Richard Dawkins on Skavlan December 2015

Richard Dawkins returns to the Swedish/Norwegian television talk show, "Skavlan". I am impressed by how these people slip in and out of English. Very European. Although there to promote his memoir, as usual, the talk turns to atheism. Dawkins explains how you do not have to be a theist to either write sublime music or paint great paintings or think great thoughts. One panel member seems to have trouble grokking this. It's the old arguments from personal experience, personal incredulity, authority or lazy thinking. I believe because either someone in authority told me or I cannot explain something therefore god.
I have edited this to just have the Dawkins section, for comment and discussion under the standard YT licence. To see the whole thing, go here
www.svtplay.se/...

[@MindGem]

Haha, "But then Why did Bach compose music".. as that was somehow connected to an evidence of a God. omg. These people.

[@mackan2194]

"But why did Bach compose music?" Here we go again ....

[@hcpiano]

allways interesting to hear Dawkins talk. But this time the interview was a bit meh.. Last time he was on Skavlan(2012) it was a bit more intriguing.

[@MrDaiseymay]

+HC Piano It's a miracle he hasn't gone nut's repeating the same message to the worlds morons. You can only vary the answers so much.

[@Deano-Dron81]

Can say the ant kids bit cant

[@husyn7-j337]

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

[@ErikSvardal]

Husyn 7-J what?

[@ATOK_]

?

[@aldozilli1293]

Stay off the drugs. Do like Zammo, just say no!

[@simonthoresen6508]

Dawkins, who thinks evolution somehow disproves God.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools."

[@AsFewFalseThingsAsPossible]

+Simon Thoresen No it's more that since Darwin there is no need to use the idea of a god to explain biological diversity. He also made clear that you cannot disprove existential claims. For example you cannot disprove fairies. But you can remain open to evidence. There is none for any gods which stands up.

[@hcpiano]

+Simon Thoresen If conclude with that you really didnt listen to him or understand what he said. Very simplistic said, he believes in what he finds more likely. And the method he uses is scientific. I could believe that the univers is inside the atom of a gigantic donut, but I dont. And why should I? Anyway,Carl Sagan once told the story about "The Invisible Dragon in My Garage". It has a very good point.

[@glutinousmaximus]

+Simon Thoresen
I prefer:-
_Empty vessels make the most sound_

[@BlackEpyon]

+Simon Thoresen
The common definition of "fool" is one who believes without evidence. As example, those who believe the claims of religion.

[@bard6184]

+Simon Thoresen Dawkins doesn't disprove God. He argues that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist. He realizes that we can not know 100% certain, but proves to the reasonable, logical, and sound mind that it is infinitely much more probable that there is no God - than it is that God exists.
Much, much more than evolution makes God improbable, and this is what Dawkins says - and you don't understand. Apparently.