Krishnan’s own personal beliefs are so evidently charging his pedantic, repetitive and damn right smarmy questioning. And the cheek to attack Dawkin’s middle-classness and privilege when and he, himself is an Oxford grad and his dad a former consultant radiologist. And Krishnan only gets triggered when it’s “his team” in question. Completely reaffirming Richard’s points and highlighting the ridiculous tribalism of *ALL* religions that we need to evolve from. Advocating only truth, wanting to liberate all from the shackles of antiquated religion established by elitist *MEN*. Dawkin’s you’re a hero.
“Krishnans own personal beliefs” “The cheek to attack Dawkins” Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Despite this Dawkins constantly appeals to scientific authority and focuses on the extreme minority to justify his own metaphysical presuppositions and attacks on moderate religious expression. Equally, the worship of Dawkins in this comments section is very ironic and as cringe worthy as a right wing happy clappy homophobic evangelical. What planet have you been living on ? Dawkins and his associates (The four Horsemen) promote the idea that eugenics would work on humans, torture is necessary and moderate religious believers are more dangerous than extremists. All of these very harmful ideologies are cleverly hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority by very intelligent self publicists and scientific popularisers. The fact is that history and the Nazis demonstrates that eugenics is unbelievably immoral and inhuman, torture is never justified and labelling moderate religious believers with fallacies of false equivalence chips away at human rights and leads to the justification of prejudice against moderate religious expression inevitably leading to the acceptance of mass genocide. No religion ever created a weapon with the potential to destroy our children and grandchildren’s future at the press of a button (Nuclear bombs). For this kind of monstrosity you need secular twentieth century technology and physicists/scientists who believe that morality is arbitrary. “Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights.” (Johnathan sacks) “The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.” (J.R. Tolkien 1945). “How do like them apples” (Good Will Hunting).
“Krishnans own beliefs are so evidently charging his pedantic repetitive and damn right smarmy questioning” The irony is that the only beliefs here that are pedantic and smarmy are Dawkins beliefs regarding the philosophy of religion. Dawkins is famous for privileged pretentious smarminess and Krishnans just doing his Job which is to challenge Dawkins new quasi religion, the church of scientism that is cleverly hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority. Dawkins got let off easy in this interview as he gets Einstein completely wrong and uses sleight of hand about the history of wars. He’s a great self publicist and a clever scientific populariser but a very poor historian and philosopher. For example Dawkins claims that Einstein was an atheist and yet Einstein himself states in the same source that Dawkins quotes from... "I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist” (Einstein). “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (Einstein). Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13. Einstein also really disliked people mis quoting and cherry picking his thoughts and ideas out of context to promote their own quasi religion..... “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views” (Einstein). In this quote Einstein is well aware that there are extremists on both sides of the debate who misquoted and cherry picked his quotes and thoughts to promote their own personal ideology and agenda which is why he stated... “then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein) Dawkins clearly comes into this category of fact deniers and history revisionists. For example Dawkins is not actually a professor of history but boldly asserts in this interview that all wars were caused by religion. This is a myth perpetuated by militant atheists that has been debunked but is still used by alt-right extremists to justify their bigotry and hatred against other cultures. The fact is that the professors of history who compiled the (Encyclopaedia of Wars), a secular history book by the way, would beg to differ with Dawkins arrogant assertion that religion causes all wars. The (Encyclopaedia of wars) makes it clear that it’s very difficult to categorise wars as religious or otherwise as the causes of war are often political and are very complex. However, the fact is that when you refer to the index in the (Encyclopaedia of Wars) out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts mentioned only 121, approximately 6% are listed in the index as having religion as their primary cause. It speaks volumes regarding the power of propaganda and myths about religious wars when (The Encyclopaedia of Wars), a secular history book by the way, in the index clearly lists only 121 religious wars which works out at approximately 6% of 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts as being caused for religious reasons. The other 94% were related to secular, political or economic reasons. These are historical facts recorded in a secular history book!. I know it’s hard to stomach if you want certainty as a militant atheist but in the words of Dawkins.... “Facts ignore ideology” (Richard Dawkins) This is beyond Ironic!! ❤️
@@Katw76 “Poor interview skills” I think you are right to a degree as Krishnan really let Dawkins off the hook here! For example Dawkins misrepresents Einstein’s complex approach to religious expression by stating Einstein was an atheist because Einstein clearly was not an atheist.... Einstein talks about God, spirit, mind, intangibility, the inexplicable and how scientists should be humble when it comes to the question of reality, existence, our responsibility towards our fellow man and the concept of God. Dawkins claims in this interview that Einstein just used the language of God as a form of poetry to describe scientific observations and yet Einstein clearly states when asked about belief in God.... “Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.” (Albert Einstein ). Why does Dawkins conveniently ignore these facts and statements from Einstein and just straw mans the whole question and claims certainty when it comes to the question of what we actually mean by God by attacking the low hanging fruit in the philosophy of religion. ? It’s so transparent and he is clearly no Einstein. It speaks volumes that Dawkins makes approximately 10 million a year selling certainty to atheists. Equally, whilst Einstein was ambiguous about his belief in a personal God and religious traditions he clearly stated that he believed in the God of Spinoza (1). (1) Calaprice, Alice (2010). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 325. So what what does Spinoza actually say about God and Jesus. ? In fact, Spinoza is clear in his Theologico-Political Treatise that the Wisdom of God took on human nature in Christ and the Way of salvation resulted from the Wisdom of God. The Wisdom of God took upon itself human nature in the infinite and eternal. When Christ uses audible words to express his mind, Christ is “the mouth of God”. Further, in his letter 75 to Oldenburg, Spinoza references the book of John to illustrate his meaning when he says the Wisdom of God was most manifest in Christ. Actually Spinoza was explaining what he meant in saying “God” manifested himself most of in Christ. In letter 75, Spinoza refers to John 1:14 “The Word became flesh”, saying that this says what he was trying to say “more effectually”. When God manifested himself most in Christ, the Word became flesh or the Word of God took upon itself human nature. Dawkins mentions Spinoza and notes that Einstein approved of Spinoza's idea of God. However, this mention of Spinoza is ironic, because Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy simply does not fit Dawkins’ narrow definition of “pantheism.” Spinoza identified God with nature, but he also held that nature has mental as well as physical properties. According to Spinoza, the natural universe itself is not merely a physical system, but also is intrinsically spiritual. Spinoza’s God is impersonal but Spinozas Christ clearly is not impersonal and is a conduit to that ultimate substance which is impersonal due to human limitations, but Spinozas God has mental and spiritual features, making it a bit more like a “someone” than a mere “something.” After reading Spinoza’s Ethics, it would be silly to equate Spinoza’s pantheism to “sexed-up atheism”-which is Dawkins’ characterization of pantheism. Indeed, Spinoza himself denied that he would equate God to nature if nature were thought of as strictly material. Spinoza’s God is impersonal and natural, but is a real supreme being, not merely a sexed-up collection of lumps of matter. Despite the sharp differences between Spinoza’s view of God and the standard Christian views, the Christian writer Novalis had good reason to label Spinoza “the god-intoxicated man” So it’s hardly surprising that Einstein stated..... "Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force ... is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious” (Einstein)
It is, currently, a sorry state of affairs when great minds (such as Mr. Dawkins) must continually try to repeat, as you wrote> the "obvious". I'm now in my late 50s....I realized in Grade school how ridiculous a belief in "religion" is...Please note the word "belief". Science displays facts. "Belief" does not. Full Stop.
2nd thoughts: Since we are on UA-cam currently? I'd invite you to (well there are several) but ONE Channel in particular: "Cool Hard Logic". Perhaps you've encountered this site previously? IF not? Well....a great trough of information and wit.
@@user-YuHaoHuang Hi there! Of course I can! In his first book, The selfish gene, Dawkins writes literally that he's found the truth: all living beings are merely machines meant to pass on genes, and in the case of humans memes are involved too. This "truth" though is HIS INTERPRETATION of evolution. So he's telling us a lie when he says that he has found the truth. It's a fact though that genes and memes are passed on. And by the way, his books (in each of which he tells the same story over and over again) don't qualify as memes but thoughts ABOUT memes (and genes). Living beings are machines? Machines are men-made and don't evolve from Nature. Living beings do. Why shouldn't politicians care about what's true, as he seems to imply in the comment above? Another lie. Regarding his almost militant attacks on religion (mainly on the three big monotheistic ones, judaism, christianity and the Islam). Can he speak for ALL of our religious friends? I'm sure he can't. So he's generalizing by saying that they are ignorant or dumb or whatever. I know many scientists who are religious. Are they ignorant? I don't think so. So who's HE to judge? The sciences are, just as religion, a human enterprise. And when he says that the existence of god(s) can't be proved, well then the same can be said about the sciences. Can he prove the sciences exist? NO! In any case, I hope you have a blessed day!
Marco Barbieri “Can he prove the sciences exist” I’m not sure what you are referring to... science is a method used to figure out truth. We know it works because I am able to communicate with you now (for example)
@@davidbanner6230 Ironically the interviewers bogged stance on defending Islam, allowed Dawkins to present his point of view very clearly. Dawkins was in fine form.
How was the Top C4 Journalist fustrated ??? He asked genuine questions and he got proper answers .Maybe he was surprised that an educated person gave proper answers not like some that advoid awkard questions ,are educated but tell lies.Mankind does not need a god to have moral values that is evident in the everyday life of wild animals especialy animals that live in packs and social groups.We are just another animal that has a more developed brain .
@@r.b.l.5841 Hi, Dawkins had a London Bus campaign, billboards read "There probably is no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life." Spends his life trying to get people to disavow God.
@@trustinjesus1119 And seems to enjoy it! maybe in a generation or two we will finally be free of the oppression of religion, and live happily evermore.
Yes. The "scientific method" says that Nature is the final arbiter of what is true in the universe. What is true is not always good. "The laws of nature were not designed to make physicists happy."
This is a very sound and profound advice, but I don't think that Richard Dawkins is qualified to teach in this regard, given his contempt for God, the spiritual realm and the existence of a human soul and spirit. As an analogy, this kind of approach to life could tell you all about the externalities of a woman but never understand anything of her internal nature, so would inevitably lead you into a shallow and short changed experience with her. Richard has a wonderful passion for nature but is cutting himself from knowing our Creator. If I really wanted to know the Mona Lisa I'd deepen my understanding by communicating with the painter rather than just looking at the painting. Beneath the passion of men like Dawkins and Attenborough, there is a sad sense of hollowness and futility.
@@tamaking7104 I'd read that theists are narcissists. Reading your paragraph I feel like I've found my evidence that theists are narcissists of the highest order.
@@whatname4613 A level of confidence and cheeky humour I may have, but if you knew me and my life work or asked those around me you would find your impression of my character to be way off mark. Christendom includes all personality types including narcissists. The bible teaches that the proud find it hardest to acknowledge or submit to God, but the inclusion of all personality types proves God's mercy and love extends to all, including questioning agnostics (even atheists) and those who don't want to throw away their God given brains. Don't let the banality of average Joe religious man put you off your own potential if you embraced the Creator in your thinking and your life.
Nicky T Dawkins is an idiot and behind the times with dated science.The Book of Genesis has been proven to be correct by modern scientists and physicists and cosmologists.and God created the universe and us.
It's always interesting to hear from low IQ theists (is "low IQ theist" redundant?). They always sound like people who would rape and murder unless they feared a bully in the sky.
@@saxglend9439 Thank you, your proof? Or was that an empty, meaningless assertion that makes you sound cool? We didm't learn to fly, or underatsnd germ theory, or split the atom looking 'inside." Do you disagree?
Do you love his absurd beliefs? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I would not defile reality by pretending to have some logic, or agreement, with what Spinoza said, is.....but there is one thing that I am certain about and that is, that having certainty of the existence of a god is an impossibility... I suppose it could be argued that this is necessity to allow charlatans to ply their distortions to make people contemplate reality, maybe, but hard proof cannot be, only understanding within one’s self, faith can be allowable And stop altering posts....it's unbecoming, even of Atheists.....
I have been listening to him speak since i was an early teen. i’m 20 now and must say he has contributed so much to my knowledge on a world scale. We must appreciate Richard Dawkins and share his words to others.
athanasios As an older person I was delighted to read what you wrote. If I'd had RD when I was your age I would have been spared a lot of intellectual and emotional grief.
Richard Dawkins is the best atheist I hv ever seen.His eloquence, his wit, his thoroughly researched arguments, his honesty etc unsurpassed by other eminent atheist scientists
Dear Dicky, do you think it possible that with all the information that passes between planets, between stars, between galaxes, between black holes, between Universes. Such as light of different wavelengths, radio of different frequencies, and other electromagnetic phenomena, meteors, as well as the curiosity of creatures such as our sending probes and imaginations? Could be a consiouness beyond our understanding..... Yet I understand it.....Why? My question is a valid one, if the above could be possible on its own standing? If not, why not, when we have no problem attributing the passing of information between brain cells as being responsible for a consciousness that can capture whole of life images? Please note, that what I get freely, I give freely, with no expectations of the lurks and perks that are prerequisites of what you have to say…?
@@shubhankursuvansh3279 The term "militant atheist" is used as a pejorative put down. My response is something like "is that like a militant non-astrologist?"
Loads of respect for Dawkins, such a privilege to listen to his knowledge and compelling reasoning. A much needed advocacy of science, enlightenment and humanistic values
@ When Darwinist. evangelist, atheist Dawkins is founding the credibility of a Darwinian evolutionary creation on the premise that the human eye and other human organs would only be presenting an illusion of being designed, programmed and engineered, since admitting to their being designed would imply recognizing the need for an intelligent designer, the darwinist evangelist is clearly talking nonsense. "What Dawkins does not seem to understand is that vision is a system. The human eye is a sophisticated camera with its nerves and specialized cells - the hardware part. How do you explain the evolution of vision which is a system? How do you explain by evolution, a shower of photons from an external image going into the eye, being converted to electrical signals which are transported into the brain and which after processing gives you the sensation of sight of the image - the software part? The human body has so many systems and many of them are interconnected to ensure its survival. How can systems with hardware and software working together evolve?" David Samuel
ronylev-ari : I've seen nothing to indicate your conclusions....and I see there is some movement to expose the charletism that abounds on the internet....which must be a step in the right direction.... They've taken advatage for much too long...?
My admiration for Richard Dawkins is growing. What a wonderful patience he has with stubborn interviewers who asks silly questions that they repeat over and over again.
@ Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins is claiming that the human eye. the human brain and other human organs could have been created by a dumb and blind watchmaker, and that they would only be presenting an illusion of design based on the hallucinations an defrocked priest had in the Galapagos, and because of some atheist evolutionists that were able to draw farfetched evolutionary scenarios depicting the miracles. Darwinist evangelist Dawkins lectures an illusion of design, do not even present an illusion of making sense.
Carol Spencer yep, literally the most unfunny joke except for the little amount of irony u can get if u interpret “in quite good shape” as Richard Dawkins accent of British and how he speaks
VAL VLOG At least you have the intellect to understand. Can’t quite believe some half-wits in this thread thought this was an actual joke! He’s an English journalist who hasn’t got a decent command of the English language.
I thought the interviewer was good overall, although not as good as all his questions were so easily answered by Dawkins without much pause for thought. At one point, it almost felt as though the interviewer was purposely feeding Dawkins such questions, as if he were on his side, but for the sake of creating a more engaging program played it as an opponent. But there were some moments that the interviewer seemed to be overtly agitated, such as on the topic of Islam being the most dangerous religion at present. Regardless, Dawkins was sharp and I loved that smirking answer to "what do you think happens when we die": "Well, either we are cremated or we are buried." 31:48
@@r4h4al Yeah. I stopped watching around 27min. It is like talking to any conspiracy theorist. You say I have poles, or research or experiments, and he says I don't believe you. Ok bye bye, and never again. I have got life to live, unfortunaly with people like you
No he doesn't. Dawkins does nothing but belittles everyone, that is how he wins a debate. He is not professional, he is not knowledgeable, he is a purely ignorant human being who cannot see the truth. God exists, nothing can exist without a creator. If he had any real intelligence he would admit God exists and he is a bigot. Yet his great ego will not let him.
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes. Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
He didnt blow his own trumpet at all. You get that impression because deep down you know he's right and need some kind of bs rebuttal @@davidbanner6230
If you like professor Dawkins decency and eloquence you should check out astrophysicist Dr Hugh Ross. You will never have met a more highly educated, humble decent and eloquent individual. He is a walking talking encyclopedia.
“Decency and eloquence” According to Richard Dawkins.... “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins). I think the bereaved relatives of the people who died under the Nazis eugenics policy would beg to differ that this statement was “decent” or “eloquent”. A prominent biologist responded to this indecent and unscientific statement with.... “As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown. Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert). Sam Harris one of Dawkins associates boasts that.... “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.” (Sam Harris). I wonder why he’s one of the few ? Is it because he’s more enlightened than the rest of us or is it because torture is unbelievably evil and has never been justified by appeals to emotion as there is no clear distinction on where to draw the lines Dawkins associate Harris argues that there are scientific “neurological" grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is logically correct and that we “ought” to be torturing people for collateral reasons. We all know which group of people he has in mind and if you seriously believe that moderate religious believers are as dangerous as extremists where do you draw the line ??? Where he gets his “ought” from is beyond most normal people as you can’t get an “ought” from an “is” (David Hume) no matter how much you pretend you can. Also are women and children exempt from Dawkins associates state sponsored torture program if they had information that was required by the state.? “Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette). If you’re going to defend Dawkins don’t forget to defend eugenics and his associates Sam Harris and Daniel Dennettes the ( Four horsemen’s) belief in torture including the dangerous belief that moderate religious believers are more dangerous than extremists. Also please remember that these guys such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris believe moderate religious believers are guilty by association, guilty by association ?. The irony is that Dawkins has the gall to criticise religious expression and yet he makes a six figure sum approx 10 million pounds a year selling certainty to militant atheists.
The evidence suggests that New Atheists such as the (Four Horsemens) ability to hide their views behind the cloak of scientific authority rises them to a level of credibility that also serves as indirect links to far right ideology. A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American non-profit which tracks extremist activity, stated that some alt-righters found Sam Harris' work "blended easily into that of more overtly racist writers". The report argues that "Under the guise of scientific objectivity, Harris has presented deeply flawed data to perpetuate fear of Muslims and to argue that black people are genetically inferior to whites." It notes some of Harris' less responsible uses of his podcast, including the Charles Murray incident, and quotes one alt-righter who moved from Harris' content to that of the overtly racist blogger Paul Kersey. The report also notes the importance of the UA-cam algorithm in "coaxing viewers into the deeper depths of the alt-right". It cites a Wall Street Journal investigation which found that UA-cam promotes content which keeps users on the site for longer periods of time, "and those videos often happen to be among the more extreme content on the site." Social media algorithms have a tendency to recommend more extreme versions of the material users are already engaged with. Videos featuring Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins can be only a few recommendations away from overt white supremacists, and UA-cam will automatically direct users to them.
“Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” (G.K. Chesterton) The remnants of New Atheism have survived into an even more polarised political climate, in which readers, listeners, and viewers are more easily radicalised than ever before, simply through media infrastructure. This environment, coupled with the New Atheists' own gradually more extreme statements and their connections to even more dubious personalities, has made them one of the more acceptable mainstream pathways to the Alt-right. This is how we got to Richard Dawkins tweeting about eugenics. But more concerning than the confused, reactionary, and tone-deaf comments of the New Atheists is the wider movement to which they provide both fuel and legitimacy.
One woman who had a child with a major genetic deformity responded angrily at Dawkins. Emphasizing the strength of her feelings, she tweeted back: “I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma Dawkins’s personal fortune is over ten million dollars from his efforts to murder God, and yet he complains about the comparatively small change Intelligent Design organizations manage to raise We appreciate Jerry Bergman’s detailed research into the harm caused by Darwinism. Look at this case: a man, Richard Dawkins, who makes millions on a view that is patently illogical at its base. Dawkins uses morality to preach that there is no absolute moral standard. He uses the ‘Truth’ to preach that truth is an illusion caused by material forces. He uses passion to preach that emotions are neural artifacts of natural and sexual selection. If he really believed what he says he believes, he would just try to have as many kids as possible, not caring what they believe, as long as they also have lots of kids. Instead, he borrows from theistic assumptions about truth, goodness and beauty to destroy those values. In the process, he leaves a trail of hate, bigotry and totalitarianism that could motivate another genocide
Oh puh-lease I’m a non-believer and think that Richard Dawkins and his handful of edgy, still virgin fanboys are a bunch of bigots and a complete joke. So what does that tell you? Not every atheist thinks the way you do so maybe just maybe you’re just as bad as the evangelical Christians you loathe so much?
Used to be a fan of Richard, I even sent him fan mail, and he replied, nice of him. But these days think differently. An Athiest does not believe in God? But yet one could still exist, we do not now know either way. Some say Quantum Mechanics looks like it might be set up to make the simulation of a world like this in a computer easier. What is wrong with saying, "there is not enough evidence, either way, enjoy the mystery". Rather than taking a side and attacking the "other" (aka. polarization).
tim schutte how typical for a theist to completely undermine someone’s truth without any understanding. Go read your stupid fairytale instead of insulting others.
He is ignorant of God's existence. It is shallow for the intellect to think this is the only world and nobody has ever been able to explained existence because of the fact that every human created has a soul.
@@frostmourne4598 Agree with you 100 percent ,....I find Richard Dawkins to be an extremely shallow thinker . He is not an intellectual heavyweight by any stretch . However he likes to think he is .
@@-Accola Oh , I see, I guess then you believe that everyone that holds a university degree is infallible, do you? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, that's cool. However, questioning the so-called experts does not mean our feelings are hurt. It simply means we may not agree with all that they say. I'm sure you can understand that. Thanks for your reply.
@King Kush 1. yes. 2. neither can you and we don't claim we do. The correct answer is: i don't know. 3. the fact that 2 things share a quality has nothing to do with wether they share another. A ball is round, the sun is round, my ball isn't a nuclear reactor.
@@AndresGarcia-sd2xv The fact that two things share a quality has nothing to do with whether they share another. The whole universe is concrete. Abstractions are to be found no where in the universe. So how did man become capable of language which is purely a form of abstraction. Where did we get our ability of abstract reasoning from if it is to be found no where in the universe? And if there are any other living beings in the universe capable of abstract reasoning where did they get that reasoning from?. It is not that two things share one thing and do not necessarily share another. It is rather that we have a quality that is not derived from the nature of anything that exists in the material world.
@King Kush You are one smart cookie! You cannot explain consciousness, and you don't have the intellectual ability to understand DNA, genetics and evolution. So, to make yourself feel comfortable and less out of your depth, you assert that these things can only be explained by God. Of course, this God isn't Thor or Bacchus, or Cassiopeia or Perseus, it's the Judeo-Christian God, whose tradition you just happen to have been raised within. I'm sure if you were born in 1630's Bangladesh, or in 7th century BC Peru you would still come to the conclusion that the God of the bible did it. Wouldn't you. Look up the God of the Gaps fallacy - we used to believe in supernatural and godly causes for all natural phenomena, like floods, lightning, the variety of creatures in the world, infectious diseases,, the weather, eclipses, infant deaths, disablities etc. but we fully understand them these days, so we don't. As we don't yet understand conciousness, religious aplogists are clinging on to this unexplainability as one last refuge of godly, supernatural nonsense. Look at the facts: one by one, as we have learned more about the world, the phenomena that we couldn't explain by science have diminished in number, and keep doing so. You are flogging a dead horse, god of the gaps is over, just face reality, get rid of the religious arrogance, and realise there is still so much to learn and be amazed at in the natural world. God belongs in times past. For the godly out there, I would like to ask a question: If God loves us all, why didn't he include a section in the bible about the germ theory of disease, along with the life saving advice that we should wash our hands before eating? Just imagine how much heartache and anguish he would have prevented with a little advice to us, the children he loves.
Love seeing how Richard Dawkins disarms the rather confrontational style of interviewing by Krishnan! Dawkin's comment on teaching children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think if spot on.
@LoisSharbel What makes you think Richard Dawkins has the monopoly on what constitues how to to think? @LoisSharbel 9 mo 20 Reply David Banner @LoisSharbel What makes you think Richard Dawkins has the monopoly on what constitues how to to think?
Krishnan seems to have the habit that other interviewers have in that if something doesn't go his way he changes the subject and again like many others he listens to a response but his vocal reaction is often one of talking about something else! He wasn't very open minded and you could see his own religious background swaying him too often.
@@Omnicient. he´s also a bit dumbm which is often even a perk when talking tp random celebreties, but surely not really helpful when talking to people who think clearly for a living like dakins does
@Sinjin Smythe as an evolutionary biologist myself you are right these things all impact on the theory of evolution but the fact stays the same. Your point is irrelevant. Its like me saying garden birds in the UK have 1 eigth longer beaks then 50 years ago due to evolution assosciated with half of britains homes having bird feeders..... so what is your point obviously that will impact evolution the theory as we are allways adding to it but it has no bearing on the fact (changes in a genetic pool over time)
@Sinjin Smythe for one consciousness is poorly understood but it can be argued many species are conscious not only humans such as apes orcas cephlapods blah blah and secondly what does panspermia have to do with the rise of consciousness other then the initial gene pool of these single celled organisms origionating on another planet?
I find the interviewer rather disappointing. He questions Dawkins on whether he really believed in religion when a child, almost expressing amazement. Would he have expressed equal surprise to discover that a 5-year old believes in Santa, I wonder? It's just common sense but Dawkins is always extremely patient. This interviewer seemed to be struggling....
i agree, come on... can't we just dive into salient points, food for thought, even some arguments and take away messages. Someone didn't do his homework. Or perhaps too much in denial to explore this topic thoroughly, just can't move on..
He's a bit too much on a basic level, Dawkins has answered a lot of these questions before, so it becomes sort of an introduction to what Dawkins thinks of this and that.
I have to say I was equally amazed when I first found out that Dawkins believed in a god when he was younger. I just assumed, like me, the belief in a god for Dawkins went out of the window at about age four along with other adult fantasies for children such as Father Christmas.
I wonder if he was too being patient, introducing Hawkins in an easy to digest kind of way to a wide, potentially new audience. He asks the poignant and provocative questions without turning the conversation into too much of a conflict. Hawkins 'truth' is fairly exposed, in the way Hawkins would want, for good or bad.
@Rakscha Lol. Not getting angry and talking intelligently about a subject he knows a lot about. Must be a psychopath. The interviewer is getting angry because we've been brainwashed to think that you're not allowed to criticize religions, especially if it's not your own.
So am I .. you know how I got my McLaren P1???? So I was going out on a road, I blinked and then instantly saw a McLaren P1. Guys you won't believe it ..it got there in an instant. No one was around and I questioned myself who made it? who placed it? Then it occurred to me that it all happened on its own..... AMAZING!!!!!! I was so happy. Now I own a McLaren P1 that was built by no one. Just AMAZING!!!!
secret secret i agree but just as advice, you yourself should aim to be the most reasonable man you've seen. Unless you're a female, then your statement cant be changed
I very much appreciate him and read most of his popular books. But I think there is something irrational about hisc belligerence against religions. One can also accept their existence, as a typical whim of humanity, and not be so much interested in fghting them. Probably something brutal had beeen made to him in early childhood.
You can tell this interviewer works with Cathy Newman; eg. "So what you are saying is.... [insert strawman argument]". You watch enough of these religion vs science interviews and you can almost predict the set of questions coming. Thanks you for all your life's research, writing, educating, and public speaking Mr. Dawkins!! Yay critical thinking!
Exactly. Straw men are all they have to work with. Ben Shapiro’s “takedown” of atheism only worked within his false definition of atheism. They all do that because there are no good arguments.
Me and the old man have been following Dawkins for years! I'm so glad his still writing. He looks so very healthy! Live long Richard the world needs your intellect!
@@ownedaway we all live forever.depends where the Almighty sees fit to place us .paradise or the grave for eternity .choose wisely .mr dorkin is a friend to nobody.he offers No hope that's no sign of an intellect!!
@@gezmondean293 my god said you won't live forever. And it said any person that believes others peoples lies, like you live forever, are misguided and pray to false prophets. Sorry Gez.
For people like Dawkins and myself who have grown up in religion, although I was also religious and probably a bit too religious, it honestly feels like we are in a world where everyone is brainwashed into doing something that sounds crazy but it seemed normal and if you were to go against it you were seen as pure evil. I finally broke free of my religion after I figured out how condescending and contradictory it was, and I really hope the rest of the world wakes up. Richard Dawkins is truly a great example of where we need our minds.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod watch the documentary Is Genisis History? on you tube. It shows the evidence of the global flood at the grand canyon. A real eye opener for anyone looking
@@thebonnevilleof5933 Funny the biggest egos l have seen has been in the most religious people who are threatened if their beliefs are questioned and their egos give them the illusion they are better than others.
@@davidferrier5355 Krishnan isn't having an argument with Dawkins down at the pub. As a journalist doing his job, he is creating a piece which will hopefully be of some value to anyone watching this on television. To do this means covering more than one opinion base and asking questions different kinds of viewers want the answers to. The purpose of this conversation is not for one man to argue with Dawkins for his own satisfaction, Krishnan is actually at work doing his job. And he is very good at what he does because he is able to detach his own views from his interviews whilst still being a firm interrogator for his interviewees. Not every time two people disagree has someone done something wrong!
@@warsboerse5866 I agree that good journalism requires probing into a matter in such a way as to stimulate thought and agruement. I dont see the need to ask the same question so many times that the person being interviewed continously must say "as I said before".
I was actually just looking for comments about how well Krishnan is doing his job. I think that for someone who almost certainly doesn't have as much scientific knowledge as Mr. Dawkins does, he does a great job of bringing out the important points of Dawkin's arguments.
@Rakscha If you are objective and analyse the facts and arguments rationally this emotional triggering should be of no consequence at all. Indeed this talk is all about leaving unproven emotional conditioning out of the equation.
@Rakscha Having your beliefs challenged is a very healty way of living. It forces you to look upon yourself and question the reasonings as to what you do, and why you do it. Being ''triggered'' has somehow become an offensive affaire. But in all actuality, your sense of self is being challenged which is why people get annoyed. A persons faith can be just as identifing as a nationality can. Debate is crucial to the delevopment of the human species and society. And the biggest challenge of all, is maintaining an open mind to others peoples views and force yourself to look at them through their eyes. :)
It's quite disturbing how scared the interviewer was about even discussing Islam. It's sad to say but this is the result of people swinging too far left. We must slowly reintroduce these kinds of discussions back into the public sphere so that it becomes socially acceptable again.
Over 200 million girls are put through FGM and he had the nerve so say "that's all small minority" Yet again proving how religion tries to UNSEE the oppression done to women in the name of religion. The inteviewer is ignorant. Dawkins is a pioneer.
Instead of Dawkins, love Darwin, who ruled out evolution rather than the origin of species' lives. This idol of evolutionists, Ch. Darwin, said this clearly and intelligibly: "There is no change of species to another - we cannot prove a single change of species." (Darwin, Francis, Ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, p. 210) Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, says: "If the existence of a complex organ could be proved that could not be created by numerous subsequent small modifications, my theory would collapse." And thanks to science and the super microscope today we know that a cell is a very complex entity. Darwin is right again, his theory has collapsed. Creating a cell, a complex machine, more complex than the entire transportation system in New York is impossible at one point. Comrade Dawkins's books are just fairy tales or science fiction suitable for Steve Spielberg or George Lucas films. Dawkins' books have no other value.
Instead of Dawkins, love Darwin, who ruled out evolution rather than the origin of species' lives. This idol of evolutionists, Ch. Darwin, said this clearly and intelligibly: "There is no change of species to another - we cannot prove a single change of species." (Darwin, Francis, Ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, p. 210) Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, says: "If the existence of a complex organ could be proved that could not be created by numerous subsequent small modifications, my theory would collapse." And thanks to science and the super microscope today we know that a cell is a very complex entity. Darwin is right again, his theory has collapsed. Creating a cell, a complex machine, more complex than the entire transportation system in New York is impossible at one point. Comrade Dawkins's books are just fairy tales or science fiction suitable for Steve Spielberg or George Lucas films. Dawkins' books have no other value.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod Atheists are people who do not believe in God, but at the same time hate God. Therefore, they lose their minds and believe in all evolutionary nonsense and stupidity.
Ran into a woman who became Muslim out in Vegas after she was a scientologist. What I got out of it was she is easily convinced of things, basically weak minded. A lot of Americans are this way. They cant think on their own and told what to believe. No one thinks for them selves and gets easily convinced to believe something with no facts to back up what they believe.
How wonderful it is to listen to an intelligent, kind, scientifically literate and honest interviewee at a time when the world seems to become completely insane.
Dawkins scientifically literate ? He taught people to hate religion for 40 years. He taught people that the scientific method was performed by using Metaphysics : QUOTE - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38] Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates: (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist; (b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist; (c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group - UNQUOTE. Like during TV production where the filming company are under no legal obligation to make a program as they described they have - neither is Dawkins et al during all these 'debates'. Thats why they used all degrees of freedom and cheated via metaphysics instead of using 'science' like they've promised their followers all this time. Its not really questionable so long as the real info is available because matters then go into the category of 'Entertainment'.I have posted the reality check showing they would not know what scientifically obtained 'TRUTH' was even if it was inserted in them - they use METAPHYSICS. Many other open examples exist showing the contrary to the doublespeak thus perfectly "OK' entertainment nature of Mr Dawkins silly games. I'm sorry these psychic type entertainers are such greedy grubby disgusting money grabbing sophists who've no sense when it comes to rational science.
@@cameroncameron2826 He taught people to think for themselves! He never advocated hatred for anything. And I don't see where in your quote it shows that Dawkings states tha t science is performed by metaphysics. What are you talking about?
@Muhammad T I realize that you are awed by the universe we live in, but you haven't being paying attention. I am awed as well, I just don't ascribe to a god as the creator of this universe. If you lose your anchoring to the teachings you have been taught to blindly accept, just for a few moments, you might understand that "god" is a human creation that fills the role of explaining what we don't understand. Over time his role has been diminishing as we explained what the sky is what the planets are, that the earth is not in the center of the heavens etc. There is not much left anymore so god has been diminished at the very least. You are awed because you just cannot comprehend how all this could possibly exist on its own, but you need something, someone to play that role. Ultimately we don't really know exactly how all this came to be for sure, but the idea that it came to be because of god, is man-made and therefore CANNOT be true. Follow human history and you will see that belief in god changed over time and over geography. Every isolated culture created their own version. That in itself is enough to discredit the idea of god. Which of all these gods would you pick and what makes that one better than the other, objectively? Yes I know; YOUR god is THE one. That's what we all say and look what that idea did to us! (Study history). As we developed and slowly figured all this out, we realized as a species that the idea of god is not THE answer but just one of them on the way to finding out what it is. At this point in our understanding we know god is our own invention. The answer is something else. If you took the time to understand how inconsequential we are in the universe, you will realize that just like a baby is self absorbed until his/her mind develops to accept that there is more to the world than itself, we as a species have been self-absorbed with ourselves, thinking some superior being is all-consumed with our existence more than anything else. Many of us realize that this just cannot be the case. The rest of you are left behind with the old beliefs and hold the bag of ancient history. if you can prove the existence of this deity we would be pleased to accept your incontrovertible truth, but until you do so, you are left to accept our version of the world or continue to live in your fantasy world. As for fine-tuning, it seems you have missed all the debates like this one, arguing to the contrary. There is no fine-tuning. We are just lucky to have survived all the mayhem that occurs everywhere around us in the universe. If you live on an isolated Pacific island right now enjoying the wonders your god has provided for you, you might not be aware of the coronavirus spreading around the world sickening millions and killing many. You think everything is fine. That is, until the virus hits your island and kills your friends, relatives and maybe even you. Your serenity will have been shattered. Our Pacific island is our planet. Don't be fooled, there was mayhem before that we survived and there is more on the way! We need to prepare or we might all die. God just won't be there to save us as he has never been there before.. Denying the truth does not make your wold-view real. I hope I haven't bored you with facts that are not as glittery as milk, honey and a constant supply of virgins to satisfy your urges, but there you have it. (Do you really believe this stuff???) Have a good life!
@Muhammad T Really??? If he can't be comprehended then what are you doing trying to explain the incomprehensible to me?? Then you proceeded to contradict yourself by instructing me about having sufficient evidence that you then say we cannot understand!! Which is it? Choose one!! Your constant contradiction of your own comments within the same sentence shows that you cannot produce a logical sentence or thought. Then you go revisionist. Do you realize that anyone can write a book like the Koran or the Bible or any book of fiction and then make up more stories to explain all the newer stuff because these "revelations" could not have foreseen events that occurred later in time. What unambiguous evidence is so clear to you? You talk about it but do not provide one scintilla of it. I realize how difficult it must be, to be objective but this is a requirement to understand the real world you live in and not the fantasy you prefer. To answer your question yet again, the idea of god, fulfills the role of answering questions we could not understand at the time we understood very little of our environment. Again, you need to read up on history that is not written by a cleric. You might learn and understand rather than discard the idea of god being humanly generated without a second thought. Thinking clearly is important and what you obviously do not do in your replies. If you can possibly stretch your mind, you will understand that all these explanations you provided here have no application to reality. And so you attempt, without succeeding, to answer what I wrote about the coronavirus for example. Because you cannot respond directly, you answer it with another question. A question in reply to a question is an escape from the first question. Then you proceed to call my comments childish and immature without explaining why. I can call your replies stupid just as easily but I try to answer them without epithets. It's understandable though as there is nowhere else you can go. Your main failing, however, is that you begin with the assumption that the Koran is a "holy" book -let alone discarding all the other 'holy" books. To be objective, you must set this idea to the side and PROVE that it is. Your words, I am sorry, are nonsense: When you say that god made us in the most sophisticated manner, what does that mean? Relative to what is the word "most". How do u explain the appendix the tail, wisdom teeth etc. These are remnants of our evolution but of course , you cannot go there as it's too much of a hot button for you. Not too long ago, what you accept as normal in our world, would have been considered blasphemous and you would have been stoned to death. Religion keeps getting backed into a corner as more and more knowledge is revealed, disproving rather than conveniently enveloping the new information. You need to be objective. I realize that you cannot budge from your position as you have too much at stake to lose if you were to accept a position incompatible with your beliefs, but that is your problem to deal with while the rest of the world evolves and moves on. If you were not so well invested, you'd be able to transit to a more realistic view of the world, like so many others have done more or less successfully. Believing in a fiction is very hard to find yourself in, so I expect you might respond with more of your strange perspectives and accuse me of your inconsistencies but that does not change the facts and you know this very well or you would't be here. You just can't admit to it. Be good and have a good life.
@Muhammad T NO!! I do not Believe in it! I accept the proof the theory of evolution provides that presents adaptation and survival of the fittest as primary factors that have produced the world we know today. There is no part of evolution that requires one to believe in it because it provides evidence. It does not require blind faith, belief and concurrent suspension of mental processes to accept what is proposed. If you've gone to college, you might understand the ideas I have described. One either accepts a theory or rejects it in favor of some other explanation, in this case, of our existence. Do you believe in god? If so prove his/ her existence and I suppose from your name your god is Allah. Do you believe because of fear, because of promise after death or because you were brainwashed from your culture that its this choice or you will at least be banished? Also, why is your god any better than any other, including the Olympic gods who at least had some relationship with the humans living below? Please note that you goad me with 5 words to respond, and I do, providing actual text and content as I have already done before in much greater quantity and quality. Since you ignored my previous writings, I will not repeat the exercise if you reply with another such collection of nearly incoherent letters. I am not here for your entertainment as much as you might think so.
@@2010sunshine Obviously the latter.... He is most likely a Hindu by birth, brought up in a Christian environment and god fearing by culture. Not smart enough.
Eversince the first I heard about him and Christopher hitchens when I was like 17 years old back in 2007-8 and my mind just got bigger wiser and more scientific for sure so thank you professor
@@robyn964 if he is teaching people how to think, then he would be cool with people questioning evolution. I find evolution hard to believe- actually, so I question it. he would not allow questioning it...for him it is a stringent fact, not worth questioning, to me he is then teaching his truth, and not allowing questioning. also, one can question spiritual things, and religions, for him questioning a religion is not cool...they are all false~! this to me is a closed mind, not an open one...but go ahead...explain more your point of view.]
@Cyborg Where does 'metaphysically neutral' plus the logic of believing only that which has good evidence take you? What evidence do you have for anything metaphysical apart from some claim of personal revelation that isn't better understood by indoctrination, wishful thinking and perhaps misperception. What is the end result of your belief in the metaphysical? Is it one of the major currently existing organized religions? What is it about quantum physics that you think is well understood enough to debunk materialism and/or support the metaphysical, especially since you claim science is "merely descriptive and unable to claim to reveal anything about the nature of reality"? What can be argued to be "outdated" about atheism? What is replacing it? What is new that has left atheism or western enlightenment behind? Such terms as "fascist" and "right-wing" are political terms. How do you apply them to Dawkins' atheism for example? My experience with right wingers is that they attribute atheism to the left wing. Atheism has nothing to say about political or economic systems. You seem to have fallen for the tactic of slandering an opposing philosophical position by attaching as many unrelated pejorative terms as possible to it. "Jesuit" !?, "pathetic, dishonest, deceptive, contemptible"? Where in the academic literature of the history and philosophy of science do you find support for the claim that western enlightenment was the result of atheism rather than science? Even religious apologists brag about the origins of science amongst the religious and their institutions. Do you separate science from western enlightenment?
This is the same douche who popped the same idiotic level questions to Robert Downey Jr. Ironman did away with the guy. This is not the first time he fails doing interviews.
Ive been binge watching ndt,dawkins,hitchens,nye for a month now and ive never been this convinced in my life that there is really no god.im so glad i found these brilliant people.the world needs more of them
Yep, me too. I've been an atheist for many years but people like Hitchens and Dawkins put my thoughts into a much more eloquent structure. I love their clear and concise thinking.
By the first half of the twentieth century people used to debate over the existence of God. But by the end of the twentieth century this is no longer considered a debatable topic. Now in academic circles the existence of God is held to be a fact. Particularly after the Big Bang theory, this matter has been almost settled. Now we are right, scientifically, in saying that the choice for us is not between the universe with God and the universe without God. Rather the real choice is between the universe with God or no universe at all. Since, from the scientific viewpoint, we are not in a position to opt for no universe at all, we are compelled to choose the universe with God. As regards the scientific evidence on the existence of God, perhaps the first notable account was that prepared by Sir James Jeans, titled The Mysterious Universe, published in 1930. Many important books have subsequently come out on this topic, which describe how all the fields of the science of the universe point to the existence of God. Here I would like to refer to a very valuable book on this subject, consisting of forty articles written by qualified western scientists. It is titled The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, and is edited by John Clover Monsma.1
Well I mean, it's about challenging the views of the one you interview, without being overly combative. I think he succeeded in that. Do you think he was too soft or too hard, or maybe you think he just asked the wrong questions?
Boomerrage32 He seems, perhaps, intimidated by his subject. At one point he asks Richard the same question and he answers by saying that he literally just answered it
Krishnan was fair and challenged Dawkins in a fair manner. Dawkins replied well, it was a fine conversation and enjoyable to listen to. I don't see why there always has to be someone who dropped the ball or a winner and loser duelistic view.
I have been an atheist my entire seventy years. No one ever tried to shove religion down my throat so it simply never occurred to me until teachers tried on the praying thing and I thought that was utterly daft.
Like billions of others religion was shoved down mine at school. The whole town and country were possessed by it. I often care for schizophrenics and I always seen parallels. Even as a child I watched these grownup teachers teaching delusions as though they were real.
@@davidbanner6230 Not for long, it only lasted a couple of my early primary years and it wasn't a lesson, just thank you for meals etc. It soon ended by the time I was about six or seven.
Well said David, a very balanced out look on life! Here is some thing that may interest you! Mount St Helen’s erupted on the 18th May 1980 The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helen's was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left. Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption-a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 has leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. How can you know that? It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helen's lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986. The dating test In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out. The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA-a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helen's and was only 10 years old for good reasons. What do we see? First, that they are wrong in their results. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Different samples of the same rock also disagreed with each other. From the same rock!!! It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth’s history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helen's is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there-we know! “How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown ages in the invented geologic column?” This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. All dating methods used by evolutionists are subject to contamination and limitation because we live in an open system Radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks-those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill.” Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock” cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which we can ask the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’
@@edgarlawson1251 You should enjoy these facts if you have any integrity. Flying over the Nazca Pampas in Peru 2001 Dr Dennis Swift had enlisted the ace pilot Eduardo Herron to fly him over the Nazca Lines. After viewing all the well-known geoglyphs on the Nazca Pampa we headed up north to Rio Palpa Nazca which had not being fully investigated for geoglyphs. We went on an observation mission to locate new geoglyphs that resembled dinosaurs. We had just exited a canyon when Eduardo pointed, “There they are the dinosaur geoglyphs. There was a faint outline of two dinosaur-like creatures spanning some 100 meters each. As we flew over the crest of a mountain Dr Dennis Swift said unto Eduardo, what is the figure below? He replied where Senior Dennis? There below the crest of the hill to your right. Eduardo said Dennis you have made a new discovery. We shall call it the Dennis dinosaur. The figure was at least 80 meters long with a huge dinosaurian head and the beginning of a bulging body. The shadow of the plane in comparison to the figure made it look like a tiny insect in a large dark crevice. Eduardo was so ecstatic about the discovery, that it defied description. It was there right in your face, undeniable evidence that the indigenous Indians carved these on the Nazca Pampa. The Head Peruvian archaeologist, Alberto Orbabo Jacinto in charge of the Pampa and Nazca Lines, agreed that they definitely looked like dinosaurs. Alberto was interviewed by a National Geographic crew the next day. He concluded we have a new theory: the “Dennis Theory”-that dinosaurs were drawn on the desert by the ancient Nazcans. Alberto believed himself that the Nazcans must have seen dinosaurs, because the figures on the pampa were animals that the ancient Nazcans were familiar with. We now have incredible evidence that supports the ICA Stones and the Moche vases with dinosaurs depicted upon them. When you have evidence like this dating back a thousand years or two you realise that dating methods for the age of the rocks and dinosaurs are inaccurate and that all dating methods no matter how new they are, or how accurate evolutionary scientists claim they are is non-sense. All dating methods are subject to contamination and therefore limitation because we live in an open system, not a controlled laboratory condition. For example: regarding lead-uranium. You can have two rocks taken out of the ground in reasonable proximity to each other; one will have more lead in it than the other, so they will date differently to each other age-wise. Uranium decays into lead but there can be other elements in the rocks that have produced lead without leaving any evidence that they were actually there in the first place. So we have different components of Parent/Daughter elements. Potassium- Argon is also affected by the environment every time it rains. Products can be washed in and out of radioactive rocks. Remember I do these posts for the sheep not for the goats as they will always head-butt, no matter what is put before them which contradicts Darwinian Evolutionary Religion.
I have immense respect for Mr. Dawkins. He's one of the most brilliant mind of our time. His words are simple and yet so powerful. Seek knowledge through science. That's the only way to bring enlightenment, promoting reason and ultimately the happiness we are looking for.
Totally agree Rogerio. Science seeks answers and truth, it may not always get it right, but at least it tries to explain our world and other worlds. Religion on the other hand claims to have the answers. As science moves forward, religion will have to move backwards
@@markjohnson8537 and yet science was started by religious people wanting to find out more about how God created it all and how it all works. Indeed God commands you to learn about it. Science is hundreds of years old. Atheism is a VERY recent thing. So I find that viewpoint really puzzling. The pretence that it was always and is always a fight of religion vs science. The oldest universities in the world are dedicated to science in the name of God. So I don't know what planet your mind is living on
@@marioluigi9599 Religion is a man-made thing, invented to try and explain the world around us. There are many Gods created by man. God didn't create man, man created many Gods. Every believer will dismiss all the other Gods, I just choose to dismiss them all. The bible tells us that man was created from Adam and Eve, I just decide to go with the evolution theory from science gained from all over the world. Read some history, religion has been the biggest cause of wars, backward thinking, women being looked upon as 2nd class citizens and division of people all over the world. If people spent less time with their heads in religious texts and more time with science, history, geography books, the world would be a better place.
I hope Krishnan is just trying to play devils advocate with some of these questions. Otherwise he comes across as very naive, presenting talking points that Dawkins, Hitch, Harris etc. debunked years ago
Baa baa, the sheeps follow the herding of their shepards. Its astonishing the naivety of athiest to take the preaching of their preachers without intellectually challenging their scientifically clad opinions!
The more he tries to undermine Dawkins, the more the integrity of truth shines. Trying to deny reality because it does not suit your agenda is a sign of limited intellectual capacity and honesty. You rock Richard
Hes a con artiste entertainer that uses metaphysics. QUOTE - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38] Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates: (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist; (b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist; (c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group - UNQUOTE. No sign of 'the scientific method' here is there ? (a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist '' Ok just thinking up stuff same as the theists vs scientific method where dawkins et al informed us they are doing BOTH.. Clearly Dawkins et al have no intention of fulfilling the 'scientific method' half of the promises otherwise they'd stay away from the METAPHYSICS. It just turns out that new atheism doing science is just lies really them - RIGHT ? Would take too much time Would cost too much money The followers are just unimportant bottom feeders (who cares what we tell them) Lying via metaphysics is cheap easy = no brainer = Tell Lies.
- A lot of people would say you would like to get rid of things like feelings. - Murthy - I’m fond of feelings where art, music and poetry is concerned. But that’s not about what’s factually true. We can only determine what’s true by factual evidence, - Dawkins - Why do you think that would make the world a better place? - Murthy - Because facts are so wonderful and scientific facts are so beautiful and elegant.. - Dawkins Seems logical.
Dawkins, Hitch, Dillahunty, Harris, Dennett, and so many others have been so instrumental in my deconversion so many years ago. My whole life changed when I became an atheist. I cared about the truth, about humanism and became a much better, empathetic person. As Hitch said, “Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way”. So true.
💚💚💚 I deconversed 15 years ago, when I was 22. I discovered Dawkins and Hitchens only a year ago and it is balsam for the soul and mind. The others you mention are still on my list to learn from.
@@honingbijtje83 It must really change once life when discovering that the ridiculous concept that all of the organs in our body, like our eyeballs, heart, etc.,and all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, boas, anacondas, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of design. Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins BS does not even present an illusion of making sense.
Fully Agree. Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Dan Denet, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger and other pioneering New Atheists have helped me to be proud to be an atheist, instead of feeling that I should hide it. I have been an atheist all my life, certainly since the age of about 4. but only after reading the New Atheist literature have I realized what a great thing it is to care about scientific evidence-based truth.
@@russmarkham2197 Carnegie also felt great freedom when converting to the modern creation myth of Darwinism and its atheistic values. It helped him to quickly lose all of his moral inhibitions , "I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear," Carnegie wrote.Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. 'All is well since all grows better' became my motto, my true source of comfort." Carnegie also spent a fortune in order to have the new modern pagan creation myth promoted as a science. His conversion was reminiscent to that of the Apostle Paul to Christianity upon meeting Christ on the road to Damascus.
@robertblakeman9978 : He didn't have the courage of his convictions when Cardinal George Pell cought him out in a lie.....he clamped up and said nothing?
@@davidbanner6230 Lol! You think a convicted pedophile like Pell has a moral high ground? I’ve watched all those debates. If anyone was lying it certainly was not Dawkins.
@@davidbanner6230 'convictions,.. makes me think of the word, 'convicted', as in 'convicted criminal'. Pell got lucky, though, and was freed from jail. In December 2018, a jury found him guilty of sexually abusing two 13-year-old choir boys in private rooms of St Patrick's Cathedral in the mid-90s - when the cleric was Archbishop of Melbourne. The convictions included one count of sexual penetration and four counts of committing indecent acts.. I'm pretty sure it isn't the first time that dude got into this kind of trouble.. oh well, I really shouldn't be attacking his character, I just find it interesting that so many religious people seem to get caught up in these horrendous crimes, such as, you know, 'child rape'. My initial plan was to look into the claim you made about Dawkins being caught in a lie, but as soon as I looked up Pell, I learned about the man's troubles with the law. Seems to happen a lot when I research religious leaders and preachers. A while back I started researching Kent Hovind with the goal of compiling a list of his documented lies concerning biology and other areas of science. It's kind of funny that the same thing happened then; I learned about his prison sentence before I learned about anything else :-) something about tax evasion and *spousal abuse* I've personally known some Christian men in my life who beat their wives on a regular basis, because, you know, men are superior to women and women are to be submissive to their husbands 👍 What's up with all these well-known preachers, priests, evangelists, ministers, etc., always getting into trouble with the law? I mean, sure, all different kinds of people get into trouble, but it sure does seem to *happen a lot* amongst the supposedly devoutly religious.
RD is one of the figures who recently changed my views on life. It's impossible for any sincere truth seeker to listen to him and not be convinced. His foundation is firm and he's looking from the right perspective.
I don't know if I am a truth seeker, but I try to be. I'm not convinced. I like his talks and find them relaxing, but he lost a lot of credibility in my sight and his old arguments, although amusing, are quite debunked.
Deus Vult you indeed took some serious steps back. Instead of accepting the world for what it is and fighting the good fight for your fellow man, you decided to wish it away and worship not just a fairytale but a genocidal slavery-endorsing narcissist. Get off your knees. Jesus is not only beneath us in almost every way, he’s also extremely uneducated.
This was a great conversation. So enjoyable and realistic. Richard Dawkins speaks eloquently. It's a pleasure to hear his talks. Brilliant communicator. Honest but not insulting. 👍👍😊
gda295 Dawkins is a idiot imo,Don,t fall for the Doctrine of Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot who killed 200m choose christians Newton,Darwin.LaMaitre,Stephen Hawkins
@@Jack-fs2im That's the dumbest fuckin' comment I think I've ever seen on here. How could so much be wrong with a short paragraph? ALL of it. You're not worth the time for explanation, but you need to educate yourself my man and you don't get "education" from religious sites and zealots.
When someone says "i will pray for you", My response is "I will think for you"! Cant think where that is from, probably Hitch, but blimey it shuts them up!
@@noodlenoggin5854 Praying is often time useless but that's not always the case. However, the offering to pray for someone is a good gesture from one's good heart, but sometimes the message is misunderstood by both sides and ineffective.
@@Ninialzh Since is getting more "why" answer every day. I in general would start from a child's perspective and discount reduction ad absurdum by knowing that patience persists.
Nini "these people think they can get all the answers from science" Who are "these people"? Not scientists. Agreed. Science cannot disprove god. Nor can it disprove unicorns, but where is the evidence for unicorns? Please take this oath: "I will not waste people's time with straw man arguments". We'll all be better for it.
@@Ninialzh So you know better do you Nini? He's stating the ironic fact that religious people are constantly arguing the fact that Science can't explain everything yet religion has never had any substantial evidence to suggest any truth in its radical claims whatsoever. Also another quote "You can't disprove god, just like you can't disprove Thor, the flying teapot or the spaghetti monster." Just because you can't disprove something doesn't make it true. For instance I can't disprove unicorns. That's not substancial evidence for it's existence is it?
Listening to this man (Dawkins) is like pleasant music to my ears. Everything he said in this video is very easy to agree with immediately, and I'm not just saying that; it actually makes inherent sense on its own. It's similar to listening to Hitchens or Harris. Every argument they make is so beautiful that it just makes complete sense. I think we're fortunate to know these people, who can make good point after good point seemingly with great ease. Bravo!
Yet , I don’t understand why the interviewer , in many occasions , asked the same question (but in different wording), expecting a different answer. Richards answers where clearer than water and easy to understand. Perhaps the intervier is representing religious people ? Maybe?
"Teaching people how to think, not teaching people what to think" might be one of the best guidelines to reform education I've ever heard. Dawkin is a fantastic thinker, but while advocating for science and facts I wish he'd emphasize a bit more what science can do (always find better explanations) and what it can't (ultimately proofing something). If we criticize everything, ideas nearer to the truth have a higher probability to survive. If we don't critique any idea enough and become 'scientific believers' we will stop to develop, too. I always cringe a bit when he uses the words 'facts' or 'proofs'.
@@davidbanner6230 You keep using these somewhat unnecessary attacks on Professor Dawkins as a person rather than combatting his beliefs with those of your own. You're obviously a religious person, so present your argument against what the Professor believes instead of sleights on his character. I'm not a religious person, mainly because I discovered the Bible literally stole parts of its content from Mesopotamian poetry written centuries earlier (and changed the names of the characters in that poetry). The poem has a man being born from a rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers (biblically changed to fruit) and being forced to cover their nakedness and banished from gardens unable to return. Since stealing is a mortal sin in the Bible and the Bible itself stole such stories, I refuse to believe it can be true.
Richard Dawkins is a hero! The interviewer seems very lost and having a difficult time comprehending the discussion.. I hope this conversation registers with him!
I can see clearly that Krishnan has been emotionally triggered by Richard Dawkin’s atheism. He’s trying his very best but it’s obvious unfortunately. Religion has robbed people of the ability of thinking critically and without bias which means that these types of conversations are always difficult. When will religious people realise that they should have evidence for their religious/God belief?
This a perfect example of how someone questions a person and they give you logical , reason and truthful answers but you refuse to listen because you don't like the answers
Are you really a stupid or super sane to regard such outstanding questions as pretty dumb questions? I think these questions were beautifully manifested and even Dawkins had had great difficulty answering them especially when he was asked do you really think the origin of all things is a simple thing even if you have little a bit of sanity you would be flabbergasted how to answer such a question. The origin of anything was never a simple thing and I believe humanity can never answer this question how the matter was created in the first place and how life started on its own without manually starting by someone. Its an extremely profound dimension.
@@syedhaniraza Yeah I'm with you, I thought this was a great interview and the interviewer did a great job at asking the right questions and trying to understand Dawkins.
Darren Hurworth Dawkins is an idiot please don,t fall for the Doctrine if Hitler,Stalin.Mao.Pol Pot who killed 200m.Go with Christians.Newton,Darwin,LaMaitre.Stephen Hawkins and many more
Thats what I did and one day I had an encounter with the supernatural. I immediately realized Jesus is real and that he is the one true God and king of Earth and Heaven.
people don't like their world view challenged. doesn't mean they can dismiss what's true. just means they have a really hard time admitting and coming to terms with the idea that what they know isn't true.
Also, when I listen to Richard Dawkins, I am transported back to the wonderful days when one could listen to both RD and Christopher Hitchens and come away in an energetic thinking mood rather than in a closeted, vacuous sense of blind faith.
love watching Dawkins ..I was a far right christian republican in america ...now a far left atheist ,the only atheist in my family. thank you RICHARD for helping people think. evidence over faith for me and in courts ...faith is more like a hope, far far from evidence .
I am a Republican and also an Atheist. If you analyze government tax spending, foreign policy, etc.. it'd be hard to remain on the left at all. There hasn't been a decent democratic president in many many years. It's really just embarrassing to be on the left. You're probably only focusing on one aspect of things and just ignoring all of the corruption that's taking place, all of the terrible mistakes that the Biden administration is currently making. Opinions on religion and politics are 2 different things man. Don't base your entire political viewpoint based on something like that.
Whilst I understand that terrorists are the minority of the muslim community, I also think that muslims need to stand up and actually address it as a problem instead of shrugging their shoulders and brushing it to one side saying 'they're just a minority, it doesn't matter'. They're clearly more worried about the reputation of their religion than the lives of people affected by terrorism. Equally infuriating is the tag of islamophobia being constantly applied to anyone who dares speak out against islam. I am sorry but whether or not you personally think of terrorists you cannot deny that they are doing what they do in the name of islam. Muslims need to focus more of their energy on condemning these evil people instead of condemning people that criticise islam
Have you ever considered why the so called “minority” allow this and stay silent? You stated you understood! I suggest you obviously know less than you think about the Islamic religion and culture…presumption’s and presume.
All credit to Krishna for presenting Dawkins with the most challenging interview questions and exposing his bias against Islam based on the actions of a tiny minority of extremists. Much of his objections against Islam are based NOT on the Qur'an (the foundation scripture) but interpretations of some muslims based on traditional stories. He is intelligent enough to make that distinction instead of maligning 2 billion muslims across the world. Krishna also got Dawkin to admit his own FAITH in future science being able to explain the origin of life & the universe. He is also inclined to believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial aliens - just not God because that would be "supernatural".
@@AnalyseThat I suggest you watch again. It’s your opinion of course but if there was any bias it was in your summing up…very distorted…please don’t become a commentator or we will all be f****d
@@topologyrob how is it a presumption? He’s saying exactly what he does, he indeed ridicules the beliefs not the person themselves. They happen to feel ridiculed by him personally because they’ve attached themselves to their religion and it is a part of them, that isn’t Dawkins problem and doesn’t make his statement less factual.
@@ItsSVO WHAT COMES FIRST THE CHICHEN, OR THE EGG? If “the selfish gene” then why the selfish gene? When the first cell was created (perhaps by accident) that was able to divide, then what was the force, vested in that accident that caused the accident to be repeated forever? Yes, we can say that once the sequence had been established then it was bound to be repeated, but at what point did the accident, of the right chemicals coming together, become written into genetic makeup, as sexual motivation? Darwinists might say ‘it just is’, but if so then why is the same tolerance not shown to the advent of religious practice, which was probably born of a much more sophisticated accident than that of the first cell? No revised book quotes allo
Wow, are you a loser! Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
The man who is not even sincere , honest and truthful with his own creator and rejects the presence of his own creator .I Shocked that someone call him a most honest man
@@Sadqajaria786 I'm pretty sure he's honest when he talks about science related subjects. I don't really know much about the man, but what has he said that is not fact concerning biology, or any field of science?
Here is a verse from the Darwinian Bible according to Darwinist evangelist Dawkins."Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." The concept that the miracle of evolution becoming feasible by smearing the process over billions of years is not supported by real science
@@schmetterling4477 I quoted Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins. The quack scientist seems to really believe that billions of years could work miracles. I am sure it sounds great in your unintelligently designed atheist skull. "What Dawkins does not seem to understand is that vision is a system. The human eye is a sophisticated camera with its nerves and specialized cells - the hardware part. How do you explain the evolution of vision which is a system? How do you explain by evolution, a shower of photons from an external image going into the eye, being converted to electrical signals which are transported into the brain and which after processing gives you the sensation of sight of the image - the software part? The human body has so many systems and many of them are interconnected to ensure its survival. How can systems with hardware and software working together evolve?" David Samuel
@@schmetterling4477 Anything Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins would say should sound great in you brain since it is only presenting an illusion of being designed. How can the quack scientist keep feeding his sheep with such a 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮? "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Darwinist atheist Dawkins
@@howerpower-gaming1666 Yeah something unconscious created consciousness right? Evolution requires more magic and miracles than an actual God, Explain me how something with no inteligence can create something this complicated,like our brain. Scientist agree that the universe had a beggining right? Where did all the matter and energy come from? The only explanation is something eternal existed before our Universe came into existence.
I feel like every interview with Dawkins is exactly the same. Not saying it's a bad message to hear - it's actually good - but I never hear a new thing. Every interviewer asks basically the same questions.
@@tonyfrancisco370 Oh he questions them... he is just terrified. It's much more cosy to pretend that there is an afterlife and you are more than just a speck of DNA that appears and disappears in and out of existence in the vastness of the cosmos.
Pale man : Dawkins is a voice among many other voices.....He uses plain facts, which most of us already know, but he misses the action of important side issues. He's pretty harmless, except there is much neglect and distress in the world that, having belief, could give comfort to, but are not recognised by people who want to give the impression they understand everything?
@@davidbanner6230 Dawkins is not harmless, he is spreading complete nonsense about evolution. He presents this as a science, but it's just a belief in a homemade theory. That's poison for the truth, but he doesn't care. He is therefore not a real scientist, because they exclude nothing and test their theory with practice. He ridicules religious people, that is his aim, and furthermore pretends to tell scientific facts in which he himself believes. The evolution theory is presented thousands of times, one hears almost nothing else, because of those many repetitions it automatically becomes truth for many people, but it remains nonsense.
Huh...? You people want a safe space tbh. JP is a proven liar and an utter fraud but foolish people do get reeled in by him. Go find your little corner.
@@alexnorth3393 I dont see how this "you people" and "go find your little corner" attitude gets us anywhere or how it adds any value of discusion to the comment I made. Despite that id appreciate if you could share how exactly was JP proven a "liar". My comment isn't in defense of the interviewees in question, Im mearly saying that I believe these types of interviews are more sensational and opinionated than honest and truthseeking.
Krishnan Guru -Murthy seems to do his best to steer Richard into making "controversial" statements about Islam. Richard is obviously aware of this and handles this interview with great tact and patience. He's head & shoulders above this devious individual.
Dawkins was just talking sense and facts yet the interviewer was deeply uncomfortable with what he was hearing and got agitated a couple of times. Dawkins was unfazed. ZEN MASTER
Here is a lecture by Darwinist evolutionist atheist Dawkins's saying that the creation of all the wonders in nature would be miracle of naturalisms made possible by smearing the process over billions of years, which has no scientific value. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dawkins made himself filthy rich preaching that type of nonsense
@@desiderata8811 Or a real afterlife. Because it's ridiculous to believe that this universe could have somehow magically appear all by itself from nothing and against scientific understanding. It's also ridiculous to believe, given the evidence that life could somehow magically have arisen all by itself and that it was some kind of fluke that we are very likely the only intelligent beings in the universe. It's like there is something deeper going on to explain all of this.
Andrew Douglas. I understand your ignorance about science makes you think that the universe magically appear from nothing, as well as life. There’s something deeper in fact, you should study what “ nothing” means. Magic is in the realm of religion and superstition, not science. Do not say this or that is against science, because someone who truly believes in the Bible do not understand nothing about reason, implying don’t get the definition of science.
As a child I was taught that if a planet were to develop an environment propitious to support life, life would then first appear on it in its simplest bacterial form, and as it did on earth, it would then be put through never ending billions of years evolutionary journey that would culminate with the evolutionary creation of all kinds of new original creatures, being shaped at the whim of the said planet climates and environments. At the time I was subscribing to the validity of such a belief system but later on, I got to realize that such a materialistic process would have zero feasibility, and paradoxically would be impregnated with paganistic and naturalistic religiosity..
He is one of many great minds...what a waste...read or listen to Jordon Peterson and you will be exposed to another great mind..from atheism to a belief in the God of the Bible...and can explain it theologically as well as psychologically.
@@thomasperren4045 Watch Jordan Petersons “interview” with Dawkins and see how outmatched he is. Peterson is great in psychological debate, not in evolutionary biology or religious talks.
Krishnan’s own personal beliefs are so evidently charging his pedantic, repetitive and damn right smarmy questioning. And the cheek to attack Dawkin’s middle-classness and privilege when and he, himself is an Oxford grad and his dad a former consultant radiologist.
And Krishnan only gets triggered when it’s “his team” in question. Completely reaffirming Richard’s points and highlighting the ridiculous tribalism of *ALL* religions that we need to evolve from.
Advocating only truth, wanting to liberate all from the shackles of antiquated religion established by elitist *MEN*. Dawkin’s you’re a hero.
Beautifully said! I just commented that the dude was annoying but you put it perfectly as to why that is.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Poor interview skills.
“Krishnans own personal beliefs”
“The cheek to attack Dawkins”
Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Despite this Dawkins constantly appeals to scientific authority and focuses on the extreme minority to justify his own metaphysical presuppositions and attacks on moderate religious expression.
Equally, the worship of Dawkins in this comments section is very ironic and as cringe worthy as a right wing happy clappy homophobic evangelical. What planet have you been living on ? Dawkins and his associates (The four Horsemen) promote the idea that eugenics would work on humans, torture is necessary and moderate religious believers are more dangerous than extremists. All of these very harmful ideologies are cleverly hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority by very intelligent self publicists and scientific popularisers. The fact is that history and the Nazis demonstrates that eugenics is unbelievably immoral and inhuman, torture is never justified and labelling moderate religious believers with fallacies of false equivalence chips away at human rights and leads to the justification of prejudice against moderate religious expression inevitably leading to the acceptance of mass genocide. No religion ever created a weapon with the potential to destroy our children and grandchildren’s future at the press of a button (Nuclear bombs). For this kind of monstrosity you need secular twentieth century technology and physicists/scientists who believe that morality is arbitrary.
“Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights.” (Johnathan sacks)
“The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.”
(J.R. Tolkien 1945).
“How do like them apples”
(Good Will Hunting).
“Krishnans own beliefs are so evidently charging his pedantic repetitive and damn right smarmy questioning”
The irony is that the only beliefs here that are pedantic and smarmy are Dawkins beliefs regarding the philosophy of religion. Dawkins is famous for privileged pretentious smarminess and Krishnans just doing his Job which is to challenge Dawkins new quasi religion, the church of scientism that is cleverly hidden behind the cloak of scientific authority.
Dawkins got let off easy in this interview as he gets Einstein completely wrong and uses sleight of hand about the history of wars. He’s a great self publicist and a clever scientific populariser but a very poor historian and philosopher.
For example Dawkins claims that Einstein was an atheist and yet Einstein himself states in the same source that Dawkins quotes from...
"I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist” (Einstein).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (Einstein).
Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13.
Einstein also really disliked people mis quoting and cherry picking his thoughts and ideas out of context to promote their own quasi religion.....
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views” (Einstein).
In this quote Einstein is well aware that there are extremists on both sides of the debate who misquoted and cherry picked his quotes and thoughts to promote their own personal ideology and agenda which is why he stated...
“then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein)
Dawkins clearly comes into this category of fact deniers and history revisionists. For example Dawkins is not actually a professor of history but boldly asserts in this interview that all wars were caused by religion. This is a myth perpetuated by militant atheists that has been debunked but is still used by alt-right extremists to justify their bigotry and hatred against other cultures. The fact is that the professors of history who compiled the (Encyclopaedia of Wars), a secular history book by the way, would beg to differ with Dawkins arrogant assertion that religion causes all wars. The (Encyclopaedia of wars) makes it clear that it’s very difficult to categorise wars as religious or otherwise as the causes of war are often political and are very complex. However, the fact is that when you refer to the index in the (Encyclopaedia of Wars) out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts mentioned only 121, approximately 6% are listed in the index as having religion as their primary cause. It speaks volumes regarding the power of propaganda and myths about religious wars when (The Encyclopaedia of Wars), a secular history book by the way, in the index clearly lists only 121 religious wars which works out at approximately 6% of 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts as being caused for religious reasons. The other 94% were related to secular, political or economic reasons.
These are historical facts recorded in a secular history book!. I know it’s hard to stomach if you want certainty as a militant atheist but in the words of Dawkins....
“Facts ignore ideology” (Richard Dawkins)
This is beyond Ironic!!
❤️
@@Katw76
“Poor interview skills”
I think you are right to a degree as Krishnan really let Dawkins off the hook here!
For example Dawkins misrepresents Einstein’s complex approach to religious expression by stating Einstein was an atheist because Einstein clearly was not an atheist....
Einstein talks about God, spirit, mind, intangibility, the inexplicable and how scientists should be humble when it comes to the question of reality, existence, our responsibility towards our fellow man and the concept of God.
Dawkins claims in this interview that Einstein just used the language of God as a form of poetry to describe scientific observations and yet Einstein clearly states when asked about belief in God....
“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.” (Albert Einstein ).
Why does Dawkins conveniently ignore these facts and statements from Einstein and just straw mans the whole question and claims certainty when it comes to the question of what we actually mean by God by attacking the low hanging fruit in the philosophy of religion. ? It’s so transparent and he is clearly no Einstein. It speaks volumes that Dawkins makes approximately 10 million a year selling certainty to atheists.
Equally, whilst Einstein was ambiguous about his belief in a personal God and religious traditions he clearly stated that he believed in the God of Spinoza (1).
(1) Calaprice, Alice (2010). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 325.
So what what does Spinoza actually say about God and Jesus. ?
In fact, Spinoza is clear in his Theologico-Political
Treatise that the Wisdom of God took on human nature in Christ and the Way of salvation resulted from the Wisdom of God. The Wisdom of God took upon itself human nature in the infinite and eternal. When Christ uses audible words to express his mind, Christ is “the mouth of God”. Further, in his letter 75 to Oldenburg, Spinoza references the book of John to illustrate his meaning when he says the Wisdom of God was most manifest in Christ. Actually Spinoza was explaining what he meant in saying “God” manifested himself most of in Christ. In letter 75,
Spinoza refers to John 1:14 “The Word became flesh”, saying that this says what he was trying to say “more effectually”. When God manifested himself most in
Christ, the Word became flesh or the Word of God took upon itself human nature.
Dawkins mentions Spinoza and notes that Einstein approved of Spinoza's idea of God. However, this mention of Spinoza is ironic, because Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy simply does not fit Dawkins’ narrow definition of “pantheism.” Spinoza identified God with nature, but he also held that nature has mental as well as physical properties. According to Spinoza, the natural universe itself is not merely a physical system, but also is intrinsically spiritual. Spinoza’s God is impersonal but Spinozas Christ clearly is not impersonal and is a conduit to that ultimate substance which is impersonal due to human limitations, but Spinozas God has mental and spiritual features, making it a bit more like a “someone” than a mere “something.” After reading Spinoza’s Ethics, it would be silly to equate Spinoza’s pantheism to “sexed-up atheism”-which is Dawkins’ characterization of pantheism. Indeed, Spinoza himself denied that he would equate God to nature if nature were thought of as strictly material. Spinoza’s God is impersonal and natural, but is a real supreme being, not merely a sexed-up collection of lumps of matter. Despite the sharp differences between Spinoza’s view of God and the standard Christian views, the Christian writer Novalis had good reason to label Spinoza “the god-intoxicated man”
So it’s hardly surprising that Einstein stated.....
"Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force ... is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious” (Einstein)
The things that Richard Dawkins is saying are so painfully obvious. I can't believe we're even still having this conversation.
It is, currently, a sorry state of affairs when great minds (such as Mr. Dawkins) must continually try to repeat, as you wrote> the "obvious". I'm now in my late 50s....I realized in Grade school how ridiculous a belief in "religion" is...Please note the word "belief".
Science displays facts. "Belief" does not. Full Stop.
2nd thoughts: Since we are on UA-cam currently? I'd invite you to (well there are several) but ONE Channel in particular:
"Cool Hard Logic". Perhaps you've encountered this site previously? IF not? Well....a great trough of information and wit.
@@WeedWhacker2010 your lucky man. I was indoctrinated into the church since I was old enough to walk,it took me 35 years to break free.
@@WeedWhacker2010 Cool Hard Logic?
I'll check it out.
Thank you my friend.
Study some philosophy, logic, worldviews and history....
“I’m not a politician, I care about what’s true”
Then stop lying to us in the face!!
@@descheleschilder401 elaborate? if you care to ?
@@user-YuHaoHuang Hi there! Of course I can! In his first book, The selfish gene, Dawkins writes literally that he's found the truth: all living beings are merely machines meant to pass on genes, and in the case of humans memes are involved too. This "truth" though is HIS INTERPRETATION of evolution. So he's telling us a lie when he says that he has found the truth. It's a fact though that genes and memes are passed on. And by the way, his books (in each of which he tells the same story over and over again) don't qualify as memes but thoughts ABOUT memes (and genes).
Living beings are machines? Machines are men-made and don't evolve from Nature. Living beings do.
Why shouldn't politicians care about what's true, as he seems to imply in the comment above? Another lie.
Regarding his almost militant attacks on religion (mainly on the three big monotheistic ones, judaism, christianity and the Islam). Can he speak for ALL of our religious friends? I'm sure he can't. So he's generalizing by saying that they are ignorant or dumb or whatever. I know many scientists who are religious. Are they ignorant? I don't think so. So who's HE to judge? The sciences are, just as religion, a human enterprise. And when he says that the existence of god(s) can't be proved, well then the same can be said about the sciences. Can he prove the sciences exist? NO!
In any case, I hope you have a blessed day!
Marco Barbieri good elaboration for ALL this ignorant atheists!!
Marco Barbieri
“Can he prove the sciences exist”
I’m not sure what you are referring to... science is a method used to figure out truth. We know it works because I am able to communicate with you now (for example)
The interviewer was getting frustrated because Richard did an excellent job of answering his questions.
Who couldn't beat Dawkins in an argument???
Very few Theists . Thats for sure. Thinking people realise he's coming from a place of critical thuoght and reason
@@davidbanner6230
@@davidbanner6230 Ironically the interviewers bogged stance on defending Islam, allowed Dawkins to present his point of view very clearly. Dawkins was in fine form.
How was the Top C4 Journalist fustrated ??? He asked genuine questions and he got proper answers .Maybe he was surprised that an educated person gave proper answers not like some that advoid awkard questions ,are educated but tell lies.Mankind does not need a god to have moral values that is evident in the everyday life of wild animals especialy animals that live in packs and social groups.We are just another animal that has a more developed brain .
Who cares…listen to him. He’s an idiot. Intelligent people can still be idiots. Dawkins proves it.
I'm so glad to see Dawkins healthy and doing great
Richard is the most honest person i can think of.
The Conservative You're not even using it correctly here.
I’m glad he’s doing well, too. No to Islam.
@@r.b.l.5841 Hi, Dawkins had a London Bus campaign, billboards read "There probably is no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life." Spends his life trying to get people to disavow God.
@@trustinjesus1119 And seems to enjoy it! maybe in a generation or two we will finally be free of the oppression of religion, and live happily evermore.
"Teaching people how to think, not teaching them what to think!" Very important statement!
Yes. The "scientific method" says that Nature is the final arbiter of what is true in the universe. What is true is not always good. "The laws of nature were not designed to make physicists happy."
This is a very sound and profound advice, but I don't think that Richard Dawkins is qualified to teach in this regard, given his contempt for God, the spiritual realm and the existence of a human soul and spirit. As an analogy, this kind of approach to life could tell you all about the externalities of a woman but never understand anything of her internal nature, so would inevitably lead you into a shallow and short changed experience with her. Richard has a wonderful passion for nature but is cutting himself from knowing our Creator. If I really wanted to know the Mona Lisa I'd deepen my understanding by communicating with the painter rather than just looking at the painting. Beneath the passion of men like Dawkins and Attenborough, there is a sad sense of hollowness and futility.
@@tamaking7104 I'd read that theists are narcissists. Reading your paragraph I feel like I've found my evidence that theists are narcissists of the highest order.
@@whatname4613 A level of confidence and cheeky humour I may have, but if you knew me and my life work or asked those around me you would find your impression of my character to be way off mark. Christendom includes all personality types including narcissists. The bible teaches that the proud find it hardest to acknowledge or submit to God, but the inclusion of all personality types proves God's mercy and love extends to all, including questioning agnostics (even atheists) and those who don't want to throw away their God given brains. Don't let the banality of average Joe religious man put you off your own potential if you embraced the Creator in your thinking and your life.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod you're trippin.
Dawkins is almost 80 years old and is still a brilliant scientist. He hasn’t lost one step.
Nicky T Dawkins is an idiot and behind the times with dated science.The Book of Genesis has been proven to be correct by modern scientists and physicists and cosmologists.and God created the universe and us.
Jack I’m a believer I just respect Dawkins intelligence
Nicky T I dont he is misleading people with unchallenged statements.
It's always interesting to hear from low IQ theists (is "low IQ theist" redundant?). They always sound like people who would rape and murder unless they feared a bully in the sky.
Nate Good then maybe it will control knuckle dragging deniers
One of the most Calm, honest, respectful and educated person i know
Don't you have any shame...?
@@davidbanner6230 😂😂😂 even the people who actually believe in a nonsense fairy tale book like the bible and quran don't have shame. So why should i???
: Not a hint of embarrasment.....
@@davidbanner6230 not even slightly 😂😂😂
'Must be very lonely for you, not knowing anyone......
Listening to professor Dawkins is like coming across an oasis of clear thought in our present day desert of aggressive ignorance.
Beautifully put - I concur.
Lee Rogers delusional thinking. He believes life comes from no life. He’s a man of faith
Yes I agree. He has brightened many a mind.
@@saxglend9439 Thank you, your proof? Or was that an empty, meaningless assertion that makes you sound cool? We didm't learn to fly, or underatsnd germ theory, or split the atom looking 'inside." Do you disagree?
"aggressive ignorance" is a so depressingly accurate, apt way of putting it.
I love the way Dawkins does not allow the interviewer to manipulate the conversation.
Do you love his absurd beliefs?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
we can hope all people will one day be so strong.
Dawkins is a bumping weight fraud....
I would not defile reality by pretending to have some logic, or agreement, with what Spinoza said, is.....but there is one thing that I am certain about and that is, that having certainty of the existence of a god is an impossibility... I suppose it could be argued that this is necessity to allow charlatans to ply their distortions to make people contemplate reality, maybe, but hard proof cannot be, only understanding within one’s self, faith can be allowable
And stop altering posts....it's unbecoming, even of Atheists.....
@@r.b.l.5841 : Try eating lots of spinich, like Popeye....
I have been listening to him speak since i was an early teen. i’m 20 now and must say he has contributed so much to my knowledge on a world scale. We must appreciate Richard Dawkins and share his words to others.
athanasios
As an older person I was delighted to read what you wrote.
If I'd had RD when I was your age I would have been spared a lot of intellectual and emotional grief.
i am happy to tell you and you may like it too. the word of God says that you are fool since you believe there is no God.
@@adejokeloye then l want to be the fool you describe.
That's fantastic if you have reached this point so early in life. Good for you!
I hope you have also learned what is and what is not true.
Richard Dawkins is the best atheist I hv ever seen.His eloquence, his wit, his thoroughly researched arguments, his honesty etc unsurpassed by other eminent atheist scientists
Yes he does write nice things about himselfe?
Dear Dicky, do you think it possible that with all the information that passes between planets, between stars, between galaxes, between black holes, between Universes. Such as light of different wavelengths, radio of different frequencies, and other electromagnetic phenomena, meteors, as well as the curiosity of creatures such as our sending probes and imaginations? Could be a consiouness beyond our understanding..... Yet I understand it.....Why?
My question is a valid one, if the above could be possible on its own standing?
If not, why not, when we have no problem attributing the passing of information between brain cells as being responsible for a consciousness that can capture whole of life images?
Please note, that what I get freely, I give freely, with no expectations of the lurks and perks that are prerequisites of what you have to say…?
You aint seen nothin' yet......
Oh be fair Tony, he's the only Atheist you've come across, and even he is bit unsure of what he believes....
He's not an Atheist....
It's so great to see Dr Dawkins in good health. The unrelenting atheist continues. Loads of respect.
what hitchens lacked in health, dawkins makes up for it!
@@BattousaiHBr let's hope he keeps his vigour for years to come. We need his militant atheism!
@@shubhankursuvansh3279 The term "militant atheist" is used as a pejorative put down. My response is something like "is that like a militant non-astrologist?"
Long live atheist/agnostics
@G Will self projection while being a frustrated individual isn't good. Go listen to some religious apologist to initiate your Dunning Kruger effect.
Loads of respect for Dawkins, such a privilege to listen to his knowledge and compelling reasoning. A much needed advocacy of science, enlightenment and humanistic values
@ When Darwinist. evangelist, atheist Dawkins is founding the credibility of a Darwinian evolutionary creation on the premise that the human eye and other human organs would only be presenting an illusion of being designed, programmed and engineered, since admitting to their being designed would imply recognizing the need for an intelligent designer, the darwinist evangelist is clearly talking nonsense. "What Dawkins does not seem to understand is that vision is a system. The human eye is a sophisticated camera with its nerves and specialized cells - the hardware part. How do you explain the evolution of vision which is a system? How do you explain by evolution, a shower of photons from an external image going into the eye, being converted to electrical signals which are transported into the brain and which after processing gives you the sensation of sight of the image - the software part? The human body has so many systems and many of them are interconnected to ensure its survival. How can systems with hardware and software working together evolve?" David Samuel
ronylev-ari : I've seen nothing to indicate your conclusions....and I see there is some movement to expose the charletism that abounds on the internet....which must be a step in the right direction.... They've taken advatage for much too long...?
My admiration for Richard Dawkins is growing. What a wonderful patience he has with stubborn interviewers who asks silly questions that they repeat over and over again.
The Interviewer is just doing his job otherwise there wouldnt be an interview., GET IT ?
@@tradeladder146 Of course he is doing his job but still he is repeating himself.
"Evolution is just a theory", that must be really annoying for him by now.
@ Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins is claiming that the human eye. the human brain and other human organs could have been created by a dumb and blind watchmaker, and that they would only be presenting an illusion of design based on the hallucinations an defrocked priest had in the Galapagos, and because of some atheist evolutionists that were able to draw farfetched evolutionary scenarios depicting the miracles. Darwinist evangelist Dawkins lectures an illusion of design, do not even present an illusion of making sense.
@@piertinence it is an illusion of design, it's not actually designed by anything.
What don't you get?
Victims of history. I am so glad Mr Dawkins is around.
So is everyone else....of course...
We need a sense of humour........
@davidbanner6230 You call it a sense of humour. l call it (l know more than you attitude)
“Richard Dawkins is the world *biggest* atheist”???
I always thought he was in quite good shape.
Just some silly things that journalists say... it's not a competition, it's not like he can believe in less gods than any other atheist :-)
Carol Spencer yep, literally the most unfunny joke except for the little amount of irony u can get if u interpret “in quite good shape” as Richard Dawkins accent of British and how he speaks
I winced at that too. Demonstrates how shallow one can be and still be a Channel 4 interviewer.
VAL VLOG At least you have the intellect to understand. Can’t quite believe some half-wits in this thread thought this was an actual joke!
He’s an English journalist who hasn’t got a decent command of the English language.
That was so funny... saying Dawkins s the biggest atheist....
I want to give this a thumbs up for Richard and a thumbs down for the interviewer...so I am stuck...
Exactly
I wanted to do it the other way round!!!
Dawkins - God Delusion - "We don't understand how design arises in the universe." Designs come from minds.
Just push a little bit harder and ...Kabang..the right tumb wins. Easy piecy...
I thought the interviewer was good overall, although not as good as all his questions were so easily answered by Dawkins without much pause for thought.
At one point, it almost felt as though the interviewer was purposely feeding Dawkins such questions, as if he were on his side, but for the sake of creating a more engaging program played it as an opponent.
But there were some moments that the interviewer seemed to be overtly agitated, such as on the topic of Islam being the most dangerous religion at present.
Regardless, Dawkins was sharp and I loved that smirking answer to "what do you think happens when we die":
"Well, either we are cremated or we are buried." 31:48
This interviewer desperately tries to discredit Mr. Dawkins, and like all others, he fails miserably.
I thought he did discredit when it came to the subject of Islam, specifically about the polls being controversial.
@@r4h4al Yeah. I stopped watching around 27min.
It is like talking to any conspiracy theorist.
You say I have poles, or research or experiments, and he says I don't believe you.
Ok bye bye, and never again.
I have got life to live, unfortunaly with people like you
No he doesn't. Dawkins does nothing but belittles everyone, that is how he wins a debate. He is not professional, he is not knowledgeable, he is a purely ignorant human being who cannot see the truth. God exists, nothing can exist without a creator. If he had any real intelligence he would admit God exists and he is a bigot. Yet his great ego will not let him.
@@zr71offroad20 Well thanks for that very classy and educated response....
@@rinkrat4459 Does it really matter? Its Dawkins,
Brilliant and well thought out arguments. Thank you Richard Dawkins.
@@kofidan9128 : Dawkins doth prais himself too much.....
Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” disappears before his eyes.
Famous Evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins used to teach that the “best evidence for evolution” was that organisms; which were similar to each other have similar DNA. This is pure supposition and absolute speculation driven by a passion to obliterate God from the equation of life. Richard Dawkins claimed that genetic research proved Darwin’s tree of life; nothing could be further from the truth. These claims were made before we learned more about DNA and RNA and in 2009 he got his book published: “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he taught that Darwin’s Tree of Life was supported by the pattern of resemblances, that you see when you compare genes. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s Tree of Life, because there is no evidence of transitional fossils in the actual earth’s geology demonstrating evolution. There is no evidence that plants and animals diversified from a Common Ancestor over millions of years, being due to imaginary evolution. In 2009, the same year, New Scientist magazine ran an article with the title: “Why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life.” In it, scientists stated that the Tree of Life was “mis-leading” because Darwin’s theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries end of quote. The “best evidence for creation” is the fossil record, finding only fully formed organisms in Cambrian rocks. Our technology has advanced to such a stage that we can now “read” the genes of many different species and it is even clearer now that Dawkins’ “Best Evidence for Evolution” does not exist. Now scientists have sequenced a great number of genomes belonging to different organisms. Casey Luskin, Associated Director of the Center for Science and Culture, wrote for Evolution News, that Dawkins was wrong! Every gene does not deliver approximately the same Tree of Life end of quote. DNA research does not show a Tree of Life. But what is described as “bushes of life” meaning no branching as in Darwin’s Tree of Life, but organisms that reflect the fossil record throughout time with minor variations, these are attributed to kinds within species due to genetic variety until they went extinct. “Genes are dissimilar in their development and unique as they form into the embryos of different organisms. Ernest Haeckel German scientist tried it on; by drawing fraudulent embryos making them look alike, because he loved Darwin’s theory of evolution. At the University of Jena he was convicted of fraud in 1875. When asked why he had lied, he said it is necessary for us to believe in spontaneous generation: that everything made itself by random chance, because the alternative is Creation and that is unthinkable! A lot of people have a similar mind-set today, this is why evolution will not go away as a theory and be buried. It should be disqualified by the “scientific method” today, but there is wide spread indoctrination through the education system with the theory of evolution which should be abandoned, because there is no evidence to support such a theory which has outlived its usefulness. The indoctrination of evolution through the education system is a “back door” to promoting immoral behaviour within the populace. This is the aim and plan of the globalists to bring about chaos, anarchy and confusion, in short lawlessness, whereby they have a legitimate reason to use modern technology to mark and control the masses. It is simple, if you teach students there is no God to answer too, then why bother to behave! Create fear among the populace and they will be happy to except electronic monitoring by those in authority, but first they must create the environment and the people will look to those in authority for a solution: it is called Cause and Effect. The general public need to waken up and smell the coffee as there is a lot of corrupt manipulation going on by the elite billionaires, who are now controlling bank accounts, politics and the education system, where people are taught what to think, not how to think critically. There is a desire to take away your freedom of speech in relation to telling the truth.
Thank the gawd who made him so wise....
OK RICHARD, knock it off.....
He didnt blow his own trumpet at all. You get that impression because deep down you know he's right and need some kind of bs rebuttal
@@davidbanner6230
There's no budging Professor Dawkins' decency and eloquence. That's one of the most remarkable aspects about his steadfast character.
If you like professor Dawkins decency and eloquence you should check out astrophysicist Dr Hugh Ross.
You will never have met a more highly educated, humble decent and eloquent individual.
He is a walking talking encyclopedia.
“Decency and eloquence”
According to Richard Dawkins....
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins).
I think the bereaved relatives of the people who died under the Nazis eugenics policy would beg to differ that this statement was “decent” or “eloquent”.
A prominent biologist responded to this indecent and unscientific statement with....
“As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown.
Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert).
Sam Harris one of Dawkins associates boasts that....
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
I wonder why he’s one of the few ? Is it because he’s more enlightened than the rest of us or is it because torture is unbelievably evil and has never been justified by appeals to emotion as there is no clear distinction on where to draw the lines
Dawkins associate Harris argues that there are scientific “neurological" grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is logically correct and that we “ought” to be torturing people for collateral reasons. We all know which group of people he has in mind and if you seriously believe that moderate religious believers are as dangerous as extremists where do you draw the line ??? Where he gets his “ought” from is beyond most normal people as you can’t get an “ought” from an “is” (David Hume) no matter how much you pretend you can. Also are women and children exempt from Dawkins associates state sponsored torture program if they had information that was required by the state.?
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
If you’re going to defend Dawkins don’t forget to defend eugenics and his associates Sam Harris and Daniel Dennettes the ( Four horsemen’s) belief in torture including the dangerous belief that moderate religious believers are more dangerous than extremists. Also please remember that these guys such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris believe moderate religious believers are guilty by association, guilty by association ?. The irony is that Dawkins has the gall to criticise religious expression and yet he makes a six figure sum approx 10 million pounds a year selling certainty to militant atheists.
The evidence suggests that New Atheists such as the (Four Horsemens) ability to hide their views behind the cloak of scientific authority rises them to a level of credibility that also serves as indirect links to far right ideology. A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American non-profit which tracks extremist activity, stated that some alt-righters found Sam Harris' work "blended easily into that of more overtly racist writers". The report argues that "Under the guise of scientific objectivity, Harris has presented deeply flawed data to perpetuate fear of Muslims and to argue that black people are genetically inferior to whites." It notes some of Harris' less responsible uses of his podcast, including the Charles Murray incident, and quotes one alt-righter who moved from Harris' content to that of the overtly racist blogger Paul Kersey.
The report also notes the importance of the UA-cam algorithm in "coaxing viewers into the deeper depths of the alt-right". It cites a Wall Street Journal investigation which found that UA-cam promotes content which keeps users on the site for longer periods of time, "and those videos often happen to be among the more extreme content on the site." Social media algorithms have a tendency to recommend more extreme versions of the material users are already engaged with. Videos featuring Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins can be only a few recommendations away from overt white supremacists, and UA-cam will automatically direct users to them.
“Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” (G.K. Chesterton)
The remnants of New Atheism have survived into an even more polarised political climate, in which readers, listeners, and viewers are more easily radicalised than ever before, simply through media infrastructure. This environment, coupled with the New Atheists' own gradually more extreme statements and their connections to even more dubious personalities, has made them one of the more acceptable mainstream pathways to the Alt-right.
This is how we got to Richard Dawkins tweeting about eugenics. But more concerning than the confused, reactionary, and tone-deaf comments of the New Atheists is the wider movement to which they provide both fuel and legitimacy.
One woman who had a child with a major genetic deformity responded angrily at Dawkins. Emphasizing the strength of her feelings, she tweeted back: “I would fight till my last breath for the life of my son. No dilemma
Dawkins’s personal fortune is over ten million dollars from his efforts to murder God, and yet he complains about the comparatively small change Intelligent Design organizations manage to raise
We appreciate Jerry Bergman’s detailed research into the harm caused by Darwinism. Look at this case: a man, Richard Dawkins, who makes millions on a view that is patently illogical at its base. Dawkins uses morality to preach that there is no absolute moral standard. He uses the ‘Truth’ to preach that truth is an illusion caused by material forces. He uses passion to preach that emotions are neural artifacts of natural and sexual selection. If he really believed what he says he believes, he would just try to have as many kids as possible, not caring what they believe, as long as they also have lots of kids. Instead, he borrows from theistic assumptions about truth, goodness and beauty to destroy those values. In the process, he leaves a trail of hate, bigotry and totalitarianism that could motivate another genocide
We need more people of the caliber, knowledge, and strength like Richard Dawkins on this face of Earth
Oh puh-lease I’m a non-believer and think that Richard Dawkins and his handful of edgy, still virgin fanboys are a bunch of bigots and a complete joke. So what does that tell you? Not every atheist thinks the way you do so maybe just maybe you’re just as bad as the evangelical Christians you loathe so much?
NO, NO, and again NO!!! We need many, many, many fewer people of the low-caliber, ignorant and weak people like Richard Dawk...Buaaaaaah!!
Except that he's oblivious to his real self (apart from that, yes, he's really smart)
Used to be a fan of Richard, I even sent him fan mail, and he replied, nice of him. But these days think differently. An Athiest does not believe in God? But yet one could still exist, we do not now know either way. Some say Quantum Mechanics looks like it might be set up to make the simulation of a world like this in a computer easier. What is wrong with saying, "there is not enough evidence, either way, enjoy the mystery". Rather than taking a side and attacking the "other" (aka. polarization).
@EranCallage We need MORE ignorant morons? I'd say MUCH LESS!
This man changed my life for good. Many thanks from Nairobi, Kenya
How so cause this man can't do anything for you but fool you. Jesus is the way the truth and the light.
tim schutte how typical for a theist to completely undermine someone’s truth without any understanding. Go read your stupid fairytale instead of insulting others.
@@christophedecavalla2941 To be fair, he insulted no one.
Kadyrbek Nurlybekov I despise all religion equally.
ฝuzard he insults me.
What an incredible man so honest and truthful
I doubt that - but at least his message is right on the mark.
@@L.Ron_Dow : Ok Richard....
@mark : It's hard to keep up with the ever-chnging false names...?
@marklover: Do you send yourself a box of chokoltes at Christmas...?
@@L.Ron_Dow : Stop being unkind to your self, we know you mean well....
What a brilliant mind. Gave a well rounded and thorough response to every flippant question from the interviewer
He is ignorant of God's existence. It is shallow for the intellect to think this is the only world and nobody has ever been able to explained existence because of the fact that every human created has a soul.
Richard Dawkins is not a brilliant mind . go read the book the "the Devil's Delusion ' BY David Berlinsky. That is where you find a brilliant mind .
@@frostmourne4598 Agree with you 100 percent ,....I find Richard Dawkins to be an extremely shallow thinker . He is not an intellectual heavyweight by any stretch . However he likes to think he is .
@@andrewmiller4885 sounds like some people got their feelings hurt when their make-believe God was questioned
@@-Accola Oh , I see, I guess then you believe that everyone that holds a university degree is infallible, do you?
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, that's cool.
However, questioning the so-called experts does not mean our feelings are hurt.
It simply means we may not agree with all that they say. I'm sure you can understand that.
Thanks for your reply.
The interviewer did his best to corrupt Dawkin's argument.
He was sent packing and shown to be out of his intellectual depth.
@King Kush Wow you just have disproven evolution. We should give you a nobel prize.
@King Kush 1. yes. 2. neither can you and we don't claim we do. The correct answer is: i don't know. 3. the fact that 2 things share a quality has nothing to do with wether they share another. A ball is round, the sun is round, my ball isn't a nuclear reactor.
@@AndresGarcia-sd2xv The fact that two things share a quality has nothing to do with whether they share another.
The whole universe is concrete. Abstractions are to be found no where in the universe. So how did man become capable of language which is purely a form of abstraction. Where did we get our ability of abstract reasoning from if it is to be found no where in the universe? And if there are any other living beings in the universe capable of abstract reasoning where did they get that reasoning from?.
It is not that two things share one thing and do not necessarily share another. It is rather that we have a quality that is not derived from the nature of anything that exists in the material world.
@King Kush You are one smart cookie! You cannot explain consciousness, and you don't have the intellectual ability to understand DNA, genetics and evolution. So, to make yourself feel comfortable and less out of your depth, you assert that these things can only be explained by God. Of course, this God isn't Thor or Bacchus, or Cassiopeia or Perseus, it's the Judeo-Christian God, whose tradition you just happen to have been raised within. I'm sure if you were born in 1630's Bangladesh, or in 7th century BC Peru you would still come to the conclusion that the God of the bible did it. Wouldn't you. Look up the God of the Gaps fallacy - we used to believe in supernatural and godly causes for all natural phenomena, like floods, lightning, the variety of creatures in the world, infectious diseases,, the weather, eclipses, infant deaths, disablities etc. but we fully understand them these days, so we don't. As we don't yet understand conciousness, religious aplogists are clinging on to this unexplainability as one last refuge of godly, supernatural nonsense. Look at the facts: one by one, as we have learned more about the world, the phenomena that we couldn't explain by science have diminished in number, and keep doing so. You are flogging a dead horse, god of the gaps is over, just face reality, get rid of the religious arrogance, and realise there is still so much to learn and be amazed at in the natural world. God belongs in times past.
For the godly out there, I would like to ask a question: If God loves us all, why didn't he include a section in the bible about the germ theory of disease, along with the life saving advice that we should wash our hands before eating? Just imagine how much heartache and anguish he would have prevented with a little advice to us, the children he loves.
@@jeffgaw because there wasn't any indoor plumbing ? Lol
Love seeing how Richard Dawkins disarms the rather confrontational style of interviewing by Krishnan! Dawkin's comment on teaching children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think
if spot on.
Rev Dawkins lecturing kids on the evolution of bacteria into apes over billions of years could be regarded as child abuse.
@LoisSharbel What makes you think Richard Dawkins has the monopoly on what constitues how to to think?
@LoisSharbel
9 mo
20
Reply
David Banner @LoisSharbel What makes you think Richard Dawkins has the monopoly on what constitues how to to think?
Krishnan seems to have the habit that other interviewers have in that if something doesn't go his way he changes the subject and again like many others he listens to a response but his vocal reaction is often one of talking about something else! He wasn't very open minded and you could see his own religious background swaying him too often.
@@Omnicient. he´s also a bit dumbm which is often even a perk when talking tp random celebreties, but surely not really helpful when talking to people who think clearly for a living like dakins does
Who taught Rchard how to think???
Could listen to Richard Dawkins all day .. props to the interviewer for letting him answer the questions uninterrupted
Yea don't let him near your kids.
It is great to see Richard in good health! As always he presents a very human perspective on science and comes over as a sensitive and kind person.
Can't put it any better. A real pleasure to hear and see him.
Sinjin Smythe What recent findings exactly?
@Sinjin Smythe as an evolutionary biologist myself you are right these things all impact on the theory of evolution but the fact stays the same. Your point is irrelevant. Its like me saying garden birds in the UK have 1 eigth longer beaks then 50 years ago due to evolution assosciated with half of britains homes having bird feeders..... so what is your point obviously that will impact evolution the theory as we are allways adding to it but it has no bearing on the fact (changes in a genetic pool over time)
@Sinjin Smythe for one consciousness is poorly understood but it can be argued many species are conscious not only humans such as apes orcas cephlapods blah blah and secondly what does panspermia have to do with the rise of consciousness other then the initial gene pool of these single celled organisms origionating on another planet?
@Sinjin Smythe so what are you saying... that you got evidence for god..? If not dont waste time..
"What's your problem with Islam, eh?" "I told you ten minutes ago." "Yeah, but, what's your problem with Islam?" 🤦♂️
Islam is to humans as rabbies is to a dog. -W. Churchill
@@thomassmith2056 your iq is to humans as love and respect are to atheists
He has no Problem with Islam, with ignorance the people do not understand Science (Physics , Biology), for Ex. evolution theory, BigBang theory.
@@daboss6614
Mr Smith quoted Mr Churchill.
@@daboss6614 There's more love and respect in Mr Dawkins than logic in you
I find the interviewer rather disappointing.
He questions Dawkins on whether he really believed in religion when a child, almost expressing amazement.
Would he have expressed equal surprise to discover that a 5-year old believes in Santa, I wonder?
It's just common sense but Dawkins is always extremely patient.
This interviewer seemed to be struggling....
i agree, come on... can't we just dive into salient points, food for thought, even some arguments and take away messages. Someone didn't do his homework. Or perhaps too much in denial to explore this topic thoroughly, just can't move on..
He's a bit too much on a basic level, Dawkins has answered a lot of these questions before, so it becomes sort of an introduction to what Dawkins thinks of this and that.
I have to say I was equally amazed when I first found out that Dawkins believed in a god when he was younger. I just assumed, like me, the belief in a god for Dawkins went out of the window at about age four along with other adult fantasies for children such as Father Christmas.
I wonder if he was too being patient, introducing Hawkins in an easy to digest kind of way to a wide, potentially new audience. He asks the poignant and provocative questions without turning the conversation into too much of a conflict. Hawkins 'truth' is fairly exposed, in the way Hawkins would want, for good or bad.
The entire thing is a struggle so it opens chance to address those feelings... Challenging a bit that's all
Richard Dawkins is one of the smartest man has ever lived .
Let´s see what God has to say about that at the Judgement.
It seems Dawkins may be hitting on the interviewers insecurity in his own beliefs
harrish6 gotta stiprike the weakest links
He keeps asking the same question, its annoying.
@Rakscha Lol. Not getting angry and talking intelligently about a subject he knows a lot about. Must be a psychopath. The interviewer is getting angry because we've been brainwashed to think that you're not allowed to criticize religions, especially if it's not your own.
The interviewer keeps Repeating himself! What does he not understand!
The only thing he is hitting on is his AMOEBA one cell brain .
The interviewer needs to "outgrow" many of his questions as they have all been debunked decades ago. It's time to grow up.
watch sohrab khan as he "grows" out of islam and descends into atheism 😂
Started good... kind of annoying after
Go and throw all that rage you have against God down a pit okay?
Calm down and stop acting stupid. Accept God and stop being petty and silly
The Sore Winner
Dawkins arrogance is making a Sore Looser !!!!
@Thinking Clearly Two pwned. Well played.
Dawkins is the most reasonable man I have seen.
amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/311230/
So am I .. you know how I got my McLaren P1????
So I was going out on a road, I blinked and then instantly saw a McLaren P1. Guys you won't believe it ..it got there in an instant. No one was around and I questioned myself who made it? who placed it? Then it occurred to me that it all happened on its own..... AMAZING!!!!!! I was so happy. Now I own a McLaren P1 that was built by no one. Just AMAZING!!!!
secret secret i agree but just as advice, you yourself should aim to be the most reasonable man you've seen.
Unless you're a female, then your statement cant be changed
I give you Hitchens.
I very much appreciate him and read most of his popular books. But I think there is something irrational about hisc belligerence against religions. One can also accept their existence, as a typical whim of humanity, and not be so much interested in fghting them. Probably something brutal had beeen made to him in early childhood.
Wish you good health Professor RD. We love you!
You can tell this interviewer works with Cathy Newman; eg. "So what you are saying is.... [insert strawman argument]". You watch enough of these religion vs science interviews and you can almost predict the set of questions coming. Thanks you for all your life's research, writing, educating, and public speaking Mr. Dawkins!! Yay critical thinking!
@LT_Darwin : Oh dear, you are keeping check on me..... that's almost an admition that you realise what a cheat you are?
Exactly. Straw men are all they have to work with. Ben Shapiro’s “takedown” of atheism only worked within his false definition of atheism. They all do that because there are no good arguments.
Dawkins is a fraud....
And he is well aware of it............
Lt_Darwin : You wish....?
Me and the old man have been following Dawkins for years! I'm so glad his still writing. He looks so very healthy! Live long Richard the world needs your intellect!
He won't live forever unfortunately - we need a new young RD.
Well you are a relative, are you not?
@@ownedaway we all live forever.depends where the Almighty sees fit to place us .paradise or the grave for eternity .choose wisely .mr dorkin is a friend to nobody.he offers No hope that's no sign of an intellect!!
You know what, for an ex minister of the crown your English is pathetic….
@@gezmondean293 my god said you won't live forever. And it said any person that believes others peoples lies, like you live forever, are misguided and pray to false prophets. Sorry Gez.
For people like Dawkins and myself who have grown up in religion, although I was also religious and probably a bit too religious, it honestly feels like we are in a world where everyone is brainwashed into doing something that sounds crazy but it seemed normal and if you were to go against it you were seen as pure evil. I finally broke free of my religion after I figured out how condescending and contradictory it was, and I really hope the rest of the world wakes up. Richard Dawkins is truly a great example of where we need our minds.
What makes your view of people "waking up" better than anyone else's?
Seriously the ego that these atheists have is crazy.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod watch the documentary Is Genisis History? on you tube. It shows the evidence of the global flood at the grand canyon. A real eye opener for anyone looking
Absolutely be waking up frees you!
@@thebonnevilleof5933 Funny the biggest egos l have seen has been in the most religious people who are threatened if their beliefs are questioned and their egos give them the illusion they are better than others.
What a patient, gentle, incredible amn. Thank you Mr. Dawkins for your work.
the just shall live by faith.....read the bible read the archaeological evidence from 3000BC to today...and the faith will be supported by science.
Wow, Krishnan doing his absolute best to not actually listen or understand the words being spoken to him.
He is good at being dumb.
@@davidferrier5355 Krishnan isn't having an argument with Dawkins down at the pub. As a journalist doing his job, he is creating a piece which will hopefully be of some value to anyone watching this on television. To do this means covering more than one opinion base and asking questions different kinds of viewers want the answers to. The purpose of this conversation is not for one man to argue with Dawkins for his own satisfaction, Krishnan is actually at work doing his job. And he is very good at what he does because he is able to detach his own views from his interviews whilst still being a firm interrogator for his interviewees. Not every time two people disagree has someone done something wrong!
krishnan is sucking up to the society he lives in. coward
@@warsboerse5866 I agree that good journalism requires probing into a matter in such a way as to stimulate thought and agruement. I dont see the need to ask the same question so many times that the person being interviewed continously must say "as I said before".
I was actually just looking for comments about how well Krishnan is doing his job. I think that for someone who almost certainly doesn't have as much scientific knowledge as Mr. Dawkins does, he does a great job of bringing out the important points of Dawkin's arguments.
I think Dawkins proved his point when the interviewer became all politically correct and triggered as soon as it came to Islam 😂
@Rakscha If you are objective and analyse the facts and arguments rationally this emotional triggering should be of no consequence at all. Indeed this talk is all about leaving unproven emotional conditioning out of the equation.
Haha. Yeah, I noticed that too!
@Rakscha Having your beliefs challenged is a very healty way of living. It forces you to look upon yourself and question the reasonings as to what you do, and why you do it. Being ''triggered'' has somehow become an offensive affaire. But in all actuality, your sense of self is being challenged which is why people get annoyed. A persons faith can be just as identifing as a nationality can. Debate is crucial to the delevopment of the human species and society. And the biggest challenge of all, is maintaining an open mind to others peoples views and force yourself to look at them through their eyes. :)
It's quite disturbing how scared the interviewer was about even discussing Islam. It's sad to say but this is the result of people swinging too far left. We must slowly reintroduce these kinds of discussions back into the public sphere so that it becomes socially acceptable again.
Over 200 million girls are put through FGM and he had the nerve so say "that's all small minority" Yet again proving how religion tries to UNSEE the oppression done to women in the name of religion. The inteviewer is ignorant. Dawkins is a pioneer.
I LOVE Mr Dawkins! He changed my life! He opened my eyes and mind....I bought ALL his books and I treasure them all...Thank you!!....
@AllSeeingEye ofGod wtf
Instead of Dawkins, love Darwin, who ruled out evolution rather than the origin of species' lives.
This idol of evolutionists, Ch. Darwin, said this clearly and intelligibly: "There is no change of species to another - we cannot prove a single change of species." (Darwin, Francis, Ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, p. 210)
Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, says: "If the existence of a complex organ could be proved that could not be created by numerous subsequent small modifications, my theory would collapse." And thanks to science and the super microscope today we know that a cell is a very complex entity. Darwin is right again, his theory has collapsed. Creating a cell, a complex machine, more complex than the entire transportation system in New York is impossible at one point. Comrade Dawkins's books are just fairy tales or science fiction suitable for Steve Spielberg or George Lucas films. Dawkins' books have no other value.
Instead of Dawkins, love Darwin, who ruled out evolution rather than the origin of species' lives.
This idol of evolutionists, Ch. Darwin, said this clearly and intelligibly: "There is no change of species to another - we cannot prove a single change of species." (Darwin, Francis, Ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, p. 210)
Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, says: "If the existence of a complex organ could be proved that could not be created by numerous subsequent small modifications, my theory would collapse." And thanks to science and the super microscope today we know that a cell is a very complex entity. Darwin is right again, his theory has collapsed. Creating a cell, a complex machine, more complex than the entire transportation system in New York is impossible at one point. Comrade Dawkins's books are just fairy tales or science fiction suitable for Steve Spielberg or George Lucas films. Dawkins' books have no other value.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod
Atheists are people who do not believe in God, but at the same time hate God. Therefore, they lose their minds and believe in all evolutionary nonsense and stupidity.
@AllSeeingEye ofGod Experiencing psychosis?
As an ex muslim o really admire this guy
Ran into a woman who became Muslim out in Vegas after she was a scientologist. What I got out of it was she is easily convinced of things, basically weak minded. A lot of Americans are this way. They cant think on their own and told what to believe. No one thinks for them selves and gets easily convinced to believe something with no facts to back up what they believe.
How wonderful it is to listen to an intelligent, kind, scientifically literate and honest interviewee at a time when the world seems to become completely insane.
Dawkins scientifically literate ?
He taught people to hate religion for 40 years. He taught people that the scientific method was performed by using Metaphysics :
QUOTE - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38]
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group - UNQUOTE.
Like during TV production where the filming company are under no legal obligation to make a program as they described they have - neither is Dawkins et al during all these 'debates'.
Thats why they used all degrees of freedom and cheated via metaphysics instead of using 'science' like they've promised their followers all this time.
Its not really questionable so long as the real info is available because matters then go into the category of 'Entertainment'.I have posted the reality check showing they would not know what scientifically obtained 'TRUTH' was even if it was inserted in them - they use METAPHYSICS. Many other open examples exist showing the contrary to the doublespeak thus perfectly "OK' entertainment nature of Mr Dawkins silly games.
I'm sorry these psychic type entertainers are such greedy grubby disgusting money grabbing sophists who've no sense when it comes to rational science.
@@cameroncameron2826 He taught people to think for themselves! He never advocated hatred for anything. And I don't see where in your quote it shows that Dawkings states tha t science is performed by metaphysics. What are you talking about?
@@Weserman75 Perhaps really have the cult of new atheist marxism under your skin with this lying gnostic toerag
Richard Dawkins fan from Pakistan. ❤️ i wish i could say, ‘God’ bless you. Lol.
@Muhammad T All assuming that you have the capacity to "find out" one way or another, of which there is no evidence.
@Muhammad T I realize that you are awed by the universe we live in, but you haven't being paying attention. I am awed as well, I just don't ascribe to a god as the creator of this universe. If you lose your anchoring to the teachings you have been taught to blindly accept, just for a few moments, you might understand that "god" is a human creation that fills the role of explaining what we don't understand. Over time his role has been diminishing as we explained what the sky is what the planets are, that the earth is not in the center of the heavens etc. There is not much left anymore so god has been diminished at the very least. You are awed because you just cannot comprehend how all this could possibly exist on its own, but you need something, someone to play that role. Ultimately we don't really know exactly how all this came to be for sure, but the idea that it came to be because of god, is man-made and therefore CANNOT be true. Follow human history and you will see that belief in god changed over time and over geography. Every isolated culture created their own version. That in itself is enough to discredit the idea of god. Which of all these gods would you pick and what makes that one better than the other, objectively? Yes I know; YOUR god is THE one. That's what we all say and look what that idea did to us! (Study history).
As we developed and slowly figured all this out, we realized as a species that the idea of god is not THE answer but just one of them on the way to finding out what it is. At this point in our understanding we know god is our own invention. The answer is something else. If you took the time to understand how inconsequential we are in the universe, you will realize that just like a baby is self absorbed until his/her mind develops to accept that there is more to the world than itself, we as a species have been self-absorbed with ourselves, thinking some superior being is all-consumed with our existence more than anything else. Many of us realize that this just cannot be the case. The rest of you are left behind with the old beliefs and hold the bag of ancient history. if you can prove the existence of this deity we would be pleased to accept your incontrovertible truth, but until you do so, you are left to accept our version of the world or continue to live in your fantasy world.
As for fine-tuning, it seems you have missed all the debates like this one, arguing to the contrary. There is no fine-tuning. We are just lucky to have survived all the mayhem that occurs everywhere around us in the universe. If you live on an isolated Pacific island right now enjoying the wonders your god has provided for you, you might not be aware of the coronavirus spreading around the world sickening millions and killing many. You think everything is fine. That is, until the virus hits your island and kills your friends, relatives and maybe even you. Your serenity will have been shattered. Our Pacific island is our planet. Don't be fooled, there was mayhem before that we survived and there is more on the way! We need to prepare or we might all die. God just won't be there to save us as he has never been there before.. Denying the truth does not make your wold-view real. I hope I haven't bored you with facts that are not as glittery as milk, honey and a constant supply of virgins to satisfy your urges, but there you have it. (Do you really believe this stuff???) Have a good life!
@Muhammad T Really??? If he can't be comprehended then what are you doing trying to explain the incomprehensible to me?? Then you proceeded to contradict yourself by instructing me about having sufficient evidence that you then say we cannot understand!! Which is it? Choose one!! Your constant contradiction of your own comments within the same sentence shows that you cannot produce a logical sentence or thought.
Then you go revisionist. Do you realize that anyone can write a book like the Koran or the Bible or any book of fiction and then make up more stories to explain all the newer stuff because these "revelations" could not have foreseen events that occurred later in time. What unambiguous evidence is so clear to you? You talk about it but do not provide one scintilla of it. I realize how difficult it must be, to be objective but this is a requirement to understand the real world you live in and not the fantasy you prefer.
To answer your question yet again, the idea of god, fulfills the role of answering questions we could not understand at the time we understood very little of our environment. Again, you need to read up on history that is not written by a cleric. You might learn and understand rather than discard the idea of god being humanly generated without a second thought. Thinking clearly is important and what you obviously do not do in your replies. If you can possibly stretch your mind, you will understand that all these explanations you provided here have no application to reality. And so you attempt, without succeeding, to answer what I wrote about the coronavirus for example. Because you cannot respond directly, you answer it with another question. A question in reply to a question is an escape from the first question. Then you proceed to call my comments childish and immature without explaining why. I can call your replies stupid just as easily but I try to answer them without epithets. It's understandable though as there is nowhere else you can go.
Your main failing, however, is that you begin with the assumption that the Koran is a "holy" book -let alone discarding all the other 'holy" books. To be objective, you must set this idea to the side and PROVE that it is. Your words, I am sorry, are nonsense: When you say that god made us in the most sophisticated manner, what does that mean? Relative to what is the word "most". How do u explain the appendix the tail, wisdom teeth etc. These are remnants of our evolution but of course , you cannot go there as it's too much of a hot button for you. Not too long ago, what you accept as normal in our world, would have been considered blasphemous and you would have been stoned to death. Religion keeps getting backed into a corner as more and more knowledge is revealed, disproving rather than conveniently enveloping the new information. You need to be objective.
I realize that you cannot budge from your position as you have too much at stake to lose if you were to accept a position incompatible with your beliefs, but that is your problem to deal with while the rest of the world evolves and moves on. If you were not so well invested, you'd be able to transit to a more realistic view of the world, like so many others have done more or less successfully. Believing in a fiction is very hard to find yourself in, so I expect you might respond with more of your strange perspectives and accuse me of your inconsistencies but that does not change the facts and you know this very well or you would't be here. You just can't admit to it. Be good and have a good life.
May the force be with you.
@Muhammad T NO!! I do not Believe in it! I accept the proof the theory of evolution provides that presents adaptation and survival of the fittest as primary factors that have produced the world we know today. There is no part of evolution that requires one to believe in it because it provides evidence. It does not require blind faith, belief and concurrent suspension of mental processes to accept what is proposed. If you've gone to college, you might understand the ideas I have described. One either accepts a theory or rejects it in favor of some other explanation, in this case, of our existence.
Do you believe in god? If so prove his/ her existence and I suppose from your name your god is Allah. Do you believe because of fear, because of promise after death or because you were brainwashed from your culture that its this choice or you will at least be banished? Also, why is your god any better than any other, including the Olympic gods who at least had some relationship with the humans living below?
Please note that you goad me with 5 words to respond, and I do, providing actual text and content as I have already done before in much greater quantity and quality. Since you ignored my previous writings, I will not repeat the exercise if you reply with another such collection of nearly incoherent letters. I am not here for your entertainment as much as you might think so.
I think I can see the interviewer thinking:
He is attacking my faith, but he's right.....
Good job, Richard.
We don't know the interviewers religious beliefs. He could be atheist.
@@r4h4al - He is a Hindu
Ironically, the interviewer, if I go by his name, Krishnan, is a Hindu..And apparantly either a devil's advocate or an utter fool.
@@r4h4al Really? Did you actually listen to him! He is god fearing as ever, because he's afraid that if he wasn't, he might be wrong when he dies.....
@@2010sunshine Obviously the latter.... He is most likely a Hindu by birth, brought up in a Christian environment and god fearing by culture. Not smart enough.
Eversince the first I heard about him and Christopher hitchens when I was like 17 years old back in 2007-8 and my mind just got bigger wiser and more scientific for sure so thank you professor
"teaching people how to think and not teaching people what to think" damn
which one is he doing.?
ifyoueverfind78 How to think, of course.
@@robyn964 oh.
ifyoueverfind78 if you want anymore explanation, let me know. (:
@@robyn964 if he is teaching people how to think, then he would be cool with people questioning evolution. I find evolution hard to believe- actually, so I question it. he would not allow questioning it...for him it is a stringent fact, not worth questioning, to me he is then teaching his truth, and not allowing questioning. also, one can question spiritual things, and religions, for him questioning a religion is not cool...they are all false~! this to me is a closed mind, not an open one...but go ahead...explain more your point of view.]
hey am richard dawkins
interviewer : well thats very controversial thing to say
R u Atheist ??
i’m crying laughing
@Cyborg
Where does 'metaphysically neutral' plus the logic of believing only that which has good evidence take you?
What evidence do you have for anything metaphysical apart from some claim of personal revelation that isn't better understood by indoctrination, wishful thinking and perhaps misperception.
What is the end result of your belief in the metaphysical? Is it one of the major currently existing organized religions?
What is it about quantum physics that you think is well understood enough to debunk materialism and/or support the metaphysical, especially since you claim science is "merely descriptive and unable to claim to reveal anything about the nature of reality"?
What can be argued to be "outdated" about atheism? What is replacing it? What is new that has left atheism or western enlightenment behind?
Such terms as "fascist" and "right-wing" are political terms. How do you apply them to Dawkins' atheism for example? My experience with right wingers is that they attribute atheism to the left wing. Atheism has nothing to say about political or economic systems. You seem to have fallen for the tactic of slandering an opposing philosophical position by attaching as many unrelated pejorative terms as possible to it. "Jesuit" !?, "pathetic, dishonest, deceptive, contemptible"?
Where in the academic literature of the history and philosophy of science do you find support for the claim that western enlightenment was the result of atheism rather than science? Even religious apologists brag about the origins of science amongst the religious and their institutions. Do you separate science from western enlightenment?
@Cyborg
What utter bullshit.
Unfortunately for you the big words you've used don't mask your puerile thoughts.
This is the same douche who popped the same idiotic level questions to Robert Downey Jr. Ironman did away with the guy. This is not the first time he fails doing interviews.
Dawkins has extremely clear logic and is a pleasure to listen to.
Consumers idiots mascot .. Of hoodwink hope and chauvanism is what Richard Duh-kins is...
@@AudioPervert1 Get lost ...
@@richardpetek712 hahahaha .... Right ... Likewise jackass
I don’t know what you are talking about.
As expected, Mr Dawkins is brilliant! A true scientific leader and all-around scholar! All religions are man made and deserve scrutiny. Bravo Dawkins!
😂
Ive been binge watching ndt,dawkins,hitchens,nye for a month now and ive never been this convinced in my life that there is really no god.im so glad i found these brilliant people.the world needs more of them
Yep, me too. I've been an atheist for many years but people like Hitchens and Dawkins put my thoughts into a much more eloquent structure. I love their clear and concise thinking.
By the first half of the twentieth century people used to debate over the existence of God. But by the end of the twentieth century this is no longer considered a debatable topic. Now in academic circles the existence of God is held to be a fact. Particularly after the Big Bang theory, this matter has been almost settled. Now we are right, scientifically, in saying that the choice for us is not between the universe with God and the universe without God. Rather the real choice is between the universe with God or no universe at all. Since, from the scientific viewpoint, we are not in a position to opt for no universe at all, we are compelled to choose the universe with God. As regards the scientific evidence on the existence of God, perhaps the first notable account was that prepared by Sir James Jeans, titled The Mysterious Universe, published in 1930. Many important books have subsequently come out on this topic, which describe how all the fields of the science of the universe point to the existence of God. Here I would like to refer to a very valuable book on this subject, consisting of forty articles written by qualified western scientists. It is titled The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, and is edited by John Clover Monsma.1
@@markjohnson8537 really?
Yes Fashion looks, really.
Well said and I hope you delve more and more into this lovely Man's interllectual insight into how the world and universe is and evolved!
Krishnan is usually a good and fair interviewer..... but I think he missed here. Prof Dawkins continues to shine.
Well I mean, it's about challenging the views of the one you interview, without being overly combative. I think he succeeded in that.
Do you think he was too soft or too hard, or maybe you think he just asked the wrong questions?
I used to think that until the Labour Jewish issue. He is a fool nowadays. He has got old and right wing.
Boomerrage32 He seems, perhaps, intimidated by his subject. At one point he asks Richard the same question and he answers by saying that he literally just answered it
@@mikusguitarius I didn't even remember that! :D
Krishnan was fair and challenged Dawkins in a fair manner. Dawkins replied well, it was a fine conversation and enjoyable to listen to. I don't see why there always has to be someone who dropped the ball or a winner and loser duelistic view.
I have been an atheist my entire seventy years. No one ever tried to shove religion down my throat so it simply never occurred to me until teachers tried on the praying thing and I thought that was utterly daft.
Like billions of others religion was shoved down mine at school. The whole town and country were possessed by it. I often care for schizophrenics and I always seen parallels. Even as a child I watched these grownup teachers teaching delusions as though they were real.
@toni47291 : You probably missed out on learning things.........
@@davidbanner6230 Not for long, it only lasted a couple of my early primary years and it wasn't a lesson, just thank you for meals etc. It soon ended by the time I was about six or seven.
@@davidbanner6230 I learned things I needed to know. The Bible I learned about when I grew up. It's childish nonsense.
Realising that you know almost nothing is a sign of intelligence, thinking that you know everything is a sign of ignorance....
Well said David, a very balanced out look on life! Here is some thing that may interest you! Mount St Helen’s erupted on the 18th May 1980
The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helen's was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).
This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.
Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption-a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 has leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. How can you know that? It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helen's lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986.
The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out. The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA-a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helen's and was only 10 years old for good reasons.
What do we see? First, that they are wrong in their results. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Different samples of the same rock also disagreed with each other. From the same rock!!!
It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth’s history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helen's is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there-we know! “How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown ages in the invented geologic column?” This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. All dating methods used by evolutionists are subject to contamination and limitation because we live in an open system
Radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks-those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill.” Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock” cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which we can ask the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’
The thinking and knowing of Mankind is nonsense.
@@edgarlawson1251 You should enjoy these facts if you have any integrity. Flying over the Nazca Pampas in Peru 2001
Dr Dennis Swift had enlisted the ace pilot Eduardo Herron to fly him over the Nazca Lines. After viewing all the well-known geoglyphs on the Nazca Pampa we headed up north to Rio Palpa Nazca which had not being fully investigated for geoglyphs. We went on an observation mission to locate new geoglyphs that resembled dinosaurs. We had just exited a canyon when Eduardo pointed, “There they are the dinosaur geoglyphs. There was a faint outline of two dinosaur-like creatures spanning some 100 meters each. As we flew over the crest of a mountain Dr Dennis Swift said unto Eduardo, what is the figure below? He replied where Senior Dennis? There below the crest of the hill to your right. Eduardo said Dennis you have made a new discovery. We shall call it the Dennis dinosaur. The figure was at least 80 meters long with a huge dinosaurian head and the beginning of a bulging body. The shadow of the plane in comparison to the figure made it look like a tiny insect in a large dark crevice. Eduardo was so ecstatic about the discovery, that it defied description. It was there right in your face, undeniable evidence that the indigenous Indians carved these on the Nazca Pampa. The Head Peruvian archaeologist, Alberto Orbabo Jacinto in charge of the Pampa and Nazca Lines, agreed that they definitely looked like dinosaurs. Alberto was interviewed by a National Geographic crew the next day. He concluded we have a new theory: the “Dennis Theory”-that dinosaurs were drawn on the desert by the ancient Nazcans. Alberto believed himself that the Nazcans must have seen dinosaurs, because the figures on the pampa were animals that the ancient Nazcans were familiar with. We now have incredible evidence that supports the ICA Stones and the Moche vases with dinosaurs depicted upon them.
When you have evidence like this dating back a thousand years or two you realise that dating methods for the age of the rocks and dinosaurs are inaccurate and that all dating methods no matter how new they are, or how accurate evolutionary scientists claim they are is non-sense. All dating methods are subject to contamination and therefore limitation because we live in an open system, not a controlled laboratory condition.
For example: regarding lead-uranium. You can have two rocks taken out of the ground in reasonable proximity to each other; one will have more lead in it than the other, so they will date differently to each other age-wise. Uranium decays into lead but there can be other elements in the rocks that have produced lead without leaving any evidence that they were actually there in the first place. So we have different components of Parent/Daughter elements. Potassium- Argon is also affected by the environment every time it rains. Products can be washed in and out of radioactive rocks.
Remember I do these posts for the sheep not for the goats as they will always head-butt, no matter what is put before them which contradicts Darwinian Evolutionary Religion.
You are right life is a learning curve
I say pretending u know everything is a sign of intelligence
I have immense respect for Mr. Dawkins. He's one of the most brilliant mind of our time. His words are simple and yet so powerful. Seek knowledge through science. That's the only way to bring enlightenment, promoting reason and ultimately the happiness we are looking for.
What happened to barbarism, it used to bring happiness and honor too?
What about Yoga and Meditation as a means to Enlightenment.
Totally agree Rogerio. Science seeks answers and truth, it may not always get it right, but at least it tries to explain our world and other worlds. Religion on the other hand claims to have the answers. As science moves forward, religion will have to move backwards
@@markjohnson8537 and yet science was started by religious people wanting to find out more about how God created it all and how it all works. Indeed God commands you to learn about it.
Science is hundreds of years old. Atheism is a VERY recent thing. So I find that viewpoint really puzzling. The pretence that it was always and is always a fight of religion vs science. The oldest universities in the world are dedicated to science in the name of God. So I don't know what planet your mind is living on
@@marioluigi9599 Religion is a man-made thing, invented to try and explain the world around us. There are many Gods created by man. God didn't create man, man created many Gods. Every believer will dismiss all the other Gods, I just choose to dismiss them all. The bible tells us that man was created from Adam and Eve, I just decide to go with the evolution theory from science gained from all over the world. Read some history, religion has been the biggest cause of wars, backward thinking, women being looked upon as 2nd class citizens and division of people all over the world. If people spent less time with their heads in religious texts and more time with science, history, geography books, the world would be a better place.
I hope Krishnan is just trying to play devils advocate with some of these questions. Otherwise he comes across as very naive, presenting talking points that Dawkins, Hitch, Harris etc. debunked years ago
I have seen Him in other interviews and its clear he has an agenda. Because he will agree or disagree depending on if it suits his agenda or not.
He is. The point of being an interviewer is to put to the interviewee what many will be thinking and wanting to ask.
they debunked nothing.
Baa baa, the sheeps follow the herding of their shepards. Its astonishing the naivety of athiest to take the preaching of their preachers without intellectually challenging their scientifically clad opinions!
I think he asked the really interesting questions, enjoyed the interview a lot.
The more he tries to undermine Dawkins, the more the integrity of truth shines. Trying to deny reality because it does not suit your agenda is a sign of limited intellectual capacity and honesty. You rock Richard
Hes a con artiste entertainer that uses metaphysics.
QUOTE - For Grayling, work on technical problems is only one aspect of philosophy. Another aspect, one which has been at the centre of philosophy's place in history, has more immediate application to daily life: the questions of ethics, which revolve upon what Grayling calls the great Socratic question, 'How should one live?'. In pursuit of what he describes as 'contributing to the conversation society has with itself about possibilities for good lives in good societies', Grayling writes widely on contemporary issues, including war crimes, the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia, secularism, human rights and other topics in the tradition of Polemics. He has articulated positions on humanist ethics and on the history and nature of concepts of liberty as applied in civic life. In support of his belief that the philosopher should engage in public debate, he brings these philosophical perspectives to issues of the day in his work as a writer and as a commentator on radio and television.[38]
Among his contributions to the discussion about religion in contemporary society he argues that there are three separable, though naturally connected debates:
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist;
(b) a debate about the basis of ethics; taking the world to be a natural realm of natural law requires that humanity thinks for itself about the right and the good, based on our best understanding of human nature and the human condition; this makes him a humanist;
(c) a debate about the place of religious movements and organisations in the public domain; as a secularist Grayling argues that these should see themselves as civil society organisations on a par with trade unions and other NGOs, with every right to exist and to have their say, but no greater right than any other self-constituted, self-selected interest group - UNQUOTE.
No sign of 'the scientific method' here is there ?
(a) a metaphysical debate about what the universe contains; denying that it contains supernatural agencies of any kind makes him an atheist ''
Ok just thinking up stuff same as the theists vs scientific method where dawkins et al informed us they are doing BOTH.. Clearly Dawkins et al have no intention of fulfilling the 'scientific method' half of the promises otherwise they'd stay away from the METAPHYSICS.
It just turns out that new atheism doing science is just lies really them - RIGHT ?
Would take too much time
Would cost too much money
The followers are just unimportant bottom feeders (who cares what we tell them)
Lying via metaphysics is cheap easy = no brainer
= Tell Lies.
- A lot of people would say you would like to get rid of things like feelings. - Murthy
- I’m fond of feelings where art, music and poetry is concerned. But that’s not about what’s factually true. We can only determine what’s true by factual evidence, - Dawkins
- Why do you think that would make the world a better place? - Murthy
- Because facts are so wonderful and scientific facts are so beautiful and elegant.. - Dawkins
Seems logical.
Dawkins, Hitch, Dillahunty, Harris, Dennett, and so many others have been so instrumental in my deconversion so many years ago. My whole life changed when I became an atheist. I cared about the truth, about humanism and became a much better, empathetic person. As Hitch said, “Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way”. So true.
💚💚💚
I deconversed 15 years ago, when I was 22. I discovered Dawkins and Hitchens only a year ago and it is balsam for the soul and mind. The others you mention are still on my list to learn from.
@@honingbijtje83 It must really change once life when discovering that the ridiculous concept that all of the organs in our body, like our eyeballs, heart, etc.,and all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, boas, anacondas, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of design. Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins BS does not even present an illusion of making sense.
Fully Agree. Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Dan Denet, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger and other pioneering New Atheists have helped me to be proud to be an atheist, instead of feeling that I should hide it. I have been an atheist all my life, certainly since the age of about 4. but only after reading the New Atheist literature have I realized what a great thing it is to care about scientific evidence-based truth.
@@russmarkham2197 Carnegie also felt great freedom when converting to the modern creation myth of Darwinism and its atheistic values. It helped him to quickly lose all of his moral inhibitions , "I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear," Carnegie wrote.Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. 'All is well since all grows better' became my motto, my true source of comfort." Carnegie also spent a fortune in order to have the new modern pagan creation myth promoted as a science. His conversion was reminiscent to that of the Apostle Paul to Christianity upon meeting Christ on the road to Damascus.
How did you miss Russel?
Richard's courage of his conviction is softly spoken but so powerful and persuasive!
@robertblakeman9978 : He didn't have the courage of his convictions when Cardinal George Pell cought him out in a lie.....he clamped up and said nothing?
@@davidbanner6230
Lol! You think a convicted pedophile like Pell has a moral high ground? I’ve watched all those debates. If anyone was lying it certainly was not Dawkins.
@@davidbanner6230 'convictions,.. makes me think of the word, 'convicted', as in 'convicted criminal'.
Pell got lucky, though, and was freed from jail.
In December 2018, a jury found him guilty of sexually abusing two 13-year-old choir boys in private rooms of St Patrick's Cathedral in the mid-90s - when the cleric was Archbishop of Melbourne.
The convictions included one count of sexual penetration and four counts of committing indecent acts..
I'm pretty sure it isn't the first time that dude got into this kind of trouble.. oh well, I really shouldn't be attacking his character, I just find it interesting that so many religious people seem to get caught up in these horrendous crimes, such as, you know, 'child rape'.
My initial plan was to look into the claim you made about Dawkins being caught in a lie, but as soon as I looked up Pell, I learned about the man's troubles with the law.
Seems to happen a lot when I research religious leaders and preachers.
A while back I started researching Kent Hovind with the goal of compiling a list of his documented lies concerning biology and other areas of science. It's kind of funny that the same thing happened then; I learned about his prison sentence before I learned about anything else :-) something about tax evasion and *spousal abuse*
I've personally known some Christian men in my life who beat their wives on a regular basis, because, you know, men are superior to women and women are to be submissive to their husbands 👍
What's up with all these well-known preachers, priests, evangelists, ministers, etc., always getting into trouble with the law? I mean, sure, all different kinds of people get into trouble, but it sure does seem to *happen a lot* amongst the supposedly devoutly religious.
RD is one of the figures who recently changed my views on life. It's impossible for any sincere truth seeker to listen to him and not be convinced. His foundation is firm and he's looking from the right perspective.
I don't know if I am a truth seeker, but I try to be. I'm not convinced. I like his talks and find them relaxing, but he lost a lot of credibility in my sight and his old arguments, although amusing, are quite debunked.
@Deus Vult An unusual step backwards.
Eugen Golubic which ones?
Mebrice Depace spiritual doesn’t mean anything mate. Dead from an “imaginary” perspective is what you mean.
Deus Vult you indeed took some serious steps back. Instead of accepting the world for what it is and fighting the good fight for your fellow man, you decided to wish it away and worship not just a fairytale but a genocidal slavery-endorsing narcissist. Get off your knees. Jesus is not only beneath us in almost every way, he’s also extremely uneducated.
This was a great conversation. So enjoyable and realistic.
Richard Dawkins speaks eloquently. It's a pleasure to hear his
talks. Brilliant communicator.
Honest but not insulting.
👍👍😊
The interviewer seems to lose his sense of hearing about half the way through. Shame, since the interview was pretty smooth until that point.
fredsik sadly it happens a lot
They seem to be mind boggled by the sense of Dawkins lol
Hahahahaahhaha how many times did Dawkins have to repeat himself vis-a-vis Christianity outgrowing barbarism, and Islam's current problem with it?
One of the grandees of sanity in this ever more crazy world. Wish he is around for long time.
R Dawkins=some of my best listening on YT for a while
gda295 Dawkins is a idiot imo,Don,t fall for the Doctrine of Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot who killed 200m choose christians Newton,Darwin.LaMaitre,Stephen Hawkins
@@Jack-fs2im That's the dumbest fuckin' comment I think I've ever seen on here. How could so much be wrong with a short paragraph? ALL of it. You're not worth the time for explanation, but you need to educate yourself my man and you don't get "education" from religious sites and zealots.
@@Jack-fs2im smh this is probably the most retarded comment I have ever read.
Agreed, Dawkins is a beacon of light in a world darkened by stupidity
Thank you Mr Dawkins I believe every thing you are saying is correct. Awesome
When someone says "i will pray for you", My response is "I will think for you"! Cant think where that is from, probably Hitch, but blimey it shuts them up!
Bad idea
@@TshaajThomas why, in case they get angry, and react religiously and blow one up?
@@noodlenoggin5854 Why what? You can't just think when your thinking is wrong.
@@TshaajThomas true. Praying is useless though, so a cutting retort to the uninvited "I will pray for you" is perfectly well warranted.
@@noodlenoggin5854 Praying is often time useless but that's not always the case. However, the offering to pray for someone is a good gesture from one's good heart, but sometimes the message is misunderstood by both sides and ineffective.
As Aron Ra says: "Science doesn't have all the answers. Religion has no answers" !
I like his line “Faith is the reason people give for believing things when they have no actual evidence”
@@Ninialzh
Since is getting more "why" answer every day.
I in general would start from a child's perspective and discount reduction ad absurdum by knowing that patience persists.
Nini "these people think they can get all the answers from science" Who are "these people"? Not scientists.
Agreed. Science cannot disprove god. Nor can it disprove unicorns, but where is the evidence for unicorns?
Please take this oath: "I will not waste people's time with straw man arguments". We'll all be better for it.
@@Ninialzh so you have ZERO evidence of your imaginary dictator.
@@Ninialzh So you know better do you Nini? He's stating the ironic fact that religious people are constantly arguing the fact that Science can't explain everything yet religion has never had any substantial evidence to suggest any truth in its radical claims whatsoever. Also another quote "You can't disprove god, just like you can't disprove Thor, the flying teapot or the spaghetti monster." Just because you can't disprove something doesn't make it true. For instance I can't disprove unicorns. That's not substancial evidence for it's existence is it?
Listening to this man (Dawkins) is like pleasant music to my ears. Everything he said in this video is very easy to agree with immediately, and I'm not just saying that; it actually makes inherent sense on its own. It's similar to listening to Hitchens or Harris. Every argument they make is so beautiful that it just makes complete sense. I think we're fortunate to know these people, who can make good point after good point seemingly with great ease. Bravo!
Yet , I don’t understand why the interviewer , in many occasions , asked the same question (but in different wording), expecting a different answer. Richards answers where clearer than water and easy to understand. Perhaps the intervier is representing religious people ? Maybe?
Yes, listening to Dawkins is rather like listening to church bells. Listening to Krishnan is rather like listening to "Allahu Akbar."
"Teaching people how to think, not teaching people what to think" might be one of the best guidelines to reform education I've ever heard.
Dawkin is a fantastic thinker, but while advocating for science and facts I wish he'd emphasize a bit more what science can do (always find better explanations) and what it can't (ultimately proofing something).
If we criticize everything, ideas nearer to the truth have a higher probability to survive. If we don't critique any idea enough and become 'scientific believers' we will stop to develop, too. I always cringe a bit when he uses the words 'facts' or 'proofs'.
Not "fantastic" at all, and he knows it......
@@davidbanner6230 You keep using these somewhat unnecessary attacks on Professor Dawkins as a person rather than combatting his beliefs with those of your own. You're obviously a religious person, so present your argument against what the Professor believes instead of sleights on his character. I'm not a religious person, mainly because I discovered the Bible literally stole parts of its content from Mesopotamian poetry written centuries earlier (and changed the names of the characters in that poetry). The poem has a man being born from a rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers (biblically changed to fruit) and being forced to cover their nakedness and banished from gardens unable to return. Since stealing is a mortal sin in the Bible and the Bible itself stole such stories, I refuse to believe it can be true.
I feel a bit embarassed for this interviewer Dawkins was well composed considering these odd questions to an academic of Dawkin's caliber
Richard Dawkins is a hero! The interviewer seems very lost and having a difficult time comprehending the discussion.. I hope this conversation registers with him!
Think again! Can't change his skin anymore than his mind!
I can see clearly that Krishnan has been emotionally triggered by Richard Dawkin’s atheism.
He’s trying his very best but it’s obvious unfortunately. Religion has robbed people of the ability of thinking critically and without bias which means that these types of conversations are always difficult.
When will religious people realise that they should have evidence for their religious/God belief?
This a perfect example of how someone questions a person and they give you logical , reason and truthful answers but you refuse to listen because you don't like the answers
Dawkins making absolute sense as ever regardless of some pretty dumb questions.
Are you really a stupid or super sane to regard such outstanding questions as pretty dumb questions? I think these questions were beautifully manifested and even Dawkins had had great difficulty answering them especially when he was asked do you really think the origin of all things is a simple thing even if you have little a bit of sanity you would be flabbergasted how to answer such a question. The origin of anything was never a simple thing and I believe humanity can never answer this question how the matter was created in the first place and how life started on its own without manually starting by someone. Its an extremely profound dimension.
@@syedhaniraza Yeah I'm with you, I thought this was a great interview and the interviewer did a great job at asking the right questions and trying to understand Dawkins.
@@syedhaniraza
You're definitely stupid 😩 and you think you know something because of religion.
@@syedhaniraza
Religion makes people like you think they're smart and that's very dangerous!!!
Darren Hurworth Dawkins is an idiot please don,t fall for the Doctrine if Hitler,Stalin.Mao.Pol Pot who killed 200m.Go with Christians.Newton,Darwin,LaMaitre.Stephen Hawkins and many more
Why did you stop believing? Umm, well, I grew up
Thats what I did and one day I had an encounter with the supernatural. I immediately realized Jesus is real and that he is the one true God and king of Earth and Heaven.
Sounds like frost needs to wake up.
@@frostmourne4598 hahahaha. Ah man, good one.
@@topologyrob So what's your belief/stance now? Oh enlighten us, englightened one!
Grew up and realized everything is l had been told was bs, so l became sane and dropped all that.
Wow Krishnan really doesn't like Dawkins' views on Islam. His emotions are getting in the way of a good interview.
Wonder why a Hindu would be upset about Dawkins' views on Islam.
Not really. He is giving Richard a chance to get his points across to what others might think of him. If any thing, Krishnan is being kind.
KGM hates non-leftist as do C4. Dawkins is a centrist scientific thinker ergo the enemy.
I agree with you... Krishnan is trying to defend lslam
people don't like their world view challenged. doesn't mean they can dismiss what's true. just means they have a really hard time admitting and coming to terms with the idea that what they know isn't true.
Also, when I listen to Richard Dawkins, I am transported back to the wonderful days when one could listen to both RD and Christopher Hitchens and come away in an energetic thinking mood rather than in a closeted, vacuous sense of blind faith.
love watching Dawkins ..I was a far right christian republican in america ...now a far left atheist ,the only atheist in my family. thank you RICHARD for helping people think. evidence over faith for me and in courts ...faith is more like a hope, far far from evidence .
Let’s see how long you will last…in the FAR left as an atheist. Extremes of anything is not good.
as a republican atheist, let's hope there's only ONE "religion/way of life", thinking for the self while trying to KNOW the self.
Being an atheist has nothing to do politics but believing in science rather than man made religion must be a revelation .
Good for you............
I am a Republican and also an Atheist. If you analyze government tax spending, foreign policy, etc.. it'd be hard to remain on the left at all. There hasn't been a decent democratic president in many many years. It's really just embarrassing to be on the left. You're probably only focusing on one aspect of things and just ignoring all of the corruption that's taking place, all of the terrible mistakes that the Biden administration is currently making. Opinions on religion and politics are 2 different things man. Don't base your entire political viewpoint based on something like that.
Whilst I understand that terrorists are the minority of the muslim community, I also think that muslims need to stand up and actually address it as a problem instead of shrugging their shoulders and brushing it to one side saying 'they're just a minority, it doesn't matter'. They're clearly more worried about the reputation of their religion than the lives of people affected by terrorism.
Equally infuriating is the tag of islamophobia being constantly applied to anyone who dares speak out against islam. I am sorry but whether or not you personally think of terrorists you cannot deny that they are doing what they do in the name of islam. Muslims need to focus more of their energy on condemning these evil people instead of condemning people that criticise islam
So true
Im a muslim and cant agree more
Have you ever considered why the so called “minority” allow this and stay silent? You stated you understood! I suggest you obviously know less than you think about the Islamic religion and culture…presumption’s and presume.
All credit to Krishna for presenting Dawkins with the most challenging interview questions and exposing his bias against Islam based on the actions of a tiny minority of extremists. Much of his objections against Islam are based NOT on the Qur'an (the foundation scripture) but interpretations of some muslims based on traditional stories. He is intelligent enough to make that distinction instead of maligning 2 billion muslims across the world. Krishna also got Dawkin to admit his own FAITH in future science being able to explain the origin of life & the universe. He is also inclined to believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial aliens - just not God because that would be "supernatural".
@@AnalyseThat I suggest you watch again. It’s your opinion of course but if there was any bias it was in your summing up…very distorted…please don’t become a commentator or we will all be f****d
What an intelligent reply: "I don't ridicule them, I ridicule their ridiculous belief."
Um, not really intelligent - rather ignorant and presumptuous.
@@topologyrob how is it a presumption? He’s saying exactly what he does, he indeed ridicules the beliefs not the person themselves. They happen to feel ridiculed by him personally because they’ve attached themselves to their religion and it is a part of them, that isn’t Dawkins problem and doesn’t make his statement less factual.
@Hellfire6 your comment makes no sense
@Hellfire6 when I say it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t address anything I said in the comment you’re now replying to months later.
@@ItsSVO WHAT COMES FIRST THE CHICHEN, OR THE EGG? If “the selfish gene” then why the selfish gene?
When the first cell was created (perhaps by accident) that was able to divide, then what was the force, vested in that accident that caused the accident to be repeated forever? Yes, we can say that once the sequence had been established then it was bound to be repeated, but at what point did the accident, of the right chemicals coming together, become written into genetic makeup, as sexual motivation?
Darwinists might say ‘it just is’, but if so then why is the same tolerance not shown to the advent of religious practice, which was probably born of a much more sophisticated accident than that of the first cell?
No revised book quotes allo
❤ THIS is THE interview to explain many things. His every word is precious to explain things and in a very logical ways. Thank you.. 🎉
Stop it Flanders.....
the just shall live by faith.....read the bible read the archaeological evidence from 3000BC to today...and the faith will be supported by science.
The most honest man I have ever listened to. Continue with the good work Richard.
Wow, are you a loser!
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Absurd
The man who is not even sincere , honest and truthful with his own creator and rejects the presence of his own creator .I Shocked that someone call him a most honest man
Your a victim Sadqa. Brainwashed with nonsense.
@@Sadqajaria786 I'm pretty sure he's honest when he talks about science related subjects. I don't really know much about the man, but what has he said that is not fact concerning biology, or any field of science?
What a bad interviewer He keeps asking the same question even after getting an answer over and over again He has shown himself a plonker
What do you mean, he is a plonker, Ch4, are biased as the BBC, in different ways.
I have a great respect for this man, sometimes we feel so alone in our atheism, it is comforting to listen to his talks
Here is a verse from the Darwinian Bible according to Darwinist evangelist Dawkins."Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." The concept that the miracle of evolution becoming feasible by smearing the process over billions of years is not supported by real science
@@piertinence I am sure that sounded better inside your head. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I quoted Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins. The quack scientist seems to really believe that billions of years could work miracles. I am sure it sounds great in your unintelligently designed atheist skull. "What Dawkins does not seem to understand is that vision is a system. The human eye is a sophisticated camera with its nerves and specialized cells - the hardware part. How do you explain the evolution of vision which is a system? How do you explain by evolution, a shower of photons from an external image going into the eye, being converted to electrical signals which are transported into the brain and which after processing gives you the sensation of sight of the image - the software part? The human body has so many systems and many of them are interconnected to ensure its survival. How can systems with hardware and software working together evolve?" David Samuel
@@piertinence I am sure that sounded better inside your head, too. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Anything Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins would say should sound great in you brain since it is only presenting an illusion of being designed. How can the quack scientist keep feeding his sheep with such a 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮? "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Darwinist atheist Dawkins
Very bright articulate human being Mr. Dawkins. I really admires his passion about science. Superb! We need more people like him. 💪
I haven't listened to Dawkins in years, but he has some great phrases here that really stick out. Glad he is still at it
He gets them from his hate mail....
Rarely seen an interviewer so incompetent at hiding his bias and leading an interview. Dawkins had a field day,
Is he just posing tough questions like when that Jewish right winger Shapiro ran out of his interview with the BBC
You mean that you are wanting an interviewer who will impose his/her views on both the interviewee and the listener.
@@djtwo2 No. Learn to read.
We can all use more of the wisdom of Richard Dawkins. Thank you for the upload.
You are using one of Gods creation the wolf picture..
@@godisamazing8237 which god?
@@godisamazing8237 No a wolf is a product of nature and evolution, over millions of years. No god is needed, try again with a non magical argument.
@@howerpower-gaming1666 Yeah something unconscious created consciousness right? Evolution requires more magic and miracles than an actual God, Explain me how something with no inteligence can create something this complicated,like our brain. Scientist agree that the universe had a beggining right? Where did all the matter and energy come from? The only explanation is something eternal existed before our Universe came into existence.
@@vernonkroark The Christian God the true and only God
The trouble with you Dawkins is that you keep making good points.
I feel like every interview with Dawkins is exactly the same. Not saying it's a bad message to hear - it's actually good - but I never hear a new thing. Every interviewer asks basically the same questions.
As a theist I actually really appreciate Dawkins and feel he's a voice for good in society.
Only if you don't think critically about what he's actually saying.
@@heinpereboom5521 says the guy who doesn't even question his beliefs.
@@tonyfrancisco370 Oh he questions them... he is just terrified. It's much more cosy to pretend that there is an afterlife and you are more than just a speck of DNA that appears and disappears in and out of existence in the vastness of the cosmos.
Pale man : Dawkins is a voice among many other voices.....He uses plain facts, which most of us already know, but he misses the action of important side issues. He's pretty harmless, except there is much neglect and distress in the world that, having belief, could give comfort to, but are not recognised by people who want to give the impression they understand everything?
@@davidbanner6230 Dawkins is not harmless, he is spreading complete nonsense about evolution.
He presents this as a science, but it's just a belief in a homemade theory.
That's poison for the truth, but he doesn't care.
He is therefore not a real scientist, because they exclude nothing and test their theory with practice.
He ridicules religious people, that is his aim, and furthermore pretends to tell scientific facts in which he himself believes.
The evolution theory is presented thousands of times, one hears almost nothing else, because of those many repetitions it automatically becomes truth for many people, but it remains nonsense.
Krishnan and Cathy are such terrible interviewers, Im so sorry for Channel 4
Is he the same interviewer that did Robert Downey Jr.?
@@krismitchell5496 he is indeed.
Huh...? You people want a safe space tbh. JP is a proven liar and an utter fraud but foolish people do get reeled in by him. Go find your little corner.
@@alexnorth3393 go learn how to argue.
@@alexnorth3393 I dont see how this "you people" and "go find your little corner" attitude gets us anywhere or how it adds any value of discusion to the comment I made. Despite that id appreciate if you could share how exactly was JP proven a "liar". My comment isn't in defense of the interviewees in question, Im mearly saying that I believe these types of interviews are more sensational and opinionated than honest and truthseeking.
Krishnan Guru -Murthy seems to do his best to steer Richard into making "controversial" statements about Islam. Richard is obviously aware of this and handles this interview with great tact and patience. He's head & shoulders above this devious individual.
Dawkins was just talking sense and facts yet the interviewer was deeply uncomfortable with what he was hearing and got agitated a couple of times. Dawkins was unfazed. ZEN MASTER
I can listen to this man talk all day long and never get bored. So interesting.
Here is a lecture by Darwinist evolutionist atheist Dawkins's saying that the creation of all the wonders in nature would be miracle of naturalisms made possible by smearing the process over billions of years, which has no scientific value. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins
Dawkins made himself filthy rich preaching that type of nonsense
“Why are there so many old people in Church? Cramming for the final. “
I’ve never heard that one. Brilliant. 😂
Fear of the the future after death
Because most people get wiser and gain knowledge as they get older.
Andrew Douglas. Or trying to grab an hypothetical afterlife, in despair...
@@desiderata8811
Or a real afterlife. Because it's ridiculous to believe that this universe could have somehow magically appear all by itself from nothing and against scientific understanding.
It's also ridiculous to believe, given the evidence that life could somehow magically have arisen all by itself and that it was some kind of fluke that we are very likely the only intelligent beings in the universe.
It's like there is something deeper going on to explain all of this.
Andrew Douglas. I understand your ignorance about science makes you think that the universe magically appear from nothing, as well as life. There’s something deeper in fact, you should study what “ nothing” means.
Magic is in the realm of religion and superstition, not science.
Do not say this or that is against science, because someone who truly believes in the Bible do not understand nothing about reason, implying don’t get the definition of science.
He is so spot on about so much. Really love his intellectual explanations. There's life on the planet.
As a child I was taught that if a planet were to develop an environment propitious to support life, life would then first appear on it in its simplest bacterial form, and as it did on earth, it would then be put through never ending billions of years evolutionary journey that would culminate with the evolutionary creation of all kinds of new original creatures, being shaped at the whim of the said planet climates and environments. At the time I was subscribing to the validity of such a belief system but later on, I got to realize that such a materialistic process would have zero feasibility, and paradoxically would be impregnated with paganistic and naturalistic religiosity..
He is one of many great minds...what a waste...read or listen to Jordon Peterson and you will be exposed to another great mind..from atheism to a belief in the God of the Bible...and can explain it theologically as well as psychologically.
@@thomasperren4045 Watch Jordan Petersons “interview” with Dawkins and see how outmatched he is. Peterson is great in psychological debate, not in evolutionary biology or religious talks.
@@thomasperren4045
Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual charlatan. But he spouts the kinds of shite certain people want to hear so he has a constituency.
@@thomasperren4045 🤣🤣