To me we can look at the variety of dog species that we have produced via un-natural selection in a VERY short period of time - the concept that natural selection can produce such variation we see over millions of years seems perfectly plausible.
@thelogster "So how is natural selection not a random process again?" Yes the process of how life began, abiogenesis, may have been random, but this does not therefore mean that the process of how life changes over time, evolution, is also random. Natural selection is not a random process. Read the Wikipedia article on natural selection, it provides a great definition and explains really well why it is nothing to do with random chance.
@thelogster Who said it started by a random process? The "randomess" of initiation is simply a way of denoting a lack of understanding or information. Once it is understood it is random no more..
@Silversong88 "The "randomess" of initiation is simply a way of denoting a lack of understanding or information. Once it is understood it is random no more.."
lol, go study some more, and then come back and talk....
@Silversong88 Natural selection is not random - the mutations that drive natural selection are.
Mutations can be beneficial, disadvantageous or neutral. Clearly a beneficial mutation confers advantage which allows the organism a better chance of survival which leads to it passing on the beneficial gene.
@Ellie8969 Sorry if I didn't come across clearly, I agree with you. Natural selection is consequential, not random. But then again, mutations are also consequential within a certain degree of hindsight
nature selects (with no consciousness of doing it of course) the genes that aids an organisms survival
A dark colour moth on a dark tree will not be spotted by predators a lighter moth with less pigment will be. The pigmented moth will become dominant as that will survive to reproduce. A non random process. Dark tree – random. Gene shuffling recombination Mutation causing less/ more pigment – random.
@thelogster Random genetic mutations occur, and those that assist survival are, ofcourse, passed on through dna and those that do not aid survival die off. So it is the exact opposite of random what genes are kept in the gene pool.
i love the religious argument that evoloution cant be seen. its really nice to know we will see gene's change for the next 1000 years even if the difference is miniscule it'll prove atheism 100% true.
Richard dawkins says there is no evidence of god, but there is evidence of people thinking other beings are god, when they are just other humans lting to them or aliens, most gods are aliens
Don't like or agree with Dawkins at all...he is an ignorant and arrogant man who makes selective facile points about religious faith which he then uses to ridicule religion in general.
Yeah. When I was 14, I'd still never heard that used as evidence for Evolution (though I knew it to be fact) and I came up with my own hypothesis as to how it could be supportive of the Theory. I was heartbroken when I realised others had noticed XD
@nn101198 Yes, it's actually possible to witness evolution in real-time in organisms with very short generation times, such as bacteria or other micro-organisms.
You've got to feel for Dawkins, being quizzed on evolution, a process that is a fact of life. As certain as the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun.
@deckard2034 I agree that Dawkins' use of 'unnatural' had some pretty offensive implications to the genetic composition of the welfare recipients. Although, I think Dawkins is referring to welfare as a general concept, not welfare in its modern practical application. Dawkins is well aware that society is hundreds of years past a "survival of the fittest" modus operandi, and that welfare recipients could have anything from the "weakest" to the "strongest" DNA makeup...
2:34 that is exactly why the "its natural argument" cannot justify animal slaughter. As an atheist I see many more reasons to believe animal slaughter is immoral, as it is no longer a necessity in this modern 21st century society and with sentient beings experience pain, suffering and the absence of freedom in exchange for mere pleasure of humans.
Wonderful video, I enjoyed it. It's made so much better by having an interviewer who keeps it civil and doesn't ask idiotic questions. And Sky News is (partially) a Murdoch possession - take note Fox News...
4:51 is a real danger of religion. i have experienced this and i know others close to me have felt this perceived threat. as if death needs to be scarier when you are a kid. this scare tactic causes unnecessary anxiety for a lot of nice people just trying to live their lives.
I don't like Adam Boulton, but at least he didn't ask, "What evidence is there that God doesn't exist?" I can't believe theists sometimes get away with asking this illogically-formulated question.
@Picklezorz you say that is if a theory is a philosophy Darwin created that no one heard of. Natural selection is THE theory of evolution, and as Dawkins was the head of Oxford's public understanding of science (or something like that) it was his duty to make people aware of it. Have you read any of his books?
@Picklezorz He's not ignorant. He may be disrespectful, but why does any system of illogic and irrationality and oppression and exploitation deserve respect?
....I fear not, because in order for that to happen it be necessary that the most intelligent amongst us are the ones who have the most children...indeed.
Oops, there was a brief dance there, a fleeting moment of sidestepping to be sure, when Mr. Dawkins asked "Aren't you?" of his host, inquiring whether he were an atheist or not. Like many people, even if he were, he might not yet be prepared to commit social suicide by admitting it on national television. Have to admire his quick thinking and ready response. :-)
I disagree with Dawkins. A society that looks after the weak is not counter darwinian. Safety nets like the benefit system and the NHS ensure everyone in society, whether they be born from prince or pauper, is able to compete on some ground of equality. This is ultimately beneficial for everyone as we can see from the introduction of the public school system and the resulting few geniuses (many who come from humble backgrounds) that have shaped our world today.
@Bloodlovefreak But it has to be. It is not the natural development for humans to digress and care for others in society. I know we do, but to evolve we need to continue along the cycle which best indicates our path. Survival of the fittest. Equality is for the masses, but it takes the few to keep pushing the boundaries.
@Bloodlovefreak How can you disagree with him? It is counter darwinian. He said that, and he also said "thank god our society is counter darwinian, its a very good thing we look after the needy" etc etc. So what exactly did you disagree with? :S
@mysql0 Dawkins does not have the last say on this subject and many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers. I am merely conjecturing that treating strangers well is not necessarily
counter darwinian. I respect Dawkins but that does not mean I have to agree with whatever he says like some drone, especially on a subject that even he sometimes errs at.
@Bloodlovefreak "many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers" - for you to say this statement, you must know some of those other views.
So lets hear them! (bet you're running to google now)
@mysql0 Nice try, but since there is no consensus on why or when we developed the tendency to do good there must thus be differing views as a logical necessity. Since the grounds are contentious in this area of science it is up to the scientist to present positive proof for their theories or conjectures on this subject. In short, the onus is on you to produce a single quotation or proof from some scientific journal proving there is justified belief that humans evolved tendency x in year y.
@mysql0 But I guess a drone like you can only come up with argument from authority. I bet you're the type who also thinks you're so unique and controversial by being an atheist. Pathetic.
@Bloodlovefreak You said "many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers.". Dawkins idea of selfish gene makes the most sense, but let's hear your view from other experts. That was your word, not mine. Argument from authority is re-tarded. I analyze the content of the argument, not who is presenting it.
You also take about another logical fallacy, 'conensus'. There are millions of christians, so that makes them true since there is consensus? Idiot.
@mysql0 I seriously doubt your level of literacy is all that high given that I have not challenged the idea of the selfish gene. I have not committed the census fallacy since my argument is not x number of people believe y therefore y is true, but that not everyone can agree on y therefore there is not a consensus on theory x. Can you comprehend, pleb?
@Bloodlovefreak "Dawkins does not have the last say on this subject and many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers" - that was your claim. So let's hear about the views from other 'so called experts' that you claim exist. Go on. Stop avoiding the question.
@mysql0 Again you have failed to grasp logic. When there is a contentious area of study there is no point in scholars publishing an article saying subject x is contentious since it adds nothing. The only way such an article would be published is if it refutes existing dogma and re-asserts the subject as contentious. However, for subjects that are not contentious like gravity, for instance, a wealth of scientific literature can be held up to prove the theory of gravity is not contentious.
@Bloodlovefreak "Dawkins does not have the last say on this subject and many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers" - for you to say this statement, you must know some of those other views.
So lets hear them! (bet you're running to google now)
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
Dawkins, please, don't refute Jesus who loves you... Don't be such a monkey and convert to Jesus. Pray the Rosary, pray for a good death and stay away from sin.If you convert your monkey mind could change your way of thing God's love. Convert as God give you the time and don't be such an atheist fool monkey.
Richard Dawkins is a lying whore, and just like a whore he will give you what you want if you pay him. He makes a living selling books and getting interviewed where he blasphemed consistently against the one true almighty God. He thinks he's better than God but at some point he will get a nasty shock.
@MrEnlighteneddespot Prove me Dawkins is a lying whore and that god exists. I'm educated so obviously an old book like the bible isn't a proof. Also give me millions and millions of proofs like science does, where all the theories fit together in a big one cuz that's where we basically are today. Disprove science and prove god undoubtedly.
@whoyoutellin93 'Your educated'- your education has not saved you from ignorance my friend, who do you think you are labelling the divine word of God an 'old book'. Dawkins is a whore because he makes money through his reprobate ego and pack of God-hating lies. The Bible was composed by the prophets of the Lord God, hence they are conveying God's will and commandments. Whatever science can prove, it can't explain who or what created the world nor real-life miracles/experiences of meeting Christ
@MrEnlighteneddespot If Dawkins is a whore for making money, religion is by far the biggest whore ever, all it does is scare hopeless people and make money off them. Have you seen miracles? Have you met god? Obviously not, science on the other hand can prove many many things and has proved religion wrong throughout History without a single failure! The only things you have are an old book and irrational faith. You can't explain what created the "world" either, at least we have a rational answer
@FreeMindedAthiest He's an intelligent man in his own field of interest, but then again so is Shirley Phelps-roper. Dawkin's is no theologian and will one day pay dearly for his proud, profane blasphemy against almighty God unless he finds it in his heart to repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ. He even has the ignorance to call Adolf Hitler a true Roman Catholic- one of the most pathetic lies ever told.
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to form life
I think that our "social" society (although one could ofcourse strongly question how social capitalism is) is the very reason why we are such a sucsessfull species. Being social and friendly together, talking to eachother has made us a species that has reached levels of physical and intellectual cooperation maybe only distantly equalled by bees and ants.
The "be nice to thy nabour-gene" is very sucsessfull indeed in a very darwinian way.
@eternitywithjesus888 Close your bible and go and read a book about biology and evolution. Better start with a kid's book as you are clearly lacking quite considerably in your knowledge of basic biology. By the way, human males have an X and Y chromosome, and females have two X's. Are you seriously asking which came first, males or females? That is spectacularly naive.
I hate to defend the host but... there's no stupid questions. Everybody should question things no matter how stupid the question is. It's the only way to learn and observe. The host obviously knows his questions are a bit stupid but it's for the uneducated audience.
Romans 8-verse 6 For the carnal mind is death but the spiritual mind is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, its not subject to the Law of God , nor indeed can be, so then those that are in the flesh (fallen humanity) cannot please God.
This is why a person needs to be born of water (word of God) and of spirit, those that worship the father must do so in spirit and truth. My aitheist friends repennt and commun with Jesus Christ, the Father and the holy spirit.
@eternitywithjesus888 You only go to show how foolishly credulous you are, facts matter in reality, but in that same reality, your bronze age babble is nearly meaningless.
to say it depends on what part of the world determines what your faith is, is an oxymoron at best. People from all tribes and nations are turning to Jesus Christ for Salvation as He is the only Saviour This has been happening for centuries and continues today. If dawkins is so learned how does he explain the origin od male female and which came first. woman or man since the male has the x chromozone.
@Vikramthewhite those without Christ Jesus are under the sway of the evil one greg But God is rich in mercy and commands all men to repent , belive in Jesus and be saved. greg
@eternitywithjesus888 Thats what islam say about their allah. Thats what Hindus say without their gods. Thats what the greeks used to say about their gods and so on and on and on. What makes Jesus so exceptional from all those other gods ?
That goodness that men like Richard Dawkins exist, he certainly inspires me to look for purpose in my life without the hokum of religion and the supernatural.
Look at 3:50 where Dawkins says "most of the intelligent people you meet are atheists." Remember folks, becoming an atheist won't make you any smarter. It won't raise your IQ to act like Dawkins or to speak with an English or South African accent.
@matt605 Correct. But if your IQ is high and/or if you study and gather more and more knowledge, chances grow that you will be an atheist or become one.
Once again i see more likes than dislikes here on this video. Come out people!!! There are more atheists other there than you think. Check out dawkins out campaign!!!!
@2440hiro- The alternative to the Cosmological Constant, [accurate to 1:10 to the power 120], is the Multiverse Theory, which throws up another problem. For there would exist more advanced Universes, in which the technology would be so advanced, that the inhabitants could create Virtual Reality Universes, and we could very well exist in one of them. [Nick Bostrum-Philosopher]. Either way, a created Universe is far from being a fanciful idea. As Susskind says, we may well exist in a 3D Hologram.
@2440hiro.- I consider Dawkins' 'Selfish Gene' to be one of the most important books of our times. It explains,clearly, the root of our selfishness and greed. But nDNA is not the whole picture. We are not only one thing, we are two. nDNA and Mitochondria. Two different things, coming together 1-2 Billion years ago, to form the Eukaryotic cell. And still Two, but functioning as one. As to the origin of the Universe, if the Cosmological Constant, is real, then it's no accident. [susskind].
I puzzled for a long time,why , even tho' i liked the 'humanitarianism' of Dawkins, Jonathon Miller, Christopher Hitchens and others, there was something about them that irked me. Then, watching ' In Confidence' with Miller, it dawned on me, Smugness. In fact, a 'smug look' is the trademark of the 'believer'. You often see it in both Religious and Atheistic Believers. The "i know better than you, 'cos i'm more clever [atheists], or more special [Religious]. We DON'T know if a Creator exists.
@brianjsmith1895 Have you read any Dawkins or Hitchens? The "Creator" in your final statement "We don't know if a Creator exists" is equal to anything you could imagine, including pink unicorns, 3 headed dragons, Thor, Zeus, the Boogie Man etc. There isn't a shred of evidence for any. The belief in something with zero evidence is NOT equal to the opposing non belief. The burden of proof for a creator has not been met, therefore, the logical position is dis-belief til evidence is presented.
@salman265 Well... it must be within a certain scope. At least, the stuff that allows you being intelligent most certainly is genetic. The shape, size, inner-workings and potential of your brain most certainly is genetic.
A lot is dependent on education and upbringing and whatnot, but without the initial potential - no education will help you.
We are not only nDNA, the 'selfish machine', explained so well, by Prof. Dawkins. We are also Mitochondria. We are not one thing,we are two. nDNA and Mitochondria are descendants of two different organisms. And they are still different. Both seem to be vital for complex Life. This Duality/non-Duality seems to inherent in the Essence of the Universe, from the Particle/anti-Particle Theory, to Dark Matter/Dark Energy to male/female etc. It's very strange!
Thank You Adam Boulton for asking the right questions. even though it is amusing to see Dr Dawkins rip religous morons to shred using logic, interviews like this is much more informant and stimulating.
@spannerotoole Interesting question. But over time (milions of years) luck cannot acount for the survival of SO many animals. But of course, one animal can be lucky one time and survive and breath. But its statistcily impossible that an specie survives purely on luck.
@gulbirk Mutations (upon which evolution is based) are generally not good. And it has been shown that with each new generation that the genetics actually get weaker. Evolution seems to be flawed on this premise. the Genetic code of humans for example seems to be weaker now that it was in the past.
@spannerotoole But humans dont have any natural selection anymore, everyone basicly surives, unless they have some serious problems. Also, I dont think the genes are getting worse, where did you get that from? And yes, statisticly speaking, only 1 out of 10000 mutations will be benefitial to the point where it makes and survival difference.
@DisInfoWars Additional: With Eugenics it is the deliberate killing of human beings by other human beings, that is the difference between nature and evolution and eugenics. Hitler tried to use this argument and like you he was wrong, evolution has nothing to do with eugenics.
@roac7777 Not so, evolution is like nature it is a natural and scientific phenomenon, eugenics is man made and political. Evolution is concerned with the continuation and improvement of genes of any particular species. Eugenics is concerned with artificially creating a super race and killing of what eugenetists regard as "impure" beings. When nature comes in the form of a tsunami and kills thousands of people it does not know we humans exist it is indifferent.
So Darwinian natural selection is not happening in human society ? That's just crazy unscientific thing to say. I hear him that we are profoundly undarwinian. I didn't expect Dawkins who has inspired evolution in me to say that. I think he did not admit to profound meaning of fittest in "survival of fittest".
We becoming less intelligent is a natural course taken by evolution when less intelligent beings reproduce more. There is nothing undarwinian about that.
@cybrainx72 Half way true. Becoming less intelligent is a natural course taken, however it is undarwinian in the sense that the population is not benefitting from this change. That's why Dawkins calls it "undarwinian."
Why does Dawkins hesitate to admit we (current human society) are living in a Darwinian world ? Natural selection is happening as it always had been happening before. I find those responses from Dawkins hollow. Bright, Healthy, Beautiful thrive and others really struggle. How has human society changed here ?
@cybrainx72 not really, anyone can reproduce they are not stoppped from doing so, even dawkins said that the most intelligent don't reproduce the most, so human intelligence isn't really increasing.
@Innovater6 I wouldn't be so pessimistic about human intelligence. As you said the most intelligent don't reproduce the most, but this is not required for the intelligence to grow, you just need for women to prefer more intelligent partners, which is true I think. So I think it is growing overall, but not as fast as it could. Or it may be just my wishful thinking ;)
To me we can look at the variety of dog species that we have produced via un-natural selection in a VERY short period of time - the concept that natural selection can produce such variation we see over millions of years seems perfectly plausible.
ogjbot 3 days ago
"natural selection is a non random process", and yet it is initiated by a random process, so how is natural selection not a random process again ??
thelogster 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thelogster "So how is natural selection not a random process again?" Yes the process of how life began, abiogenesis, may have been random, but this does not therefore mean that the process of how life changes over time, evolution, is also random. Natural selection is not a random process. Read the Wikipedia article on natural selection, it provides a great definition and explains really well why it is nothing to do with random chance.
ClosedAperture 1 week ago
@thelogster Who said it started by a random process? The "randomess" of initiation is simply a way of denoting a lack of understanding or information. Once it is understood it is random no more..
Silversong88 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Silversong88 "The "randomess" of initiation is simply a way of denoting a lack of understanding or information. Once it is understood it is random no more.."
lol, go study some more, and then come back and talk....
thelogster 1 week ago
@Silversong88 Natural selection is not random - the mutations that drive natural selection are.
Mutations can be beneficial, disadvantageous or neutral. Clearly a beneficial mutation confers advantage which allows the organism a better chance of survival which leads to it passing on the beneficial gene.
Ellie8969 1 week ago
@Ellie8969 Sorry if I didn't come across clearly, I agree with you. Natural selection is consequential, not random. But then again, mutations are also consequential within a certain degree of hindsight
Silversong88 1 week ago
@Silversong88 Sorry - thought you were a creationist. A terrible slur on your character, I know, so forgive me :)
Ellie8969 1 week ago
Comment removed
pinball1970 1 week ago
@thelogster
random/non random
@thelogster
nature selects (with no consciousness of doing it of course) the genes that aids an organisms survival
A dark colour moth on a dark tree will not be spotted by predators a lighter moth with less pigment will be. The pigmented moth will become dominant as that will survive to reproduce. A non random process. Dark tree – random. Gene shuffling recombination Mutation causing less/ more pigment – random.
pinball1970 1 week ago
@thelogster Random genetic mutations occur, and those that assist survival are, ofcourse, passed on through dna and those that do not aid survival die off. So it is the exact opposite of random what genes are kept in the gene pool.
SgtPepperEverton 2 hours ago
He touches his air piece at 4:03, u know there screaming at him dont say your atheist, we'll lose shit loads of ratings !!
jaskbi 2 weeks ago 2
wow just look at the comparison between fox news in the UK and fox news in America - stunning!
thejcjmguyreturns 2 weeks ago 3
damn, look at dawkin's haircut. so radical
Ammo888 2 weeks ago
Ever 26 million years, the world ends.
DexFlames 3 weeks ago
@DexFlames the world doesn't end, life on the world does. but yes, good point.
coxi666 2 weeks ago
wow, so nice to see an unbiased interviewer engaging in an intellectual conversation with Dawkins.
G8Born 1 month ago 7
i love the religious argument that evoloution cant be seen. its really nice to know we will see gene's change for the next 1000 years even if the difference is miniscule it'll prove atheism 100% true.
TheRagdollrejects 1 month ago 2
@TheRagdollrejects Well maybe not atheism. But it will be even more evidence for evolution.
Unfortunately people will still deny it. If they deny it with the amount of evidence we have now I don't see them changing their minds.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 1 month ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy: It's more or less the following: "I'm convinced, don't confuse me with facts!"
PAVANZYL 1 month ago
What creationists hear: hurrr durrr Dawkins says his cousin is a cabbage hurrr durrr
blackwolf1200 1 month ago 6
Richard dawkins says there is no evidence of god, but there is evidence of people thinking other beings are god, when they are just other humans lting to them or aliens, most gods are aliens
jackvincent90 1 month ago
I ate my distant cousin for lunch!
yinstube 1 month ago 5
Extremely enjoyable and interesting video. Dawkins is one of the great thinkers of our time. As was Hitchens.
ChainsawVsGod 1 month ago 8
Don't like or agree with Dawkins at all...he is an ignorant and arrogant man who makes selective facile points about religious faith which he then uses to ridicule religion in general.
johnnyM809 1 month ago
@johnnyM809 Yea, I don't need evidence to support my belief in Ba'al. Fuck these atheists.
usernameavilable 1 month ago
@usernameavilable isn't he a Diablo's sidekick? :)
85Damix 1 month ago
@johnnyM809 I was joking by the way, I think you're a pompous ass with no supporting evidence for your extraordinary claims.
usernameavilable 1 month ago
Can't you witness bacteria evolving like drug resistant stains?
nn101198 1 month ago
@nn101198
Yeah. When I was 14, I'd still never heard that used as evidence for Evolution (though I knew it to be fact) and I came up with my own hypothesis as to how it could be supportive of the Theory. I was heartbroken when I realised others had noticed XD
bluemoonrising26 1 month ago
@nn101198 Yes, it's actually possible to witness evolution in real-time in organisms with very short generation times, such as bacteria or other micro-organisms.
90lsls 1 month ago
what a great guy.. could listen to his gentle logical educated voice all day.
psycho3968 1 month ago
"make you life purposeful while you've got it" wise words
thomaslong78 1 month ago 3
You've got to feel for Dawkins, being quizzed on evolution, a process that is a fact of life. As certain as the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun.
trixapete 1 month ago
videos of Dawkins speeches should be part of school books on biology and ethics.
pcuimac 2 months ago
@deckard2034 I agree that Dawkins' use of 'unnatural' had some pretty offensive implications to the genetic composition of the welfare recipients. Although, I think Dawkins is referring to welfare as a general concept, not welfare in its modern practical application. Dawkins is well aware that society is hundreds of years past a "survival of the fittest" modus operandi, and that welfare recipients could have anything from the "weakest" to the "strongest" DNA makeup...
samuelstylin 2 months ago
2:34 that is exactly why the "its natural argument" cannot justify animal slaughter. As an atheist I see many more reasons to believe animal slaughter is immoral, as it is no longer a necessity in this modern 21st century society and with sentient beings experience pain, suffering and the absence of freedom in exchange for mere pleasure of humans.
deanmullen10 2 months ago
OMG the world must have already ended, a intelligent, decent interviewer? I might have hope for the human race yet.
murdakah 3 months ago 2
Nice to see a good intelligent interview unlike Dr Dawkins wasting time on Bill O'Reilly.
dilwich123 3 months ago 5
Wonderful video, I enjoyed it. It's made so much better by having an interviewer who keeps it civil and doesn't ask idiotic questions. And Sky News is (partially) a Murdoch possession - take note Fox News...
derangedyoshi 3 months ago
4:51 is a real danger of religion. i have experienced this and i know others close to me have felt this perceived threat. as if death needs to be scarier when you are a kid. this scare tactic causes unnecessary anxiety for a lot of nice people just trying to live their lives.
tiberiius 3 months ago 2
Brilliant Dawkikns!
farje1 3 months ago
I don't like Adam Boulton, but at least he didn't ask, "What evidence is there that God doesn't exist?" I can't believe theists sometimes get away with asking this illogically-formulated question.
SkullOfYorick 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Say thou: He is Allah, the One! 1
Allah, the Independent, 2
He begetteth not, nor Was He begotten. 3
And there hath never been co-equal with Him anyone. 4
=> for more information type in google "thedeenshow"
akeello 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins: Read darwin's theories, make millions.
Dawkins is a genious business man, but is very ignorant and disrepectful towards religion. (I'm not religious before you flame)
Picklezorz 4 months ago
@Picklezorz when or where has he shown ignorance on the subject of religion?
sorrysonofa 4 months ago
@Picklezorz you say that is if a theory is a philosophy Darwin created that no one heard of. Natural selection is THE theory of evolution, and as Dawkins was the head of Oxford's public understanding of science (or something like that) it was his duty to make people aware of it. Have you read any of his books?
kly45 4 months ago
@Picklezorz more like religion is ignorant and disrepectful towards him lol
vikingsbeard 4 months ago 34
@Picklezorz He's not ignorant. He may be disrespectful, but why does any system of illogic and irrationality and oppression and exploitation deserve respect?
SkullOfYorick 3 months ago 4
@Picklezorz Reading the origin of species, spending your life studying biology at Oxford... those are the same thing, yeah.
derangedyoshi 3 months ago
@Picklezorz Why should he be repectful towards delusional people?
OortCloud33 1 month ago
....I fear not, because in order for that to happen it be necessary that the most intelligent amongst us are the ones who have the most children...indeed.
kippymixter 4 months ago
Crocs and sharks have made it more than 100 million years, more than 240 and 400 millions really. Some form of human might just as well.
GenghisCohen1 4 months ago
Oops, there was a brief dance there, a fleeting moment of sidestepping to be sure, when Mr. Dawkins asked "Aren't you?" of his host, inquiring whether he were an atheist or not. Like many people, even if he were, he might not yet be prepared to commit social suicide by admitting it on national television. Have to admire his quick thinking and ready response. :-)
intomyfate 4 months ago
Adam Boulton is unusual in the Sky news world.
He's intelligent, non judgemental, educated and clearly a free thinking atheist.
I wonder what his relationship with the fool Eamonn Holmes is like?
kts68 4 months ago 65
@kts68 You gotta be kidding. Boulton is a top of the range Cock.
Charlesdance 2 months ago
@kts68 On most issues, Adam Boulton is a fucking moron.
Zythe 1 month ago
@Zythe I was about to say exactly the same thing and then noticed someone else had already stated the obvious, lol.
UrigellaGaming 3 weeks ago
I disagree with Dawkins. A society that looks after the weak is not counter darwinian. Safety nets like the benefit system and the NHS ensure everyone in society, whether they be born from prince or pauper, is able to compete on some ground of equality. This is ultimately beneficial for everyone as we can see from the introduction of the public school system and the resulting few geniuses (many who come from humble backgrounds) that have shaped our world today.
Bloodlovefreak 4 months ago
@Bloodlovefreak But it has to be. It is not the natural development for humans to digress and care for others in society. I know we do, but to evolve we need to continue along the cycle which best indicates our path. Survival of the fittest. Equality is for the masses, but it takes the few to keep pushing the boundaries.
vonsmith 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bloodlovefreak I don't think you know what you're talking about.
flobblepop1 4 months ago
@Bloodlovefreak How can you disagree with him? It is counter darwinian. He said that, and he also said "thank god our society is counter darwinian, its a very good thing we look after the needy" etc etc. So what exactly did you disagree with? :S
mysql0 4 months ago
@mysql0 Dawkins does not have the last say on this subject and many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers. I am merely conjecturing that treating strangers well is not necessarily
counter darwinian. I respect Dawkins but that does not mean I have to agree with whatever he says like some drone, especially on a subject that even he sometimes errs at.
Bloodlovefreak 4 months ago
@Bloodlovefreak "many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers" - for you to say this statement, you must know some of those other views.
So lets hear them! (bet you're running to google now)
mysql0 4 months ago
@mysql0 Nice try, but since there is no consensus on why or when we developed the tendency to do good there must thus be differing views as a logical necessity. Since the grounds are contentious in this area of science it is up to the scientist to present positive proof for their theories or conjectures on this subject. In short, the onus is on you to produce a single quotation or proof from some scientific journal proving there is justified belief that humans evolved tendency x in year y.
Bloodlovefreak 4 months ago
@mysql0 But I guess a drone like you can only come up with argument from authority. I bet you're the type who also thinks you're so unique and controversial by being an atheist. Pathetic.
Bloodlovefreak 4 months ago
@Bloodlovefreak You said "many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers.". Dawkins idea of selfish gene makes the most sense, but let's hear your view from other experts. That was your word, not mine. Argument from authority is re-tarded. I analyze the content of the argument, not who is presenting it.
You also take about another logical fallacy, 'conensus'. There are millions of christians, so that makes them true since there is consensus? Idiot.
mysql0 4 months ago
@mysql0 I seriously doubt your level of literacy is all that high given that I have not challenged the idea of the selfish gene. I have not committed the census fallacy since my argument is not x number of people believe y therefore y is true, but that not everyone can agree on y therefore there is not a consensus on theory x. Can you comprehend, pleb?
Bloodlovefreak 4 months ago
@Bloodlovefreak "Dawkins does not have the last say on this subject and many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers" - that was your claim. So let's hear about the views from other 'so called experts' that you claim exist. Go on. Stop avoiding the question.
mysql0 4 months ago
@mysql0 Again you have failed to grasp logic. When there is a contentious area of study there is no point in scholars publishing an article saying subject x is contentious since it adds nothing. The only way such an article would be published is if it refutes existing dogma and re-asserts the subject as contentious. However, for subjects that are not contentious like gravity, for instance, a wealth of scientific literature can be held up to prove the theory of gravity is not contentious.
Bloodlovefreak 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bloodlovefreak "Dawkins does not have the last say on this subject and many experts have differing views on why we do good to strangers" - for you to say this statement, you must know some of those other views.
So lets hear them! (bet you're running to google now)
mysql0 4 months ago
It's nice to watch an atheist interview where the guest isn't being shouted at by some obnoxious asinine idiot.
WelshMidget 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins is a retard.
CheekiShit 4 months ago
@CheekiShit you mad son?
k3n12345678987654321 4 months ago
@k3n12345678987654321 Yeah because retards shouldn't be given so much attention.
CheekiShit 4 months ago
@CheekiShit how is he a retard? i don't see it
k3n12345678987654321 4 months ago
@PitterPatty lmao hahahhahah wtf living in fantasy land
CheekiShit 4 months ago
@CheekiShit
You are the one living in fantasyland.
dirkschuitsma 4 months ago
@dirkschuitsma This life is a fantasy land.
CheekiShit 4 months ago
@PitterPatty You mean he is destroying mankind you dumbo!
ItachiAli1993 4 months ago
richard dawkins is a pleb.
bozo3k 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Uh oh he said "I believe that" now watch someone try and dissect this video lol
chype 5 months ago
Dawkins, please, don't refute Jesus who loves you... Don't be such a monkey and convert to Jesus. Pray the Rosary, pray for a good death and stay away from sin.If you convert your monkey mind could change your way of thing God's love. Convert as God give you the time and don't be such an atheist fool monkey.
sarotran 5 months ago
@sarotran lol you knob
aikikev 5 months ago
@sarotran were in 2011 now not the copper age
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago 3
Richard Dawkins is a lying whore, and just like a whore he will give you what you want if you pay him. He makes a living selling books and getting interviewed where he blasphemed consistently against the one true almighty God. He thinks he's better than God but at some point he will get a nasty shock.
MrEnlighteneddespot 5 months ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot yea no dna soooo lies you fucking retard
904whitechapel 5 months ago
@904whitechapel Just accept the Lord Jesus Christ into your life and obey his commandments. Your only condemning yourself.
MrEnlighteneddespot 5 months ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot Prove me Dawkins is a lying whore and that god exists. I'm educated so obviously an old book like the bible isn't a proof. Also give me millions and millions of proofs like science does, where all the theories fit together in a big one cuz that's where we basically are today. Disprove science and prove god undoubtedly.
whoyoutellin93 5 months ago
@whoyoutellin93 'Your educated'- your education has not saved you from ignorance my friend, who do you think you are labelling the divine word of God an 'old book'. Dawkins is a whore because he makes money through his reprobate ego and pack of God-hating lies. The Bible was composed by the prophets of the Lord God, hence they are conveying God's will and commandments. Whatever science can prove, it can't explain who or what created the world nor real-life miracles/experiences of meeting Christ
MrEnlighteneddespot 5 months ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot If Dawkins is a whore for making money, religion is by far the biggest whore ever, all it does is scare hopeless people and make money off them. Have you seen miracles? Have you met god? Obviously not, science on the other hand can prove many many things and has proved religion wrong throughout History without a single failure! The only things you have are an old book and irrational faith. You can't explain what created the "world" either, at least we have a rational answer
whoyoutellin93 5 months ago
@MrEnlighteneddespot
Dawkins is making money by being smart as shit. He is not lying, you're an idiot.
FreeMindedAthiest 5 months ago
@FreeMindedAthiest He's an intelligent man in his own field of interest, but then again so is Shirley Phelps-roper. Dawkin's is no theologian and will one day pay dearly for his proud, profane blasphemy against almighty God unless he finds it in his heart to repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ. He even has the ignorance to call Adolf Hitler a true Roman Catholic- one of the most pathetic lies ever told.
MrEnlighteneddespot 5 months ago
I always thought Sky- News was the British version of Fox News.
This host is WAY too polite to be a British Glen Beck.
Winterwolf00 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity. God created the heavens and the earth. And this isn't opposed to evolution as evolution is simply a theory or vague insight into how God chose to form life
damienbrennan1 5 months ago
I think that our "social" society (although one could ofcourse strongly question how social capitalism is) is the very reason why we are such a sucsessfull species. Being social and friendly together, talking to eachother has made us a species that has reached levels of physical and intellectual cooperation maybe only distantly equalled by bees and ants.
The "be nice to thy nabour-gene" is very sucsessfull indeed in a very darwinian way.
DeHeld8 5 months ago
@eternitywithjesus888 Close your bible and go and read a book about biology and evolution. Better start with a kid's book as you are clearly lacking quite considerably in your knowledge of basic biology. By the way, human males have an X and Y chromosome, and females have two X's. Are you seriously asking which came first, males or females? That is spectacularly naive.
evildave9000 6 months ago
This man was sent by God to be our salvation :P
way2tehdawn 6 months ago
I hate to defend the host but... there's no stupid questions. Everybody should question things no matter how stupid the question is. It's the only way to learn and observe. The host obviously knows his questions are a bit stupid but it's for the uneducated audience.
dummychaos 6 months ago
Romans 8-verse 6 For the carnal mind is death but the spiritual mind is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, its not subject to the Law of God , nor indeed can be, so then those that are in the flesh (fallen humanity) cannot please God.
This is why a person needs to be born of water (word of God) and of spirit, those that worship the father must do so in spirit and truth. My aitheist friends repennt and commun with Jesus Christ, the Father and the holy spirit.
eternitywithjesus888 6 months ago
@eternitywithjesus888 You only go to show how foolishly credulous you are, facts matter in reality, but in that same reality, your bronze age babble is nearly meaningless.
Shenkoa360 6 months ago
@eternitywithjesus888 To you, things are true because its written , edited and rewritten in a 2000 year old book based on myths and fables.
Im not impressed.
joe80dmanizanerd 6 months ago
to say it depends on what part of the world determines what your faith is, is an oxymoron at best. People from all tribes and nations are turning to Jesus Christ for Salvation as He is the only Saviour This has been happening for centuries and continues today. If dawkins is so learned how does he explain the origin od male female and which came first. woman or man since the male has the x chromozone.
eternitywithjesus888 6 months ago
he responds SO quickly. YES i have the answer ! biology.
cptmuska 6 months ago
Religion is dying. It just can't die fast enough for my liking.
Richard Dawkins is truly brilliant!
Allanfries 6 months ago 70
@Allanfries Every Religion might die but ISLAM will stay alive with their Intelligent Leaders such as the Great Scientist Imam Jaffar Sadiq
ItachiAli1993 4 months ago
@Allanfries er no, really just no, religion will live on this temporary form of science. keep dreaming.
CheekiShit 4 months ago
professing to be wise they became fools and thier foolish hearts were darkened
eternitywithjesus888 6 months ago
@eternitywithjesus888 So Scientists have darkened hearts ?
Vikramthewhite 6 months ago
@Vikramthewhite those without Christ Jesus are under the sway of the evil one greg But God is rich in mercy and commands all men to repent , belive in Jesus and be saved. greg
eternitywithjesus888 6 months ago
@eternitywithjesus888 Thats what islam say about their allah. Thats what Hindus say without their gods. Thats what the greeks used to say about their gods and so on and on and on. What makes Jesus so exceptional from all those other gods ?
Vikramthewhite 6 months ago
That goodness that men like Richard Dawkins exist, he certainly inspires me to look for purpose in my life without the hokum of religion and the supernatural.
rohansrider 7 months ago
I have yet to meet an unintelligent atheist. Richard Dawkins opened my eyes, albeit a bit too late in life.
rohansrider 7 months ago
Creationists almost convince me that eugenics is a good idea. Almost.
jacksawild 7 months ago 8
what about the possibility of galactic evolution? all them so called angels and beings coming from the heavens, all over ancient world.
Loneace1969 7 months ago
@Loneace1969 It is, as you say, a possibility. That is all it is, though. Evidence is required for knowledge.
jacksawild 7 months ago
"A little phrase that pithily sums it up."
benkvenga 7 months ago
I am somewhat exited because of my age... I'm 15 and an anti-theist and I can't wait to see how peoples' beliefs change as I grow older.
thingonthewalludnt 7 months ago
Look at 3:50 where Dawkins says "most of the intelligent people you meet are atheists." Remember folks, becoming an atheist won't make you any smarter. It won't raise your IQ to act like Dawkins or to speak with an English or South African accent.
matt605 7 months ago
@matt605 Correct. But if your IQ is high and/or if you study and gather more and more knowledge, chances grow that you will be an atheist or become one.
That's just statistics.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
great :)
ThreeLions89 7 months ago
Once again i see more likes than dislikes here on this video. Come out people!!! There are more atheists other there than you think. Check out dawkins out campaign!!!!
saffiyahissoapy 7 months ago
@2440hiro- The alternative to the Cosmological Constant, [accurate to 1:10 to the power 120], is the Multiverse Theory, which throws up another problem. For there would exist more advanced Universes, in which the technology would be so advanced, that the inhabitants could create Virtual Reality Universes, and we could very well exist in one of them. [Nick Bostrum-Philosopher]. Either way, a created Universe is far from being a fanciful idea. As Susskind says, we may well exist in a 3D Hologram.
brianjsmith1895 7 months ago
@2440hiro.- I consider Dawkins' 'Selfish Gene' to be one of the most important books of our times. It explains,clearly, the root of our selfishness and greed. But nDNA is not the whole picture. We are not only one thing, we are two. nDNA and Mitochondria. Two different things, coming together 1-2 Billion years ago, to form the Eukaryotic cell. And still Two, but functioning as one. As to the origin of the Universe, if the Cosmological Constant, is real, then it's no accident. [susskind].
brianjsmith1895 7 months ago
I puzzled for a long time,why , even tho' i liked the 'humanitarianism' of Dawkins, Jonathon Miller, Christopher Hitchens and others, there was something about them that irked me. Then, watching ' In Confidence' with Miller, it dawned on me, Smugness. In fact, a 'smug look' is the trademark of the 'believer'. You often see it in both Religious and Atheistic Believers. The "i know better than you, 'cos i'm more clever [atheists], or more special [Religious]. We DON'T know if a Creator exists.
brianjsmith1895 7 months ago
@brianjsmith1895 Garbage, pick up a book!
244Ohiro 7 months ago
@244Ohiro Which book do you suggest i pick up ?
brianjsmith1895 7 months ago
@brianjsmith1895 Have you read any Dawkins or Hitchens? The "Creator" in your final statement "We don't know if a Creator exists" is equal to anything you could imagine, including pink unicorns, 3 headed dragons, Thor, Zeus, the Boogie Man etc. There isn't a shred of evidence for any. The belief in something with zero evidence is NOT equal to the opposing non belief. The burden of proof for a creator has not been met, therefore, the logical position is dis-belief til evidence is presented.
244Ohiro 7 months ago
@brianjsmith1895 The term "atheist believer" is an oxymoron.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
6:48
Is he suggesting intelligence is genetic?!?!!!?!
salman265 8 months ago
@salman265 Well... it must be within a certain scope. At least, the stuff that allows you being intelligent most certainly is genetic. The shape, size, inner-workings and potential of your brain most certainly is genetic.
A lot is dependent on education and upbringing and whatnot, but without the initial potential - no education will help you.
ScientificBob 7 months ago
We are not only nDNA, the 'selfish machine', explained so well, by Prof. Dawkins. We are also Mitochondria. We are not one thing,we are two. nDNA and Mitochondria are descendants of two different organisms. And they are still different. Both seem to be vital for complex Life. This Duality/non-Duality seems to inherent in the Essence of the Universe, from the Particle/anti-Particle Theory, to Dark Matter/Dark Energy to male/female etc. It's very strange!
brianjsmith1895 8 months ago
shit. When he said big brains I thought he was about to say big boobs.
gulbirk 8 months ago
Thank You Adam Boulton for asking the right questions. even though it is amusing to see Dr Dawkins rip religous morons to shred using logic, interviews like this is much more informant and stimulating.
best regards from Sweden
Lunaticc18 8 months ago 3
"Most of the intelligent people you meet are atheists."
NightmareCinemaChild 8 months ago 4
The good thing about richard dawkins is his wisdom. Yo all know how you get your wisdom? :)
killswitchengagefan4 8 months ago
I used to think you could only win debates. Mr Dawkins has just demonstrated impressively how to win an interview
NiriuqK 9 months ago
Survival of the fittest or Survival of the Luckiest?
spannerotoole 9 months ago
@spannerotoole Interesting question. But over time (milions of years) luck cannot acount for the survival of SO many animals. But of course, one animal can be lucky one time and survive and breath. But its statistcily impossible that an specie survives purely on luck.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk Mutations (upon which evolution is based) are generally not good. And it has been shown that with each new generation that the genetics actually get weaker. Evolution seems to be flawed on this premise. the Genetic code of humans for example seems to be weaker now that it was in the past.
spannerotoole 8 months ago
@spannerotoole But humans dont have any natural selection anymore, everyone basicly surives, unless they have some serious problems. Also, I dont think the genes are getting worse, where did you get that from? And yes, statisticly speaking, only 1 out of 10000 mutations will be benefitial to the point where it makes and survival difference.
gulbirk 8 months ago
"Make you life purposeful while you've got it." R. Dawkins
Tapiola2007 9 months ago
What an elegant interview, questions and answers are very informative and to the point. Thanks for uploading!
njroode 9 months ago
I'm terrified that Islam is going to take over Europe :S
moroney1 10 months ago
wooooohoooo 'most of the intellegent people are atheists!' love that ahhhhhaaaa
YourbrandofOxygen 10 months ago
@YourbrandofOxygen
most of atheists are intelligent and most of religious people are uneducated, check your spelling!haha
armmoh 8 months ago
@armmoh geeeeeee thanks for poiting it out on utube for the world to see!! but I'm not ignorant so thanks for alerting me to it! lol
YourbrandofOxygen 8 months ago
@YourbrandofOxygen
Respect!
armmoh 8 months ago
@armmoh ahaaaaa ! :D
YourbrandofOxygen 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@armmoh ahaaaaa !
YourbrandofOxygen 8 months ago
The firstborn of Satan.
Endnuenfyr 10 months ago
The Theory of Evolution. The breeding ground for EUGENICS!
Evolution is one of the most creative deceptions in Mankind's History.
Let the genocide and depopulation begin!
DisInfoWars 10 months ago
@DisInfoWars I think you need to engage your brain and think before you write. Evolution has nothing to do with eugenics.
roac7777 10 months ago
@roac7777 If you think there is no connection then your brain isn't engaged or functional
DisInfoWars 10 months ago
@DisInfoWars Additional: With Eugenics it is the deliberate killing of human beings by other human beings, that is the difference between nature and evolution and eugenics. Hitler tried to use this argument and like you he was wrong, evolution has nothing to do with eugenics.
roac7777 10 months ago
@roac7777 Your definition supports my claims, it doesn't disprove them.
DisInfoWars 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DisInfoWars Then you are deluded.
roac7777 10 months ago
@roac7777 Not so, evolution is like nature it is a natural and scientific phenomenon, eugenics is man made and political. Evolution is concerned with the continuation and improvement of genes of any particular species. Eugenics is concerned with artificially creating a super race and killing of what eugenetists regard as "impure" beings. When nature comes in the form of a tsunami and kills thousands of people it does not know we humans exist it is indifferent.
roac7777 10 months ago
This man is INSANE!
DisInfoWars 10 months ago
Richard Dawkins giving adam bolton a verbal blowjob.
stevoism 10 months ago
AHAHAH TAKE THAT ATHIEST
MAGICAL GODS:33434
ATHIEST:0
PeteTheElit3 10 months ago
So Darwinian natural selection is not happening in human society ? That's just crazy unscientific thing to say. I hear him that we are profoundly undarwinian. I didn't expect Dawkins who has inspired evolution in me to say that. I think he did not admit to profound meaning of fittest in "survival of fittest".
We becoming less intelligent is a natural course taken by evolution when less intelligent beings reproduce more. There is nothing undarwinian about that.
cybrainx72 11 months ago
@cybrainx72 Half way true. Becoming less intelligent is a natural course taken, however it is undarwinian in the sense that the population is not benefitting from this change. That's why Dawkins calls it "undarwinian."
makeorbreakgirlz 8 months ago
Why does Dawkins hesitate to admit we (current human society) are living in a Darwinian world ? Natural selection is happening as it always had been happening before. I find those responses from Dawkins hollow. Bright, Healthy, Beautiful thrive and others really struggle. How has human society changed here ?
cybrainx72 11 months ago
@cybrainx72 not really, anyone can reproduce they are not stoppped from doing so, even dawkins said that the most intelligent don't reproduce the most, so human intelligence isn't really increasing.
Innovater6 11 months ago
@Innovater6 I wouldn't be so pessimistic about human intelligence. As you said the most intelligent don't reproduce the most, but this is not required for the intelligence to grow, you just need for women to prefer more intelligent partners, which is true I think. So I think it is growing overall, but not as fast as it could. Or it may be just my wishful thinking ;)