FULL VERSION INCLUDES THE NUMPTIES: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfix_e1QnbM
http://socraticmama.com/ [Inspiration & Support for Secular Families]
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/wed-be-better-off-without-religion
27th March 2007, debate: "We would be better off without religion"
PROPOSING THE MOTION: Christopher Hitchens, Professor Richard Dawkins & A.C. Grayling.
Christopher Hitchens begins by making the case for religion being at the root of many conflicts that have shaped the 20th-21st century world, citing the current situations in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. Here, it has been intra-faith disputes that have caused or aggravated the conflicts and slowed political and social progress.
Richard Dawkins focuses his support for the motion on the blind faith that leads even intelligent people to deny key scientific principles, citing many American students' opposition to the theory of evolution as an example.
Anthony Grayling illustrates how the Bible's view of what constitutes a good person is at odds with the modern Western view of what constitutes a good person, arguing that it is possible to appreciate the natural world and feel such emotions as empathy, sympathy, and love without holding religious views.
OPPOSING THE MOTION: Dr Nigel Spivey, Roger Scruton & Rabbi Julia Neuberger.
Dr Nigel Spivey opens the opposition by offering an archaeological and anthropological perspective. Pointing to the "Creative Explosion" of 40,000 years ago, he suggests that religion is a concept that is part of the human nature, and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, the Taj Mahal and King's College Chapel, Cambridge.
Rabbi Julia Neuberger argues that, whilst atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of other religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. She suggests that it is certainty and conviction -- not religion -- that produced the Crusades, fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism.
Roger Scruton argues that rejecting religion on some of its irrational principles does not make sense, and that science is just as capable of producing disasters as religion. Religion, he says, offers help to people who are affected by man-made or natural disasters, and provides "why" answers -- the reason why things happen and what life is for -- whilst science can only provides causal explanations.
First Vote: 826 For, 681 Against, 364 Don't Know
Final Vote: 1205 For, 778 Against, 103 Don't Know
I swear there's none of the opposing arguements? That's not a debate and therefore pointless.
frostyknickers 5 days ago
@frostyknickers That's why it has [short] in the title, but I could have put that in the information so I will. :) The version that includes the numpties is linked in the expandable section below the video, but I warn you it will cost you when some of your brain cells start committing suicide
nightjarflying 5 days ago
Dear Christians, If you will ask evidence and proof of big bang and evolution theory from atheists, they will never provide any. But will call you idiot, abuse, delusion, uneducated etc. If any of them would be good atheist, will advise you to read books, search in Internet or educate ourself. But question will always remain same. So I have no doubt that Atheists also believing in some thing blindly which is worse than blindly believing in GOD.
samaroo96 5 days ago
@samaroo96 fuck off. You are spamming my channel by commenting without watching ~ that is rude & arrogant. Do you understand why it is? I doubt that you do. Anyway you're blocked now.
nightjarflying 5 days ago