Dawkins on the Late Late Show

Dave!

Hey folks,

anyone catch this? It's still on as I type, but I doubt it will be when you read this.

What did ye think of it? I have to say I'm shocked by the extremely religious response from the audience and texters.

I'm very disappointed with Dawkins' "performance" tonight, I have to say. It probably wasn't helping the way Pat was moderating the discussion, but Richard also appeared very lacklustre too. Considering he is the face of modern Atheism, I think he should stop dismissing topics by saying things like "That's not even interesting...", or "Let's not bother with that". It's not doing us any favours, and it looks like we're side-stepping topics we don't like or can't argue for. I know it's alot of pressure on him to have to lead like this, but he chose to.

You can sense his frustration at the end when the audience starts clapping that other bloke (who by the way spent most of the interview fellating Richard and saying "I agree with him...") when he made the point about life on other planets.

I'm disappointed at Richard's performance, but I'm even more disappointed at the Irish public's reaction. I guess Ireland isn't the place to start a secular revolution, then!

The video will be on the Late Late Show website within the next few days more than likely.

KdjaCL

Why do you care what non atheist people think? Do you believe they care about what you know?

The guy was put on irish TV for pat to gain some form of credibility nothing more not to change attitudes or anything else.


kdjac

Scofflaw

I'm very disappointed with Dawkins' "performance" tonight, I have to say. It probably wasn't helping the way Pat was moderating the discussion, but Richard also appeared very lacklustre too. Considering he is the face of modern Atheism, I think he should stop dismissing topics by saying things like "That's not even interesting...", or "Let's not bother with that". It's not doing us any favours, and it looks like we're side-stepping topics we don't like or can't argue for. I know it's alot of pressure on him to have to lead like this, but he chose to.

The unacceptable face of atheism? The in-your-face of modern Atheism? Lead? What? When was the vote?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Dave!

KdjaCL wrote:

Why do you care what non atheist people think? Do you believe they care about what you know?

The guy was put on irish TV for pat to gain some form of credibility nothing more not to change attitudes or anything else.


kdjac

I care because I believe they are wrong and think it's disturbing to see so many people believing in something with no evidence. Not to mention the effect the various churches have throughout the world with relation to AIDS, "homophobia", terrorism, etc.

I imagine they care in the sense that Dawkins is questioning something which is quite dear and personal to them, and which is indeed the foundation of their life for alot of people.

And I don't know there is no god, but based on analysis of history, science, and philosophy, I think it's a more reasonable assertion than that there is a god.

He was put on Irish telly because he wanted to publicise his book, as he has done so on English and American telly. He's running a very successful advertising campaign.

Scofflaw wrote:

The unacceptable face of atheism? The in-your-face of modern Atheism? Lead? What? When was the vote?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Are you being coy? Or can you point out another person who is flying from country to country and appearing on television to a mainly hostile audience, calling them deluded because they follow religion?

Of course he's the uncrowned king of Atheism, let's not delude (*cough*) ourselves.

Scofflaw

DaveMcG wrote:

I care because I believe they are wrong and think it's disturbing to see so many people believing in something with no evidence. Not to mention the effect the various churches have throughout the world with relation to AIDS, "homophobia", terrorism, etc.

I imagine they care in the sense that Dawkins is questioning something which is quite dear and personal to them, and which is indeed the foundation of their life for alot of people.

And I don't know there is no god, but based on analysis of history, science, and philosophy, I think it's a more reasonable assertion than that there is a god.

He was put on Irish telly because he wanted to publicise his book, as he has done so on English and American telly. He's running a very successful advertising campaign.

Which is fine.

DaveMcG wrote:

Are you being coy? Or can you point out another person who is flying from country to country and appearing on television to a mainly hostile audience, calling them deluded because they follow religion?

Of course he's the uncrowned king of Atheism, let's not delude (*cough*) ourselves.

No. He represents a doctrinaire form of atheism for which I've nearly as little time as I have for theism, because it too is an ideology. There is also a personality cult beginning to build up around him, which I dislike even more.

He is uncrowned for a very good reason - because there is no "king of Atheism".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

Scofflaw wrote:

No. He represents a doctrinaire form of atheism for which I've nearly as little time as I have for theism, because it too is an ideology. There is also a personality cult beginning to build up around him, which I dislike even more.

He is uncrowned for a very good reason - because there is no "king of Atheism".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah, he may not conform to your own kind of Atheism, but he's travelling the world representing it and publicising it. He's the most famous evangelical Atheist alive.

You or I may not like it, but he is the popular face of Atheism, so let's not be pedantic. I get it, he's not the boss of you, etc etc.

Sangre

Ireland is probably one of the last places in the developed world to start a secular movement.

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm disappointed at Richard's performance, but I'm even more disappointed at the Irish public's reaction.

Caught the tail end of it and, indeed I'd agree with your assessment of his performance. I don't doubt he's perfectly decent in real life, but he really isn't a good performer in public debates. It's hard to fault him on individual points - like religion being a pleasant or inspiring force not being proof of its validity. But then, you've a logician in the shape of Gerard Casey, a former atheist back in the fold, agreeing (as you'd have to) that indeed religion being pleasant is no proof so its hard to see how that contention will shake anyone's faith.

I still haven't read the book (partly at this stage because I'd guess either I or someone I know will get it for Christmas - how's that for taking the religion out of it). But Gerard Casey seemed to have a point on the use of the world 'probably' in the book in the context of life on other planets. Its not as if there's stacks of evidence, so a word like possibly (as Casey suggested) would look to be more appropriate. Richard Dawkins did seem to squirm on the hook on that point, almost as if inside his head he could recognised it as a slip up - but he still didn't concede that there's hardly evidence that turns 'possibly' into 'probably'. That's a potential black mark, although I'll reserve judgement until I've read the book and seen exactly what he says and his evidence.

I think disappointment at the audience reaction is a mindset to be avoided. What they are expressing is that sense that simply disposing of God is not enough. Religion needs to be replaced by some kind of vision that gives a sense of cosmic place to individuals. That's the issue that I think is behind a lot of the 'but we've a moral sense' 'but religion dug me out of a black hole' and so forth that people come out with.

In any case, its not as if an atheist has a reason to believe that people will be called for the (anti)faith, or that (un)God has a message for them if only they'd listen. Its a little like that PJ O'Rourke line about one of the benefits of not being a Communist is you never feel betrayed by the proletariat when they vote for something you disagree with.

Dave!

Schuhart wrote:

I think disappointment at the audience reaction is a mindset to be avoided. What they are expressing is that sense that simply disposing of God is not enough. Religion needs to be replaced by some kind of vision that gives a sense of cosmic place to individuals. That's the issue that I think is behind a lot of the 'but we've a moral sense' 'but religion dug me out of a black hole' and so forth that people come out with.

Yeah I can understand that. Lots of people have an emotional need to believe in something, and that's another aspect of where religion comes in (another being the Big Question: where did it all come from?). But I wish rather than thinking "ehh I'm confused, quick quick, it was god!", that they'd seek help from friends or family or professionals, or that they'd start providing more momentum behind science to answer the big question, like it has answered most every other question we've encountered.

But I know that's not practical, cos the resources aren't always there to provide emotional support for someone in need, and no matter how hard science tries, it's not an easy task to try and follow the trail of breadcrumbs to where the universe began.

Until those 2 points (and a few more) are addressed, religion will probably continue as strongly as ever.

Schuhart wrote:

In any case, its not as if an atheist has a reason to believe that people will be called for the (anti)faith, or that (un)God has a message for them if only they'd listen. Its a little like that PJ O'Rourke line about one of the benefits of not being a Communist is you never feel betrayed by the proletariat when they vote for something you disagree with.

Well I don't want to entertain the idea that atheists follow the religion of science, but in a sense since we rely so much on science for answers, it is in our interest to turn other people over to that train of thought, to increase the secular population and influence policy, as well as to get more scientific minds cracking on the Big Q!

Scofflaw

DaveMcG wrote:

Yeah, he may not conform to your own kind of Atheism, but he's travelling the world representing it and publicising it. He's the most famous evangelical Atheist alive.

True enough, and for that reason I'm glad he's doing it. That is, unfortunately, an emotional response - I don't know whether he's really doing a 'good job' as such.

DaveMcG wrote:

You or I may not like it, but he is the popular face of Atheism, so let's not be pedantic. I get it, he's not the boss of you, etc etc.

Ah now - no, he just doesn't represent anyone other than Richard Dawkins. Overall, I'm not sure he's doing anything that's useful for atheists in general, because there's nothing behind him to capitalise on the debate he generates - it's a flash in the pan, if you see what I mean.

Also, being the 'popular' face of something is not a recommendation, as such, particularly as determined by the media, who essentially just like someone combative and confrontational. Ian Paisley, after all, is the 'popular' face of Unionism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

upthere

Sangre wrote:

Ireland is probably one of the last places in the developed world to start a secular movement.

Ireland is also one of the last places in the developed world where condoms were "bad" until the early nineties.
Who cares about Ireland really? What good will it do to restore peace and order in the world? As long as Irish go to the pub and "have craic" what else will they do?
Ireland is the last place someone would want to have an intelligent discussion like this because people here are either biased with religion, or stupid or trying to impress people with fancy words. Ireland will never lead in teh world with regards theories.

easyontheeye

hi,

Being new here and curious, do you people have any concept of faith? Also why do you care that some people want to just believe and have faith, in the end there has to be a beginning?!

Also what do atheist think will happen to them after death? do opinions differ? this maybe the wrong thread for this question but im just curious as I never payed much attention to atheism and beliefs ( or lack of :rolleyes: )

upthere

People who believe in evolution and we just are born live and die spreading our genes are very stupid!
No laws, no rules, no higher thinking. Our laws and rules are based on higher thinking about our animal instinct. You people wouldn't understand, its simple to accept there's nothing only being born and dying that's it! There's nothing more to a person than flesh and bone so falling in love and caring for family is not really necessary! we all just screw around and eat!
Fools!

Dave!

Scofflaw wrote:

True enough, and for that reason I'm glad he's doing it. That is, unfortunately, an emotional response - I don't know whether he's really doing a 'good job' as such.

Indeed. I've seen him stumble in alot of interviews and it makes atheism look weak. He could be talking sense for the whole thing, and then when he gets a question put to him that he doesn't like, and he says "I don't even want to talk about that", it makes the average punter think "Ah, he was talking b*llocks the whole time!"

Scofflaw wrote:

Ah now - no, he just doesn't represent anyone other than Richard Dawkins. Overall, I'm not sure he's doing anything that's useful for atheists in general, because there's nothing behind him to capitalise on the debate he generates - it's a flash in the pan, if you see what I mean.

That's true, I think he should better co-ordinate his TV appearances with other secular and humanist organisations, so that, as you put it, there's something behind him to capitalise. He's just rushing ahead and fumbling it a bit, to be honest. I'm sure he's sold loadsa copies of his book though..

Maybe he should start asking himself what he's trying to achieve here. He's effectively taking on the world on his own, which is silly cos he's quite emotional about the subject, which leaves him vulnerable, and because his rhetoric, while flowery, is sometimes too blunt. It doesn't take more than a few words to turn off someone who was listening with curiosity to the sense he was talking earlier.

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, being the 'popular' face of something is not a recommendation, as such, particularly as determined by the media, who essentially just like someone combative and confrontational. Ian Paisley, after all, is the 'popular' face of Unionism.

Maybe so, but Dawkins is the only face of Atheism that's in the public eye. So like it or lump it, Paisley is the face of Unionism and Dawkins is the face of Atheism!

Mainly because he rushed ahead like this.

easyontheeye wrote:

Being new here and curious, do you people have any concept of faith? Also why do you care that some people want to just believe and have faith, in the end there has to be a beginning?!

Faith is belief based on no evidence. I make my mind up based on evidence or else reasonable assumptions. For instance if I was asked if there was life on other planets, I would say: I don't know, but because there are billions of stars and solar systems and so on within the universe, I would think it is statistically unlikely for Earth to be the only one capable of sustaining life.

I care because I don't like to see people nodding there heads and going along with something that is not based on evidence. Of course people can do what they like and believe what they like, but I believe they are wrong and so I'll try to appeal to their rational side at appropriate times.

There has to be a beginning, but we don't know how or when that beginning was, so why can't you just accept that? Why the need to project a deity onto a question rather than just support scientists who are constantly trying to answer this question? Would you have worshipped the sun if you were living in ancient Greece? Judging by the logic you apply here, I would say yes.

easyontheeye wrote:

Also what do atheist think will happen to them after death? do opinions differ? this maybe the wrong thread for this question but im just curious as I never payed much attention to atheism and beliefs ( or lack of :rolleyes: )

Most atheists seem to agree that once you die, you're done and gone. You end. Just like if your dog dies. You bury it out of respect, and then you move on with your life, or try to.

upthere wrote:

People who believe in evolution and we just are born live and die spreading our genes are very stupid!
No laws, no rules, no higher thinking. Our laws and rules are based on higher thinking about our animal instinct. You people wouldn't understand, its simple to accept there's nothing only being born and dying that's it! There's nothing more to a person than flesh and bone so falling in love and caring for family is not really necessary! we all just screw around and eat!
Fools!

Lots of rules, lots of laws -- scientific ones!

It's actually simple to accept that you're made from dust, god is watching everything you do, and anything that happens is all part of his lovely divine plan And when you die? WHY YOU GO TO HEAVEN TO PARTY WITH ALL THE VIRGINS! Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me, where do I sign?

I think we should all get back on topic now and ignore the troll! easyontheeye, you should start a thread about the fundamentals on atheism if you're interested; this thread isn't really appropriate for that.

robindch

I caught the last ten minutes or so of it. My conclusion is the same as after hearing him on Tubridy a while back: that he's simply not very good at debating in public forums. He gets completely caught up in the minutiae of the debate, responding to individual points while forgetting to paint the overall picture. While I hate to say it, what he needs to do in populist outlets like Pat Kenny, is to pick a few simple, uncomplicated points -- did he mention segregated education in Ireland, for example? I missed it if he did -- and rather than responding as a scientist and answering the questions he's been posed, instead, simply respond as a politician does, just highlighting the main points of his argument in clear and simple terms. He also needs to smile more too; look a bit more relaxed and less like he's about to burst.

However, it does seem that he's made one supremely useful contribution to the debate which is to get atheism out from under the table and up and onto it. He's certainly not perfect, but he's doing a much better job of it all than anybody else I'm aware of.

nesf

Dalkins was a fantastic 'public face' for science. I am really not that sure about him as a face for atheism. His manner/style/approach isn't very constructive a lot of the time and he tends to gloss over a lot of the previous arguments that have gone on in the immortal debate between theists and atheists.


Btw, DaveMcG, you make it sound like he's some form of missionary 'converting' people to atheism. I agree with you in that that is how he comes across, but I find the idea amusing.

easyontheeye

There has to be a greater being aka God....who created science!?

Actually this is head wrecking stuff its easier just to have faith !

Id rather die believing im going to a better place than out of existance!

Dave!

nesf wrote:

Dalkins was a fantastic 'public face' for science. I am really not that sure about him as a face for atheism. His manner/style/approach isn't very constructive a lot of the time and he tends to gloss over a lot of the previous arguments that have gone on in the immortal debate between theists and atheists.

Yeah I agree there. He seems a bit too condescending and snobbish to be effectively leading (sorry!) this particular movement. He's great for science, but religion is something that isn't just of interest to intellectuals or academics. We need to get Gay Byrne to lead the crusade!

nesf wrote:

Btw, DaveMcG, you make it sound like he's some form of missionary 'converting' people to atheism. I agree with you in that that is how he comes across, but I find the idea amusing.

Yeah I know, using terms like "evangelical" certainly carries religious connotations!

easyontheeye wrote:

There has to be a greater being aka God....who created science!?

Actually this is head wrecking stuff its easier just to have faith !

Id rather die believing im going to a better place than out of existance!

Let me bounce that back to you -- who created god? If you're going to apply the trait of being eternally existant to god, then why can't the universe be eternally existant?

It is head-wrecking, you're right on that front

Zillah

Schuhart wrote:

But Gerard Casey seemed to have a point on the use of the world 'probably' in the book in the context of life on other planets. Its not as if there's stacks of evidence, so a word like possibly (as Casey suggested) would look to be more appropriate.

I disagree completely. "Probably" is the correct word to use. To the best of our knowledge there is nothing particularily special about Earth and her solar system. Its a very typical system and everything we know says that it is quite possible life has cropped up on another planet, and when you understand just how many planets are out there it becomes completely implausible that we're unique in this regard.

Unless we are fundamentally missing something about the nature of life, it is almost certain it exists elsewhere than earth.

upthere wrote:

People who believe in evolution and we just are born live and die spreading our genes are very stupid!
No laws, no rules, no higher thinking. Our laws and rules are based on higher thinking about our animal instinct. You people wouldn't understand, its simple to accept there's nothing only being born and dying that's it! There's nothing more to a person than flesh and bone so falling in love and caring for family is not really necessary! we all just screw around and eat!
Fools!

Clearly you havn't the slightest clue what evolution actual means.

easyontheeye wrote:

Actually this is head wrecking stuff its easier just to have faith !

Easier, certainly. Doesn't make it correct.

upthere

God I think irealand is f(cked with evolutionary advantage! You have inbred over the years so much that's why you have such a small minded, angry fiery nations of unnatractive people who are small with big ears and bad noses! Therefore you're theory actually excludes you all! You're all f*cked

upthere

Irish atheists will never be as near as other nations! Irish people are miles behind other nations.
Just look at how smart your nation is. You have reason to feel inferior!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html

Zillah

Gotta be a troll. Such idiocy, coupled with such awful spelling and grammar couldn't possibly be a serious attempt at communication.

upthere

What will Irish people do only go ove board on religion, become atheist denying the laws of chaos, and breed ugly children who grow to become fighting drinking drunk adults who deny existence of other beings in the universe! I feel sorry for you all, nobody respects your opinions in the world with your stupid Luas!

upthere

Zillah wrote:

Gotta be a troll. Such idiocy, coupled with such awful spelling and grammar couldn't possibly be a serious attempt at communication.

Try translating from your vernacular language after a 12 hour flight and see how you can type! FOOL

Dave!

Just ignore them tbh... Don't quote them anymore or anything.

Did you get to see the show Zillah? I don't know when it will be online, but you can watch past episodes, so I imagine it will be shortly.

And then it'll end up on YouTube, etc

Zillah

DaveMcG wrote:

Did you get to see the show Zillah?

Yup, I think he did alright, but mostly because I'm already familiar with and agree with most of his opinions. Mostly I was frustrated at the silly attitudes of the audience.

upthere

What good is ur bulls(hit going to do for anyone. You are sad lonely people who are probably ugly with a drinking problem, especially if your here!

Zillah

:rolleyes:

Friendly warning upthere, you're going to be banned so hard the moment a mod sees this gibberish.

nesf

Zillah wrote:

:rolleyes:

Friendly warning upthere, you're going to be banned so hard the moment a mod sees this gibberish.

He's gone.

aidan24326

robindch wrote:

I caught the last ten minutes or so of it. My conclusion is the same as after hearing him on Tubridy a while back: that he's simply not very good at debating in public forums

I didn't see tonight's appearance, but I think it would be unfair to lambast him too much for the Tubridy radio show. He may not have been aware that there was going to be someone on there to argue with him. And that smug knobhead Quinn from the indo would be difficult for anyone to debate with.

Perhaps he needs to have a rethink about how he approaches these type of public appearances.

However, it does seem that he's made one supremely useful contribution to the debate which is to get atheism out from under the table and up and onto it.

Which in itself is something. That alone makes his venture worthwhile at least to some degree. I agree with him 100% that religion has been pandered to and tiptoed around for long enough, and it's time that it was challenged the way any assertion/belief is open to challenge. Whether he's going about it the right way I don't know, but he's at least generating some debate on the issue. Some people will just never abandon their religious beliefs no matter what, and he knows this. He says in his book it's more the middle-grounders that he's hoping to get to, those people not quite sure where they stand or who 'believe' in their religion but haven't really given it that much thought.

I think sometimes the rational scientific mindset is so ingrained in him that he actually finds it difficult to understand people of a very different outlook, and that in itself is a failing on his part. To debate more effectively, as I've no doubt he's capable, he will have to do better at putting himself inside the minds of his opponents.

It's a pity he couldn't transfer his lucid engaging writing style into his public debating persona. Though tbf he is quite often 'debating' with people who will refuse to see the truth even if you wave it in their face, as they simply aren't interested in believing anything that disturbs their comforting reality-dodging worldview.

Nevyn

There is a site ban pending for this troll, please do take the time to use the report post function please instead of taking the thread off topic.
remember