'The New Atheism' by Richard Dawkins, AAI 2007
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2009
- *** This is NOT the new talk from AAI 2009, this is from 2007. I just wanted to get it up on our youtube channel. - Josh
Richard Dawkins talks about "The New Atheism" at the AAI 2007 Conference in Washington, D.C.
Buy the DVD with all the AAI 2007 videos here: store.richarddawkins.net/produ...
richarddawkins.net
richarddawkinsfoundation.org
atheistalliance.org
Produced by the Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell
Filmed by
Josh Timonen
Wayne Marsala - Věda a technologie
My best to the videographer who recorded this and kept up as Richard spoke and then referred to slides. Smooth and professional. Thank you.
Dawkins is so delightful!
And this gives me hope for a future of reason.
I really liked Richard's answer about the human need for ritual: A ritual can be good, it's nothing to get upset about, it can be rather moving and beautiful to celebrate our culture in symbolic terms.
As long as we remember that rituals are just that, symbolic for something else
I found religion, saw through it, tore down its walls and threw it away.
I found myself, dissected the ego, extinguished the soul and let it go.
I found life, climbed its mountains, walked its forests, swam its oceans, and to nature it will be given back.
I encourage people to be accountable on the noble task to help Richard Dawkins as many others to establish a strong foundation for the scientific thought among our communities during this century. It is crucial for the future of life on earth.
Religion kills curiosity--our difference from animals
People kill curiosity, religion is made by man. Christ is truth. Not man made.
Great lecture. I could listen to Dawkins all day ! What's great is that he is taking the opponents' criticism and tearing them apart.
i am soooo atheist that if you disintegrate me to my cells, each and everyone of them will be atheist individually. I know my comment is out of context but i cant say it outloud in my country cause there will be consequences and they will be dire.
So I just wanna go on record; im an atheist...whoaaa, feels good (to be able to and to use the opportunity be honest even it s in cyber world)
Out of curiosity. What country is it exactly? An islamic one maybe?
Also what is your name and address damn infidel?!!
Hmm sorry, I got carried.
Actually, 'man' was originally gender-neutral. The prefix added to the word 'man' to turn it into 'male man' survives in the word 'werewolf'. The equivalent female prefix led to the modern word 'wife'. In conclusion, 'werewolf' is sexist, and 'man' isn't.
Thanx for uploading! This is one of the better of the good ones! Love it!
"Atheists have no basis for morality."
We know from observation that all human beings have something common to their experience: their wish to be happy and to be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. We also know from observation that all human beings are made up of the same elemental material, and that all of this elemental material has identical origins: ancient stars. This establishes our basic equality and basic commonality in an objective sense.
With an objective basis for acknowledging our basic equality, and with an objective basis for acknowledging our basic commonality, we have an objective basis for moral behaviour. Behaviour which deprives other human beings of their happiness is immoral, and behaviour which does not, is not.
The problem with deriving a moral code from an invisible ghost in the sky for which there is exactly zero evidence has to do with its inherent lack of objectivity. Since there is no evidence for the existence of an invisible ruler in the sky, we know that its moral edicts originate not from a really-existing ghost but from the imaginations of people who believe in ghosts. Morality which has its origins within the private perceptions of those who believe in magical ghosts is inherently unreliable, and this explains why so many of the most heinous moral crimes in human history were carried out by religious people and institutions.
Nothing further needs to be said on this issue.
Ryan MacFarlane- A couple of points to consider-
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Point 1
"With an objective basis for acknowledging our basic equality, and with an
objective basis for acknowledging our basic commonality, we have an objective
basis for moral behaviour. Behaviour which deprives other human beings of their
happiness is immoral, and behaviour which does not, is not."
Using your "objective basis" to evaluate behaviors "...which
deprives other human beings of their happiness is immoral" would logically
have you defending human life of the unborn since we all share this basic commonality from conception to grave. You are ProLife, right?
And- Point 2
"...and this explains why so many of the most heinous moral crimes in
human history were carried out by religious people and institutions."
Your statement here ignores the facts of history. The greatest moral crimes in human history
were committed by Atheists. Pol
Pot (~ 1.7 million murders), Adolf Hitler (~ 16 million murders), Joseph Stalin
(~23 million murders), Mao Zedong (~ 50 million murders), etc...were all
atheists that had millions of murders committed in the name of their "belief systems". Murder
is a heinous moral crime, right? Were
these atheists wrong for committing millions of murders? Where in your
paradigm do you account for their actions?
The God of the Bible has given us an objective standard by which we live and
laws by which all peoples are judged. Regardless
of Race… black, brown, red, yellow or white… Regardless of Religion… Jew,
Gentile, Atheist, Pagan or Christian….We are all under the same judge and laws.
The laws provide objective standards by
which we establish and value human life. We
protect all human life- old, young, even
the unborn… because we know life is sacred.
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Yes that fine bcoz religious morals are sanatic conclusions.
Thats why we dont respects your baseless moral.
***** _Using your "objective basis" to evaluate behaviors would logically
have you defending human life of the unborn since we all share this basic commonality from conception to grave_
No. Deriving our morality from an acknowledgement of our most fundamentally in-common nature and wishes does not lead into a pro-life conclusion. There are two criterion by which our treatment of others has an objective moral basis: 1) That we have common origins and composition, and 2) That we have common experience, i.e., the wish to be happy and not to suffer. Early in its development, an unborn fetus does not possess a nervous system capable of supporting the experience of self-awareness, and as such it is not capable of undergoing experiences like happiness and suffering. Because this is true, unborn fetuses early in their development cannot be evaluated in the same moral terms as other human beings.
Those few atheist leaders responsible for great crimes against humanity did not commit their atrocities for atheistic reasons, nor was their lack of religious belief causal to their crimes. If anything, those individuals opposed established religions because their existence interfered with the cult of personality they sought to establish around themselves.
Morality is all we atheists have.
This is awesome, I wish hispanic speaking people can have access to these lectures.
I greatly admire this man.
Me too
sonnygll
Personally, modern science played a key role in convincing me there is no god.
Dawkins comes from a scientific background as opposed to a primarily philosophical view, and science provides tangible evidence for how and why we came to be. It's thanks to him that I'm no longer sitting on the agnostic deist fence.
Each of the well-known Atheists has their role to play; each appeals to a different mindset. I'm grateful to all of them for their work and their courage to speak out.
the biggest fear people have when they think of a world without religion is chaos. its an irrational fear not because lack of religions can guarantee any stabilty in the world. rather its because until now religions didnt contribute anything for peace. on the contrary wars are the product of religions.
the biggest misconception is that virtue is the product of religions. no. it's the product of human intelligence just as religion is the product of human intelligence.
if you are , by your nature a seeker of truth, you will be a decent human being as a consequences. and if you are logical you will be agnostic. however, you cant be a jew, christian muslim..ect and have these qualities because there is a deep contridiction.
An hour of Richard Dawkins? GET IN!
I vividly recall stopping EVERYTHING we were doing in school during the second semester, this is in 6 - 9 grade junior high/middleschool, Normally having a 7 period day of math english etc., where we would spend two weeks learning what was on the standardized tests.
We would be closed up into rooms with instructors for two whole weeks, our homeroom teacher, and would go over the material for a test that lasted three days.
Ah Dawkins, you are a genius. I want to give him a hug, seriously.
Belief is not proof, it is the acceptance of an idea without evidence.
Wow, this is epic in so many levels ^^
WE THANK YOU ! :D
@mayitodelgado Hispanic speaking people? I am hispanic, I have access to these lectures, and I completely love them. Richard Dawkins is brilliant and I am aware of some of the things hispanic "Catholics" believe in.
Richard Dawkins is so awesome. I love the way that he always seems happy. He's really passionate about anything about which he speaks.
He is sooo urbane and polished!
I'd hate to abandon ritual, I think that its how we learn music, play the drums, and dance. It is a pattern that helps us get into focus about something in mass. Coping with loss, sharing a union, etc.
@ananiasacts "Religion works by insinuating itself into a child's psyche before they've developed the cognitive ability to even realize that this is taking place, [etc]."
VERY nicely put. I'm going to make a note of that.
He loves to talk about him. Because he rocks.
Crimes cannot be undone.
Jail sentences do not erase the effects of the crime, they simply act as a punishment for the criminal and prevent - quite effectively - the criminal committing any more crime whilst in prison.
Cheers!
I've been having some heated debates with theists here and there, and I've come to the sad conclusion that no matter how much rationality you throw at them, they will NOT budge... ESPECIALLY creationists and apologists!
I give you a LOT of credit Richard, simply for not giving up in the face of SO much ignorance and stubbornness! Even in my few dozen debates, I've grown frustrated with all the sheer ignorance, to the point where I've just given up trying to explain things to these people...
« calling them idiots doesn't help »
Wouldn't say that. Venting frustration is a very healthy psychological mechanism. Keeps one from becoming unbalanced.
We dont teach children how to think critically, or how to manage money with basic economics or even have required home economics where we can learn how to cook, sew, clean etc, properly.
When I left High school into the real world, I was not prepared for ridiculously simple, basic LIFE necessities.
Learning in a dorm room with others just as ignorant should not be the norm for our society.
Let alone critical thinking.
The very process of sequences being duplicated and then variated based on the organism's needs is the very definition of adding information. It starts with a template of what came before, and then changes that sequence creating a new bit of information.
Creating new information is what evolution does, it's one of the foundations of biology.
Great vid
It's from 2007, back then there was still hope...
I learned I'm an athorist today!
The fact that science consistently yields succesful results and constantly proves itself right is proof enough for me.
Of course you cannot actually do an experiment to prove that science is effective because the doing of that particular experiment entails using science in some shape or form
Philosophy can be affective, but only when it is backed up by science.
Agreed. And how come the Ten Commandments don't include things such as "Thou shalt not rape" but DOES include things such as "Thou shalt not worship graven images"?? Priorities!
i love all of dawkins videos and the way he explains it... it would be great if the videos have some subtitles... cuz im in mexico,... and some times i want to show them to other people but,... most of my friends dont speak in english... haha... ill keep waiting... =P
Picachu, You are not alone, mi Amigo
If you reread my post you'll see that I was talking about the origin of the universe and not the origin of life.
Given the immense age and size of out universe combined with the fact that the physics seems very conducive to the existence of complex organised systems, then the spontaneous emergence of life within our universe doesnt challenge my credulity.
Continued
I ♥ Dawkins. His ability to laugh at the theists that send him hate mail or create those fake videos is awesome and always good for a laugh.
Long after we're dead, these people will be in the history books, if all goes as it should.
I wasn't referring to my survival either, I was referring to the survival of of the less fortunate people and kids in third world countries who die everyday from lack of good water to drink and food.
Mr. Dawkins never fails to amuse...
Good point!
I am so thankful for free will to choose the truth!
What is truth?
One thing about atheism, it never gets old or uninteresting. So I hope Dawkins can talk and talk and rant and rant.
My statement is still not overturned.
Considering that the Bible has only been printed (and therefore sold) 2 million copies, I'd say that atheism has a pretty damn good start with those statistics he just listed. GO DAWKINS!!!!
very good point
The power to change everything is omnipotence, knowing all is omniscience.
If you know (using omniscience) HOW you are going to change a future event, you cannot change your mind - which means you're not omnipotenet.
If you decide to prove doubters wrong and use your omnipotence to change the future event in a different way from the way you knew you were going to, then you are not omniscient, because you were wrong in the first place.
That is why the two are mutually exclusive.
If I hit you in the face, it is unethical. It causes you a less comfortable existence for a time. If I call it something, it is still unethical, because it still causes you a less comfortable existence for a time. If me hitting you in the face causes me joy, it causes you pain, and me joy, it does not cancel out (both people still feel the effects of the act, they dont dissapear because they're the opposite). Thus, if I imprison someone, in doing so cause joy, it is still unethical.
I'm not a philosopher and if it takes a philosopher to doubt the existence of reality, I'm glad that i'm not one!
The thought experiment you describe is interesting and at this time, I cannot think of a way to disprove it - neither can you, neither can anyone else - even Dawkins.
Maybe you cannot be sure that the real world is real, but it's still worth looking both ways when crossing the road.
Again, I'm not a philosopher akido - I'm just some bloke, please define your technical terms if you feel that I'm misunderstanding them.
Science is not based upon unproveable axioms (unlike some branches of mathematics) - it is based on the actual physical laws that are an actual feature of the universe.
This is why we can often apply our theories to make new things - radio, GM foods, aircraft etc...
If you really think science doesn't deal with reality - don't get on a plane!
What do you mean by freezing? I've noticed a lot of youtube videos keep freezing (loading, although the videos is already loaded) and I thought it's just my computer | internet connection.
I live in the Bible belt of the United States. And it depresses the hell out of me that I have to find solace in videos like this and CZcamsrs who feel the same as I do because there's so many people here whose minds are closed off to logic and reason. It's better than nothing though. :p
This is a great infomercial for those who already have a hatred for God. RD is your saviour. Exchanging the Glory of God for the worship of the creature! How sad!
My friend who is a believer started a conversation about the Ark. I said that a pair of the same species would result in inbreeding and death. And he proposed in all seriousness that Atlantis offered cloning technology to archive the DNA of many individuals to reconstruct after the flood. Isn't it brilliant?
megoofychick
Russell, actually did analytical philosophy, much like Dennett. So science was used, and it was even then, advanced enough to show there was no gap for god.
What Dawkins did different that was really good, was expand on WHY evolution made the argument from design useless.
I like all the newer atheist authors and have bought and read their books. I am very glad they are speaking out too.
I'll continue.
They are both reliable but in different ways.
Circular reasoning it may be, but to accept the alternative "If I can see / hear / smell / touch something then it cannot be real" is simply absurd!
Look both ways when crossing the road is still good advice.
The proof of the existence of the real world is the fact of its existence.
Angels worship God because he is their creator and deserves their worship, just as he is our creator and deserves our worship. There is nothing we can offer God for the wonderful gift of life he gave to us for FREE, so the least we can do is say "thank you Lord" and that is what worship is. Why wont he accept worship? He deserves it!!
@Fantasticlist That's like saying "If you quit eating meat, how can you tell me that you ever really liked meat?" Of course I was a Christian. I adhered to my irrationality as though my eternal life depended on it. Because, of course, I thought that it did.
But as I said, we've all got to wake up sometime. I began learning more about how the world actually works and as an uncontrollable result, my faith faded away. It doesn't mean I am lying about being Christian. It simply means I woke up.
Yes, and this is unfortunate. I think the best science class I ever took was the History of Science...just explaining where we came from and how we came to these ideas. Totally fascinating and so helpful in learning the concepts.
0l
u gc u
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
Oh to be without Christ how empty life must be. "There is no God beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me and be ye save all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:21a-22 'I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." Isaiah 46:11b "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Mathew 11:28 The Justice of God was satisfied at Golgotha, Trust Christ alone
I would say it is wise to assume you are real and what you can see is real - and therefore it makes sense to take care when crossing the road.
We actually do live in a fantasy, the world we percieve with our eyes is a fabulous model that our brains construct for us to navigate around our world.
Not necessarily questions, mostly statements concerning the video you sent. Scroll up and find out.
People make remixes all the time, doesn't mean it was a creationist who edited them.
Yes perfection can be attained on this earth. It would require everyone to tear down the walls of division such as religion, political ideologies and nations. Very hard to imagine because humanity has the afflictions of greed, aversion and delusion. So all we can hope is that individuals take the time to really observe and studying their own minds. Then as awareness and higher consciousness arises we can take a moment to truly try to change ourselves not someone else.
Just imagine covers of science magazines when we discover teapot orbiting the sun between earth and martian orbit. #mind_on_xkcd
***** lmao ^ω^
*****
The Pot, the Cup, and the Steamy liquid.
I know.... Thor and Isis will love it
+lollertoaster as a teapot orbiter, I find your comments offensively funny
@Fantasticlist Are you asking ME to answer his question or are you demanding HIS answer (which was edited out of the original video)?
(continued)
The point I was actually making, was this. The critics who call this "new atheism", and act like it is somehow different, and inferior, are just not well read. In fact they are willfully ignorant. Unless they think 80+ years is still new.
I was also commenting on the absurdity of them calling the very polite Dr. Dawkins, strident. Hitchens is the only recent author that takes a harsh tone at all.
Who did the sub titles, lol.
« you cant not beat his message »
I don't want to "beat Dawkins' message". I am absolutely convinced, reasoning from the available evidence, that evolutionary theory is at least fundamentally correct.
That does not change that Dawkins is net very good at explaining it to the layman, and that his books are confused and contain various mistakes.
You know what, I kind of agree with that.
Hmmm. This wont play past 6:20. Anyone else getting this problem?
1 Corinthians1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
There is also another problem where we sometimes use the term Christian too generally. Even many Christians use it too generally. Its not fair of us to react to, say, a Lutheran based on the actions and beliefs of an Evangelist or Catholic. Its a word of practically no meaning, since there are some 38,000 denominations between East Orthodox, Protestants, and Catholics. We can safely comment on their source material most of the time, but we shouldn't treat them as all the same.
The spontaneous leaping into existence of the universe, however I find a lot harder to make sense of (I guess this is one reason why you find more physicists than biologists who are religious).
That said, as I acknowledged earlier, postulating the existence of a god(s) doesnt answer the problem it makes it worse (ie you have to assume a highly complex being sprang into existence from nothing).
of course what I was referring to is to those that cannot speak English or go to a university where this knowledge is so common, which from my view point happen to be the most. This is not only an alternative knowledge or a choice; this is the result of a scientific investigation that ends up being the only way to grab the truth about things.
@TomFynn
I agree with you completely as long as the approach doesn't involve judging him as though he is part of a religious sect that is not his own. Show them that their source material and what they believe doesn't add up, or even add up with reality in general, is completely alright in my book.
I think the greatest problem we face in dialogue with various religions, particularly the Judaic ones, is that when they ask us why we do not believe and we respond with a detailed answer, they take offense. This is a failure on the theist's part to recognize our response as just that, a response. It is not an attack. Specifically of the Judaic variety, the worshiper tends to get into some kind of pseudo-romance with his vision of God, and disbelief is misinterpreted as emotional rejection.
@MrKGatl I didn't say anything bad about Dawkins I just said he is bitter about religion and a lot of times he is. I actually agree with some of Dawkins points and have some respect for him because unlike many youtube atheist such as yourself, Dawkins has the gift to do something sooo incredible, that is he can talk to people and agree to disagree with them without insulting them. Its pretty amazing. Btw I watch this video cuz Im bored and these type of issues concern and interest me.
You can go to richarddawkinsDOTnet and click on the store icon. It is the first thing that they have for sale.
@RodiAgnusDei I lived under communism for 9 years. If you did, you would never allow someone to dictate to you what you thought or believed ever again.
Hey shotsxxx,
Do YOU think it is silly to not look both ways when crossing the road?
@Gazdo01 I was stating explicitly "in the examples", thus encompassing *all* the examples I gave you. Not just the Inquisition. Please try to read what's there.
Throneofdecay-
It should be clear from my first comment that I do not choose to "believe" something that is "likely imaginary". In fact I went so far as to say that I tend towards atheism. The argument that a highly organised organism(s) (gods) simply sprang intro existence and then created the universe, seems very much weaker than saying that simple mass/energy did so. However both seem bazaar to me.
Was that Hemant asking the second question?
12:10 is hilarious!
"Science is interesting and if you don't agree you can fuck off."
Does anyone know where to find that video?
@nin8halos- Correction it was George Wald who said " spontanous generation of a lving organisml is impossible. Yet here we are I believe in spontanous generation." The origins of life, Scientific American, vol 190,
I am an agnostic who tends towards atheism. However
I believe the assertion that "evolutionism leads to atheism" is a little silly. No matter how fervently one believes in it, evolutionary theory dose not disprove the existence of a god (or gods). The Catholic church and Church of England (among others) seem to be able to accept evolution.
you dont need to hit a child in the face because he took food, you have to scold the child and make him feel bad for what he did, showing him the wrongness in it, that is reasonable punishment, it does not need to be the application of force. Stealing is stealing whether it be food or a car or a book, stealing is stealing. Whether you teach the adult to precure money legally, it does not still take away the fact that he stole. And everyone knows that you have to work to get money
It still deters people from committing crimes and keeps those who have offended from re offending. It is an effective way of enforcing and maintaining law and order, rewarding evil with evil and good with good.
Punishment makes the society we live in condusive and adherrent to laws and order. Your ttrain of thought was is absolutely altered because it is not normal for someone not to see the aims, objectives and effectiveness of punishment in regards to adherrent of law and order in society
But it does not and never have prohibited people from committing criminal acts. People who would not kill in any circumstance would not kill no matter what, the ones that would kill under some circumstances will kill under those circumstances (for example lack of education, jobs, homes, food, warmth, is some of the circumstances where many will rob, steal, sometimes even kill, regardless of punishment), and the ones that will kill under all circumstances will kill under all circumstances.
@Horathgar42 There is a book called "Bones of contention" which goes into detail about lucy. Also think about it; a set of bones found in Africa which are held up to be the bases for Prehistoric man, when the origin of language, etc is all found in Mesopotamia.
Me too, I get all giddy.
@DentistD1G Good on ya buddy! I hope more people see the light
@vipaccess1 They pointed to planes in the sky and said 'it's because God is on their side'. The village I stayed at in Africa had a gaggle of missionaries who came and totally destroyed their traditional artifacts and relics, burning them, burying them, and throwing them in the river. They instilled homophobia into them to such a degree that when my father was staying there they took a reported, accused homosexual man, tied him to a post in front of the church, and burnt him alive.
@ruecks
I'm agnostic as well. I'm an agnostic atheist, which simply means I see no reason to believe in a god (atheism), and I don't claim to know either way (agnosticism).
Sounds like you and I are on the same boat, we just have a disagreement over what the term atheism means, but it's not that important.
Atheism isn't really anything. We have no tenants, no beliefs, no services, and no idols.
We are simply people who haven't fallen for the religious trick.