “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” Douglas Adams

[@steveparker8065]

@@girlsdrinkfeck We think everything can be explained by science until it can't. When science can tell me where the Universe ends and what exists outside the Universe without some cop-out theory regarding it turning back in on itself, or it's a doughnut etc, or how a group of cells and chemical reactions become sentience, then maybe I'll consider your point about spirituality. But at the moment we know less than 1% about the Earth and less than 0.0000infinity about the Universe and are restricted in senses to a very small spectrum of the visible Universe. I really believe there are some things that will always transcend human limitations.

[@maxodgaard1335]

WTF just got the chills when mentioning he "WAS" ...... but nice to know hes alive and kicking.....

[@2fast2block]

He's alive still spreading his lies. 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.

[@redcalx9568]

All religions should give all their money to science then apologize to the trees that were felled in order to make the bibles etc then forced to plant 1 trillion new saplings to CREATE new trees for science books.

[@heathra68]

Would love to see your take on Sam Harris. He was probably my favorite alongside Hitchens. He completely convinced me to try some stuff outside my comfort zone. Hitch was definitely more fun to listen to, but I probably learned much more from Harris.

[@corneliusantonius3108]

Did you know Dawkins was on the Album of a Metalband from Finland called Nightwish ?

[@c_n_b]

I like Ricky Gervais' argument: How was the universe created? - God. How was God created? - He has always been. Why not say that about the universe then?

[@steveparker8065]

He also says about being an Athiest. I'm an Athiest and so I don't believe in 6000 Gods, as a religious person you believe in one God and don't believe in 5,999 Gods. I don't believe in one more God than you. So in essence a religious person is just a less committed Athiest :)

[@margaretnicol3423]

Because God had to be there first to make the universe.

[@steveparker8065]

@@margaretnicol3423 I say Big Bird from Sesame Street created the universe and would argue that Big Bird had to be there before the universe could be created. And the strange thing is, that my logic is following yours. So you can't deny the validity of my point without contradicting yourself.

[@margaretnicol3423]

@@steveparker8065 Well the guy who created BB would have to be there before BB, wouldn't he?

[@steveparker8065]

@@margaretnicol3423 But BB has always been there though hasn't he? or don't you have faith? BB created Jim Henson shortly after the universe, then he took a day off to council Oscar the grouch in anger management ;-)

[@pigedehekkan]

One can not disagree with that logic, but one might live in denial.

[@basildon9008]

More Richard Dawkins stuff! 😁

[@jakemistakeroberts2044]

Hi JPS, can I respectfully point out that your US flag is hanging the incorrect way. The flag’s field, the blue portion, will always be to the flag’s upper right. So the upper left corner as you look at it. Thanks. Love the vids

[@geraldaird9390]

A Tuba Quartet? I don't want a Tuba Quartet, I want A Shrubbery a nice one!

[@pinball1970]

It may be a good idea to watch the Deepak debate

[@bsjett]

Just stumbled upon your channel from your Hitchens reaction, and now this one. I highly recommend Matt Dillahunty.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

12:54 Spherical is better than round. A circle is round, a flat disc is round, a cylinder is round, and a sphere is round. But only the latter is a decent description of the shape of the Earth. And in fact, the bible describes the Earth as round, because it descries the Earth as a flat disc. But a flat disc is not spherical, and that is how the bible messes up.

[@Thomas-nc9fz]

Because he likes to criticise theism, people often forget that he is an incredible biologist who not only invented the word meme to describe information passed through non genetic means, but also theorised that the gene is the unit for natural selection, not the species or the individual. Read his book the selfish gene.

[@xorsyst1]

I suggest watching Nightwish "The greatest show on earth", it's based on Dawkins' work.

[@Johnboyy76]

I had to read Richard Dawkin's book 'The Blind Watchmaker' as part of my Biology A Level in 1992. It's his opinion on evolution and natural selection and the book title refers to the complexity of a watch being designed and constructed by a blind watchmaker. Religion states that complex life (the watch) was so intricate it must have been designed by a higher power 'The Watchmaker' someone or something that knew exactly what they were doing but Dawkin's argued that a watch (complex life) can be put together by a totally blind watchmaker. I find it's a tricky concept and analogy to grasp and sometimes I still don't feel like 'I get it' and i've possibly explained the theory all wrong but wiki is your friend my pal.

[@2fast2block]

Dawkins is a loser. Anyone who thinks this all came about on its own proves they refuse to think. They will ignore all the science to prove them wrong so they can be the loser they love to be.

[@MajCyric]

If you like Dawkins, I'd wager you'd also enjoy watching Bill Nye's "tour" of Ken Ham's recreation of the "ark"... Bill Nye also debates Ken Ham in another video.. "Ark" tour video kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoGvg5uMmbOja68 Nye v Ham debate kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGfOmKmefJh0oas

[@oliverrea3924]

Definitely think you should watch and react to Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins in conversation.

[@grahamfunnell5590]

Look at Hitchens last speech with Dawkins. He has a message for you, and his bravery towards the end will inspire you.

[@emohruos]

Did you check out the NDE experiences videos yet. Example, Is there life after death. At the Tom Tom Festival with John Cleese comedian?

[@alan-ferguson]

As I think I've mentioned previously, I spent some 56 years (less the time I was an infant and up until February 2020) in a very liberal Christian denomination. We were encouraged to think critically, and that is what I have spent my life doing. Here's how I see the difference between theists and non-theists: non-theists seek understanding and reject myth, while theists cling to myth and reject true understanding. Believing in something is not the same as understanding something. This in part explains Hitchens' and others assertion that man created god not vice versa. All of the bible is composed of stories that were reduced to writing after having been passed along by word-of-mouth for decades or - in the case of the old testament - centuries. Those stories were products of the geopolitical time and place where they originated. The people telling and hearing those stories didn't have the benefit of science to arrive at real explanations. Theism has long passed its "best used by" date. In an earlier post - either about Hitchens or about Fry - you suggested that we would be better if we had just one religion, though even then you seemed hesitant. Perhaps my view will be more along the lines of what you were thinking: I believe that the world would be a better place if we replaced all religion with the study of ethics and morality for the sake of ethics and morality alone. Instead of gathering ritually on Sunday (or whenever) to worship a deity, we would gather to explore good and right living. That is, at least until we have actual empirical evidence that a supernatural being exists! When we gain such evidence, I will gladly rethink my opposition to religion. Just as any good atheist would do! 🤔

[@allenwilliams1306]

The thing about religion, is that there are so many of them, and they are (nearly) all mutually exclusive. It follows, then, that all but one are in fact, wrong. Given that all religions but one are wrong, it must be true that there is a high probability for each one of them that it is wrong. It is therefore irrational to follow any one of them, and the only rational thing to do is reject them all.

[@alan-ferguson]

Yes, I think Hitchens, Harris, Fry, or someone(s) have suggested something along those lines. I agree that it is "irrational to follow any one of them," because I believe that not even one of them is right. There has never been any empirical evidence of any god. Nearly every argument that has been put forth in favor of the existence of a god or gods has been empirically proven to have a scientific/natural explanation. Where science has not yet been able to develop evidence, give them time. "Not yet" doesn't mean "never will."

[@margaretnicol3423]

@@allenwilliams1306 On the other hand most religions teach love your neighbor and the land so if it stopped there it would improve the way things are.

[@godamid4889]

I wouldn't bow down to them. Who was their creator? I'd sidestep god and try to get in good with god's god.

[@godamid4889]

@@margaretnicol3423 that's BS. They don't teach that at all - they teach us versus them.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

9:14 - 10:18 Dawkins general point is valid, but does not originate with him. It goes back at least to 1968 and Arthur C Clarke's saying that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[@vadstradamus]

Great stuff! Thank you!!! Sam Harris is another one. Highly recommend checking out his greatest hits.

[@Stagedoorjenny]

I agree with the recommendations to watch Ricky Gervais on religion (there's several videos by The Wonderful Truth account). He is as intelligent as Hitchens & Dawkins on religion but will more of a comedic edge.. 😁