Richard Dawkins Exposes Piers Morgan, Defends JK Rowling | On the Edge podcast 276 

Wonderful discussion. Thank you.

Am a fan of a friend of his, Christopher Hitchens

This is EPIC

My Holy Trinity of Hitchens, Dawkins and Fry! What an amazing guest to get on. Would be fab if you could get Stephen Fry to 👀

Ouch.. I got pissed at piers over his interview w Trump, he had a teaser of the interview and it made it appear that Trump walked out on him.. I thought that was shitty just for clicks..

Piers Morgan could learn much from how Gold conducted this interview.

@@ianclark2665 he does go on about himself a bit though

@@ianclark2665 piers morgan isn't interested in learning anything. From anyone. He already knows it all.

Agreed. 💯 So sad that skill and protocol is dying

@@ianclark2665piers is a first-class moron and idiot 💯

Yes he is, but don't be fooled by people like him. The Bible warns us of this!

Really? You mean the Bible built in a pre-emptive manipulation that even if someone seems good if they don't have faith in God they're a snake in disguise? I can't imagine why Relgious doctrine would ever do such a thing. /s@@thevoiceofamerica2389

I'm a Christian but I enjoy listening to Richard Dawkins and find it hard to refute a lot of what he says. I think the same about Sam Harris. Both of them seem to be genuinely decent people. For a contrary view I like to listen to John Lennox. I also like listening to Christopher Hitchens but he appeared to be angry all the time (or maybe it was just exasperation) but he was also very witty.

@@thevoiceofamerica2389 Where in the bible?

Non-condescending??? The man who has called the majority of the planet a bunch of fools and publicly called to mock those with a religious belief, and so disgracefully so that most of his colleagues won't even talk to him anymore, even the atheistic ones because of his lack of class in doing so. There is a reason the man has so few friends because he's a zealous pompous ass. He's a snake just for the fact that he is telling you that there is no God, when no man knows this for sure. Follow him and you'll end up in a ditch.

and like all good scientists will say straight up "I don't know" when he doesn't know the answer.

@@cameroncameron2826 he’s never tried to ban religious speech, what the hell are you on about you raving lunatic?

From my own experience, when you have a stroke mental processing slows and it becomes harder to gather thoughts and craft a rapid response. Prof Dawkins has rebounded remarkably well. Time now for empathy.

Dawkins hasn’t attacked free speech. He’s just attacked stupid ideas. It’s the religious who invented thought crime - that’s exactly what “blasphemy“ is.

@@cameroncameron2826 The last successful prosecution for blasphemy in the UK was in 1977. Probably a good idea to actually know the facts before commenting. But then expecting an obvious racist to know anything much is probably a tall order. And Dawkins has of course been just as critical of Islam as any other theistic religion, in fact far more so 🤷

This interview has just reinforced my like for him, I'll mirror your words, Brilliant interview.

He is a nice man but has offered nothing to humanity but doom and gloom. Do not be fooled by this snake-oil salesman!!!

It exhibits integrity and credibility and creates a basis of trust.

You will rarely see a creationist admit they don't know something!

One of his Russell quotes springs to mind 'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' Being able to admit to not knowing something, is far better than blundering on without knowing what are talking about. Sidenote - Dawkins knows more about physics than he often portrays, but he knows he's not an expert in those fields so prefers not to go too far in answering question that maybe someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Steven Pinker or Lawrence Krauss.. etc... would have better ways / understanding of answering ( all people that have had conversations with Richard over the years)

Here here or is it hear hear? Either way, I completely agree with what you say.

Haha me too. Well said!

Piers Morgan is a moron!

Totally agree

​@@arthurmeehear hear!

Night

100% agreed. If only a third rate paparazzi journalist could have some degree of integrity!

DAWKINS IS CLOSER TO THE GRAVE !!

Kind hearted?? That's the man who believes a down syndrome baby must be aborted.

​@@afsar_gunner5271we all are. What's your point?

You owe him nothing. He is a charlatan and a phony. Do not be deluded by this sophisticated snake oil salesman!

May i ask why you needed to get "out of religion" and how this improved your life? I ask because as a theologian, physicist and science teacher i can't imagine how getting "out of religion" could possibly improve my life. I know of many forms of organized religion from which getting out of would be good and healthy. I'm just curious here.

@@starkfels-diespielefestung2680someone being a theologian and a physician is a contradiction in terms.

@@Vasilefs_Terranorum Nonsense. Why would this be a contradiction? Is this really what you believe?

​@@Vasilefs_TerranorumA theologian is just someone who seeks to understand the nature of religion, they don't have to have any faith themselves, in fact most don't

I'm with you! I'd get the needle in my brain! How do people become "born again "? They don't believe and voila, they do.

Seek God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. (Using the masculine in a generic sense - God transcends male and female.) God desires a relationship with you.

It's when you hit rock bottom the. You will know God is real.

@@barbarahansen5353 Sought god for years, has not shown up , must not be real.

@@LC-df3jl I hit the bottom years ago. Being crawling along the bottom for years. Looking after one sick relative after another. My grandparents, my parents and now my brother. If it was not for bad luck I would have none. Life sucks and god never showed up for me. If god is real he / she / it is one twisted evil fucker.

I love and miss Hitch, imagine him articulating on religion, culture etc. today 🥰🥰

I concur

@@cameroncameron2826 WHAT The CRAP iS yOUr BS abOUt? Leave thinking to the experts, dunderklumpin!!

​@@cameroncameron2826that is a stunning load of abject dribble. Well done for spinning such an incoherent load of crap. You are ill lettered.

No, thank you.

I'm afraid I disagree. He is a pleasant man and well spoken, but unfortunately deluded. He does not believe in his creator. I feel sorry for him to be honest. The Bible warns us of people like him and all the naysayers and doubters on RU-vid. Do not be fooled by him Mitch. God bless you. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

He's only partly right

@@thevoiceofamerica2389 If you are using the bible to critique anyone, then you are the one who is deluded.

​@@thevoiceofamerica2389Yeah this guy Dawkins is Deluded....'They thought they were Wise, but they were Fools' . God is the Judge of everyone ...even Egomaniacs like him.

Love God, not Richard.

Sorry you have such a bad relationship with your parents

Scrooge -Dawkins has written books based on lies lies lies- just to make money What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!

DAWKINS IS A LIAR AND A CLOWN

Nasty reply when I never even mentioned parents. Actually one parent died of cancer when I was very young. Not that it's any of your business. My grandad was intellectual and I miss him and our philosophical conversations dearly. I'm an intelligent woman, an avid reader. Don't judge me when you don't know me.

It's a sad truth today that not having a strong opinion on everything is seen as a negative or weakness or a cop out. In actual fact it's demonstrates humility and honesty and should be encouraged to prevent any one of us commenting on topics we aren't expperts on. Science thrives on the "I don't know".

If I was Dawkins, I would be thinking « how did I get myself into this »

I really miss Christopher Hitchins

Both Hitchens and Sam Harris both grew to dislike Dawkins. And Dawkins picking and choosing which monothesims are worse is just childish and derives from his bigotry. They are all horrid. Dawkins manages to be both anti-science and bigoted when it coms to trans as well. Dawkins is on these small venues because he was rightly cancelled. The large atheist forum, and most universities have pretty barred him good reason

@@teo2975 If you think so, but just a suggestion, try researching a bit better whilst reading Dawkins Obituary to Hitchens.

He was entertaining, but far less of a good discussion partner. The problem with people like CH is that they're far too radical to achieve their goals. I compare him to people like Jordan Peterson or that annoying guy who thinks he's the smartest being in the universe... what's his name again... shapiro or something like that They stand behind a few points that are hard to reason with so they gather up a following and become an impressive force in the media... but they have their flaws, personal and otherwise. No matter whether you go too far to the left or too far to the right (in political terms), you're crossing lines that shouldn't be. Even Dawkins has had his moments, but still wherever he goes, he has the moral high-ground and whether you agree or disagree with the bloke, he just demands respect. I cannot say the same of CH. But again, he certainly was entertaining and hopefully made a few people think about all the garbage that society has been feeding them.

@@teo2975 the radicals may have cancelled Dawkins... I don't know because I'm not a radical atheist... but Dawkins was never cancelled. The guy got a stroke and took a step back. And radical atheists are in my opinion no better than religious people. Stop trying to convince people that you are right and they are wrong. Eventually the truth will come out and if not, then so be it. I like the freedom to believe (or not) in what I want. I'm not bothering anyone with it (unless I'm asked) and I like the same in return. The world would be a much nicer place if both believers and non-believers would take that stance.

It’s called humility and it is a sign of high intelligence. Most people lack that trait unfortunately

One of the most brilliant minds of our time? You're very fucking easily impressed.

@@elliotmoriarty7536so who do you consider the greatest minds of our time?

and yet he's quite modest and will often say that he wishes he was better at maths and physics but those weren't his strengths

intellect , well he has got people to believe in fish growing legs and becoming apes then men and all this waffle and poppycock absolute charlatan , you like what he say's because you want to, just try questioning him and challenging his ideas gets very interesting , and books for kids that's cheery for them life , no point to it , no reason, nothing to look forward to & death is final, I'm sure their faces light up with delight ! lol

He is very well spoken and nice, but not particularly smart. He believes that the universe was created by the big bang. WELL WHO THE HELL CREATED THE BIG BANG???

@@thevoiceofamerica2389 who the hell created god or wherever you believe the universe came from?

@@thevoiceofamerica2389 shush, brainwashed american

🤣

No his mother made him a twat because she is also a twat.

... Whimsical Indeed 😂

QUESTION: richard claims that trans goes against biology and thus, wrong but why does he support homosexuality? Does that not go against biology? Like, its scientifically proven.that the correct sexes to get together are males and females for our genes to pass on So, why is Richard not against homosexuality? Anyone?

Love it !.

Denis Noble, a distinguished biologist and former professor of his, effectively refuted many aspects of his beliefs.

While Piers Morgan may be a fool, that doesn't necessarily validate Richard's approach. However, it's worth noting that Richard's explanation for the emergence of religion is weak, and exploring alternative perspectives like those presented by Rene Girard, who is not religious himself, might provide a more insightful understanding.

@@destruction1928Why should we accept that the good professor is correct and Dawkins is wrong? There seem to be a vast array of well-qualified people who endorse Dawkins’s views.

@@destruction1928Why is that worth noting? It sounds like merely your opinion. On what basis should I consider your view to have any validity?

@@kyoglesage YYour view of the world is wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity was only observed 100 years after his proposition. Dawkins and his crew put too much emphasis on evidence and observation because of their dislike of religious people. Besides, your argument is totally against the scientific method - the notion that 'if many people agree with me, that means I'm correct.' You need to reevaluate and conduct deeper research. By the way, Sam Harris is wrong too. Read René Girard.

There is no beauty in it at all I'm afraid. Nothing but negativity and doom and gloom. You are being fooled by a smooth-talking snake-oil salesman!

So is mine, his book put in words what I always felt is true, when you listen there are no personal subjectiv statements, always fact followed by examples.. he showed me how to see what ppl say and I never hesitate to say I dont know, I will see data and make my mind then..fact dont care about feelings and I want my son to be like that in his life even if you are not scientist.. In my mind he is above all due his personality.. hope he live long and give us more books!🙋❤️🇨🇿

You should probably say "scientific morals". It's so easy to confuse things otherwise.

I love his theory that aliens - a high intelligent, high tech'l race, long, long ago - came to earth and designed, seeded earth with all the different life forms; that is his alternative theory to how life here started/abio genesis. By declaring that, he gave the nod to 'intelligent design' - as promoted by many theists

I lost all respect for Richard Dawkins with his stance for getting mandatory covid jabs.

@@johnlennox-pe2nq Nope. You'd still have to explain who "created" the aliens...

He wouldn't do it to his face. He probably will ridicule him at another interview with someone else. Just like he was polite to Piers Morgan during the interview with him, but was belittling Piers during this interview. Not very impressive!

Now, there's a diplomatic response if I ever did see one, and yes, you are right. 😁

​@@aajiz1I don't think that likely at all. Andrew was a very different interviewer than Piers - I just watched that interview. Piers took a very cocky and attacking tone, often cutting Richard off mid sentence. Richard fielded the questions very well remaining polite and answering Piers' questions thoughtfully. Piers' conduct was certainly not one entitling him to intellectual respect from Richard beyond the interview room itself. Piers was asking to be called a fool. He came across as a fool to me, too. The interview with Andrew and Richard was much more chatty and fun in tone, seemingly enjoyed by both. I imagine they parted on good terms. They seemed to show a genuine respect for one another, not just politeness. I also don't think Richard thinks everyone who asks questions that Richard knows the answer to is a fool. Richard is an educator and like all educators worthy of the name he meets others at their level of knowledge and lifts them up, not puts them down. I'd be extremely surprised after this interview if Richard badmouthed Andrew. If ever he does please come back here and post a link to it, because it would change my opinion of Richard Dawkins profoundly.

@@Amy-ky5wr I agree. I dislike PM's interview tactics immensely. It's rare for him to truly listen to his interviewees and understand where they're coming from. He interrupted RD at every turn, and I don't think he actually understood nor cared to do so at any point during the interview. I think his audience is in on this bc they like his style more than the substance. Perhaps RD regretted going on his show. I appreciate AG in this video for at least listening to RD to finish his points bf asking. There's no rule that says the interviewer must have equal knowledge or know a lot about the subject for which he is interviewing. She/he needs to let the interviewee, the expert, unfold the content rather than grab the spotlight the way PM did with RD.

@@aajiz1piers Morgan interview and this interview is total opposite. Did you ever saw any interview where piers Morgan let the guest to speak? He always repeat the same line again and again. On that interview Richard get no time to say him fool. He is not a diplomatic man. Very straight forward but not a bully

Here here Great interview

He's not generally a warm person. Unfriendly, distant and angry. Perhaps age has mellowed him slightly.

And Aetheism hasn't murdered almost 200 million of people in the last hundred years alone? More than all the religious wars in history put together! Terrible, hideous things have been done to people in the name of "there is no God! " Aetheism is evil!

Well done?! Be careful Tom Cruise doesn’t hear this. You’ll be cleaning lavatories with a toothbrush for the next billion years. 😆😂🤣🪥🚽

Its his quality as an interviewer, I guess.

aw thanks! i guess the trick is to just really enjoy the moment.

You are a gifted interviewer, Andrew. As self-effacing as you are, your own mind must be pretty astonishing. I too heard that change in J. Peterson’s vocabulary (by the way). Anyway, I deeply enjoyed this conversation, and there were laughs! Thank you.

@@ardentynekent2099 It's not only J. Peterson. As Dawkins rightly said, we all subconsciously change our vocabulary when we talk to children or teenagers - and I can add when we talk to uneducated people, or to people who are not fluent in our language. We want to make sure our audience understands us! A scientist will write differently if it's a report on a peer-reviewed scientific publication and differently if he or she's writing for a popular magazine. When you're interviewing a person of high intellectual calibre, on one side you still don't want to bore or alienate your audience, and make sure you're understood, but at the same time you want to put yourself on the same level and be respected by your interlocutor. It's a subtle balance, and a good interviewer has to achieve it.

He's just a man . Nothing special

Riiiiiiiiight. I’m sure there’s special people in your life too. And I’m sure you’re not delusional about their humanness either. Put a lid on your superiority and move on.

He is not a genius. He is a fool and a charlatan. Believe in GOD

That must mean Piers Morgan has made it and is held in high esteem by Mr Dawkins.

I don't feel like Dawkins is actually a genius. He's just someone who has learned and studied hard and is great at conveying those thoughts. He just speaks common sense and most of the science that comes up is basic knowledge for anyone who has done university level biology. It probably goes over many people's heads who don't understand it

I don‘t know your age, but I assure you that, the longer you live, the more you will realize the utter stupidity of the majority of your fellow humans and you begin to think: maybe it‘s good that it will end for me sooner or later to avoid experiencing this inevitable train wreck.

It might be unusual to a lot of people but non-existence doesn't concern me at all as a prospect. The converse of existing forever seems worse to me as a prospect. Unthinkable really. More realistically, I find the idea of losing my faculties and being senile far scarier (having seen that a couple of times), losing physical and mental functions and being angry against everyone and paranoid about things that aren't happening.

I’d say rather that he indulges in fantasies with the acknowledgement that they are fantasies. He could read lord of the rings and love it very much but that doesn’t mean he will confuse middle earth with actual earth lol

Richard Dawkins is a very warm man with a highly developed sense of humour. In many ways he reminds me of Stephen Hawking. They both followed the rigours of scientific method to find a tangible truth, but both were happy to parody themselves.

Dawkins is a liar, a coward and very good at running away from William Lane Craig.

❤

love is blind - he is your guru and idol !

Yes, this is a huuuuuge score for Andrew.

i can see how Piers keeps the speed and topics moving quickly. Im on the fence on if it is wrong or different style (pros and cons).. i do think both interviews explored very interesting points.

I don't see how it can be hard with Dawkins. He is pretty succinct. No word salad or runons

Richard Dawkins has a agenda too, it just appears to be less obvious if he is in a setting where most around him may agree with him or at least greatly admire him. I agree that the interviewer here was humble, but I can not at all see how anyone can claim Richard Dawkins to be. I think he is extremely arrogant, but yes so is Piers Morgan.

​@@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution Just consider it real, that R.Dawkins is not 20 anymore, and REALLY did some good things during those many years - and some people realize that. Maybe these people just want to express their respect for R.Dawkins accomplishments. To say 'extremely arrogant' is as far from the truth, as it could get. I wonder, If you could elaborate, what you would expect. Maybe you would like to pad Albert Einstein on the back, saying: "What's up, old buddy? How's it hanging?"

@@user-rq7hv6lf8c What good has Dawkins done worthy of a lot of respect? Extremely arrogant means arrogant to a very large degree, and it is very arrogant to claim not do have fear of death, know there is no God or anything which last beyond the brain against countless of testimonies, to claim to KNOW something can come out of nothing, He even himself admit he has a ego, and perhaps the only really humble thing I have heard him say is acknowledging this ego and that it wont remain. ru-vid.com-YXia0SsK84 He also wrote the "selfish gene" which again is a title suggesting he is aware of his arrogance. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mB6Rl9lN32k.html His evolutionary claims are also arrogant, such as claiming that there is no evidence of anything beyond the physical, when testimony is ALSO a part of what evidence is. His claim that it goes against the spirit of science to believe in anything spiritual is in itself a arrogant claim and a oxymoron, considering that the word spirit occur in the spirit of science, and that science is about finding truths which has not yet been found, with the evolution theory having FAR LESS evidence to back it up than the notion of existence beyond the human brain. He ironically do not believe everything came about by chance like Alex O'Connor, but rather by a natural selection out of nothing, without having a source to do the selecting. Also in his claim to know the Book of Mormon is a obvious fake, which he claims the Bible and Quoran isn't because they are ancient. But he has nothing to back up any of these claims with other than it is his opinion or belief. Its especially his manerism and complete emotional dismissal of other options without evidence one way or the other which is extremely arrogant. Look at him here with Brandon Flowers, none of the people here agree with each other, but the only one being rude, arrogant and disrespectful here is Richard Dawkins. If Richard Dawkins is not arrogant, then who is? He is one of the most arrogant people I have ever listened to. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W-pr2PL-e9Y.html

Glad you enjoyed it!

I agree with you! I loathe the short attention span nonsense of everything now. Who wants to hear only the bullet points from the loudest bully-style speakers? Not me. I’m happy to see I’m not the only one 😃 The most interesting stuff is spoken lightly and in full sentences. Not the headline.

A cheap shot from Dawkins

​@@timphillips9954 Cheap shot saying that PM is just that.. Your are correct... He should of made it more than a sentence... Continued to explain the reasons as to why.... Then Again, Cheap is what cheap gets. So, Piers Morgan IS a fool.

I'd personally use stronger language. Morgan is frequently intentionally malicious in pursuit of a pay packet. Never forget that he was behind the horrendous phone hacking scandal in the 90s. Was that the act of a devout Christian man? Morgan is scum.

@@Rhythmattica Piers Morgan is not the fool. The fools are those who follow him and watch his drivelling rubbish!

And yet, he lets himself be interviewed by Piers. I think that's a bit hypocritical.

Sorry for your loss. I am glad that you take comfort in your beliefs.

@@nicoledonovan2057 I take comfort, in what is evidently true. Thank you for your kind thoughts.

I have seen him launch into a young American student who dared to contradict him with such viciousness the word "kind" was a long way away from his consciousness.

@@jacquelinedesanctis7082 I quite like some of his books but I don't understand his fixation on belief, or to put it more accurately, other people's beliefs. Though I'm not religious myself, I find it hilarious how atheism has become a belief system in itself- Atheism+ etc. Religion was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery, it helped/helps communities bond, it gave a certain code to societies. As an anthropologist, Dawkins must know that it's a human trait to believe or wish to believe, something greater than oneself. He's not exactly being brave or dying on some hill by being an atheist in the West, he should stick to defending nature over nurture rather than some crusade (irony) against what other people wish to believe.

@@stephenmcdonagh2795 he is a fool like Piers. Both are Aries - "it's just me, myself and I."

@@davidcohen26 Says the guy who believes the position of a star ( which is probably already a dead star as light takes time to travel) at his birth it what writes his life.

​@@stephenmcdonagh27951. Dawkins's fixation on the people's beliefs is that people's baseless beliefs impact hugely on society, wars, legislation, people's actions. The more thta critical thinking is explained to people, rhe less religious they tend to become. And 2. Atheism is not a belief system, you don't understand what atheism is, it's NON belief. Atheists may well have other beliefs, but that's separate from atheism. You should learn what non belief actually means.

Agnosticism is not the same as belief, it's about knowledge, which is a subset of belief. So you can be agnostic and theist (which if someone is a critical thinker, would never hold these 2 positions) , or agnostic and atheist.

He has changed a lot in his posture imo. I hope he doesn't begin to believe in 👻's and blame it on religious people.

Agnostic about what? Little green men on Mars? What are you “without knowledge” about?

Nah he comes across as a simple bible basher, he doesn't believe deep down what he is saying I believe?

@@Neil-Aspinall Its not your fault

@@Interdiction Ahhhhh what that I can think for myself?

I feel sorry for you being an atheist. God bless you. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!

@@americanpatriots4868 I don't feel sorry for you being such a bigot and hypocrite. You are hell on Earth.

Never let him slip away.

He should stay his own man, Piers Morgan's more their cockwomble.

He was and realised telalivision was just that.

Humility? No. Arrogance and pomposity, yes.

Absolutely right on reply!

What.....he's one of the most arrogant men I've ever come across - and a bully (just look at his tweets during Covid)

Humility? Arrogant as hell! I don't know where he is taking that he is reasonable and logical? How he could be so sure? That just different level of believing. I love sience and as that one theory what was "true" yesterday might be proven false tomorrow... and relay on Darwin evolution theory is f*&ck up, when it was exposed that he actually falsified some of his "discoveries"! There are some new updates and still too many unknown. What he is saying it's just other believe, many falsehoods, which he is saying as facts, but they are not facts.

@@helencheung2537 Which of his books made you form this opinion of him?

Anti theism now theres a thought😊

be glad you weren't born in the 1800s

You are assuming that the future will be good and that you would want to see it.

@@PointNemo9 I'd rather assume it's going to be good.

@@elirien4264 Why?

@@PointNemo9 It's an assumption based on the progress of science and technology over the past few thousand years, so I'm certain it's a pretty sound assumption. And yes, good or bad, I want to see it.

He’s a scholar…..he also used to DEBATE a lot as regards belief in a god etc, things like that……

Never heard of him? How the hell do you go through life and never hear of one of the most prominent scientists in the world?

@@jackwhitbread4583 A British biologist is not likely to turn up on a whim in my reading and he doesn’t figure all over the media just because you know him 😉

@@purpledragonfly313 He's not just any old British biologist, though. He's a bestselling author and one of the leading writers of popular science books. His 1976 book, _The Selfish Gene,_ topped a public poll of the most inspiring science books of all time. And it introduced the world to the word "meme", which is a word that you _might_ have heard. Anyway, now you have heard of him, you can buy all of his books and read every one of them. They are all well worth reading. :)

@@jackwhitbread4583 . I imagine this is a perfect example of how we are becoming more and more separated from each other due to algorithms. Unless people make a concerted effort to break out of their information silos, they can be fed articles, videos, music, lifestyle choices and political opinions that coincide with their biases. When people follow only the recommended info streams, they can easily become disconnected with reality. Especially in politics, unscrupulous operators will ruthlessly feed confirmation bias, which has led to the mad culture wars we are seeing at the moment. Many of the 'viral' issues that consume so many people and provoke so much outrage and anger, in fact have NO direct personal effect on their lives. Manufactured outrage is VERY lucrative to media companies and content creators. The corporate financial hijacking of our economies effects EVERYONES, yet serious debate and discussion of this issue is rarely spoken of. Gender issues, however which is a highly personal matter between medical professionals and their patients, has become a constant media war, sucking all the oxygen from the room, and taking a disproportionate amount of attention away from really important matters.

Amen

most of the New Atheists back this ''nonsense'' because atheists are by nature Left Wing - as in communism - materialism-atheistic Marxism... as in China

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X-cxUYmxiTs.html

What Richard failed to mention is that many doctors and scientists support the idea of gender fluidity and there being over one hundred genders. Many once reputable medical publications refer to birthing people. So much for finding the truth by following the science

Envy is unnecessary even if used as a figure of speech. I would never nor have I ever typed the words envy/envious/jealous to describe a feeling towards another.

I'm envious of Andrew, in the same room as Dawkins and a full head of black hair. That's the dream.

Totally share your feelings mate;)

​@@sjohnson65456 Envy is a natural human emotion, most social animals have envy and show jealousy

Screw those people and screw IGN for thinking that we care

Looked like a struggle to me. For myself, and both involved.

Good one funny

That would depend on the mood ole' Hitch was in...

Sorry to hear about your mother, but so happy for the holy water and eternal life..... yeah, holy water and eternal life.... makes sense no?

If you were logical you would be an atheist. I hate Piers Morgan too.

.. I fell off a tree when I was ten. I didn't even feel my body hitting the ground. I passed out for a few hours .. the next thing I knew was in bed and I remember a searing excruciating pain through my back as I tried to get up. So I did missed schooling for a couple of weeks. So that's my take, too .. I mean, if I go I want to go while in my sleep. I worry not of being dead .. but of suffering/ in great pains before dying.

Until being fitted with a pacemaker, I suffered from blackouts which occurred without warning and I realised how it was possible to just drop dead as people sometimes do.I was fortunate; my heart restarted. Had it not, I’d never have known. My GP told me recently that I was lucky to be alive (heart again) from which I took it that I was living on borrowed time. The idea of death’s proximity doesn’t bother me. I”ll just no longer be there as I haven’t been every night of my life. I’ve never believed in God, heaven or hell and won’t start now.

Dawkins caved to the muslim mob and is now scared for saying anything against Allah....if Piers is a fool, Dawkins is a f#ag

Yeah untill you realise he's an Epstein acolyte. When all we are, are gene replicating systems, it can really lead to some fcked up ends

I thought he must have called him a fagg.

'he described Piers Morgan as a fool.' ... sadly Piers was probably flattered

QUESTION: richard claims that trans goes against biology and thus, wrong but why does he support homosexuality? Does that not go against biology? Like, its scientifically proven.that the correct sexes to get together are males and females for our genes to pass on So, why is Richard not against homosexuality? Anyone?