Richard Dawkins cruelly answers audience question

[Summerlander]

I'm just curious about what people think about this here.  Post your opinions.  Fire away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ&NR=1

[Xanth]

It's only "cruel" within the context of the mans direct reason for asking the question... and I'm certain that fellow left the stage thinking "wow, what an ass".
In actuality, the response was very accurate and I don't believe that he said what he said in any attempt to be cruel.  He said what he said because he was asked a question and he provided an answer as per his experience.

It's an interesting exchange really.
Both men are speaking entirely from "their experiences"... which is as Richard mentions, is all he can do.

[Stookie_]

That guy was obviously there to confront him. Why else would a Christian go to something like that? Maybe the guy's question was really a cry for help... he's stuck and wants out, but his 50+ years of conditioning won't let him go.

[Summerlander]

I agree with both of your responses.  The Christian guy was desperate indeed.  He seemed to want to convert Richard Dawkins.  I thought the answer wasn't cruel either.  As he put it, he believed the guy was being sincere, but, he interpreted it a different way: hallucinations.

[Volgerle]

I think that in his very own way, Dawkins is a very religious man, too. No irony, I really mean it.

[Summerlander]

 

Sure!  He does seem to know a lot about different religions and the different gods!  Shiva, Allah, Apollo...

LOL!

 

[light487]

There's a difference between Faith and Belief (and of course Knowledge too).

[Volgerle]

Sure!  He does seem to know a lot about different religions and the different gods!  Shiva, Allah, Apollo...

LOL!

 

Yeah, but I meant his own little-picture-religion.  

Blandly spoken: By this quasi-religious dogma based on the current dismal state of scientific epistemology, he declares you and me and many others here as ... INSANE.

[Summerlander]

Not necessarily.  Not if he considers dreams to be sleep hallucinations.  And likewise, OOBEs and lucid dreams.  Visions of the night in general.  In which case, he wouldn't label us insane...just misguided perhaps.

[Xanth]

I think that in his very own way, Dawkins is a very religious man, too. No irony, I really mean it.

His seems to be of the religion of science. 

Sure!  He does seem to know a lot about different religions and the different gods!  Shiva, Allah, Apollo...

One can study it, free from the ramblings of believing it.

There's a difference between Faith and Belief (and of course Knowledge too).

Only a slight difference... they're kind of from the same tree.  You need to believe in something to have faith in it, and you need to have faith in that belief.  So they're intricately linked.

Yeah, but I meant his own little-picture-religion. 

Little-Picture "Religion"... definitely. 
He doesn't see things in the greater scale.
Basically, his own beliefs seem to be tied directly to science in that if he hasn't seen it or directly experienced it... it doesn't exist.  That's a poor position to be looking at consciousness from.  LoL

[Summerlander]

Yes, Xanth, but, even if he had seen it, he would interpret it his own way.  Just hallucinations.  I wouldn't call his view a "little picture".  It is simply what he believes to be the most viable explanation and he may also believe that one day science will prove that it is all in people's heads.

He could also turn around and say that Mr. Campbell's TOE is not to be taken seriously because it is pure conjecture.  Hence a "little picture" too.  Let's not call his view "little" because, for all we know, it might turn out to be true one day.  Also, you should look at this in regards to the Christian fellow:

http://obe4u.com/?page_id=307

One can study it, free from the ramblings of believing it.

Sure, one can study it.  And he clearly did.  In which case he'd have to have an interest in it.  And what he stated about the different gods and different cultures is justified.  Anyway, what was posted was a joke in reference to Dawkins being a "religious man". 

[Xanth]

Yes, Xanth, but, even if he had seen it, he would interpret it his own way.  Just hallucinations.  I wouldn't call his view a "little picture".  It is simply what he believes to be the most viable explanation and he may also believe that one day science will prove that it is all in people's heads.

"Little picture" means he only views it from the perspective of the physical.

[Summerlander]

oh, ok.

[CFTraveler]

Not necessarily.  Not if he considers dreams to be sleep hallucinations.  And likewise, OOBEs and lucid dreams.  Visions of the night in general.  In which case, he wouldn't label us insane...just misguided perhaps.

 Yes he would and he has.   If you have read other things he has written, his opinion on anyone who has any belief or faith in anything (be it religion or anything that even smells paranormal) is very low- we're all either crazy or lying, or dangerous.  And this is putting it mildly.  I used to read a lot of his material (since I studied Anthropology and am personally of the Evolution/Catastrophism Ilk, lol) and read a lot of his material for the data content.  The problem that the data content is so arrogantly and just plain nastily put that I couldn't find myself able to quote him.

[Xanth]

 Yes he would and he has.   If you have read other things he has written, his opinion on anyone who has any belief or faith in anything (be it religion or anything that even smells paranormal) is very low- we're all either crazy or lying, or dangerous.  And this is putting it mildly.  I used to read a lot of his material (since I studied Anthropology and am personally of the Evolution/Catastrophism Ilk, lol) and read a lot of his material for the data content.  The problem that the data content is so arrogantly and just plain nastily put that I couldn't find myself able to quote him.

What a fine upstanding individual... >_<
Yeah, I think I'm gonna ignore him then.  Thanks.