Is Dawkins on the TV this week?

Tim Robbins

Caught the end of a radio program reviewing the tv for the week and it mentioned Dawkins was on something? Anyone know what it is?

MagicMarker

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056574753

jank

Does he have anything new to say?

Dave!

I wonder will he be on the radio/TV at all, given that he'll be in the country anyway

robindch

jank wrote: »

Does he have anything new to say?

Dawkins is talking about his latest book "The Magic of Reality", so I expect he'll be saying something that hasn't been said before, or the least, all that well before, and certainly things that would be considered "new" to many people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlUPlpUci4c

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Does he have anything new to say?

When was the last time your religious overlords had something new to say?

MrP

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

When was the last time your religious overlords had something new to say?

MrP

Who are my "overlords"? LOL!

dlofnep

jank wrote: »

Does he have anything new to say?

Highly doubtful if you listened to anything he said up to now - so I doubt you're genuinely interested.

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

Who are my "overlords"? LOL!

Sorry I missed this. It was meant as a slightly tongue in cheek remark referring to whoever you listen to, if there is indeed someone, in respect to whatever religious belief, if any, you hold. But then you probably knew that.

In addition have you ever actually listened to anything he has said in the past? I suspect there is a fair chance that pretty much anything he might say could be consider "new" with respect to you.

MrP

goingpostal1

jank wrote: »

Does he have anything new to say?

Dawkins is a dazzlingly brilliant evolutionary biologist, as well as a very articulate scourge of religious horsesh1t. He is always worth listening to, novelty be damned!!

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Does he have anything new to say?

I've always wondered if the 'j' in jank is pronounced like our 'w'?

Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0606/breaking34.html

Prof Richard Dawkins says he was intrigued by an Irish Times poll showing 62 per cent of Catholics believe the bread and wine blessed during Mass `only represents the body and blood? of Christ

They also think Mary took a lover, but it wasn't part of the poll.

jank

dlofnep wrote: »

Highly doubtful if you listened to anything he said up to now - so I doubt you're genuinely interested.

Oh, I have listened to him. However, if you are honest with yourself he has not come to any new conclusions since his "god delusion" book. Why are people so sensitive about him?

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

Sorry I missed this. It was meant as a slightly tongue in cheek remark referring to whoever you listen to, if there is indeed someone, in respect to whatever religious belief, if any, you hold. But then you probably knew that.

In addition have you ever actually listened to anything he has said in the past? I suspect there is a fair chance that pretty much anything he might say could be consider "new" with respect to you.

MrP

Nice roll back there in the first part. You assumed something that had no evidence backing it, very unatheist of you. :pac:

See above.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

I've always wondered if the 'j' in jank is pronounced like our 'w'?

Last time I heard that was about 8 years ago on the soccer forum. Well done on passing puberty.

joseph brand wrote: »

Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0606/breaking34.html

They also think Mary took a lover, but it wasn't part of the poll.

He loves the limelight, that is sure.
"Scienstist calls people to be reasonable shocker" Wow, what a brave man.:rolleyes:

robindch

Folks, drop the juvenile ad-hom please.

dlofnep

jank wrote: »

Oh, I have listened to him. However, if you are honest with yourself he has not come to any new conclusions since his "god delusion" book. Why are people so sensitive about him?

I'm not really interested in the God debate. It's a very small area, of many that he discusses. I'm much more interested in his work on evolutionary biology, and in that field - there is always new evidence cropping up adding further support to it.

How exactly would he come to new conclusions about God? He can present new arguments - but the conclusion will always be the same.

MrPudding

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not really interested in the God debate. It's a very small area, of many that he discusses. I'm much more interested in his work on evolutionary biology, and in that field - there is always new evidence cropping up adding further support to it.

How exactly would he come to new conclusions about God? He can present new arguments - but the conclusion will always be the same.

And in breaking news... "Richard Dawkins still does not believe in gods!"

Or maybe "Still no evidence for gods."

MrP

jank

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not really interested in the God debate. It's a very small area, of many that he discusses. I'm much more interested in his work on evolutionary biology, and in that field - there is always new evidence cropping up adding further support to it.

How exactly would he come to new conclusions about God? He can present new arguments - but the conclusion will always be the same.

So why are you singing his praises in a religious forum then and not in a scientific forum. Has Dawkins name ever appeared in the board.ie science forum? Maybe he has, but I can bet my life savings that his names has appeared a lot more in this forum.

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

And in breaking news... "Richard Dawkins still does not believe in gods!"

Or maybe "Still no evidence for gods."

MrP

Yeap, my guess exactly, yet some people listen to his every word as if its gospel and some divine truth will come from within, hoping for some new argument to battle theism.

The point is that you can only so much millage and money from "God doesn't exist" announcements. After a while, it gets boring.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

So why are you singing his praises in a religious forum then and not in a scientific forum. Has Dawkins name ever appeared in the board.ie science forum? Maybe he has, but I can bet my life savings that his names has appeared a lot more in this forum.

dlofnep has 2 posts in this thread, neither of which could be classed as "praise singing".

dlofnep

jank wrote: »

So why are you singing his praises in a religious forum then and not in a scientific forum.

I'm defending his character, it's irrelevant what forum the thread is posted in. It might be noted, that while this forum is in the religion - category - Atheism is not a religion. We discuss many topics here, including scientific topics. They add further clarity to many questions which atheists might have on biology, cosmology, etc...

jank wrote: »

Has Dawkins name ever appeared in the board.ie science forum? Maybe he has, but I can bet my life savings that his names has appeared a lot more in this forum.

So what? Are you trying to dictate what forums he can be discussed in? The science forums on boards get less traffic in general than other forums. The biology forum for example has 10 times less pages of posts than the atheist/agnostic forum. One would expect Dawkins name to crop up more on here.

jank

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm defending his character, it's irrelevant what forum the thread is posted in. It might be noted, that while this forum is in the religion - category - Atheism is not a religion. We discuss many topics here, including scientific topics. They add further clarity to many questions which atheists might have on biology, cosmology, etc...

All well and good but you forgot one thing, I didn't attack his character when I posted in this thread. So why are you defending something that is not attacked?

dlofnep wrote: »

So what? Are you trying to dictate what forums he can be discussed in? The science forums on boards get less traffic in general than other forums. The biology forum for example has 10 times less pages of posts than the atheist/agnostic forum. One would expect Dawkins name to crop up more on here.

Wow, you really are very sensitive. I am not trying to dictate anything. I was merely making an observation that he is put forward as a great scientist and biologist and somehow this is the primary reasons why people see him talk? Well as you see that's horse $hit. His main opus operand-um is his atheism. He could be a cook or a street cleaner yet people would still see him talk because of his intelligent manner and his troll like methods of debating. Hitchens wasn't a scientist, yet people listened to him!

Galvasean

jank wrote: »

The point is that you can only so much millage and money from "God doesn't exist" announcements. After a while, it gets boring.

So, you trundle on in here asking if Dawkins has anything new to say... people answer in relation to the new things he is talking about... then you go give out about Dawkins being boring for still harking on about how God doesn't... even though it has been shown to you how that is not what he is on about in this instance...
I'm sorry Jank, but it is you who is being the boring one, looking for any old opportunity to have a bash at Dawkins while not paying attention to what is actually happening.

*YAWN*

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

So, you trundle on in here asking if Dawkins has anything new to say... people answer in relation to the new things he is talking about... then you go give out about Dawkins being boring for still harking on about how God doesn't... even though it has been shown to you how that is not what he is on about in this instance...
I'm sorry Jank, but it is you who is being the boring one, looking for any old opportunity to have a bash at Dawkins while not paying attention to what is actually happening.

*YAWN*

So what new thing is he saying?

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

So what new thing is he saying?

Yeah sorry. The answer to that question was craftily hidden in plain sight in post five. See if you can find it.

MrP

dlofnep

jank wrote: »

All well and good but you forgot one thing, I didn't attack his character when I posted in this thread. So why are you defending something that is not attacked?

You're accumulative posts over a number of threads are taken into account when you throw in snide comments like "Does he have anything new to say?" - That wasn't an honest question, it was a cheap attack at his character. Especially considering you claimed that Dawkins was merely a "professional troll". You don't just get to call someone a troll because you don't like their message.

jank wrote: »

Wow, you really are very sensitive. I am not trying to dictate anything. I was merely making an observation that he is put forward as a great scientist and biologist and somehow this is the primary reasons why people see him talk?

Perhaps because his experience as a scientist, and the knowledge that he shares helps us better to understand life - and with it, gives great weight to dispelling all God myths.

jank wrote: »

Well as you see that's horse $hit. His main opus operand-um is his atheism.

I guess that's why the majority of his books and publications have been about biology and science, rather than atheism? He is a great speaker for the atheist community, precisely because of his impeccable understanding of evolutionary biology.

jank wrote: »

Hitchens wasn't a scientist, yet people listened to him!

Hitchens had an uncanny memory, savant-like. His ability to remember quotes and historical events, incredible grasp of critical thinking and ability to reason and explicitly explain his views with the audience is what made people listen to him. He wasn't just any joe-shmoe.

Sarky

Jank, if you're going to troll, you need to be more subtle. Remember the bit in Tropic Thunder where Robert Downey Jr. is talking about how "you never go full retard" when playing a mentally challenged person because it results in instant lack of credibility? Right now you're going full retard on trying to get a reaction for the sake of a reaction. You're either inexperienced or just really bad at it. Either way, you should probably just stop for everyone's sake, particularly yours.

MisterEpicurus

No offence, but is this not a pointless thread, the discussion was supposed to be about Dawkins on TV and its morphed into a point-scoring conversation on what he thinks and what he does. It's not going anywhere to be honest.

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

Jank, if you're going to troll, you need to be more subtle. Remember the bit in Tropic Thunder where Robert Downey Jr. is talking about how "you never go full retard" when playing a mentally challenged person because it results in instant lack of credibility? Right now you're going full retard on trying to get a reaction for the sake of a reaction. You're either inexperienced or just really bad at it. Either way, you should probably just stop for everyone's sake, particularly yours.

Is it coincidence that his name is rhyming slang for the contents of his posts?

MrP

rugbyman

To change the subject slightly.
my friend ,who is a theist, went to Mr Dawkins talk in Dublin recently. she says she definitely heard him saying " there is no god", I countered that a man of his ability would be unlikely to say that.(since no one can prove that)

On a quick google I hear him quoted elsewhere as being 6.9 out of 7 cetain there is no god,(which is what I would have expected)

Purely to settle this discussion between my friend and I,
A, does anyone who was there agree she could have heard him say that("there is no god")

B, does anyone on here who knows a lot about him think he would ever have come out with such a statement

Regards ,Rugbyman

MrPudding

rugbyman wrote: »

To change the subject slightly.
my friend ,who is a theist, went to Mr Dawkins talk in Dublin recently. she says she definitely heard him saying " there is no god", I countered that a man of his ability would be unlikely to say that.(since no one can prove that)

On a quick google I hear him quoted elsewhere as being 6.9 out of 7 cetain there is no god,(which is what I would have expected)

Purely to settle this discussion between my friend and I,
A, does anyone who was there agree she could have heard him say that("there is no god")

B, does anyone on here who knows a lot about him think he would ever have come out with such a statement

Regards ,Rugbyman

He may very well have said it, but simply as an abreviation of what he actually believes. I think the longer version is he sees no evidence for the existence of gods, feels it is most likely they don't exist and he lives his life as if they don't exist.

MrP

dlofnep

There is no God.
There is no unicorn.
There is no fairy under the garden bush.

Theists seem to only have a problem with the first statement. All are equally valid. I accept the tiniest irrelevant possibility that anything could exist, but in everyday conversation - I've no need to get tied down with semantics regarding statistical improbabilities.

jank

dlofnep wrote: »

You're accumulative posts over a number of threads are taken into account when you throw in snide comments like "Does he have anything new to say?" - That wasn't an honest question, it was a cheap attack at his character. Especially considering you claimed that Dawkins was merely a "professional troll". You don't just get to call someone a troll because you don't like their message.



Perhaps because his experience as a scientist, and the knowledge that he shares helps us better to understand life - and with it, gives great weight to dispelling all God myths.



I guess that's why the majority of his books and publications have been about biology and science, rather than atheism? He is a great speaker for the atheist community, precisely because of his impeccable understanding of evolutionary biology.



Hitchens had an uncanny memory, savant-like. His ability to remember quotes and historical events, incredible grasp of critical thinking and ability to reason and explicitly explain his views with the audience is what made people listen to him. He wasn't just any joe-shmoe.

I get it, Dawkins and Hitches are prophets of reason and logic to the Atheist community. Knock yourself out, but he can be wrong, just listen to the Ray Darcy interview.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

I get it

I remain skeptical.

Sarky

You couldn't possibly get it less. Sarky's Protip #2 For the Aspiring Troll: Try to have SOME idea of the subject matter.

jank

Sarky wrote: »

Jank, if you're going to troll, you need to be more subtle. Remember the bit in Tropic Thunder where Robert Downey Jr. is talking about how "you never go full retard" when playing a mentally challenged person because it results in instant lack of credibility? Right now you're going full retard on trying to get a reaction for the sake of a reaction. You're either inexperienced or just really bad at it. Either way, you should probably just stop for everyone's sake, particularly yours.

Sarky

Well I guess that proves you were never interested in a discussion, so there's that at least.

jank

And your opening piece on this thread is an attack on a poster. Hmmm ok! I am sure you can go back "discussing".

dlofnep

jank wrote: »

I get it, Dawkins and Hitches are prophets of reason and logic to the Atheist community. Knock yourself out, but he can be wrong, just listen to the Ray Darcy interview.

Atheists don't have prophets. Inspiring figures they may be, but prophets they are not. What exactly was Dawkins incorrect about on the Ray Darcy interview?

Sarky

jank wrote: »

And your opening piece on this thread is an attack on a poster. Hmmm ok! I am sure you can go back "discussing".

Look, I'm trying to help you. Your abrasive posts and immediately confrontational nature are not how one goes about annoying people or being a clever clogs, or even being vaguely civil. You'll get a far better reaction if you tone it down, whether you're trolling or even in the increasingly unlikely event you are interested in debating a topic but just don't know how to go about being civil.

Ignore my posts if you like, but the only person you're harming here is yourself with your refusal to take a step back and be even just a little bit objective.