Question Time: Gods and Demons - The Need to Believe

SUMMARY:
------------------------------
I was thrilled to share this slice of a lively Question Time session from our Gods and Demons series — genuine, sharp and unfiltered. The clip captures an Australian sceptic, Ian Brice, challenging the speaker (Victor) to produce a single piece of evidence for the afterlife. Victor answers with passion, asking for fair referees and pointing to what he calls “experimental effects” in psychical research — and he even invokes Isaac Newton and the long history of atomism to frame the debate. It’s a great example of public intellectual exchange: rules for questions, a firm demand for short, sharp points, and a back-and-forth that highlights the tension between open-minded researchers and closed-minded sceptics. If you’re fascinated by afterlife claims, experimental methodology, or how history of ideas colours modern debates, this clip is for you. Tune in, listen to the exchange, and decide for yourself whether one piece of evidence can ever satisfy sceptical scrutiny.

RUMBLE DESCRIPTION:
-----------------------------------
Welcome back — here’s a cracking Q&A extract from our Gods and Demons: The Need to Believe session. We laid down the simple rules: put your hand up, name which speaker you want to address, keep it short and come to the mic — all recorded for clarity. The exchange that follows is a proper intellectual sparring match. Ian Brice, an Australian sceptic and scientist, asks Victor for one piece of evidence for the afterlife. It’s a blunt, serious challenge and Victor responds with conviction. He stresses the concept of “experimental effects” in psychical research, the need for non-aligned adjudicators, and the importance of fair, balanced referees who can call it as they see it. Victor even references historical turning points — Isaac Newton and the baptism of atomism — to show how scientific and philosophical shifts influence our readiness to accept phenomena.

This clip is ideal if you’re curious about: how paranormal claims are tested, the role of open-minded versus closed-minded investigators, and how historical ideas shape modern debates. Drop your thoughts in the comments: who do you trust to adjudicate such claims? Do you think one piece of evidence could ever convince a sceptic? If you enjoyed this clip, chuck us a like, subscribe for the full debates, and share it with folks who love a good intellectual tussle. Keen to see more? Tell us which bit you want timestamped and we’ll add it.

⚠️ CONTENT DISCLAIMER ⚠️
The views, opinions, and statements expressed in this video are those of the individual speaker(s) and audience members. They do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of Western Heritage Australia or its affiliates.

This content is presented for educational and informational purposes as well as to facilitate public discourse on important social and political issues. We provide a platform for diverse Australian voices to be heard, to assist the public in forming their own informed opinions.

Western Heritage Australia does not endorse, verify, or take responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by speakers. All claims, statistics, and opinions remain the responsibility of the original speaker. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult multiple sources when forming opinions on these topics.

This video may contain strong political opinions, controversial viewpoints, strong language, or mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.