Richard is sharp as a razor, but it has to be said that the Interviewer is superbly respectful and really makes this an intelligent and interesting piece to watch. Respect to both.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Religion demands strict tolerance from even those who disagree. If you can defend your religion on a solid evidentiary basis, then why do you have to be so defensive about arguments against religion as being "disrespectful"? I was nearly killed by a giant brain tumor. At no time did I even think about converting, even though the surgery could have killed me. Many religious people who use the "what if you're wrong" argument often deny climate change, despite overwhelming evidence.
@MarkRosengarten The "what if you're wrong?" argument is something that to us is absurd. Coming from them they don't understand why it is though. It's absurd to us because we just can't believe in things without seeing evidence, or some proof. With no evidence for something you aren't wrong for not believing it, you are making a wish it is true if you do believe it. Their problem is lack of basic critical thought skills. A great majority of them use Pascals Wager and have no idea how silly it is
The interviewer seems like a Christian Larry King. I loved the softballs and the civil tone of this interview. Dr. Dawkins was magnanimous about the especially weak questions and assertions and gave wonderful, straight-forward answers when asked.
3:49 Aieee, that must've hurt, Richard. I like this guy, but I dislike the emotional attachment he displays when talking about things he has studied over long periods of time-simply because you did years of work on something does not elevate you to a level of omniscience-look what happened to Einsten with his 'God doesn't play dice' argument.
@ExEverest10 On what exact plane does Dawkins claim to hold anything near omniscience? One of his main points is that he can be persuaded at any point, if people only provide evidence. Claiming there's no god really is no more assertive than claiming there's no invicible, immaterial tea pot floating about in deep space, controlling our thoughts.
@Pomme843 I agree; simply because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean that that's an argument for it's inexistence. To say otherwise is to mirror the blunder of the opposing side. I didn't allege that he claimed that he was omniscient; merely that he shows excessive hubris (according to my standards), and that his notions of omniscience are implicit in his being (at least from what I can understand.
@Pomme843 I hope that I don't sound self-righteous, but welcoming criticism based on supporting evidence is the very least I would expect of an intelligent person; questioning and criticizing their own views first and foremost is where my standard lies. I don't think that I share this standard with Dawkins, as I often hear him rely on fallacies and appeals to common sense, rather than incisive dissections of the issue.
@Pomme843 If I recall correctly, his justification for not studying the Bible was to appeal to the exploitative image of invisible fairies, and ask if one were to study the aforementioned sprites would one have to read a text about them before passing judgement; the answer, I hope you'll agree, is yes.
@Pomme843 I would go further to say that since the concept of fairies being discussed is derived from the text, since they are invisible, the text is your only source of information about the fairies, and is necessary to know what a fairie, in this example, is (this is a necessary precursor for carrying out an analysis of X; you need to know what that X is).
@Pomme843 This is without mentioning the more contextual considerations of understanding that in this analogy the concept of fairies and the related religion, was indirectly augmented by a plethora of theological interpretations and arguments, all of which should be contended with, if time allows, to see if your criticisms stand up to scrutiny. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, to promote your bias as a badge of honor, your fallaciousness as the reasonable position.
@Pomme843 A counterexample; if you hear of a proposition in science, which is based on a research paper, do you dismiss the proposition outright, or examine the paper?
I trust this example covers both fallacies and appeals to common sense and 'gut feelings'.
@ExEverest10 I personally never examine the paper myself, to this date. I read very slowly (working on improving there), so I'd rather find another opinion on the paper, or I'd try to find the critical, controversial or problematic point in the paper, and read that myself - indeed, alot of scientific reports, and their findings, are severely abused, at least here on YT. But I don't know if this is something at which Dawkins is at fault as much as I...
@Pomme843 Well we are talking about Dawkins (or, at least I am); this isn't the only example where I take umbridge. In the God Delusion he publishes a number of letters written to himself and other atheists without much analysis (as to how widespread these opinions are, is this type of hate mail only seen in religion-related topics, or in others too, reflecting more on the society today, rather than religion itself, etc)
@Pomme843 as though the letters in of themselves are self-evident and incontrovertible proof of the evil of religion. An implication I have a very hard time believing, if only for the un-addressed questions above.
@Pomme843 Letters. In the God Delusion. The book. Unless he did a full 180 on the views expressed in that book, they're partially representative of his views on religion now, and of his intellectual integrity at the time; I thought the latter lackluster, and doubt that the parts I disliked all dissapeared. They could've, of course...but then again, he could've revised the book to reflect what he feels presently, if it's not reflective of his present-day views to a extent significant enough.
@Pomme843 So there's not a lot of room for explanation, in my opinion; either he holds the same views and subscribes to the same notions as he did in the book, or he holds and subscribes to a signifcant number of views and notions, respectively, to where a revision would be unnecessary...or he's avoiding revisions for financial, or PR, or marketing considerations; the latter betraying his intellectual integrity to a significant amount, imo, as he doesn't appear to require additional wealth.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
Ive never seen richard so happy! Its almost as if there is some kind of inside joke between the two of them, perhaps the presenters is playing devils advocate afterall?
Another point regarding "disrespect" towards people's beliefs when describing the christian god as Dawkins did in his book.
Look at all the ruthless dictators in our history. Hitler, Saddam, etc.......people have no problem describing them as murdering, jealous, etc....doing all the same things the christian god did in the OT.
Would it be considered "disrespectful" to call those leaders the same names Dawkins used, when they did the same things?
6:48 to 7:05. I spent 2 months in hospital, 3 months in a wheelchair then 3 months on crutches after a motorbike accident and not once did I even come close to praying to an imaginary friend.
@crabbit101 I don't think your situation qualifies, as you were predicted to be recoverable, to have a chance, and an extraordinarily large chance of full and healthy recovery. Someone who say, has cancer who would not be expected to recover would then be more inclined to do what is necessary to sway chance to their favor.
@sebc2s You have no idea what injuries I sustained. I came very close to dying actually and could have easily spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair. I put my trust in the doctors, surgeons and nurses who put me back together again but I did not make a full recovery. Praying does fuck all more than have a placebo effect.
@crabbit101 I had a suspected spinal stroke 3 years ago when I was 18, I'm still paraplegic and I've not prayed to some celestial being.
If the only way for me to recover was to appease some vindictive deity's ego, I wouldn't want to walk the earth ruled by such a totalitarian dictator anyway.
In watching these interviews Hitchens and Dawkins have given in the past two years one gets the feeling that the interviewer runs through a standard set of arguments such as: "aren't you being too harsh?" "you're right but doesn't religion console people?" etc.And after each one of their arguments is smashed to the ground they reach for another until finally, at the last resort they either concede Dawkins is right or say "i'm right because im right and no amount of evidence will ever change that
what?? didnt dawkins already admitt theres a possibility of god existing because he could never be certain??? and now hes saying he doesnt exist???(is he certain or not??)
He already said that he is technically agnostic, like most atheists...... but only in the sense that , technically, he is agnostic towards fairies (or anything you can imagine that isn't based on evidence), which of course, is very very slight.
yeah well that was a dumb arguement .... he ignored the question once again in it........anyways hes serious this time....im just saying unless you can prove anything you say then dont claim to know the absolute truth..... the evidence for evolution is terrible if you research and really study it... all it gives you is something that seems logical and those who are unwilling to really study it fall for that.... which is the majority of people
ahahahahah yeah u r right evolution is an atheist creation to control the world. U should really study it....
btw he says that "god doesn't exist" is an un-scientifical, irrational claim, but the same argument is possible for the dragon-in-ur-garage, but in the same sense we all agree the dragon doesn't exist...
what question did he ignored? btw not this moron didn't ask any smart question, and doesn't know what he is talking about...
Christian belief's are disrespectful to non-Christians. Condemning non-Christians to Hell??? That is a little harsh. But those are the disrespectful RULES of the ALL-LOVING religion of CHRISTIANITY!!!
I've enjoyed this interview series, but that interviewer would have gotten annoying to me after awhile... hehe. Poor Dawky.
Isn't that unfair? Isn't that disrespectful? Isn't that a little bit too strong? DISRESPECT LAWL. I hate the whole concept of that kind of "disrespectful" ness. The church in some sects are disrespectful of the gay community. It's the same idea.
no he just tried to challenge him, in order to generate a more advanced dialoge; something that every interviewer is supposed to do. Dawkins gave very concise answers to every question.
He even said we should accept the death threats (the cartoons) and respect muslims hysterical sensibilities about their faith. As 'of course' we should expect these threats and fatwas as something natural.
Some people have not learned from the 1989 fatwa against Rushdie, where so many in the civilized world said the problem was blasphemy, not incitement to murder. Fucking pussies!
Byrnie1989: Good observance. But it can be easily understood that Dawkins is so certain Medusa doesn't exist (and he gives the same value to god) that it is by default logical that god doesn't exist.
"God doesn't even exist!"
TheJBoy73 1 month ago
what a terrible interviewer
imcrazy85 2 months ago
@imcrazy85 agree. at least he is more competenet and bearable then others who have basked in the glory of Dawkins.
yamammiwammi 2 months ago
America has Chuck Norris, the UK has Richard Dawkins.
lewisner 3 months ago
Richard is sharp as a razor, but it has to be said that the Interviewer is superbly respectful and really makes this an intelligent and interesting piece to watch. Respect to both.
Alexoflondon 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Where is part 5?
TerminaMorte 5 months ago
Religion demands strict tolerance from even those who disagree. If you can defend your religion on a solid evidentiary basis, then why do you have to be so defensive about arguments against religion as being "disrespectful"? I was nearly killed by a giant brain tumor. At no time did I even think about converting, even though the surgery could have killed me. Many religious people who use the "what if you're wrong" argument often deny climate change, despite overwhelming evidence.
MarkRosengarten 5 months ago
@MarkRosengarten The "what if you're wrong?" argument is something that to us is absurd. Coming from them they don't understand why it is though. It's absurd to us because we just can't believe in things without seeing evidence, or some proof. With no evidence for something you aren't wrong for not believing it, you are making a wish it is true if you do believe it. Their problem is lack of basic critical thought skills. A great majority of them use Pascals Wager and have no idea how silly it is
Reip187 3 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins Debates/Lectures
I love his description of "God". LaVey's was harsher, and more accurate though.
RyanShimoda 5 months ago
"GOD IS IN THE SAME STATUS AS FAIRIES....YOU WOULDN'T WORRY IF I WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO FAIRIES, WOULD YOU"?
LMFAO HOW DO YOU ARGUE WITH THIS MAN. HE'S BRILLIANT.
MrSoliveira100 7 months ago 8
lol! i remember i DID laugh at the lots of virgins' part of the book XD, and by that time i was still catholic hahahahaha.........
freiheitsalv 7 months ago
The interviewer seems like a Christian Larry King. I loved the softballs and the civil tone of this interview. Dr. Dawkins was magnanimous about the especially weak questions and assertions and gave wonderful, straight-forward answers when asked.
0gods 7 months ago
When you lie on your death bed, realizing that this is it, your life is coming to an end. Do you think that you may suddenly believe in santa?
Nails077 8 months ago 9
3:49 Aieee, that must've hurt, Richard. I like this guy, but I dislike the emotional attachment he displays when talking about things he has studied over long periods of time-simply because you did years of work on something does not elevate you to a level of omniscience-look what happened to Einsten with his 'God doesn't play dice' argument.
ExEverest10 1 year ago
@ExEverest10 On what exact plane does Dawkins claim to hold anything near omniscience? One of his main points is that he can be persuaded at any point, if people only provide evidence. Claiming there's no god really is no more assertive than claiming there's no invicible, immaterial tea pot floating about in deep space, controlling our thoughts.
Pomme843 10 months ago
@Pomme843 I agree; simply because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean that that's an argument for it's inexistence. To say otherwise is to mirror the blunder of the opposing side. I didn't allege that he claimed that he was omniscient; merely that he shows excessive hubris (according to my standards), and that his notions of omniscience are implicit in his being (at least from what I can understand.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@Pomme843 I hope that I don't sound self-righteous, but welcoming criticism based on supporting evidence is the very least I would expect of an intelligent person; questioning and criticizing their own views first and foremost is where my standard lies. I don't think that I share this standard with Dawkins, as I often hear him rely on fallacies and appeals to common sense, rather than incisive dissections of the issue.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@ExEverest10 M-hm. Fallacies such as?
Pomme843 10 months ago
@Pomme843 If I recall correctly, his justification for not studying the Bible was to appeal to the exploitative image of invisible fairies, and ask if one were to study the aforementioned sprites would one have to read a text about them before passing judgement; the answer, I hope you'll agree, is yes.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@Pomme843 I would go further to say that since the concept of fairies being discussed is derived from the text, since they are invisible, the text is your only source of information about the fairies, and is necessary to know what a fairie, in this example, is (this is a necessary precursor for carrying out an analysis of X; you need to know what that X is).
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@Pomme843 This is without mentioning the more contextual considerations of understanding that in this analogy the concept of fairies and the related religion, was indirectly augmented by a plethora of theological interpretations and arguments, all of which should be contended with, if time allows, to see if your criticisms stand up to scrutiny. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, to promote your bias as a badge of honor, your fallaciousness as the reasonable position.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@Pomme843 A counterexample; if you hear of a proposition in science, which is based on a research paper, do you dismiss the proposition outright, or examine the paper?
I trust this example covers both fallacies and appeals to common sense and 'gut feelings'.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@ExEverest10 I personally never examine the paper myself, to this date. I read very slowly (working on improving there), so I'd rather find another opinion on the paper, or I'd try to find the critical, controversial or problematic point in the paper, and read that myself - indeed, alot of scientific reports, and their findings, are severely abused, at least here on YT. But I don't know if this is something at which Dawkins is at fault as much as I...
Pomme843 10 months ago
@Pomme843 Well we are talking about Dawkins (or, at least I am); this isn't the only example where I take umbridge. In the God Delusion he publishes a number of letters written to himself and other atheists without much analysis (as to how widespread these opinions are, is this type of hate mail only seen in religion-related topics, or in others too, reflecting more on the society today, rather than religion itself, etc)
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@Pomme843 as though the letters in of themselves are self-evident and incontrovertible proof of the evil of religion. An implication I have a very hard time believing, if only for the un-addressed questions above.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@ExEverest10 ??? What letters?
Pomme843 10 months ago
@Pomme843 Letters. In the God Delusion. The book. Unless he did a full 180 on the views expressed in that book, they're partially representative of his views on religion now, and of his intellectual integrity at the time; I thought the latter lackluster, and doubt that the parts I disliked all dissapeared. They could've, of course...but then again, he could've revised the book to reflect what he feels presently, if it's not reflective of his present-day views to a extent significant enough.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
@Pomme843 So there's not a lot of room for explanation, in my opinion; either he holds the same views and subscribes to the same notions as he did in the book, or he holds and subscribes to a signifcant number of views and notions, respectively, to where a revision would be unnecessary...or he's avoiding revisions for financial, or PR, or marketing considerations; the latter betraying his intellectual integrity to a significant amount, imo, as he doesn't appear to require additional wealth.
ExEverest10 10 months ago
Richard - An Intelligent Homosapiens - proud of him !!!
zakzikr 1 year ago 2
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
—Marcus Aurelius
TheBlackSheep2134 1 year ago
Glued , Screwed and Tatooed.
ai1888 1 year ago
Religion is the Disney 'Theory Of Everything'
This is Dawkins at his best in my opinion..
funkyleaf 1 year ago
Ive never seen richard so happy! Its almost as if there is some kind of inside joke between the two of them, perhaps the presenters is playing devils advocate afterall?
LowleyUK 1 year ago
Polemicist?
I think the title biologist would be more apt.
Moreover, the reporter/interviewer is such a pain.
braydenbeautiful 1 year ago
aww, Dawkins' sigh at 3:22, I so sighed at the same time. :)
The he-completely-didn't-get-what-I-just-explained sigh.
Mattnesss 1 year ago
...why anyone still believes in religion is beyond me.
faithisfiction 1 year ago 3
@faithisfiction fear; laziness. most people are intellectually lazy- especially in the USA.
tristramshandy3 1 year ago 2
so far the best debate i've seen with Dawkins, the one with O'reilly was horrible. that guy was a douchebag with Dawkins
luciferiexcelsil 2 years ago 3
Another point regarding "disrespect" towards people's beliefs when describing the christian god as Dawkins did in his book.
Look at all the ruthless dictators in our history. Hitler, Saddam, etc.......people have no problem describing them as murdering, jealous, etc....doing all the same things the christian god did in the OT.
Would it be considered "disrespectful" to call those leaders the same names Dawkins used, when they did the same things?
Mechelle68 2 years ago 4
@Mechelle68
The god of the Old Testament was the the god of the Jews, not the Christians. Christianity did not exist in those days.
Shobner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shobner
Is the Old Testament not in the Christian bible right alongside the New Testament?
Did Jesus not say in Mathew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Your argument is pretty ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of Christianity. I hope you were kidding.
Mayhemm007 1 year ago
6:18. Maybe he should have read when Jesus said the greatest commandment is love your God and love your neighbor as yourself. LOL
Drunkenprophet23 2 years ago
6:48 to 7:05. I spent 2 months in hospital, 3 months in a wheelchair then 3 months on crutches after a motorbike accident and not once did I even come close to praying to an imaginary friend.
crabbit101 2 years ago 64
@crabbit101 I don't think your situation qualifies, as you were predicted to be recoverable, to have a chance, and an extraordinarily large chance of full and healthy recovery. Someone who say, has cancer who would not be expected to recover would then be more inclined to do what is necessary to sway chance to their favor.
sebc2s 1 year ago
@sebc2s You have no idea what injuries I sustained. I came very close to dying actually and could have easily spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair. I put my trust in the doctors, surgeons and nurses who put me back together again but I did not make a full recovery. Praying does fuck all more than have a placebo effect.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 I had a suspected spinal stroke 3 years ago when I was 18, I'm still paraplegic and I've not prayed to some celestial being.
If the only way for me to recover was to appease some vindictive deity's ego, I wouldn't want to walk the earth ruled by such a totalitarian dictator anyway.
weefeatures 2 months ago
The interviewer pretends to be impartial but you can see he really believes the pathetic challenges he poses at Dawkins.
crabbit101 2 years ago
the interviewer is a fucking weasel
toolegit2quittttt 2 years ago
he looks like screech from saved by the bell
pleasmarryme 2 years ago
Dawkins shouldn't smile. It's a little scary.
mutabrev 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
In watching these interviews Hitchens and Dawkins have given in the past two years one gets the feeling that the interviewer runs through a standard set of arguments such as: "aren't you being too harsh?" "you're right but doesn't religion console people?" etc.And after each one of their arguments is smashed to the ground they reach for another until finally, at the last resort they either concede Dawkins is right or say "i'm right because im right and no amount of evidence will ever change that
NegativeNick 2 years ago 4
This interviewer is a wanker go dawkins
wazza16981 2 years ago 3
Dealing with this obnoxious interviewer Richard has demonstrated supreme patience - certainly greater that a saint could achieve.
tjfitz2000 2 years ago 2
what?? didnt dawkins already admitt theres a possibility of god existing because he could never be certain??? and now hes saying he doesnt exist???(is he certain or not??)
pup101 3 years ago
He already said that he is technically agnostic, like most atheists...... but only in the sense that , technically, he is agnostic towards fairies (or anything you can imagine that isn't based on evidence), which of course, is very very slight.
RPFS2008 3 years ago 3
read between the lines my friend
requiemdexter 2 years ago
search for the russel teapot-argument...
it basically says he's not certain of the non existence of the spaghetti monster as well...
caioma87 2 years ago
yeah well that was a dumb arguement .... he ignored the question once again in it........anyways hes serious this time....im just saying unless you can prove anything you say then dont claim to know the absolute truth..... the evidence for evolution is terrible if you research and really study it... all it gives you is something that seems logical and those who are unwilling to really study it fall for that.... which is the majority of people
pup101 2 years ago
ahahahahah yeah u r right evolution is an atheist creation to control the world. U should really study it....
btw he says that "god doesn't exist" is an un-scientifical, irrational claim, but the same argument is possible for the dragon-in-ur-garage, but in the same sense we all agree the dragon doesn't exist...
what question did he ignored? btw not this moron didn't ask any smart question, and doesn't know what he is talking about...
caioma87 2 years ago
yeah i would rather believe that it is.... your talking about the new world order???
pup101 2 years ago
is that the best argument you got. he caught himself anyway.
JordanKimball 2 years ago
Christian belief's are disrespectful to non-Christians. Condemning non-Christians to Hell??? That is a little harsh. But those are the disrespectful RULES of the ALL-LOVING religion of CHRISTIANITY!!!
Martano666 3 years ago 4
You tell 'em brutha.
p.s. oh snap!
OmegaSyrus 2 years ago
I've enjoyed this interview series, but that interviewer would have gotten annoying to me after awhile... hehe. Poor Dawky.
Isn't that unfair? Isn't that disrespectful? Isn't that a little bit too strong? DISRESPECT LAWL. I hate the whole concept of that kind of "disrespectful" ness. The church in some sects are disrespectful of the gay community. It's the same idea.
AAAAH. Bias.
Biogirl52 3 years ago 39
no he just tried to challenge him, in order to generate a more advanced dialoge; something that every interviewer is supposed to do. Dawkins gave very concise answers to every question.
andron333 3 years ago
He even said we should accept the death threats (the cartoons) and respect muslims hysterical sensibilities about their faith. As 'of course' we should expect these threats and fatwas as something natural.
Some people have not learned from the 1989 fatwa against Rushdie, where so many in the civilized world said the problem was blasphemy, not incitement to murder. Fucking pussies!
Stipoon 3 years ago
Byrnie1989: Good observance. But it can be easily understood that Dawkins is so certain Medusa doesn't exist (and he gives the same value to god) that it is by default logical that god doesn't exist.
Lionspoint 3 years ago
Haha.. oh dear, the first time ive seen dawkins slip up with his cool practiced demeanor. "God does not exist!" haha
Byrnie1989 3 years ago
Thank you very very much for the posting
WhitePilgrim86 3 years ago 4