Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss - An Evening With The Unbelievers (at Conway Hall)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лис 2014
- To find out more about Conway Hall and its events, to become a member or to donate: conwayhall.org.uk • Please subscribe to our channel, too.
--
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss Q&A session after a screening of the Unbelievers: www.unbelieversmovie.com/)
Filmed at Conway Hall, London, 23rd October 2014.
--
Conway Hall hosts a wide variety of talks, concerts, exhibitions, courses, performances, community and social events. It is also renowned as a hub for free speech and independent thought, hosting suffragettes, political radicals, scientists, philosophers, artists, performers; campaign, charities and other non- profit organisations. - Наука та технологія
As an Atheist, I choose to spend my Christmas watching videos like this! ;)
As an Atheist you have an Christmas?
katastihon I'm an Atheist and I celebrate Christmas. Good food and presents.
NameYourChannel I`m sorry for you.. but celebrating an religious event it make you a non-Atheist..
katastihon What makes you think that? Celebrating Christmas with my family doesn't make me suddenly start believing in a creator.
katastihon
I don't, but it's kind of hard to avoid it, since you're surrounded by all these fools pretending to be nice, once per year.
What a wonderful world it would be if it were full of people who think like these two guys and empty of religious myth believing people.
Robert Rinaldi sir it truly changed my life, knowledge and a well endowed argument it's a joy to my brain
Indeed , but its only a wishful one ,people like to differ in opinions and universe has a mind of its own .
Do you mean empty heads?
@@davidbanner6230 In the. six years since I made that comment my views on religion. have become more moderate. I. don't mind people who need religion as long as they don't worship that paedophile Mohamed..
I love Richard and Lawrence together like this. Good team.
These two are true heroes!
Stop making a fool of yourself........
@@davidbanner6230 See a psychologist son
Two of the greatest who ever lived
Richard Dawkins makes an interesting point around 29:31. “If you’ve got an independent criterion for deciding which bits of religion you find reasonable and which you don’t, just decide…cut out the middle man of religion.” We can apply a “modern, decent liberal understanding of what’s right and wrong.” Good point, we do not need the Bible to tell us what is reasonable.
If this subject interests you then I suggest you read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris or watch UA-cam videos of his lectures on the book. He has a very compelling argument as to how science can and should answer questions of morality.
Theron Sax
I watched some Sam Harris on UA-cam regarding “The Moral Landscape,” thanks. I was interested to hear his view that our sense of well-being depends on laws of nature and on our brain states, and that once we accept this, we can then identify right ways to maximise well-being of all.
“The Moral Landscape” is now on my Christmas list, so I will look into this some more. Thanks again.
Happy to help.
That's thing we have been doing all along as a society, even christians themselves.
I don't see anyone in modern religious societies stoning people to death, or killing a man who works in sabbath, which are from the bible.
Our morality is based on evolution and reason. It's inherit to us. Some of our inherit morality is just also mentioned in the bible. It's not an argument for the bible.
I'm still asthounded that many people use bible to be against god, while still condone all of the rest irrational morality in it. Bible is just used as tool to argument without reason.
I cannot see morality in people who cannot behave well without written rules and horrible imaginary punishment. Morality is inherit and cultural thing, not a ruleset.
Not arguing with you, but just adding few thoughts for the fun of it.
Well if you say it than it must be true.
What a pleasant evening with 2 gentlemen who are as kind as intelligent.
Enjoyed every minute
I was at this event and one of the questions from the top was from a teenager who on that same afternoon was diagnosed with a terminal illness. It was very emotional and brave of him to even attend let alone admit this to a crowd but I believe he asked a question of what's the point of doing anything.. Lawrence replied with an incredibly beautiful and meaningful answer. Was this other section edited out? I hope we could get just Lawrence answer perhaps because it was really incredible.
what was the answer?
As if Krauss can give something "meaningful." He believes this all came from nothing and it's his lie about something that can't create more anyway. Krauss and Dawkins hate reality and to you that's "meaningful." You're as clueless as they are.
@@2fast2block Dawkins and Krauss love reality so they're on a life long journey to discover more about it. Religious people are the ones who hate reality. They prefer to believe in the rather limited fairy tales that their more primitive ancestors conjured up thousands of years ago. Take the story of Christ for example. A fictional character based partly on an earlier fictional character called Krishna from Hinduism. Yet there are actually people who exist in today's modern world who truly believe in the fictional stories of religions. It's no different to believing in the story of Harry Potter, to use a modern comparison. A true abandonment of reality and almost verging on insanity!
@@Gorguruga "Dawkins and Krauss love reality" Krauss calls space, matter, and time ALREADY there "nothing." RD says the universe got created by "literally nothing." To you though, that is reality so give the science of your reality.
@@2fast2blockdude get yourself educated even if just a little bit more so that you can understand what "nothing" really means in this context 😅
Too many people watch the wrong videos on UA-cam, these videos need more awareness!
Well that means that not enough people are watching the right videos?
Tough call I would say that one.
I agree. Religious videos should be banned, after all, they're the only ones pushing nonsense and fairytales
What a beautiful pear, these two. I could listen them 24/7, and still ask for more...
The same like me.
Great. I am so satisfied to watch this kind of evolution on human history.
I can understand why the most moving moment of the evening has been omitted , but it will remain with me .
What was that moment? Was it in the original movie?
what was it
*****
What happened ? Crisis ?
What happened exactly?
lmfao richard dawkins donated the money to his own organization...what a boss.
apart from the white bed sheet on the table, Great Q & A
Converse are only for lectures
Lawrence always putting a human edge on Dawkin's stoicism.
great final question+answer
*****
Thank you so much for giving us foreigners the opportunity to assist these events, even if not live.
Im a very offensive person, and I find this film absolutely religious...
excellent !
I believe that we do not now need the opinion of great people such as Richard and Lawrence to convince us of the stupidity of religion. The overwhelming evidence of evolution and the age of the earth, which contradict of bible, should be enough to raise eyebrows among those believers to question old antiquated writings of fiction
Keep in mind that in the USA exists a new kind of religious fundamentalist education system covered by the freedom of religion. They are essentially opposed to any religion but their main cause is fighting the merge of religious superstition with the scientific method taught in school, bascially removing free will and freedom of choice from innocent minds, as are their children.
In western Europe (the EU, e. g.) we do not have that kind of problem... yet. So, Dawkins is rather harsh but in the USA he has to be, not so much here in the EU.
They won#t reach the hardore idiots of any religion anyways, they will reach all people on the fence, though.
Wow, I really like this video - thank you for recording and allowing me to be part of this fantastic Q&A with two of my favourite people in the world.
I've realized that in every q and a like this one the people who propose the questions are way too into trying to get their intellect and ideas heard that they spend hours rambling about nonsense and then come to a quick simple question in the end. Rather than portraying their answer clearly and without wasting time.
what an inspiring event! I was even feeling a little "spiritual" at the end. never felt that way at any church gathering. only uncomfortable. I'll never understood why these churches would make every body greet each other. that was so uncomfortable because it was forced. I still get a creepy feeling thinking about that. Fortunately I will never have to do that again. I look forward to reaching out to other anti theists in my community for social interactions. Thanks for uploading!
Couldn't of had a more perfect end haha
I love how Lowrance said "No Richard you shouldn't" when they were talking about when to use offensive tactics vs "politically correct" because everyone loves Richard's straight answers and no bullshit approach
Q and A session was just wonderful
there is hope in the world with these people (including the audience) . I especially loved the Pakistani woman.
I read a book called "The God Who Hates" about one woman's life within Islam. Though she was a medical student in her late twenties, when she saw two boys plucking the feathers off two birds and told them they might be causing a problem a mere third grader said to her, "How dare you tell us what to do? Go home and cover your face!" I would never have dreamed saying anything negative to a girl older than myself even
a year or so, not twenty years!
two great actors
Thank you for sharing this Q&A.
A cosmic tombstone. That is 1 of the best ideas I've EVER heard.
i SO enjoyed this...
Good video very insightful into the decisions made in the film!
I love the goat Dr. Krauss!
Hahah I love these guys!
I should be learning with him
There’s an amazing new book out called “Bible Stories Mother Never Told Me” by CL Putnam that will blow your mind! It re-tells several Bible stories, but from the point of view of God’s “enemies” and his “victims”. If you really want to know the WHOLE truth about the Bible, read this book!!!
Great video
Dr. Krauss says "Ultimately, you should base your actions on empirical evidence and rational thinking". But this feels logically self refuting since, if it is not limited in scope, it is seemingly self referencing. For example, is there empirical evidence or a logical argument that shows that you should take the above quoted position? If so, what would that empirical evidence or rational argument look like? If not, doesn't that make the position quoted above, by its own standards, logically self refuting?
+We Are Showboat The answer is that science relies on a set of philosophical principles. Krauss's statement is part of that philosophical foundation, which can't really be subject to its own principle because of the circularity. You might be getting led astray by Krauss's unfortunate use of the word "ultimately."
Can one empirically test the claim that claims should be empirically tested? I'd have to get back to you on that question. You may have already come upon the answer with your phrase "if it is not limited in scope," in that the principle is, in fact, limited in scope.
This is pretty much the same type of problem the logical positivists ran into in the early 1900s. Once philosophers realized that logical positivism failed by its own standard, people ditched it pretty quickly. It's funny how many physicists say they hate philosophy, only to go on and try to do philosophy, and do it so badly.
We Are Showboat Philosophy is pretty much unavoidable. In order for positivism to be logically tenable, we need some sort of "soft" positivism.
I think bad philosophy is avoidable. I suggest we point it out wherever we see it in an effort to both discourage it and avoid it.
We Are Showboat Sounds like a plan.
where can you find this video?? like the movie they are talking about
the movie is called "the unbelievers" - but i don't know where to find it though!
It's for sale ($3.99) right here on UA-cam...... ("the unbelievers")
Maverick5588 its also on netflix...or at least was. if you have that service.
It's also on Amazon
you can torrent it too
What’s the name of the movie
The Unbelievers
The great 'Chris French' in the audience at 31:42
I really do wish people wouldn't clap whenever the panelists state something decisive, it just gets in the way of debate.
Ken Ham hit the refresh button 34 times....
Saw 'the unbelievers' movie on Netflix
was it good
It was very casual in its style yet convincing very surprising in places too.
Krauss was worried about the Supreme Court then……he’d be positively furious now.
Krauss seems to be quite a bit more confident than usual. More mojo.. :D
Wish I knew what film they were talking about!
The Unbelievers - a documentary film featuring both Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.
Strauss has a BEARD!!! Wow
About that early question there about the good effect of religion, I do believe he is referring to the good effect of being ignorant - a well known saying is: "Ignorance is bliss". I think its very human to want to simplify life rather than make it immensely complex (which science is), so the ignorant part of the brain seeks comfort in a simpler explanation to reduce "stress". But I agree with Dawkins, what really matters is the truth.
Compare this with a scene from the movie The Matrix, where the guy is sitting at a table eating steak - he wants the comfort of tasting that steak to avoid thinking of the reality that he is hooked up to a machine as a power source to the robots and its all a simulation in his head. Ignorance about reality is a simulation in the same sense, and we have experience varying degrees of self-delusion with regards to anything that interest us in order to cope. So for many I guess religion is a coping mechanism to reduce the chance of simply going insane. Although the solution is like any psychologist would tell you, to let go of the delusions and embrace reality, and understand how lucky you are to be alive and what the infinitely small odds really are that you are here now - alive. Enjoy it while it last and try to be as good as you can. That is the meaning of life.
Great audience but I firmly disagree with the guy who didn't like the humour. I have found humour to be the best antidote to religious studies, particularly with children. When my kids were being exposed to it at school I just threw in a few Eddie Izzard quotes and now they can't hear the words God or Jesus without falling about laughing.
Darwin Mizser Every myth deserves to be laughed at... Especially ones regarded as being real. :P
Darwin Mizser that's awesome!.. i'll have to remember that..
religion shouldn't be taught in science class, i think we all agree here.. but nothing wrong with "religious studies" in school as a choice so you don't "have" to take it.. personally, i don't really teach my kid anything about religion unless he asks, then i usually start with "some people believe..."
Dan R In Canada Nothing wrong with learning about Mythological history. Why people still study the Olympians and Norse gods.
Darwin Mizser good on you Darwin, I think you hit the hammer on the nail - totally agree humor is a great teacher, and ridicule when it comes to religion, often does not go astray.
Luke Irvine I agree . It is the the zealot peeking out when people get so hard-line about Mythical stories. Even without religion, education is not complete without some Bible knowledge.
36:17 "...Lewis Thomas said what we should do to advertise the human species is send Bach, Bach, and more Bach."
-And if there's not enough room, might I suggest his pipe organ Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor, at the very least. Let whomever out there that hears it think that we are a very advanced species - why not?
45:00 - The great Hitchens sent his kids to a religious private school. Crazy...
Cheximus you sure?
“I don’t know what caused the Big Bang and
I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don’t
know either” - Bill Maher. “I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the
question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don’t have to waste your
time either attacking or defending either position” - Issac Asimov. “You should
be skeptical of everything, including yourself” - Bertrand Russell. I had to
preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist
and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My
two B.A.’s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I
don’t know what I’m talking about. You may be right.
But I would like to open a discourse with
my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy
is: ‘Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects’. One of the tenants
of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do
have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly
intelligent, Atheists:
“If God did not require being created,
logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” -
Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter,
Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created.
Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you’re a follower of the
Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness
that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have
required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the
Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know
that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and
questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised
that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if
we did not have the concept of Space and Time ‘A Priori’ in our Minds before we
were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to
another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.
“Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to
come into existence out of Nothing” - Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals
for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people.
Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum
Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the
strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the
Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I
understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing - He is
talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual
particles ‘pop’ into existence which then become real particles. The problem
with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this
occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a
no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss’s reply is that a true Nothing (no space,
no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually
collapse in on itself and produce something. I’m not sure how to answer that.
In a no-time, how does nothing ‘eventually’ collapse. It should be noted that
by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science
Channel - ‘How The Universe Works’) that might be able to detect Gravity Waves
from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2
separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided,
causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are
detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss’s
assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the
question: ‘What caused the first Big Bang ?’. And if the continuous Big Bangs
go back in Infinite Regression - the question is: ‘Why is there something
instead of nothing ?’
When I talk with some of my Atheist
friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the
existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get
what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot
prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not
going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive
scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night
outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy
never shows up - you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you
can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the
Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and
I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a
product of Spontaneous Creation’. Since you can’t do that, comparing the
question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster,
or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred
Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God,
assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.
The bottom line is that if you are an
Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and
perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no
God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of
Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a Religious
fanatic.
If the Question of God or the Nature of God
is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not
something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware
of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a
Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it
down in the category of Faith.
Taxpayers money should be spent on clearing sink estates and buying land,and then building detached bungalows with numerous bedroom totals in each house to suit the number of occupants.
About the question about science for younger children, I saw Once upon a time ..man when I was young and liked it very much. Here is a link to the opening theme: ua-cam.com/video/dfnLa4B-Pbg/v-deo.html
Interesting a Cosmic Tombstone
Those pictures of them are quite good actually, that's exactly how they look through the eyes of a theist.
Rational Thinking can often come up with completely wrong answers!
Social scientist?
How about Jacque Fresco?
Rational people are those who believe that you need intelligence to create intelligent life.
Lawrence looks like Mark Twain :D
It's not impossible to irradicate religion from your thinking and decision making. I was brought up with religion forced on me while my parents rarely even talked about it or even went to church themselves and I am very resentful of that. It's such a hypocritical thing and would never do that to my own children - let them decided for themselves what's best for them because they will be independent, decision making adults one day.
Religion is funny when you try to seriously discuss or debate it lmao
Science studies nature. If im trying to find whats outside nature, why look at science?
Jeff Guzman Its impossible to find out whats outside nature, because we are nature..
we are not talking about spooks or magic, but meaning and value. when we say outside nature, we mean that which science has no baring on. no one believes in fairies, but everyone agrees that love and beauty exist. can you show me them under a microscope?
Jeff Guzman There has already been a lot of studies and scientific research on beauty and attraction.. According to google, beauty means: a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight. Love means: an intense feeling of deep attraction..
Beauty and love is not out of nature. Science can explain why those qualities are seen in nature and in the animal kingdom, and also what evolutionary purpose they may have..
thats not science. a definition of beauty does not actually say anything about what is considered beautiful. once you make a value judgment of what is considered beautiful, you are using metaphysics, or "trans" physics, specifically what comes after physics. so science tells us what is actually in front of you, but it has nothing to do with the subjective experience. romeo does not fall in love with juliet because she looks fit to bare a child and has good breasts for nursing. of course biology and science has a part to play, but to say that it is JUST science is to abolish the very factor that makes us human
it may not mean anything but I wonder how many folks will remember Richard Dawkins 500 years from now and how many will remember Jesus Christ.
It's not just J.C., it's ALL GODS and there hundreds! There are millions of people who have never heard of Jesus Christ, so what happens to them when all the born-agains are "sucked into heaven"? You REALLY believe in that b.s.???
"When you are talking to an idiot you are persuading the rest of the audience"
You mean to attract the mass? But, who is active? the "idiot". Right? That is so, because the rest of the audience didn't do any thing except listening. The only interactive and active one is that "idiot", but is that "idiot" really idiot? or do we want to escape the mistakes we made by persuading through distortion, by saying, hey we never discussed with idiots, because we cannot convince idiots because they are idiots...Is this real. But, if we are talking to idiots we are talking to them and if we are talking to the audience we are talking to the audience. Right? i am just curious. Thanks.
you want to teach little kids about science instead of religion. Do it through music and sound. Because it can be so easily explained with some many tools/instruments to show case waves and energy, air, thermodynamics and so on. Books are cool, but little kids need something they can feel.
I am against the separation between state and church but I wish both church and science should be under state! However, the state should be far from the theist and atheist debate!
definitely have Radiohead in the cosmic tombstone
There's always ONE like you isn't there? Radiohead sucks - I suggest you get over it.
elmington Yes, we are legion.
wrong, you are bell-end
37:00 - why not include the World’s greatest painting and sculpture in your “tombstone for humanity” ?
Surely visual Art is just as valid as Music and Literature ?
SOUTH CAROLINA WAS HERE....DONT BE AFRAID
Religious indoctrination is rather like foot-binding. The younger the victim, the more difficult it is to reverse the damage.
This is a channel about finding God, knowing Him, and connecting to Him.
We go easy, step-by-step, and simple.
We debunk evolution and false gods.
We seek the One God, the creator of the cosmos, life, and man.
Join the journey.
(this is not a monetized channel)
Unfortunately your statement that you “debunk” evolution is delusional. The impossibility of God is staggering, the science of evolution can not be debunked, the scientific method can be tested and measured again and again which becomes the facts. Your God can never, ever be proven. You need “faith” because there is nothing else credible to confirm that it’s even possible for God to exist. Faith does NOT replace a scientific fact, it only breads more ignorance that pollutes the minds of all who believe in such nonsense. Be well.
AGNOSTICISM! I WIN!
I still struggle t think I share an origin with a banana, let me stick to my fairy tales
Watch Dawkins in epic troll mode here as he totally fucks up Reverend X's mind:
ua-cam.com/video/U8myAq8Ij-Y/v-deo.html
Interesting answer from Richard about Islam. He could get arrested for that remark.
Back home in a United Kingdom essentially paralyzed by political correctness, perhaps, but not yet in Australia. I wish they would arrest him because it would expose the government's craven caving to islamist threats of violence!
Great men and scientist
Nice to argue all options
But they will not be able to prove any thing against any religion
But this kind of discussion may improve the religious thinking
The religion is like any thing,will not give you the whole truth
But our interpretation to the ,,holy,, texts can be changed
Religions are not above the mind, they must be developed with the developing human thinking
Like all sciences they are changing with time
What is appears to be real , tomorrow it is not.
And so is the religion , should be interpretated in the direction of the current thinking
We cannot take the whole truth from the holy books
But we can change our look to the holy books , like physics or biology
Faith is a gift from God, so apparently He wants you to be an atheist. I wouldn't brag about it.
To do so unfailingly, He often first infects you with the social disease of liberalism.
Take two identical twins. The same ones as in Einstein's clock paradox after a hot bath and a nice cup of tea.
Let's say that one is tone deaf and the other has perfect pitch.
They are identical genetically and let's assume identical physically but their quality of consciousness differs in their respective appreciation of sound.
The tone deaf twin hears the same sound as his sibling but to him it's just/merely/only noise without relevence.
The twin with perfect pitch hears the sound and recognises beautiful and meaningful music that raises his spirit/mind/consciousness to greater heights.
The tone deaf twin takes no pleasure in music.
The twin with perfect pitch loves music, learns its secrets and benefits from its gifts.
One twin is a theist and one twin is an atheist.
It's not difficult to guess which is which and the difference between them lies entirely in their respective mental capacities.
Just as blind people lack the capacity to see and deaf people lack the capacity to hear, atheists are people who lack the capacity to appreciate the profound beyond the shallow.
This is my belief.
p.s. I'm not a Christian so replies that attack literal religion will be more irrelevant than usual.
Platonic love to all.
The atheist is the twin who observes, then concludes, that everything comes from nothing for no reason and is the consequence of trillions of unempirical, unobservable, uncountable, unmeasurable, unanalysible chance/random/undirected and meaningless accidents.
The theist recognises that which is observed to be the result of meaning and purpose and that their conscious ability to perceive is meaningful and purposeful.
The theist twin is also concerned but amused that the atheist tries to justify his/her faith by pretending that it is somehow "scientific" or "logical" when of course there is no coherent materialist theory to explain that which is observed without resorting to a kind of blind faith in the magical abilities of matter.
Typically dumbed-down atheism in action. Thinking is not for you sweetheart, try something less demanding.
John Owen Sarcastic, but at least you're being honest now with your needless, hateful insults, instead of trying to dress them up in cutesy stories about a man and his brain-damaged twin.
God loves sarcasm.
And you love pop music, yeah? Confess!
Kurt Hurt- I have better things to do.....
John Owen Heard the tale of two twins? One is sociopaths and the other is normal. The sociopath hears voices in his head instructing him to kill people. Thereby hangs a tale ...
You know what ???Jesus himself separates religion from the state.
Most children in the UK and the rest of western Europe stop believing in gods at the same time as they stop believing Father Christmas. There is always some people believe in myths. In a meta study of 83 studies it was found Religious people score 6 IQ points lower than non believers and suffer from poor problem solving skills. My atheist friend started going to church to get his son enrolled in a Christian church school. He claimed that was norm. The teaches in most cast were also none believers and only paid lip service to the schools religious status and openly would make jokes in class about religious teaches at their school.
70 percent of the questions were obvious and the other 30 percent Lawrence/dawkins didn't answer well
Pretentious much? The discussion doesn't revolve around what you personally know, idk if that's news to you?
fuk off pest, ill get my fly squat onto you
XD
The world is filled with physicist who think they can do biology😂😂😂
Mutt and Jeff, the 2 dolts.
Which interpretations of Quantum Mechanics does Dawkins & Krauss believe?
martin smith and who are you? Obviously youre not a physicist
I might not be a physicist but at least I've got good taste in musi unlike you!
Interesting. One thing wrong among several even from a scientific view-all religion aside: 'Nature cannot plan for the future' 26:04 Yes, it can. Every day. The kill-deer calls out a warning of a predator near. It knows this thing is capable of killing. Animals do plan for the future innately via procreation. In fact, they do so with a higher intelligence than humans. They pick healthy mates for offspring for instance. They do plan for a future by attacking humans that are encroaching in their space of territory. Storing nuts is a plan for the future. These are so innate that they are actually higher evolved than humans in this "common sense."
As a believer in Jesus Christ I believe in this: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)
good for you. how irrelevant.
Wake up :)
One on its own is bad enough...but two together! (vomits)