1. Comment #21299 by Frostbit on February 8, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Funny!

Other Comments by Frostbit

2. Comment #21301 by igor on February 8, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Hilarious! The accent is perfect!

Other Comments by igor

3. Comment #21302 by toomanytribbles on February 8, 2007 at 3:26 pm

militant, arrogant a-dawkinist! how dare he tell us what to think??
yuk, yuk, yuk :)

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

4. Comment #21303 by denoir on February 8, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Great voice imitation but that's about it. It's not very clever or funny. It seems to primarily be a thinly veiled platform for ad hominem attacks on Dawkins and his books.

Other Comments by denoir

5. Comment #21304 by nine9s on February 8, 2007 at 3:35 pm

[shaking head] Don't you hate it when the Dark Side gets so clever?

Other Comments by nine9s

6. Comment #21307 by Richard Dawkins on February 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Clever?

What's clever about it?

Even the accent sounds more like Peter Atkins than me, although I admit it is at least better than the one they used on South Park

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

7. Comment #21308 by Rickets on February 8, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Ugh, simply terrible. I'm not going to point out why this is far from intelligent and I'm just going to sit here and stare at the wall for a while.

My head hurts.

Other Comments by Rickets

8. Comment #21309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 8, 2007 at 3:44 pm

and the counterpoint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

9. Comment #21310 by toomanytribbles on February 8, 2007 at 3:45 pm

calm down, richard.. just one mouse click on the submit button.
and yeah, it's better than southpark.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

10. Comment #21311 by NeoGothic on February 8, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I'd be tempted to agree with him except that I've seen the evidence myself and I don't think he's interpreting it correctly. Now if you'd like, I could explain my theory of ID, otherwise known as Intelligent Dawkinsism, which shows an alternative viewpoint on the question of the exsistence of the Dawkins and also proves that the Dawkins is more intelligent than the writer of this critique. I'd also be happy to explain how the Dawkins is irreducibly adept.

There I go again, sounding like a fundy... I wish it weren't so easy to do. I might not slip into it as often. If only rational thinking didn't take so much work... Oh well.

Other Comments by NeoGothic

11. Comment #21312 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 3:49 pm

It's such good satire, I can't tell which side of the debate these guys are on.
slimy custard man? I won't go there.

Other Comments by Bremas

12. Comment #21313 by MIND_REBEL on February 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Not clever, not funny. It's disgusting to see how desperate the radical creationist lobby has become.

They're attempting to create a meme to distract from us pointing out that religion is a meme. Sort of like a bait and switch, but we're much smarter and their plan has been foiled.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

13. Comment #21314 by Luthien on February 8, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Hehe. Richard, I'm not sure if you exist any more, and even 2 forum comments just isn't convincing...

Let's meet in person :-P

Other Comments by Luthien

14. Comment #21315 by cheshirecat on February 8, 2007 at 3:57 pm

That sort of thing is the product of writing polemics. Just don't be angry with those who criticise you. If their opinions are worthless then they do not warrent anger. If they are useful the they have done you a favour.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

15. Comment #21316 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Just reread the top and a couple of links.
Now I'm a bit embarrassed by the fact that I found it funny.
I guess that's what happens when you tend not to take things personally.
I take that back, I still found it a little funny. :)

Other Comments by Bremas

16. Comment #21317 by toomanytribbles on February 8, 2007 at 4:09 pm

the comments are funny.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

17. Comment #21320 by lflcorreia on February 8, 2007 at 4:16 pm

The Conclusion Of The Matter

No, Terry Tommyrot / David Anderson / (insert your favorite religious clown here) do not exist. I have never seen him. Science has given a full and satisfying explanation of the book alleged to be his handiwork. blah, blah, blah ...

There is also a link to an audio file of the same clip: http://www.uncommondescent.com/audios/Dawkins_Delusion.wma

Notice something familiar?
Is this the best they can get?

Other Comments by lflcorreia

18. Comment #21321 by Luthien on February 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm

16. Comment #21316 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Just reread the top and a couple of links.
Now I'm a bit embarrassed by the fact that I found it funny.
I guess that's what happens when you tend not to take things personally.
I take that back, I still found it a little funny. :)

Hehehe I read that bit before watching it and still found it funny.

Though we should remember that all children are born Adawkinists, and it is only through the repetition of the Dawkins myth that children grow up to assume he actually exists. :-P

Other Comments by Luthien

19. Comment #21322 by melisande on February 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

I don't know why I'm even trying to logically argue this one, but I haven't seen ANY pictures of people shaking hands with God. I mean photographs at a book signing are _slightly_ more concrete than a splinter from the cross jesus was on or the goddamn shroud of turin.

I'd love god to respond to my emails, as Dawkins has done. I highly doubt god would be as respectful and supportive in his words as Richard has, if I can judge by his earlier work and his "actions" on this earth lately.

It actually is amusing that this person thinks that this makes any sense at all.

Other Comments by melisande

20. Comment #21323 by toomanytribbles on February 8, 2007 at 5:09 pm

i guess we'll see soon enough if he exists. he's due on CNN..

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

21. Comment #21326 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Has anyone heard if the CNN segment will air. I've got it on in the other room but was assuming it won't air tonight, and was about ready to head out.

Other Comments by Bremas

22. Comment #21327 by USA_Limey on February 8, 2007 at 5:20 pm

To all the Brits out there; who is the other voice supposed to me? I recognize it as a mimick of someone, but I can't quite place it and it's driving me nuts!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

23. Comment #21328 by Circumspect on February 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm

This is really funny and clever. If the creators of it actually meant to be negative, they shouldn't have made it so good!

Other Comments by Circumspect

24. Comment #21329 by He-man Daunted World on February 8, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Here's a great quote i found in the comments section of a George Carlin video on youtube:

"Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

25. Comment #21332 by ajpb on February 8, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Seems to me they are getting Richard Dawkins's accent confused with Rowan Williams, Arch Bish of Canterbury...

It's a pity the Real Richard Dawkins couldn't see a little bit of humour in it. I did smile a at several of the parodies. The recombination of just 26 letters for example.

I think the point is that if it is not a light hearted 'fun' parody (and is in fact an attempt at a serious stab at Richard Dawkins's work) then it falls massively on its arse.

I find it funny, precisely because the parodies are so poor in reality, and yet they carry it off with aplomb.

I think we should chuckle quietly to ourselves, say "har har, very clever," in perhaps a very mildly condescending way and move on.. As I say, viewed as a light hearted bit of satire, it IS funny.

Other Comments by ajpb

26. Comment #21338 by Peter Hearty on February 8, 2007 at 8:33 pm

I think this is tremendously encouraging. In common with every single attack that I've seen so far on TGD, it focuses on caricature of the author, rather than responding to the arguments. Which only goes to prove that believers simply don't have any arguments left to offer.

Seen in that light, it was very funny indeed.

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

27. Comment #21339 by Peter Hearty on February 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm

"To all the Brits out there; who is the other voice supposed to me? I recognize it as a mimick of someone, but I can't quite place it and it's driving me nuts!"

It sounds like the former leader of the Conservative party, William Hague, currently shadow Foreign Secretary.

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

28. Comment #21340 by MarcKeys on February 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Well that was pointless.

Other Comments by MarcKeys

29. Comment #21342 by Shuggy on February 8, 2007 at 8:48 pm

They don't seem to have read TGD, since they are just using the Argument from Design. Again.

Now if God would come online here...

Other Comments by Shuggy

30. Comment #21346 by Wonko the Sane on February 8, 2007 at 9:11 pm

This is much funnier if you just pretend it is a friendly parody.

Other Comments by Wonko the Sane

31. Comment #21350 by frodon on February 8, 2007 at 9:41 pm

This is a really lame-brained parody. He's trying to criticize Dawkins by parodying his reasoning, but the attempt fails badly. Dawkins's reasoning is not at all reflected in this "parody".

Other Comments by frodon

32. Comment #21352 by bendoug on February 8, 2007 at 9:42 pm

A few people here need to lighten up. I'm president of a secularist organization on my campus and I managed to get a few chuckles out of this.

Other Comments by bendoug

33. Comment #21358 by Roy_H on February 8, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Let me guess, the interviewer is supposed to be William Hague?

Re: Comment #21309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on February 8, 2007 at 3:44 pm Now THAT video is absolutely brilliant, every religious person should watch that.

Other Comments by Roy_H

34. Comment #21364 by Rick777 on February 8, 2007 at 11:31 pm

What is this ? ..some lame argument for subjectivism? Why did they bother?

It horifies me to think what goes through the minds of these people as they fall asleep at night.

Other Comments by Rick777

35. Comment #21365 by zenpunk on February 8, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Don't be so serious folks. Can't you just have a laugh at it? I thought it was fun and the impression was very amusing. Who cares what the author thinks, if you pretend it's friendly parody you'll get a lot more enjoyment out of it and lower your blood pressure.

Other Comments by zenpunk

36. Comment #21367 by MacGruder on February 8, 2007 at 11:55 pm

RE: Comment #21309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

"and the counterpoint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ "

The video on the YouTube link is fantastic! Thanks - you made my day!!

Highly recommended for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by MacGruder

37. Comment #21368 by infidel_michael on February 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Don't forget: Hitler, Stalin, Mao .. none of them believed in Richard Dawkins!

Other Comments by infidel_michael

38. Comment #21370 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 12:25 am

Incredible! Well done. =)

One thing, though. The books developed as a series of random typing errors? Sounds like vintage memetics to me. =P

Other Comments by Sancus

39. Comment #21373 by Aussie on February 9, 2007 at 12:47 am

Whatever your attitude to this video it is just simply more marvellous publicity.

It is as if they have tantalisingly almost reached the point of finally understanding the absurdity of their own arguments.

Other Comments by Aussie

40. Comment #21374 by Russell Blackford on February 9, 2007 at 12:49 am

Well, it looks to me like there's a very popular argument doing the rounds, not usually spelled out explicitly, but often pretty clearly implied. It goes something like this:

P1. Either radical epistemological scepticism is true or traditional religious ideas are true.
P2. Radical epistemological scepticism is not true.
C. Traditional religious ideas are true.

Putting it another way, the claim is that once we start denying traditional religious ideas, we have to start wondering whether we are brains in vats, or being deceived by evil demons, etc. It is, so this kind of argument goes, just as problematic to wonder about Richard Dawkins' existence as it is to wonder about God's. In a deep sense, I can't be certain of Dawkins' existence, can I? Etc. Etc.

It may be obvious to everyone that the argument is deductively valid. However, why would anyone find its first premise at all plausible?

Surely the situation is that we have ordinary, natural ways of assessing whether we should adopt certain beliefs. Using those standards, we have no reason to believe in God, but plenty of reason to believe in the existence of Richard Dawkins.

A slightly better argument might try to confine itself to theoretical scientific claims:

P1. Either we have no reason to believe in (any of) the theoretical entities and forces postulated by science or traditional religious ideas are true.
P2. We do have reason to believe in (some of) the theoretical entities amd forces postulated by science.
C. Traditional religious ideas are true.

But again, why accept P1.? The reason why we have reason to believe in certain theoretical entities and forces, even though they may not be directly observed, is that we have a mountain of evidence for them, based on methods of inquiry that are continuous with ordinary, natural methods of inquiry, such as hypothetico-deductive reasoning. What we lack in direct observation we try to make up for with rigorous attempts at falsification, the use of precise calculations, etc. Thus, we can give a high level of (at least provisional) acceptance to the existence of those entities and forces, without the same kinds of reasoning confirming the existence of God, etc.

Sorry to be so technical and humorless about this, but I see variations of this argument all the time, and I think it's worthwhile exposing how intellectually bankrupt they are.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

41. Comment #21376 by Corylus on February 9, 2007 at 12:58 am

Hmm...

Wonder how long it took them to record that.

There were some long and DIFFICULT words in there!

Other Comments by Corylus

42. Comment #21381 by infidel_michael on February 9, 2007 at 1:27 am

What a pseudoskeptical video. The main rule of skepticism is: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is so extraordinary on the existence of Dawkins? Hi is an ordinary human, we have quite enough experience with existing humans (and with humans writing books), you don't need to accept any extraordinary new premises to believe in existence of him. On the contrary, we have no experience with beings designing life, ecosystems or universes, therefore existence of such being is an extraordinary claim and requires belief in completely new premises.
-

This video just compares 2 uncomparable things, if people find this "clever", I'm afraid that reason cannot win this battle. Stupid false analogies, false dillemas and unclear metaphores will win, because they don't require logical thinking, only finding some vague similarities.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

43. Comment #21383 by wice on February 9, 2007 at 1:40 am

it could be funny, if it was at least a little bit clever. but...
books are not subjects of the evolutionary process. so "science" cannot give a "full and satisfying explanation" to the existence of "the god delusion" based on it.
nice (if a little bit unoriginal) try, anyway.

Other Comments by wice

44. Comment #21384 by DavidMcC on February 9, 2007 at 1:51 am

Are you sure it wasn't Richard Dawkins pretending to be Terry Tommyrot pretending to be Richard Dawkins, just for a joke? After all, the voice would come naturally.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

45. Comment #21386 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 2:13 am

Whoooooooooooaaa, wait a minute. This is NOT meant to make us laugh?

Figures, that I'd find The Onion's piece on "Intelligent Falling" macabre and not the least amusing, and then find this piece delightful.

Other Comments by Sancus

46. Comment #21387 by Logicel on February 9, 2007 at 2:28 am

What an odd presentation. I giggled a bit at the beginning and then got a headache from boredom and became irritated at the lameness of the parody.

Despite a giggle here and there, it was confusing, beyond silly, and very ineffective because there is Tommyrot sounding like Dawkins lambasting himself and then concludes near the end of the interview that he, Tommyrot, should be followed instead of Dawkins. Huh? So it is ok to follow Dawkins as long as he is disguised as another person, that is, Tommyrot?

And I agree that our camp's side at parody is much more effective--the basic premises of religiousity is presented, and then the inane and rediculous behavior which would result if the basic premises are accepted to be valid is shown with relentless consistency, and that is the power of parody:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

Other Comments by Logicel

47. Comment #21389 by steve_kap on February 9, 2007 at 2:36 am

This is using reasoning that its making fun of to make fun of the reasoing that its making fun of. Ironic, but not in the direction intented.

Other Comments by steve_kap

48. Comment #21390 by Sancus on February 9, 2007 at 2:39 am

I just watched it again, with the understanding that it is meant as a parody of Dawkins, and... it's morbidly daft. I can't even wrap my head around the possibility that it's meant this way. How could the people who made this not have laughed at themselves?

In any case, I find the openly farcical association between genes and literature quite relevant.

Other Comments by Sancus

49. Comment #21391 by LookToWindward on February 9, 2007 at 2:40 am

Well, I'm with Richard. It had some funny bits, but it was anything but friendly. Saying that everything in his books is dumb and reeling off a list of abusive terms, this is just baiting, and feeble baiting at that. Invective directed at an omnipowerful dictator is nothing at all like invective directed at a living human being.

On the other hand, Richard does deal it out and he can expect to get it back. However they are intended, terms like 'faith-head' and 'delusion' are just bound to wind people up. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Richard to tone it down, I'm totally in favour of mucking into the foray with as much invective as is being dealt out by the opposition; but you can't be surprised that this kind of personal attack crops up.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

50. Comment #21392 by Kevin Ronayne on February 9, 2007 at 2:42 am

"This is not meant to be a friendly parody. The creator actually thinks they are deconstructing the arguments in The God Delusion (see the linked website below). - Josh"

Thanks to Josh for clarifying this up front. Personally, I think this parody has seriously backfired - it wouldn't be the first time the the religious/creationist lobby has shot itself in the foot like this.

The intended audience might indeed find it funny, although they would really need to have a more detailed knowledge of RD's work and arguments than they typically posess. However (and this is just my opinion) I think it works much better going the other way.

Oh, and thanks to Brian Coughlan for the "Kissing Hank's Ass" video link!

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne