• Hipsta

    I’m American and I watched this video before it was cool!

  • heinrich66

    Why would we? Dawkins is a twat. Tyson is overrated.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bobbie-Jean-Pentecost/100000391760333 Bobbie Jean Pentecost

      These two men are highly intelligent, highly educated, and highly accomplished. Who the hell are you?Go back to flipping your burgers.

      • Alex

        I agree with both of you. Despite being highly intelligent, highly educated, and highly accomplished,  Dawkins IS an enomous twat.

        • Monkey See Monkey Do

          Haha, Brilliant. It’s strange how some people think you can’t be both.

      • heinrich66

        Har. And yet what you said is identical to the attitude of a prole slavishly worshipping authority.

        Dawkins is a twat. About that there is worldwide consensus. He is an atheist crusader — a fundamentalist — who creates a false impression in the public that Science = Atheism…whereas Science is actually agnostic, whatever the views of individual scientists.

        As for Tyson, he is a popularizer. So he goes on The Colbert Report and offers up warmed-over non-threatening science gaga. Whoop-dee-doo. He’s a functionary. I have never heard him say anything that was particularly unique.

        Now: You want fries with that?

        • http://www.facebook.com/pitpat88 Patrick Jones

          Fucking Boom. Nice one.  But I still believe they both serve science greatly.  In general, most people are twats.  Look at the trolls on the internet.

        • John

          Science is agnostic? Only insofar as evolution is merely a theory in the sense that the bible bangers like to believe. The fanatic bible bangers harp the idea that evolution is a theory, so it has no more “proof” than the does existence of the Almighty. This is a load of dislogical bullscheisse! Evolution has so much much evidence, thus proof, in the scientific realm as to trump a creationism blindfolded. And when you likewise place religion, i.e. the existence of superhuman-like god beings in the laboratory, you find that, while such an existence is hypothetically plausible, there is NO GODDAMN EVIDENCE whatsoever to support it’s theory. God’s exist scientifically only as much as Easter Bunnies and Santa Claus’s in little childrens’ minds. Sure, science cannot prove 100% that there is no god any more than it can prove 100% that we humans actually exist. But all real evidence points to evolution, man’s existence, and made-up gods — made up by humans. Agnostic. You’re funny. That’s a fact.

          • John

            I should have proofed my work. Sorry for the many typos.

          • Eric_D_Read

            You also should have looked up the definition of agnostic while you were at it.

          • John

            You sound a little like a creationist. I know the definition of agnostic. Do you know the defintion of athiest? Or theory? If scientific theory generates undeniable and vast amounts of evidence for evolution and against the theory of creationism, can it not safely and scientifically abondon creationism as a hypothesis? Are not weak hypotheses abandoned all the time in science for those that become strong and provable? If so, and if there is undeniable and vast amounts of evidence proving that the universe was created not from a hypothetical superbeing but rather from a hypothetical explosion, could not science safely abandon the false god hypothesis? If science had no evidence for a god, then it would only be scientifically “prudent” for it to abandon that theory, and thus, till further notice, I conclude that god is athiestic. I do not “believe” there is no god, I am indeed quite certain that there is no god. That doesn’t mean I’m right, but such uncertainty does not make me an agnostic. I know, scientifically, that there is no god in as much as I know I exist, and that you and I are having this conversation. All of that might be false, philosophically. Scientifically it’s true. Science is not agnostic.

          • John

            Should read: “… and thus, I conclude that science is athiestic.” Not: “…god is athiestic.” I really do need to proof more.

          • heinrich66

            Should read: “… I’m an idiot who gets overheated. I have strong opinions on things I know nothing about.”

          • John

            Oh. Ouchy.

          • Jin The Ninja

             in response to your above where you stated,” we’ve been talking circles around each other for a while now…”

            Well actually, you ‘got PWNED’ as they say, and heinrich is talking about  epistemological history and from where that knowledge it is derived, not about creationism and religion as you keep positing. More simply, he’s running circles around your pedantic anti intellectual arguements .

          • heinrich66

            Your mistake here is to confuse belief with certainty. Belief is a subjective thing, while ‘certainty’ has an objective meaning. It means a position cannot possibly be changed or superceded. Atheist-fundamentalists are desperate to make science into a matter of belief. But science exists independently of the beliefs of individual scientists like Dawkins. It’s a methodology. It doesn’t have ‘beliefs’.

          • John

            You are a fool. Nothing in what I wrote indicates any confusion or misunderstanding of belief and certainty. How absurd. I did not once use the term ‘belief’ in my debate with you. I said “beileive” and I did so in quotes, and I used it exactly in order to express flawed subjective ‘believing’. But obviously you are trying to distract from the real debate because you have nothing left to win in this argument except, perhaps, simantics. The word being misunderstood here (by you) is ‘atheism’. Athiesm is not a faith. It is, for those who subscribe to it, a scientific theory. To an atheist, the belief (faith) in a god is no certainty nor theory, but rather a fatally flawed man-made attempt to explain the unknown through superstition. You claim there is such a thing as an atheist-fundamentalist, but that is logically absurd. Fundamentalists in religion have to have great faith. Scientists who strongly subscribe to the theory of atheism have to (and do) have strong evidence. To place atheism in the same category as religion and to treat it like one is an old debate tactic used by the religious. Atheism by it’s definition is the opposite, and in a completely different category. It is derived not from faith, but from scientifically confirmable evidence, just as evolution and the shape of the Earth are. 

          • heinrich66

            How funny that you call science atheist, and yet you talk about a “theory of atheism”. Here’s a little crash course for you: the reason why something is called a ‘theory’ is because it isn’t certain. Got that? Science might theorize that there is no God because there is no scientific evidence. But if God appeared tomorrow, and the ‘data’ changed, science would adjust and offer up a theory of theism. In other words: science may advocate a theory of atheism at a given moment. But science itself as a methodology is always agnostic. 

            Who’s the fool now? After you bone up on how to spell basic English words, why don’t you hop back on here and spout off some more drivel, you expert on science and the scientific method.

          • John

            So, you’re saying science simply can’t know anything? There can be no certainty that the Earth is not flat? There can be no certainty that 2+25 and there can be no certainty that your heavenly superbeing did not create the world? But you have a somewhat useful, if not quite innane debating point if you’re a creationist. You’re not as much a fool as you are a troll. Or am I wrong? I don’t mind. Try me. Prove you’re not a god-fearing troll. If your god appears tomorrow, I’ll be flippin her the bird for all the shit she’s pulled over the millenia. But, you’re right. This abandoned “theory of everything” as held by the superstitious will makes fools of the rest of us. I’m really not concerned. 

          • heinrich66

            Har. You’re still confusing belief and certainty. A reasonable person might reasonably believe at this point that the earth is round; that evolution is the better theory than creationism; even that there is no God. But that’s a person. A person ‘believes’. Science is not a person. It neither believes nor disbelieves. Its conclusions are always tentative pending evidence to the contrary. Science has a de facto position, and this is *uncertainty*. It’s built into the scientific method. 

            Science has gotten this far because it has been very careful to stick to its uncertainty. It always calling out for more evidence. But today, as our society is apparently collapsing, even individual scientists feel the need to come before the public and politicize science: declare that atheism is a scientific ‘certainty’, etc. etc.

          • John

            Hey. I get it. I got it already.And we’ve beeningtalking circles around each other for awhile. My comprehensionof “certainty” and the lack thereof in scienceis not failing. However (and I’ll say it only one more time), sciencedoes continue down certain theoretical paths based on relative certainty. Earth is round = let’s go with it! Fossil evidence offers strong relative certaintyu that it wasn’t a superbeing in 7 days. And the utter lack of evidence for a god should bring those who do understand scientific methodto a relatively strong conclusion and a relatively certain path to follow. Instead 90% of the world believesin following superstitious belief. People like Dawkins (be he a twat in your eyes) is fighting through debate that scientific methodcan and should bring us  to greater worldwide moralityby casting away old (superstitious) paths to follow, which have led the world over and again, to ugliness. To believe in a god is not to believe in a scientific theory. If such thoughtwere abandoned, we might sooner find a solutions to poverty,starvation, the spread of HIV and global warming (don’t!).

          • heinrich66

            Yep. I;m not going to type into a box one character wide.

          • John

            A
            m
            e
            n

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shilley-Walker/100002156377411 Shilley Walker

            not to split hair because you are obviously intelligent, but i think your definition of a scientific theory is inaccurate. a theory is esentially fact. first we hypothosize to question, then we test, and then we repear the test, and if we always get the same result it becomes a theory. this is not the same as when someone has a “hunch” and we call that a theory. this isnt a murder investigation. its the scientific process and the theory of evolution means we can add to it but it can no longer be disproven because there is an overwhelming amount of proof. that being said, the more i learn about physics and biology (and i know a considerable amount) i still believe in a higher power because we still have a whole lot we cannot explain.

          • heinrich66

            Your comment: theory is essentially fact. Enough said.

        • Dukenukemdan

           I don’t know though man, I do agree that twat is the right word for Dawkins.  However in The God Delusion he goes into great detail and convincingly so describing how science must and is inherently atheist.  On the other hand, just remember, theist, atheist and agnostic are all human philosophical standpoints, is it really fare to categorize them along with natural studies.  I’m not really proposing a standpoint as much as I’m just posing a question.  I believe that (and someone put it more eloquently) If all knowledge were to be lost, both physically and mentally in the world, of religion, science, history.  The only true thing we would find again would be science, and that makes it atheist.  Plus something or other about snakes not meaning anything.

          • heinrich66

            Agnosticism can be defined a lot of different ways. As regards Science, agnosticism means: without ultimate certainty. Every conclusion that is reached by Science has to be tentative *in principle*. In practice, it’s a different story. In practice, I as an individual can believe *with certainty* that the earth is round. But for Science, even this idea has to be held pending evidence to the contrary.

            How can this be? Think about it. We don’t even have evidence of the *ultimate* reality of the external world. The stress here is on *ultimate*. Sure, I can punch the wall, break my fist, and use that as evidence of the reality of the physical world. But all that could be an illusion. Descartes talks about this in one of this Meditations when he wonders whether the reality of everything — even his thoughts — might be a charade put on by some evil genie.

            It’s no coincidence that Descartes stands at the start of what we now call ‘Science’. Science thrives in uncertainty. Science collects more and more evidence, comes up with the ‘best fit’, a snapshot of all the evidence at any given moment. *In principle* the whole picture could be upended. And in the history of science, it has before. So Science is *agnostic*: nothing can ultimately proved. But it’s because of this that *evidence* is so important. Not because evidence equals ultimate certainty — but because evidence is all we have. Otherwise we fall into total paranoia and falsehood and run around pissing our pants. 

            When it comes to Dawkins, this is why he’s such a twat. Deep in Dawkins’ mind, it’s payback time when it comes to science and religion. He thinks: Science was persecuted in the past, now it’s religion’s turn! Dawkins says Science is atheistic just because a bunch of individual scientists are atheists (himself included). But he also wants the world to be atheistic. It’s obvious that he wants to convert people to atheism (using the authority of Science) just like a fundamentalist. But the idea that science is atheistic when by definition science can’t have any ultimate certainty on the question is — bullshit.

          • ork ork

             regardless of any of that bullshit you just spouted, the only thing you are saying is you are not an atheist. your opinion is poorly explained and not really compelling. fuck off.

          • ork ork

             if you’re agnostic, an agnostic arguing with an atheist is fucking retarded by the way, i suggest killing yourself. if you think religion deserves to be defended you’re the twat.

          • heinrich66

            Did you just comment on yourself? Does that mean you clicked ‘Like’ for yourself, too? 

            If somebody said on June 21, 2032 it was going to rain in Tahiti, an agnostic would say: “Really? How do you know?”You’d say: “Fuck off! It either will or it won’t.”

            Congratulations on being a fundamentalist. Your position is not “compelling”.

          • John

            Despite ork ork’s rudeness, I stand by his side. You are obviously not an atheist, and your opinion is poorly explained; no: your logic fails completely. You say yourself that science can have no ultimate certainty. You say nothing has ultimate certainty, including the Earth being round. You correctly reference Descarte in the process. Yet you call an atheistic scientist a fundamentalist and say that science can’t be atheistic because nothing is certain. You are so full of the bullshit you try to prove that it is really almost comic. Atheism is as certain/uncertain as the reality that if you smashed your head through a wall it might hurt you and entertain the rest of us.  heinrich hat wohl nicht alle Schrauben noch. 

          • heinrich66

            Well done. Your comment boils down to “You are so full of bullshit”. Like chimpanzees in the jungle, everything for you is either/or. But wait: I said ‘chimpanzee’: does that mean I am for evolution? Against it? Call your church group.

          • John

            Perhaps my comment boils down to “you are full of bs,” but my logic boils down to  your fallacy. You have yet to continue your debate. Instead you concentrate on chimpanzees and subjective simantics. But now that we’ve stooped so low, really? “For” or “against” evolution? It becomes clearer and clearer with every passing exchange that you are scared of those who understand exactly what your faith in god is: a desperate, fatally flawed, and unscientific human attempt to ease your fear of the unkown. Science indeed can and does explain the human ability (and need) to believe in the supernatural. 

        • Hawkwind50

           Sorry, this is how it really goes:
          Science= Show me proof.
          Atheist=Show me proof.
          They use the same method of determining the real from the unreal. Nothing in there about a creator no creator.

          • John

            Agnostic: Don’t bother showing me; I can’t decide no matter how much evidence you bring on.

  • Malk

    “No Americans will watch this video.” Lol, I love it.
    I’ll be interested in watching this when I get home, but I left America a long time ago. Less than 1% might as well be called none though really. That or they’ll skip to the final comment with a cigarette in their right hand and a coffee in their left.

    • Anti_Secret_Squirrel

      I will leave America soon also.  You probably left for the same reason I will.  There are no stable jobs here, society/culture here has been dumbed down, and why not move somewhere else where people share the same opinion of American society/culture (or lack thereof).  You could take every freedom away here in America but you better not try to take our guns, fossil fuels, drugs, and consumerist crap (well I am speaking for the southern US). LOL

      • Malk

         ya i lost the ability to get guns and drugs really really easy, but i have full health insurance for the first time ever in my life, make more money than i ever had in my life, live in a bigger place than i ever have, eat healthier both in home and out (due to the choices available to me, no taco bells in backwater Japan) and the women are fucking beautiful, but i digress i digress!

  • Haystack

    There’s an American *in* the video, dude. He’s, you know, the likable one. *grin*

  • Antediluvian

    People like Dawkins push a form of neo-enlightenment humanism centered on the sovereignty of the individual subject, which serves to neglect and obscure the economic and class forces behind subjectivity. Religion is conceived as a monolithic abstraction that exerts an external viral force on individual subjects, to which these subjects fall prey to due to their weakness or underdeveloped rationality. ‘Religion’ thus serves as a chimera that these humanists use to explain away all forms of oppression without drawing attention to the inherent structural injustice of capital.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      That’s because Dawkins is a capitalist through and through.

    • Josh

       The use of $10.00 words doesn’t advance your point at all. Your statements are impractical gibberish.

      • Lustxi

        You can look up those words for free in a dictionary you know.

    • Michelliberty

      Do you speak English!!!!! , you sound like an atheist  but its hard to say , do yourself and all of us a  favor  and  try NOT  to be so eloquent , because you come across a bit to loquacious
      and that’s  a bit pretentious  of you.

      • You are fucking stupid. 

      • Andrew

        That’s horrible advice.

    • That guy

      I think borrowing from Billy Madison will serve nicely: “what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

      Seriously, though, all you had to say was this: “I think Dawkins tries to label all of humanity’s problems on religion.  However, there are many evils that don’t inherently come from a belief in a god.  Greed is one of these evils, and it is caused by a corrupted system of ownership in which we mistakenly give power and influence to those who own a lot of things.”  Occam’s razor isn’t always applicable, but in this case, I think it really is.

    • Max Power

       I think it’s important to use language that can be received
      by the intended audience. Antediluvian’s comment could be using the most
      affective language for scholars in some philosophy field but certainly not on a
      general forum on the internet. Even in the above video, both Richard Dawkins
      and Neil deGrasse Tyson try and use accessible language to explain complex subjects
      (that is what makes them so well liked in the first place).
      Although it may not be totally accurate, here is my translation of Antediluvian’s comment
      written in a way that more people can understand.
      “People like Dawkins push an ideology that neglects to look at how
      economics and class affect an individual’s worldview. Religion is conceived as
      a singe abstract idea that acts as virus, infecting weak and stupid people’s
      views on the world. ‘Religion’ thus serves as a mythical concept that people
      such as Dawkins use to explain away all forms of oppression. This is done
      without drawing attention to the real issue of how injustices in economics and
      class affect perception.”

    • Antediluvian

      I think it’s interesting how the obvious butthurt Dawkinsians on here ( or just ‘New Atheists’ in general ) either focuss on the vocabulary of my post, which somehow makes the content of it invalid, or suppose that by me being not his cheerleader I must be religious, therefore my point, whatever it may be, must be bullshit.  Nice fallacies there, fencers of logic and reason.

      • Anti-Crowley

         They were upset that they didn’t understand your post.  Immediately they felt stupid, encountered the cognitive dissonance brought about by their perceiving themselves to be intelligent, then concluded that you must have done something wrong.  Don’t be to hard on them, to some education can be a painful process.

    • joe

       What an adorable comment. But you are right, even if you sound like a douchebag who’s never left his GA office.

    • ork ork

       17 people can’t identify someone talking out of their ass on the internet. just come out and endorse the bible already you ignoramus.

    • heinrich66

      The jargon doesn’t bother me. But the point is nonetheless misguided. Dawkins isn’t really neo-Enlightenment. He’s pushing for a model of science-as-dogma, not science-as-inquiry. He’s an advocate for Science with a capital ‘S’ — which means the culture of scientists with all its prejudices — at the expense of the scientific method, which is agnostic, not atheistic. For these reasons, he’s pretty clearly *anti-Enlightenment*. He’s a throwback, a kind of highbrow British absolutist, an anti-religious fundamentalist.

      You have a point when it comes to the idea that science is some otherworldly thing that doesn’t arise out of human class conditions and social struggle. How much of the grant money that goes into the pursuit of science in the U.S comes from either corporations that exploit or the military which promotes imperialism? There aren’t many scientists refusing funding today for reasons of conscience. By the same token, a lot of the wondrous new technology brought to us today by science is also brought to us courtesy of crippling Chinese labor conditions, etc. So you’re right: it’s easier for science to focus on religion as a bogeyman than it is to admit it’s own hands are dirty, too.

  • Anti_Secret_Squirrel

    I am American and I watched this video. I am sad though that there are people who are currently graduated from college with science, engineering, and math degrees and they have no idea who Tyson or Hawking or Dawkins is.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      I always had a split opinion on Dawkins. I mean, as a person, he is not likable in the least, but years ago, I did sit down and read some of his books, and he does have some good ideas. These only happen to be when he’s speculating on evolutionary biology though. His religious crusade is a waste of time.

  • Anti_Secret_Squirrel

    I love the fact that Tyson is very down to Earth and likes to make things more interesting by using some comedic relief! Most scientist I know personally or famous ones seem to have a stick up their ass.

  • yes

    aha tyson loves his movies

  • Hayes

    Who is to criticize either of these men? Are you that high above them that you can look down upon them and cast judgement.

  • Anti_Secret_Squirrel

     Very excellent point!

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I found their response to the philosophy professor’s question at 1:02:47 very depressing. I never realized the disdain scientists had for philosophers….

    • Lustxi

      Good catch! Yeah. Philosophy is the rational basis for valid criticisms of the worldview they’re selling. Of course they’re going to be dismissive of it.

      • devoutatheist

        Just curious, what worldview are they selling? That of reality? Or are you talking about the politics of science? Of course there is politics involved, but science keeps trudging along to the truth. Everything is already out there, it just needs to be uncovered. Philosophers more or less are just the bumpers that keep science on the course.

        • Lustxi

          They’re not selling reality. They’re selling a particular interpretation of reality, and they’re claiming that anybody who disagrees with them is doing so from a standpoint of superstition and irrationality. That particular interpretation of reality conveniently privileges them and the cultural institutions they like while delegitimizing the people and cultural institutions they dislike. Google scientism or positivism. Try to understand that these viewpoints are not new, and that rational people have been arguing about them for a very long time. I think critics of positivism like Nietzsche had the positivists number over a hundred years ago. A lot of the assumptions that Dawkins and friends make aren’t so common sense as they appear when you start turning over rocks and really looking into this stuff.  
          I’ll agree that to the extent that right wing assholes have used religious justifications to make life worse for the rest of us I think Dawkins and friends have given them the thrashing they so richly deserve. But we shouldn’t let this get in the way of our being skeptical of the skeptics, and in the case of Dawkins and the New Atheists there is a lot to be skeptical of.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      Yeh philosophy is a science. Philosophy often sets the direction for which the physical sciences should go. These men really have no idea.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Philosophy is the last remaining tether to the reality that is cast aside in favor of purely reductionist rationalism. I was taken aback and completely unaware that that tether may already be broken in mainstream scientific thinking.

    • mannyfurious

      Yeah, Hawking and some other lesser-known guy wrote a book about how science represented the death of philosophy. What was funny (ironic?) about it was that they were engaging in a philosophical practice to dismiss philosophy (stating a point, defending that point) and doing it rather poorly. Basically, they were practicing shitty philosophy to denounce philosophy. I kept thinking that this was just a multi-layered joke they were playing on the reader, but when I got to the end of the book, I realized they were deadly serious, and I couldn’t decide whether I should feel sorry for a genius like Hawking who couldn’t even see the fallacy of the entire thing or annoyed that a bunch of fundamentalist scientists were going to whack off all over the book and claim that science was the only truth to the world. 

      • JMH

         You, sir, are my new hero. Seriously.
        I have been trying to make that point for years, and there you go and do it, simply, in a universally understandable manner. You have made me, for the first time, feel that “too smart for my own good” is a bad thing. *tip hat* Thank you.

    • Anon

      I didn’t find Tyson’s response to be disdainful of philosophers.  I found it to be more about the fact that the role of philosophy has changed and that philosophers no longer make material contributions to the thinking of physical scientists.  If anyone were able to refute that point they would’ve, but the fact is that philosophers no longer make those contributions to the natural sciences. Of course in the past they set the foundation, but with rules (physical rules) now fairly established and in place the type of theorizing that can be done without any training in science is extremely limited.  Philosophers of science still contribute mightily to the social sciences who largely need that extra guidance and foundation because of the lack of physical rules governing human interaction with each other and the environment.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        No, it’s pretty disdainful. The first thing he says is that philosophers no longer have a material contribution, as if that was the point of philosophy’s value in the first place. The value of knowledge for the sake of knowledge (which is what i had always seen science and philosophy both had in common) is gone in the minds of scientists. It requires material value over more abstract concepts of worth.

        Give it a few centuries or millennia, and we’ll start hearing about great “technologists” claiming, that science no longer has value because it lacks material gains, unlike us great “technologists”. This despite technology getting all it has due to the diligence of scientific thinking.

        Scientists got where they are from the diligence of philosophers of ages past, and are now casting the grounding framework aside like a rebelling kid ignoring good advice from a parent simply because they didn’t buy them that toy.

        We don’t need philosophers to tell us the physical rules, that’s what the scientist’s are there to discover. The philosophers are there to understand how we should relate to those rules, and we are gradually losing this. Do you really think discoveries in evolution for example have no philosophical implications on how we live?

        The scientists are the players in a baseball game, and the philosophers are the guys that teach the players about sportsmanship. Sportsmanship doesn’t win you games(material value), but can you really say it has no value?

        • Lockfunk

           it is uniquely depressing to slowly realize that we, as the
          self-appointed enlightened thinkers of our time, are really little more
          than the petulant, colicky children of older and very-slightly-less-wise
          petulant and colicky adults, all too willing to divide human
          civilization into easily identifiable groups.  you all know that none of
          this matters?  we hoard this information and these viewpoints,
          categorizing them relentlessly to distract ourselves from our inevitable
          deaths and the inevitable fizzling of mankind/civilization/earth
          itself/the universe. 

          if in 10,000 years “technologists” really are esteemed over scientists,
          theists and philosophers, then 10,000 years after that another group
          will hold the reigns…or the earth will be scorched and lifeless.  so
          scramble about little mice, squeak and squawk over these incomplete
          knowledge crumbs in the fraction of a blink of time you have been
          given. 

          • Lockfunk

            it does not come as much of a surprise that the underlying thread here becomes england v. america: the only two countries self-inflated enough to boil down an eons-old philosophy v. religion v. science discussion to a pissing contest between outdated mid-century one-time “super”powers.  avoid it all you want, that will only make the umpteenth fall of rome more unbearable.

            also, a note to anyone who has ever offered their opinion anywhere:

            all the people who you influence with your drivel, and all those whom they influence, and on and on until the end of time, will eventually die without the answers we are currently seeking right now.

            solution:  there isnt one. instead, go do something RIGHT NOW, outside.  but do not delude yourself into thinking it will be important.  no matter what you do, it will not be.  have fun!

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Haha, you’re mighty cynical aren’t you. Things are only as meaningless as you believe them to be.

            However for me, thanks to denial, I’m Immortal!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shilley-Walker/100002156377411 Shilley Walker

            you sit and say as you offer your OPINION on things…

          • Lockfunk

             is there an alternative to eventual death?  if so, then my comments may be called opinions, otherwise they are known as facts.  i will die, you will die, and many many years from then when we’re both long forgotten the sun will explode.  which part of that is my opinion?

  • Calypso_1

    Large Hardon Collider – The implications for the origins of the universe are astounding.

  • Anarcho-Transhumanist

    I only started the video to prove the poster of the video incorrect, and I’m actually enjoying it quite a lot.

  • Charles

    This was awesome, any chance to hear Neil speculate on the Universe and the possibilities it contains and the wonder of it all is always a treat. Also I am an American and i find the assumption in your sub-title offensive sir.

  • Jesus Borg

    I liked him better when he was banging Mr. Garrison

  • Jonathanpena89

    HOWARD UNIVERSITY REPRESENT!!! 

  • Kyle Jeremiah Larson

    I love the ocean analogy, makes me aware that we are all still living in pre columbus times

  • Jlschreib

    Neil Tyson: “The Most Astounding Fact” = inspirational. His ability to vocalize the concepts of astrophysics clearly and to a level that everyone can understand is fantastic. I’m not going to pretend that I’m super intelligent, but I still ponder about the universe. 

    Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion = interesting. As an atheist I can agree with Dawkins on some things, but not all. 

    Hhmm *points to self* born and raised in Wisconsin. Where is this conference taking place? Everyone in the audience sound American to me. Just saying… Anyways, I enjoyed this video very much. 

    “who are we to assert that we are remotely intelligent compared to alien species or the other animals of earth.” 

    “Can we use ourselves as the measure of intelligence?”

    “It shouldn’t be too far out to suggest that aliens will turn out to be humanoid-like.” 

    “Exploration of space leads to spin-offs like non-stick frying pans” (haha!)

  • carl

    I’m an American, and I have watched this video. Suck it.

  • TAO’Shneazee

    Who says that no Americans will watch this video?!

  • Michelliberty

    I find  Mr Dawkins  quite informative and extremely knowledgeable , he is  NOW the man to follow now that Christopher hitchens  as past away .

    • Jin The Ninja

      the fact that an atheist needs a “NOW Man” is quite disturbing. 

      • Monkey See Monkey Do

        Also that they need someone to follow.

        • Jin The Ninja

          that was the implication.

  • Itstf

    Wrong about American.  No Albanians will watch this.

  • Nowamfound

    I’m an American and I watched it, and found the discussion riveting.

    • Jmmiller79

       Holy crap!  You are an American!?  Tell us more!    

      • Adam Nicholson

        So sarcastic you must be English xD if your not you would play a good one :D

      • Deadkarkus

         “No Americans will watch this video.” is right below the title

      • Lockfunk

         why do you have to be so condescending?  clearly Jmmiller79′s comment was in response to the tagline of this video and was one of the only comments in this thread to not offer an indefensible stance.  the video clearly was riveting, thus the resulting multitude of discussion.  unneccessary anger and antagonism

  • aperfectcircle

    i don’t understand why you would say “americans” will NOT watch this video.

  • John

    Thanks for posting this. I watch this sort of wonderful stuff all the time. I spend most of my free time contemplating such ideas and trying to understand 1.) the vast amount of scientific knowledge available to me, and 2.) the inability of most people to contemplate a world without a god. I am an American. It is not surprising that an American might watch this. What is sadly surprising is how loudly a large minority of Americans is showing the world how stupid and fanatic they are. Thank you again for posting this. I would have found it without you. Please consider supporting the America and the Americans who continue to use there minds, yet do not know how to overcome the loud, extreme, fanatic, religious, freak group that is currently defining us (horribly inaccurately) for the rest of the world. Please support the thinkers over here. Clumping us all into the same category of stupidity kills those of us who think. 

  • Jmac

    I will take Rodney Mckay over Tyson any day. At least he is better than Nye.  Also an American.  I would like to point out to all those that are going to hate, what are you going to do about it?  Leave? Cause that makes it better.  Every time. No that will work I believe you.

  • Mdavis

    intelligent Americans  understand the concept, now stop the generalization.  The world is a unit, countries only utilize the culture… An open minded human being will accept the culture yet seek further in to the world.

  • Pickledsailor

    Rohohohoho

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t read all comments, but did anyone else notice how Neil deGrasse seemed a little patronizing towards Richard Dawkins?

  • Randomity

    These two are awesome

21