+A Skeptical Human Well he's right

+A Skeptical Human an adult facing an entire studio of children --that takes patience.

When I was a child I thaught as a child, when I grew to a man....well no even as a child I understood relegion to be in the words of Shaw "solemn triviality" ..

+BRAD PITT that was golden THANK YOU VERY MUCH :D

That pleased me very much, just watching all those hands raise and the host asking if all of them were deluded and Dawkins going "well yeah"

lol

I like saying magical sky daddy It's really funny to think of all the grown people praising a magical sky daddy

@@gradualrise2264 Haha I was about to say that!

@@aureeel "I pledge elegance to the republic for which it stand under our magical sky daddy......"

@@gradualrise2264 dADdY NO (´⊙ω⊙`)！

Clearly the majority of the people can be wrong. But I'm heard that the idea that most people believed the earth was flat is a bit of a myth.

The evidence that the Earth is flat is quite strong. It takes serious careful observation to amass the evidence that it isn't. In the majority of cases, religion is harmless. But in Ireland it does more damage than in England. This program was broadcast in Ireland.

Up until 1939 atheists believed the universe was eternal.-debate re opened-

*_Everybody_* believed the universe was eternal. Theists still believe their God was eternal, in spite of the fact that Time did not exist more than a finite number of gigacenturies ago. Yet they would have him interfere within our space-time, and do things like thinking, that are time-dependent, before Creating Time. Note the oxymoron of that "before"

The eternal universe theory may have been the accepted scientific view but not everybody believed it,such as theists for example. You'r using the "time" argument "no before"e.t.c. to dismiss a creator but you'r not considering that besides the accepted scientific view of time being a physical structure of our cosmos, there is an alternate view of it being an intellectual structure devised to sequence, compare and measure events. I personally would hold to the latter view for a couple of reasons,i.e.space is visible between objects[=physical] time isn'nt visible between events its perceivable[= intellectual] also "space-time"is estimated to have began at the birth of our universe which was a fraction of a second after the start of the big bang, Question begs how could time elapse prior to times existence?also before the big bang there was the singularity in its penultimate stage before that was the appearance of the singularity.Were these processes not "time dependent?" So then what existed before the singularities appearance?

Yeah right?

Lmfao

hehe

@alan oakley or perhaps it evolved.

alan Oakley you defeat yourself. and lack of knowledge of what a scientific theory is. You are being taught by people who believe the Earth is 6,000 yrs old, and the buybull is the word of god, why are you so scared of this world we live in? Answer me this, How come everyone in the world was born into the "righr" religion? It's conveinant. I suggest you study the history of your religion and how it actually came into existence. The council of Mycea Go.

Completely disregarding the fact that science so far shows us that everything has a pattern.

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 What?

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 what?

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 what?

@@TheJayMarsh can't you understand English?

That's the beauty of Dawkins, he always talks about these things in Laymans so it's easier to follow and understand. I like the trade-off of Charisma for Understanding, in Dawkins case anyway.

@@Bartokeltoawe I´d prefer someone who says it when it matters as opposed to ease of understanding when Dawkins feels comfortable with Christians, unlike to the same degree with Muslims.

I beg to differ. I think they both have charisma in their own unique ways.

@@JohnSmith-yl9en ....TBF Dawkins has never shied away from confronting a Muslim audience.....in fact he's even more antagonistic....

I'd say he's rather dictatorial and crude, and I often wonder wether he's public appearances helped his cause as much as he managed to insult and further alienate people, but, yeah, he's got a unique intellect... So ironic how one can preach peace, ethitcs and humaneness, and wage total war on ideas, show no compassion and call people names at the same time...

Not true. He exaggerates things without a scriptural basis for doing so

@@Chris-qg8ssit is indeed true. Christians don’t know the Bible well. Only what they cherry pick to justify their judgement of innocent others. Many Christians. Especially conservative political Christians, much less than that.

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

@@hayse4961 You questioned a four year old comment. But I get the sense you'll respond to to an amateur. Allow me, Genesis 11. Abram the Father of Abrahamic traditions, selected by God to carry his teaching, gave his wife Sarai to the Pharaoh to marry out of fear for his life. They lied and said it was his sister. She was beautiful after all. In return, Abram received animals and slaves for her. But when Pharaoh found out they lied to him, he angrily admonished them and sent them away. That is the point of Origin for all things Abrahamic. If we observed our neighbors trading their wife for animals and slaves, what would we say? Do you know of and can you rectify that story til it sounds like a wonderful thing to worship?

@@hayse4961 BTW, this is collecting real time, experiential data.

And 'belief' makes my bologna meter go straight to red. I know trust is better than belief!

You're confusing the weird belief, and faith. Everyone has beliefs. (@William Peterson)

@Macca Lives- Me too. But at the same time i understand that those are some bullshit set of words used by those who say so to convince other people their religious nonsense to be more true. Just like what you can hear in churches, temples, and mosques and all other religious places & congregations. As an example for an ex-islamic & currently christian person it is effective to say "As an ex-islamic..." , because it convinces that he knows about islam religion & quran to talk about. But to say "As an ex-atheist..." it convinces he is an utter foolish person because atheism is not a religion. There is no official bible for atheism. And most of atheists have their own different view about atheism for themselves. To me what those who say "As an ex-atheist..." convinces is that they didn't know atheism is not a religion either.

Dick ed

I see you are a fan of the beatles! Nice

What’s your problem with Christianity ? There is absolute proof that it’s the one true religion, how ? Well God sent himself to sacrifice himself to himself to rid an evil embedded in mans souls because a woman made out of a guys rib was tricked into eating a magical apple by a talking snake . Now pick holes in that atheists lol 😂

Dont forget that we have to slaughter all the heathens who dont believe the same way. God puts very heavy emphasis on the slaughter of non-believers.

@@DanielKolbin Great point man, I think you've changed my mind.

Can you give me proof of god. That is literally all we've been asking for and everytime we ask for physical tangible proof of god we get answers about his enigmatic ways and how we have to have faith in him. And if you're going to throw out the idea of how does the universe come to exist from nothing then I can turn that one back around on you and ask how your creator came from nothing. If you're using the theory of creationism than you have to explain how your creator was created and you can't even provide tangible evidence that he exists let alone prove that anything written in the bible about his attitude and motives are true. It all comes from a bunch of misconceptions that stem from our fear of death and the inevitability of nothingness when we die.

@@DanielKolbin Just because we don't have answers to a lot of scientific questions doesn't mean that we should jump to the theory of god being true because there are plenty of theories that attribute to the idea that he isn't true. That is where religion is dangerous, It assumes a truth simply because it doesn't have concrete answers. "We can't explain X therefore Y must be true". That is the definition of a fallacy my friend.

Skeptic... - exactly.

agree, he clearly said minority and the guy says "the norm"... like wut

@@thedeviants9493: You write: "Being an atheist is the most illogical shit ever, you guys go against cause and effect by saying everything is the result of randomness and the universe has an infinite history. That is bullshit." That is not what atheism says. Don't put words in my mouth. Atheism just means that you reject belief in religions/gods because of lack of evidence. That's it.

@@thedeviants9493 I think with the latest revelations of Catholic priests molesting children your 0.000001 Christians out of billions number is way, way off the mark. But you completely missed the point about it not mattering how many people believe something, it's whether or not what they believe is true. And as far as Christians proving what they believe is true, all their work is still ahead of them.

Indeed. First thing out of his mouth was opposite of what Richard said. The ramblings went downhill from there.

Yeah that's what we call a gobshite

@@damienjoseph7540 HAHAHA. Im saving "gobshite"

The other guy is really horrible. What a tragicomic.

That's coz he's Irish.

@@damienjoseph7540 xDDDDDD

? wow, you must be 10 years old

This is exactly what I said to myself. Nothing more than tap dancing from the side of religious. Pathetic, really.

Like every other theist

@@victor-arnovisagie9356 ? wow, and you must be 100. Where the fuck is your age prediction calculator, I need it! Oh that's right it's stuck in that tiny brain of yours. Makes sense.

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

So I guess you believe in the invisible giraf living in my fridge, which is the only true god (and whose existence is easily proven by the large amount of empty beer bottles that my mother finds every morning).

That is the true god. Most think the light goes out when you close the door. No, that what the atheists want you to believe. They need to join us and learn the wonders of refrigeration.

Mark Macmillan Of course I know that light doesn't go out! Atheists are deceived by the evil crocodile, which is the sworn enemy of the Holy Giraffe, and he wants to drink all my beers.and thus moves them from the fresh lower shelf to the cheese and butter one, which is something that my mother swears to have never done, even when she needs more empty space for salad, fruit and vegetables, therefore i'm sure that the evil crocodile does. Cheers-llelujah, Brother, and may the light of your fridge be always reflected on your beer bottles, so that your 'spirit' never mislay the right way.

One day the entire world will see the light. Cheers-llelujah!

I know right. Love how he slipped that one in there. That way literally every believer watching him could say, "Yeah, see, mine is the right one." This guy is a charlatan. He may not believe himself what he speaks.

Nationality has fuck all to do with it when he is right

What's the worse they could do? Boo him off stage or throw their shoes at him which more so proofs his point. Radical and delusional minions of delusional filth is what they are.

Unless, of course, HE is deluded.

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

I'm Irish myself and would say I'm agnostic....in Ireland the Catholic church were oppressive and controlling once upon a time.... people are a product of the environment they were born into with religion

aye lad

Look up Christopher Hitchens

Marcus Trelle proof with citations please. ( holy scriptures are not counted as proof btw.)

@@abigailslade3824 New and improved comment. I probably shouldn't have said scientific fact as it is a theory.

@@abigailslade3824 he died of cancer a long time ago.

@@rayancedric6623 nah nobody does care you were right

@@stevejames5863 what a moronic comment. Let me guess, your position it's that of an imaginary sky genie, poofing everything into existence from literal nothing?

@@stevejames5863 I was not formed from nothing. Neither was our universe

@@stevejames5863 you realise the title of this lecture, that he actually clarifies during the lecture, is a sarcastic dig at the theist community. It's clear you didn't actually watch the lecture

@@stevejames5863 instead of writing quote, unquote, like a simpleton, you could just use quotation marks. Sorry bud, but the only people that claim, and believe, that the universe sprouted fun nothing, are theists. I suggest you watch the lecture you posted, before you make more of a fool of yourself. Your feeble mind it's quite entertaining

haha so true. Militant atheists are about as militant as the tree outside my house.

+crisisofconsciousness Alan Watts is simply re-defining god, it is not the God of the bible. God as a separate entity that rules over the planet does not exist. It's unwise to debate against anyone that says "I'm an ex-atheist" in their opening statement. It's very unlikely that they actually mean they didn't believe in any god.

Zen Buddhists don't believe in a god, so he was re-defining God for western culture. He also uses the words the Buddha and the I, to mean the same thing.

Yes, I'm familiar with that lecture. I didn't say he created anything, other than a way of understanding Eastern philosophy. You can't take his words literally because he is describing a way of thinking, he says this himself. These videos on YT are cut up and if you don't listen to the entire lecture you miss these important pieces. First you have to describe how you move a finger, not why or how the muscles work, but how you do it, or how you beat your heart or how you ride a bike. From there you can get to an idea of god, if you like.

you do realize that new ageist idea's of a creator fall under the same scrutiny as a personal god when considering historians account of origin stories, right? you aren't offering an alternative but a bud off the same tree

Same. But if they repeated it I'm sure they'd be a better difference as our country is much more multicultural and other religions and Atheism are much more common.

I agree completely. What I hate most are these part time christians who don't abide by any christian laws, go to mass once a year yet still regard themselves as catholics/protestants etc. and are scared of aethism. I get particularly annoyed coming across this in people around my age (mid 20's).

Well at least you guys can talk about such topics.. I'm from Iraq and people get killed just by criticizing the damn religion!

Don't be embarrassed...Your beer, accent and sense of humour make up for any religious misgivings.

Yea there's no need to be embarrassed. Nationalism is another shallow destructive unnecessary shit we human created which is an obstacle to the progress of our civilization, just like religion. Think about it, the most recent common ancestor(MRCA) of all of us today, mitochondrial eve, she would slap us hard for embracing nationalism & the concept of race if she's still alive. Your race is only Homo sapiens, your country is only Earth.

Dawkins fact. "One time everyone thought that would was flat." Sorry, they didn't. They either didn't think about it or proved that it was round. The Greeks documented a spherical world in 500 bc. So much for Dawlkins facts.

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 lno actually. People did believe the earth was flat. People also believed the sun revolved the earth before Galileo demonstrated otherwise

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 people still believe the earth to be flat. Not sure what you're trying to prove here bud. There have always been flat Earthers, even when we knew it was round

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 that's true what you say. During columbus the debate of the world being flat was introduced

@@poozer1986 and there still are flat earthers no matter how much proof you give them that it's not flat

AHAHAHAHAHHAHA DELUDED YOU ARE.

common sense is the devils whore.....martin luther

It's atheist, not Atheist. It's the same with the word vegetarian etc.

No not at all. Being an atheist shows your ignorance of the truth. It clearly shows that you have not bothered to do any research into the subject but to rather to blindly follow your own faith. If for example you never studied medicine how could be doctor? Your display of knowledge is clearly most conspicuous by its abscence.

@Papple Fag Evidence? Evidence of what? How must I prove that if you haven't taken the trouble to study a subject you do not know anything about. I have no doubt that most atheists have not even read the first verse of the bible, yet they quite willing to shout their mouths of and ridicule it. Their arguments are based a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

He talked in circles like he had a mouth full of shit. World class buffoon. Seemed like a nice enough buffoon, though.

same as Dawkins.

agree, I kept waiting for him to make a point...

Maybe not, but he was much more eloquent than many of other debaters Dawkins regularly faces.

Sebastian Smith ...not really a wow, is it...

Mdebacle... incorrect. i know of no prominent figure of atheism who has put out a claim to 'know everything.' on the contrary, they reveal exactly how okay, how rational, how very scientific it is to say simply 'i don't know,' in the areas wherein science has no answer, rather than the absolutely deplorable, arrogant, and deluded position of absolute certainty which accompanies people of faith.

Faith is also required for evolution and the big bang theory

demetrious.... also incorrect. faith is belief without demonstrable and empirical evidence. the only thing you are demonstrating here is your lack of understanding of the (peer-reviewed, testable, demonstrable) science, or worse, unwillingness to look at it altogether. either way, it's not great on your behalf there champ.

mdebacle you're cracking me up here. seriously. "well attested science" ? c'mon man. you really believe that? i'm sorry, but your causal conclusion you pull from your arse like houdini there is truly laughable. find me one peer-reviewed accredited scientist who would back you up in saying "that's because the genotypes all come directly from the biblical noah, man... it's provable! this guy we have no historical documentation or evidence for in the least... but still!" ohhh just wow. the willingness of people to do acrobatics to just -get- to the conclusion they want to. it's truly incredulous. carry on, you go with your bad self bro, whatever makes ya feel good!...

Yup. And nothing faith-based about science. Science distinguishes between law and theory, as an illustration. The definition of theory is inherently filled with concern, challenge, critical hesitance, and free inquiry.

The point is that, although the most of atheists are critical thinkers, as SuperbowlJoel smartly pointed out, there's a small amount of people which reject the concept of god for EMOTIONAL reasons. E.g.: a person which they care for died, or they had an hassle with their pastor/priest/coreligionists, and therefore they EMOTIONALLY reject the idea of god. In many cases they turn back to their religion as soon as they stop being angry. And by the way here's where the stereotype of the 'angry with god' atheist starts from, since believers are more alike to listen the story of those so called 'conversions' rather then listening to what actual critical thinking atheists have to say (which they rarely understand, otherwise many of them would reject their irrational faith too).

To all four of you guys. I know this thread is ancient but all your hypothesis seem plausible. I may add that the closer one comes to death and may also feel more isolated, the more one tries to cope by: 1) assuaging their fear of death by taking up belief is such nonsense, 2) countering loneliness by taking up this imaginary friend and/or joining a church "community". I know, for myself, once I've seen the flaws in organized religion, I can't "unsee" them. It's analogous to once you see both the young/old women in that Gestalt illustration, you can't then "unsee" both of them.

no so in his past writings he was an avowed atheist - if you are as stupid and low grade as your comment indicates yo'du be best keeping quiet.

you'd

It's easy. You originally became an atheist for bad reasons. If you become an atheist for good reasons there is no turning around because it is the most rational position.

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

Hedge*

He wanted money

He's full of shite

13 years

Aj007cool I’ve seen it happen

Anthony Flew was an atheist for years, before becoming a theist, although not 'religious,' so I believe it does happen. X

Best comment on here hahahahaha

Lol

@@charlieboy2587 is a wanker

Actually your wrong! The liver is the only organ in the body that can repair itself and regenerate. So the liver has evolved. Look it up

Only if intoxication increased survival chances.

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

well maybe we thought space was nothing and now realizing that the nothing was something like dark matter or dark energy.

time did not exist before big bang.

"Please provide an example of nothing"..... Ever listened to what comes out of Deepak Chopra's mouth?

@@kevinhayes8188 time is something it has always been. Humans tried to describe it by numbers but we molded it to our understanding. When we tried to understand time we only knew numbers from 1-6 therefore we created the 24 hour system 6 +6 =12. 12 +12 =24. But we got it wrong. You can say time has gotten a free ride just like religion.

Even if that was a legit point, and perhaps it is, it doesn't justify religions. Religion is pure dogma revolving around moral values and spreading the common belief system. Deists believing in a "god" is completely normal. Theists on the other hand.. Complete and utter stupidity, laziness and ignorance.

Agnostic.a Latin word for a Greek word meaning " ignorant"

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 really? Not sure about that bud.

I don't think any of those "ex-atheists" were actually atheists in the first place. This is what people call "just a phase" I guess. They feel anger at some point and they think they are atheists, then the idea of a god makes them comfortable or they just can't get over the fear of hell. I don't know, I just can't understand how can a person who really thought about religion in detail and came to the point they realise they don't believe in a god go back to religion.

I was going to comment the exact same thing! There was a great video with theists interviewing Aron Ra and he asked an ex-atheist what changed his mind. The answer basically boiled down to the same philosophical bs that always comes up and he never answered why he picked his particular religion after converting; furthermore, the one he picked happened to be congruent with the dominant religion of his region. It's extremely fascinating to get to the core of what causes people to believe.

if he'd been asked he would have provided an answer but he wasn't

But then he'd be a pauper

can you give me some empirical sense data to back up your claim?

why is an awful question

I love krauss too!

To exist. To live. When we are young and healthy and enjoying the life we never stopped to ask what is the point? When we lose some of our 'just being and enjoying' the questions come... Eternity would have to tell us existence always existed and therefore IT is the reason in itself --- IT is Absolute --- other than that ---philosophy about why can perhaps go on forever... Living or questioning from a relative POV won't give a satisfactory answer. The Absolute TRUMPS this relative reality, and absolute nothingness. But IF there was a choice between Nothingness forever and Something forever which would I choose?

I exist so I must have chosen it? I believe The Absolute is pure Potential.

Absolutely, those that believe in a God who supernaturally created the universe are "diluted". Richard knows, again, KNOWS, what did the creation of the universe.........exactly nothing! He's not diluted, though. 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.”

@@2fast2block I don't know about all that, but he's a pleasure (intellectually) to listen to.

@@JoaquinArguelles Well, we do know about that and that is what he believes. 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. Are you aware of what a cell does? Are you aware of life can't happen on its own? Are you aware of the insaneness of soup to man evolution? What about sex? You aware of human sexual reproduction? We have human sexual reproduction (HSR). We know a whole lot about it. Many of us experimented with it. Since you believe in evolution, give a logical explanation with proof of how HSR came about. Here's an example: We had this asexual something that got here by a natural creation that's impossible, the universe formed by some other impossible feat, it gave life by some other impossible feat and somehow gave another impossible feat of an asexual something that eventually mutated a bump, another asexual something eventually mutating a hole, this went on and on of umpteen years, and by mere chance somehow mated from the sexual organs that somehow formed by mere chance not even knowing they were needed so that.........it eventually led to HSR. Sure it's going to be a LONG story and I can't imagine how it could be possible but since you evo-fools believe it, you better have a good explanation. I don't want theories that answer nothing, I want a logical story with proof to back it up. Since you claim it all came about naturally, then give your natural explanation. For you "he's a pleasure (intellectually) to listen to.", and to me, he's a fool who has a bunch of other fools to follow him.

@@2fast2block hahaha

Ramen 🍜

Absolutely! I recoiled a bit, scared! May the spaghetti monster forgive these people!

And your enemies too.

@@SNORKYMEDIA studies have shown that religious people lead a happier life on average. So even from an atheist’s perspective I’d hardly call that a waste of a life.

@@keithboynton Ok. Still not a waste though. Everyone can believe what they want.

​@@Seanonyoutube Plenty of things not real makes a lot of people happy. Happiness isn't the only thing beliefs may produce. False beliefs has a tendency to produce unwanted results for society when they're taken seriously. It's not just extreme instances such as terrorism, that pose a threat. At its core, it's how we think. Since beliefs inform our actions and actions have consequences, it's in our interests to be as rational as possible. If rational, we're more likely to be open to discussion. We may change our minds based on the available evidence. We don't assume things are true just because we think it's true. We verify. Religious beliefs lead to a lot of harm. Children are indoctrinated into believing in hell, and some of those who deconvert still have nightmares because of what they were told. Some believers use their religious beliefs to interfere on a political level, which have widespread repercussions for us all. Whether it be marriage equality or personal autonomy, such as abortion rights. Some refuse medical treatment on behalf of their children, because bloodletting is a sin. Children have died due to this. Some religious organizations, which are often recognized as cults, isolate members from their loved ones by creating an us-vs-them environment, to avoid opposing thoughts. Some religious values cause believers to shun those who leaves, even if they're their own family. Some people use religions for monetary gain. Televangelists are a perfect example of this. Churches are tax exempt too, which is really bad, because the money churches gain, can be used to further spread ignorance. It's also money that could be used to help society in a lot of ways. To improve healthcare, elderly care, education, wildlife preservation, infrastructure etc. Churches gain many billions in donations each year. Some are put to good use for sure, but much isn't. I've personally found that the more devote a person is to their beliefs, they less likely they are to be open to the possibility that they may be wrong. This is very dangerous, because if they adopt certain beliefs that we know lead to harm, then we cannot change their mind easily or at all, but they'll continue to spread their ignorance, which naturally cause more harm. These people may be perfectly happy as they are, but happiness is rather irrelevant when people are getting hurt. Sadists gain pleasure from harming others. It's an example where one can see how happiness isn't relevant to whether we should act or not on people's beliefs. Not that you're saying we shouldn't. Just pointing it out, since many who say that people can believe what they want, typically do so in opposition to people wanting to interfere with what others believe. And the people in opposition of belief, cares about truth and acknowledges how unfounded beliefs can impact societies negatively. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for religious freedom, but we need to draw a line when harm occur. I personally care deeply about the truth, which means that if people spread misinformation, even if it may not be directly harmful, I want to correct it. Ignorance isn't something that we want to spread around. Knowledge on the other hand, is. Stay rational. *"studies have shown that religious people lead a happier life on average. So even from an atheist’s perspective I’d hardly call that a waste of a life."* *"Ok. Still not a waste though. Everyone can believe what they want."*

@@madman2u you wrote a lot but in summation the same core ideas don’t change. 1. People can believe what they want 2. You are not the arbitrator of objective truth, and current science isn’t close to scratching the surface of discovering any sort of objective truth when it comes to the fundamental questions of the universe. Although admittedly it’s the scientific method is probably the best framework we have at the moment. But we still need a lot of humility and acknowledgment about how little we actually know with certainty. 3. People should not harm others, that is where we should draw the line. Personally I also take your point that generally speaking, religion has a tendency to cause unnecessary harm in society. But it also has a tendency to create great communities which support each other and help each other thrive. In other words, it has pros and cons. I would know, I grew up in one of those systems. Part of being rational is acknowledging that you may be wrong. :)

They can vote and serve on a jury too!

This comment proves that you cannot spell.

Dawkins is being kind to religion by only pointing out the most violent actions taken by extremists today. He's leaving out religions/religious people fighting against a woman's right to choose, equal rights for women, fighting against LGBT rights, in the past being used to justify slavery, etc.

Women's rights to kill babies though

AkTheArne No woman has the right to kill a baby - check the dictionary if you are confused about the meaning of that word. They do have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Eric van Bezooijen I am well aware of the definition, thank you very much. And as a matter of fact, I'm pro-abortion, too. Lately, I have tried to defend my position, however, and I have found that it is not as easy as I would have thought previously. I, myself, cannot explain why terminating a pregnancy is different from killing a baby - in moral terms. I can more easily explain contraceptives for instance. Also, I would definitely consider abortion an option in case of unwanted pregnancy, but I am not sure I would call it a moral action, or by extension myself a moral person. I would like to hear your thoughts

No one calls themselves "pro-abortion" unless they have an agenda against a woman's right to make reproductive choices.

good one! want me to get you a banana?

The question is as valid as "What kind of person were you before you were born?"

***** So... the reason you think things aren't dumb, is that "idiots who talk out of their asses" say that they aren't? What does that make you? A follower of idiots? Dawkins isn't talking out of his ass about evolution. The man runs computer simulations that work this shit out in seconds. Evolution is completely possible, and in fact there's enough evidence to say that it IS what happened, unless you have a better theory that ties together the physical appearances of every single living thing alive today, and is completely, solidly backed up by the discovery of DNA, genes, gametes, cellular meiosis, dogs, cash crops, fossil layering, radiometric dating, etc. ad nauseam...? Evolution is just getting warmed up. It's never been proven wrong, because it's being proven right every single day. Every time somebody finds a new fossil, it fits RIGHT inside the picture-perfect tree... and the first time somebody finds even the tiniest example of something that doesn't fit on this tree, say, an ant that reproduces like a fungus and has spores, if there's no evolutionary explanation, then you can say that evolution is even in QUESTION. But it's not, currently. Anything else you listen to is mere conjecture and unreasonable doubt.

***** lol Sorry, I wrote this comment a long-ass time ago and forgot who said it was a 'good question'. I think I assumed it was Dawkins for some reason, out of ignorance of certain things in physics... anyway, yeah, just a misunderstanding then.

pon33villin This comment is dumb. I didnt know you were around before the big bang? congratulations on that, also there was only one? and it all just started like that? wow your very original.

irishelk Okay, here's your problem--the Big Bang wasn't a floating dot in the middle of a black void that exploded. You're picturing a dark room and a dot exploding, aren't you? Go fuck off lol, if you don't really want to think about something seriously and only want to keep imagining it the way it's described to 6-year-olds, don't waste your time calling people who do 'dumb' and then demonstrating in your own comment that you barely have any reading comprehension skills. You need the fourth grade, not to enter into a debate with me.