I admire Dawkins ability to endure such dishonesty and blatant ignorance in order to teach us how NOT to think. This man deserves our respect..and sympathy.
Sorry, but this is one of Richard's interviews that I can only tolerate for about 10 minutes. I've no idea how he has the self-control to spend so much time with idiots without shouting at them.
He aims, I think, to test the full range of cognitive dissonances in the interviewee’s world system. How can someone preserve one set of beliefs, while simultaneously claiming to adhere to a set of principles about education and truth seeking that entirely conflicts with those beliefs.
Get the stupid talking long enough and even their followers will stop listening. That's why. He keeps them going long enough to choke on their own foot but for all to see.
Truth and belief can be so separate but also so true, there is ur own truth then the truth that people actually learn things , religion is lazy it’s putting the hard shit that life throws at us and making up a story to be better it’s quite obvious how stupid it is
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Evolution...1 million years in the past morphing creatures.....1 million years in the future morphing creatures.......Just need two now and no creatures turning into new creatures anywhere....Ha Ha Ha what a scam...some one has to take Dawkins for a walk to the Zoo.....so when they get down to the last one...Dawkins can tell them don't worry it will evolve into a new creature....Just 1 million years mate....wake up John Safran vs God proved demons real God real a real Atheist puts his money where his mouth is....he's a stone cutter anti-Christ.Like Darwin.
Those poor children, being exposed to propaganda every single day. I had that myself and it took decades to start to fix the damage. Good for RD for stepping up.
I love the way people talk about Jesus, as if they know all about him. You may as well say you know everything about Robbin Hood. It's just a story from a book .
@toddcott9510 Read the bible, and you will know all about him !!! A great man Robin Hood, another great man, stole from the rich and gave to the poor !!! TWO GREATS!!!!!!!!!!
@matthewphilip1977 No, there isn't a consensus at all on the matter. The closest you'll get is an acknowledgement that there could have been one or more people who actually existed which inspired the biblical stories.
@@mikenelson48 I have had similar conversations with people who believe in a god. I lost my temper a few times, it's hard not to, but I always got to the point where the other side got left with no arguments. I wish I had Richard's wisdom.
All the aggression thinly disguised as grinning and laughing, diverting his squinted eyes up or down as his mind struggles to contort an answer to a straightforward question while Prof. Dawkins remains open-faced, eyes directed at the object of his inquiry. You can almost see the defensive force field this man emits around himself. These are his only weapons to combat facts and reality. How terrified he would be without their protection. How tiresome small minds can be.
Paul, Dawkins most often debates Science vs Christianity. A much deduced debate model. Isn’t the existence or non existence of God the real debate? Here, shouldn’t the locos of ontology and epistemology regarding the existence or non existence of A god or gods sit on a higher philosophical plane than the religions? I am an atheist, yet, I would like to see Dawkins (and other scientists) debate a deity. Pls see my separate post. Thanks.
“How terrified small minds can be”. A clear case of projection. Atheists can claim science when they can explain Consciousness (the ‘hard problem’ for philosophers); is it fundamental and Mind; is it elemental and does it emerge with quantum events. They know a little about the elements and posit them to be fundamental to reality. We should all be in awe of the elements and forces if they are responsible for consciousness; what will the elements come up with next? Will electricity or some other force give us an A.I. that will make us slaves and rule the world? These are the fears of atheistic philosophers. Meanwhile trans humanism is talked of; human brains embedded with technology. We will see about that, communism was bad enough, we will resist any atheistic ideology that arises to fill a void; it too will bite the dust where it belongs.
I agree , his body language screams dishonesty. I always tell ppl to pay extra close attention to the way a person looks while they talk. When you feel cringe it's the red flag of red flags . The more complex you make your arguments the less credibility they have in reality. If you can't explain your points to a young child in a few short sentences they can easily understand then you are either lying or you don't have a clue what you're trying to say.
Yer Richard and dimwits go together Richard knows it all!!!! One question: How did we get here ??? If you can't answer that, CHRISTIANITY looks very good !!!!
@@rodmartin-nl8ns, you're in Denial. "rod"... You have to be much smarter than what you're making yourself out to be.... break Free of you're Brainwashed thoughts and Think for yourself
I always say to Christians. What does a man who lived 2000 years ago have to do with your life today? It has absolutely no physical impact on your life. None. Zero.
Religion, giving people hope in a world messed up by religion. It's time to move on now isn't it? Can we grow up now? Stop believing in fairy stories? It's so pathetic that religion has the power that it does, pathetic and depressing.
It makes me so angry when I hear the argument for morality being something like : "if there is no god to stop me from raping a child, why wouldn't I? if I could get away with it without being punished" These people don't hear how immoral that statement is and it scares me that they exist.
The guy spent the entire interview smiling. He was smiling at sentences that were not comical. So it must be the case that it was a self-soothing mechanism to cope with stress and fear.
Constant interruption is not only rude but a sign of being defensive. IMHO if you believe that Noah's Ark actually happened you show your true colours.
Great respect for Dr. Dawkins, self-control is something I admire the most about him. Unbreakable human being. He's more spiritual and moral than a lot of religious and Christians I know Great work!!!
That was a great interview. Great back and forth on some issues but there was always an underlying feeling of passive-aggressiveness from the 'holy' man.
But the purpose is to show the audience arguments that they themselves may use, or have heard from their friends, and show them how those arguments crumble under scrutiny.
When I listen to guys like whoever this guy Dawkins is interviewing, I am left wondering how a human capable of learning to read and write can be so unbelievably obtuse.
I appreciate how mr. Dawkins is very willing to engage with people who think differently. He genuinely seems curious about their thought process. He is very well read and knowledgeable about religion and science especially. He is also a great interviewer.
I think Richard Dawkins ability to endure this torturous conversation was in the service of allowing many others to see just how delusional religion makes people.
I don't think GOD is afraid of my questions? So talking to your self, is the pathway to GOD? Religion, One Oh One: Self delusion, is a necessary requirement. 🤦♂
You've just made the circular argument that it's absurd to say talking to God leads to God because God doesn't exist, therefor you're only talking to yourself, so how could that lead to God? This is a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question": when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion.
@Durzo1259 You missed the premise of my comment? Talking to an imaginary friend/God is akin to talking to oneself. Meaning, there is no evidence of a God. That's why it's called "faith," believing in something in the absence of evidence. Show me some tangible evidence, please.... apart from a book that says so. 🙄
@@wayneharrison Why is talking to yourself through an imaginary intermediate equated to no evidence of god? That sounds like all the personal evidence you need of your god.
@@preferredpronoun3689 More like the end result of a childhood indoctrination, in being taught to believe in a specific type of personal God, while rejecting other different faith based God/Gods. This, in itself, does not mean that one's "chosen" personal God existence at all. I would think? 🤔
I hope to *** that this man will never ever educate my children. The level of ignorance is stunning and I need to congratulate RD for staying so graceful in the face of ignorance.
The #1 argument I always here is "you can't objectively prove moral standards, so without God, there is no objective basis for a moral framework." Well if that's true, then God's law isn't objective either, it's authoritative. If you're acknowledging that morality *cannot* be objective, then God can't have objective reasons for it either, which makes his moral code an arbitrary whim enforced through power. If God does have objective reasons for his moral code, then you're acknowledging that there is a logical basis for morality, so what exactly puts such logic out of human reach?
I've got a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins who managed to stay intelligent throughout his career, because every time I think about religion I feel in a very tangible way that my IQ is regressing. The quality of the argumentation is so low that if I spend too much time swimming in these waters I end up lowering my standards and it can be tough to get back to thinking about more complex problems.
It maybe only a temporary lowering, If your mind remains open, and your experience is still increased. Stay open and rational. They are moral principles.
This guy is nuts. Deep down, he’s clearly a victim of the manmade teachings of religion: he believes humans are all naturally flawed, evil, sinners, however you want to define it; hence he desires to believe his personal flaws can be forgiven by some other power. It’s this self-loathing that religion fosters which is the opposite of how humans should want to live. On one hand, this guy acknowledges that the majority of people are religious but then admits that all people are flawed and do bad things. However, in his world view, all people can do as many bad things as they want but they can be forgiven if they then accept god; this ideology only perpetuates bad actors because it allows people to act immorally their whole life then repent. This means bad actors will be greater in number then if everyone lived by a moral code from the beginning and acknowledging that your can’t be relieved of your bad actions.
Excellent video again. Poor soul. His "christian" indoctrination has been profoundly effective. He nearly gets it, but he lacks courage and he is scared. He doesn't want to escape because he can't face up to the damage he has done to children.
Whole whole discussion was basically "don't interrupt your opponent while he's doing a mistake". The more Adrian Hawkes gets to say in this discussion, the weaker his arguments appear.
I can’t believe this Christian tried to use the counter that he thinks you’d find very few atheists in war against the prison population being mainly religious. Does he think going to war is necessarily a good thing?
Yes, the lack of self-awareness in this disgusting creature is quite stunning. I made a similar observation myself when he spoke of how the word of God is written on every heart. It kinda explains the r4pe and child-abuse, doesn't it? lol
@matthewphilip1977 Because unlike science, religion isn't based upon evidence or reason. It's based upon faith, tradition and authority. None of these things are a pathway to truth or an understanding of reality.
I'm afraid of the world because bad things have happened to me. This man is afraid of the world because he knows his own depravity. He needs to believe in God due to his flawed thinking in that everybody is just like him, and a God is needed to maintain order, and keep him safe from others he wrongly believes are just as depraved as he is.
Projecting your own depravity onto the collective is not a good reason to believe in God, and if anything only highlights a necessity out of the weakness of the self to think outside of (arguably) primitive formatting. We have big brains and have the choice in which to use them. That not everyone does is not a good reason not to. But back to the main point; mental weakness isn't proof for God.
If I walked around talking to "Dave", someone I believe lives all around us, but no one can see him, and I tell people we must live by a document that I say Dave wrote, and that I felt compelled to force Dave's words into the minds of other peoples' children, people would think I was suffering from a mental illness. I would be put on medical leave, given medications, be required to attend therapy sessions, and likely lose my job; and rightly so.
It's the biggest and best long con ever pulled off and it's still going today. Conceived in a time when the world was a MUCH smaller place regarding things such as population and known lands. People also had a lack of understanding of the natural world all around them. Bear in mind people living in those times thought the sky could fall on their head. All in all a much easier audience to convince of a magical all seeing being. I do find myself perplexed at the people of today with unlimited knowledge about ANYTHING you wish to know at your fingertips still buying into it. I know familial and societal influence at a young age come into play but still I find myself thinking "why?". Maybe I'm missing something?
It's so pervasive across the followers of the 3 mideastern cults that I have to assume it's a genetic weakness that roughly followed the spread of agriculture. Which was introduced with agriculture as humans were able to start detaching themselves from active evolutionary processes and instead adapted to a high carbohydrate diet tending towards monocultures. If you roughly take their word for it, when they say humans are corrupt this may be actually true. But not all, just that branch. This also suggests Freud's notion of a death instinct, which makes no biological sense for a healthy species, might actually be pointing to this core corruption. It's quite striking that this is not nearly as prevalent in Asia, where nothing like book based monotheistic cults exist.
Religious thinking and expression is so painful and convoluted and forced. Parsing and quibbling and mincing and vaguery. Really sketchy and slippery and nebulous and circular and utterly derivative. Stultifying as well. I cannot stand it.
All these discussions remind of the pericycle theory which should prove that the earth is im the centre of the universe. In those days the facts were clearly observed but nevertheless the church tinkered one pericycle after the other just to make the theory superficially work instead of admitting no the earth revolves around the sun. Meanwhile the christian morality is set to be the only measure to prevent us to harm each other. Many philosophers have shown that there is an apriori morality in humans (Freud, Kant to name just two).
All religious people do good deeds or don't do bad deeds because they either want something in return or fear something, whereas an atheist does these things merely because they want to do something good or not do something bad (good = good for society/ bad = bad for society.....before anyone asks how we know what's good or bad)
As a “scientist” a christian scientist for that matter the man has a bad form of confirmation bias. At no moment in this debate he allowed to question his own point of view. And that is what is the issue, a point of view is not science. Morale is not sience. Faith is not sience. Gervais set it best by saying that it is very peculiar that your truth as a believer system is dependent on where you are born. ….
@@margaretmcdowell7052Depends on the religion. There are humanist religions that are nothing like Christianity and Islam. Religions that don’t worship any gods.
Dr. Richard Dawkins after watching so many times of religious people failingly attempting to use science and philosophy to defend their religious claims, it makes me question do religious people even actually care about philosophy and properly applying the scientific method or only using it’s knowledge and discoveries to support their belief systems?
I hadn't realised Professor Dawkins had launched a load of merch and I was so hoping to see a t-shirt with my favourite quote from him - "Science is interesting - and if you don't agree, you can fuck off!" Superbly done.
Theists are f'n scary. Their idea of morality is so messed up, so wrong it's hard to even get them somewhat headed back towards reality. Jeez these indoctrinated people. And they are teaching our children.
38:00 I think the most interesting part of Adrian Hawkes behavior is that he very strongly declares that the Bible is definitely God's revelation but when you ask any details of any stories in the Bible, he instantly goes to "I don't know, it might be". *Why* believe so strongly in the whole book as a whole if you cannot stand behind any of its stories when questioned for details?
@matthewphilip1977 And by what information do you decide which parts to ignore or consider man-made mistakes? If you can figure that one out correctly, you don't even need the whole Bible in the first place because your moral compass is already good enough!
@matthewphilip1977 At which point it's nothing but working it out as anybody is encountering life? Why pretend that you still have superstitious beliefs that supposedly guide you instead of using your own brain to work stuff out?
@matthewphilip1977 My wording was unclear. I mean that if your argument is that you work it out when you encounter problems in life, I totally agree with that. However, if you then think that you work it out using superstitious beliefs instead of reasoning using the best available knowedge at hand, I'd call that pretending that God is helping you. Sure, you can try reading the Bible but you *must* selectively ignore parts of the Bible because the whole text contradicts too much. And if you use your own brain to decide which parts should be ignored / interpreted metaphorically, and think that you end up with good moral decision, then you obviously don't need the Bible to make moral decisions.
@matthewphilip1977 If you are the one making the decisions about which parts of the Bible to throw away, you shouldn't be pretending that your decisions are based on the Bible. You're the one making all the decisions and you're just using the Bible as a pretended rationale for those decisions.
@matthewphilip1977 "Guided by the Holy Spirit" is just marketing speak for making decisions by yourself but pretending that you're not the one making the decisions.
I was also taught scientific facts incorrectly by teachers whose knowledge of the subject was lacking. That is not a measure of the state of science at the time. I once had a teacher (6th Form) tell the class that , amazingly , "ingot" was pronounced "Ingot" despite the fact that it is spelled "ignot" (of course, it isn't spelled "ignot") I've remember this absurdity for 40 years
Religion is emotional cope. Morals arise from consequences. The consequences aren’t always immediately realized, which is why religion was invented. The problem is that religion was invented by people thousands of years ago with a primitive understanding of the world and long term consequences. All religions contain truthiness to varying degrees but they are fundamentally flawed at their foundations because they aren’t adaptable to new knowledge of nature and long term consequences. The most adaptable religion will survive the longest. Christianity has made a good effort to adapt with its multitudes of denominations but it’s starting to die out.
Morals don’t arise from consequences. That is self evidently false. Atheism seems more likely to be cope. We don’t like someone having authority over us so we just pretend he doesn’t exist. I could make the exact argument about you.
@@jordandthornburgThe more social (bigger the group) a creature is, the more social and more moral AKA favor the team - instead of the self, if the behaver is accountable. It is an adaptation and true for all kinds of creatures. Also the amygdala (fear detection part of the brain) is smaller compare to other species. I used the word creature, because Darwin wrote, there are really no such thing as species, there are versions of creatures at the moment. It’s genetically true, however I know we can categorize them about for example (at the moment) who can breed with whom.
I would have loved to see a following question (worded better, of course): Since you agree that part of the Bible shouldn't be followed, how do you know which parts to follow and which parts to ignore has historical content? And then followed: Since you can make decision without guidance from the Bible, why do you need the Bible in the first place? Wouldn't you be able to pick the good parts from any other human written book, too?
About 6 minutes in, Richard asks him about Noah's Ark - specifically "what's that got to do with a science lesson?" He immediately replies with - and I quote "well, I suppose that depends on your opinion....." I'm a bit surprised Richard didn't immediately pull him up on such a glaring error - that's ok precisely the point of science - it doesn't depend on your opinion - AT ALL. So really that belied he was on the defensive from the outset. I also found the charm offensive offputting -- the constant fake laugh got embarrassing. I don't know how Richard has the patience to deal with this shit tbh.....
True. On the other hand, anthropology and sociology better describe the “why” for existence of religions better than texts against the hard sciences. Science doesn’t disprove the existence of God, rather the claims of the religions. I am an atheist, yet feel we see the wrong parties to this other debates. Deism is an interesting construct and, elsewhere, I have quoted Newton on the topic.
I admire Dawkins ability to endure such dishonesty and blatant ignorance in order to teach us how NOT to think.
This man deserves our respect..and sympathy.
@matthewphilip1977
Do you know that you have a reading comprehension deficit?
@matthewphilip19773
Religion is a wonderful way of keeping common people quiet. - Napoleon
Napoleon had a huge conversion to Catholicism in prison. You should read his letter from prison.
If only they would be quiet
Napoleon became a faithful Catholic in prison in exile. Read his letter where he discusses his conversion at length..
@@joannasimmonds3706
If only atheists would be quiet.
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins
On thwe other hand religious people have a major habit of fabricating bullshit.
@matthewphilip1977
It sounds very much like MY primary reason. What's the problem?
@matthewphilip1977 Spit it out. What are you suggesting on behalf of somebody else then?
Twisted!!!!
I am not against religion, I am against the charlatans that peddle it for their own devious machinations!
Sorry, but this is one of Richard's interviews that I can only tolerate for about 10 minutes. I've no idea how he has the self-control to spend so much time with idiots without shouting at them.
He aims, I think, to test the full range of cognitive dissonances in the interviewee’s world system. How can someone preserve one set of beliefs, while simultaneously claiming to adhere to a set of principles about education and truth seeking that entirely conflicts with those beliefs.
Get the stupid talking long enough and even their followers will stop listening. That's why. He keeps them going long enough to choke on their own foot but for all to see.
For exposure to promote his book.
He knows his argument, it correct, no point arguing with someone that is unequivocally wrong
Truth and belief can be so separate but also so true, there is ur own truth then the truth that people actually learn things , religion is lazy it’s putting the hard shit that life throws at us and making up a story to be better it’s quite obvious how stupid it is
The term "Christian Science" is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand what science is
It's functionally equivalent to saying "not science".
@@Reno_Slim it's ... Omni-science ...
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Evolution...1 million years in the past morphing creatures.....1 million years in the future morphing creatures.......Just need two now and no creatures turning into new creatures anywhere....Ha Ha Ha what a scam...some one has to take Dawkins for a walk to the Zoo.....so when they get down to the last one...Dawkins can tell them don't worry it will evolve into a new creature....Just 1 million years mate....wake up John Safran vs God proved demons real God real a real Atheist puts his money where his mouth is....he's a stone cutter anti-Christ.Like Darwin.
Right beside Military Intelligence, and Postal Worker.
Or Christianity.
Those poor children, being exposed to propaganda every single day. I had that myself and it took decades to start to fix the damage. Good for RD for stepping up.
And the parents are paying a pretty penny to ensure it.
Such calm patience, Richard, in the face of such stubborn stupidity!
I love the way people talk about Jesus, as if they know all about him. You may as well say you know everything about Robbin Hood. It's just a story from a book .
You're right, it's nuts! Imagine grounding your life on Lord of the Rings or some other fantasy. It's completely irrational and stupid.
Didn't non-christians write about him too? Tacitus maybe?
@@TerryWoodsNZNot during his supposed lifetime.
@toddcott9510 Read the bible, and you will know all about him !!! A great man
Robin Hood, another great man, stole from the rich and gave to the poor !!!
TWO GREATS!!!!!!!!!!
@matthewphilip1977
No, there isn't a consensus at all on the matter.
The closest you'll get is an acknowledgement that there could have been one or more people who actually existed which inspired the biblical stories.
I think Richard is the most pleasant person on the planet right now.
I couldn't agree more. And to think: He's an African ape. How wonderfully awesome is that,?
He had much more patience with this gentleman than I would have.
@@mikenelson48 I have had similar conversations with people who believe in a god.
I lost my temper a few times, it's hard not to, but I always got to the point where the other side got left with no arguments.
I wish I had Richard's wisdom.
@@mikenelson48, Have you listen to Dawkins and Wendy Wright ?
@Masstoenergy what are you saying? No one on this earth is pleasant, REALLY !!!!
All the aggression thinly disguised as grinning and laughing, diverting his squinted eyes up or down as his mind struggles to contort an answer to a straightforward question while Prof. Dawkins remains open-faced, eyes directed at the object of his inquiry. You can almost see the defensive force field this man emits around himself. These are his only weapons to combat facts and reality. How terrified he would be without their protection. How tiresome small minds can be.
Paul, Dawkins most often debates Science vs Christianity. A much deduced debate model. Isn’t the existence or non existence of God the real debate? Here, shouldn’t the locos of ontology and epistemology regarding the existence or non existence of A god or gods sit on a higher philosophical plane than the religions?
I am an atheist, yet, I would like to see Dawkins (and other scientists) debate a deity.
Pls see my separate post. Thanks.
The man admits that the end of Christianity will be a bad thing for the world..
“How terrified small minds can be”. A clear case of projection. Atheists can claim science when they can explain Consciousness (the ‘hard problem’ for philosophers); is it fundamental and Mind; is it elemental and does it emerge with quantum events. They know a little about the elements and posit them to be fundamental to reality. We should all be in awe of the elements and forces if they are responsible for consciousness; what will the elements come up with next? Will electricity or some other force give us an A.I. that will make us slaves and rule the world? These are the fears of atheistic philosophers. Meanwhile trans humanism is talked of; human brains embedded with technology. We will see about that, communism was bad enough, we will resist any atheistic ideology that arises to fill a void; it too will bite the dust where it belongs.
@@petersinclair3997wth did that have to do with anything Paul said? 😑
I agree , his body language screams dishonesty. I always tell ppl to pay extra close attention to the way a person looks while they talk. When you feel cringe it's the red flag of red flags .
The more complex you make your arguments the less credibility they have in reality.
If you can't explain your points to a young child in a few short sentences they can easily understand then you are either lying or you don't have a clue what you're trying to say.
It’s sad that these religious people didn’t evolve properly.
Bro it's mostly about upbringing, environment. It's hard not to be religious in a 3rd world country, or worse a war torn one. I don't blame them.
@matthewphilip1977 Okay how about 'grew up'
Evolution is not a goal. The religious have evolved precisely to fit their environments.
_"I regard religion as a disease born of fear and a source of untold misery to the human species"_
- Bertrand Russell
I don’t have the patience Richard has with dimwits. I had to stop
Same.
I made it 12 minutes in.
@@nobodyreally2144, Have yall listen to the interview with Wendy Wright ?
Yer Richard and dimwits go together
Richard knows it all!!!!
One question: How did we get here ???
If you can't answer that, CHRISTIANITY looks very good !!!!
@@rodmartin-nl8ns, you're in Denial. "rod"...
You have to be much smarter than what you're making yourself out to be.... break Free of you're Brainwashed thoughts and Think for yourself
@@rodmartin-nl8ns maybe investigate before pontificating a conclusion!
How did you manage to get through this interview Dr Dawkins?
Richard is always such a polite person....... A shame because sometimes "bollox" is exactly what needs to be said in some of these conversations
I admire his enormous patience. I'm 10 minutes in and I'm already shouting at the screen. -.-
My granny thinks religious folks are a bit mad.
I love your granny.
Granny knows best
Why does it fill me with concern the Christian having a foster daughter, I'd choose Dawkins on moral grounds any day if the week.
The fact that not everyone empathetically cares, including many devout Christians, is a strong suggestion that we dont derive our morals from any god.
I always say to Christians. What does a man who lived 2000 years ago have to do with your life today? It has absolutely no physical impact on your life. None. Zero.
'Faith' is merely fear dressed up as virtue.
It's the best weapon in the snake oil salesman's arsenal.
Not only cannot understand what science is but cant even describe what his version of Christianity is, but has the gall to teach it to kids.
Richard does this to show how religious people think.
Or don't...
Unclear post. Missing content.
Religion, giving people hope in a world messed up by religion.
It's time to move on now isn't it? Can we grow up now? Stop believing in fairy stories? It's so pathetic that religion has the power that it does, pathetic and depressing.
It makes me so angry when I hear the argument for morality being something like : "if there is no god to stop me from raping a child, why wouldn't I? if I could get away with it without being punished"
These people don't hear how immoral that statement is and it scares me that they exist.
That guy has some dark secrets Scary, truly scary.
The guy spent the entire interview smiling. He was smiling at sentences that were not comical. So it must be the case that it was a self-soothing mechanism to cope with stress and fear.
It is just his face.
@@morbidmanmusic 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
It's so annoying that, in 2024, people can reach adulthood believing this religious tripe
Constant interruption is not only rude but a sign of being defensive. IMHO if you believe that Noah's Ark actually happened you show your true colours.
Great respect for Dr. Dawkins, self-control is something I admire the most about him.
Unbreakable human being. He's more spiritual and moral than a lot of religious and Christians I know
Great work!!!
Equating morality to religion always makes me laugh. Those poor unfortunate children
Wow, this guy is nuts, and he is teaching kids.
That was a great interview. Great back and forth on some issues but there was always an underlying feeling of passive-aggressiveness from the 'holy' man.
What a twerp. How could Dawkins be so patient?
Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
I don't know why Richard wastes his valuable time on 'Flatearthers' like that
I think he doesn't anymore. This was filmed for a TV program like 20 years ago.
But the purpose is to show the audience arguments that they themselves may use, or have heard from their friends, and show them how those arguments crumble under scrutiny.
It's for the audience, not for the flatearther
@@emon2689 That's how I should have put it; much more concise.
Open conversations like this is omportant. One day you might also discuss with a guy like that.
This first guy is in charge of a school.........unbelievable
Frightening truly astonishing,especially what this guest said about morality! Made my blood run cold !
I loved seeing you in Austin. Thank you so much.
Cool i will be in Cambridge and Amsterdam.
I’ve never been to Austin, you’re thinking of someone else.
I am an atheist, 74 years old, and, as far as I can remember, I have never raped anyone. I have no idea what has held me back. 😂
The guest continued the discussion in a civil manner and that has to be a mighty plus for this session.
@VaughanMcCue while he adopted an air of imagined superiority? Oh no!
@@jackthebassman1
It is a façade because he does not appear dim-wit, and his organisation's policy might demand the pretence.
@@VaughanMcCue it's clearly how he presents himself, somehow considers himself to be superior and mocking of professor Dawkins.
I was at two boarding schools from the age of 8 years. I was an Atheist then and thank goodness I still am.
When I listen to guys like whoever this guy Dawkins is interviewing, I am left wondering how a human capable of learning to read and write can be so unbelievably obtuse.
Maybe you wouldn't be wondering if you were a bit less selfish and selfcentered
I have never been able to wrap my mind around people that can't handle fact based research and evidence.
His smile gives me the creeps.
I appreciate how mr. Dawkins is very willing to engage with people who think differently. He genuinely seems curious about their thought process. He is very well read and knowledgeable about religion and science especially. He is also a great interviewer.
I think Richard Dawkins ability to endure this torturous conversation was in the service of allowing many others to see just how delusional religion makes people.
Love your name.
It could become famous.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS thanks. I might just start a new religion. Seems like there’s still an audience for it. lol
I don't think GOD is afraid of my questions? So talking to your self, is the pathway to GOD? Religion, One Oh One: Self delusion, is a necessary requirement. 🤦♂
You've just made the circular argument that it's absurd to say talking to God leads to God because God doesn't exist, therefor you're only talking to yourself, so how could that lead to God?
This is a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question": when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion.
@Durzo1259 You missed the premise of my comment? Talking to an imaginary friend/God is akin to talking to oneself. Meaning, there is no evidence of a God. That's why it's called "faith," believing in something in the absence of evidence. Show me some tangible evidence, please.... apart from a book that says so. 🙄
@@wayneharrison Why is talking to yourself through an imaginary intermediate equated to no evidence of god? That sounds like all the personal evidence you need of your god.
@@preferredpronoun3689 More like the end result of a childhood indoctrination, in being taught to believe in a specific type of personal God, while rejecting other different faith based God/Gods. This, in itself, does not mean that one's "chosen" personal God existence at all. I would think? 🤔
@@wayneharrison Doesn't have to be indoctrination as much as education of your parents religion/mythology although which tends to be exclusionary.
"There are such things as established facts and they don't care how you feel about them."
(Francis Collins)
I hope to *** that this man will never ever educate my children. The level of ignorance is stunning and I need to congratulate RD for staying so graceful in the face of ignorance.
When he said "like Galileo for example" and the religious guy didn't get the joke.. I nearly pissed myself!
It terrifies me that the guest is an educator.
15:00 The Christian shows that his core is utterly rotten.
The #1 argument I always here is "you can't objectively prove moral standards, so without God, there is no objective basis for a moral framework."
Well if that's true, then God's law isn't objective either, it's authoritative. If you're acknowledging that morality *cannot* be objective, then God can't have objective reasons for it either, which makes his moral code an arbitrary whim enforced through power.
If God does have objective reasons for his moral code, then you're acknowledging that there is a logical basis for morality, so what exactly puts such logic out of human reach?
Maybe it's out of human reach because of the inherent complexity of the moral landscape and our capacity to understand it fully??
I've got a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins who managed to stay intelligent throughout his career, because every time I think about religion I feel in a very tangible way that my IQ is regressing. The quality of the argumentation is so low that if I spend too much time swimming in these waters I end up lowering my standards and it can be tough to get back to thinking about more complex problems.
It maybe only a temporary lowering, If your mind remains open, and your experience is still increased. Stay open and rational. They are moral principles.
This guy is nuts. Deep down, he’s clearly a victim of the manmade teachings of religion: he believes humans are all naturally flawed, evil, sinners, however you want to define it; hence he desires to believe his personal flaws can be forgiven by some other power. It’s this self-loathing that religion fosters which is the opposite of how humans should want to live.
On one hand, this guy acknowledges that the majority of people are religious but then admits that all people are flawed and do bad things. However, in his world view, all people can do as many bad things as they want but they can be forgiven if they then accept god; this ideology only perpetuates bad actors because it allows people to act immorally their whole life then repent. This means bad actors will be greater in number then if everyone lived by a moral code from the beginning and acknowledging that your can’t be relieved of your bad actions.
No, you dont get it
@@Dagestanidude what don’t I get?
I can't understand how really religious minds work. They are so brainwashed and close minded.
Thank you very much for your contributions to science Mr. Dawkins. You helped me get on the right path some years ago, and I've never looked back! 🍰
@ 22:59 - Hitchens would say "Religion poisons everything"
He would turn this guy back to sucking his thumb. 🇦🇺😊 Great name.
Cricket?
Cricket?
Excellent video again. Poor soul. His "christian" indoctrination has been profoundly effective. He nearly gets it, but he lacks courage and he is scared. He doesn't want to escape because he can't face up to the damage he has done to children.
Whole whole discussion was basically "don't interrupt your opponent while he's doing a mistake". The more Adrian Hawkes gets to say in this discussion, the weaker his arguments appear.
Loved the long shot.
Thank you Richard for your grace and patience.
I wouldn't want any of my children going to a school that is teaching such drivel.
There’s no way to fused religious myth/lores with science.
I look forward to seeing him in Vancouver. It will be a great evening I'm sure...
Dawkins is a deep thinker so I wonder how he was able keep up a conversation with one of the dullest and drab minds for a whole 40 minutes.
I can’t believe this Christian tried to use the counter that he thinks you’d find very few atheists in war against the prison population being mainly religious.
Does he think going to war is necessarily a good thing?
The word ' enjoy' is doing some heavy lifting here, but yes, good job at trying to reach this unchangeable fellow.
"The world is mainly religious based" "The world is a frightening place" and he lacks the mental plasticity to make the obvious correlation.
Yes, the lack of self-awareness in this disgusting creature is quite stunning. I made a similar observation myself when he spoke of how the word of God is written on every heart. It kinda explains the r4pe and child-abuse, doesn't it? lol
You can't derive science from mythology.
@matthewphilip1977 Haven't you ever heard of science fiction?
@matthewphilip1977 What's your point?
@matthewphilip1977 My point is that you can't get a scientific understanding of the world from religion.
@matthewphilip1977 Because unlike science, religion isn't based upon evidence or reason. It's based upon faith, tradition and authority. None of these things are a pathway to truth or an understanding of reality.
He said 'ignoble'...I've never heard the word included in a sentence...
I'm afraid of the world because bad things have happened to me. This man is afraid of the world because he knows his own depravity. He needs to believe in God due to his flawed thinking in that everybody is just like him, and a God is needed to maintain order, and keep him safe from others he wrongly believes are just as depraved as he is.
Projecting your own depravity onto the collective is not a good reason to believe in God, and if anything only highlights a necessity out of the weakness of the self to think outside of (arguably) primitive formatting. We have big brains and have the choice in which to use them. That not everyone does is not a good reason not to. But back to the main point; mental weakness isn't proof for God.
Thinking is a skill that very few of us have mastered.
I had a 1969 Model 99 and Saab apparently liked the free wheeling so much they carried it over to that vehicle.
Dawkins is a better man then I, how can he stand there a suffer such a fool as Hawkes?
Richard Dawkins can teach us all a little something about patience!
He thinks that the story about Noah's Arc might be history. That's all I need to know about his 'science'.
Your work has certainly changed my life, my friend. Thank you!
Grief - I find his general outlook very frustrating - wanting to confuse the supernatural with the scientifically proven.
One religion’s beliefs in the supernatural with those matters, for now, scientifically confirmed.
New TV series idea 💡 David Brent (Ricky Gervais) leaves the office and gets a new job as Headteacher of a Christian School
I’m sold 😂
What’s up with this guy smiling and laughing at everything?
How many brave listeners endured the whole 40.16 agonizing minutes?
Richard without doubt is one of the most patient person in the world.
If I walked around talking to "Dave", someone I believe lives all around us, but no one can see him, and I tell people we must live by a document that I say Dave wrote, and that I felt compelled to force Dave's words into the minds of other peoples' children, people would think I was suffering from a mental illness. I would be put on medical leave, given medications, be required to attend therapy sessions, and likely lose my job; and rightly so.
Spread the word
Dave's not here man.
Dave!! 😂😂👍
It's the biggest and best long con ever pulled off and it's still going today. Conceived in a time when the world was a MUCH smaller place regarding things such as population and known lands. People also had a lack of understanding of the natural world all around them. Bear in mind people living in those times thought the sky could fall on their head. All in all a much easier audience to convince of a magical all seeing being. I do find myself perplexed at the people of today with unlimited knowledge about ANYTHING you wish to know at your fingertips still buying into it. I know familial and societal influence at a young age come into play but still I find myself thinking "why?". Maybe I'm missing something?
It's so pervasive across the followers of the 3 mideastern cults that I have to assume it's a genetic weakness that roughly followed the spread of agriculture. Which was introduced with agriculture as humans were able to start detaching themselves from active evolutionary processes and instead adapted to a high carbohydrate diet tending towards monocultures.
If you roughly take their word for it, when they say humans are corrupt this may be actually true. But not all, just that branch.
This also suggests Freud's notion of a death instinct, which makes no biological sense for a healthy species, might actually be pointing to this core corruption.
It's quite striking that this is not nearly as prevalent in Asia, where nothing like book based monotheistic cults exist.
Religious thinking and expression is so painful and convoluted and forced. Parsing and quibbling and mincing and vaguery. Really sketchy and slippery and nebulous and circular and utterly derivative. Stultifying as well. I cannot stand it.
All these discussions remind of the pericycle theory which should prove that the earth is im the centre of the universe. In those days the facts were clearly observed but nevertheless the church tinkered one pericycle after the other just to make the theory superficially work instead of admitting no the earth revolves around the sun. Meanwhile the christian morality is set to be the only measure to prevent us to harm each other. Many philosophers have shown that there is an apriori morality in humans (Freud, Kant to name just two).
All religious people do good deeds or don't do bad deeds because they either want something in return or fear something, whereas an atheist does these things merely because they want to do something good or not do something bad (good = good for society/ bad = bad for society.....before anyone asks how we know what's good or bad)
As a “scientist” a christian scientist for that matter the man has a bad form of confirmation bias. At no moment in this debate he allowed to question his own point of view. And that is what is the issue, a point of view is not science. Morale is not sience. Faith is not sience. Gervais set it best by saying that it is very peculiar that your truth as a believer system is dependent on where you are born. ….
I find it very hard to believe his anecdotal story at 20:27.
I am a student attending a Korean high school. Can I have a written interview?
maybe you can ask an AI to make you a transcript by providing it the link. i think you can also find transcripts in other ways.
“I call christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one immortal blemish on the human race.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
Agreed,but I would say religion as a whole.
@@margaretmcdowell7052Depends on the religion. There are humanist religions that are nothing like Christianity and Islam. Religions that don’t worship any gods.
Quoting the guy who ended up drinking his own urine
Camera work is giving me a headache.
@ 30:34 - Show me that English exercise, because I don't believe you! show me!
Did sound suspect.
Dr. Richard Dawkins after watching so many times of religious people failingly attempting to use science and philosophy to defend their religious claims, it makes me question do religious people even actually care about philosophy and properly applying the scientific method or only using it’s knowledge and discoveries to support their belief systems?
Religious people invented the scientific model during the Golden Islamic Age.
Easy answer. No, they don't.
Richard, don't waste your time. Talk to you cat. The cat may understand you.
I hadn't realised Professor Dawkins had launched a load of merch and I was so hoping to see a t-shirt with my favourite quote from him -
"Science is interesting - and if you don't agree, you can fuck off!"
Superbly done.
Also, 15:11 be afraid. Be very afraid
Theists are f'n scary. Their idea of morality is so messed up, so wrong it's hard to even get them somewhat headed back towards reality. Jeez these indoctrinated people. And they are teaching our children.
38:00 I think the most interesting part of Adrian Hawkes behavior is that he very strongly declares that the Bible is definitely God's revelation but when you ask any details of any stories in the Bible, he instantly goes to "I don't know, it might be". *Why* believe so strongly in the whole book as a whole if you cannot stand behind any of its stories when questioned for details?
@matthewphilip1977 And by what information do you decide which parts to ignore or consider man-made mistakes?
If you can figure that one out correctly, you don't even need the whole Bible in the first place because your moral compass is already good enough!
@matthewphilip1977 At which point it's nothing but working it out as anybody is encountering life? Why pretend that you still have superstitious beliefs that supposedly guide you instead of using your own brain to work stuff out?
@matthewphilip1977 My wording was unclear. I mean that if your argument is that you work it out when you encounter problems in life, I totally agree with that.
However, if you then think that you work it out using superstitious beliefs instead of reasoning using the best available knowedge at hand, I'd call that pretending that God is helping you.
Sure, you can try reading the Bible but you *must* selectively ignore parts of the Bible because the whole text contradicts too much. And if you use your own brain to decide which parts should be ignored / interpreted metaphorically, and think that you end up with good moral decision, then you obviously don't need the Bible to make moral decisions.
@matthewphilip1977 If you are the one making the decisions about which parts of the Bible to throw away, you shouldn't be pretending that your decisions are based on the Bible.
You're the one making all the decisions and you're just using the Bible as a pretended rationale for those decisions.
@matthewphilip1977 "Guided by the Holy Spirit" is just marketing speak for making decisions by yourself but pretending that you're not the one making the decisions.
@ 26:41 - and Noah's ark is factual history?
I was also taught scientific facts incorrectly by teachers whose knowledge of the subject was lacking.
That is not a measure of the state of science at the time.
I once had a teacher (6th Form) tell the class that , amazingly , "ingot" was pronounced "Ingot" despite the fact that it is spelled "ignot" (of course, it isn't spelled "ignot")
I've remember this absurdity for 40 years
Religion is emotional cope. Morals arise from consequences. The consequences aren’t always immediately realized, which is why religion was invented. The problem is that religion was invented by people thousands of years ago with a primitive understanding of the world and long term consequences. All religions contain truthiness to varying degrees but they are fundamentally flawed at their foundations because they aren’t adaptable to new knowledge of nature and long term consequences. The most adaptable religion will survive the longest. Christianity has made a good effort to adapt with its multitudes of denominations but it’s starting to die out.
Morals don’t arise from consequences. That is self evidently false. Atheism seems more likely to be cope. We don’t like someone having authority over us so we just pretend he doesn’t exist. I could make the exact argument about you.
@@jordandthornburgThe more social (bigger the group) a creature is, the more social and more moral AKA favor the team - instead of the self, if the behaver is accountable. It is an adaptation and true for all kinds of creatures. Also the amygdala (fear detection part of the brain) is smaller compare to other species.
I used the word creature, because Darwin wrote, there are really no such thing as species, there are versions of creatures at the moment. It’s genetically true, however I know we can categorize them about for example (at the moment) who can breed with whom.
@@Papagajidomitas you have some typos and it’s hard to understand your comment fully.
@@jordandthornburg thanks! Edited, I’m still learning the language
@@Papagajidomitas ok thanks. What exactly are you arguing? (What language is yours also?)
I would have loved to see a following question (worded better, of course):
Since you agree that part of the Bible shouldn't be followed, how do you know which parts to follow and which parts to ignore has historical content?
And then followed: Since you can make decision without guidance from the Bible, why do you need the Bible in the first place? Wouldn't you be able to pick the good parts from any other human written book, too?
About 6 minutes in, Richard asks him about Noah's Ark - specifically "what's that got to do with a science lesson?" He immediately replies with - and I quote "well, I suppose that depends on your opinion....."
I'm a bit surprised Richard didn't immediately pull him up on such a glaring error - that's ok precisely the point of science - it doesn't depend on your opinion - AT ALL. So really that belied he was on the defensive from the outset. I also found the charm offensive offputting -- the constant fake laugh got embarrassing. I don't know how Richard has the patience to deal with this shit tbh.....
True. On the other hand, anthropology and sociology better describe the “why” for existence of religions better than texts against the hard sciences. Science doesn’t disprove the existence of God, rather the claims of the religions. I am an atheist, yet feel we see the wrong parties to this other debates. Deism is an interesting construct and, elsewhere, I have quoted Newton on the topic.