This lady drives me crazy

[IronyTaken]

And not in a good way.

I know this discussion has been done to death but I wanted to post this to see what reaction it would get.

This was a discussion Richard Dawkins had with an advocate of creationism.
I was quite surprised he actually would talk to one of them because of past attempts always ending up bad.

Some people say that Richard is an angry atheist or likes to shove things down our throats, but I think this series of videos shows that he is a very well mannered person.

In fact Richard is more calm and well mannered than I ever could be.
This lady drives me nuts and I don't think I could last even five minutes when talking to her.
I don't like to think of myself as violent but I can envision myself punching her in the face just to shut her up.

Richard must have some sort of super power to withstand what comes out of this woman's mouth. The way she laughs and holds a condescending smile would alone make me angry.


You might not understand this until you watch some of the videos.
Richard is able to withstand it for over an hour....sheesh he deserves a medal.

And again I do not want this to be a debate on Evolution or Creationism and I don't want this to turn into some flaming of religion or non-religion.

I merely want to see what people think while watching these vidz and how long they can watch it before going crazy and getting mad.

1



2



3



4



5



6



7

[Norrin Radd]

Richard Dawkins is a smart, well-mannered man.

What I don't understand is why he keeps interviewing and questioning Creationists. That isn't smart. You're not gonna win. It's like kicking water uphill.

[IronyTaken]

Richard Dawkins is a smart, well-mannered man.

What I don't understand is why he keeps interviewing and questioning Creationists. That isn't smart. You're not gonna win. It's like kicking water uphill.

Yah I don't know why he does it either.

I am making a funny comic right now about this video.

Just a short 1 panel of him grabbing her by the head and forcing her to look at a text book while saying something like, "science MOTHERFUKER!, do you read it!"

I am going to make the drawing style similar to satire political comics.

[Rude_Boy]

"I don't want you to respect my beliefs, I want you to respect the facts."
I cheered out loud.

[Leafninja]

It was hard enough to watch the first video. I couldn't get past 5 minutes of the second one.

[Schysm]

Yeah, so I had just watched Se7en again for the first time in years, so I was already fairly aggravated. Then this >.

I'm extremely impressed he was able to last this long. She really only had one point, and that was "Show me the evidence." What did she expect, a slide show of our step by step transformation?

And did anyone else find it really irritating that in the first video she commented about him being closed minded when she would not accept a word he said?

GAH /rage

[hobosexual]

I really hate her face and that smug smile.

I think Richie boy gets a bad rap a lot of the time because he is kind of intimidating, not in a mean way but in a damn that guy is so much smarter than I am way.

I think my favorite Dawkins interview is this one with Bill O'Reilly, you'd think being intelligent would be some kind of pre-requisite for having your own tv show, I mean people actually let this idiot influence them.

[Raiyne]

Listening to her is excruciating. Richard Dawkins must be pretty damn patient to be able to tolerate all of that crap.

[Pok]

The difference is that the Earth has always been spherical, by fact.

oblate spheroid or ellipsoid /nitpick

[Halaster]

oblate spheroid or ellipsoid /nitpick

But Satan placed dinosaur bones in the ground to make people doubt the Bible, and the Earth is 6,000 years old. The only problem there is with exchanging a Fundamentalist Christian for crap is that it's a waste of the container you put the crap in.

[hian]

Simply put, Dawkins's understanding of philosophy is about the same as this lady's understanding of evolution.

Care to elaborate? I'm not saying I think Dawkins is perfect in every way, because of course he is not. For instance, I do not think his rhetoric and his choice in methodology in confronting religious groups is very good.
But, I can't really fault him on philosophic grounds.

Philosophy isn't really relevant to his arguments(and it isn't really nature science). He isn't arguing philosophy, he's arguing skewed views some religious people have on reality. He is also arguing the social consequences religion has on the individual and society. As far as I'm concerned, his criticism is for the most part valid.

[BoomThunda]

I watched the first 2 vids. 20 minutes of this dumb ***** asking for evidence and Dawkins providing it over and over and over again.

[Avarwen]

The biggest problem with creationism is that there's no real proof and creationist can't seem to get that through their heads. As for evolution we really can't be 100% sure what was here first and what we truly came from and how it happened. Science is ever changing so who knows what we will find in the future. Since I wasn't there at the beginning of time I'm not going to worry about it either. This is a waste of time neither side will back down so why not agree to disagree.

[hian]

The biggest problem with creationism is that there's no real proof and creationist can't seem to get that through their heads. As for evolution we really can't be 100% sure what was here first and what we truly came from and how it happened. Science is ever changing so who knows what we will find in the future. Since I wasn't there at the beginning of time I'm not going to worry about it either. This is a waste of time neither side will back down so why not agree to disagree.

The problem here is that the certainty of evolutionairy theory is the same as the theory of gravity. To say that we aren't certain of evolution, is like saying we aren't certain of gravity.

Of course we can't be a 100% sure - We can't be a 100% sure of anything. The problem is that most people are "sure" about many things, yet seem to think that evolution is less certain than those things again.
This becomes even clearer in religious context, when people seem to think an idea(creationism) has equal merit to a scientific theory(evolution).

I don't think it's a waste of time to spend time working against religious ignorance though, the same way it isn't a waste of time to work against any type of ignorance. We didn't get to today by dismissing all kinds of intellectual dishonesty as merely a difference in opinion.

[hian]

There comes a time, though, when you honestly just have to say: "Ok, you believe there was never any dinosaurs and evolution is false. I'm done."

Those kind of people, the kind of people who argue against science for a living and have done so for most of their lives, are beyond help. A 17 year old Creationist? Sure. A 45 year old one? Forget it.

I completely agree with this. I wasn't really talking about individual cases though, but I should have made that more clear in my original post.

Simply, that if people just give up trying to pull ignorance like this into public debates, it will certainly grow. I think that it's people like Dawkins, good educational systems and so forth, that contribute to stopping 17 year old creationists from becomming 45 year old creationists.

[Avarwen]

The problem here is that the certainty of evolutionairy theory is the same as the theory of gravity. To say that we aren't certain of evolution, is like saying we aren't certain of gravity.

Of course we can't be a 100% sure - We can't be a 100% sure of anything. The problem is that most people are "sure" about many things, yet seem to think that evolution is less certain than those things again.
This becomes even clearer in religious context, when people seem to think an idea(creationism) has equal merit to a scientific theory(evolution).

I don't think it's a waste of time to spend time working against religious ignorance though, the same way it isn't a waste of time to work against any type of ignorance. We didn't get to today by dismissing all kinds of intellectual dishonesty as merely a difference in opinion.

For me at least while I do believe in evolution I'm still at odds with some of the facts that they have now. Religious ignorance will always be here no matter how hard you try to fight it. Some people just don't want to face the music. IMO it's not worth my time to try and convince the religious that evolution is true. If they want to believe that they were made from sand by God that's fine. As long as it doesn't make it into the school system I don't care what they do.

[IronyTaken]

For me at least while I do believe in evolution I'm still at odds with some of the facts that they have now.

I don't like to use the word "believe" when it comes to scientific fact, I rather use the word accept.

But what are you at odds with about evolution?

[Avarwen]

I don't like to use the word "believe" when it comes to scientific fact, I rather use the word accept.

But what are you at odds with about evolution?

I have a hard time believing we evolved from fish no matter how hard I look at it ,it seems a bit far fetched to me. Also I wonder if we could have evolved separately from apes instead of directly from them.

[IronyTaken]

I'm not lending credence to that theory, I'm open to any theory that makes more sense than Creationism. Whether it's wrong, so is Creationism.

If a theory is shown to be wrong then I am not open to it.....because it is wrong.

[Halaster]

Galactic Lord Xenu is coming over next week to discuss flower arrangement.

Don't compare me to a Scientolotard unless you want to have problems with me. And don't get me started with Scientology, it will get ugly.

[V-Opolis]

The reason there may not be a missing link is that we may have been genetically engineered by extraterrestrials in the distant past. That is one theory that many are proposing and it's based on the story of the Annunaki which can be found in ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform writing. I'm not stating the theory is correct, simply that it makes much more sense than Creationism does.

how? ill put it like this, the universe is so big that the probability is in the hands of life existing elsewhere.

now on the flip side, the universe is so big that that 'ET' life FINDING us is in the hands of them NOT finding us. Its like finding ONE needle on the entire earth by yourself.

i wont even try refuting life existing elsewhere, but them getting to us is to far a stretch.

I have an obsession with science and the over all beauty of the universe and sometimes religions gets in the way of that so I speak out.

If you have a point then say it, freedom of speech allows for this.

And what does being gay or not have to do with not liking me?

If I was gay would you suddenly dislike me more?
If not then why even bring it up?

And no I am not gay.

what? really? ive been told to bite my tongue, only reason i havnt been banned as fast as i think i would have been.

now on topic, so i dont get a spam infraction.....i didnt care to watch the video, the lady is stupid as ****, dawkins gets his orgasm on trying to prove religion wrong, everyone wins, except the lady.

[Halaster]

how? ill put it like this, the universe is so big that the probability is in the hands of life existing elsewhere.

now on the flip side, the universe is so big that that 'ET' life FINDING us is in the hands of them NOT finding us. Its like finding ONE needle on the entire earth by yourself.

i wont even try refuting life existing elsewhere, but them getting to us is to far a stretch.

Yes, but there are not just beings which are extraterrestrial and alien to our planet, there are extrauniversals that are alien to our universe. I was visited by the extrauniversal variety, at least according to them when I asked them where they were from. You can figure the probability of extraterrestrial life in our own universe but there are an infinite amount of universes in which some civilizations have attained a level of technology that they can travel from one universe to another. Aliens exist in an infinite amount of universes, not just our own.

[Avarwen]

The reason there may not be a missing link is that we may have been genetically engineered by extraterrestrials in the distant past. That is one theory that many are proposing and it's based on the story of the Annunaki which can be found in ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform writing. I'm not stating the theory is correct, simply that it makes much more sense than Creationism does.

I doubt that it very highly unlikely that we were made by aliens. IMO it's just as bad as people thinking we were made from sand. Also who knows what we will find in the future there may well be something we have yet to find.

[XGrave]

Pascal's wager has been debunked decades ago.

For example what if you believe in the wrong god?
God should also know that you are only pretending to believe.

the main point of pascal's wager was to up your chances of going to heaven from 0 to at least a .0000000000000000000001% chance it was not a hundred percent chance thus it is a probability

think about it, haven't you ever seen you'll miss 100% of the shots you don't attempt? its the same thing

[IronyTaken]

the only reason he would possibly talk to these people is to try to make them look stupid. If he honestly wanted to educate them he wouldn't carry a camera around.

I chose my words bad, i didnt mean prove religion wrong, meant to prove it stupid.

and honestly i dont know if i should reply to Halaster, Do i have Ironys permission to talk to him on a semi(by that i mean totally) offtopic topic in a respectful and thoughtful(as much as i can) way?

Sure you have my permission.

Also Richard wasn't trying to prove religion stupid in this discussion he was merely trying to show that Evolution is a fact, nothing else.