by ignored_one 42 Replies latest social entertainment
The programme is a good idea, but Dawkins is not the best man to deliver it. He's not the only atheist out there.
My vote goes to Abaddon or FunkyDerek.
Well as FD admits to getting similarly flush faced with frustration when faced with believers irrationality, I'll have to vote for Abaddon but preferably after a toke on a slightly less verbose day.
He didnt do himself too many favours by having an agenda that he was too emotionally tied to. He often came across as irrational as the religious bigots he was talking to, and sometimes sacrificing a logocal argument to a heated debate.
I felt he could have quite often made mincemeat of the illogical opposition, but lost it to his own temper or agenda. E.g.
Moslem chap: "you let your women go around dressed like whores"
Him: "I DONT DRESS ANY WOMEN" - said quite frustratedly, then scene cut. I assume he lost it at that point.
He should have said pinned the moslem down to specifics - "exactly which women am I personally responsible for?" "what if I tell you my wife always covers her legs and arms?" "what if I tell you I am not married and do not have any women living in my house". "What about the situation where I ask my daughter to leave home because she refuses to dress modestly, and she then chooses to live on her own. Who is to be held responsible for making her dress modestly?" "Exactly how far am I authorised to go as a man to force a woman to dress modestly? Verbal threats? Physical violence? Death penalty?"
I will definately watch it next week, but I did feel that he lost many arguments by being as illogical and dogmatic as the people he was argueing with. IT wouldnt have taken very much to make them look really silly, but he wasnt up to the job.
It was like one of those pointless arguments you listended to when you were on field service with Brother Dogmatic, and he insisted on knocking on the local vicars house.
Did anyone see Part 2 last night? I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Dawkins should be on TV every week
I watched it and again found him slightly embarrassing - although the flushed face and angry look in his eye were slightly less prevalent this week. Curiously it reminded me of being a Witness again when Witnesses appeared on TV and they were wack jobs and I'd groan internally.
Dawkins isn't a wack job, I agree with most of his argument but his language is so loaded e.g. refering to children in religious shools as victims, and his manner so dogmatic that his message is slightly obscured. Liked his closing quote that a religion allows good people do bad things.
And has anyone been to a "Hell House"? It looked fantastic!
scotsman:
refering to children in religious shools as victims,
They are victims. They are young and vulnerable and willing to believe anything any authority figure tells them. They go to school and learn that 2 + 2 = 4 and that Paris is the capital of France and that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. How are they supposed to know that two of those things are facts and one is balderdash, when they hear them from the same source?
They are victims.
My point isn't whether or not they are victimns but that in using such loaded language to their Rabbi school teacher Dawkins emotively condemns him as the perpetrator. It's that that I find unhelpful to a debate on faith schools - religious idealogues thrive on confrontation and their faith and resolve is ever strengthened.
scotsman:
My point isn't whether or not they are victimns but that in using such loaded language to their Rabbi school teacher Dawkins emotively condemns him as the perpetrator.
Again, he is the perpetrator. He's responsible for indoctrinating a whole community of people into a belief that is demonstrably false. And he does this while claiming to be educating them.
It's that that I find unhelpful to a debate on faith schools - religious idealogues thrive on confrontation and their faith and resolve is ever strengthened.
Everything strengthens their faith. What approach would you suggest? Rational argument is fruitless as they proudly reject reason. Showing the negative results of their actions won't persuade them, as they are not concerned with what happens in "this life" (i.e. the real world).
Dawkins is genuinely concerned about the minds of these children being poisoned by religious lies. His beliefs are based on evidence, and he is clearly exasperated when trying to communicate with people whose beliefs are not. Apart from just accepting the behaviour and hoping some real world information will filter through to the children, is there anything you think he could do to prevent this sort of brainwashing of children?
The scary thing, is when you try to rationalize with a 'believer' of any faith, they always think it's every other religion that's to blame. Their religion is the 'only true one.'
FD if this goes on sale would you let me know?
I watched it with great interest and some enjoyment, even though Dawkins got me annoyed . He came across as more entrenched and arrogant in his beliefs than most of the religious people that he spoke to. He contemptuously dismissed religious faith as "myth and legend" with no argument to back the statement. He repeatedly said that science had disproved all this , but gave no evidence to support the statements.
The subjects he chose were the extremists, not the regular tolerant believers... Still, I have stopped the practice of only listening to those that I agree with, and it was more interesting than "Big Brother"{Brits know what I mean}
I don't have a nice glib answer for you FD, and although an atheist I confess that I thoroughly enjoy some of the irrationalities associated with many faiths. And I think a lot of brainwashed children on this board managed to free themselves from all sorts of nonsense, just as the religiously educated friends I know have also managed. When it comes down to it I don't seek a planet filled with atheists like me, you and Dawkins.
and it was more interesting than "Big Brother"{Brits know what I mean}
You were only watching it for Jodie, admit it.
