Of course :) Rest assured that you are in good company of every kind person nerding out on every kind of science and debate.

I do. Well, not watching but listening to the conversations like this. I found it more amusing than songs or music, while working on something else.

I find it more satisfying to actually read their books. Particularly Dawkins's books. He writes so incredibly well.

Nornagest Me

And when you speak in class you turn heads boy😂🔥

Gregory Tyler gotta read "the selfish gene" pal, it'll still change it

add "River out of Eden" to your list

​@JesusLovesGunViolence I mean, if you've heard the likes of Noah Lugeons (the podcaster better known as "the Scathing Atheist"), you'll know that it was very much justified. If you enjoy Hitchens, Noah fills the space very well, albeit with more dirty jokes and swear words. Oh, and he watches REALLY terrible religious films, so if that tickles your fancy look up "God Awful Movies.

During my first year of university, a biology professor had Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" as required reading for the course. Needless to say I felt as if my mind's eyes were not only seeing more clearly from that point on, but also, more importantly for me, seeing the future with a more optimisitic and healthy point of view. I had finally stepped away from and out of the oppressive shadow that had been cast by superstition, dogma and indoctrination.

@LeJon Brames It's also greater than a first graders chicken scratches, but I don't see your point???

This is the epitome of how conversations should be conducted, two highly educated individuals talking about deep topics

Alex G Even if they disagree, they do it in a polite way.

+Georgie Pineda Yup

They are massively adept communicators for sure.

This is the result of two people using their minds to talk, rather that one mind trying to converse with an ass, haha.

my brother please carry on! be strong as the light at the end of the dark tunnel encourages you! please be aware that there are a lot of us fighting around the world for a better place, to end this madness! the process is slow, because we are not fighting against people, but against arguments and ideas that have survived for thousands of years, and it is not an easy task. The world is changing today, and there is much more hope today than in prior centuries. May the Power of Will burn inside your heart!

Quick question,,so do you worship Mr Dawkins and not your lord. Because you do if you obey him over your creater. I like to add Faith is something in a sense separate from intelligence. And lastly please tell me the 5 pillars of Islaam & 6 pillars of eamaan if don't mind. Kindest regards from Sageer Alam

+Sageer Alam Hi, I believe he, as well as many many of us around the world, asked the questions I myself have been asking after 30 years of investigation: is it worthy to believe in a "lord" that demands you to live in a constant estate of fear? is it "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to "create" human beings, give them a brain capable of imagining and creating wonders beyond our current imagination, and then command us not to use the brain and just obey the "word" some people claim to have? could it be that "the Word is true because the Word says is true" is a circular argument we have been agreeing to during all these centuries without ever questioning and ever genuinely believing it? is the "lord" so lovely as to tell us that He loves us, but then menace us with torment and punishment if we don't love him back? would that not be an "ad baculum" argument based on fear and control, very unappropriate of an "all-loving" entity? could it be that "sacred" scripture statements which seem pretty much like ancient archaic tenants, were created by ancient and superstitious people who did not know where the sun went at night, in order to control other people? could it be that if the "lord" wanted to have slaves and servants, it would have been better for him not to give us the capability to think and reason? and that something like "the lord loves us ALL but wants to chose just SOME of us" sounds like a logicall falacy unappropriate of an "omniscient and all-loving" entity? could it be that we restrain ourselves with ancient and questionable traditions that separate us all and invite us to destroy ourselves and others? could it be that we fear to leave the apparent safety of our "safe island" where we were indoctrinated with tradition, without ever questioning? could it be that by "making us to his image and resemblance" would point that the lord himself asks questions and reasons everything as well, and demands us to question everything, just like our brain works? and finally the two most important questions of all: could it be that science and reason be tools to allow us to look for the "lord" hiding in the dark, and could it be that this "lord", if he exists in a way we can objectively perceive, is not the same as the one made up in ancient texts that many people seem to think were "inspired" but nobody knows for sure? could it be that, if in the end we need to feel like worshippers because we feel it like a part of our nature, then a true and honest way to "worship" would be to genuinely search for the "lord" with objective and fact-proovable tools like science and rational thinking, not biased with ancient traditions?

obanvar1 Between me & you, in what you said can be a test for you and then the proof will be established on you when you meet your lord. Regarding using the brain, please tell where the lord says not to use your brain, he encourages it but when the conclusion contradict's the creater then it will be a test, and remember whenever one questions the creater this is nothing but ignorance on a high level and even lead to arrogance. Kindest regards from Sageer Alam

obanvar1 2 post If you tried to learn your religion, you would have known that when Allaah created the 1st man, Not word for word note: the angels said oh lord, they will shed blood etc, the lord replied , I know that which you do not know, (because a lot of good people like the Prophet's would come as well). Kindest regards from Sageer Alam

J P I wish you the best of luck fellow J P

Best of luck sire.

And don't forget just as arrogant as any religious leader.

@@georgefletcher7926 please, elaborate

@@georgefletcher7926 sometimes arrogant (showing superiority) because when it comes down to it, those who are smarter and use logic, science, data and knowledge are indeed superior human beings in a world where technology and intelligence now largely rule over muscles. I suspect you are one who believes in ‘survival of the fittest’ and doesn’t believe in things like welfare, so don’t be a hypocrite and accept that academics are smarter and thus superior than most.

Somebody that appreciates things instead of taking them for granted! Thank you! Need more like u

I'm sure they will read your comment.

+Riley Swim Actually....you will receive an invoice in the mail for watching it. You will also receive a subsequent invoice for commentating. Thank you for participating.

Hear hear!

+Riley Swim Did you have to watch an ad before the video played? Nothing is free.

Although the audio sounds as if it came directly from a cave ;-) Maybe use better mics next time!

The mic they're using is fine. The problem is the recording space.

Echo chamber isn't a reference to audio quality.

kballwoof all these motherfuckers didn't understand your joke......... wow

Good scientists have no use for echoes , providing they aren't studying accoustics lol ... Having your views parroted back to you is pointless

Still a scientist even if he only wrote one paper his entire life. Thats still a accolade entitled to him. Plus his degree.

@@dennisplume7571 Is that a joke? I count at least 34 published academic papers from Dawkin's career and at least 13 published academic papers from Tyson's career. Not to mention the numerous books, documentaries, public speaking events from both scientists, which have arguably a greater impact on public discourse vs new knowledge.

I wish Bill Nye was there as well; for a trifecta.

@@pushanka it was probably a response to a deleted comment that perhaps questioned rhe capabilities of one or both of these chaps.

@@David-xu6xw bill nye is a celebrity first, foremost and almost wholly. He would be lapped in a conversation with these heavyweights in seconds. Bill Nye also sold his integrity years ago on netflix. His credibility is non existent.

+Jay Bartgis very true!

+Jay Bartgis is it fukk

+Jay Bartgis I agree, I think the two of them are a joy to listen to.

+Jay Bartgis A FUNDATION TO MAKE PERSONS FOOL AS SAYS ROMANS 1, 22. JESUCHRIST IS THE KING OF THE WORLD. BE ATHEIST TODAY IS LIKE TO BE A FOOL AND STUPID. THE MOST POWERFUL GROUPS IN THE WORLD ARE RELIGIOUS. THE NUMBER ONE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN MANY OTHERS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND THE EVIL GROUP OF THE DEVIL. SO HOW CAN SOMEONE BE SO A N INGORANT?

+Wilson Eusebio Hernandez What is an "INGORANT"?

now as in the last 7 decades or how you figure exactly ? lol .. nobody is which hunting atheists. not in the west were christianity is the nr 1 religion. christians say live and let live. we dont force you to be hetero, you dont force us to marry gays. easy going, live and let live. but try to pull this shit in meka - good luck

Laithal _ considering how scarce life is in the universe, I think any living thing at any time should feel lucky to be alive.

You meant a private convo made public???

@@dr.banana2828 in African christianity will and does kill faster than islam.

tedgrant2 and im reading your comment from 2yrs ago!!

~1.37 hours.

~~1.372 hours

@@parag263 :D

Tyson is an addled buffoon. He is a source of misinformation: bad science, wrong math and false history. Anyone who regards Tyson as credible is sorely lacking in critical thinking skills. And that includes you, Richard Dawkins as well as others who have put Neil on a pedestal.

A while at least

i think the left masses have a BIG problem when it comes to being civilized in debate. because they have the moral sense of superiority. basically they are not debating, but they are educating some simple racist/sexist/theist/homophobe and what not (in their mind). they view themselves on the high ground in a big way. so when they encounter a fair and good argument they dont know how to handle it alot of times. resorting to insults right away. observing debates between christians and atheists is one of the best examples for this behaviour.

Go to any European country, sex politics and religion are discussed on any occasion. Mostly it ends with hardy pats on the back and a shot!

Fragile egos ruin conversations.

DrewPeacock69 TrippyDrew69 that sense of civility seems to be slipping away

just avoid anything judgement related. remember argument's are about finding out what's right and wrong within a topic, not about who's right and wrong between you and them. the more your egos and judgements get involved, the more your views become entrenched to defend yourself (rather than defending your points) and disagreeing then becomes hostile. just speaking from experience as i have friends who argue just to justify their own ego, whereas there are others ik who i can talk to without this problem as they are more open minded

+SIMKINETICS Sagan is the most famous non-living distinguished science popularizer, but not the first. I would agree that Sagan broke the mold, but many others chiseled away before him.

Sage Llivokin Yeah, I cut my [scientific] teeth on 'Watch Mr. Wizard' in the '50's. Carl Sagan arrived at the right time to correct the blockhead notions of magic-thinking that were gaining ground at the time of Cosmos though, and his appeal to adults was groundbreaking in its way. I laud them all.

***** It was crafted to reach both young & old. Plenty of adults have enjoyed Cosmos.

+bishplis Nope, just simplified for an American audience ;)

+SIMKINETICS You must be joking. Compared to the great polymaths throughout history these guys are chumps.

I would have considered marrying the person regardless of their gender! Better have intellectual intercourse with your spouse and go around the town for sexual intercourse rather than the other way round. Just wondering if that would be a good idea...

Especially with all these sad trolls in the comments.

Yeah Tawkins and Dyson are pretty cool.

and mainly: more people listening to the Tysons and Dawkinses

No we don't.

Richard Dale 😂

@@yj9032 ? 😲

And Tyson! There is so much genius in one room at once, my brain is going on meltdown chemical overload! Lol

I can't, Neil keeps interrupting him.

@@gehtdianschasau8372 He's a better communicator

They are not as rare as you might believe

@@pooddescrewch8718 at this level it is rare. The combination of raw intellect, strong educational background, charisma, and the ability to explain science clearly makes these two incredibly rare.

@@David-xu6xw rare to you does not make it universally rare.

I second that. I think this is one proof of being an intelligent being.

michael88863 cactus-eating is more entertaining.

Nicholas Hale Maybe to less intellectual people who are more fascinated by an idiot doing idiot things than hearing thought provoking ideas and opinions. It's really a sign of the world's decreasing attention span due to a society of instant gratification.

I am watching this but NOW YOU MADE ME LOOK FOR THE VIDEO OF THE GUY EATING A CACTUS MAN

@skippy62able

Nicholas Hale are you not entertained!!!

You got it backwards unfortunately. At leaat for the past few years.

Lasse Jensen nobody who knows the truth can rest easily in defiance of the truth - no matter how many children he drags down with him. I follow Jesus Christ who is my blessed assurance as I die to self daily. life is hard - but eternity is forever.

You sound like you have fallen for a cult,rather then think for yourself. I think "Jesus " could have been a jewish cult leader. Go read the book "Zealot

same here

guess he dreams of deepak chopra every night

Henry V Try humanism. It's better.

The planetarium is pretty dope as well. Anyone know what the black globe is behind him?

iPartyHardcore a sculpted globe version of his sack

I was in that office! I had the pleasure of interviewing NDT for my PhD. He gave me an hour and a half of his time; more than any of the other 19 astronomers I interviewed. Of course this was before he became a star. He was a real gentlemen and a pleasure to interview. Out of the 20 I interviewed he was the nicest.

A good summation.

That mindset- which I share, is what makes my short time here so special. This is the only show we get to watch, so pay attention!

yeah I agree. too fucking bad if youre born a vegetable though.

With you there.

I'm with Socrates.

Denigrating religion does little to advance the cause of science. Challenge and criticise but don't vilify.

A S disagree

@@AS-ve4vv Wrong.

@@rennhoalohaloren6211 OK. Useful contribution.

@@elliotkouame3849 OK. Useful contribution.

Tyson's a media figure, a populist lightweight. Dawkins matters.

Craig Harris No one that knows Tyson would call him a lightweight.

I'm sure Neil's a splendid astrophysicist. But this is like watching an adult and a child in conversation.

The fact the Dawkins said in the 'Poetry of Science' video that he was "humbled to be in the presence" of Tyson, as Biology is a "junior science" to Physics...

+Oderus. All things are relative, bro.

I was thinking the same thing. I agree

Thank you. Exactly

They are between them. more than entertaining enough!!

Oh sweet summer child…

i know right? i've talked to several people who claimed they had dyscalculia and in a matter of minutes i managed to teach them stuff they never thought they'd understand, simply because I showed them that i believe in them, and gave them a chance. math is not hard in its purest form, it just demands practice. its a language like any other verbal language, and if you dont practice, you dont get better at it.

@@I-VisiBomb-I there is a certain threshold you just can’t cross, no matter how much you practice! From the most simple thing to the most complicated there is that certain point in the journey, where something prevents you from reaching final destination! This is the reason why there is many good people in the world, but only a handful of great people capable of doing great things! Not everyone is born to Albert Einstein or even Elon Musk for that matter...so its more that just a practice...

Summon256 I don’t believe such a threshold exists. I think that if you simplify stuff and match it to the students world view, they’ll get whatever you’re trying to teach. It’s just a matter of time. Some will understand quantum mechanics in 50 years, some will in 20 and some in 5 or even less, but it’s not something unreachable, period.

Very true. Once something is explained in a way someone can understand, the idea of there being a threshold is moot.

YES

+Ad Astra thanks. I tend to define "creative genius" as a person who creates new patterns that others prefer to emulate. But pure creativity doesn't have to be contagious, or emulated, or even appealing, it just has to be new.

+doodelay but then what is the diference between discovering and creating? werent created patterns in fact patterns that always existed, but just werent discovered yet?

+doodelay I think it's more a question of semantics, people defining logic as "in the box" -thinking. What people often forget, when they are talking about logic is that the premises are as important as the conclusion. If you have the wrong premises you can construct logical arguments that are completely wrong. For example, if you assume that we live in a geocentric world you can make a bunch of logically sound claims that are just wrong. Copernicus did not reinvent the laws of logic. He just changed the premises and as such came to completely different conclusions than his peers. With regard to artistic creativity, I'm not sure where the concept of logic fits in.

+doodelay "Logic is the discovery of pre-existing patterns." That's not creative is it?????????

I don't think logic is the discovery of pre-existing patterns. If I find hieroglyphics in a tomb in Egypt, I may have discovered pre-existing patterns but it wasn't logic. Logic is the sorting of valid arguments from invalid arguments in accordance with a particular set of rules (because there can be different types of logic).

JVLdesign goosebumpingly amazing lol

Probably the most outstanding comment of all.

Ryan Wittert Presidents go through a selection process

Presidents aren't supposed to be scientists... tbh Im glad the Left isn't winning the "socialist" battle anyway. But the "God" part that seems tied to the Right is indeed very frustrating.

because the average united stater seems to be beyond retarded.... that's why usa is the home of the feminists, libertarians, flat earthers, antivaxers, creationists, etc.....

blub blub, come again? what he said made perfect sense

@blub blub Yup, the indoctrination is thick over here, EG, try explaining to them that Bernie Sanders would barely be considered "center left" in the EU in the 21st century, it's nearly impossible.

Yes.

+James F my life would be complete if this had transpired

I bet Dawkins has done a bong!

+David Hopwood You must be high

+Hans Martin Vatnan we all are did you run out?

flawless until he and Neil do impromptu ads for the BigTech "Medical" & $cience Oligopoly.

@@Questioner365 i wish those were real. What world we could have

It was Tyson´s cheap and manipulative statement. Dawkins definitely does not seem to appreciate it.

Albert Jurcisin Actually his response to that is pretty typical of a British person reacting to a sarcastic type of flattery which isn't insulting to either party.

He was completely right, the fact is that Neil is more empathic in a way that he focus in teaching the narrow. That imply forgiving a lot of stupidity based on common sense without knowledge.

I think he should've said "Not People You Need To Care About".

haha just heard this as i read your comment.

The only people not deserving of respect in some ways are people who intentionally do not respect others and their rights to: 1)exist, as long as the persons or persons with the basic right to exist are not flouting every or most rules of globally recognized basic decent behaviour. eg mass murderers, Violent extremists or people who spout vile hate bigotry or violence in any form and encourage the same in others. Respect involves disagreeing without being rude deilberately malicious or violent. it means not flouting or disregarding basic rules of decency and civilized behaviour. Good manners is part of respect. As is being willing to share opinions without unneacesary force, violence, upset or intimidation weather you agree with them or not. Force should only ever be used in the pusuit of good for the good of all people. and then with due care and consideration of all possible consequences of using forcefull methods to do so. sometime force is right but ONLY when used rightly and carefully.

Oxford University arrogance, I'm afraid

I don't think Neil is deficient in high functioning grey matter.

Actually if you watch the "Poetry Of Science" debate , Tyson explains how the Universe has a "horizon" and Dawkins admits that he is out of his depth.

They both nice AND intelligent

@@lewisner Thats because he was ... they operate in separate fields

@@pooddescrewch8718 I know.

8

more like listen lol

A dialog yields better insight.

+Lone Star VII I thought atheists were supposed to be thinkers, not listeners. Listening is what Muslims and Christians do.

Yuuri Gatsby What? How does that make sense? You think any single atheist knows everything? People can feed off of each other as far as knowledge is concerned...

Yuuri Gatsby Great thinkers are curious, if it's not schooled out of them before they become adults; they love knowledge and are always looking for more, in books or science or live humans. All atheists aren't great thinkers, but when you find two who are (Christofer Hitchens, Dawkins, Noam Chomsky, NDT, Sam Harris, etc) engaged in a lively conversation, you've hit pay dirt.

Tony Jones I’ve learned infinitely more outside of school than in it - school was mostly boring unlike the real world

School doesn't teach any of this

@@richardbarry04553 yes but school allows u to go to university/college (depending where you’re from) and learn more than u ever will without going threre. Moral of the story, stay in school

Maybe I would have if they were teaching stuff like this

@@JT_Grogan that’s just not how it works. They teach u the fundamentals, its up to u if u wanna continue ur education on to university etc and learn this stuff

Of course people are going to endlessly harp and focus on one fleeting comment from a marvelous hour long video. This is why we can't have nice things.

+aikighost Yes, but art stands on the fact that it is different or unexpected in a sense. Artists make things that are completely unique. This is in stark contrast with the scientific field where if you do the same things, you always get the same result. Illogical maybe the wrong word. I'd call it emotional vs rational. Luckily those are compatible. Rational people can appreciate the emotions conveyed in art and emotional people can make rational decisions when they need to.

LOL!!

+aikighost yeah i really thought neil was trying to force some nonsense point.

+aikighost Then why is it that the 'illogical' creative types usually do such mediocre work? I'm tired of what's really a lack of training and professionalism masquerading as this Baudelairean nonsense. If you start digging into even the most Jungian of artist minds, theres actually a very ordered logic there. Just a different one than mainstream American culture.

I agree totally! It is such a shame, indeed it is in my opinion a crime that evolution is NOT taught in the education system in equal measure at the very least, to how any fictitious entity is being advocated. Tc now

I think it's pitiable that some people are letting the media--rather than achievement--define who our "best minds" are. Ever noticve how few--if any--media interviews Einstein gave? He was snart. There is a short piece oif footage of Einstein arriving by passenger vessel in the U.S. for the first time. One of the reporters pier-side calls out to Einstein, "What did you wait so long before coming to America?" With a smile on his lips and a twinkle in his eyes Einstein called back to the reporter, "If I'd known you were here I'd have come sooner." Bow THAT's intelligent. I don't think Einstein could stomach watching two mediocre men such as these two sit around and talk about how perfectly they reason. I honestly think Einsatein would have found Hawkins and Tyson somewhat amusing, but soon have found them more than he cared to stomach. Einstein was not cognitively impaired.

I try to share such disscusions but sharing to some social media platforms to others sometimes causes some type of technical issues I dont understand ive been told it happens when sharing you tube links to facebook or something like that, sorry to be so vague.

In the Uk Evolution as a science is taught as a science subject even in religious schools :-) (It is a point to note that Gregor Mendle a monk was a biologist of sorts his work on the study of peas helped explain and contribute to the study of heridity. (sorry my spelling is going as my typing fingers get tired) it is also noteworthy that some scientists with their interest in religion and arguments about its logic also contribute to the best type of Theologians thinking more logically.) :-) A Theoligians job after all is to examine belief from as many angles as they can and explain religious beliefs to the priests/vicars /etc and believers practicioners of their religion. That involves theological evolution at least in those circles where people of religion are not so opposed to anything not religious logic dosent make any difference to their opinions. There is progress somewhere :-)

I admire Einstien and Niel de Grass tyson and Richard Dawkins and many other scientists. All scientists contribute in their varied ways to peoples understanding of the world about them and physics, environmental science, chemistry, biochemistry, astronomy, space science, medical science, engineering, computer science and other branches of science too numerous to mention interelate and explain what we are, how we function, how things work and why. there is so much more to learn :-) A good scientist knows that. Science also evolves from postulation to theory to established fact and when established facts are proven wrong they add to their store of knowledge by the same process.

+Daan K He always has the best ones lol.

+Daan K Er body say cosmos keep it goin' ay Neil looking like he from the mu'fukin He made a hit series and it was mu'fukin Jeremiah,suit n' tie killing the mu'fukin Co c CA c CA c c

+Jim Riven Their last conversation was awesome.This should be as well.

+Jim Riven I was going to share this with you, but you're already here:)

BᴇғᴏʀᴇTʜᴇIɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ Few days off work, Been catching up on a lot of my subscriptions. :)

Agreed, I miss Hitch as well, he waa brilliant. These two are amazing, as well! Take care and best wishes! Cheers

May I recommended a video, please check out 'Alan Watts: nature of god' Please let me know what you think of it! Thank you! Cheers

Thanks for sharing.

That's so sad. And a touching, telling example of the harm inherent in faith. Peace, love & science.

Marcos 989 :( for you! Thanks for your great comments I appreciate it.

Anyone who looks at religion from a logical point of view in 2016 will come to the same conclusion as you have and as I have. We are all entitled to our opinions and no one especially family should try and make you think their way if it isn't your way. Sadly religion is forced on people from a really early age when they have not had time to develop their own minds or opinions and this is the main argument that I have about the whole thing. Live your life as you want, it's the only one you are going to get. It's a shame that people spend so much time in this life worrying about getting to the next. I find it incredible that people are so naïve. Be happy

I understand that it's your family. But if you don't stand for your beliefs, nobody will. Don't ever deny what you are because of them, not only you are the grown-up in your family, right.

+mediadrone01 If Tyson was a gay, he would say: "I'm attracted to men, but don't want to be labeled as a gay".

+mediadrone01 Doesn't he maybe feel though, that then atheist label is associated with a rather strident personality? I'd liken his explanation to a U.S. citizen rejecting the Democrat/Republican labels. I also think that he should own the atheist label by the way, but I can see where he's coming from.

Adrian I'm sure he does think that the word "atheist" has negative connotations, but he's not making that any better by distancing himself from the word. And I think your Democrat/Republican analogy falls flat: In that scenario, *most* people don't have views that fall in line 100% with either party, so it would stand to reason that people might not want to embrace either term. A belief in a god, on the other hand, is a binary position: A person either believes in a god or they don't. In this talk, Tyson defines the word atheist as "a person who lacks a belief in a god," and that also describes his position. His idea about not wanting people to have preconceived notions about him is just a cowardly dodge. We use words as shorthand descriptors, and not every conversation is going to allow for two-hours of discourse so that Neil can describe himself. If you asked Neil if he was an American, would he say "Yes?" Or would he say "Well, you see, I don't really use labels. It's really a long story. Do you have an hour to discuss it?" -- The word "atheist" doesn't tell you anything about a person other than a single answer to a single question on a single topic. -- This is how childish he is about the "atheist label:" If you ask him if he's an atheist, he'll give you this speech about how he doesn't like labels. If you ask him "do you lack a belief in god," he'll just say "yes." It's such a juvenile position to have.

+mediadrone01 It's more just avoiding the situation of other people, mostly religious people, asuming they know your arguement before the conversation even starts. I think he's thinking tactically, rather than out of principle. Seems quite smart tbh, if he wants to avoid conflict. He's just fighting on a different front using a different method but ultimately looking towards the same goal. He probably does have a much better chance of teaching science to religious people if he doesn't call himself an atheist. A lot of people just stop listening if they think it opposes their beliefs. Which is stupid of them obviously, but its an educators job to think in such a way.

+mediadrone01 I do understand why he doesn't want to associate with the title atheism though. One, it's different than "scientist", "man", or "bald" because of negative social attachments to it including ignorance to its definition. I've had COUNTLESS arguments with people who claimed the atheism was a religion. And I'm not talking about Christians or other religious groups, but also atheists themselves. There was a man who was clearly atheist and anti-religion but said he was not atheist because it was a religion. Like Dawkins said about the mother who said, "I get if you don't believe in god, but an atheist?!". Maybe Neil is contributing to that ignorance by not associating himself with atheism, but I do understand why he is not. Neil's strategy of teaching is less 'in your face' and he doesn't want to be undermined and shut down. But also we need strong people like Dawkins who can stand up and show society what atheism really means.

btw if anyone is interested I have an atheist instagram called newzealandatheist I'm up for any discussions, atheist to atheist or atheist to theist as long as they are based on reality and we can have a good discussion without jumping to conclusions.

Quin Proctor mind chatting with me I'm a skeptic Muslim girl?

Just Some Guy ooh are you a fellow Kiwi from Aotearoa?

I think there should be instances of both. I.e., that not everyone should use 1 or the other style. They both expressed decent reasons for the practicality of each

He can't prove to me that there is no God just like I can't prove to him that there is God.

@@deusvult3103 The burden of proof is on you. You're the one who insists there is a god.

@@mostquito2324 am I ? he is the one insisting that there is no God , only thing I do is believeing.

@@deusvult3103 Your logic: you already said you can't prove there is a god, but you still believe in the existence of one. His logic: He doesn't have a proof that there is a god so he believes there's none. It's this simple.

@@mostquito2324 I believe in God and is my personal thing .I'm not going around and screaming that I believe in God. While this guy is arguing about something he does not believe in.Be atheist I really don't care but don't push it and mock (criticising is ok but he is usually mocking) religion because you are doing the same thing as religious extremist but in reverse, extremist call atheist idiots and this guy calls believers idiots. I'm tired of both, I have couple of atheist friends and I talked with a lot of other atheists and many of them said that they often hate atheists more then religious people because atheists act like they are intelectuals just because they don't believe in God while most religious people are quote: annoying sometimes.

Maybe it's God 😂

+Doni I think there was a bible verse that prophesied this conversation. ;O)

+Daryl A Their Revelations were quite interesting.

both

+Alan Jeffrey The smarter one is the less chills one gets listening to them. Your life must really be empty.

Same! these interview style conversations are amazing!! NDT does a few others with Dawkins, and I wish there were more, I get so much from NDT when he can be in this format, to talk through his thoughts

Neil is a very bright man. But Dawkins intellect is in rarified air.