Richard Dawkins on the Late Late

Zillah

Kernel wrote: »

This forum has so many chips on shoulders, it's like there was an explosion at Burdocks.

Anyway, Dawkins is a dick, literally. I've insulted your messiah, so come get me with your Atheist Fatwah!

I remember the days when you weren't an absolutely terrible poster.

Pity.

The Mad Hatter

Kernel wrote: »

Anyway, Dawkins is a dick, literally. I've insulted your messiah, so come get me with your Atheist Fatwah!

No, but you've insulted the English language.

I do not get how so many people can use the word 'literally' when they mean the exact opposite.

(Sorry, off topic I know, but it's a real pet peeve.)

robindch

Kernel wrote: »

This forum has so many chips on shoulders, it's like there was an explosion at Burdocks.

Still, better a chip on one's shoulder than spuds between one's ears.

Kernel wrote: »

Anyway, Dawkins is a dick, literally. I've insulted your messiah, so come get me with your Atheist Fatwah!

We don't do fatwahs. But we do have red cards and you've earned one of those for abuse of the English language as much as trying to be rude.

Your next breach of the peace will earn you eternal damnation.

ironingbored

Kernel wrote: »

This forum has so many chips on shoulders, it's like there was an explosion at Burdocks.

Anyway, Dawkins is a dick, literally. I've insulted your messiah, so come get me with your Atheist Fatwah!

Ooooh, we are so lucky to have Jimmy Carr with us on the forum. I don't think exploding chips would settle on shoulders though.

Dawkins may well be a "dick" but your God sir:

"...is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully....

The only people who issue fatwah death sentences are the religiously inclined individuals like your good self.

pH

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, but you've insulted the English language.

I do not get how so many people can use the word 'literally' when they mean the exact opposite.

(Sorry, off topic I know, but it's a real pet peeve.)

Before Kernel gets a chance to be all superior, I think I should remind you that Dawkin's first name is Richard, commonly shortened by to "Dick", so apart from a minor capitalisation issue, there's nothing much wrong with the statement "Dawkins is a dick, literally".

Antbert

robindch wrote: »

Still, better a chip on one's shoulder than spuds between one's ears.

Utterly brilliant. And I will shamelessly steal it and say it from now on.

The Mad Hatter

pH wrote: »

Before Kernel gets a chance to be all superior, I think I should remind you that Dawkin's first name is Richard, commonly shortened by to "Dick", so apart from a minor capitalisation issue, there's nothing much wrong with the statement "Dawkins is a dick, literally".

...

...

B'oh.

Dades

It would great if the war of words could end with an agreement to disagree. That way nobody else Is going to get in trouble for poster bashing.

fwiw, there are chips on shoulders here looking back on some posts, but atheists are not the sum of their parts. An opinion here is just that.

DanCorb

Jakkass wrote: »

He never said anything of the sort, nor did he even promote the Christian God throughout. He is merely saying that Dawkins seems so sure that there isn't a God yet many people live their lives trying to find some form of purpose in Him. It's a reasonable question to ask someone who is that certain.

He didn't promote the Christian god? He exclusively mentioned the Vatican. He asked the audience who believes in "God" referring clearly to the Christian god. He did not ask "who believes in some form of higher power".

He is clearly a Christian and he let his emotiones get the better of him by being a douche.

Turtwig

Anyone else notice how a good proportion of the audience didn't put there hands up for either stance??
Me thinks they should be counted in too, before Ireland is represented by false proportions:)

LookingFor

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyone else notice how a good proportion of the audience didn't put there hands up for either stance??

It seemed most raised their hands when asked if they believed in God.

However, I found it hilarious to spot so many hesitating to put their hands up and clearly only doing so because "everyone else is". Some people are so weak.

Turtwig

LookingFor wrote: »

It seemed most raised their hands when asked if they believed in God.

However, I found it hilarious to spot so many hesitating to put their hands up and clearly only doing so because "everyone else is". Some people are so weak.

Well, guess, I am weak then. Depending on who I was with, I certainly, wouldn't have put my hand up.
And depending on who I was with, some who believe would have put theirs up for the craic.

jowan

generally when someone goes on a show to plug a new book, album, film etc, the host normally holds up a copy of the book, plays a clip from the film, or the music is performed, turbridy left Dawkins book sitting on the table, it was embarrassing and cringeworthy to watch, felt like watching the late late with Prat Kenny again, get a grip Ryan.:o:mad:

liamw

Someone else already posted this, but this is pretty much the interview that should have happened if Tubridy wasn't such a twat:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/09/richard-dawkins-in-conversation-with-james-harding-editor-of-the-times.html

Antbert

jowan wrote: »

generally when someone goes on a show to plug a new book, album, film etc, the host normally holds up a copy of the book, plays a clip from the film, or the music is performed, turbridy left Dawkins book sitting on the table, it was embarrassing and cringeworthy to watch, felt like watching the late late with Prat Kenny again, get a grip Ryan.:o:mad:

Him not showing the book annoyed me so much. Bring back Pat Kenny I say. Dull as dishwater, but at least not a baselessly opinionated moron.

orourkeda

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say "The only way Humans will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god is if they see it" but you can't disprove something by seeing it, that would prove it. The christian God is unfalsifiable and he is deliberately designed to be unfalsifiable so that people can hold onto their beliefs forever. The Gods used to live on top of mount Olympus until someone climbed it and found they weren't there. Then he was moved up to the sky but we got our telescopes and peered into the sky, then we went up there for ourselves and found he wasn't there. People saw god in the design and complexity of life but Darwin sorted that one. God got pushed further and further back until he was placed outside the universe, outside time and space where no one can do anything except say that they believe he's there and I can't prove them wrong.

You know what I mean? Only if god appears will we know of its existence

Turtwig

orourkeda wrote: »

You know what I mean? Only if god appears will we know of its existence

Actually, how will you know it's not the devil disguised as God?:P

Silverhog7

Could someone who has observed non living matter generate a living being please post their experience and that will put an end to the concept of there been a God. After all Dawkins says the onus is on Christians to prove there is a God, so the same onus is on an atheist to gave examples in observing nature were life just starts out of nothing. One example will do fine thanks.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

mewso

Silverhog7 wrote: »

Could someone who has observed non living matter generate a living being please post their experience and that will put an end to the concept of there been a God. After all Dawkins says the onus is on Christians to prove there is a God, so the same onus is on an atheist to gave examples in observing nature were life just starts out of nothing. One example will do fine thanks.

I'll bite. I haven't observed non living matter generate a living being. Lets all do what our ancestors did when they didn't know what the sun was. Lets assume it's God. I accept there are things we don't understand, that remain to be explained. I don't assume that if we don't understand something we must decide it's down to God.

The Mad Hatter

Antbert wrote: »

Him not showing the book annoyed me so much.

It's weird, actually - the camera stayed on Dawkins while Tubridy announced the title of the book at the end of the interview. I imagine he did hold it up, but for some reason the camera didn't show it.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can't tell if you're joking.

Silverhog7

I don't assume that if we don't understand something we must decide it's down to God.[/quote]


I actually totally agree with you, but some of the posts on this are just to confident without hard evidence and I thought I'd balance the books.

Turtwig

Silverhog7 wrote: »

I don't assume that if we don't understand something we must decide it's down to God.

Well, try using hard evidence to prove the non existence of the Celestial Teapot?

Sam Vimes

Silverhog7 wrote: »

Could someone who has observed non living matter generate a living being please post their experience and that will put an end to the concept of there been a God. After all Dawkins says the onus is on Christians to prove there is a God, so the same onus is on an atheist to gave examples in observing nature were life just starts out of nothing. One example will do fine thanks.

I personally haven't seen it but it was done in a lab a few months ago. Links can be provided if necessary. Also, even if it hadn't been done, just because we don't understand how something happens doesn't mean that the christian god as described in the bible did it

philologos

DanCorb wrote: »

He didn't promote the Christian god? He exclusively mentioned the Vatican. He asked the audience who believes in "God" referring clearly to the Christian god. He did not ask "who believes in some form of higher power".

So because he asked Dawkins what he thinks of the Vatican that means he's putting forward that Catholicism is the truth? Do you realise how absurd that is. It could be well, because the majority of the people in Ireland are Catholics and his answer would be of interest to them.

God could refer to a number of different deities.

DanCorb wrote: »

He is clearly a Christian and he let his emotiones get the better of him by being a douche.

I don't see what relevance his beliefs have to how he interviewed Dawkins.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

God could refer to a number of different deities.

If you don't think he was talking about the Christian god, then you're being extremely naive.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....I don't see what relevance his beliefs have to how he interviewed Dawkins.

It's not that hard to see. It's obvious it's a part of his life and that he has an emotional investment in it.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It's not that hard to see. It's obvious it's a part of his life and that he has an emotional investment in it.

How is it obvious? He's meant to be a questioner, and if anyone has a polemical point of view it is fruitful to engage the one being questioned from the other side of the fence.

I'm sure if he was interviewing someone who wrote a book on the existence of God that he would come from the other side of the fence as any good interviewer would.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it obvious? He's meant to be a questioner, and if anyone has a polemical point of view it is fruitful to engage the one being questioned from the other side of the fence.

I'm sure if he was interviewing someone who wrote a book on the existence of God that he would come from the other side of the fence as any good interviewer would.

I see what you're saying, but found tubridy's tone pretty patronising(also implying that nobody would be interested in a conversation about evolution as opposed to dawkins religio us views was patronising towards everyone watching) on the whole. He was obviously just trying to get a bit of controversy going on by completely ignoring the new book and dwelling on the old one, the priest came across as a much more capable interviewer than tubridy.

DanCorb

Jakkass wrote: »

So because he asked Dawkins what he thinks of the Vatican that means he's putting forward that Catholicism is the truth? Do you realise how absurd that is.

Were you watching the same interview we were? It was absolutely clear that he was pushing Christianity as the truth. He asked how many people believed in God (not A god), and then asks in a smug tone "so they are all deluded are they?"

I'm sure Ryan would have no trouble agreeing that Mormons and Scientologists and Hindus are deluded... but of course not the believers in HIS religion.

As someone above me said, you must be pretty naive to think he was not referring to Christianity throughout this interview.

He had a smug, patronising, and disrespectful tone. And he is an absolute fool to have one of the great living scientific minds on his show only to waste the interview on petty insulting questions.