Duelling Professors (Peter Atkins vs John Lennox)

[borgoff55]

God sent John Lennox to take apart atheists. All they have is their biased sciences and failed logic.

[DoYerBest]

I like Peter Atkins, he makes me smile. :D

[crawlersilverwind]

Part2

Even if so we are an atheistic universe our ancestors chooses to believe in God. This is very sad to the realm of an atheistic universe being the majority believed something does not exist.

[crawlersilverwind]

Part1

If we are really an atheistic world that there's no God, why is it so that something like "us" a chemical random reaction are just amazed that there is God? Maybe that an atheistic world does makes no sense and people like us are tired being just a product of chemical reaction. We are tired that we have no purpose, no meaning, no morals, no freewill, no truth, no origin. If there's no God... this is a big slap on the face in a so called atheistic universe...defying an atheistic universe.

[uscjd2004]

I'm sorry, but being "voted a winner" carries no water for one's argument. George W. Bush was twice "voted a winner" in US Presidential elections. Does that imply any measure of competence? Of course not. Any argument making reference to widespread belief is a non-starter. Religious apologists are nothing more than professional casuists and nonsense peddlers. They never have had nor will they ever have any verifiable evidence or cogent arguments to justify their positions.

[borgoff55]

@uscjd2004 lol ur butthurt son. Just because you disagree does not mean it is wrong. Study ID a bit more, then come again.

[uscjd2004]

@borgoff55 LOL. That's hilarious. ID is simply creationism dressed up in the garb of pseudoscience. YOU learn something about SCIENCE and then come again, moron.

[borgoff55]

@uscjd2004 Funny thing is ID is still talked about to the extent of alien life. Dawkins even said so himself. So it seems darwin believing atheists are more prepared to accept aliens than a God. Pretty sad. ID is not pseudoscience, just a better explanation.

[uscjd2004]

@borgoff55 That's utter piffle. If complex extraterrestrial life exists, it probably came about by a mechanism similar to that which gave rise to life as we have experienced it. THAT is what Dawkins has said on the subject. ID assumes a creator and operates upon that assumption. That is NOT science. Furthermore, none of the arguments offered by ID survive rational scrutiny -- the natural explanations are always better than the superficial canards offered by Behe, Dembski, etc. Educate yourself.

[uTubeismyTivo]

just because "mathematics is not tied to reproductive success" directly does not mean it's not evolutionarily valuable (see trading, farming etc.)

also morality is a subjective social construct based on large groups, which tend to win any violent confrontation over solitary individuals, and therefore pass down their behavior

[philosophy7575]

Has anyone ever seen Dr. Peter Atkins smile? I haven't. He seems like a very grumpy man. Plus, he is arrogant, pompous, ignorant, rude and wrong. I still love him though! Ha ha!

[AustinD88]

Peter Akins is just trying to be novel and wild with some of the things he says. Ironically, he is not being rational at times

[neen1988]

Not only did I literally LOL but I was honestly on the verge of stopping this video as soon as Peter Atkins agreed to the ridiculous notion that "science is the ultimate answer to everything". Didn't William Craig teach you otherwise??

[ApotreNoir]

Just to say Galileo didn't realy have the choice for his beliefs ;)

[CloverfieldMonster95]

You can tell Atkins is just barely hanging onto his faith in Atheism. I think he is just reaching out now...

[Gurn92]

Atkins: "...why seemingly intelligent well informed scientists can still believe in the nonsense that theology and belief in God represent"

Now he's being plain arrogant and insulting with ad hominem attacks. William Lane Craig is going to tear him apart in October.

[bencsk8r]

@Gurn92 William Lane Craig is nothing but a trained debater put him up against hitchens again so William can once again get taken apart

[Gurn92]

@bencsk8r A doctrate in philosophy and theology, he is not 'just a debater' as you so fillipantly aand ignorantly put it. And you must be joking, Hitchens was made to look like a witless fool in the debate with William Lane Craig after all Hitchens is only a polemicist, he is no philosopher.

[bencsk8r]

@Gurn92 then you are obviously nothing more than blind suck up good day

[Gurn92]

@bencsk8r Yeah nice one, looks like you are the blind suck up who did not back up their previous statement which incidentally is an ad hominem attack. Like or not, not everyone shares your empirical epistemology. Good day

[philosophy7575]

@bencsk8r

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Dawkins said something similar regarding Craig. However, Craig was a professor before he ever began debating these issues. Moreover, he did not seek to become a debater. Rather he was asked by others to debate skeptics. And finally, Craig has more than twice as many published works as Dawkins does. Only people who don't read Craig think that he is merely a professional debater.

[Gurn92]

"...they (philosophers) are always putting the break on knowledge"

Why the hell does Lennox waste his time with this man? That's right Atkins, because Plato, Aristotle and all the Greek philosophers put a break on knowledge didn't they, perhaps I could say the same about Rene Descartes. Peter Atkins is unbelievable.

[PaulP567]

Lennox: "It makes sense to me". This in a nutshell is the story of religion - personal and subjective. If it makes sense to me it must be true.

Atkins: "Well it doesn't make sense to me, but that's irrelevant". This in a nutshell is the story of science - impersonal and objective. The sense needs to be external to the individual's sense of sense and derived from a chain of evidence.

I'm with Atkins.

[AcephalousPoultry]

I don't know, i always assumed math was just like a language. you can describe a cube in multiple ways, you can manipulate matter in a multitude of ways and you can use mathematics to explain what you can't with words. correct me if i'm wrong, but they both seem like products of man anyway, mathematics seems a lot like a mechanincal construction that we constantly improve and make new profounds additions to, but we created it it wasn't already extant and it works to a certant point.

[mHalfLife]

great

[thegafferlives]

Hitchens would wipe his arse with these fucks.

[sleepytyme]

the video's description indicates a preference for a charming personality rather than the nature of the arguments themselves

.

[bencsk8r]

ive seen his debate against hitchens and 2 against dawkins.. the only people that would think he got the best of it would be a christian he didnt win those debates

[JesusxXxLovesxXxYou]

Atkins: "Philosophers don't have an understanding of the world, scientists have an understand of the world"

I'm surprised Atkins's ego fit in that room.

[JesusxXxLovesxXxYou]

@JesusxXxLovesxXxYou Hm I forgot the last ing in understanding.

[Xul]

Two dull minds that are an embarrassment for an university like Oxford.

Lennox is a naive childlike character (and hence very sympathetic) that constantly uses "god of the gap"-arguments without even properly explaining what (his) "god" actually is and how it/he works.

Atkins is proudly ignorant towards epistemology, logic and philosophy of mind and thus fails to refute invalid arguments.

It's ridiculous. Could somebody please slap him with Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"?

[ivlfounder]

@Xul

Lennox has a very sharp mind.

The problem is more likely that you have a child like attention span.

[empreme]

@Xul I certainly don't mean to offend you, but majoring in philosophy doesn't give you the right to call these men an embarrassment. Not to mention your criticism are silly and off target.

[Xul]

@empreme

I suppose they are excellent in their field of work. But everyone who is interested in these matters has the right to criticize both of them for this discussion.

Atkins is overwhelmingly arrogant in his superficial portrayal of science and philosophy, but fails to point out simple fallacies and inaccuracies large parts of their discussion rests on.

To aimlessly discuss the truth of premises for invalid arguments is something I wouldn't expect from 2 Oxford-professors.

[Equestions]

Atkins is sooooo arrogant. Every Christian is an 'total waste of a mind' and every atheist is totally brilliant. Atkins, Dawkins, Krauss, they're all from the same school of insults and evidence dodging. They provide no evidence for their claims and Atkins doesn't answer any of the requests from Lennox. It really is nothing more than 'stories' that Atkins is telling and he just expects the viewer to accept his stories on faith. Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting.

[bencsk8r]

@Equestions Lennox does nothing but fill in the gaps of things we dont no yet with 'god' without any proof for his claims other than his blind belief

[stephjh2006]

@bencsk8r God of the gaps? Lennox answers this accusation in the video, he shows again and again why this is a false accusation. God of the gaps accusation supposes that "oh no need to investigate further God did it!" this is not the position as he states. Ask yourself, is "naturalism" found a way any different from God did it? Since both, in this case, compel the individual to still investigate as far as possible (as history shows)neither one is superior.

[capaneca]

i found J.L smile and arguments really annoying, irritating and arrogant!.

♡ Dr. Peter Atkins 4 ever !!!

Thank you for uploading this video.

[bigspliffs]

So put that in your pipe and smoke it...

[98nafets]

@bigspliffs Nice one, not sure how many people will get that line

[bigspliffs]

@98nafets lol i thought it was funny when Prof.Lennox said to Prof.Atkins that he must have had a bad experience with philosophers in the past lol I think he still has nightmares about Dr.Craig lol

[empreme]

@bigspliffs God Bless William F. Buckley

[bigspliffs]

The problem with atheists such as Atkins, is they can't look beyond the physical world. They are forcing their minds to wear blinkers, stalling the evolution of the human brain as a whole.

[yington]

@bigspliffs

The problem with theists such as Lennox, is they can't look beyond the bible. They are forcing their mind to wear blinkers, stalling the evolution of the human brain as a whole.

[bigspliffs]

@yington I don't know much about Lennox, but i would suggest that his views are much broader, not incased in the pysical realm, like Atkins. Though, i do agree with the point you are trying to make. There are alot of 'Bible Bashers' out there that can't look beyond the Bible, and miss out on alot of the splendor and mysteries of life.

[stephjh2006]

@yington complete tripe

[yington]

@stephjh2006

Please look at what I was responding to, you ignorant scrote.

[stephjh2006]

@yington I see you did a rehash of his post, fare enough a tit for tat repuke. But then that just means both were tripe :-)

[Alexdurrant7]

Dishonest summary. I would say Lennox defeated Dawkins in his first debate but doubtlessly lost the second. Likewise, I would say Lennox beat Hitchens in the debate about atheism in Europe but lost in their other debate. The mere fact that Lennox is a theist does not instantly require you to defend him.

[SeanG200]

What a great discussion! This will be my next weeks "Serious Saturday" r-pt[dot]net/

[realbrush]

Atkins is not a good debater.

[Dodo251]

Such a contrast between the two of them. On the left there is a constant smile and on the right a glum expression.

[sixtiksix]

@Dodo251 ignorance is bliss

[Dodo251]

@sixtiksix If by ignorance you're referring to Lennox's doctorate then I would gladly be ignorant.

[ApotreNoir]

@Dodo251 I would have said : on the right a man with his eyes open on the hard world, and on the left a man happy with what he believes is true, not needing something as useless as proof.

[98nafets]

It's hard to take Atkins seriously after the drumming he got from WLC years ago.

[yington]

@98nafets

WLC is a smug little scrote

[PaulP567]

@98nafets What drumming? As far as I could see we did not see Atkins reply. He had asked what it was that science could not explain. This was a clumsy question because of course there is a lot that science can't explain, as WLC was quick to seize upon. But it was cheap of WLC to do so. But WLC offers no evidence for anything, just philosophic twaddle and semantic sophistry. At least Atkins is rational and one can follow his train of thought. A pity he is not a bit more fluent in his delivery.

[98nafets]

@PaulP567 "WLC offers no evidence for anything, just philosophic twaddle and semantic sophistry"

WLC brings sound logic and reasoning to discussions, something many people in the field of science need (i.e. "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2", wtf?)

[Drebln893]

@98nafets ...it's hard to take any atheist serious.

[Pursuitofwisdom]

This was a good discussion, I think Peter Atkins is a brilliant chemist but should stick to that instead of debating, he does not realize the logical fallacies he throws out there.

[otogo2]

@Pursuitofwisdom "[Atkins] does not realize the logical fallacies he throws out there."

For instance?

[wordception]

Thanks for this, John Lennox does a great job again.