"Is Religion Inevitable?" - Richard Dawkins Reveals All

Yikes, Dawkins sounds like Ben Shapiro in places here (even paraphrasing 'facts don't care about feelings'). Love his protestation that he's not right wing because he can't stand Donald Trump - half the Republican Party can't stand Donald Trump.

For all his bleating about being led by evidence, he misrepresents the "woke" stance on privilege into some nonsense about blaming white people for their ancestors' crimes so he can use that original sin analogy (along with the just as dubious transgenderism and transubstantiation analogy) and he accepts without question his co-anchor's statement that transgenderism is 100% a delusion caused by social contagion (which doesn't even make sense given the vast number of cases before transition was in anyway socially acceptable). Also he completely slanders Lia Thomas by saying she only transitioned to achieve success in swimming - pre-transition she was extremely successful in the men's division, her performance only suffered once she started taking hormone pills and even then it was another two years before she entered the woman's division - he was clearly either deliberately ignorant of this evidence or pretended it didn't exist. Hope she sues him.

Also, it's hilarious when he talks about the privilege of living in the age of evidence brought about by Newton, Darwin and Planck - all three of them religious. So I guess his central contention that 'delusion' prevents scientific progress is horseshit.

To top it off, he calls Islam evil and suggests that maybe African Muslims should be converted to Christianity because it's a less evil religion. Seems like some serious right-wing Eurocentric shit to me.

Only watched the first half so far. Might venture back if I can stomach it.

Edit: the second half wasn't so bad at least for Dawkins. His co-host basically referred to things unnamed people had said to him and scoffed at them while Dawkins nodded along (apart from chiming in to suggest chromosomes are the only biological characteristic that matters when it comes to gender and everything else is wordplay - pretty sure hormone balances, brain chemistry and nurture are also part of biology). At one stage, the co-host claims (with zero evidence) that all academics with a pro-trans stance start with a belief that 'trans women are women' and then set out to prove it. Of course, he doesn't say whether the anti-trans academics might start off with a stance of 'trans women are not women'. To Dawkins' partial credit, he only hesitantly goes along with this.
They then have a conversation about Lamarckism which the co-host clearly knows nothing about as I guess his only interest in biology is looking for gotchas against the transgender movement.

I've never really liked Dawkins but I can now say he is an absolute asshat.