digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Richard Dawkins' jaw-dropping talk on our bizarre universe (TEDTalks) 2005 watch!

video.google.com — Richard Dawkins is Oxford University's "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science." Author of the landmark 1976 book, The Selfish ... all » Gene, he's a brilliant (and trenchant) evangelist for Darwin's ideas. In this talk, titled, "Queerer Than We Suppose: The strangeness of science," he suggests that the true nature of the universe elud

Who dugg this? Made popular May 31, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

95 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • AntBing, on 10/11/2007, -10/+91If there really is a hell, I'll hang out with him and be glad douches like you are somewhere else.
  • shep72685, on 10/11/2007, -8/+52Wow, what an awful thing to say. True Christ followers do not support such a comment.
  • hamandcheese, on 10/11/2007, -5/+37Myself as a believer, then atheist, was tempted to look down at my peers and say 'It's so obvious: God doesn't exist.' and constantly wondered why my friends hadn't felt the same enlightenment, but I quickly learned that though I believe religion to be untrue, for many it works. So now I treat my friends that are religious with equal respect, perhaps because I better understand why they choose to believe in a God, and also because insulting someone is never a good method of persuasion. Besides; I know a lot of atheists who are absolute idiots.
  • jeebusnation, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37if dawkins goes to hell, I want to go as well!
  • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -9/+35Why is he going to hell? For using a Mac? Count me in!
  • lansuggs, on 10/11/2007, -8/+34haha, the Dawkins diet: cut down on dogma, and get plenty of mental excercise.
  • p0und, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29noodley appendages ftw!
  • fxmcleod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23There's a difference between Christians, and people who simply believe what they were raised to believe. The latter tend to comfort themselves by laughing at those who do not believe it.
  • Alucardbsm, on 10/11/2007, -7/+24Ramen!
  • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16The discussion of walking through walls reminded me of the old physics teaching comparison between electromagnetism and gravity.

    Jump off of a tall building, and the force of gravity will accelerate your body at roughly 10 meters per second per second... Meet the ground and the forces of electromagnetism will stop you rather more quickly!
  • Oxygen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15@fxmcleod

    I'd say that's characteristic of all belief systems.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20"hope he has fun in hell when he dies....feel free to bury muhahahahhahaaa:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    This of course coming from someone who actually believes in a self-paranoid, ego-maniac mythical anthropomorphic "Bible-God" who impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside himself in order to save the world from himself as some kinda sadistic experiment in self-glorifed redemption and then fills the heads of precious innocent impressionable children with disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering.

    Are magical invisible green elephants who control the universe from their homes inside doorknobs any less real in the minds of psychopaths in insane asylums?

    Seek help
  • ShuttleDisaster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17*deity.
  • cybermort, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20no but we did created him in our own image.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18""now I treat my friends that are religious with equal respect, perhaps because I better understand why they choose to believe in a God, and also because insulting someone is never a good method of persuasion. Besides; I know a lot of atheists who are absolute idiots.""
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your friends are free to believe whatever they want, but when those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, They've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.

    I also have no respect for anyone's opinion that is not based on evidence nor fact.
  • fastfood15, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19dawkins is sweet. he needs to do more speaches around the US.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12""Here is a fellow who can't spell 'speeches' and yet espouses Dawkins. Quite the quality following.""
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This of course coming from someone who still thinks the Earth is flat.

    Christians = most stupid ***** sheep in the world.
  • Gizza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@Benrussell (#6947661)
    I didn't realise there was a level of atheism.

    The label of ahteist annoys me. We are all born not believing anything, and if we weren't raised in a society that does, we would probably continue not believing. So why are those who don't labelled? I'm not labelled an afootballer, or an aactor, or an amusician or an astamp collector because I don't play football, act, sing or collect stamps. I'm a software engineer. and male etc, I get labelled for what I am, not for what I am not.
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/11/2007, -28/+36If I was forced to believe in a diety, I'd choose Dawkins.
  • tyywebb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'm sorry stonewaljacksn I don't usually block people but I am just tired of digging down your comments.
  • ninzoris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I once read that the main ingredient in comedy is surprise. You can't tell the same joke twice and expect people to laugh the second time.

    Ohh well, I guess Dawkins is going to have to quit stand up comedy and fall back on the brilliant scientist/speaker thing.
  • Revovisionary, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8The noodley appendages keeps us on earth. The fact that we as a people are getting taller proves it!
  • javip, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9-stonewaljacksn

    You should try thinking before saying anything..
    Here you are saying people are blindly getting sucked in by Dawkins 'rants', which in the 1st place is completely untrue.
    But the funny part is the hypocrisy given 90% of religious people blindly get sucked in by a figure that doesn't even exist and a mystical book written by man thousands of years ago!
    In fact, I'm currently laughing uncontrollably at the irony.. I'm sure you thought you were saying something intelligent for a second there though.

    gafasiesornivek, don't get jealous, you're equally as funny/stupid =)
  • ariez84, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Just like digg...video has nothing to do with religion.....yet the comments is almost 100% religious.

    Feel free to digg down, because we all know the one with the least diggs makes the most sense.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Gravity is just a THEORY! We need to teach our kids an alternative theory that things fall down because Bible-God wants them to!
  • endyminion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It's not completely untrue, I've seen plenty of people who are blinded by his star quality and blindly praise him.
    It's just mostly untrue. Athiests are humans and just as susceptible to the allure of popularity and peer pressure as everyone else.

    I wish I could say the same was true about most people in this country when it comes to Christianity, though. Most are what I'd call "Cookie Cutter Christians". Their believe is about as empty as a cookie cutter. They've only the very basic outline.

    They are about as in tune with why they believe what they do as a goldfish is aware of...anything.
  • beneathbrooklyn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You can watch all of the "talks" from TED this past year on their website: http://www.ted.com/index.php/

    They're all around 20 minutes in length and most are really fascinating. Both Al Gore and Bill Clinton had presentations there...

    Aside from Dawkins another favorite presentation was from author James Kunslter where he discussed the "Tragedy of Suburbia: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3057280178909051497&hl=en
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8""On the other hand, if this is truly amazing, we should stop criticizing others as being unintelligent, stonewal, and simply celebrate our own middle-sized intuition.""
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100+ years of scientific research with literally millions of hours of research time dedicated to the study

    OR

    A book that says, "just trust me on this one." A book that says, "God created everything in 6 days."

    Come on...
  • InfoFreedom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Bravo.I wish i was there such a great speech.I hope it opened some minds.
  • InfoFreedom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4i think his explanation is great.Who hasn't had these thoughts he just puts them together so well. If i tried to explain these ideas to someone they would
    think i was a feckin nut case. so i respect his well thought out explanation.
  • xabstract, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I tried that wall thing...yeah same result...
  • canyonblue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3oh come on guys... the water molecule joke was about it passing through someone's bladder but then he moved on to the non-joke but more profound thought of other parts of us passing through lungs of an dinosaur for the "big" picture. he went from joke to profound and the audience reaction was appropriate and exactly what Richard was looking for.
  • grinndaddy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What did he say that was anti-"Bible-God"? Even that last statement seemed to be more against people who worship the universe and think it guides them and stuff... Whatever that's called.
  • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I wanna have a beer/scratch that...I wanna take some acid with that guy....
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Dawkins is an excellent lecturer (although a tad awkward interviewee...)

    I do sometimes wonder, though, if Dawkins is a bit *too* extreme at times, to the extent of excluding or alienating people who may have an Einsteinian sense of "god" or even an iota of non-scientific thought. Is there not some level of "rational mysticism" that one can practice, not in conflict with the scientific method? Certainly our mind is not purely a machine of logic and rationality, and so *some* things might be better understood by a departure from strict, scientific logical reasoning. In particular, some of those "big questions" that are somehow more inherently "human" in character; questions which are would be meaningless to ask in the face of cut-and-dry logic; questions like "why are we here?" "what is the meaning of it all?" "what is the 'good' vs what is 'evil'?" "who/what am I in relation to my experiences?". Science and reason is far better suited than "mysticism" or "religion" for many (and perhaps most) things in life, particularly aspects like medicine and law; but perhaps there is a grain of truth when Dawkins's opponents ask "but is there not *some* use for it?".

    I would consider myself, and identify myself as a "Dawkins atheist" (*technically* agnostic, but...); although at the same time, aspects of my worldview borrow heavily from very non-scientific aspects of animism, Taoism, and Chinese "folk philosophy". I also have a few (small) idiosyncratic ritualistic superstitions which I *know* are not "rational" but yet I feel that they still have their use perhaps as a placebo; why go through the trouble of erasing harmless, but yet deeply ingrained habits, that help calm or prep the mind in certain instances?
  • Scarfy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ grinndaddy

    proof |proōf| noun 1 evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

    How does that prove anything other than how simpleminded you are?
  • dbug, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1For anyone who actually has read his book "the god delusion" there's nothing new at all in this speech :(
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1true, true; but I don't think that most people would pick up on that unless you read his books. He tends to get seem a bit more extreme in interviews or public appearances; I know that it's probably just because it's something that he feels passionate about, which is generally good, but it does annoy/dissapoint me at times. I was really only using the Einstienian god as an example; perhaps a better example would be the more holistic, animistic worldview of a "traditional" taoist/shinto/buddhist Japan; still atheistic, still primarily rational, but also very mystical with elements of the supernatural.
  • Jusstin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sweet! Dawkins uses a Mac!
  • dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dildooreilly

    Intelligent Pulling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-5zWw3eeY0
  • sedlock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1good call on Kunslter. gave me some great ideas for my thesis.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1boo...

    nobody gets the Heinlein reference? I though yall were supposed to be geeks
  • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6@stonewaljacksn

    Nothing new? An ignorant person like you would say that indeed, but he is a scientist in the first place. And science has made religions look stupid for some time now.
  • bebopredux, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32 Thessalonians 2:3- "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,...."

    1 Timothy 4 -

    "1-But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

    2-by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

    3-men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

    I would think rebuttals are welcome but, this will be dugg down since most here don't really want to know the Truth and would rather their ears be tickled. Whatever, God's Word will be fulfilled and I pray that some here seek Him when they see the things that will occur very soon come to pass. A nano-second after you die it's too late to change where you'll spend eternity. As for the comments above that Christians are murderers, thieves, adulterers.....well yeah! We are ALL guilty of sin. In God's eyes one sin is not bigger than the other, if you've broken one law you are guilty of all! Period. The thief on the cross recognized Jesus as "Lord" and Jesus promised him that he'd be in Paradise that day with Him. It's a shame to see people of Faith mocked and slandered. Those that wish to mimic Dawkins with his "intellect" would be wise to at least be like him and avoid the juvenile name calling. I disagree with atheism, yes but, I won't resort to 2nd grade ridicule.

    I thought that perhaps the Digg Community would be respectful and make this site a gleaming example of web decorum. It's sad to see a few ruin it IMO.
  • tiffany98121, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@ Dildo:

    McVeigh was an agnostic. Or at least that what he claimed to be.
  • lamejoketeller, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1that's just simply not the case.

    source please?

    Besides, that's a logical fallacy. Tearing someone apart for unrelated viewpoints does not necessarily invalidate his others.
  • Scynet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Aye, unfortunately....

    I agree that religions would develop. However, how would we believe in the new God(s)? There are no ancient writings on how to pray properly or how to live your life. There are no teachings or stories, and no miracles. A new God(s) would be an abstract and strictly personal concept, and people could belive in it in whatever way they wished. It wouldn't really be a religion at all first, just an idea of God(s) we know absolutely nothing about, not even if it is still alive, or if it's possible to "contact" him (pray) or if it's good or bad. Not very rewarding.

    So now you have couple billion people believing in *something*. What likely happens next is that people who happen to have similiar ideas of this unkown God unite, causing the original "religion" to actually shatter into several smaller ones with much more concentrated views of their specific God. People born into a community of certain view of this God are taught the way of their faith. If the views are very different between these "different" religions, they could easily become hostile towards each others due to human nature. Wars and all. Not much different from today's world. People would make their God to be what they want it to be, since nothing shows what exactly it is...

    The only way to make people believe in a common God is through clear miracles and divine intervention, and practically force them to believe. Without miracles and clear guidelines a religion easily becomes something bad and vague (in general, not amidst the religion itself, necessarily). And I haven't seen too many miracles lately.

    /agnostic-atheist-something
  • sillykalcifer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2i love how after the 1st joke about the water molecules everybody laughed, but after the 2nd one about the right lung of something the audience was completely silent
  • opusaz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3There's nothing remarkably new in this talk, but sometimes hearing what's already known but spoken with grace and elegance, is very much worth the trouble.
  • crs6785, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Direct video/mp3 versions for download...

    http://ted.streamguys.net/ted_dawkins_r_2005.zip (mp4 video)

    http://ted.streamguys.net/ted_dawkins_r_2005.mp3
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.