Why are people clapping. It's such a shallow & ignorant answer and insults God. Do you wanna know what else is recent? The holocaust, the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong & Two world wars which combined together account for more deaths of humanity then any other period of history. And this chump has the arrogance to suggest that humans can come up with a reasonable, universal moral framework. Give me a break.

I searched for strawman fallacy and found this

Such good acting from the woman that plays Gail. You start to wonder if salting her is a legitimate course of action

Moral relativism has replaced absolute morality with a morality that has absolutely no morals.

Religious people believe in subjective morals, and don’t even realize it🤦🏻‍♂️ They believe God can do whatever he wants and it’s okay… god could k!ll random people for fun or f^ck kids or burn people alive for no reason.. their God can do literally anything imaginable and it would be okay Religious people believe this and yet they still think morality is objective 🤦🏻‍♂️

There's not enough salt in the world!!

What is an intelligent design?

Lmao

Not only did he not answer the question, it was absolutely riddled with inaccuracies, lies, and gaslighting. These people are either satanic or clueless. There is a veil over their eyes, and it's like they can't hear or see.

Well u dint need to be in a religion to cause harm on people

Id hit it. Just saying.

I was kind to animals and other children (and adults) in when I was in kindergarten in about 1955 well before I even knew what religion was. Morality comes from within and this is easy to understand. As for objective morality or deriving moral values from holy books - really?? Horror stories from the Old Testament? Stoning to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Killing/murdering whole tribes because it is imagined that they broke the rule of an imagined god??

Gail should of had her own show.

Yes, please tell me about that supreme moral arbiter with his 613 mitzvot and 10 commandments that completely ignores the greatest of all evils, owning another human being. Even Dawkins seems to omit this glaring omission. I'm not an atheist. I'm still searching for a god worthy of being worshipped.

What the hell why doesn’t it say how many views this video has

A religion can only claim their morality to be absolute if they can prove that their version of God absolutely exists. No religion can do this so no religion can make that claim.

The utmost respect to the Admiral for not breaking out in laughter at such an absurd belief. 0:15

Absolute morality does not exist. Good and bad are human value judgements

Gail's dad is dead. HE'S DEEAAADDDDDD!!!!!!!

This guy shaped a lot of my thinking in my teenage years, which probably has a large effect on how i think today. Watching some videos of him today he seems overrated as hell.

00:15 that’s exactly my problem !

After my first time I think to myself "I've grown into my body. I'm not a virgin anymore."

Dee and Dennis are awfull.. Gails actuallly quite pretty

This did not age well. The woke morality was “reasoned”. They ate Dawkins

Unironically how Narcissists treat Codependents.

2023 maga Enters the chat. Hitch was usually always correct.

What a DUMMY & MORON!!!

Man the sheep started the clapping and the rest followed.

Wheres the view count?

There isn't enough fish in the oceans to help this guy. Mercy.

Richard didn’t answer the question, being an atheist means there is no way of any objective morality (nothing is good or bad) even those examples which he mentioned cannot be considered as evil from an atheist point of view.

Credit to the show's makeup artists....it takes talent to make the actress playing her look ugly.

What in the strawman was that supposed to be

Well, in places where a woman can cheat, have kids with another man and brake another man for child support for kids that were not his, I support stoning for adultery.

Dawkin's response completely slayed the question and deserves to go in the "hall of fame" of atheist replies. Besides, religion only gives lip service to absolute morality, but in actuality fails. "Do unto others" and "loving thy neighbor" vs prescriptions for slavery, killing of apostates and heretics, genocide. It contradicts it's own self can be seen to be subjective in the way it's teachings have evolved through the centuries.

"morality the the absolute morality that a religious person might profess..." Dawkins is confusing the absolute morality with his morality relativism. Absolute morality exists beyond "a religious person" opinion. We are talking about something absolute, like numbers. So you can't "profess" absolute morality, but you can "profess" relative morality, as it is, for definition an opinion. If something is absolute it stands above people's opinions. For example, numbers are absolute. Number two is always number two. It doesn't matter if a million people say that is not. One plus one equals two, is an absolute. If one day a country will decide that one plus one equals three, this won't make it becomes true. Because reality is that one plus one equals two. If I have one shoe in my hands, and I pick up another shoe, now I have two shoes, not three. This is what absolute means. So, you can "profess" that one plus one is three, but reality is that one plus one is two. So the problem is: does absolute morality exist or not? If absolute morality exists, then it comes from God. But we can easily find a list of things that are always morally right, and another one with things that are always morally wrong. For example love others is always morally right, no matter the situation or the culture. Murder someone for fun, is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. So as moral absolute exists, God exists. In fact as absolute and conceptual, moral absolute in not physical. So it doesn't belong the physical reality. As absolute, it doesn't change with time, so it is eternal. Morallty comes from virtues. For example love is a virtue. Only persons can have virtues. Things or ideas, don't own virtues. Morality must ha ve a source. This source must be personal. Therefore this source is God. "... a religious person might profess would include what stoning people for adultery..." Dawkins is confusing again, law with morality. Law is a set of rules, accepted by the most, with the purpose to mantain social order. Absolute morality is a set of truths, which we use as a standard to evaluate our conduct. If you don't respect the law, there is a system in place, in order to give you a punishment. If you act immoraly this is up to you and God. As laws are made based on the relative morality agreed by the most, many times, to act immoraly is punished by the law. Now adultery is always morally wrong, no matter circumstances. To betray you spouse for fun is always wrong. This is the moral we are talking about. So if a society agrees that adultery is immoral, they will make some law in order to prevent people to commit adultery. In fact we can see how laws punish adultery in different country: in some country punishment is harder, in other it is used to decide about wealth division in divorce. In order to understand why God gives the law about stoning adulterers, we must know more about that particular historical period, where society and the world was very different from ours. "...I don't think I want an absolute morality I think I want a morality that is thought out reasoned..." Once again, the fact that Dawkins doesn't want absolute morality, it doesn't make absoulte morality vanish from reality. Absolute morality is still there. I probably think that what Dawkins wants to say, is that he does't want a stoning law for adulterers. And I agree with that. Jews society, was theocratic at the time of the Old Testament. God was dicating the laws, and people respected and feared the Lord, because they saw with their eyes his mircales, and heard his voice from the mountain in Exodus 20. For them, adultery and other sins were considered a disgrace. Today we can't apply this law to our culture, we should execute half of the population, so there are different laws. As we are not a theocratic society, we would not allow God to dictate our laws, as the Jews did at that time. But this doesn't make adultery right, also if many people do "profess" it. Of course an atheist doesn't want God, to tell him how to live. But this doesn't change the fact that God knows what's better for each of us, and comparing our conduct with the ten commandment we are doing the right thing. Jesus saved a woman from stoning in John 8, and performed miracles during the sabbaths. God is not like Dawkins wants you to believe.

Kindness, patience, and love for others are always morally right. Murder, rape, torture of children, they are always morally wrong. No matter the circumstance or culture. The moment you do something immoral you know it's because of your feelings, this awareness has been placed in you by God. You can suppress these feelings, and train yourself to decrease your sensitivity to sin. This way you gain some advantage and convenience. But that doesn't pay off in the long run, and you can see it in the number of people suffering from depression, if you have your own morality you probably suffer of depression. The Lord is a logical and rational God. As beings created in his image, he has put into us this rationality, and the ability to understand the difference between true and false. Without a true and false acquittal, we would not be able to communicate or reason. Logic doesn't come from man, it comes from God. If my logic were different from yours how could we communicate with each other? How could you say that I am saying something wrong or contradictory if there is no truth valid for me and for you. God created us in a perfect world, to be able to fellowship with him. But the man, having given the possibility to decide for himself, disobeyed God. This has brought sin into the world. God is morally perfect and cannot have communion with sin. We can see every day in the news how the world is cursed. Maybe you blame God for the evil. In reality, evil comes from free will, in which man, chooses evil instead of good. The fact that we can decide to love God comes from free will. Love is a decision, if we were forced to do good we would be machines. True love is a conscious decision, like the one Jesus made when he died on the cross to pay the price for your sins, so that, today you can have the promise of eternal life. God is unchanging, eternal. God doesn't lie, he keeps promises. Indeed, we cannot remain in the presence of a morally perfect God, having committed sins. God is perfect justice, and sins must be paid for. But God has decided to pay for the sins for you, and is offering you the gift of eternal life. What is the meaning of life? Your relationship with God. God made us for this purpose, because he is Love. Have you ever thought about how you will spend eternity? Are you sure that when you die there will be nothing? God has given us the ability to perceive her existence in a natural way. There is no excuse for this. One day you will be judged by God: heaven or hell, but the wages of sin is death. You can decide today that you need Jesus, have mercy for your sins, and have eternal life. God doesn't force you to accept it, you cn stay away from him, and decide to pay yourself the price, this is the lake of fire, an eternity of regret and suffering. It may seem to you that it is more comfortable and advantageous to eliminate God from the equation today, and not have to meet absolute moral obligations, but in reality you will be no better off in earthly life, in eternity. Change your mind about Jesus, repent of your sins, read the Bible, think on it, apply it to your life.

Yeah but Christopher, you wrote an entire book about how you object to people "playing with these toys".

That question didn't really even make sense. I hope he never finished the book. 😂

Well he dodged the question by critiquing rigid religious dogma from the Bible and the Quran. I still fail to see how it isn’t a leap of faith to believe in absolute morality as an atheist.

Is morality from God or Humanity? Truth is key. Any denial of truth presupposes truth, so the existence of truth is inescapable. But is the truth of Morality of God? If we come from stardust, morality is a human created truth no different than opinion. It holds no weight beyond human intellect which grew in stages over time. Then we must ask, who’s moral opinion is right? Weather morality evolved from cause and effect or trial and error doesn’t answer the fundamental absolute basic question. Who’s morality is correct? If we are stardust then opinion can say anything because to define an absolute objective standard of morality we are forced to borrow from a non evolved set of rules to make sense. Otherwise everyone is free to there own moral standard and not subject to the moral rules of someone else or society. For that matter no one has to care about anyone. Crime committed by stardust is meaningless because there can be no absolute moral justice of accountability to hold stardust to. Stardust MUST barrow from a theistic view to establish moral grounding otherwise it stands on no established moral justice or grounding. Morality with a justified grounding is impossible from a evolved human of stardust. No one has value, everyones opinion is baseless and no one is equal in value. Accidental human has no value beyond what it declares for its self, but this is still meaningless opinion recognized only by selective agreement for which there exist no basis for validity outside opinion. HOWEVER, if we are created, DESIGNED by a powerful creator we then have value, we have justice, we have an agreed upon base moral code written upon our hearts and minds. We KNOW right and wrong from our hearts without being told. In this moral code we have great equal VALUE and reason to fight for value. All of history majority instinctually produces morality consistent with the Torah and NT scripture. We never evolved to a standing of right and wrong. We owned it from a grounded biblical perspective. All of the constitutional laws are a mirror of the levitical laws. Every human knows with education what is right and wrong. We know the Law of God without being taught because we are created beings with Value. We are Loved and given respect, honor and justice from this creator. To say we are evolved from stardust is to spit in the face of every human in existence and say “you were an accident and hold no value”. Everyone wants to be the master of their own universe. But reality is all of us will stand before judgment and if we didn’t put our faith in the son of God then all we have to show for our life is our willful rejection through arrogance of the son that simply wanted us to put our faith in him without preconditions. You matter because you are a created being. Your morality is not yours but GODs. Turn from your self and lean completely on Jesus. Read the NT gospels. Choose before its too late.

When Richard Dawkins takes off his glasses, you’re gonna get an intellectual ass-whippin’.

Richard is a big twister and a liar. He distorts the meaning of words, plays around them in order to get in front in a debate, in this video he does that absolutely. No answer, no insight, just rhetoric "rationality through thought, argue, discuss" hahha. I cannot believe people in 21st century take serious such a clown.

So Richard Dawkins responded by hand waving, and the sheep clapped and ate it all up

what's even sadder is that the military Officer did not call him out on his stupidity

The Dawkinsian version of the Hitchslap.

oh look, a democrat...

It's funny to see though that Dawkins himself rejects morality based on concensus in regards to gender, inclusivism and so on. Double standard in recent blogs and how he also admitted that there's a need for an 'intelligent design' for the universe in one of his books. He's painting a caricature of religion to make a point to defend his own caricature.

Perfect answer. It’s as perfect as a mathematical proof.

He still didn’t justify any measurement for morality so…