Richard Dawkins didn't understand (or accept) that this (his) level of consciousness, is but one of many. Death of the body enables the human spirit to move on into another level of 'awareness' (or consciousness if you prefer). We are all part of the same eternal spirit which creates (has created) all that is. There are thousands of accounts relating to NDE's (Near Death experiences) (on You Tube) which illustrate (explain) the levels of consciousness we all (repeat ALL) experience when the physical body dies. Instead of merely denying (ignoring) this aspect of life, investigate this REALITY for a greater understanding of existence and consciousness. (And of course your own life !)
@@alexf1179 You exist. You are here . Now if you consider yourself more than a meaningless accident, you are part of this life (on earth) for a purpose.
I was eyeball deep in the Pentecostal religion for the first 37 years of my life. Then I came across Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Barker and Mr. Krauss. My eyes and mind were opened thanks to these great minds. They helped me obtain a peace I had never known. I will be forever grateful to and for them.
you live in a world that creates ourselves.... the search for knowlrdge ends with the journey keep the fires and adventure before the discovery ie. the end of the journey
I didn't have the patience to watch all except sir. Richard Dawkins. People of his stature should have been around in the panel. Thank you Richard Dawkins sir. Greetings from Tamil Nadu India.
We can see that Professor Richard Dawkins is intellectually three universes away from his fellow guests and that is why it pain us to witness, but he doesn't feel the same way and that is what makes him even greater.
Richard you are a true hero. Standing up for truth in a world that has gone mad and in a way that should be used as a template for rational thinking and debate. Defiant, eloquent, open, repectful, and educational. Thank you from the bottom of my heart
richard gives generously to make us seek the wisdom which was imparted to us by the greeks in their islan ds and athens the ancient greeks lived in the meditteranean valley the did not k now that geology in the past had drained their ocean 3 or 4 times by drying up millioons of years ago
Throughout humanity there has been madness, it's nothing new. There are reasons for madness. What is interesting is that there are reasons for virtually everything.
it´s hard to agree more, that´s exactly how i feel suffering through these clowns as well. gave everyone a fair shake with their initial statments but it´s just nonsense or meandering talking but saying nothing. i feel my time on earth beeing sucked out of me listening to these npcs, who sound like an ai wrote their dialogue. so skip to dawkins when possible for your own sanity
Postulate is his favourite word. 🤣. Apart from Richard Dawkins the others appear to be under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs as they are talking twaddle like a bunch of people in the pub after a few too many drinks.....Even the moderator of this debate is out of his depth.
Richard is correct; we are living creatures in the here and now, but when our bodies die and decay we are gone forever. So many people are unable to accept this . .
its the reality and its the truth hence this is why its sad and people fear. people fear what is real because reality doesn't care about your feeling and its usually harsh
Great minds say much with few words, it's part of why they are smart -- and really smart people say more on 1 page than in whole books (written by others).
My three take aways - The majesty of Richard Dawkin’s mind. The patience of Richard Dawkin’s the man. The failing of the host not to stop proceedings to straighten the puckered rug 😂
As someone who makes horror films here on youtube, i applaud dawkins for being so patient and sitting through an hour of what must be hell listening to magical thinking fools.
Against philosophy yes, Dawkins will win because he is the closest to science than anyone on that platform. Poor old Swinburne could have done better but he has aged to the point where he may not be fully aware of his weakening abilities. However, God is science, and not a simple God, but all mighty and powerful God, and these scientists would discipline Dawkins (some have already) showing him the actual truth: Dr. John Lennox, Professor David Kipping, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. Kent Kovind, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. Kevin Anderson, JUST to name a few. The fact is, no matter how much truth and fact and evidence, which are volumes upon volumes, showcasing that God, and The Bible, are true and accurate there is, most evolutionists and atheists don't want to know. It is not that they disagree after research, but that they wont listen due to their pre-existing biases and prejudices. Reason and wisdom and understanding and maturity will lead anyone who wants to know the truth, to the point that they will KNOW there MUST be a God who created all things and, that The Bible is accurate and factual. The evidence for creation is everywhere and Dawkins and every evolutionist know it. Your choice. "The Great Tribulation" will without fail soon come and you WILL know that it is due the worlds social and civil atmosphere. It's coming.
What a joy it is to see and hear Richard speak truthfully and eloquently about the deepest mysteries of life, consciousness, and the universe. The Poetry of Reality.
Yeah! But when it goes about the biology on sex and gender, he completely misses the ball and gets completely cognitive dissonant. Very pathetic for such a brilliant scientist.
@@janbuyck1 There are two sexes and only two sexes, male and female, both of which are determined at the moment of conception, and they are immutable. A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male.
@@janbuyck1Are you sure about that? Are you sure you aren’t the one seeing it wrong. Don’t attach yourself to a ‘side’. Be open minded to the fact that you could be wrong. Richard isn’t anti trans. I’m sure he agrees that they deserve to be respected and should be given the right to do as they please. But regardless of how anyone feels. There are facts. And they can’t be changed. If there being no god upsets you. It doesn’t sudden make it true does it?
I'm so glad it wasn't just me ... ugh! Can't see how anybody could see the second contribution as any sort of response to the excellent Dawkins summary.
To me, Richard Dawkins is the human being that I love, cherish and appreciate the most of all the human beings I know on this planet ❤️ I desperately wish we'd had more Richard Dawkins on earth...
No kidding. Some voices are just loud and babble nonsense. It is blatantly obvious that they are just making shit up and have very little actual information of any value that they could even conjure up. Got to vet the speakers. I just walk out when they put dummies on the stage.
"Infinite regress" is Dawkins' irrefutable "god killer": "A god must ultimately have a creator of its own". Dawkins is literally too stupid to insult. He ponces around "infinite regress" without any indication he knows to what he refers. It is, of shocking news to Dawkins, THE 1ST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: 'absent the possibility of origin, there can be ONLY regress'. BUUTTT...in the first chapter of "The God Delusion" he stipulates that going forward he will refer ONLY to "supernatural" gods. "Thermodynamics is the one law of universal content which will NEVER be overthrown" (Einstein). Thermodynamics IS natural law. DAWKINS' "supernatural god" is by definition NOT constrained by NATURAL law. At this point it's no longer regarding how ignorant is Dawkins, but those whom say otherwise. In the first paragraph of Chapter 4, he "refutes" brilliant/atheist physicist Fred Hoyle's, "life beginning naturally on earth is as likely as a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard". Hoyle "fails" to recognize the miracle of Natural Selection. Dawkins is approaching "useless eater" status. THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS NEVER/EVER/EVER allows inanimacy "numerous, successive, slight modification" (Chapter 6, "On the Origin..."). WHY DARWIN said: "the mystery of the beginning of all things (LIFE) is insoluble". DARWIN NEVER/EVER imagined NS concatenated non-life to life. "Warm pond" is a location...not mechanism. Below are ACTUAL biologists/chemists (x2 Nobels in biology & Craig Venter) repudiating Dawkins sine qua non to his face...and of course he has no response. BECAUSE HE'S SO IGNORANT AS TO HAVE NO IDEA HOW PROFOUNNDLY: ruclips.net/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/видео.html
@@TyrellWellickEcorpphilosophy can never be obsolete. Philosophy asks the questions that science tries to answer. Personal revelation, emotional reasoning, subjective experience, faith, indoctrination etc. are not reliable methods of discovering truth and they are all things that science aims to avoid. If you know of a better method than the scientific one to answer the questions that philosophy raises, then please let me know.
@@GingerDrums I love me some Neil but his "interview" with Dawkins was rage-inducing. I kept yelling at my screen like a jackass 'oh my god would you shut the f- up and let him speak'.
Thank you for your work Richard in continually trying to debate these kind of people. They seem so educated but speak so much mumbo jumbo. You speak with common sense and clarity.
Well, if there is no reason to be here then it doesn't make a difference whether you live or die which is extremely demoralizing. I'm sure you have counter arguments to that, I'm just answering your "why" question.
@@thulyblu5486it doesn't make a difference wether you live or die if our entire galaxy where to vanish without a trace the rest of the universe would not even notice it, The sooner you Come to terms with that the happier you Will live
That reminds me of something I read on a philosophy book back in my high school times, "Nature doesn't have the obligation to work based on our capricious thoughts." In other words, it does work even if we don't understand how, and definitely we shouldn't be inventing explanations based on thoughts rather than what nature present us with (evidence).
I love these types of conversations and any excuse to hear Richard Dawkins speak is always a treat. My only critique would be to cut the mic on those not speaking. It was slightly distracting to hear others breathing, clearing throats and clicking pens while another spoke. Please keep this content flowing, it's so important. Love what you do!
@@trinitymatrix9719 I know because that’s very emotionally healthy. It’s so healthy to tell a child if they don’t believe in the Bible they will burn in hell forever. Think about what that does to the mind and emotion well being of a child when you tell them this poison
Sir Richard Dawkins ( he should be knighted)....The Greatest Exponent in search of truth, Scientific Rational Thinking, he exposes the people who are unable to think , they only play with superfluous words ..their minds our biased in philosophy and religious doctrine...Thank you Sir for your brilliant discourse ...
They should mathematically define wishy washy, divide into ancient indian texts and then have Richard S accordingly manipulate his chair particle. Shame Dawkins got in the way with his realistic nonsense
@MzeeMoja1 My response to your rather personal comment is that those that support the viewpoint of Dawkins see belief in a god as delusional. It's, therefore, hardly surprising that we would be dismissive of those who try and claim the contrary.
Richard was introduced as the "atheist view". Though I don't have a problem with that, the "science view" would have been more accurate and productive.
What an embarrassing performance for Richard Swinburne, who not only constantly clicked his pen and chuckled under his breath while others talked, but even went as far as not even acknowledging Silvia's name when answering her remark near the end. If his old age is to be used as an excuse, then the contrast of this behaviour with Richard Dawkins' who's only 6 years younger goes to show the difference of effects on the brain and character between a life of science and a life of religion.
Having studied Theology in the same era as Swinburne, I always disliked that old school mannerism of chuckling as if that alone proves the other person's ideas so worthless as to be laughable. Still makes me cringe!
He kind of drops the ball a little though in the last exchange with the jewish woman. The reason so many people are religious even though they dont even really know if they believe or not, is obviously that in day-to-day life community, identity, family, morals, culture, tradition, rituals etc are far more important than the origin of the universe. Most people dont know or really care about particle physics and stuff either, it doesnt matter if its the "truth". Most people dont think too much about most things. Which is also why its dangerous to "replace" religion with "atheism". Thats like "replacing" an unbalanced diet of food with nothing at all. Atheism in itself doesnt provide anything as such.
Silvia Jonas brings Philosophy to the table with the word "purpose", making it very clear that she skipped Existentialism, that was when we noticed that purpose and meaning are aspects of human cognition and a storytelling resource that helps us grasp reality. Sartre, Camus, etc.
@@wynlewis5357he brought it up as the prevailing theory in the scientific camp. I believe that some sort of intelligent designer created the cosmos but science and natural evolution brought us to where we are today.
@@huehuehue-x3c I do agree it would appear the universe had a beginning and to the way our human mind's work .. a creator must have done it. That does not make it so does it ? It's simply that it may appear to be that way. A cat is unable to study in university to obtain a degree ? And so to, we all have limitations to understand the universe and all the big questions how it came to be. If we suppose there is a God, we are merely going around in circles because we are unable to come to terms that such an entity has no beginning. We are like a cat and we do not have the ability to grasp such a concept. The theist says he does know ! Many say they have a personal relationship with God but the problem is, they are unable to prove to anyone else. Personal experiences could easily attributed to one's own subconscious responding to personal beliefs and absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. There is not one person on this planet that can categorically say they know. Such a person is either deceived or they are lying.
I understood what Richard Dawkins said and absolutely agree with him. I did not understand a think the other three were talking about. That says everything!
At one point I thought we’d have Jerry Springer moment, when Prof Dawkins couldn’t control his frustration with Prof Richard Swinburne any longer and furniture would begin to fly😂 He did a great job restraining himself.
I stand in awe of your calm and collectedness in the midst of an ocean of gobbledygook. A voice of reason and a beacon of light. Using logic on religious people is a difficult path. I suppose if logic would readily work in that realm of their mind, then they wouldn’t be able to sustain such self evidently contracting ideas, held without evidence. Using logic is like trying to wet a goose; it is practically impermeable to that treatment and is left seemingly unaffected. I do believe in the long run we must continue to fight that good fight and keep using logic and reason in the hope that over time, there is an area of their mind open to argument and new ideas but we are in this for the long haul.
"I don't know. Therefore, invisible being so and so exists." It's amazing (and sad) that so many adults think like that. If we don't know, then to say "I don't know. PERIOD." is the only intellectually honest way of thinking.
Pause a little and consider the immensity and depth of the literature you are referring to with this erroneous summation. What you have is a straw man.
I've not always agreed with everything Mr dawkins has said, but he absolutely always has a tremendous arguement, knowledge and set of points. I wonder what arguement, knowledge and points these other folk were trying to make??? It's truely mind numbing.
@@rianmacdonald9454 What you are expressing is not science, it is just the worst kind of ignorance, an ideological stance born out of a narrow mind, zero research, and a generally bad attitude. The fact that you think there is no conversation to be had does not speak well of you. How could it?
I enjoy listening to these type of discussions however is always amazed how these so called brilliant people would repeatedly engage or entertain these discussion which always end in disagreement and the questions remains unanswered. Well thats brilliance for you. By now we should know that there are some things that we do not know and living every moment the best way we can is the most important thing we can do.
This panel is an example of how academia can get off track. 25% academics here on stage are sensible, whereas the percentage of sensible people outside of academia is a much higher percentage.
Seriously. 3/4 of the panelists seem to just make shit up for an hour, without challenge. You can't get away with that in science, not for long at least.
Someone made the tea, poured it in a cup, stirred it and now is waiting to sip it. We are insignificant smallest particle moving inside the cup and do not know what is outside this cup. But we are wise enough to think that there is a limit to our knowledge of this world and we are bound within the forces of nature and we are helpless. But there is someone out there who did all this and who can wrap it all up and do it over.
If you think that the universe had a cause, as she does, then it seems to me you must be thinking, 'The universe is just another thing in the universe'. And if she answers me, 'No I'm not', I would answer 'I believe you are, because otherwise you would see how meaningless and self-contradictory the idea is. 'What caused the universe?', is not a scientific question but one of semantic befuddlement.
The woman in white actually had a reasonable point. It is foolish to expect there to be an "explanation" accessible to human brains to such questions as "why is there something rather than nothing," let alone a "causal" explanation.
I remember those wonderful Christmas Lectures back in 1991 when a young Richard Dawkins blew us away with his eloquence and riveting presentations in this very same theater. (especially the one with Douglas Adams). It’s wonderful to see him looking so well after 32 years, and that his mind is still as sharp as ever. If he’s inherited his parent’s genes for longevity, he’ll be with us for many years to come.
I remember those too. "Blew us away" is absolutely right. I then read "The Selfish Gene", the first non-fiction book I did not want to put down, but equally did not want to end. He is a treasure.
There are many more than 7% atheist, with so many not daring to announce their belief, or lack of, especially in the Muslim world. I've had colleagues in Algeria and Malaysia state "Eddie, I wish I could speak my mind like you do. Strict Catholic upbringing are subject to similar dare, though at least official reaction is less severe!! Another 'failing' of societies is to identify a baby as of a certain religion - like in my world, though actually very casual in nature - not a religious upbringing, I still got a splash of water on my head before I was old enough to 'tell them what to do with it'!
The Jew and Christian are spouting utter nonsense as one might expect, the Hindu is vacillating between positions without really offering an argument while Professor Dawkins is the only one to make any semblance of sense. I applaud his ability to endure their deluge of rubbish without bursting into laughter at their insanity.
Am I alone in thinking that the host is just flat out wrong here: He suggests that Jessica's Hindu mindset is more aligned with Richard Swinburne's Christianity - when her explanations are vastly more aligned with Dawkins' and science, and here: He suggests Sylvia's views align more with Dawkins, when her understanding of causality aligns with Swinburne - I can describe a computer in terms of its functions, therefore its not causal... But why the computer exists is still causal. As with Swinburne's "why did these people come here today?" "For an 'interesting' conversation." "Why do they find it interesting?" "Because .. Because... Because brain chemistry, evolution, upbringing." And we're back to causality.
Whenever Dawkins takes note of something I hope to see a smackdown coming up (haven’t finished the video yet), but I know he’s gotten softer in old age lol
It would have been better if this were two separate debates. The two ladies could have discussed things ecumenically and compromisingly, while the two Richards could have had a proper battle 😂
If anything comes out of this, it is Richard Dawkins' politeness and kindness and his seemingly limitless ability to tolerate meaningless babble. These "thinkers" are reasoning on the same level as the people who claim that obesity is not caused by overeating and that failure to eat less has nothing to do with willpower. It comes over as utterly childish.
This was a wonderful discussion! Thank you so much. I'm just stuck on Richard Dawkins' 'Wishful Thinking' contemplating if we went beyond the thought and mind, where there is no thought and no wishful thinking.
I thought this was very interesting but I did think it was sorely missing any mention of a phenomena that in my opinion is extremely relevant in this area which is: Self-organisation. I think self-organisation (also known as 'spontaneous pattern formation') is a great explanation for how a system can evolve from following only basic (or 'fundamental') rules/laws to something that has emergent laws and structures when you 'zoom out'. Of course that leaves the question of where the underlying laws came from, but those could've also emerged from self-organisation at a 'smaller' level, and so on. What's at the bottom? Maybe just raw-rule-following (ie perhaps something similar to math or computation?) Ultimately though, I think the universe caused itself, and why? For the lulz!
@johngrundowski3632 Sure the last line was half a joke but self-organisation is a scientific fact and I'm surprised that RichardD doesn't mention it more tbh.
How about this. Emergence occurrences are a phenomenon of a self-organizing system. Existence exists. And nature is the unfolding character of existence. For me what we are are talking about here is the idea that nature has aseity. Aseity is a religious word ascribed to God. Self-originating and self-maintaining. Of such a nature that inquiry into provenance is on it face irrational---or the first line of a joke.
Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens and Carl Sagan, three of the most influential thinkers of our times. Unfortunately we have lost two of them but their impact will be felt, and will hopefully increase, for decades and decades to come. I personally could not show his ability to put up with much of the drivel and gibberish from some of the others.
Wow. Jessica Frazier's incites really made me think. This universal mystery has preoccupied me for a long time. I am not going to become a Hindi. I am an atheist but that does not necessarily make me reject all religious notions. I also am glad to see women on this panel. I love women and their absence on this sort of panel really bothers me.
Thank you, I've been scrolling through the comment section looking for anyone else who isn't lumping all the guests together. Jessica was great, possibly even the best part of the debate for me. Grounding beliefs in reality is a pretty scientific belief system.
Richard Dawkins is the only one saying real things. To be faire, even Richard Dawkins is not giving well thought out reflections in this format. The other ones are like child throwing up wishy washy word salads. It's painful, and frankly when you've already been through those reflections before, extremely boring. It's weird that a theist is satisfied with replacing an unknown with another unknown and making up special rules for that unknown so it can't be questioned. Why not just do it with the universe.
Very true. And ..... the ladys intro category argument : that 7 cant be divided by 3 into equal full parts. That doesnt prove anything ..... thats jibberish.
@@crockmans1386that wasn't a proof. It was an example of an explanation that doesn't involve causation. Her entire train of thought may have been wrongheaded, but it doesn't help to misunderstand her, either.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh, Richard, Richard (Dawkins), how painful this discussion must have been for you. You have my utmost admiration and respect.
The patience of a uhumm...saint 🙂
🤔😊@@kotgc7987
Redditor detected
I didn't understand a single word of what the other panelists said in their introductions. Dawkins was the only one who made any sense to me.
My thoughts precisely. How he must have wanted to get up and RUN!!! 😂
Richard Dawkins is an incredibly patient man. Admirably so.
I believe he was forced to here.
Richard Dawkins didn't understand (or accept) that this (his) level of consciousness, is but one of many.
Death of the body enables the human spirit to move on into another level of 'awareness' (or consciousness if you prefer).
We are all part of the same eternal spirit which creates (has created) all that is.
There are thousands of accounts relating to NDE's (Near Death experiences) (on You Tube) which illustrate (explain) the levels of consciousness we all (repeat ALL) experience when the physical body dies.
Instead of merely denying (ignoring) this aspect of life, investigate this REALITY for a greater understanding of existence and consciousness. (And of course your own life !)
@@electricmanist Bravo. Exactly.
evidence?
@@alexf1179 You exist. You are here . Now if you consider yourself more than a meaningless accident, you are part of this life (on earth) for a purpose.
I was eyeball deep in the Pentecostal religion for the first 37 years of my life. Then I came across Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Barker and Mr. Krauss. My eyes and mind were opened thanks to these great minds. They helped me obtain a peace I had never known. I will be forever grateful to and for them.
What exactly did they teach you? because the only answer they have to the biggest question 's is that they "Don't know"
Sam Harris too - in case you haven’t already :)
you live in a world that creates ourselves.... the search for knowlrdge ends with the journey keep the fires and adventure before the discovery ie. the end of the journey
@@bryn3652 They teach that there is no evidence for religious dogma. Richard Swinburne's characterizations of a cosmos creator are empty assertions.
Richard Dawkins you are so inspiring,
I didn't have the patience to watch all except sir. Richard Dawkins. People of his stature should have been around in the panel. Thank you Richard Dawkins sir.
Greetings from Tamil Nadu India.
We can see that Professor Richard Dawkins is intellectually three universes away from his fellow guests and that is why it pain us to witness, but he doesn't feel the same way and that is what makes him even greater.
Richard you are a true hero. Standing up for truth in a world that has gone mad and in a way that should be used as a template for rational thinking and debate. Defiant, eloquent, open, repectful, and educational. Thank you from the bottom of my heart
richard gives generously to make us seek the wisdom which was imparted to us by the greeks in their islan ds and athens the ancient greeks lived in the meditteranean valley the did not k now that geology in the past had drained their ocean 3 or 4 times by drying up millioons of years ago
I think Richard began to get a bit bored.
Throughout humanity there has been madness, it's nothing new. There are reasons for madness. What is interesting is that there are reasons for virtually everything.
Poor Richard Dawkins, being surrounded by nonsense. Already checked his watch twice and keeps breathing in heavily... can feel you, bro.
True. I skipped others and watched his talk only.
it´s hard to agree more, that´s exactly how i feel suffering through these clowns as well. gave everyone a fair shake with their initial statments but it´s just nonsense or meandering talking but saying nothing. i feel my time on earth beeing sucked out of me listening to these npcs, who sound like an ai wrote their dialogue. so skip to dawkins when possible for your own sanity
"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."@@symmetrie_bruch
Richard Dawkins has been reunited again with these kind of people who believe in magic.
Richard died inside for our sins
Swinburne's arguments on repeat for eternity is my new definition of hell.
lol for sure... Ironic isn't it?? 😂
Repent repent 😂😂😂
Postulate is his favourite word. 🤣. Apart from Richard Dawkins the others appear to be under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs as they are talking twaddle like a bunch of people in the pub after a few too many drinks.....Even the moderator of this debate is out of his depth.
@@TheGreatPerahia - the moderator was obsequious...
@@TheGreatPerahiaexactly what I was thinking, a bunch of teenagers smoking pot
Richard is correct; we are living creatures in the here and now, but when our bodies die and decay we are gone forever. So many people are unable to accept this . .
We are unable to accept death because we are animals with a survival instinct
I don't agree with that, what's is the meaning of your life
its the reality and its the truth hence this is why its sad and people fear. people fear what is real because reality doesn't care about your feeling and its usually harsh
My favorite Richard Dawkins line of all time is the way he retorts “so what?” Able to say so much with so little.
Great minds say much with few words, it's part of why they are smart -- and really smart people say more on 1 page than in whole books (written by others).
@@googleuser2609 Reminds me of one of my professors who always reminded us that after 10 pages the ink turns brown!
I admire Richard for sitting through this for 1 hour and 23 min. I skipped most of the parts.
100% agreed
At 27:50, I'm considering doing the same.
Facts against illusion
Indeed, time stamp these types of situations to Richard views, because also had to fast forward through most of the silliness.
I think you need to work on your Tolerance and patience.
Never get tire of listening and to Richard Dawkins
but definitely find the others, mostly the other Richard just plain wrong!
Dawkins is so wrong he is a lost soul 😮
Of course...you are one of the 7% on this planet 😊
Highly admire Dawkins to be so patient with these fools.
He's the very essence of a gentleman.
My exact thoughts too!
You may disagree with Swinburne (I do too), but he's no fool.
@@vaclavmiller8032 He said incredibly foolish things. Being well spoken and erudite doesn't change that
I agree. As the decades pass, he is much more calm and willing to allow people to blather on. It's respectful and diplomatic.
My three take aways -
The majesty of Richard Dawkin’s mind.
The patience of Richard Dawkin’s the man.
The failing of the host not to stop proceedings to straighten the puckered rug 😂
As someone who makes horror films here on youtube, i applaud dawkins for being so patient and sitting through an hour of what must be hell listening to magical thinking fools.
👍👍👍
Against philosophy yes, Dawkins will win because he is the closest to science than anyone on that platform. Poor old Swinburne could have done better but he has aged to the point where he may not be fully aware of his weakening abilities. However, God is science, and not a simple God, but all mighty and powerful God, and these scientists would discipline Dawkins (some have already) showing him the actual truth: Dr. John Lennox, Professor David Kipping, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. Kent Kovind, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. Kevin Anderson, JUST to name a few. The fact is, no matter how much truth and fact and evidence, which are volumes upon volumes, showcasing that God, and The Bible, are true and accurate there is, most evolutionists and atheists don't want to know. It is not that they disagree after research, but that they wont listen due to their pre-existing biases and prejudices. Reason and wisdom and understanding and maturity will lead anyone who wants to know the truth, to the point that they will KNOW there MUST be a God who created all things and, that The Bible is accurate and factual. The evidence for creation is everywhere and Dawkins and every evolutionist know it.
Your choice. "The Great Tribulation" will without fail soon come and you WILL know that it is due the worlds social and civil atmosphere. It's coming.
What a joy it is to see and hear Richard speak truthfully and eloquently about the deepest mysteries of life, consciousness, and the universe. The Poetry of Reality.
Yeah! But when it goes about the biology on sex and gender, he completely misses the ball and gets completely cognitive dissonant. Very pathetic for such a brilliant scientist.
@@janbuyck1 There are two sexes and only two sexes, male and female, both of which are determined at the moment of conception, and they are immutable. A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male.
@@nancyrobertson8661 : you know nothing about it, just like Dicky!
And you have been brainwashed by the aggressive "trans" rights autogynephiles. @@janbuyck1
@@janbuyck1Are you sure about that? Are you sure you aren’t the one seeing it wrong. Don’t attach yourself to a ‘side’. Be open minded to the fact that you could be wrong. Richard isn’t anti trans. I’m sure he agrees that they deserve to be respected and should be given the right to do as they please. But regardless of how anyone feels. There are facts. And they can’t be changed. If there being no god upsets you. It doesn’t sudden make it true does it?
I could have listened to Richard Dawkins all night, but when the second guy started speaking, I tried, I really tried , but I just 😴 💤
Same here, he was tortuously tedious
YEP
Yeah that guy is so boring I forgot to listen 😂
It’s still rock and roll to me! 1:09:37
I'm so glad it wasn't just me ... ugh! Can't see how anybody could see the second contribution as any sort of response to the excellent Dawkins summary.
Thanks Richard Dawkins for your patience....
To me, Richard Dawkins is the human being that I love, cherish and appreciate the most of all the human beings I know on this planet ❤️
I desperately wish we'd had more Richard Dawkins on earth...
Dawkins is also a fast runner. Look how quick he moved when William Lane Craig.
How can there be any loving or cherishing in a universe of “blind, pitiless indifference”? Answers on a postcard.
Dawkins must be nominated for Nobel prize for patience!
Joke of the century 😅
And you are a clown of the century ;)
I love it how people quote old scriptures, wave their hands elaborately and clearly think that they are saying something of interest and value.
“Let him who hath still hands keep also still his lips” -Rodney, Ch 3 Verse 9
And still have no answer to the simple question asked.
meaning: "if ya don't work at anything, who should listen to what you have to say?@@Lopfff
Bible quotes. Nothing more irrational and ignorant than quoting scripture. As if they came up with it in the first place.
No kidding. Some voices are just loud and babble nonsense. It is blatantly obvious that they are just making shit up and have very little actual information of any value that they could even conjure up. Got to vet the speakers. I just walk out when they put dummies on the stage.
I wish we had more people like Richard Dawkins!
"Infinite regress" is Dawkins' irrefutable "god killer": "A god must ultimately have a creator of its own".
Dawkins is literally too stupid to insult. He ponces around "infinite regress"
without any indication he knows to what he refers. It is, of shocking news to Dawkins,
THE 1ST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: 'absent the possibility of origin, there can be ONLY regress'.
BUUTTT...in the first chapter of "The God Delusion" he stipulates that going forward he will refer ONLY to "supernatural" gods. "Thermodynamics is the one law of universal content which will NEVER be overthrown" (Einstein). Thermodynamics IS natural law. DAWKINS' "supernatural god" is by definition NOT constrained
by NATURAL law. At this point it's no longer regarding how ignorant is Dawkins, but those whom say otherwise.
In the first paragraph of Chapter 4, he "refutes" brilliant/atheist physicist Fred Hoyle's, "life beginning naturally on earth is as likely as a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard". Hoyle
"fails" to recognize the miracle of Natural Selection. Dawkins is approaching "useless eater" status.
THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS NEVER/EVER/EVER allows inanimacy "numerous, successive, slight
modification" (Chapter 6, "On the Origin..."). WHY DARWIN said: "the mystery of the beginning of all things (LIFE)
is insoluble". DARWIN NEVER/EVER imagined NS concatenated non-life to life. "Warm pond" is a location...not mechanism.
Below are ACTUAL biologists/chemists (x2 Nobels in biology & Craig Venter) repudiating Dawkins sine qua non to his face...and of course he has no response. BECAUSE HE'S SO IGNORANT AS TO HAVE NO IDEA HOW PROFOUNNDLY:
ruclips.net/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/видео.html
The guy is a pseudo-intellectual hack. You people hype that guy up way too much. He’s not that bright.
Anyone who says that science is the end all be all and renders philosophy obsolete should not be taken seriously by anybody
@@nealgrimes4382 Yes they actually have. Neil Tyson and Lawrence Krauss have repeatedly. Dawkins has floated the idea too.
@@TyrellWellickEcorpphilosophy can never be obsolete. Philosophy asks the questions that science tries to answer. Personal revelation, emotional reasoning, subjective experience, faith, indoctrination etc. are not reliable methods of discovering truth and they are all things that science aims to avoid.
If you know of a better method than the scientific one to answer the questions that philosophy raises, then please let me know.
Seeing Richard welcome the medium of podcast and take on the big conversations of our time is inspiring. Thankyou!
For Hitch!
NO, HE TALKS SHIT@@Zleec
I really thank Frazier for putting the ancient Vedic view of the question of origin so well. She could not have stated better
Its surprise that Vedic Philosophy explained something that modern physicists struggle to answer today.
I command Richard for just agreeing to attend this discussion considering the calibre of the speakers! Kodus to you Richard.
It's kudos.
To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
Such a shame that he feels no obligation not to interrupt people when they talk. Fame does bad things to some people
@@GingerDrumsYeah, I gave up on his Star Talk podcast long ago because of that. Great presenter, terrible interviewer.
@@simonhadley8829 terrible conversationalist in general. I feel a lot of narccecistic affectation whenever I see him
@@GingerDrums I love me some Neil but his "interview" with Dawkins was rage-inducing. I kept yelling at my screen like a jackass 'oh my god would you shut the f- up and let him speak'.
@@GingerDrumspleb arguments
Please, Richard, we need more conversations like this. Thank you!
For those who are interested in saving their time and energy you can fast forward the other speakers and lesson to Richard Dawkins
One day you will be extremely embarrassed by this remark.
@@opinion3742 _Please_ elaborate!!! . . .
@@sharkamov No thanks. You go ahead and worship Dawkins to the point of stupidity if you want.
I feel for Richard Dawkins, there should definitely been a physicist on the panel
Thank you for your work Richard in continually trying to debate these kind of people. They seem so educated but speak so much mumbo jumbo. You speak with common sense and clarity.
I agree with Richard Dawkins when he once said that asking, "Why are we here", isn't very meaningful.
Yet he must have been asking himself that while sitting on that stage
Why do people need a "reason" why we're here, as if we have a mission to carry out. If you have one, you created it.
Such ignorance.
Well, if there is no reason to be here then it doesn't make a difference whether you live or die which is extremely demoralizing. I'm sure you have counter arguments to that, I'm just answering your "why" question.
On what do you base your belief?
@@thulyblu5486it doesn't make a difference wether you live or die if our entire galaxy where to vanish without a trace the rest of the universe would not even notice it, The sooner you Come to terms with that the happier you Will live
Reality doesn't shape itself around what might or might not be demoralizing.
This reminded me of the time Richard met Deepak.
They deserved each other…
That reminds me of something I read on a philosophy book back in my high school times, "Nature doesn't have the obligation to work based on our capricious thoughts." In other words, it does work even if we don't understand how, and definitely we shouldn't be inventing explanations based on thoughts rather than what nature present us with (evidence).
Richard is an evolutionary biologist by trade, but he's a trooper in spirit. Patience and self-control in abundance.
I love these types of conversations and any excuse to hear Richard Dawkins speak is always a treat. My only critique would be to cut the mic on those not speaking. It was slightly distracting to hear others breathing, clearing throats and clicking pens while another spoke. Please keep this content flowing, it's so important. Love what you do!
Imagine this chat without Richard Dawkins 😂
Yeah...they could have started to speak about unicorns maybe... :DDDD
imagine this chat without richard dawkinns the search for truth shines in a beam of light the photon is equivalent of the phantom the ghost who walks
@@AlexFilliosare you psychotic
Turtles upon turtles to infinity and beyond
They would have started talking about magical T pots
The older I get the stronger my atheism becomes. Thank you Hitchens, Dawkins, Darwin, Thales, and many many more.
I think u will be very surprised once you die.....
And Russel brand
Pascal has entered the chat.@@trinitymatrix9719
@@trinitymatrix9719 I know because that’s very emotionally healthy. It’s so healthy to tell a child if they don’t believe in the Bible they will burn in hell forever. Think about what that does to the mind and emotion well being of a child when you tell them this poison
Its absurd and total madness to imagine we are something out of nothing. Are you crazy brother?@@Scorned405
Dawkins for the win. These conversations are helping me hone my discussion skills above just being emotional and argumentative. Thanks.
Sir Richard Dawkins ( he should be knighted)....The Greatest Exponent in search of truth, Scientific Rational Thinking, he exposes the people who are unable to think , they only play with superfluous words ..their minds our biased in philosophy and religious doctrine...Thank you Sir for your brilliant discourse ...
As always Richard Dawkins is the only one talking common sense and debunking nonsense. The others are embarrassingly non scientific and wishy washy.
Absolutely right!
They should mathematically define wishy washy, divide into ancient indian texts and then have Richard S accordingly manipulate his chair particle. Shame Dawkins got in the way with his realistic nonsense
He is not "the only one" Mr I-am-ready-to-kiss-ass-tonight-and-henceforth
@MzeeMoja1 My response to your rather personal comment is that those that support the viewpoint of Dawkins see belief in a god as delusional. It's, therefore, hardly surprising that we would be dismissive of those who try and claim the contrary.
Richard was introduced as the "atheist view". Though I don't have a problem with that, the "science view" would have been more accurate and productive.
What an embarrassing performance for Richard Swinburne, who not only constantly clicked his pen and chuckled under his breath while others talked, but even went as far as not even acknowledging Silvia's name when answering her remark near the end. If his old age is to be used as an excuse, then the contrast of this behaviour with Richard Dawkins' who's only 6 years younger goes to show the difference of effects on the brain and character between a life of science and a life of religion.
Having studied Theology in the same era as Swinburne, I always disliked that old school mannerism of chuckling as if that alone proves the other person's ideas so worthless as to be laughable. Still makes me cringe!
Good to see that Richard still has that Dawk in him.
Some of his opponents were literally shaking
He kind of drops the ball a little though in the last exchange with the jewish woman. The reason so many people are religious even though they dont even really know if they believe or not, is obviously that in day-to-day life community, identity, family, morals, culture, tradition, rituals etc are far more important than the origin of the universe. Most people dont know or really care about particle physics and stuff either, it doesnt matter if its the "truth". Most people dont think too much about most things.
Which is also why its dangerous to "replace" religion with "atheism". Thats like "replacing" an unbalanced diet of food with nothing at all. Atheism in itself doesnt provide anything as such.
Richard Dawkins, where did you get the patience to listen to other speakers? I am very calm but I admire your calmness.
Silvia Jonas brings Philosophy to the table with the word "purpose", making it very clear that she skipped Existentialism, that was when we noticed that purpose and meaning are aspects of human cognition and a storytelling resource that helps us grasp reality. Sartre, Camus, etc.
Thank you Richard for being a voice of reason.
The guy who believes that there is a Marvel multiverse is the "voice of reason"?
@@huehuehue-x3c He didn't actually say he believes in the mutiverse did he ? It's a scientific theory, nothing else. What's your theory ?
@@wynlewis5357he brought it up as the prevailing theory in the scientific camp. I believe that some sort of intelligent designer created the cosmos but science and natural evolution brought us to where we are today.
@@huehuehue-x3c I do agree it would appear the universe had a beginning and to the way our human mind's work .. a creator must have done it. That does not make it so does it ? It's simply that it may appear to be that way. A cat is unable to study in university to obtain a degree ? And so to, we all have limitations to understand the universe and all the big questions how it came to be. If we suppose there is a God, we are merely going around in circles because we are unable to come to terms that such an entity has no beginning. We are like a cat and we do not have the ability to grasp such a concept. The theist says he does know ! Many say they have a personal relationship with God but the problem is, they are unable to prove to anyone else. Personal experiences could easily attributed to one's own subconscious responding to personal beliefs and absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. There is not one person on this planet that can categorically say they know. Such a person is either deceived or they are lying.
I understood what Richard Dawkins said and absolutely agree with him. I did not understand a think the other three were talking about. That says everything!
They don't want to commit to one clear idea because of how ridiculous it will sound so they talk in generalities and obscure language.
At one point I thought we’d have Jerry Springer moment, when Prof Dawkins couldn’t control his frustration with Prof Richard Swinburne any longer and furniture would begin to fly😂
He did a great job restraining himself.
salute to Richard Dawkins for his logical conclusion.
I stand in awe of your calm and collectedness in the midst of an ocean of gobbledygook. A voice of reason and a beacon of light.
Using logic on religious people is a difficult path. I suppose if logic would readily work in that realm of their mind, then they wouldn’t be able to sustain such self evidently contracting ideas, held without evidence.
Using logic is like trying to wet a goose; it is practically impermeable to that treatment and is left seemingly unaffected. I do believe in the long run we must continue to fight that good fight and keep using logic and reason in the hope that over time, there is an area of their mind open to argument and new ideas but we are in this for the long haul.
Richard opened my eyes to the world of free thought
"I don't know. Therefore, invisible being so and so exists." It's amazing (and sad) that so many adults think like that. If we don't know, then to say "I don't know. PERIOD." is the only intellectually honest way of thinking.
Pause a little and consider the immensity and depth of the literature you are referring to with this erroneous summation. What you have is a straw man.
@@opinion3742oh we have. It's pathetic in every meaning of that word
@@celestialsatheist1535 lol
@@opinion3742 indeed
@@opinion3742 You clearly don't even know what "straw man" means.
I've not always agreed with everything Mr dawkins has said, but he absolutely always has a tremendous arguement, knowledge and set of points. I wonder what arguement, knowledge and points these other folk were trying to make??? It's truely mind numbing.
On what do you disagree and why?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect How about his take on gender?
their only point has and will be ''trust me, god done it'' and put that into any gap that current knowledge can not explain.
@@rianmacdonald9454 What you are expressing is not science, it is just the worst kind of ignorance, an ideological stance born out of a narrow mind, zero research, and a generally bad attitude. The fact that you think there is no conversation to be had does not speak well of you. How could it?
@@opinion3742 Well, I wasn't asking you.
But go ahead, lay out his take on gender, don't forget to include how he defines it.
Richard Dawkins's case presentation is unarguably practical. A pleasure to listen to. Well done.
Only really Dawkins getting to grips with reality there. He is immensely patient.
You're a great man Richard. You are so healthy and bright for your age. Keep fighting the good fight.
He doesn't fight the good fight for free. But yes he's a great guy
Richard Dawkins a wonderful of explaining the things he taks about,and he isn’t bombastic.Hope we can see more of him,a great pleasure to hear him.
Thank you for making this available Dr Dawkins.
This is a great talk Dr. Dawkins! Thank you for sharing this!
I enjoy listening to these type of discussions however is always amazed how these so called brilliant people would repeatedly engage or entertain these discussion which always end in disagreement and the questions remains unanswered. Well thats brilliance for you.
By now we should know that there are some things that we do not know and living every moment the best way we can is the most important thing we can do.
This panel is an example of how academia can get off track. 25% academics here on stage are sensible, whereas the percentage of sensible people outside of academia is a much higher percentage.
I though Jessica (Hindu lady) was quite good here actually
Seriously. 3/4 of the panelists seem to just make shit up for an hour, without challenge. You can't get away with that in science, not for long at least.
It's quite possible to be remarkably whimsical with sophisticated words, wouldn't you agree?
The other three just sit there and think well we better just be so mysterious that the audience is wowed. Dawkins is amazing.
Richard (the theist) is like listening to someone's toddler who an adult brought along to an event comment on topics beyond their faculties
Someone made the tea, poured it in a cup, stirred it and now is waiting to sip it. We are insignificant smallest particle moving inside the cup and do not know what is outside this cup.
But we are wise enough to think that there is a limit to our knowledge of this world and we are bound within the forces of nature and we are helpless. But there is someone out there who did all this and who can wrap it all up and do it over.
25:45 "You probably see what I'm getting at." In fact, i was just then thinking, "What on earth is she going on about?"
If you think that the universe had a cause, as she does, then it seems to me you must be thinking, 'The universe is just another thing in the universe'. And if she answers me, 'No I'm not', I would answer 'I believe you are, because otherwise you would see how meaningless and self-contradictory the idea is. 'What caused the universe?', is not a scientific question but one of semantic befuddlement.
The woman in white actually had a reasonable point. It is foolish to expect there to be an "explanation" accessible to human brains to such questions as "why is there something rather than nothing," let alone a "causal" explanation.
I remember those wonderful Christmas Lectures back in 1991 when a young Richard Dawkins blew us away with his eloquence and riveting presentations in this very same theater. (especially the one with Douglas Adams).
It’s wonderful to see him looking so well after 32 years, and that his mind is still as sharp as ever.
If he’s inherited his parent’s genes for longevity, he’ll be with us for many years to come.
I remember those too. "Blew us away" is absolutely right. I then read "The Selfish Gene", the first non-fiction book I did not want to put down, but equally did not want to end. He is a treasure.
The difference between clear thinking and a wishy-washy inconsistent twaddle could not be displayed in a more pronounced way.
Got me a PHD in invisible friends
This was one of the most painful videos I’ve ever tried to listen to. I couldn’t finish it for fear of taking a head dive into my wood chipper
I really wish the host let a couple of the conversations go on a bit longer. Either way I love Richard Dawkins
I would enjoy this more with Dawkins typing the jokes he is thinking as the others are talking.
Nice hair bro
😂 I thought the same
Thank you for all of your work Richard
I just want to thank Richard Dawkins 🙏.
That’s why we love comedians who fill up stadiums…when you talk about things that may or may not exist you can say anything you want…relief.
There should've been a physicist, philosopher, psychologist, Hindu Yogi, Buddhist monk, and theologian with Richard 😅🤣😂
Agree
There are many more than 7% atheist, with so many not daring to announce their belief, or lack of, especially in the Muslim world. I've had colleagues in Algeria and Malaysia state "Eddie, I wish I could speak my mind like you do.
Strict Catholic upbringing are subject to similar dare, though at least official reaction is less severe!!
Another 'failing' of societies is to identify a baby as of a certain religion - like in my world, though actually very casual in nature - not a religious upbringing, I still got a splash of water on my head before I was old enough to 'tell them what to do with it'!
Disappointing debate. Would have loved to have heard Dawkins reply to more of the responses!
Thank you, Richard Dawkins.
The title for this debate should be...
The Fantasist, the Con Lady, (Richard Dawkins) and the Paranoid Neurotic.
The Jew and Christian are spouting utter nonsense as one might expect, the Hindu is vacillating between positions without really offering an argument while Professor Dawkins is the only one to make any semblance of sense.
I applaud his ability to endure their deluge of rubbish without bursting into laughter at their insanity.
The meaning of life is to be alive.
What do you mean by „meaning“?
to learn the value of ALL LIFE.
That seems to be the case.
That was painful for Richard Dawkins 😊
Kudos to Professor Dawkins for his patience.
Am I alone in thinking that the host is just flat out wrong here: He suggests that Jessica's Hindu mindset is more aligned with Richard Swinburne's Christianity - when her explanations are vastly more aligned with Dawkins' and science, and here: He suggests Sylvia's views align more with Dawkins, when her understanding of causality aligns with Swinburne - I can describe a computer in terms of its functions, therefore its not causal... But why the computer exists is still causal. As with Swinburne's "why did these people come here today?" "For an 'interesting' conversation." "Why do they find it interesting?" "Because .. Because... Because brain chemistry, evolution, upbringing." And we're back to causality.
Whenever Dawkins takes note of something I hope to see a smackdown coming up (haven’t finished the video yet), but I know he’s gotten softer in old age lol
It would have been better if this were two separate debates. The two ladies could have discussed things ecumenically and compromisingly, while the two Richards could have had a proper battle 😂
I was waiting to see if we’d have a Jerry Springer moment - Richard S vs Richard D halfway through this lecture 😂
Richard Dawkins - you are the Jewel in Humanity’s Crown. Utterly irreplaceable !
If anything comes out of this, it is Richard Dawkins' politeness and kindness and his seemingly limitless ability to tolerate meaningless babble. These "thinkers" are reasoning on the same level as the people who claim that obesity is not caused by overeating and that failure to eat less has nothing to do with willpower. It comes over as utterly childish.
🤯🤯🤯Her description of the nasadiya sukta of rig ved is absolutely brilliant... amazing... the way she ended at 31:40
This was a wonderful discussion! Thank you so much. I'm just stuck on Richard Dawkins' 'Wishful Thinking' contemplating if we went beyond the thought and mind, where there is no thought and no wishful thinking.
Peculiar how otherwise acutely intelligent people can look like kindergarten children in their differences.
I thought this was very interesting but I did think it was sorely missing any mention of a phenomena that in my opinion is extremely relevant in this area which is: Self-organisation.
I think self-organisation (also known as 'spontaneous pattern formation') is a great explanation for how a system can evolve from following only basic (or 'fundamental') rules/laws to something that has emergent laws and structures when you 'zoom out'.
Of course that leaves the question of where the underlying laws came from, but those could've also emerged from self-organisation at a 'smaller' level, and so on. What's at the bottom? Maybe just raw-rule-following (ie perhaps something similar to math or computation?)
Ultimately though, I think the universe caused itself, and why? For the lulz!
Agreed
''Ultimately though, I think the universe caused itself, and why? For the lulz!'' - dude it was a drunken bet from a Saturday night piss up. lol
Yea ,,, as with Richard science is the grounding principle = facts
@johngrundowski3632 Sure the last line was half a joke but self-organisation is a scientific fact and I'm surprised that RichardD doesn't mention it more tbh.
How about this. Emergence occurrences are a phenomenon of a self-organizing system. Existence exists. And nature is the unfolding character of existence. For me what we are are talking about here is the idea that nature has aseity. Aseity is a religious word ascribed to God. Self-originating and self-maintaining. Of such a nature that inquiry into provenance is on it face irrational---or the first line of a joke.
Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens and Carl Sagan, three of the most influential thinkers of our times. Unfortunately we have lost two of them but their impact will be felt, and will hopefully increase, for decades and decades to come. I personally could not show his ability to put up with much of the drivel and gibberish from some of the others.
None of them KNOW what they are talking about. But a lot of them act like they KNOW. No body does.
Waste of live 😢
Sad and silly 26:38 see
Life
We r here to complete the meaning of all the things and life in this world and to have freedom to observe, serve, obey, love, respect, happiness.
That was painful! I am sure Richard D., went home and poured himself a good single malt!
Wow. Jessica Frazier's incites really made me think. This universal mystery has preoccupied me for a long time. I am not going to become a Hindi. I am an atheist but that does not necessarily make me reject all religious notions. I also am glad to see women on this panel. I love women and their absence on this sort of panel really bothers me.
Thank you, I've been scrolling through the comment section looking for anyone else who isn't lumping all the guests together. Jessica was great, possibly even the best part of the debate for me. Grounding beliefs in reality is a pretty scientific belief system.
This has surely taken several years off of Dawkins's life.
Thank you Richard, for your service in the scientific field aswell as a promoter og rationality!
Richard Dawkins is the only one saying real things. To be faire, even Richard Dawkins is not giving well thought out reflections in this format. The other ones are like child throwing up wishy washy word salads. It's painful, and frankly when you've already been through those reflections before, extremely boring. It's weird that a theist is satisfied with replacing an unknown with another unknown and making up special rules for that unknown so it can't be questioned. Why not just do it with the universe.
Well said.. continous string of "why this and why that " and stopping questions just at the god's facade
Very true.
And ..... the ladys intro category argument : that 7 cant be divided by 3 into equal full parts. That doesnt prove anything ..... thats jibberish.
@@crockmans1386that wasn't a proof. It was an example of an explanation that doesn't involve causation. Her entire train of thought may have been wrongheaded, but it doesn't help to misunderstand her, either.
The venue needs to pony up for a telephoto lens.