Richard Dawkins vs Piers Morgan On Religion and Gender | The Full Interview

[@holliswilliams8426]

I can't understand how Richard Dawkins is still so patient after all these years.

[@applenuts]

He's made a ton of money out of arguing with believers. If this entire world was filled with atheists there would be zero demand to buy his books or hear him argue. Argue with who?

[@Virgoindigo]

That’s a pretty condescending way to look at it! They’re both on the opposite side of the spectrum so I would think they’re being patient and open with each other! The fact that they’re having a civilize conversation is a great indicator.

[@forpspeakingclass4444]

@@applenuts You can apply this logic to any situation though. Demand dies for everything eventually

[@omicSheep]

Because he stayed away from NHS ;)

[@topologyrob]

I can't understand how he's still tolerated after all these years when he rabbits on so misleadingly about religion.

[@dakshraj4720]

So nice of Richard Dawkins to come and interview Piers Morgan. Got to know a lot about him.

[@piruz3243]

🤣🤣🤣

[@RevanaViv]

🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣

[@alisonmews470]

❤❤🎉😢❤😢❤ 2:❤😊❤❤❤❤❤🎉❤❤27 ❤

[@Salman-Bin-Ahmed]

I hope everyone understands what you wrote. Lol. Hilarious.

[@Micscience]

Piers Morgan is such a douche. You know Piers is full of shit when he says (" I am genuinely interested").

[@blueduck5589]

"It is far better to have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned." --Carl Sagan

[@forpspeakingclass4444]

amazing quote

[@Astaghfirullah-10]

It is better to be safe(, happy, and at peace) than sorry (and miserable living a meaningless life.)

[@huizhechen3779]

@@Astaghfirullah-10 IMHO, that's the motto of a coward. Everything for me is case by case.

[@TGoodie1717]

Disagreed. I’d much prefer that we have unquestionable truths like the logic of basic arithmetic, than to have mysterious questions that aren’t helpful. But context is key. This quote is just silly

[@blueduck5589]

@@huizhechen3779 Your ignorance belies your stupidity.

[@Superglide03]

So far I've watched 28 minutes. Not a single time did I notice Richard Dawkins interrupt Piers Morgan.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

I watched the whole interview and noticed Richard Dawkins was rarely allowed to finish anything he was attempting to say.

[@NickSBailey]

when you're confident and clear in your position you don't really need to do that, it's the same with Stephen Fry

[@mattschaefer115]

This isn't Richard Dawkins Uncensored, it's Richard Dawkins Unfinished his sentence.

[@cowboyjoefrommexico-elsete3434]

Richard Dawkins censoring himself from giving his opinion at 32:54

[@CobraQuotes1]

😅

[@MrBilgey]

exactly.

[@mnguardianfan7128]

​@@cowboyjoefrommexico-elsete3434 It is wise to choose what to talk about. You don't always have to have an opinion that you MUST express. Truth is that I don't know why he chose to not comment nor do you.

[@martinyable]

Agree. It was all about Piers and not Richard. I'm surprised Richard allowed himself to be put in this situation .

[@alexanderbean7737]

This man has given hundreds of interviews, has spent thousands of hours in conversation in a professional capacity, and yet somehow has not figured out how to not rudely interrupt the people he's interviewing in the middle of a sentence

[@kerrygordon572]

Piers likes to listen to himself which is infuriating when you want to listen to the great Richard Dawkins

[@shitzhu16]

I met him in NZ, He signed his book for me and shook my hand. Felt as though I'd met the Messiah!

[@cliveadams7629]

​@@shitzhu16Piers Morgan is anything but a messiah!

[@Countryboy071]

Perfectly said

[@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017]

. . . and God willing, he'll be around for a while to give more interviews.😁

[@martian-sunset]

Debating Piers Morgan is like debating an obstreperous toddler. Bravo to Dawkins for his patience.

[@horst4439]

He's trained in debating with american evangelicals after all.

[@JohnSmith-lk8cy]

He is a toddler in an adult body. He's a narcissist. It amazes me how few people can see that. Just goes to show that we as a species will be is the state we are in currently for ever. Unless we learn about NPD.

[@snaptek5745]

Dude he is an aethist everyone knows that💀​@@JohnSmith-lk8cy

[@davidhepburn937]

It seems like Morgan keeps trying to goad Dawkins into saying something provocative, but Richard doesn't bite; good for him.

[@Monster33336]

Dawkins has a lot of patience and self discipline.

[@MoiMême00]

5 minutes in and I'm impressed by Dr Dawkins being humble and saying "I don't know", unlike the arrogant religious charlatans who claim to know everything.

[@kiriakosoikonomu2907]

he does not know but is sure that there is no God

[@MoiMême00]

@@kiriakosoikonomu2907 At what minute did he say that?

[@kiriakosoikonomu2907]

@@MoiMême00 sleep well

[@WiseTrails1]

​@@kiriakosoikonomu2907Why follow the teachings of men who don't know the most crucial question that could nullify everything you know.

[@MohamedAbdullah-k5i]

Haven't you read his book The God Delusion? Haven't you woken up yet? ​@@MoiMême00

[@Tallisper]

The problem with Piers Morgan is that he doesn't let his guests explain themselves fully without interrupting them first.

[@ROOKTABULA]

You buried the lede: Morgan is an asshole.

[@MeeHandle]

There's more than that to the problem

[@martinthatsall1518]

I find Piers to be a thoroughly irritating interviewer with an even more irritating voice.

[@robadkerson]

Because his fans want him to reinforce their existing views. This isn't news or opinion, it's a mirror for a bunch of Piers Morgans

[@discophil6726]

Also Piers limited human brain (his words lol) is a bit rubbish and cant compute properly, so he just has to talk over things he cant comprehend.

[@trisweatherburn]

Dawkins struggling to work out which level he needs to drop to with Piers

[@l91106]

haha so true, i think he worked out that level pretty quickly

[@DublinDapper]

😂😂😂

[@jonreid6364]

He used quantum morganics

[@mlthornton1]

We believers is purty dumb

[@philippemariani9035]

Absolutely

[@KF-cx8bm]

Richard Dawkins stayed at an Hotel in St. Andrews where I was Restaurant Manager ( he had scrambled egg and salmon for breakfast lol) I asked him if I brought a book later could he sign it. He made a point of looking for me to sign the book layer on in the day and I was able to have a brief chat with him. You can tell the worth of someone by how they treat people who essentially mean nothing to them. Richard was kind and courteous. The meeting meant a great deal to me as I had followed him and his work for a while.

[@filmeseverin]

That is great from him, to be kind to all the people, but Mr. Richard Dawkins (like any atheist) is in error regarding the most important truth: God/Jesus (proof follows). Generally, the superficial ones do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process.* They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.

[@bavariancarenthusiast2722]

I totally agree - thank you for sharing!

[@robertkaminski9315]

You didn't mean nothing to him, Richard Dawkins is a wonderful human being and gave you this true story to tell us. Thank You.

[@abdullahibrahimhassan7301]

​@@KF-cx8bmthe other person is saying that he values you as a follower and gave you this wonderful story to tell other people. He's agreeing with you and your insulting him which looks bad on you

[@davidcorke7762]

I agree with Richard 100%. The beginning is still a mystery. It astonishes me how our country is still ruled by narrow minded religious people.

[@oz_medias]

At least he couldn't interrupt Steven Hawking, he was impossible to interrupt once the synthesizer started.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

Piers Morgans interruptions are 50% due to him losing a debate and 50% due to his uncomfortable underwear.

[@nikhiljohn1841]

Love how Richard is trying to make Piers understand things calmly like a grandfather would do to a small child

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

Well put - a most apt comparison of the intellects on show.

[@factcheckersbranch]

Dogma Dawkins knows nothing

[@Peter-zv4dx]

@@factcheckersbranchknows more then you’ll ever will

[@factcheckersbranch]

@@Peter-zv4dx That silly old dogma reciter knows nothing but what he was taught in that place for the clever 😂😂😂 & privliged 💷💷💷💵💵💵 you see the education system of this world teaches us ie you, me & the likes of Dawkins, manufacturered lies. This blanket of false education has been going on for centuries. And yet evidence is beginning to appear out of quantum research. Even the original teachings of the Bible was altered. By the roman church. It was altered by the creed, so the teachings of the Bible where more geared around mind control. That's mind control of the masses. And keeping the serfs in perpetual slavery. Through quantum physics, which I study with great interest. Evidence is coming to light that there are alternative dimensions that coexist with our dimension here. There is a place we are all supposed to go after death 'Spirit world' 'summerland' I know because I have researched it through solid evidence. And I have personally seen this other place. And communicated with entities that exist in one this dimension. In my opinion extraterrestrials, do exist. However they have vehicles that have the ability to increase or decrease vibration. Thus allowing, craft and crew to cross into their relative dimension away from ours. Hence that's why most ufo sightings are 'here one minute and gone the next' ...however as I say that's my belief in the case of extraterrestrials. All I can say is, is that perhaps you do your own research and practical experiment's. If you where to do this, and do it right. It will open up your mind & you would be amazed, but you have to believe in why you do it, really believe in spirit etc. Then you will see why I call him Dogma Dawkins, because I'm sorry to say he knows absolutely nothing about the truth, and why we as humans are having a spiritual experience. He believes that when you die, that's it.... Lights out we no longer exist. I pity dorkins soul. Because we create our own reality. So him believing that death is the end. Then death for him, will be permanent darkness and nothing more. But me on the other hand. I know there is a world of spirit. A place where we reunite with friends and family that have passed before us. Call it heaven, but it is a place of pure beauty and peace. A place of rest and of education. A place where I can build my own home, just through the power of thought. Let me tell you this. Due to the teachings of the twisted version of the Bible. There are many people that have passed into spirit. And those spirit are unable to pass on. This is because in life those spirits in our world where so brain washed to believe that if you don't do as the bible tells you. You will burn in hell, so as a result of this false tosh. Spirit's are to afraid to cross over and be at peace. Because those spirit's believe passing into the afterlife 'crossing into the light' will actually send them straight to hell. The church has much to answer for. But going back to Dawkins, he knows nothing of what he should know, so he is not worth even listening too. And like you and me. His day will come. So don't end up going the way he's going. Into perpetual pergatory, all because of his twisted beliefs and disciplines.

[@factcheckersbranch]

@@Peter-zv4dx Appologies, that's spirit's having a human experience.

[@jezor9086]

Piers never fails to talk at least twice as much as his guest.

[@LawrenceCalifaith]

Exactly… its a 1 man show HaHaHa⁸⁴😝

[@rachelmartins4603]

unsuprisingly, as Richard Dawkins provides such weak and boring responses.

[@badouplus1304]

@@rachelmartins4603 It has never been said that scientist should be entertaining, so, you can still watch Piers as he is quite a clown.

[@bavariancarenthusiast2722]

@@rachelmartins4603 well he is not an entertainer - I imagine him knowing 1000 x more facts and context to the somebody who asks very simple questions...how to break it down to a low educated person

[@wrognOne]

and sound like an idiot ....specially this time. He does not have any content for dawkins

[@JasonLewisjasonlewis]

Piers Morgan has to start learning how to ask a question and then let the interviewee answer it.

[@kevincrouch3956]

He can't, he loves the sound of his own voice!

[@sarahmurphy-nf4yl]

EXACTLY

[@TonyEnglandUK]

Piers Morgan asks the questions that he can't wait to give HIS answer to.

[@flipf615]

lol you fanboys are so hypocritical

[@TonyEnglandUK]

@@flipf615 Aw are we attacking your boyfriend, flip 🤣

[@elizabethsherren2106]

Here! Here! I became an atheist when I was eight years old.I told my parents I no longer wanted to attend Sunday school as it made no sense to me. I’m 75 now and haven’t changed my mind at all.

[@K_-xw7st]

You get 1 life, and there’s no reason to dedicate this precious life to a religion which was created my man. Respect to you for following your human instincts and not being brainwashed by religion

[@dannymcnamara2554]

@@K_-xw7stFreedom of choice and belief!! Much respect to you ❤

[@MrRazorblade999]

Hear Hear

[@jpix96]

Hmmm, i see... Let's share testaments. You became convinced the universe (which means single spoken sentence) is random and without meaning when you where a pre pubesent child. And i became convinced that Jesus Christ is actual the speaker of this single spoken sentence. Because when i was an 24 year old adult the evidence convinced me this was most probably the case. So you became an Atheist because of a lack of understanding and i became a Theist because i began to understand. Understanding about what's been said and shared from the beginning of this single spoken sentence: ''In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'' 🕊❤😇

[@nixl3518]

I was 10.

[@michaelpetzold849]

What a gem of a human being to listen to. As a thinker, Dawkins takes his time to consider and answer the question clearly and honestly. Pierce frequently does not give him an opportunity to complete his sentence before Pierce buts in to inject His own opinion (as if that's what the listener might be interested in).

[@CarolineMiley-n8f]

Dawkins would be able to finish if he spoke more concisely and didn't ramble.

[@MadDog-1961]

@@CarolineMiley-n8f "ramble?" Complex questions REQUIRE complex answers! Let Dawkins speak!!!

[@SOSULLI]

Ramble? I guess it's easier to simply shout God to every question. Instead, when people ask him to explain the theory of evolution HE has to adapt to the ignorant person asking the question. When they interrupt him after 3 words with "Why don't monkeys still turn into humans", you can expect someone to ramble how to answer. One person has a book with 10 rules. The other has to keep reading scientific data that is published every day, and can change its conclusions.

[@robertawallace9817]

​@@CarolineMiley-n8f He's thinking. Remember that

[@cdsantx]

That's because he can't believe Dawkins doesn't believe in his god lol and he is upset

[@BarniRepairs]

Piers Morgan, the only Interviewer practising a monologue 90% of the time

[@darkreverie7027]

Bill Maher would like a word..

[@Mandolin_Matt]

Have you listened to Jordan Peterson’s podcast where he ‘interviews’ Richard Dawkins? Peterson screws it up so badly it’s tough to get through.

[@David-iv6je]

@@darkreverie7027 Maher's insufferable. Also, he claims to be independent but carefully plays both sides off to avoid the ire of one side or the other. (Yes, it's stupid to have only two sides, but I didn't invent this train wreck of a system.)

[@freedomextremist7215]

@@Mandolin_Matt They had an interesting conversation, that's it. I don't think any of them were in it to win points or get people like you to champion them. They are exploring interesting territory and it's naive to play team sports on this. Peterson has a really interesting reading of religion, and you don't need to be religious to appreciate it. Dawkins has always been combative against religion, and with reason. That's why his read of the texts were always thinking from the perspective of the fundamentalists and criticizing their silly claims. Peterson has a different approach. He bypasses God entirely and focuses on what kind of messages the text could be trying to convey. We all know that stories were for a long time the vehicle to pass knowledge and wisdom. That's how these texts came to be, and that's why there could be value in understanding them. Peterson has a sophisticated read of the texts and he uses a lot of his expertise in psychology. His read on sacrifice and the Cain and Abel story alone is very interesting. A story like that can be very powerful to a society like those of the past. Both characters have archetypes that are easily identifiable.

[@DavidHarvey-po9le]

Michael Parkinson had the right idea, ask some interesting questions and let the interviewee talk for most of the time. Don't get me wrong, when someone said something he disagreed with he let them respond and argued. He understood that the guests were the reason why people tuned in and never thought he was the celebrity, although he really was in the end. Morgan thinks too much of himself to ever get to Parkinsons levels.

[@Dazgul]

'My brain is limited' is the most accurate thing Piers has ever said.

[@DavidHarvey-po9le]

It's easy to play devils advocate Piers, why are you worth your money?

[@bdff4007]

"I don't know" is the definition of a-gnostic. Dawkins is very dogmatic, as are most a-theists.

[@placebojesus5652]

@bdff4007 You haven’t read or understood much of his work or you wouldn’t have said this, unless you mean the dogma of insisting on evidence and scientifically sound epistemology (which itself, like evidence itself, isn’t static dogma by definition, in fact that’s what makes it superior to any other means of thinking, it’s anti-dogmatic nature). Say what you wish about some neckbeard Redditor atheist stereotype/archetypal notion of a person you have, but that’s not what Dawkins is. In fact Dawkins even says technically strictly speaking he is agnostic, which is again is pretty much as anti-dogmatic as possible or lol. Get rekt fool.

[@VNn2023]

👏💯🤣

[@BeefT-Sq]

" Man is an end in himself. " -Ayn Rand-

[@danutd94]

This was the intellectual equivalent of Real Madrid vs your local pub team

[@TonyEnglandUK]

And Piers,, bless his socks, bought a Real Madrid shirt especially for this interview.

[@roi2426]

As a young black male growing up in the Bible Belt, I didn’t discover Prof. Dawkins until my early twenties. I had no idea the doubts I previously held were no reason to be ashamed, but in fact, I should push myself to critique any and all beliefs I held and justify my basis. I will likely never meet him, but I am eternally grateful for how he has shaped my ability to practice intellectual honesty and embrace the limitations of ignorance without resorting to what’s emotionally palatable.

[@AmazingEmmaMarie]

Sorry, but it's just not right what he says. When he talks about his views on religion, science, morality, and politics. He makes the following points: 1.Religion is a form of superstition that is based on faith, not evidence. He says that faith is a "cop-out" and a "betrayal of the intellect". He argues that science is the only reliable way to understand the world and that religion is incompatible with science. 2. Religion is harmful to society and individuals. He says that religion promotes violence, intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance. He criticizes various aspects of religion, such as the concept of hell, the doctrine of original sin, the oppression of women and minorities, and the indoctrination of children. He also criticizes some specific religions, such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. 3.Religion is not necessary for morality. He says that morality is based on empathy, reason, and social contract, not divine command. He argues that secular humanism can provide a better basis for morality than religion. He also challenges the idea that religion has inspired good deeds or art. 4.Religion should not be respected or privileged in society. He says that religion should not be immune from criticism or ridicule. He advocates for the separation of church and state and the protection of secular values. He also opposes the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. That's just BS which people which has been criticized by many people, including religious believers, philosophers, scientists, and other atheists. Things that they say are: 1. Dawkins misrepresents or misunderstands religion. He is accused of attacking a straw man version of religion that does not reflect the diversity or complexity of religious beliefs and practices. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the positive aspects or contributions of religion to society and culture. 2. Dawkins overstates or exaggerates the conflict between religion and science. He is accused of adopting a narrow or dogmatic view of science that excludes other forms of knowledge or inquiry. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the compatibility or harmony between religion and science that many people experience or advocate. 3. Dawkins undermines or insults morality. He is accused of being arrogant or elitist in his moral judgments. He is also accused of being naive or simplistic in his moral reasoning. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the role or influence of religion in shaping moral values or behavior. 4. Dawkins provokes or polarizes society. He is accused of being intolerant or disrespectful of religious people and their rights. He is also accused of being divisive or inflammatory in his rhetoric or tone. He is also accused of ignoring or dismissing the benefits or challenges of dialogue or cooperation between religious and non-religious people.

[@AmazingEmmaMarie]

Ridiculous people who support him might say: 1. Dawkins defends or promotes science. He is praised by them for being clear or eloquent in his explanation of scientific concepts and methods. He is also praised for being courageous or honest in his challenge of pseudoscience or anti-science. 2. Dawkins exposes or criticizes religion. He is praised for being logical or factual in his critique of religious claims and arguments. He is also praised for being bold or witty in his satire or mockery of religious absurdities or atrocities. 3. Dawkins inspires or educates morality. He is praised for being compassionate or ethical in his advocacy of human rights and welfare. He is also praised for being rational or consistent in his application of moral principles and standards. 4. Dawkins influences or empowers society. He is praised for being influential or popular in his outreach to the public and the media. He is also praised for being empowering or liberating in his encouragement of free thought and expression. But that's just soooooooo silly, because the truth is: 1. Dawkins does not defend or promote science, but rather distorts or misuses it. He is criticized for being vague or misleading in his definition of terms and concepts, such as faith, evidence, and natural selection. He is also criticized for being selective or biased in his use of data and examples, such as ignoring or dismissing the limitations or uncertainties of science. 2. Dawkins does not expose or criticize religion, but rather attacks or insults it. He is criticized for being unfair or hostile in his portrayal of religious people and their beliefs. He is also criticized for being rude or offensive in his language and style, such as using ad hominem or straw man arguments. 3. Dawkins does not inspire or educate morality, but rather undermines or insults it. He is criticized for being arrogant or elitist in his moral judgments. He is also criticized for being naive or simplistic in his moral reasoning. He is also criticized for ignoring or dismissing the role or influence of religion in shaping moral values or behavior. 4. Dawkins does not influence or empower society, but rather provokes or polarizes it. He is criticized for being intolerant or disrespectful of religious people and their rights. He is also criticized for being divisive or inflammatory in his rhetoric or tone. And... finally, he is criticized for ignoring or dismissing the benefits or challenges of dialogue or cooperation between religious and non-religious people. Ultimately, this is a matter of personal opinion and perspective. Different people may have different views on Dawkins’ views and their implications for society and culture, and you have your views as a young black male growing up in the Bible Belt. However, I hope you understand that despite some of the silly things you went through in the bible belt, Dawkins' ideas are much sillier and worse than anything you ever went through and based on my arguments, you should not follow him. Thank you.

[@AmazingEmmaMarie]

By the way, why do you say “as a young black male” instead of “as a young black man”. Is that because you want to emphasize your biological sex rather than your gender identity or expression? Do you want to avoid any confusion or ambiguity about your sex or gender, thinking that THIS might be a context where your gender is not binary or fixed?? Do you want to distance yourself from the social or cultural expectations or stereotypes associated with being a man or a woman??? Do you want to highlight your age or maturity level by using a word that sounds more neutral or objective than man or woman???? If not, then please stop being so silly because it's annoying to an intelligent person like myself. I think it shows bad preferences or motivations. You should respect yourself as a man and not as a male, because sex just refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define males and females, such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men, girls, and boy, which are important because they form part of your identity just like "being black" forms part of your identity, which I assume is an important part of your identity to you. Well being a man is as well. So male and female are words that describe sex, while man and woman are words that describe gender and you should therefore not use them interchangeably in everyday language, because it's harmful to yourself in ways you might not even realise

[@roi2426]

@@AmazingEmmaMarie Dawkins’ ideas are sillier? Can you give an example of what you mean? I’ve always found Dawkins’ factual assertions to be grounded in evidence driven scientific analysis or his speculations to be well reasoned and limited by what more experienced professionals of the subject matter have determined (ergo, “I’m not a physicist, but from what I understand…”) What I’m ultimately expressing is that Prof. Dawkins promotes reason, evidence, and admission of ignorance when analyzing claims of belief, which removes special pleading or preference, and gives greater value to truth. Some people don’t like to have their beliefs challenged through these lenses, and allow emotion to determine their relative truths.

[@roi2426]

@@AmazingEmmaMarie you’re being far too general. For each of the points you stated, there are absolutely truths respective to the religion you’re discussing. Let’s use Christianity: 1) Religious superstitions are incompatible with scientific evidence. Yes, transubstantiation, resurrection, global flood, age of the earth, mans coexistence with dinosaurs. There is no scientific basis to believe any of these as true, so why accept them if it requires you to undermine intellectual honesty. 2) If biblical texts were interpreted literally, then yes there would be a divine justification of slavery, misogyny, homophobia, and many other prejudices. If one believed Hell were real, there would also be a significant number of damned individuals if judged through scriptural doctrine, as opposed to the laws we enact in society. 3) He absolutely credits religion with having inspired some of the greatest works of art (specifically he often references the Sistine chapel, and Mozart). What he argues is that art is not solely dependent upon religion, and that artists have the capacity to develop beautiful works without religious subject matter. Since the church was the ultimate authority of the time, they commissioned the work, but the work is not dependent upon the religion. Look at any song, film, novel, or painting today. Some works have a religious base, but far more are borne from a myriad of subject matter. 4) He does not advocate disrespecting religions, he argues that religion should not be free from critique. An idea should not be free from ridicule solely because it’s advocated in the Bible. Again, homophobia and racism are denigrating beliefs regardless of what scripture legislates. Persecuting women who do not abide completely by their husbands rule is misogyny and foments abuse. Though these are scriptural beliefs, they should not be exempt from condemnation in our society. And the separation of church and state is literally a fundamental principle of our nation (United States). That is not to subjugate any religion, it is to ensure no singular belief, held among a nation of immigrants, should be given preferential authority. It ensures that my neighbor and I can practice different faiths openly and freely, and not be subjected to the consequences of either’s dogma. And clearly we can enact morality without religion. A majority of laws based on our moral code are not rooted in the Bible. They were developed over time and rationalizing what rules promote the ability to simultaneously maximize freedom, opportunity & tranquility of the individual while minimizing restriction and detriment to another. Having the freedom to criticize aspects of one another’s religion is an important component to a free society. I understand people who adhere to differing faiths may find it as offensive as I find some aspects of their doctrine, but neither of us commanded to act in a manner that undermines our personal beliefs. We’re only prevented from imposing these beliefs upon others when interacting with our compatriots. Prof Dawkins is indifferent to how citizens choose to practice their faiths, however he defends against the imposition of those beliefs when they seek to distort education, reality, and fact. The same standards we already subject every other academic discipline to. It’s just an inconvenient truth for followers of some faiths, that their antiquated beliefs don’t comport with modern scientific realities, which is discomforting to them. But discomfort is no justification for perpetuating ignorance.

[@saschaaegerter1784]

it's amazing how Richard Dawkins withstands the constant interruptions and nonsense statements with such grace and humility and doesn't allow himself to be dragged down to Piers level of pub brawl discussions

[@Maximum7077]

i think he mentally prepared himself . he knew what was comming.

[@angusmctwangstick4079]

Could you imagine if he got up and just started swingin though 🤣

[@k8cking]

Yes, isn't it!! As Pierce stated himself, his brain is limited, and therefore, he tried to push an answer on the notion of nothing !!! But yet he thinks a complex deity with petty human emotions is justified, lol😂😂 Christians are like pre schoolers, too naive and childish to accept we don't know!! I just about spit up my lunch when he said he was a Catholic! Now, pergatory and the holy trinity explain it all, lol 🤣🤣🤣

[@herrbonk3635]

I find them both pretty intelligent and reasonable. Dawkins has better manners though :D

[@filmeseverin]

Mr. Richard Dawkins is in error, as I proved through my recent posts. There are two kinds of atheists: those only temporarily deceived, being too superficial regarding the Creator of this reality (as I used to be due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) and those who do not want God to exist, who deny everything that proves their errors, such as all my simple, clear and undeniable demonstrations, which can be found after sorting the comments by reading enough of my answers and my new threads.

[@mickobrien3156]

"I get that" "No, I don't think you do!" This was like a boy asking his dad about life.

[@patneho6684]

"I get that" brain fart

[@BeefT-Sq]

"Emotions are not tools of cognition." -Ayn Rand-

[@kodabear261]

Dawkins was pretty rude and senile for saying that, as usual. Just because you get someone’s opinion, doesn’t mean you have to agree with it (creation). Neither know 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@justin9561]

@@kodabear261 that is exactly his stance, you didnt listen or didnt understand

[@SB-bc1nw]

If prayer actually worked we'd see two things happen: Ambulances would take patients to houses of worship (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) and religious people would have longer lifespans than the rest of the population.

[@sarkasmt2]

"A recent study finds that people who regularly attend religious services live approximately four years longer than average" Was the first thing that appeared when I spent two seconds googling. Not saying that necessarily proves God, it just proves your comment to be funny.

[@tessmaru7285]

this is just a text that has been replicated on various religious websites. Where is the link to the actual study? The nation with the longest life expectancy on average is Japan, which is highly secular. The other nations with significant life expectancy rates are mostly secular too.

[@lenderuiter8916]

I've been following/learning from Jesus for more than 40 years and I can tell you unequivocally that prayer does work. That it doesn't "work" in a formulaic way shouldn't surprise anyone. If it did, the Creator of the Universe would mostly be serving the beings He created instead of the obvious natural order. This notion can be observed in households where parents are being bossed around by children that they are afraid of. The Bible is crystal clear that prayer only rarely changes God's will and the "freedoms and natural processes" He built into life on planet earth, and overwhelmingly "works" to change mine. THAT is the real power and the process that has infused my life with growing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

[@MrMinddoctor]

@@lenderuiter8916 well I guess that if religion has infused your life with such things then it is positive for the rest of society that you discovered it. Thing is, others have the individual process and power to achieve these things without religion. If you need an archaic book to tell you how to behave then I am glad you found the one that resonates with you. One can only but shudder at what might have become of you if you were not told what to do. Congratulations and thank you for having the sense to recognise your own limitations.

[@rmh032]

Prayer does work. Source: trust me bro ​@@lenderuiter8916

[@sambraham4677]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how we are living in a time where professor Dawkins is alive and well? This man changed my life to the better. Respect to you Sir!

[@andrewcurtis4568]

Soon enough he'll leave this planet and have his eyes opened to the truth. I had a near death experience aged 15 , so I already know for a FACT that's he's wrong about everything.

[@sambraham4677]

@@andrewcurtis4568 sorry about your experience mate, polite question, just curious to know which god did you see? Jesus, Muhammed or Shiva? Or was it another one?

[@phantasticmrphasma9874]

@@andrewcurtis4568 “near death” experiencers lol…. Simple people don’t understand the depths of their brains, which are highly technical organs with a variety of different departments that make up the numerous thought processes we experience.. it would be like putting the driver of a go-kart at the helm of a fighter jet, a go-kart driver who has no clue how to control all of the additional functions.. the majority of humans are simple-minded normies, or intelligence wouldn’t be a word

[@emilecollins9501]

@@andrewcurtis4568 Not to make light of the situation you went through, hope all is well today, but it could be fascinating to explore the work of Susan Blackmore, she did some real research on this phenomena. Experience could be very misleading and at the same time could feel as real as anything ever or might even feel more real... In her research she found that the light is universal the characters are cultural, for example Christians see God, Jesus... Muslims see Allah(God) and Mohammed...

[@mickael486]

​@@andrewcurtis4568with all due respect, what makes you think this is true? Did you see an old bearded man standing on a cloud telling you this?

[@jessepinkman9256]

The fact that this individual is so articulate at 82 and looks 15-20 years younger just blows my mind

[@Jadee393]

I don’t think Piers Morgan actually waited for Richard to complete a single thought.

[@TyrWesterberg]

and by doing so, he didn't give himself any chance to learn anything.

[@jugglerj0e]

Piers is another host who doesn't let his guests speak. I thought hosts were supposed to simply ask questions and let guests answer?! 🤣

[@TyrWesterberg]

@@jugglerj0e piers was much worse years ago but still haven’t gotten the memo

[@asystole_]

He's an absolutely terrible talkshow host and I don't know why people continue to give him that role

[@baobo67]

It is a defensive thing, ''This guy is going to make me look like a fool so I will keep interrupting''.

[@thomasmollo3568]

It's a pleasure to hear Richard Dawkins speak on these and other topics. My guess is that Piers Morgan feels the same and that his enthusiasm for being able to have this discussion spilled over and caused him to talk more than he should have. The opportunity to speak with Richard Dawkins would naturally be exciting to many people. 😊

[@joshualopez3260]

Personal fun fact: Richard Dawkins shamed me into sobriety. I went to his book signing in Berkeley on October 6th, 2015. I got so drunk before the event started that I passed out as soon as he took the stage to speak. I woke up to his standing ovation! I waited in line afterwards to have my book signed by the legend, and when it was my turn, I slurred some greeting that I can't even remember. But I will never forget his face as he raised it from my book to glare at me with a furrowed brow. He obviously didn't care for what I said or the way I said it, and I'm sure the scent of alcohol coming off of me was enough to get him secondhandedly inebriated. I was so ashamed and embarrassed that one of my idols (I know he doesn't like idolatry) was so put off by me that I never drank alcohol again! And I was drunk pretty much every day from my late teens to that day when I was 30. Multiple interventions and the loss of high-paying jobs couldn't get through to me, yet all he had to do was give me the stank eye. Thanks for hating me, Sir!

[@systemicchaos3921]

Glad to hear it mate. You should be proud of yourself for that. Keep strong.

[@UnchainedEruption]

Interesting story. Glad to hear about your sobriety! Congrats.

[@gerryhughes3486]

But remember my friend Richard Dawkins didn't get you sober and of the booze you did and good on you and the best of luck.

[@Studeb]

This is a great story, I also think that it shows how to be a good parent. Mine never hit me or shouted loudly, they just showed clear disapproval of bad things I did, and I did less of them as a result.

[@joshualopez3260]

@@gerryhughes3486 That's exactly what I want to tell people all the time, but it's usually about God. I learned a long time ago that it's a fruitless effort and that if that's what they need to believe to be a good person or to be healthy, then whatever works!

[@stem1302]

“I’d rather not say. I haven’t studied it enough” Well that is the big difference between Dawkins and Morgan.

[@mr.robutt81]

he spoke about islam without knowing islam. crazy

[@G33KSPALACEdotCOM]

@@mr.robutt81 Well, all you have to know is the science, then you can refute the ridiculous stories told in iron age fairytales, including Islam 🤣🤣🤣

[@mr.robutt81]

@G33KSPALACEdotCOM but Quran doesn't tell fairytales. It teaches you way of life. The purpose of your life. It gives you alot of information about science that have been discovered recently. The rhythm of the Quran is unlike any other book. Its impossible for humans to write a book similar to the Holy Quran. The book has been preserved since it was written word for word, letter for letter. People dont even do any research on the book and just say its full of fairytales and old stuff.

[@G33KSPALACEdotCOM]

@@mr.robutt81 You mean like the Quran states that "Everything is created in pairs", refering to all life as living in pairs. Where does hermaphroditic species fit into this statement? Where does self-replicating bacteria fit into this? In Surah 23:10-14, it says that a baby’s bones form before its muscles, which is a direct scientifc inaccuracy. The Quran, the Bible and the Torah are all equally false and equally filled with scientific inaccuracies. When a scientific inaccuracy is pointed out, imams, priests and rabbis, are quick to make up a new interpretation so that they can explain away the inaccuracy.

[@izalazuizal]

​@@mr.robutt81well you muslims spoke about other religions the exact same way or ever worse. You like to critisize everything that doesn't align with you, but you get mad when people do that to you. All you have is claims, even your evidence come out in a form of 'claim'.

[@Brommear]

I never thought I'd listen to Piers Morgan for this long!

[@gilessteve]

He's often tiresome, but I think he did a good job here.

[@robleahy5759]

@@gilessteve just imagine him at boarding school learning to love the abuse, and then intending to favour others likewise. The english Catholics are stranger than the rest. Their judges pay to be beaten. Piers devours the turds of the powerful like delicious morsels. Only a psychiatrist or normal person can explain why.

[@Michael-sf4xx]

Me two😂👍

[@AdNauseamart]

Did you want to kill yourself 30 seconds in like all of us

[@Fractalite]

Its the fascination of a live train wreck.

[@evc505]

I prayed to god to get Piers Morgan off the air, but he's still here. Guess I didn't pray hard enough.

[@zirak93-2]

Hahaha

[@ionbarari7202]

Dawkins: "You add another anecdotal proof to my enunciation"

[@PeterBartlett-i2p]

You can pray, but no one's listening.

[@timgregory2296]

He pays no mind to the prayers of those who are not repentant, not righteous, not attempting to edify themselves and purge their selfish, human nature.

[@zirak93-2]

@@PeterBartlett-i2p Just cancel the guy. It will be impacted. The people have the power, but they need to stay united.

[@FordHallam]

“My human brain, which is limited….” Piers Morgan Understatement of the 21st century 😂

[@murph8411]

Notice Piers said he needs something so if it’s not his God he wants a scientist to provide him with an answer to a possibly malformed question (what came before 4 billion years ago, according to Piers but that’s probably not what he actually meant and just shows how little he’s investigated these questions). What does nothing look like or what came before time. Why can’t he accept nobody knows so sticking his version of a God in is no better than suggesting any other thing you can imagine.

[@theblueadventurer615]

At least he acknowledges he has limitations. Atheists are too proud to do so which makes you insufferable

[@BanzodoAndarilho]

Get Plotinus. Study The One. Food for thought.

[@dancf]

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32 repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.

[@dancf]

@@triplejazzmusicisall1883 "20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1

[@EmisoraRadioPatio]

I empathize with Dawkins during this interview. Talking with Pierce Morgan is like talking to a hyperactive child.

[@dalebaker5030]

bloke talks utter dross from pier reviewed papers i.e anti science.

[@فارسبنكلبان]

‏Einstein said, “In light of such harmony in the universe that I, with my limited human mind, can determine, there are still people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me in support of opinions like this.” [26] Are you conscious? ‏ You claimed that with knowledge you denied the existence of God, and I showed you that with knowledge, whoever is more knowledgeable than you acknowledges the existence of a Creator. ‏ Question: "Why did Einstein find it so difficult to answer yes or no to the existence of a Creator?" Was it based on science or illusions? ‏ Question: Why did Anthony retreat from atheism? Is this regression based on science or illusions? ‏ And what do they all believe in one Creator? ‏This creation, the structure of the universe, the ‏foods, the tongue that tastes, the teeth that grind, the stomach that digests, the excretion of waste from the body, oxygen, the lungs, the eyes, the sexual desire and many other things, this does not indicate anything. Are you 100% sure of not having a creator? ‏ Rivers and seas and the creatures in them and the rain that sows the earth beyond ‏ It is very with lots of fruits ‏ Nothing creates something ‏Are you 100% sure of not having a creator? ‏Go and see what religion commands you to worship. One Creator created everything, no three, no more, no less, but one. Go and see for yourself, you will find only one religion

[@hayleymanchios8908]

I agree, it annoys me that this interview was such a missed opportunity for Pierce. Interviewing such an intelligent man takes time for him to answer, yet Pierce jumped on him before he could even finish most of his answers.

[@timphillips9954]

These two have one thing in common which is they both admit they don't know the answers to any of the importanrt questions. They are both entertainers and no more.

[@EmisoraRadioPatio]

@@timphillips9954 Dawkins is much more than an entertainer. He is an extremely accomplished evolutionary biologist.

[@kurtglathar5162]

I love how everyone is roasting Piers Morgan on his own youtube channel 😂

[@johnjameson6751]

Deservedly, but I love more to see the admiration for Dawkin's intellect and patience. The Dunning-Kruger effect is sharply on display: Dawkins knows a lot, and so is happy to admit when he does not know something; Morgan knows very little so thinks he knows everything.

[@kurtglathar5162]

@@johnjameson6751 Exactly

[@jamescorbett3039]

I do to, free speech is a wonderful thing 👍

[@americanpatriots4868]

I'm not roasting Piers Morgan. The only person that will be roasting in hell will be Richard Dawkins, the Antichrist!

[@Locutus]

Very few people are roasting him. And I don't know why you think that's strange. Many channel owners get roasted in the comment section by viewers.

[@Bigfishfun333]

With thousands of gods to choose from, and thousands of religions to choose from, the odds of Piers getting it right (following the religion he was simply born into) are miniscule.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

If god really did exist surely Piers Morgan wouldn't.

[@alexgriffith1001]

Dawkins has always been so candid and easy to understand! Doesn't use all sorts of jargon and go on long monologues to make a point unlike a lot of "intellectuals" these days!

[@veenacriddle1207]

The Lord says pity the poor intellectuals!! They have no knowledge!!

[@sirlol4222]

*cough* jordan peterson *cough* Ben Shapiro *cough*

[@theoriginalrudeboy2916]

​@@sirlol4222your coughing arouses my percepacity in my defagibility

[@bastianbarx1509]

Jordan Peterson springs to mind.

[@aaronchapman6994]

​@theoriginalrudeboy2916 defagibility u must be referring to your old dear Mrs deep vadge ability 😂 respect Mrs rudeboy 👌🏼

[@jac1799]

The contrast in intelligence between Richard and Piers is just so enormous.

[@Cantbuyathrill]

Not enormous, intergalactic!!

[@abdellahcodes]

Yes, Piers is much smarter!

[@danidejaneiro8378]

@@abdellahcodes - no, derp

[@GreatUnwashedMass]

The bullying nature of his questioning, and lack of curiosity, around God reveal his insecurity about it.

[@pedclarkemobile]

​@@GreatUnwashedMass which god? Shuts there's many hundreds of them.

[@michaelk7336]

Richard Dawkins patience is on another level😂

[@rohansrider]

Always courteous, never rude and patience in buckets loads. I wish he had taught me science.

[@HammadKhan-tl6bb]

Bro why is he not talking about islam I was here for that

[@chrisbennett6260]

worshiping Dawkins lol

[@Nimtrix]

​@@chrisbennett6260Praise be upon him

[@jasonhiggins6431]

He’s done this before Michael 😂

[@TonyEnglandUK]

I found this whole interview a relentless struggle between waiting to hear what the Professor was going to say and waiting for the exact moment Piers Morgan prevented him getting there.

[@MrChrisskilton]

Talking to Piers Morgan for more than 2mins requires ungodly strength and patience. Hats off to Richard Dawkins.

[@sleve_mcdichael]

even just getting through a video with Piers in it is an admirable feat

[@stefaniabrazzi1358]

😂😂😂😂👏👏👏

[@jaynewton5278]

Touchee, my friend . If I may say, it's disgusting 🫣

[@sawdernleytevlogs2719]

"ungodly" is an understatement. lol

[@mateokarlvonpavlovic8295]

Lmao that is because dawkins dont have any answers.

[@yyaa2539]

7:07 Piers: I get it... Richard: I don't think you get it ❤

[@jonathanbean7097]

@@purplehaze3200 I dont think anyone cares what you think

[@nicecronic7625]

@@jonathanbean7097 someone somewhere cares

[@jonathanbean7097]

@@purplehaze3200 "Why, you asked everyone?" that question makes no sense

[@jonathanbean7097]

@@nicecronic7625 "someone somewhere cares" maybe, but no one cares about them

[@KCavan]

That's not even what he wrote.

[@theferryman4916]

The consistency with which Morgan doesn't listen to a single thing that is presented to him is truly amazing...

[@madeincda]

Listening to him interview is exhausting. His questioning style is like my A.D.D. brain trying to solve a problem in less time than I have to solve it.

[@raz6630]

The evolution of kinds has never been observed. No bird has ever been observed becoming a rat for example or a fish a lizard only natural selection within kinds so a sparrow can become a slightly different sparrow-like how a human can find a tall wife and have tall kids. It's not evolution. Science by definition has to be observed so basing all your "scientific absolutes" on a theory never observed is by definition unscientific and more what they would call superstitious.

[@raz6630]

Richard is a arrogant zealot Dawkins is only smart to people who are ignorant and trust others with all the "answers" .

[@beachcomber2008]

Nailed. Quite unpleasant, isn't it?

[@GoldFaceFella]

It’s exhausting

[@tomasp2899]

Why controversial? He only speaks rationally, based on evidence, he does not claim to have evidence for everything. The wisdom of a man who has done much for humanity. Getting rid of the outdated concept of "God" is essential for the development of humanity and for peace on our planet.

[@Boss-ot1iy]

Ask Stalin and Mao how that "peace" turned out.

[@ajaysidhu471]

​@@Boss-ot1iyStalin the orthodox believer

[@Boss-ot1iy]

@@ajaysidhu471 Stalin was atheist, lol. He had a "5 year plan" to eliminate religion from his nation. Nice to see you don't know history.

[@MarjorainMD]

@@Boss-ot1iyAdolf Hitler was a staunch Catholic who prayed and praised his god all the time. See how that turned out,

[@structormodeling7728]

I love that Piers will talk with anyone but I wish he would let them speak.

[@OriginalPuro]

He's not there to speak or listen, but to talk. He is a TALKshow host.

[@structormodeling7728]

@@OriginalPuro he interrupts his guests too much

[@christiantaylor9309]

​@@OriginalPuro it's the guest that's supposed to do the talking

[@Hammerhead1986]

He will speak at anybody

[@hamlet557]

@@OriginalPuro he's a talk show HOST. Repeat after me: H-O-S-T.

[@patamaran]

the words "I'd rather not say, I haven't studied it enough" are incredible words to hear these days.

[@sooperalex15]

I appreciated his honesty. I was afraid he might give a vague answer, but instead, he admitted he hadn't researched the topic thoroughly. I think more people should do that-just admit when they don't know something instead of trying to sound like they have the 'best' answer. It's okay not to know everything and okay to move on.

[@oliverkarlsson1653]

Incredible words to hear any day.

[@Equilibrium21]

that's not the point, he is just afraid to talk about it because of the cancer of Islam

[@ACharmedEarthling]

@@Equilibrium21 Bingo. It's bizarre how so many people seemed to have missed the obvious reason he didn't want to speak on that particular topic.

[@Appledog01]

True

[@francoisbouvier7861]

Morgan's high and mighty tone exposes his great opinion of himself. Dawkins is a gem.

[@jonathannewby5795]

That may say more about you than PM.

[@Sheltowee1775]

I am a Christian and I love these kinds of conversations. I frankly like Dawkins and would so enjoy having him over for dinner. He’s more polite or respectful to rival views than some years ago, but he’s fascinating.

[@Mohammed-sk6rn]

Maybe you are an atheist.

[@glenbaker8412]

Piers: “My human brain which is limited…” First thing he’s said that I’ve actually agreed with.

[@whipit2404]

Piers: "Imagine I'm an idiot" Dawkins: "Ok I'm there"

[@zachfinemusic]

😂

[@zillypaul4343]

😂😂😂😂

[@MASTERROSHIdb]

Exactly what Dawkins say, there is culture of nastiness and rudeness..

[@RyanColaco]

🤣🤣🤣

[@mathiasfantoni2458]

32:27 He's not silent on the topic of the girl in Syria because of threats. He's silent because he doesn't want the millions of viewers to form an incorrect opinion because of something potentially wrong he could've said because he hadn't studied the matter beforehand. He's actually admirable for preferring to think before he speaks to the masses through this interview. It's not a shame, Piers. It's admirable, respectable and deeply appreciated.

[@monikabachmann4002]

Mr. Hawkins, there is only one human race : Homo sapiens.

[@marcinmjk]

@@monikabachmann4002 You've confused race with species.

[@humptyslick]

​@marcinmjk analogous to dogs of different breeds? And mixed like them? E.g. our DNA ansestry is revealing our environmentally adapted breeds are mixed. We're basically modern (but mentally primitive) homosapiens being tribal about mind made cultures.

[@djpapine]

Some people talk about ideas. Some other like you like to talk about words. We don't understand words, we understand through them. You know what she meant by race, you are only trying to sound more clever than you are.

[@kazamshah4543]

SO THEN!!! He didn't even want to talk about that horrid Begum woman, then? So what was all that about, eh? Never seen him looking so nervous and twitchy in all the years that I've ever seen him. I guess his life has been threatened.

[@benjaminbooth2989]

Piers Morgan saying he is ‘Going head to head’ with Richard is laughable 😂

[@jimmycricket5366]

Why?

[@cmdlet98]

​@@jimmycricket5366 Because Richard Dawkins is a great debater and his best friend was the best polemicist of all time. The late, Christopher Hitchens. Good chance anyone would lose an argument to him.

[@18Ty]

​@@jimmycricket5366 😊

[@andrewstrongman305]

@@cmdlet98 I wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us! Morgan was Hitch-slapped to the shit-house by Hitchens every time they met. Dawkins is tired of repeating himself after all these years. Even so, Piers couldn't get any argument past the old man. The god-of-the-gaps argument cannot describe or predict anything - it's worse than useless.

[@cmdlet98]

@@andrewstrongman305 If Christopher Hitchens was alive today, he'd have wiped the floor with the governments, political correctness, all of it. I genuinely didn't agree with him politically but wow I can never deny his tenacity and logic, the guy was always prepared and always had an answer. It's a shame he passed so soon. 😔 A voice of reason for left wing politics.

[@MorrisonLee-wt2jp]

I's a wonderful change to hear two gentleman discuss a complex subject so politely and fairly, and in educated English.

[@nibas4920]

There was nothing polite about how the host kept interrupting and trying to lay words into his guests mouth

[@oz_medias]

Lets hope that Professor Dawkins finds someone to have such a discussion with; Piers clearly isn't that person.

[@milkkohi7321]

When you pass Mr Dawkins, you will not be forgotten. You have awakened the thought of many, and this will always be your greatest contribution to the human race. We thank you.

[@TCHHCTN]

He ain’t dead yet eeyore

[@dougieranger]

Absolutely, his books and lectures were life changing for me.

[@filmeseverin]

Atheists should be able to understand that the entire evolution of the Universe is NOT an argument against God's existence because the entire process until humans time proves the existence of God, *the results of a process proving the intelligence involved into that process* (and because *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes).* Furthermore, the conventional biological evolution is hiding the facts about Satan and the other fallen angels who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... (making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc....) to sustain the useless suffering while, initially, all insects, animals etc. were feeding only with plants (plants products, such as fruits, nectar, seeds etc.). The fallen angels, being sadistic, have altered the DNA of most living things (including us) to do as default both: reproduce uncontrollably (as much as they can) and fight (kill) each other. Unfortunately, they love to see living things suffering, especially human beings suffering. They want to destroy us since our physical body conception (all the time in any way possible). That is why they make us suffer, as much as possible, by using our stupidity and the stupidity of the other people around us.

[@Mere_Christian]

You can watch people like Michael Jones at Inspiring Philosophy to see the flaws in Prof. Dawkins’s work.

[@filmeseverin]

The flaws in Prof. Dawkins’s work (and generally my simple and undeniable demonstrations of God's existence...) can be seen in my recent messages, for example, my thread posted about 13 hours ago.

[@Geomatsk]

The most honest answer ever " I don't know" . Which part of this answer can't Piers understand!

[@lecettpalmquist4091]

Where this is a gap of knowledge, all that can be put there is faith. Nothing else. It is entirely up to your own conscience what you think might fit there, be it an eventual secular explanation or God itself. There is no mere reason you can use that can explain why you choose "science." But the gospel gives you plenty good reason to choose God.

[@kaleb3251]

⁠@@lecettpalmquist4091that’s a false dichotomy. If there is a gap of knowledge, there is absolutely no need to make up some belief and have ‘faith’ that it’s true.

[@Geomatsk]

Well let me rephrase Richard Dawkins’ reply “We don’t know yet” the emphasis on yet. And I don’t know why you put science in quotation marks. Moreover, if I can’t understand something, why god and not fairies or leprechauns, what’s the difference? You say faith. Faith is an excuse for someone who can’t explain something so he resorts to a god. With that mentality humanity would still be living in the bronze ages because religious people look at science as an anathema, as it erodes their superstitious beliefs . There would be no progress, just obscurantism. And why should I believe what the gospel says, written by ignorant superstitious goat herders. @@lecettpalmquist4091

[@SeanSeg]

@@lecettpalmquist4091 What if god has a sense of humor? What if atheists go to heaven and religious people go to hell? How would you know?

[@yassinebadouchi5792]

Yeah and he made a believe out of it

[@martymatic3575]

Piers vehemently stating that he "get's it" and then demonstrating that he doesn't is extremely frustrating to watch. RD spent a lifetime talking to people like that and his eternal patience is a testament to his life's work. If i can achieve that level of calmness one day, i'll be proud of myself.

[@Roberto-de8xv]

His religion is atheism

[@donaldgoodinson7550]

@@Roberto-de8xv So what? Truer than most I'm sure.

[@Nazyairsengikar]

Getting someone's meaning doesn't mean agreeing

[@martymatic3575]

@@Roberto-de8xv Atheism is by definition not a religion. Stop spreading lies.

[@martymatic3575]

@@Nazyairsengikar And in other breaking news: water is wet.

[@irfangullbhat]

I am a Muslim and I love Dawkins so so much. He is such a gentleman.❤

[@sergiovd7919]

Imagine a world where every human being is capable to express and have a dialogue like Richard.

[@Knytz]

just imagine

[@kencress3665]

You're kidding right? The heavens and the Stars declare the glory of God everyone will be without excuse on the day of judgement

[@sergiovd7919]

@@kencress3665huh?

[@DaniFernandesVideos]

Piers Morgan likes the sound of his voice too much to be an interviewer. Annoying as hell.

[@watchdog163]

@Person11068 If he did, then you wouldn't have free will, now would you?

[@ashkew7404]

I've never seen someone so articulate, gracious and patient in a debate. What a mind and what a legacy he will leave!

[@kevinking588]

I agree, Piers Morgan is a true wonder of humanity 🤣🤣🤣

[@omgtkseth]

@@kevinking588 What is it that drives you to disturb peace?

[@abdullahtariq2032]

Really?? Dawkins is an hate mongering atheist who believes that he is the only one who is right and if someone believes in a god, he is a fool. Dawkins is extremely racist and rude when it comes to respecting other Faiths and religions.

[@WayneLeng]

I absolutely agree.

[@filmeseverin]

There are two kinds of atheists: those only temporarily deceived, being too superficial regarding the Creator of this reality (as I used to be due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) and those who do not want God to exist, who deny everything that proves their errors, such as all my simple, clear and undeniable demonstrations, which can be found after sorting the comments by reading enough of my recent and quite recent posts (both answers and new threads).

[@vidmavric7216]

This felt like a conversation between a 80 year old and his grandson.

[@bas919]

A 7yo would probably be more open-minded and understanding than Piers.

[@the_granny_norman6971]

I know, right. Idk how Piers Morgan has the following he does, all he does is use fancy language to make himself seem smart.@@bas919

[@Slipknot0whinny]

Reading this comment before watching the vid made it 10000x funnier

[@eddieparks2535]

​@@axlenuts5418I'd certainly hope so, he's 3.

[@paulgemme6056]

@@bas919 If everything started with simplicity. Where did simplicity come from? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1 - 5) It can't get much simpler than that. What makes it hard is lack of faith (believing).

[@tamainge1429]

GREAT interview. I really enjoyed it - Dawkins is an unexpected delight. Thank you for having him on the show - and for youtube, so I could see it a year later.

[@digitalmop]

Richard Dawkins is the reason this video is watchable

[@sampreece]

I would say both are and I'm a fan of neither.

[@davidfisher9026]

The ONLY reason.

[@sampreece]

@@davidfisher9026 That's because you believe that his logically fallacy of this operating system being unknowable is sound. He is incredibly limited in his ability to comprehend and conceptualize the idea of reality being created irrespective of religious dogma.

[@Jack-fs2im]

how sad

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Richard Dawkins is the reason this is watchable” Exactly!! I always watch Dawkins for comedy value not for facts!! Equally, according to prominent biologists Dawkins would make a brilliant clown!! “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins). Sorry but the bereaved families of the victims of the Nazis eugenics policy would beg to differ with Dawkins claim that eugenics “works in practice”!! A prominent biologist responded to Dawkins equivocation and unscientific statement with.... “As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this CLOWN Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert). Ouch!!

[@mervinprone]

That was really nice to see Dawkins mention Christopher Hitchens.

[@peterroberts4470]

Strange that he never mentioned Satan

[@ninjaskeleton6140]

Dawkins is 82, bloody hell, didn’t realise he was that old. He’s a treasure.

[@wildsilva1952]

what did this treasure do for the world?

[@Fury851]

And he's still terrified to speak truth in Islam or the other religion no one can talk about

[@Scrungge]

Wow his clarity in thinking is so amazing

[@Logia1978]

@@Fury851 islam is more rational than Dawkins will ever be....

[@Fury851]

@@Logia1978 it's a rational way to hell yes

[@dandesjardins2552]

Nailed it religion is to help you sleep at night and not fear the truth of being finished when your finished.

[@blissbombseventeen8114]

Yes, this. It’s absolutely terrifying to think we will not exist at all anymore, but deluded to believe otherwise. I prefer hearing it from Dawkins as he is gentle in his delivery. Interesting interview

[@Boss-ot1iy]

​@blissbombseventeen8114 any evidence to support your claim?

[@pamelacorbett8774]

Your view.

[@pamelacorbett8774]

What a contrast between piers’s bad manners and his educated, respectful guest.

[@Fxrrxt2x]

I'd say, it's more so about how we conduct ourselves in life.

[@noelclaremont]

What a great episode. Piers can be a difficult curmudgeon but Dawkins handled him with such grace. He's a national gem.

[@libertynow4047]

International gem… 😉

[@supertrexandroidx]

Really. It's helpful because I know there's an awful lot of people who think like Piers, that it's hard to imagine something from nothing, that therefore there's must have been "something" that started it all - even though any initial something would have to have come from nothing, ha ha - but as Richard repeatedly points on, postulating a God because you can't explain something is ultimately just silly. It's really not much different than an ancient Norseman believing in Thor because he couldn't come up with a rational reason for thunder and lightning.

[@noelclaremont]

@@supertrexandroidx Well said! 🍻

[@sp_37-d91]

Treasure for the humanity. Well for all the living things.😂

[@TheChrissywhissy]

@@libertynow4047 i went to a science talk by him, it was the most boring thing i have ever sat through, i fell a sleep and he was really rude to someone who tried to disagree with him on a Q&A

[@ashishanandnarayanan8996]

How well articulated he is even at this age. May he live long and inspire the younger generation to think critically and appreciate the beauty around us without the need for an intelligent creator. How I wish I could see him in real life and thank him for all that he has done for us.

[@jdmitaine]

startled at the reducting allusion to his age.... ageism.... otherwise lovely comment

[@joshuamoore9014]

​@jdmitaine dude what are you talking about? I think we all know with age comes deterioration most of the time Of the mind and body. Some people can hold their mind together relatively well, but more often then not everything starts really slowing down at about his age maybe even sooner.

[@have_a_good_day420]

​@@jdmitaineof course a flaming liberal such as yourself who's obsessed with "isms" would use a cat for her profile pic. Of course you would!! Way to turn a complimemt into an insult regarding the original comment.

[@MiaMia-px5xo]

God will punish him very harsh.

[@1lapmagic]

His age? He's a healthy lifelong academic and not ancient

[@kjw4109]

Pay my high respect for Richard Dawkins.

[@Juliejulez]

I am not an atheist, but I've always enjoyed listening to Richard Dawkins because he's always willing to have a discussion. It's good to talk and listen. I miss that in this day and age.

[@Ho-mb2wb]

Just like he's willing to debate William Lane Craig

[@ohgodyeahgamer2987]

@@Ho-mb2wb just about to write this 📝😂😂😂

[@Godlesssicko]

Why would you not be an atheist?

[@ohgodyeahgamer2987]

@@Godlesssicko don't have that much faith

[@mmhmm9271]

​@@ohgodyeahgamer2987 ....in what? Technically, it requires zero faith to be an atheist, since all the word entails is a lack of belief in God.

[@brianwarburton4482]

This interview could have been so much more interesting if somebody rather more intelligent than Piers Morgan was the host. Someone who was capable of asking intellectually challenging and stimulating questions and then actually listening to the answers.

[@northseabrent]

Bill Maher?

[@jimbob4484]

Ye, like Alex O' Connor (who has interviewes Richard and is capable of asking probing questions).

[@hc4138]

Man I felt sorry for the old man to be honest. It felt as though Piers was trying to get a reaction out of Richard. As much of a genius this man is, he's old and in need of some love and kindness. At the end of it I genuinely wanted to give Richard a hug for getting through this shambolic interaction 😂

[@JasS-hu6cf]

Bill Maher or Oprah would have done a much better job

[@bgarmstrong1446]

@@JasS-hu6cfwhy? Because he’s asking questions that even the Al mighty Dawkins can’t explain?

[@ebessett]

Piers: "I'm genuinely curious, because I don't have all the answers." Also Piers: Rarely lets Richard compete a thought or sentence without interrupting.

[@indiana-jn7ys]

that's coz dawkins doesn't have any answers other than he doesn't know, but others know and believe, that's what he can't get his head around, God or the creator is known through reason and revelation, that's a better answer and more logical than not knowing, everything in the universe exists and our world happens to have life, an ecological system and the rest which all happened to come into order and existence by itself through evolution without an agent is the most absurd thing someone can say.

[@sujanaryal833]

@@indiana-jn7ys I don't have all the answers and I am skeptical of people who thinks they do. Those are his words. And here you are saying that someone admitting to not knowing everything is wrong? There is no winning here, is there? You are not looking for a debate but rather trying to force your opinions on others.

[@MrVeryfrost]

@@indiana-jn7ysNot having answers led to knowing cells, DNA, microscopes, computers, and everything you use today. Your belief in god led to sacrificing animals and thousands of years of fighting over whose god is more real without a conclusive ending.

[@Fearzero]

​@@indiana-jn7ys It's ridiculous to believe in gods in 2023.

[@jackwatsonepic626]

​@@Fearzero exactly

[@gregt2]

Wonderful Dr. Dawkins. Patient, indeed. Members of the audience - such as those commenting here - must be familiar with this sort of discussion with a ~well-meaning other who simply does not have the understanding to hear much of what we know is important to the discussion. Can be exhausting. With not-well-meaning others it is impossible to reach common ground.

[@Yem6]

Piers should know the difference between a debate and an interview

[@palacio802]

yep, right. It's becoming more and more frequent those interviewers who are judges and party. If you want to debate, take somebody with you to act as an impartial moderator.

[@pgoughy]

There's nothing controversial about Richard Dawkins. He only speaks truth. He's a scientist. He deals in facts. If his facts offend someone by challenging their beliefs, that's their problem.

[@namikazeomar8001]

Many scientists would disagree 😅

[@waxmonkeys3841]

None with any credibility.@@namikazeomar8001

[@pbossonn]

He only deals in truths and absolutes - if his aunt had balls she’d be his uncle but she doesn’t - do you know what he’s saying?

[@Freemansapien]

Exactly! Totally agree

[@EdgeOfEntropy17]

Problem is, facts change, therefore he doesn’t speak ’truth,’ now does he?

[@rspawn]

In summary: PM: "what was there at the beginning?" RD: "we don't know" PM: "i'm skeptical of people who think they have all the answers"

[@billjones8503]

No we don't know, so there could be God. Richard skirts around it, but Piers(not really a fan) can't seem to get Richard to admit it. Piers won. imho.

[@fixo5132]

@@billjones8503that’s bullshit , he responded to that in the beginning , you don’t introduce something complex at the beginning. You start from simple and go from there. God is complex. It’s a fallacy to think that if we don’t know something then it must be god… it’s a medieval way of thinking. We didn’t know why people died of unknown reason so we said « oh it must be divine judgement » , when it was just ball cancer.

[@golangismyjam]

That's some serious mental gymnastics

[@billjones8503]

@@fixo5132 Plain as day buddy. I don't need anything more complex to begin that simple argument. In other wds, since he(Dawkins) can't prove God doesn't exist then at bare minimum he might? - The whole complexity issue of God is imo irrelevant. For Dawkins just assumes that complexity of a deity can't come first, How in the heck does he know that?

[@billjones8503]

@@golangismyjam 😆 What serious mental gymnastics? Is a vy simple argument.

[@simplechristian2438]

I am an utterly devout Christian, but strangely I find myself enjoying hearing Dawkins speak. In so many ways it strengthens me faith to see such an intelligent man debating a man such as piers morgan, who isn't exactly a theologian.

[@JosEvan888]

Wonderful to see Richard looking so well and still in possession of such laser sharp wit and eloquence. The world will be eminently poorer for the loss of this man.

[@JohnJohn-kl7jx]

It'll miss his laim ass as much as yours when you take a dirt nap. NONE

[@iefarrington5473]

​@@JohnJohn-kl7jxwonderful debate Richard Dawkins is such a delight. ⭐💥

[@JohnJohn-kl7jx]

@@iefarrington5473 isn't he though? A real delight would be to see Ole Pierce Morgan jump up and STOMP mashed taters out of his head! What a fukn SWEET DELIGHT . Pierce just STOMPING and STOMPING . Better than the CARAMEL DELIGHTS GIRL SCOUT COOKIES. Well maybe not that good of a DELIGHT BUT I DO KNOW A BETTER DELIGHT THAN THAT! IF OLE PIERCE BENT HIM OVER THE DESK AND CORN DOGGED HIM WITH HIS "STATE FAIR SIZE CORN DOG!!!! Whata you think poop breath? Don't you think that would be a DELIGHT??

[@reptiled7761]

@@JohnJohn-kl7jx He means humanity, Duh!

[@Staypift]

@@JohnJohn-kl7jx I bet you miss your dad though

[@joescrivano5285]

“How would you, Richard Dawkings, like to be remembered?” “Well I should hope to have my headstone engraved with Richard Dawkins for a start”

[@raz6630]

The evolution of kinds has never been observed. No bird has ever been observed becoming a rat for example or a fish a lizard only natural selection within kinds so a sparrow can become a slightly different sparrow-like how a human can find a tall wife and have tall kids. It's not evolution. Science by definition has to be observed so basing all your "scientific absolutes" on a theory never observed is by definition unscientific and more what they would call superstitious.

[@raz6630]

Richard is a arrogant zealot Dawkins is only smart to people who are ignorant and trust others with all the "answers" .

[@RichardsGaySon]

I love Professor Dawkins. Good interview! Just wish Piers wouldn’t interrupt him so much

[@kingfishjoel]

I didn't see that. I thought it was a great conversation.

[@thomeilearn]

@@kingfishjoel Except the first 14 mins. Him with his stp arguments, interrupting Dawkins explanation continuously thinking that "his simple human brain" somehow came up with a fundamental concept that Dawkin could find convincing regarding his belief system, and he did it repeatedly. I imagine this is how every religious child and adult wants to express their "irrefutable truth" to a scientist that they think never give any careful thought about it. Such arrogance and narcissism.

[@jayffemt]

"Do you know who Doctor Spock was?" and then goes on to confuse Dr. Spock, a well-known pediatrician, with Mr. Spock, a character from a TV show.

[@djfhsusbruh6698]

Dawkins is such a great human being, he proved absence of religion doesn't mean absence of morals by not punching Morgan then and there.

[@ChuddleBuggy]

Civility is not necessarily moral and vice versa. Morality as it comes from a higher plane of understanding is something that does not immediately make sense to our minds though we may unequivocally agree with it regardless.

[@tayzk5929]

Dawkins has said himself there is no grounds for morality on Atheism.

[@tayzk5929]

@Rick Peterson There's no more scientific proof for morality than God

[@wakkablockablaw6025]

Why would he punch Morgan? lol

[@bmandville]

@@tayzk5929 sure. He would say ( quite rightly imo) that morality is inate

[@rickdaniels1000]

Piers : I get that Richard : No I don’t think you do… proceeds to reiterate for the 10th time

[@scott6368]

Richard Dawkins may be the most patient man in human history.

[@MdW4177]

"Certainty", whether it comes from one end of the spectrum or another, can enable one to be maddeningly patient in the face of so-called "adversity"

[@kamilvyskocil7747]

Actually second, after Jesus Christ.

[@Maximus0051]

No he is strident lol

[@garrynewman6211]

@@kamilvyskocil7747Explain how?

[@aurum6664]

he's like 82 y/o he's too old for arguments already i feel bad that he is has limited time left in this world but i hope he can spread more news

[@SheilaPeters-e4g]

I do enjoy your programmes Piers. Thank you😃

[@markford4127]

Great interview and Richard's self control to not get sucked into some of the inane questioning by Piers was admirable.

[@2fast2block]

As if Dawkins is some thinker. He's just a clueless being with clueless followers like you. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

[@MrRobboS]

But if we don't know what happened before the big bang....... It obviously MUST be god? Flawless logic ....

[@brandonbp122]

Piers drives me mad sometimes, but he had a good interview here. I enjoyed it.

[@andrewglaum1087]

Piers Morgan's constant interruptions did spoil it a bit though. Otherwise, wonderful to hear Dawkins speak again.

[@ckwind1971]

He's had a lot of practice with silly interviewers repeating inane arguments, interrupting, and refusing to listen to the answers

[@robjohnston1433]

Morgan: Asks stupid Q Dawkins: Patiently explains why Q is stupid Morgan: "I understand that but .." Asks SAME STUPID QUESTION!!!

[@freshcarrot2253]

“But the human brain can’t understand what’s before the Big Bang, so it has to be God or something”

[@ZenKingscom]

To cut a long story short: It is like playing chess with a pigeon. ;-)

[@yves2348]

@@ZenKingscom That´s an understatement..

[@anterix1999]

The patience of Richard Dawkins is eternal...

[@PjotrII]

😂😂😂 I remember him as an aggressive agitator maybe he is on some medicine?

[@joelonsdale]

@@PjotrII Yes, he should be given a sainthood - he'd love that!

[@waynegrow4141]

Morgan is just a tabloid clickbait stirrer, nothing else. Always looking to stir it up.

[@tassiomm]

Very patient. Piers is asking very basic atheist question.

[@tinymcgoo1195]

@@tassiomm Patient in constantly being interrupted? Regardless, if you really listen to Piers you'd understand that he has to have an answer to the big questions where Richard (and most atheists) are fine with saying we don't know. We do not need to fill in the gap with a certainty. Piers cannot be satisfied with not knowing and filling the gap for him is necessary. He also keep saying that the human brain cannot comprehend x, however he will not entertain the idea that the human brain cant comprehend x YET. As evidence for things are uncovered (like the planets orbiting the sun) then our knowledge expands. Someday we may know what lies beyond the singularity. Until then, "I don't know" is the best answer. Piers also falls into a common trap. A misunderstanding of the temporal nature of things. If time, matter and energy are local to this universe, then 'before' is a nonsensical question and leads to the notion that an eternal something must be in play. A theist would insist that it cannot be the universe (because turtles..) but have no problem insisting a personal mind is the eternal something.

[@zizidora2821]

Beautiful interview. Held spellbound all through with Piers's questions and Dawkins LOGIC. 10/10❤

[@kamranforghani]

Thank you, Piers Morgan for appearing on Dr Dawkins' show and expressing your perspectives. Thanks to Dr Dawkins' for giving the chance to the guest to speak.

[@lindseycampbell9915]

😂😂😂

[@gofres]

" Professor" Morgan

[@hellabella8295]

OMG.. LISTENING TO MORGAN IS SO DAMN FRUSTRATING.. RELIGION MAKES ZERO SENSE.. ZERO.. and there is absolutely NO PROOF A GOD EXISTS BUT MORGAN IS ARGUING ABOUT RUBBISH.. Ok, Morgan PROVE GOD EXISTS??? What was before GOD.. WHERE DID HE COME FROM.. WHAT WAS HE DOING BEFORE HE SUPPOSEDLY CREATED MAN.. 😂

[@kevincollins7316]

🤣Piers seems to be under the impression that the audience is more interested in his banal opinions. It's obnoxious.

[@kamranforghani]

His emphasis is on being a proud Catholic but saying I'm keeping an open mind 😂.

[@chrislewis-n3v]

"why have we lost the ability to have an open and frank debate?" so says piers morgan who never allows his guests to speak if they disagree with him-

[@jaxwhyland]

He doesn't allow them to give speeches to the audience instead of answering the interviewers questions. I am SO sorry that you're hurt by this fact

[@chrislewis-n3v]

@@jaxwhyland hurt?

[@nikoss.8825]

@@jaxwhyland That is only a fact if we agree that his true audience can't comprehend any argument more than 2 sentences long, in which case yes, the experts he summons don't answer efficiently. Seriously, he summons experts to give their opinions. In this case, you shut up and listen even if you don't understand. There is a reason these guys are experts at their respective fields and we are not

[@PrivateSi]

If I mention New Atheism and Humanism is taken over by Transhumanism that actively wants to replace humans with transhumans I'll be censored, as an Atheist.

[@ChrisRussell-d7d]

He is a puddin head

[@Investigate_Mermaids]

Dawkins replying to the question as to whether or not he likes social media: "There's a culture of outright rudeness, which -" and Morgan cuts him off 🤦

[@dylanvanleeuwen3191]

😂

[@AlexanderMichelson]

😂

[@lynettemcconnell7828]

ROMANS 1:20-21 New Living Translation (NLT). 2 CORINTHIANS 5:8 New International Version (NIV)

[@michaelmartin8129]

Richard Dawkins is an absolute gentleman. He is also brilliant. Long may you live Richard Dawkins.

[@panaroid9636]

He died I believe

[@michaelmartin8129]

@@panaroid9636 That is a terrible thing to say about any person. Where are your manners?

[@marklivers5907]

i think u will soon learn hes not a nice person

[@paulploy6830]

he a bad dude. regardless of his intelligence: disparaging those who think different from you, because of your self conceived notions of your "intelligence"(your bias opinion and the level it can be argued too based on something that cant be proven or dis-proven either way or only through philosophy is not empirical evidence) which Dawkins thinks his philosophical arguments are. but who knows how getting molested by Catholics can affect a human? for Richy it seems to of made him hateful of the world.

[@inevitable934]

@@panaroid9636 uhhh no he's not. Idiot.

[@Mirrodin82]

Richard is a true gentleman, calm, stoic, polite, humble.

[@WindRipples-]

So are deeznuts

[@suzimonkey345]

I adore Richard Dawkins! He’s gentle & strong, he’s kind, he’s brilliant, he’s funny… If he were younger & we we both single, I’d happily become Mrs Dawkins.

[@LibertarianPunx]

Wouldn't be so quick to call him stoic if he goes around call people liars. Maybe you should read some Marcus Aurelius and find out what a true stoic is

[@MeeHandle]

@@suzimonkey345 you should ask him out

[@MeeHandle]

@@LibertarianPunx I don't think it's calling someone a Liar. Just saying they shouldn't assume they're right.

[@humanrightsadvocate]

"How many logical fallacies do you want to throw at Richard Dawkins?" Piers Morgan, "yes".

[@JakeWitmer]

Dawkins should have a chance to review the questions for simplistic logical fallacies before the show, and provide a negation of each one, then let Piers decide which he wants to prioritize.

[@mmhmm9271]

*Dawkings (according to Piers)

[@pauldog]

"my small human brain says I'm right so you must be wrong"

[@MBergyman]

@@pauldog both of them are saying that, more or less.

[@rajvaibhavtripathi84]

His fallacies are not logical.FALLACY and LOGIC don't go together. He is just not taking MR. DAWKINS seriously and it shows his intellect's hardly expected capability to bear the truth.I believe that the interviewe's attitude is pretty naive and unprofessional.

[@joshuaisenschmid4302]

Piers Morgan, wow, you're such an incredible interviewer. Extremely smart and dont let people rush out of tuff questions. Appreciate it!

[@insertnamehere5452]

Man I want to change for the better and be like Richard. Imagine a world where we all think and speak like him.

[@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017]

Then again, it would get very boring if we all thought the same way.

[@jamrollz]

​@@sirbarnabyst.johntoffingto9017flat earthers don't add any value in having a diverse opinion. Some thoughts are merely too stupid to credit

[@pantsdown6567]

He lives in pride

[@parthasarathibehera8463]

I have my disagreements with him. Nt on science religion god bt there are lot of other things. I also respect and acknowledge him fr his wrk and awareness. Bt then I think I would want a world where people can think fr themselves and have nuance take on everything. There is always lack of nuance to a certain degree fr everyone while different opinions even based on faiths are unique so as much I like smart people i wouldn't want that.

[@Joe-ns4cg]

Yeah we all know that the universe had a beginning, and we all don't know what caused the beginning, but we sure as heck know it wasn't God right!?

[@ruby.rubes.]

Dawkins was the first person who got me thinking about the big questions when I was about 9 years old. I didn't agreed with every single thing he said but he made me question a lot which has set me on a road of curiosity which I believe will be life long. Not seen him in a long time and it's great to see

[@2fast2block]

Stop pretending, you don't think much at all and neither does Dawkins. To think we got all this from "literally nothing" is....absurd. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

[@tomlock5484]

Yes. He did the same for me. I found God.

[@Monotonous-Tedium]

@@tomlock5484Where?

[@tomlock5484]

@@Monotonous-Tedium When I began to study the bible, I did so contentiously. I was only trying to disprove the existence of any God. Having extensively researched the history of many religions, and noting their overt similarities to what I believed Christianity to be, I decided that I needed to be factual and objective to give my arguments any kind of credence. I acknowledged that I don't know everything, and so humbled myself to listen to the counterarguments from people with faith. Most of these professed Christians left me with more questions than I had in the first place, and not one answer to any of my original questions. I decided to read the bible myself to see what it was really saying. I began to write a book documenting all my findings. I recorded all the similarities Christianity appeared to have with pagan religions and pagan gods. I also looked at some of the major problems in this world such as world finances, wars, poverty, crime etc etc etc, and so on and so forth. I couldn't understand why, if every single human being on Earth wants peace and happiness, why oh why we can never achieve it? I thought that even if each person has a different idea as to how to achieve peace, surely we had more intelligence than to exercise hatred, disharmony, fighting, and war. I subscribed to the lie that all war is caused by religion so my thought was that if we could disprove the existence of any God, we could dismantle religion in its entirety and go forth with healing the world and see humanity's true potential. In making my argument objective and factual I decided to look into the universe scientifically to dispel the notion that it was the purpose of a higher intelligence. I came to the realisation that the universe did have a beginning and that there are no scientists worth their salt who disagree with this fact. Many of them, though, shy away from the question as to what the cause was. I still couldn't see any difference between religion and a belief in God. Now though, I can see that anything done religiously is done out of habit, tradition and by rote in spite of any contradictory evidence. For example, I’m a fan of James Bond films and every time a new Bond film is released I spend extra money to see it at the IMAX screen at the cinema. Even if it has had poor reviews and trusted friends have told me it’s a particularly bad film in the series, I will still see it in IMAX. Quantum of Solace is the worst Bond film, in my opinion, in the whole series. When I went to see it I was really disappointed by it. Instead of reasoning on my disappointment and acknowledging that it was a terrible film, I doubted myself and thought I had missed something crucial to the plot. I went to see it again. Actually I saw it in the cinema 3 or 4 times. When it came out on DVD I bought it and watched it time and time again convinced that there was something that I was simply not understanding. Suffice to say I was being religious about it. Because I so wanted this film to be good, I would rather doubt myself than the film. I was being religious about the film. This is the same principal as people who might acknowledge the flaws and contradictions in what their religion teaches, and rather doubt themselves than the teachings that may have brought them great comfort in the past. this is what the bible refers to as having ones “ears tickled”. 2 Timothy 4:3 - For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. There is a vast gap between religion and science, but there is no gap between truth and science. Science is merely the process by which we find truth, so finding the truth about God must use a scientific process for any findings to have any credence. The scriptures encourage people not to be "religious" about building ones faith, but to actually be "scientific" about it. 1 John 4:1 - Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 Thessalonians 5:6 - So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. Proverbs 3:21 - My son, do not lose sight of them. Safeguard practical wisdom and thinking ability; But, at the time, I didn't know that the scriptures said this. When I read 'Quantum' by Jim Al-Kalili I learned that absolutely everything in the known universe can be divided into two categories. The existence of the Atom was one denied by many, then it was discovered to exist and was considered to be the smallest building block of anything and everything. Rutherford then split the atom at Cambridge to discover it was made of smaller counterparts yet; protons, neutrons, and electrons. More recently we have discovered that the proton is made of even smaller parts known as Quarks, Leptons, Up and Down particles, Photons, Gluons, Gravitons and many many more. We have managed to whittle things down to the point that we can see that the smallest bit of anything, known as a quanta, exists in one of two forms. They are Fermions and Bosons. Where fermions are what make up everything physical, bosons are what make up everything in the form of energy. Gravity, for example, is made of Gravitons which are Bosons. Bosons are also known as the force carrying particle. It was this that gave me the realisation that we, as human beings, are an agglomeration of fermions (physical particles) all constructed in such a specific way that we have brains, consciousness, and minds with thoughts, feelings, and emotions which we can convert into actions using our physical body. So, what's to say that out there in this vastness of the unknown universe, or even beyond in another dimension perhaps, there isn't a massive collection of Bosons (energy or force carrying particles) constructed in a similar fashion that it also has a consciousness with thoughts and feelings that it can convert into actions using its energy? A vastness of dynamic energy, if you will. Isaiah 40:26 - “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.” It was when I made this realisation, that there is a logical and scientific explanation for the possibility of a God as a force of energy, that lead me onto the next question; If God exists, and I can see what he might be, who might he be? As soon as I acknowledged the possibility of his existence, and I began asking genuine questions while searching for the answers without contentiousness, everything fell into place. I'm not suggesting that God exists within this universe, but the reasonable possibility of it adds plausibility to the notion that he exists within another dimension, or that he is another dimension. We know that this universe had a beginning, but the scriptures tell us that God is eternal. He had no beginning and has no end. Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were bornOr you brought forth the earth and the productive land, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God. God's energy is used within this universe, but he himself is in another dimension that the bible calls heaven, but I hadn't yet connected what I had learnt from Jim Al-Kalili's 'Quantum' to Jehovah because I didn't know Jehovah yet. At this point I was in a log-term relationship and also going though a rather precarious stage in my life so the research and writing had been put on the back shelf. My relationship ended, I moved out and into my own home, and had a pretty good job. Life was calm again. I decided that I would like to get back to writing. By this time I had prayed for the first time and had instantly received an answer so I was seriously considering the existence of something else and/or someone else. I didn't know this at the time, but two of Jehovah's witnesses had been trying many of the flats where I live. There are three blocks. They had no success in that everyone either wasn’t at home, hung up immediately, or weren't interested. They decided to move somewhere else but one sister suggested a quick prayer first. She said, "Please Jehovah, if there is anyone in these flats who wants to hear the message we have for them, pleased guide us to them". She then suggested trying a bit further down the river. They walked straight to my block of flats and randomly dialled the 3 digit number for my flat. She said, "Oh hello. We're Jehovah's witnesses and..." I interrupted, "Ooh yes! Come up!" The two sisters came up and I showed them the book I was writing. One sister went back home and told her husband about me. They came back time and time and time again but I was always working. They continued to call on me for about 2 months. Then she and her husband came round one Sunday after their meeting and alas, I was home! We got started on a Bible study there and then. During my studies I realised the gap between religion, and the truth about God. The inconsistency of Christendom exposed its own lies. Jehovah replaced them with his truths. The truths transcend the bridge between the lie and Jehovah. All this happened from 2007 until I was called on in 2010. I was baptised in 2014.

[@brandon6347]

Geez, go back to school for grammar.

[@ankitpinl]

Richard Dawkins is the man, I watch and listen to when I am feeling bored, tense, and frustrated. I love Richard Dawkins.

[@christopherwg4236]

That's sad😢

[@IrishScribbler]

Are you gay? If you are then at least you have one thing in common with your hero.

[@gumodokamehuna915]

Just stupid dilutional..

[@paulmavric887]

Mr Richard I want to shake your hand👍

[@RamseyRimkeit]

"if you're invited to a debate against Christopher Hitchens, decline." So true. Even Richard Dawkins understood this well.

[@youarenotme01]

weaksauce. i’d go toe toe with him anytime. and i’d win. dawkins is a charlatan, just like everyone else with any kind of platform.

[@oioi9372]

And yet both of them trembled in front of William Lane Craig, Dawkins even run into hiding when called out to debate him🤣

[@reason8439]

@@oioi9372 That is a funny statement.

[@candyolson2871]

@@reason8439 He/she is a delusional, arrogant person.

[@MikaelLewisify]

@@oioi9372 Hitchens and Craig debated several times. What are you talking about?