Awesome

Quote nominal. Think outside the box.

Too many jab$😄

The irony of your statement on a video with these three, Who are among the most likely To effect open conversations like this Is astronomical. They literally begin this conversation🫣Discussing how it's possibly not a good thing that everyone has a voice.🤪

@@MultipleGrievance they are talking about knowledge not permission to speak

@gking407 If you follow two of these three gentlemen , you'll know very well where they stand on other people having the ability to speak publicly.

@gking407 Nah. They are quite vocal about who they think should have reach and an open platform.

@@MultipleGrievance if so you didn’t get that from this video clip

Only trans issues are trans persons.

Me too. Hopefully he will learn something. As a Dawkins fan it's very disappointing to see how he has become everything he fought against, and how anti-scientific he is over tans issues and the sex spectrum. He has obviously not kept up with the last 30 years of research in these areas and I don't want his legacy to end like this.

@@jaydeeoldboy9903 May I ask you how many sexes there are on the sex spectrum and what are they. Its now moved from unknown amount genders to unknown amount of sexes. Maybe Dawkins is right.

I just want Matt to lose his mind and go rage and make a fool of himself in front of an audience.

@@gsp3428 You don't need multiple sexes for there to be a spectrum, that's now what a spectrum is. A spectrum is a sliding scale between points. For there to be multiple sexes we would need people to exhibit traits that the first two sexes do not possess - we don't see that. We see combinations of traits from the two general sexes. Spectrums and binary are both systems of two, what separates them is binaries are diametrically opposed - no room for nuance; a spectrum however is nearly all nuance - like we see in all species. Dawkins is wrong, as the research and most experts from all the relevant fields are showing.

Let’s see if there’s life after death.. how proud of your atheism you’ll br after denying the logos of the creator. Good luck

@@Jaryism there is no God and never was. Once we are dead that is it full stop not period as we are not yanks. 😻

God did it for me listening to the promises that people make on behalf of God I can see what Man is doing well, I have no idea what God is doing people will tell you what God like an what he don’t like How is that possible without talking to God, face to face

​@@JaryismMore threats. Always threats. Not only that, they are empty threats because YOU CAN'T BACK THEM UP, and that's just pathetic. Try love. It's beautiful and works much better in most cases. Try being honest instead of saying things you can't substantiate!

@@charliecoley2423 Which god did you choose? Or, which god chose you? Would you know the difference? Free will and choice?

He has many ties that were designed by his wife.

fuck - you got it bad, bro -

why ?

I'm certain Matt will always be delighted to participate with Richard. Richard's focus on science did cause an issue for some who have a stronger societal focus.

Guys so for those who don’t know apparently Dawkins is super ANTI-TRANS which sets him apart from the secular hacks, and one of them has like trans bf/gf they-friend? Whatever lmaoooooo Also Matts some random atheist dude, and Richard Dawkins is a scientist? This dude should not share a stage with Murray, i mean i don’t agree with them either but even peterson and harris have more to bring to the table 😭

Wow, I read the comments Dawkins has made. I can't figure out what the issue is. Do they want him to lie about biology or not say anything? This level of thought policing is both stupid and scary.

Me too. Hopefully he will learn something. As a Dawkins fan it's very disappointing to see how he has become everything he fought against, and how anti-scientific he is over tans issues and the sex spectrum. He has obviously not kept up with the last 30 years of research in these areas and I don't want his legacy to end like this.

Good point. Science used to be driven by things like eugenics; you know, the idea that some races are superior to others? Seems like some German guy with a funny mustache used that kind of science back in the 30s and 40s to justify what he did……. But hey, Sammy Harris says nothing to worry about, right?

I don’t see that to a degree that is a problem. sorry

How can you say Sam Harris is a pseudo-scientist. He got a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA. Idk what you’re smoking on but let me get a hit if you think that makes you a “pseudo-scientist “ ps Dawkins earned his zooology phd and masters. 🤷‍♂️

This is true. Do you think it's still possible to understand it as a kind of faith, based on the acknowledgement that we must inevitably fall back into abstract presuppositions?

That is so many what if;) What if meteor falls, what if unicorn happen to see them? You know there are many what if's, but not many are probable to happen.

@tgstudio85 Many children do replicate what they observe without understanding the full consequences of their actions. Your attempt to use Professor Dawkins' argument against what if, in this instance, missed the mark.

@@jerryrose6895 *Many children do replicate what they observe without understanding the full consequences of their actions.* That is why we learn on actions of others, and of others failures and successes... and thanks to that we can dismiss many "what if's..."

Agree, that is why I don't listen to any priests from any religion, as they all wan't me to believe them without showing evidences.

Religion has been trying to control how people think for thousands of years.

Different people have different paths that leads them to well-being. What’s wrong with current Christianity is the misinterpretation of the teachings of Jesus.

Why? You cross a border and find another religion, or church. Science crosses every part of the Universe. You can't argue with it anywhere. If it changes it's mind in China, it will agree in US and on the moon.

@@tinawynn8973 What teachings are those?

@@matthewphilip1977 , “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “Thou shalt not kill.”

@@tinawynn8973 How have those been misinterpreted?

And? That is all you got kiddo?

Herk-a-derk! Do you have anything more than childishness?

It isn't science

💀

That statement you just made is but a projection of your mind since God is real as the necessity for him testifies in most people and the complexity and order of a world that without a Mind as its source would not make sense or wouldn't also explain such kind of order and complexity

@@earth1710 Any statement anyone makes is a projection of their minds and that is far more untrue than the actuality of an object or phenomenon under consideration. For example, shadows can be shorter or longer, images can be inverted and virtual, mirages can arise out of a density gradient in the air, and so on. So, the truth cannot be accounted for, by the projection of one's mind. However, an objective truth that is based on logical principles such as prediction of an eclipse are inconsequential to subjective perceptions and projections. Order and complexity are natural phenomena that don't need the presence of a Mind. Questioning their existence is like asking why a dog can lick it's belly... It just can and therefore, it does !! 🙂

@@SajalChakravarty Your comment is self defeating, subjective, and therefore false. By your own account, you cannot tell what is design from what is not, which is the definition of lunacy.

@@earth1710 I will deal with you later.. am busy right now. Looks like you are a classic delusional case

Here are two identical statements: God is real. And.... 1 = 0

Your spelling is not completely correct.

@fionagregory9147 If my park bench shade tree fat fingers accidentally taps a correct order of letters to form a word or proper sentence, I deserve a golden star 🌟 or 3😁 Laissez-faire

Is that supposed to make sense or you just had your feelings hurt so trolling? Maybe both 😂

My money is on triggers

Try to get back to Reality, and post something worth interacting with. There's already enough empty gibberish to go around, we don't need more

nah it isn't remotely the same. Believing that unicorns currently orbit around Jupiter isn't remotely the same as believing that they do. Further, basing laws or lifestyles around unicorns orbiting around the Jupiter isn't the same as not basing your life around it. None of these two are dishonest by any means. You can honestly believe in fairy tales

@@issdn4023 Nope, you don't understand what "atmoo" , said, it can be harmful to the "self" to agree and it can be harmful to the "self" to not agree with the loudest voice in the room. It is a dishonesty to finalize your understanding of life and not have studied and read and considered as much as you can. Having done so and then deciding you know it all, is the dishonesty. Matt is very careful not to decide either way but to look for proof and demanding it from those who claim they know it all. What I would suggest is that there is a creator and that we live in a simulated universe. Until someone can absolutely prove we are not living in a simulation I am going with creator. My problem is I have no idea the difference between a creator and an a book full of stores claiming to be from a creator. That's not dishonesty.

Neither are dishonest! Asserting as fact either way is dishonest.

@@jameswright... Peoples lives are totally dishonest

@@atmoo3447 Mines not! Mines based on truth, I don't lie! My whole life revolves around facts backed by evidence. If I don't know then I say so.

What do you mean?

@@DCxSkateboarding I mean don’t think like these gentlemen.

@@ryanclour8680 why though? What's wrong with logic and reasoning?

@@DCxSkateboarding the viciously circular and self defeating mindset of an atheist. That’s what’s wrong. It’s also my opinion to think this way so before you go on some atheist rant, I just simply do not care what you have to say but glad you stopped by. Have a good one.

@@ryanclour8680 so what about an atheist mindset is circular in self-defeating? Muslims tell you that Muhammad was the last prophet. Hindus state that the Vedas are the correct holy text. I'm not convinced of Christianity the same way I'm not convinced of Hinduism or Islam I need legitimate empirical evidence that can be repeated and can be falsified. So the only thing an atheist does is say the claims in your Bible need evidence. And until you give me that evidence I'm not going to believe in your God. Some atheists are agnostic atheist and they believe that there is a possibility of some sort of deity but they don't believe in said deity actively until there's evidence for it. There's nothing circular or self-defeating about this. The fact that you are actively making up ideas about atheists is in itself self-defeating because you're literally needing to use fallacious arguments to support your ideas. The entire idea of faith is also inherently self-defeating. And lastly the entirety of Christianity uses the Bible to justify its claims and its claims come directly from the Bible. That is objectively circular. Are you just projecting your own thoughts on to atheists?

Well, you dont need a formal education to have a proper understanding of logic. Even those with Phds in philosophy make terribly obvious errors in their reasoning

Formal education has been the downfall of many - the most notable symptom is arrogance. 😢

Your inability to understand why is why he's there and you are not.

@@gregbatson8977 woow so deep

@@smilloww2095 Wow, so shallow.

Nope, that's just you projecting your ignor@nce onto others. Your Bias doesn't allow you to be Objective.

@13shadowwolf Nope. You're just a clown , who needs to appeal to authority. Mostly because you don't do your own thinking.

@13shadowwolf At least your little brain does understands how blinding of an influence bias can be..... Now it's just a matter of getting you to realize it's not just the other people (the ones you don't like) who are blinded. Once that happens you'll actually be a thinker.

@@MultipleGrievance that doesn't work, there are actually neutral stances on topics, Objectivity is more possible for Skeptics; they have functions built into their Logic, to detect more errors than any other group. Nobody understands how to deal with Bias, than the Skeptics.

@13shadowwolf Mostly a fallacy. Very few people are capable taking neutral stances on topics. It requires emotional detachment. I've been following Sam & Matt for years now, they are both very emotionally attached to the topics they discuss. Matt has gotten hysterical so many times I've lost count. The notion that this guy is objective is complete nonsense. Sam, has himself gotten worse over the years. He's now incapable of separating his politics from his positions. They are one and the same. Which of course makes objectivity impossible.

They don't need them. YOU do.

What do the father,the son, and the Holy Spirit have to do with this!?

Nope, you're just backwards from Reality.

@@13shadowwolf which reality ⁉️ Buddha, Allah, Shiva, Thor, JahWeh, KimSun Il, Jim Jones, Jesus, Ozmandius, so many mythical gods to prostate to.

@@hectormata449 we only have access to the singular Reality that we share. There are not multiple other Realities as far as we can currently tell. Perception is NOT Reality, there's a reason that we have different words for those separate concepts.

So you don't understand what they're saying therefore it's a waste of time?

Awwww... Cute pseudo-etymology.

Was that supposed to be smart? Did you have something to say?

I am blocked on all of his current and previous shows/channels. But that isn’t necessarily his fault.😅

@@ramigilneas9274 I'm blocked on his Twitter, I think "no debate" is his main strategy these days,

​@@clayreiththe problem is when you debate people on the same topic for 25 years and they keep giving the same dead refuted responses and arguments it's annoying. Have you actually watched any of his recent content? The only time he doesn't have a discussion with somebody is when they're being intellectually dishonest.

That first line is a cute, broad, negative generalization. What, you couldn't point to one thing as an example of what you found offensive?

@@arthurwieczorek4894 ps the video is from Apologetics roadshow the title is He finally admitted it , the part I forgot was after he played the clip of Harris saying , roadshow said if you ask 100 Sam Harris after seeing this have you changed all would probably say no because Christianity is evil and harmful like you guessed it Trump , the ends justify the means . Watch that short video then tell me what you think .

You only insulted yourself.

@@toni4729 who was insulted ? Me or the one who responded to me ? Cheers

@@22julip You don't know I was talking to you. Yes I was talking to you. If you have something to say, say it. What I can see from the comments, including yours is all childish.

Enlightened? Like a delusional spiritual leader? I'll take people educated in real subjects thanks.

Better updated data ALWAYS leads to better outcomes.. I want the better data that comports with reality, as it has ALWAYS lead to better outcomes for me & EVERYONE I have ever known. Not outdated mistaken & faulty data. 🤔🌏☮️

@@jameswright... Take whatever you judge is good from society or religion and your life will be a confused mess unhappy and fulfilled

@@atmoo3447 Religion has no good, lies can never be good long term. It's not what I judge, it's consensus amongst the majority for common good/betterment. I take the good from society, it enriches me! It's the bad that brings things down. My life is full! Full of happiness love awe and wonder, it's ever learning ever changing and awesome.

@@jameswright... Everyone will say their life is good. But the fact is humanity is insane we are committing every crime you could possibly imagine. And none of these crazy people will admit their life is a mess.

He has, indeed. Such a hypacrit

@@lolfzbf You replied to yourself to pretend your idiotic viewpoint is popular. So sad 😢

​@@lolfzbf Are you responding to yourself? Now THAT'S sad. 😅

So why do you insist on calling it trans ideology when there is a literal research that you as an individual now have to refute in order to maintain the statement trans ideology.

It really bugs me that people still refuse to read research. I don't care if trans people make you uncomfortable that's a YOU problem f****** deal with it go read the research.