[Crimson Dynamo]

Youtube video

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]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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

how so?

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by arista

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[Northern Monkey]

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

[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.

[Kizzy]

[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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

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?

Or was that a rhetorical question...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.