Richard Dawkins Speaking at Duke University, Oct 3, 2010

[@hd-fractals]

dawkins starts at 9:30 :)

[@ahmedjadt2529]

Great Designer

[@adrianjanssens7116]

Almost ten minutes of intro. Why?

[@jfreeman4275]

there you are!

[@kawaichanx3]

Thanks cat guy

[@johnmutwiri5079]

The best comment here👌

[@bellarosalarsen1638]

What a privilege to have lived my life with the amazing, absolutely brilliant Professor Dawkins knowledge, compassion and his love for humanity.

[@2fast2block]

No, he is a dumbass.

[@poozer1986]

@@2fast2block 2 fast to block, 2 slow to see reality. You come from the position of God, so you don't readout have a leg to stand on. You're an idiot, if the highest order

[@2fast2block]

@@poozer1986 Richard dumbass 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. Only fools follow dumbass Dawkins. Dawkins “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” He is not logical, just hypocritical: withalliamgod.wordpress.com/existence-of-god/dawkins-deluded-logic/

[@poozer1986]

@@2fast2block the last statement from dawkins you quoted, is poetically beautiful. Tell you what. Prove, without any doubt, your god exists, then go collect your novel prize, then, come back and continue this argument.. Until now, you've just spoken nonsense, and misrepresented science

[@poozer1986]

@@2fast2block can you prove the "laws of nature" MUST be designed?

[@salwiser126]

I love Richard. I am Saudi and I am a big fan of him

[@slurvtrutl526]

Awesome. Yes please get sent to prison while the west supports the government without question.

[@jafar3326]

Well you are stupid

[@davidblack2970]

No matter what country you live in there is always something that you can do. I live in the United States and the number of people who find something better to do than vote is embarrassing. So a couple percent of the people have 90% of the money. Our health insurance industry is a fraud, and the greed of the pharmaceutical industry is almost totally unchecked. I could go on and on and on, but it boils down to the fact that people are too lazy to vote their own interests. Not to mention the fact that we have a self-serving mentally ill orange-haired orangutang as a president. We could do so much more for the oppressed people around the world if we just got our own house in order. So I'm not going to tell someone in Saudi Arabia to stand up and be counted/murdered.

[@leespaner]

@@slurvtrutl526 I know right!!! what stupid statements when can't even get rid of tRump

[@zel3888]

I think Saudi atheists are some of the bravest people in the world and we must do all we can to support and protect them.

[@AtamMardes]

People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and others along with James Randi are valuable voices of reason and should be respected for their efforts to awaken the delusional naive and put away the snide who promote superstitions and the charlatans like the psychics, the faith healers and the necromancers.

[@billscannell93]

That's it in a nutshell!

[@rogerhoare4680]

Om

[@piertinence]

A darwinian evolutionary creation myth is filled with delusional magic. You have magical apes morphing into humans and land mammals returning to the oceans in order to morph into all kinds of sea mammals

[@piertinence]

​@@AtamMardes There is a need to expose quack scientist like Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins who are filling the WEB with utter BS calling it science. The idiot pretending that creatures like peacocks and other creatures would only be presenting an illusion of design, does not even present an illusion of making sense.

[@poozer1986]

@@AtamMardes there is far more evidence for evolution, all the religions man has created throughout history, combined

[@LynnColorado]

Thank you for putting this lecture on KZbin. Very informative. And only if more of us were as gracious as this speaker.

[@2fast2block]

RD is a dolt. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@TheJar113]

I wish he'd come to my university.

[@SirSethery]

Starts at 9:19

[@mikekennedy5470]

At 9:42

[@Y3vrah1]

Excellent mr Dawkins. As calm and clear as ever. I just love his style.

[@2fast2block]

You must love dung 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. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@Sjoerd2212]

love these kinds of lectures all day i could watch them and i do :D thanks for posting once again :D:D:D:D:D:D respect

[@2fast2block]

Then love being stooo-pid. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@shmegelsky]

"I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs." That's excellent!

[@mohammedhossain9382]

Without Science and reason mankind will again reach to the state of animalism . Humanism and animalism can only be understood by science and reasons . I wish all success of Science and reason .

[@emilengen7825]

We wouldn't even have phones without science.

[@NothingMeek]

How did it all come to be? Why did it all come to be?

[@bowzally1281]

(I wish to stress that i am an atheist and both a student and lover of science and reason/rationality) I agree with you but i don't think that science can only do good things, as a matter of fact it can do some remarkably terrible things. For example, science has, undeniably had a a huge impact on human conflicts and it is what empowered humans to be able to kill eachother incredibly fast, in fact, science also gave us the opportunity to destroy all of our species and the entire planet through nuclear/atomic bombs (hence the cold war), even though they were only used twice (Hiroshima, Nagasaki.1945) during warfare, the point is that science can help us do some pretty terrible things. There is also a futuristic horrifying aspect of science (besides nuclear bombs), which is of course, AI/Automation. Automation is of course not a new thing and advanced societies literally exist because of automation, which started on a mass scale during the industrial revolution but had existed prior to that for a very long time. Now, when it comes to AI we have to ask ourselves - what will happen when AI becomes more intelligent than humans - personally i don't think we're very far from that, i think in about 50 years or so, AI will be able to outperform humans at virtually everything, so how is society going to work when humans will not need to go to work because there is always going to be an artifficial form that is not only more intellectually competent but also physically. I wonder what purpose humans will have in life when they have virtually no value, at least certainly no economic value; maybe what's going to happen is that every human will be given a specific amount of money (though it's unlikely that money in the contemporary sense will exist in over 5 decades) with which they can buy most likely a lot of things considering that AI will be able to work really professionaly and really fast. So, if that's what's going to happen then i still don't see what purpose we would have, because if we have our entire lives just to ourselves, to do anything we want to do and for as long as we wish, then what's the purpose of life ? I can keep going but i think i've been philosophical enough already.

[@tshepp89]

Thanks you very much for this video! I loved it. Keep up the good work professor Dawkins.

[@2fast2block]

Dung work. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@Rickytastic]

Richard Dawkins is just so amazingly awesome

[@2fast2block]

No, he's just a dolt. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@marvinmartian7281]

Listening to Richard it is not a waste of time indeed!

[@2fast2block]

Oh, and I thought it had Richard the dumbass in the vid.

[@soniaguzman7327]

Just a thought...Maybe Noah was nice enough, since he already had a boat, to take each of the animals to their chosen habitat! Wonder why Ham doesn't use that thought in his "museum" ?

[@josefinenilsson8059]

Sounds perfectly logical within the insanity that it is.

[@soniaguzman7327]

People who believe in the Noah story are assuming that Noah used magic. That is the only way this story makes sense to anyone!

[@rhondah1587]

LOL Noah's fictional "boat" had no rudder nor means of propulsion. LMAO How funny.

[@Joos77215]

Too bad the bible wasn’t accurate about this, but I have some inside information and it turned out that Noah, like a busdrive, picked up all the animals over the whole world. At least “y’all” know how it happened 😜

[@edsmith9846]

Listening to Dawkins and listening to politicians are two extremes of the human experience.

[@TheSinexCN]

That's the beautiful thing about science: whether you believe in it or not, it's still accurate.

[@valu777]

@SourceOfInformation Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: 1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. assumptions = guesswork am i correct?

[@ns81]

"Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian!" Hilarious!!

[@Riverdeepnwide]

1:20:21 The querent comes around to asking "why the polemic ..." Is not their preamble a subtle passive aggressive form of polemic in itself? It seems common in religious discussion, any thoughts on that?

[@fffmmm22]

The part with the penguins was awesome. When I asked that to a creationist the answer was "There are some at almost every zoo that stopped there". Very credible person. *cough*

[@isabelpark5042]

중국 한나라

[@isabelpark5042]

Sorry, an error

[@Superslemmet]

@shotsxxx I can't access the old bible now, but if you look at the wiki page "Number_of_the_Beast", footnote 8, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6...+36 = 666)". So it's not only her old bible that has 888 as the number. I don't know how many mistakes there are, but there are more than I can be bothered to list. And all it takes is one

[@topilinkala1594]

I have nothing against people of faith if they don't harm others including teaching bs to children. Why is it that people of faith think that all who are not of faith are against them?

[@danashannon8234]

Because in Corinthians there is scripture that tells people not to be unequally yoked with non believers & over & over anyone without "the holy spirit" are wicked. They are not born again, chosen, children of God. Etc....

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

because they want everyone in the "club"

[@2fast2block]

Atheistic types go by blind faith. I go by faith in the evidence. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@topilinkala1594]

@@2fast2block I'm not an atheist. I'm ignostic. If you say god, I say which one and please define what you mean by god. If your definition of god is that there must have been a higher belief for those who built the Sixtine Chappel. I say yes there might have been one for them, but how does that mean that I need to have one.

[@2fast2block]

@@topilinkala1594 "If you say god, I say which one and please define what you mean by god." If you say blah, that is considered something that somehow got around the evidence I gave. If you keep on filling in space with this garbage..."If your definition of god is that there must have been a higher belief for those who built the Sixtine Chappel." then maybe it wouldn't be noticed that you have such a fear of facing evidence put right in front of you, oh, but it clearly shows your fear and it's obvious. The great news is jokes like you who do all they can to run from reality....you can't in the end. F00LS like you will be done away with. How nice, you'll get what you deserve since you loved living a lie giving lame excuses. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Psalms 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoSYk6h9o62JkNk Enjoy your stoooo-pid while it lasts.

[@pinkdeath82]

@REVELATION159 : No, when someone identifies and understands my point I regard that as a success of communication. You're assuming Richard Dawkins is the only common denominator here? No, it is my studies in philosophy, geography, history and sociology, psychology, neuroscience and ultimately pedagogy which lead me to this point. The more you learn of the human body, mind and behaviour and so on the less impressive the ideas of religion(or spirituality) becomes. Dawkins is but one of many.

[@McLarenF1God]

@EastofForever WOW! I'm soooooo convinced now. Thanks to you, I've found god. He was under the couch cushion between a crushed Frito and some Velcro.

[@REVELATION159]

I'm sorry for butting into your conversation before, you both have some very good points, remember, I'm watching.

[@SmackWaterMack001]

9:43 SKIP THE BULLSHIT Youre Welcome

[@ciCCapROSTi]

That guy was cringy as fuck.

[@msplow]

STONEFREE1962 q

[@kushalgokhale9114]

24:00 but how does one know the original amount of isotope present in the rock?

[@peteconrad2077]

Because we know that the rock can only form with the natural level. Any change from there is change over time. For example, where we see lead an uranium together, we know it would have to have started as pure uranium. So the ratio of lead to uranium gives a lab accurate time.

[@barbaraannen3340]

@9:30

[@vpjshankar]

What a gutsy and graceful way to celebrate the Truth. RD himself is an Institution. Respects!!

[@2fast2block]

Dawkins and truth are together?! 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.

[@anonamouse2346]

My very favorite living Homo Sapien.

[@Frank289100]

Watch that movie made in the 40's called "Angel on my shoulder" with Claude Rains and Paul Muni. In the beginning of the movie, look at the wall in his office.

[@acosmicsimian3994]

Atheism for the win!!! Bitches....

[@ThunderChunky101]

@ja1doyle PS The big bang theory does NOT state that there was a beginning or that something came from nothing. Even the writers of the (guilt pleasure) TV show knew that when they wrote "the whole universe was in a hot dense state". All the theory actually states is that all energy in the universe was once in a small area of incredibly high energy density, anything other than that is only speculation. Anyone saying otherwise is speaking beyond their means (big crunch, rip etc).

[@MihaSinkovec1981]

Still, how good of you to post it. :)

[@djalessandromagno]

@whatshendrix "Apparently plausible sound argument" - I meant her! She kinda made an interesting point such as "let's work together". Of course that I´m for that and I assume that everybody is. But what she wanted was a special concession. So she appeal to emotion. RD answered in a very polite and precise way, I'd probably point out to her what i´ve said before - that she (not her specifically, but religious people in general) was trying to avoid being challenged using this tactic.

[@jamesoverholt878]

If you want to skip the introductions (and who doesn't) 9:20

[@arash4712]

You are present, always, Richard.

[@2fast2block]

Wherever Richard is, he's a present dumbass.

[@EminorReal]

Loved the speech, was let down by the public's questions. Very nice upload.

[@HerbaceousM8]

*I' am an atheist. My question is how did you choose the right god? What makes your god more valid than any other god? I find that arguing whether or not there are gods a waste of time. A imperfect thing, not of this world, that's infinite and all knowing is highly improbable. So i tend to suspend my atheistic view for the sake of discussion -too many people in general just argue and dont think about any other view point. So whats your religion and why is is the right one?

[@Lesardah]

@hexcane It's a brilliant point you make, and I've never seen it articulated so clearly.

[@REVELATION159]

Returned once again today with the hope of something new, could it be found?Some of these comments have been repeated so many times, some to the letter, going back days, you seem happy going over the same old ground, day in and day out, with your specialist subjects. I dont look for like minded people, just people with a mind. you bigged yourselves up, no end, and what have you come up with? Im glad that Im at least tolerant of others, thats how you gain a greater understanding, in humility.

[@endthedisease]

I really wish Dawkins would put videos on his channel more often.

[@REVELATION159]

C.S. Lewis was a fellow and tutor in English literature at Oxford University in 1954, he was elected by his peres to the chaire of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, he held that possition up to his retirement.

[@thesheep91]

Does anyone have a link to the Climbing Mount Improbable lecture mentioned in the third (?) question.

[@beanbag6]

@DarkwingScooter i would also like to ask what you mean by the metaphysical "truths" of science and evolution. by definition scientific "truths" are mostly objective and therefore not metaphysical. admittedly sometimes interpretations and inferences are performed that make it subjective but really good science is true whether or not anyone even has knowledge of its existence. you make it sound as though nothing can be argued outside the realm of philosophy. can you clarify for me?

[@dujl]

@Lingerminator No, I agree and do believe that is true. But I believe that any individual consciousness is a universal experience, in a sense that it is experienced from different perspectives, but is always constant. Therefore it would be impossible to retain the same individuality twice, but also impossible not to experience consciousness in some way, as we become part of the whole.

[@TomFynn]

@REVELATION159 Cool, a new non sequitur. One that I haven’t heard of. All other questions -besides the why - have been answered. Or how do you think we know where and when what planet will be at a given time?

[@gibertusalbans1779]

You might want to add mimics like flies that resemble bees. There is an orchid that has flower parts resembling a wasp that wasps then try to mate with which then pollinates the orchids.. Another orchid has something like a piece of rotten meat in appearance and smell.

[@REVELATION159]

@SourceOfInformation Just made an observation that making wild sweeping statements, followed by a question (open door) followed by an answer (closed door) was a strange way to enter into a discusion. I know, you anticipated this comment when you wrote your very first comment.

[@MsTae2012]

There's nothing in the laws of physics which demands that the law of cause and effect be more than generalizations for interacting with the world above the quantum level. Within quantum mechanics there are many counter examples to the first premise of the KCA. For example, when Carbon-14 decays to Carbon-12 the radioactive decay is a perfectly random causeless event and thus though the Carbon-12 began to exist it wasn't caused to exist.

[@rtlinson]

Turn up the volume!!!

[@kindly4real]

Is this Saturday Night Live! All those present for detoxification please follow the detoxification corridor to the detoxification chamber for detoxification.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

@Mattysmyth0593 Didn´t answer my question again.. A lot of people get away with similar crimes, would you still recommend them to enjoy their lives? I´m questioning the values involved, not the actions

[@safirorgan4989]

Not knowing something does not mean it does not exist and we can't deny its existence.

[@ukcelticpride]

I saw a clip on a religious channel of a professional palaeontologist who said that he believed that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs happened due to the flood of Noah.

[@taurusclimber]

Um, did you read my comment? I actually agree with you about the science issue. We're entering a new global age though, and maybe that number is fluctuating, but it can't stay that way for long. I have hope for change.

[@NilSatis1983]

2 is an even number that is also a Prime Number.There is nothing in the nature of prime numbers that says they cannot be even numbers so there is no failure in the law of Identity. QM essentially accepts the dual-nature of particles and therefore accepts it as a real paradox that transcends formal logic.The notion that the duality exists because of the inability of the observer to witness both characteristics in a particle is irrelevant to the fact that formal logic fails to reconciletheduality.

[@Superslemmet]

@shotsxxx Ok, I think I know what you mean. When the first translation was made that used the word 'unicorn', it was not mistranslated. However, I do not know which edition of the bible you think is 'the right one', so I assumed you used some contemporary edition, and not something from like 400 years ago. The contemporary bibles that use the word 'unicorn' have been mistranslated. This however does not mean the old bible was mistranslated at the time of it's translation. Language is dynamic.

[@Lingerminator]

@dujl I state opinion on "technical theory" yes. That is were i'm at in building my world view. Which is a lifelong project. In a philosophical sense, my opinion, which i formulated before delving into reason, is that life is the universe observing its self, and life returns to the universe with a change because of observation. Which still gives ME the 'idea' that the self is not constant with its individuality. I would like to hear your opinion on why you think there is a constant individualty

[@Whateverworksism]

No, classical logic have no place in QM. The only logic in QM is Quantum Logic which allow you to reason about certain propositions with quantum theory in the mix. One of the points I was trying to make in the above post is simply that though things may seem logical or illogical to us that does not add any weight to any argument.When we speak with certainty it's because we have evidence or can measure the probability of x not because it seems logical or makes sense. That was my point.

[@wgfcrafty]

@Surtak You are discussing the paradoxes of Pascal's Wager. "even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. " How do you take out this insurance policy when you can't TRULY believe? Can an omnipotent god not see through such a charade? I could go to church every day, take the sacrament, but would I really believe it, or be deluding myself?

[@cfarinho]

how is that possible? how does the one dimensional determine the three dimensional? and how does the whole adapt to the outside environment without a feedback?

[@zeitgeistmonroe]

I am new to this all... Please bare with me... Does Darwinism and Mr Hawkins believe human beings evolved from another animal or just as a similar species all together? If so my question then is "wouldn't there still be evolution happening and different phases between man & say ape today?"

[@Lingerminator]

@dujl Thank you for your thoughts!

[@bengray4149]

Question for Richard Dawkins et al: Is there any current literature and/or theory that sheds light on how and why species like several varieties of Hawaiian caterpillars have adapted to become carnivorous hunters or shrimps to withstand the scalding temperatures of volcano vents etc? I struggle to see how Darwinian theory of evolution explains either the natural selection process or the driving force that has led to such apparent biological aberrations. For instance why would a vegan caterpillar living in a tropical island lush with an infinite supply of vegetation and ergo food source need to evolve into a species that depended on flesh, not least as presumably such a food source is less abundant and reliable? Also, how can the principle of chance mutation possibly allow for the huge genetic transformation involved in a vegan caterpillar to eventually digest and process flesh. As I understand it, most caterpillars are only able to live on one or two types of plant, so how does natural selection via chance mutation allow for a caterpillar to adapt to digesting the flesh of insects? Common sense would dictate that such a transformation would have to happen overnight, as the caterpillar surely needs the necessary biological adaptations needed to digest flesh rather than vegetation before it can begin to do so, a la the old chicken and egg paradox. Whilst it is easy to understand the gradual Darwinian process by which giraffes have evolved slowly to have long necks, as there is an imperative to obtain juicier leaves and observe predators from longer distance, not only does no such imperative seem to exist in the case of carnivorous caterpillars, but even if there is an advantage in giving up an abundant food source in favour of a less abundant one, the adaptation to do this needs surely to have been acquired before the caterpillar can begin to change its diet so dramatically. Similarly with the shrimps living in volcanic vents there is the complete paradox whereby the shrimp needs to have achieved the adaptation that permits it to live in the extreme temperatures before it can have access to the algae upon which it lives near the vents in question. Put simply the un-adapted shrimp would surely have to know in advance that there was an abundant food source on the walls of the vents before it developed the imperative to brave the extreme temperatures to access the food, and then have evolved piecemeal the necessary biological protection that prevented it being boiled alive before it reached the food source. I have watched many lectures by Richard Dawkins and documentaries by David Attenborough and read Darwin's Origin of the Species etc, but they all deal with the straightforward examples re Giraffes and so forth, rather than those examples that seem to entirely contradict the theory in question. Indeed, in the youtube link re the caterpillar above (kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWbUmp1_YpKpb6c , you will note the narrator says simply that nobody knows why they evolved from vegan to carnivorous. I would be grateful if you could tell me if it is the case that no contemporary theory has yet been proposed to explain how or why such dramatic evolutionary transformations occur, and/or whether scientists like Dawkins accept species like carnivorous caterpillars appear to contradict and ergo undermine the general theory of evolution?

[@byteme9718]

Give it up Ben, you post this everywhere are get made to look a fool.

[@peteconrad2077]

Your ignorance isn’t an argument against evolution. Taking the caterpillar. Some evolutionary pressure will have come into play somewhere. Maybe vegetation was less plentiful for a time or it had a competitor at some point in the past that made the change an advantage. Maybe it gains some other advantage from carnivorism. The point is that some survival advantage was achieved by its ancestors.

[@Whateverworksism]

The hypothesis - acknowledgement "step" is one of the fundamental methods of science. One make a hypothesis in a given field, then use the imagination and experiments too work out a theory about what could possible and then plan an inquiry too study if the given hypothesis is true or false. The way to do that is very simple. You don't test if your hypothesis is true. You test if your hypothesis is false, and if it is false then it's back too the drawing board.

[@REVELATION159]

@ProjectDecade Good rant, fantastic smoke screen, but your answer to my question was?. Again, what was the Russian inerest in Afghanistan? Seeing as you unearthed the subject.

[@kantastisk]

superb Q&A

[@sushanalone]

@jffryh its not related to survival directly, as he mentioned this selection is reproductive not survival @ 0:18:07

[@migelias]

Thank you so much for this.

[@beanbag6]

@DarkwingScooter two questions, one where are you getting philosophy from, dawkins is a scientist he argues science not philosophy. I agree in philosophy it is important to choose words wisely but even if he were arguing philosophically complaining about his use of produce is sorta nitpicking and I still dont see how it does not fit we are products of the process. when explaining science it is not bad to use words that allow for better visualization of the theory.

[@ASH18YEARS]

I myself am an atheist and am proud to be one because of people like Richard Dawkins. Some atheists who comment on his video to ridicule theologians make me feel sick; take note of how RD addresses the person at the end of this video, this is the kind of respect we should show each other.

[@HerbaceousM8]

ARTB, what was your post? i cant find it.. and iam not sure why you posted it to me but i assume you are coming back to this vid multiple times

[@omgLordLituslol]

@REVELATION159 OH SNAP! I make jokes about my advent calender all the time, but none as good as that one. may I use it? it really has brightened up my day! or should I say "I maek joks abaot mie addvent caender"

[@greekpanther1]

the mount improbable question sounded exactly what dawkins was talking about before about the arms race.

[@metal_nick]

Everyone is agnostic. Agnosticism refers knowing the truth value of something with absolute certainty. Even Christians are agnostic because there is no way to "know" if God exists. Don't confused agnosticism, like so many people do, with being on the fence about God. Dawkins is just stating that he cannot say that God absolutely does not exist.

[@hjf3022]

@CompactDisc7227 The fossil records do not find humans and dinosaurs in the same layers of rock.

[@ThunderChunky101]

@eagleeye2102 "You can't say that because we are here, therefore it happened" he didn't, you said it yourself, what he actually said was "it's hard to imagine that there children survived because of incest, but we are here so it must have worked." He wasn't using that as reason for his assertion that "Our ancestors were only a couple of individuals", he was using it as reason for the fact that "that there children survived because of incest". Which is prima facie.

[@REVELATION159]

The first letter to the Corinthians is one of my favorite reads, I think it was one of Paul's best letters. All said, I think his best work is contained in his second letter to the Corinthians. The letter will transform itself to the reader, if the reader understands one simple thing, that the pen of which it was writen with, is indeed, that of the Holy Spirit, the words writen are of God, and the paper on which the words are writen, are in the heart of the beleiver. I love this book.

[@j.n924]

I mean, nah

[@ReturnOfTheJ.D.]

@shotsxxx I don't hold them as beliefs. I only know them from direct experience. I arrived there after the death of my own ego, which I found happening to me after careful deliberation of what is important to me, which is why I felt unfulfilled as a person at that time compared to say the simple grace of a lake, which I was looking at at the time. I wanted to know what it was like to be something else (nature) but didn't know that I would actually get there once the ego perished.

[@omgLordLituslol]

@REVELATION159 what are these "you people" you refer to? any explanation for your quite creative spelling? and it's evening here

[@IBlack04]

Did anyone else just skip the introduction?

[@evilyig]

@SourceOfInformation Radio carbon dating is only used for time spans of thousands of years. And denialists love to point out how it's not 100% accurate. Well they're right, but when you're looking at time scales over thousands of years, we don't use carbon dating. We use things like ARGON dating, and other radioactive decay. These methods are actually nearly 100% correct as opposed to carbon dating. The doubt is not there anymore.

[@ReturnOfTheJ.D.]

@shotsxxx The interesting thing is how the person you thought you were your whole life, must disappear in the Enlightened state. So it's like you are not you, and that can be scary. But then you realise that you are in fact really yourself there, and that the person you thought you were was just an illusion. So it's embracing that totally new way of being without fear that can be difficult as it takes tremendous courage. Most of us are very attached to who we think we are and don't want to die.

[@OgreVI]

Great talk, as always, but I sure wish they'd edited out the introduction.

[@marekmaxpabianice]

@anoobys Did you watch the same movie as I did? I dont think so... watch it again... and again...

[@niginit]

Just another quick thought on this convo: Could it be that logic could explain QM, but we haven't figured out how yet? In other words, a wave could be a particle in a logical sense that we simply haven't discovered, because we haven't discovered the logical cause for this to happen. In other words, Einstein said the one thing that was incredible (a miracle) was that there were no miracles. Everything could be explained. Perhaps it seems illogical because we're just beginning to understand?

[@ThunderChunky101]

@lotr450 No, he says it is very probable, as does anyone with even a perfunctory education in the subject.

[@Surtak]

@wgfcrafty Ah, a bit of confusion there obviously. I'm well aware of Pascal's Wager, but it seemed to me like you misread my post somehow and were trying to argue. No worries then :)

[@klumaverik]

We have to join together and speak out for America's, and the world's, future.

[@ja1doyle]

@seansalvador1 This seems to be a very reasonable response. It involves critical thinking, there are facts present, and some anecdotal information on how to better ones self through knowledge. I am now going to find Asimovs work as you have suggested, I only hope others take note on how to respond to a statement, and/or question.

[@Jotto999]

Great speech!

[@2fast2block]

No, just a buffoon. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@ThunderChunky101]

@eagleeye2102 No, for the reasons i explained above it is not. Would you like to address what i said or simply repeat this tautology?

[@Whateverworksism]

Yes I can of course see your point here. The word you're looking for or could have used in your last post is: Hypothesis. Ancient Greece could never acknowledge UV since there were no empirical data to support it, but they could, as a historical fact they did not, but they could have hypothesized UV without acknowledging it. Similar God is an hypothesis, a belief not an acknowledgement. Belief have no effect on the world or universe so if God does exist, belief is not an factor.

[@REVELATION159]

@avidalocan We began to talk earlier on today, I did not agree with all you had to say, although that could be dismissed, as you said it with a calm approach. I went away thinking on this for a while, and remembered a book I had read, by someone named Eckhart Tolle, are you familiar with hisbooks andhis teachings? He too talks very heavily on this subject of ego. I beleive we have no power of escape from ego, darkness or indeed mere suffering, all this is an outpouring of Gods grace.

[@chrisofnottingham]

@shotsxxx "That vid I tried to get you to watch had a ton of references NOT the Bible,Christian,or religion,Mostly respected historians-Silly goose-" It was a set of videos with >45 minutes of stuff. It was also clearly made by a team who had set out to only show evidence on one side. I can see no point in wasting 45 minutes or more of my life listening to a biassed report. Rather than endure that I wanted to know, in a sentence or two, the key pieces of evidence, eg "Josephus' books".

[@asadraza5367]

Richard Dawkins is outstanding.

[@dunamiz05]

Endless forms most beautifull most and most wonderfull have been and are being evoveld..

[@11qheck]

@crickerplague He is 69, how is he almost dead. He is a brilliant man who won't just let himself die in the next 10 years.