go dawkins, go dawkins

Entertaining and insightful.

pwnag3 @ 26:00

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

pwnag3 @ 50:00 as well... I honestly fell off my chair laughing.

I would disagree with you on that point Dag. That's not science or religion that's responsible, ultimately it's irrational human behavior, humanity always wants to cite blame on something else other then itself.

Dawkins is ultimately arguing for rational belief and thinking, it's one thing for religion to be an guide in how to be good to those around you, and quite another when it somehow gives a certain group of people power to dictate how other people should live.

I don't know why you would say he is shrill, angry and close-minded. Am surprised he had the balls to even go there talking to those students, and I expected something controversial to happen but was surprised to see how Dawkins disarmed them in his soft spoken manner, considering it could have gone the other way when talking to people who are so rooted in their convictions. And am so pleased that someone for once cited theoretical physics as theoretical and not real (see What The #$%@%@ Do We Know).

funny, dag - I read the same piece in Harper's that you did and I thought it was horrible.

maybe if they'd found someone a little more spunky than Marianne Williamson to write it, I would've conceded more, but as it was, I found it weak.

and I will never accuse someone on the correct end of human rights to be "shrill" - that's like telling gay people they should wait to get married or asking Martin Luther King to wait just a little bit longer...

what a brilliant way to end my night! *claps*

as i've said before: we are all born atheists.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Like I said, I agree with the message, I just don't like his delivery.

You get the feeling that he strongly dislikes people for their religiosity - which is never a good look. And I think he sometimes comes down as a condescending intellectual "how could you be so stupid as to believe in God" kind of scientist. This does nothing to sway the people he is trying to reach.

I'm for tolerance.

Agreed dag. He preaches to the choir instead of trying to win converts - but in his defense, that's his style. If you take Carl Sagan for instance - he was far less antagonistic while espousing the same basic ideas.

I think Dawkins has also stated that he won't debate "creationists" because it gives them a valid voice - hence the sarcastic answers to some of the questions.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yes. Sagan was my hero - he was always hopeful and positive.

I'm not sure if he's actually trying to convert people. Converting seems like the mainstay of religion to me. He seems to be saying here's my opinion and think about it. If they don't change sides, oh well. Sending them to a hell house for atheism won't be in their future if they don't see the science.

@LadyBug: also naked.

I haven't quite made up my mind as to what to make of Dawkins. I love his scientific writings (The Selfish Gene and the Ancestor's Tale were particularly good (and by good I mean brilliant). I follow the idea that the existence of God is highly improbable, but that doesn't make it impossible. I feel like it would be unscientific to declare the nonexistence of something without empirical proof. And besides, I get scared whenever anybody, politician or not, uses "religion" and "science" in the same sentence. I prefer to avoid the combination entirely, and thus keep my own lab bench clear, clean, and free of rabid protesters.

Perhaps I'm missing something in Dawkin's argument (admittedly, I haven't followed his anti-religion movement quite so closely as others have), maybe somebody would care to edumacate me?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I was struck by how angry Dawkins seemed in that interview with Ted Haggard. Because Haggard, the freaky hypocrite, kept his cool - I would say he appeared to win that bout of verbal sparring, which is a shame.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I think Dawkin's arguement Rembar, is that if we accept evolution and the nature of time - it's self evident that in the universe, complex beings have evolved from simple forms. It therefore doesn't make sense that there was an infinitely complex being at the beginning of the universe before evolution had a chance to create Him/Her/It.

Dawkins is a breath of fresh air precisely because he's not a product of the American politeness which often hides the sort of hypocrisy and nastiness in someone like Ted Haggard. I live in Cincinnati - people are nice to a fault here, yet still vote in backwards ways on gay rights and taxes and such. It's pretty ugly.

That anyone would think Haggard, with his backward ideas and false front, would win an argument with Dawkins merely because he seems like a nice guy is almost as perverted as Haggard himself.

Remember how many people voted for Dubya because he seemed like a swell guy and they (ironically) wanted to have a beer with him? See how that turned out?

I don't push my beliefs on people in my personal life either, because I know how it makes me feel when it's done to me. But considering the generations of slimy televangelists who've been doing it over and over, it sure it nice to have someone like Dawkins on our side who isn't concerned with being polite.

"Tolerance", in my opinion, is a notion for bigoted people - people who hate someone else for no reason other than that they're different.
It doesn't mean tolerating intolerance, hoping it'll go away. If we tolerate the hate, the bigots, the ignorant - then nothing will ever change for the better.

*clappage!* I'm a fool.

Am amazed at the discourse this video has created in just 4 hours.

meek reversal...

Giger's comments are bewildering yet strangely erotic....

...oh wait, no, just the first one.

his point about religious conviction being necessary to run for public office (15min) is one that is NEVER, NEEEVER spoken of in this country, and is extrememly interesting to me.

interesting point at 53min; "there is no christian or muslim child", talking about how it is accepted that people are given by default their faith by thier parents, and the difficulty for children to leave the church

the answers to the last questions (63min) are very good, and include a run down of evolution and the evolutionary timescale, as well as a comment that because liberty university teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, students should leave this school for a "proper University".

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

It seems that the majority of the more visible members of this community are atheists. Would that be fair to say?

If so, for those of you who are atheists, would you say that it is irrational to believe in a god of some sort?

As far as Dawkins goes, while he is obviously a good biologist/zoologist, a philosopher of religion he is not, and his book, The God Delusion, fails in so far as it attempts to do philosophy/theology. See here, here, and here for reviews.

For some good atheistic philosophy of religion, see William Rowe, J.L. Mackie, Richard Gale, Michael Martin, et al.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

VideoSift, like a lot of community sites, is fairly techie heavy. We nerds tend to be an athiestic lot.

I have to admit though - that as I age, I am getting a softer stance. I don't think it's just because I'm aproaching my own mortality. It's more to do with a sense of history, and realizing that science is often blinded by hubris and has been proven time and again to be wrong about some pretty big issues.

I will always believe in evolution, and I'll never believe in a man in a white robe - but might there be some kind of universe creator out there? Some being that started the wheels in motion, and maybe even has some kind of "galactic thought" that encompasses wide swathes of space-time?

I could believe in that kind of God -the kind of God that appears as a spidery feeling that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

I have to admit that I enjoy SF books that have an element of religiosity in them. See "The Sparrow", "Children of a a Lessor God", "Darwin's Children", and even Dan Simmon's "Hyperion". (I'm an SF book nerd).

What of 2001? Foundation? Childhood's End and my own personal favorite Dune? They all offer different takes on what a higher supreme being may or may not be. I mean it's perfectly possible that we are actually a large biological experiment run by extra terrestrials, who view us in the same vain we view mice, a baser animal that can be used to gain insights. Or perhaps it could really all be Douglas Adams like and the mice maybe running the whole thing... Or maybe there is a 'supreme architect' as the Freemasons put it, but thinking that his attention is purely focused on us would be delusional given the vastness and mystery of the Universe. Even then this superior intelligence would need a creator of and within itself.

But what's clear is that it's determental for human society to treat religious text as dogma, and the fervent word of God. Theologians themselves say that ultimately the Bible is an allegorical fable, put together over many year following the death of Jesus Christ, agreed on and put forward by the Council of Constantinople. See Dead Sea scrolls...

If whoever rated this 'nsfw' did so because it discusses religion and evolution, I truly pity them.

Good point Ivix: why did you mark this NSFW, Rembar? There's no language/nudity (that I noticed!) - it's only Not Suitable For Work if you're a priest etc.

Let's face it: we're statistically much more likely to be computer simulations than real-beings (watch What We Still Don't Know: Are We Real?). Then at least there's a creator, one that we can never meet or communicate with (most likeley ourselves in the future!)

...science is often blinded by hubris and has been proven time and again to be wrong about some pretty big issues.

Yeah, that's kinda how science works.

Any decent scientist who has a theory disproven might have his/her ego bruised for a little while (which would be normal), but would nonetheless be happy that scientific knowledge in general has been advanced.

"Hubris" is a human trait, and you'll see it a lot more often in the religious community than you will the scientific one.

Rembar: "I follow the idea that the existence of God is highly improbable, but that doesn't make it impossible. I feel like it would be unscientific to declare the nonexistence of something without empirical proof."

I'm certain that Prof. Dawkins would agree with you 100% on this - he mentions it around 18:30 in this very clip. However, it is also impossible to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster - just because you cannot disprove something is no reason at all to give it any credence.

Regarding the comments about Prof. Dawkins' attitude towards Theists (Dag, et al):
I'd agree with the folks who've made the point that Dawkins isn't out to try and win converts to his cause. I seem to remember seeing an interview (sorry, don't have the link on hand) where he makes it clear that he thinks organized religions are unavoidably damaging. Anyone else seen this too?

@lvix & benjee: Fixed. I just accidentally checked off the box. No ulterior motive here, folks, move along.

Lots of interesting comments. I'll read through all of it when I get a chance.

This is why I love VideoSift! look at all those comments, no SPAM, no flaming....Beautiful

By the way, HERE IS THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION (1:47)
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8033327978006186584&hl=en

I'll toast to that, Mauz!

i'm starting a new club: the naked atheists!!

jlee ... as harsh as it sounds, yes, i think it is irrational to believe that we were created by a supreme being. as already pointed out at 53min: why don't you believe in allah (mohammed), buddha, zeus, jesus, any other popular diety?? pure and simple: because of who you were born to. children believe what their parents teach them until such time arrives that they develop their own sense of awareness and critical thinking. i wonder what's harder: coming out as an atheist or coming out as a homosexual?

dag ... maybe that can be a poll question?? are you: a) religious and practicing b) religious but non-practicing c) agnostic d) atheist e) into farm animals DOH!!

i'm pretty much an atheist, maybe a bit towards agnostic, maybe a bit towards the more interesting religions... just a bit

i admittedly have a deep appreciation for art that has its inspirations in religion, so I've never agreed with Dawkins when he goes off on how religion has never been good for anything.

Maybe you need to actually read Dawkins, bamdrew -- the notion that classic art was inspired by religion is under serious debate; it was the church that had all of the money to pay artists and composers at that time, thus they expected religious-themed product - not to mention that religious skepticism at that point could get you beheaded.

There are a lot of artists that had to hide things in there paintings or in there portraits of nobles. Not to mention the amount of art that was created only to be burnt along with the artist. Depictions of nudes were fine as long as you used a commoner and they were depicted as a Greek gods or apart of the biblical mothers. I would suggest looking at the mirrors or windows they were the easiest place to hide an image. And a lot of high tech gear is being thrown at a lot of these paintings to see if there is another image behind it something that could have gotten the owner in trouble.

Wow though its great to see a entirely intelligent no name calling and i'm happy to see it. it would be nice to have a full on forum so we could continue this further
<---- another naked atheist right here (though not naked at this moment in time)

"Hubris is a human trait and you'll see it a lot more often in religious community than you will in the scientific one". Why do you put scientists on a pedestal, like they're above such a human trait? Scientists are only trying to explain the mysteries of the world like anyone else that asks themselves the big questions. They are no less capable of hubris than you or I or anyone else, in their attempt to answer these questions. In fact the "balls" to get up in front of those students which Farhad describes him as having is exactly the kind of hubris it takes to tell people they're idiots for their beliefs. Scientists can be just as 'religious' as your local door-knocking do-gooder. Being 'religious' describes one's state of mind and how much one clings to certain beliefs and ideas. It has nothing to do with which religion/movement/fraternity/scientific debate club you subscribe to.

I've got to take issue with Persephone's statements above. For the record:
Hubris, noun: "Excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance."

Now you're unarguably correct when you say scientists are human, just like everybody else, and so not 'above' or incapable of hubris. "You'll see it a lot more often" implies that you will see it in the scientific community sometimes. I agree with Theo's point, but I'd put it in a different way: "The scientific process is less permissive of hubris".

Scientific theories are always just that, theories. They are always open to revision and refinement as we progress towards a fuller understanding. Evolution and gravitation are good examples of theories which have been modified over the years as we discover new evidence. As they are based on evidence, scientific claims are always open to being disproven based on further evidence. Contrast this with religion: its basis is in personal faith rather than evidence, so you can never really disprove an idea.

You say yourself that we're talking about "how much one clings to certain beliefs and ideas". Surely you can see that it's harder to cling to an incorrect idea in the face of conflicting evidence, rather than in the face of conflicting faith?

Here, Here Baqueta - one is theoretical (meaning: a concept backed up with evidence and experiments), the other is theological (none of the above).

Very good points, baqueta.

But I still have to take issue with the reduction of the whole phenomenological experience of "religion" as something based solely on air, hubris and nonsense. I grant wholly that many religious people do not bother to make this distinction, though, and merely bludgeon the non-believer with "faith".

Every religious phenomenon (including modern atheism) has its antecedents in measurable historical conditions and concrete cultural values. And I do not know if the Church of Scientific Method is the best or even the only means for measuring the pursuit of an ethical and creative existence.

@ LadyBug: "i think it is irrational to believe that we were created by a supreme being. as already pointed out at 53min: why don't you believe in allah (mohammed), buddha, zeus, jesus, any other popular diety??"

I'd just like to point out that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

"i wonder what's harder: coming out as an atheist or coming out as a homosexual?"

Without being homosexual, I wouldn't really know, but that is a very good question. I've never come out to my family and friends and said I'm atheist, and honestly don't know how they'd react.

I live in the south (jesusland), but thankfully I was not raised in a strict religious manner. We never regularly attended church, usually only on special occasions such as Christmas, Easter, etc, but I did attend a Christian school and went to bible school in the summer. I never really bought into the "god" thing. I was the kind of kid that was always asking "why" and "what if," and religion couldn't provide answers where science could. I was also taught as a kid that atheists were "devil worshipers."

I suspect one of my sisters is atheist like me because we think alike. My other sister became very religious a few years ago. When she had a child, and by the age of two had her child singing "Jesus Loves Me" and other religious type things, it really hit me. I'd never read or heard of Richard Dawkins then, but I thought to myself then that children should be given a choice in religion when they are old enough, rather than being brought up that way. Words can't describe how I feel for this child when I hear her singing these things. I kind of fell like she's being brainwashed, but who am I to tell her how to raise her child?

Rickegee: I'm not sure I understand your first point... You seem to be saying that there is some substance to religions - maybe the guidance and credos they offer, that sort of thing? I'd be interested to hear some examples of what you mean.

As for your second point, if I'm understanding you correctly then I agree. Art, Science, and Religion are all going to be influenced by the social, political, and economic situations of the day. I'd say the rise of atheism is at least in part a result of factors such as by improving education, communications, and travel. Learning about other cultures and religions inevitably leads us toward questioning our own.

If I've been getting the gist of your points correctly, then I'd say that my point still stands. However much common sense and logic have been used to construct the religions we find today, they still all have their foundations in faith.

Jimnms: Tricky situation! I wouldn't worry too much if I were you though. Small children tend to believe what their parents tell them, without question. Teenagers, on the other hand... ;-)

I love this place. It seems to me most of the people here have a very funded opinion, yet they are polite enough to discuss it in a very intelligent way, not just throwing insults as we witness at many other places in the web.

It is really really a shame that my poor language skills prevent me from joining your mostly wonderful discussions.

I enjoy sifting so much, thank you all!

baqueta:

The value (and curse) of religion is its ability to promote a communitarian experience. Personal faith is almost beside the point because the power of religion to endure depends upon a community of belief.

My very basic take is that atheism itself is a variety of religious experience.

LadyBug: It may be helpful to clarify what we mean by "irrational". Strictly speaking, to be irrational would be to hold a set of a logically inconsistent beliefs. For example, believing that God both exists and does not exist would be irrational. However, it seems that what you mean by "irrational" is to hold a belief without having any good reason to support that belief.

I would agree that it is not very rational to hold a belief simply because your parents, or society large holds it, but I think it would be unfair to assume that most, if not all of the adult religious population hold their beliefs simply because their parents do. This seems to be what you're suggesting in your comment above.

There are many independent thinking individuals who have good reasons for their religious adherence. Disagreement with said reasons does not necessarily mean that any one particular party is irrational. Professional philosophers disagree over numerous issues, but no one would say that anyone from opposing sides is irrational.

For examples of rational people who are religious, see Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Peter van Inwagen, William Alston, et al.

In response to the attitude that Dawkins is too harsh and puts people off the athiest cause, I would counter that this attitude is compleley necessary.

Dawkins is openly unapologetic about how he promotes his message and pulls no punches. He argues that athiests and people who oppose organized religion need to stand up and be heard, because look at what we are competing with! We are competing with crazy nutjobs who devote SIGNIFICANT portions of their life to actively promote their religions. The money, power, and corruption that flows through these religions is STAGGERING. Athiests have no organization, they have no money, they have no power. Calmly accepting the status quo, and carrying on meekly will change nothing.

What Dawkins realizes is that the single greatest threat to the future of humanity is organizied religion. History shows that religion has done nothing but hold humanity back. And that is what it continues to do. When I think of the amount of human energy that poured town the toilet of religion, I get sick, because just imagine if we put that energy towards something useful!

I am constantly amazed at the ability of this community to sustain an intellectual conversation with no trace of flaming or other nonsense. Three cheers for Videosift! Hip, hip, hooray!

Rickegee: It sounds like we actually have fairly similar views, just differing approaches to the semantics...

Hoju: You make some good arguments for why the current status quo needs changing, but I don't see that this has any bearing on making any particular attitude more or less necessary. I think the basic point is that you're less likely to encourage someone to listen to you if you start calling them (or people they have respect for) "crazy nutjobs". ;-)

Perhaps Science is the the rules by which God works. I think the two have something in common, If God has made laws for us to live by it would mean that he would also adhere to those laws he has made. I feel science is simply the study of the laws that govern the universe and no study of those laws can refute a God. Dawkins uses sociology to try and disprove God, not science. Dawkins is far to close minded and opinionated to accept ceartian facts in life. And his contempt for religion blinds him to venues that could make the man truely brilliant. True scientific research stops when possiabilites are ruled out based on personal bias.

baqueta: I think so. And even if there is some divergence in our views, I like your clear presentation of your points.

hoju: From the South or near any of the notches of the Bible Belt? Or maybe Rome or Colorado Springs? The cultural and political perversion of the spiritual search underlying religion into mere violent dogma is the true problem. I simply don't believe that all "organized religions" are perverts of the same stripe.

I also agree with gorgonheap that Dawkins' little Christianist Crusade has, in a way, made him Ahab. The Selfish Gene is still blindingly great, though. Haven't had the opportunity to pick up God Delusion.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Much like Dawkins - I think we are preaching to the choir. I don't think there is a qualified theologian among us that could give us a serious opposing view.

Calling Father Guido Sarducci.

If you are looking for a serious opposite view dag, try reading Richard Swinburne and the ones mentioned in jlee22's post.

Thanks rembar, this is good stuff.

I think that science and religion are drawn to each other as much as repelled. I would be surprised if, as science draws closer to a unified theory, the elegance of nature would not inspire awe akin to religion. I certainly use the idea of god as a bridge to the amazing systems of nature. Of course my higher power isn't a big dude that looks like Jerry Garcia.

this is a comment to theo waaaaay up there...

I wasn't in particular referring to old, judeo-christian inspired art; I'm saying many forms of art have pulled inspiration from the interesting stories/tales/explanations that are present in religion and supernatural belief. I personally think that some religious stories can be visually/poetically/emotionally inspiring, as many of them are deeply creative and transfered to stir emotion.

So I wasn't referring to something like the Sistine Chappel, or to Mosques or Temples or paintings on broadly religious themes, per se, I was noting how I think it narrowminded when Dawkins defends his arguements against anything associated with religion by usually defining religious art as ancient 'christian' art that was paid for by the church and controlled by the church. Art and spirituality can both be a little bit illogical... and I think it false when he tries to dodge this notion of good art coming from religion and spirituality.

(And for the record I have read some of Dawkins work, and much prefer E.O.Wilson (and consilience))

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

A little late, but I found this little Dawkins interview very interesting:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article2037496.ece

I'm not an atheist because my experience leads me to believe that we are spiritual beings who have chosen this life for all the valuable lessons that come with being human. I am excited and amazed when science offers new insights into the physical nature of this world, but I am also aware that science doesn't address a whole aspect of life and I wouldn't want it to anyway. I am quite happy to live with the grey world of unexplainable phenomenom, without requiring scientific explanation, or for that matter some religious dogma to 'prove' why it happens. Just an example of what I'm talking about: When I was deep in the throws of labour with our second child, we got a call from my husband's grandmother who was keen to know how the labour was going. Now the reason this was extraordinary, is because she was calling from the other side of the world, across several time zones and because the labour had progressed so quickly we didn't have time to tell his family what was going on, and as well I was two weeks past my due date, so there was no way she could have known I was in labour, especially at that exact moment. It turned out she 'knew' I was in labour because she was getting labour pains herself (this is from a woman close to eighty) So I say, bring on the unexplainable mysteries, they tell a good story in the least!

Amen, persephone, welcome to the metagnostic path, please continue to enjoy experiencing the incarnation, you can't take it with you when you go...but what is IT!???

...and why the hell can't ya'!

*promote

Re-promoting this video to the front page as a VideoSift Classic. Originally published on Sunday 26th November 2006 (promotion called by gold star member phelixian)

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member djsunkid)

*undead

The link to this video has been fixed (undead called by original submitter rembar)

What a bunch of fatuous chimps. Could their questions miss the point any more? And are christians ALWAYS subtly threatening?

Redacted (spam)

you fuckin spammer go to hell
http://www.videosift.com/member_comments.php?user_login=atalai

BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE

BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE

I'll spam you till the day you die

Take all reviews with a grain of salt. Many reviewers plagiarize other reviewers instead of reading whole the book, and they have ulterior motives. When I compare reviews to books or movies I've read or seen, I usually find the reviews terribly shallow. I recommend The God Delusion to anyone who can read.

Dawkins just mercilessly debates with reasonable arguments and sometimes satirizes opposing viewpoints for the sake of argument in a way that is not crude or personal. Politeness should not include an unwillingness to dispute matters of fact in public discourse. I applaud Dawkins for having the balls to go to Lynchburg.

Dawkins v. Haggard:
Dawkins was going to debate Haggard's assertion that the earth is 6000 years old and Haggard just dodged the question by calling Dawkins arrogant. Reviewers who call Dawkins a variety of unflattering labels are employing a similarly ridiculous tactic to try to suppress Dawkins' well written book and direct conversation away from the meat and potatoes.

jlee22 wrote: I think it would be unfair to assume that most, if not all of the adult religious population hold their beliefs simply because their parents do.

The demographic evidence seems to contradict your claim indirectly. Hundreds of mutually contradicting religious sects contain five-sixths of the world population. By comparing religious beliefs and populations, you can infer that most of the believers are wrong (without knowing which ones are wrong). Combined with the remarkably low apostasy rate, this proves that most people tend to believe whatever their parents believed regardless of the inaccuracy of those beliefs. I know of no other good explanation for the diversity and heredity of religion.

*science

Adding video to channels (science) - requested by rembar.

*religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by Fjnbk.

*Long?
surely...

but very interesting I enjoyed this

Invocations (long) cannot be called by Zonbie because Zonbie is not privileged - sorry.

*comedy
for some of the questions, and the "the god of the old testament is the most unpleasant character in all fiction..." monologue.

*promote
this is a classic

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, March 5th, 2007 2:50pm PST - promote requested by jwray.

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by jwray.

Welcome to This Old Sift.

What strikes me as the most sorrowful about this clip is that most of the people asking questions don't seem to be able to string a sentence together. Just, wow.

Holy bejeezus, no one evoked *LONG?

Invocations (long) cannot be called by doogle because doogle is not privileged - sorry.

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by jwray.

If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism? VALERIE JACKSON, Richmond

I'd quote Bertrand Russell: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-you-ask-the-questions-special-427003.html
God is full of justice and mercy. For that, as stupid as the answer by he who is speaking in the video, to this question, your (Dawkins)only hope of salvation is either you submit yourself to God(I hope you are still alive) or God wishes to give you mercy. Never will your answer, "Not enough evidence" be noted excusable, because, in this time of age, i would say that you have known the Bible. You want evidences...I'll give you clues. Proverbs 3:5-9; Psalms 19:1-2; Daniel 12:10

Your answer seems to be based on the pretense that the Bible is a valid source of information. It's a collection of old fables, allegories and legends with a bit of often inaccurate history mixed in. It was written by a variety of men, collected, censored, and edited by clergy, and distributed under the false pretense that it was the inerrant word of god. There is no archaeological evidence that the jews were ever in captivity in Egypt, nor is the story of Noah even physically possible. If the authors of the Noah story meant it to be taken literally, they were so amazingly ignorant that they thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

*promote

jwray cannot promote this post because jwray does not have enough Power Points. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by kceaton1.

Edeot has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because Edeot's points are already fully charged.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Norsuelefantti.

*length=01:47:23

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:47:23 - length declared by critical_d.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.