Richard Dawkins on Palestine, Jews, Science and the Burq

[Crimson Dynamo]

YAV_0s1c2V4


:clap1:

Common sense and logic from a brilliant mind.

[Kizzy]

Wow that slimey toad tries his damnedest to trip him up and he has an answer for everything, well done!

[JoshBB]

his pro-palestine and 'right to wearing a burqa' views have made me like him a bit more, although he is quite hateful at times and i still dislike him for that

[arista]

Yes R.Dawkins
is Most Wise

[Nedusa]

He is not very respectful of other people's religious views, and has an air of condescending arrogance about him.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He is not very respectful of other people's religious views, and has an air of condescending arrogance about him.
how so?

[arista]

He is not very respectful of other people's religious views, and has an air of condescending arrogance about him.



He knows Better than You do.

Buy his great book
I did

[Northern Monkey]

I've never read his books but i've never actually heard him say anything in an interview that i disagree with.

[Nedusa]

how so?

I always think he talks down to people like " Daddy knows best" kinda attitude.

He is totally Anti theist and scorns the very idea of religion because there's no proof .

But there's no proof God doesn't exist so he should bear that in mind a bit more before he goes off on one of his condescending anti religious rants.

[Nedusa]

He knows Better than You do.

Buy his great book
I did

That's just it.... He doesn't know better than me or you or anyone else for that matter.

He only knows what all of us know but is better at putting the anti religious viewpoint across.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I always think he talks down to people like " Daddy knows best" kinda attitude.

He is totally Anti theist and scorns the very idea of religion because there's no proof .

But there's no proof God doesn't exist so he should bear that in mind a bit more before he goes off on one of his condescending anti religious rants.

The there is no proof gods don't exist is no defence

There is no onus to prove this so ignores it and rightly so

[Kizzy]

That's just it.... He doesn't know better than me or you or anyone else for that matter.

He only knows what all of us know but is better at putting the anti religious viewpoint across.

That's his whole point, he deals in science and logic and facts religion doesn't do that it can't.
He isn't anti religion, it's a theory is all and the burden of proof is not on him.

[Nedusa]

That's his whole point, he deals in science and logic and facts religion doesn't do that it can't.
He isn't anti religion, it's a theory is all and the burden of proof is not on him.

Maybe so, but I ask you if 4/5 of the Worlds population believe in a Deity and one fifth do not believe , then surely it is slightly arrogant for the minority to assume they are right and everybody else is wrong.

[Kizzy]

How can it be arrogant?... nobody knows the truth as there is no tangible evidence, if anything it's arrogant of the majority to expect the minority to blindly follow based on little or no evidence one way or the other.

[Livia]

The there is no proof gods don't exist is no defence

There is no onus to prove this so ignores it and rightly so

There is no onus? LOL... He's not in a court of law. And it makes me chuckle that atheists and anti-theists (thanks for that Nedusa) fall back on the argument of the onus being on the religious to prove their faith and think that's a nice, tidy, smug way to win the argument. It is complete bullsh1t. The only way to know definitively that God exists is to die. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion. If only he would grant that courtesy to people who believe differently to him.

[joeysteele]

There is no onus? LOL... He's not in a court of law. And it makes me chuckle that atheists and anti-theists (thanks for that Nedusa) fall back on the argument of the onus being on the religious to prove their faith and think that's a nice, tidy, smug way to win the argument. It is complete bullsh1t. The only way to know definitively that God exists is to die. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion. If only he would grant that courtesy to people who believe differently to him.

Excellent post, well said Livia.

[Toy Soldier]

Maybe so, but I ask you if 4/5 of the Worlds population believe in a Deity and one fifth do not believe , then surely it is slightly arrogant for the minority to assume they are right and everybody else is wrong.
This is a misrepresentation really. They don't all believe the same things. You can't lump numerous belief systems into one group for a "versus"... They can't ALL be right, it's impossible. At best, you could give the title" majority" to the biggest of the bunch (is that Catholicism or a branch of Islam? I'm not entirely sure...) but even then it's far from being an overall majority. There are more non-Catholics than Catholics, there are more non-Muslims than Muslims, etc etc.

There are more non-atheists than atheists, but it's no more arrogant for an atheist to assume that they are right than it is for a Catholic or a Muslim or a Scientologist.

Show me a devout Religious person who doesn't talk about God as if he's sure that God is real (and by necessity, believes that anyone who believes in any other God, or no God at all, is wrong).

[Kizzy]

:clap1:

[Nedusa]

This is a misrepresentation really. They don't all believe the same things. You can't lump numerous belief systems into one group for a "versus"... They can't ALL be right, it's impossible. At best, you could give the title" majority" to the biggest of the bunch (is that Catholicism or a branch of Islam? I'm not entirely sure...) but even then it's far from being an overall majority. There are more non-Catholics than Catholics, there are more non-Muslims than Muslims, etc etc.

There are more non-atheists than atheists, but it's no more arrogant for an atheist to assume that they are right than it is for a Catholic or a Muslim or a Scientologist.

Show me a devout Religious person who doesn't talk about God as if he's sure that God is real (and by necessity, believes that anyone who believes in any other God, or no God at all, is wrong).

Look you don't need to lump together like minded religious people v non religious people to have this argument.

If you take ALL THE people in the World that believe in some form of higher existence and a Deity of some description and pit them against avid non believers then the proportions are quite overwhelming.
90% or more of the Worlds population believe in something so there must be something in our DNA that hard wires us to believe there is more.

So this must be the default position and as much as atheists and the like argue smugly with their scientific logic they must wonder why so many billions of people still believe passionately in something that cannot be proven scientifically.
So yes it is for that reason that I say it is slightly arrogant to assume the 5% is right and smile condescendingly at the other 95%.

[Kizzy]

Look you don't need to lump together like minded religious people v non religious people to have this argument.

If you take ALL THE people in the World that believe in some form of higher existence and a Deity of some description and pit them against avid non believers then the proportions are quite overwhelming.
90% or more of the Worlds population believe in something so there must be something in our DNA that hard wires us to believe there is more.

So this must be the default position and as much as atheists and the like argue smugly with their scientific logic they must wonder why so many billions of people still believe passionately in something that cannot be proven scientifically.
So yes it is for that reason that I say it is slightly arrogant to assume the 5% is right and smile condescendingly at the other 95%.

Hang on .. it's gone from 80% to 90% to 95%, it wouldn't matter if it was 99% though, he has a right to say what is known and has been proven.
That is not to say he suggests there is no religious education, at the moment nobody is right or wrong it's unknown, that may change...one day.
what of those who don't identify as religious or anti theist?
Would that not be the default position to hold until there is something we can understand on a more solid basis?

[Toy Soldier]

If you take ALL THE people in the World that believe in some form of higher existence and a Deity of some description and pit them against avid non believers then the proportions are quite overwhelming.

But they all believe different things, sometimes wildly different things, and can't all possibly be right. Even if you argue it's possible that one of those groups is right... Most of them are wrong. And if most of them are wrong then it becomes perfectly feasible (in my opinion, probable) that ALL of them are wrong, even if there is a nondescript higher power of some form.

Chances of there being some sort of intelligent creative force? We don't know anywhere near enough about the universe to state either way, so you could call it 50/50. Chances of ANY organised religion having stumbled upon the absolute truth in a universe of near infinite possibility? Miniscule. Miniscule to the point of being effectively zero.

90% or more of the Worlds population believe in something so there must be something in our DNA that hard wires us to believe there is more.

There is. It's called survival instinct. Fear of death is a huge part of what keeps us risk averse and allows us to keep on living. We can't live forever, but we are inclined to wait to believe that we will continue to exist in some form after death.

[Nedusa]

But they all believe different things, sometimes wildly different things, and can't all possibly be right. Even if you argue it's possible that one of those groups is right... Most of them are wrong. And if most of them are wrong then it becomes perfectly feasible (in my opinion, probable) that ALL of them are wrong, even if there is a nondescript higher power of some form.

Chances of there being some sort of intelligent creative force? We don't know anywhere near enough about the universe to state either way, so you could call it 50/50. Chances of ANY organised religion having stumbled upon the absolute truth in a universe of near infinite possibility? Miniscule. Miniscule to the point of being effectively zero.

No I don't buy that, fear of death I agree could be used as a reason people believe in an afterlife, but I believe it is more than that.

Religious people see the world around them as just a small part of the whole, they suspect there is more and although science can't prove it, it is almost an intangible feeling, a quality , a faith that there is more but we cannot comprehend it in our mortal state.

Even with all our science what do we tiny mortals with our small brains really know about anything, this is where the arrogance comes from, the assumption that we have all the answers, we know everything we are enlightened beings.

Well I've got news for you all.... We are not that clever and in the realm of the cosmos across all spiritual planes we are very unenlightened.

So maybe the slight arrogance of people like Mr Dawkins is a veil for the envy he carries at his inability to have any meaningful faith, perhaps science has blinded him to the realm of possibilities that may exist and he is now a prisoner of science and logic and must defend it at all costs.

That's fine for some people but most of us feel there is more , it's as simple as that really we just feel it and no amount of blind logic and proof and science will make us feel any different.

There is. It's called survival instinct. Fear of death is a huge part of what keeps us risk averse and allows us to keep on living. We can't live forever, but we are inclined to wait to believe that we will continue to exist in some form after death.

But they all believe different things, sometimes wildly different things, and can't all possibly be right. Even if you argue it's possible that one of those groups is right... Most of them are wrong. And if most of them are wrong then it becomes perfectly feasible (in my opinion, probable) that ALL of them are wrong, even if there is a nondescript higher power of some form.

Chances of there being some sort of intelligent creative force? We don't know anywhere near enough about the universe to state either way, so you could call it 50/50. Chances of ANY organised religion having stumbled upon the absolute truth in a universe of near infinite possibility? Miniscule. Miniscule to the point of being effectively zero.

No I don't buy that, fear of death I agree could be used as a reason people believe in an afterlife, but I believe it is more than that.

Religious people see the world around them as just a small part of the whole, they suspect there is more and although science can't prove it, it is almost an intangible feeling, a quality , a faith that there is more but we cannot comprehend it in our mortal state.

Even with all our science what do we tiny mortals with our small brains really know about anything, this is where the arrogance comes from, the assumption that we have all the answers, we know everything we are enlightened beings.

Well I've got news for you all.... We are not that clever and in the realm of the cosmos across all spiritual planes we are very unenlightened.

So maybe the slight arrogance of people like Mr Dawkins is a veil for the envy he carries at his inability to have any meaningful faith, perhaps science has blinded him to the realm of possibilities that may exist and he is now a prisoner of science and logic and must defend it at all costs.

That's fine for some people but most of us feel there is more , it's as simple as that really we just feel it and no amount of blind logic and proof and science will make us feel any different.

There is. It's called survival instinct. Fear of death is a huge part of what keeps us risk averse and allows us to keep on living. We can't live forever, but we are inclined to wait to believe that we will continue to exist in some form after death.

No I don't buy that, fear of death I agree could be used as a reason people believe in an afterlife, but I believe it is more than that.

Religious people see the world around them as just a small part of the whole, they suspect there is more and although science can't prove it, it is almost an intangible feeling, a quality , a faith that there is more but we cannot comprehend it in our mortal state.

Even with all our science what do we tiny mortals with our small brains really know about anything, this is where the arrogance comes from, the assumption that we have all the answers, we know everything we are enlightened beings.

Well I've got news for you all.... We are not that clever and in the realm of the cosmos across all spiritual planes we are very unenlightened.

So maybe the slight arrogance of people like Mr Dawkins is a veil for the envy he carries at his inability to have any meaningful faith, perhaps science has blinded him to the realm of possibilities that may exist and he is now a prisoner of science and logic and must defend it at all costs.

That's fine for some people but most of us feel there is more , it's as simple as that really we just feel it and no amount of blind logic and proof and science will make us feel any different.

[Toy Soldier]

No I don't buy that, fear of death I agree could be used as a reason people believe in an afterlife, but I believe it is more than that.

Religious people see the world around them as just a small part of the whole, they suspect there is more and although science can't prove it, it is almost an intangible feeling, a quality , a faith that there is more but we cannot comprehend it in our mortal state.

Even with all our science what do we tiny mortals with our small brains really know about anything, this is where the arrogance comes from, the assumption that we have all the answers, we know everything we are enlightened beings.

Well I've got news for you all.... We are not that clever and in the realm of the cosmos across all spiritual planes we are very unenlightened.

Yes! Exactly! There is more to existence than we can possibly comprehend or even begin to imagine. We know nothing in relative terms. Our understanding is infantile, we understand a tiny fleck of a boulder on an entire mountain of existence.

Which is WHY organised religion - pretending that the answers are in one book, or another, or that the truth lies in one defined God, or another, is completely ridiculous. THAT is arrogance. THAT is saying, "We have the answers, they are written here, they are the truth and the whole truth".

You are 100% correct. We are intelligent enough to know that there is more to existence than what we see but we are too limited to ever know the extent of it. So we have spent thousands of years constructing deities and writing stories because we as a species are too scared to admit that the truth is UNKNOWN. And by unknown I don't mean that one faith might be right. I mean that the sheer complexity of the truth ensures that none of them are. We have created Gods to explain the unexplainable, to attempt to understand the unfathomable, BECAUSE we are arrogant.

And it's something that I will never understand, because the sheer limitless possibilities - the absolute wonder, majesty and beautiful chaos of the universe - is incredibly exciting.

But people are desperate to explain it and organise it on a human level. To say "this is how it is, don't worry, feel safe". It's limited and depressing in ways that I can't even describe. I don't care if that's arrogant. I'm excited for anyone who shares the way I see it.

[Nedusa]

Yes! Exactly! There is more to existence than we can possibly comprehend or even begin to imagine. We know nothing in relative terms. Our understanding is infantile, we understand a tiny fleck of a boulder on an entire mountain of existence.

Which is WHY organised religion - pretending that the answers are in one book, or another, or that the truth lies in one defined God, or another, is completely ridiculous. THAT is arrogance. THAT is saying, "We have the answers, they are written here, they are the truth and the whole truth".

You are 100% correct. We are intelligent enough to know that there is more to existence than what we see but we are too limited to ever know the extent of it. So we have spent thousands of years constructing deities and writing stories because we as a species are too scared to admit that the truth is UNKNOWN. And by unknown I don't mean that one faith might be right. I mean that the sheer complexity of the truth ensures that none of them are. We have created Gods to explain the unexplainable, to attempt to understand the unfathomable, BECAUSE we are arrogant.

And it's something that I will never understand, because the sheer limitless possibilities - the absolute wonder, majesty and beautiful chaos of the universe - is incredibly exciting.

But people are desperate to explain it and organise it on a human level. To say "this is how it is, don't worry, feel safe". It's limited and depressing in ways that I can't even describe. I don't care if that's arrogant. I'm excited for anyone who shares the way I see it.

Agree with every word of that T.S , yes we do try and couch it in human terms but ultimately we don't really understand much. But I still feel people who close themselves off to all possibilities religious or otherwise are slightly arrogant in their presumption they have all the answers when in fact we have merely scratched the surface.

[Toy Soldier]

Agree with every word of that T.S , yes we do try and couch it in human terms but ultimately we don't really understand much. But I still feel people who close themselves off to all possibilities religious or otherwise are slightly arrogant in their presumption they have all the answers when in we have merely scratched the surface.

I agree, the only difference being that I think those who choose one religion, that one religion has the answers or IS the answer, close themselves off to all other possibilities just as surely.

[Livia]

It really is fascinating to me that atheists and other non-believers spend SO much time thinking about God and thinking about how people with faith feel, putting forward the suggestion that we're scared of death or need an emotional crutch or maybe we're under-educated (not like non-believers obviously because they're all super-intelligent). It's the non-believers who write the longest posts about faith and belief. Why is that? I don't spend any time at all thinking about people without faith or trying to disprove their theories.

[Kizzy]

Most inquiring minds spend a lot of time thinking, it's not unusual.
Everything is fascinating to me personally, If it's unacceptable to believe blind faith a rather silly concept then I'm guilty.
That's not to say I don't have faith, I just don't have A faith, there's a universe of difference.

[Livia]

I wasn't referring to you Kizzy, as strange a concept as that might be, I really don't read that much of what you write. Your second line makes no sense to me anyway, so I'll leave it there.

[JoshBB]

Livia

surely it is better to look at the evidence and make a judgement using the evidence. not many religious people are doing that, which is why it appears atheists care so much more.

[Kizzy]

I didn't say you were referring to me, and it makes perfect sense to me so I'm happy with that, I don't look for approval.

[Toy Soldier]

It's the non-believers who write the longest posts about faith and belief. Why is that?

Because if the believers spent too long thinking or writing about it, they probably wouldn't be believers any more? :shrug:

Or was that a rhetorical question...

[Kizzy]

Fair point, I also think that faith from a religious perspective can be almost considered as fickle as fashion... as they are moulded to conform to the social norms of the day.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It really is fascinating to me that atheists and other non-believers spend SO much time thinking about God and thinking about how people with faith feel, putting forward the suggestion that we're scared of death or need an emotional crutch or maybe we're under-educated (not like non-believers obviously because they're all super-intelligent). It's the non-believers who write the longest posts about faith and belief. Why is that? I don't spend any time at all thinking about people without faith or trying to disprove their theories.

Your lucky we do

Someone has to if we are to progress as a species

[kirklancaster]

Here's a long post Liv from a believer in God:

Outside his own field of expertise, Dawkins is - transparently - nothing more than a STUPID secular bigot.

In this totally embarrassing 'interview', presenter Evan Davies could not have been any less probing and more obsequious, yet Dawkins failed to capitalise on the 'easy ride', and - as he does in his over-hyped book The God Delusion - thoroughly exposed his intellectual limitations and his penchant for logical fallacies, deceit, and self-contradiction.

Don't take my word for it, but instead, let's take Dorkins' advice and "think for ourselves" and "look at the evidence":

Dorkins states in the 'interview': "You should be allowed to believe anything you like... But that you shouldn't impose your beliefs on other people".

And:

"Any creed that thinks it has the right to say; 'Not only do we believe this, but you've got to believe it too'; that is a very serious violation of everything that democracy stands for."

This is nothing but hypocrisy and self-contradiction from a 'cretin on a mission' who has created his own foundation, built websites and uses the media and social media for the express purpose of IMPOSING his warped BELIEFS upon other people:

"THE RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION

A) --"Founded in 2006 by Richard Dawkins, the foundation’s mission is to realize Richard’s vision to remove the influence of religion in science education and public policy, and eliminate the stigma that surrounds atheism and non-belief."

Do the aims of this 'vision' reflect Dorkins statement to Evans that; "You should be allowed to believe anything you like... But that you shouldn't impose your beliefs on other people"?

B) -- "The Richard Dawkins Foundation sees its job as nothing less than changing America’s future."

Dorkins ego, fanaticism, and megalomania knows no limits, and in the above, the moron makes no secret of his belief that he can convert to his extreme closed-minded form of Atheism, an entire country such as America, where over 80% of the population are religious.

C)-- "We believe people should be free to be open about non-belief without risking their job, business, personal and family relationships or standing in the community."

The statement above is totally preposterous and hypocritical given Dorkins persistent employment of 'Ad baculum' (thinly disguised threat) tactics in arguments against other scientists who disagree with his ludicrous fanatical views on Evolution and Religion.

He has a long history of arrogantly arguing that such scientists should be censured and ignored by the 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' majority, and once famously contended that no one who agrees with Mother Teresa about the sanctity of life should “be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize”.

Dorkins himself admits in this very interview that he once stated in The New York Times that "anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane." (more below) and the obvious offensiveness of such crassness is magnified when one is made aware that over 800 eminent scientists have (courageously) 'come out of the closet' and signed 'The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism' statement which reads: "We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Dr. John G. West, associate director of 'Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture' said:

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 (then) scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory." Dr West added ominously: "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

A documentary by Ben Stein; "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed " exposes the degree of intimidation which scientists who openly oppose Dorkins and his Evolutionist cronies are subjected to, including those who have lost funding and even their jobs just for questioning Darwinism.

But back to this interview:

Dorkins maintains that he is not in favour of a 'Burqua Ban' because "it seems" to him "to be a violation of personal liberty" and later states that a Burqua Ban is "a matter of opinion" and "society has no right to impose on other people".

I think that this highly educated man should invest a little time in researching the definitions of the word; 'Society':

"Society: people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values".

In my opinion, where the conduct of an individual or group within an existing and long-established society becomes a potential threat to the security and safety of that society, then that society has the right to express its concerns, address the cause of that concern, and impose its collective will upon the individual or group responsible for the potential security risk. This includes, the wearing of Burquas.

In addition - and also in my opinion - 'Personal Liberty' is an alien concept for the majority of Burqua wearers back in their native countries (or those of their parents and grandparents) and if such a 'personal freedom' has to be sacrificed in the democracy in which they are now living in order to ensure the continuation of such democracy, then that is one of the collateral effects of the terrorism which seeks to destroy that very democracy - terrorism which is actually being perpetrated by members of the very same religion and ethnicities as those wearing the burquas.

Contrary to Dorkins opinion, given the escalating terrorism from Islamic extremists, the banning of burquas by France (or any other Western Democratic country) is NOT "a matter of opinion" but a logical and very necessary temporary security measure.

Though Dorkins admits that the sight of a woman in a full burqua "offends" him, he evades supporting a ban and sideshifts that it; "does not matter" what he feels ... It's "irrelevant" what he feels and "nobody else should abide by what" he "feels".

This is yet more self-contradiction and hypocrisy when one considers how persistent are his attempts to impose on others his feelings and opinions on Religion and Evolution, and how utterly intolerant he is seen to be of anyone who resists or opposes those views and 'feelings'.

When the subject of self-funded 'Religious Schools' which - obviously - do not subscribe to Dorkins views on education - is raised by Evans, and the question is posed of whether that is a "Freedom of Speech thing; to be able to teach what they want"? Dorkins responds with; "That's very difficult, because there we're trespassing on the tussle between the the 'Freedom of Speech of Parents to impose their views on children and the freedom of children to be educated without having erroneous views - and we now know that in some cases that it definitely is erroneous it's not a matter of opinion - imposed upon them."

Not only is this idiot confusing 'Freedom of Speech' with 'Parental Rights and Responsibilities' but he is once again arrogantly contending that some (strangely and deliberately undefined) views of the parents should not be 'imposed' by them onto their children because they are incontrovertibly "erroneous".

We are not told just what these erroneous 'views' are, or why they are incontrovertibly 'erroneous', nor, therefore, are we provided with any substantiating evidence to back up Dorkins assertions.

If he is referring to Creationism and Religion - and I believe that he is - then he is deliberately dishonest in his assertion that such views are incontrovertibly 'erroneous' because neither can be PROVED to be incontrovertibly 'erroneous' - no more than Evolution or Atheism can be proved to be incontrovertible TRUTHS.

Dorkins then goes on to agree with the teaching of History and Literature in schools, and even (falsely)condones teaching ABOUT Religion but without indoctrination which - he maintains - would "go against the spirit of critical thinking".

We know already that he also fervently encourages the teaching of Evolution and Darwinism in schools, and here Dorkins predictably has no concerns regarding indoctrination.

So let's just examine some of the History still being taught in some schools as 'FACT and TRUTH' with the aid of certain TEXT BOOKS which still contain such 'FACTS and TRUTHS':

HISTORY

'In 1870 at Hisarlikf, northwestern Turkey, German Heinrich Schliemann discovered the mythical city of Troy, and King Priam's treasure'.

Documentaries proclaim it, the text books state it, and the teachers teach it, so our children are right to believe it Mr Dorkins, correct?

WRONG.

Schlieman actually excavated way below the layers of Priam's Troy and actually destroyed Homer's fabled city, and what's more, Schlieman 'planted' 'Priam's treasure, which wasn't really Priam's treasure at all because it belonged to an era one thousand years older than Priam's Troy.

I will address the EVOLUTION and DARWINISM taught as FACT and TRUTH in our Schools, Colleges and Universities later in the next post because it is such a lengthy and complex subject.

For now, back to the 'interview':

Dorkins displays the same lack of moral fibre which saw him refrain from supporting the 'Ban on Burquas' when he continues by saying that "Religious Fanatics are apt to take the law into their own hands on occasions ...threaten people and use physical violence".

This is the 'Truth that dare not speak its name' - or ISLAM.

Dorkins MEANS Islamic fanatics but lacks the courage to state as much.

For those who disagree with my contention, then read on:

When queried by Evans about his (odd) statement that more Nobel Prizes have been won by members of Trinity College Cambridge than the "entire Muslim population of the world" , Dorkins explains that he was astonished to learn from Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks that; "20 to 25% of all Nobel prizes have been won by Jews".

(There are less than 14 million Jews in the world. as opposed to nearly 2 billion Muslims and 7.4 billion people in total so Dorkins is right to be astonished even though I wasn't.)

Dorkins wanted to use this learned fact concerning the incredibly disproportionate numbers of Jewish Nobel Prize winners to highlight the fact that, in contrast, Islam has "stagnated in the scientific field since the middle ages", yet - once again - he 'chickens out' of doing so because he; "Can't do that" because that would really upset people because of Palestine" and he's very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people in Israel.

(Just how 'Palestine' is relevant here, Dorkins fails to explain?)

Anyway, this lack of moral fibre is the reason why "at the last minute" Dorkins "struck out Jews and inserted Trinity College Cambridge"

Yet this incident does more than just reiterate that Dorkins lacks the courage of his convictions when it comes to all things 'Islamic', it also reinforces the fact that he repeatedly and stupidly contradicts himself - as can be attested by the next statement he makes in response to Evans suggestion that there are more "gentlemanly ways" to make the intellectual point that Islam has not been a great success:

He responds: "It's just a fact". Whether or not it upsets people is less important to me than the dramatic nature of the fact which ought to be looked at somebody ought to be saying 'Why?"

So here we have an idiot who confesses to substituting "Trinity College Cambridge" for "Jews" BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT TO UPSET PEOPLE, then not 60 seconds later IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME SUBJECT declares: "It's just a fact". WHETHER OR NOT IT UPSETS PEOPLE IS LESS IMPORTANT TO ME etc."

Further proof that an academic can be a buffoon is provided when Dorkins makes a pathetic attempt to mitigate the fact that he wrote In the New York Times "that anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane.":

He explains to Evans; "Now that sounds like an extreme Point of View, it's actually a FACTUAL Point of View because the word IGNORANT is not a disparaging word..."

Oh... OK then Richard, what about Stupid or Insane?

No? No explanation for those descriptors?

Dorkins maintains that his role is to try to persuade people to think for themselves and look at evidence, and dare I suggest that such is excellent advice - starting with this B.S. interview?

Instead of blindly believing that he is a genius and that therefore we should accept his views as Gospel and applaud them, perhaps it would be more prudent to actually LISTEN to what he is REALLY saying, then analyse it.

Perhaps then, we will see that he is a devotee of Strawman tactics, that he constantly and stupidly contradicts himself, that he lacks the courage of his convictions, that he passes off theory and deliberate lies as facts, and that he often speaks utter drivel.

For those not convinced (or those self-blind to the truth of what I write) then here's a few gems from this intellectual 'tour de force':

DORKISM 1) “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” ― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.

The above issues from the mouth of the most fanatical decrier of 'Creationism' and 'Intelligent design -- "BLINDLY PROGRAMMED'!!!!

A quick dictionary definition:

programme ˈprəʊɡram/verb
past tense: programmed; past participle: programmed

1. provide (a computer or other machine) with coded instructions for the automatic performance of a task.

2. cause (a person or animal) to behave in a predetermined way.

Programmed by WHO Richard?

Now look at these other contradictions from the Master Buffoon:

DORKISM 2) “Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence.” ― Richard Dawkins.

DORKISM 3) Evolutionists Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. --Richard Dawkins.

Which one is it Richard? 2) Intelligent life working out A REASON for its own existence? Or 3) LIFE HAS NO PURPOSE... NOTHING BUT BLIND INDIFFERENCE and therefore NO REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE?

Now work this one out:

DORKISM 4) "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig" -- Richard Dorkins Tweet

I rest my case - for now.

[Kizzy]

Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves?
Thomas Jefferson

[lostalex]

I liked his point about the word ignorance. calling someone ignorant is not some sort of low class insult, people are ignorant, all of us are in various ways. we need to stop treating words like "ignorant" or "bigot" as if they are offensive terms, they are not. they are not insults. they have real meaning and they apply to everyone in one way or another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone's ignorance or bigotry.

[Kizzy]

I liked his point about the word ignorance. calling someone ignorant is not some sort of low class insult, people are ignorant, all of us are in various ways. we need to stop treating words like "ignorant" or "bigot" as if they are offensive terms, they are not. they are not insults. they have real meaning and they apply to everyone in one way or another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out someone's ignorance or bigotry.

I agree, it's as misinterpreted as 'offensive' things can only be offensive if the intention was to offend.

[Crimson Dynamo]

rwdVD1gGDvA

[Kizzy]

Thinking of the current situation in the UK the neo liberal ethos that we are all governed by, if you compartmentalise the actions and the ideology how do they measure in comparison to Christian or religious teachings...
Could we hand on heart say that judging by the actions that as a country our government currently exhibits a Christian ethos?

[kirklancaster]

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists -


?

[Nedusa]

The word 'ignorant' is like a bullet - in itself it may be harmless, but once loaded into a gun with other words; namely; 'Stupid' and 'Insane', then 'it' and 'they' become potentially wounding. Once that gun is pointed at a group of innocent people for no other reason than that they legitimately disagree with your opinion, and the trigger is pulled, then such an action can only be deemed as unjustifiable and 'offensive'.

There are hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people in this world who do not believe in Darwin's theories or in Evolution, and a huge proportion of these are eminent scientists - experts in such fields as; Molecular Evolution, Organic Chemistry, Biology, Bioengineering, Biomechanics, Microbiology, Entomology, Molecular Biology , Anatomy & Cell Biology , Botany, Bacterial Genetics ,Protein Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Combustion, Bioprocess Engineering etc. etc.

Specially notable scientists Include:

1945 Nobel Prize winning scientist Ernst Chain.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun
William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry Cornell University
Vladimir L. Voeikov, Vice-Chairman, Chair of Bio-organic Chemistry, Faculty of Biology Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia)

Along with hundreds of millions of 'lay people', Dorkins branded all these eminent, highly intellectual, extensively knowledgeable scientists as; "Ignorant, stupid or insane", and it is beyond dispute that he was being arrogant, unfair, and wholly offensive when he did so, and beyond dispute that he attacked these notables for no other reason that they DARED to disagree with his extreme, close-minded views.

Totally agree Kirk........and if you study the so called Theory of Evolution there are gaps, vast gaps that cannot be bridged where the theory cannot account for the changes from one species to another.

The "missing link" is probably the most famous ie how did we get here from apes ? why are there still apes ? But the jump from ape to Cro Magnon man is not explained by the Theory of evolution.

Don't get me wrong I do believe the theory helps us understand how we have come about but I still think the final blueprint when known will have some major differences from this theory.

How arrogant of Mr Dawkins to claim it is 100% proof........rubbish, it is still only a theory and as stated has many holes in it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Totally agree Kirk........and if you study the so called Theory of Evolution there are gaps, vast gaps that cannot be bridged where the theory cannot account for the changes from one species to another.

The "missing link" is probably the most famous ie how did we get here from apes ? why are there still apes ? But the jump from ape to Cro Magnon man is not explained by the Theory of evolution.

Don't get me wrong I do believe the theory helps us understand how we have come about but I still think the final blueprint when known will have some major differences from this theory.

How arrogant of Mr Dawkins to claim it is 100% proof........rubbish, it is still only a theory and as stated has many holes in it.

:facepalm:

[Kizzy]

There's a gap.....quick! put god in it!

[Niamh.]

:hehe:

[Nedusa]

::facepalm:

:hmph::hmph

[Crimson Dynamo]

:

:hmph::hmph

Sorry Nedusa :hehe:I should have added


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

[Nedusa]

Sorry Nedusa :hehe:I should have added


Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

That's all right L.T...........thanks for the narrative...interesting.

[kirklancaster]

rwdVD1gGDvA

:joker: This video is bull LT.

There is no debate, just a series of sound bites - mainly - Dorkins spouting - mainly - juvenile drivel.

The video has been produced to favour Dorkins so without seeing the full 'debates' we cannot appraise how effective Dorkins was in his arguments or who 'won', but based on what we do see, I could have readily dismantled his weak propositions and left him looking foolish - and I am no intellectual.

:nono:

[Crimson Dynamo]

:joker: This video is bull LT.

There is no debate, just a series of sound bites - mainly - Dorkins spouting - mainly - juvenile drivel.

The video has been produced to favour Dorkins so without seeing the full 'debates' we cannot appraise how effective Dorkins was in his arguments or who 'won', but based on what we do see, I could have readily dismantled his weak propositions and left him looking foolish - and I am no intellectual.

:nono:
kk1RnwbFIps

This is a fave of mine with Howard at Revelation TV (which I am a bit addicted too and have been for years :hehe:)

Dawkings has the patience of a fictitious saint

[the truth]

The there is no proof gods don't exist is no defence

There is no onus to prove this so ignores it and rightly so

Wrong. Theres no definitive proof either way if thereis a greater power. So dawkins pitiful arrogant stance as if he is certain theres no higher power and mocks anyone with any faith is disgusting. hes a boring twat. he should stick to being an alleged scientist, I couldn't care less or wish to hear of any more ofhis sensationalised attention seeking ignorant drivel

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wrong. Theres no definitive proof either way if thereis a greater power. So dawkins pitiful arrogant stance as if he is certain theres no higher power and mocks anyone with any faith is disgusting. hes a boring twat. he should stick to being an alleged scientist, I couldn't care less or wish to hear of any more ofhis sensationalised attention seeking ignorant drivel

yes but how do you really feel?

[Kizzy]

The thing that annoys me the most is the constant reference to the numbers involved, as if the minority shouldn't and can't have a voice.... In what areas is this tolerated let alone accepted?...Oh yes... in a fascist state.

[kirklancaster]

yes but how do you really feel?

:laugh: Are you extracting the urine LT?