Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: Richard Dawkins on TV

  1. #61
    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 Bubble View Post
    If someone sympathises with Prof. Dawkins viewpoints then it doesn't surprise me that they see nothing wrong with his writings.

    You assume I "sympathise" and then assume I "see nothing wrong with his writings". Why? I see a lot wrong with his writings. But is that any defense of your point that he is angry and hateful?... complete misdirection suggesting you are "not surprised"? Frankly, you shouldn't have bothered typing anything at all if that's what you consider a valid response.

    I found his style of writing so nauseating I only managed to read a few pages!
    I found it simplistic and occasionally dull. I never finished it. But far worse was an apologists "response" to "the god delusion" which i bought at the same time - it made the God Delusion look brilliant in comparison.

    Not everyone regards Buddhism as a religion, same comment also applies to Hinduism. I'd guess his diatribes are directed mainly towards the two largest faiths in the world, Christianity and Islam.
    I think the Buddhists do, and I imagine they should know But are you are putting any thought into your arguments - you "guess" he is directing his diatribes toward the 2 largest faiths huh? a post ago you sounded sure he was "a man full of anger and hate for all things religious." now you've scaled that back to a "guess" a "diatribe" and "2 religions" out of hundreds, if not thousands of religions. It's almost as if you just don't like Richard Dawkins and are making stuff up.


    Except, in this case, it is a gentleman by the name of Dawkins who is perhaps protesting a little too much to be considered entirely sincere in his protestations.
    Are you still being flippant? because that makes little sense.

  2. #62
    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 geoff332 View Post
    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.
    The second one yes, but the first one? No. Of course it isn't. The 2nd one names something, "Britain" as a cause to fight and kill for. The 1st names nothing. Literally. Try "we just don't like you" as a reason to kill, at least that makes sense. "In the name of no god at all" is pretty hilarious, is it similar to the "sound of one hand clapping"? well done, but what evidence do you have of this impossibility ?

  3. #63
    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
    and then the independent reviews of his books, you can see that he is often accused of presenting a grossly unbalanced and biased opinion...
    Yes, usually by people who disagree with everything he says or the way he says it. None of these people have any bias I am sure

    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.
    So? there ARE links. Wikipedia even has a page. It's enough evidence to bring it up, the conservative religious surely bring up evidence pointing the other way (and occasionally make it up, e.g. by citing Einstein as "one of them"*(see end)). When has Dawkins made up evidence? Dawkins, maybe most of us, are worried about religions affect in places where education may be lacking. The society wide acceptance of other peoples interpretation of religion (i.e. he is a cleric so it must be true) as, for example, taught in schools is frightening. I am worried too. My brother was recently in Senegal and did some volunteer work. In schools there, the majority, if not all, of the teaching is religious based (reciting the Koran for 3 hours was one lesson). That's often where charity money goes to. How useful is that to children in the developing world? in countries where the local clerical interpretation of religion still allows for witches and bizarre easily falsified local superstitions that we grew out of hundreds of years ago?

    You can research the term 'Militant Atheist' and see how it applies to Dawkins...
    He has been called worst things than that I am sure. I can see how some think that term applies, but I see it as simply name calling that makes the caller look silly.

    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.
    Well, there has been a massive upsurge of religion in schools and politics. But that is about secularism, not personal belief or religion generally. Ex-PM Tony Blair was heavily anti-secular. He suggested all faiths should unite against the secular menace. So Tony is bringing a fight against what the majority of people on this country actually want - a free and open secular society. Yet you think Richard Dawkins is wrong for suggesting the majority don't get dictated to by the minority and speak up? It's also worth remembering that this is not about atheism - you have changed the subject onto secularism which the majority of RELIGIOUS people in the UK support.

    Interestingly, you didn't directly address any of my questions, you simply have come up with further anecdotes on Richard Dawkins, who you don't appear to like. Why don't we get your opinion on faith schools, if you have one?

    So, if you're going to have an opinion at least make it an informed one...
    oh the irony


    *
    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein
    In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task
    cheers Albert

  4. #64
    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 Nessiemonster View Post
    Do I agree with him about faith schools? The jury is out for me at the moment, I would tend to agree with another comment in this thread, that they are good for the individual but not so good for society. They can build local communities but could encourage division within wider communities.
    Well done, you are intelligent and far more open minded and capable of reason than 99% of this forum. After the last few posts I have read in this thread you are the voice of reason.

    I've managed to make that sound really patronising haven't I But seriously meant it was.

  5. #65
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Have the discussion to yourself DS, because after your last 4 posts I doubt whether anyone will seriously bother answering you...

  6. #66
    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
    Have the discussion to yourself DS, because after your last 4 posts I doubt whether anyone will seriously bother answering you...
    "with myself" you mean. true, it is the only way i'll get an intelligent conversation ... drumroll...badoom tsssh

  7. #67
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    I thought I'd comment, as I finally watched the programme. It was an interesting programme, but a bit light on much in depth argument, but I don't see that there was many points to make and backing them up was pretty easy but hardly conclusive. Basically, one muslim schools teaching of evolution is awful, it has to be when the teacher doesn't even have a high school student level grasp off it (i mean not understanding the basic principle of a common ancestor in evolution ). We are to assume all other faith schools are like that - which may or may not be the case. We are also to assume that the statistics quoted are accurate - 59% of the public do not want biased religious teaching in schools. But ultimately, no one came across with anything to offer as reasons that we need faith schools. He did address the myth of "better quality" but it would have been nice to get any "benefits" of faith schools, otherwise the suggestion is that there are none. All the ex-education secretary could offer as the reason for the increase in faith schools was that it "wasn't fair" to have christian faith schools and not schools for other faiths. It didn't seem to occur to him that abolishing faith schools would be the easy answer. Now, instead, we can expect faith schools for scientology, wicca, satanism etc...its only fair after all and its only going to...cough...cough... improve the standard of education and bring society closer .

    I did learn a few things. I did not know that up to 90% of the cost of faith schools was now covered by taxpayers, I thought it was still around half - pretty shocking. When you consider that all religious education in these schools is not subject to government tests for standards, its a massive bias which can only create an "us and them" attitude. In other words "divisive". Something that even a priest in Northern Island would not admit to, despite the history there. He admitted to a "difference in theology" but no division. Hmmm. Hopefully it will all get better when people suddenly start just agreeing. Got to admire his optimism in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    For the faith schools to be able to do their own selection based on the beliefs of the parents is, as Richard Dawkins says, somehow acceptable for these schools. Selection based on skin colour would not be I imagine. Its a shame no one came on to explain why, but as it makes no sense, perhaps there is no sensible answer.

    As I thought, Mr.Dawkins did reiterate that he was very much in favour of religious literacy, and an expansive religious curriculum. This is certainly at odds with some peoples opinion of him, but some people hear what they want to hear and see such a liberal attitude as its polar opposite.

    Another comment I found damning was the muslim school spokesman who suggested, after Mr.Dawkins criticism of their teaching of evolution, that "evolution is insignificant in their lives"! As it is about "where we came from" I hardly think that is true, especially when the alternative religious version of "where we came from" seems to be of the utmost importance. What I take from that, is some people think evolution is wrong and will tell people so. Unfortunately, it's the facts as we currently know them. But what are facts worth to impressionable children? "Everything" i would argue.

    I appreciated the comment on "self segregation" from an ex-muslim immigrant who has lived here since the 1970's. I agree with him , it is scarier to think that British people, born here, can grow up in self imposed segregation and have that actually encouraged by the schools they go to. Does anyone have any interest in addressing this point ? I have mentioned the Bradford riots and the report afterward which recommended an intake of different religions into some faith schools to go some way to preventing future issues.

    There was one point in the programme where it showed Mr.Dawkins struggling to answer a question (or get a word in really, as his interviewee aggressively stuck to his point). The point was "do parents have a basic human right to choose how to educate their children" , Richard agreed that they do. He would as a strong liberal. But I can see why he thinks society as a whole should prevent the passing on of bigotry/religious bias/ and scientific ignorance even if he would not go as far as legally enforcing that. I would certainly agree with the removal of the "up to" 90% funding taxpayers currently put into faith schools - all the schools need to do is open the RE classes up to the curriculum and Ofsted inspection like every other school does (a fact Charles Clarke cant get his head around, he saw the withdrawal of funding as "forced closure" and the loss of votes that could lead to). How else can any sort of standard of education be maintained if schools can make it up on a school by school basis? and how can any real choice in schools exist when 1/3rd of schools are faith based? If you live in the wrong area you may have no choice but to get a biased religious education for your children, or move house (which will help that segregation issue )

    I would like to think that Richard Dawkins stated ultimate aim of ensuring that childrens imaginations are fired to allow them to look at the "extraordinary questions we have yet to answer" as a race, is a fairly universal aim. Humans assuming they have all the answers is the height of arrogance. Mr.Dawkins is not claiming he has all the answers, that is clear to anyone who isn't suffering from a bit of their own "god complex".

  8. #68
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    In my opinion, all schools should be secular. I support religious education in schools, in the modern sense that it is (or should be) teaching about what followers of the major world religions believe, but I am strongly against any form of religious instruction in schools. Especially schools that are partly paid for by my taxes.

    The place for religious instruction is in the home or the place of worship. There should be no place for it in schools. That includes the currently-mandated (in Wales and England at least; I'm not sure of the situation Scotland and NI) "broadly Christian" daily act of collective worship.

  9. #69
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Apologies, I only just noticed this post. I came back to the thread after lots of thanks appeared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    LOL... from Wikepedia..

    The Root of All Evil?, later retitled The God Delusion,
    Presumably you will now completely agree with me as per your statement?
    I already agree with you that religion is not the root of all evil, as i suggested. You have not shown that Richard Dawkins said any such thing however. Proving (i suppose as its cited as evidence), that you were entirely making it up. 1st, Mr. Dawkins claims he did not choose the title for the programme. So its not from him is it? Also, other people with a less biased view of him will notice that even if he did create it, the title is clearly "The Root of All Evil?" - the question mark signifies a question, not a statement of fact. This is why its a waste of time debating you, its never a sensible argument, its just a deluge of frothy bull*****.

    What is funny is that Dawkins subsequently distanced himself from the title saying that it was not his choice... yeah, right... he only wrote and presented the whole program, of course he would have no control over the title...
    Was he producer as well then ? why do you assume he is lying? must he be lying because you neither like nor trust him? And why is it funny? but i'm sure you have checked to make sure you have your facts right here. You're a trustworthy source who isn't trying to manipulate the information in order to portray the 'facts' in a particular way? right?

    oops! on wikipedia from the Dawkins page you gave, if you click on the name of the programme "The Root of all evil? "...you get...

    Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy. The sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous
    So Mr.Dawkins forced the question mark on C4 because he specifically did NOT agree with the statement they choose that you keep saying he holds. In fact he states that the particular statement is "ridiculous".

    Please keep on cherry picking quotes though, its funny. Your foot must be fool[sic] of holes. I suggest conservapedia.com as a source, its fantastic, and will save you a lot of cherry picking when it comes to criticisng Mr.Dawkins in the future. They've done all the work for you.

    And just in case any of you are in doubt over how a program can be manipulated to portray 'facts' in a particular way, here's a nice little snippet following the release of Root Of all Evil..

    " McGrath said that his interview was cut because he said things that did not promote the message that Dawkins and the producers wanted to get across.."

    Really? Now there's a surprise...
    Well if Richard Dawkins is the vocal side to atheism, or someone who speaks out against organised religion in various ways, Alister McGrath is the opposite end of the spectrum. To someone in the middle, they would find both of them objectionable in some way I imagine.

    Every popular program, documentary or otherwise has an "agenda" for what the producers want to get across, that's hardly news. I'm sure Mr.McGrath is absolutely right - his interview didn't "fit". However, his unedited interviews are freely available from Richard Dawkins own site , as wikipedia points out if you...cough...didn't...cough... notice , so its clear Richard Dawkins is not trying to censor anyone or their views.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Carnoustie
    Posts
    1,044
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    The Root of All Evil?,
    I think there's a huge difference between "The Root of All Evil?" and "The Root of All Evil" You seemed to have turned a question into a statement

  11. #71
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by batnurse View Post
    I think there's a huge difference between "The Root of All Evil?" and "The Root of All Evil" You seemed to have turned a question into a statement
    Indeed. Any fule kno that the root of all evil is actually Jedward

  12. #72
    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

    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

  13. #73
    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've just watched it, did anyone else see it?

    I'd be interested to know if I was the only one who felt embarrassed 'for' those people, who were either, complete con artists or clearly deluded, especially at the 'Mind, Body and Spirit, Psychic fair'? I 'almost' felt sorry for them!

    Whether you like the guy or not. Surely any reasonably intelligent person would agree that things like astrology and crystal therapy, really are a load of old codswallop?

    The only part of alternative therapy I really agree with is, people get/feel better, when they believe they'll get/feel better and having someone take the time to listen and often 'physically touch' in a nice way, i.e. massage or laying on of hands, is sometimes enough to change their mindset and AFAIC if they're doing no harm and people feel better, then good on them!
    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. #74
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    Surely any reasonably intelligent person would agree that things like astrology and crystal therapy, really are a load of old codswallop?
    I agree, but I know a surprising number of otherwise intelligent people who do believe in that stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lory View Post
    The only part of alternative therapy I really agree with is, people get/feel better, when they believe they'll get/feel better
    Indeed. Never underestimate the placebo effect.

  15. #75
    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 Lory View Post
    The only part of alternative therapy I really agree with is, people get/feel better, when they believe they'll get/feel better and having someone take the time to listen and often 'physically touch' in a nice way, i.e. massage or laying on of hands, is sometimes enough to change their mindset and AFAIC if they're doing no harm and people feel better, then good on them!
    They are not "doing no harm". However, their treatments are mosly harmless. The harm they do is that they delay the time some people take to get a proper diagnosis and receive proper, evidence based therapies.

    Basically, these alternative therapists are, on average, shortening people's lives. In some circles that's called "murder". "Root of all evil?" Not all evil, but still evil, just with benign intent.

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    You assume I "sympathise" and then assume I "see nothing wrong with his writings".


    I didn’t name you or anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Frankly, you shouldn't have bothered typing anything at all if that's what you consider a valid response.


    Yeah, I’m wearing out my keyboard, and all for nothing!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I found it simplistic and occasionally dull. I never finished it. But far worse was an apologists "response" to "the god delusion" which i bought at the same time - it made the God Delusion look brilliant in comparison.


    I haven’t read either of those books. However, I did read somewhere that Dawkins biggest problem when attacking religion is that he doesn’t understand Christianity, or for that matter, religion in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I think the Buddhists do, and I imagine they should know.



    I suppose it really depends on what the defining features of a religion are considered to be. I’ve always regarded Christianity and Islam as 100% theistic. With some other religions things are not so clear cut. For example, both Hinduism and Buddhism have followers that are atheists. For me at least, that creates an oxymoron, if someone says they are following an atheistic religion.

    I recently asked my Thai friend if Buddhism was a religion, or, a philosophy-for-living. She said it was both. However, in the discussion that followed, it rapidly became apparent that she had no idea of what any of the defining features of the Abrahamic religions are. For now, I think I’m going to stick with the idea that a religion must be 100% theistic. Interestingly, Dawkins titled his book ‘The God Delusion’, that tends to imply theism is being criticised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    But are you are putting any thought into your arguments


    Probably not, I don’t normally, so I’m loathed to start now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    you "guess" he is directing his diatribes toward the 2 largest faiths huh? a post ago you sounded sure he was "a man full of anger and hate for all things religious." now you've scaled that back to a "guess" a "diatribe" and "2 religions" out of hundreds, if not thousands of religions.


    As I’ve already said, I’m sticking to the idea that a ‘religion’ must be 100% theistic in nature. Therefore, Christianity and Islam make up most of the worlds religious followers. Why would Dawkins waste time attacking a small religion which has only a relatively small number of followers? Far better to go after the biggest two religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    It's almost as if you just don't like Richard Dawkins and are making stuff up.


    Yeah, I was a little short, so I turned the handle a few times on my Bunkum Generator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Are you still being flippant? because that makes little sense.


    People have been known to vehemently profess views that are the complete opposite of those that they privately hold. If you’ve never encountered that before then I can’t assist you any further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    They are not "doing no harm". However, their treatments are mosly harmless. The harm they do is that they delay the time some people take to get a proper diagnosis and receive proper, evidence based therapies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post

    Basically, these alternative therapists are, on average, shortening people's lives. In some circles that's called "murder". "Root of all evil?" Not all evil, but still evil, just with benign intent.


    Certainly there are lots of people out there selling expensive snake-oil. However, sometimes the treatments endorsed by the medical world actually shorten people’s lives. Take this guy, he was diagnosed with myeloma and given months to live, even with the ‘assistance’ of 'life-prolonging' chemotherapy treatment. He rejected professional medical opinion and the chemotherapy option, took alternative treatments and was still alive years later to write a book about it (although he did take his coffee differently from most people). It makes me wonder how many other people would live a lot longer if they considered the alternatives, rather than going straight to the 'professionals'.

    Another example, CMO has been known to assist many people who have arthritis, and with minimal side effects, but some medical professionals have never even heard of it. Meanwhile, the medical profession keeps prescribing arthritis drugs with nasty side effects.

  17. #77
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    It makes me wonder how many other people would live a lot longer if they considered the alternatives, rather than going straight to the 'professionals'.
    Probably not that many. If alternative medicine worked better than normal medicine it would no longer be alternative; it would just be "medicine" and the professionals would use it.

  18. #78
    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 Baruch View Post
    Probably not that many. If alternative medicine worked better than normal medicine it would no longer be alternative; it would just be "medicine" and the professionals would use it.
    Well, I think that is rather simplistic and ignores the enormous financial and professional benefits certain health organizations and practitioners enjoy by recommending a particular company's prescription drugs.

    There's good and bad alternative therapies of course, but I'm sure it's not difficult to imagine why drug company's might get involved in propaganda to discredit anything that people could grow themselves or buy relatively cheaply.

    Many drugs have side effects that are countered by... yup, you've guessed it, another prescription drug! Double whammy..

    There are billions of dollars changing hands here, it would be very naive of anyone to assume that drug companies only have our best interests at heart..

  19. #79
    Registered User Baruch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Pontllanfraith
    Posts
    2,261
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Richard Dawkins on TV

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Well, I think that is rather simplistic and ignores the enormous financial and professional benefits certain health organizations and practitioners enjoy by recommending a particular company's prescription drugs.
    Simplistic or not, it works as a general principle. I'd rather put my trust in conventional medicine than in some quack with next to no scientific basis to their work.

    Yes, pharmaceutical companies are out to make money, but that's only part of the story and ignores the many dedicated doctors, surgeons etc. who know their stuff and base their treatment on sound medical and scientific knowledge.

  20. #80
    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 Baruch View Post
    Simplistic or not, it works as a general principle. I'd rather put my trust in conventional medicine than in some quack with next to no scientific basis to their work..
    Have you been to your local GP lately? Ours is worse than useless..

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
  •