Hitch was one of a kind. I'm sure right wing pseudo intellectuals like Jordan Peterson would have been languishing in total obscurity if Christopher had lived another 10 years. He would have annihilated Peterson and his moronic conjectures

@@jupitermoongauge4055 omg I would kill to see Hitchens and Peterson on the same stage. Peterson's pontificating and gish-galloping wouldn't have lasted long.

Yes indeed to all.

Peterson isn’t fit to clean Hitchens’ boots.

YESSSSS!!! and his hitch-slaps!!! 😁👍

That food could be used to feed the poor, yet we fear losing money so much we are willing to throw away food in our vain efforts to SAVE MONEY!!! Luke 18:2

They agree on every point. They share the same culture, same economical system, political system, race and world view. There is no point of major disagreement. What i can't understand is that you are glad for no reason and that 2 white english speaking eurocentric guys are in agreement. I was not even expecting it,idiot. They hate the same folks, races and cultures. So, no matter if they show us they agree or not. They already misrepresented islam and christianity.

He hasn't been so civil about people when not face to face though. He's very quick to misrepresent the views of others and demonise people with whom he disagrees. He's just too much of a coward to say it in front of them. He's a pure and simple ideologue.

Couldn't agree more

Oh, shut up.........! Boot licking brown nose....

@@davidgraham8058 Just like everybody. Human behaviour.

Ever

There are some publications that should be withheld from the very young.

Taking porn out of classrooms isn't the same as banning books.

Well, I don't think an elementary schools student needs a book on how to build bombs. Other than overtly dangerous things though I agree.

@@markzuckergecko621where is the porn you’re talking about?

Except of course when he equated the increased number of people who feel comfortable to express their dysphoria as an "epidemic of measles". Evokes the language used toward gay people and black people in certain bygone eras (and today among the far right)

@@empiricalskeptic I mean right where he said an "epidemic of measles".

@@empiricalskepticwhat’s your point? He respects one single woman? But no one else? Address the actual comment by @accesscrimea, not some distraction effort.

@@sineadmurtagh943 Exactly, Dawkins "respecting" one single woman, but discrediting all the trans people with EQUALLY VALID situations and experiences is no consolation. This is the same thing the rightwing bigots would do with gay people. They'd pick one and say "we don't hate this one! We aren't hateful!" all while legislating against them and spreading hate. It's the same situation playing out against trans folks.

@@accesscrimeawhy are you writing the same response for all positive comments? People can like the interview without adhering to your sensibilities. Dawkins isn’t anti-lgbtq by any means.

Shame he does not apply that across the board.

Hell live on through the atheism alliance. Him and Mrs. Garrison well be pounding monkey holes for a long time coming

Yes. I mean even when I disagree with his view from time to time, I can understand where he’s coming from as he appears to think about it closely before responding. I can respect that. The man is also f’ing brilliant, so that helps.

Well, we don't know if we are going to die before him. Nothing is certain.

@@kirapoodle That's a fair point. Richard Dawkins is 82 with chronic high blood pressure and has been warned by his doctors to avoid controversies. Do you see that as possible in this crazy controversy filled world? And then there was Richard Leakey, Paul Farmer, Luc Montagnier, Beatrice Mintz, Beryl Benacerraf, Donald Pinkel, Robert F. Curl Jr., Ben Roy Mottelson, Arthur D. Riggs, Sophie Freud, Kamoya Kimeu and many other scientists who died just in 2022! Death is a part of life. I was devastated when Christopher Hitchens died. That man was a fantastic representative of the truth in my eyes. Dam those cigarettes and alcohol. Oh, and if we die before Dawkins, all our problems and concern evaporate with consciousness. Have a great day!.

A living legend to be sure. I admit to feeling sad at the thought he’ll one day not be with us.

You do realize that dawkins did ZERO of the work he took credit for... He did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contribute to paleontology, genome research, biological classification etc... While his predecessors (like Darwin) did all the work... All he did was read and regurgitate. As a "professor" he adopted the strategy of insulting people, when they posited questions that he couldn't answer... He's on record responding to students with, "that's a stupid question that doesn't deserve an answer..." I'd say any idiot can behave that way!!!

@@cameroncameron2826 lol You just had your five-second attention. Now regress to your inconsequential life.

Looking good for his age. 👍

Hardly

@@frelonvert6064 he looks better then some ppl here in America that are in there 60s

why do you know that information, nerd.

​@@bloodstone1992A healthy lifestyle and confidence in medical science goes a long way. I doubt Dawkins was popping Ivermectic while bloviating about preserving his "free-dumbs."

I like Dawkins because he has a sort of obliviousness to the trending narrative and answers things as he honestly sees them

This interviewer is the exact opposite of Russel Brand.

*Professor Dawkins

I'm very impressed by how neutral and understanding David managed to come across. Not often you hear a progressive being this receptive to alternative opinions.

@@maxkho00 I think he just realized how silly he would look to disagree with one of the greatest living biologists about whether sex is binary.

The "God Delusion" is just an anti-Abrahamic religions narrative with scientific arguments against patriarchal totalitarian omnipotent God. I agree with Dawkins, all Abrahamic gods are inhumanely oppressive and hinders the human development of societal culture because of its sickening perception toward people's lives.

Yeah...There's no God delusion whatsoever. God placed evidence if you know where to look. "professing to be wise, they became fools". Richard Dawkins was one of the most idiotic people ever given a chance to speak.

@@TheConstitutionalOathkeeper Congratulations......you just reinforced every claim that Dawkins has ever made about people like you. Quick to judge, quick to anger, and slow to understand - just like the god you worship. I spent years studying the origins of the bible, and where the ideas in it came from. I spent years debating people like yourself about the existence of god - and your crappy one-liner platitudes such as - "You just have to know where to look!" Know where to look...... Where? The bible? Already tried that - turns out that it's man-made fiction. Outer space? Already tried that. Nothing has come fourth that has presented itself as a god for all to see. My mind? Already tried that. Turns out it was nothing more than years of indoctrination and brainwashing. So what do you have left but to make ignorant slags against a world-renown scientist and educator? You have nothing in your arsenal. I have debated the likes of you more times than I can count, and you people always get sent home with your tail between your legs, because you don't have any good arguments for your beliefs that cannot be backed by any historical or scientific evidence. So don't even try, you're wasting your time. This will be my only reply, so with that being said - good day.

'The God Delusion' is a great book. I enjoyed it.

Yes, exactly this. I'm not thrilled with a number of views he's espoused over the years, but he did set me down a path of learning and exploration that changed my life. For that alone he'll always hold a special place for me.

Nobody’s perfect. He would be the first to admit that. He is more honest than many though.

@@bretwilliams249out of curiosity. What are some of his views that you have disagreement with?

What on earth could his views be that you disapprove of?

They're likely referring to his views on social topics like transgender. I'm most bothered by comments he's made that undermine sexual harm towards children. Like when he essentially insinuated people needed to toughen up because he was molested by an adult and turned out fine. Not sure if you're familiar with this? He broached this sentiment more than once in interviews. Look up 'mild pedophilia' with his name and I am sure you'll see them... Indeed nobody is perfect, and I agree with much of what Dawkins says on a number of topics.

Except when he equated the increased number of people who feel comfortable to express their dysphoria as an "epidemic of measles". Evokes the language used toward gay people and black people in certain bygone eras (and today among the far right)

@accesscrimea I don't agree with every thing he says either.

​​@@accesscrimeae's a career biologist and famous atheist writer, I wouldn't expect him to know about the latest, or any, lgbt issues, or where to get that info. His take seems kinda wild

@@moezandy9367 Which is fine of course, but I do take genuine umbrage with his frankly disgusting wording above and beyond any simple disagreement. Let's attribute it to a bout of ageitius!

@@accesscrimea Yeah, that one was hurtful to hear. Like, OK, I get maybe suggesting "punching TERFs in the face" isn't going to garner anyone's sympathy, and that the language we have for describing things sometimes is (speaking strictly from a language perspective) not the clearest it could be. That said, trans people asking to be treated like people and then being up against all of the targeted bulling from TERFs and LGB groups AND anti-lgbtq+ groups here - expecting no reaction at all is asking for far too much.

kzfaq.infoZtndH3mHPR4?feature=share

I mean you're just factually wrong, and that wasn't even Peterson's claim.

As a Canadian, who isn't a fan of Jordan Peterson, that wasn"t his concern He argued that the bill would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech, which would be a legitimate concern. However, most legal experts think not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for the Criminal Code offence of promoting hatred.

Peterson was better as a self-improvement and good habit promoting professor. Now he's gone off the rails and the weird deep end of religious nutcases

​@jamesshepherd9390 Peterson's claims about Bill C-16 were widely and publicly debunked by a host of legal experts years ago. I wasn't even close. It was flat out lies and he never corrected himself when confronted by the facts which makes it not an honest mistake but makes him a liar and bad faith actor.

​@@Avatinfernus he's one of those people who is not always right ,but is never wrong. A deGrasse Tyson -Peterson debate would rapidly descend into an ego contest.

I will admit that it was interesting to see Rosie O'Donnell behaving like a civilized human being for the first time that I can recall.

@@warlockpaladin2261 When you have friends, family, neighbors and your publicist tell you to act that way for decades...eventually it clicks :D

​@@zacharyshort384I still remember how she won herself the dubious achievement of being the first host on The View to get booted off the show entirely... but at least she has matured since then, so better late than never. 😅

Except when it comes to his unsupported assertions about gender.

​@@porkramen Your claim is that his "assertion is unsupported", but what he spoke to as a biologist is the relative biological truths and he is one of the foremost people in the world to speak on the matter and his claims are fully backed by the data.

@@forex_shark6042 no they aren't, champ

@@porkramen And Banning books

​@@forex_shark6042Lots of biologists disagree with him on this issue. He is presenting his opinion, not the scientific consensus.

Its Satanism. All of these people are Satanists, Kabbalists and Zionists. Anyone who is brought on TV to speak or is made popular on the internet or his books get published, is fake.

Many Democrat voters aren't huge fans of that for sure. Although many voters of both parties aren't huge fans of what voters of the opposing party do/teach their kids already and have to live with it. Should parents be allowed to perform genital mutilation on their kids (circumcision)? Should parents be allowed to teach their kids that their gay neighbors are evil and not to be trusted and will burn in hell for all eternity?

Yeah, it probably should be decided by medical professionals rather than politicians or general public

@@IvanBaturaChannel no such decision should be made by ANYBODY aside from making the decision, and ONLY if the person making it has a fully developed brain.

@@IvanBaturaChannel Why? There's not a medical reason for doing it in the first place.

Too bad that he's a complete idiot in most subjects not related to biology.

Respect for Dawkins, I liked his 'The God Delusion' book. He really needs to trim those eyebrows tho.

I betting now that you’ve heard his views on trans people and how he’s against medical intervention on children that you might review your thoughts on him

@@dorianshadesofgray2981you need a new hobby

@@dorianshadesofgray2981 You clearly are an example of what he means by a trans activist deliberately causing trouble for no good reason. I'm against gender change operations in children. Any sane person should be.

That's actually a very common myth spread throughout the internet. The true rate of intersex is closer to 0.018%. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

Why do you feel the way you do? Genuine question. Why do you struggle with your identity?

@@Simon53188 I don't struggle..I think that is what I was trying to say. Maybe others struggle over my identity? What makes you think I struggle?

I commend you, but you express yourself as feminine, not as female, being female refers to biological sex.

@@iuliaionelapetcu1411 This being an example of others struggling with my identity. If you really want to dictionary this idea then let's remember that being female is able to produce eggs that can be fertilized by a male and so any "female" that can't do this is no longer a female. Let us now begin the rage that is the internet.

I'd be shocked if Dawkins had interacted with so few Americans that he'd be surprised that a professional American broadcaster from Massachusetts is intelligent.

@@gigameter I think you prove my point.

​@@mobsiesixsixsix9785 Tf you talking about? What point? Massachusetts has a better education system than Britain.

@@gigameter You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's a great comfort for you. But the UK is still the best place in the world to get an education. As I said. You prove my point for me. Being stupid is obviously important to you.

@@gigameter "What point" Oh dear. Seems you can't even manage basic comprehension.

It was only civil because he was only looking for agreement and validation. He intentionally avoided any area of disagreement because he knew he would have no argument against Dawkins.

@@davidgraham8058 , it's called building report.. He did a great job of gaining Dawkins trust by starting with what he knows they agree on and then move into the disagreements at the end.. There's no point in arguing against him on something he's not even willing to discuss in good faith.. I'm not sure he's even willing to discuss it with fellow biologists, many of which disagrees with Dawkins on sex and gender..

David could have pushed him further on accepting gender and sex as seperate.

@@joshuataylor3550 He could have indeed, and Richard Dawkins would probably have pushed back a little harder.

​@@mourlyvold64pushing back is pretty gay

​@@joshuataylor3550You mean "gender" as in sex stereotypes, or "gender" as in "gender identity" =sex-stereotyped soul woo-woo..?

​@@mourlyvold64Dawkins could push back harder, but he would still been wrong. He is welcome to his opinion, but he should present it as such, rather than as "settled" scientific fact. This is where Dawkins is sadly disingenuous.

So you believe in half-breed ape men? Millions of years never happened to even begin to support that fairy tale. Millions of years never happened. "It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried." "It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals." "How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."

As an Australian who has followed Dawkins & Christopher Hutchins for years & years ...I think it was a terrible interview.. Dawkins was completely unprepared for David's "USA only related questions"

@@cherylmccloud8709 his information regarding UK events was grossly lacking too. He has made reference to the same easily checked misinformation in multiple interviews.

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

​@@afsar_gunner5271So 'The Selfish Gene' was an anti-Christian grift? 'The Extended Phenotype' was just to insult innocent religious people? I think you might be confusing innocence with ignorance and projecting malice... a man who has studied evolutionary biology has every right to publish books explaining how there is no evidence demonstrating Yaweh made Adam from clay, or Eve from a rib. And in particular if you're in the US, you should respect the Contituionally guaranteed freedom of speech that he was exercising.

Incest in the Bible , Lots daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. You want to ban the Bible?

Incest in the Bible , Lots daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. You want to ban the Bible?

That's how it seemed to me too. I think a lot of these oldsters are just out of touch and are opining on things they don't have much education on. Dawkins kinda said as much when he was talking about the cultural shifts towards liberalism over centuries and decades. For example, my grandma is pushing 100 I don't expect her to keep up on culturally appropriate language and attitudes. It's just too much of a lift for her when her ideas have been set for longer than I've been alive.

It seemed to me he deflected from politicians scapegoating trans people to some gay activists bullying trans people. Did anyone pay attention to the trans inclusivity of the Pride celebrations two weeks ago?

I’m pretty sure David won’t be inviting Richard Dawkins on again

Dawkins gave Dave's disingenuous leftist orthodoxy the smackdown. The trans and LGB are not getting along in Britain and Richard clearly isn't very sympathetic toward the T. He is an evolutionary biologist. From the top rope

@@michvroom8784 Dawkins is a smart guy. I think the political discussions around this subject in the UK are different, and that the way things are in the U.S. is not easy to keep up with for anyone if they're not actively paying a lot of attention to U.S. politics. I also suspect that Dawkins is in a bit of a "bubble" in terms of the people he's getting information from about these subjects out of the U.S. I really wish that Dawkins could have taken the time, before the interview itself, to have a long private discussion with David Pakman. I think David could have really helped him understand the contemporary American political landscape and debates much better around these issues.

That's why lowlife lying loser Pakman couldn't name a single book when Dawkins asked. Neither can any of the people licking Pakmans nuts in these comments.

So, ban the bibles too.

He didn’t deflect, Pakman repeatedly asked him his views on American culture war issues to which Dawkins had explained he only follows a little from a distance (he’s British). And he pointed to local reports in the UK on the matter

@@pathologicaldoubtthe abuse and scapegoating of transgender people is just as awful in the UK as in America. Unfortunately for a man of great intellect he shows none of it in relation to the subject at hand. The LGB group he refers to is a hate group established with American right wing money in order to attack trans rights and they have done so as only the evangelical fundamentalists in the US can. They are exactly the same as the GAG lunatics over there. The Gays Against Groomers that are now falling apart after the shock that DeSantis is coming after them now he’s already destroyed trans rights in Florida. This is well known in the UK. It takes some effort on the part of a person of intelligence to remain ignorant of it. Effort, or an intellect that is no longer what it once was.

@@pathologicaldoubt That's a deflection- it's not as if the same arguments aren't pushed in the UK media.

@@mrmr446 sadly i'd argue that the UK is nowhere near as bad as the US in terms of trans rights

@@ilect1690 didn't say it was but I very much doubt he is unaware of the media campaign the host alluded to, there haven't been the same results as the US but the claims about transfolk are widely known.

You are not confused. Dawkins' statement is irrational and down right transphobic.

This is the contradiction that had me scratching my head. He says that sex is one of the last true binaries that exist in biology as if it needs to be that way.

Just because humans can lose their fingers doesn't mean the statement 'humans have 10 fingers' is wrong.

@@ZoeBarber Intersex has nothing to do with losing fingers. I suggest you look up the meaning of intersex as it is just a way some people are born.

@@NyandyTheCat do you not understand the parallel?

The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution (book, 2019) by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett Foreword by Stephen Fry A review by Steven Poole in the Guardian: “The Four Horsemen review - whatever happened to ‘New Atheism’?”

I have a lot of respect for Dawkins. Only recently started watching him now. I watch him all the time.

Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!

​@@afsar_gunner5271the third time I've read this pathetic comment... you've really got nothing of substance to say it seems. Can you not tell the difference between attacking an idea and attacking people. YOU are attacking Dawkins... Ad Hominem... because you don't like the ideas he has espoused. Dawkins has never advocated attacking people for what they believe, he attacks that demonstrable falsity of the belief. Unlike religions that prescribe murdering people for believing something different.

@@afsar_gunner5271 The trouble is that Dawkins applies quite a narrow definition of religion, he only sees it as religion when it opposes science. So when he talks about Christianity, he already excludes about half of the christians who are catholic, at least those following the formal dogma of the catholic church concerning science. His whole 'atheistic fanatasism' seems to narrow down on keeping religious dogma's out of the science classes, though alas he is only explicit about this when specifically asked, thereby alienating many religious people who share that goal and would have otherwise been his ally.

Yes. Him and Julia Sweeney.

Jesus can help you be saved forever from sin. Not religion but Him

@@Faithweightandhealth You're on the wrong channel bud.

Why? He doesnt have particularly great arguments aside from silly hypothesis he thinks counter religion

Hallayulea !

Pity Dawkins is such a transphobic bigot if what you claim is true. He has no scientific basis for his prejudice.

Are you kidding me????? There are MILES of film recorded where dawkins has engaged in moot and pointless debates about theism, atheism, and agnosticism... The dude is the quintessential mental masturbator... What's worse is that he is the ANTITHESIS of "dispassionate" as you describe him, he's on record ranting like a child and insulting people for disagreeing with him, or presenting contrasting points of view. The sum of his whole life has been an emotional trip of railing against organized religion from an obtuse and completely unscientific belief set that "time" is the factor that explains how all evolutionary processes came to be without intelligent design!!! That's his answer... "given enough time, a pile of turds will eventually grow a brain and solve the conundrum of fusion ignition." LOL!!! Seriously... You have no clue what an ass this man has made of himself!!! "Never dramatic" LOL!!! Jesus Kryst, the man goes on stage to debate Deepak Chopra and starts screaming @ people that religion should be abolished!!! He's even threatened by AGNOSTICISM for pete's sake!!!!

I can’t say I would agree with that. The man’s a zealot

@@jimohara This comment was like hearing a magatard say that, "trump loves america"... Absurd!!

​@@jimoharaCan you expoand on that or is it just vapid ranting.

@@jimoharai don't think you know what the word zealot means

To be clear, he coined the term. Memes have been around for as long as societies have gathered.

@@Sanzen There is a difference between memes and internet memes. The internet is the give away. Just to be clear.

Indeed he did

@@mobsiesixsixsix9785 He did in fact express delight that his term "meme" mutated.

I thought he wasted his time debating with Biblical Creationists.

@@jeffreykaufmann2867 as if RD is some challenge. RD says we got the universe by "literally nothing." 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. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

@@2fast2block Be quiet

@@FactStorm no. It's fun and easy crushing RD.

@@2fast2block Or so you think..you haven't crushed anyone and cannot. You have been posting the same copy-and-paste straw man for years..and everyone has debunked you, yet you remain incessant in your religious delusions. What a retard..

Brilliant on some fronts for sure, but a massive disappointment the second he opens his mouth about trans issues.

@@w0ody16 How is he a massive disappointment on "trans issues" exactly?

@@getme2morenow565 Everything he said in the last 8 minutes was misinforming people. 95% of what he said prior was on point. That's why it's quite disappointing to see. I even own one of his books.

​@@w0ody16 So you would not agree with gis statement to the effect that sex," is one of the few binary things we have..everything else is a continium "? What else would a biologist think ?

@@phillipsugwas I would clarify that if we are talking about just sex, not gender, the two are quite different. Then I'd remind Dawkins as an esteemed biologist who should know this that there are intersex people. This alone shows that it's not binary and is what's known as bimodal distribution. He should know better which is why this is all quite disappointing.

Yet he was SO WRONG on COVID!!!!!!!!!! And then not knowing about book banning in America---for an intellectual, he appears to be quite ignorant.

Looks like an offended garden gnome to me.

@@rrickarr I'm not familiar with what he said on Covid, but why should a British biologist know about book banning in the States? It's irrelevant to us

@@PhilosophicalTramp-lu2mi because its merica bro there are no other news like merica news.

@@rrickarr Where was he SO WRONG? I believe he explained it quite clearly.

I think some people in the US would be genuinely shocked to learn that news in other countries isn't just about what America did today.

@@blackenedsprite8542 True. Well, I suppose if you're raised to believe that you're living in "the shining city on the hill" that all of the barbarians fumbling around in the darkness of the rest of the world look toward with either awe and reverence or envy and hatred, and nothing in between, then the last thing you expect is indifference.

Yet many of the comments here are so disrespectful to Sir Dawkins. They have no idea what they're talking about of course.

He's a total fraud. Millions of years never happened. "It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried." "It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals." "How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."

Why?

@@arnedomibecause he attacks the rich and powerful goddamn churches.

Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!

@@afsar_gunner5271 They’re not innocent. They’re trying to force their religion onto people who aren’t as goddamn stupid as they are, and that’s unacceptable. Cope harder, dear.

Dawkins stopped being a scientist decades ago.

The selfish gene is brilliant!

Religion &religious beliefs are nought but ideology with no basis in historical fact The bible wasn't written until around 400 hundred years after the supposed occurrences depicted in the new testament, it was also written by power hungry patriarchal monks intent on controlling society

Scrooge -Dawkins - What a coward for attacking innocent religious people !!

​@@afsar_gunner5271have you read The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker? Atracking ideas is not attacking people. Unlike religions that prescribe murdering people for holding different beliefs.

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

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

Yes. David Packman is at the top of his game. David is very intelligent and fair minded.

You should introduce your religious family members to communist interpretations of Christianity

But what if hostile conflict is called for? Dawkins blithely stated that sex is a binary (it's not and he even admitted to the existence of intersex people which is absolute proof of no binary), cited imaginary cases of children being injected with hormones and getting surgeries, and espoused that gay people are against the "trans activists" by mentioning the LGB Alliance as some sort of validation for this. An organization which has been described as an anti-trans hate group that wants trans conversion therapy to remain legal and for all trans related medical care for youth (such as puberty blockers) to be banned, among other anti-trans positions. I'd say that spouting anti-trans rhetoric calls for hostile response and David was soft balling it. Which means either David was intimidated by his guest or his previously stated views on trans issues was pandering. Super disappointing to see David fold in this way. We know he has the chops to do better. He didn't. Dawkins may have been a giant at one time but now he has bought into anti-trans BS and he needs to be called out in a serious way. Dawkins himself described the necessity of publicly fighting rhetoric when it relates to serious issues. His concern was anti-vax misinformation. But it holds for his own arguments when they are erroneous and dangerous.

you will change your mind when you are in hell.

@@LegBuilder That's what you think? the fact is that because there's no god. there's also no satan, no heaven, no hell, and no afterlife. Pascal's wager won't work on me. the truth is you are just another fool that is fooled by religion. since fooling people is the basis of religion. along with fearmungering, and guilting, and other tactics. that the religious like to use.

U cried before u watched it ?

​@K1chad it's a bit of a meme that David plays off sometimes, a sort of 'Trump Bingo' staple.

Are you a big strong man, sir?

@samildanach I am perplexed by your tone. I AM NOT " NATIVE" OR A YOUNG PERSON WHO HAS UNEDUCATED PARENTS. MY FATHER IS AN LOGISTICS ENGINEER FROM LOCKEED MARTIN AND MY MOTHER IS AN REGISTERED NURSE. I USED A THESAURUS FROM THE 5TH GRADE I AM NOT ONLY AN HOMECOMING QUEEN, CHEERLEADER BUT A DEBATE AND PERSUASIVE SPEECH AWARD WINNER. I EARNED MY MBA AND LAW DEGREE AS WELL. MY COMMENT IS NOT BASED FROM AN IMMIGRANT PERSPECTIVE

@@samildanach CONDESCENDING COMMENT FROM A FRAGILE WHITE PERSON

​@@Nicole-bj4dvyou, uh... you okay, mate?

@@_.violyse._ Not A MATE!

@@Nicole-bj4dv everyone's a mate to me, dear.

* to.

You mean he gave him a maladaptive reckoning of the topics to goad a favorable answer to Pakmans views. I.e the books issue innthe begining of the vid.

The interviewer is clearly an intelligent guy,.but he does a poor job steel-manning his opponents point of view.

But David would be correct. The dishonesty with reactionaries makes it impossible to engage with them. Assuming they mean what they say and argue in good faith makes their ideology make less sense. I mostly mean right wing reactionaries but also centrist reactionaries that overlap, like Dawkins for example. For example, he criticizes trans identity as if it’s anti-science despite the entire academic/scientific consensus aligning with trans activists. It’s impossible to have that conversation without bringing up the obvious prejudice. (Not a diss, just a statement of fact) Also I think you mean progressives/leftists because most centrist liberals think how you do. They want to place both sides of the arguments on the same level of validity and assume we can always appeal to the better nature of the right, and argue that not doing this is poor sportsmanship and uncivil or something.

Richard is a legend, along with his old friend Christopher Hitchens.

Please do👍

Any religion period

@@digbycrankshaft7572 Agreed.

You obviously haven't seen him in his former arrogant self.