I was a gifted student and young mensa member who left high school to escape from the idiocy and wait for direct college admission. I'll put it this way; college was not merely significantly dumber than high school. I also was working retail to pay my bills. Having conversations about politics with my minimum wage coworkers became an intellectual escape from the sheer woke, pillpopping stupidity and fanatical anti-white racism of my university. Merely not being exposed to such garbage makes for a far more vibrant mind.

@turnerfamilyinozi

Жыл бұрын

What is the definition of woke?

@THEEMADDHEADDOCTOR

Жыл бұрын

@@turnerfamilyinozi The Definition Of Woke Is The Total Disregard Of Definitions Which Is Why The Question Was Asked, What Is A Woman ???

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

I know people who know you and what you just said is all made up.

@lukeduke6693

Жыл бұрын

@@turnerfamilyinozi The term woke initially began in black ethnocentrist circles as slang for "awake" to signify belief in a theory that blacks are the true humans and that other races were artificially engineered by a traitorous black scientist. This term soon spilled over into the more mainstream black power culture, was used by several radical activists and "woke" shirts became popular there in the 2010s. From there, along with the invention of the "microaggression", it was adopted by the trans movement and "tumblr' scene (which is ironic because the black racial movement had been rather anti-gay). At that point, it became an umbrella term for viral beliefs that are unbacked by science or history, but spread through academia and cinema via physical or financial intimidation. 2020 onwards, it has most often been used by the western right to describe public submission to nonsensical, nonscientific and often short-lived mob ideologies, ranging from early covid hysteria to russiagate believers. Institutionally it refers to powerful "civil rights" groups that achieve their original goals, are faced with the prospect of disbanding, and instead invent increasingly absurd and specific allegations of "supremacy" to the point that their political demands necessitate the subjugation of others and the censorship of the sciences.

@dragonfox2.058

Жыл бұрын

@@lukeduke6693 thank you..perfect summation

It is tragic. Universities were supposed to be the antithesis of what they are now. They were supposed to challenge young people's preconceptions and previously held beliefs. To expand their world. Expand their comfort zone, not indulge it. To make them ready for the world. The life ahead. Which is a bumpy ride. Instead universities are basically functioning as babysitting services for after-school young adults. Completely failing their duties as educational bodies and only functioning as businesses. As long as the almighty dollar is driving this educational machine, it will keep churning out these pompous, spoilt, overpriviliged, clueless, weak spirited, self righteous ideologs who are convinced that they are entitled to change everybody and everything around them in order to maintain their personal comfort zone.

@Fortnite87463

Жыл бұрын

I just finished a bachelors degree at uni last year and none of that was anywhere close to correct

@ivareskesner2019

Жыл бұрын

​@@Fortnite87463 Yes. I have one myself, mate. You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'm not having a go at education. That would be absurd. I'm talking about a specific subgroup of people who come through the system and are indulged at every turn. They pay money and feel entitled to never feel uncomfortable in the world. If you've studied on campus long enough, you will have met some. And, unfortunately, they are the ones who have influenced the atmosphere in universities the most because it is easier for unis to indulge them than to stand ground on a principle.

@Teri_B.

Жыл бұрын

😃🏆👏

@ohasis8331

Жыл бұрын

I did a mature age admission, wound up with a working group of two forty year olds, a 17 and a 20 year old. Whenever we decided on a meal break, a pizza run, a pub run or any decision to cater for the group members, the 17 and 20 year olds had differing tastes and would argue the "best" item to get. The older ones would make the decision and go get it. The 17 year old would constantly argue that it wasn't fair. One day I asked "to whom?" For about 3 years I got the 'fish out of water' look then one day, the penny dropped.

@vikingsuperpowers

Жыл бұрын

I did a Masters in Visual Art at a University Art School 20 years and was told 'artistic genius is over, a construct of the patriarchy, a defunct paradigm. To succeed as an artist YOU MUST BE ONE OF US' (I kid you not.) The 'Professor' teaching this had a business degree and knew zilch about drawing painting art history etc etc. A cultural dictatorship straight up, blighting many lives and destroying culture.

I thought before watching that the title of the show was a reference to his guests. Now realise Piers Morgan uncensored, means he tells his opinions to many different people

@alexlocatelli2876

Жыл бұрын

His problem is he almost never waits until his guest has finished talking, therefore he quite often ends up in a shouting duel with them.

Universities were supposed to teach people how to think, now they tell people how to think.

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

I think it's worse than that, they stop students thinking, reality is irrelevant to them.

What's the point in Piers Morgan interviewing anyone when all he does is interrupt them and not allow them to get a word in edgeways

@ohasis8331

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. It wa a good interview as it showed me the nature of Piers and that is a massive insecurity.

@patriciagraham222

Жыл бұрын

Loves his own voice.. overbearing and boring really!

Universities have become extended day care centres. Look at event in Hobart with Kellie Jane. Was worse than even Melbourne. Nearly all young university students.

@lucindafergusonart

Жыл бұрын

they shutup Man Haters

@ohasis8331

Жыл бұрын

Infants who think they're adults demanding these things little realising that they are the extension of the product that their parents produced and had to keep it alive long enough for it to reproduce. A thirteen year old kid once mentioned in casual conversation that in nature, there are no rights or wrongs, merely consequences. With man, we develop these little rules in order to keep those kids safe from themselves in order to avoid those consequences. They then stumble blindly on trying to tell everyone what to do in order to make it so.

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

@@lucindafergusonart At least you accept they're all men.

@lucindafergusonart

Жыл бұрын

@@hetrodoxly1203 not keen on anyone who hates half of the population i believe its a flawed ideology offcourse i understand its an ism

He's instantly my hero, finally a man with common sense

@itsmorphed6416

Жыл бұрын

Really ? He's a cold Android. If he doesn't know , which he doesn't, then people can believe what is helpful to them .

@rockydj1000

Жыл бұрын

@@itsmorphed6416 and what are you? A delusional bot?

Piers again proving he is a bit dim.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

May I suggest you read the Antichrist and a cup of tea, by Tim Cohen. I think you will find it very interesting.

Poor Richard. He must have felt like he was talking to a 5 year old.

@tonyabrown7796

Жыл бұрын

He must have enjoyed speaking to someone so much wiser than himself then.

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

A five year old would listen more !

@xx3868

Жыл бұрын

Lump altogether , Gods, communism, gambling, psychics, they all use tricks and gullibility and power over you and Morgan here just cant unravel his Catholic teachings that tell him there MUST be a creator as thats the only answer yet we find all things evolved including the universe and well i wrote a i long paragraph in the comments about why there isnt a god behind this or very unlikely if you count odds and common sense.

@chrisg8321

Жыл бұрын

Well he doesnt enjoy chatting with people smarter than him. He kept refusing to debate William Lane Craig.

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisg8321 there’s plant life more intelligent than Craig

It would be very nice if Piers Morgan just tops talking occasionally to allow Richard Dawkins to answer

@Mexicangirl2411

Жыл бұрын

If Richard Dawkins had any wisdom it would be worth listening to him, but unfortunately as clever as he thinks he is he was not even able to answer a lot of Piers Morgan's questions.

@jamesk1k

Жыл бұрын

@@Mexicangirl2411 So according to you Piers Morgan is justified to talk over his guest if the guest is deemed unwise. In that case Piers Morgan does not need guests since I'm sure that he (and possibly you) think no one is wiser than Piers.

@Mexicangirl2411

Жыл бұрын

@James K my friend, I am not looking for confrontation, I am merely saying, that Richard Dawkins is not as clever as he thinks he is. And furthermore if you don't like the way Piers Morgan presents his show why do you bother to watch. Have a good day.

@jamesk1k

Жыл бұрын

@@Mexicangirl2411 You are right. I don't watch Piers as a rule but I watched this video to hear Dawkins but mostly heard Piers. Just for the record - I'm a Dawkins fan.

@Mexicangirl2411

Жыл бұрын

@James K well I apologize if what I said offended you, I am not a fan of anybody, it was my first time ever watching Piers Morgan's show, but did not think too much of Richard Dawkins, to me he is not the smartest smartie I have ever come across. But did not mean to upset you.

Piers did not let Dawkins finish his points. The points Dawkins are trying to make require patient listening. This interview was a disaster because of Piers. No light was shed.

Piers Morgan, when you're in the presence of mind so much better than yours, listen don't talk.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

May I suggest, The Antichrist and a cup of tea, by Tim Cohen. Very informative.

@ohasis8331

Жыл бұрын

Can't help himself.

@HarrySmith-hr2iv

Жыл бұрын

An interview is meant to provoke lively discussion. Which Piers did admirably.

@mariamatusiewicz4280

Жыл бұрын

God is the Mastermind of the universe. Richard has no mind because he believes in nothing.

@intellifly747

Жыл бұрын

Tell him

That was the perfect interview. Piers Morgan couldn't hold back from interjecting, listening to part of the answer and skipping about like a school girl. Richard Dawkins was the grown up in the room, quietly spoken, did not attempt to compete for space to finish his point. He was articulate, concise, and patient. This is an excellent interview for Piers to review, reflect on and perhaps change his style out of respect for his viewers and not out of the need to be combative, competitive, or egocentric. We all remain hopeful.

@HarrySmith-hr2iv

Жыл бұрын

An interview is meant to provoke lively discussion. Which Piers did admirably.

@Ed_Downunder

Жыл бұрын

@@HarrySmith-hr2iv Thank you, Harry. Looks like I got that wrong. I was under the impression that the views of Richard Dawkins were the subject. I do have a clear view now that Piers is a Catholic and heaven is a future option. 😇

@HarrySmith-hr2iv

Жыл бұрын

@@Ed_Downunder : In your opinion, yes. I pointed out it was a discussion, an exchange of viewpoints. It is subjective and no one can prove a subjective concept is right or wrong. Got it? Your subjective appraisal of Piers uses childish, school girl language...you sound like a freshie Uni. student trying to act like an adult. Try to replace your girly emotional outbursts with careful reflective thinking. It will help you greatly.

@Ed_Downunder

Жыл бұрын

@@HarrySmith-hr2iv Harry you are rude. However, I will respond. Discussions are informal and open-ended conversations among participants, interviews are structured conversations between an interviewer and an interviewee to gather information, and forums are online discussion platforms where users can share information and interact with others on various topics. Piers starts off by saying he is going head-to-head. In that context, I concede it was not an interview. "Going head to head", as you probably know, is an idiom that means to engage in direct competition or conflict with someone and confront each other in a direct and often aggressive manner. However, Richard Dawkins did not engage in the 'head -to-head, but allowed himself to be interviewed. An interview is a formal conversation between two people, usually conducted by one person (the interviewer) who asks questions to the other person (the interviewee). The purpose of an interview is to gather information, opinions, or insights from the interviewee, who is typically an expert or a person with specific knowledge or experience on a particular topic. Interviews are structured and follow a predetermined set of questions or topics, and the interviewer generally controls the conversation. In your reply you say "In your opinion, yes". Well, it's my opinion that counts. It was my comment originally. By all means disagree with me. That is the freedom exercised on this forum. The point of my original comment was to highlight that Piers has a dominating interjection style, that prevents the free flow of an answer. You mistook mild sarcasm for youth. As an older person, I appreciate an interview where the subject is the hero, not the combative style of the interviewer. As far as being a girl, you are quite wrong. I was born whilst the Korean War was was just getting started. In fact, I was born 3 weeks after the British Army landed in Korea in September 1950. My father was a Korean Veteran, he has since passed. There is no need for you to apologise for your youthful outburst or indiscretion. As a final thought, I don't usually rely on my age as an authority for my comments. However, in your case it was important that you learn to treat people with respect and not prejudge people by forming an uneducated opinion, based on imagination.

@HarrySmith-hr2iv

Жыл бұрын

@@Ed_Downunder I read the very first sentence and very last sentence of your word salad. It was risible. I don't have to treat you with respect you windbag. Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Richard Dawkins is not a 'controversialist' or offensive. In the vast majority of debates I have seen him in, he is extremely polite -- far more so than his opponents and most other public atheists. What he does, however, is to just make the points that should be made without backing down or censoring himself to stop the other side getting irate. He very rarely adds to that anything that is unnecessarily antagonistic. The difference is clear. If you tell a friend who is overweight but has not noticed that they are overweight then that is factual and a helpful message. If you say they are overweight because they are a stupid, greedy pig then that's unnecessarily antagonistic and offensive. I think this ability that Dawkins has is key to his extraordinary influence, including a large number of people who have been helped out of religions by his work.

It's painful listening to people who've never given a science textbook a look before... It's like the first time Piers has ever thought of any of this stuff. What a turnip!

Imagine going to Heaven and finding Piers Morgan there. It would make you wish that you'd led a life of dissolution and debauchery.

Richard Dawkins is a treasure glad to see him alive and well

@sivaratnamasabaratnam8946

Жыл бұрын

Tell the treasure to comment on Pilt down man's controversy! the topic which every evolutionalist avoid! Darwinist Charles Dawson's fraudulence was exposed!

@mariamatusiewicz4280

Жыл бұрын

Without belief in Christ, Richard is spiritually dead. I hope he will believe before he dies.

He's on Uncensored yet you censored his quote. Great stuff.

@sivaratnamasabaratnam8946

Жыл бұрын

Peter...Tell the treasure to talk about the "Piltdown man's controversy"All evolutionist avoid that subject! With also the Richard Dawson's fraudulence attempt !

@tysondog843

Жыл бұрын

@@sivaratnamasabaratnam8946 The discovery from 1923, that was definitively demonstrated as a hoax in 1953... You're only 70 years behind the times...

An interview is meant to provoke lively discussion. Which Piers did admirably.

Piers has always had a problem interviewing his guests, he just can’t STFU and let them answer his questions 🤨

This guy is AMAZING, he actually acknowledges the fact we don't know what happened. Just because you don't know doesn't mean god did it...

@the8thchurch461

Жыл бұрын

God is too divisive, misogynistic to be the answer.

@sivaratnamasabaratnam8946

Жыл бұрын

@@the8thchurch461 Satan has a misandrist witch and Simpy wizards!😃😃

@the8thchurch461

Жыл бұрын

@@sivaratnamasabaratnam8946 Let me guess, you think we should all look up to the TALIBAN?

@mabusestestament

Жыл бұрын

There’s nothing amazing about it really, not *knowing* what happened, but instead having models and theories and speaking in terms of probability/ likelihood, is the standard scientific approach.

@mrmbendol

Жыл бұрын

If dawkin don't know, he should be agnostic yet he always claim to be gnostic atheist.

Oh Piers, the aim of science is to find out what we don't know, not to make something up to fill the gap.

@jillstevenson9585

Жыл бұрын

Are you sure about that? Ever heard of the Piltdown man? Ever thought Darwin was a racists..classifying people as sub human?

Remember Richard Dawkins in that doctor who episode when the Daleks move the Earth across the Universe at the end of season 4 and he's on about the stars moving and stuff

Piers Morgan is the worst interviewer ever. He never really wants to hear what his guest says, just talk himself. And when he does ask questions it's like he's bullying Richard into submission. I too believe in God, but I'd never aggressively ask a non-believer how painful it must be for them to lose a loved one. What a terrible thing to say to anyone.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

The Antichrist and a cup of tea, by Tim Cohen. Very informative.

@benkochess5334

Жыл бұрын

Not at all, it’s absolutely fair game with Dawkins who made many people incredibly unhappy with his obsession in dismissing anyone with religious belief. He was mercilessly. Now he’s getting old and a bit wiser Dawkins has lot more doubts about his own position, that’s clear

@benkochess5334

Жыл бұрын

I would agree Piers is often bullying but nothing to the degree that Dawkins has been

@jwadaow

Жыл бұрын

@@benkochess5334 Go back to the start of the interview where they covered the decline of the university and that is exactly what you are arguing for.

@jiminverness

Жыл бұрын

_"I too believe in God, but I'd never aggressively ask a non-believer how painful it must be for them to lose a loved one. What a terrible thing to say to anyone."_ I agree with you on the aggressiveness bit, but I think it is a very fair question. How many religious people get such an insight into those who have no belief in an afterlife, and the relative emotional effect of a loved one passing in comparison.

Piers is so ponderous as he gets to his schoolboy point about how it all started. We saw it coming a mile away.

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

100% I can’t figure out if he’s really that slow witted or if he’s accomodating his slow witted audience.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@Bork_Cruk May I suggest you read, The Antichrist and a cup of tea, by Tim Cohen. Very informative.

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

@@mariahewitt9787 You may suggest it

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@Bork_Cruk It's on KZread. Janie DuVall and Tim Cohen discussing the book. You may find it interesting.

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

@@mariahewitt9787 And I may not, and I need a better reason than the recommendation of a random person on the internet, on the Sky News comments of all places, to invest my time in something.

You get to say 1 thing. Athiesm: I know nothing. Religion: I know nothing. Therefore there is a god. Athiesm: Bruh did you not listen? 1 thing only. You only get to say 1 thing. Religion: dude, I don't get what I did wrong. Athiesm: I know you don't. Here's your allowance, and be good to jimmy. Make sure to be back before bed time.

I feel sorry for Richard. He's had a lifetime of listening to this nonsense. He does look tired!

What happened to the original question about the tragedy of safe universities? The last ten minutes of this was a conversation that is as old as the hills.

Richard Dawkins was very eloquent, thoughtful and charming in the face of Piers, (' good Catholic boy' ) rather bullish biligerant style, with the predictable slightly cringing' I can't believe we came from nothing ...so a supernatural God did it' comment.

Piers you are breath of asking the questions

4:36 _"What was there at the start?"_ At the start of what? At the start of the universe? Something else. Remember, nothing comes from nothing. Every new thing that comes into being is a transformation from something else.

@chrisg8321

Жыл бұрын

Nothing comes from nothing unless something supernatural occurs. Similar to how the natural prerogative of the universe is decay (entropy) yet something at the start of the universe defied this prerogative of nature and created ordered energy... something that defies nature is supernatural by definition... so yeah... Evidence of God, which one thou? ;)

its like watching an adult talk to a child who still believes in fairy tales

@Teri_B.

Жыл бұрын

Fairytales?

@tonyabrown7796

Жыл бұрын

The fairy tale of evolution you mean?

@douglasnakamura6753

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyabrown7796 Evolution is a proven fact. It happened - even the Catholic Church agrees.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@douglasnakamura6753 Science verifies the Bible. "Creation Confirmed "21-3-2023. May I suggest, The Antichrist and a cup of tea, by Tim Cohen. Very informative.

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

@@douglasnakamura6753 "Evolution is a proven fact." That, as Dawkins has admitted, has never been observed happening. It's not a fact at all, but a naturalistic (i.e. God-excluding) belief. "It happened - even the Catholic Church agrees." God doesn't. (And therefore many Catholics don't either.)

Piers is unable to understand the errors of logic he’s making

Such a vast difference in intellect, they might as well have got a dog to interview Dawkins.

@jillstevenson9585

Жыл бұрын

Yes a dog to interview him would be appropriate..Same language and intellect.

Bit of a wasted interview really, I bet Dawkins thought 'I've flown a thousand miles for THIS?

This could have been a decent program IF the guests were allowed to speak…instead we get Morgan spouting off and cutting off the people that we want to hear! NO ONE watches this to hear what Piers “Gormless” Morgan has to say.

The near death experience is most likely caused by a sudden release of DMT that causes this hallucination. It’s what people who used DMT describe as well. And I find it very comfortable that when I die it’s all over it all stops. I got the most out of my life and made stupid mistakes learned from the grew as a person and then I’m done. The idea of my conscious living in is a nightmare scenarios. Just dying and not knowing is something to look out to. I’m not afraid of dying, I don’t look for death but I don’t fear it anymore either. And I used to be really fearful off death and a massive hypochondriac.

The easy response to Piers argument is “what was there before god?”

@BasedBill_Lumbergh

Жыл бұрын

God has always existed. He had no beginning. Something had to have no beginning in order for everything to exist. Atheists believe that two atoms collided that caused the big bang. You can either believe the two atoms had no beginning, and then randomly decided to collide together. Or you can believe something created the atoms and then something had to creat the thing that created the atoms. And thereby you had a never ending chain of things creating things until the atoms are created that caused the big bang. Or you can believe that an intelligent life form had no beginning and created everything we know today. To me that seems the most reasonable.

@donaldmcronald8989

Жыл бұрын

​@@BasedBill_Lumbergh Aseity is just the property of having an internal reason for existing rather than an external one. And there's no reason why a universe can't possess such a property. Either the universe undergoes change for eternity, is static for eternity, or is a mixture of the two. But there's no space left over for a god and its furniture.

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

"The easy response to Piers argument is 'what was there before god?' " Piers didn't express things well. There is no "before" the beginning. But he still had a point as there _was_ a beginning, and without God, that beginning had no cause, which is anti-scientific nonsense. But God is eternal, and had no beginning, so your question is nonsense like asking who the bachelor is married to, or what shape is yellow.

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

@@donaldmcronald8989 "Either the universe undergoes change for eternity, is static for eternity, or is a mixture of the two." The universe is running down (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Ergo, it cannot have been undergoing change for eternity, and is not static. The only other explanation is that the material universe had a beginning that was caused by something immaterial, i.e. God. That is a logical deduction from the evidence.

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

@@PJRayment A beginning without god is unscientific nonsense? So you somehow think a beginning WITH god is scientific? Lol, what?

Shut up Richard, let Piers speak.

Always thought highly of Dawkins and this is the first time I listen to an interview of him. Surprised that he offered nothing of value. The opposite just despair, hopelessness, and zero purpose for the whole human existence!

Human brains have trouble dealing with uncertainty. One can learn to live with uncertainty, or one can postulate a certainty to believe in - in the absence of a definitive knowledge.

I thought he was censured by God him self... Wait, that was the other guy.

Many university students come from very religious families ... and when any subject (such as transgender) comes to the fore ... all hell breaks loose. When people in religion are certain that "their GOD" is offended ... no matter which subject ... discussion immediately becomes a shouting match.

Afterlife exists because it is too scary to think that after the tunnel and the white light there is nothing. I just cannot process it and although I'm a non believer I secretly hope I'm wrong and as Piers says, there is an agréable surprise in the white light!

@andyaim4764

Жыл бұрын

The thing about the afterlife gig is no one gets to find out they are wrong. That’s the beauty of the scam, think about it…. Religion preys on ppls fears, extracts money from the flock and killed so many ppl over the centuries, abuse, Inquisition, Crusades, the list is endless.

@chrisg8321

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for being open-minded.

The big bang "theory" is not simplistic. It relies on more and more unevidenced phenomena to explain why observations don't match expectations.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

"Creation Confirmed "21-3-2023 Science verifies the Bible.

This is great because so many mistakes are made by both sides. I want a transcript.

Richard openly confessed that he has no answers for the beginnings of everything, yet neither can Piers so his conclusion is God did it. Luckily we have science, which is the study of the natural world otherwise we wouldn’t achieve or know anything.

A real meeting of the mind

Really frustrating interview. Piers is clearly not listening or not understanding any of the points Dawkins is making. Piers keeps saying 'before', there was nothing 'before' the big bang as time did not exist. This is typical of those who have religious points of view. Piers needs to listen and understand opposing points of view before going into an argument.

@jillstevenson9585

Жыл бұрын

LOL..make something out of nothing then..Yes it was a big bang..how totally believable.😀😁😂😂😂

@bobjames1992

Жыл бұрын

@@jillstevenson9585 They just didn't make this theory up out of thin air like religion does with all its cock and bull stories. All the scientific evidence points to an event that they have called the Big Bang. And it wasn't a big explosion like you probably think it was. Try reading a book before you embarrass yourself again next time with your ignorance.

Very poor interview by Piers Morgan, R . Dawkins, wasn't able to put his views over, as P. talked far too much.

This is a little painful to listen to. Morgan not Dawkins.

Piers, you have to let some of your guests say a bit more...

Piers is not too bright, and Richard was very polite to suffer through that interview.

I think, therefore I am! or I am, therefore I think! Any preferences anyone?

What other system took people from human sacrifice to putting men on the moon?

Piers argument is "what came before it started" and his answer is god, but that's a contradiction, because that implies something would have had to come before god too... So he couldn't even answer his own question

@jillstevenson9585

Жыл бұрын

Lol..but Dawkins believes in aliens..lol

How embarrassing of Piers yet again.

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely The man can’t shut up for one second ! He claims to be open minded but you can by the arrogance of him he’s no intention thinking about his position

@wenedsday

Жыл бұрын

Piers.... Pathetic

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

Author Tim Cohen, can prove Dawkins wrong. The Antichrist and a cup of tea, is very informative.

It's also a fallacy to say we know God didn't do it.

If God created the Universe, then who created God? And if God is eternal and therefore did not need a Creator, then the same thing can be said about the Universe.

Morgan’s argument is utterly ridiculous. Watching your football win for all eternity, does he not think boredom would take hold. And what age are you in heaven? Do you stay the same age as when you die ? So if you lose a child when they are 5 do they age in heaven? Or stay 5. If you can’t answer this question then you have no idea of what heaven is so you basically know nothing about the afterlife, so you are in the same boat at the atheists.

Why should sombody think they should have another life

Where did this " original molecule " originate ?

@turnerfamilyinozi

Жыл бұрын

About 13 billion years ago.

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

Oh you got him with that one ! Must of been the Great Sky Daddy then eh ?

@4pmpm114

Жыл бұрын

@@stevenaustin8274 pull up with the "Sky Daddy" mockery...plz. Science states "A Big Bang" created all. From nothing to everything....... We state.....yep......

@Teri_B.

Жыл бұрын

@@stevenaustin8274 God, not a "great sky daddy." 🙏🏼💞 *must have been

@Teri_B.

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. 👍🏼 He just can't admit it. 😅🙏🏼💞

Saying science is easy to understand, but yet cannot explain the origins of science?

Whenever I listen to dawkins, the more I believe that there is a God

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

May I suggest, The Antichrist and a cup of tea, by Tim Cohen. I think you will find it very informative.

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

It’s amazing that you could feel that way after that interview where Piers main point was “You don’t know what happened therefore there’s a god” Which is the most inane logic ever.

@billie0429

Жыл бұрын

@@Bork_Cruk same as you dont know what happened thats why theres a big bang, just because a lot of priest told me theres a God is the same as a lot of scientist told you theres a big bang or even evolution. Just think about it, are we the ones being manipulated or is it you, may I remind you that you cant change the word of God, however, scientist change their theories all the time when it’s convenient to their narrative

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

@@billie0429 But I don’t know enough about the Big Bang to have a belief in it one way or the other, so you just put words in my mouth. “May I remind you that you can’t change the word of god” This statement assumes god exists, so how can it be an argument for his existence? That’s circular logic you mental minnow.

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

You sound like you’re getting dumber by the minute

Piers Morgan is smart but I find it hard to believe he can’t understand the point I don’t know and you don’t either

You’ve changed your tune Pierce.

We don't know how it started but we know what's happened the last 4 billion yrs. The reason we don't know how it started is because it was so long ago. 😅😂🤣

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

"Creation Confirmed " 21-3-2023.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 You better believe it.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 There is a 100 % Proof!If you're not willing to look for it, you will never know.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 Just Google: Creation Confirmed.

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

There will always be a point when you'll not know what went on before, we have a record of life on earth, looking back through the layers there's no form of life before 4 billion years.

Piers is asking questions that a five year old would ask… this is embarrassing to watch and I’m religious.

@jillstevenson9585

Жыл бұрын

Just like the child in the Emporers new clothes..Who ended up with egg on their face?

Piers Morgan is the wrong person to interview Dawkins. Sorry, but he is wasting Dawkins’ time. And mine too.

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

"Piers Morgan is the wrong person to interview Dawkins." Perhaps. But then Dawkins won't debate people who really could go toe-to-toe with him.

Dawkins is the architect of all of this. He basically said drop your religion and worship THE science (not the scientific process). South Park called it. Ex Mormons called him a religious nut job of the cult o science. You get what you work towards Dawkins. Fauci followed his teaching to its logical conclusion.

Correct about universities, but Morgan here displaying his absolute ignorance of the scientific method I’m afraid. I’m s jarring listening to him try to dismantle a mind like Dawkins.

Once upon a time there was a vast and empty void. It was an endless expanse of nothingness, with no matter, energy, or even light. But within this emptiness, there was a tiny spark. It was a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, where the laws of physics as we know them break down. And from this spark, the universe was born. At the very beginning of time, the universe was incredibly small and hot. All the matter and energy that would one day form galaxies, stars, and planets was packed into a tiny, zero-dimensional space. This space was so small that it could hold just a few elementary particles, the building blocks of matter. But even in this tiny space, something incredible was happening. The particles were held together by a powerful force, known as the Strong Nuclear Force. This force is responsible for binding the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom, and without it, the particles would simply fly apart. As the universe expanded and cooled, the particles began to combine to form atoms, molecules, and eventually, the first stars and galaxies. And yet, even as the universe grew and evolved, the Strong Nuclear Force continued to hold the particles together. As scientists peered deeper into the structure of matter, they discovered that the particles themselves were made up of even smaller building blocks, known as quarks. And once again, the Strong Nuclear Force was there, binding the quarks together to form protons and neutrons. The story of the Strong Nuclear Force is intimately connected to the story of our universe. It is the force that holds matter together, from the smallest particles to the largest structures in the cosmos. Without it, the universe as we know it could not exist. And so, as we gaze up at the stars and ponder the mysteries of the universe, let us remember the tiny, zero-dimensional space that holds our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force, and the role it has played in shaping our cosmic history.

What was there before the creator? Who created the creator? What was it made of? Where did that come from??? That’s something religious people seem to overlook in this question what was there before the Big Bang? And virtual particles coming In existence in a turbulent soup of “nothing” that’s not devoid of complex virtual particles. Is more reasonable than a God. Even the more reasonable is attested by other scientists. It’s a question we simple cannot proof or disprove either way. As we simple cannot go before space and time in this realm we live in.

I find it intriguing and bizarre what Dawkins says near the end. That he believes there are likely to be super-Beings out there - and yet he’s absolutely sure there is no super-being that created us. Amazing dichotomy going on there

@Bork_Cruk

Жыл бұрын

Not really, we have evidence that life can evolve, and the universe is vast, therefore it’s logical to assume this has happened more than once. That’s a much smaller leap of logic than “a giant invisible man that disapproves of masturbation created everything”

@ZELJKO472

Жыл бұрын

Dawkins is free to hold his views. What I find objectionable about him is he wants people of all religions (there are thousands of religions some fall into spirituality type religions a la native persons) and he wants them to be forced to violate their consciences.

@jwadaow

Жыл бұрын

@@ZELJKO472 what if your conscience is wrong? Conscience doesn't mean a good thing it just means it's the one that belongs to you.

@Michael-ex9sw

Жыл бұрын

Well when you think that it all started with an atom and now we have all this, one could easily think that it must have happened multiple times and produced multiple universes, some of which have gone through their own type of natural selection for many more billions of years than us resulting in far superior beings. I think it's entirely consistent with his thinking and why he is so enamoured with the subject and why he thinks it's so much more beautiful and wondrous than the God hypothesis

pretty poor piers

"Once you have a self-regulating entity... ...we don't know how it started..." Yes, we do. 😊🙌🏼☝️🙏🏼💞

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

Such is the arrogance of faith ! They claim to know 😂

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

@@stevenaustin8274 "Such is the arrogance of faith ! They claim to know" Biblically, "faith"-contrary to the meaning that atheists love-is trust based on _evidence_ of being trustworthy. Yes, we claim to know, because we have good evidence, unlike the atheist, who *claims to know* that we can't know. What arrogance!

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@PJRayment Author Tim Cohen. The Antichrist and a cup of tea is very informative.

@michealedwards7849

Жыл бұрын

@@PJRayment A delusional love affair with a magic sky daddy does not prove a magic sky daddy.

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

@@PJRayment you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever ! you’ve probably been told this nonsense since childhood in church and Sunday school ect Faith breeds arrogance and ignorance and you’re a good example of that

Look at Richard's face at 12.19. I've never seen that expression on his face before after watching him for decades. There is a vulnerability there. I pity him, in a way. I think like him, too! I only think logically. He looks devastated that he cannot find it in himself to believe in life after death as it would be a comfort for him. His mind won't let him and I feel it hurts him deeply because he is closer to death than ever.

@benkochess5334

Жыл бұрын

I agree that’s how I felt watching it. What I’d say is that with age one can become wise and I’ve never viewed Dawkins as wise, I’ve seen him very intelligent in a narrow vision. I sense he’s becoming wise and he may realise the folly of his ego assertions throughout his life, and gradually accept there’s more to life than he thought.

@jiminverness

Жыл бұрын

@@benkochess5334 He's wiser than most.

@Marjorydawesy

Жыл бұрын

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

I actually like what he's saying about it, it doesn't help people to fight each other over what nobody can prove. He's correct, however people won't all see it that way, and that's the way it is. I really like his honesty! He is humble about it all. I, like Einstein & Elon, believe in Spinoza's god. The funny thing about all of this, is that people are still arguing over who's right, or wrong.

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

"it doesn't help people to fight each other over what nobody can prove." What makes you think it can't be proved? "The funny thing about all of this, is that people are still arguing over who's right, or wrong." Yes, you'll always have people who reject the evidence for God because they don't like the implications, and those who accept the evidence.

@mariahewitt9787

Жыл бұрын

@@PJRayment Author Tim Cohen. The Antichrist and a cup of tea is very informative.

Piers thinks he’s clever but always an intellectual lightweight.

@HarrySmith-hr2iv

Жыл бұрын

An interview is meant to provoke lively discussion. Which Piers did admirably.

When I was at University you were either a Feminist or someone who shuts up about it , i didn't and spent a lot of time arguing with them, generally probably the problems stem back to Tony Blair and "always follow the money" explains what went wrong. I definitely found the University was thought oppressive in that you had to be a left wing British hating feminist which I am not.

Piers doesn't get it.

Not so, Prof Dawkins or Mr Twain (if you said it). Before we were born we had not lived but when we die we have lived. We differ from a stone which has never lived.

Why should someone dying have comfort? All he's saying is "believe in god so your friends dying is easier" wtf can argument is that? Just accept reality

Morgan is out of his depth here

Piers is intellectually incapable of understanding Richard's point.

Piers Morgan is very disappointing. He clearly has a shallow understanding of the topic he engaged in.

Read the Canon of Rudolf Steiner and then you'll both know.

I think Dawkin has partner now in interview, what ever he expresses his point then there would be a "doubt" response to his point. From this interview, we know that both of them don't know. However, we can choose one of them could be right, either Dawkin or Piers Morgan. Let suppose I believe Dawkins, then that mean I risk my life to hold his view on there is no God and then i'll be damned in hell forever (if finally Dawkins is wrong). Another option is, I believe in Piers Morgan's view i.e. I believe in God and do good deeds, then if Piers Morgan is wrong (i.e. Dawkins is right), then there will be no consequence after all. So from this decision, it is wiser to think and benefit me if I do believe there is a God and there will be life after death as Piers Morgan's view.

Does he believe in ‘the science’..? Because that’s been proven wrong massively recently

@mk1479

Жыл бұрын

Watch the interview of him and Ben Stein... Ben put him is such a spot that this muppet doesn't have any words of logic and sense. He has no clue whatsoever...

@niccovisconti1712

Жыл бұрын

That was Dr. Fauci science. Who took science and twisted to fit his narrative.

@pwillis1589

Жыл бұрын

No he hasn’t. Evolution is a scientific fact, well beyond reasonable doubt.

@After_Pasta

Жыл бұрын

science hasn't been proven wrong as science is not correct or incorrect it is the method of calculating complex theories the fact we are sitting here commenting on a youtube video via several mathematical algorithms easily proves that

@stevenaustin8274

Жыл бұрын

The “Science” as you call it is all around you ! it allows you to make ridiculous comments on your device to You Tube and it probably governs most of your life in one way or another so to say it’s failed is just plain stupid

My suggestion to Richard Dawkins would be to randomly cast the question, if he is courageous enough, 'God, are you real?'... He may be surprised at the answer he receives! I was brought to church as a child and I asked that question as a teenager, I'm 64 years old now and the answers continue to come!

@petermclaren2665

Жыл бұрын

As a child the thing I didn't like about church was all the standing up, sitting down and kneeling. I didn't know why the priest couldn't just pick a position and get on with it. I was a stunner when I was nine.

@michealedwards7849

Жыл бұрын

I think he has already asked that.

@ohasis8331

Жыл бұрын

@@michealedwards7849 . . . and found the answer.

@Kelly_Kapowski

Жыл бұрын

Shut up.

If there is no god, then how can you do 'damage' another person? How can you 'damage' yourself? (What would it matter, if you did?) Define 'damage'. All things being relative, the person becomes the arbiter of 'damage' don't they? Or do they become a god? (Replace 'person' or 'they' with 'self' alternatively for an immediate conflict of 'damage'. However IF there IS a God, all subjectivity (making self the arbiter, the only [of billions] god) dissolves, and all each human is left with is divining or knowing the will of that real God, rather than the will of the selfish.

Dawkins does have faith. He actually had blind and unfounded faith. This is not a matter of intellectualism and ignorance because there are brilliant Christian scientists also. This is a matter morality and faith.

If Piers Morgan would shut up and let the man finish his sentences we may have been enlightened somewhat, however he did not, and threw away a great opportunity for a good debate ,obviously his upbringing did not include such basics as good manners , I also was raised as a catholic, I had no choice , none of did as kids, we were in a position where we had to accept dogma , that is the real tragedy of organised Religion, let kids grow up to be adults before you attempt to indoctrinate them and see how far you get. For the record I stopped accepting the brainwashing I was subjected to when I was about 14 years old.

Piers , what's 2+ 2 ? . Richard : 4. Piers; .yeah but what was there before the 2??

can't describe nothing hm? anything, nothing, everything, something, all and none simultaneously, a lack of all and through that acceptance of all, indifference to what will and won't be. simply put....it's chaos,and chaos is beautiful. not long ago humanity couldn't even comprehend molecules much less atoms or smaller, imagine what's left behind the veil? whatever is left in the blackest shadow is the last found. find it,move it,make it....find your broken world there.

Why does the first cause have to be complex?

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

RD is saying it wasn't complex.

@MBS-oo2yv

Жыл бұрын

@@hetrodoxly1203 No, he isn't.

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

@@MBS-oo2yv Yes he did.

@MBS-oo2yv

Жыл бұрын

@@hetrodoxly1203 No, he did not.

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

@@MBS-oo2yv kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y4Wsl85wnZe3d9I.html&lc=UgxODBzPgM646harmYh4AaABAg.9nZNkFOPBJb9ngAl3nvdRo

I find it interesting how Richard Dawkins speaks of being able to speak freely and universities yet he wants to shut out any talk of God in those very places of Education

@turnmeloose

Жыл бұрын

His admission that he's spent his entire life in universities spoke volumes about his limited general knowledge of the world. Don't use terms like self-regulating entity.

@hetrodoxly1203

Жыл бұрын

He's never said that.

A roadblock to eternal bliss in the afterlife -- the one where everything is peachy and we are reunited with those we truly loved and who made living on earth positive, joyful experiences -- is different expectations from different individuals. Say, for instance, an adult's significant other dies 'much too yoiung' so s/he ends up with another partner / mate for the remainder of his / her existence. So, in the blissful afterlife where the streets are lined with gold, does the adult who had two spouses due to untimely death choose one mate over the other? . . . Children, young or of adult age when they die, of a couple who experienced divorce, a likely scenario: the female -- for whatever reason because emotions are so complicated -- was always partial to her birth mother whereas her brother much preferred his stepmom. So now we have siblings who got along and adore each other, but yet they're not going to be together in Heaven or a similiar, eternally 'happy place' because the girl loves her biological mom the most whereas her brother -- despite the fact his / their mom was absolutely great -- feels more fond of his stepmother.than his birth mother. Meanwhile 'the man of the house' might say / feel to his children, "Your mother was the best thing that happened to my life and / but I could not have asked for a better second wife. But, for eternity I'll choose 'number one'. How sad for the second wife AND for the children -- siblings who will be split for eternity over this. . . . Then, the whole idea of forgiveness of sins is over-the-top complex. How do you suppose the soul of a victim of a school shooting responds in the Afterlife when s/he -- while rejoicing with his / her beloved grandparents, beloved best friend, beloved girl friend / boy friend and, perhaps and quite logical, beloved favorite teacher -- see the maniacal, mass murderer who's 'gotten a pass' because s/he begged for 'forgiveness of sins' and his / her plea was accepted by the Higher Being? Thank you, Sky News Australia, for presenting this engaging, enlightening discussion between Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins, who for the benefit of their audience and because they're mature and behave like gentlemen, did not yell and 'name call'. (TMI: I will now resume reading the remainder of the 100 Comments; 100 as of 3-21-23.)

@PJRayment

Жыл бұрын

"Say, for instance, an adult's significant other dies 'much too yoiung' so s/he ends up with another partner / mate for the remainder of his / her existence. So, in the blissful afterlife where the streets are lined with gold, does the adult who had two spouses due to untimely death choose one mate over the other?" There is no marriage in heaven. That takes care of your entire first paragraph. "Then, the whole idea of forgiveness of sins is over-the-top complex. How do you suppose the soul of a victim of a school shooting responds in the Afterlife when s/he -- while rejoicing with his / her beloved grandparents, beloved best friend, beloved girl friend / boy friend and, perhaps and quite logical, beloved favorite teacher -- see the maniacal, mass murderer who's 'gotten a pass' because s/he begged for 'forgiveness of sins' and his / her plea was accepted by the Higher Being?" Easily (once they are in heaven, if not before). They rejoice that, like all of us, their sins have been forgiven, and they are now good people. I have a _lot_ of disagreement with Dawkins, but I would rejoice to see him in Heaven. You see a maniacal mass murderer as being a terrible person (which he is; I'm not minimising that), but from God's perspective of absolute perfection, so are you (and I). We are _all_ people who don't deserve heaven, but God grants His grace to us all, because none of us are capable of earning our way to heaven.

@pameladurst5316

Жыл бұрын

The Lord himself will be answer enough to all questions and complexities of earthly relationships and Jesus told his followers when asked about marriage in heaven, that in heaven there would be no marriages to one another. It seems to me that our freedom in heaven is to love our creator and in His complete wisdom, we'll be able to love one another as He loves us.

What the hell is god anyway?

When you or a family are have a well deserved sleep after hnow how beautiful nature is.