Andy Bannister vs Peter Singer • Do we need God to be good?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 ноя 2018
- For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show/
Atheist moral philosopher Peter Singer and Christian thinker Andy Bannister on 'Evolution, morality and being human: Do we need God to be good?'. They debate human rights, dignity, disability, the moral argument for God, suffering and much more.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation series:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward - • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Andy Bannister vs Peter Singer - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at
As an atheist I absolutely love Justin. He is by far my favorite theist interviewer. He treats us atheists with respect and comes across as genuine. Keep up the great interviews. I really enjoyed the dialogue between Peter and the theist. Peter is a brilliant thinker.
Singer is an absolute giant of a thinker, love his work.
These types of talks are way more interesting and fruitful than the exhausted "atheism vs Christianity" debates.
I agree with Peter Singer that a being’s dignity or worth is not predicated on membership to a specific species. Andy Bannister seems to believe it does and he never addressed this sufficiently.
Any Christian who thinks the thou shalt not murder was the very first law forbidding murder, is sadly mistaken.
Think it is a pity that Andy keeps trying to support his points through references to other philosophers etc. If he has a good point then it should stand on its own.
The constant attempted gotchas from Andy Bannister were a bit tiresome.
If God created morality, why didn’t He decide to make everything good so, that way nothing bad could happen? If life is a test, what is it a test for? Determining who goes to heaven and hell? And, what is the point of people going to those places? Why didn’t God set up the rules in a way where everyone could go to heaven, if that’s the best place for them to go?
The thiest is great at dancing around the questions presented by Peter. Wish he would actually answer the questions instead of deflecting.
I absolutely love the sincerely respectful way that Peter and Andy discuss ideas that they disagree about. They both clearly and confidently present their arguments, but neither of them seems motivated by "winning" the argument. They both seem to truly hear the other and have open minds that could be swayed or changed if they were to hear a sufficiently convincing argument or evidence. Far too often the participants in discussions or debates such as this one are extremely close-minded and exhibit an air of intellectual, moral, or spiritual superiority.
Great to watch this polite debate between Peter and Andy again. I like the way Peter cleared up some of the misconceptions Andy and Justin had about his views. It's not easy to find holes in the arguments of a philosophical heavyweight like him. He is logical, easy to understand and forceful.
Wonderfully pleasant discussion. This has been one of the least confrontational and positive conversations I've seen, debating such contentious ideas, in a long time. Well done!
Peter Singer is a wonderful writer and thinker. This was a superb discussion and I really enjoyed watching it.
Here's a few comments on why this is a useful discussion:
Justin is brilliant and very likable! I really appreciate his understanding the issues well enough to ask the most pertinent questions..... Kudos!
I thought it very wrong that Andy used Peter's mother in the discussion. I thought that though he apologised beforehand, that does not absolve him of trying to make a point in very poor judgement and indeed, the purpose of the apology was simply to enable him to bring the point out for discussion.
So refreshing to hear two respectful people who are well read, knowledgeable and thoughtful discussing controversial topics with respect and dignity. A complete role model for all the other screamers and head bangers out there. THANK YOU.
Thank you! :)
What a great discussion, salute to all participants!