I liked how this mini - interview went. No sign of hostility by the interviewers. Very well done. It  at least encourages the audience  to listen without preconceived notion towards science.

Richard Feynman - No Ordinary Genius

One of the most astounding man of his generation. How I wish that I would’ve met him. He’s a really big inspiration for me, not just in science but also in life. There will never be another Richard Feynman, not even close.
A true inspiration…. :’)

The Great Debate: The Storytelling of Science (Part 1)

This is by far one of the most entertaining  talks  about science that I’ve watched. Clearly with the members of the cast I’d already expected this to be a great one add to that the overwhelming audience which makes it all the more exciting.

I like the stories they tell, how they tell it even. It really brings out my love and inspiration for science! This is a very great science show and really worth my 2hrs and 13min. I didn’t even notice the time. Hope there will be more events like these in the future and I can go attend one in the near future!

P.S. Watch part 2, It’s really hilarious!

I loved this debate. The eloquence of Sam Harris is something to marvel at. He speaks with the same confidence and as William Craig but in a more calm and professional manner. I didn’t like the way that he (Craig) points out certain points in Harris’ speech with those annoying smirks and little laughs that makes him seem like his opponent is intellectually inferior, so unprofessional.

Both make good points but what is annoying is William Craig just initiating his own rebuttals about how Harris is staying away from the topic when IN FACT he isn’t. Craig keeps saying that he’s not there to prove that GOD exists, he keeps hiding behind the constraints of the topic which is fair to say the least but it makes him look like an idiot for filling his rebuttal about complaints and less about how to respond to what Harris says. I can’t even comprehend the ignorance that he displays when he keeps going to the fundamental sources of morality and yet he completely IGNORES when Harris sites the social, mental, physical implications of morality based on religion while Harris at least attempts to explain the origins of morality and connecting to society.

It’s also annoying the way he sums up and assumes things about what Harris says even when Harris clearly stated when he talks that he isn’t referring to everyone. This is the kind of annoying, simple minded, debater who keeps appealing to the illogical beliefs of the masses to capture their votes even w/o presenting clearly rational and empirical evidences.

This is the kind that wins debates because he keeps you running around in circles w/ statements that are clearly impossible to have a reply to. And this the kind of guy that Craig is which Sam Harris said perfectly.

Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.” All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to  provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

I’m not even an atheist and I’m trying to be as unbiased as possible and not everyone may share my perspective regarding this but I can’t imagine how ignorant some people can be. It just astounds me….

The Overview Effect

“When we look down at the Earth from space we see this amazing, indescribably beautiful planet – it looks like a living, breathing organism. But it also, at the same time, looks extremely fragile.”
– Ron Garan