Something I found while surfing this morning. While those with the attention span to watch the entire thing will certainly be in the minority here in the public section of the board, I know there are a few who will appreciate it.

Thank you for sharing this.

Mr. Dawkins is a wonderful didactic speaker and I thoroughly enjoyed this video.

It is amazing how ridiculous some people can think, and I tip my hat to Mr. Dawkins for being able to courteously deal with such foolishness, while directing his answers not at the questioner THEMSELVES, but rather the audience MEMBERS who would appreciate and understand his answers.

Not one answer to any of the questions was lacking in reason and rationale, and whether I agree with him or not, he earned my respect.

I particularly enjoyed his handling of the young lady who asked him "what if you're wrong..." That was priceless, I would have enjoyed seeing her reaction.

Also, I had a nice chuckle when the "biology" major asked if Mr. Dawkins differentiated between blind faith and reasonable faith. Mr. Dawkins - "No."

Again, thank you for sharing this.

Fantastic!

Dawkins never fails to impress me with his combination of logic and dry wit.

Thanks for sharing, Virus9!

I enjoyed watching that very much. He spoke clearly and eloquently regarding every question that was asked of him.

I was so impressed, that I am now actually searching for "The God Delusion" on amazon.com.

Thankyou for posting this video, Virus9, it is much appreciated.

I have been reading The God Delusion. It is wonderful book that uses great examples and sharp wit.

Thank you for posting that upstairs, Virus9. It is appreciated.

Richard Dawkins is such a joy to listen to. His concise, plain elucidation of reason vs. religious faith is always music to my ears. He is a brave man to confront American’s rabidly myopic faithful, and I applaud him! Thanks for sharing this link. I'm going to pass it around.

HAIL SATAN!
-Nadine

I was not aware he was that witty.

Very nice. And his brief discussion on ritual was very interesting. Much food for thought.

Thanks for posting.

Brilliant display, not only at debunking religious superstition but at supporting the sheer weight with which Darwinism and science wields itself against such superstition.

I also was highly pleased to see his acknowledgement of ritual as a vital component of human affairs; the atheists are finally catching up to what Satanists devised decades ago as the ideal solution to human need.

Excelent Q&A. Thank you for posting it.

Some notes I jotted down while watching (well, listening, at least)

I am pleased to see him arguing against insipid Utilitarianism also.

Speaking of people who would rather be happily deluded than accept the truth, I am reminded of the Third Satanic Statement.

I enjoyed his comments about herds, and his subsequent arguments for the seperation of Church and state. It's nice to see that he's supporting Pentagonal Revisionism

I like his response to the question of why quantum theory should be taken more seriously than the idea of the holy trinity despite both concerning things that can be considered paradoxical and "mysterious".

It raised a smile to see that his offered argument against evolution is "the fact that critical thinking and rationality don't seem to be universal attributes of the human mind".

I enjoyed very much his comments on transhumanism. With the possible exception of how he wouldn't consider humanity's future transhumanists to be gods, on the grounds that they would be evolved from humans

I second AmbientLogic's praise of the response to the question "What if you're wrong". This is an important thing to consider whenever one is presented with some fool who hasn't thought Pascal's Wager through properly.

I think one of his hardest-hitting comments was his correct assertion that "There is no such thing as a Christian child, only a child of Christian parentage".

Incidentally "The God Delusion" is a Christmas Special Offer in Waterstone's (Britain's largest bookshop chain). How appropriate

Thanks for your notes on this. I'm having audio difficulties with my computer so I'm unable to listen to the link provided. I enjoyed reading Dawkins "The Selfish Gene," it has lots of interesting theories about tracing human and animal behavior patterns back to genes. I didn't agree with everything he states but I do agree that in order to move forward we need to first understand ourselves better and our genes play a part in this. I especially like this excerpt from the book:
"It is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into
space, with rockets taking off at the rate of several million per
second, uncontrolled birth-rates are bound to lead to horribly
increased death-rates. It is hard to believe that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods. They express a preference for "natural methods" of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation." - Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene)

Which parts didn't you agree with? Most of The Selfish Gene is science, not opinion, and most of it is pretty damned solid. I'm just curious, since I consider that book to be the defining text on modern evolutionary theory.

Here are some thoughts..any recommended reading is always appreciated, as I'm continuously searching for answers.
Genes predisposition us to behave in one way but our biology/enviroment comes into play and can cause us to act in ways that are contrary to what our pre-programmed genetic material reflects.
Much of our evolutionary success is because of our ability to adapt-which wouldn't be possible if the ultimate outcome was genetically preprogrammed.
Why would a selfish gene want to have so much sex, knowing the intent is not to reproduce?
There is so much variance in the way we deal with our specific human drives and it is often affected by cultural customs, religious beliefs and ideologies-or lack thereof.
Genetics are a vital link but take the behavior of a serial killer. Is it genetic or environmental?