Dialogue with Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny 

Unlike many of the other people Dawkins has debated against, Archbiship Rowan Williams seems to really know alot about science, in addition to Christianity

The tone of this debate is so English. I mean that in the kindest way. No shouting over or simple talk. The priests in the audience came to see Dawkins.

could have watched another hour or two of that... i'm a scientist through and through but i found the archbishops intellectual vigor and grip of the issues from both a scientific and theological point of view really impressive and his line of argument really interesting, although i think i share a bit of dawkins' obvious mistrust of some of these philosophically framed questions. just the sort of measured and informed debate the world needs more of.

"I think that should keep us going..." Brilliant, I've been looking forward to this :) Thanks for the upload!

Sir Kenny was a very good chair at the beginning, but occasionally harped on Dawkins and didn't let the Archbishop speak enough at times... still, he directed the conversation well. Nice clip.

Best comeback I've seen in a long time. +1 internetz to you.

Please more !!!!!

He is Archbishop of the Anglican church, or the Church of England, not the Catholic Church,

I WANT TO BE THERE AND TALK WITH THESE PEOPLE!!! (sorry for caps, but it was intentional, i was shouting) I have so much to say about this.

I'm not sure it makes Britain unique. But it is one of the few countries.

Dawkins could do with reading Aristotle who made the distinction between animate and inanimate matter as the problematic of philosophy. Aristotle wrote the 'Physics' as an explanation of inanimate matter and the 'Metaphysics' as an attempt to explain the question 'what is life?' To apply physics to life, whilst tempting, leaves few solutions to the problems of Life and Being.

''Its tough, stuff happens''...OMG Richard Dawkins is such a rock star!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad Dawkins found someone he dares to talk with...

Hmm, but as usual, stimulating though the discussion certainly was, the difficult questions which are pivotal to a belief in God and by default religion were not addressed. Heaven, hell, life after death, to say more is not necessary.

40:21 Say wwhhaatttttt!!!!??

Total hottie at 1:17:12, laughing at the Archbishop's razor joke.

Why are they messing up agnostism with atheism? An atheist believes there is no god, a theist do. An agnostic believes that the existence of god cannot be proven, a gnostic do. If you ask a person what he would put he's money on if asked if there is a god or not it would be very rare that they are so in the middle of the two that placing a bet would be like flipping a coin! A person who has looked into the issue can't be neither an atheist or a theist!

the belief that something is true does not make it true i can say anything about anything, use reason here.

@BronyEditor God bless Richard Dawkins also :)

It is upsetting when new born life does not have a chance to live due to complications, but this is the random chance evolution proposes, not all living things will have the capabilities to survive all stages of life. Those that do, will continue reproduce, while millions of other proposed life systems will not. Just like the environment chances, so does human forms, and those forms better equipped to the new environment will have higher chance of reproduction.

Rather disappointed that anthony kenny didn't/doesn't understand the anthropic principle (in its plantery sense)- you wonder how he can have thought about such things and not come into contact with it. It's not that the gunmen missed because we're alive, it's that there were millions of different executions going on and since we're alive, we must be the one where the gunmen missed- very simple concept.

I'm pretty sure he knows more about evolution then you do.

You all should know that Dawkins has recently attacked the chairman (agnostic philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny) as being a meddling "philosopher" (derogatory quotation marks Dawkins' own) and dismissing him as having "special training in obscurantism". I've compiled the evidence into a video. Search along the lines of "Dawkins attacks Sir Anthony Kenny" and you'll find it. It's truly shocking and sad that Dawkins could shake his hand then stab him (and philosophy itself) in the back.

Your brain has very simple software which evidently cannot distinguish between how living things come into being and how inanimate objects come into being.

Not to be vain - But all three of these speakers need to trim their eyebrows!

@BronyEditor And Richard Dawkins :)

does heaven exist? if it does so long as i am a good person, whether or not i worship this eternal being wont mean i go to hell.

Rowan Williams seems like a tremendous individual. I can't wrap my head around why the fuck he is archbishop of the Catholic Church. He is too real and cool for that garbage. I can't even imagine him associating with those kinds. He seems like he'd make a great scientist.

ball possession: Dawkins 70%, Williams 30%...what else? :-) Thanks a lot!

You can worship the devil, you can commit the worst atrocities, just make sure you're baptised and your sins are no more. - ROFL

0:40:39 - why is it that even an Oxford professor does not understand evolution? There was not first human, evolution is a slow process that takes place over millenia and imperceptable changes are still occuring now through each generation.

William Lane Craig is an intellectual light weight - a parrot trained to say 'special pleading' could defeat him.

Don't even go there, except to weep. The death of a new born is not up for remarks like"stuff happens"or "God doesn't micro manage the universe"

As far as I am concerned, Creationism/Intelligent Design IS MORE SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL than the RELIGION OF EVOLUTION, since all OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE is on the Creationists' side, not on the evolutionists' side (just look around for ANYTHING YOU OWN and tell me even ONE ITEM that is NOT CREATED) ;)

if i had a question to ask Dawkins, i'd be like''particle or wave?''BURN.

And "Dr" William Lane Craig has similarly refused, with similarly lame excuses, to debate his former student John Loftus, which is even more pathetic because unlike Dawkins, John Loftus studied theology. Dawkins knows and admits he's not interested in, or good at, theology. A "PhD" in "Theology" is like a Phd in the Twilight books. You can argue all you want about how Edward is not abusive towards Bella, but in the end, it's a stupid book with a stupid story with stupid shallow characters.

Why Richard Dawkins? I have seen a few debates with this guy and is a terrible speaker and for a reason if someone is not agree with him he became so angry!