1. Comment #38284 by Eureka Step on May 7, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Forget intellectual tomes - this says it all.

Nice.

Other Comments by Eureka Step

2. Comment #38285 by richmondjon on May 7, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I and my friends Grandpop,Cheeta and King Kong loved it.

Other Comments by richmondjon

3. Comment #38287 by don malvado on May 7, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Banana. Now.

Other Comments by don malvado

4. Comment #38294 by Ev3nt H0riz0n on May 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm

This is an old classic and it has won many awards. I'm actually surprised it wasn't already posted here.

Other Comments by Ev3nt H0riz0n

5. Comment #38298 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 7, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Excellent:-) Those really are some messed up monkeys.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

6. Comment #38299 by BT Murtagh on May 7, 2007 at 12:53 pm

WE ARE NOT MONKEYS!!!

We're apes, dagnabit.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

7. Comment #38301 by JemyM on May 7, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Bananas was created for monkeys >_<

Other Comments by JemyM

8. Comment #38302 by Rtambree on May 7, 2007 at 1:03 pm

It's the executive summary of Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.

If you can't read the book, watch this video

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #38313 by sane1 on May 7, 2007 at 1:25 pm

NICE!!!

I think I'll go read Discover magazine.

Other Comments by sane1

10. Comment #38317 by Mash on May 7, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I laughed. I feel pretty dumb laughing whilst being alone, but I had to.
"That's all pretty impressive... for a bunch of monkies"
Just great.

Other Comments by Mash

11. Comment #38326 by RickM on May 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Monkeys? And all this time I thought we were apes.

Other Comments by RickM

12. Comment #38330 by maton100 on May 7, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Planet of the apes.

Other Comments by maton100

13. Comment #38348 by jonahemery on May 7, 2007 at 8:48 pm

What I wanna know is when we stopped picking each other for bugs. ;)

Other Comments by jonahemery

14. Comment #38350 by BT Murtagh on May 7, 2007 at 9:08 pm

You stopped?

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

15. Comment #38380 by Roy_H on May 7, 2007 at 11:27 pm

I saw some comments on another website relating to that horrific murder of that 17 year old girl by stoning in Iraq. One comment read "They are just monkeys in pants". Actually I found it very insulting.... to the monkeys!

Other Comments by Roy_H

16. Comment #38392 by Henri Bergson on May 8, 2007 at 1:11 am

Humans are certainly not the only animals that hate each other – lefty.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

17. Comment #38393 by Henri Bergson on May 8, 2007 at 1:13 am

And it's pronounced "Nee-chu," not "Nee-chee"! Get an education.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

18. Comment #38408 by Robert on May 8, 2007 at 3:17 am

I don't know how many times I've had to make this point - we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, as do the other apes

Other Comments by Robert

19. Comment #38410 by Jiten on May 8, 2007 at 3:30 am

You're wrong Bergson.It's Nee-che not Nee-chu.Get yourself a PROPER education!

Other Comments by Jiten

20. Comment #38414 by jomo87 on May 8, 2007 at 3:46 am

I'm not so sure it's nee-che or nee-chu, though both of those phneticizations are a little ambiguous, to be fair. Here's how it should sound, with the last vowel being a schwa:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/pron/N0100100.wav

Does anyone know the name of the song used in this excellent piece? I know I know it, and it's really bugging me!

Other Comments by jomo87

21. Comment #38416 by Jiten on May 8, 2007 at 3:50 am

To all those literal-minded,pedantic dullards who keep harping on about this: We fucking know we're not monkeys.Just allow some poetic licence.Who on this site do you imagine doesn't know this?

Other Comments by Jiten

22. Comment #38422 by MAS2007 on May 8, 2007 at 4:09 am

Probably time to sterilize the petrii dish of the ape decedent infestation and start over.

Other Comments by MAS2007

23. Comment #38429 by k1mgy on May 8, 2007 at 4:44 am

Brilliant, but I disagree that "lower" forms of consciousness fail to seek out "happiness". Perhaps it's so that every form of life does, and with happiness measured in survival and the joy of the moment?

Perhaps the difference as manifested by humans is that our level of awareness has, for those with the intelligence and wherewithal, allowed access to enormous destructive power.

The question "How could you be so stupid as to ram an airplane into a skyscraper?" answers itself. When one battles religion, one is also battling ignorance. So I think that the battle undertaken here, and in other places, is under the title Atheism, yet is just as much a battle against ignorance.

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." goes the aphorism. I've avoided both, however the bottle is not a bad idea. Mostly, living in a sea of stupidity is annoying, but there are occasions it becomes overwhelmingly depressing. Countering it is sometimes exhausting and I wonder sometimes if it's worth the candle.

Other Comments by k1mgy

24. Comment #38437 by blackmath on May 8, 2007 at 5:12 am

Just to repeat the above:

apes not monkeys

nee-ch not nee-chee

Other Comments by blackmath

25. Comment #38441 by themanchoo on May 8, 2007 at 5:32 am

jomo87 - it sounds like the Penguin Cafe Orchestra, but I couldn't be sure the name of the tune.

Other Comments by themanchoo

26. Comment #38444 by Boogie on May 8, 2007 at 5:50 am

Irrespective of the apes 'error', and the pronounciation of 'Nietzsche', it's still a great video. Perhaps we should all show it to our children.

And yes, it's "Music for a Found Harmonium" by the Penguin Cafe Orchestra, as it states in the credits.

Other Comments by Boogie

27. Comment #38446 by Sam94720 on May 8, 2007 at 5:56 am

We all know the proper classification, we are apes, not monkeys. But "monkeys" just sounds way funnier, don't you agree? "These are some messed up apes" - boring. "These are some messed up monkeys" - hilarious! It's not a scientific paper, it's poetry.

I find the comments of the "Nee-chee vs. Nee-chu" kind a bit saddening. Lots of great texts and videos are posted here, but somehow people always find a little fragment of a sentence, a single word or even just a pronunciation to argue about and these issues then dominate the dicussion. Shouldn't we focus on the main message and direct our attention to the important issues?

Other Comments by Sam94720

28. Comment #38451 by Phaderus on May 8, 2007 at 6:17 am

I agree completely, we shouldn't be arguing about pronunciation.

BTW, it's pronounced "Nietzsche", duh.

If you are still unsure, just imagine that your are a 19th century German monkey and then the pronunciation should be obvious.

Other Comments by Phaderus

29. Comment #38536 by jomo87 on May 8, 2007 at 2:11 pm

themanchoo and Boogie - thanks, I was certain I knew the tune, and I have heard of that before! I guess I'm a a bit of an idiot for not bothering to wait until the credits to post, though... :p

Other Comments by jomo87

30. Comment #38623 by themanchoo on May 8, 2007 at 7:37 pm

jomo87 - I'm guity of the same! I just stopped it when it said The End.

Other Comments by themanchoo

31. Comment #38880 by paulcaira on May 9, 2007 at 11:33 am

I have my problems with this. I think it's excellent in its way, but part of the problem I find with theists and others is that they say things like 'What you think we're JUST a bunch of monkeys/collection of chemicals/set of replicators' etc, and imply that the reductionism reduces us. I usually reply that the word JUST isn't justified. We're not JUST a bunch of chemicals, we are exactly the kind of bunch of chemicals which went to the moon, wrote Shakespeare's plays, the symphonies of Mozart, and are capable of deep and complex emotions and thoughts.

So we're not just a bunch of monkeys. Or apes. We're homo sapiens. And we are special, in lots of important and objectively measurable ways. It's just that that doesn't mean there's a God.

Other Comments by paulcaira

32. Comment #39168 by rusure on May 10, 2007 at 5:50 am

Sorry, guys (American usage), but I'm afraid I found this video cringe-inducingly lightweight. It seems to be aimed at people with a mental age of about 12. "Forget intellectual tomes - this says it all." "It's the executive summary of Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sagan's Pale Blue Dot." I hope you're wrong. I really do. Because if you're right, we're in deep trouble. I've been an atheist for over thirty years now, so don't feel the need to read "The God Delusion" and the rest. However, like most people, I've seen Richard Dawkins on TV numerous times and heard him numerous times on the radio, and there's no doubt that his intellect soars way way above this flat-footed stuff. And you tell us that this minor piece "has won many awards". If I were a believer, I'd be inclined to say "God help us!"

Other Comments by rusure

33. Comment #39369 by rusure on May 10, 2007 at 12:28 pm

In my crabby irritation with earlier posters (Sorry! I'm getting old and my capacity for sympathy is running out), I failed to take account of a preceding post before barging in with my own minor contribution. This was rude of me. Paul Caira said: "We're not JUST a bunch of chemicals, we are exactly the kind of bunch of chemicals which went to the moon, wrote Shakespeare's plays, the symphonies of Mozart, and are capable of deep and complex emotions and thoughts... It's just that that doesn't mean there's a God." Exactly. Exactly. Thank goodness for people like you. I whinged but you hit the nail on the head. I take my hat off to you.

Other Comments by rusure

34. Comment #39447 by John Phillips on May 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I think those criticising it for using the term monkey instead of ape are missing the point. Which is that it was the creationists themselves, such as during the Stopes trial, who originally used the term monkey instead of ape. I assume this was done, at least from what I have read and seen of subsequent use of the term by them, as a means of making it appear even more farcical to their core audience. Thus our use of the term in this context is even more ironic than if we used the correct term of ape.

Other Comments by John Phillips

35. Comment #39523 by blackmath on May 11, 2007 at 3:58 am

You say 'tomayto', I say 'tomaahto'

You say 'nee-ch' I say 'nee-chee'

You say 'ape', I say 'monkey'

You say 'monkey', I say 'baboon'

You say 'baboon', I say 'balloon'

And this planet is run by a bunch of balloons!

Other Comments by blackmath

36. Comment #39607 by paulcaira on May 11, 2007 at 9:22 am

rusure: Thanks very much, but I'd be very surprised if I hadn't, at some subconscious level, cribbed it from Richard.

Other Comments by paulcaira

37. Comment #39614 by ghostbuster on May 11, 2007 at 9:51 am

Well, during the evolution of sponges, when they developed the capacity to move, they also started to develop the capacity to fight, then evolve defenses and counter defenses, fighting over rocks. Isn't it comforting we have evolved so far along?

Other Comments by ghostbuster

38. Comment #39706 by HappyPrimate on May 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm

While the use of the term of monkeys may not be considered officially correct, this was so to the point of our arrogance of thinking we are special and apart from the natural world. I very much enjoyed the clip.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

39. Comment #39739 by Happy Hominid on May 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Rusure (comments 32 and 33) I just think maybe you're being a little over-analytical about it. I think we all get that it's sort of childish, but that's ok. There's a place for it. It's FUNNY... that's all. And along the way, makes a point that you can't always make with the strong, intellectual arguments of a Dawkins. You don't get through to everyone that way.

I've been an atheist for over 30 years as well and still greatly appreciative of The God Delusion. It obviously could do nothing to change anything about my point of view. But RD is ALWAYS a fascinating read and I learned a few new things I hadn't been aware of or given thought to.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

40. Comment #39762 by greg_m on May 11, 2007 at 9:44 pm

This is largely relativistic self-hating piffle that shows why some atheists are easy targets for hare-brained religious zealots.

"The monkeys make trophies and give them to other monkeys like it means something". Well yes, we'd like to think that human intellectual and artistic achievement is the very definition of 'meaning something', and recognising such achievement is part of a very meaningful human culture.

"Some of the monkeys read Nietzsche (which should be pronounced 'Neecha', by the way, not 'Neechy'), without realising that he was 'just another monkey". 'Just another monkey'? Relativism at its very worst. The creator of this clip is just another monkey; Nietzsche was a towering intellect with an immense gift for prose.

Other Comments by greg_m

41. Comment #39806 by greg_m on May 12, 2007 at 1:54 am

The correct pronunciation of 'Nietzsche' isn't the be all and end all, but at least knowing how to say it may avoid you sounding like a nonce if you ever discuss him with your fellow apes.

Click on the red speaker to hear the pronunciation:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=nietzsche

Other Comments by greg_m

42. Comment #40212 by catchy_nick on May 13, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Ok fellow monkeys. This video was not about putting the age old debate on the correct pronounciation of "Nietzsche", or whether or not we are the descendants of monkeys or apes, or a major contribution to religious theology. Watch it, laugh a little, and move on. Jesus Christ!!

Other Comments by catchy_nick

43. Comment #40214 by Bonzai on May 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm

The video makes the point that humans take ourselves too darn seriously. A number of posters who complain about the alleged intellectual shallowness of the clip and nitpick about the pronunciation of Nietzsche confirm the point. Lighten up!

Yeah, it may be more correct to say "apes" or "homo sapians", but I like monkeys, it has a nicer sound to it so what the hell.

Other Comments by Bonzai

44. Comment #40216 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 10:24 pm

The mispronounciation of Nietzsche reminds me of how American's pronounce Porsche as "Portia". Here in Oz we say "Por-sh". For the famed German philosopher with that giant ferret under his nose, downunder, we too say "Nee-cha!"

Of course, the monkey / ape thing is, to dreadfully mix my metaphors, another kettle of fish! We are talking a mistake in category, and it is a bit more important to get that right than a mere matter of pronounciation, I would have thought.

Than again, isn't it the case that in the French language they have no word to distinguish between the two?

I stand to be corrected, but that is what I have been told. If you have the same word for monkey and ape, it makes it hard to discuss what is a monkey and what is an ape. It would be like saying "What is the difference between a monkey and a monkey ?" Ditto the question for "ape". Maybe someone who knows a bit of French can clear that one up?

Other Comments by bouwe

45. Comment #40225 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Comment #38880 by paulcaira:

I have my problems with this. I think it's excellent in its way, but part of the problem I find with theists and others is that they say things like 'What you think we're JUST a bunch of monkeys/collection of chemicals/set of replicators' etc, and imply that the reductionism reduces us. I usually reply that the word JUST isn't justified. We're not JUST a bunch of chemicals, we are exactly the kind of bunch of chemicals which went to the moon, wrote Shakespeare's plays, the symphonies of Mozart, and are capable of deep and complex emotions and thoughts.

That's JUST what I say!!! Excellent and very important point, and it is the best way to respond when you encounter this "argument" from theists.

"So, you think we're JUST animals, are we?" the theist asks with indignance.

To reiterate paulcaira's point, everything that a human being is and has done and is capable of can be encompassed within the definition of human animal. Our imaginations, rational thoughts, our consciousness...it is all part of what the human animal is capable of. It is not diminished by simply coming to terms with your own animal heritage.

One could also respond by telling them that there is a gorilla called Koko who has been taught sign-language via symbols on a computer touch-screen. Is Koko "just" an animal? I would ask some fundies to perhaps get in contact with Koko over the internet and ask her a few questions. But then again, Koko has the intelligence-level of a three year old, so her responses might be a bit "over their heads". Koko probably wouldn't know how to respond to their first question: "Have you, Koko, accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour?"

Ditto for dolphins. I mean, can a fundy communicate using sonar? (Oh, sorry...maybe that is how they communicate to GOD!!??)

I hate it when theists talk about "the animals" as if they are not an animal themselves. Geez, what are you then? a PUFF OF SMOKE, perhaps? Just because someone ELSE invented the toilet, they sit on their Thrones and laugh at the idea of how "the animals" just poop on the ground.

As a social experiment, we should drop some fundies in a jungle somewhere, and see them come to terms with their own monkey heritage. I would ask these people to imagine if they had been brought up by a "pack of wolves" (if it were possible!). They wouldn't know what a dunny was and they wouldn't be smart enough to invent one, so they'd be crapping on the jungle floor like a monkey. They would be tearing animals apart and eating them raw, having never been introduced to the idea of cooking, let alone fire.

Unfortunately, I doubt that such "thought experiments" often occur to your average hand-clapping fundy. They think of themselves as demi-gods-on-earth.

Other Comments by bouwe

46. Comment #43175 by arctos on May 20, 2007 at 3:42 pm

How appropriate! Now, but how can the monkeys that are aware of their monkeyness persuade the deluded monkeys into accepting their monkeyness?

Cheers,

Other Comments by arctos

47. Comment #43466 by Raksha on May 21, 2007 at 2:31 pm

I get where the author is coming from but in terms of being an uplifting and successful way of selling atheism to the masses as a fulfilling um... well lack of ideology.
As has already been pointed out we're apes not monkeys - I agree that the seperation of us from animals is probably an immaterial distinction that is quite unhelpful though I still believe we are significantly different from even our closest relatives. I like the humour but I'm left feeling a little resentful that we have 'potential' but aren't fulfilling it. The environmental movement is about inspiring solutions not standing about throwing up our hands and saying 'aren't we stupid we're ruining the planet' and there are a significant number of people doing amazing things that are beyond what anyone ten years ago would have believed was the limit of our potential. They've designed a straw that when you suck water from any source purifies it and makes it drinkable, organisations are attempting to catalogue every species on the planet for the first time ever in one place - I'd say that's doing a lot for a bunch of monkeys.

Other Comments by Raksha

48. Comment #45659 by Alina on May 28, 2007 at 6:39 pm

As a German I can tell bouwe and anyone interested that most attempts of Americans, Australians and British people to say Nietzsche are inadequate and often quite hilarious, but the same goes for Descartes, Voltaire, voila, locus coeruleus, Euler (especially Euler) and probably any foreign name with more than one syllable. This can occasionally be really funny when I get reactions like "I knew that, but nobody else would understand if I said it correctly" or, from teachers, "The students need to know the spelling more than the pronunciation. Er, could you tell me how it is pronounced correctly?"

I'm sure we are not made (by evolution, to be precise) for pronouncing words of a foreign language correctly if we learn the word or language after a certain age. So if the English tell the Americans they don't pronounce it right (or vice versa) is really rather pointless.

As to the discussion whether Nietzsche was an ape or a monkey, he himself wouldn't have understood the debate.
The French only have the word singe and the Germans the term Affe. We say Menschenaffe (human-ape) when referring what you seem to call apes in contrast to monkeys, but not in common speech. Then of course in your language there are also the words simian and anthropoid, if you want to continue this some more, it seems to be amusing to many, even though I'm not sure why...

Other Comments by Alina

49. Comment #126209 by GBart on February 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Is that Teller at 1:20

Other Comments by GBart

50. Comment #129459 by MrPickwick on February 19, 2008 at 6:54 am

And monkeys make real cool monkey films!

Other Comments by MrPickwick