1. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177698 by The Smart Patrol on May 9, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Unfortunately, Paula, I suspect that our friend fides is utterly immune to the brand of pure and unsullied logic that you are just spurting out from every orifice.

2. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177662 by The Smart Patrol on May 9, 2008 at 12:51 pm

fides_et_ratio:

Dawkins is saying that religious people should not be able to publicly declare that they believe in something, despite not having any evidence for their beliefs, and remain unchallenged. Politicians must stump up convincing arguments for their political beliefs. The religious get away with saying that they believe in some quite ridiculous things, totally unchallenegd, just because they are professing a religous belief. It's absurd, and Dawkins was challenging Humphrys for the way in which he will grill politicians to defend their views whilst letting the religous get away with their unsubstantiated nonsense.

thewhitepearl: The "new atheists" is a term that has been given to atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennet by the religious, in an attempt to discredit this new wave of religious criticism as nothing more than a temporary fad.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch.

3. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175297 by The Smart Patrol on May 5, 2008 at 6:26 am

AllanW wrote:

"I thought she did a better job than most American stations have done in allowing RD to get his points across without skewing the questions in an obnoxious way (you prefer Fox's blatant prejudice?), better than most of the UK programmes that RD appears on (the risible 'debate format' studio ones are cringe-making) and as measured as it's reasonable to expect from a mass-media outlet."

You're right of course; the woman did indeed come across better than most, and I am in agreement that I'd prefer to hear Richard being allowed to answer questions on his own, as opposed to his participating in some dodgy Sunday morning tripe with Nicky Campbell and Ann Widdecombe. However, the point remains valid as to how the heck someone who is apparently incapable of following a basic line of thought can have their own television programme in the first place! And it's not as if Fanny Kiefer is a spring chicken either! Perhaps she was more on the ball in her formative years, but it's perplexing that someone who can get things so spectacularly wrong can have had such a long career in television. OK, maybe I'm just being a tad naive here!

4. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175283 by The Smart Patrol on May 5, 2008 at 5:11 am

Thanny Wrote:

"It took me a while to figure out why the interviewer was asking barely coherent (or downright incoherent) questions, and had a strangely puzzled look on her face as Richard responded.

But at about 27 minutes in, it became clear. She's as thick as a sequoia. Do the genes heal the body? Does she have any notion of what genes are? Shouldn't she have spent two minutes looking it up before interviewing a biologist who wrote a book entitled "The Selfish Gene", about which she planned to ask a question?"

Indeed, although she revealed her stupidity long before the 27-minute mark. Just after Richard had explained his position regarding labelling children as having the same beliefs as their parents, her considered follow-up was, and I'm paraphrasing, "Yeah, it's just like a US presidenial candidate being referred to as a Mormon." Um, wrong! It's got absolutely nothing to do with what grown adults choose to call themselves- Richard has just been explaining for the last 30 seconds about why it is wrong to label CHILDREN with the views of their parents, not grown adults who have the ability to make up their own minds, and this woman has quite clearly either not been listening or is just too stupid to understand.

I'm not sure how this woman ever got onto television in the first place.

5. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144337 by The Smart Patrol on March 15, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I've just been listening to his warnings about global warming when he was an old man in the late 80s, and he certainly was an educator and a proponent of science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0sCs8jI4k

Richard must have had a hard task in terms of deciding who to leave out in this compendium.

6. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144334 by The Smart Patrol on March 15, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Wasn't Asimov more of a science fiction writer, and not necessarily distinguished for his 'proper' science writing?

7. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144295 by The Smart Patrol on March 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

I can confirm that, at least in the copy that I bought in Scotland, the text is fairly heavily hyphenated. I can see how this might be irritating for some readers, but I didn't notice it until it was brought up here. Now that I am aware of it, it might prove to be a problem!

8. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144272 by The Smart Patrol on March 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I bought this book about a week ago, after having seen it loudly and proudly propping up the popular science section of my local Waterstone's. It's a very substantial hardback, and as much of the writing is fairly dense and hard to penetrate (at least for plebs like me), I haven't really made much progress with it as of yet. It's one of those rare tomes that you're just glad to own, and which you can open on any page, safe in the knowledge that you're absolutely certain to be utterly enthralled by its many various contributers. Richard does the right thing and keeps his introductions succinct and to the point, not allowing himself to waffle on for any length of time and thus making the actual science writing the focus. However, what Richard has contributed is written in his typical free-flowing and highly educational style.

This book is an absolute must-have.

9. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116780 by The Smart Patrol on January 27, 2008 at 11:40 am

Ian G wrote:

"Secondly, my command of grammar and syntax must be slipping. Please point me to where I said John was articulate. Although, on reflection, I don't think he was stunningly inarticulate, just expressing daft views with averagely muddled competence.

What I said was that this interviewer was smart enough and professional enough to mug up on the subject and to get the participants to say what they thought. Given the norm of this sort of radio I'm happy to repeat that I thought she was an unexpected pleasure."

Ian, of course, you did not claim John to be articulate, instead noting, simply, that he articulated his silly nonsense in a clear and easily understood manner. My point(I think), was, so what? I perhaps misunderstood your perfectly innocent comment as in some way congratulating the chap, when in fact you were doing nothing of the sort. It's certainly not the first time that I've made a bit of a pig's ear of it when responding to a comment on this site, and for this I apologise.

However, I must agree with Paula'a distaste for Liz's "determinedly cheerful, exaggerated, loud delivery", which, come to think of it, describes perfectly my own reaction to the interview! I think I might have mistook her irritatingly bouncy manner as in some way dismissive of the subject at hand.

10. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116728 by The Smart Patrol on January 27, 2008 at 9:00 am

Yes, and John's attempt at clearly articulating his ideas could be paraphrased as, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, and anyone with a modicum of knowledge about evolution will be instantly able to put me down as a complete twerp!" He was certainly given adequate time to articulate the concept of his being an absolute no-hoper, that's for sure.

11. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116720 by The Smart Patrol on January 27, 2008 at 8:38 am

Al right Steve, point taken, and I'm sure my Glasgwegian accent would be considered to be more than a touch annoying by the good folk down in Leeds. But John- articulate? Pull the other one!

12. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116714 by The Smart Patrol on January 27, 2008 at 8:24 am

Ian G wrote:

"My point is this: I thought that Liz Green's conducting of the whole of that segment was intelligent and skilful. Her questions and comments reflected someone who had taken the trouble to find out about the subject and to understand the issues. Both Richard and John were able to articulate their ideas clearly and were asked to expand or clarify where appropriate."

Ian, were you perchance drunk as the proverbial skunk when you listened to that interview? I found Green to be exceptionally annoying, disagreeing with Richard when he claimed that most people grow up believing in the religion of their parents, and blathering on in that wearisome accent of hers about how faith is a "personal" matter, implying that no-one should have the right to question it. Rather than having taken the time to find out about the subject, her questions consisted of the usual hackneyed and unimaginative and pig-ignorant nonsense that we've been growing tired of for the past ten years. And John- "articulate"? All right, he might have managed to not slur his words when he made a total arse of himself trying to argue about evolution with one of the world's most preeminent evolutionary biologists, but he still managed to come across as a deluded and brainless moron, certainly not "articulate" in any reasonable sense of the word. Thank God I don't live in Leeds and am therefore spared from having to listen to that ridiculous woman!

13. Islam in Europe

Comment #114543 by The Smart Patrol on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 am

al-rawandi,

It wasn't the Jews the allies had to do something about, it was those irksome National Socialists. Our problem was that it seemed highly unlikely that the Germans could instigate yet another world war. How many bloody world wars can one little European country start, anyway? We sat on our hands and hoped Hitler didn't mean business. He did. We can't afford to do the same with so many Islamic fundamentalist nutters in just about every corner of Europe. We must resist their attempts at Islamification (is that a word?) or else we might find ourselves with fewer freedoms than we enjoy today. Islam and "freedom", as it is traditionally understood, do not go together. Just how we're going to combat this problem is a bit of a mystery, although I'm pretty sure that it doesn't involve European political leaders caving into hysterical demands from the Islamic community.

14. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #112634 by The Smart Patrol on January 17, 2008 at 3:56 pm

It's very sad that we will never really know what life would have been like 2.4 million years ago for these extraordinary creatures, or what they really looked like when they were moving around. Terror birds, giant rats and sabre-toothed tigers, all occupying the Earth at the same time as our early ancestors were struggling to make a life for themselves on the forest floor. Life for primates back then must have been absolutely terrifying. Imagine being stuck up a tree and having a ten foot tall terror bird squawking up at you, or being chased through the savanna by a pack of ravenous smilodons. How we ever managed to make it through that lot beggars belief.

15. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107532 by The Smart Patrol on January 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Steve Zara:

"That was an excellent debate. That is the way such things should be conducted, with constant interaction between opponents. Most impressive."

Yes, at first I was getting annoyed with the moderator's quirks and idiosyncrasies- the way he kept grinning cheesily and making strange facial expressions- and then I realised, well, he can do that as much as he likes as long as he shuts the hell up and lets the speakers have a proper discussion, which he most certainly did. It's rare that you get a moderator who doesn't love the sound of their own voice, but I thought that this guy- once I got over his annoying quirks- did an admirable job.

16. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107334 by The Smart Patrol on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I watched this a few days ago and I become more impressed with Harris every time I listen to him. His ability to consistently and instantly come up with the right way of putting things, the right turn of phrase, is joyful to behold. His calm, eloquent delivery mixed with the elegant simplicity of his ideas, must (surely?) force thoughtful religionists to reconsider their stance. If Harris can't get someone to think that maybe their beliefs are in need of examining, no-one can.

17. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106849 by The Smart Patrol on January 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I dunno, a small part of me kind of wants the next American president to be some sort of Christian comedy figure. If someone sensible gets in we'll be losing some great satire on the TV over here in Britain. I don't think I'd be happy with any of them as the next US leader, to be honest.

18. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106026 by The Smart Patrol on January 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

Diacanu

"Oh, the irony."

Hmmm, indeed, I've done myself up like a kipper. Next time I'll try and just stay quiet instead of embarrassing myself so comprehensively.

19. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106015 by The Smart Patrol on January 2, 2008 at 9:25 am

Veronique:

"Go over to Edge.org and have a skim through some of the other commenters. They are worth it. There are 15 pages and some of them will interest you. I have just spent the morning looking at them."

Oh, to be retired and living a life of leisure. ;)

Diacanu:

"Well, okay, if I had my way it'd be put in a vault until our moronic culture evolves some more."

Hmmm, but as the article argues (which you apparently don't have the attention-span to have actually read), when you eventually come out your vault (providing some idiot lets you out) humanity may well have evolved into something that we would consider to be less favourable than our present state.

20. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105598 by The Smart Patrol on January 1, 2008 at 7:20 am

Here's to scepticism and Alan Grafen! And Prof. Dawkins. And everyone at richarddawkins.net!

21. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104451 by The Smart Patrol on December 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm

keith:

"What does this mean? (You're not the bloke who used to say lots of long words on 'The Good Old Days', are you?)"

I also wondered what the hell that meant. I reckoned it either meant nothing and the guy's a professional obscurantist of the kind RD would probably like to take to task, or else I'm just a bit slow.

22. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104425 by The Smart Patrol on December 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Paula:

"Yeah, yeah, in other words: God's so wonderful, even the world's most famous atheist is gobsmacked by him. Fortunately, who cares what the Archbishop of Canterbury says? The bit about RD making a programme on evolution for Channel 4 is, however, very good news indeed."

British telly has been screaming out for RD to make a proper programme about evolution for quite some time now, but I can't help but think that a figure such as Dawkins is totally wasted at Channel 4. He'd get a bigger audience at the BBC, and the editing and production values would also be a lot better. I felt his previous effort- the programme about irrational superstition and homeopathy- was, whilst engaging, a bit watered-down and shallow. The BBC would be better suited to a man of his stature.

23. Man and God

Comment #103668 by The Smart Patrol on December 26, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"At least in America, you're allowed to use both. It's up to the writer, although I agree that Dawkins' looks more professional."

Shouldn't it be Dawkins's book, as Dawkins' would imply more than one Dawkins?

24. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #85935 by The Smart Patrol on November 7, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Anyone got any good Youtube links to similar Fox News nonsense? That was pure comedy gold. We need a news channel like that here in the UK.

25. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78282 by The Smart Patrol on October 12, 2007 at 11:05 am

If I ever feel downhearted and fed-up with the miserable Scottish climate, I can always thank my lucky stars that I don't have to turn on the television and get accosted with THAT utter tripe.

The bit about science not being able tell you about whether poisoning your grandmother is wrong was completely meaningless, because religion sure as hell doesn't tell you why it is wrong either. That smug grin on her face when she said it as well... so glad we in the UK don't have to put up with that crap.

26. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75045 by The Smart Patrol on October 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm

J:

Bloody hell, I was just about to go to bed and I notice that you've responded to my post in a far deeper way than my rambling merited. I hadn't read your other posts; if I had, I wouldn't have had to bother posting at all because I had misunderstood what you were getting at. I think. This is a cop out of biblical proportions but I'm going to have to just bid you goodnight and perhaps take this up tomorrow evening when I'm not about ready to collapse.

27. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75004 by The Smart Patrol on October 1, 2007 at 10:26 am

Comment #74950 by _J_ on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am

"I can appreciate Dawkins' argument that, whilst theology can in practice be full of worthwhile academic pursuits (he lists plenty of examples) the grouping mechanism 'theology' seems vacuous. But then, I studied 'English'. I'm not sure that there's too much more value in pontificating about excellent literature than there is in doing the same for scriptures."

The difference, of course, between banging on about literature and scripture, is that it is commonly assumed that literature is fiction, whereas those who study scripture are more often than not under the head-scratching impression that it is true. English is a subject in which literature is dissected with a view to understanding the human psyche, whereas Theology is as nonsensical as undertaking a course regarding the study of fairies. English is a proper subject, Theology is not. If Theology can be said to be a proper academic discipline, then there is no reason why a course concerning the study of leprechauns should not be springing up sometime soon.

28. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74800 by The Smart Patrol on September 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Comment #74637 by Veronique on September 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm

"Hahahaha. Good riposte, Patrol.

You do have a strange pseudonym though, sort of, um, uh you see what I mean:-).

Sorry:-), let's not go back to the pseudonym debate or we'll both be thrown off the site.

Although I had a go at your language, that's all it was, really. My other criticisms of other posters' negativity had all to do with content.

Cheers
V"

My pseudonym is, admittedly, not exactly conducive to getting people on my side. It apparently exhibits "an air of unwarranted superiority", as succinctly expressed by an adversary in another forum. In my defence, it is not a name that I just made up on the spot or anything; in fact, my title is innocently derived from the name of a song by those American electro-pioneers, Devo. I just think it sounds rather lofty and in-your-face. Sue me!

With regards to the RRS and the sneering, unsubstantiated drunken drivel that I posted last night, I must admit that I really don't know too much about them. Prior to posting, I read some of the negative comments on these here boards, and hastily watched a few of their videos on You Tube. Satisfied that at least some of the malicious ranting that I had so enjoyed reading had turned out to be at least partially accurate, I thought it might be fun to chip in with a few choice words of my own. Your decision to take umbrage with my ignorant and petty late-night ramblings was certainly entirely justified, and I stand before you with tail limply flailing between my silly little legs. In saying that, I'm still a bit undecided as to whether the RRS are worthy of my appreciation or my consternation, or whether they should fall somewhere in-between. Certainly, I can sympathise with their disgust and base, unapologetic anger for the harm that irrational belief can cause, although whether their methods are helpful with regards to promoting healthy and wholesome critical thinking, as oppose to arrogant and ill-prepared vitriol, remains to be seen. The Professor seems to dig them, that's for sure, so perhaps I should take some solace in his learned endorsement!

29. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74633 by The Smart Patrol on September 29, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Oh, come on you two (Yorker and Veronique), stop being such a pair of Nazis and allow us cynics our tuppence-worth. It seems as though it is not the content of the criticism which is being lambasted (that some of the RSS spokespersons are deeply annoying and not very bright), but the fact that there is criticism at all!

I am keenly aware that atheists cannot be said to have a shared ideology, and my use of the term was as a response to Zambora's assertion that strength in numbers is important in reinforcing the religious ideology. My point is simply that this kind of herd mentality, or supporting someone because they seem superficially to espouse kindred world-views, is not necessarily something that we (I can refer to us as "we", can't I? You OK with that Veronique?) should be seeking to borrow from the religious.

30. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74589 by The Smart Patrol on September 29, 2007 at 4:11 pm

"44. Comment #74282 by Zamboro on September 28, 2007 at 3:24 am
All this hate for the Rational Response Squad demonstrates exactly what's wrong with us, and why we're not getting anywhere.

The Christians'll follow any clean-cut schmuck who says he's a Christian, no matter how obviously in the closet/hypocritical/blatantly hateful he is. They have a sense that solidarity is important above all else, that their strength is in numbers and common ideology."


Thank God we freethinkers do not value strength in numbers as a defining principle of our ideology. I, for one, am delighted that the sartorially deficient, unkempt and harebrained RSS are not simply lauded by all and sundry as fellow enlightened rationalists, and are instead subject to some very sound constructive criticism. I would contend that "all this hate" for the RSS is precisely what is to be valued about our kind, and that we should be glad that we're not content to brown-nose every half-witted schmuck who happens to voice their distaste for feeble-minded superstition.

31. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65268 by The Smart Patrol on August 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Still, $1200 for a couple of hours work can't be that shabby. Good work if you can get it!

32. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64211 by The Smart Patrol on August 18, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Allow me at this point to make one extremely shallow observation regarding the luscious female who introduced Hitchens, and who wrapped it up at the end: Is that not the most sickeningly cute accent that you've ever heard? Wow!

33. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63505 by The Smart Patrol on August 14, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Who the hell are these idiot disk jockeys? First they're telling us that it isn't logically possible for one to simply cease to exist after death (why's that then?), and then they're describing astrology as "just a bit of fun"! What complete tossers!

34. Come Out!

Comment #59542 by The Smart Patrol on July 29, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Given Christopher Hitchens's views on the term "brights", I wonder what his take will be! I think it's rad!

35. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58405 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm

"I think you must have misread me, I've said it a few times here, my son is not coerced into praying, he chooses to pray and enjoys praying. Trust me, four years olds don't choose to do something on a regular basis unless they enjoy it, no matter how much they may seek their parents approval."

Whether your child chooses to pray or not, at four years old, he cannot possibly have thoughtfully pondered the reasons behind his praying, and whether he enjoys it or not, he is only doing so because it seems like a bit of a laugh. It is not because he has had a bit of time to think about it, in order to inwardly and privately accept the tenets of YOUR chosen faith. Four year olds do not yet have the intellectual capacity to do so.

36. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58402 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:36 pm

fides:

"Interestingly he doesn't show the same inclination to seek my approval by; washing the dishes, washing himself, not crying when he doesn't get what he wants, eating his greens, not snatching from his brothers, watching the news, cheering for West Ham etc..."

Eating icky vegetables and washing oneself is an effort for the majority of children. Closing their eyes and pretending to talk to a mysterious invisible man must seem like terribly good fun, and so I am not in the least surprised that your child chooses to forego the other nasty business in favour of the relatively cozy night-time praying ritual.

37. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

"The difference between faith and marxism is that prayer is a practice that only people of faith share, my son chooses of his own volition, without reward, to pray."

I agree with Nails in that it is more than likely that your child is praying because he is copying your lead, and that he probably gets rewarded when you make noises to the effect that you approve of his praying. Getting four year olds to pray, when they have no idea of the "convoluted" reasoning behind such an action, is, if not wicked, akin to coercing them to do something that they do not fully understand in order to make you, the parent, feel good.

38. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58394 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Oh dear. It's 1:20am, I'll let you guys handle this...

39. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58392 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Veronique:

"It doesn't necessarily mean he has any real idea of the underlying convoluted reasons behind the concept of prayer, because he is just too young."

Indeed, and I also enjoyed the veiled insult mixed in there as well. :)

40. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58388 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:12 pm

fides:

"I think his actions show that he likes to get things he wants and he knows that he wont get them unless he says please."

Well, in that case, your child is not a polite child but a cunning and conniving child! I like him (or her)!

It is wrong to attribute labels like "Christian child" because we are not describing a "Christian" child, we are describing a child of Christian parents. Your child is not Christian; you might be but your child is not old enough to understand what a Christian is yet.

41. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58385 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Dawkins is not saying that we cannot label our children per se. Of course not. If your child is polite, then we are perfectly reasonable in describing him as such. If he is good-natured, then of course we can label him in such a way. However, when we start to attribute labels to children for no other reason that because it is what their parents believe, then that is wholly unfair and not at all reflective upon what the child himself actually believes.

42. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58381 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:04 pm

fides_et_ratio:

"In addition. Is my son inherently polite or even actually polite, or does he act in this way becaus ehis parents tell him to? In which case is it not wicked to label my son because of the beliefs of his parents on manners? Why is my friend able to assume that my son shares my belief on manners?"

Good manners are ubiquitously deemed to be a good trait for an individual to have, whether they be Christian, Muslim or atheist. Kind of like learning not to spit on the carpet, or not to pee your pants after a certain age.

Let me put it anther way. If I told you that my four year old son was a Marxist, would you not think that that was an entirely ridiculous thing for me to say? How is your calling your son a (presumably) Christian child any more absurd than that?

43. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58379 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 4:56 pm

fides_et_ratio

Your child is a polite child. His actions confirm this. You are obviously a good parent, and I wish there were more like you. It is perfectly reasonable to call your child a polite child. He might also be a boisterous child, a charming child, a happy child, a fair child or a troublesome child. These are all observations from watching your child and commenting upon his behaviour. However, we cannot label children as belonging to a religion, because children, and especially four year old children, are not old enough to examine the available evidence and decide for themselves what their chosen faith might be. Ascertaining whether we're boisterous, or troublesome, or polite, does not require internal pondering and reflection. Deciding whether we accept the tenets of a chosen religious faith, does.

44. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58375 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm

fides_et_ratio:

"I keep reiterating to my four year old the need to say please and thank-you. He seems to be finally picking it up. I wonder if, whilst perhaps approving of my actions, Mr. Dawkins might label a friend of mine, who remarked that I had a polite child, wicked for doing so?"

The difference is that children who are labelled "Christian" and "Muslim" are labelled as such before they can possibly have any understanding of what this implies. Being polite does not require anything more than a superficial understanding of the term; being "Christian" or "Muslim", does.

45. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58374 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Thor:

"No offence, but sometimes the knee-jerk attacks on anyone challenging Dawkins' positions - and be it only for the sake of journalistic clarity - get a little out of hand here."

I'm sure that Stephen Sackur is a journalist with a great deal more integrity than many of the nut-cases who have interviewed Dawkins in the past (O'Reailly, Hannity), and it is for exactly the reason that he is a British anchor working for the respected BBC, and not Fox frigging news, that makes this interview so disappointing. No originality, no 'hard' questions, only seemingly unresearched and regurgitated claptrap, with an air of aggression which suggested that there was more behind his confrontational demeanour than mere devil's advocacy. The way in which Sackur, for example, went to such pains to assert that it doesn't matter if you label children as "Christian" or "Muslim", because they are just going to grow up to believe in what their parents believe in anyway, seemed to indicate that he wasn't just voicing a contradictory point of view, for the sake of fairness, but that he himself actually believed in the crap that he was spouting. There's being a good journalist and playing devil's advocate and there's seeming to have strange ideas about the topic at hand, and on this evidence Sackur falls into the latter camp.

46. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58358 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Don_Quix:

I don't think we've got anyone to match the raw, unintentional hilarity that is Bill O'Reilly, but we have our moments!

47. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58352 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 3:14 pm

martyb

The way in which Sackur engaged with Dawkins could easily be construed as 'hard', but the actual content of the questions were easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey. That could easily be a consequence of the fact that Richard is unequivocally correct in his position, but a stimulating and intelligent discussion this was not! There is playing devil's advocate and there is looking to point score, and on this performance Sackur seems to be more comfortable with the latter. His assertion that it doesn't matter if you label children as "Christian" or "Muslim", for example, because they are just going to grow up to believe in what their parents believe in anyway, was just one example of his ludicrous line of argument. Also, this seemed to be his actual position, not just him playing devil's advocate, judging by the amount of time that he devoted to it!

48. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58346 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Am I the only one that found the interview sad, but also strangely amusing? The conviction and aggression with which Sackur poses completely hackneyed and unoriginal questions was rather disappointing, but also pretty funny in the sense that the interviewer obviously had no idea how unintelligent and easy to answer they were. Spurting out old chestnuts like Einstein's God (read the first chapter of the God Damned book, Stephen), as if he was actually on to something, certainly elicited a smirk if nothing else. Like Grim Reaper says in the forums, the programme's called Hard Talk, so where the hell were the hard questions? He was certainly talking in a deliberately stern and 'hard' manner, but the actual questions were vacuous and ineffectual nonsense.

49. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57384 by The Smart Patrol on July 19, 2007 at 4:49 am

Nice one DNAtheist. I'll... put it to good use.

50. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57376 by The Smart Patrol on July 19, 2007 at 4:00 am

CJ22... I really, really want an enlarged picture of that blasphemous fox in your avatar. Rar.