Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83

Thread: Richard Dawkins on TV

  1. #21
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    I didn’t see the program in question, but I can’t imagine his method of grossly mis-representing the truth to support is argument
    I know nothing of his history but I don't believe he used any methods that grossly mis-represented anything in this particular case

    You can watch the full programme (link below) and I think you might find it interesting, even if you don't agree

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/f...ce/4od#3112619
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  2. #22
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    I know nothing of his history but I don't believe he used any methods that grossly mis-represented anything in this particular case

    You can watch the full programme (link below) and I think you might find it interesting, even if you don't agree

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/f...ce/4od#3112619
    I will watch it when I have time, but a title like 'Faith School Menace?' presented by Richard Dawkins tells me all I need to know...

    He will present a very cohesive and intelligent argument and will use very carefully selected evidence to back this statement up.

    But, surely we all know you can't believe that what is presented in the media is the absolute truth? Dawkins's has, and always has had, a very clear agenda in denouncing religion. No matter how fair he may come across, or how unequivocal the evidence to support the statement, it's the researcher's brief and what was left on the cutting room floor after it was edited that would tell the real story..

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    You're having a laugh aren't you?! Dawkins is one of the World's most published and aggressive militant atheists. His view is that anyone who believes in God is stupid and/or evil and not only does he not believe in God but fully supports the view that no-one else should be believe in God either. Of course he would ban religion if he had half a chance!

    His books and programs have been criticized for often presenting an extreme militant atheist view without providing any balance at all – I didn’t see the program in question, but I can’t imagine his method of grossly mis-representing the truth to support is argument has changed..

    His views are so myopic, misguided and self serving that he manages to generate the completely opposite effect in people like me who don't believe in organized religion at all but will defend religious belief against his sort of vitriolic militant atheism every day of the week (except Sundays) - and believe me, that it quite an achievement..


    I didn't watch last night, but the impression I get of Prof. Dawkins from his writings, is of a man full of anger and hate for all things religious.

    It's almost enough to make me think he's actually a closet Theist!

  4. #24
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    He will present a very cohesive and intelligent argument and will use very carefully selected evidence to back this statement up.
    Isn't this what everyone, in every situation aims to do, when putting together an argument

    In every court of law, in every government meeting, in every debate about any subject, this is what people do, surely

    As I said before, I'm purely going on the facts and arguments he put forward in that particular programme shown last night as I have no previous knowledge of him.

    (I might agree with you, about next weeks programme but I'll wait till I've seen it)
    I will however say, he did say that he saw the need for religion to be talked about, 'all' religions, that is!
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  5. #25
    Registered User frodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,156
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    Isn't this what everyone, in every situation aims to do, when putting together an argument

    In every court of law, in every government meeting, in every debate about any subject, this is what people do, surely
    It may be novel idea but sometimes people are looking for an good answer or want to construct a sustainably balanced argument rather than to win an argument at all costs in the short term.

    While that is how the UK court system works and is intended to work, why should it follow that meetings and debates should labour under the same restrictions

  6. #26
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    [You're having a laugh aren't you?! Dawkins is one of the World's most published and aggressive militant atheists.
    Not having a laugh, no. He has never appeared aggressive to me. Does he shout? Get angry? What? Even in tone he is not aggressive. Do you mean that speaking out against religions and calling them "delusions" is aggressive?

    His view is that anyone who believes in God is stupid and/or evil and not only does he not believe in God but fully supports the view that no-one else should be believe in God either. Of course he would ban religion if he had half a chance!
    Really? Can you point to the evidence you have of that? (i'm sure you're not just making it up) Any evidence that he thinks ANYONE who believes in god is "stupid and/or evil"? Certainly it seems to that if he specifically asks that the government should be "forcing faith schools to teach RE according to the national curriculum" (link) that is asking for MORE religion to be taught, not asking for a ban. And, despite saying that he "is filled with “visceral revulsion”" on seeing women wearing the burka, he "held back from advocating a ban on the all-enveloping cloak, insisting that such legislation would fly in the face of Britain’s liberal tradition". And then on his own website in this article he says "No one is out to ban Christmas or Christianity - not atheists nor other faiths. Yet every year the same urban myths are repeated". Where are these people who repeat these myths? Are they on internet forums?

    Yeah he does sound like the banning type right enough. And of course, you must be right based upon...er...your renowned qualifications in...er...oh no, hang on, you're full of **** aren't you? And i think perhaps you should listen to your own advice below and not take everything you read in the media as truth, there is a lot of negative opinion of Richard Dawkins, and you seem to have picked up some of the untruths. And of course Mr.Dawkins is far more liberal about this sort of thing that the rest of us, apparently, from the same article above "67 per cent of British voters want to follow the example of France and ban the burkha"

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    I will watch it when I have time, but a title like 'Faith School Menace?' presented by Richard Dawkins tells me all I need to know...
    That it is a programme that asks if faith schools are a menace hosted by a renowned oxford professor? Is that all you need to know? Or are you waiting for it in comic book form?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    He will present a very cohesive and intelligent argument and will use very carefully selected evidence to back this statement up.
    I'm sure he will, but with interviews with non-biased parties saying what they want to say with any coercion from Mr.Dawkins. Some of which will no doubt back up his arguments for him. I'll watch it when i have time too, and find out.

    But, surely we all know you can't believe that what is presented in the media is the absolute truth?
    or anywhere near the truth most of the time. I imagine this will be one of the better ones, but we'll see.

    Dawkins's has, and always has had, a very clear agenda in denouncing religion.
    Yeah i suppose so. With good reason though, he was a Professor at one of the worlds most famous universities. His field is biology, so he is well qualified. More than you in fact . Considering some of the stories we hear in the news, he really has to as a public figure in that field, make some sort of a comment: God hates fags, Jesus on toast, the family in Africa who killed their own father because he wanted to watch a world cup game on tv instead of a religious service, riots in England due to religious and cultural differences, the muslim clerics diving to the rescue of the survivors of the tsunami with messages of hate from god because the sinful people brought it on themselves. Religion is often out of control, provably so, and it is a modern up to date problem that needs to be addressed. "better, less biased education" hardly seems like a hard price to pay for a better society. It's like arguing that a choice of cake in the local shop is "against everything we ever stood for" "god damn those believers of individual choice" (I'll have the eclair - what do you mean you don't have one?).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    I didn't watch last night, but the impression I get of Prof. Dawkins from his writings, is of a man full of anger and hate for all things religious.
    You got that from his writings? anger and hate? I don't get that at all. Also, how do you define religion? rather narrowly? I've never heard him complain about Buddhism at all.

    It's almost enough to make me think he's actually a closet Theist!
    Are all theists angry and hateful? What on earth are you on about? That won't make you any friends you know.

  7. #27
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    ...blah.
    Good grief...

    DS, if you read his books and then the independent reviews of his books, you can see that he is often accused of presenting a grossly unbalanced and biased opinion... You can go onto his website watch his broadcasts and read the transcripts and see that he often refers to low IQ and a link to religious belief. You can research the term 'Militant Atheist' and see how it applies to Dawkins...

    And err... maybe the title of his broadcasts, books and programmes might also guide you in understanding what kind of a man he is... The Root Of All Evil, The God Delusion, Faith School Menace, An atheist's call to arms...

    Failing all that, here's a review of the 'call to arms' speech.

    The session was titled "The Design of Life," and the TED audience was probably expecting remarks about evolution's role in our history from biologist Richard Dawkins. Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education. Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment. Dawkins' scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage. Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good. Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world's best-known atheist.

    It is a matter of public record that he aggressivley opposes religious belief, that he believes that religion is the root of all evil and that the majority of believers are thick heads.. if you can't see it then you simply haven't read enough about him, listened to him speak on his broadcasts or read any of the transcripts of his arguments with some high profile theists... So, if you're going to have an opinion at least make it an informed one...

  8. #28
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    One of the good things about single faith schools is that it removes the need to be quite so politically correct about different faiths. I can still remember my daughters being taught a confusing mish-mash of different faiths and dogmas.
    Well yeah. You wouldn't want to tell people that there are a lot of different religions or anything.

  9. #29
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    I'm confused..

    are we discussing the 'specific issues' brought up in this programme or Richard Dawkins
    Last edited by Lory; 20th-August-2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason: spelling
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    It is a matter of public record that he aggressivley opposes religious belief, that he believes that religion is the root of all evil and that the majority of believers are thick heads..
    Richard Dawkins really doesn't understand religious belief. By that I mean, he has a purely intellectual understanding of it, but he really doesn't have much experience of it (for the simple reason that he doesn't believe).

    I have a lot of sympathy with that view (mostly because I largely share it). However, where he fails in my view is his dogmatic reliance on science. I say dogmatic, because of the essential contradiction. He says that one should only believe something which has evidence - by which he means science. The problem is, that is a belief and one that cannot be proven with absolute certainty. This knotty little problem is the heart of the philosophy of science and mostly dates back to a mad 18th century Scotsmen. One can argue that it is only reasonable to accept science (and I certainly do!) But this is not the same as evidence.

    There is a second, more subtle, problem with his position. If he is genuinely an atheist (something I think we can safely accept), then he must believe that religion and belief in god is a social construction - simply because it can't be anything else. Given he's not a sociologist - or any flavour of social scientist - his understanding of the dynamics of social construction is relatively limited. To put it simply, religion is necessarily a manifestation of society and the people who constitute that society. Most of the sins that Dawkin's attributes to religion are sins of people: religion is not the cause but the conduit of expression. Changing or taking away the conduit of expression - in any sense - doesn't touch the underlying causes.

    I also recognise how he reached his position. As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkin's conflicts with religion have largely revolved around creationism. Creationists and intelligent designers are, without doubt, one of the most intellectually dishonest groups of people around. They actively lie to support their position - wilfully misrepresenting both the evidence and science itself. I can understand how, as a scientist, Dawkins is so deeply offended by these people (mostly because they are deeply offensive). The people in question - at least the ring-leaders - are anything but thick heads. They use a lot of dishonest, aggressive and nasty tactics to fight this battle (they avoid the courts, mostly because they lose every time they get to court). The problem is, this argument is contaminating science. For example, in the last few years, the recognition that live on earth evolved has decreased in the US due to their efforts. It was this change that produced the rather strident response from a number of good and dedicated scientists - including Professor Dawkins. Dawkins hasn't fallen into dishonesty (or the sort of nastiness you see from the Discovery Institute), but he is certainly aggressive in his defence of science.

  11. #31
    The Dashing Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    3,556
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    I'm confused..

    are we discussing the 'specific issues' brought up in this programme or Richard Dawkins's


    The issue of the best way to run an education system is also separate from whether or not God (or any other deity) exists.

    For instance there may be a God but faith-based schooling could still be a bad way to run an education system, or indeed vice versa.
    Love dance, will travel

  12. #32
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    I'm confused..

    are we discussing the 'specific issues' brought up in this programme or Richard Dawkins's
    Sort of...

    Your point is that you found the programme informative and didn't really see that Dawkins had an axe to grind, so were reviewing it on the basis of a standalone piece of information..

    My point is that you cannot separate a person's intention and history of commentary on a particular subject - so in evaluating the programme itself one has to understand the prejudices of the programme makers and writers to fully understand if you can believe the content as it is presented.

    It's a bit like saying, I saw this interesting programme last night hosted by a guy called Osama bin Laden about Islamic oppression and thought he made some good points about how it was important to uphold one's beliefs and traditions...

    You can't have a programme discussing the nature of religion in schools hosted by the foremost militant atheist in the World today.. it's just ridiculous to suggest it would be anything other than totally biased and unbalanced!

  13. #33
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post

    It's a bit like saying, I saw this interesting programme last night hosted by a guy called Osama bin Laden about Islamic oppression and thought he made some good points about how it was important to uphold one's beliefs and traditions...
    Hmm but what if 'Joe Bloggs' made the programme, making exactly the same points?

    Surely the points are either 'good' or 'bad'?
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    are we discussing the 'specific issues' brought up in this programme or Richard Dawkins
    You can't really separate the two. Dawkins is not a passive actor in this: he is a strongly biased advocate for his perspective. You can't really understand the issues he raised without an understanding of why he raised those issues and not others and why he presented the issues the way he did.

    So his concern about science in general and the understanding of evolution in particular is him going back to his real expertise and it becomes more poignant when viewed in the context of the conflict between creationism and science. His inability to get the priest explaining that religion must be lived and experienced to be understood (despite him being raised this way) is his real blind-spot.

  15. #35
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    Well yeah. You wouldn't want to tell people that there are a lot of different religions or anything.
    I think the school failed to effectively communicate that the religions were different. It's difficult to get a whole message across to a child of 7.

    I would say that the school should have waited until the children were old enough to grasp something as multifactorial as the spectrum of religious beliefs.

    Totally out of character for me, I'd like to get back on-topic - or fairly close to the topic.

    There can be no doubt that killings have taken place in the name of many Gods. And that those killings continue to this very day. There is also a great deal of suffering that is caused in the name of various Gods.

    But we really do need to ask ourselves the question "is it the religion or the interpretation of the religion?" IMHO there are very few religions which advocate terrorism, killings, murder, rape, molestation, mutilation, etc. But many of these crimes are done by people who say it's "in the name of God".

    If we can agree that the beliefs and dogmas of the religion itself are not at fault we end up considering the possibility that we need people to know more about the beliefs of their faith rather than less.

    Although we also end up thinking that the religion needs to find a way to police itself to ensure that radicals do not fly planes into buildings or blow up London buses.

  16. #36
    Forum Bombshell - Our Queen! Lory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    9,918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    You can't really separate the two.
    Anyone ignorant about Dawkins previous history can, as we're merely considering at the points brought up in the programme
    MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
    "If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine

  17. #37
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    Hmm but what if 'Joe Bloggs' made the programme, making exactly the same points?

    Surely the points are either 'good' or 'bad'?
    Well, if Joe Bloggs was a completely impartial and independent observer that would be fine, but Dawkins isn't, and isn't by a magnitude of 'you cannot be serious??!!' So whether the points are good or bad are irrelevant to me because his background would suggest that he would manipulate the detail to prove his point - just as he did in The God Delusion..

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    There can be no doubt that killings have taken place in the name of many Gods. And that those killings continue to this very day. There is also a great deal of suffering that is caused in the name of various Gods.
    That old red herring. It's one of the worst arguments against religion - any time it's raised, it warns me that there is sloppy thinking going on.
    Think on two alternative arguments:
    • There can also be no doubt that killings have taken place in the name of no god whatsoever. And that these killings continue to this very day. There is also a great deal of suffering that is caused in the name of no god at all.
    • There can also be no doubt that killings have taken place in the name of Britain. And that these killings continue to this very day. There is also a great deal of suffering that is caused in the name of Britain.


    Those two arguments are also very much true - with a wealth of evidence. Based on the first argument, I could conclude that atheism is bad. Based on the second argument, I could conclude that Britain (or most other nations, for that matter) is bad. Neither conclusion is particularly sensible. In either case, I could then argue that the way Britain governed or administered that's the real problem, not the nature of the country itself. Or I could argue that people without religion lack a moral framework which allows them to rationalise atrocities. Alternatively, I could look for a more sensible explanation: the common factors between the three arguments are there are people involved and people do nasty things to one another. But it is in absolutely no way a unique problem to religion. So, why raise this in the context of a debate about religion?

  19. #39
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Fife.
    Posts
    5,701
    Rep Power
    13

    Summary to date

    Well, there is no irony in this thread!!

    For those coming in to the thread half way through...

    So, God exists. But is man made.

    All

    Jews
    Catholics
    Protestants
    Athiests
    Hindus
    Muslems
    Buddists
    Others

    are evil, dependent on where U sit in relation to the others.

    Seperatist schools based on religion, class, colour are not good for the system but good for individuals. Though, that tends to be misproven because it's down to the characteristics of the parents who are ambitious for their children and, hence, send them to such schools.

    (incidentally, the "Mozart Effect" was also disproved biologically and it was deemed that the parents who pursued the Mozart Effect were the type of parents to do more to develop their children as they grew and the actual effect from pre natal access to music had little bearing)

    Richard Dawkins and Osama Bin Laden went to the same school.


    Anything I've missed??

  20. #40
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    That old red herring. It's one of the worst arguments against religion - any time it's raised, it warns me that there is sloppy thinking going on.
    Think on two alternative arguments:

    --snip--

    Those two arguments are also very much true - with a wealth of evidence.

    --snip--

    Alternatively, I could look for a more sensible explanation: the common factors between the three arguments are there are people involved and people do nasty things to one another. But it is in absolutely no way a unique problem to religion. So, why raise this in the context of a debate about religion?
    The argument that religion is not to blame because others do the same who are not religious is very sloppy - there is no direct link between the two arguments, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

    What I'm saying is that the religion is not to blame, it's the people who use the name of their God to commit crime who are the ones who are to blame. Unfortunately the name of God can be used to pursuade many people to commit atrocities - especially if you can promise an afterlife with 1,000 hot and cold babes!

    It seems that there's a type of individual who will use religious belief as a tool to further their own ends. This doesn't make the tool wrong any more than a knife is wrong. It makes the tool user wrong.

    However, banning religion is not the answer any more than universally banning knives is the answer to knife crime.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Election Debate on TV
    By rtwwpad in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 13th-May-2010, 12:40 PM
  2. Ballroom & Latin on TV (30 Dec, Eurosport)
    By DavidB in forum The Land of a 1000 dances
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th-December-2009, 02:42 PM
  3. Lost TV Series
    By frolicols in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 3rd-February-2009, 04:51 PM
  4. Im a nobody, get this off the tv.
    By Trouble in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 5th-December-2008, 02:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •