Richard Dawkins on Transgenderism

[@Templetonq]

Disagreeing with someone is not hate speech.

[@chrisharvey7461]

no it s not, but framing trans people in negative ways will inevitably manifest in to hate

[@Templetonq]

@@chrisharvey7461 Disagreeing with someone is not negative framing. Saying that people who think they are otherkin, or who think they are God, are confused, does not inevitably lead to hatred. Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying transgender people are mentally ill. I'm saying that feelings can not be trusted implicitly. If as little as 1 in 10000 transitioners regret it, we need to tread carefully, and not be afraid to ask difficult questions for fear of hurting peoples' feelings.

[@Templetonq]

@@chrisharvey7461 I'm not seeing any hatred from Richard Dawkins here. I think he's wrong on this issue, but we need to have the discussion.

[@joakim_g]

It is to the woke identity politics followers. According to them any kind of disagreement of someone's "own truth" (someone's subjective belief) is the same thing as hate. According to the wokesters everone must agree on what they believe (or stay silent), otherwise the person who disagree is a "spreader of hate".

[@chrisharvey7461]

@@Templetonq yes perhaps not hate, clearly discomfort...which i think we all may go though to a degree with social norms changing, i think its can be perceived that powerful platforms that dont give any middle ground is polarizing

[@1nePercentJuice]

How can atheism fail? It's not a movement, it's a rejection of BS.

[@ihatespam2]

Thank you. As if it’s our job to convert the world.

[@RichardCranium.]

When Nietzsche said God is dead, it was a warning that values which are even WORSE then Christianity will replace Christianity. And that is what we seem to be seeing.

[@Schizophonic92]

I don’t see atheists going so hard on Islam in Europe, probably for ideological reasons. Only Christianity is the subject of their scrutiny, i wish all religions got the same treatment. That’s a failure to me, because they know that attacking the Catholic Church for the billionth time has no real consequence.

[@jonutsthedanklordpayton]

​@Schizophonic92 because most atheist live in christian dominanted societies. And not only that but have you been on the internet, atheist rip Islam a new asshole on the daily. The only reason you don't notice is because you're not Muslim.

[@ihatespam2]

@@RichardCranium. wrong. He was saying “they could” be worse, pointing out the potential vacuum. He hated Xtianty. It was a passive aggressive slave religion, based on worshipping the weakest as the strongest to him. It was against everything he believed in. You need a better tutor if you are using Nietzsche as a defense for that pile of lies called Christianity.

[@martymoo]

Brilliant! Very interesting and important points, well made. Thank you for all you've done and continue to do, Richard Dawkins et al.! ❤

[@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce]

All he has done is tricked more people into going to hell, i wouldn't say that's a good thing.

[@paulmcglen9413]

Hell is fictitious just like God and all of the other fairy tales from the bible.@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

[@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce]

@@paulmcglen9413 It is the fool that hath said in his heart there is no God.

[@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce]

@@paulmcglen9413 Are you a fool?

[@PeterBartlett-i2p]

Only fools believe fairy tales are real when there is zero evidence to back them up. ​@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce

[@ulus2109]

Richard looking jolly and healthy!

[@jonbaker2102]

I've always admired Professor Dawkin's honesty and intellect.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

Because you're asleep. He doesn't know anymore than you do

[@Discountninja23]

Same, I'm so grateful for this channel and his Spotify

[@ismelllikemarijuana]

i love him so much, he’s a true scientist. he thoroughly studies and explains evolution and genes, and isn’t afraid to call out woke BS

[@stylis666]

Dishonesty you mean. I mean ,a nyone who has taken highschool biology knows that the development of complex organisms depends on more than genes (you need nutrients, specific conditions in the cells for reactions to occur in specific ways, and more). So, how is this biologist so confused on that? Your brains and thus your identity don't even develop together with your genitals - they're not even in the same place, for most people anyway. Maybe that's different for Dick here. But he knows. He is just dishonest, deliberately. But if you equate that to honesty, maybe you should just join a religion. There's a reason why fascists and theists so easily align: their idea of what is true is the same: whatever you want, excused with lies and fallacies.

[@1nePercentJuice]

@Soliloquy-gy6zf seems awake to me. You mad because Dawkins doesn't pander to your mental illne- I mean religious beliefs?

[@sambraham4677]

I'm sad to see professor Dawkins getting older but also very happy to be alive to witness him 🥲 Greetings to you legend 🙏🏻

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

He's looking healthy and well though. I find him very gentleman-like.

[@felixarquer7732]

Another example of how we are shaped by peers rather than parents is language: we speak in the accent, vocabulary, etc. of our generation, not of the previous one.

[@drewlovelyhell4892]

Good point. My older brother was my biggest role model. Because I grew up with him, but didn't know much about my parents as a kid.

[@ivonav3751]

I find this very interesting, but as much as we are shaped by our peers, I can't help but think that there is still an awful lot that genetics contribute. I am not very much like either of my parents in personality. My father, especially, was quite conservative, very religious, and tended to see things very much in black and white. Things were either right or wrong in his mind, and nuance barely existed. My mother tended a bit more toward nuanced thinking, but was a paragon of moderation in all things, which actually made her quite unlike her own family, so I'm not sure where that came from. They were both born in Poland, and displaced during WWII (my father and brothers orphaned), and eventually made their way to England along with their siblings, where they met and I was born. When I was very young, we moved to the USA, so I never really knew any of my cousins. I was also an extremely shy and introverted child with very few friends, probably on the autism spectrum, though never actually diagnosed. But when I reconnected with cousins and uncles in England as an adult (in my early 20s), I found soul mates I never realized I was missing. Introverted atheists, foodies, musicians, with artistic and rebellious streaks, and a fascination with analyzing the way minds work...Not all of them were carbon copies, of course, but most of them more recognizable to me in personality than anyone else I had ever really met.

[@felixarquer7732]

@@ivonav3751 Really interesting story, thanks for sharing. In this eternal debate of nature vs. nurture, I do agree genes are VERY powerful. However, when it comes to language (the limited area I was referring to), it's a different story. We typically pick up the accent, etc. of the place and time we spent our early teenage years in, not that of our parents or relatives from other places.

[@ivonav3751]

@@felixarquer7732 ​ @felixarquer7732 Yes, that makes sense. Actually, I was brought up speaking Polish. My parents spoke good, though accented English, but never used it at home. I had an English accent until we moved to the USA, but quickly lost it. As for my own children, with my husband being in the Navy, we moved around often, and they never really developed any distinctively identifiable speech patterns. I suppose the longest time we were ever in one place, which would have been roughly in their teenage years, was in Hawai'i, which does have a very distinct cadence in local speech, but they never seemed to pick that up. I suppose they had enough peers among other military kids that it overrode the tendency, though the schools they went to were actually comprised more of locals than otherwise. Interesting.

[@MundoGamesDo]

Sorry, brazilian here and didnt understand this idea of Peers. What is it?

[@turinhorse]

Really scared for when Dawkins, this titan of sanity, of curiosity and NATURE. leaves us. We need a new generation of courage to fight this insanity. Please find the inspiration in this man and carry it on with you. Even in just your small daily life. We all need to.

[@wallacewyatt4023]

Agreed.

[@PLo312]

Christopher Hitchens & Richard Dawkins, my 2 biggest heroes. One already left us. I feel the same as you.

[@wallacewyatt4023]

He may well be the very last of the era of extraordinary Oxford and Cambridge gentleman scientists. Once he is gone, we will have lost our final link to that time and culture.

[@swampsprite9]

There are others as honest, level headed and perceptive as he is but mainstream media doesn't like to give them platforms.

[@juliox.1829]

It's something of TRAUMA for me.. I love him so much for everything he's taught me through his wonderful literature

[@Beautyargentina6]

Let’s pose the same question back to the trans activist. Why do you hate and harrass this scientist who just wants to pursue his career and be left alone

[@ajs1998]

There is no comparison to be made here. Trans people are one of the most targeted groups of people. I'd like to hear Dawkins clarify "there are no exceptions" to the big/small gametes. Infertile people don't produce any gametes, does that mean they're sexless? There are also hermaphroditic animals like some snails that can reproduce without a mate. I reject that there's such a strict universal sex binary and especially that there's a strict gender identity binary. If the psychological phenomenon of gender dysphoria exists, it seems ridiculous and dangerous to not let them explore their identity. That is THE treatment, letting people be.

[@elishmuel1976]

It's unfortunate that we live in a world full of lies and half-truths that distort meaningful conversation. I wish the trans activist some well needed good reading and enlightenment. I might even suggest The Selfish Gene as a good start.

[@cluckcluckchicken]

@@ajs1998 If you don't think scientists are also targeted, go talk to the climate change deniers and creationists.

[@bobSeigar]

​@@ajs1998Attacked by who? Themselves? Yes. That entire community needs some Don Quixote. 😂😂

[@vneo42]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@ajs1998 I’m confused by this comment - how exactly are hermaphroditic snails relevant to the topic of transgenderism? How do they qualify as exemptions to Dawkins statement that sex is determined by gamete size? Of course infertile people are not sexless, their body is still organised around producing one gamete or the other, the fact that health issues/age render people infertile and disorders of development exist do not confute this - again, how is that relevant to transgenderism (a matter of identity)? Gender is a social construction around ‘appropriate’ behaviour/expression ascribed to either sex aka sex stereotypes - alleviating gender distress and treating associated body dysmorphia would surely be better achieved by challenging the social importance/pressure around said stereotypes instead of reifying them as trans activists seem to be doing…

[@blakeusry124]

Dawkins has shaped my life by changing me to a rational person. What a wonderful influential person and educator. Thank you Richard.

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

I am glad you shared that life experience. It provides me with some hope in a world where the ego and victim complexes are pandered too rather than seeking truth and discovering beauty through the application of science, language, genuine critical thinking and enquiry.

[@JC-kw1kn]

"Why do you feel the need to hate a minority group that only wants to live their life as their true self and be left alone?" This is coming from the same people who say it is an act of violence to misgender them. I wouldnt call dictating the speech of others as wanting to be left alone

[@phonixfighter7966]

Honestly, the question in and of itself is a declaration of war, on merit of how its written alone. Its not a question its a straigth up acusation that RD is a hatefull person that likes to trample minoritys for the sake of sadistic pleasure. While at the same time painting themselves as the ultimate poor victim that just wants to be left alone.

[@23joanlee]

the "problem" is so obvious that you wannabe big brainers have gone and thought yourselves right out the backside of 'smart' and straight into the exponentially destructive fall out of logic's ass and into absolute assurance of one's own conclusions. come on, richard, you used to know this stuff. did you forget it out of distraction or did you deliberately disregard it as it no longer supported the basis of your encroaching fear of death? have you fallen into your expectations and demands of what the human experience is? and the anti-muslim shit you are spitting? sure, you know christianity is the DIRECT enemy of intelligence and brotherly humanity. at least you used to. and yet these people, many, MANY of whom have suffered rather unduly due to christian colonialism and rule, must fall outside of your definition of 'person'. every one of their hundreds of millions deluded into, through and beyond murder into outright and absolute lunacy. one hundred percent correct? no, sir, even you aren't that. not even close, apparently. i always figured you for one of the people to oppose this type of totalitarian thought pattern. do you know why racism still exists? because people are free to think whatever they want, which is usually some twentieth generation fiction that has been passed down for so long people start calling it 'god'. and the truth is buried deeper each time by smart folks crapping out and calling foul on everything they know to be good and true, for convenience, comfort and peace, thus allowing the poison they fought a lifetime to restrict to run wild and unchecked through the new generations to come. no one speaks to children of such things and when they finally do? it is often far too late. remember this? it is 'screwed up society 101'. you got way too into those scotch, cocaine and ego stroking parties to remain cogent, is that it? i am genuinely confused and concerned. you are sewing the seeds of an intellectual degeneration into the cold, technocratic reality which the third reich proselytized. as of today the VAST majority of intellectual lights operating professionally and at large support the exact opposite of this anti-trans opinion and your insistence is throwing charlatans and imposters into delusions of infiltration and infection. too 'cyberpunk' or 'future shock' sounding for you? then, sir, w/ maximum respect, i am left to conclude you've gone into the same degenerative rabbit hole that saw my perfectly lucid and cognizant grandfather begin worshipping the virgin mary- exclusively- and thinking 'fa99@+s' and 'ni993rs' (sorry, this requires the utmost accuracy and truth) were in cahoots and trying to deliberately neuter and spay the species for??????? some kind of extraterrestrial related conspiracy mumbo jumbo. we've all seen it. common, sad and always ugly. yeah, homie, it's crackers. and, sadly, by evidence? so are you. goodbye, richard, we knew ye well. your mourning and memorial shall be much abbreviated and somberly unattended, but you know by the conviction of your mighty ego that there is naught but darkness and void of consciousness ahead so, fascist it up! go for it! why not grow a hitler moustache and start advocating for the extermination of bangladeshis due to reasons of...oh i don't know... terroristic assaults against western culinary tradition? i hear they are brutal, murderous and ungodly as well as- you guessed it- spiritually motivated by islam! now there's a target i'll bet your flagging intellect could really take a bite out of! ;-) jagoff.

[@exesexesexesexesexesex]

Yeah imagine doing this 500 years ago its like being a witch. You dont act like the normal people youll get harrassed and killed. Solution: just adapt? Become normal

[@Fosu_]

Now substitute trans folks with black people and preferred pronouns with a racial slur. See how absurd your argument sounds?

[@BalloonInTheBalloon]

Somewhere when the Atheist Experience started to use "proper pronouns" I knew something was wrong.... we've been told not to respect the delusions of the religious but somehow showing respect by using they/them is important?

[@maggienewton8518]

agree. I've unsubscribed to Atheist Experience and The Line for that very reason. Hearing some of the hosts (not all of them) use the same faulty rhetoric and fallacies they attack when discussing religion but use to defend pronouns or gender/sex issues...I'm not interested in arguments presented by such dishonest debaters. It's not because I disagree with their ideology but with their lack of consistency when applying sound logic and reason to any argument.

[@BalloonInTheBalloon]

@@maggienewton8518 I noticed the same

[@killager6767]

Same with genetically modified skeptic

[@RetNemmoc555]

I'm not as bothered with a person's wish to be called something as some, but I am bothered by the apparent lack of a good third-person pronoun that can effectively refer to an individual in a gender-neutral way. It has nothing to do with gender theory or sexuality, etc., it has to do with the inadequacy of the English language. "They" and "them" just doesn't land in my ears as anything but plural. One example is the recent death of a high school student the day after being assaulted in a bathroom. News reports used phrases like "they died the following day." Until I read or heard other reports I was not clear on how many people died.

[@robinhood20253]

Damn pronouns , lol

[@denismijatovic1239]

I learned to think independently as a young teenager through this man.

[@binxleyy]

These are the types of conversations that I’ve always longed for- the kind of conversations that can unpack thoughts and ideas. This feels like a lost and foreign thing nowadays. Most conversations like these I can’t have- friends don’t like to do deep dive conversations and they usually dislike my questions and prodding. At least I can live vicariously through this channel.

[@paulinebuchanan6636]

Such clear thinking! Love the engagement of the questioner and how she keeps the topics moving along. I will look for this again - bitesize and thought provoking.

[@pcbacklash_3261]

I Always feel a bit smarter after listening to Richard's podcasts.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

He appears smart but in reality he's not.

[@pcbacklash_3261]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf I suppose it depends upon what _you_ mean by "smart." He's certainly intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable. That's good enough for me.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@pcbacklash_3261 I'm sorry friend . His knowledge is non-existent. Just a dreamer with opinions

[@pcbacklash_3261]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf "Non-existent?" That's a pretty grandiose claim, even if you disagree with someone. Perhaps you'd like to offer some evidence?

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@pcbacklash_3261 if "knowledge is power" why the army, if not to prove that human conflicts are solely caused by ignorance? Dawkins has opinions. Knowledge is something else. Human science is primitive. Relating to primates inevitably results in crude thinking. He doesn't know anything. At all

[@LouisGedo]

10:43 Excellent response by Richard!

[@wqui2if66]

Thank you for advocating for common sense and the scientifically established fact that sex is binary and immutable.

[@ihatespam2]

Unfortunately trans is about gender, not sex. That’s why they are called Trans-women and not women. Not sure why Dawkins misses this basic point.

[@heybigbender]

@@ihatespam2 gender is an entirely individual feeling that doesn't exist outside of the brain of the person feeling it. Talking about someones gender is as relevant to the outside world as talking about their feelings on palm trees. If the trans activism movement hadn't tried to push this massive shift towards transition being a seen as an otherworldly, unexplainable, indescribable and magical gender soul experience, we wouldn't need to constantly bring it back to Sex. They want to scream that sex and gender are different - great, yes we know, your sex is binary and your gender is made up and nobody needs to take part in your external performance of gender.

[@genesises]

very very few people argue that biological physical sex isn't binary. so using this as an argument to dismiss how complicated the psychology and behaviour behind gender is, is quite ridiculous and also disingenuous, and doesn't contribute in any way except shed light on the fact that you are biased and frustrated by this for no good reason lol.

[@godless1014]

Are we really gonna pretend like the trans movement doesn't INTENTIONALLY blur the distinction between what one is and how one feels? Statements like "trans women ARE women" obviously do this. We already know what they feel like. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

[@anatheistwitch718]

@@ihatespam2if it’s not about sex then single sex spaces shouldn’t be an issue. Sadly it is. Because gender and sex are conflated all the time. Woman means female. No man transitions to female.

[@281992pdr]

Logical and lucid as ever. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

Clueless... still

[@KiruvMedia]

Logical? Quantum logic contradicts traditional Aristotelian logic. There could be many more “logics”.

[@281992pdr]

@@KiruvMedia Next it will be put that "logic is on a spectrum" FFS.

[@1nePercentJuice]

@@KiruvMedia jfc speak english

[@1nePercentJuice]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf you must be one of those lemmings who was indoctrinated as a child. Am i close to the mark?

[@AUTUMN-DARK]

This was my favourite of your QnA sessions so far folks. Thank you.

[@bernardmoran-xf4io]

I wanted to say exactly that but you beat me to it.

[@cocobunitacobuni8738]

it was lovely yes

[@iainrae6159]

Having grown up an athiest .... I am now even more sceptical of religious priests supernatural truth claims. Thanks Richard for all your work and rational thinking.

[@GetZappéd1974]

Getting smart is the regular direction. Getting unsmart would have been Alzheimer, Senility or Kreuzfeld-Jakob. Getting more religious with age is willful dumbdown.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

You should be more sceptical of the pseudo-scientific BS whenever you hear "trust the science" dogwhistle.

[@iainrae6159]

​@@yarpenzigrin1893 Actually peer review and the scientific method is the best way to test what any scientist claims. Whereas supernatural religious belief just says believe without evidence or ' its God's mysterious way '.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

@@iainrae6159 You're not familar with humanities' "peer review" process, are you.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

@@iainrae6159 Believing something on bad evidence isn't any better than believing without evidence. The result is the same.

[@d.l.c7456]

Prof Richard Dawkins is a voice of rationality, science, and wisdom.

[@howardhutton6806]

Yeah, I won’t do Dawkins until he wakes up and learns how to learn. I’m done. He might as well be dead.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

You're easily pleased

[@d.l.c7456]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf should we expect miracles? Ascension to heavens?

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@d.l.c7456 yes friend. All people go to Heaven. In their own time. We need enlightenment. Not religion. God never belonged in a group. He is with every soul, regardless of our beliefs.

[@Wojacksamillion]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf Okay this almost sounds like a universal "One Above All" type god. Am I accurate in saying this? because it would honestly be better than Allah or Yahweh

[@cherylween4973]

Richard is so respectful to people much younger than himself and women ❤

[@barbaragemin5117]

Wonderful. I loved the last question/ idea!

[@DmaestroErwin]

I’m the D’Maestro, thank you for answering the question on X and also for signing my book “Brief Candle in the Dark” whilst an undergraduate in 2015, at Oxford. 😊

[@jonny.rubber]

As a software developer myself it was so nice to hear Tyran casually say "Sure, I can train a Richard Dawkins ChatGPT, it's easy!". Respect!

[@PatrickMoog]

Well I think what she means is "embed", not train, even though she might be able to.

[@ernesthastie-gg7kn]

Nice to listen to a genuine logical person

[@gmonkman]

@@PatrickMoog no, she meant train, and train is the correct term.

[@drewlovelyhell4892]

On the topic of the dangers of childbirth, I read that as recently as the 1950s, one in three pregnancies ended in miscarriage, and even today, the rate has only improved to one in five. Which makes the dissolution of Roe v Wade so much more appalling.

[@kimberlyhartman4865]

RvW was bad law, similar to Dredd Scott. That’s why it’s a states thing now. One day we will understand the barbarity of killing children, I hope.

[@inchristalone25]

Because sometimes pregnancy ends in miscarriage we need to kill our babies before that happens?lol My sister and I have two kids each and have never had a miscarriage. Very faulty logic.

[@conspiracy1914]

i doubt they did. the stats are tempered with. have you seen brown people poping kids like candies. no miscarriages. in a city it might happen. but natural old times have better chances

[@queenbee7749]

What are you on about?

[@drewlovelyhell4892]

@@queenbee7749 Which part are you having trouble with? I try to make my comments easily comprehendable.

[@symmetrie_bruch]

always a pleasure to see you two

[@konstantinlozev2272]

Interesting topic on Eugenics by Prof Dawkins. It was actually explored very well in the movie Gattaca from 1997.

[@nealgrimes4382]

I love Gattaca, underrated.

[@johnprinelives6163]

As I listen to her: "intelligence is the ultimate aphrodisiac" (T. Leary) comes to mind.

[@bernardmoran-xf4io]

sapiosexualism

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

Then bring her to me

[@hellabella8295]

She didn’t finish reading some questions so Richard was at a loss to the meaning of the question and she didn’t bother telling him.. intelligence is subjective..

[@thearmchairjournalist566]

My sister is going home birth and has never seen a doctor regarding her baby and I’m terrified she is going to have a problem and it be catastrophic to her or the baby! She said she has seen a naturopath when I asked about the doctors visits and I am horrified she is being so blasé about a dangerous situation 😢

[@irmar]

She must have a reliable doula or midwife. These ladies are very knowledgeable and experienced, and they also know when there's a complication and they must ask for a doctor to intervene. The sensible thing is, just in case, to have a car on the ready and a nearby hospital alerted so that they have a free bed, just in case. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with a home birth.

[@lemostjoyousrenegade]

Well said, Mr. Dawkins! Thank you.

[@rodmartin-nl8ns]

What did he say

[@valkopuhelin2581]

I'm impressed by how many angles you covered here, thanks for the thoughts!

[@kathykeller3430]

There are people whom I search for to gain knowledge from, Richard Dawkins is absolutely one of them. He is a touchstone, someone who clarifies life for me.

[@sherryk6703]

Always wonderful to listen to these podcasts.

[@earlducaine1085]

The eugenics question is important because it's a leading issue. It seems obvious that society will at some time have to form some type of eugenics policy because technical advances will eventually allow for 'fixing' genetic 'flaws' and because humanity has so altered its own environment that natural selection can't be relied upon to maintain the overall health of the gene pool, even to the point of producing humans with sufficient innate intellectual capability to staff our technically sophisticated society (although we can't totally exclude the possibility that even in today's massively human altered environment fundamentals of natural selection are still operating in accord with the well-being of the species, this must not be taken as a given.) Currently, what we've collectively agreed to is that human society is not sufficiently advanced to tackle these questions ethically. What I would like to see is firstly, that assertion being made explicitly again and secondly more conversations about what needs to be done to get to a society where we can begin to take on these colossal tasks and decisions. My big concern is that we're going backwards. Our ability to collectively reason rationally, pragmatically and openly about issues is being seriously degraded. And that degradation is being institutionalized. The trans issue is just one example. This is an emergency. We don't get to decide when we have to begin tackling these questions, it could be years, decades or centuries. (though it seems shorter rather than longer).

[@domm6812]

This is exactly it. The biggest challenge will be convincing those with very little understanding of genetics and natural selection, and who automatically equate "eugenics" with murder or evil that this would be a beneficial thing for all when done right. As a person who was born health issues and has developed many more along the way due to genetic issues I think I can say it would save a hell of a lot of suffering.

[@Titurel]

Too long

[@RichardCranium.]

What is controversial about eugenics is its links to racism and the nazis. The vast majority of eugenicists (outside of Asia) did (and still do) believe in European if not Nordic racial superiority.

[@omp199]

"fundamentals of natural selection are still operating in accord with the well-being of the species" Tell us that you have never read a word by Richard Dawkins without telling us that you have never read a word by Richard Dawkins. The whole point of Richard Dawkins's first book, _The Selfish Gene,_ was to explain that natural selection happens at the level of the genes. That was what made him famous in the first place. Natural selection never favours "the well-being of the species". Group selection is bunk. Dr. Dawkins has engaged in many public arguments with more woolly-minded scientists about precisely this point - always coming out on top - and it is sad that his message has not got through to you.

[@gzoechi]

​@@RichardCranium.Currently children are pushed to let themselves castrate/sterilize, when they don't perfectly match traditional gender norms. This is designed to prevent homosexuals, neurodiverse, ... from reproducing (removing their gene pool). It's pure homophobia. This shows humans are just not to be trusted with such questions. Not doctors nor anybody else.

[@karenseale9372]

Fantastic and funny session!

[@rosscorr]

He is such a great thinker. Love his intelligence.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

His intelligence is mediocre

[@Wojacksamillion]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zfAre you just gonna go through and reply to everyone because you personally don't like Richard...?

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@Wojacksamillion I love all people. Richard is a fine man. Clueless, but a beautiful soul regardless

[@Wojacksamillion]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zf Okay you can have that opinion, I think my neighbours are clueless, but I don't go around town, telling everyone like a Jehovah witness. But anyway "god" can mean whatever a person wants it to, so saying "god is" does not really point towards anything

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@Wojacksamillion God isn't what you want Him to be. Just the opposite. You .. are whatever He wants you to be.

[@Casseopeia777]

Wonderful episode! Looking forward to the Richard Dawkins AI. Bring it on! 😄

[@stewiegriffin12341]

Wow that first question is mine! They got the handle wrong by one letter, but whatever.

[@tonycucca4499]

I could say the same thing about every question asked 🤪🤪🤪

[@johncarter1150]

Thumbing the nail

[@TheRustyLM]

Martyr!

[@ahmadjamalmughal47]

😂😂😂

[@pmw3839]

Good question.

[@johnoneofmany]

Richard Dawkins never fails to delight me. Love the guy!

[@rodmartin-nl8ns]

Ever tried ice cream

[@johnoneofmany]

@@rodmartin-nl8ns Are you lonely?

[@rodmartin-nl8ns]

@johnoneofmany Thanks for your concern If l was an atheists yes l. think l would be Something to make you think Scientist atheists believe religion is crap because nothing plus nothing is nothing BUT scientist will prove one day the start of man Scientist was asked a question any ideas Haven't got a clue LATER was asked what about another world Yes there could be can't imagine it's just us Your great Richard said this Not relizing his belief is no different than Religion TO all the big thinkers. CHEERS

[@rodmartin-nl8ns]

@johnoneofmany Have you heard of double standards SCIENTIST say you can criticize climate change BUT you have to have some thing to replace it But they can criticize Religion and replace it with nothing ok

[@johnoneofmany]

​@@rodmartin-nl8ns No scientist ever said what you just said they said... Where on earth do you get your information!? Scientists just say there is no _evidence_ for god. That is all... You need to stop regurgitating what ignorant theists say about scientists and get it from the horse's mouth.

[@BGTuyau]

For all that I may be consistently impressed with Dawkins's blend of intelligence, common sense rationality, and the ability to communicate ideas with clarity, in this talk there are two not-unrelated items with which I would take issue: 1.) McCarthyism -defined roughly as ideological totalitarianism backed by government power- has not disappeared, but only shifted political polarity. 2.) One of the chief contemporary dangers to / corrupting influences upon science is -for all that there may be a partial link between the two- politics, a thing separate from greed. Otherwise, great conversation ... .

[@johnoneofmany]

I would most definitively be interested in an AI trained on Dawkins!!! Please follow that up!

[@Faifstarr]

The very last question hits the money. This guy would be on the top of my list of making somebody preserve through time. I would pay for a sub to have his mind in chat format.

[@gniffub]

Great content!

[@cocobunitacobuni8738]

The concept of Meme is so perfect, anything we pass to others, our legacy is our memes, it's what sets us apart from other animals (some animals teach too off course).

[@Strange9952]

Richard is undefeated!

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

He is if I face him

[@ismelllikemarijuana]

@@Soliloquy-gy6zfwe gotta alpha here boys🐺🐺🐺🐺‼️‼️‼️‼️

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

@@ismelllikemarijuana between "here" and " boys"... add "little"

[@stealthbeastgaming]

When people ask, "Is a trans woman, a woman" they don't mean in the biological sex way, they mean in the cultural gender way. Trans people aren't denying biology. That wasn't really the question. Dawkins has answered this sort of question inconsistently and I think it's indeed because of the difference between sex and gender. I have no idea what to make of his opinion at this point.

[@cyclicozone2072]

But rational people don’t accept that definition of woman. No one can give a coherent, non-circular definition. Even if they could, objective reality trumps subjective feelings every time.

[@stealthbeastgaming]

@@cyclicozone2072 Jesus christ, I am SO sick of this "circular" accusation. The definition of a woman (gender) is a person who identifies with the gender associated with women (sex). It's not circular. Woman (the sex) and woman (the gender) are two different words.

[@cyclicozone2072]

@@stealthbeastgaming Of course you’re sick of it…because it demonstrates the incoherence of your argument. If your definition merely refers back to the original definition, it’s useless 🤣🤣🤣

[@stealthbeastgaming]

@@cyclicozone2072 Woman (sex) and woman (gender) are 2 different words, genius

[@cyclicozone2072]

@@stealthbeastgaming No, it’s the same word, genius. You’re trying to give it an additional sense or meaning. The problem is, it’s completely incoherent and self-referential making it useless 😂

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

I just read a short repost on 'X' by Richard Dawkins. He writes 'This open letter is dated 2022, but I tweet it now because the issue of free speech in Britain is so lamentably topical today. The cowardice of these senior Cambridge academics is beyond belief'. I admire Dawkins and was not aware of this past incident until discovering an online link by chance. I would hope others may take an interest. Follow the links (it was reposted about 9 hours prior to me mentioning it here) if you are concerned by universities and educational bodies trying to close down certain presentations by professional guests. On this occasion LGBTQI+ reps at Gonville & Caius College, regarding a conference with Helen Joyce, known for her controversial views on trans issues, wrote… 'Transgender identities should not be put forward as a subject for debate...' NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE! - everything you should be open to debate. To say and think otherwise amounts to censorship and in some cases Senior Academics acting as dictators through deeming what to be permissible for discussion. Additionally, we are lectured on what language to use. This is not just being enforce regarding pronouns but a much wider scope of terminology and definitions. So the elitists get to decide what can be discussed, how, where and within their stated bounaries or requirements Personally, I think this trend is anti-educational, anti-free speech, hypocritical and overall akin to control and manipulation of the masses. Thank goodness (there is no god) for intellects like Dawkins; for those standing up against these hypocrites who state they are all for free speech yet contrarily act as filters, promoting what they support and demonising any topic or debate their views don't align with. More concerning is the attacks and insults guest speaker receive from these self-anointed gurus of morality. What a very sad situation we find ourselves in. A world where science is ignored and ideologies take precedence over facts.

[@tommo-f7f]

The shifts in opinion usually reflect the discontent that people have in their own lives.....money, lack of opportunities and so on. When people are content with their lot they seem to go with the flow more and not question authority or prevailing ideas....

[@balsosnellstilldreaming]

Love these

[@ikaramba3954]

What a refreshing bunch of common sense! Thank you!

[@auturgicflosculator2183]

I suspect...that if it's that refreshing, it's not common.

[@dancemachine497]

haha, please do the richard dawkings GPT!! great interview and thanks to both of you.

[@williamlee7001]

Having raised three children into mature adulthood, i can say unequivocally, parents don't have as much influence on our kids as we think! My belief is that each persons being is more determined by genes than parents, peers, culture, etc.

[@factsoftheconfederacy7151]

While I am a Christian, I do find your videos interesting and I enjoy to learn your viewpoints. I don’t agree in shutting people down. I agree with you on many things, and I’d find that we’d agree more than we’d disagree on things. I think most people at heart would agree more than disagree.

[@DocReasonable]

'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' Jesus in Luke 19:27

[@mataform]

Why is there always a trans question which accuses the interviewee of 'hating' trans people when they have never said that. They are at it all the time and its nonsense. Rowling never said she hated them or shouldn't exist and neither here has Dawkins. So tedious and such a disgraceful way of trying to discredit people. If these peopel bothered to listen and stopped this behaviour they would have many more people on their side , meanwhile we all just turn away because its not worth our time.

[@vinc885]

There are definetly people who overreact, doesn't surprise me in online spaces. I don't agree with either Rowling or Dawkins on some of their statements. I don't see them as massively problematic though. There are people who are calling transsexuls and or gay people abominations that should be exterminated, neither of them does that thankfully. I still don't see the problem with the use of language. I don't see woman as being a biological term. Using people who menstruate, whilch seems to be Rollings original issue doesn't ring wrong to me, it's actually way closer to the target audience, although I don't think it was necessary. Adressing people with a prostate, when you talk about prostate cancer would still be accurate. If you need the word women to distinguish females by age, that's fine by me. The discriptor trans seems to be pretty good at communicating that that person is of the opposite sex, trans women are male and trans men are female. Where is the problem with that? Discriptors are sometimes left out for convenience, but usually that doesn't matter in social settings. I don't like compelled speech either, I read the changes that were supposed to be made in bill c- 16 and I didn't see much that would infringe on speech. Adding "gender identity and expression" to the list of things you shouldn't discriminate for, doesn't mean that you will be jailed if you adress someone with the wrong pronoun. There has to be a hateful intention behind that to be remotely relevant. Feel free to point out, if I am missing something here. My only problem with their rhetoric is that it makes trans people seem dangerous and it plays into the hands of people who aim for violence.

[@oscarmudd6579]

My gay friend approached me just before he died. He reminded me that he was younger than the rest of the boys in our neighborhood and was always left behind with the women while the older boys went on our adventures. He learned things from the women that were considered feminine things and at the end of his life, he liked being effeminate. He wasn't sure if he was gay or just liked the things he learned from women - sewing, arranging flowers, hair dressing, etc. I could only tell him that I understood perfectly and would love him just the same. I'm not gay but I'm not prejudiced, either. He would agree that there are only two sexes, but anyone could choose to be masculine or feminine and he or she would still be WHAT he or she was but could choose WHO they could be. Please don't allow a computer to corrupt Richard Dawkins' work.

[@Nik-wj6zv]

11:52 this is the whole "perception is reality" problem, and so basically the counter-point is, if you're denying their perceived reality, then you're denying their reality; by denying "their truth" you're denying that they exist *as they know that existence*. So no, you're not denying that they are alive, but in denying "their reality" you're denying the nature of the existence that they are laying claim to. So maybe I see myself as a Koala, and to me that's central to my existence, and so if you deny that I am a Koala, then it's denying how I define myself, the act of undefining me sort of parallel to denying my existence, denying "my" reality. But to me, this underlies the whole problem, which is the conflation between subjective experience and objective reality. We get these phrases now like "my truth" and "your truth" rather than "the truth;" and we get similar variants with "reality" or "existence" in place of "truth." This all stems from the problem of saying, and accepting, the idea that "perception is reality." It isn't. Perception is subjective experience, and it may be the basis of each persons relationship with reality because on some fundamental level, subjective experience is all you have; but that does not make it objective reality. The subjective and the objective both have value, but should not be confused with one and other, but that's exactly what we're doing as a society right now, and it drives us from an age of reason into an age of romance again (thanks a lot, anti-intellectualism). So we end up in this peculiar place where grounded, literal-minded people like (I think, anyway) Dawkins, are going to be irritated, and I should say rightfully so, by what comes across as a statement that "my subjective experience is more legitimate than objective reality," and it basically comes across as an attack on the very nature of objective reality.

[@irmar]

Very good analysis, my friend. I wish Dawkins had thought of saying this, instead of "I don't deny that they are alive", which is the superficial meaning.

[@nathanbell6962]

As a Christian I love listening to professor Dawkins point of view he's so logical. God bless him

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

Why? He doesn't know anything

[@MarkLincs2099]

It's always great to hear Richard talk and agree with 90% of his views but it would take a monumental effort of authoritarianism to 'get rid' of religion entirely. People believe all sorts of nonsense and there's not enough education in the world that will change that. The best we can hope is that major religions become benign.

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

I think what you say is very true. It sounds cynical and maybe even pious of me but as my father taught me, never underestimate the capacity for stupidity among the masses. I certainly am self aware that I am not that clever and need to work at improving my thinking but I do know my limitations and am aware I have so much more to learn.

[@tinkerwithstuff]

Religion isn't disappearing, it's being replaced by much worse quasi-religions. W.r.t. "sexual orientation" (and dysmorphia also), an interesting topic to explore is certain regularly scheduled (esp. childhood) injectables and the occurrence of encephalitis. There's an interestinc correlation with that. Of course it's a _verboten_ topic that Serious Scientists(TM) won't touch with a ten foot pole.

[@IndikaRatnayake]

Let us know how the GPT thing goes please.

[@TiltyfishPoker]

It's the same when some cry transphobe if someone disagrees with the assertion a man can become a woman or vice versa. Language has been hijacked by these extreme groups unfortunately.

[@darlalathan6143]

That's because men have had surgery and hormones to become women and women have taken hormones and surgery to become men since the Roaring Twenties. Languages change over time and place. Beowulf shows that English began as Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language related to Swedish. An ideology is only "extreme" if its believers hijack airplanes, assassinate activists and politicians, become dictators and war criminals, or commit hate crimes. Transgender activists peacefully protest transphobic laws and have hormone therapy and surgery.

[@pjflynn]

Professor Dawkis, I have admired you through the years. I subscribed to the Poetry of Reality (seventy something dollars?) because I admire your work and your didactic capacity... now, listening to this podcast I find it is interrupted by a commercial. So, if I discover somewhere that you speak without commercial interruptions, I will listen, not otherwise.

[@justinbennitt835]

If you refuse to watch further content because of a single in-video sponsor, then too bad, you'll be missing out.

[@irmar]

@@justinbennitt835 Well, this person has a point. Paying seventysomething dollars to subscribe should at least rid you of ads. I would be pissed too.

[@justinbennitt835]

@@irmar Unfortunately it's normal these days. Sky TV, Discovery + and I assume many other subscription services still include advertising.

[@richardharris8538]

Excellent questions and commentary from Taryn.

[@PianoDentist]

regarding the transgender issue: The problem I think is with language and definitions. Conservatives and others will not/do not make a distinction between gender and sex. However, progressives generally recognize that sex is immutable but gender is an expression of how the person wishes to appear to themselves and others in society. So a man is a man biologically - which is immutable, but in terms of all the other social cues we have about the appearance and behavior traditionally attributed to a "man" or "women" that isn't necessarily tied to ones biology, to the point where for identity and social reasons they may regard their gender as not aligned to their sex, but wish to express their gender. We could use another word instead of gender, but the distinction remains, regardless of what we call it.

[@cyclicozone2072]

Most people understand the distinction between gender and sex. Your assertion that “conservatives and others” don’t make a distinction is incorrect. We make the distinction, we simply recognize that sex is an objective fact while gender identity is a subjective feeling. Facts always take precedent over how someone identifies in their head.

[@PianoDentist]

@@cyclicozone2072 I have watched several trans critical debates and it is often asserted by conservatives that gender and sex have always been the same (interchangeable terms). It's an observation of those who identify as conservative, who have voiced an opinion on this debate. Perhaps I should have qualified it as some or many, given you challenged my observation and you identify as conservative. But you are the first conservative that make this distinction, I have come across.

[@cyclicozone2072]

@@PianoDentist I’ve seen many gender debates where conservatives acknowledge the difference between gender and sex. And many liberals and moderates also acknowledge the distinction and still oppose gender ideology. So your whole point seems moot.

[@PianoDentist]

​@@cyclicozone2072 Then you're experience wildly differs from my own, so no, it is not a moot point. More likely to be the collectivization of groups such as "conservatives", given from my experience you're an outlier, but identity as a conservative . To repeat myself; perhaps I should have said "many" or even "some" conservatives. Perhaps someone should perform a survey and ask political affiliation and then if they regard the 2 terms as interchangeable or not. I can't recall the individuals who specifically deny the distinction, but many do, particularly in the US. I just wrote an AI prompt that has citations, so you can recreate it. Can't post links so here is an excerpt. Prompt: "do conservatives make a distinction between the words or concepts of "gender" and "sex"? _Conservative views on this topic can be diverse, but many conservatives may adhere to a more traditional understanding of gender roles, often aligning them closely with biological sex. Some conservative perspectives might argue that gender is inherently linked to biological sex and that there are certain roles and behaviors that are natural or appropriate for men and women based on their biological differences_ _However, it’s important to note that not all conservatives think alike, and there can be a range of opinions within conservative circles. Some may recognize the complexity of gender and acknowledge that it can be distinct from biological sex, while others may hold more rigid views that do not make such a distinction_

[@cyclicozone2072]

@@PianoDentist Yes, you should have said some conservatives. That’s exactly why the point is moot. It’s incorrect that all conservatives fail to make the distinction, and there is nothing inherent to conservative principles that requires one fail to make the distinction. Anyone from any political stripe could fail to make the distinction.

[@markriffey8899]

I occasionally listen to the ‘friendly atheist" podcast. They went apoplectic over Dawkins’ thoughts on gender a few months ago . I’ve since lost interest in the show.

[@ernesthastie-gg7kn]

Nice to listen to someone who knows what he is talking about

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

He sure knows how to talk... IN THE WIND

[@timelineee]

The last stand of sanity. I'm really afraid if what will happen to humanity when he's gone.

[@Amy-ky5wr]

Great discussion. Could the lady perhaps be provided with a better quality microphone?

[@peterpanx1]

Great to see Professor Dawkins in a genial conversation with Taryn. How we men tend to light up , have a smile on our face when in conversation with a thoughtful woman. Something happens inside us it seems. 🙂

[@TubaTones]

The same thing happens with less intelligent women as well.

[@DJBarton-j4z]

In embryoogy, sex determination differs among species whereas sex is universally defined by gamete size (13).

[@xbriskx]

That's a horrible trebly mic...please increase quality.

[@yutvideo]

Agree. Seems like it was filmed on an iphone without an external mic.

[@grufgoinHAHAHA]

but great questions and remarks

[@davidstaffell]

Yeah her sound recording is always very poor

[@TheHunt-t8o]

Is it really that poor and unbearable to be worth whining about it in a comment lmaooo. You must be a pleasant bunch, glad you found each other 😂

[@Letty1867]

Along with an improved mic, the room she’s in needs some acoustic treatment.

[@hundredfireify]

I must say that Taryn Southern has grown on me. I was a bit skeptical at first, but she's very eloquent and gives complementarity on the discussion.

[@MichaelHamilton72]

So, I feel like richard has a misconception of what transgender is and that surprises me. When he says its factually incorrect to say that a trans woman is a woman, i feel like he is unintentially incorrectly using terms. It is factually incorrect to say that a trans woman (pre op) is female as male and female are biological traits. But thats biologocal sex, not gender. Gender is psycological and performative. Being a man or woman is simply a combination of feeling like and wanting to be seen as such. That doesnt change whether you are male or female. I feel like an understanding of this would be benificial.

[@50thbash85]

Yes you feel that. but he doesn't. It's not unintentional. You're arrogant and patronising to think you understand it but he doesn;t. You're just parroting gender ideology. That doesn't make you smart. "Being a man or woman is simply a combination of feeling like and wanting to be seen as such" LOL - since when? Since you and your fellow gender ideologues decided to make that claim. We're not buyin git.

[@heybigbender]

I do love the "trans people exist" line, as if they're unicorns or ghosts, or a group of Tinkerbells just waiting to fade into oblivion as soon as everyone stops believing in them. Lunacy on top of lunacy.

[@Minerva-fp1zx]

That's not at all what he said though. I'm a trans woman and I'm very aware I'm not a biological woman. I think what they're talking about is radical trans activism, which is usually pushed by autogynephiles.

[@maverickuncraft4881]

I might be wrong but his response rather implied that being trans is a condition, rather than a born sex

[@antoinebutterfly8555]

Anthropological research has proven the existence of gender diverse people as a natural sociological phenomenona, they exist to some extent in all societies but are typically repressed. Just because we now have a label for these people doesn’t mean they are not real

[@gsp3428]

on the trans atlantic atheist show, they say "talk to real trans people." As if they are animals we are seeing for the first time.

[@fortadelis]

Richard is pure gold.

[@Soliloquy-gy6zf]

Plastic isn't gold

[@user-heeyu4heeyu]

저는 무신론자가 되면서 미래지향적이고 낙관적으로 바뀌었습니다.왜냐하면 구원에 대한 압박감이 사라졌기 때문입니다^-^

[@alanjones5639]

The AI discussion was lots of fun and Taryn Southern is very good. As "bad" is a particularly problematic adjective, I use "non-science" for studies and assertions unsupported by scientific methods.

[@karlyohe6379]

I am concerned that increasingly effective ways for those in charge to use tools (ubiquitous cameras, remotely-controlled weaponry; computer-controlled weaponry, computers programmed to spot certain behaviors, etc.) will eventually lead to a society where the people will have little choice but to believe what they are told and do what they are told. Once, that process is cemented into place, I find it hard to believe that a people will be able to rise up against the dictators that will no-doubt take full advantage of such tools.

[@AUTUMN-DARK]

You immediately reminded of a quote from Frank Herbert's Dune... "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

[@AUTUMN-DARK]

One further opinion of my own I might add.... I believe true AI if possible is inevitable simply due to the fact that countries, or the powers that be worldwide do not all align in interests and much like the atomic bomb a race is already underway.

[@kentl7228]

Hate speech laws and punishment for telling jokes will lead to government abusing power. We have to say no, now.

[@mindymild]

What do you think is happening now?

[@EpicLemonMusic]

@@mindymildif you are so addled to think it is the Governments and not the misinformed population that is doing this you aren't paying attention. Bidens politics are in line with any liberals, the only reason he fares away from his politics is the loud and insane left, same with Trump, look at idiot Trumps inability to have a single issue where he doesn't play both sides to try to secure his win.

[@jezbear1972]

100% PLEEEEASEEEE Do the DawkingsGPT!!!!🙏🙏🙏

[@manthansingh8036]

Pro islamic bias is not only in western liberals I can see that here in India also

[@LoveYourself-my9nz]

Not at all! In India there's no pro islamic bias. It's more like in india extreme Hinduism/ sanatani is increasing who are behaving like those western pro Islamist claiming they are superior and all bs. That's why they are becoming obsessed with making so called "Hindu Rashtra". Hate and ignorance always destroy you back so better don't compare the west's pro islam mindset to India's people not agreeing with radical sanatani/Hindus. In india people openly talk about bad practices of any religion whereas in the West you can't say anything about minority religion bad culture/ tradition. I think you don't understand what it even means by being pro islamic bias.

[@babs_babs]

that’s funny. ive only seen islamophobia from the west and india.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

@@babs_babs It would be amazing if that was true.

[@babs_babs]

@@yarpenzigrin1893 mate keep my post in context

[@_sayan_roy_]

​@@babs_babs Imo, you do not deserve any contextual discussion because you came as combative without curiosity on your part. OP is absolutely right by the way. I, an Indian, have lived both in India and the West. And, oppressor oppressed dynamic holding Leftists along with Islamist Ummah's Al Taqqiya tactics and collective push for their narratives along with Islamo-fascist wing of the Left as well as anti status quo Islamic allied Left (who finds Islam as an ally to break the evil state of "West" and "India", all of them, will not be rational against Islamism even if they are atheists, of which I'm one. Of course, you will find a lot of Islamophobia from different groups of the same countries, some rational, some just bigoted. Also, btw, the guy you responded to is indeed speaking in context of your comment. He said ONLY Islamophobia is not in the West and India unlike what you said and he is saying it would be amazing if it were true, meaning he thinks Islamophobia is common sense or rational, something I feel you disagree with.

[@Kotifilosofi]

We have to remember, Dawkins is a biologist. Not a psychiatrist or a neurologist. And that's a huge part of the transgender discussion, since those are the professionals who study the phenomenon and diagnose gender dysphoria. Not biologists.

[@rajivradha]

I wrote this piece on religion: From about seven years of age children begin reading. It is a vital stage of life along with grasping numeracy. Youngsters are inspired by famous stories and their brain development is accelerated. However, as they grow, teachers and parents clarify what is true and not. It does not diminish the value of William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens; their narratives provide worthy lessons and an insight into different periods. Science and history furnish further skills to older pupils. The premise of these subjects is built on evidentiary principles. Isaac Newton’s laws of motion are underpinned by rigorous analysis and can be readily tested. Henry Vlll’s persona is revealed in contemporary sources; some are biased but the individual can make inferences depending on the context. There is scope for debate and challenge. What gifts do religious studies offer? People of the cloth across religions rarely caveat their teachings with “There is no evidence”. They state with conviction that the Sabbath must be observed, the quality of the next incarnation is based on karma and homosexuality is a sin; all preaching, no rationale. Fallacy indoctrination is abuse, especially when young listeners are warned that they will suffer for eternity if they are non-believers. With enforcement comes additional peer pressure-induced fear in the present life for not conforming, limiting the opportunity to confute. Faith schools facilitate the illusion, each propagating that their way will grant a superior berth in the afterlife. The entrenching force is held by the highest religious offices who wield power in day to day living. No other form of fiction has influence to determine rule of law. So why does religion have sway? One cannot buy a coffee before 10am on a Sunday at a large shopping outlet in the UK or purchase alcohol on a full moon day in Sri Lanka. A Buddhist tourist in London would find it just as perplexing as a Christian visiting Colombo; myth has that confusing effect and such misunderstandings are an alert to the nonsensical foundations of praise. Science is consistent in Europe and Asia; and crucially it is open to review. Devotional puissance is again showcased where people of rational disposition lose reason when it comes to God. Journalism, medicine, archaeology are predicated on meticulous scrutiny and those in these professions ensure the standards are applied. And they repeat the exercise in their personal lives where health, vacation and school options are founded on attestation, corroboration and cogitation. These virtues, however, are forgotten for prayer, testament to the embedded tentacles that faith has developed to withstand robust cogent thought. Reviewing the past can help abolish imprisoning convictions. Why did the Almighty for two of the current major religions reveal itself only in the Middle East and South Asia? Why sideline Eskimos, Mapuches, Zulus and Aborigines if omnipotent? Greeks and Swedes have outgrown Zeus and Thor; the latter is now a comic book character. Divine in one era and a cartoon figure today, alarm bells for those who put stock in the celestial. Proponents of worship say it dispenses an ethical thread. But morality is derived from alternate places: sports, social clubs and respected careers. There are penalties if you transgress and there is no fear of everlasting damnation. Religion must be taught from an historical perspective. The fine art, architecture and charities generated by the enterprise are its positive legacy. But belief has and continues to be central to conflict. Thus, teaching should also incorporate that the strife is a result of fantasy, no different to a struggle between two parties who believe either Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is more plausible. The damning indictment would surely end the never-ending cycle of groundless dispute, in turn stopping the flow of delusional argument into governmental policy. Mark Twain said, “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool”. An up-to-date statement is, “Religion was necessary for our ancestors as it provided consolation and explanation; we can now supply both and it can be done so without bloodshed”.

[@EI6DP]

As with humans, tell a story or fantasy long enough and it becomes a reality, sadly with some people right into old age.

[@rajivradha]

@@EI6DP what is scary is that it makes intelligent people irrational. Scary.

[@rajivradha]

Yup, so imagine what it can do to the poor who sadly (generally) do not have access to education.

[@chrisstahl2653]

So looking forward to the Richard Dawkins GPT! 😁

[@Chardonbois]

1984 becoming reality

[@Stephenweeksesq]

That AI simulator should be done, and people should be asked to submit questions, with R. D. actually answering first before hearing the AI response. It would be fascinating!

[@thomastucker5686]

The issue with the T word is just more words. Using fluffy language to magically transform a male to female is all we are getting. It is only about words and says little about what is real and what is not real. If we are talking about plumbing, what people think is true is irrelevant. A girl or woman wanting a penis doesn't cause a transformation. This is a thinking situation, not a change our language situation to fit a single circumstance. I have witness quite a bit of language manipulation lately. I reject that and insist, these words have meanings and you need to use different words instead of changing the understood definitions. This bait and switch by means of definition manipulation is so religious.

[@geoffh2560]

Richard really came alive during that final part about AI - would be lovely to see this idea come to fruition!

[@gregbatson616]

Atheism has been around just as long as religion and isn't going way anymore then religion.

[@xstatic-ow5mz]

Sounds more like an assumption than a fact.

[@moonlightray8493]

19:37 "Sounds more like a question for Sam Harris" was my immediate response upon hearing this question, and I was pleased to hear Dawkins say the same thing, lol

[@DarrenAJordan]

Looking forward to trying out Dawkins GPT!

[@konstantinlozev2272]

It's correct that you can fine-tune a general LLM to fit better to a person in its responses. It's not really like the "training" in technical terms. It's much less computationally expensive, because you actually keep the existing neural network of the base LLM, you just change a bit the weights in that neural network to make it sound more like the fine-tuning data.

[@K1lostream]

I’d quite like a Christopher Hitchens GPT. And a Douglas Adams one, come to that.

[@brendonlake1522]

"Religion will vanish," no sign of that Richard!

[@jonjonson-dd7gq]

There are signs though…

[@NoFeckingNamesLeft]

@@jonjonson-dd7gq Not when religiosity is heritable and the religious are outbreeding the non-religious several times over both globally and locally. Darwinism heavily filters for religiosity, atheism leads to nihilism and flatlines fertility.

[@MrNikkiNoo]

Yep. Very much the opposite. Massive growth of Christianity in China. Big in Iran too. And from strength to strength in Africa. New Atheism has given Christian thought a bit of a boost in the west, so I think we'll see a rise here too.

[@MrNikkiNoo]

​@@jonjonson-dd7gqWould you say more?

[@jonjonson-dd7gq]

@@MrNikkiNoo The religiously unaffiliated has grown from 16% to 28% since 2007. It’s now the largest cohort in America edging out Catholics and Protestants. That’s a big sign.

[@ANascente]

Timestamps, people. Timestamps!

[@tommyvictorbuch6960]

The beauty and the best. Not the beast. That'll be religion.

[@etaylor8028]

You know the world's gone a bit weird when even Richard Dawkins has his own podcast.

[@joedge6142]

So transgenderism among children is a meme.

[@maverickuncraft4881]

Well Dawkins argues that transgenderism is a condition that some people experience, and that the person can't change their born sex, but rather change their physical appearance to become another gender. From what I could tell at least.

[@Dubb1000]

I decided not to have kids, because, I pour milk before the cereal. I pour a little milk in a cup with a teabag before adding hot water, and I have strong urges to touch things that spin extremely quickly, even though I know that doing so will cause me to lose all my fingers (or an entire hand). The world doesn't need another ridiculous being like myself, so I'll do y'all a favour ☺.

[@Bibirallie]

Thanks

[@phoenixlee5846]

You are colourful and wonderfully ridiculous. I'm glad there are people like you❤

[@selfhonest524]

That's sad.... Kids are when life truly starts

[@genesises]

those are some really weird reasons to be the basis of not wanting to have kids.