1. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157779 by schumi_4_ever on April 9, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I was bursting into flames watching this.

And the person that set me on fire the most? That Mayor candidate bloke. UNBELIEVABLE.
Twice, he completely and utterly missed the whole point dawkins was trying to make, and not even understanding what he was saying, or what the discussion was actually about.

1 - When dawkins, referring to that black preacher christian woman, saying how opinion was actually invalid because it wasn't based on anything other than religious belief. Which is absolutely right. It's like me going 'I believe men shouldnt be together because it causes earthquakes' - that opinion is not valid, because it's not based on anything factual at all. But the Mayor candidate bloke was like 'Oh god, terrible, you can't discount other peoples opinions, everyones opinion is valid', and because that sounds like a good thing to say, the idiot audience clapped.

2nd time - that Christine or watever her name was asking dawkins about why he was using extremists as representatives for religions, and Dawkins going 'well...I don't.'. And he made a perfectly clear point about why, and went on to say that stalin/hitler didn't do those things out of atheism etc..etc.. (the arguments we all know and love). Thus, completely refuting whatever that woman said. And once again, the mayor candidate COMPLETELY IGNORED Dawkins answer, and saying 'OOooh well you can't have people using the worst examples'. When actually what Christine was using to highlight her example was completley wrong in the first place!

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE. And ofcourse the audience claps. Incredibly retarded. What hope has Dawkins got when even in this country, with someone as seemingly intelligent as one would have to be to be a mayor of london, completely ignores the precise, clear, logical reasoning, and simply makes typical broad statements which on the whole sound sensible but totally miss the point.

If I was Dawkins I would have completely lashed out at him. I admire Dawkins for taking a very pregmatic stance on all the talkshows and things he goes on, but once in a while proffessor, come on, show them up as fools!

2. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107983 by schumi_4_ever on January 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm

I think this video really has proven that religious people are simply unargueble. When someone says to you 'Oooh well, it's outside the realms of the natural laws, you cannot apply scientific method to it'. What are you supposed to say to that. The rabbi's main point was that, that it wasn't a scientific question, and therefore couldn't be answered in a scientific way.
I mean it's just ludicrous - Sam Harris should have just said 'what a copout'. Religious people simply apply all these new laws and rules so that science cannot touch it. Can they not see how ludicrous it is?
Sam could have asked the Rabbi 'do you believe in fairies'. The rabbi would have gone, 'no because there isn't really any evidence to suggest otherwise, I've never seen one' bla bla bla. But God? That's a totally different matter isn't it.
I often wonder how Dawkins, Harris, et al keep their calm when debating with religious people to be honest. Watching these videos, I get so outraged listening to the religious side talking utter nonsense, sometimes I have to pause the video and watch whales on the discovery channel.

I have to disagree with Dawkins. We should give up argueing with these people. Let it culminate into a crescendo, where all religions are fighting one another, and take each other out.

Harris absolutely destroyed him in this debate, but then we're you're debating something as weak as religioun, how can the guy who has logic and reason not win?

3. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87820 by schumi_4_ever on November 13, 2007 at 8:58 am

can someone tell me what the difference is between a god who cares in peoples beliefs etc. and one that simply was there at the beginning and created everything. or whatever. surely they are the same thing. if i was a bloke that had created the world, i'd also have the ability to fly, be invisible, and no doubt i'd be immortal, and therefore i'd be watching over everyone and making sure my creation was running smoothly anyway. Seriously, what is the difference between an 'all out' god, in the momotheistic faiths, and a god that just sorta hangs around.

there isn't is the answer. it's just ridiculous. dawkins likes to think that he or other atheists aren't different to religious folk due to a physical difference in the brain, but i'd like to think there is, because how else can it possibly be explained. i was brought up religious, by the age of 10 i simply lost interest (as did my parents) and by 15 i was infuriated with my school (who actually brought 2 religious scientific teachers in to try and convince us that god and science can walk hand in hand!).

why can't people see that the word God is OBVIOUSLY a man made word, its a man made object. its obscene. did you know there are clergyman, that dedicate their lives to this imagination. (and millions of other people).

ive just thought of something - UNLESS the physical differences in the brain between religious people and mere atheists was planted there by god. Like a tiny chip. that must be it, im a believer now.

4. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #67167 by schumi_4_ever on September 2, 2007 at 11:21 am

'And who did God?'
another superb quote from dawkins - 0wned!

Colberts banter is all a bit of an act, his show his hilarious with it, i doubt he actually believes in a god (an american version of one anyway)
I think he would have chatted to Dawkins beforehand about what to expect from the show etc... coz i've seen backstage footage of him doing that with other guests.
check out Colberts speech he did for Bush at the White House Correspondents dinner (youtube it) - its hugely witty and to the point.