Space | Evolution | Physics | Social Sciences | Natural Sciences | DNA | Psychology | Biotech | Medicine | Anthropology | Astronomy

Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 113 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
morrison33 Avatar
Posted: 05.17.11, 01:49 PM
While all mammals who have at least half a brain know already that we are pretty much insignificant, there is no father Christmas, no Superman and of course, no God...having said that, Dawkins is beginning to sound like a clown...or better description still, like a celeb junkie looking for the next outrageous thing to say to attract attention...enough already
theknopfknows Avatar
Posted: 04.07.11, 09:02 PM
WELL DONE, many years ago I had memorized Darwin´s last paragraph, last chapter called conclusions,"THERE is grandeur in this view of life,with it´s several powers,having been originally breathed by the CREATOR into a few forms or into one:and that , whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved" Richard fails to say that Darwin was a god Man "breathed by the Creator" where Richard is an atheist, most atheists believe that Charles Darwin was an atheist, BUT NOT DARWIN A GOD MAN!Darwin born on the same day same year as Abraham Lincoln, both anti-slavery. Abraham needed to invite the black man to the Human race so Charles could make sense,of Evolution, Collective consciousness in Action. Darwin thought God started it and walked away. The First Human fossil was founded by Darwin´s Great great grandfather that sat next to, Issac Newton at the royal society. DARWIN FAMILY INVOLVED WITH SCIENCE from 1600´s to Charlie, 4-5 generations of scientist, Erasmus Darwin Plant Scientist. If your father and his fgather and his father all part of the Royal society MASONS ALL OF THEM. Darwin on his death bed, Said "Burn all my notes" MANY GRAND MASTERS OF MASONS Burned all their books, notes and inventions, Tradition of Masons. Richard is just OK, not great, but OK. Thanks fora Tv.
RandyH Avatar
Posted: 02.08.11, 12:25 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by Andrew Atkin Atheists believe that a universe (or whatever created the universe) can create itself out of nothing. Religious people believe that a God can create itself out of nothing. Both camps are wasting their time in a childish debate, where both camps believe they can know the unknowable. What ever theory you are referencing, it's a theory. Scientist are not claiming they know anything for sure, that's why it's a theory, a hypothesis that still needs testing. However, theist pass whatever creation story is provided in their holy book, or scripture, as fact.
isamad Avatar
Posted: 12.31.10, 10:05 PM
Excellent stuff!
grahamek Avatar
Posted: 12.03.10, 01:37 PM
Dawkins is on record saying that if there was a proof or evidence of God, say he appeared, then he would change his beliefs. In this sense, he is agnostic (i.e. never stop questioning). He's strong on biology, not so good in other areas, shame he doesn't stick to topic as his opinions on religion and philosophy make him an easy target.
PaulMcCarthy Avatar
Posted: 11.29.10, 10:57 AM
InVinoVeritas makes a good point.
Andrew Atkin Avatar
Andrew Atkin
Posted: 11.26.10, 03:06 AM
Atheists believe that a universe (or whatever created the universe) can create itself out of nothing. Religious people believe that a God can create itself out of nothing. Both camps are wasting their time in a childish debate, where both camps believe they can know the unknowable.
Tuco Avatar
Posted: 11.24.10, 03:46 PM
Quote: And asking "why are we here" a silly question? It is one of the most fundamental questions of philosophy! Which doesn't make it any less useless. "But I want to know why, I want it very badly". There's just no a why, silly you. Quote: Agnosticism is a rational and intellectually honorable tradition. Hard atheism, on the other hand, is every bit as fantastical and dishonest as fundamentalist religion. ..And that's just bullshit.
Dr Pellikka Avatar
Dr Pellikka
Posted: 11.24.10, 11:11 AM
"Dawkins is little more than a playground provocateur with a clever-sounding accent." ??? You are certainly more in vino than in veritas. This reply is such juvenile name-calling that it is worthy of any American right-wing fundamentalist, those who can only play puerile name-games instead of doing any rational argument. Terry Eagleton is of the same ilk, though not to the same degree, as he often does try to make rational arguments for his causes. But his famous "Ditchkins" response--found in his fatuous defense of Catholicism and attempt to persuade us that we should all just believe, think, and act according to the infallible Pope--is just as vapid as your response is. And what's with the mocking of his particular accent? That's about as stupidly irrelevant as one can get! If you read what Dawkins and many others have written, and if you understand accurately what the words bandied about here really mean, the bottom line is that evolution is a rationally valid scientific theory, and that "creationism" is an expression of faith, but faith by its very nature is not science. Its non-scientificness doesn't automatically make faith wrong, but it does mean that issues of faith cannot be considered science, no more than real science is just another act of faith--although countless fundamentalists have tried to twist it that way. And atheism is something separate from evolution. Darwinism [if you mean the theory of "natural selection"] doesn't really disprove God--it merely makes any supernatural theories or beliefs, including God or gods, unnecessary. Whether one then wants to believe in some supernatural being is another matter.
Andrew Atkin Avatar
Andrew Atkin
Posted: 11.24.10, 11:05 AM
Evolution always beats up on Christianity to "prove" itself. Christianity is such an easy target - because yes, Christianity is based on silly premises in itself. For evolution to be 'proven' as the complete system for how life came to be, it needs to simulate with real world based models the process of evolution leading to advanced life. It needs to look directly at the process of chaotic mutation powering the development new systems...and show it would take only a few billion years, rather than trillions upon trillions of years. It needs to show how it is not just an intergenerational genetic growth with natural selection merely picking out the 'errors' - it needs to show chaotic mutation facilitating the creative or 'generative' function of evolution. The latter is what is hard to believe.