DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Ramirez]

This is funny as hell, this women's blank stare and fixed smile is just creepy.

It is like watching Richard Feynman trying to explain quantum mechanics to Pamela Anderson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs&feature=PlayList&p=BB2DE15B73D30FCE&index=0

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is funny as hell, this women's blank stare and fixed smile is just creepy.

It is like watching Richard Feynman trying to explain quantum mechanics to Pamela Anderson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs&feature=PlayList&p=BB2DE15B73D30FCE&index=0

I would first like to say that I believe that evolution is scientific fact, not fiction.

Having said that, I would also like to say that I do not disbelieve in the concept of Creationism, even if it is not literally as described by many religious persons and texts. As a Catholic, my Pope has stated that the concept of evolution is not incompatible with that of Creation. They could well both be true, in ways that we do not yet understand.

With specific reference to videos such as this, I dislike setups designed to make another person look stupid as if that proves one's point. Yes, Dawkins is very intelligent, and the woman being interviewed is not an intellectual match for him. This hardly makes Dawkins right, it simply means he wins the debate.

Why must debate on serious topics be mockery? Is that the only way to make one's point, to 'win' the argument?

 

[Dirty Dog]

And people think that zombies aren't real....

 

[Ramirez]

With specific reference to videos such as this, I dislike setups designed to make another person look stupid as if that proves one's point.

Well I am the one saying that she isn't too bright not Dawkins.

actually that woman seems to have quite a lot of influence in her particular baliwick.

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2107


Really , she is a good candidate to illustrate his point.


Did you watch the entire interview? Dawkins is (unusually) quite gentle with her, even saying at one point he doesn't understand how an intelligent woman like her can keep denying the evidence when he keeps putting it in front of her.

Edit: In fact there are some youtube posters saying he was too easy on her and perhaps someone more harsh like Christopher Hitchens would have really made her look foolish.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did you watch the entire interview? Dawkins is (unusually) quite gentle with her, even saying at one point he doesn't understand how an intelligent woman like her can keep denying the evidence when he keeps putting it in front of her.

Edit: In fact there are some youtube posters saying he was too easy on her and perhaps someone more harsh like Christopher Hitchens would have really made her look foolish.

I don't know Dawkins, but to me he comes off as snarkish. He's 'gentle' because he knows he has made her look foolish and unintelligent. Again, that kind of mismatch doesn't prove right or wrong - it just makes him look like a colossal jerk (at least to me).

This is precisely why I no longer read Boing-Boing. What was once rational debate from the side of the Left became nothing more than a snark-fest and let's pull down their pants and laugh at them bully tactics. If that gets you off, good for you. It does nothing for me.

 

[Ramirez]

I don't know Dawkins, but to me he comes off as snarkish. He's 'gentle' because he knows he has made her look foolish and unintelligent. Again, that kind of mismatch doesn't prove right or wrong - it just makes him look like a colossal jerk (at least to me).

Well to paraphrase Alan Rickman from Bottle Shock you think he's an @sshole, he isn't, its just that he is British and you're not.

 

[Jenna]

I think that Richard Dawkins and his array of minions are wholly blind in their own dogma. The irony is thick as fog around Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al. That they deride those who oppose their viewpoint as "indoctrinated" and "fundamentalist" without appreciating the depth of their own unswerving creed is just too unbearable for me to take them seriously. Though the concepts may arguably be well-founded, I pity neo-Darwin theorists having to suffer the lamentable Dawkins as a figurehead. Understanding concepts without understanding the motivations of the people to whom those concepts supposedly apply is not the mark of superior intellect in my opinion.

Well to paraphrase Alan Rickman from Bottle Shock you think he's an @sshole, he isn't, its just that he is British and you're not.

Is Richard Dawkins' nationality pertinent??

 

[Ramirez]

I think that Richard Dawkins and his array of minions are wholly blind in their own dogma.

If you want to argue his atheist philosophy you may have a point, here however the subject is just evolution, there is no dogma, just empirical evidence.

 

[Jenna]

If you want to argue his atheist philosophy you may have a point, here however the subject is just evolution, there is no dogma, just empirical evidence.

Haha no I think the server here is too scarce on space to contemplate creationism vs evolution I am stating only that Richard Dawkins in particular is, in the most ironic way possible, horribly evangelical in his preaching.. Almost, um, fundamentalist, I would suggest Jenna x

 

[Omar B]

Funny. I'm an atheist but I've never read Dawkin's book, but people keep recommending it to me.

 

[Jenna]

Funny. I'm an atheist but I've never read Dawkin's book, but people keep recommending it to me.

As an athiest, you should read Dawkins in exactly the same way that you might read the Bible or the Qur'an ie. as though you were reading the literature of the proselytiser.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Dawkins, Hitchens and many others are constantly debated about their beliefs, the creationists put out many intelligent folks to do so. They will accept any debate, any time, with anybody.

I doubt Dawkins just decided one morning to walk in and debate the woman, I’m sure there were schedules to organize, they must have needed her permission to talk with her, permission to film it, a release, etc. I doubt this woman is some poor deer in the headlights who got caught as she walked into work one morning, I would be surprised if she didn’t get a few weeks notice.

RD didn’t make her look foolish and unintelligent, she did that all by herself.

She has said many things in the past that no one has challenged her on, so RD chatted with her. No different then a politician being asked questions about a subject they claim to be an expert about. What, because she lacks the knowledge base to back up her claims, she should get a bi? If she lacks the knowledge to defend her position, she should not say anything at all. Dawkins prepares himself very well, so does Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, they probably know the scriptures better then most of the people they chat with.

If it was Dennet, Hitchens or Harris chatting with her, they would have taken her throat.

Here’s the four horsemen http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890#

Why do people always think that the atheists come from the “left”?? The terms are not synonymous. I’ve been a card carrying conservative for over 25 years, I know many atheists on the “right”.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Haha no I think the server here is too scarce on space to contemplate creationism vs evolution I am stating only that Richard Dawkins in particular is, in the most ironic way possible, horribly evangelical in his preaching.. Almost, um, fundamentalist, I would suggest Jenna x

Actually No. Provide the evidence to prove his point wrong and he will change his mind. You can't say that about the theists.

 

[Ramirez]

Ken raises a good point Bill, this woman is out there promoting a ideology is a public figure and probably working actively to prevent evolution being taught in public schools.

Why should you think Dawkins is making her look foolish when she puts herself in the public forum willingly?

 

[Ken Morgan]

As an athiest, you should read Dawkins in exactly the same way that you might read the Bible or the Qur'an ie. as though you were reading the literature of the proselytiser.

Actually religious scriptures are fiction and Dawkins is non fiction. Did you ever read his works?

 

[Jenna]

Actually No. Provide the evidence to prove his point wrong and he will change his mind. You can't say that about the theists.

LOLs.. I think to ask me for evidence of the existence of a deity is quite peculiar. I am a poster on a martial arts forum?

 

[Omar B]

It would be great to believe in all that religious stuff, but I just can't. Many other atheists I meet are of the same mindset. We did not accept faith (belief without proof) but rather arrived at a conclusion. When the religious call atheists closed minded and dogmatic I find it a bit funny, it's like they are looking in a mirror.

 

[Jenna]

Actually religious scriptures are fiction and Dawkins is non fiction. Did you ever read his works?

Yes, very good. I have read Dawkins pamphlets. Dry and but quite entertaining. I would recommend them certainly. I have also spoken to him [albeit momentarily] at their last "There's Probably No God" campaign that they ran on the buses here.. I would not rescind my opinion of him

 

[Gordon Nore]

Why should you think Dawkins is making her look foolish when she puts herself in the public forum willingly?

I think that provides the basis for the interview. It's not like Dawkins showed up out of the blue, and she gave the interview.

Now it's interesting that atheism has been thrown into the Creationism/Evolution debate. One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Similarly, a Christian does not have to believe in Creationism.

Evolutionists are not on the side of scientific rightness (dare I say, correctness) because they are atheists; they're on the scientifically correct side because they are talking about science, not faith or religion.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Well to paraphrase Alan Rickman from Bottle Shock you think he's an @sshole, he isn't, its just that he is British and you're not.

I think he was behaving like an ******* also, and I am British.