Dawkins: Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life (New Series)

nagirrac · 24-10-2012 03:44AM

I thought the hospice scene was disgusting. How courageous and noble of the couple to agree to be interviewed in a time of such grief. What an utterly insensitive and mindnumbingly heartless comment from Dawkins "you have to draw a line under it anyway, why draw it out for several more months?" Does he not understand that Catholics who actually take their faith seriously do not have the option of abortion? He visited a Catholic hospice center ffs, what did he expect to hear?.. but of course he knew exactly what he was going to hear and used this couple to make his point about the "irrational" decisions people make due to religious beliefs.
I am pro-choice by the way, but this is also what choice is about. Who the hell is he to question their choice? I thought they were incredibly restrained in their response, personally if I were the husband I don't think I would have been so restrained.

mickrock · 24-10-2012 04:14AM

This Dawkins lad seems to think that one of his direct ancestors was a fish.

The Bishop! · 24-10-2012 05:50AM

nagirrac wrote: »

but of course he knew exactly what he was going to hear and used this couple to make his point about the "irrational" decisions people make due to religious beliefs.

Exactly. What an utterly insensitive thing to say.

Can't say i'm surprised mind you but that was really scraping the barrel, even by his condescendingly arrogant standards.

Obliq · 24-10-2012 06:12AM

I actually agree with you Bishop :eek:

Jimoslimos · 24-10-2012 06:31AM

NIMAN wrote: »

I take Dawkins with a pinch of salt.

Obliq wrote: »

I enjoyed it anyway:-) A bit too much of Dawkins perhaps.....y'know, the usual.

Obliq wrote: »

Gave up 1/4 way through and watched some rubbish comedy. Dawkins' patronising was getting to me. Turned off after he said "They think they have found comfort in their belief...." (or very similar). No Dawkins - they have found comfort in their belief. Grrr.

The Bishop! wrote: »

Can't say i'm surprised mind you but that was really scraping the barrel, even by his condescendingly arrogant standards.

mickrock wrote: »

This Dawkins lad seems to think that one of his direct ancestors was a fish.

I think it's almost fashionable to sneer at Dawkins these days. Usually by those who know him only as, "that militant atheist writer of the God Delusion".

BTW if you're going to watch a programme about death with a presenter like Dawkins who asks honest and challenging questions, expect to be offended, but spare the rest of us your righteous indignation. What good would it be if he tiptoed around sensitive issues?

Personally I liked it, there was little to no preaching in it or atheism v religion arguments but I guess when people see Dawkins name they draw their own conclusions

Obliq · 24-10-2012 06:46AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think it's almost fashionable to sneer at Dawkins these days. Usually by those who know him only as, "that militant atheist writer of the God Delusion".

BTW if you're going to watch a programme about death with a presenter like Dawkins who asks honest and challenging questions, expect to be offended, but spare the rest of us your righteous indignation. What good would it be if he tiptoed around sensitive issues?

Personally I liked it, there was little to no preaching in it or atheism v religion arguments but I guess when people see Dawkins name they draw their own conclusions

Excuse me? I was offering you all my opinion, not shoving it down your neck. Why should I spare you my opinion? I'd like to ask you how do you know me well enough to call what I said "righteous indignation"? I neither see my comments as righteous (about religion or Dawkins) or indignant (except here, about your comment).

a) Yes, Dawkins annoys me with his manner towards people. Not because he is famous, but because some people just rub me up the wrong way.

b) I was not offended, but quite sickened by his insensitivity. I personally never tiptoe around sensitive issues myself, but I always try to approach them with respect for the people involved and their beliefs (so long as they don't impinge on mine). I didn't find him respectful enough to want to keep watching. I don't knock you for watching though.

c) You are making some quite serious assumptions about how I form my opinions. I am new to any study about atheism/theism. I form my own opinions based on what I see/hear.

The Bishop! · 24-10-2012 08:23AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think it's almost fashionable to sneer at Dawkins these days. Usually by those who know him only as, "that militant atheist writer of the God Delusion".

Well, that's a strawman. My own personal dislike of Dawkins patronising manner is not based on whether i think it's fashionable or not to hold that view. Nor is it based on not having read his books or seen his interviews and debates.

BTW if you're going to watch a programme about death with a presenter like Dawkins who asks honest and challenging questions, expect to be offended, but spare the rest of us your righteous indignation. What good would it be if he tiptoed around sensitive issues?

How it's righteous indignation to comment on his glaring insensitivity towards that couple i just don't know. Framing it as us being too easily "offended" is not really the way i see it.

Personally I liked it, there was little to no preaching in it or atheism v religion arguments but I guess when people see Dawkins name they draw their own conclusions

Again a strawman, and you're implying that any criticism of Dawkins or parts of that documentary must be because of a negative bias.
I knew what he was like before seeing it yes, but even if i didn't know him from Adam, would still have said that interview was thoughtless and insensitive.

Jimoslimos · 24-10-2012 09:59AM

Obliq wrote: »

Excuse me? I was offering you all my opinion, not shoving it down your neck. Why should I spare you my opinion? I'd like to ask you how do you know me well enough to call what I said "righteous indignation"? I neither see my comments as righteous (about religion or Dawkins) or indignant (except here, about your comment).

Offering your opinion after not even watching half of it

Obliq wrote: »

Gave up 1/4 way through and watched some rubbish comedy. Dawkins' patronising was getting to me. Turned off after he said "They think they have found comfort in their belief...." (or very similar). No Dawkins - they have found comfort in their belief. Grrr.

You reckoned Dawkins was wrong to state "They think..." Seems pretty righteous to me. I've highlighted the appropriate words.

Obliq wrote: »

a) Yes, Dawkins annoys me with his manner towards people. Not because he is famous, but because some people just rub me up the wrong way.

How so?

Obliq wrote: »

b) I was not offended, but quite sickened by his insensitivity. I personally never tiptoe around sensitive issues myself, but I always try to approach them with respect for the people involved and their beliefs (so long as they don't impinge on mine). I didn't find him respectful enough to want to keep watching. I don't knock you for watching though.

I'm struggling to see where he was disrespectful or insensitive though. In a programme like this the couple would have been approached beforehand and most likely would have seen the questions aswell. Face to face he handled it as well as anyone could have I reckon. The couple seemed happy enough to give their reasons behind their decisions.

As for the remark he mad after (not made personally to the couple)

"They sincerely think they are gaining reassurance from their faith

It's a perfectly correct one and not in the slightest disrespectful, if he were to state, "They foolishly think they are gaining reassurance from their faith" maybe so

Obliq wrote: »

c) You are making some quite serious assumptions about how I form my opinions. I am new to any study about atheism/theism. I form my own opinions based on what I see/hear.

Good, and hopefully those opinions aren't clouded by a baffling dislike for Dawkins.

The Bishop! wrote: »

Well, that's a strawman. My own personal dislike of Dawkins patronising manner is not based on whether i think it's fashionable or not to hold that view. Nor is it based on not having read his books or seen his interviews and debates.

So, what exactly is it based on?

The Bishop! wrote: »

How it's righteous indignation to comment on his glaring insensitivity towards that couple i just don't know. Framing it as us being too easily "offended" is not really the way i see it.

You're angry because you reckon Dawkins was wrongly insensitive towards the couple - fits the definition for righteous indignation.

The Bishop! wrote: »

Again a strawman, and you're implying that any criticism of Dawkins or parts of that documentary must be because of a negative bias.
I knew what he was like before seeing it yes, but even if i didn't know him from Adam, would still have said that interview was thoughtless and insensitive.

Really now, so why did you feel the need to post,

The Bishop! wrote: »

Exactly. What an utterly insensitive thing to say.

Can't say i'm surprised mind you but that was really scraping the barrel, even by his condescendingly arrogant standards.

No bias here?

Obliq · 24-10-2012 01:19PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Offering your opinion after not even watching half of it

This was my opinion on why I only watched a 1/4 of it. Not on the program.
"Gave up 1/4 way through and watched some rubbish comedy. Dawkins' patronising was getting to me. Turned off after he said "They think they have found comfort in their belief...." (or very similar). No Dawkins - they have found comfort in their belief. Grrr."
I don't see your problem with me offering my opinion as to why I turned it off. Seems ok to me? No?

You reckoned Dawkins was wrong to state "They think..." Seems pretty righteous to me. I've highlighted the appropriate words.

"They sincerely think they are gaining reassurance from their faith"
Thanks for the actual quote from the program btw. I still reckon he's wrong to say they think they have gained reassurance, when clearly they have, and Dawkins apparent opinion that belief in a religion is stupid shines through here. I too believe religion is all a pile of poo, but I have enough respect for people to think they believe in it for personal reasons and they're entitled to them.

In a programme like this the couple would have been approached beforehand and most likely would have seen the questions aswell. Face to face he handled it as well as anyone could have I reckon. The couple seemed happy enough to give their reasons behind their decisions.

Fair enough, yes I agree. But where I see what was said as disrespectful, you don't, so hopefully we'll agree to disagree.

Good, and hopefully those opinions aren't clouded by a baffling dislike for Dawkins.

Jaysus wept, amn't I entitled to dislike him? What's confusing you here? We don't have to like the same people y'know, just because we're both atheists. I don't like the man's manner - what is unclear about that? I don't like the way he comes across as knowing the truth better than the rest of us (in a condescending fashion). I don't like his voice and I don't even like his dog. Doesn't mean I don't agree with most of what he says, but I just DON'T LIKE HIM. Sorry if that causes you pain.

And for what it's worth, perhaps my opinion on Dawkins, based on how he speaks to people, IS clouded each time I watch him speak to people by my own opinion. That much is probably true. But it's MY opinion.

The Bishop! · 24-10-2012 01:52PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So, what exactly is it based on?

It's based on my observing him over the years. Reading his books, interviews and watching him debate and talk etc.

You're angry because you reckon Dawkins was wrongly insensitive towards the couple - fits the definition for righteous indignation.

Call it what you see fit. I'm not particularly angry.

Really now, so why did you feel the need to post,

Yeah, really now. And who are you to ask that question? It's a thread about Dawkins. Am i not free to post that if it's in line with the charter?

No bias here?

Correct. No bias. Expressing that lack of surprise does not automatically mean bias.

The Bishop! · 24-10-2012 02:04PM

Obliq wrote: »

[..and I don't even like his dog.

That was a low blow Obliq. How could you? The poor doggy.:)

Obliq · 24-10-2012 02:12PM

The Bishop! wrote: »

That was a low blow Obliq. How could you? The poor doggy.:)

Gosh, yes. Sorry for any offence caused.....actually - to clear this up quickly, I'd like to clarify that I thought the dog came across very well, but I don't like the breed of dog. But possibly my opinion of the breed is low because I don't like Dawkins? Hmmm. :rolleyes:

TheChizler · 24-10-2012 03:15PM

Obliq wrote: »

This was my opinion on why I only watched a 1/4 of it. Not on the program.
"Gave up 1/4 way through and watched some rubbish comedy. Dawkins' patronising was getting to me. Turned off after he said "They think they have found comfort in their belief...." (or very similar). No Dawkins - they have found comfort in their belief. Grrr."
I don't see your problem with me offering my opinion as to why I turned it off. Seems ok to me? No?

"They sincerely think they are gaining reassurance from their faith"
Thanks for the actual quote from the program btw. I still reckon he's wrong to say they think they have gained reassurance, when clearly they have, and Dawkins apparent opinion that belief in a religion is stupid shines through here. I too believe religion is all a pile of poo, but I have enough respect for people to think they believe in it for personal reasons and they're entitled to them.

Fair enough, yes I agree. But where I see what was said as disrespectful, you don't, so hopefully we'll agree to disagree.

Jaysus wept, amn't I entitled to dislike him? What's confusing you here? We don't have to like the same people y'know, just because we're both atheists. I don't like the man's manner - what is unclear about that? I don't like the way he comes across as knowing the truth better than the rest of us (in a condescending fashion). I don't like his voice and I don't even like his dog. Doesn't mean I don't agree with most of what he says, but I just DON'T LIKE HIM. Sorry if that causes you pain.

And for what it's worth, perhaps my opinion on Dawkins, based on how he speaks to people, IS clouded each time I watch him speak to people by my own opinion. That much is probably true. But it's MY opinion.

I think the intent might have been that they think God is actually reassuring them directly. It depends on whether you take reassured by religion to mean to get comfort from belief, or to think that they are actually being assured by a supreme being that it will be ok; that its their belief doing the reassuring (true), or thinking that somebody is actually reassuring them (false).

Obliq · 24-10-2012 03:23PM

TheChizler wrote: »

I think the intent might have been that they think God is actually reassuring them directly. It depends on whether you take reassured by religion to mean to get comfort from belief, or to think that they are actually being assured by a supreme being that it will be ok; that its their belief doing the reassuring (true), or thinking that somebody is actually reassuring them (false).

Hmmm. Thanks for that - yes, someone else tried explaining that to me earlier too. It is entirely possible that I picked that (the intent) up wrong because I think he is a patronising git! It's interesting how the intent comes across, depending on whether you like him or not, eh?

TheChizler · 24-10-2012 03:28PM

Obliq wrote: »

Hmmm. Thanks for that - yes, someone else tried explaining that to me earlier too. It is entirely possible that I picked that (the intent) up wrong because I think he is a patronising git! It's interesting how the intent comes across, depending on whether you like him or not, eh?

Well he's never one to deny that people can get real reassurance from belief, it would be totally out of character and dishonest for him to claim otherwise, that he knows better how someone is feeling than they themselves.

It would be fair to say that it's a false reassurance, but nobody could deny the emotion they're experiencing.

Obliq · 24-10-2012 03:47PM

TheChizler wrote: »

It would be fair to say that it's a false reassurance, but nobody could deny the emotion they're experiencing.

Not sure that's true y'see. To my mind, you either are reassured or you are not. So their reassurance (from their belief) is genuine. In fact, that's exactly why I got so snotty about Dawkins saying "They sincerely think they are gaining reassurance from their faith".

That I believe their religion is wrong and claims that god exists are false, does not make their belief false. Their belief is real and true for them.

If you see what I mean?

nagirrac · 24-10-2012 03:50PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm struggling to see where he was disrespectful or insensitive though. In a programme like this the couple would have been approached beforehand and most likely would have seen the questions aswell. Face to face he handled it as well as anyone could have I reckon. The couple seemed happy enough to give their reasons behind their decisions.

If you don't think it was insensitive then perhaps you need to watch it again. There's nothing wrong with the subject matter, it is how he posed the questions. Here are the exact words used:
"Did it occur to you that the total sum of suffering would be much less if you drew a line under it then and restarted your lives, you have to draw a line under it now. Why did you decide to go on for several more months".
This shows an unbelievable ignorance towards Catholic belief without even going into the condescending nature of the remark. A Catholic couple who take their religion seriously do not have the option of abortion in this situation. He then compounded the error by going for the "hoping for a miracle" line, another insensitive remark and again showing ignorance of Catholic belief which is "it's not my decision to terminate".
Yes they may have been hoping for a miracle as well but the main point is they did not have the option of abortion (which I am sure he knows well but wanted to make his "religion is irrational" argument anyway).
As for how he could have handled it better he could have said "could you outline your reasoning for how you decided to proceed" if he had truly been interested in their beliefs.

nagirrac · 24-10-2012 04:06PM

Obliq wrote: »

Not sure that's true y'see. To my mind, you either are reassured or you are not. So their reassurance (from their belief) is genuine. In fact, that's exactly why I got so snotty about Dawkins saying "They sincerely think they are gaining reassurance from their faith".

That I believe their religion is wrong and claims that god exists are false, does not make their belief false. Their belief is real and true for them.

If you see what I mean?

Exactly, and this is the point atheists miss over and over. What people believe is a personal issue, and people with faith are greatly offended by atheists telling them what they believe is wrong. Long before organized religions were formed man believed in dualism, the distinction between spirit and the physical. The belief in an afterlife is common to most ancient cultures. What is wrong with people having faith that some aspect of their consciousness survives and that they will be reunited with their loved ones after death, and what exactly is gained by attempts to shoot holes in why people believe that at a personal level?

ShooterSF · 24-10-2012 04:12PM

Obliq wrote: »

Not sure that's true y'see. To my mind, you either are reassured or you are not. So their reassurance (from their belief) is genuine. In fact, that's exactly why I got so snotty about Dawkins saying "They sincerely think they are gaining reassurance from their faith".

That I believe their religion is wrong and claims that god exists are false, does not make their belief false. Their belief is real and true for them.

If you see what I mean?

Yes but it's also tied into their religious belief. What if one day one of them as is very possible loses their faith in religion.

Actually I think Dawkins handled it well enough but was probably in a lose lose situation and actually he steered away from the genuine concern over the undue pain the baby may have been put through because that would have been insensitive to discuss with the parents and would have been better in a hypothetical discussion.

Also out of curiosity (for who ever said it) were they definitely Catholic?

TheChizler · 24-10-2012 04:17PM

I do see and I agree that the reassurance is genuine. When I say false I mean it's genuine reassurance gained from a false premise. Like how you could get genuine reassurance from a driver crashing into you admitting fault and giving you his insurance details, before it turns out the policy doesn't exist.

nagirrac · 24-10-2012 04:36PM

TheChizler wrote: »

I do see and I agree that the reassurance is genuine. When I say false I mean it's genuine reassurance gained from a false premise. Like how you could get genuine reassurance from a driver crashing into you admitting fault and giving you his insurance details, before it turns out the policy doesn't exist.

This is the kind of statement that gives atheists a bad name.
People of faith believe there is a God outside our physical space-time that created the universe as we know it. Science, philosophy and religion have one thing in common, none of them can currently demonstrate whther this is true or false and until such time as one or more of them can, saying a premise is false is just as wrong as the position of a fundamentalist Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Mickeroo · 24-10-2012 04:45PM

nagirrac wrote: »

People of faith believe there is a God outside our physical space-time that created the universe as we know it. Science, philosophy and religion have one thing in common, none of them can currently demonstrate whther this is true or false and until such time as one or more of them can, saying a premise is false is just as wrong as the position of a fundamentalist Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Most people of faith I'm aware of believe in a more tangible god than that, what you're talking about is closer to what I would call an agnostic theist. Anyone who subscribes to one of the thousands of deities thought up by humans is putting their faith in something that is false, they don't have to be a fundamentalist to do this either. I agree the reassurance they feel is real regardless though.

TheChizler · 24-10-2012 04:52PM

nagirrac wrote: »

This is the kind of statement that gives atheists a bad name.
People of faith believe there is a God outside our physical space-time that created the universe as we know it. Science, philosophy and religion have one thing in common, none of them can currently demonstrate whther this is true or false and until such time as one or more of them can, saying a premise is false is just as wrong as the position of a fundamentalist Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible.

I think that when on this forum that is the generally accepted premise. And the false premise in the program is that God definitely exists, not the other way around. And also I'm talking about Dawkins not me, though we are of the same opinion. However to humour you here is my amended post:

I do see and I agree that the reassurance is genuine. When I say false I mean it's genuine reassurance gained from an unmeasurably unlikely premise. Like how you could get genuine reassurance from a driver crashing into you admitting fault and giving you his insurance details, before it turns out the policy doesn't exist.

General Relativity · 24-10-2012 05:01PM

nagirrac wrote: »

What is wrong with people having faith that some aspect of their consciousness survives and that they will be reunited with their loved ones after death, and what exactly is gained by attempts to shoot holes in why people believe that at a personal level?

Nothing, but how do some religious folk get from that to; denying gay people equal marriage rights, stoning women, controlling education, inhibiting scientific progress, etc.

I'd say most people on this forum and atheists in general, don't care what you believe in. Most of us start to get bees in our bonnets when religious people/organisations stick their nose in where it doesn’t concern them.

nagirrac · 24-10-2012 05:08PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Most people of faith I'm aware of believe in a more tangible god than that, what you're talking about is closer to what I would call an agnostic theist. Anyone who subscribes to one of the thousands of deities thought up by humans is putting their faith in something that is false, they don't have to be a fundamentalist to do this either. I agree the reassurance they feel is real regardless though.

An agnostic, whether theist, deist or weak atheist leaning, does not have a belief in a God, they are essentially neutral on the question but are open to be proven wrong.
The thousands of deities in history are an attempt by various cultures to put a name on the God entity that exists outside our known physical universe. Obviously ancient cultures did not express this in modern space-time concepts but the belief that there is a physical universe and a spiritual non physical universe is a very old belief dating to ancient cultures.

ShooterSF · 24-10-2012 05:20PM

nagirrac wrote: »

An agnostic, whether theist, deist or weak atheist leaning, does not have a belief in a God,

Wrong. Agnosticism is concerned only with possible knowledge in regards to gods. Agnostics simply claim not to know if one(s) exists or not. This by the way does not make it a 50/50 situation either.

Someone that does not have a belief in god is an atheist. We've gone over this before and no matter how many times you assert your version of the words it doesn't change their actual meanings.

Mickeroo · 24-10-2012 05:21PM

nagirrac wrote: »

An agnostic, whether theist, deist or weak atheist leaning, does not have a belief in a God, they are essentially neutral on the question but are open to be proven wrong.

An agnostic theist/deist would say the god/gods existing is more likely than not i would have thought, whereas an agnostic atheist would lean towards it being highly unlikely.

nagirrac wrote: »

The thousands of deities in history are an attempt by various cultures to put a name on the God entity that exists outside our known physical universe. Obviously ancient cultures did not express this in modern space-time concepts but the belief that there is a physical universe and a spiritual non physical universe is a very old belief dating to ancient cultures.

Yes I know but the average religious person (person of faith) does not believe that, they believe in a specific god.

Someone who acknowledges what you're saying is more likely to be an agnostic as it renders religious mythology into complete fantasy. The presence of a spiritual universe outside of our own is an unknowable quantity at present, anyone who acknowledges this is an agnostic by definition imo.

Maudi · 24-10-2012 05:24PM

The Bishop! wrote: »

That was a low blow Obliq. How could you? The poor doggy.:)

does anybody else find dawkins slightly..needy..like alright already you dont believe in God..get over it..stop trying to push your beliefs down peoples throats like a ...religious fanatic?i have my own God (for a better word) and thank you very much but no.i havent left him behind..more and more people realise theres no God..very presumtious of you fella..people may have fallen away from religion il give him that...but my God has little to do with man made religion.my God is was and always will be...

nagirrac · 24-10-2012 05:24PM

General Relativity wrote: »

Nothing, but how do some religious folk get from that to; denying gay people equal marriage rights, stoning women, controlling education, inhibiting scientific progress, etc.

I'd say most people on this forum and atheists in general, don't care what you believe in. Most of us start to get bees in our bonnets when religious people/organisations stick their nose in where it doesn’t concern them.

They get there by literal interpretations of ancient texts that most likely and according to most theologians are not meant to be read literally. I applaud atheists who fight to keep such fundamentalist positions out of our systems of government. However, if Dawkins were truly serious about the dangers to society due to such beliefs he would be lecturing in Saudia Arabia rather than America. Fundamentalist Christians are a fringe group in America, and separation of church and state is well established in the constitition and legal system.

TheChizler · 24-10-2012 05:34PM

Maudi wrote: »

does anybody else find dawkins slightly..needy..like alright already you dont believe in God..get over it..stop trying to push your beliefs down peoples throats like a ...religious fanatic?i have my own God (for a better word) and thank you very much but no.i havent left him behind..more and more people realise theres no God..very presumtious of you fella..people may have fallen away from religion il give him that...but my God has little to do with man made religion.my God is was and always will be...

I know it's been said many times but nobody's forcing you or anyone else to listen to him, or implement or be affected by anything that he's advocating. Forcing X down your throat would be when you have no choice in the matter.

Dawkins: Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life (New Series)

Comments