1. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62492 by bottersnike on August 10, 2007 at 1:23 am

Hmmm, not too hard to work out Lawson's reasoning here. He seems not to believe in any of the superstitious stuff, but that one shouldn't criticise the C of E because he knows some very pleasant and kind vicars. A common wishy washy viewpoint found all too often among small c conservative Anglicans, even nice, intelligent ones. Criticise other people's silly superstitions all you like, but not me, I'm far too sophisticated/nice/expensively educated to be tarred with that brush.

Of course, the fact that he talks about a 'modern Christian concept of hell' gives the game away. If hell were real it would presumably be unchanging, regardless what our concept of it was. The fact we have a 'modern concept' demonstrates that the whole idea changes with our attitudes and is man-made, not divine.

One last thought... how does one scientifically measure sin? The research might be fun, though funding could be challenging to find...

Not too many twinges there I hope Professor D!

2. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28397 by bottersnike on March 29, 2007 at 4:28 am

One thing the audio won't pick up is that about ten minutes before the start, RD came into the hall seemingly looking for somebody/something... Rod Liddle maybe! Interestingly, he didn't seem to be widely recognised by the audience.

I was disappointed by the no-show of Liddle, because he's an interesting and articulate performer, and also because I'd like to know what his true opinions are. Does anyone know why he pulled out?

3. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28173 by bottersnike on March 28, 2007 at 7:45 am

I was there for this. It was supposed to be Rod Liddle instead of McGrath, but Mr L pulled out, no reason given.

RD was very unprepared at the start, by his own admission he was expecting to go right into the debate rather than give a mini speech, and he was clearly winging it for a few minutes before someone got some notes to him. McGrath had obviously done a lot more homework, though this only made his answers more superficialy plausible.

There was clearly no love lost either; no handshake to begin or end, or even much eye contact at any point. I felt RD never really got going at this one, though the point where he challenged AM on the virgin birth was a high spot. I think that may have been the only time they both looked at one another, lol. They both signed books afterward, though not at the same table! I'm glad to say RD seemed to be doing much more business.

The whole event seemed to be over too quickly, a shame. The tent was packed though. A few questions at the end, and they were pretty weird if I remember rightly.

4. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14777 by bottersnike on December 25, 2006 at 2:32 am

This ridiculous article made me cross when I read it yesterday; I noted then that the Times didn't have the nerve to allow comments on it. I hope RD is given space for some sort of response.

Strikes me that this wasn't written by god, but by a man putting thoughts into the mouth of an imaginary being. Much like the bible itself in fact!

Merry Christmas and all that.

5. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #368 by Bottersnike on September 27, 2006 at 5:34 am

Hello, great interview, great web site. Long may it continue and expand as time goes on.

No offence intended, but the agnostic/atheist argument perhaps misses the point a little. I think RD is keen not to be labelled as agnostic because he doesn't want, as a scientist, to be seen to be either entertaining the possibility of god or having no firm opinions on the subject. Agnostic may be technically correct, but it's too wishy washy. So he defines himself as an atheist and to hell (pun intended!) with the semantics of it.

He wants to make a tough real-world 'political' statement after all, not discuss philosophy. Sounds reasonable to me... it's the ability to confidently cut to the chase like this that makes RD such a powerful writer.