Absolutely ❤❤❤❤❤

he doesnt look/sound so good at the moment, but i suppose he's in his 80s now.

The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Time is running out for Richard Dawkins to repent of his sins and turn to Jesus for salvation. There are stumbling blocks or limitations that have been observed, tested and studied. They have been trying to create life in a test tube through chemical interactions for decades and have not even come close. There is no evidence that living matter came from non-living matter. Irreducible complexity within the single cell is a headache for evolutionists Every part within the atom has to be present for it to function and this dispenses with random chance mutations and natural selection relative to chemistry, even the atom is finely tuned with subatomic numbers relative to protons and neutrons in atoms that make up various substances. The fossil record yields no transitional forms between species, neither are there any living forms, so Darwin's tree of life is dead, we only have evidence on the nodes of the branches corresponding to micro-evolution that is kinds within the specie and this lines up with the biblical account Jesus did not lie to us he is the only door into God's presence. Jesus said love God with all of your heart, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. This is flawless doctrine, wholesome doctrine, sound doctrine and good council. It sounds about right to me, if people want world peace. How do I know the God of the Bible? Answer through the life of Jesus.

@@jacobmatthews7524 He does great for his age, but we are all limited by our biology.

Don't worry, he will evolve!

The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Time is running out for Richard Dawkins to repent of his sins and turn to Jesus for salvation. There are stumbling blocks or limitations that have been observed, tested and studied. They have been trying to create life in a test tube through chemical interactions for decades and have not even come close. There is no evidence that living matter came from non-living matter. Irreducible complexity within the single cell is a headache for evolutionists Every part within the atom has to be present for it to function and this dispenses with random chance mutations and natural selection relative to chemistry, even the atom is finely tuned with subatomic numbers relative to protons and neutrons in atoms that make up various substances. The fossil record yields no transitional forms between species, neither are there any living forms, so Darwin's tree of life is dead, we only have evidence on the nodes of the branches corresponding to micro-evolution that is kinds within the specie and this lines up with the biblical account Jesus did not lie to us he is the only door into God's presence. Jesus said love God with all of your heart, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. This is flawless doctrine, wholesome doctrine, sound doctrine and good council. It sounds about right to me, if people want world peace. How do I know the God of the Bible? Answer through the life of Jesus.

Are you from Iraq?

Why? Not seen one decent dance, trick or rant. He has not even reacted to Life Of Brian but claims to know about atheism.... shocking lack of content. What crypto does he use?

Theists intentionally blind themselves to the truths Dr. Dawkins speaks. It'll never have as many subs as it should.

but it's too easy to become intellectually lazy,

​@@josmith9662are you high?

Needs some female Yoga teacher as an intro.

It's good for his health, one might think.

I don’t get a feeling of academic honesty from Alex, think he is a closet Christian & out to make a name for himself, just like his friend Chris Williamson.

Dawkins continues to debate the 'God' question because it is vital to his worldview that God be 'killed'. His obvious social Darwinism depends on there being no God. If there's a God, how can Dawkins' views that the warmonger John McCain was a "good man", have "no sympathy" for Julian Assange and even now his support for Israel, not be seen as immorality?

Public intellectuals 🤣🤣🤣 "I don't believe in God" wow give this man a Nobel prize.

No conversation is interesting without an opposing viewpoint.

​@@3joewjlmfao that's a pretty garbage take. Can't have a good conversation between to rocket scientists if there isn't a rocket science denier involved according to your logic.

@@ashtonhaggitt216 i said interesting conversation.

@@3joewj your definition of "interesting" is not necessarily universal.

@RDTRNT Yea, because it's my opinion and opinions are not universal.

glad not being bored

Yes I feel that kind of familial pride too. Crazy really, but he was so young when I first found his channel.

@@budd2nd same bro its insane how he's grown. he's gotta embrace the philosopher beard

Alex is well placed to assume the mantle of logic and enlightenment representative. It's great to see him moving into this space.

Think Alex is not very honest with himself, he probably is a closet Christian although he keeps claim he is an atheist.

What a creepy fantasy lol you like to pretend a young man is your nephew and your the weird uncle that the family doesn't leave their kids around unsupervised.

Same. His religious bent is nauseating….

Only seen a bit of him and cut the religious stuff short as i aint tolerant......but his general being was not as bad as The Atheist Experience and other commentries had led me to believe. I think his political and social beliefs get him double whammied as evil incarnate in some media I was watching.....

Peterson enables the least capable thinkers. Religious ignorance.

Yeah Alex was kind of dragging it

Dawkins making a meaningful strong logical argument 🤣🤣🤣 what was it "There is no God because i say so and I'm always right and my proof is i have a pompous voice"

It’s all in the bible, we’ve been expecting them.

You don't need to BELIEVE in God, no, but from where comes your sense of morality?

As a theist, I can say that many times, my atheist friends put me to shame when it comes to morality. I'm 100% sure that people who don't believe in God are capable of exercising objective moral values, sometimes times, to a degree that puts theists to shame. The real question would be, where does that morality come from?whose morality do we live up to? If we can't agree that there are objective and absolute moral values, who decides what's moral and what is not? Culture? Civilizations? Governments?individuals? Who can give us guidance on moral issues? If there's a Creator, He, and Only He has the absolute right to dictate the moral laws. But if evolution is the source of our moral values, then there can not be absolute moral values. In other words, it's someone's opinion against someone else's.

I like Alex too. But I get the feeling that over-education has withered his ambition. Shame, since we need bold ideas.

@@donthesitatebegin9283my feeling is he lack of scientific rigor, too interested in recognition instead real facts.

What 😂

i know exactly what youre talking about and remember thinking, he didnt even explain why haha

Oh glorious Master Dawkins, Lord over my universe, let me write the sweetest hymns to sing thy praises

Be careful of who you admire. Dawkins praised the warmonger John McCain as a "good man", has "no sympathy" for Julian Assange, and sides with Israel even now.

Clown said “Master Dawkins” 💀

these are dumb thinkers that you like

​@@billwalton4571He's not a creationist lol

28 instead of providing Alex with a good point of view he tried to humiliate his studies, is that wonderful to you ?

The Miracle in the Cell and the End of Evolution The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."105 A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned. The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been "created". One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelle and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created. There are three limitations or stumbling blocks to Darwinian Evolutionary Religion • There is no evidence that living matter can come from non-living matter • There are no transitional fossils and no intermediate living organisms between species • Irreducible complexity as in the single cell and living organisms are made of trillions of cells

Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started. Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].

As a Catholic, you would be better off avoiding Dawkins altogether. He is morally depraved. He praised the warmonger John McCain as a "good man", has "no sympathy" for Julian Assange and even now supports Israel along with the rest of the prominent atheists.

Eviscerated ? I thought they had a nice respectful discussion.

​@@MarnildBen was struggling to keep up and alex dismantled ben's moral relativism argument and returned it back to highlight the hypocrisy of morality in religion.

It really depends on where you live, what relationships etc you have to lose. I was in Saudi 6 months and kept my gob shut when people assumed i was christiain, declaring athiesm might have endangered my head and job..... Spouting off in a bar in England is risk free

I hope you find peace 🙏

As far as we can tell everything is relative to each other.

Plus, by dying we make space for future generations.

Claiming moral superiority is not often effectively done. It's like when humble people brag about how humble they are.

@@theboombody wrong.

To me Alex has always been more the crusador type, couple that wth being younger, more mobile with ideas and doing an interview... he will play devils advocate. Richard however strikes me as slightly bemused that others cant cope with the simpliest realities of this world. A bit like me when my lodgers still cant manage two locks on the front door after 3 years in the house

You've definitely misjudged Alex here. As often, Alex takes the side of opposition, so most of the time he isn't even expressing beliefs he actually holds.

@@ashleysherlock5705 The reason for this should be obvious as this was uploaded to Alex’s channel as well. His style of interviewing revolves around challenging the other’s beliefs. He wants thoughtful answers, and philosophically probes his guests. As Alex intended to upload this to his channel for his podcast too, I think that Alex naturally slipped into being the host. However, I suppose on Dawkins’ channel this might come off as Alex simply being stubborn as one would expect Dawkins to guide the conversation and Alex to fill the role of the guest by merely responding to questions.

@@Overflowingg I suppose that's possible but Alex and Richard talk about Alex deliberately taking the oppositional opinion at the start of this very conversation

Alex indicates multiple times he's playing devil's advocate to the theological point of view to foster the conversation. I think the only thing Alex kind of pushed that was his personal belief was about debating WLC, since Alex has had a few pretty good conversations with him (including one where he kind of stumped WLC with the notion that the universe could actually be 'necessary presupposition' instead of god).

Was it? 😅 I thought it was nice, just like this one

@@OfficialRogue it saw a near bite experience, this one was more licky

Is it on KZfaq?

You really ought to read up on the 'real' scientists' opinion of him. He's only taken seriously by atheists - he's your god.