If speaklifemedia was a secret dumbass, would he utter a single syllable different?

Christians will let their countries to become rubish instead of fighting for them because of love. #brainwashing

She just equated white western atheist Gaza protesters as being Islamist? I think I know what she’s all about now.

Is Richard Dawkins famous as a scientist. I've never heard of him as a scientist. If he were not a crusading atheist, would any of us know about him?

Preventing women from killing their offspring is fundamentalism and regression. Listen to this woman. They speak of baby butchery as a female right. But any violence perpetrated upon women is an unequivocal evil. I don't see how one act of violence upon a vulnerable person is not only acceptable but a right while the other is a horrific abuse and unacceptable.

I am sort of agnostic, but the message of Christianity really speaks to me and I believe it could truly be from God, and I think it changed the world for the better whether it is true or not. But in the interest of truth and of maybe refining some Christian arguments, I'm going to push back against a few of them here: The 500 people supposedly seeing him risen from the dead should not be considered "corroborated" like that guy said, because we do not have the testimonies of 500 people, we have the testimony of ONE person (Paul) claiming that 500 people saw him, so I am never impressed by that argument very much. Also even if 500 people did claim to see him risen, they could be delusional, contrary to many who say "group hallucinations don't happen". It is possible for many people to experience the same delusion whether they hallucinated or not. All it takes is for one person to convince the others they saw something different, it's not a hard thing to do, don't underestimate people's ability to delude themselves and others, especially when it comes to cults and religions. Rita Marley claimed to see stigmata on Haile Selassie's hands when he visited Jamaica, and if I'm not mistaken many Rastafarians now use that as evidence that he was the Second Coming and say he had stigmata as if it were absolute fact lol. I also want to bring up how people making the minimal facts argument always seem to make "the disciples stole the body" and "the disciples were delusional" mutually exclusive, as if both of those things can't be true at once. Like they have to either be charlatans who are out for personal gain, or they are tricked and delusional and there are no other possible motives they could have. This again underestimates people's ability to delude themselves and others imo. If you look at how cults behave, you'll see that even people like Jim Jones who knew all of his miracles were staged was still willing to die for the religion he established. And for anyone who says the body couldn't have been stolen because of the Roman guard that was placed at the tomb, look further into the historicity of the Roman guard, many scholars question the authenticity of that claim made in Matthew (the other gospels have no Roman guard). The Roman guard is "widely regarded as an apologetic legend" even according to William Lane Craig.

why would you pray to God after you've devoted a good portion of your life already to praying and searching and finding nothing? imagine somebody told you that you need to go to a mosque and pray to allah even if you don't believe he's real, would you do it? would you invest the time? telling an atheist that they should go to church and 'work it out' is no different than this. it's easy to pretend that the only two possibilities are either, 1.there's no God, 2. the christian God exists and therefore, all atheists have to do is focus on christianity and give it a try to get results, but the reality is that there are many religions, all claiming to have the best evidence and they're all just as compelled as you are by their own religions evidence. which by the way is another huge problem for theism, because the very idea of what ''compelling evidence'' is... is strongly going to come from the culture you're born into, making it a very subjective opinion based experience that can never actually be tested or verified, which is why science is superior in this way. No matter what culture you're from, dying from not eating can be physically demonstrated and hence, far more compelling to humans. i also see a lot of talk in this video about how science shouldn't be used when talking about religious evidence, and thats fine, but now you are stuck in a hole where you have no way of demonstrating or verifying your claims to other people who are either atheists or in a different religion. How do you convince a muslim that you're personal revelation is better and more real than theirs or any other religious person for that matter? good luck with that

Abortion isn't murder? Some abortions could be considered murder? How I'd like to pick apart Dawkins' stand on this issue.

Citing feminism as a positive humanist answer and replacement of Christianity is sheer absurdity. Dawkins himself has been a victim of the poisonous rage fuelled hatred of the ideology known as feminism. It has been a cancer in our society. It has destroyed the family unit, torn apart the fundamentals of our law- creating system and replaced it with a law no different to apartheid where masculinity has been criminalised and deemed toxic. What an ignorant fool.

55:22 Dawkins: "you appear to be a theist". Richard, how does a material brain recognize the appearance of theism? Since the material universe can't step outside of itself (by definition), it therefore can't conceive of things like gods. An odd catch 22. This must be why people like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say a material cosmology can't account for consciousness.

There is logic to using the truth in a way we can agree together, with the word GOD. Words have utility, we speak to one another with words because we hear them. We also write to one another because we see them. When we say to one another GOD exists we hear the word. When we write to one another that GOD exists we see the word. Since we can see GOD when written in truth we can begin to give what our eyes can see from GOD, like this: Kneel to trace picture children. G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth. O is a whole measure. D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth. Sacrificed, Holy measured. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The words given to GOD are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Do you agree with the definition given to GOD? If we don't agree, use GOD as the source, what do you see from the word GOD?

You are taking Alex o connor words out of context.

I´m agonostic, very good video.

This is hilarious… the data and evidence point to a significant drop off in theism and church attendance but people on this channel have special insight based on a “mood” and a hunch… lmao!!

Is any one aware that Dawkins has never published a research paper since his PhD dissertation. He is not a scientist. He does not practice science. He speaks and writes about incoherent Philosophy. He has been told repeatedly that evolution and origin of life are not the same thing and he still confuses them. This is not a smart rational logical man. He is a very well spoken, well educated, blind fool who constantly contradicts himself.

Ricky wasn't trying to prove that Stephen was an athiest, he was pointing out the silliness of rejecting thousands of other gods yet believing in one... and who is to say it's the right one, even if a god exists? You didn’t even understand the point of the argument, so you were arguing with a statement that wasn't even made! Absolutely ridiculous lol. Good luck to you my friend.

To be honest these people all seem weird and new age

I remember watching the Reason Rally video, where Richard told the crowd to mock Christianity. Then this year he said I like to think of himself as a "Cutral Christian" Richard "We have secular humanism and we have rationalism and moral philosophy, that is how we decide which bits of Christianity we like and which bits we don't like. We Cherry Pick! Cherry Picking is something he has accused Christian of doing

She left islamic country and moved to Europe. Now she thinks islam is bad and christianity is good. But if she had moved to Europe 400 years ago, she would have burned at a stake as a witch. Christianity is bad. The good is enlightment and secularism.

Most of people denied God base on their personal brokenness either from childhood or where they are, and it is dangerous to fall and try to live their life based on their individual brokenness, the best is for one to open up to Christ and help those still living in their brokeness ,bring the Truth and Hope Who is Jesus Christ our Hope of Glory May God protect and increase Hirsi in the knowledge of Christ, because Christ is real, may God give Richard personal experience of Himsef(Christ)

Yeah. It's accepting something. I looked to Christianity. When I was a kid I couldn't read the Bible. She is so right about wisdom. There is a passage in James 3 where wisdom is mentioned. James 3:15 ESV - This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

Brilliant commentary thank you.

That clip of Dawkins and Peter Boghossian is insane. Dawkins is a blind believing religious fanatic for naturalism. His unashamedly circular reasoning is truly something to behold

I think there is certainly an attraction to Christianity for many people and especially if you find a good church, regardless of whether the biblical stories are true or not. I know there are people who don't fully believe the stories and call themselves Christian atheists. Of course I think maximum benefit comes if you can believe the stories.

I dont think Glen knows the meaning of the word "solipsism". And also I think its easy to watch a video , pause it again and again and present strawmen / mischaracterizations of someone's arguments and respond with guffaws and head shaking and counter arguments which often miss the point ( though I admit he does make some good points). I like Glen and Ive seen and enjoyed many of his debates and presentations. But here he comes across as a bit smug. Im gonna go and rewatch his his debate with Bart Ehrman, during which, if I remember correctly, Mr Ehrman absolutely smokes him.

Richard Dawkins completely affirmed the personal dimension of her experience yet he has a valid question. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm glad he asked it. And yet here you are mocking it. Again, Richard Dawkins altogether affirmed the personal dimension of her experience. After that affirmation he had a serious and sincere question. Your characterization of Richard Dawkins was ludicrous throughout your commentary. Of course Richard Dawkins has a profound sense of beauty and appreciation about life. Your cognitive bias was showing throughout your interruptive commentary. Your two-dimensional assessment of Richard Dawkins was just a mere superficial mockery of him. To me you just embarrassed yourself.

She "chooses" to believe. Big difference from actually believing.

( ﾟーﾟ) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.

Religion seems so bogus! If you want to become an atheist, just read the bible. Today it seems like it’s all cherry picked because that’s the only way they can keep their followers. It appears to mythology.

Richard intensely dislikes the "Why" question, he says "Why is a stupid question and does not deserve an answer" Yet whenever he meets a Christian he asks "Why are you a Christian? "Why are you, not a Muslim.? I wish for once they would respond with "Why is a stupid question and does not deserve an answer"

To believe, you first have to be convinced that the proposal is true. You can't believe something thinking it might be false. Try it, it doesn't work...unless you have a mental disorder or Choose to pretend. Even if you pretend it's true, you don't truly believe. You accept. To accept without being convinced of its truth, you are lying to yourself and others.

Thank you. A breath of fresh air. Among his bad arguments Professor Dawkins has one very good one: that a belief is useful for society or personally helpful does not make it any more true. CS Lewis develops it very convincingly in his essay ‘Man or Rabbit?’. Of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali didn’t suggest that it did.

Around 1978, Dr. Robert A. Kraft, a Wheaton College Graduate School alumnus who had become an atheist and an accomplished biblical scholar, was a guest speaker at the graduate school. I talked with him after his lecture. He asked me, "If you had to choose between God and truth, which would you choose? I responded, "I would choose God, and by doing that, I believe I would gain truth, grace, and much more."

Dawkins ,like Fry and Attenborough, Hislop and Schama; represent the kind of impression that stupid people reckon are " clever". Because the stupid media and educating systems tell them so He engages here in smears, ignorant drive by attacks and sweeping generalisations that any A Level student would have stuffed down his throat , before the National Curriculum came in. A theological moron and a philosophical clown. But his seal team clap their flippers here at every beoad bush lie. Ayaan has much to learn, but she has experience of what Dawkins gives us. Islam. AND she has humility and honesty. Words that the media thickies like Dicko simply don't know.

We have been tailoring religion to fit our psychological and social cohesion needs for thousands of years already, they have been the main source of cultural identity and popular knowledge until the last few centuries. Of course it has to feel comforting and provide a sense of hope to the majority of people; that's how we made it to be. Just like we built cities to live and thrive together, we built fantasies and illusions to face hard realities of life and death. Human intellect and imagination is our biggest asset, it has made us the dominant species of the planet by far. But, if our imagination runs amok it can also become our own demise, making us loose total connection with reality .

The only "witness" we potentially have is Peter. All other claims of witnesses are suspicious. Your final argument is circular. If we assume Jesus is lord... then he is lord. A circular argument should not be convincing.

"I've met a few" haha

44:58 I remember Rick Warren saying it’s more logical to believe that dead tissue can reanimate rather than that inorganic material can spontaneously come alive

Glen you do a brilliant job showing that God’s existence is evident by beauty, morality , consciousness and the laws of nature but dismiss the evidence Dawkins is looking for In the science of creation? Is that because you believe Evolution has given us the natural explanation for the diversity of life from the first simple creature to all creatures? A belief in evolution was a major stumbling block for me in my early Christian years. But because I see now that evolution is a feeble scientific explanation I can see that creation shouts as evidence for God and I agree with Dawkins when he says “the idea that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is a dramatic important idea… it’s a big thing…it’s bigger than personal comfort and nice stories”. Hopefully he will be persuaded by biological science someday.

The problem is, because of the misuse of the word love by the left, often, when you reference it in Christian circles, you get deep skepticism or even rebuke. Like with empathy and many other virtues, it seems like the only thing the left has to do to get Christians to abandon a godly principle is to abuse it. We should be tethered to the truth, not reactionary against the left. If the left wanted to set us up to look cruel, many of us have been happy to oblige, just like in Matthew 24:12.

I can see how Jesus being crucified by the Romans is a minimal fact. But the idea that there was a tomb and 3 days later it was open and five hundred people saw Jesus. How is this a minimal fact? Where is this tomb? Who were these 500 people? Such a nice round number 🤔

I agree that Dawkins doesn't have what you call a scalable worldview, but he's always been philosophically shallow. However, there are more philosophically robust ways of thinking about existence that scale and also have no God, at least in the conventionally religious sense.

They call the events of the 16th Century The Protestant Reformation but The Gospels and writings of St Paul are actually The Original Reformation of the ancient world.

Richard Dawkins wonderfully channelling his inner ‘so what you’re saying is…’ spirit. A kingdom divided against itself is doing its very best to stand “push harder!”.

Atheists don't believe in God or gods. This is not bonkers.

Are you my brother … I don’t thinks so ! You’re a white privileged male who regardless of what you may say aloud would never treat me like your brother. The man written hateful book of fairytales you quote is not the faith of my ancestors your perpetuate hatred and deceit you repugnant reptile

The one thing I really pray for is for Dawkins too to convert...thst will be big

Thank you so much Glen, I saw it to the end too. God bless you in Oxford in the next few days.

I have no problem with modern secular moral philosophy, but you also cherry pick the Bible by exegesis and hermeneutics.

I came to your analysis after having watched the debate between AHA and RD. You have done a wonderful job (as always) of it by not only breaking it down but also pointing out the contradictory comments RD has made in the past. Thank you!