51. Comment #157085 by MorituriMax on April 8, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Wow... I thought we were back in Medieval Times there for a sec.

One person said, "Well if not for the devil, how can you possibly have a satisfactory answer for how 6 million people were killed by Hitler?"

Hmmm... that's like saying, "How can you possibly understand how 500,000 people were killed by waves on a beach without the devil?" (Tsunami a couple years ago).

I mean, if we can't say that a single man and his system (Hitler) can kill 6 million people, then you also can't say that a bunch of water can drown hundreds of thousands of people. Fact: water can kill you, and enough water can kill LOTS of people.

Fact: a single bomb can kill hundreds of thousands of people. You don't need a supernatural devil to make that possible.

Fact: wind can kill MANY people and wipe out whole towns or cities.

So there is no need to reach for a supernatural answer as the only one that is satisfactory.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

52. Comment #157089 by alexmzk on April 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

also:
anyone remember in the news a while ago about the Rt Rev Dr Tom Butler Bishop of Southwark getting horribly drunk one night and chucking kid's toys out of the back of someone's car? when the person asked him why he was doing it he replied

"I'm the Bishop of Southwark, it's what i do".

possibly he was practicing a bit of exorcism. casting out stuffed toys as a sit-in for actual demons.

Other Comments by alexmzk

53. Comment #157090 by evolvingalways on April 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Goes to show that religion is opium for people who want to hallucinate.

Other Comments by evolvingalways

54. Comment #157096 by EvidenceOnly on April 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

If you compare this debate to the middle ages, I have to conclude with deep regret that, while evidence-based science has advanced enormously (represented by Richard very few others), superstition and blind faith rule equally strong (evidenced by the nonsense uttered by most people).

On the plus side, Richard was not burned on a pile of wood at the end of the program for which a Pope would have to apologize 500 years from now.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

55. Comment #157104 by Mango on April 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm

This debate on whether the devil exists took place in London? Astonishing, and worrisome that most of the imbecilic statements received applause.

Other Comments by Mango

56. Comment #157125 by patio09 on April 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I think RD should start working on a comic version of the god delusion. How else do you want to get some information over to some of the people in this audience.

Other Comments by patio09

57. Comment #157136 by cursor on April 8, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I've uploaded the audio to here.

Other Comments by cursor

58. Comment #157137 by Pattern Seeker on April 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I don't get the show in America so my only chance to watch these things is when the posted on the RD site.

Personally, the best way they could make this show better would be to just change the title to something more appropriate. Say...

'THE STUPID QUESTIONS'

There. That's better.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

59. Comment #157143 by Peacebeuponme on April 8, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Have to say Keith Porteous Wood did not cover himself in glory on this. He seemed to stumble a number of times on some truly inane points from that christian fool sat next to him.

Overall this programme just shows how monumentally stupid your average Briton is. Its embarrassing. How Richard keeps his cool on these programme Ill never know.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

60. Comment #157149 by Richard Dawkins on April 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Having said this, is "Red Ken" Livingstone not standing for Mayor of London this time? And does the Xtian "give yourself to Jesus to protect you from the devil" have any chance at actually winning?

Yes, Ken Livingstone is standing again. It is generally reckoned to be a close race between him and Boris Johnson, a clever man who hides behind a facade of being a bumbling 'character'. The fatuous idiot on this TV discussion show is one of several no-hopers on the ballot.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

61. Comment #157152 by adamd164 on April 8, 2008 at 3:34 pm

That was painful viewing. The audience seemed (at least to a large extent) to find bigotry and small-mindedness worthy of applause and praise.

If I remember rightly, Richard was on there not so long ago, and it was much the same. Full of conservative cynics who wouldn't give him a word in edgeways.

Other Comments by adamd164

62. Comment #157155 by Peacebeuponme on April 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Richard Dawkins

The fatuous idiot on this TV discussion

You've dealt with some idiots in your time, but this guy seemed to be something else. Everything was just obvious to him. His arrogance and stupidity were truly astounding.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

63. Comment #157162 by ClemIsMe on April 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm

When I see these things and I consider my neighbors and countrymen I can't help but feel that I should just make peace with the fact we are not going to make it. The best we can hope for is a few hundred years of relative sanity in a vast churning continuum of feral lust and fear. Sort of like Asimov's Foundation stories in reverse.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

64. Comment #157166 by Tack on April 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Richard, where do you find the strength? It was unbearably frustrating just watching this, I can't even imagine your restraint doing this live.

I would have liked to have seen Christopher Hitchens handle this crowd. He pushes back a lot harder (sometimes, regrettably, against his own side) conversationally, and he evinces his arguments from an uncanny reservoir of historical and political knowledge.

Other Comments by Tack

65. Comment #157175 by Zzyx1170 on April 8, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I placed an mp3 of this on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/105966065/Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

66. Comment #157179 by lozzer on April 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm

That program really did push the right buttons.I was absolutely outraged by their idiocy!I clapped my hands every time Dawkins actually had a chance to talk.Haha i found myself shouting at the TV "Go on my son!you tell em!"
I absolutely can't stand the debaters(nutters) the producers of the program bring in.And i used to think American Christian nuts couldn't be put to shame!

Other Comments by lozzer

67. Comment #157188 by lozzer on April 8, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I think the show itself just goes to show how this nation needs a reformation of rationality.As hard as it is i seriously believe organization is the only option.

Other Comments by lozzer

68. Comment #157201 by IceFreak2000 on April 8, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I have to admit that I watched this programme on Sunday with a growing sense of bewilderment; how the BBC managed to fill the studio with such an array of idiots is beyond me. And I have to let my kids be inflicted by this bullshit because the local 'faith' school has the best grades of any school in the area...

Other Comments by IceFreak2000

69. Comment #157203 by BigChiefRainInFace on April 8, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I hope the narrow mindedness and bigotry of most of the people on the show is a testament to the talent of the shows' producers to find wackos. It would be depressing if even in Britain these specimens were commonplace. They're not, are they?

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

70. Comment #157204 by GHulse on April 8, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Mr. Dawkins, good job with this. I especially enjoyed your comment about the medieval mentality.

Other Comments by GHulse

71. Comment #157206 by GoneGolfing on April 8, 2008 at 5:05 pm

:-(

I pity the city of London if that blithering moron becomes their Mayor!

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

72. Comment #157213 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm

My word, how patient would you have to be to endure some of the nonsense being spouted on that show? It seemed like half of the audience completely failed to comprehend Richard's point that personal opinion is of no relevance in light of hard evidence.

If my personal opinion is that a rock is in actual fact a piece of paper, my opinion is irrelevant. All of the evidence points to the fact that it is a rock. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Other Comments by Clydey

73. Comment #157216 by mcek on April 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

There is NO such thing as moral inferiority of the Brits to any other nation or society. People can learn from each other this and that, but the first person that tells you that there is something fundamentally wrong about you and you gotta fix yourself is probably pushing his own bigoted agenda. Seriously, when will Brits finally start opposing this? If anyone claims higher moral ground, ask him where in the world his values are implemented and think whether you prefer that or Britain.

Of course there is ascent in moral values. A few decades ago a genius mathematician who made such a great impact on Allies winning the II World War was ruthlessly persecuted for the offence of being gay. Of course Britain today is morally far superior than that!

In the end, I really admire Richard for being able to be kind in front of these people. It must be very hard not to get outright pissed off when confronted with such amount nuttery.

Other Comments by mcek

74. Comment #157218 by Hypoluxa on April 8, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Oh this was just too nuts. Richard was great, he really should have gotten to say more, but the simple minded folk got most of the airtime...

I loved his 'ASTONISHING' remark. I really hope the IQ's of some of the audience members went up when he got a chance to speak..he really was too polite. Hitchens on the other hand...

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

75. Comment #157219 by Border Collie on April 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Who on God's green earth makes up these questions? Good grief! Find a real issue to discuss. Is the Easter Bunny going to wear pink or blue next Easter? I mean, really. When white people first came to North America, were the native Americans made more moral? Should they make Cheetos more or less orange? How many angels DO dance on the head of a pin? Do we have a right to offend? If you're not a Muslim, you're offending over a billion Muslims by just being alive. Who cares?! Grow up! Get this ... PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE OFFENDED. YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO NOT OFFEND SOMEONE WHO CHOOSES TO BE OFFENDED. If an "offendee" is going to play the victim card, let them play it. So what? Someone is going to choose to be offended today by you or me or whomever no matter what you/we do or don't do. Give it up! Jesus F'ing Christ! I can't watch this mamby-pamby crap. I'm gonna go herd some sheep.

Other Comments by Border Collie

76. Comment #157224 by Steve Wrathall on April 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm

RICHARD DAWKINS: "...her personal opinion is of no interest on a factual matter where there is evidence"
STUPID WOMAN: "Richard, what do you think that means? (giggle giggle)"

What a moron. He has just described one of the most important concepts that has freed billions of minds from the fog of superstition over the last 500 years.

Other Comments by Steve Wrathall

77. Comment #157227 by ASMarques on April 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm

I admire Richard Dawkins's fight against religion, the kind of blind belief that is based on unexamined superstition instead of rational evidence, but it seems to me he should avoid dogmatically pronouncing himself on topics of an historical nature he seems to have carried little or no investigation into.

He does that twice, first concerning the supposed existence of Jesus the individual (an unsound vestige of religious belief that goes against all reasonable historical evidence that clearly points to Jesus the elaborate syncretic myth instead), and then about the so-called "Holocaust" (in fact the latest politically and religiously motivated aggiornamento of Judaism, riddled with contradictions and straight falsehoods that fly in the face of careful examination).

Other Comments by ASMarques

78. Comment #157235 by TheHousemartin on April 8, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Hi :)
I've been a LTL & finally thought I'd take the plunge.
I personally thought Peter Tatchell did the best job of defending reason against the superstitious mumbo-jumbo being spouted by the 'believers' in the studio. Douglas Murray also made some good points, although having looked him up on wiki it seems his Centre for Social Cohesion think-tank has helped set up some low fee private schools "firmly grounded in Christian values & ideals" so I assume he's not a secularist.

p.s to all non-Brits the 'satisfied' Evangelist mayoral candidate stands 0% chance of running London - he'll probably lose his deposit :)

Other Comments by TheHousemartin

79. Comment #157236 by artemisa on April 8, 2008 at 6:45 pm

I'm holding really hard to the 21 century.

This was an entirely waste of time. How about you Prof., did you feel it was a waste of your time as well?

And that black lady and the guy running for mayor, best specimen of arrogance and ignorance I've seen in a long time. Enough ranting.

Other Comments by artemisa

80. Comment #157237 by yyuryyub on April 8, 2008 at 6:46 pm

The funniest thing has just happened (like right now)! While watching the last of these, a car load of jehovah's witness just showed up at my place. I have been waiting for this, expecting to strike up a fiery argument. I declared right away that I was a gay atheist, and he was ready for me!

"Oh, yes religion causes a lot of war and heartache and is only after your money but please read this magazine". Impressed with his tactics I did a deal with him: Seeing as though I'd already read his book (Bible) I would take his literature and read it if he would read some of mine...

His faced dropped a little but he agreed. I quickly scrawled down a few websites he might find interesting and offered him a paperback copy of TGD (I have a couple).

I now know more about the 'Ancient Kingdom of Lydia', armageddon and the 'true' cause of global warming than I needed to and probably wasted a copy of a fine book. But you never know, he may just read it as he promised...

Other Comments by yyuryyub

81. Comment #157242 by croatcat on April 8, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I wonder how many decades until the holocaust is complete with a hooved/horned/tailed satan named Hitler...and his minions. Very sad.

I think I smell some belief on my shoe. No, just more bullshit.

I'll add my support for your patience Richard. To reason!

Other Comments by croatcat

82. Comment #157244 by mikecbraun on April 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Richard, I know you are a wise man, a man of letters, an eloquent man... but how you refrained from using expletives during the course of this I'm-not-sure-what-to-call-it is well beyond me. At least now we know that the devil is responsible for evil acts, and not KMFDM or Marilyn Manson, as we previously believed. Apparently, by the crowd reaction, there is some damn good evidence for God's existence, too. Does anyone think there is any hope for humanity after seeing this? Please tell me that the audience was cherry-picked to look idiotic to make for better T.V., and not representative of society at large.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

83. Comment #157252 by Layla Nasreddin on April 8, 2008 at 7:14 pm

I was very interested in what the Muslim convert, Miriam, had to say. Not so long ago that might have been ME...though probably I would have slunk into the background instead of mouthing off as she did! I've heard every one of those points a hundred times before, and used to find them at least partially convincing. I suppose one might say that brainwashing/religious fervour/whatever you want to call it is most unseemly when it's self-inflicted! "Stay away from converts, they're crazy!" I say...

I enjoyed the "your opinions are of no interest if they're not backed up by FACTS!" comment. Also amusing, though quite depressing, was the graphic confirmation that the hoary stereotype of Brits being better educated and more cultured than Americans is false! *sighs*

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

84. Comment #157254 by A heron at night on April 8, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Oh dear. How tragic that this passes for discussion. A number of points may be made.

The 'Stalin question' was not adequately dealt with by Dawkins and this is surprising because the question is one he has answered before. The best answer is that whether Stalin was an atheist is immaterial. If he was, then that means that a bad person was an atheist. The question is whether there is a correlation between atheism and crime (just like whether there is a correlation between drugs and crime), not whether one person can be an atheist and a bad person; atheism and evil are not mutually exclusive.

The 'chimps question' was another disappointment. Dawkins may be insulted by the ignorance of the question, but that does not mean that he should not answer it in a way that lay people can understand.

Kennedy's performance had merit. This was not Dawkins at his best; no doubt he can do better.

Other Comments by A heron at night

85. Comment #157255 by ASMarques on April 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Croatcat says it all: "I wonder how many decades until the holocaust is complete with a hooved/horned/tailed satan named Hitler... and his minions. Very sad."

Very sad indeed, because no one seems to notice that's exactly the current situation of the latest world-class religion we'll have to deal with in the future -- indeed already have to deal with right now in non-ending Hitler-of-the-week wars.

Remember the incredible human-shredding machines of Baghdad! Remember the gas chambers of Auschwitz! Above all: forget common sense, intellectual honesty and the importance of the truth...

Other Comments by ASMarques

86. Comment #157259 by Benjamin P. on April 8, 2008 at 7:27 pm

I just watched all of it. But I can't believe what i just saw. What's coming next time? "Does the easter bunny exist? - Of course, where else are all the eggs coming from? From chicken?"
Richard looked like he was surrounded by complete idiots, which he was, but look at him at part 4, 8:30. He usually doesn't make such a face when talking with sane people.

Other Comments by Benjamin P.

87. Comment #157266 by MPhil on April 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

ASMarques:

and then about the so-called "Holocaust" (in fact the latest politically and religiously motivated aggiornamento of Judaism, riddled with contradictions and straight falsehoods that fly in the face of careful examination).

Are you denying that the holocaust took place?

If not, forgive the following - but if so, this is for you:


Claiming that the actual sites of the atrocities (which I visited), the perpetrators (who confessed), the detailed accounts (remember Eichmann?), the video (which I saw), the incredible amount of actual evidence and above all -
the eye-witness reports (I talked to survivors of the camps) and the people still alive who knew the people who were slaughtered....

.... that this is somehow forged?

I - as a German, an Atheist, someone who has studied the history, and mostly as a human being capable of rationality and empathy - have to say:

I am disgusted beyond words by denial of the holocaust, and by any person capable of that!

Other Comments by MPhil

88. Comment #157272 by dragonfirematrix on April 8, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Considering all of the "my side is best" religious views from the debating audience, I say we have a very, very long way to go to achieving peace and mutual respect for differences on this planet. In fact, I will go so far as to say there never will be respect for differences, or peace.

As usual, Richard's point about proving with factual evidence remains an oasis of clarity, honesty, and thoughtful reasoning. However, I would venture to say that few in the debating audience would accept clear and factual evidence over their superstitions. Intolerance was evident as they showed considerable sensitivity responding to questions and comments about which I will only mention a couple (E.g. Islamic extremism and the Holocaust).

The Holocaust is fact, The Law of Evolution is fact, God is Imaginary is fact.

There were a couple of the debaters in the audience who were rather objective with their thoughts, but only a couple. I guess we all need to remember to be sensitive to the religious, else they might persecute us, burn us to death, cut our heads off, strap us to a dunking stool, mutilate certain body parts, or fly planes into our house. Yes indeed, I do agree with the right to insult.

Richard deserves a great deal of credit sitting calmly while the superstitious persons in the audience pretended to discuss humanity from their religious belief point of view.

Did I miss something, or was most of the debating audience made up of the typical bickering authoritarian classes of Abrahamics religionists. I do not recall hearing from the Wicca, Buddhists, or Hindu. I think the fire spewing Baptists were mentioned a couple of times. Please help me out here :)

Like I said… Planet Earth has a very, very long way to go.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

89. Comment #157285 by ASMarques on April 8, 2008 at 8:42 pm

MPhil:

Are you denying that the holocaust took place?

Quite so, MPhil, but the matter is not as simple as you and Dawkins seem to think.

We can always construe complex sets of events into "single historical facts" and maintain an epistemological validity to our discourse if a clear definition of our meaning exists. Historical narrative would be a desert of intractable minutiae if we didn't do just that. Thus, the Second World War may be called a fact, much like the fact that I entered a comment on this forum or any other simple empirical truth. This is because, in spite of the great complexity of the historical events, we establish definitions and understand them: a "war" is a state of belligerence between states, a "world war" is a war of global world significance, and "the Second World War" is the particular world war that took place between 1939 and 1945.

Similarly, if we are to take the "Holocaust" as an historical fact, rather than a vague set of religious-like beliefs, we should define our meaning. For instance, a biblical holocaust is simply a sacrifice consumed by fire, and "ill-will towards the Jews," "persecution of the Jews," "the shooting of one's Jewish grandfather in Russia" or "some mass killings of Jews" are not "the Holocaust," the one historians are talking about when they capitalise the noun. I presume you will agree that it is impossible to debate the supposedly historical "Holocaust" if -- alone among historical facts -- it is allowed to remain an open concept devoid of meaning and form.

The "Holocaust" then is assumed to be a relatively precise set of events involving an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in the German supposedly homicidal gas chambers. I believe anyone who has been around for the last half century, living anywhere but in the deepest Amazonian jungle, is familiar with this.

In this sense then, we are perfectly entitled to claim the "Holocaust" is a fiction, since all the above claims are false: no extermination (real or attempted), no 6 million (not even approximately), and no homicidal gas chambers (not even in the supposed "extermination camp" of Auschwitz-Birkenau where by far the largest part of the presumed gassings is supposed to have taken place). To understand this, however, it is not enough to sit comfortably on your "acquired knowledge." You'll need to actively -- and perhaps painfully -- search for yourself, for any factual investigation that throws doubt on the "Holocaust" is censored in your country, as well as throughout most of Europe (try www.codoh.com if you can get to it in your country).

Of course, if we choose to define the "Holocaust" in a different manner, say as a proto-religious teaching based on extreme but vague war propaganda, claiming that undefined, formless but terrible, events, many of them miraculous, happened to Jews in such a manner that they are collectively entitled to financial compensation, as well as the Jewish state of Israel exempted from the basic standards of civilised behaviour, then the "Holocaust" may indeed be considered "a fact" -- though hardly an appropriate subject for any historical debate.

Other Comments by ASMarques

90. Comment #157289 by RecoveringTheist on April 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Professor Dawkins I admire your patience in the face of stupidity! Also I don't know how you keep your composure when you are cut off after beginning your retort or explanation of a particular question asked of you.

I very much enjoyed the topics of debate and wish I could have been in the audience in which to help support your efforts of clear thinking (although you needed no help)

Other Comments by RecoveringTheist

91. Comment #157290 by MPhil on April 8, 2008 at 9:09 pm

ASMarques,

My goodness - that's sickening.

You are without a doubt the (willing or not) victim of a conspiracy theory of the largest scale - which is extremely disgusting in its denial of one of the planned mass exterminations in history.

We have the original documents of the deportations, the photos, the gas canisters, the confessions on record, the eye-witness reports, the films, the survivors, some surviving descendants of the victims or other family members - we have the confessions, the radio reports.

I've been to the concentration camps - I've talked to survivors, I've talked to an American soldier who saw these things, I've seen the confessions, heard and read both the official statements of the Nazis concerning the Final Solution, their propaganda, - for goodness sake, I have seen the evidence both for the Reichspogromnacht, the Deportation and the extermination myself.

You however support a disgusting conspiracy theory - and the evidence against it couldn't be better documented and preserved. I'd like you to tell your story to anyone who has lost family members in Auschwitz, Dachau, Flossenbürg etc.. or to the Soldiers who liberated the camps, or to the few remaining survivors themselves... although on second thought I wouldn't want you to inflict that kind of cruelty on those people.

Being a conspiracy theorist of the worst kind, you will (as you have) "blame" my reaction on being "blinded" by the conspiracy, on being misinformed and not allowed or willing to see the truth.

You are figuratively spitting on the graves of the victims of the Holocaust, in the faces of the survivors and the families and friends of the deceased...

... I think I speak for all of the people on this site when I say that this is entirely unacceptable behaviour, and that this site, a place of truth, reason AND empathy is no place for someone like you!

Other Comments by MPhil

92. Comment #157299 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 9:32 pm

ASMarques,

You have contrived to convince yourself that the holocaust did not take place in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This appears to be compartmentalisation on a par with that of devout Christian scientists.

How can you submit to the evidence that supports your atheism, yet disregard the evidence that confirms the holocaust?

On a less serious and unrelated note, you're one of those people who writes "an historic". That is just the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

Other Comments by Clydey

93. Comment #157304 by Foth on April 8, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Oh lord, not this show again.

Other Comments by Foth

94. Comment #157312 by Foth on April 8, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Richard, if you read this, just know that every time you defend gay people and smash out ignorance and bigotry, you cause a sense of triumph and hope for gay people. Your handing of Betty the pious was heroic and I cannot thank you enough for it.

Other Comments by Foth

95. Comment #157317 by ASMarques on April 8, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Says MPhil:

Being a conspiracy theorist of the worst kind, you will (as you have) "blame" my reaction on being "blinded" by the conspiracy, on being misinformed and not allowed or willing to see the truth.

I'm not a "conspiracy theorist of the worst kind," MPhil. Rather one of the most moderate kind, i.e. one who tends to believe many alleged conspiracies do not exist, but some do and often enlist many well-meaning unthinking people as their vehicles or accomplices. Censorship is one of them.

In fact I'm quite used to the sort of reaction you exhibit. I call it the "delusion of religious belief." And I'm not blaming you. I'm simply blaming the almost universal censorship -- hello-o-o, conspiracy afoot, anyone? -- that exists on the particular topic of the "Holocaust." Why do you think that is?

... I think I speak for all of the people on this site when I say that this is entirely unacceptable behaviour, and that this site, a place of truth, reason AND empathy is no place for someone like you!

Not very nice on your part, but, well, as an irreligious denier, I'm quite used to the ill-manners of the true believers. No hard feelings, MPhil.

Try: Basic Introduction if you can. If you cannot, ask yourself why not.

******************
Says Clydey:

How can you submit to the evidence that supports your atheism, yet disregard the evidence that confirms the holocaust?

I would gladly enter into a debate with you -- both on established religion and holocaustianism, and the quality of evidence for any or both, which would be quite delightful -- if that was deemed appropriate, which I've just been reminded by someone acting as a sort of spokesman for the whole (?) forum, it is not (see above). All I can do is to invite you to further inquire on that point or anything else that may interest you Holocaust-wise, on an appropriate forum such as this one: CODOH Forum.

Please note I'm not evading your possible arguments, if any. But this forum imposes a certain amount of restrictions on posters, namely: "You agree not to post any [...] material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where 'RichardDawkins.net Forum' is hosted or International Law." Though I feel sorry for, say, any would-be posters from Islamic countries who won't be authorised to speak on this forum against the religion that oppresses them, I understand and respect the reasons for the restriction.

As far as I know, by the way, I am not in violation of any rules, since "Holocaust" denial is not outlawed in my country or the UK (where I believe the site is hosted). But the site's rules make it impossible for me to discuss the so-called "Holocaust" with people from countries subjected to censorship, as I believe is the case with MPhil (a German, as he informs us, presumably posting from his country). I do not accept to enter a detailed discussion with both arms tied behind my back, and neither will I accept that sort of imposition on the opposite part. I like this site very much and Richard Dawkins may count me as an admirer of his efforts, but when I'm looking for true freedom of speech I look elsewhere.

On a less serious and unrelated note, you're one of those people who writes "an historic". That is just the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

As a Portuguese poster, posting from my country in what is to me a foreign language -- and certainly not wishing to spoil your cake -- I must beg your indulgence for the occasional wrong aspiration of the English initial H.

Other Comments by ASMarques

96. Comment #157322 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 11:07 pm

ASMarques,

As for your first point, I have no desire to engage you in a debate regarding the holocaust. It's not something that interests me, as I feel it would be akin to debating the moon landing.

I'm not appalled by your denial of the holocaust, although I'm quite sure many others will be. You don't come across as someone who would take such a position without good reason. In fact, our quarrel might simply be over semantics. That said, I feel sure someone else will gladly take up your challenge.

Regarding your second point, I had no idea you were Portuguese. From what I've read your English is arguably better than mine. People who write "an historian" are just one of my pet hates, an eccentricity, if you will. There are far more accomplished writers than I who write in that fashion, albeit incorrectly ;-)

Other Comments by Clydey

97. Comment #157324 by Quine on April 8, 2008 at 11:21 pm

As others have posted, I must admire Richard's suffering of fools on this show. I suppose he is now ready for The View on the next trip to the USA (assuming he does not fall of the edge of the flat Earth on the way there).

This is the first time I heard the argument that The Devil must exist because that is the only way to explain the evil in the world. It sounds a bit like the Irrefutable Perplexity argument from the IDiots. It starts with a first part that is Argumentum ad ignorantiam where we are charged to refute the existence of The Devil, then this is backed up with a form of the Sherlock Holmes Fallacy where The Devil must be the cause of evil because the speaker can't think of any other.

When people of faith try this kind of thing on me I like to quickly remind them that before Newton it was thought that angels pushed the planets around the sun; like, what else could it be?

Other Comments by Quine

98. Comment #157329 by ASMarques on April 8, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Says Clydey:

As for your first point, I have no desire to engage you in a debate regarding the holocaust. It's not something that interests me, as I feel it would be akin to debating the moon landing.

Apologies for my mistake. Your tone made it sound as if you were very much interested in the topic, but I now understand you don't really care to incur the risk of losing your certitudes. You sound a little like Richard Dawkins talking about his historical Jesus, without ever seeming to having taken much interest in the evidence, or lack of it, for such a supposedly historical character...

In fact, our quarrel might simply be over semantics.

Not at all. If the truth about the so-called "Holocaust" is "no central plan, no homicidal gas chambers anywhere, about one million Jewish victims of all causes during the whole war, false witnesses to the miracles, and shameful show-trials, indeed with all the workings of the classic witch-trials, imposed by the powerful on the powerless" then you can hardly call that a simple matter of semantics...

Other Comments by ASMarques

99. Comment #157330 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Thank you for doing this, Richard.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

100. Comment #157332 by j s bach on April 8, 2008 at 11:51 pm

What was the point of Richard being on the programme? He hardly had an opportunity to say a word - unlike that mad African woman, the smarmy Mayoral candidate and the whining moslim convert.

Other Comments by j s bach