Revelation TV Interview Richard Dawkins COMMENTS

[nikolai082700]

I made it through about halfway... When the very disingenuous host asked the question about genitalia and how long humans had to wait for their junk to evolve, I realized that intelligent discussion was only going to come from Prof Dawkins. I had to stop watching when the host's personal anecdote began.

Hint: Personal experiences are not evidence.

This video is a good example of why it is sometimes impossible to have a rational, intelligent discussion with a true believer of the bible.

[unlokia]

Regardless of his sheer arrogance and lack of humility, Richard Dawkins is a clever man. He doesn't like ANYONE saying things that don't align with his belief, however. Quite ironic. God still loves him, even though he cannot see it :-)

[Brekky57]

@unlokia gtfo troll

[unlokia]

@Brekky57 As soon as you are reduced to personal attacks, your debate is over, and any credibility is lost.

[Brekky57]

@unlokia I SAID GTFO TROLL

[Hogmagandy]

@jeepster - "Don't bother replying with examples of evolution because every example that exists is only genetic variation. Not the same thing." Erm, yes it is. In fact, that's EXACTLY what evolution is. It's any genetic, heritable variance in population groups.

[jeepsterrr]

They should have had someone more knowledgable on who would have shown Richard Dawkins up for the pseudi scientist that he is. One of the foremost leaders of the bilind faith movement called evolution. Don't bother replying with examples of evolution because every example that exists is only genetic variation. Not the same thing. Jonathan Sarfarti would destroy Dawkins in a debate as would Jonathan Wells.

[setmedic]

The most amazing thing about this video is how this man got to be the age he is with the IQ he's got.

[ultim4t32]

Let me tell you what happened in my brain at that point in time... I was thinking about the book of Genesis!!!!! That was priceless. ROFL.

[ultim4t32]

This guy is so nice, you really don't want to bother proving him wrong. Why? He is not the problem with christianity. If all christians were like him, athiests wouldn't really give a crap to debate anything.

[sbergman27]

@ultim4t32 The road to Hades is paved with good intentions. This is the sort of "nice guy" who turns out to vote against, say, same-sex marriage, because he thinks it's "wrong" and goes against the teachings of his holy book. Far more damage is done by the masses of nice but ignorant people than by the smaller number of people one might classify as mean and evil.

[hellcielo]

this christian is crazy

[victoryall]

What the fudge.... The blue shirt is just rambling...! I reckon Dawkins regretted coming on this show.

Blue shirt: "Am I deluded?

Dawkins: "Probably"

[oODarkEnergyOo]

The blue shirt sounded like a stuttering, bumbling idiot ... So someone in his family died ... such is life ... the most beautiful part of our lives ... is that they'll end. Dawkins should have ripped him a new one and taught him a lesson he'll never forget ... "What about the trilobite?" ... Pfffttt ... what a tool. I bet someone else gave him that question to ask.

[Sonyoooo3]

Atheism is all about materialism and what will happened if all materisals are gone will you still look for evidence when all is gone or will you look or ask for hope within you or will you just give up because you stop believing just walk through the desert without food or water and youl see what i am saying.

[bwc3821]

@Sonyoooo3 Nobody sees what you're saying.

[Sonyoooo3]

Weired that Richard Dawkins had evolv to a Atheis.

[mybroisawizz]

damnit >.< I keep trying to catch the spinny back round balls lining up perfectly, but I can't spot it. It's driving me crazier then the host's ramblings.

[Chris197980CH]

It's interesting that the interviewer is not willing to question that maybe the religious texts he quotes aren't facts. He therefore tries to counter Dawkins' arguments with Bible texts assuming that those are given facts. So I think to convince this man you'd need to set the facts straight about the history of these texts.

[burzlinde]

What a delightful interview. Mr Dawkins often knowingly goes into interviews with people who publicly disagree with them and they usually go out of their way to make him look like a douchebag (see FOX). This was polite, considerate, and inquisitive.

[lolippi]

Dick host omg

[skankingrudeboy]

At the end when Dawkins says "I'd be happy to receive an invitation" he meant "Not a chance you massive cock"

[bwc3821]

"Let me finish!"

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

He should have! Dawkins qualifies himself as the 'Universal Scientist'. He is a Biologist. Not a philosopher.

There are plenty of scientists who are impressed by such stories, he should deflate his ego and admit that those 'anecdotes' are not impressive to HIM and anybody else who agrees with him. Not scientists!

You are a fool if you cannot see Dawkins has flawed arguments. He is an intelligent man, but he is also deluded. All humans suffer from delusions...

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename I'm not sure what that was in response to, and I'd have to re-watch the video, but I believe Dawkins DID state that anecdotes are not impressive to HIM. As for the rest of your comment I'm not sure what provoked that, but I'll jst say I can respect the fact that Dawkins at least consciously tries to remain objective and factual. He doesn't pretend to know things he doesn't, he just sticks to the facts.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

It was a response to the poster quoting the interviewer saying 'Let Me Finish'. He doesn't say HIM, that is precisely my point. He says 'scientists are not impressed'. Plenty of scientists can find room for faith as well.

My point is, Dawkins has delusions too. He has delusions that he is an 'intellectual', which somehow, in his mind, makes him feel superior and in his own way, enlightened. All humans feel that, we all feel we are 'right' in our thinking. I am not impressed by him.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

It was a response to the poster quoting the interviewer saying 'Let Me Finish'. He doesn't say HIM, that is precisely my point. He says 'scientists are not impressed'. While he may be 'a scientist', he is also a subject.

My point is, Dawkins has delusions too. He has delusions that he is an 'intellectual', which somehow, in his mind, makes him feel superior and in his own way, enlightened. All humans feel that, we all feel we are 'right' in our thinking. I am not impressed by him.

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename You're free to interpret his candor as arrogant, which is what I assume you're getting at but there's nothing wrong with believing you're intellectually superior to someone if you really do have the chops to back that up. the fact of the matter is he IS a highly distinguished individual & very intelligent. I assume his frankness comes largely from his british upbringing, not from some delusional sense of superiority.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

I'm British..He isn't being frank. I live in Oxford. The minds that pass through here are highly overrated. It is an intellectually incestuous place, trust me. Genius is a much more common trait than an Oxford Don like Dawkins would have you believe. He simply has a platform.

Neutrinos just beat the 'speed of light'. I wonder how long it will be before other 'fundamentals' of science are proven to be incorrect.

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename science is always learning more about the world, disproving an old scientific theory through the use of newer scientific data does not de-legitimize science in any way. Thinking such would be a logical fallacy. Again, you can dismiss him if you wish but his objective evidence holds a hell of a lot more water than subjective anecdotes.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

So why is 'free science' restricted? Why can't Iran develop a nuclear reactor? I do not see the great good that science is bringing. As I said in another video, we may well fight a war over the spread of such scientific knowledge very soon. Remember Saddam? We fought him because he had too many smart chemists and bio-chemists, too many nuclear physicists...

Why is access to science restricted?

[morningstomper123]

@Thirdoptionisthename Access to science is not restricted. Iran already has all the information it needs to become nuclear. On the other hand, if you don't understand why access to nuclear weaponry is restricted, then you are a moron. Simple as that.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@morningstomper123

Access to science IS restricted you idiot. And we fight wars over science...admit it!

[morningstomper123]

@Thirdoptionisthename Science is simply a method of determining the nature of reality. That can't be restricted. Access to technologies is restricted, maybe that is where you are getting confused? Can you give an example of someone being physically refrained from conducting experiments?

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename We fought Saddam over WMDs, nothing to do with his "smart chemists" I don't remember Bush ever referring to that. Morningstomper's original comment explains this.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

How could he possibly develop WMDs without science?

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename What? Once again, nobody had an issue with him "having science" they war was over him having WMDs.

[Thirdoptionisthename]

@bwc3821

You're clearly either an idiot or a troll. I give up.

Bush didn't even tell the truth, what difference does it make. We went to war because a country we didn't like made some scientific advances, and some bad political decisions. That is the fact.

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename We went to war because we believed Iraq had WMDs (which he didnt have). Where are you getting this other crap? You really think we thought they had "too much science?"

[bwc3821]

@Thirdoptionisthename morningstomper hit the nail on the head "Science is simply a method of determining the nature of reality. That can't be restricted. Access to technologies is restricted, maybe that is where you are getting confused? Can you give an example of someone being physically refrained from conducting experiments?"

That must be where you're getting confused, because what you seem to be saying makes no sense.

[morningstomper123]

@Thirdoptionisthename Dawkins IS a philosopher, you fool. I'll bet you have never even looked the word 'philosopher' up in a dictionary, rookie error. All scientists are philosophers (excluding pseudo-scientists, obviously). Also; no, there are not plenty of scientists who are impressed by anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is viewed at best as a reason to do PROPER research into a subject matter. Fail.

[bwc3821]

32:30 I think he had a heart attack o.O

[tulipsontheorgan]

Richard does fantastic job...I would have smacked this bone head host. I can't believe this host is asking questions already answered. and when Dawkins answers him - the host just doesn't get it. all this info flies over his head like LAX. Oh this host is a f-ing IDIOT!!!!! I can't take it. 28 mins. just can't take....the host thinks because he is so polite and long winded that gives weight to what he's saying. He's a huge idiot....shoot him the old man NOW!!!!! SHUT UP!!! 32 mins

[morningstomper123]

@tulipsontheorgan lol, I never made it to the end either!

[Chris197980CH]

@tulipsontheorgan I don't think the problem is that he doesn't get it. The problem is that he does not accept it because he prevents himself from drawing any conclusions that would move himself away from his current interpretation of his religious texts. He does emphasize a lot that he's a simple man and there are far more intellectual people in his league and I assume he uses that as an excuse to ignore the facts, he comprehends but he thinks there must be a flaw which smarter people can find.

[alexwilding1]

I think Dawkins was being incredibly patient and kind because of this mans recent loss. None the less, it was interesting and I think his ramblings speak volumes.

[AuthorSteven]

@alexwilding1 He was patient and kind, just as the Christian was, they respect each other. It's just that the christian guy happens to be right...I feel so bad for Mr. Dawkins. :(

[investinottawa]

how did this rookie get Richard Dawkins on his show? Mind Boggling....Richard you need a new agent!

[morningstomper123]

@investinottawa I know, the worst bit is when he drones on with his anecdote somewhere in the middle. I feel like yelling "HURRY THE FUCK UP OLD MAN!!"

[investinottawa]

The only real genesis is sega genesis!

[Rogan74]

Dawkins is excellent, he explains things so well.

[AuthorSteven]

@Rogan74 He's a good speaker but he's dead wrong, no pun intended.

[Rogan74]

@AuthorSteven - Hey Steven, can you expand on your comment, what exactly is Dawkins "dead wrong" about?