(13/17) Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion

[jamespfearn]

Love Hitch at 4:30 saying "go on". Brilliant.

[MJFAN666]

"Can we have transcendence without thousands of corpses?"

Ever heard of Shrooms, religious dudes?

[Rabsputin]

roger scruton talks absolute shite. where the hell does he come up with this fucking waffle?

[RustlessPotato]

1:20. There's a genetic predisposition to find logical answers. If there isn't one that can be made at that time we go for stupid ones. Paraphrasing House :D

[DrAmorphos]

Professor Scrotum made the most tortuous and casuistic argument I have ever heard at the end of this clip. What a ball bag!

[jjobie]

Good god, Professor Scruton looks like an 80 year old Kenneth Brannagh.

[twooffour]

0:07... WTF?? Did this lady voice the "I'm da bear" from Teletubbies?? :D

[twooffour]

8:30 what does this have to do with the burning bush or "I am I am"? How does that tautology "make sense" of consciousness or ego or whatever, any more than the Socrates Cliché?

[cuevarap]

Is there a natural selection reason for being religious? Maybe and as Richard put it: that doesn't tone down its ridiculousness. More or less like smoking. It's harmful, period!

[hYdEdesign]

damn, this might be the most aggresive dawkins that I have ever seen....

[howler95uk]

Scruton is a scrotum

[username200203]

Do i spot there an amber liquid in hitchens cup? ;)

At least hes the only one who doesn't have a transparent one.

[ilyLaura1]

Dawkins is such a fucking boss!!!

[wardzer]

oops dawkins said we "intelectuals". boooooo! but we'll just let slide the people mindfucking the masses, because they say nice words

[3TUPPR]

"for heaven's sake", Mr Hitchins you sneaky devil

[Umairkazi001]

n1 dawkins

[111E982a]

pro..pro..professor scrotum.

[Hume77]

When do atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling and the millions of other atheists go out and kill people because of their differences the way Scruton thinks they would like his co-religionists have in the past and in the Muslim world still do.

[endgamex]

@Gurn92

dawkins is prob the most intelligent person in that room. You didnt even listen to his argument. Thats why you cant understand what hes saying.

[endgamex]

@Gurn92

dawkins is prob the most intelligent person in that room.

[manyannoyingthings]

burning bushes saying things eh..... hmmmmm

[insideous57]

I loved every thunderous applause after the Athiest comments, and equally enjoyed every embarassing silence after the Religious comments.

It's a sign of true progress when the general public see bullshit for what it is

[theDerailled1]

I love how dawkins always has a look of happiness after hitchens answers

[TomFynn]

"'I am what I am.' What does it mean?"

What it means Mr Scruton, is exactly nothing.

[Gurn92]

@MrTickleparty Yes that is true some Christians now warp aspects of their teaching to try and fit in more with modern society, these people aren't really Christians though. One example over here in England there is a Church of England (Anglican) Vicar who doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God! But with regards to the revised parts of the Bible, that is a complicated issue of whether and where to interpret allegorically or literally.

[Gurn92]

@MrTickleparty Well they may believe it is their particular organised faith that gives them the means to partake in the metaphysical. But any intelligent person will be aware that it is their view and that they have decided to go down that route and are willing to identify themselves with their religion. It is not always a good thing but ensuring separation from the state it should have little negatives, however, it is unfortunate that fundementalism has to rear its ugly head sometimes.

[Gurn92]

@MrTickleparty I would differ on that point about organised faiths not being interested in seeking the truth. It's all down to individual judgement at the end of the day; after individuals may have accepted that there is something more than the physical world it is then down to the theological cases of any given religion and whatever one may be a satisfying explanation for that individual. It doesn't mean they are not interested in the truth as they may of course not be satisfied with religion.

[Gurn92]

@MrTickleparty True, but that is why it is called faith. I believe it's true that they can't all be right but they all point towards metaphysics of some kind. And what hard line atheists do is deny all metaphysics which I don't believe to be justifiable especially when looking at the origins of the universe

[LambdaQuarks]

This is the dumbest way to collect questions from the audience ever. What is the fucking hurry? all the time everyone is in a fucking hurry. You have one of the most important topics and some of the best debaters wtf do you mean there won't be time...screw you lady.

[Gurn92]

Richard Dawkins actually had the nerve to call religious people condescending and patronising when he calls them delusional and unitelligeble on a regular basis. He is such a hypocrite

[Winner8501]

@Gurn92

Oh isn't that right...

Religious people claim that they know the answers to everything, but it's Dawkins who's condescending? Listen to him, you moron - he's criticising the intellectuals who consider themselves intellectually superior.

On a related note, ignorants often call knowledgeable people arrogant, because they remind them of their ignorance.

[Gurn92]

@Winner8501 Dawkins is extremely condescending, the only reason you don't see it is because you happen to agree with him and so it suits yourself. "We intellectuals, of course, know it's not true" it sounds like richard dawkins who is dishing out all the answers here and claims to know everything which is extremely arrogant, I call him this out of basic observation not ignorance. And all I did was point out his hypocrisy just get over it

[Winner8501]

@Gurn92

When he said that, he was actually mocking those who use these arguments. Watch it again, hopefully you at least able to recognize irony and sarcasm.

[Gurn92]

@Winner8501 He sounds sinsere in his comment, and no matter how its interpreted he still states religion is condescending despite his continual condescending remarks towards religion and religious people throughout his entire life, which was originally my first point

[azdgariarada]

@Gurn92 And your first point is equally as pathetic as your misunderstanding of Dawkins' sentence about "intellectuals knowing it's not true". At least that can be resolved by you simply watching again, and trying to understand what he was ACTUALLY saying, as opposed to what you THOUGHT he said.

But your calling Dawkins condescending and patronizing is absurd. It's not patronizing to call someone delusional and unintelligible IF THEY ARE!! It's not an insult if it's true.

[Gurn92]

@azdgariarada I think it is disgraceful that atheists see fit to call people delusional for having a different worldview to their own, this is just a completely spiteful attitude. And who are you to suggest that what they believe is not true, do you claim to know the answer to life the universe and everything? Until you can give an answer to this you have no right to state that religious folk are delusional as a fact, that is extreme arrogance on your part.

[Gurn92]

@azdgariarada I was merely pointing out Dawkin's major double standard if you can't see this then clearly you are downright partisan

[nordhorny]

@Gurn92 "Dawkins is extremely condescending, the only reason you don't see it is because you happen to agree with him and so it suits yourself. "We intellectuals, of course, know it's not true" it sounds like richard dawkins who is dishing out all the answers here and claims to know everything which is extremely arrogant, I call him this out of basic observation not ignorance. And all I did was point out his hypocrisy just get over it"

? You COMPLETELY missed what his ACTUAL point was !!!!!!

[MrLittletomdj]

@nordhorny I agree with him too, but I still think he's a prick. A good 200 people laughed at that exact moment because the all realized the fallacy.. Look at his face when he said it... he went.. "oh shit, I walked right into that" < I think even he knows he's a prick at times. When he doesn't fall into his own traps, he's still on point.... usually

[nordhorny]

@MrLittletomdj You warrant the same response to that ignorant nonsense - "You COMPLETELY missed what his ACTUAL point was !!!!!!"

[MrLittletomdj]

@nordhorny No I didn't, I fully understood his point and totally agreed with it. He just fell into the trap of saying that we intellectuals "that know".. When he should have said "that are deeply skeptical for obvious reasons". It was just a linguistical error. NO need for the capitals AND all the exclamation marks MATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nordhorny]

@nordhorny You warrant the same response to that ignorant nonsense - "You COMPLETELY missed what his ACTUAL point was !!!!!!"

[GermanChocolateCake]

Ever notice how people like Scruton and those on his side of the panel (in this debate and others) simply can not resist the occasional pot shot at the character of the opposition members.

It's almost as if the deep seated need to call them heretics is just burning under the surface and must vent itself, if even just a little, in some manner.

Granted Hitchens is much more "fire with fire", but most of the atheist panel rarely engages in such childish recrimination..

[TheOmegajuice]

Religious person: faith and religion are good things

Anti-theist: no they aren't

Religious person: your even more religious and have more faith than I do

WTF!!!

[SGRollingStone]

Htich=arrogant moron

He makes some good arguements but most of his stuff is quite badly researched did he even bother to look into some of the slightly more complex aspects of ALL religions rather than just the chopped up version of the fundementalist Bible.

And where does he come off the notion that science and religion are impossible to coexist in a single human being and that religious persons give offerings to a flaming bush rather than take a look into the marvels of the whole universe.

[TheOmegajuice]

@SGRollingStone Do you seriously think that someone has to study EVERY SINGLE RELIGION before deciding that there is no merit to religion?

Should we watch ALL magicians acts before concluding that magic is fictional?

[SGRollingStone]

@TheOmegajuice Of course. If there is one magical act out of a hundred that actually involves magic, then magic isn't fake. Even though the ones practicing it might be 90% percent sharlatan.

And above all one mustn't judge it based on the most common and simple card trick.

[TheOmegajuice]

@SGRollingStone True but it isn't reasonable to believe in magic as a force until the point at which it is demonstrated.

Whether it's a card trick or a amazingly intricate brilliant trick doesn't matter, you can praise the latter magician for amazing slight of hand and misdirection and so on but that is NOT the same as praising his magical power. Sophisticated theologians are just very sophisticated in their bullshit.

[SGRollingStone]

@TheOmegajuice I've seen documenaries where scientists proved the existence of auras and their effect on the human body and mind, something similar to chi if you like. Indian yoga practitioners are also known to be able to affect the hypothalamus and alter their heartbeat, hormon secretion and other automatic body functions (although I must admit I haven't seen any scientific research on the latter myself).

[tecciztucatl]

@SGRollingStone The scientific method exists to eliminate the human flaws of bias etc and I very much doubt that the aura experiments were successfully repeated in other labs, or it would have been all over the news.

Regarding the yogis; the mind affects the body, that much is known from the placebo effect. If they've harnessed that ability it would be impressive (and not entirely implausible) but not at all proof of supernatural abilities.

[SGRollingStone]

@tecciztucatl I'm not sure if that experiment was succesfully repeated or not, but even so I don't believe it would be a big enough story by todays news standards to be all over them.

I don't think that the word supernatural would apply to the yogi abilities, or indeed anything not scientificaly proved for that matter, since anything that exists in the universe is de facto natural. It may only seem that way because science isn't advanced enough yet to prove them.

[SGRollingStone]

@tecciztucatl Now I'm not talking about proving that pigs fly, but proving the aspects of the world and the universe (magnetic, atomic forces, dark energy etc.) Staying in India the Hindu holy texts talk about the multiverse theory and the expanding and shrinking universe several thousand years BC, while science has only recently discovered these theories. I believe that science and religion are more intertwined than people think and shouldn't antagonise each other.

[SGRollingStone]

@TheOmegajuice I believe religion deserves consideration and merit, since most are only meant to improve a person and the society he lives in through moral and ethic codes.

Of course the pesons practicing and explaining the religions foundations should in theory be the most knowing and enlightened individuals. We all know that isn't the case. But I blame the persons behind the abuse of religion, rather than religion itself. You don't blame a knife when someone is stabbed.

[tecciztucatl]

@SGRollingStone Religions are MEANT to improve people but they are bronze age texts and as such also contain many irrelevant superstitions that are indisputably harmful. I respect the people as fellow human beings, not the nonsense they happen to have been born into.

"You don't blame a knife when someone is stabbed" - true, but, to follow your analogy, you WOULD blame someone who crafted a knife and knowingly handed it to an angry and psychologically vulnerable person.

[SGRollingStone]

@tecciztucatl Of course some content if useless in this day and age (how many sheep to sacrifice for rain), but it stands to reason to find and follow the parts that were and always will be true.

I doubt that the great religious fathers intended the religions to be used to wage war (most religions preache peace), but should the people do so they are themselves to blame, if they wanted war one way or another they would get it. An angry person could also kill with a stone rather than a knife.

[TheOmegajuice]

@SGRollingStone 'You don't blame a knife when someone is stabbed.'

When someone is blown up by a landmine then you don't 'blame' the landmine but you do attempt to remove them.

The way religion is set up requires giving small numbers of people a warrant to create seemingly disconnected rules that large numbers of people follow without having to explain them and without an opportunity of overriding them. Even a religion that only preaches peace is relatively easy to corrupt.

[SGRollingStone]

@TheOmegajuice Of course it's easy to corrupt, but again you can't blame it for that, blame the people that corrupt it. Almost everything can be corrupted. Where there's a will there's a way.

A landmine would be a bad example, since it can't be used for anything other than blowing people up. A knife can be used for many things, other than stabbing people.

[TheOmegajuice]

@SGRollingStone Ok then will you accept the analogy of an autocratic dictatorship. It is possible that a dictatorship may begin benevolently with the one person in charge doing everything for the good of the country however isn't it an inevitability that (s)he or one of his/her successors will begin to abuse that unchecked and unmanaged power?

Religion has no internal regulators, it is up to atheists and secularists to tell them when they are getting stuff wrong, and we do!

[TheOmegajuice]

@SGRollingStone The reason that I used landmines is because it will certainly (except with an enormous amount of care) lead to pain and death.

Many dogmas and tenets of most (if not all) of the major religions will also lead to inevitable death and suffering. i.e. 'stone unruly children and gays'. Kill the unbelievers. Take slaves. (I'm guessing you are probably Christian so I am using Biblical examples)

[TheOmegajuice]

@SGRollingStone The thing that annoys me is that if you have a political system that has hateful tenets and implications and lots of it's followers are committing or calling for atrocities then we would demonise that system (just think about how the media uses the word Socialist, Communist and Fascist) but as soon as that system is religious suddenly all the hateful tenets are misrepresentations and those followers are all radicals or fundamentalists. It's really annoying!

[areyouquitemad]

@TheOmegajuice

The underlying disdain for religion is disdain for dogmatism which religion is particularly known for. Although not all dogma is religious, the supernatural aspect of religion gives religious dogma more power over people to adhere to it for fear of repercussions.

Dogmatism stops people from thinking what the best course of action would be, it commands them to a certain action which they might not derive themselves and makes them do things they might not otherwise do.

[TheOmegajuice]

@areyouquitemad I couldn't agree more.



[justatallguy]

Roger scruton = arrogant morrom

[Amstrup77]

@raionalindia10 the maori's on new zealand are descendants from their ancestors in indonesia and malaysia. this closed group of humans are slightly different in there morphology than the modern indonesian but only slightly since it is relatively an early event. there is plenty of evidence from the great primates in africa to different races (speciations) of homo sapiens all around the world. if you neglect that you would neglect the finks on galapagos, the breeding of house animals and so on.

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 Lemme ask you a simple question: Now that US in North America where the red indian natives once thrived, lets say after a few million years, will the present day US citizens look like the red indians??

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 no absolutely not! the evidence of speciation is very clear. natural selection is one of the means by evolution. another is artificial breeding and so on. you could say that by the means of knowledge, technology, medicin, equipment etc. we have altered our own evolution. the best fitted in the naturalistic environment is no longer a prerequisite for survival and breeding. we depend upon technology and science, not simple features like hiding etc. as in nature.

[bahramf]

@rationalindian10 Why would that happen, and why would it support evolution if it did? Read a biology textbook. 

[Amstrup77]

@Amstrup77 in a million years i reckon the human species as a whole is quite altered as our technology advances, we are the first species in recorded time (history, fossils, DNA) that depends greatly on other principles than that of the nature.. we have created tools and devices to help the needs of our fellow humans, such a simple thing as spectacles.. if you cant see in the wild you are more prone to be killed by a predator than those who can see clearly. wheelchairs, hearing aids, medicin etc

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 That begs 2 questions now:

1. Our technological advancements have overtaken the process of evolution then!! Isnt it what you saying?? (this sounds totally contradictory to the "natural selection" and in fact, points to "artificial selection" if you are proven to be right!!)

2. This still doesnt explain how evolution explains the various ethnic diversities among different geographies (not mental diversities but physical) by coming out of Africa (NOT PROVEN but yet claimed as FACT)??

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 as i said natural selectio is ONE of the agents of evolution.. and i have explained ethnic diversities both in anatomy and eidonomy.. but let me square it for you.. lets say that a those with lighter skin color (eidonomy) is naturally selected over those with darker skin color, that means in a million or more years the skin color gets lighter and lighter (lightest skin survive). facial features is then a biproduct of this evolution. they inherit their ancestors facial features

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 remember natural selection only explains the diversity of life, not the origin, nor the artificial breeding seen with domestic animals. evolution has NOTHING to say about the ORIGIN that is abiogenis. to say that evolution says something of the origin of life is to say that it should explain quantum theory or the law of gravity.

[23codyy23]

@Amstrup77 but science will continue to strengthen their theories upon the ORIGIN of life...

True Science and True Atheism will be modest in saying they don't know the origin of things.

They also realize no one ever will. Not Jews, not Catholics, not Christians, not Atheists, not Theists...no one.

[stewyofdunners]

@Amstrup77 Evolutionary principles are applied to even very simple molecules. This approach has begun to shed some light on the origins of life (not of matter).

[mrfrankincense]

@Amstrup77 No, evolution does explain the origin of life. This is a common misunderstanding. Chemistry and probability theory explain the origin of the first self-replicator (what you and Biologists call Abiogenis), although barely anyone would call that living. It was evolution by natural selection that changed this self-replicator population into life.

[0mniaV1nc1t]

@Amstrup77 Although artificial and natural selection bring about change by the same mechanism - the survival of heritable traits. The only difference is that the desirability of those traits is decided by the breeder in the first case, and the pressures of the environment in the latter.

[Cacacos]

@Amstrup77

Obviously you never read the Origin of Species, or any other reputable book on the subject.

Ever heard of "primordial soup", where the chemistry becomes biology?

Educate yourself in stead of make fool of yourself...

[Amstrup77]

it is a yardstick and a very precise one of that. unfortunately we do not have all the DNA of ALL SPECIES map out, but what we have mapped supports evolution 100%

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 We all are very clear from our basic genetics that when a black guy humps a black gal, only a black kid will be born and not a white!!! Similarly, the chinese kids, europeans kids, indian kids, etc among the various geographies!! Given such a scenario, if a european cult stays in China even for a million years and increases their population, they will never look like Chinese!! So, how can the first set of homo-sapiens be from Africa? Nonsense!! The very foundation of genetics is lost!

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 hahaha are you serious?... lets say there are ten black people (5m 5f).. not are all equally black some are lighter some are darker. they venture north. in scandinavia the environment is very different from africa. those with the slightly lighter tint of their skin would do better surviving in scandinavia. those with lightest skin have babies. now lets say they are the second genereration; they all have light skin. still there is diversity and so on. that is changes in eidonomy

[rationalindian10]

Dawkins is talking trash. Evolution itself is not 100% proven and still has the gall to say that Evolution is a "FACT"!! None of the evolution models have proven its evolution stages from the beginning and are just hypothesis!! This is just like the religious crackpots claiming their God or Gods to be the ABSOLUTE TRUTH aka FACT!! Hitchens is another dickhead who prefers trusting the fiction of Stephen Hawking but not religions!! Wake up assholes and be modest enough to say "WE DONT KNOW"!!

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 do you know what evolution is?.. do you know what a scientific theory is? obviously you dont. you problably havent given yourself the time to understand it.. evolution is a scientific fact. yes FACT! well all will agree that a theory always can be expanded and perfected, but that doesnt mean it isnt factual. you must draw a distinction between theory and law (between them one is not more factual than the other)!

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 Evolution is a FACT!!! Stop putting foot in your mouth way too often like Dawkins!! Ok, prove the fact now!! After the first cell, which are the various organisms that particular cell evolved into before finally becoming a HUMAN (Homo-sapien)?? Evolution and natural selection as a concept is fine but which evolutionary model sir because not a single evolutionary model (be it darwanian or punctuated equillibrium or the fossil theory) are able to determine the evolutionary FACT!!

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 Even cabbage and watermelon contain 92% water but that doesn't mean cabbage is watermelon!! In the same way, the genetic mappings of the so-called 2% difference in the DNA between the humans and monkeys can never be a yardstick for the evolution from a monkey! These percentages are subjective to how much WE KNOW and and doesnt consider how much we actually DONT KNOW!! Human anatomy is still largely unexplored and no one can come to a conclusion unless a new HUMAN is actually INVENTED!

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 what kind of nonsensical blabber is that.. to make the proposition that the amount of water in 2 vegetables has the same scientific merit as the percentage of common DNA in two different species. cabbage and watermelon has a common ancestor and they share DNA accordingly. you make a wrong assertion that "monkeys" and "humans" share 98% DNA.. homo sapiens and Chimpanzee's do. not Homo sapiens and orangutang that is a little less.

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 Lastly, there is not a single EVOLUTIONARY MODEL to CONCLUSIVELY explain what happened after the first cell came into being and what were the various evolutionary steps it underwent to give rise to Humans!! And there is absolutely no clue of what that cell even looks like!! Another major problem with Evolution is: it doesnt explain the ethnic diversities of humans who look so different from one another!! The evolution from Africa is a BOGUS BULLSHIT.

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 in a LAW you need very strict models in which to operate (gravity, conservation of energy etc etc). to make a model in evolution, is to make model all that would be a deciding factor in the process of natural selection and/or other principles that drives evolution. you obviously dont know anything of evoultion. natural selection is the agent that selects those best suited for the environment over the other (they die). be it morphological changes in the anatomy or the eidonomy.

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 natural selection is the agent that selects those best suited for the environment over the other (they die)

Then what evolutionary change did the Chinese undergo that they drastically differ from the blacks in Africa? Did they evolve from 2 different set of monkeys (not monkey in a typical sense but the common ancestor for homosapiens and the chimps)? If you cannot even explain what that evolutionary change is (you need to be FACTUAL and not HYPOTHETICAL by saying natural selection)?

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 i tell you what evolutionary change is since you are so illiterate that you cant even hit it up on google. evolutionary change are morphological chnages be it in anatomy and/or eidonomy. (the phenotype). anatomy is the inner organs while eidonomy is appearance. a group of people from africa many many years ago had a GENE POOL. some GENES in the GENE POOL were better fitted for survival in asia and these survived while others died. people with the right genes breeded.

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 "some GENES in the GENE POOL were better fitted for survival in asia and these survived while others died"

Hahahahahahahaha. How did that GENE POOL travel till Asia in the first place from Africa with those huge oceans separating everyone of them?? What is the guarantee that all the continents were a single piece of land and that they really underwent a continental drift wherein a single continent became 7 continents?? Looks like another science fiction just like the religions!!

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 I dont know what i should say anymore cause you are obviously far out. you can either except the evidence or dont. please be my guest to speculate of other origins of life, i would be happy to be corrected.

now i understand we dont disagree on the gene pool anymore, which shows me you now understand NS. how the "gene pool" got to asia is the least of problems. ever heard of the polynesians? they travel over 2000 miles in 2 man kanoes to new zealand from indonesia.

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 Guys, you need to change your way of thinking and not be bound within the 4 walls of evolution or the religion!! You need a radical shift in your thinking process: Either it is Adam and Eve for you guys or it is Evolution!!! Bullshit!! Questions are obviously raised a lot on evolution and those voices are shut down by labelling them "Creationists" instead of actually answering them!! This is the same trick played by the religious dickheads!!

Everything coming out of Africa is a MYTH!

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 There is something else to how we came about and i dont trust evolution one bit!! It makes lots and lots of assumptions!! Ex: Chimps are found more in Africa: so evolutionists find the simplest explanation that "the modern day humans originated from Africa" as if Africa was the only piece of land on earth since time immemorial!! I am not sure how evolutionists can come to such radical conclusions just because of the chimp factor!! Even the human genome project is based on this SHIT!!

[Amstrup77]

@rationalindian10 do you know what evolution is?.. do you know what a scientific theory is? obviously you dont. you problably havent given yourself the time to understand it.. evolution is a scientific fact. yes FACT! well all will agree that a theory always can be expanded and perfected, but that doesnt mean it isnt factual. you must draw a distinction between theory and law!

btw. no one said they had the 100% truth. the 3 intelligent people (the left side) know that they dont know everything.

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 I hope you know what is the meaning of the word FACT and how it differs from THEORY!! However reasonable a THEORY sounds, it can never be a FACT until PROVEN! When meaning PROVEN, the evolution should be shown HAPPENING in a laboratory!! Gravity is a FACT, electricity is a FACT, AEROPLANE is a FACT. But how is evolution a FACT? Evolution and natural selection are too broad a term to classify it as a fact! They are plain english words and they can only be substantiated through a model!

[rationalindian10]

@Amstrup77 In fact, not INVENTED but when a HUMAN is actually MANUFACTURED only then can a scientist claim to have understood 100% of Human anatomy or the DNAs!! Till then, it is just exploratory science. The minute genetic differences between HUMANS and MONKEYS is again from a yardstick of what WE KNOW and not what is in REALITY!! Even if we assume the 2% to be true, then imagine how that minute difference is literally making a difference between HUMANS and MONKEYS like OIL and WATER!!

[francendorf]

Christopher Hitchens comment at around 7:50 is probably my favourite throughout this entire lecture.

[fjoo]

I'm wondering if the audience is listening at all. They almost flew off their chairs at Dawkins because they didn't understand og listened to what he said. It's like a crowd of sheeps just hearing a couple of words and gets a knee jerk reaction.

[Megmanitee]

Ugh. We don't have a religious need. It is not hardwired in our systems. I do think we have a hardwired need to feel protected, important and righteous. Religion is not the end result of this or the cause, but merely one way we achieve this and a very poor and flawed one at that.

[BobbyRice2]

He put it beautifully, basically - Atheism's 'perfect world' doesn't require the death of another human being.

A Religious one does. Many.

[Loew01]

@BobbyRice2 Ridiculous statement, and completely ignorant. On both that their is a way to define atheism's perfect world that could be agreed upon by all the atheists of the world, and also assuming all religious people's 'perfect world' requires the death of people. You are a perfect example an atheist that is making the exact same judgment calls and simple minded argument that you accuse all religious people of. It is like the idiots who think most wars are caused by religion...

[BobbyRice2]

@Loew01

Enlighten me then, rather than be pig-shit ignorant yourself and simply argue meaninglessly. I'm here to learn, not talk shit with another.

I figured it would be 'OBVIOUS' that wars would still exist if Religion didn't. We will always find reasons to fight because a person is different, but I like to think the word 'PERFECT' gets rid of anything to argue with really.

[Loew01]

@BobbyRice2 Sorry, been busy, but wanted to get back to this. First of all, using the word 'perfect' is what people will always argue about. My point is that most people's perfect world would involve no one killing each other. Your claim that a religious world requires the death of many people is completely baseless, which is why I reacted negatively to it. I am here to learn as well, but to learn you have to get rid of bias views. Maybe start by studying various religious beliefs.

[BobbyRice2]

@Loew01

Aye, of course - i've read most religious text. I truely don't believe Religion would stop war, the fact is - we aren't in power, the governments and so on, are, and it's all about money - if theres a justification / loop hole to use religion, it shall be used.

Though, it goes without saying - overall, it would be a happier world without Religion, and I wish all those family members I loved would have passed away not lying to themselves, but hey.

Happy New Year.

[BenG549]

Can't help but notice Mr Hitchens is the only person not drinking out of a clear glass....Blended scotch whisky in the form of johnnie walker black label by any chance? Might be an alcoholic but the mans still a fucking genius!!!

[jogeryjogo]

Is it possible for an atheist to talk about religion without being so hateful and acting like a condescending jerk?

[WallyJ40]

@jogeryjogo Religious beliefs are so ludicrous at their core that when one attacks them they can't help but sound mean or condescending. Anyone tasked with dispelling notions that simply are not true can't worry about how they are viewed by the ones who believe them. We will always be viewed as "jerks" because we are attacking the very thing people dedicate their entire lives to.

That being said, with all the examples of atrocity put forth, isn't it finally time to be shrill or a jerk?

[BORNagainTEAPOTIST]

nope

[BORNagainTEAPOTIST]

nope

[111E982a]

@jogeryjogo not really...well, the damage can be minimised by alot by, if you are religious, you will still find it slightly offensive. if you are an atheist, you might treat what they say like a song from your fav idol.

but sometimes, you have to be offensive to get somethings into their head.

[Bumblybee256]

@jogeryjogo not showing respect isn't the same as condescension. Why does religon automatically get respect?

[HumaninSeoul]

Scruton is so full of bs that it's unbearable.

[Mitza77Yorkster]

Hitchens is like the Super Heavy Battle tank .

[MasonicEyes]

There are plenty of things 'BUILT INTO US'. Like sexual urge, most of can control it, that question is stupid and people would easily fall for that argument becuase they cannot think critically enough to realize that sexual urge is innate within us, but we can control it, if religion is innate in us that does not make it true and we would have to control it.

[redryan20000]

"for heaven's sake, let's get this out of the way"

i love it

[FortisConscius]

Did Schutton say at the end that transendance is based on the material and not yet explained? Which side is he on?

[bary1234]

Hitchens is brilliant. "For heavens sake, lets get this out of the way." We are so fed up and tired of obvious stupidity of religion. Dark ages a over, religion needs to die.

[mystisme]

when you see the hubble film you just cant belive in a god interesting for us .we are only an elctron on a grain of a sand in a beach of sand why sould he create live just here and transcendant is devotion on us,after seing that film i felt reenforce on my atheistic point of view

[Loew01]

If it is necessary, then there is an implication that it is true... Air is necessary to breathe, so we don't bother trying to explain whether it is true or not. Why do we value truth? Because our experience deems that it is necessary for improving our lives. Truth and necessity are one and the same. The people who argue that religion is necessary are also arguing that there must be some aspect to it that is true.

So my question for Dawkins, and all atheists why does it matter what is true?

[TomFynn]

@Loew01 It matters, because Religion is not "I don't know", or "It doesn't matter what is 'true'". It is to claim to know what is "true" about a "higher reality" which nobody else can see and that this "truth" is the one and the only and so must take precedence over everything and everybody else. And as long as what is done is done in the name of this "truth" it is justified, be it ever so vile and inhumane.

That is why it matters, and that is why we would be better off without Religion.

[Loew01]

@TomFynn like many anti-religious people, you are trying to simplify religion into a couple sentences. By doing so, you miss the entire point of religion. Also you make the common fallacy of assuming that it is the nature of religion to justify vile and inhumane actions. That is something anybody can do, regardless of religion, and it is a pretty common trait across all human cultures. You don't even have a way to measure if it is done more by religious or non-religious people...

[TomFynn]

@Loew01 Like many religious people your are deliberately obfuscating religion. By doing so you miss the entire point of religion. The nature of religion is "God exists and He is on my side, so I'm only following orders" Which is THE No1 reason for justifying vile and inhumane actions. And yes I do have a way to measure it: It's called "God Is Not Great".

[Loew01]

@TomFynn Your closing statement made my point. The scientific method demands metrics and comparable measures. So your claim that religion is THE No.1 reason for justifying evil actions is not based on any kind of evidence, but just a personal feeling you have. Yes, the nature of religion is to claim that God exists, and we know some special knowledge of his will. However, the purpose of that is to help people become better, kinder, more loving people. That is what religious people aim 4

[TomFynn]

@Loew01 The scientific method first requires evidence. "God Is Not Great" is evidence. What's yours? Especially on the existence of god and what he wants. Especially on how "knowledge" of a supernatural dictator would help people to be better people. Which is what most people aim for anyway. And please refrain from quoting Bible verses or feelings, I mean hard evidence, like we know that there are planets beyond Saturn.

As long as this evidence is missing Religion is BS.

[xxFortunadoxx]

It sounds like Scruton is Equivocating.

[Kn0wnIssues]

I love how every response from Hitchens ends with an implied, "you f***ing morons."

[vp1981ad]

I am really liking Professor Grayling!

[bangooisgood]

@vp1981ad same here

[Catz1985]

@vp1981ad Me too! Very soft spoken yet powerful messages.

[pyjamas1191]

i liked scruton at the end of this section (shockingly!) (maybe not that shockingly)

[PhatLarkin]

1:40 = EXACTLY what I was thinking by the time they got to the votes.

[fusedchromosome]

It strikes me as funny out the tone of the faithful has changed now that they are forced to play defense after thousands of years on offense.

[minmi9966]

grayling has badass hair \m/

[adknerr]

Cool, the last guy admits that the notion and feeling of transendence is a prerequisite for religion. Clearly we can then eliminate the latter, without the former, simply be remove that leap of faith.

[nononsesne]

We also have a built in desire for sweets, but we don't need them at all and in fact they only give us rotten teeth and bad health. They do taste nice though.

[xe0rx0es]

dont we like sweets because we need some degree of sugar in our system?

[smarthandsomeguy]

Sure. But our urge for sweets is exploited by the sweets industry in the same way our urge for finding higher purpose and answers to ultimate questions is exploited by the churches.

Think about it: priests make a living by giving false hope and enforcing false beliefs, they claim to be experts about a topic actually nobody knows anything about.

IMHO, this false hope is as beneficial as eating sweets as a substitute for healthy food.

A litle bit of candy every now and then doesn't hurt, ofc.

[artyfarty2]

This notion that there is a 'religious' propensity in all of us therefore we should not try to do better is asinine.

Perhaps we should abandon aircraft on the basis that we are not all that good at flying without them?

This notion should be considered nothing less than intellectual apathy, and the panelists that supported the notion have effectively disqualified themselves from the debate!

[lepolemicist]

Genetic predisposition towards stupidity, to be more accurate.

[currentslacker]

we look at some people and there eyes make us want to be relgiuos ?

what the flip is that man tlaking about

plus i agree with hitchens i love deep space hehe

[ali090]

You wouldn't find them thuggish or smug if they were talking about politics or art or almost any other conviction for that matter. It's just the unmerited, prestigious mantel that religion sits upon after decades of autocracy, that makes it seem as thought they are being especially shrill.

[queenastilon]

Very nicely put, ali090.

I still see/hear far too many saying "Oh, this is nasty; you MUST respect relgion"

[doaftheloaf]

@queenastilon and, of course, the next question has to be, "why?"

respect should only go to those ideas which merit it. if one's religion does not earn respect it does not deserve any. it will not get a free pass with me or any other intellectually honest, rational person.

[queenastilon]

@doaftheloaf you replied 5 mths ago to my saying that still far too many say we must respect religion & not be nasty. So you don't have to search for you comment, you said to ask why, and pointed out that religion will not get a free pass with you or any other intellectually nohest, rational person.

I can only say to that: amen! You're preaching to the choir here, doaf :) but too many are just too intellectually challenged to even understand that, calling it typical atheist trickery

[doaftheloaf]

@queenastilon it really is obvious, isn't it? at least to those willing to put in the mental effort to think about it.

you know, you'd think if these religionists were really confident they had the truth, they would welcome the skepticism and the questions, and not ask for blind faith. if they had facts, they would not rely on faith, for they wouldn't need to to prove their case.

as important as religion is to believers, you'd think they should question MORE, not less.

[doaftheloaf]

@queenastilon and it's not "typical atheist trickery"; it's called critical thinking.

for me, any idea asking for a special right like immunity from criticism or skepticism automatically makes me more critical and skeptical of it.

[hitman1421]

@ali090 Exactly!!!!

[queenastilon]

And just what is that "line of the night" saying? He's sad that he's unable to kill for his faith but accuses Dawkins of being prepared to kill, and you find this laudible?? The accusation is outrageous and cannot be supported by anything Dawkins has said or done, while people are still being killed, persecuted and tortured daily for religion

[dpowens]

@GDM54: Yeah, I've never once heard Dawkins contribute anything to mankind. Certainly not in his field of evolutionary biology. Oh, wait. That's completely false. I've also not heard them espouse any values of their own. It's like they've never even heard of the enlightenment. Oh, wait.