I'm always amazed at how awe inspiring these lecture's and forum's are. I'm not ashamed to say that I've finally opened up to my own islamic family that I'm an athiest due for the most part of Richard Dawkins insightful speech's. Not that I already wasn't a closet athiest for many years, I've long affirmed my own belief, rather I've just been too scared to bring it out to attention.
Anyone notice that as the parts progressed the number of views declined by approximately 20K viewers? I just watched all of them except part 6 which kept giving me an error, but non the less i was very enlightened.
Thanks for posting these videos - a very enjoyable 2 hours. I am a recent fan of the great man having read The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow in the last month or so and I would thoroughly recommend the latter two books (in my list) even to those who feel their faith is threatened or insulted by the first. Thanks again.
Everyone's Modo of life should be what Socrates so simply put: "the unconsidered life is not worth living" The best way to consider your life is through reason and logic which is what science is based on.
ive noticed in many, if not all the youtube clips ive seen of Dawkins, he never claps at anything, even when the guy next to him is clapping. anyway that physics guy is really good at explaining stuff about space travel on this fancy dvd series that i bought.
The audience asked a really good question. Most of my science professors, with the exception of a rare individual here and there, were very poor communicators, and with mathematic professors, their ability to communicate is even worse. I think academic programs that produce professors in math and science must have intensive courses in speech and teaching so as to produce good communicators. Having good communicators is the best route to gaining public interest in your subject.
Like Krauss said, science is considered a loose collection of "stories". Incorporating more able + interested teachers and promoting communication skills would bring science down to a more personal level, regardless of content.
This is the 2nd time I have seen these videos and I plan on more. It is uplifting to hear these two speak. We need more public discussions on this order. The people who need to hear this are not hearing it. This posting is a start. Thanks.
Mr. Krauss provides a helpful ballast to Dawkins' anti-theism. This gives those who love gods something to hope for in the application of science to religion. Neither of these individuals go far enough. They continue to restrict science to their specialized fields of interest (biology, cosmology), rather than to encourage scientific exploration of god-related experiences, religious processes and practices, and the complete meshing of religion with science (as is done by the Church of Reality.
Wrong, everything I'm interested in I'm interested in because at some point I was grabbed by the balls by this something that I'm interested in. If a teacher can't inspire his students there is really no point in having a teacher. Just give them the books and let them teach themself. The only reason for one to have a teacher is to encourage and inspire the student to study. I'm not lazy or stupid, why would one want to study something that appears to be dull and boring?
most people who are good at engineering maths or science usually tend to have some autism in them. Therefore they will not be good communicators. Autistic people are naturally good at these things and usually out compete the majority of neurotypicals. Thus you can't change scientists been bad communicators.
Huh.. We should be fair to scientists & the perceived 'gap' in their communication skills. 2 essential parts to communicating a new idea: i) having the idea (something worth saying), and ii) communicating that idea to the intended audience. Plenty of people (particularly 'celebrities') are great communicators, but have nothing to say (at least nothing worth listening to); whilst Scientists' complex ideas may require a lot of prior reading, way beyond the comprehension of the 'average Joe'
I think I might perhaps know what jordan is intimating. However it's important to remember that evolution is the process by which different kinds of _living_ organisms develop/diversify, the _origin_ of life is (explicitly!) outside the scope of evolutionary theory. The study of the origins of life is named abiogenesis (eg. the primordial soup [tho my fav is Panspermia {cos Psilocybin came from space, I swear!}]) or perhaps im way off... in any case, awesome vid, all of it, u have my gratitude!
Seth Macfarlane, Neil Degrasse Tyson and some others have planned an updated version of Sagan's Cosmos, to air in...2012 or 13, I forget. Anyway, it's on Macfarlane's Wikipedia page. If you haven't seen Neil Degrasse Tyson yet go check him out, he has great material on youtube and on television.
I have taught myself many things on my own because I was inspired by some people. I don't need a teacher to study some things because I want to learn it. However I'm a very lazy math student and that for a reason. The only way for teachers to get good smart creative thinking students is to make them interested in the subject. If you can't do that there is no point in having a teacher. Old man you are part of the problem.
@IDidactI - Please note that all of the analysis of the concept of a deity in the world will not serve to begin examining or observing what the experience of gods holds for human beings. Belief is over-rated. It is almost entirely unimportant why it may be that someone believes something respective of science's investigations (ok, one might examine sociology and the biology of belief, no doubt), but the psychology of consciousness, anthropology, and sociology of religion are bound to be helpful.
@Ematched As far as my experiance goes. My hypothese would be that there is some truth to this statement. In mathematical reason there are no hypocrisies and no vagueness, this makes it is simpel. But cummunication is incomplete, variable and complex. As far as the probalility that ur mind can interface in the both, is very unlikely. The mind evolves to a surtain structure. It depence on priority. I would like to see a studie on the neuro network of mathematicians.
In regards to communication I agree almost completely with what Dr. Krauss says. I would like to add, however, that scientists are taught (conditioned?) to be selective communicators. They communicate very effectively to the scientific community, but to laypeople their discussions are incomprehensible. This is, perhaps, why the two people on screen are so 'famous' (at least for scientists), because of their ability to communicate with the general public.
Well OF COURSE science communication is important. It's as crucial to the survival of scientific memes as REPRODUCTION is to genes! There can BE no memetic survival without communication.
students cant teach themselves, that why they are students. most teachers attempt to be entertaining anyhow, but the results have been miserable. so in the meantime we just act like every teacher needs to be chris rock, and MORE entertaining, because that is the problem. It isn't the problem. Students are lazy, foolish, and lack discipline, and we don't need more entertaining teachers nearly as much as we need more dedicated students.
i disagree with Krauss. Scientists shouldn't have to attempt to "entertain" students. Students need to be better students. Teachers are not entertainers, they are there simply to instruct. A student who can't sit still and pay attention is a lousy student. Of course some teachers are lousy and boring, but the greater problem is we dont demand enough from students. Rather, we coddle them and blame the teachers when they are spoiled little brats.
Repeatedly shown? Really? Have those demonstrations been published in peer-reviewed journals and accepted by the scientific community abroad? Do you realize that most scientists believe in evolution, so the so-called "Darwinian delusion" is not exclusive to Dawkins? Can you please state how and when it has been "shown" that evolution is "without substance" and where you retrieved this information?
@TrollTowelhead This is not the goal of either of these men. Generations of scientists and philosophers, all much smarter than you or I have spent a great deal of time applying the rigors of their respective methodologies to the analysis of the concept of a deity, and yet still there is no ration reason for the belief in a God. Science therefore, with its dependence on evidence, is intrinsically incompatible with the faith driven theology.
I'm not a scientist but I'm not sure forcing communication skills in to a science course is a good idea, things like that would put me off even trying and I think i can say the same thing about alot of people. If they lost grades on a science course because they weren't very good at communication they'd be very annoyed. When I was at university I so dreaded presentations I would pick my modules based on whether they had a presentation.
They mentioned in the previous videos that children became disinterested in science as they grew older. This maybe because as this happens they discover things beyond science that interests them; music, film, literature, poetry etc... I know I did. I think we need to introduce books and films by the likes Sagan and Dawkins which are provocative and would capture the imagination of the teenage mind, not the usual boring science texts books, something with a bit of soul.
Why can't they give the speakers in the audience the same microphones that the speakers on stage are using? If the audience can hear the speakers on stage, surely they will hear the speaker in the audience. Also, if Lawrence Krauss could finish a single sentence, it would be amazing. I only know what he is saying because I know what he is saying, not because he finished saying it. Anyone who doesn't know what he is saying would hear it as gibberish
@acherrybalm that's the point, man... if the people you're speaking to don't understand what you're saying, then you're not communicating it well. let me qualify that by saying that you're not communicating it well with respect to their ability to understand. it means nothing if YOU understand what you're trying to communicate. that's not the point of communication. get it to the other person's level of understanding. in the end the onus is on the communicator to convey the idea.
we are lucky in quebec religions teaching is let to parents here our education is laic ( none coffessional)so teacher feel free to talk about evolution,science is teached as young as the 2 grader.biology zoology.ecology.chimestry.physic,geography/geology, astronomy we teach critical thinking and scientific analysis,we produce a lot of big scientist of grand renom but saddly they all goes to usa first cause the can pay them more and usais losing the battle against religion so less of scientis
@daveforfun22 The problem is not individual scientists, the issue is the work they do. To communicate an issue without baffling the laymen you need to change your terminology. For example for Krauss to clearly and fully express his work you need to be able to understand the math he is capable of. Beyond that it is his job to express these complicated ideas in basic language. Ignorance is the major cause of the problem. We need things explained in basic terms to help people understand.
I also think that strict scientific communication is not as broad and conclusive as most people would like. This past week, the popular media has announced an "Arsenic-based life form." Any communication from the scientists who discovered the bacteria would have been far more accurate and descriptive regarding the actual nature of the discovery, which was not of an "Arsenic-based life form." Unfortunately, it appears that the public likes to hear that type of headline.
As someone who just graduated with a degree in civil engineering i cant tell you how true the statement Dr. Krauss made at the 3:33 mark is. I was required to take a technical writing course that was taught by an english teacher and the first day of class she said "i know most of you are engineers so your smarter than me but regardless i will try and teach you how to write in a professional manner." So from the first day she lost the respect of the entire class.
luckyly in canada to teach science you need to have studied in science how ever even then we are not specific enough i remember in high school my firsth time trying my physic class i was asking question the poor guys couldn't answer he frankly hated me and i hated him to but the poor guy studied in chimistry and i was adrealy passioned by cosmology and i ended up leavin the class just because the guys was not teaching something he knew about
"I view science as something only a geek would love. If I didn't, then I would like it" It's still a pretty stupid statement, though indicative of the mind-state of many in a society where showing intelligence and asking questions can be quite strongly frowned upon. If being 'cool' is all someone's worried about in life, then I'm not sure how much of a contribution they could make to science anyway.
A belief in intelligent design ultimately leads one to ask the question, "Who designed the designer?" There can be no escape from this required leap of logic, if logic indeed leads one down the ID path. To the contrary, accepting evolution as fact requires no special contortion of logic. There is no stopping point of irreducibility, and no need to look for one. Evolution is fact, devoid of conjecture. ID is conjecture devoid of fact.
I normally try not to get involved with bickering on the internet but have to take issue with this ridiculous statement. Just looking at Professor Dawkins qualifications it is hard to see a more ill-fitting word to describe him as 'moron'. He Holds 2 PHDs (not to mention numerous honourary degrees) and has authored 9 books, 8 of which are highly regarded by the science community (the last being highly disregarded by thiests). Perhaps you would like to dazzle us all with your qualifications?
This not true. Dawkins was asked if he could posit any scenario in which ID could be true, and he mentioned a hypothetical scenario where an alien race seeded life on the Earth. He does not believe this in any way, and in fact explicitly pointed out that it still requires the alien intelligence to have evolved naturally. That is the problem with ID, it always forgets the question of who designed the designer.
Theistic evolution is about integrating theology and science, i.e. faith and reason, i.e. the supernatural and the real, i.e. superstition and evidence, i.e. a branch of human ignorance with branches of human knowledge. The idiot objection to Collins was something more specific: i.e. falling on his knees and surrendering to Christ at the sight of a waterfall.
this grabbed me immensely, and i hope many discussions of the sort will come again. im sick of watching the brilliantly intelligent Dawkins on half-assed chat shows which don't take the time to seriously take what he's saying, and its sad that he has to go on these shows purely because they are popular.
@Derwind Good luck to you my friend.The freedom of thought without the shackles of a religion will open up endless opportunities. Welcome to the world of what you see is what you get. Morality is as innate as mankind is old. Reality IS,religion IS`NT !
It is a fact that outspoken scientists get flak from their peers. The Norwegian astronomer Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard got criticized by the scientific community for being too prominent in the media, allthough he attempts to popularize his favourite subject...
Yeah Excellent observation; all creationist do is quote Stone Age ideas, and answer every question with god did. It is utter nonsense; you can't have an intelligent conversation with someone who does that.
This was a heartening discussion. Though, when you get a glimpse of the crowd, you realize it isn't quite as big as a crowd you'll find at an Islamic preaching with Zakir Naik.(A scary thought)
@SubtleChaotic... ;). I'm glad u found my comment amusing!! I would never offend ppl in a conversation, unless they start telling me "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" :P
@Jimpsterr Since it's at Stanford University I'm guessing the audience is made up mostly of students and the rest are probably science professionals who follow the two speakers.
pure logic and reason will win out every time,richard dawkins is trying to spread some of that,i was brought catholic has taking me this long,soon as i heard him speak,i got it ,thank you
and if i were you i would be pissed at my self for not knowing that out side of your little buble there are countries where we don't learn english in school
This was an amazing series! :)
I'm always amazed at how awe inspiring these lecture's and forum's are. I'm not ashamed to say that I've finally opened up to my own islamic family that I'm an athiest due for the most part of Richard Dawkins insightful speech's. Not that I already wasn't a closet athiest for many years, I've long affirmed my own belief, rather I've just been too scared to bring it out to attention.
Anyone notice that as the parts progressed the number of views declined by approximately 20K viewers? I just watched all of them except part 6 which kept giving me an error, but non the less i was very enlightened.
More! More!
Great upload mate .. Thank you :)
Thanks for posting these videos - a very enjoyable 2 hours. I am a recent fan of the great man having read The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow in the last month or so and I would thoroughly recommend the latter two books (in my list) even to those who feel their faith is threatened or insulted by the first.
Thanks again.
Everyone's Modo of life should be what Socrates so simply put: "the unconsidered life is not worth living"
The best way to consider your life is through reason and logic which is what science is based on.
ive noticed in many, if not all the youtube clips ive seen of Dawkins, he never claps at anything, even when the guy next to him is clapping. anyway that physics guy is really good at explaining stuff about space travel on this fancy dvd series that i bought.
The audience asked a really good question. Most of my science professors, with the exception of a rare individual here and there, were very poor communicators, and with mathematic professors, their ability to communicate is even worse. I think academic programs that produce professors in math and science must have intensive courses in speech and teaching so as to produce good communicators. Having good communicators is the best route to gaining public interest in your subject.
we are on this planet ,no one knows why ,have a nice live
Is it just me or is the audio out of sync with the video?
what can I say,just brilliant :)
Like Krauss said, science is considered a loose collection of "stories". Incorporating more able + interested teachers and promoting communication skills would bring science down to a more personal level, regardless of content.
At 3:02 .. with the poster in the background it looks like Dawkins has got a halo...
This is the 2nd time I have seen these videos and I plan on more. It is uplifting to hear these two speak. We need more public discussions on this order. The people who need to hear this are not hearing it. This posting is a start. Thanks.
@Derwind Good job! :D
@Reip187 Well said! Couldn't agree more...
Mr. Krauss provides a helpful ballast to Dawkins' anti-theism. This gives those who love gods something to hope for in the application of science to religion. Neither of these individuals go far enough. They continue to restrict science to their specialized fields of interest (biology, cosmology), rather than to encourage scientific exploration of god-related experiences, religious processes and practices, and the complete meshing of religion with science (as is done by the Church of Reality.
Wrong, everything I'm interested in I'm interested in because at some point I was grabbed by the balls by this something that I'm interested in. If a teacher can't inspire his students there is really no point in having a teacher. Just give them the books and let them teach themself. The only reason for one to have a teacher is to encourage and inspire the student to study. I'm not lazy or stupid, why would one want to study something that appears to be dull and boring?
fuck yeah i got through em all
@Derwind Kudos to you. I cannot even imagine how hard that must be considering the absolutely lunatic zeal of muslims.
most people who are good at engineering maths or science usually tend to have some autism in them. Therefore they will not be good communicators. Autistic people are naturally good at these things and usually out compete the majority of neurotypicals. Thus you can't change scientists been bad communicators.
Or a decent impression of the Statue of Liberty.
@nthomas87 AMAZING!!! PORTRAIT OF A GENIUS
Huh.. We should be fair to scientists & the perceived 'gap' in their communication skills.
2 essential parts to communicating a new idea: i) having the idea (something worth saying), and ii) communicating that idea to the intended audience.
Plenty of people (particularly 'celebrities') are great communicators, but have nothing to say (at least nothing worth listening to); whilst Scientists' complex ideas may require a lot of prior reading, way beyond the comprehension of the 'average Joe'
@sfmike20
Well put.
I am a great communicator, but NOT a great rytor..
Two brilliant men giving hope to those of us who deal with ignorance everyday!
I could listen to these two converse for days.
I think I might perhaps know what jordan is intimating. However it's important to remember that evolution is the process by which different kinds of _living_ organisms develop/diversify, the _origin_ of life is (explicitly!) outside the scope of evolutionary theory. The study of the origins of life is named abiogenesis (eg. the primordial soup [tho my fav is Panspermia {cos Psilocybin came from space, I swear!}])
or perhaps im way off... in any case, awesome vid, all of it, u have my gratitude!
Seth Macfarlane, Neil Degrasse Tyson and some others have planned an updated version of Sagan's Cosmos, to air in...2012 or 13, I forget. Anyway, it's on Macfarlane's Wikipedia page. If you haven't seen Neil Degrasse Tyson yet go check him out, he has great material on youtube and on television.
I have taught myself many things on my own because I was inspired by some people. I don't need a teacher to study some things because I want to learn it. However I'm a very lazy math student and that for a reason. The only way for teachers to get good smart creative thinking students is to make them interested in the subject. If you can't do that there is no point in having a teacher. Old man you are part of the problem.
@IDidactI - Please note that all of the analysis of the concept of a deity in the world will not serve to begin examining or observing what the experience of gods holds for human beings. Belief is over-rated. It is almost entirely unimportant why it may be that someone believes something respective of science's investigations (ok, one might examine sociology and the biology of belief, no doubt), but the psychology of consciousness, anthropology, and sociology of religion are bound to be helpful.
@Ematched
As far as my experiance goes. My hypothese would be that there is some truth to this statement.
In mathematical reason there are no hypocrisies and no vagueness, this makes it is simpel.
But cummunication is incomplete, variable and complex.
As far as the probalility that ur mind can interface in the both, is very unlikely.
The mind evolves to a surtain structure. It depence on priority. I would like to see a studie on the neuro network of mathematicians.
In regards to communication I agree almost completely with what Dr. Krauss says. I would like to add, however, that scientists are taught (conditioned?) to be selective communicators. They communicate very effectively to the scientific community, but to laypeople their discussions are incomprehensible.
This is, perhaps, why the two people on screen are so 'famous' (at least for scientists), because of their ability to communicate with the general public.
Well OF COURSE science communication is important. It's as crucial to the survival of scientific memes as REPRODUCTION is to genes! There can BE no memetic survival without communication.
students cant teach themselves, that why they are students. most teachers attempt to be entertaining anyhow, but the results have been miserable. so in the meantime we just act like every teacher needs to be chris rock, and MORE entertaining, because that is the problem. It isn't the problem. Students are lazy, foolish, and lack discipline, and we don't need more entertaining teachers nearly as much as we need more dedicated students.
i disagree with Krauss. Scientists shouldn't have to attempt to "entertain" students. Students need to be better students. Teachers are not entertainers, they are there simply to instruct. A student who can't sit still and pay attention is a lousy student. Of course some teachers are lousy and boring, but the greater problem is we dont demand enough from students. Rather, we coddle them and blame the teachers when they are spoiled little brats.
Repeatedly shown? Really? Have those demonstrations been published in peer-reviewed journals and accepted by the scientific community abroad? Do you realize that most scientists believe in evolution, so the so-called "Darwinian delusion" is not exclusive to Dawkins? Can you please state how and when it has been "shown" that evolution is "without substance" and where you retrieved this information?
@TrollTowelhead This is not the goal of either of these men. Generations of scientists and philosophers, all much smarter than you or I have spent a great deal of time applying the rigors of their respective methodologies to the analysis of the concept of a deity, and yet still there is no ration reason for the belief in a God. Science therefore, with its dependence on evidence, is intrinsically incompatible with the faith driven theology.
I'm not a scientist but I'm not sure forcing communication skills in to a science course is a good idea, things like that would put me off even trying and I think i can say the same thing about alot of people. If they lost grades on a science course because they weren't very good at communication they'd be very annoyed. When I was at university I so dreaded presentations I would pick my modules based on whether they had a presentation.
They mentioned in the previous videos that children became disinterested in science as they grew older. This maybe because as this happens they discover things beyond science that interests them; music, film, literature, poetry etc... I know I did. I think we need to introduce books and films by the likes Sagan and Dawkins which are provocative and would capture the imagination of the teenage mind, not the usual boring science texts books, something with a bit of soul.
Why can't they give the speakers in the audience the same microphones that the speakers on stage are using? If the audience can hear the speakers on stage, surely they will hear the speaker in the audience.
Also, if Lawrence Krauss could finish a single sentence, it would be amazing. I only know what he is saying because I know what he is saying, not because he finished saying it. Anyone who doesn't know what he is saying would hear it as gibberish
@acherrybalm that's the point, man... if the people you're speaking to don't understand what you're saying, then you're not communicating it well. let me qualify that by saying that you're not communicating it well with respect to their ability to understand. it means nothing if YOU understand what you're trying to communicate. that's not the point of communication. get it to the other person's level of understanding. in the end the onus is on the communicator to convey the idea.
we are lucky in quebec religions teaching is let to parents here our education is laic ( none coffessional)so teacher feel free to talk about evolution,science is teached as young as the 2 grader.biology zoology.ecology.chimestry.physic,geography/geology, astronomy
we teach critical thinking and scientific analysis,we produce a lot of big scientist of grand renom but saddly they all goes to usa first cause the can pay them more and usais losing the battle against religion so less of scientis
@daveforfun22 The problem is not individual scientists, the issue is the work they do. To communicate an issue without baffling the laymen you need to change your terminology. For example for Krauss to clearly and fully express his work you need to be able to understand the math he is capable of. Beyond that it is his job to express these complicated ideas in basic language. Ignorance is the major cause of the problem. We need things explained in basic terms to help people understand.
I also think that strict scientific communication is not as broad and conclusive as most people would like. This past week, the popular media has announced an "Arsenic-based life form." Any communication from the scientists who discovered the bacteria would have been far more accurate and descriptive regarding the actual nature of the discovery, which was not of an "Arsenic-based life form." Unfortunately, it appears that the public likes to hear that type of headline.
As someone who just graduated with a degree in civil engineering i cant tell you how true the statement Dr. Krauss made at the 3:33 mark is. I was required to take a technical writing course that was taught by an english teacher and the first day of class she said "i know most of you are engineers so your smarter than me but regardless i will try and teach you how to write in a professional manner." So from the first day she lost the respect of the entire class.
luckyly in canada to teach science you need to have studied in science
how ever even then we are not specific enough i remember in high school my firsth time trying my physic class i was asking question the poor guys couldn't answer he frankly hated me and i hated him to but the poor guy studied in chimistry and i was adrealy passioned by cosmology and i ended up leavin the class just because the guys was not teaching something he knew about
"I view science as something only a geek would love. If I didn't, then I would like it"
It's still a pretty stupid statement, though indicative of the mind-state of many in a society where showing intelligence and asking questions can be quite strongly frowned upon.
If being 'cool' is all someone's worried about in life, then I'm not sure how much of a contribution they could make to science anyway.
A belief in intelligent design ultimately leads one to ask the question, "Who designed the designer?" There can be no escape from this required leap of logic, if logic indeed leads one down the ID path. To the contrary, accepting evolution as fact requires no special contortion of logic. There is no stopping point of irreducibility, and no need to look for one. Evolution is fact, devoid of conjecture. ID is conjecture devoid of fact.
I normally try not to get involved with bickering on the internet but have to take issue with this ridiculous statement. Just looking at Professor Dawkins qualifications it is hard to see a more ill-fitting word to describe him as 'moron'. He Holds 2 PHDs (not to mention numerous honourary degrees) and has authored 9 books, 8 of which are highly regarded by the science community (the last being highly disregarded by thiests).
Perhaps you would like to dazzle us all with your qualifications?
This not true. Dawkins was asked if he could posit any scenario in which ID could be true, and he mentioned a hypothetical scenario where an alien race seeded life on the Earth. He does not believe this in any way, and in fact explicitly pointed out that it still requires the alien intelligence to have evolved naturally. That is the problem with ID, it always forgets the question of who designed the designer.
Theistic evolution is about integrating theology and science, i.e. faith and reason, i.e. the supernatural and the real, i.e. superstition and evidence, i.e. a branch of human ignorance with branches of human knowledge. The idiot objection to Collins was something more specific: i.e. falling on his knees and surrendering to Christ at the sight of a waterfall.
this grabbed me immensely, and i hope many discussions of the sort will come again. im sick of watching the brilliantly intelligent Dawkins on half-assed chat shows which don't take the time to seriously take what he's saying, and its sad that he has to go on these shows purely because they are popular.
@Derwind Good luck to you my friend.The freedom of thought without the shackles of a religion will open up endless opportunities.
Welcome to the world of what you see is what you get.
Morality is as innate as mankind is old.
Reality IS,religion IS`NT !
It is a fact that outspoken scientists get flak from their peers. The Norwegian astronomer Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard got criticized by the scientific community for being too prominent in the media, allthough he attempts to popularize his favourite subject...
Yeah Excellent observation; all creationist do is quote Stone Age ideas, and answer every question with god did.
It is utter nonsense; you can't have an intelligent conversation with someone who does that.
This was a heartening discussion. Though, when you get a glimpse of the crowd, you realize it isn't quite as big as a crowd you'll find at an Islamic preaching with Zakir Naik.(A scary thought)
@SubtleChaotic... ;). I'm glad u found my comment amusing!! I would never offend ppl in a conversation, unless they start telling me "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" :P
@Jimpsterr Since it's at Stanford University I'm guessing the audience is made up mostly of students and the rest are probably science professionals who follow the two speakers.
pure logic and reason will win out every time,richard dawkins is trying to spread some of that,i was brought catholic has taking me this long,soon as i heard him speak,i got it ,thank you
and if i were you i would be pissed at my self for not knowing that out side of your little buble there are countries where we don't learn english in school
to dwell on association some more..
..a mental connection of ideas
maybe we should associate atheism with ice cream?
just a thought lol..
The verse actually reads "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'". Your incorrect quote caused you to get OWNED by truethanny.
I would love to meet and talk with both these men! Dawkins is an absolute legend though! I want to shake his hand, he is very smart.
@josetogan the associations tied to the geek tag are not that which majority would like to have added to their persona
im making a shirt about that avian flu comment that Krauss made LOL pretty funny.
ps.
thank the big bang for these men :P
He was doomed either way. If he had quoted accurately, I'd have responded with this:
True. A wise person says it aloud.
RhondaH,
I couldn't agree more! Uplifting and enlightening.
It saddens me to see only 10,526 views on this video.
I absolutely LOVE the perfect framing of Dawkins' head from 3:02-3:09. "...the way, the truth, and the light."
Boo-yah, made it through all 12 videos! 200,000+ views on video 1, only 50,000ish on this last one. We rock.
@FeelOfFriction What sort of 'action' did you expect to see?
Did the members of the audience take an I.Q. test before they were let in?
Good questions, overall.
Darwin is the man!
If it wasnt for him, Dawkins would probably not be the Dawkins as he is today.
It is good to see that there are people who have been waken up by science or always have been!
i like that half the videos were a Q&A and talking with people, it really says something
@granyte If I were you I'd be pretty pissed with my primary school English teacher too!
@Reip187 Sure, teach them but I don't think any marking system should be based on it.
I got my money's worth form my monthly internet payment by this excellent video.
At 3:03 Richard Dawkins looks kinda holy with a crown of spikes
Just fun !!!
that must have worked as a subliminal message cos' I now admire him even more!
krauss is a boss, but so is dawkins of course
This was the healthiest discussion I´ve ever had the opportunity to watch.
awesome video, need to find more of these. These two work well together.
@iliveon I've run out of Hitchens... now I'm starting on Dawkins. :D
Agreed, i find this very settling like there is still hope for us!
Things finally make sense!
@Radicalindifference
Haha, nice catch!
socrates was sentenced to commit suicide (i.e. he was executed)
"myself" and "outside" are single words. "Bubble" has two bs.
great conversation. i could have listed for a lot longer too.
You don't lean English in Canada?
Actually, "bubble" has 3 repetitions of the letter "b."
EVERYONE PAUSE IT AT 3:03. YOU'LL SEE IT HAHAHA
@nthomas87 Haaaaalooooooo......
I believe he'd be proud to hear these words.
@iliveon I'd recommend some Sam Harris.
True. A wise person says it with joy.
@nthomas87. Praise be to the Dawkins.