He's made a ton of money out of arguing with believers. If this entire world was filled with atheists there would be zero demand to buy his books or hear him argue. Argue with who?
That’s a pretty condescending way to look at it! They’re both on the opposite side of the spectrum so I would think they’re being patient and open with each other! The fact that they’re having a civilize conversation is a great indicator.
Disagreed. I’d much prefer that we have unquestionable truths like the logic of basic arithmetic, than to have mysterious questions that aren’t helpful. But context is key. This quote is just silly
This man has given hundreds of interviews, has spent thousands of hours in conversation in a professional capacity, and yet somehow has not figured out how to not rudely interrupt the people he's interviewing in the middle of a sentence
He is a toddler in an adult body. He's a narcissist. It amazes me how few people can see that. Just goes to show that we as a species will be is the state we are in currently for ever. Unless we learn about NPD.
@@cowboyjoefrommexico-elsete3434 It is wise to choose what to talk about. You don't always have to have an opinion that you MUST express. Truth is that I don't know why he chose to not comment nor do you.
Richard Dawkins stayed at an Hotel in St. Andrews where I was Restaurant Manager ( he had scrambled egg and salmon for breakfast lol) I asked him if I brought a book later could he sign it. He made a point of looking for me to sign the book layer on in the day and I was able to have a brief chat with him. You can tell the worth of someone by how they treat people who essentially mean nothing to them. Richard was kind and courteous. The meeting meant a great deal to me as I had followed him and his work for a while.
That is great from him, to be kind to all the people, but Mr. Richard Dawkins (like any atheist) is in error regarding the most important truth: God/Jesus (proof follows). Generally, the superficial ones do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process.* They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
@@KF-cx8bmthe other person is saying that he values you as a follower and gave you this wonderful story to tell other people. He's agreeing with you and your insulting him which looks bad on you
@@Peter-zv4dx That silly old dogma reciter knows nothing but what he was taught in that place for the clever 😂😂😂 & privliged 💷💷💷💵💵💵 you see the education system of this world teaches us ie you, me & the likes of Dawkins, manufacturered lies. This blanket of false education has been going on for centuries. And yet evidence is beginning to appear out of quantum research. Even the original teachings of the Bible was altered. By the roman church. It was altered by the creed, so the teachings of the Bible where more geared around mind control. That's mind control of the masses. And keeping the serfs in perpetual slavery. Through quantum physics, which I study with great interest. Evidence is coming to light that there are alternative dimensions that coexist with our dimension here. There is a place we are all supposed to go after death 'Spirit world' 'summerland' I know because I have researched it through solid evidence. And I have personally seen this other place. And communicated with entities that exist in one this dimension. In my opinion extraterrestrials, do exist. However they have vehicles that have the ability to increase or decrease vibration. Thus allowing, craft and crew to cross into their relative dimension away from ours. Hence that's why most ufo sightings are 'here one minute and gone the next' ...however as I say that's my belief in the case of extraterrestrials. All I can say is, is that perhaps you do your own research and practical experiment's. If you where to do this, and do it right. It will open up your mind & you would be amazed, but you have to believe in why you do it, really believe in spirit etc. Then you will see why I call him Dogma Dawkins, because I'm sorry to say he knows absolutely nothing about the truth, and why we as humans are having a spiritual experience. He believes that when you die, that's it.... Lights out we no longer exist. I pity dorkins soul. Because we create our own reality. So him believing that death is the end. Then death for him, will be permanent darkness and nothing more. But me on the other hand. I know there is a world of spirit. A place where we reunite with friends and family that have passed before us. Call it heaven, but it is a place of pure beauty and peace. A place of rest and of education. A place where I can build my own home, just through the power of thought. Let me tell you this. Due to the teachings of the twisted version of the Bible. There are many people that have passed into spirit. And those spirit are unable to pass on. This is because in life those spirits in our world where so brain washed to believe that if you don't do as the bible tells you. You will burn in hell, so as a result of this false tosh. Spirit's are to afraid to cross over and be at peace. Because those spirit's believe passing into the afterlife 'crossing into the light' will actually send them straight to hell. The church has much to answer for. But going back to Dawkins, he knows nothing of what he should know, so he is not worth even listening too. And like you and me. His day will come. So don't end up going the way he's going. Into perpetual pergatory, all because of his twisted beliefs and disciplines.
As a young black male growing up in the Bible Belt, I didn’t discover Prof. Dawkins until my early twenties. I had no idea the doubts I previously held were no reason to be ashamed, but in fact, I should push myself to critique any and all beliefs I held and justify my basis. I will likely never meet him, but I am eternally grateful for how he has shaped my ability to practice intellectual honesty and embrace the limitations of ignorance without resorting to what’s emotionally palatable.
Sorry, but it's just not right what he says. When he talks about his views on religion, science, morality, and politics. He makes the following points: 1.Religion is a form of superstition that is based on faith, not evidence. He says that faith is a "cop-out" and a "betrayal of the intellect". He argues that science is the only reliable way to understand the world and that religion is incompatible with science. 2. Religion is harmful to society and individuals. He says that religion promotes violence, intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance. He criticizes various aspects of religion, such as the concept of hell, the doctrine of original sin, the oppression of women and minorities, and the indoctrination of children. He also criticizes some specific religions, such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. 3.Religion is not necessary for morality. He says that morality is based on empathy, reason, and social contract, not divine command. He argues that secular humanism can provide a better basis for morality than religion. He also challenges the idea that religion has inspired good deeds or art. 4.Religion should not be respected or privileged in society. He says that religion should not be immune from criticism or ridicule. He advocates for the separation of church and state and the protection of secular values. He also opposes the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. That's just BS which people which has been criticized by many people, including religious believers, philosophers, scientists, and other atheists. Things that they say are: 1. Dawkins misrepresents or misunderstands religion. He is accused of attacking a straw man version of religion that does not reflect the diversity or complexity of religious beliefs and practices. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the positive aspects or contributions of religion to society and culture. 2. Dawkins overstates or exaggerates the conflict between religion and science. He is accused of adopting a narrow or dogmatic view of science that excludes other forms of knowledge or inquiry. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the compatibility or harmony between religion and science that many people experience or advocate. 3. Dawkins undermines or insults morality. He is accused of being arrogant or elitist in his moral judgments. He is also accused of being naive or simplistic in his moral reasoning. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the role or influence of religion in shaping moral values or behavior. 4. Dawkins provokes or polarizes society. He is accused of being intolerant or disrespectful of religious people and their rights. He is also accused of being divisive or inflammatory in his rhetoric or tone. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the benefits or challenges of dialogue or cooperation between religious and non-religious people.
Ridiculous people who support him might say: 1. Dawkins defends or promotes science. He is praised by them for being clear or eloquent in his explanation of scientific concepts and methods. He is also praised for being courageous or honest in his challenge of pseudoscience or anti-science. 2. Dawkins exposes or criticizes religion. He is praised for being logical or factual in his critique of religious claims and arguments. He is also praised for being bold or witty in his satire or mockery of religious absurdities or atrocities. 3. Dawkins inspires or educates morality. He is praised for being compassionate or ethical in his advocacy of human rights and welfare. He is also praised for being rational or consistent in his application of moral principles and standards. 4. Dawkins influences or empowers society. He is praised for being influential or popular in his outreach to the public and the media. He is also praised for being empowering or liberating in his encouragement of free thought and expression. But that's just soooooooo silly, because the truth is: 1. Dawkins does not defend or promote science, but rather distorts or misuses it. He is criticized for being vague or misleading in his definition of terms and concepts, such as faith, evidence, and natural selection. He is also criticized for being selective or biased in his use of data and examples, such as ignoring or dismissing the limitations or uncertainties of science. 2. Dawkins does not expose or criticize religion, but rather attacks or insults it. He is criticized for being unfair or hostile in his portrayal of religious people and their beliefs. He is also criticized for being rude or offensive in his language and style, such as using ad hominem or straw man arguments. 3. Dawkins does not inspire or educate morality, but rather undermines or insults it. He is criticized for being arrogant or elitist in his moral judgments. He is also criticized for being naive or simplistic in his moral reasoning. He is also criticized for ignoring or dismissing the role or influence of religion in shaping moral values or behavior. 4. Dawkins does not influence or empower society, but rather provokes or polarizes it. He is criticized for being intolerant or disrespectful of religious people and their rights. He is also criticized for being divisive or inflammatory in his rhetoric or tone. And... finally, he is criticized for ignoring or dismissing the benefits or challenges of dialogue or cooperation between religious and non-religious people. Ultimately, this is a matter of personal opinion and perspective. Different people may have different views on Dawkins’ views and their implications for society and culture, and you have your views as a young black male growing up in the Bible Belt. However, I hope you understand that despite some of the silly things you went through in the bible belt, Dawkins' ideas are much sillier and worse than anything you ever went through and based on my arguments, you should not follow him. Thank you.
By the way, why do you say “as a young black male” instead of “as a young black man”. Is that because you want to emphasize your biological sex rather than your gender identity or expression? Do you want to avoid any confusion or ambiguity about your sex or gender, thinking that THIS might be a context where your gender is not binary or fixed?? Do you want to distance yourself from the social or cultural expectations or stereotypes associated with being a man or a woman??? Do you want to highlight your age or maturity level by using a word that sounds more neutral or objective than man or woman???? If not, then please stop being so silly because it's annoying to an intelligent person like myself. I think it shows bad preferences or motivations. You should respect yourself as a man and not as a male, because sex just refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define males and females, such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men, girls, and boy, which are important because they form part of your identity just like "being black" forms part of your identity, which I assume is an important part of your identity to you. Well being a man is as well. So male and female are words that describe sex, while man and woman are words that describe gender and you should therefore not use them interchangeably in everyday language, because it's harmful to yourself in ways you might not even realise
@@AmazingEmmaMarie Dawkins’ ideas are sillier? Can you give an example of what you mean? I’ve always found Dawkins’ factual assertions to be grounded in evidence driven scientific analysis or his speculations to be well reasoned and limited by what more experienced professionals of the subject matter have determined (ergo, “I’m not a physicist, but from what I understand…”) What I’m ultimately expressing is that Prof. Dawkins promotes reason, evidence, and admission of ignorance when analyzing claims of belief, which removes special pleading or preference, and gives greater value to truth. Some people don’t like to have their beliefs challenged through these lenses, and allow emotion to determine their relative truths.
@@AmazingEmmaMarie you’re being far too general. For each of the points you stated, there are absolutely truths respective to the religion you’re discussing. Let’s use Christianity: 1) Religious superstitions are incompatible with scientific evidence. Yes, transubstantiation, resurrection, global flood, age of the earth, mans coexistence with dinosaurs. There is no scientific basis to believe any of these as true, so why accept them if it requires you to undermine intellectual honesty. 2) If biblical texts were interpreted literally, then yes there would be a divine justification of slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and many other prejudices. If one believed Hell were real, there would also be a significant number of damned individuals if judged through scriptural doctrine, as opposed to the laws we enact in society. 3) He absolutely credits religion with having inspired some of the greatest works of art (specifically he often references the Sistine chapel, and Mozart). What he argues is that art is not solely dependent upon religion, and that artists have the capacity to develop beautiful works without religious subject matter. Since the church was the ultimate authority of the time, they commissioned the work, but the work is not dependent upon the religion. Look at any song, film, novel, or painting today. Some works have a religious base, but far more are borne from a myriad of subject matter. 4) He does not advocate disrespecting religions, he argues that religion should not be free from critique. An idea should not be free from ridicule solely because it’s advocated in the Bible. Again, homophobia and racism are denigrating beliefs regardless of what scripture legislates. Persecuting women who do not abide completely by their husbands rule is misogyny and foments abuse. Though these are scriptural beliefs, they should not be exempt from condemnation in our society. And the separation of church and state is literally a fundamental principle of our nation (United States). That is not to subjugate any religion, it is to ensure no singular belief, held among a nation of immigrants, should be given preferential authority. It ensures that my neighbor and I can practice different faiths openly and freely, and not be subjected to the consequences of either’s dogma. And clearly we can enact morality without religion. A majority of laws based on our moral code are not rooted in the Bible. They were developed over time and rationalizing what rules promote the ability to simultaneously maximize freedom, opportunity & tranquility of the individual while minimizing restriction and detriment to another. Having the freedom to criticize aspects of one another’s religion is an important component to a free society. I understand people who adhere to differing faiths may find it as offensive as I find some aspects of their doctrine, but neither of us commanded to act in a manner that undermines our personal beliefs. We’re only prevented from imposing these beliefs upon others when interacting with our compatriots. Prof Dawkins is indifferent to how citizens choose to practice their faiths, however he defends against the imposition of those beliefs when they seek to distort education, reality, and fact. The same standards we already subject every other academic discipline to. It’s just an inconvenient truth for followers of some faiths, that their antiquated beliefs don’t comport with modern scientific realities, which is discomforting to them. But discomfort is no justification for perpetuating ignorance.
5 minutes in and I'm impressed by Dr Dawkins being humble and saying "I don't know", unlike the arrogant religious charlatans who claim to know everything.
Personal fun fact: Richard Dawkins shamed me into sobriety. I went to his book signing in Berkeley on October 6th, 2015. I got so drunk before the event started that I passed out as soon as he took the stage to speak. I woke up to his standing ovation! I waited in line afterwards to have my book signed by the legend, and when it was my turn, I slurred some greeting that I can't even remember. But I will never forget his face as he raised it from my book to glare at me with a furrowed brow. He obviously didn't care for what I said or the way I said it, and I'm sure the scent of alcohol coming off of me was enough to get him secondhandedly inebriated. I was so ashamed and embarrassed that one of my idols (I know he doesn't like idolatry) was so put off by me that I never drank alcohol again! And I was drunk pretty much every day from my late teens to that day when I was 30. Multiple interventions and the loss of high-paying jobs couldn't get through to me, yet all he had to do was give me the stank eye. Thanks for hating me, Sir!
This is a great story, I also think that it shows how to be a good parent. Mine never hit me or shouted loudly, they just showed clear disapproval of bad things I did, and I did less of them as a result.
@@gerryhughes3486 That's exactly what I want to tell people all the time, but it's usually about God. I learned a long time ago that it's a fruitless effort and that if that's what they need to believe to be a good person or to be healthy, then whatever works!
it's amazing how Richard Dawkins withstands the constant interruptions and nonsense statements with such grace and humility and doesn't allow himself to be dragged down to Piers level of pub brawl discussions
Yes, isn't it!! As Pierce stated himself, his brain is limited, and therefore, he tried to push an answer on the notion of nothing !!! But yet he thinks a complex deity with petty human emotions is justified, lol😂😂 Christians are like pre schoolers, too naive and childish to accept we don't know!! I just about spit up my lunch when he said he was a Catholic! Now, pergatory and the holy trinity explain it all, lol 🤣🤣🤣
Mr. Richard Dawkins is in error, as I proved through my recent posts. There are two kinds of atheists: those only temporarily deceived, being too superficial regarding the Creator of this reality (as I used to be due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) and those who do not want God to exist, who deny everything that proves their errors, such as all my simple, clear and undeniable demonstrations, which can be found after sorting the comments by reading enough of my answers and my new threads.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how we are living in a time where professor Dawkins is alive and well? This man changed my life to the better. Respect to you Sir!
Soon enough he'll leave this planet and have his eyes opened to the truth. I had a near death experience aged 15 , so I already know for a FACT that's he's wrong about everything.
@@andrewcurtis4568 sorry about your experience mate, polite question, just curious to know which god did you see? Jesus, Muhammed or Shiva? Or was it another one?
@@andrewcurtis4568 “near death” experiencers lol…. Simple people don’t understand the depths of their brains, which are highly technical organs with a variety of different departments that make up the numerous thought processes we experience.. it would be like putting the driver of a go-kart at the helm of a fighter jet, a go-kart driver who has no clue how to control all of the additional functions.. the majority of humans are simple-minded normies, or intelligence wouldn’t be a word
@@andrewcurtis4568 Not to make light of the situation you went through, hope all is well today, but it could be fascinating to explore the work of Susan Blackmore, she did some real research on this phenomena. Experience could be very misleading and at the same time could feel as real as anything ever or might even feel more real... In her research she found that the light is universal the characters are cultural, for example Christians see God, Jesus... Muslims see Allah(God) and Mohammed...
If prayer actually worked we'd see two things happen: Ambulances would take patients to houses of worship (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) and religious people would have longer lifespans than the rest of the population.
"A recent study finds that people who regularly attend religious services live approximately four years longer than average" Was the first thing that appeared when I spent two seconds googling. Not saying that necessarily proves God, it just proves your comment to be funny.
this is just a text that has been replicated on various religious websites. Where is the link to the actual study? The nation with the longest life expectancy on average is Japan, which is highly secular. The other nations with significant life expectancy rates are mostly secular too.
I've been following/learning from Jesus for more than 40 years and I can tell you unequivocally that prayer does work. That it doesn't "work" in a formulaic way shouldn't surprise anyone. If it did, the Creator of the Universe would mostly be serving the beings He created instead of the obvious natural order. This notion can be observed in households where parents are being bossed around by children that they are afraid of. The Bible is crystal clear that prayer only rarely changes God's will and the "freedoms and natural processes" He built into life on planet earth, and overwhelmingly "works" to change mine. THAT is the real power and the process that has infused my life with growing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
@@lenderuiter8916 well I guess that if religion has infused your life with such things then it is positive for the rest of society that you discovered it. Thing is, others have the individual process and power to achieve these things without religion. If you need an archaic book to tell you how to behave then I am glad you found the one that resonates with you. One can only but shudder at what might have become of you if you were not told what to do. Congratulations and thank you for having the sense to recognise your own limitations.
@@rachelmartins4603 well he is not an entertainer - I imagine him knowing 1000 x more facts and context to the somebody who asks very simple questions...how to break it down to a low educated person
@G33KSPALACEdotCOM but Quran doesn't tell fairytales. It teaches you way of life. The purpose of your life. It gives you alot of information about science that have been discovered recently. The rhythm of the Quran is unlike any other book. Its impossible for humans to write a book similar to the Holy Quran. The book has been preserved since it was written word for word, letter for letter. People dont even do any research on the book and just say its full of fairytales and old stuff.
@@mr.robutt81 You mean like the Quran states that "Everything is created in pairs", refering to all life as living in pairs. Where does hermaphroditic species fit into this statement? Where does self-replicating bacteria fit into this? In Surah 23:10-14, it says that a baby’s bones form before its muscles, which is a direct scientifc inaccuracy. The Quran, the Bible and the Torah are all equally false and equally filled with scientific inaccuracies. When a scientific inaccuracy is pointed out, imams, priests and rabbis, are quick to make up a new interpretation so that they can explain away the inaccuracy.
@@mr.robutt81well you muslims spoke about other religions the exact same way or ever worse. You like to critisize everything that doesn't align with you, but you get mad when people do that to you. All you have is claims, even your evidence come out in a form of 'claim'.
Here! Here! I became an atheist when I was eight years old.I told my parents I no longer wanted to attend Sunday school as it made no sense to me. I’m 75 now and haven’t changed my mind at all.
You get 1 life, and there’s no reason to dedicate this precious life to a religion which was created my man. Respect to you for following your human instincts and not being brainwashed by religion
Hmmm, i see... Let's share testaments. You became convinced the universe (which means single spoken sentence) is random and without meaning when you where a pre pubesent child. And i became convinced that Jesus Christ is actual the speaker of this single spoken sentence. Because when i was an 24 year old adult the evidence convinced me this was most probably the case. So you became an Atheist because of a lack of understanding and i became a Theist because i began to understand. Understanding about what's been said and shared from the beginning of this single spoken sentence: ''In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'' 🕊❤😇
Dawkins was pretty rude and senile for saying that, as usual. Just because you get someone’s opinion, doesn’t mean you have to agree with it (creation). Neither know 🤷🏻♀️
Einstein said, “In light of such harmony in the universe that I, with my limited human mind, can determine, there are still people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me in support of opinions like this.” [26] Are you conscious? You claimed that with knowledge you denied the existence of God, and I showed you that with knowledge, whoever is more knowledgeable than you acknowledges the existence of a Creator. Question: "Why did Einstein find it so difficult to answer yes or no to the existence of a Creator?" Was it based on science or illusions? Question: Why did Anthony retreat from atheism? Is this regression based on science or illusions? And what do they all believe in one Creator? This creation, the structure of the universe, the foods, the tongue that tastes, the teeth that grind, the stomach that digests, the excretion of waste from the body, oxygen, the lungs, the eyes, the sexual desire and many other things, this does not indicate anything. Are you 100% sure of not having a creator? Rivers and seas and the creatures in them and the rain that sows the earth beyond It is very with lots of fruits Nothing creates something Are you 100% sure of not having a creator? Go and see what religion commands you to worship. One Creator created everything, no three, no more, no less, but one. Go and see for yourself, you will find only one religion
I agree, it annoys me that this interview was such a missed opportunity for Pierce. Interviewing such an intelligent man takes time for him to answer, yet Pierce jumped on him before he could even finish most of his answers.
These two have one thing in common which is they both admit they don't know the answers to any of the importanrt questions. They are both entertainers and no more.
I found this whole interview a relentless struggle between waiting to hear what the Professor was going to say and waiting for the exact moment Piers Morgan prevented him getting there.
@bdff4007 You haven’t read or understood much of his work or you wouldn’t have said this, unless you mean the dogma of insisting on evidence and scientifically sound epistemology (which itself, like evidence itself, isn’t static dogma by definition, in fact that’s what makes it superior to any other means of thinking, it’s anti-dogmatic nature). Say what you wish about some neckbeard Redditor atheist stereotype/archetypal notion of a person you have, but that’s not what Dawkins is. In fact Dawkins even says technically strictly speaking he is agnostic, which is again is pretty much as anti-dogmatic as possible or lol. Get rekt fool.
Notice Piers said he needs something so if it’s not his God he wants a scientist to provide him with an answer to a possibly malformed question (what came before 4 billion years ago, according to Piers but that’s probably not what he actually meant and just shows how little he’s investigated these questions). What does nothing look like or what came before time. Why can’t he accept nobody knows so sticking his version of a God in is no better than suggesting any other thing you can imagine.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32 repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
@@triplejazzmusicisall1883 "20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1
He pays no mind to the prayers of those who are not repentant, not righteous, not attempting to edify themselves and purge their selfish, human nature.
@@darkreverie7027 Maher's insufferable. Also, he claims to be independent but carefully plays both sides off to avoid the ire of one side or the other. (Yes, it's stupid to have only two sides, but I didn't invent this train wreck of a system.)
@@Mandolin_Matt They had an interesting conversation, that's it. I don't think any of them were in it to win points or get people like you to champion them. They are exploring interesting territory and it's naive to play team sports on this. Peterson has a really interesting reading of religion, and you don't need to be religious to appreciate it. Dawkins has always been combative against religion, and with reason. That's why his read of the texts were always thinking from the perspective of the fundamentalists and criticizing their silly claims. Peterson has a different approach. He bypasses God entirely and focuses on what kind of messages the text could be trying to convey. We all know that stories were for a long time the vehicle to pass knowledge and wisdom. That's how these texts came to be, and that's why there could be value in understanding them. Peterson has a sophisticated read of the texts and he uses a lot of his expertise in psychology. His read on sacrifice and the Cain and Abel story alone is very interesting. A story like that can be very powerful to a society like those of the past. Both characters have archetypes that are easily identifiable.
Michael Parkinson had the right idea, ask some interesting questions and let the interviewee talk for most of the time. Don't get me wrong, when someone said something he disagreed with he let them respond and argued. He understood that the guests were the reason why people tuned in and never thought he was the celebrity, although he really was in the end. Morgan thinks too much of himself to ever get to Parkinsons levels.
What a gem of a human being to listen to. As a thinker, Dawkins takes his time to consider and answer the question clearly and honestly. Pierce frequently does not give him an opportunity to complete his sentence before Pierce buts in to inject His own opinion (as if that's what the listener might be interested in).
Ramble? I guess it's easier to simply shout God to every question. Instead, when people ask him to explain the theory of evolution HE has to adapt to the ignorant person asking the question. When they interrupt him after 3 words with "Why don't monkeys still turn into humans", you can expect someone to ramble how to answer. One person has a book with 10 rules. The other has to keep reading scientific data that is published every day, and can change its conclusions.
32:27 He's not silent on the topic of the girl in Syria because of threats. He's silent because he doesn't want the millions of viewers to form an incorrect opinion because of something potentially wrong he could've said because he hadn't studied the matter beforehand. He's actually admirable for preferring to think before he speaks to the masses through this interview. It's not a shame, Piers. It's admirable, respectable and deeply appreciated.
@marcinmjk analogous to dogs of different breeds? And mixed like them? E.g. our DNA ansestry is revealing our environmentally adapted breeds are mixed. We're basically modern (but mentally primitive) homosapiens being tribal about mind made cultures.
Some people talk about ideas. Some other like you like to talk about words. We don't understand words, we understand through them. You know what she meant by race, you are only trying to sound more clever than you are.
SO THEN!!! He didn't even want to talk about that horrid Begum woman, then? So what was all that about, eh? Never seen him looking so nervous and twitchy in all the years that I've ever seen him. I guess his life has been threatened.
Listening to him interview is exhausting. His questioning style is like my A.D.D. brain trying to solve a problem in less time than I have to solve it.
The evolution of kinds has never been observed. No bird has ever been observed becoming a rat for example or a fish a lizard only natural selection within kinds so a sparrow can become a slightly different sparrow-like how a human can find a tall wife and have tall kids. It's not evolution. Science by definition has to be observed so basing all your "scientific absolutes" on a theory never observed is by definition unscientific and more what they would call superstitious.
I appreciated his honesty. I was afraid he might give a vague answer, but instead, he admitted he hadn't researched the topic thoroughly. I think more people should do that-just admit when they don't know something instead of trying to sound like they have the 'best' answer. It's okay not to know everything and okay to move on.
With thousands of gods to choose from, and thousands of religions to choose from, the odds of Piers getting it right (following the religion he was simply born into) are miniscule.
Research history and watch his interview with Stephen Meyers. There's one true God of the Bible, Jesus is our compassion and the date is based on his life. Open your heart to the possibility.
@@gilessteve just imagine him at boarding school learning to love the abuse, and then intending to favour others likewise. The english Catholics are stranger than the rest. Their judges pay to be beaten. Piers devours the turds of the powerful like delicious morsels. Only a psychiatrist or normal person can explain why.
Why controversial? He only speaks rationally, based on evidence, he does not claim to have evidence for everything. The wisdom of a man who has done much for humanity. Getting rid of the outdated concept of "God" is essential for the development of humanity and for peace on our planet.
Deservedly, but I love more to see the admiration for Dawkin's intellect and patience. The Dunning-Kruger effect is sharply on display: Dawkins knows a lot, and so is happy to admit when he does not know something; Morgan knows very little so thinks he knows everything.
Dawkins has always been so candid and easy to understand! Doesn't use all sorts of jargon and go on long monologues to make a point unlike a lot of "intellectuals" these days!
Piers vehemently stating that he "get's it" and then demonstrating that he doesn't is extremely frustrating to watch. RD spent a lifetime talking to people like that and his eternal patience is a testament to his life's work. If i can achieve that level of calmness one day, i'll be proud of myself.
@@bas919 If everything started with simplicity. Where did simplicity come from? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1 - 5) It can't get much simpler than that. What makes it hard is lack of faith (believing).
@@jimmycricket5366 Because Richard Dawkins is a great debater and his best friend was the best polemicist of all time. The late, Christopher Hitchens. Good chance anyone would lose an argument to him.
@@RedactedBit I wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us! Morgan was Hitch-slapped to the shit-house by Hitchens every time they met. Dawkins is tired of repeating himself after all these years. Even so, Piers couldn't get any argument past the old man. The god-of-the-gaps argument cannot describe or predict anything - it's worse than useless.
@@andrewstrongman305 If Christopher Hitchens was alive today, he'd have wiped the floor with the governments, political correctness, all of it. I genuinely didn't agree with him politically but wow I can never deny his tenacity and logic, the guy was always prepared and always had an answer. It's a shame he passed so soon. 😔 A voice of reason for left wing politics.
Where this is a gap of knowledge, all that can be put there is faith. Nothing else. It is entirely up to your own conscience what you think might fit there, be it an eventual secular explanation or God itself. There is no mere reason you can use that can explain why you choose "science." But the gospel gives you plenty good reason to choose God.
@@lecettpalmquist4091that’s a false dichotomy. If there is a gap of knowledge, there is absolutely no need to make up some belief and have ‘faith’ that it’s true.
Well let me rephrase Richard Dawkins’ reply “We don’t know yet” the emphasis on yet. And I don’t know why you put science in quotation marks. Moreover, if I can’t understand something, why god and not fairies or leprechauns, what’s the difference? You say faith. Faith is an excuse for someone who can’t explain something so he resorts to a god. With that mentality humanity would still be living in the bronze ages because religious people look at science as an anathema, as it erodes their superstitious beliefs . There would be no progress, just obscurantism. And why should I believe what the gospel says, written by ignorant superstitious goat herders. @@lecettpalmquist4091
I dislike how not in-depth these topics were. You have a great thinker on the show and some questions which deserve depth, yet almost every time I thought you were finally going in to actual depth about a topic you cut Dawkins off and went to another topic. And I love how Piers misreads a tweet by Dawkins and then Dawkins explains it calmly and clearly and Piers is like: "mmh yes, I see. Next Topic"
Really?? Dawkins is an hate mongering atheist who believes that he is the only one who is right and if someone believes in a god, he is a fool. Dawkins is extremely racist and rude when it comes to respecting other Faiths and religions.
There are two kinds of atheists: those only temporarily deceived, being too superficial regarding the Creator of this reality (as I used to be due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) and those who do not want God to exist, who deny everything that proves their errors, such as all my simple, clear and undeniable demonstrations, which can be found after sorting the comments by reading enough of my recent and quite recent posts (both answers and new threads).
I am a Christian and I love these kinds of conversations. I frankly like Dawkins and would so enjoy having him over for dinner. He’s more polite or respectful to rival views than some years ago, but he’s fascinating.
@@billjones8503that’s bullshit , he responded to that in the beginning , you don’t introduce something complex at the beginning. You start from simple and go from there. God is complex. It’s a fallacy to think that if we don’t know something then it must be god… it’s a medieval way of thinking. We didn’t know why people died of unknown reason so we said « oh it must be divine judgement » , when it was just ball cancer.
@@fixo5132 Plain as day buddy. I don't need anything more complex to begin that simple argument. In other wds, since he(Dawkins) can't prove God doesn't exist then at bare minimum he might? - The whole complexity issue of God is imo irrelevant. For Dawkins just assumes that complexity of a deity can't come first, How in the heck does he know that?
I am not an atheist, but I've always enjoyed listening to Richard Dawkins because he's always willing to have a discussion. It's good to talk and listen. I miss that in this day and age.
Yes, this. It’s absolutely terrifying to think we will not exist at all anymore, but deluded to believe otherwise. I prefer hearing it from Dawkins as he is gentle in his delivery. Interesting interview
When you pass Mr Dawkins, you will not be forgotten. You have awakened the thought of many, and this will always be your greatest contribution to the human race. We thank you.
Atheists should be able to understand that the entire evolution of the Universe is NOT an argument against God's existence because the entire process until humans time proves the existence of God, *the results of a process proving the intelligence involved into that process* (and because *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes).* Furthermore, the conventional biological evolution is hiding the facts about Satan and the other fallen angels who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... (making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc....) to sustain the useless suffering while, initially, all insects, animals etc. were feeding only with plants (plants products, such as fruits, nectar, seeds etc.). The fallen angels, being sadistic, have altered the DNA of most living things (including us) to do as default both: reproduce uncontrollably (as much as they can) and fight (kill) each other. Unfortunately, they love to see living things suffering, especially human beings suffering. They want to destroy us since our physical body conception (all the time in any way possible). That is why they make us suffer, as much as possible, by using our stupidity and the stupidity of the other people around us.
The flaws in Prof. Dawkins’s work (and generally my simple and undeniable demonstrations of God's existence...) can be seen in my recent messages, for example, my thread posted about 13 hours ago.
This interview could have been so much more interesting if somebody rather more intelligent than Piers Morgan was the host. Someone who was capable of asking intellectually challenging and stimulating questions and then actually listening to the answers.
Man I felt sorry for the old man to be honest. It felt as though Piers was trying to get a reaction out of Richard. As much of a genius this man is, he's old and in need of some love and kindness. At the end of it I genuinely wanted to give Richard a hug for getting through this shambolic interaction 😂
The Earth is 4.5b years old. What a bummer I just missed God's son visit by a mere 2000 years 😢 Hopefully they'll visit more often, I have nice bottle of wine in my fridge waiting...
The evolution of kinds has never been observed. No bird has ever been observed becoming a rat for example or a fish a lizard only natural selection within kinds so a sparrow can become a slightly different sparrow-like how a human can find a tall wife and have tall kids. It's not evolution. Science by definition has to be observed so basing all your "scientific absolutes" on a theory never observed is by definition unscientific and more what they would call superstitious.
Civility is not necessarily moral and vice versa. Morality as it comes from a higher plane of understanding is something that does not immediately make sense to our minds though we may unequivocally agree with it regardless.
Piers: "I'm genuinely curious, because I don't have all the answers." Also Piers: Rarely lets Richard compete a thought or sentence without interrupting.
that's coz dawkins doesn't have any answers other than he doesn't know, but others know and believe, that's what he can't get his head around, God or the creator is known through reason and revelation, that's a better answer and more logical than not knowing, everything in the universe exists and our world happens to have life, an ecological system and the rest which all happened to come into order and existence by itself through evolution without an agent is the most absurd thing someone can say.
@@indiana-jn7ys I don't have all the answers and I am skeptical of people who thinks they do. Those are his words. And here you are saying that someone admitting to not knowing everything is wrong? There is no winning here, is there? You are not looking for a debate but rather trying to force your opinions on others.
@@indiana-jn7ysNot having answers led to knowing cells, DNA, microscopes, computers, and everything you use today. Your belief in god led to sacrificing animals and thousands of years of fighting over whose god is more real without a conclusive ending.
It's a pleasure to hear Richard Dawkins speak on these and other topics. My guess is that Piers Morgan feels the same and that his enthusiasm for being able to have this discussion spilled over and caused him to talk more than he should have. The opportunity to speak with Richard Dawkins would naturally be exciting to many people. 😊
yep, right. It's becoming more and more frequent those interviewers who are judges and party. If you want to debate, take somebody with you to act as an impartial moderator.
@@jaxwhyland That is only a fact if we agree that his true audience can't comprehend any argument more than 2 sentences long, in which case yes, the experts he summons don't answer efficiently. Seriously, he summons experts to give their opinions. In this case, you shut up and listen even if you don't understand. There is a reason these guys are experts at their respective fields and we are not
If I mention New Atheism and Humanism is taken over by Transhumanism that actively wants to replace humans with transhumans I'll be censored, as an Atheist.
There's nothing controversial about Richard Dawkins. He only speaks truth. He's a scientist. He deals in facts. If his facts offend someone by challenging their beliefs, that's their problem.
How well articulated he is even at this age. May he live long and inspire the younger generation to think critically and appreciate the beauty around us without the need for an intelligent creator. How I wish I could see him in real life and thank him for all that he has done for us.
@jdmitaine dude what are you talking about? I think we all know with age comes deterioration most of the time Of the mind and body. Some people can hold their mind together relatively well, but more often then not everything starts really slowing down at about his age maybe even sooner.
@@jdmitaineof course a flaming liberal such as yourself who's obsessed with "isms" would use a cat for her profile pic. Of course you would!! Way to turn a complimemt into an insult regarding the original comment.
I am sure if piers asked him if he liked red or blue better he wouldn’t likely see the relevance and decline to answer as well. Some questions are not to be answered. Like if I asked you if your arse was itchy at the moment?
@@davidfisher9026 That's because you believe that his logically fallacy of this operating system being unknowable is sound. He is incredibly limited in his ability to comprehend and conceptualize the idea of reality being created irrespective of religious dogma.
“Richard Dawkins is the reason this is watchable” Exactly!! I always watch Dawkins for comedy value not for facts!! Equally, according to prominent biologists Dawkins would make a brilliant clown!! “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins). Sorry but the bereaved families of the victims of the Nazis eugenics policy would beg to differ with Dawkins claim that eugenics “works in practice”!! A prominent biologist responded to Dawkins equivocation and unscientific statement with.... “As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this CLOWN Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert). Ouch!!
Wonderful to see Richard looking so well and still in possession of such laser sharp wit and eloquence. The world will be eminently poorer for the loss of this man.
@@iefarrington5473 isn't he though? A real delight would be to see Ole Pierce Morgan jump up and STOMP mashed taters out of his head! What a fukn SWEET DELIGHT . Pierce just STOMPING and STOMPING . Better than the CARAMEL DELIGHTS GIRL SCOUT COOKIES. Well maybe not that good of a DELIGHT BUT I DO KNOW A BETTER DELIGHT THAN THAT! IF OLE PIERCE BENT HIM OVER THE DESK AND CORN DOGGED HIM WITH HIS "STATE FAIR SIZE CORN DOG!!!! Whata you think poop breath? Don't you think that would be a DELIGHT??
Really. It's helpful because I know there's an awful lot of people who think like Piers, that it's hard to imagine something from nothing, that therefore there's must have been "something" that started it all - even though any initial something would have to have come from nothing, ha ha - but as Richard repeatedly points on, postulating a God because you can't explain something is ultimately just silly. It's really not much different than an ancient Norseman believing in Thor because he couldn't come up with a rational reason for thunder and lightning.
@@libertynow4047 i went to a science talk by him, it was the most boring thing i have ever sat through, i fell a sleep and he was really rude to someone who tried to disagree with him on a Q&A
Dawkins replying to the question as to whether or not he likes social media: "There's a culture of outright rudeness, which -" and Morgan cuts him off 🤦
@@tassiomm Patient in constantly being interrupted? Regardless, if you really listen to Piers you'd understand that he has to have an answer to the big questions where Richard (and most atheists) are fine with saying we don't know. We do not need to fill in the gap with a certainty. Piers cannot be satisfied with not knowing and filling the gap for him is necessary. He also keep saying that the human brain cannot comprehend x, however he will not entertain the idea that the human brain cant comprehend x YET. As evidence for things are uncovered (like the planets orbiting the sun) then our knowledge expands. Someday we may know what lies beyond the singularity. Until then, "I don't know" is the best answer. Piers also falls into a common trap. A misunderstanding of the temporal nature of things. If time, matter and energy are local to this universe, then 'before' is a nonsensical question and leads to the notion that an eternal something must be in play. A theist would insist that it cannot be the universe (because turtles..) but have no problem insisting a personal mind is the eternal something.
It's strange Dawkins is called controversial when 100% of the comments I read of him are overwhelmingly positive. Morgan's ego is getting in the way of his logic.
No proved him wrong and all you can say is he’s thick. Just have the evidence against what piers said and maybe you’d be someone worthy to listen to. When you are wrong all you do is complain!
GREAT interview. I really enjoyed it - Dawkins is an unexpected delight. Thank you for having him on the show - and for youtube, so I could see it a year later.
I have my disagreements with him. Nt on science religion god bt there are lot of other things. I also respect and acknowledge him fr his wrk and awareness. Bt then I think I would want a world where people can think fr themselves and have nuance take on everything. There is always lack of nuance to a certain degree fr everyone while different opinions even based on faiths are unique so as much I like smart people i wouldn't want that.
Just like in other debates, I find Dawkins so humble and acknowledge of “not knowing”. On the other hand, it’s mind boggling how “self-centered” a religious person can be to believe that the entire universe was created and revolves around his or her own little short insignificant existence.
No we believe Jesus Christ is the most important thing, and doing as he asked, which is “do unto others, as you would have done unto you”. We are also asked to love our enemies, and forgive those who cause it to suffer.
@@marcgoecke9401 God gave you endless blessings that you can't even count, your hearts pumps liters of blood hourly, your body is working miraculously without you even knowing of it, you were fed everyday and breathed every second through his blessings and generosity
@Bingobanana4789 He doesn't say God didn't, he says there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it. And it isn't for him to provide evidence to prove a God doesn't exist. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. If you believe...it's for you to show us why. Not the other way around. Can you provide me with evidence that Unicorns don't exist?
@Bingobanana4789literally science is evidence and using common sense u would know faith is different than fact think about the phrase when you hear hooves think horse not zebra. you have a right to your faith but you have to be honest he does have good points. if u watch his other interviews u can actually see his insight more with piers not interrupting him every sentence
@Bingobanana4789but it’s ok for christian’s to say atheists are wrong? he believes religion as a whole is bad but most individual religious ppl are completely nice and good ppl
I can't understand how Richard Dawkins is still so patient after all these years.
He's made a ton of money out of arguing with believers. If this entire world was filled with atheists there would be zero demand to buy his books or hear him argue. Argue with who?
That’s a pretty condescending way to look at it! They’re both on the opposite side of the spectrum so I would think they’re being patient and open with each other! The fact that they’re having a civilize conversation is a great indicator.
@@applenuts You can apply this logic to any situation though. Demand dies for everything eventually
Because he stayed away from NHS ;)
I can't understand how he's still tolerated after all these years when he rabbits on so misleadingly about religion.
"It is far better to have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned." --Carl Sagan
amazing quote
It is better to be safe(, happy, and at peace) than sorry (and miserable living a meaningless life.)
@@Astaghfirullah-10 IMHO, that's the motto of a coward. Everything for me is case by case.
Disagreed. I’d much prefer that we have unquestionable truths like the logic of basic arithmetic, than to have mysterious questions that aren’t helpful. But context is key. This quote is just silly
@@huizhechen3779 Your ignorance belies your stupidity.
This man has given hundreds of interviews, has spent thousands of hours in conversation in a professional capacity, and yet somehow has not figured out how to not rudely interrupt the people he's interviewing in the middle of a sentence
Piers likes to listen to himself which is infuriating when you want to listen to the great Richard Dawkins
I met him in NZ, He signed his book for me and shook my hand. Felt as though I'd met the Messiah!
@@shitzhu16Piers Morgan is anything but a messiah!
Perfectly said
. . . and God willing, he'll be around for a while to give more interviews.😁
So far I've watched 28 minutes. Not a single time did I notice Richard Dawkins interrupt Piers Morgan.
I watched the whole interview and noticed Richard Dawkins was rarely allowed to finish anything he was attempting to say.
when you're confident and clear in your position you don't really need to do that, it's the same with Stephen Fry
If he interpreted it would no longer be a discussion
Piers is the host...jeez!
You made it that far? I just stopped at 13 minutes or so...
The problem with Piers Morgan is that he doesn't let his guests explain themselves fully without interrupting them first.
You buried the lede: Morgan is an asshole.
There's more than that to the problem
I find Piers to be a thoroughly irritating interviewer with an even more irritating voice.
Because his fans want him to reinforce their existing views. This isn't news or opinion, it's a mirror for a bunch of Piers Morgans
Also Piers limited human brain (his words lol) is a bit rubbish and cant compute properly, so he just has to talk over things he cant comprehend.
Debating Piers Morgan is like debating an obstreperous toddler. Bravo to Dawkins for his patience.
He's trained in debating with american evangelicals after all.
He is a toddler in an adult body. He's a narcissist. It amazes me how few people can see that. Just goes to show that we as a species will be is the state we are in currently for ever. Unless we learn about NPD.
Dude he is an aethist everyone knows that💀@@JohnSmith-lk8cy
It seems like Morgan keeps trying to goad Dawkins into saying something provocative, but Richard doesn't bite; good for him.
Dawkins has a lot of patience and self discipline.
This isn't Richard Dawkins Uncensored, it's Richard Dawkins Unfinished his sentence.
Richard Dawkins censoring himself from giving his opinion at 32:54
😅
exactly.
@@cowboyjoefrommexico-elsete3434 It is wise to choose what to talk about. You don't always have to have an opinion that you MUST express. Truth is that I don't know why he chose to not comment nor do you.
Agree. It was all about Piers and not Richard. I'm surprised Richard allowed himself to be put in this situation .
At least he couldn't interrupt Steven Hawking, he was impossible to interrupt once the synthesizer started.
Piers Morgans interruptions are 50% due to him losing a debate and 50% due to his uncomfortable underwear.
So nice of Richard Dawkins to come and interview Piers Morgan. Got to know a lot about him.
🤣🤣🤣
🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣
❤❤🎉😢❤😢❤ 2:❤😊❤❤❤❤❤🎉❤❤27 ❤
I hope everyone understands what you wrote. Lol. Hilarious.
Piers Morgan is such a douche. You know Piers is full of shit when he says (" I am genuinely interested").
Richard Dawkins stayed at an Hotel in St. Andrews where I was Restaurant Manager ( he had scrambled egg and salmon for breakfast lol) I asked him if I brought a book later could he sign it. He made a point of looking for me to sign the book layer on in the day and I was able to have a brief chat with him. You can tell the worth of someone by how they treat people who essentially mean nothing to them. Richard was kind and courteous. The meeting meant a great deal to me as I had followed him and his work for a while.
That is great from him, to be kind to all the people, but Mr. Richard Dawkins (like any atheist) is in error regarding the most important truth: God/Jesus (proof follows). Generally, the superficial ones do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process.* They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
I totally agree - thank you for sharing!
You didn't mean nothing to him, Richard Dawkins is a wonderful human being and gave you this true story to tell us.
Thank You.
@@KF-cx8bmthe other person is saying that he values you as a follower and gave you this wonderful story to tell other people. He's agreeing with you and your insulting him which looks bad on you
I agree with Richard 100%.
The beginning is still a mystery.
It astonishes me how our country is still ruled by narrow minded religious people.
Love how Richard is trying to make Piers understand things calmly like a grandfather would do to a small child
Well put - a most apt comparison of the intellects on show.
Dogma Dawkins knows nothing
@@factcheckersbranchknows more then you’ll ever will
@@Peter-zv4dx That silly old dogma reciter knows nothing but what he was taught in that place for the clever 😂😂😂 & privliged 💷💷💷💵💵💵 you see the education system of this world teaches us ie you, me & the likes of Dawkins, manufacturered lies. This blanket of false education has been going on for centuries. And yet evidence is beginning to appear out of quantum research. Even the original teachings of the Bible was altered. By the roman church. It was altered by the creed, so the teachings of the Bible where more geared around mind control. That's mind control of the masses. And keeping the serfs in perpetual slavery. Through quantum physics, which I study with great interest. Evidence is coming to light that there are alternative dimensions that coexist with our dimension here. There is a place we are all supposed to go after death 'Spirit world' 'summerland' I know because I have researched it through solid evidence. And I have personally seen this other place. And communicated with entities that exist in one this dimension. In my opinion extraterrestrials, do exist. However they have vehicles that have the ability to increase or decrease vibration. Thus allowing, craft and crew to cross into their relative dimension away from ours. Hence that's why most ufo sightings are 'here one minute and gone the next' ...however as I say that's my belief in the case of extraterrestrials. All I can say is, is that perhaps you do your own research and practical experiment's. If you where to do this, and do it right. It will open up your mind & you would be amazed, but you have to believe in why you do it, really believe in spirit etc. Then you will see why I call him Dogma Dawkins, because I'm sorry to say he knows absolutely nothing about the truth, and why we as humans are having a spiritual experience. He believes that when you die, that's it.... Lights out we no longer exist. I pity dorkins soul. Because we create our own reality. So him believing that death is the end. Then death for him, will be permanent darkness and nothing more. But me on the other hand. I know there is a world of spirit. A place where we reunite with friends and family that have passed before us. Call it heaven, but it is a place of pure beauty and peace. A place of rest and of education. A place where I can build my own home, just through the power of thought. Let me tell you this. Due to the teachings of the twisted version of the Bible. There are many people that have passed into spirit. And those spirit are unable to pass on. This is because in life those spirits in our world where so brain washed to believe that if you don't do as the bible tells you. You will burn in hell, so as a result of this false tosh. Spirit's are to afraid to cross over and be at peace. Because those spirit's believe passing into the afterlife 'crossing into the light' will actually send them straight to hell. The church has much to answer for. But going back to Dawkins, he knows nothing of what he should know, so he is not worth even listening too. And like you and me. His day will come. So don't end up going the way he's going. Into perpetual pergatory, all because of his twisted beliefs and disciplines.
@@Peter-zv4dx Appologies, that's spirit's having a human experience.
This was the intellectual equivalent of Real Madrid vs your local pub team
And Piers,, bless his socks, bought a Real Madrid shirt especially for this interview.
As a young black male growing up in the Bible Belt, I didn’t discover Prof. Dawkins until my early twenties. I had no idea the doubts I previously held were no reason to be ashamed, but in fact, I should push myself to critique any and all beliefs I held and justify my basis. I will likely never meet him, but I am eternally grateful for how he has shaped my ability to practice intellectual honesty and embrace the limitations of ignorance without resorting to what’s emotionally palatable.
Sorry, but it's just not right what he says. When he talks about his views on religion, science, morality, and politics. He makes the following points:
1.Religion is a form of superstition that is based on faith, not evidence. He says that faith is a "cop-out" and a "betrayal of the intellect". He argues that science is the only reliable way to understand the world and that religion is incompatible with science.
2. Religion is harmful to society and individuals. He says that religion promotes violence, intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance. He criticizes various aspects of religion, such as the concept of hell, the doctrine of original sin, the oppression of women and minorities, and the indoctrination of children. He also criticizes some specific religions, such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
3.Religion is not necessary for morality. He says that morality is based on empathy, reason, and social contract, not divine command. He argues that secular humanism can provide a better basis for morality than religion. He also challenges the idea that religion has inspired good deeds or art.
4.Religion should not be respected or privileged in society. He says that religion should not be immune from criticism or ridicule. He advocates for the separation of church and state and the protection of secular values. He also opposes the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools.
That's just BS which people which has been criticized by many people, including religious believers, philosophers, scientists, and other atheists. Things that they say are:
1. Dawkins misrepresents or misunderstands religion. He is accused of attacking a straw man version of religion that does not reflect the diversity or complexity of religious beliefs and practices. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the positive aspects or contributions of religion to society and culture.
2. Dawkins overstates or exaggerates the conflict between religion and science. He is accused of adopting a narrow or dogmatic view of science that excludes other forms of knowledge or inquiry. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the compatibility or harmony between religion and science that many people experience or advocate.
3. Dawkins undermines or insults morality. He is accused of being arrogant or elitist in his moral judgments. He is also accused of being naive or simplistic in his moral reasoning. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the role or influence of religion in shaping moral values or behavior.
4. Dawkins provokes or polarizes society. He is accused of being intolerant or disrespectful of religious people and their rights. He is also accused of being divisive or inflammatory in his rhetoric or tone. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the benefits or challenges of dialogue or cooperation between religious and non-religious people.
Ridiculous people who support him might say:
1. Dawkins defends or promotes science. He is praised by them for being clear or eloquent in his explanation of scientific concepts and methods. He is also praised for being courageous or honest in his challenge of pseudoscience or anti-science.
2. Dawkins exposes or criticizes religion. He is praised for being logical or factual in his critique of religious claims and arguments. He is also praised for being bold or witty in his satire or mockery of religious absurdities or atrocities.
3. Dawkins inspires or educates morality. He is praised for being compassionate or ethical in his advocacy of human rights and welfare. He is also praised for being rational or consistent in his application of moral principles and standards.
4. Dawkins influences or empowers society. He is praised for being influential or popular in his outreach to the public and the media. He is also praised for being empowering or liberating in his encouragement of free thought and expression.
But that's just soooooooo silly, because the truth is:
1. Dawkins does not defend or promote science, but rather distorts or misuses it. He is criticized for being vague or misleading in his definition of terms and concepts, such as faith, evidence, and natural selection. He is also criticized for being selective or biased in his use of data and examples, such as ignoring or dismissing the limitations or uncertainties of science.
2. Dawkins does not expose or criticize religion, but rather attacks or insults it. He is criticized for being unfair or hostile in his portrayal of religious people and their beliefs. He is also criticized for being rude or offensive in his language and style, such as using ad hominem or straw man arguments.
3. Dawkins does not inspire or educate morality, but rather undermines or insults it. He is criticized for being arrogant or elitist in his moral judgments. He is also criticized for being naive or simplistic in his moral reasoning. He is also criticized for ignoring or dismissing the role or influence of religion in shaping moral values or behavior.
4. Dawkins does not influence or empower society, but rather provokes or polarizes it. He is criticized for being intolerant or disrespectful of religious people and their rights. He is also criticized for being divisive or inflammatory in his rhetoric or tone. And... finally, he is criticized for ignoring or dismissing the benefits or challenges of dialogue or cooperation between religious and non-religious people.
Ultimately, this is a matter of personal opinion and perspective. Different people may have different views on Dawkins’ views and their implications for society and culture, and you have your views as a young black male growing up in the Bible Belt. However, I hope you understand that despite some of the silly things you went through in the bible belt, Dawkins' ideas are much sillier and worse than anything you ever went through and based on my arguments, you should not follow him. Thank you.
By the way, why do you say “as a young black male” instead of “as a young black man”. Is that because you want to emphasize your biological sex rather than your gender identity or expression? Do you want to avoid any confusion or ambiguity about your sex or gender, thinking that THIS might be a context where your gender is not binary or fixed?? Do you want to distance yourself from the social or cultural expectations or stereotypes associated with being a man or a woman??? Do you want to highlight your age or maturity level by using a word that sounds more neutral or objective than man or woman????
If not, then please stop being so silly because it's annoying to an intelligent person like myself. I think it shows bad preferences or motivations. You should respect yourself as a man and not as a male, because sex just refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define males and females, such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men, girls, and boy, which are important because they form part of your identity just like "being black" forms part of your identity, which I assume is an important part of your identity to you. Well being a man is as well.
So male and female are words that describe sex, while man and woman are words that describe gender and you should therefore not use them interchangeably in everyday language, because it's harmful to yourself in ways you might not even realise
@@AmazingEmmaMarie Dawkins’ ideas are sillier? Can you give an example of what you mean? I’ve always found Dawkins’ factual assertions to be grounded in evidence driven scientific analysis or his speculations to be well reasoned and limited by what more experienced professionals of the subject matter have determined (ergo, “I’m not a physicist, but from what I understand…”)
What I’m ultimately expressing is that Prof. Dawkins promotes reason, evidence, and admission of ignorance when analyzing claims of belief, which removes special pleading or preference, and gives greater value to truth. Some people don’t like to have their beliefs challenged through these lenses, and allow emotion to determine their relative truths.
@@AmazingEmmaMarie you’re being far too general. For each of the points you stated, there are absolutely truths respective to the religion you’re discussing. Let’s use Christianity:
1) Religious superstitions are incompatible with scientific evidence.
Yes, transubstantiation, resurrection, global flood, age of the earth, mans coexistence with dinosaurs. There is no scientific basis to believe any of these as true, so why accept them if it requires you to undermine intellectual honesty.
2) If biblical texts were interpreted literally, then yes there would be a divine justification of slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and many other prejudices. If one believed Hell were real, there would also be a significant number of damned individuals if judged through scriptural doctrine, as opposed to the laws we enact in society.
3) He absolutely credits religion with having inspired some of the greatest works of art (specifically he often references the Sistine chapel, and Mozart). What he argues is that art is not solely dependent upon religion, and that artists have the capacity to develop beautiful works without religious subject matter. Since the church was the ultimate authority of the time, they commissioned the work, but the work is not dependent upon the religion. Look at any song, film, novel, or painting today. Some works have a religious base, but far more are borne from a myriad of subject matter.
4) He does not advocate disrespecting religions, he argues that religion should not be free from critique. An idea should not be free from ridicule solely because it’s advocated in the Bible. Again, homophobia and racism are denigrating beliefs regardless of what scripture legislates. Persecuting women who do not abide completely by their husbands rule is misogyny and foments abuse. Though these are scriptural beliefs, they should not be exempt from condemnation in our society. And the separation of church and state is literally a fundamental principle of our nation (United States). That is not to subjugate any religion, it is to ensure no singular belief, held among a nation of immigrants, should be given preferential authority. It ensures that my neighbor and I can practice different faiths openly and freely, and not be subjected to the consequences of either’s dogma. And clearly we can enact morality without religion. A majority of laws based on our moral code are not rooted in the Bible. They were developed over time and rationalizing what rules promote the ability to simultaneously maximize freedom, opportunity & tranquility of the individual while minimizing restriction and detriment to another.
Having the freedom to criticize aspects of one another’s religion is an important component to a free society. I understand people who adhere to differing faiths may find it as offensive as I find some aspects of their doctrine, but neither of us commanded to act in a manner that undermines our personal beliefs. We’re only prevented from imposing these beliefs upon others when interacting with our compatriots. Prof Dawkins is indifferent to how citizens choose to practice their faiths, however he defends against the imposition of those beliefs when they seek to distort education, reality, and fact. The same standards we already subject every other academic discipline to. It’s just an inconvenient truth for followers of some faiths, that their antiquated beliefs don’t comport with modern scientific realities, which is discomforting to them. But discomfort is no justification for perpetuating ignorance.
Dawkins struggling to work out which level he needs to drop to with Piers
haha so true, i think he worked out that level pretty quickly
😂😂😂
He used quantum morganics
We believers is purty dumb
Absolutely
I don’t think Piers Morgan actually waited for Richard to complete a single thought.
and by doing so, he didn't give himself any chance to learn anything.
Piers is another host who doesn't let his guests speak. I thought hosts were supposed to simply ask questions and let guests answer?! 🤣
@@jugglerj0e piers was much worse years ago but still haven’t gotten the memo
He's an absolutely terrible talkshow host and I don't know why people continue to give him that role
It is a defensive thing, ''This guy is going to make me look like a fool so I will keep interrupting''.
5 minutes in and I'm impressed by Dr Dawkins being humble and saying "I don't know", unlike the arrogant religious charlatans who claim to know everything.
he does not know but is sure that there is no God
@@kiriakosoikonomu2907 At what minute did he say that?
@@MoiMême00 sleep well
@@kiriakosoikonomu2907Why follow the teachings of men who don't know the most crucial question that could nullify everything you know.
Haven't you read his book The God Delusion? Haven't you woken up yet? @@MoiMême00
Personal fun fact: Richard Dawkins shamed me into sobriety. I went to his book signing in Berkeley on October 6th, 2015. I got so drunk before the event started that I passed out as soon as he took the stage to speak. I woke up to his standing ovation! I waited in line afterwards to have my book signed by the legend, and when it was my turn, I slurred some greeting that I can't even remember. But I will never forget his face as he raised it from my book to glare at me with a furrowed brow. He obviously didn't care for what I said or the way I said it, and I'm sure the scent of alcohol coming off of me was enough to get him secondhandedly inebriated. I was so ashamed and embarrassed that one of my idols (I know he doesn't like idolatry) was so put off by me that I never drank alcohol again! And I was drunk pretty much every day from my late teens to that day when I was 30. Multiple interventions and the loss of high-paying jobs couldn't get through to me, yet all he had to do was give me the stank eye. Thanks for hating me, Sir!
Glad to hear it mate. You should be proud of yourself for that. Keep strong.
Interesting story. Glad to hear about your sobriety! Congrats.
But remember my friend Richard Dawkins didn't get you sober and of the booze you did and good on you and the best of luck.
This is a great story, I also think that it shows how to be a good parent. Mine never hit me or shouted loudly, they just showed clear disapproval of bad things I did, and I did less of them as a result.
@@gerryhughes3486 That's exactly what I want to tell people all the time, but it's usually about God. I learned a long time ago that it's a fruitless effort and that if that's what they need to believe to be a good person or to be healthy, then whatever works!
it's amazing how Richard Dawkins withstands the constant interruptions and nonsense statements with such grace and humility and doesn't allow himself to be dragged down to Piers level of pub brawl discussions
i think he mentally prepared himself . he knew what was comming.
Could you imagine if he got up and just started swingin though 🤣
Yes, isn't it!! As Pierce stated himself, his brain is limited, and therefore, he tried to push an answer on the notion of nothing !!! But yet he thinks a complex deity with petty human emotions is justified, lol😂😂
Christians are like pre schoolers, too naive and childish to accept we don't know!!
I just about spit up my lunch when he said he was a Catholic! Now, pergatory and the holy trinity explain it all, lol 🤣🤣🤣
I find them both pretty intelligent and reasonable. Dawkins has better manners though :D
Mr. Richard Dawkins is in error, as I proved through my recent posts.
There are two kinds of atheists: those only temporarily deceived, being too superficial regarding the Creator of this reality (as I used to be due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) and those who do not want God to exist, who deny everything that proves their errors, such as all my simple, clear and undeniable demonstrations, which can be found after sorting the comments by reading enough of my answers and my new threads.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how we are living in a time where professor Dawkins is alive and well? This man changed my life to the better. Respect to you Sir!
Soon enough he'll leave this planet and have his eyes opened to the truth. I had a near death experience aged 15 , so I already know for a FACT that's he's wrong about everything.
@@andrewcurtis4568 sorry about your experience mate, polite question, just curious to know which god did you see? Jesus, Muhammed or Shiva? Or was it another one?
@@andrewcurtis4568 “near death” experiencers lol….
Simple people don’t understand the depths of their brains, which are highly technical organs with a variety of different departments that make up the numerous thought processes we experience.. it would be like putting the driver of a go-kart at the helm of a fighter jet, a go-kart driver who has no clue how to control all of the additional functions.. the majority of humans are simple-minded normies, or intelligence wouldn’t be a word
@@andrewcurtis4568 Not to make light of the situation you went through, hope all is well today, but it could be fascinating to explore the work of Susan Blackmore, she did some real research on this phenomena. Experience could be very misleading and at the same time could feel as real as anything ever or might even feel more real... In her research she found that the light is universal the characters are cultural, for example Christians see God, Jesus... Muslims see Allah(God) and Mohammed...
@@andrewcurtis4568with all due respect, what makes you think this is true? Did you see an old bearded man standing on a cloud telling you this?
If prayer actually worked we'd see two things happen: Ambulances would take patients to houses of worship (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) and religious people would have longer lifespans than the rest of the population.
"A recent study finds that people who regularly attend religious services live approximately four years longer than average"
Was the first thing that appeared when I spent two seconds googling. Not saying that necessarily proves God, it just proves your comment to be funny.
this is just a text that has been replicated on various religious websites.
Where is the link to the actual study?
The nation with the longest life expectancy on average is Japan, which is highly secular. The other nations with significant life expectancy rates are mostly secular too.
I've been following/learning from Jesus for more than 40 years and I can tell you unequivocally that prayer does work. That it doesn't "work" in a formulaic way shouldn't surprise anyone. If it did, the Creator of the Universe would mostly be serving the beings He created instead of the obvious natural order. This notion can be observed in households where parents are being bossed around by children that they are afraid of. The Bible is crystal clear that prayer only rarely changes God's will and the "freedoms and natural processes" He built into life on planet earth, and overwhelmingly "works" to change mine. THAT is the real power and the process that has infused my life with growing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
@@lenderuiter8916 well I guess that if religion has infused your life with such things then it is positive for the rest of society that you discovered it. Thing is, others have the individual process and power to achieve these things without religion. If you need an archaic book to tell you how to behave then I am glad you found the one that resonates with you. One can only but shudder at what might have become of you if you were not told what to do. Congratulations and thank you for having the sense to recognise your own limitations.
Prayer does work. Source: trust me bro @@lenderuiter8916
Piers never fails to talk at least twice as much as his guest.
Exactly… its a 1 man show HaHaHa⁸⁴😝
unsuprisingly, as Richard Dawkins provides such weak and boring responses.
@@rachelmartins4603 It has never been said that scientist should be entertaining, so, you can still watch Piers as he is quite a clown.
@@rachelmartins4603 well he is not an entertainer - I imagine him knowing 1000 x more facts and context to the somebody who asks very simple questions...how to break it down to a low educated person
and sound like an idiot ....specially this time. He does not have any content for dawkins
“I’d rather not say. I haven’t studied it enough”
Well that is the big difference between Dawkins and Morgan.
he spoke about islam without knowing islam. crazy
@@mr.robutt81 Well, all you have to know is the science, then you can refute the ridiculous stories told in iron age fairytales, including Islam 🤣🤣🤣
@G33KSPALACEdotCOM but Quran doesn't tell fairytales. It teaches you way of life. The purpose of your life. It gives you alot of information about science that have been discovered recently. The rhythm of the Quran is unlike any other book. Its impossible for humans to write a book similar to the Holy Quran. The book has been preserved since it was written word for word, letter for letter. People dont even do any research on the book and just say its full of fairytales and old stuff.
@@mr.robutt81 You mean like the Quran states that "Everything is created in pairs", refering to all life as living in pairs. Where does hermaphroditic species fit into this statement? Where does self-replicating bacteria fit into this? In Surah 23:10-14, it says that a baby’s bones form before its muscles, which is a direct scientifc inaccuracy.
The Quran, the Bible and the Torah are all equally false and equally filled with scientific inaccuracies. When a scientific inaccuracy is pointed out, imams, priests and rabbis, are quick to make up a new interpretation so that they can explain away the inaccuracy.
@@mr.robutt81well you muslims spoke about other religions the exact same way or ever worse. You like to critisize everything that doesn't align with you, but you get mad when people do that to you. All you have is claims, even your evidence come out in a form of 'claim'.
The fact that this individual is so articulate at 82 and looks 15-20 years younger just blows my mind
Good, non-believer living!
Here! Here! I became an atheist when I was eight years old.I told my parents I no longer wanted to attend Sunday school as it made no sense to me. I’m 75 now and haven’t changed my mind at all.
You get 1 life, and there’s no reason to dedicate this precious life to a religion which was created my man. Respect to you for following your human instincts and not being brainwashed by religion
@@K_-xw7stFreedom of choice and belief!! Much respect to you ❤
Hear Hear
Hmmm, i see...
Let's share testaments.
You became convinced the universe (which means single spoken sentence) is random and without meaning when you where a pre pubesent child.
And i became convinced that Jesus Christ is actual the speaker of this single spoken sentence. Because when i was an 24 year old adult the evidence convinced me this was most probably the case.
So you became an Atheist because of a lack of understanding and i became a Theist because i began to understand.
Understanding about what's been said and shared from the beginning of this single spoken sentence:
''In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'' 🕊❤😇
I was 10.
Piers Morgan has to start learning how to ask a question and then let the interviewee answer it.
He can't, he loves the sound of his own voice!
EXACTLY
Piers Morgan asks the questions that he can't wait to give HIS answer to.
lol you fanboys are so hypocritical
@@flipf615 Aw are we attacking your boyfriend, flip 🤣
"I get that"
"No, I don't think you do!"
This was like a boy asking his dad about life.
"I get that" brain fart
"Emotions are not tools of cognition."
-Ayn Rand-
Dawkins was pretty rude and senile for saying that, as usual. Just because you get someone’s opinion, doesn’t mean you have to agree with it (creation). Neither know 🤷🏻♀️
@@kodabear261 that is exactly his stance, you didnt listen or didnt understand
@@kodabear261 Piers didn't actually get it. When you listen to what he says following the "I don't think you do" it transpired that he didn't get it.
I empathize with Dawkins during this interview. Talking with Pierce Morgan is like talking to a hyperactive child.
bloke talks utter dross from pier reviewed papers i.e anti science.
Einstein said, “In light of such harmony in the universe that I, with my limited human mind, can determine, there are still people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me in support of opinions like this.” [26] Are you conscious?
You claimed that with knowledge you denied the existence of God, and I showed you that with knowledge, whoever is more knowledgeable than you acknowledges the existence of a Creator.
Question: "Why did Einstein find it so difficult to answer yes or no to the existence of a Creator?" Was it based on science or illusions?
Question: Why did Anthony retreat from atheism? Is this regression based on science or illusions?
And what do they all believe in one Creator?
This creation, the structure of the universe, the
foods, the tongue that tastes, the teeth that grind, the stomach that digests, the excretion of waste from the body, oxygen, the lungs, the eyes, the sexual desire and many other things, this does not indicate anything. Are you 100% sure of not having a creator?
Rivers and seas and the creatures in them and the rain that sows the earth beyond
It is very with lots of fruits
Nothing creates something
Are you 100% sure of not having a creator?
Go and see what religion commands you to worship. One Creator created everything, no three, no more, no less, but one. Go and see for yourself, you will find only one religion
I agree, it annoys me that this interview was such a missed opportunity for Pierce. Interviewing such an intelligent man takes time for him to answer, yet Pierce jumped on him before he could even finish most of his answers.
These two have one thing in common which is they both admit they don't know the answers to any of the importanrt questions. They are both entertainers and no more.
@@timphillips9954 Dawkins is much more than an entertainer. He is an extremely accomplished evolutionary biologist.
I found this whole interview a relentless struggle between waiting to hear what the Professor was going to say and waiting for the exact moment Piers Morgan prevented him getting there.
'My brain is limited' is the most accurate thing Piers has ever said.
It's easy to play devils advocate Piers, why are you worth your money?
"I don't know" is the definition of a-gnostic. Dawkins is very dogmatic, as are most a-theists.
@bdff4007 You haven’t read or understood much of his work or you wouldn’t have said this, unless you mean the dogma of insisting on evidence and scientifically sound epistemology (which itself, like evidence itself, isn’t static dogma by definition, in fact that’s what makes it superior to any other means of thinking, it’s anti-dogmatic nature). Say what you wish about some neckbeard Redditor atheist stereotype/archetypal notion of a person you have, but that’s not what Dawkins is. In fact Dawkins even says technically strictly speaking he is agnostic, which is again is pretty much as anti-dogmatic as possible or lol. Get rekt fool.
👏💯🤣
" Man is an end in himself. "
-Ayn Rand-
The contrast in intelligence between Richard and Piers is just so enormous.
Not enormous, intergalactic!!
Yes, Piers is much smarter!
@@cannyaii - no, derp
The bullying nature of his questioning, and lack of curiosity, around God reveal his insecurity about it.
@@GreatUnwashedMass which god? Shuts there's many hundreds of them.
“My human brain, which is limited….” Piers Morgan
Understatement of the 21st century 😂
Notice Piers said he needs something so if it’s not his God he wants a scientist to provide him with an answer to a possibly malformed question (what came before 4 billion years ago, according to Piers but that’s probably not what he actually meant and just shows how little he’s investigated these questions).
What does nothing look like or what came before time.
Why can’t he accept nobody knows so sticking his version of a God in is no better than suggesting any other thing you can imagine.
At least he acknowledges he has limitations. Atheists are too proud to do so which makes you insufferable
Get Plotinus. Study The One. Food for thought.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32
repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
@@triplejazzmusicisall1883 "20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1
I prayed to god to get Piers Morgan off the air, but he's still here. Guess I didn't pray hard enough.
Hahaha
Dawkins: "You add another anecdotal proof to my enunciation"
You can pray, but no one's listening.
He pays no mind to the prayers of those who are not repentant, not righteous, not attempting to edify themselves and purge their selfish, human nature.
@@PeterBartlett-i2p Just cancel the guy. It will be impacted. The people have the power, but they need to stay united.
Piers Morgan, the only Interviewer practising a monologue 90% of the time
Bill Maher would like a word..
Have you listened to Jordan Peterson’s podcast where he ‘interviews’ Richard Dawkins? Peterson screws it up so badly it’s tough to get through.
@@darkreverie7027 Maher's insufferable. Also, he claims to be independent but carefully plays both sides off to avoid the ire of one side or the other. (Yes, it's stupid to have only two sides, but I didn't invent this train wreck of a system.)
@@Mandolin_Matt They had an interesting conversation, that's it. I don't think any of them were in it to win points or get people like you to champion them. They are exploring interesting territory and it's naive to play team sports on this. Peterson has a really interesting reading of religion, and you don't need to be religious to appreciate it. Dawkins has always been combative against religion, and with reason. That's why his read of the texts were always thinking from the perspective of the fundamentalists and criticizing their silly claims. Peterson has a different approach. He bypasses God entirely and focuses on what kind of messages the text could be trying to convey. We all know that stories were for a long time the vehicle to pass knowledge and wisdom. That's how these texts came to be, and that's why there could be value in understanding them. Peterson has a sophisticated read of the texts and he uses a lot of his expertise in psychology. His read on sacrifice and the Cain and Abel story alone is very interesting. A story like that can be very powerful to a society like those of the past. Both characters have archetypes that are easily identifiable.
Michael Parkinson had the right idea, ask some interesting questions and let the interviewee talk for most of the time. Don't get me wrong, when someone said something he disagreed with he let them respond and argued. He understood that the guests were the reason why people tuned in and never thought he was the celebrity, although he really was in the end. Morgan thinks too much of himself to ever get to Parkinsons levels.
What a gem of a human being to listen to. As a thinker, Dawkins takes his time to consider and answer the question clearly and honestly. Pierce frequently does not give him an opportunity to complete his sentence before Pierce buts in to inject His own opinion (as if that's what the listener might be interested in).
Dawkins would be able to finish if he spoke more concisely and didn't ramble.
@@CarolineMiley-n8f "ramble?"
Complex questions REQUIRE complex answers! Let Dawkins speak!!!
Ramble? I guess it's easier to simply shout God to every question. Instead, when people ask him to explain the theory of evolution HE has to adapt to the ignorant person asking the question. When they interrupt him after 3 words with "Why don't monkeys still turn into humans", you can expect someone to ramble how to answer.
One person has a book with 10 rules. The other has to keep reading scientific data that is published every day, and can change its conclusions.
@@CarolineMiley-n8f
He's thinking.
Remember that
That's because he can't believe Dawkins doesn't believe in his god lol and he is upset
32:27 He's not silent on the topic of the girl in Syria because of threats. He's silent because he doesn't want the millions of viewers to form an incorrect opinion because of something potentially wrong he could've said because he hadn't studied the matter beforehand. He's actually admirable for preferring to think before he speaks to the masses through this interview. It's not a shame, Piers. It's admirable, respectable and deeply appreciated.
Mr. Hawkins, there is only one human race : Homo sapiens.
@@monikabachmann4002 You've confused race with species.
@marcinmjk analogous to dogs of different breeds? And mixed like them? E.g. our DNA ansestry is revealing our environmentally adapted breeds are mixed. We're basically modern (but mentally primitive) homosapiens being tribal about mind made cultures.
Some people talk about ideas. Some other like you like to talk about words. We don't understand words, we understand through them.
You know what she meant by race, you are only trying to sound more clever than you are.
SO THEN!!! He didn't even want to talk about that horrid Begum woman, then? So what was all that about, eh? Never seen him looking so nervous and twitchy in all the years that I've ever seen him. I guess his life has been threatened.
richard dawkins is untouched in the debate world. you simply cannot disagree with him because he only knows facts and evidence
The consistency with which Morgan doesn't listen to a single thing that is presented to him is truly amazing...
Listening to him interview is exhausting. His questioning style is like my A.D.D. brain trying to solve a problem in less time than I have to solve it.
The evolution of kinds has never been observed. No bird has ever been observed becoming a rat for example or a fish a lizard only natural selection within kinds so a sparrow can become a slightly different sparrow-like how a human can find a tall wife and have tall kids. It's not evolution. Science by definition has to be observed so basing all your "scientific absolutes" on a theory never observed is by definition unscientific and more what they would call superstitious.
Richard is a arrogant zealot Dawkins is only smart to people who are ignorant and trust others with all the "answers" .
Nailed. Quite unpleasant, isn't it?
It’s exhausting
the words "I'd rather not say, I haven't studied it enough" are incredible words to hear these days.
I appreciated his honesty. I was afraid he might give a vague answer, but instead, he admitted he hadn't researched the topic thoroughly. I think more people should do that-just admit when they don't know something instead of trying to sound like they have the 'best' answer. It's okay not to know everything and okay to move on.
Incredible words to hear any day.
that's not the point, he is just afraid to talk about it because of the cancer of Islam
@@Equilibrium21 Bingo. It's bizarre how so many people seemed to have missed the obvious reason he didn't want to speak on that particular topic.
True
Piers: “My human brain which is limited…”
First thing he’s said that I’ve actually agreed with.
Piers: "Imagine I'm an idiot"
Dawkins: "Ok I'm there"
😂
😂😂😂😂
Exactly what Dawkins say, there is culture of nastiness and rudeness..
🤣🤣🤣
With thousands of gods to choose from, and thousands of religions to choose from, the odds of Piers getting it right (following the religion he was simply born into) are miniscule.
If god really did exist surely Piers Morgan wouldn't.
Research history and watch his interview with Stephen Meyers. There's one true God of the Bible, Jesus is our compassion and the date is based on his life. Open your heart to the possibility.
I love that Piers will talk with anyone but I wish he would let them speak.
He's not there to speak or listen, but to talk.
He is a TALKshow host.
@@OriginalPuro he interrupts his guests too much
@@OriginalPuro it's the guest that's supposed to do the talking
He will speak at anybody
@@OriginalPuro he's a talk show HOST.
Repeat after me: H-O-S-T.
I never thought I'd listen to Piers Morgan for this long!
He's often tiresome, but I think he did a good job here.
@@gilessteve just imagine him at boarding school learning to love the abuse, and then intending to favour others likewise. The english Catholics are stranger than the rest. Their judges pay to be beaten. Piers devours the turds of the powerful like delicious morsels. Only a psychiatrist or normal person can explain why.
Me two😂👍
Did you want to kill yourself 30 seconds in like all of us
Its the fascination of a live train wreck.
Imagine a world where every human being is capable to express and have a dialogue like Richard.
just imagine
You're kidding right? The heavens and the Stars declare the glory of God everyone will be without excuse on the day of judgement
@@kencress3665huh?
Piers Morgan likes the sound of his voice too much to be an interviewer. Annoying as hell.
@Person11068
If he did, then you wouldn't have free will, now would you?
Why controversial? He only speaks rationally, based on evidence, he does not claim to have evidence for everything. The wisdom of a man who has done much for humanity. Getting rid of the outdated concept of "God" is essential for the development of humanity and for peace on our planet.
Ask Stalin and Mao how that "peace" turned out.
@@Boss-ot1iyStalin the orthodox believer
@@ajaysidhu471 Stalin was atheist, lol. He had a "5 year plan" to eliminate religion from his nation. Nice to see you don't know history.
@@Boss-ot1iyAdolf Hitler was a staunch Catholic who prayed and praised his god all the time. See how that turned out,
I love how everyone is roasting Piers Morgan on his own youtube channel 😂
Deservedly, but I love more to see the admiration for Dawkin's intellect and patience. The Dunning-Kruger effect is sharply on display: Dawkins knows a lot, and so is happy to admit when he does not know something; Morgan knows very little so thinks he knows everything.
@@johnjameson6751 Exactly
I do to, free speech is a wonderful thing 👍
I'm not roasting Piers Morgan. The only person that will be roasting in hell will be Richard Dawkins, the Antichrist!
Very few people are roasting him. And I don't know why you think that's strange. Many channel owners get roasted in the comment section by viewers.
Dawkins has always been so candid and easy to understand! Doesn't use all sorts of jargon and go on long monologues to make a point unlike a lot of "intellectuals" these days!
The Lord says pity the poor intellectuals!! They have no knowledge!!
*cough* jordan peterson *cough* Ben Shapiro *cough*
@@sirlol4222your coughing arouses my percepacity in my defagibility
Jordan Peterson springs to mind.
@theoriginalrudeboy2916 defagibility u must be referring to your old dear Mrs deep vadge ability 😂 respect Mrs rudeboy 👌🏼
Dawkins is 82, bloody hell, didn’t realise he was that old. He’s a treasure.
what did this treasure do for the world?
And he's still terrified to speak truth in Islam or the other religion no one can talk about
Wow his clarity in thinking is so amazing
@@Freetheworld2000
islam is more rational than Dawkins will ever be....
@@Logia1978 it's a rational way to hell yes
Pierce: “I don’t have the all the answers, but my religion and God are definitely right.”
Talking to Piers Morgan for more than 2mins requires ungodly strength and patience. Hats off to Richard Dawkins.
even just getting through a video with Piers in it is an admirable feat
😂😂😂😂👏👏👏
Touchee, my friend .
If I may say, it's disgusting 🫣
"ungodly" is an understatement. lol
Lmao that is because dawkins dont have any answers.
Piers vehemently stating that he "get's it" and then demonstrating that he doesn't is extremely frustrating to watch. RD spent a lifetime talking to people like that and his eternal patience is a testament to his life's work. If i can achieve that level of calmness one day, i'll be proud of myself.
His religion is atheism
@@Roberto-de8xv So what? Truer than most I'm sure.
Getting someone's meaning doesn't mean agreeing
@@Roberto-de8xv Atheism is by definition not a religion. Stop spreading lies.
@@Nazyairsengikar And in other breaking news: water is wet.
That was really nice to see Dawkins mention Christopher Hitchens.
Strange that he never mentioned Satan
I's a wonderful change to hear two gentleman discuss a complex subject so politely and fairly, and in educated English.
There was nothing polite about how the host kept interrupting and trying to lay words into his guests mouth
Lets hope that Professor Dawkins finds someone to have such a discussion with; Piers clearly isn't that person.
This felt like a conversation between a 80 year old and his grandson.
A 7yo would probably be more open-minded and understanding than Piers.
I know, right. Idk how Piers Morgan has the following he does, all he does is use fancy language to make himself seem smart.@@bas919
Reading this comment before watching the vid made it 10000x funnier
@@axlenuts5418I'd certainly hope so, he's 3.
@@bas919 If everything started with simplicity. Where did simplicity come from?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1 - 5)
It can't get much simpler than that. What makes it hard is lack of faith (believing).
Piers Morgan saying he is ‘Going head to head’ with Richard is laughable 😂
Why?
@@jimmycricket5366 Because Richard Dawkins is a great debater and his best friend was the best polemicist of all time. The late, Christopher Hitchens. Good chance anyone would lose an argument to him.
@@jimmycricket5366 😊
@@RedactedBit I wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us! Morgan was Hitch-slapped to the shit-house by Hitchens every time they met. Dawkins is tired of repeating himself after all these years. Even so, Piers couldn't get any argument past the old man. The god-of-the-gaps argument cannot describe or predict anything - it's worse than useless.
@@andrewstrongman305 If Christopher Hitchens was alive today, he'd have wiped the floor with the governments, political correctness, all of it.
I genuinely didn't agree with him politically but wow I can never deny his tenacity and logic, the guy was always prepared and always had an answer.
It's a shame he passed so soon. 😔 A voice of reason for left wing politics.
The most honest answer ever " I don't know" . Which part of this answer can't Piers understand!
Where this is a gap of knowledge, all that can be put there is faith. Nothing else. It is entirely up to your own conscience what you think might fit there, be it an eventual secular explanation or God itself. There is no mere reason you can use that can explain why you choose "science." But the gospel gives you plenty good reason to choose God.
@@lecettpalmquist4091that’s a false dichotomy. If there is a gap of knowledge, there is absolutely no need to make up some belief and have ‘faith’ that it’s true.
Well let me rephrase Richard Dawkins’ reply “We don’t know yet” the emphasis on yet. And I don’t know why you put science in quotation marks. Moreover, if I can’t understand something, why god and not fairies or leprechauns, what’s the difference? You say faith. Faith is an excuse for someone who can’t explain something so he resorts to a god. With that mentality humanity would still be living in the bronze ages because religious people look at science as an anathema, as it erodes their superstitious beliefs . There would be no progress, just obscurantism. And why should I believe what the gospel says, written by ignorant superstitious goat herders. @@lecettpalmquist4091
@@lecettpalmquist4091 What if god has a sense of humor? What if atheists go to heaven and religious people go to hell? How would you know?
Yeah and he made a believe out of it
I dislike how not in-depth these topics were. You have a great thinker on the show and some questions which deserve depth, yet almost every time I thought you were finally going in to actual depth about a topic you cut Dawkins off and went to another topic.
And I love how Piers misreads a tweet by Dawkins and then Dawkins explains it calmly and clearly and Piers is like: "mmh yes, I see. Next Topic"
I've never seen someone so articulate, gracious and patient in a debate. What a mind and what a legacy he will leave!
I agree, Piers Morgan is a true wonder of humanity 🤣🤣🤣
@@kevinking588 What is it that drives you to disturb peace?
Really?? Dawkins is an hate mongering atheist who believes that he is the only one who is right and if someone believes in a god, he is a fool. Dawkins is extremely racist and rude when it comes to respecting other Faiths and religions.
I absolutely agree.
There are two kinds of atheists: those only temporarily deceived, being too superficial regarding the Creator of this reality (as I used to be due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) and those who do not want God to exist, who deny everything that proves their errors, such as all my simple, clear and undeniable demonstrations, which can be found after sorting the comments by reading enough of my recent and quite recent posts (both answers and new threads).
7:07
Piers: I get it...
Richard: I don't think you get it ❤
@@purplehaze3200 I dont think anyone cares what you think
@@jonathanbean7097 someone somewhere cares
@@purplehaze3200 "Why, you asked everyone?" that question makes no sense
@@nicecronic7625 "someone somewhere cares" maybe, but no one cares about them
That's not even what he wrote.
I am a Christian and I love these kinds of conversations. I frankly like Dawkins and would so enjoy having him over for dinner. He’s more polite or respectful to rival views than some years ago, but he’s fascinating.
Maybe you are an atheist.
In summary:
PM: "what was there at the beginning?"
RD: "we don't know"
PM: "i'm skeptical of people who think they have all the answers"
No we don't know, so there could be God. Richard skirts around it, but Piers(not really a fan) can't seem to get Richard to admit it. Piers won. imho.
@@billjones8503that’s bullshit , he responded to that in the beginning , you don’t introduce something complex at the beginning. You start from simple and go from there. God is complex. It’s a fallacy to think that if we don’t know something then it must be god… it’s a medieval way of thinking. We didn’t know why people died of unknown reason so we said « oh it must be divine judgement » , when it was just ball cancer.
That's some serious mental gymnastics
@@fixo5132 Plain as day buddy. I don't need anything more complex to begin that simple argument. In other wds, since he(Dawkins) can't prove God doesn't exist then at bare minimum he might? - The whole complexity issue of God is imo irrelevant. For Dawkins just assumes that complexity of a deity can't come first, How in the heck does he know that?
@@golangismyjam 😆 What serious mental gymnastics? Is a vy simple argument.
I am not an atheist, but I've always enjoyed listening to Richard Dawkins because he's always willing to have a discussion. It's good to talk and listen. I miss that in this day and age.
Just like he's willing to debate William Lane Craig
@@Ho-mb2wb just about to write this 📝😂😂😂
Why would you not be an atheist?
@@Godlesssicko don't have that much faith
@@ohgodyeahgamer2987 ....in what? Technically, it requires zero faith to be an atheist, since all the word entails is a lack of belief in God.
Richard Dawkins patience is on another level😂
Always courteous, never rude and patience in buckets loads. I wish he had taught me science.
Bro why is he not talking about islam I was here for that
worshiping Dawkins lol
@@chrisbennett6260Praise be upon him
He’s done this before Michael 😂
Nailed it religion is to help you sleep at night and not fear the truth of being finished when your finished.
Yes, this. It’s absolutely terrifying to think we will not exist at all anymore, but deluded to believe otherwise. I prefer hearing it from Dawkins as he is gentle in his delivery. Interesting interview
@blissbombseventeen8114 any evidence to support your claim?
Your view.
What a contrast between piers’s bad manners and his educated, respectful guest.
I'd say, it's more so about how we conduct ourselves in life.
When you pass Mr Dawkins, you will not be forgotten. You have awakened the thought of many, and this will always be your greatest contribution to the human race. We thank you.
He ain’t dead yet eeyore
Absolutely, his books and lectures were life changing for me.
Atheists should be able to understand that the entire evolution of the Universe is NOT an argument against God's existence because the entire process until humans time proves the existence of God, *the results of a process proving the intelligence involved into that process* (and because *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes).*
Furthermore, the conventional biological evolution is hiding the facts about Satan and the other fallen angels who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... (making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc....) to sustain the useless suffering while, initially, all insects, animals etc. were feeding only with plants (plants products, such as fruits, nectar, seeds etc.).
The fallen angels, being sadistic, have altered the DNA of most living things (including us) to do as default both: reproduce uncontrollably (as much as they can) and fight (kill) each other. Unfortunately, they love to see living things suffering, especially human beings suffering.
They want to destroy us since our physical body conception (all the time in any way possible). That is why they make us suffer, as much as possible, by using our stupidity and the stupidity of the other people around us.
You can watch people like Michael Jones at Inspiring Philosophy to see the flaws in Prof. Dawkins’s work.
The flaws in Prof. Dawkins’s work (and generally my simple and undeniable demonstrations of God's existence...) can be seen in my recent messages, for example, my thread posted about 13 hours ago.
This interview could have been so much more interesting if somebody rather more intelligent than Piers Morgan was the host. Someone who was capable of asking intellectually challenging and stimulating questions and then actually listening to the answers.
Bill Maher?
Ye, like Alex O' Connor (who has interviewes Richard and is capable of asking probing questions).
Man I felt sorry for the old man to be honest. It felt as though Piers was trying to get a reaction out of Richard. As much of a genius this man is, he's old and in need of some love and kindness. At the end of it I genuinely wanted to give Richard a hug for getting through this shambolic interaction 😂
Bill Maher or Oprah would have done a much better job
@@JasS-hu6cfwhy? Because he’s asking questions that even the Al mighty Dawkins can’t explain?
Morgan: Asks stupid Q
Dawkins: Patiently explains why Q is stupid
Morgan: "I understand that but .." Asks SAME STUPID QUESTION!!!
“But the human brain can’t understand what’s before the Big Bang, so it has to be God or something”
To cut a long story short: It is like playing chess with a pigeon. ;-)
@@ZenKingscom That´s an understatement..
The Earth is 4.5b years old. What a bummer I just missed God's son visit by a mere 2000 years 😢
Hopefully they'll visit more often, I have nice bottle of wine in my fridge waiting...
“How would you, Richard Dawkings, like to be remembered?”
“Well I should hope to have my headstone engraved with Richard Dawkins for a start”
The evolution of kinds has never been observed. No bird has ever been observed becoming a rat for example or a fish a lizard only natural selection within kinds so a sparrow can become a slightly different sparrow-like how a human can find a tall wife and have tall kids. It's not evolution. Science by definition has to be observed so basing all your "scientific absolutes" on a theory never observed is by definition unscientific and more what they would call superstitious.
Richard is a arrogant zealot Dawkins is only smart to people who are ignorant and trust others with all the "answers" .
Dawkins is such a great human being, he proved absence of religion doesn't mean absence of morals by not punching Morgan then and there.
Civility is not necessarily moral and vice versa. Morality as it comes from a higher plane of understanding is something that does not immediately make sense to our minds though we may unequivocally agree with it regardless.
Dawkins has said himself there is no grounds for morality on Atheism.
@Rick Peterson There's no more scientific proof for morality than God
Why would he punch Morgan? lol
@@tayzk5929 sure. He would say ( quite rightly imo) that morality is inate
Piers: "I'm genuinely curious, because I don't have all the answers." Also Piers: Rarely lets Richard compete a thought or sentence without interrupting.
that's coz dawkins doesn't have any answers other than he doesn't know, but others know and believe, that's what he can't get his head around, God or the creator is known through reason and revelation, that's a better answer and more logical than not knowing, everything in the universe exists and our world happens to have life, an ecological system and the rest which all happened to come into order and existence by itself through evolution without an agent is the most absurd thing someone can say.
@@indiana-jn7ys I don't have all the answers and I am skeptical of people who thinks they do. Those are his words. And here you are saying that someone admitting to not knowing everything is wrong? There is no winning here, is there? You are not looking for a debate but rather trying to force your opinions on others.
@@indiana-jn7ysNot having answers led to knowing cells, DNA, microscopes, computers, and everything you use today. Your belief in god led to sacrificing animals and thousands of years of fighting over whose god is more real without a conclusive ending.
@@indiana-jn7ys It's ridiculous to believe in gods in 2023.
@@Fearzero exactly
It's a pleasure to hear Richard Dawkins speak on these and other topics. My guess is that Piers Morgan feels the same and that his enthusiasm for being able to have this discussion spilled over and caused him to talk more than he should have. The opportunity to speak with Richard Dawkins would naturally be exciting to many people. 😊
Piers should know the difference between a debate and an interview
yep, right. It's becoming more and more frequent those interviewers who are judges and party. If you want to debate, take somebody with you to act as an impartial moderator.
"why have we lost the ability to have an open and frank debate?" so says piers morgan who never allows his guests to speak if they disagree with him-
He doesn't allow them to give speeches to the audience instead of answering the interviewers questions.
I am SO sorry that you're hurt by this fact
@@jaxwhyland hurt?
@@jaxwhyland That is only a fact if we agree that his true audience can't comprehend any argument more than 2 sentences long, in which case yes, the experts he summons don't answer efficiently. Seriously, he summons experts to give their opinions. In this case, you shut up and listen even if you don't understand. There is a reason these guys are experts at their respective fields and we are not
If I mention New Atheism and Humanism is taken over by Transhumanism that actively wants to replace humans with transhumans I'll be censored, as an Atheist.
He is a puddin head
There's nothing controversial about Richard Dawkins. He only speaks truth. He's a scientist. He deals in facts. If his facts offend someone by challenging their beliefs, that's their problem.
Many scientists would disagree 😅
None with any credibility.@@namikazeomar8001
He only deals in truths and absolutes - if his aunt had balls she’d be his uncle but she doesn’t - do you know what he’s saying?
Exactly! Totally agree
Problem is, facts change, therefore he doesn’t speak ’truth,’ now does he?
"Do you know who Doctor Spock was?" and then goes on to confuse Dr. Spock, a well-known pediatrician, with Mr. Spock, a character from a TV show.
How well articulated he is even at this age. May he live long and inspire the younger generation to think critically and appreciate the beauty around us without the need for an intelligent creator. How I wish I could see him in real life and thank him for all that he has done for us.
startled at the reducting allusion to his age.... ageism.... otherwise lovely comment
@jdmitaine dude what are you talking about? I think we all know with age comes deterioration most of the time Of the mind and body. Some people can hold their mind together relatively well, but more often then not everything starts really slowing down at about his age maybe even sooner.
@@jdmitaineof course a flaming liberal such as yourself who's obsessed with "isms" would use a cat for her profile pic. Of course you would!! Way to turn a complimemt into an insult regarding the original comment.
God will punish him very harsh.
His age? He's a healthy lifelong academic and not ancient
Dawkins refusing to answer questions about which he hasn't read or studied both sides is something more people should do.
He's a true scientist.
Well no, he's scared to give his opinion
Also, where it concerned specific individuals, and (as this was on national TV) his expressed opinion might affect them adversely.
@@sauldownbadman876 He's wise enough not to give an uninformed opinion. Learn the difference.
I am sure if piers asked him if he liked red or blue better he wouldn’t likely see the relevance and decline to answer as well. Some questions are not to be answered. Like if I asked you if your arse was itchy at the moment?
Richard Dawkins is the reason this video is watchable
I would say both are and I'm a fan of neither.
The ONLY reason.
@@davidfisher9026 That's because you believe that his logically fallacy of this operating system being unknowable is sound. He is incredibly limited in his ability to comprehend and conceptualize the idea of reality being created irrespective of religious dogma.
how sad
“Richard Dawkins is the reason this is watchable”
Exactly!! I always watch Dawkins for comedy value not for facts!!
Equally, according to prominent biologists Dawkins would make a brilliant clown!!
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins).
Sorry but the bereaved families of the victims of the Nazis eugenics policy would beg to differ with Dawkins claim that eugenics “works in practice”!!
A prominent biologist responded to Dawkins equivocation and unscientific statement with....
“As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this CLOWN
Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert). Ouch!!
Got 15 minutes in - listening to Morgan is like listening to some guy who drank too much at a bar and wont stop talking.
"if you're invited to a debate against Christopher Hitchens, decline."
So true. Even Richard Dawkins understood this well.
weaksauce. i’d go toe toe with him anytime. and i’d win. dawkins is a charlatan, just like everyone else with any kind of platform.
And yet both of them trembled in front of William Lane Craig, Dawkins even run into hiding when called out to debate him🤣
@@oioi9372 That is a funny statement.
@@reason8439 He/she is a delusional, arrogant person.
@@oioi9372 Hitchens and Craig debated several times. What are you talking about?
Morgan's high and mighty tone exposes his great opinion of himself. Dawkins is a gem.
That may say more about you than PM.
Wonderful to see Richard looking so well and still in possession of such laser sharp wit and eloquence.
The world will be eminently poorer for the loss of this man.
It'll miss his laim ass as much as yours when you take a dirt nap. NONE
@@JohnJohn-kl7jxwonderful debate Richard Dawkins is such a delight. ⭐💥
@@iefarrington5473 isn't he though? A real delight would be to see Ole Pierce Morgan jump up and STOMP mashed taters out of his head! What a fukn SWEET DELIGHT . Pierce just STOMPING and STOMPING . Better than the CARAMEL DELIGHTS GIRL SCOUT COOKIES. Well maybe not that good of a DELIGHT BUT I DO KNOW A BETTER DELIGHT THAN THAT! IF OLE PIERCE BENT HIM OVER THE DESK AND CORN DOGGED HIM WITH HIS "STATE FAIR SIZE CORN DOG!!!!
Whata you think poop breath? Don't you think that would be a DELIGHT??
@@JohnJohn-kl7jx He means humanity, Duh!
@@JohnJohn-kl7jx I bet you miss your dad though
Richard Dawkins is pure gold and my life is richer for having read his work and listened to him. This interviewer was way out of his league.
What a great episode. Piers can be a difficult curmudgeon but Dawkins handled him with such grace. He's a national gem.
International gem… 😉
Really. It's helpful because I know there's an awful lot of people who think like Piers, that it's hard to imagine something from nothing, that therefore there's must have been "something" that started it all - even though any initial something would have to have come from nothing, ha ha - but as Richard repeatedly points on, postulating a God because you can't explain something is ultimately just silly. It's really not much different than an ancient Norseman believing in Thor because he couldn't come up with a rational reason for thunder and lightning.
@@supertrexandroidx Well said! 🍻
Treasure for the humanity. Well for all the living things.😂
@@libertynow4047 i went to a science talk by him, it was the most boring thing i have ever sat through, i fell a sleep and he was really rude to someone who tried to disagree with him on a Q&A
Dawkins replying to the question as to whether or not he likes social media: "There's a culture of outright rudeness, which -" and Morgan cuts him off 🤦
😂
😂
The patience of Richard Dawkins is eternal...
😂😂😂 I remember him as an aggressive agitator maybe he is on some medicine?
@@PjotrII Yes, he should be given a sainthood - he'd love that!
Morgan is just a tabloid clickbait stirrer, nothing else. Always looking to stir it up.
Very patient. Piers is asking very basic atheist question.
@@tassiomm Patient in constantly being interrupted? Regardless, if you really listen to Piers you'd understand that he has to have an answer to the big questions where Richard (and most atheists) are fine with saying we don't know. We do not need to fill in the gap with a certainty. Piers cannot be satisfied with not knowing and filling the gap for him is necessary. He also keep saying that the human brain cannot comprehend x, however he will not entertain the idea that the human brain cant comprehend x YET. As evidence for things are uncovered (like the planets orbiting the sun) then our knowledge expands. Someday we may know what lies beyond the singularity. Until then, "I don't know" is the best answer.
Piers also falls into a common trap. A misunderstanding of the temporal nature of things. If time, matter and energy are local to this universe, then 'before' is a nonsensical question and leads to the notion that an eternal something must be in play. A theist would insist that it cannot be the universe (because turtles..) but have no problem insisting a personal mind is the eternal something.
It's strange Dawkins is called controversial when 100% of the comments I read of him are overwhelmingly positive. Morgan's ego is getting in the way of his logic.
Richard Dawkins may be the most patient man in human history.
"Certainty", whether it comes from one end of the spectrum or another, can enable one to be maddeningly patient in the face of so-called "adversity"
Actually second, after Jesus Christ.
No he is strident lol
@@kamilvyskocil7747Explain how?
he's like 82 y/o he's too old for arguments already i feel bad that he is has limited time left in this world but i hope he can spread more news
This interview shows Piers for what he actually is. Very simple and thick.
As in THICK SKULL
You forgot to mention just what an arse the man is!
I don't know why people like you have to be so kind to Morgan even after seeing things like this!
I can't understand how Richard Dawkins is still so patient after all these years.
No proved him wrong and all you can say is he’s thick. Just have the evidence against what piers said and maybe you’d be someone worthy to listen to. When you are wrong all you do is complain!
Thank you for your life’s work Richard Dawkins.
GREAT interview. I really enjoyed it - Dawkins is an unexpected delight. Thank you for having him on the show - and for youtube, so I could see it a year later.
"my human brain, which is limited...."...most accurate thing I have ever heard Piers say about himself....
I'm afraid I do not concur. Not enough emphasis on "limited" needed "extremely limited"
Man I want to change for the better and be like Richard. Imagine a world where we all think and speak like him.
Then again, it would get very boring if we all thought the same way.
@@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017flat earthers don't add any value in having a diverse opinion.
Some thoughts are merely too stupid to credit
He lives in pride
I have my disagreements with him. Nt on science religion god bt there are lot of other things. I also respect and acknowledge him fr his wrk and awareness. Bt then I think I would want a world where people can think fr themselves and have nuance take on everything. There is always lack of nuance to a certain degree fr everyone while different opinions even based on faiths are unique so as much I like smart people i wouldn't want that.
Yeah we all know that the universe had a beginning, and we all don't know what caused the beginning, but we sure as heck know it wasn't God right!?
That this man, of all men, has been cowed into silence, presumably by Oxford University is beyond scary.
By the fear of being killed*
Wait what?!
>silenced
>talks on national tv
He is just getting old and doesnt want the heat anymore, very understandable.
He's in his 80s and a few years ago suffered a stroke; I think we can forgive him not being as strident and fearless as he used to be.
Just like in other debates, I find Dawkins so humble and acknowledge of “not knowing”. On the other hand, it’s mind boggling how “self-centered” a religious person can be to believe that the entire universe was created and revolves around his or her own little short insignificant existence.
To whom are you referring to, hmm mmmmmm
Perfectly Stated. Cheers.
No other life found in universe. Something people new thousands of years ago with out telescopes
No we believe Jesus Christ is the most important thing, and doing as he asked, which is “do unto others, as you would have done unto you”. We are also asked to love our enemies, and forgive those who cause it to suffer.
Cause US to suffer, not IT
Piers : I get that
Richard : No I don’t think you do… proceeds to reiterate for the 10th time
I'm impressed by Dawkins patience with Morgan.
Me too. He has mellowed with time. But he can silence and chastise with a firm stare. Piers got a few of them in this interview. 👨🏫🕵️♂️
Well, he has nothing to prove. He's not the one claiming there is an invisible dictator in the sky.
@@marcgoecke9401 Dawkins sure can run away very fast - like when William Lane Craig came to Oxford.
@@marcgoecke9401 God gave you endless blessings that you can't even count, your hearts pumps liters of blood hourly, your body is working miraculously without you even knowing of it, you were fed everyday and breathed every second through his blessings and generosity
Your still an athiest🤣
Letting your guest speak challenge - Piers Morgan difficulty (impossible)
I'm just amazed Piers Morgan believes there is a deity more important than he is
He doesn't, they are one and the same 😂
🤣🤣🤣😂😂 funny AF
😂😂😂😂😂 good one
Brilliant!!! 🤣
❤
Its very rare to find people honest as Richard is.
@Bingobanana4789 He doesn't say God didn't, he says there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it. And it isn't for him to provide evidence to prove a God doesn't exist. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. If you believe...it's for you to show us why. Not the other way around. Can you provide me with evidence that Unicorns don't exist?
@Bingobanana4789literally science is evidence and using common sense u would know faith is different than fact think about the phrase when you hear hooves think horse not zebra. you have a right to your faith but you have to be honest he does have good points. if u watch his other interviews u can actually see his insight more with piers not interrupting him every sentence
@Bingobanana4789but it’s ok for christian’s to say atheists are wrong? he believes religion as a whole is bad but most individual religious ppl are completely nice and good ppl
@Bingobanana4789 Give evidence of atheist and people like Dawkins killing people through causing wars.
You so deluded.