• Manuel Maldonado Turcios

    Hilarious!

  • http://zlihologija.com/ Slaven Hrvatin

    While I agree he is egotistical, religion is still shit.

    • Eric

      While I agree that much of religion is shit, “atheism” is still a shit intellectual alternative.

  • Trevor Smith

    bahahaha

  • Ted Heistman

    Sacrilege!!!!!!!

  • Juan

    That was pretty fookin funny:)

  • Trevor Smith
  • DeepCough

    As an atheist, I feel I must take it upon myself to make a statement about this video.

    Hilarious! Now do one about Hitchens!

  • DrDavidKelly

    I dunno … seems to me like it’s a matter of tall poppy syndrome. Dawkins puts himself front and centre and is outspoken which many of you seem to mistake for arrogance. I’ll take the intelligent scientific standpoint that is willing to engage in public debate over fanciful silent imaginings.

    • gustave courbet

      It’s possible for passionate and articulate people to espouse their ideas without condescension, and with an approach of mutual respect for our shared humanity. Dawkins does not take this approach, and facilitates division, ensuring that he preaches only to his choir and alienates people who may otherwise agree with him. It is the difference between ego gratification via superiority complex and compassionate communication to make a positive difference in people’s world views.

      • DrDavidKelly

        It is but once again I think you are confusing ‘condescending’ with articulating a standpoint. I think many people just don’t like to be corrected or have their lack of knowledge of evolution exposed. And I guess some people just don’t like the idea of disagreement. Of course I will place two caveats which link into my previous comment. 1. Dawkins takes science to be the be all and end all. He does not entertain any other explanations of the universe – it’s just the way he rolls. If you don’t like that then you’re wasting your time debating Dawkins. Secondly, Dawkins and his cohorts feel they are waging a war against religion. It’s a ‘take no prisoners’ approach. One could object to this rigorous combative style but that would mean you would need to excuse religion of its evils, something Dawkins will never concede. What I think you would like is a more polite exchange but there are no niceties in war.

        • gustave courbet

          I appreciate your perspective, but let me see if I can clarify my own. I am not confusing condescension with articulation. I am pointing out something i notice in discourse in general, regardless of the subject, and that is this: There are multiple types of information imbedded in our verbiage as we communicate. There is the overt meaning of the words, but there is usually an emotional tenor that alters the meaning of those words. Many people with big egos, be they neocons, atheists, evangelicals, etc are more interested in asserting their dominance than in furthering the position they say they advocate. It is the emotional content that often dominates a debate, rather than the substance there in. In the most naked sense, its about the proper tactical use of effective communication to change the minds of others, which divisive rhetoric fails to do. The characterization of such differences in world view as a war is, in my mind, symptomatic of that tendency. If Dawkin’s goal is to heighten divisions and emotionally mobilize those that share his perspective, than he is engaging the opposition in a sensible manner, but if he is trying to gain converts to his world view from the other side, I think he’s going about it in a very inefficient way.

          • DrDavidKelly

            No doubt. Perhaps being a ‘man of science’ has restricted Dawkins’ in his use of language? He certainly hasn’t the mastery of words that Hitchens could muster, although no one would say either was particularly subtle. I’m not sure what Dawkins’ goal is? I suspect he doesn’t wish to convert the religious because, lets face it, that doesn’t ever really happen. Perhaps he is just content to poke fun at them? And perhaps it’s also a matter of taste. I have never encountered any rhetoric from Dawkins that I thought was ‘crossing the line’. For some atheists the fairytale of religion is a cute aberration, like believing Elvis is still alive and working at the local 7/11, for others they see it as a war and obviously the language employed by these varying groups will differ. As the Skyhooks said back in ’75, I’m not convinced ego is always a dirty word.

          • gustave courbet

            I tend to think that Dawkins, along with a lot of other intellectuals, having focused on concept manipulation for their entire lives have never explored emotional intelligence, or the ability to actively empathize and communicate effectively based on that empathy. As the son of a therapist, I can say that that sort of talent is in short supply in general, but is perhaps over-represented in our culture’s intelligentsia.

          • DrDavidKelly

            I agree with you. I’d like to know what people are considering are Dawkins’ offensive remarks. Maybe I just haven’t encountered them. Either that or I am an insensitive old bastard.

        • Ted Heistman

          You were causing me to chuckle here. You really don’t seem to see why Dawkins is perceived to be so arrogant and condescending other than because he is so intelligent. But I stopped laughing when I got further down. Is that your opinion that Atheists are in a war against all religion? Do you see yourself as part of that war? If so you are putting yourself in the category of “dangerous fanatic”

          I really think certain atheists need to get out more and meet more types of people beyond their little insular groups. There are large numbers of highly educated, intelligent religious people. You may not perceive them as being religious because they don’t push it on people.

          But don’t be shocked if people stop chuckling and start perceiving you as the Taliban, if That is really your position.

          • DrDavidKelly

            Thanks for your opinion Ted. No, I really don’t see what is so offensive about Dawkins. Some atheists would consider themselves in a war against religion … not me I find religion quite fascinating and a little bit silly at the same time. I never suggested otherwise. However I do also see the many negative (and a few positive) effects religion and religious fundamentalism can have. I’m sure there are many religious intellectuals like yourself Ted. Lots of clever god fearing folk, plenty of stupid ones too. Now I’m giggling …

      • Monkey See Monkey Do

        He doesn’t alienate people that would otherwise agree with him. Take myself and many people I know for example, all radically anti-religious but also anti-atheist in every respect. Spiritual? No. Agnostic? Not that either. Keep searching for that label and we’ll keep avoiding your attempt at dominating the discourse with convoluted sophistry.

        • gustave courbet

          What are you talking about?

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            I thought it was made pretty clear. It often confuses atheists when they cant pin a label on someones belief system.

          • gustave courbet

            Ah, I’m not an atheist.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            I was just talking in general, I probably should have replied to Mr. Kelly’s post. Anywho.

21