Richard Dawkins vs Piers Morgan On Religion and Gender | The Full Interview
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- Piers Morgan Uncensored is joined by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to discuss his controversial views on religion, gender identification and much more.
Richard believes that religion is just a vehicle to try and understand things which are too complex for humans to understand. Piers questions how he can say with such confidence that a God doesn't exist, Richard replies by saying that it's possible, just like having "fairies at the bottom of your garden".
Richard then explains that as a biologist who studies evolution, he can say with confidence that when it comes to gender "There are two sexes and that's all there is to it". Richard also suggests that people such as JK Rowling have been bullied on social media for standing up for their opinion which he claims is damaging to society by not having the wider debate on the issue.
Subscribe to stay up-to-date on all Uncensored content.
Follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on:
Twitter: / piersuncensored
Instagram: / piersmorgan. .
Facebook: / piersmorganu. .
TikTok: / piersmorganun. .
Follow Piers Morgan on:
Twitter: / piersmorgan
Instagram: / piersmorgan
Piers Morgan Uncensored is now available on TalkTV, Fox Nation and Sky News Australia!
#piersmorgan #richarddawkins #religion #science #interview #debate #talktv #piersuncensored - Zábava
So i saw Richard Dawkins uncensored now i would like to see him uninterrupted
😂 this comment made my day
@@vivi4140 😂😂👍👍
Ah yesss, why don’t people like this go to all black podcast? That would be amazing
@@TruthSpeaks270 I'm pretty sure I seen professor Dawkins on star talk with Neil Degrass Tyson.
Exactly.
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.😁
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.
"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
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.
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").
A great little stab from Dawkins to Piers there.
"I know I am sentient. I presume you are too"
Nice one!
One of the greatest put downs I’ve ever witnessed.
It's great because its both a diss and a profound statement."I think therefore I am" only applies to the self, you cannot prove that other people are sentiment, so all you can do is pressume they are and live your life.
I wouldn't be too sure judging from some of the things PM said.
@@MetalWolfz I don’t think he meant it at all as a dis. I think he meant it purely from the ‘I think, therefore I am’ perspective. It is a core fundamental of science that we assume others experience reality as we do.
I would assume that’s genuinely his view and it likely may not have been a little stab. It’s just a reference to the problem of solipsism. I hold the same view where I’m pretty confident that I’m sentient and I assume other people are too for reasons of pragmatism and other.
Regarding the topic on death, I am with Professor Dawkins. To be honest this part even shows Piers' low understanding of debating.
Piers Morgan asked Dawkins if it was horrible to think about dead relatives if you don't believe they go to heaven, after Dawkins talked about how before and after you're dead, you don't feel anything. Your nervous system is shut down, once you have rotted away, you are no more. This part of the debate was about literally thinking if a god or greater being existed, and Piers Morgan somehow starts arguing that its more comforting to think about Heaven rather than no afterlife. Its like every question Dawkins answers, Piers Morgan starts to debate about other areas of the topic that doesn't regard his original question. They were supposed to be debating the literal existence of a higher being, not the thoughts people preferred.
As of now, I believe an afterlife does not exist. When your loved ones pass, they do not feel pain after they are deceased. That is not a horrible thing to think about in my opinion, especially if they are well aged and felt pain due to a condition or disease. Deaths are tragic, especially when you lose someone you had a connection to. But the idea of them not thinking or fathoming that they are dead could arguably be more comforting than them being sent to the afterlife, fully aware that they are dead. This isn't to say I despise the idea of an afterlife, but when I look at it from a physical perspective there is basically no evidence of an afterlife existing and most of peoples beliefs of it lay solely on the fact of their desire for comfort and happiness.
I seriously don't understand how people like Piers Morgan, physically believe that the earth and nature was created by a god. The earth existed billions of years before English was invented, before the bible was written, and before humans existed if you look at it from an evolutionary point of view.
I can't believe that Piers Morgan has a following as big as he does, when he can barely hold his arguments in a debate. He was just constantly interrupting and blasting Dawkins with basic questions and then saying he was curious and wants to know. He didn't let Dawkins finish his arguments and he just takes a quick break and begins the next segment on gender.
What is more comforting has no effect on the universe - it doesn't care. Wishes do not change reality, I wished Piers Morgan didn't exist - and the Universe said "tough he does".
The problem here is that humans are thinking creatures. Our bodies exist in the physical world but our minds do not, our thoughts are not made up of physical matter but they do exist to us as individuals. Only you can see and here your own thoughts so to me they do not exist. I think Piers main point was that if you don't know than why tell people that the God theory is completely off the table.
'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 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.
"But i need an alternative" and thats the issue, you dont NEED an alternative, you want one. Your desire drives you to accept an unevidenced answer, rather than accept the simple truth "we dont know".
Incorrect. I think you mean unprovable, not unevidenced, because there is lots of evidence for God.
@@andrewdouglas1963 Then it would be more productive if you presented that evidence instead of just proclaiming it.
@@TonyEnglandUK
Evidence for God, and I define God as an intelligent, powerful, eternal uncaused first cause.
1. Something existing rather than nothing is best explained by God.
2. The finely tuned cosmological constants. Atheist cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle said in relation to the fine tuned constants "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature".
Please note he said "a common sense interpretation ".
Agnostic American astronomer and planetary physicist Robert Jastrow said if there is a begining of our universe there must be a creator.
3. Life from non life. Life as we know it is only possible with specified information.
The only place we know specified information comes from is intelligence.
Also no one has any idea whatsoever how life could arise naturally from non life.
4. Jesus was the only person who has ever lived who performed real miracles and rose from the dead. This is only possible with supernatural power and jesus spoke of God as his father.
@@andrewdouglas1963 Well your comment isn't showing except in my notifications but I'll respond to it here.
1) _"Something existing rather than nothing is best explained by God."_
Something existing rather than nothing is best explained by Martians.
2) Appeal to authority. Einstein called the Bible _"Primitive legend"_ and Christianity (and all other 10,000 religions) _"childish superstition".
3) Abiogenesis is an unproven theory but there have been many advances in research and to somehow claim that it is impossible equates to your god being the real answer is simply fulfilling the God of the Gaps argument.
4) _"Jesus was the only person who has ever lived who performed real miracles and rose from the dead."_
This is simply incorrect. History is littered with gods who allegedly rose from the dead and Buddhism will correct your claim that only Jesus performed miracles.
@@andrewdouglas1963 And remember, the claims of Jesus are simply claims in a book you read, your evidence for their occurrence goes no further than you read it in a book.
What is missing here that many people simply don’t seek truth. They seek comfort.
"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 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 .
That wasn't an interview. I wonder what the ratio of time spent with Richard talking was compared to Piers talking.
We are still too rational, too this-worldly, and too individualistic to submit to naked tyranny. We are still being protected by the fading remnants of our Enlightenment heritage.
-Leonard Peikoff-1986
I've been keeping am eye on that and I'd say Dawkins gets more time but he also speaks slower. It seems 50 50. The horrible fake laughter of Morgan is so irksome...
One of the greatest put downs I’ve ever witnessed is in this interview. Intellectually the gap between the 2 is astonishing but it’s when they discuss Sentience. Dawkins says I know I have Sentience, I presume you have it too. A breathtaking insult delivered in the nicest way. But don’t underestimate the enormity of the put down. Dawkins = genius
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.
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
The guy is asking what was before the Universe, I would've got down to his level and asked him what was before God? He would've probably answered 'God is Eternal" and would've told him "so the Universe may be, but we don't know, we are both speculating based on nothing"
"...man must be guided by reason "
-Ayn Rand-
100%
The big bang directly disproves the eternal nature of the universe. Furthermore, it would be far more reasonable for a simple entity to exist prematurely.
I love Professor Dawkins. Good interview! Just wish Piers wouldn’t interrupt him so much
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
Cause Pierce is a god believer, therefore he brushes things aside that he doesn't believe in. When he laughed sarcastically it was because he had nothing to back it up with, so he laughed it off. Makes him unintelligent at that time. This is when you know that knowledge is power.
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.
I barely lasted 11 minutes. What incredibly stupid questions.
"Well you dont have the answers for everything so therefore there has to be a greater mind behind it!"
😂😂🤮🤮
@37:45 Richard Dawkins, i became an Applied Physicist, because of you. You will forever be one of my biggest inspirations in life, you opened my eyes to the Universe and Science.
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
Morgan's high and mighty tone exposes his great opinion of himself. Dawkins is a gem.
Thank you for your life’s work Richard Dawkins.
There are only a few men that speak 100% perfectly. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Charlie Munger to name a few.
Douglas Murray
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.
“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'.
This was like watching an adult be questioned by a child. Dawkins has infinite patience in dealing with those of limited cognitive ability.
" Man's essential characteristic is his rational faculty. "
-Ayn Rand-
i was raised a catholic in Los Angeles in the 60's. learning about Darwin in high school and other religious beliefs, I minored in Philosophy in colkege and also took classes on world religion. I left Catholicism at age 16, and decided following a life of Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism was preferabme. I am agnostic as I think its not possible to prove that a god does or doesn't exist.
I was agnostic, and then I realized that the question itself of whether god existing or not, was just a way to deny the reality: god does no exist. If something superior and “unknown” it’s out there it doesn’t even mean that it’s god… Are we gods to smaller species like insects ? No!
Well, God does exist, He showed Himself in Jesus, in Jesus He showed us that He is truly Love. He created time and space for us, He is outside of that, no sense in talking about time and space when we think about Him. That's the reason scientists are also at a loss when they talk about "time" or "no space".
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.
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.
the interviewer does not need any interviewees. I've seen several interviews with Piers Morgan. I came to the conclusion, as everyone will, that he likes listening to himself more than listening to those he interviews.
Richard Dawkins can be quite crude, with his wordings, but all he says is honest, and he doesn't sugar coat things. He's a man that gives what you see, and experience with him, nor makes excuses for things. He's a good example of a proper gentleman of the modern world
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 🤣
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!
39:10 (music that moves me to tears) "When I hear him say your name in his sleep, a I can't help myself from cryin', Jolene".
"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-
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
A 3 year old has less ego than Dawkins.
Reading this comment before watching the vid made it 10000x funnier
@@axlenuts5418I'd certainly hope so, he's 3.
Science can't explain it, but neither can religion. Saying that God was here for ever doesn't explain it either.
I think it was Mark twain who said, I was dead for billions of years but never suffer the smallest inconvenience
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.
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.
Why PM does not allow RD to finish?
Because those are the precise moments PM's brain was going "huh?"
I just realized that Richard Dawkins is actually an agnostic. He’s admitting it’s possible his exists - he just doubts it…albeit severely doubts it, but admits it is possible. This is actually quite amazing, if you think about it that’s the best take to have. Why not believe a higher power exists potentially?
@JCor-Nov I actually agree with you…and most atheists would agree with you too. And honestly, after seeing Dawkins recently announce he’s a ‘cultural Christian,’ seeing a clip like this makes me think a lot of his work might be a grift.
No, That's not what he says at all. He is logical enough to admit that if we do not know then you cannot simply state that something does not exist. Being that he says " The same as fairies at the bottom of your garden " show's you just how much he believes it may be possible there is a god. That is a lot more than simply doubt.
@@grimble9 then he’s not an atheist, he’s an agnostic. I hate to break it to you, but atheists, simply put, do not believe god exists, period. Agnostics think it’s possible that god exists but it’s clouded in doubt. Most people do not draw the distinction between the two words but they do have slightly different meanings. Christopher Hitchens for example would not say it’s possible god exists. Because when we use the word god, depending on the context, it’s as it relates to one of the monotheistic gods (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). Atheism very specifically rejects the notion of each and every one of those gods existing; agnosticism also doesn’t believe - but it leaves a shred of possibility for it to be true.
The fact that this individual is so articulate at 82 and looks 15-20 years younger just blows my mind
“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
Not everyone sees a tunnel and a bright light at the time of clinical death. It is heavily dependent on culture and belief. I died and was resuscitated in 2019, and nowhere in there did I see a tunnel and bright white light, nor did I have a sensation of being outside my body. What I did experience was a sensation of being wrapped in love, and being able to be forgiving, loving, and deeply caring almost unconditionally. Since coming back to life, though the feeling of being loved has faded, being able forgive, love, and care about almost anyone who touches my life in any way, whether positively or negatively has remained. Since I was raised by atheist parents and have always been an atheist myself, I find it hard to assign that to a specific deity. It's just something that is there, and eases the way during death, even for those of who have no family left to love us, and have no friends either.
Hearing Richard Dawkins say that there are only two genders is disappointing. He as a biologist knows better, or at least should. I was born with a karyotype of 42XX/42XY. As a result, I have no external or internal genitalia, and I have no gonads. I don't have a clue what sexual attraction is. I am neither drawn to males or females, though I physically fear males more since they have physically attacked me in the past and have even sodomized me. I fear females from a psychosocial perspective because they seem able to cut deep with their language when they want to. Being a person who doesn't seek dominance and cannot successfully fight back, I tend to be the person who gets picked on. With my birth certificate not listing a gender, and saying in the comments that my gender was not determinable at birth, I had a horrible time getting important documents. I was completely unable to get a driver's license. If ever someone did love me and want to marry me (which is unlikely), we would probably be unable to get a wedding certificate. I would like to ask Richard Dawkins what he considers me to be? Since I don't have male body parts, I'm not a male. Since I don't have female body parts, I'm not a woman. I can only be categorized as neither, and that is by definition either a third gender or more accurately, a lack of gender. I am rare, but that shouldn't mean that I don't count, and that we can safely ignore people like me in making rules and laws. With respect Richard Dawkins (because I do respect you, and find your views fascinating, and usually true, how would you classify me? Male, Female, or something else? There is a word for what I am, and I'm guessing you know what that word is. Unfortunately the word is a name of a monster, and maybe I am. I don't know anyone who wants to be a monster, and I certainly don't want to be, but if we are to use at as a term of art, then so be it. But where does that fit in a binary world? "Pick one" isn't a solution, since then I would be playing at being a male, or playing at being a female. I am literally non-binary because the facts of my existence falls outside the binary paradigm. Must I spend the few years remaining to me in this limbo where no matter what, I'm not accepted? I've lived 76 years this way, and since my kidneys are failing, I probably don't have a whole lot of years left. I can probably manage three or four more. I would still like to know where you and others think I fit in. Will you, or for that matter anyone, tell me definitively, and and tell me why?
BTW, I don't support stripping Dawkins of his award. I support the free exchange of ideas, and wish we would stop punishing people for their views, but rather challenge them with facts, and let the facts speak. I also support trans people. I understand the psychiatry and psychology of it, and without a solid working knowledge of it, it is impossible to understand the phenomenon. I think that's where a lot of people struggle. They are coming at it strictly from a biological point of view, whereas it is largely a matter of the psyche. An as of present, immutable part of the psyche.
Richard Dawkins is a fascinating thinker, and I wish that Piers Morgan could shut it long enough to let the man explain his point of view without interruption. I feel as if we heard more meaningless nonsense from him, rather than getting to hear the substance of Dawkins' thoughts and ideas. Then again, it's the instant sound bite that most people are looking for since most people don't have the attention span to follow something which takes more than a few seconds to work through. Still, I wish I could hear Dawkins flesh out some of his thoughts and ideas uninterrupted. I may not agree with him on all things, but he does make my synapses light up, and that's something I enjoy.
One day sweet person you will know exactly what gender you are. When Jehovah God creates all things new. We are living in unprecedented times , all foretold in the Bible, very soon God will step in, remove the wicked , all will be given a chance of life in the New World, right here on earth. All imperfectios, will be gone, and you will be the person you were neabt to be and live an amazing fulfiling life as God originallyintended for his creation. . I wish you be part of it. 🙏xx
Einstein said that science and religion meet at the same place - awe.
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?
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.
I have personally met Richard Dawkins at Michigan State University in MI, USA, during one of his workshops. He signed my first edition of GD. I asked him if he could dedicate his autograph, but the line was too crowded.
"A bill is a bill, no matter of $3 or $100."
When your calculator gets broken every hard multiplying is "I don't know".
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
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.
@@user-on2vm5my9w "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.
@@user-on2vm5my9w
He's thinking.
Remember that
That's because he can't believe Dawkins doesn't believe in his god lol and he is upset
One of the crappiest things you can do is take things the wrong way, on purpose..
😶☮️🌏
Piers Morgan's pressured speech and constant interruptions made the interview quite choppy, which was disappointing because I wanted to hear more from Richard Dawkins and gain more insight into his mind.
The contrast in intelligence between Richard and Piers is just so enormous.
Not enormous, intergalactic!!
Yes, Piers is much smarter!
@@abdellahcodes - 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.
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.
The title of this video should be "Piers Morgan Rudely Interrupts Another Guest 100 times in 46mins"
Now that i know Richard Dawkins thinks you are a fool. I came back to watch it again. So enjoyable now!
That was really nice to see Dawkins mention Christopher Hitchens.
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.
Bravo. Great man. I just found a copy of his book about seeing the Wonders in Nature. A Wonderful boo!
I don’t know why I thought this video would be different. Piers Morgan loves the sound of his voice, how annoying and unprofessional having someone for an interview and not let them answer one question without interruption.
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).
"Nothing" in the simplest sense of a lack of everything, probably doesn't even exist. The Universe may be eternal despite the big bang.
Nobody has seen the wind and yet we say there is a wind; becaue we feal it! Those Who Seek God Feal and Hear From Him!
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 👌🏼
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 😊
@@cmdlet98 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.
I could listen to Richard Dawkins all day. What a classically modern wonder we have the Priviledge to live simultaneously with.
Dawkins immediately give up on debating him in just 5 minutes.
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..
🤣🤣🤣
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 😂
As a Christian I dont agree with RICHARD BUT I like him a lot , In fact he is very polite and respectful. He would make a better Christian than a lot I know
"The consequence of the epistemology of religion is the politics of tyranny."
-Leonard Peikoff-1986
Watching Piers and Dawkins debate, is like watching a dog trying to communicate with Albert Einstein...
Imagine a world where every human being is capable to express and have a dialogue like Richard.
As long as Muslims and Jews live it will be never!
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.
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
@@Fury851
islam is more rational than Dawkins will ever be....
@@Logia1978 it's a rational way to hell yes
There’s an irony about someone saying they think the current scientific understanding of the origins of life which has been forged by a great cadre of scientists over many centuries is ridiculous, while simultaneously believing man was created from dirt and woman from his rib bone.
Please give Dawkins a chance to compete his thoughts! !
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.
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
I'm a Catholic but I really like Richard, love a good debate. I actually really enjoyed his conversation with Piers. Re: Nationalism, I feel Regardless of his beliefs how could this ever be seen as a bad thing? Each nation should not be watered down into nothing. We are our people ffs! Regardless of this I wish him good health and longevity.
If you wanted to count the number of times Piers interrupts Dawkins, you'd need a computer. This wasn't an interview. It was an interrogation.
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.
.
Are you sure it wasn’t Richard Dawkins, you were listening to?
Me two😂👍
Did you want to kill yourself 30 seconds in like all of us
For God's sake Piers (no pun intended), let the man answer fully when asked a question. It's infuriating when you interrupt half way though his responce. 👍
I sometimes agree with Piers but he must have learned clever debating techniques over the years in media where quick repot is advantageous, not allowing listeners to fully consider the previous comment. In academia that doesn’t normally happen.
@@blancaroca8786 that may be the case. But if your asking a question, have the decency to listen to the answer in full. Wether you agree with it or not. By asking a question your inviting that person's opinion, and to cut them off short is just bloody rude in my book. Especially when the person you are conversing with has alot to potentially offer your discussion.
Yes yes! That’s exactly what I was saying. I don’t like the way news and media put entertainment and shock factors above rational patient debate. And that then infects politics.
@@blancaroca8786 "Religion means orienting one’s existence around faith, God, and a life of service - and correspondingly downgrading or condemning four key elements: reason, nature, the self, and man."
-Leonard Peikoff-1986
Hitchens: "You give me the awful impression of someone who hasn’t read any of the arguments against your position ever". I MEAN how on earth does Piers get to be TELEVISED, posing questions a 12 year old theist asks in their infancy of intellectual pursuit. LET ALONE toward a renowned Evolutionary Biologist. Truly staggering.
I love Richard Dawkins & have done for many years. His way of thinking is truly becoming less & less prominent in us as sentient beings, one day sadly there will be no one left like him - and the world will be a lot worse off for it.
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
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.
'Near death' experiences are exactly that, NEAR death, not brain death. Every person that has had near death experiences were only CLINICALLY dead. Their hearts stopped for a while and then they were resuscitated. But they were not BRAIN dead. There has never been a human being who was pronounced BRAIN dead and came back to life to tell us what death was.
I love, love, love Richard Dawkins. Peirce Morgan is an amazing interviewer. This is a fantastic conversation. I wish could have gone on a for a few more hours.
I met R. Dawkins in St Petersburg, FL. He is very kind and generous. He signed and gave one of his books to each of my daughters who were preteens still. Very gentle person.
Would PM do the same?
hope ur kids dont read those books and be atheists😂
That’s awesome! I live in St Pete. Where did he speak? I’d love to meet him and get him to sign one of my favorite books!
727 - I can't wait to get back
Mercury in Pisces
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.
Pierce’s thought process is so wild. Dawkins explanation is so simple yet it still goes over his head. Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean you just make up an idea to explain something.
There's nothing complex about believing in God. It amazes me that someone as smart as Richard believes nothing created everything.
Because some people rely on evidence, moreover scientific evidence, and guess what? Yes, they are as smart as the ones who stands up for religious beliefs.
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.
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 🤦
😂
😂