Richard Dawkins

branie

Anyone here see him on the Simpsons tonight on Sky 1? He had a great short scene

Custardpi

Was it as good as his appearance in South Park?

branie

A lot better, as he was doing his own voice.

Kidchameleon

GLaDOS

I'm guessing it was a new (post season 10) episode, therefore unworthy of consideration

Manach

Actually the sketch was not too bad - brought a smile to my Catholic face anyways .
OT - Rather sad though in that Mrs. Krabappel featured, and knowing that her voice actress passed away recently.

Akrasia

Custardpi wrote: »

Was it as good as his appearance in South Park?

Richard Dawkins and Mr Garrison are images permanently burned in the back of my mind

UDP

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I'm guessing it was a new (post season 10) episode, therefore unworthy of consideration

.

Soft Falling Rain

Lol, those episodes of South Park were fantastic.

UnitedWeStand

UDP wrote: »

.

ahahahahahah.

Dawkins is a bit of a tool regardless I find. He can't argue really, and just gets angry in most debates and has circular arguments. I'm in no way religious I should add, but surely theres better advocates out there than this guy to take up the reigns of an anti-theist ideology given that Hitchens departed us.

crolekka

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

ahahahahahah.

Dawkins is a bit of a tool regardless I find. He can't argue really, and just gets angry in most debates and has circular arguments. I'm in no way religious I should add, but surely theres better advocates out there than this guy to take up the reigns of an anti-theist ideology given that Hitchens departed us.

Richard Dawkins does have a great ability to argue. However often in religious debates he'll use rhetorical questions to turn the argument around onto the person who asked it.

That being said I think, simply put, the man is a douche and I completely concur with your last point. I mean it's just completely offensive to brand religion as a 'disease' like he has done. There's a lot of things wrong with certain religions, that's for sure, but at the end of it all we're all on a search for meaning in our lives and we find it in different ways. It's people like Dawkins who give off a deep condescending vibe to those who find meaning in their faith. I'm an atheist and whatever religion you adhere to is none of my business as long as we live and let live.

(Sorry to drag down this light-hearted thread a bit :P)

Pug160

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

ahahahahahah.

Dawkins is a bit of a tool regardless I find. He can't argue really, and just gets angry in most debates and has circular arguments. I'm in no way religious I should add, but surely theres better advocates out there than this guy to take up the reigns of an anti-theist ideology given that Hitchens departed us.

Angry? He's not afraid of upsetting people but I certainly wouldn't describe him as ''angry'' from what I've seen of him. He seems like one of those gentleman types. Very civilised.

Geomy

Pug160 wrote: »

Angry? He's not afraid of upsetting people but I certainly wouldn't describe him as ''angry'' from what I've seen of him. He seems like of of those gentleman types. Very civilised.

I think Dawkins means well, but is very misunderstood.
His social skills and listening abilities are not great.
But I think he knows a lot more about religion and finds it more interesting than the majority of theists.

Pug160

Geomy wrote: »

I think Dawkins means well, but is very misunderstood.
His social skills and listening abilities are not great.
But I think he knows a lot more about religion and finds it more interesting than the majority of theists.

I think he's alright as long as the interviewer is civilised. Some interviewers have a tendency to not really engage properly when they think they're outmatched intellectually. I don't think he has all the answers but it would be great to have a few pints with him and pick his brains.

J C

Pug160 wrote: »

I think he's alright as long as the interviewer is civilised. Some interviewers have a tendency to not really engage properly when they think they're outmatched intellectually. I don't think he has all the answers but it would be great to have a few pints with him and pick his brains.

Could I join you, please??
He is a man I'd also like to have a pint with ... but I suspect that it couldn't happen ... although, in fairness to him, Prof Dawkins has met Creationists and debated with them on various TV programmes.
I agree with him on many things ... and he is quite insightful in many ways.
That's one of the reasons I have a quote from him in my sig.

Sofaspud

I think he actually seems like a nice, humble, humourous chap. He just happens to be very passionate about both his field of work and his beliefs, and his passion is often mistook for arrogance.

Galvasean

crolekka wrote: »

That being said I think, simply put, the man is a douche and I completely concur with your last point. I mean it's just completely offensive to brand religion as a 'disease' like he has done. There's a lot of things wrong with certain religions, that's for sure, but at the end of it all we're all on a search for meaning in our lives and we find it in different ways. It's people like Dawkins who give off a deep condescending vibe to those who find meaning in their faith. I'm an atheist and whatever religion you adhere to is none of my business as long as we live and let live.

The bit I've put in bold is one of those placard proclamations that really does my head in. Think about it: Since when did most mainstream religions give a toss about live and let live though? If they didn't take a massive proverbial dump on everybody that doesn't agree with them at every given opportunity people like Dawkins, Atheist Ireland etc. wouldn't need to pass comment on them.
You need only look the debates on homosexuality and reproductive rights in this country alone to see that religion, if left to its own devices, has no intention to 'live and let live'.

Pug160

I can understand why some people might feel that Dawkins sometimes comes across as patronising. But I think the disrespect and insults thrown at Dawkins is shocking, especially for a man of his intelligence and integrity. These men are pioneers and without them we wouldn't be where we are today. Yet there are people who have no appreciation for people like him, or not even any common courtesy when interviewing him.

Gbear

Sofaspud wrote: »

I think he actually seems like a nice, humble, humourous chap. He just happens to be very passionate about both his field of work and his beliefs, and his passion is often mistook for arrogance.

One fault I would have attributed to him is a bit of a lack of a sense of humour.

He's well able to have a debate and work in those sorts of environments but he lacks an element of charisma that would make him a bit more personable - think Neil deGrasse Tyson or someone like that who can inject a bit of humour into the debate in a very natural fashion. I don't think Dawkins really has that.

Hotblack Desiato

Pug160 wrote: »

I can understand why some people might feel that Dawkins sometimes comes across as patronising. But I think the disrespect and insults thrown at Dawkins is shocking, especially for a man of his intelligence and integrity. These men are pioneers and without them we wouldn't be where we are today. Yet there are people who have no appreciation for people like him, or not even any common courtesy when interviewing him.

It is truly sickening to watch the likes of Ryan Tubridy fawn over some religious charlatan, then go in all guns blazing against Dawkins.

pauldla

ninja900 wrote: »

It is truly sickening to watch the likes of Ryan Tubridy fawn over some religious charlatan, then go in all guns blazing against Dawkins.

FYP :pac:

iDave

Serious love in taking place on twitter between Dawkins and Mick Nugent tonight.

[-0-]

Dawkins AMA. https://pay.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ri1y9/i_am_richard_dawkins_scientist_researcher_author/