1. Comment #12435 by gcooke on December 12, 2006 at 2:35 am

This one was good.
G.

Other Comments by gcooke

2. Comment #12458 by bobafrett on December 12, 2006 at 3:39 am

Well done to Dara O'Briain for letting Richard do the talking! Not a very common skill in many other chat show hosts.
The two guys on the left were a waste of space though.

Other Comments by bobafrett

3. Comment #12459 by Tintern on December 12, 2006 at 3:48 am

It was clear that the host was a fan, and great that he let Richard make some key points in an atmosphere that wasn't hostile (that must be a pleasant change from some encounters). Though five-ten minutes watching this to make sure I didn't miss Richard's spot was a trial. Talk about annoyingly unfunny! Still, more respect than the Late Late Show for rationally presented views, and a strong, unabashed recommendation for the book.

Other Comments by Tintern

4. Comment #12460 by Apemanblues on December 12, 2006 at 3:50 am

Dara Ó Briain's pretty cool. After hearing him talk about a number of other similar subjects on the radio recently I get the impression that he's genuinely a fan of Dawkins work.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

5. Comment #12461 by nonsequitar on December 12, 2006 at 3:53 am

Made me smile!
I think the make-up from this show's audience is in the 18-30 year old grouping and perhaps more receptive to rational viewpoints, even if presented in a humourous fashion. Whereas the Late Late show, in general, is a a case of trying to teach old dogs new tricks!

Other Comments by nonsequitar

6. Comment #12465 by Kevin Ronayne on December 12, 2006 at 4:08 am

RE: 2. Comment #12458 by bobafrett on December 12, 2006 at 3:39 am

"Well done to Dara O'Briain for letting Richard do the talking! Not a very common skill in many other chat show hosts.
The two guys on the left were a waste of space though."

bobafrett,

your two points are actually linked. Normally, the panelists would be interacting with the guest to a much greater degree in the interests of humour. However, I suspect that on this occasion they were instructed to keep relatively quiet, so as to allow Richard express himself without undue interruption.

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

7. Comment #12466 by Skeptic Jim on December 12, 2006 at 4:12 am

I generally find the show very annoying. They'll be discussing important issues like the budget and you have to sit through their constant and ridiculous wise cracks.

The Australian version of the show is much worse however. They actually did a piece that took seriously the lunar landing hoax conspiracy. One of the members of the panel actually suggested it had credibility because when the eagle blasted off from the moon you couldn't hear its engines.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

8. Comment #12475 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:39 am

During the light-hearted banter, RD was able to elaborate some very important points, especially regarding labeling children as being members of various faiths as constituting child abuse. The power of humor when it relaxes and gives pleasure must not be underestimated in its prowess as an educating tool. Why can't we have fun while we are learning?

It was interesting to hear the audience's reaction to certain of his comments, as if they were shocked to hear such honesty and forthrightness regarding the sacred cow of religion--the cow that says it is beyond rational criticism. The initial shock quickly wore off and was replaced with appreciative applause.

It was a treat seeing young people enjoying themselves, and also a very special treat seeing RD not only adding to the merriment but having fun himself.

I appreciated that charming, young man on the extreme right saying that evolution has been good to us, and despite that, we deny its existence!

The Irish can be so witty and charming.

Other Comments by Logicel

9. Comment #12485 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 6:34 am

9. Comment #12475 by Logicel

>>The power of humor when it relaxes and gives pleasure must not be underestimated in its prowess as an educating tool. Why can't we have fun while we are learning?<<

Yes Logicel, I think you're right. I'm not a teacher but on occasions where I've had to impart knowledge, I found humour to be a big help, especially in a situation where the 'pupils' needed to learn rather than wanted to.

The host of such a show has a big effect. Dara is a fairly smart guy who makes frequent appearances as a panellist on Stephen Fry's "QI" show. As an American you may not be aware of QI, it's a quirky quiz show that features apparently simple questions that have an answer contrary to popular belief or understanding. It's funny, and one of the few things worth watching on TV these days.

Other Comments by Yorker

10. Comment #12486 by Eamonn Shute on December 12, 2006 at 6:35 am

I noticed that in his one-sentence definition of evolution he used the word "codes" instead of "replicators" - I wonder what the reason was?

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

11. Comment #12488 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 6:43 am

11. Comment #12486 by Eamonn Shute

Yes, I wondered that also Eamonn. In fact, I found myself mentally reciting the sentence that I knew Dawkins would say and he tripped me up by saying 'codes'. Personally, I think 'replicators' is better, no doubt he'll have a reason though.

Other Comments by Yorker

12. Comment #12491 by Skeptic Jim on December 12, 2006 at 6:58 am

Nothing wrong with comedy I suppose... if it's actually funny. I'm not suggesting this wasn't a good vehicle to appeal to a different kind of audience.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

13. Comment #12492 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:19 am

Yorker, I lived and worked in Great Britain for around four years, and I did enjoy shows starring Fry very much at that time. I have lived in Europe for around the last 15 years, in France at present. I enjoy The Guignols here in France very much--great satire.

Other Comments by Logicel

14. Comment #12495 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:38 am

BTW, Yorker, have you notice the clever addition of the troll,spam, and offensive flags at the bottom of our posts? I had a delirously delightful time this morning 'detrollizing' the thread for the Dawkins debate with Casey on Kenny's show from last night. For a belly laugh, just read that segregated troll list of comments at that thread (just above the beginning of the thread of comments you will see 'view the troll comment thread').

We'll see how it works out, but this may be the ticket to providing a supportive environment for decent discussion and not be elitist or divisive. I think it is just brilliant.

Thanks, Josh, for this great feature!

Other Comments by Logicel

15. Comment #12496 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:40 am

Also, thanks, Josh, for the editing/delete feature for our posts after we publish them that was started awhile back.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #12509 by Thrall on December 12, 2006 at 9:38 am

Over at onegoodmove.org, there is a Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson interview with Julia Sweeney, where Craig says "God can't show himself, or else there wouldn't be faith". It's an interesting interview, and the audience reations are goodl

Other Comments by Thrall

17. Comment #12526 by jefferson on December 12, 2006 at 11:37 am

It's so very nice to visit this site after I went on a Christian message board. Here is the post that stuck out the most for me:(the poster was responding to someone seeking answers for three questions)
"I can see how you would trip. Those questions can be hard when you're put on the spot. (not being sarcastic)
Here's how I would answer them.
Where do you believe we came from?
God
What do you think the purpose of life is?
God
What happens after we die?
God"
It's really sad that this is the kind of advice some people give to others. It obviosly explains nothing.

Other Comments by jefferson

18. Comment #12529 by rossi on December 12, 2006 at 12:06 pm

Shame this is out of sync, is there a better version about?

Other Comments by rossi

19. Comment #12535 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 12:29 pm

14. Comment #12492 by Logicel

Ah, I see. I think I just guessed your nationality by your spelling.

When I lived in Florida I found myself coming to the defence of France against a few people. After a while a new colleague came -- an American who'd spent many years in France, after that, the anti-French jokes ceased. Amazingly, shortly afterwards, a native French colleague joined us, he epitomised everyone's idea of a Frenchman and smoked those horrible black Gauloise cigarettes.

Yes, I did notice the post flags; a good idea.

Other Comments by Yorker

20. Comment #12537 by aoratos philos on December 12, 2006 at 12:32 pm

@rossi

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2200751.smil

you will need real player to run it. I'm going to grab the stream and convert it. I'll let Josh know so he can use it if he wishes.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

21. Comment #12540 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 12:46 pm

17. Comment #12509 by Thrall

>>...Craig says "God can't show himself, or else there wouldn't be faith"...<<

Of course not; showing himself would be evidence, faith therefore, is not required. Naturally, the moment he did show himself, the ex-faithful majority would fall at his feet and grovel. But then the delighted minority (including myself) would be venting our contempt of him, he'd have to show his true vengeful nature and omnipotence by killing us; thereby proving what we'd been saying all along.

I haven't visited OGM in a while, I guess that was a comedian you speak of.

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #12542 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 1:21 pm

>>...Craig says "God can't show himself, or else there wouldn't be faith"...<<

I always find this amusing. Nobody seems to have a good answer as to why God thinks faith is such a great thing. Why would he use it as the best conceivable method for people to know him and what he wants and doesn't want?

Why would God prefer faith to evidence? Does he want people to worship him or not? What's the best way to get the highest percentage of people on your side? Faith or incontrovertible proof?

A cynical person would say that the only religions that need faith are the false ones, since the evidence for a non-existent god is, well, non-existent.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

23. Comment #12544 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 1:35 pm

15. Comment #12495 by Logicel

Well, you have been a busy girl haven't you!

I saw that little fracas going on but steered clear of it -- reminded me of a bunch of kindergarten brats sitting around in a circle playing with their food and throwing it at each other. They had a good time but left the mess for an adult to clean up; looks like it was you.

Other Comments by Yorker

24. Comment #12546 by Jiten on December 12, 2006 at 1:48 pm

I think the reason Dawkins used the word "codes" rather than "replicators" is that it's all about information that's actually surviving and replicating and there is no need to mention the actual physical entity that embodies the information in the current generation.

Other Comments by Jiten

25. Comment #12549 by Jiten on December 12, 2006 at 2:28 pm

BTW what is a troll? Sorry to ask such a basic question but you don't learn if you don't ask.

Other Comments by Jiten

26. Comment #12577 by Macho Nachos on December 12, 2006 at 3:48 pm

A troll is someone who posts a deliberately controversial or offensive (or downright stupid) viewpoint simply to provoke a response.

They generally aim to tread on the toes of the site's core audience, or failing that, as many people as possible.

I think the feature is great! Thanks Josh.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

27. Comment #12644 by chbg21808 on December 13, 2006 at 3:56 am

Dara O'Brian was was excellent and obviously a Dawkins fan... Nice to see an interview where individuals are not there to just try and trip Dawkins up.

Other Comments by chbg21808

28. Comment #12785 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Dawkins said that children must be gullible and believe everything their parents say or else they'll do something like walk over a cliff. This has actually been demonstrably refuted by child psychologists, who have taken newborns and exposed them to glass-covered pits and drops, and observed that they avoid them.

Of course, it is still not responsible for parents to allow newborns to be near any exposed drops, since it does significantly raise the chance of accidentally falling into it. Newborns have very poor coordination after all. :)

Dawkins is certainly right, in that children have a very strong survival instinct to listen to their parents, but they also have a very strong survival instinct to rebel from their parents, especially when their parents become dangerous or oppressive. Every civilization since Greece seems to have regarded this as problematic in children. Modern liberal societies are only now waking up to a little known civil rights movement...

http://www.youthrights.org/

Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins has already done so much for youth rights by raising consciousness about labelling young people with religions. The blanket assumption that the youth are gullible sort of rubs me the wrong way, though. Youths are segregated from society and held captive by various institutions, including the family. They do not need to be gullible to accept religion when it is forced onto them.

Other Comments by Sancus

29. Comment #12856 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:45 am

29. Comment #12785 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 pm/Youths are segregated from society and held captive by various institutions, including the family. They do not need to be gullible to accept religion when it is forced onto them.
_______

Thanks for the link. This is a topic I have always been interested in? Why? Because I will never forget how I as a child was regarded as semi-human, and being female, more like one quarter human.

Other Comments by Logicel

30. Comment #13391 by Martha on December 17, 2006 at 11:41 am

Excellent! I've only just caught up with this now and I have to say there's nothing like a bit of humour to help deal with SERIOUS topics like this. Well done to The Panel!

Other Comments by Martha

31. Comment #15660 by Yavikins on January 1, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Sorry I came to this post so late - I noticed that you linked to the National Youth Rights Association! I am a member of this organisation, and I'm pleased to see that it's received a bit of publicity in the comments. I am a former board member of the organisation, and I am also a moderator on the forums there. Flattered to see NYRA being mentioned around here.

And I think Dawkins has said some rather pro-youth-rights things in the past - I recall him saying on an NPR interview a few months ago that 'parents don't own their children, and there are limits to the rights that parents have over their children's minds'.

- Luke

Other Comments by Yavikins