วีดีโอ

Watching this after reading about a son discovering his parents are cuckolding, and they didnt think they had done anything wrong and that their son was being bigoted for hating his parents afterwards.. No, religion isnt just to make the plebs feel better about their lives. It's about the moral fabric of society.

it's amazing how the new Darwinians disregard or avoid talking about Jesus altogether. Why do they do that? If you start talking about Jesus, you are talking about God. Jesus is a historical figure who existed and told us that he is the Son of God. Jesus existed therefore God exists. Hitchens is no longer here to argue about this, and Dawkins has started to realize he's almost there, with Nietzsche, Marx and Hitchens and others like them. May God have mercy on them all.

Zizek for president 🙏

we've not really moved on from socrates have we !?

" No hay cosa mas cerca ni mas lejos , mas encubierta ni mas descubierta, que Dios" Fray Luis de Leon

Not talking,but are they know what is sky knowledge...if not better not say anything... small tiny sand that human knowledge...

Scruton - unbeatable.

As we saw during the Coof, Dawkins stood on his scientific soap box and proclaimed to those who would listen that not taking the shot was an anti-social and irresponsible act. He later decided to retract his intemperate remarks when alternative facts began to emerge, in part because it was admitted by the vox testers it was NEVER tested to see if it prevented transmission and Dawkin's assumptions that it was wonderfully effective has turned out to be totally wrong. Here we see the man of science, Dawkins, worshipping at his own altar of scientism, preaching to his 'intellectual' flock about the miracles of science and the selfish, unenlightened ignorance of the masses in their suspicions of a largely untested medical product, when in actual fact he was repeating dogma created by those who had other authoritarian fish to fry. In the history of authoritarian and totalitarianism it is almost always the intellectuals who advocate for ideas which often lead to mass deaths. Pol Pot was educated in Europe, many western intellectuals were firm believers iin eugenics, Mark had a PhD, Mao was well educated. Perhaps the defining characteristic of those who set themselves up as men of science is their overweening arrogance and disdain of ideas and beliefs which can't be crammed into the strictures of the scientific method. We are currently in the grip of technocrats who are leading us all to hell by means of total surveillance, social credit systems, mass imposition of untested medical procedures. If this represents the pinnacle of science, you can stuff it where the double helix don't shine.

Damn the hate and visceral anger behind this man 😂. This is why we need religion in the world because people like him exist. Thank god he has no real power Dawkins craves power and attention as a narcissist but thankfully he gets most of his ego filled with his writing and speaking people like this are very dangerous in power

Scruton is a class act

Priest are intellectuals

how can anyone with a straight face claim to be a 'darwinian' these days, the man was a fraud

Attempts to settle the matter by logic is fruitless. Anything that can be defined and proved is not G-d. Even good old arithmetic contains true statements which cannot be proved. And the World is definitely a superset of arithmetic. So, in the absence of personal revelation (gnosis) the only reasonable position is agnosticism.

Now we see their godless society.

"El ser humano tiene la necesidad fundamental de sentirse envuelto en la estética de la existencia" Serge Raynaud de la Ferriere

The so called 'human need for religion' could easily be replaced by something less dogmatic, such as the love for art, attachment to a place, or the concept of Humanism.

If I had watched this clip just a few years ago, I would have marvelled at Dawkin's eloquence whilst deriding the 'outdated' beliefs of the traditionalists. I was a staunch atheist back then. Since then, Roger Scruton's books have guided me through different thoughts from different ages, which eventually led to my recognising natural law and absolute morality, as well as its role in society. I really must pay tribute to one of the greatest thinkers of our time, Mr Roger Scruton. If only I had found him earlier. It would have been great to meet him in person. However, his books and lectures will live on. His legacy will also continue to thrive, as yet more lost souls are guided away from the road to nihilism and given the directions to the right path (as I have been) by Mr Scruton's erudition. May he RIP.

Scruton is such a fraud Lol

Scruton's response was ad hominem against Dawkins as implying Dawkins is taking on the affect of religious righteousness but that evades the point of holding religion to the same standard as - you know - knowledge and truth. Scruton isn't wrong, it's Saint Dawkins. But that's not the point, and Scruton knew that.

The crusades

Christopher's brother learned a lot from Roger

Why does Hitchens remark "for heaven's sake" ?

A decade ago, I would've been rooting for Hitchens. It was his last book "Mortality" that made me question reality deeper, the way it ended in such hope and scribbles. It's amazing to listen to Scruton and how he went over everyone's heads.

Hitchens was the consummate demagogue. He talks here of the body count of religion, but the most murderous ideologies of history were the 20th century versions that explicitly rejected God-Communism and Nazism.

All atheists are fundamentally downright stupid, and dumb; unable to observe and perceive the obvious truth surrounding us all!

You know it’s not like humans haven’t tried to build areligious societies, it’s just that they all descended into dystopia and then collapsed.

It took several of the leftists, to try to even out the odds they were up against. Multiplying zero didn't help however.

They always noticably leave off ONE religion in their discussions

Dawkins' response serves as an example that, even in intellectual spheres, strawman arguments are used. Scrutin didn't suggest intelligent people don't need religion, or that they can create a moral framework far beyond the masses. The condescending, patronising part is how Dawkins automatically associates himself with the enlightened group, above the common people.

When I was a child, I agreed with Hitchens; when I became a man, I realised Scruton held the greater truth.

The self professed Darwinian atheist appeals to his own moral virtue.

Excellent bla bla bla,,,,, But,,,, bla bla bla nonetheless

Scrutin is out of his depth.

dawkins fixation on the truth of religion is like the nerd not getting humor/allegory/nuance and endeavoring to find the truth with a chip on his shoulder

Dawkins,and Hitchens are fanatics and dogmatists. Such extremists are intellectual Nazis, and are dangerous to free thought.

Whatever you think of Dawkins's views, how many people nowadays could construct a paragraph totally on the fly as he does here in responding to Prof. Scruton 2:02?

The stars and galaxies and black holes and other physical phenomenon are wonderful and impressive, but the most wonderful and impressive and complicated and enigmatic thing in the universe by far is the human brain. The immortal soul exists in the human brain.

One of the problems with the atheist (or rather, anti-theist) crowd, is that they seem to equate religion and war to be a single product or definition. As if one is not without the other, but that's not true. Religion and spirituality can exist and be a valid form of interpreting the universe, without any violence required at all. Humans will always find a way or excuse for war. Do people 'really' think that wars in the name of religion, 'really' were for their gods? Or rather.. was religion merely abused, used as a tool for justification for man's greed and lust to own and control others? Christianity in the NT, in its original context, the teachings of Christ, were teaching liberation from religion and corruption, that each and every man could connect with God, without the need of others, without legalism and traditions, and temples and mountains. But the Christian faith was hijacked by Romanism. Another case of religion which started out as something good, to be a tool of conquest. The same can be said of Dawinism and the Nazis and the Soviets. People like Dawkins never say "Evolution is evil, because Hitler weaponised it in the name of his Aryan ideology". Yet, that is exactly what happened. It birthed genocide, concentration camps, eugenics, racism, human zoos. Hence, let us recognise, that each system, does not "Inherently" require war, nor do they cause wars, but it's the individuals in question, who will always weaponise these things for their own ambitions. If then, we can remove the ad-hoc hatred, that comes by such association fallacy, perhaps we can be more fair, and less emotionally biased, when it comes to our examination of the religious, and the spiritual.

I don't know if many of these great "atheists" realize that what they are attacking is not the God of theism, but rather the god of deism. The manner in which they passionately describe things like Transcendence, Objective Truth, and Wonder/Mystery is very reminiscent of theistic apologetics.

I am an atheist myself and Hitchens/Dawkins will always hold a special place in my heart. But Scruton was just on a whole other level here.

Hitchens and Dawkins are very rational. Very well.

The future has shown Scruton's words to ring true. Religious need is still here but religion has been replaced with political ideology, materialism, false celebrity idols and hedonism. Unfortunately I didn't realise this at the time and would have supported Hitchens and Dawkins.

Dawkins, the eternal teenager

We, intellectuals 😤

These guys: “quick he is roasting us alive. Dog pile!” Roger: *continues as if they weigh little more than a little puppy*

People always bring up religion as the culprit for every war or negative event in human history ("stacking the bodies"). Maybe you could make that argument before communism is the USSR and China, but I can't believe it is a line of attack that still exists.

Can we have a link to the whole debate please? Roger ❤

Hitchens (RIP), in clown territory, Dawkins, philosophically illiterate and Scruton, as always, irresistible.

Hitchens is (was) a fanatic, very much like religious missionaries.

Dawkins, Grayling & Hitchens always use straw man arguments to advance their view. I find Grayling and Dawkins unbelievably self satisfied. Scruton and Rupert Sheldrake are infinitely brighter and more interesting.