1. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    09 Jan '06 19:48
    Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    09 Jan '06 20:39
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
    You can for sure be able to predict his take on evolution,
    being labeled 'Darwins Rotweiler'🙂
    We need more like him. I am tickled pink here in Pennsylvania
    those idiots lost the 'intelligent' design lawsuite.
  3. SubscriberMarinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    tbc
    Joined
    18 Feb '04
    Moves
    61343
    10 Jan '06 04:48
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
    I read The blind watchmaker as i wanted to find out more about Evolution. I found it interesting but the one problem that remains with this theory is the same problem that has always existed. How the hell did it all start? He hazards some guesses but i left the book feeling more unsure about the completeness of this theory than when i started reading it. I believe Evolution to be self evident, but like he states himself, there must have been a point when life sprang into existence, this is the point that troubles me with Darwinism...
  4. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    10 Jan '06 05:03
    Dawkins needs a good publicist on this side of the pond.
  5. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    10 Jan '06 05:05
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil.
    Give us the gist once you've got it won't you?
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    10 Jan '06 05:411 edit
    Originally posted by marinakatomb
    I read The blind watchmaker as i wanted to find out more about Evolution. I found it interesting but the one problem that remains with this theory is the same problem that has always existed. How the hell did it all start? He hazards some guesses but i left the book feeling more unsure about the completeness of this theory than when i started reading it ...[text shortened]... en a point when life sprang into existence, this is the point that troubles me with Darwinism...
    No evolutionist will claim its a complete theory. However just like
    the standard model of physic which predicts almost all of the
    atomic interactions perfectly with a few exceptions, everyone knows
    those few exceptions show the standard model to be incomplete and
    its now, at least in that field, mostly up to the experimentalists to
    drum up evidence based on new data that may lead into new
    theoretical territory.
    With evolution, you are not alone in that department, every
    evolutionist is in the same boat and will freely admit it,
    at least those with an open mind, which as a group, is a lot more
    open minded than their ID buddies.
    The study of where and how life got started is a subject in itself and
    evolution simply takes off where the fossil record starts showing
    unequivical evidence. Sir Fred Hoyle theorized that life started in
    interstellar space and simply rained down on earth fully formed.
    Maybe the chemicals to jump start life rained down on an earth which
    had conditions which would enable further combinations. For instance,
    a time before there were membranes, to a time when lifeless membranes formed(just my extemporaneous theorizing here)
    by organic chemistry, say some interaction with clay, water, sunlight,
    and organic chemicals rained down from space, making what we might
    call small bits of plastic (membranes) which set up the conditions
    for the membranes to curl up and set the stage for more complex
    reactions as a direct result of having a sack hold reactants,
    maybe leading to early methane processing bacteria.
    Thats just my own theorizing, sythesizing some of the other theories
    out there. But all that is pre-evolutionalry theory, a science of its own.
  7. Et in Arcadia ego...
    Joined
    02 Feb '05
    Moves
    1666
    10 Jan '06 12:21
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
    Can we conclude from this that you don't actually know Dawkins?
  8. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    10 Jan '06 14:09
    Originally posted by sjeg
    Can we conclude from this that you don't actually know Dawkins?
    Personally? Or just "know Dawkins" in the sense of having read some of his work and watched/listened to/read some of his interviews?

    If you know anything about Richard Dawkins, then you will know that Starr's description fits him very well.
  9. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    10 Jan '06 14:48
    Originally posted by catfoodtim
    The half of it I got to watch was very interesting (for someone who doesn't know his work and wouldn't have paid much attention to the debate on science vs. faith)

    It had a very interesting starting point - that it was time 'rational people' stood up and challenged organised religion and faith. Is that really true that 46% of Americans would believe c ...[text shortened]... ut gale force winds took out the TV signal in Kildare. Either that or Catholic saboteurs...
    Here's a telephone poll conducted by CBS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

    If you combine the Humans evolved, God guided the processand Humans evolved, God did not guide the process, you get 40%. Contrast that to 55% for God created humans in present form.

    47% reported in a 1991 Gallop poll affirmed that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

    I couldn't get a link to Gallop poll at their site (they want you to order the report), but here is a link to some of the info from it.

    http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/gallup.htm

    I like to look at the breakdown between college graduate and no high school diploma. I saw a better site that showed a high correlation between lack of education and special creationism belief. I'll have to dig around for it.

    To get a feel for just how zany a lot of Americans are consider this Pew Research Center poll entitled "Americans Look to the 21st Century."

    44% Jesus will probably return during their lifetimes
    22% Jesus will definitely return before 2050
    44% Jesus will probably not return during their lifetime

    A Princeton poll around the same time (found that 47% of adult Americans believe that the Antichrist is on earth now and 45% believe Jesus will return in their lifetime. Interestly 15% of them believed that Jesus would return as early as the year 2000.
  10. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    10 Jan '06 14:49
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Agreed. Dawkins is a riveting arsehole.
    Yes, he doesn't have a lot of patience for persistently stupid people.
  11. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    10 Jan '06 14:58
    Originally posted by telerion
    Yes, he doesn't have a lot of patience for persistently stupid people.
    He strikes me as brilliant, arrogant and intolerant. Bit like Isaac Newton...
  12. Et in Arcadia ego...
    Joined
    02 Feb '05
    Moves
    1666
    10 Jan '06 16:011 edit
    If you have bought him a pint and discussed who should win the Sun's page 3 idol competition with him, then you certainly know him well.

    As a scientist, I am told his work is quite reputable. But he might do better sticking to what he's good at, and leaving other things alone. He doesn't do himself any favours, banging that old drum.

    Sure, even my most anti-religious friends recognise his strong bias, and they'd be even more vocal (and even a tad more monotonous) than all you chaps put together.

    😛
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148420
    10 Jan '06 16:12
    Originally posted by telerion
    Yes, he doesn't have a lot of patience for persistently stupid people.
    "persistently stupid" I take it that is code, for those that don't agree
    with him, or maybe you. 🙂
    Kelly
  14. Joined
    20 Sep '02
    Moves
    4815
    10 Jan '06 16:451 edit
    Dawkin's nemesis was the late great Stephen Jay Gould of course. Gould believed in a concept that he called NOMA (Non-Overlapping MagesteriA) to exemplify the best possible relationship he saw between science and the world's great religions. One (science) is an empirical, evidence gathering fact-based activity and the other characterised by non-evidence based faith in traditonal belief systems, in essence "One teaches how the heavens go, the other how to go to heaven". I think I remember Gould in attempting to explain this concept of NOMA as he saw it by describing a crocodile on land versus a lion and vice-versa, one the king of his own patricular domain. The two speak different languages in short and while Gould's concillatory view is laudable the reality is we all live in societies where people foist their deluded non-sense on top of you and expect you to bow down to some god or other which is inimical to free thought. I always find Dawkins rabid anti-Catholicism interesting and I think I am right to say his father was an Anglican vicar. He is going to develop his concept of memes in the next programme apparently which he argues are analogous to genes in his famous book "The Selfish Gene" which is contentious to say the least. He is very provocative and has called memes "mind viruses". Curiously he always strikes me as having an almost evangelical air when he starts making his pronouncements and is very quick to insult people I find but this is probably how people learn by shaking their rigid world views. It is indeed a fact though I think that your religion is determined to a large degree as a result of where you are born and the belief systems you are "indoctrinated" with by your family and I agree with Dawkins however in his central point that the religions are the cause of much of the misery in the world as a result of this herd mentality. His visit to the Holy Land and meeting with Jews and Muslim leaders was particularly depressing.
  15. Standard membergenius
    Wayward Soul
    Your Blackened Sky
    Joined
    12 Mar '02
    Moves
    15128
    10 Jan '06 16:461 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Starting on Channel 4 at 8:00pm (for all you UK residents) is Richard Dawkins' documentary The Root of All Evil. Whether you agree with him or not, you really should watch this: Knowing Dawkins, I have no doubt it will be confrontationary, detailed and incredibly well put together.
    i didn't see the program, but i saw lots of adds for it on TV. in the add he says that in his program shall "argue why we should disregard all religions for the sake of humanity", or words to that effect.

    fine, okay, but if you were to do this you would also be getting rid of a lot of charities in the world. heck, i'm in the maths computer room at uni and my mousemat is sponsored by a christian charity! does religion cause people to harm others? possibly, but i'm not going into that. however, religion does get people to do good! charity is a major part, in my opinion, of christian living, even if it is just giving charitibly it's all built into the faith.
Back to Top