Processing your request, Please wait....
The Purpose of Purpose: Richard Dawkins (Lecture)
Professor Dawkins titled his talk as the purpose of purpose and began with an anecdote from Peter Atkins asked about a real family, but what about the questions why? And Atkins answer, which is a silly question.
Dawkins said that wonder why for inanimate objects such as air or rocks is most likely inadequate. However, ask why organisms seem to have been made often in the past.
Identified a number of cases amusing, as when they say that pets provide a means to keep the meat fresh until we need to eat, head lice are a strong incentive for personal cleanliness, large predators allowed hunters to test their courage, and encouraged industry gadflies and the use of wit in the fight against them.
This mentality persists to this day, says Dawkins, appearing in the video of Ray Comfort banana, which has a particularly large mass of audience laughter comfort with the claim that the banana was just the right shape to fit in the human mouth .
Dawkins said that, unfortunately, the video was not just a joke. Comfort has apparently offered to give $ 10,000 to Comfort Dawkins debate. Dawkins responded by saying he would be quiet until comfort only if the donated $ 100K to the new foundation of Dawkins.
Then Dawkins compares the modern version, domesticated bananas to the fruit of wild bananas, showing that many properties that comfort was attributed to the designs of God are actually decisions of the artificial selection by humans.
The Purpose of Purpose: Richard Dawkins (Lecture),
This Video is Tagged With:
Comfort Dawkins, Dawkins, lecture, Peter Atkins, Ray Comfort
Hitler killed no one, so he is not guilty. Accountability falls on the soldiers. If Obama told our troops to kill everyone in South Dakota, and they did, who would really be at fault? If you said Obama, you were wrong. Following orders is no excuse. Hitler forced no one to kill.
“How did it shorten his lifespan if he’s 90??”- Come on now ! Can you not detect sarcasm ? The point herpeslip made was precisely that – his atheism DID NOT lead to an early grave, the very claim kassop made. It’s ok, no one can see your blushes of realisation having read this explanation…cheer up !
The fact is, not only was Hitler raised a Catholic, but most of his henchmen were either Catholic or Lutheran. Hitler is also documented in his books and his speechs condemning Atheists. No religious person can call him an Atheist.
Hitler never personally killed anyone, except possibly some dogs. Nazi troops and German soldiers killed people. Some of which were Christian, mind you. Hell is like karma. It is fun to believe because it allows us to punish those who we cannot personally punish. Fun to believe, but not reality.
@ClamCrunchy Again, we can look at this from a philosophical standpoint all day long. But in the end, Richard was presented with X-number of environmental factors, and he chose – what we percieve as consciously – to do this or that.It need not go any deeper than that.
Religions and the irrational concept of god are the cancer of this planet and must be eradicatedSpread this gem: intelligencesquared . com/events/wed-be-better-off-without-religionIrrational detection kit: youtube . com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
@SeedsOfHatred Certainly his genes and environmental influences made him speak out against religion, but did he consciously choose anything? Do his conscious intentions have any influence on his behavior, or are they just a by-product of the brain and causally irrelevant? If it’s the latter, then he hasn’t consciously chosen anything, nor have we. I would say that the notion of personal responsibility for one’s choices and actions is at best unknowable, and at worst non-existent.
@ClamCrunchy (Part 2) set of circumstances, Mr. Dawkins has chosen to dedicate his life to spreading that knowledge and speaking about against religion. That’s simply how it is. We can talk philosophical all we want, but Mr. Dawkins was given a set of options in THIS reality and he chose from them. It’s as simple as that.
@ClamCrunchy Well, from a purely philosophical standpoint, we can’t. We have no true “free will”; we ALWAYS act in accordance with what our environment (including our genetics) provides for us at a given time. In a world without religion, Richard Dawkins would likely be a simple biologist with no books or anti-religious lectures under his belt.That is irrelevant, however, because we DO live in a world with religion and a need for wide-spread knowledge about biology, so, given that particular
@GIRLDANCING35 None of us do.As Sarah Connor said, “There is no fate but what we make for ourselves”.If you decide that eating 200 hotdogs a day is your purpose, then that is your purpose. It’s not a default; it wasn’t planned or stamped on your forehead as your “intended use”, but it would be what you have decided you are going to do with your life.Dawkins has decided he’s going to dedicate his life to science and reason. That is his self-assigned purpose.
@Here0s0Johnny @”intelligent falling vs theory of gravity! hilarious!”Do you know of any religious cults who actually propose “intelligent falling” ?I suspect it’s more likely straw man for the sake of cheap laughs.It isn’t really a scientific or reasonable argument IMHO
@MsPerduta I think that’s the main problem we have with (some of) the faithful, you make wild allegations just to put them out there without argument or evidence. Doubly galling when used to level unfounded criticism at people trying actually to improve our understanding of the world.If you accuse a long-time established scientist expounding new theses of pseudo-science with nothing to back up your claim, expect to get called on it.
@megamarsvin @”. Rather makes it look like you don’t trust your own arguments but are too stubborn to admit your claims were debunked.”I decided not to spam up this channel by engaging in pointless discussions. I’ve said what I had to say and see no reason to change that.Anything further I’ll put in own video(s).
@MsPerduta No I’m just pointing out the errors in your reasoning. You said the work Dawkins is presenting here is pseudo-science and I simply challenged you on your claim, as well as on your silly generalizations about atheism.It’s interesting to me that you’ve deleted all your comments except the erroneous accusations. Rather makes it look like you don’t trust your own arguments but are too stubborn to admit your claims were debunked.
@PerdiePerduta377 Well that wasn’t really what we were talking about but if you want to over simplify things I can do that to believers as well. There is only one type of believer: the one that believes in god. Period.I don’t see how this is a constructive line of argument though, you can project your views on my world view and feel like you’re ‘scoring some points’ or vice versa, but where does that get us?
@PerdiePerduta377 Actually you’re the one putting false assertions on “atheists” as per my last comment. And I never made any claim that all believers think the same way, yet another strawman.But fair enough, the theses Dawkins puts forth here are just that. No one is saying these are hard facts. Behavioral biology is a science in its infancy, I’m sure some of these assertions will be refined or maybe even disproved over time, that doesn’t make it pseudo-science.
@PerdiePerduta377 Then where do you get the idea that “Atheists seem to think there is no purpose but what one makes for oneself”? When has Dawkins ever claimed that there is no meaning to existence?I’m sure you could dig up some atheist somewhere making these claims but behavioral biology says the exact opposite: that sense of purpose is imposed by natural development and selection.
@PerdiePerduta377 -continued- And finally, your claim that evolutionary theory is “pseudo scientific” is plain nonsense. Dawkins and others have published uncountable peer reviewed documents on the subject.You can make the claim that you believe the scientific method is bunk, that would be your opinion. But if you claim this work is pseudo-scientific, that statement is factually incorrect and betrays a complete lack of understanding of what the word ‘science’ means.
@PerdiePerduta377 I’m comprehending your comments fine, it’s your assertions that completely miss the point. For example:”Atheists seem to think there is no purpose but what one makes for oneself”First of all, there’s no such thing as “what atheists think”.Second even if there were you’re wrong. Most atheists I talk to consider meaning to come from nature. You don’t need God to love your family or your neighbor, or to want to be loved. Nature provides us with purpose.
@PerdiePerduta179 You have a lot of criticisms but you fail to grasp even the most basic points made by mr. Dawkins and the field of behavioral biology in general. The fact that you dismiss peer-reviewed science as “pseudo scientific” shows you have little or no grasp of what the word science actually means.