Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Richard Dawkins


1. The amazing intelligence of crows

Comment #181071 by Richard Dawkins on May 16, 2008 at 11:41 am

For me the really exciting example here is Betty, the crow who bent a wire into a hook and used it to get food. The work was done in the lab of my Oxford colleague Alex Kacelnik, and he should have been given credit.

Richard

2. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180732 by Richard Dawkins on May 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

I decided to bid for the Einstein letter, with a view to presenting it to RDFRS. The auctioneers estimated 6000 to 8000 pounds. That seemed low to me, so I put in a respectably much higher bid and went into the recording studio with my phone switched off for the whole afternoon. I came out after the auctioneers' office had closed and they were no longer answering the phone. With no message on my answering machine, I presumed I had been beaten. Now I just looked at the Guardian and found that the letter sold for 170,000 pounds! That's VASTLY more than the auctioneers' upper estimate. I'm disappointed not to have got it for RDFRS, but very pleased that such a document can generate such huge interest.

Richard

3. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179364 by Richard Dawkins on May 13, 2008 at 7:05 am

I suspect that the prayer part of this story is another Onion type joke. But what is not a joke is the fact that US gasoline prices are so ridiculously low. I calculate that current British prices are 2.27 TIMES as great, and I wish they were higher. We need US prices to be double or even triple what they are today, in order to force motorists to buy more economical cars -- small cars, hybrid cars, electric cars etc. Saudi Arabia has one of the vilest ruling regimes in the entire world and, as somebody said, the SUVs to which so many people are addicted today might just as well carry little Saudi flags. The US gasoline addiction is playing into the hands of the oil sheikhs.

Richard

4. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178075 by Richard Dawkins on May 10, 2008 at 12:31 pm

So did the Cardinal actual say the following, or is the article completely baseless?

"Those without faith should not be shunned or abused. Jesus and Beelzebub are already cooking something up for them, don't you worry about that."

I would research, but to be honest I've got better things to do.

No OF COURSE he did not. This is really getting quite embarrassing. We have posted the full text of what the Cardinal actually said, plus the complete interview with John Humphrys, and he said nothing of the kind. It is a satire, based on a (correct, in my view) interpretation of what seems to be a logical implication of what Catholics believe. But this is NOT a case of Poe's Law. No modern Catholic would actually SAY anything so outrageous.

Richard

5. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177964 by Richard Dawkins on May 10, 2008 at 4:33 am

It is unfortunate how many of our readers seem not to realise that the Daily Mash article about Cardinal Murphy O'Connor is a satire. Yet satire seems kind of superfluous when you look at what the Cardinal actually DID say in his interview with John Humphrys. He actually said that Hitler's regime was based on REASON, and he drew the conclusion that reason leads to terror and oppression. You couldn't satirise that if you tried. It is up there for all to see.

Richard

6. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177380 by Richard Dawkins on May 9, 2008 at 2:01 am

In Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's own interview with John Humphrys, he said one remarkable thing. He said that the regimes of Hitler and Stalin were ruled by REASON and that reason leads to terror and oppression. Here is an exact transcript of his words (I've removed the ums and ers, as I hope anybody would do for me in a transcript).

Danger because, if you go just by reason, I think, without faith, without belief in God, you can imagine, for instance in the last century, some of the faith(less), or supposedly faithless societies - people, whether it's like Hitler or Stalin, bringing up - having a country in which, if you like, a God free zone, a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression

We have become accustomed to hearing that Hitler and Stalin were motivated by atheism. But I think this is the first time I have heard any reputable spokesman (a) say that Hitler and Stalin's dictatorships were ruled by reason, and (b) say that reason leads to terror and oppression.

Amazingly, Humphrys didn't pick up this extraordinary statement, but switched to asking about religion leading to terror and oppression.

Richard

7. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177066 by Richard Dawkins on May 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm

OK, well I eventually decided to do it. I'm told I'll be on at about 7.10 am tomorrow morning, 9th May. Then they plan to re-use some of what I say, when they come on to interview the Cardinal later. So he gets the last word! And probably a much longer interview.

Richard

8. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177026 by Richard Dawkins on May 8, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I was sent this speech by the BBC, and asked to go on the radio tomorrow morning (Today Programme) to talk about it. I can't decide whether it is worth doing. I find it astonighing that anybody could spend 5000 words saying absolutely nothing of substance.

Do people think it is worth bothering to go on the radio to talk about it?

Richard

9. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175226 by Richard Dawkins on May 5, 2008 at 12:35 am

However, seeing this posted in RD.net I wonder whether there's going to be an atheist-overhang in that survey. I shall do my best to recruit some Christian friends & family.

I Wonder if we could get a link on http://www.answersingenesis.org/ or an other Christian based forum.


I think we can assume that Sam will have thought of such things himself!

Richard

10. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164996 by Richard Dawkins on April 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm

I realize there is a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" when speaking of modes of selection, but I disagree with number seven. While "aritifical" selection entails conscious selection by humans and natural selection entails unconscious selection, I feel "artificial" selection is fully a part of natural selection.

Nevertheless, nobody before Darwin REALISED the similarity between artificial and natural selection. Thousands of people before Darwin understood artificial selection. Nobody (with a couple of arguable exceptions) understood natural selection, and literally nobody understood how important it was. That was Darwin's genius. What Hitler used was the part that everybody knew (artificial selection), NOT the part that Darwin added (natural selection). That was my Point 7, which you don't disagree with, you simply miss.
Richard

11. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164701 by Richard Dawkins on April 20, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the "dominant opinion" was that religion was a "social evil".

In pointing out that the word should be "might" not "may" I shall dispense with the usual apology for "pedantry". There is nothing pedantic about verbal precision, and in this case I found the error actively confusing. "May" suggests that the long dead Rowntree is still in a position to be dismayed. Or that what we have here is a historical report of the results of Rowntree's original survey 104 years ago.

Richard

12. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163406 by Richard Dawkins on April 18, 2008 at 10:01 am

That's so funny.

Who made it though, was it an RD.net production?

Several people have asked the same question. The answer is yes. It was made by Josh, working with Maureen. They even did the voice-overs. Josh did Stein and others. Maureen did the funny little man with the moustache and others. Josh filmed me (and lent me his shades) in San Francisco during my recent US tour.

Many thanks to a very talented pair

Richard

13. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162729 by Richard Dawkins on April 17, 2008 at 11:14 am

Francis Collins does not believe in the talking snake. I realised, as soon as the interview was over, that the author of The Language of God could not fairly be accused of taking Genesis literally. I was momentarily thrown off balance by Bill Maher's positive assertion based on his interview with Dr Collins. The correct response should not have been an acceptance of Maher's statement followed by an "In that case . . ." but scepticism followed by "IF that were the case . . ."
My apologies to Francis Collins.
Richard

14. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159376 by Richard Dawkins on April 12, 2008 at 3:48 am

Like I said, Bill mentioned speaking to Richard 'today' so they clearly switched to a recording of the interview from earlier on.
They could have been laughing at the tape, but I take your point. I don't watch the show often.

My interview was recorded before the show, but there definitely was an audience in the studio. I think they had been brought in to provide an atmosphere during the taping, because I could hear Mr Maher talking to them before I went on, and I could hear them laughing then, as well as during my interview. There was a technical hitch when the recording of my interview started, and Maher was making jokes, to which the audience laughed, about the fallibility of technology.

Richard

15. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158317 by Richard Dawkins on April 10, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #158024 by Richard Dawkins on April 10, 2008 at 2:09 am
Somewhere on Pharyngula recently, PZ Myers made the following excellent point. Obvious when you think about it, but it really needed to be spelled out. . . . .

I am delighted to see that the original article by PZ has now been posted on our front page. Sorry I didn't suggest that when he first wrote it.
Richard

16. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158056 by Richard Dawkins on April 10, 2008 at 3:11 am

This is probably the post you have in mind

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php

That's the one. Thank you very much Steve Zara.
Richard

17. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158036 by Richard Dawkins on April 10, 2008 at 2:43 am

I presume Kaiser is quoting, and does not stand by the ludicrous words that appear to stand in his name (Comment #158027).

As I explained in my own review of the film, my highly improbable science fiction speculation was an attempt to bend over backwards to give Intelligent Design its best shot, in order to demonstrate how unlikely its best shot -- and therefore Intelligent Design itself -- really is. This kind of hypothetical speculation is a well-recognized technique in scientific, and indeed philosophical discourse. For example the late John Maynard Smith used it in his classic attack on Group Selection, in Nature 1964. He set his ingenious mind to thinking of the best group selection model he could find. He called this 'best shot' model the Haystack Model and he then went on to show that the assumptions needed in order to make the Haystack Model work were highly improbable. In other words, he was making a sophisticated argument AGAINST group selection. But the equivalent of a Ben Stein might have misunderstood Maynard Smith by shouting from the rooftops: "Official. Maynard Smith believes group selection happens in haystacks".

The Maynard Smith kind of argument by reductio isn't really so hard to understand, unless you are as thick as Ben Stein apparently is. I hope and believe that Kaiser is not being equally stupid, but he urgently needs to clarify his own motive in posting this remarkably stupid quotation without any explanation.

Richard

18. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158024 by Richard Dawkins on April 10, 2008 at 2:09 am

Somewhere on Pharyngula recently, PZ Myers made the following excellent point. Obvious when you think about it, but it really needed to be spelled out.

What Hitler adopted in his eugenic approach to humans was nothing to do with Darwin or natural selection. Instead, it was the whole principle of ARTIFICIAL selection, which had been known to domestic breeders for centuries, even millennia. Any fool in a farmyard or a pigeon loft could see that artificial selection causes evolutionary change, and that was what Hitler wanted to do with humans. It was Darwin's genius to see that the same principle applied in the wild through NATURAL selection. That was what was Darwin had over garden-variety artificial selection, and that was precisely NOT what Hitler adopted. What Hitler adopted was precisely garden-variety artificial selection, the version that everybody has always known about but prefers not to apply to humans.

I'd like to track down PZ's article on this, because it is really excellent. It must have come out around the time we were all talking about how he was expelled from Expelled. Meanwhile, the above is my own summary of his point.

I would add that if Hitler had thought of natural selection at all, it would have been selection between RACES, not selection between INDIVIDUALS as Darwin thought of it. In other words, a kind of group selection. Darwin's much misunderstood subtitle, "The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" used the word "race" in a special sense which had nothing to do with Hitler's sense. Darwin definitely was NOT referring to "races" in the modern sense. We should translate "favoured races" today as "those individuals within a population who possess favoured genes".

Richard

19. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157368 by Richard Dawkins on April 9, 2008 at 2:06 am

ProNiro is trying to upload this to YouTube, but stopped after Part 1 (which consists only of the Introduction by the Principal of UHI). People there are expressing annoyance and impatience. Could somebody please log in (I don't know how to) and tell them to bypass YouTube altogether and go straight to our site, which is where they should have gone in the first place.
Thanks
Richard

Here's the YouTube address:-

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=IGDTtsh0KTM&fromurl=/watch?v=IGDTtsh0KTM

20. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157149 by Richard Dawkins on April 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Having said this, is "Red Ken" Livingstone not standing for Mayor of London this time? And does the Xtian "give yourself to Jesus to protect you from the devil" have any chance at actually winning?

Yes, Ken Livingstone is standing again. It is generally reckoned to be a close race between him and Boris Johnson, a clever man who hides behind a facade of being a bumbling 'character'. The fatuous idiot on this TV discussion show is one of several no-hopers on the ballot.
Richard

21. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156463 by Richard Dawkins on April 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I hope that as many Americans as possible will write letters to this disgusting bigot. But in addition to writing to her, as I hope thousands will, is there some kind of Illinois State Democratic Party Organization with an eMail address which we could also flood with mail about this disgraceful case? And how about writing to other Democratic legislators, asking them publicly to disown her? And how about the chairman of this meeting, who refused to allow the abused man to reply? Do we know who he is, and how to flood his mailbox too?
Richard

22. Beware the Believers

Comment #153061 by Richard Dawkins on April 1, 2008 at 1:51 am

Dick to the Dawk to the PhD
WHY is this video so ALLURING

There was once a competition to choose the WORST poem anybody could devise. The winner was this:
So we leave her
So we leave her
So we leave her,
Far from where her dusky comrades roam.
In the scarlet fever
In the scarlet fever
In the scarlet fever
Convalescent home.

Yet even this worst poem in the world has a curious way of getting inside my head and being hard to forget (indeed, I just repeated it from memory, after many years). I wonder whether the rap rhyme that some people here seem to find so captivating might work in a similar way. Mark Twain has a story about the capacity of memes (he didn't use the word, of course) to bore into the brain and relentlessly refuse to let go. In his story, the rhyme, to be spoken by a bus conductor, had the refrain, "Punch in the presence of the passenjare" (Google it). As I remember it, Mark Twain (or his protagonist) almost went mad from the brainworm, until he succeeded in handing the 'infection' over to the Vicar, whereupon it blessedly left him (a nice echo of the story of the Gadarene swine).
Richard

23. Beware the Believers

Comment #152168 by Richard Dawkins on March 30, 2008 at 10:42 am

A "grill" is, in American urban slang, when someone has their front teeth enhanced with gold and/or diamond--presumably like the shiny front grill of a fancy car.

So why is it funny if Sam Harris has a grill? What is the satirical association with Sam and enhanced teeth? Or bling? The connection with Sam seems about as strained as the connection between me and buggering a bald transvestite, which is what South Park had me do. Do these people think satire means making reference to something that has not the smallest connection with the target of their satire? That is not how I have always understood satire.
Richard

24. Beware the Believers

Comment #152142 by Richard Dawkins on March 30, 2008 at 8:58 am

1. What's a "grill" (as in the "hilarious" thing that Sam is said to have)?
2. What makes Dan's hat a pimp hat?
3. There's no difference between D.Phil and Ph.D.
Oxford and Cambridge adopted different abbreviations for the Latin form of "Doctor of Philosophy". The rest of the world, for some reason follows the Cambridge form, Ph.D. (except Sussex, Buckingham and perhaps York although I am not sure about that). It would simplify matters if Oxford were to come into line with the rest of the world, but I don't see it happening any time soon. There is absolutely no sense in which a D.Phil is superior to a Ph.D. The higher doctorate of science is the D.Sc (Oxford) or Sc.D (Cambridge).
Richard

25. Beware the Believers

Comment #151889 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm

It's what was said before about bizarre juxtapositions. What is the least likely thing for a well-educated, mild-mannered professor at Oxford with a taste for classical music would do? Why, bust out into a rap song with all his "homies," of course!

Thank you Layla, that is very helpful. You mean it is like the charwomen in Monty Python talking about Existentialism, or the football match between the Greek and the German philosophers. Yes, I can see that, thank you. Incongruousness, yes. And that would explain why it doesn't matter if you can't tell whose side it is on and who is being satirized. Incongruousness is still funny. Pity the words are so piss-poor, even so.
Richard

26. Beware the Believers

Comment #151849 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Actually we should apologize here, namely for being totally inconsiderate. It is not us who are depicted here as a menacing, self-aggrandizing bully. . . But sorry, again. It's not our very image that's being put up and made fun of in the video.

Oh goodness, I'd hate it if anybody thought I didn't like it because I was being made fun of. I didn't even notice that I was being made fun of. I evidently understood so little that I actually felt quite flattered by my apparent role in the video. My problem with this video is that I can't find anything funny in it. It doesn't even make me smile, let alone laugh. I'm sure it must be an age thing. I feel the same way about South Park (though not the Simpsons, which I find witty and highly perceptive about modern life). In both South Park and this video, I find it hard to avoid the suspicion that people think it MUST be funny because it is obviously TRYING to be funny. If people here really genuinely and sincerely find this video funny and witty, I am happy to defer to them and put it down to age.
Richard

27. Beware the Believers

Comment #151723 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:55 am

. . . the humour here is not primarily in the satirical content. It comes from the burlesque - the incongruous juxtaposition of radically different style and content.

OK, thank you, now I'm starting to get it. I still don't find it funny but I'm starting to get the point. Sorry to be so slow.
Richard

28. Beware the Believers

Comment #151715 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:48 am

Bah humbug - You old fuddy-duddy, not even when Dan Dennett pops up from the bottom goin' Yeah! ?

Well, OK, but apart from Dan Dennett saying "Yeah", what have the Romans ever done for us?
Richard

29. Beware the Believers

Comment #151713 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:45 am

"Post Modernism" does make sense in the arts

Well, thank you, I'm learning something today. At least, this is the closest I have ever come to understanding that "Post Modernism" means anything at all.
Richard

30. Beware the Believers

Comment #151704 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

Whichever side it is on, it is well made, clever and very funny.


You mean you don't understand it well enough to know which side it is satirizing, yet you still consider it well made, clever and very funny? Well, maybe it is possible to laugh when you don't really understand the joke. But I couldn't even raise a smile.

Did the person who said it was the funniest thing since 'Life of Brian' really mean it? Really sincerely? 'Life of Brian' nearly makes me die of laughter every time I see it, and I re-watch it at least once a year. I understand exactly what is being satirized, and I can see exactly how well it achieves its result. Maybe I'd better have another go at this rap one and see if I can see at least one funny thing in it the second time around.

Richard

31. Beware the Believers

Comment #151685 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 7:50 am

Maybe it's postmodern. Would that account for the fact that even people who purport to like it don't know what it means?
Richard

32. Beware the Believers

Comment #151544 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 12:44 am

If anyone can understand a single word of this, don't bother to translate, just tell me whose side it's on. I get the feeling (same with South Park) that there are people out there who assume that something that is obviously MEANT to be funny therefore must BE funny, and they immediately shower it with accolades such as "Wow", "Hilarious", "Awesome" and, most side-splitting of all, "LOL".

Sorry, I seem to be showing my age. Enjoy yourselves LOLling away.

Richard

33. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151529 by Richard Dawkins on March 29, 2008 at 12:10 am

PZ is a priceless asset, a hero of our time.

By the way, he has another excellent article over at Pharyngula, where he makes the point that, to the extent that Hitler and the eugenicists borrowed anything from Darwinism, they borrowed from the OBVIOUS part that everybody knew for centuries before Darwin, namely ARTIFICIAL selection. Everybody knew how to breed cattle for milk, flowers for colour, horses for speed and so on. That was what Hitler and the eugenicists tried to apply to humans. Darwin's genius was to see that NATURE might do the same thing as human breeders, and hence produce all of life including the illusion of design. See 'The Simple Falsehood at the Heart of Expelled.'

Richard

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150765 by Richard Dawkins on March 27, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Obviously I am not asking whether I am right about the general proposition that Mark Mathis is a liar. I am asking about the SPECIFIC contradiction to which I drew attention in Post Number 388 on this thread.

Richard

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150755 by Richard Dawkins on March 27, 2008 at 11:43 am

May I just add one more thing to the indictment of hypocrisy against Mark Mathis, something that had not occurred to me before, or at least not quite so clearly?

1. Mathis tries to claim that he did not deceive PZ, me, Eugenie Scott and the rest of us into taking part in his film in the first place. He tries to claim that we were invited in good faith, and that we accepted in good faith.

2. If that were really true, wouldn't it be natural to invite PZ and the rest of us to attend pre-screenings, as honoured guests? The fact that he threw PZ out of the theatre in Minneapolis, and goes to strenuous lengths to keep all of us out of advance screenings (Eugenie has documented her positive exclusion) amounts to a damning admission that we are perceived as enemies, and therefore that his claim to have invited us to take part in an objective discussion of the issues, without deceiving us, is a lie.

Mathis cannot have it both ways. Either he was telling us the truth in the first place, when he invited us to participate in the film, in which case we should be invited to see it as an extension of the good faith with which he originally invited us to participate. Or he is right to treat us as enemies, to be excluded from advance showings, in which case he is lying when he claims to have invited us in good faith originally.

Well, it is obvious to any objective observer that Mark Mathis is a serial liar, frantically trying to spin his way out of the hole he has dug for himself. But I have not seen this particular contradiction spelled out before, in quite these stark terms.

Am I right?

Richard

36. Fleabytes

Comment #137580 by Richard Dawkins on March 3, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #137570 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 7:41 am

Richard-
the smart thing would have been not to remind everyone about your secret shame. Now it can be used against you in the future.

What secret shame? Please be clear.
Thank you
Richard

37. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137461 by Richard Dawkins on March 3, 2008 at 12:06 am

I hope nobody can confirm the scurrilous rumour that, when an early Attenborough documentary was first released in America, his commentary was dubbed by Robert Redford because the TV company wanted an American accent.

Richard

38. Fleabytes

Comment #137455 by Richard Dawkins on March 2, 2008 at 11:48 pm

2317. Comment #136327 by Diacanu on February 29, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Steve Zara-
By the way, I liked Paula's review.....
It's 2000 posts good. She should be a horsewoman. I want to see her up in the corner of the site at the table making Dan and Richard laugh.

Diacanu, Steve Zara and other admirers of Paula might like to know that she and I will be having an on-stage conversation in Inverness on April 2nd, organised by the University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute and simultaneously broadcast to its outlying stations throughout the Highlands and Islands.

Place: Eden Court Theatre, Inverness.
Time: 4.30pm, Wednesday April 2nd.
Tickets are free but must be booked in advance. You need to contact the Eden Court Theatre box office on 01463 234 234. Max 4 tickets per booking, and names are needed for each ticket (to prevent people booking en masse and then not actually taking the seats). (I apologise for posting out-of-date instructions for booking tickets before)

After my on-stage conversation with Paula, I shall take questions from the audience, chaired by Isabel Fraser of BBC Scotland. The whole event will last two hours, and be split roughly 50/50 between the conversation and the Q & A. It will be filmed and later given to Josh for possible posting on this site.

Richard

39. Fleabytes

Comment #136398 by Richard Dawkins on March 1, 2008 at 5:02 am

NMcC wrote

Thanks for the explanation. I was under the impression that Josh was the moderator here and that you wouldn't, and probably couldn't, intervene to have posts removed

It is true that Josh has the final decision over what is posted or removed. However, like any reasonable person, he listens to suggestions. And I think most reasonable people would agree that death threats, even if humorously intended, are in a different league from cartoons and operas.

Richard

40. Fleabytes

Comment #136364 by Richard Dawkins on March 1, 2008 at 1:56 am

2286. Comment #136256 by NMcC on February 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm
JOSH

I see you have given in to that whining fraud Robertson and removed my posts 669, 674, and 676.

Since I do not wish to be associated in any way with a site that stiffles free speech and dictates (and at the behest of a despicable Christian liar, to boot) what should or should not be considered 'humourous', please do me the honour of removing the rest of my posts.

I would appreciate it if this post alone was left as a mark of protest.

As far as I'm concerned, your surrender to the likes of religious fruitcakes like Robertson is pathetic.

In leaving this site for good, I'd simply like to state that, like others, I've learnt a lot and appreciate very much the education I've recieved.

Josh did not give in to the whining fraud. Nor did I. The wishes of an unpleasant fruitcake are of no interest to me and are best ignored. I asked Josh to remove your posts because they were in poor taste, even though I accept that you intended them humorously. I have no objection to humour at Robertson's expense, but at least let's try to make it funny.
Richard

41. Fleabytes

Comment #133900 by Richard Dawkins on February 27, 2008 at 2:28 am

The ill-named "Clearthinker" wrote

PS. Just one question. Why is Paula's article not listed on the front page. It was after all written on the 19th Feb. Is this an oversight or is the webmaster slightly ashamed of it? Just curious.

Robertson, I don't know many really nasty people, but you certainly are one. The word "unchristian" is sometimes used to mean unpleasant, ungenerous, mean-spirited. By that definition, Robertson, you are a walking oxymoron.
For the record, nobody associated with RD.net is remotely ashamed. Actually very proud. The reason Paula's article was not listed on the front page had nothing to do with its merits (which are excellent). It had everything to do with its subject matter (your book) which is not interesting or important enough to merit front page treatment, even when it is being deservedly torn to shreds.
Richard

42. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #133852 by Richard Dawkins on February 27, 2008 at 12:06 am

Richard Morgan:

What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?

How do you do it, by the way? Do you improvise at an electronic keyboard, and have the computer record what you do, then edit it? I have no conception of how this kind of thing is done, but I am extremely impressed.
Richard D

43. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132132 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 9:17 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Richard D - in one of your books you mentioned taking your baby daughter out one night to see a comet. You explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and you would not) you wanted her to be able to say that she'd seen it twice.
I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this :

"You'll see it again, but..."
(Dedicated to Richard Dawkins and his daughter.)

http://www.esnips.com/web/WeSawTheComet

(It's one of my "straight from my heart" compositions.)

It's lovely. Thank you very much.
Richard
By the way, if anyone is curious, the story concerned is in Climbing Mount Improbable, on page 131 of the UK edition and page 144 of the US edition.

44. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132060 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 4:34 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

So yes I actually composed this, not for the lava lizards (who, judging from the way they scuttle, prefer Reggae), but as a celebration of your message as expressed in The Lava Lizards Tale.

Thank you. I am touched and delighted.
Richard

45. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132047 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 2:55 am

Richard, I found the audio file by clicking on "Listen" just to the right of FILE..
Hope it helps and it is rather pleasing to listen to..Cheers

This worked for me, thank you.
But, Richard M, did you actually COMPOSE this music especially for the lava lizards? If so, I am very impressed.

46. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132042 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 2:23 am

The link to the site esnips.com should open a page that plays an mp3.
Perhaps this will work for you :
http://www.esnips.com/web/SuiteforEvolution

This one, like the other one, does indeed open a page. But what do I THEN have to click in order to play the mp3? It certainly doesn't spontaneously start playing, and there is no obvious clue as to what has to be clicked on that page.
Richard

47. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132024 by Richard Dawkins on February 24, 2008 at 12:10 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Please, somebody, anybody, give me a reaction to my little "sound collage".
I'm not a troll.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

I'd like to listen to this, but all I get is an error message:
Flip4Mac WMV cannot play this movie

Any suggestions? Have others had trouble listening to it?
Richard

48. Fleabytes

Comment #131257 by Richard Dawkins on February 22, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment by BAEOZ on February 22, 2008 at 3:04 am
For the first, and only time in my intellectually nondescript existence I believe I can critique one of my heroes, Prof. RD. He states:
ad hominem / ad feminam

Now all latin lovers would know that homo refers to humanity. Vir refers to the masculine sex. So a ad-hom is an ad-man/ad-women (vir/femina)

Damn, you are right of course. I should have consulted that well-known classical scholar R Dawkins. See footnote on page 115 of The God Delusion::
Classical Latin and Greek were better equipped. Latin homo (Greek anthropo-) means human, as opposed to vir (andro-) which means man, and femina (gyne-) which means woman. Thus anthropology pertains to all humanity, where andrology and gynecology are sexually exclusive branches of medicine.

Thanks for reminding me.
Richard

49. Fleabytes

Comment #131153 by Richard Dawkins on February 22, 2008 at 2:44 am

I understand from Josh that he is happy to give David Robertson the right of reply to Paula's review. Contrary to Robertson's assertions, it was NEVER, of course, for propounding Christian views that he was banned in the first place. Plenty of others do that. It is pretty hard to earn a ban hereabouts, but the Wee Flea seems to court it so that he can boast about it. Anyway, he is not now banned from responding to Paula's review. She has given us a remarkably thorough dissection of Robertson's book and the others. Let him reply to THOSE ARGUMENTS without ad hominem / ad feminam unpleasantness, and he will be welcome to do so.
Richard

50. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129464 by Richard Dawkins on February 19, 2008 at 7:03 am

I would be interested to hear which arguments by McGrath Justin Barrett supports. I have yet to see a viable argument from him.

There is no suggestion that Justin Barrett supports McGrath. Read what it says more carefully:
Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath . . .

Richard

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Next