1. Comment #283184 by Rawhard Dickins on November 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

Which Jesus?

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

2. Comment #283197 by beeline on November 13, 2008 at 9:03 am

Hurrah!

Science provides what I believe to be a closer approximation to the correct answers.

I'm glad Richard seems to be steering away from that faith-soaked word 'Truth' at last. Now we just need to do away with 'believe', and science will look - to the public - the way it's supposed to, i.e. a completely different creature to faith or opinion; one that is open to attack, and corrects itself accordingly.

As he says, science is our 'best shot', and that's a humble and honest description of its endeavours, which is more than can be said for any arrogant, dogmatic stance. Science should never, ever claim to represent The Truth. That's a static, stagnant, dead-end faith position.

Other Comments by beeline

3. Comment #283206 by helmiy on November 13, 2008 at 9:13 am

Not only intelligent but nice, charming and charismatic personality . He is an Idol for everybody looking for truth.
I think he should do more TV series and movies. Religious people normally don't read non-religious books but they do watch TV.
I know that they all like him because it is very hard not to. They just cannot help it.

Other Comments by helmiy

4. Comment #283209 by theseanze on November 13, 2008 at 9:14 am

wierd editing...

Other Comments by theseanze

5. Comment #283215 by Swordmaiden on November 13, 2008 at 9:21 am

I could listen to The Prof talking forever....but I hate that arty farty editing...it looked like he was sitting on a sofa talking to a ghost which only he could see....which would be interesting !!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

6. Comment #283220 by HandyGeek on November 13, 2008 at 9:25 am

Of all the brilliant minds, why Jesus? I'm of the school that there was no Jesus, though. At least not the one written of in the bible.

Other Comments by HandyGeek

7. Comment #283225 by hawt4dawk on November 13, 2008 at 9:32 am

Nice. I, too, could listen to RD all day. What he has to say is so decent and honest and reasonable.

edit

Other Comments by hawt4dawk

8. Comment #283238 by HourglassMemory on November 13, 2008 at 9:56 am

This is the look I like most on him.
The other look I like is the gray (grey? spell.?) suit and glasses, like in this picture.
http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/graphics/audio_video/av169_lg.jpg

It was a nice little interview. It says Part One on top of the video window...are we to expect more?

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

9. Comment #283244 by curly on November 13, 2008 at 10:07 am

This is great but when will we get the video of the Dawkins Vs Lennox debate from 28th October? I'm getting impatient!!

Other Comments by curly

10. Comment #283247 by curly on November 13, 2008 at 10:11 am

This is great but when will we get the Dawkins Vs Lennox debate from 28th October?

Other Comments by curly

11. Comment #283253 by eh-theist on November 13, 2008 at 10:20 am

Part II is on the site too.

http://www.t5m.com/richard-dawkins/richard-dawkins-an-exclusive-profile-part-ii.html

The "lo" quality version definitely works.

For the full "channel"...

http://www.t5m.com/richard-dawkins/

Note "Richard Dawkins Competition
Coming soon!"

Other Comments by eh-theist

12. Comment #283255 by rod-the-farmer on November 13, 2008 at 10:25 am

Wow. I tried going to the T5M web site, and it hung my PC something terrible. I suggest we wait until the other segments are posted here directly.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

13. Comment #283261 by MikeJ on November 13, 2008 at 10:39 am

I don't know if there's anyone alive right now who thinks or speaks as clearly as Professor Dawkins.


I think the editor had a touch of 'Lord Privy Seal' syndrome though... and I had to cringe when they cut to the museum exhibit showing the procession of increasingly humanoid skeletons.

Other Comments by MikeJ

14. Comment #283265 by robotaholic on November 13, 2008 at 10:46 am

I still want Richard Dawkins' autograph...some day *sigh*

Other Comments by robotaholic

15. Comment #283269 by Dr Doctor on November 13, 2008 at 10:51 am

Preferably on a blank cheque.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

16. Comment #283276 by severalspeciesof on November 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

Dr Doctor

Preferably on a blank cheque.

You're not trying to rouse the spirit of D. Robertson, are you? ;-)

(shudders to think...)

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

17. Comment #283280 by Lucas on November 13, 2008 at 11:08 am

Great words, terrible editing. Richard comes of calm and intellectual, saying things we've heard before but more succinctly and with less venom. But man, the white flashes between cuts and constant movement almost made me puke. It's okay to do a 5 or 10 second shot, yeesh.

Other Comments by Lucas

18. Comment #283285 by Friend Giskard on November 13, 2008 at 11:13 am

Don't invite Jesus to your dinner party. He was a racist.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=364

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

19. Comment #283289 by Stephan on November 13, 2008 at 11:17 am

I love hearing Prof. Dawkins speak. However, after having read his books, and after having watched all the videos, it really is hard to come across something new. This is, of course, also partly because interviewers always ask the same old questions and religious people always come up with the same few lame arguments (which in turn trigger the same answers). I wish there were some new and fresh material out there.
Anyway, it's always good to enjoy another dosis of the professor's wisdom, even though it's all been said and heard before.

Other Comments by Stephan

20. Comment #283291 by Matt H. on November 13, 2008 at 11:22 am

Jesus? Oh dear. I definitely wouldn't want a preacher at the dinner table.

Other Comments by Matt H.

21. Comment #283317 by stevenlebeau on November 13, 2008 at 12:06 pm

This was great, but if you go to the T5M website there are a ton of other clips where Dawkins reflects on a number of different subjects, including some interesting comments about his relationship to music which, for some reason, I find particularly fascinating.

Other Comments by stevenlebeau

22. Comment #283334 by Layla Nasreddin on November 13, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Agree with the previous comment recommending the other clips (http://www.t5m.com/richard-dawkins/archive, there are two and a quarter pages' worth), from which most of the bits in this 'profile' piece have been taken. Which, might I add, are done mostly in straight 'interview style', without all the Lord-Privy-Seal-cuts and MTV-type edits!

Who knew that the Prof liked late-period Beatles and female folk singers, anyway? ;-)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

23. Comment #283439 by Vanpastel on November 13, 2008 at 1:31 pm

For me, Richard's voice is like a lullaby, it gives me a kind of soothing feeling that I very much like. I cannot understand how some people say he is strident.

Other Comments by Vanpastel

24. Comment #283447 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Vanpastel

Richard's voice is like a lullaby, it gives me a kind of soothing feeling that I very much like.

Hmm.. that is embarassing.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #283466 by Vanpastel on November 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #283447 by Bonzai
Oh my... Is it? It would be embarrasing to declare that I would like to have a love affair with him, but I haven't said that have I? Err... It doesn't look like I can fix this, so I'll just give up trying.

Other Comments by Vanpastel

26. Comment #283471 by octo on November 13, 2008 at 1:57 pm

A collection of the usual RD soundbites. Nicely presented. Not much depth. Nothing new here.

Other Comments by octo

27. Comment #283501 by harty on November 13, 2008 at 2:31 pm

It's a very useful video of Dawkins' arguments. I'd say this was a useful thing to show anyone who doubts the strength of the arguments.

Other Comments by harty

28. Comment #283548 by hawt4dawk on November 13, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Bonzai -- you devil! Leave poor Vanpastel alone! Haven't I said elsewhere that I would like Richard Dawkins to come to my house and read me stories from "House at Pooh Corner"? He does have a most soothing voice! ;)

Other Comments by hawt4dawk

29. Comment #283561 by atkinson on November 13, 2008 at 3:07 pm

A big second to rod-the-farmer. Even the new adobe flashplayer won't show me any video. Grrr.

Other Comments by atkinson

30. Comment #283623 by watcher_of_the_skies on November 13, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Vanpastel's comment wasn't embarrassing in the slightest. Richard obviously does have a very calming, delicate voice. That's a scientific fact Bonzai!

On another note, my dream dinner party has to be Richard (obviously), Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Carl Sagan and Darwin. Imagine the intellect!

Other Comments by watcher_of_the_skies

31. Comment #283628 by nickthelight on November 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Section I and section II are the same thing on the t5m site? All good though.

Other Comments by nickthelight

32. Comment #283722 by Liveliest Crib on November 13, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I'd like to echo the sentiments that the editing was weird, and difficult to watch.

Also, one of the angles from which Dr. Dawkins was filmed made it appear that he was sitting on a couch talking to no one.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

33. Comment #283728 by windfall on November 13, 2008 at 6:37 pm

MikeJ: 'I don't know if there's anyone alive right now who thinks or speaks as clearly as Professor Dawkins.'

Big Dawkin's fan, but I must disagree (with respect to the professor): IMHO nobody that I've come across thinks or speaks more lucidly than Sam Harris. Especially on this subject.

Other Comments by windfall

34. Comment #283806 by j.mills on November 13, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Why do TV producers think they're adding value by zooming in on someone's knee and flipping to black and white? Idiots.

I'm having no trouble viewing the other videos (Ubuntu, Firefox).

Other Comments by j.mills

35. Comment #283839 by ricklend on November 13, 2008 at 10:24 pm

I thank God every day for Dawkins, Shermer, Dennet, Hitchens and Harris.

Other Comments by ricklend

36. Comment #283845 by Wosret on November 13, 2008 at 11:21 pm

My dream dinner would be Utena, Yoruichi, Son Goku, Oda Nobunaga, the Buddha, Winston Churchill, Sam Harris and Skeletor.

If RD is allowed fictional people then so am I!

Other Comments by Wosret

37. Comment #283874 by Sargeist on November 14, 2008 at 12:58 am

13. Comment #283261 by MikeJ on November 13, 2008 at 10:39 am

I don't know if there's anyone alive right now who thinks or speaks as clearly as Professor Dawkins.

I think that Sir David Attenborough is there, too.

Other Comments by Sargeist

38. Comment #283877 by thereisnodog on November 14, 2008 at 1:06 am

legend.....

Other Comments by thereisnodog

39. Comment #283893 by Laurie Fraser on November 14, 2008 at 1:43 am

Richard Dawkins is officially invited to the RD.net conference in Dublin next year as a guest speaker.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

40. Comment #283912 by AfraidToDie on November 14, 2008 at 2:12 am

I'd guess RD would like to have Jesus at the dinner table to find out just how dilusional he really was in person. Just understandable curiousity, and sure wouldn't be a guest for pleasure's sake. Although with his other guests, he wouldn't have to just talk nonsense with a chizophrenic weirdo, he could let the conversation lead where it may. I think that would be interesting as well.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

41. Comment #284009 by flying goose on November 14, 2008 at 5:11 am

Friend Giskard Comment 18
' Don't invite Jesus to your dinner party. He was a racist.'

I read the article posted,

My comment there was this,

This is not a completely fair assessment, we have to allow for the fact of Rabbinic Hyperbole, and Jesus is speaking in the idiom of his time and culture. Exaggeration was often employed to drive home a point.
The other thing is that this is Matthew's gospel, he has his own particular theological spin. He wants his readers to be clear that the new movement is authentically Jewish. Those who are closest to his position, other Pharisees are the ones who come in for the shrillest attack. 1st century Palestine is not 21st Century Oxford.

Nowhere could be further from the marginalised than then the dreaming spires of Oxford or any other academy. Hyperbole is sometimes all the marginalised have to make their voices heard.

I remember great arguments about the cursing verses in the Psalms, for those who are interested the worst is Psalm 58, truly awful.
We argued about whether they should be read in church.
My answer was and still is that not reading them is like turning a deaf ear to those who feel that way.

Now back to Jesus, of course this might mean that the man Jesus was not the son of God much less God. But it does not make him a racist, it makes him a mariginal Jew, in an occupied country.

Like Richard I would have him there just to find out what really happened.

Other Comments by flying goose

42. Comment #284011 by GordonWillis on November 14, 2008 at 5:26 am

Yes. Dawkins is brilliant. But I'm fed up of his rugged heroic images and pictures. Enemies of Reason DVD: there he is, ruggedly scanning the horizon for the next attack. Makes me think of Indiana Jones. His proper image as a merely decent human being is quite good enough for me. I also find his unnecessarily confrontational way of presenting things - going all the way back to the title of "The Selfish Gene" - is irritating. Why tap people's knees when you're simply trying to give them glasses?

Other Comments by GordonWillis

43. Comment #284015 by SixxSixxSixx on November 14, 2008 at 5:37 am

I agree with flying goose. Lay off Jesus. After all he can't have had any idea what a catastrophe he was starting. And he's not here to defend himself.

Other Comments by SixxSixxSixx

44. Comment #284023 by Ai Deng on November 14, 2008 at 6:23 am

I invite all of you to check out a pseudo scientist I recently discovered. He has published several blogs with a church in Michigan. Some of the things he is saying is grossly misleading, and quite disheartening, while other just prompt me to laugh.

He has listed several threads with different pseudo proofs as to why the Universe is just 6,000 years old. He attacks evolution, claiming even that those churches which have accepted it are "infected". He is also using his position to discount the impact of global warming caused by humans, essentially concluding humans have no impact.

I know this pseudo scientist is typical, and there are probably many out there like him. But I wanna fight this, and the only way I can think of to do that is to try and bring his lies into the open environment.

http://www.woodsidebible.org/blogs/what-is-the-“bible-science-guy”-blog/#toc

Other Comments by Ai Deng

45. Comment #284025 by KRKBAB on November 14, 2008 at 6:30 am

Watcher_of_ the_skies- comment #283623- I would describe myself as a left brain person stuck in a right brain body (I know, it's a stretch) so Harris and Sagan would be enough for me. They too seem to be left brain people stuck in right brain bodies (Sagan was...)

Other Comments by KRKBAB

46. Comment #284030 by God fearing Atheist on November 14, 2008 at 6:43 am

#284023 by Ai Deng

http://www.woodsidebible.org/blogs/what-is-the-“bible-science-guy”-blog/#toc

Aggg! It is hard to imagine people that ignorant and stupid ...

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

47. Comment #284037 by Cluebot on November 14, 2008 at 6:46 am

Part I and Part II seem to be identical content, though the file sizes are slightly different. I just played them side by side and couldn't see or hear any difference. Am I missing something here?

Other Comments by Cluebot

48. Comment #284042 by epeeist on November 14, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #284023 by Ai Deng

I know this pseudo scientist is typical, and there are probably many out there like him. But I wanna fight this, and the only way I can think of to do that is to try and bring his lies into the open environment.

http://www.woodsidebible.org/blogs/what-is-the-“bible-science-guy”-blog/#toc

On a brief glance the material isn't his own but adapted from the "Answers in Genesis" web site.

The only way to get to him is therefore to pose questions that do not have a cut and paste answer from AiG. One such comes from Shayne Dark, namely skull morphology. Given pictures of Negro, Asiatic, Caucasian and Oriental faces you can tell the differences between them even if they are tinted to the same colours. The features derive from the underlying skull structure. Now if there had been a global flood then we should have seen a variety of skull morphologies before the flood, immediately after the flood we should only see Semitic skull morphologies then a broadening out into other morphologies. Do we actually see such a genetic bottleneck?

The other thing to hit him with is consilience. The claim is that C14 dating is suspect. Accept that and point him to dendrochronology, varves (lake Suigetsu and Green river), coral growth, thermoluminescence etc. Point out that these are consilient both with each other and with things like sunspot cycles and El Nino events as well as well known catastrophic events such as earthquakes and volcano eruptions.

What creationists tend to do is invent ad hoc suppositions to cope with single problems, what they really can't cope with is the situations where they have to explain several different things and their suppositions don't work.

A few of us hit this blog a little while back - http://macgafraidh.blogspot.com/, have a glance and see what you think.

Other Comments by epeeist

49. Comment #284049 by Ai Deng on November 14, 2008 at 7:21 am

epeeist,

Thank you. I'll be sure to check out the blog you mentioned.

Other Comments by Ai Deng

50. Comment #284062 by Mark Jones on November 14, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #284042 by epeeist

Yes, it's gone a bit quiet over at that blog, but to be fair, the woman's father passed away through illness recently, so I expect they had other things on their minds than batting off all those assaults on their misconceptions.

They announced the father's death with a headline of 'One in one out!', since she is also pregnant (congratulations and commiserations to her). Not sure about that revolving door motif?

Other Comments by Mark Jones