Utmost respect pinky. I think you are right when you say that other people also are guilty of being patronising, and that it's easy to gloss over that when you are in agreement with their pov's. Although I always disliked immensely the way you sometimes put your statements across, I always did think that at least you had balls, even if slightly misplaced at times. Don't change, just grow and learn, like we all do and have

People don't really get pissed at the posts where you're blatently just stirring the pot. It's when you're making comments and ranting on and on, in that incredibly patronising, superior manner you have going on for ya that people rise up against it. It's all very well you bactracking now, certainly don't blame you, but you cannot use that excuse to get out of all that you have contributed here. M'kay pumpkin

>> ^gorillaman:
The message is bullshit and the presentation is, wow, incredibly smug and patronising.
How about really don't vote, because democracy is inherently corrupt. The sovereignty of the individual cannot be overturned by any majority. Consensus doesn't determine morality and consensus doesn't determine correct governance.


So, what would you prefer? A monarchy? Dictatorship? Anarchy?

Really, I am interested in what superior mode of government you have in mind.

The message is bullshit and the presentation is, wow, incredibly smug and patronising.

How about really don't vote, because democracy is inherently corrupt. The sovereignty of the individual cannot be overturned by any majority. Consensus doesn't determine morality and consensus doesn't determine correct governance.

Such a condescending patronising asshole.
This is why Obama should of stayed the fuck away from Oreilly, the guy just paints you into a corner and spins the narrative his own way.

this is just a torture to watch - i had to use a razor for the most patronising parts

The leaders of the USA have this patronising attitude to the rest of the world. I love my old man. Not afraid of kissing him because he is lovely and human. Question to BillOreilly. How's the relationship with dad? I wonder if Bush and his pa have any love. Prob not. World peace and brotherhood are possible if we allow the wounds to heal. If not then we are ALL F**K*D.

Why would you call someone son if you weren't patronising them.

russia needs an ex-KGB despot for a leader like she needs a hole in the head. I don't see how you are going to transition from some guy who models himself on Hitler, to a democracy. Putin's propaganda is that democracy is chaos... while all around him chaos reigns without democracy.

How you can be patronising enough to sit on the internet and tell the world's largest country they are not ready for democracy and should continue to suffer under an autocrat, i do not know.

Military growth is a good way to jumpstart your economy? oh lol, you lost me there. I guess Hitler was right after all, right? Fixed the railways didn't he!

Judy is a silly cow, she really is. Sinfully ugly as well. The Richard But Not Judy show might actually be worth watching.

Much as I admire Dawkins, I do worry that he's the wrong weapon to use in the War On Stupidity. People - especially the people who need to listen to him the most - seem to find the archetypal Oxford don persona patronising and arrogant. No one likes it when beliefs that they rely on for emotional support are demonstrated to be false.

Ah well, so much for the Enlightenment.

why is this video worthy of respect?

reality fascists annoy me. downvote.

don't tell me i'm mentally ill, don't tell me i am sick, don't assume anything about me, you patronising, knowitall, condescending cunt.

as a scientist, you HAVE to bother. As a believer in God, you don't. I think this whole debate is ridiculous because neither side can translate their ideas into language that the other side can incorporate into their own ideas. It's like using english to tell chinese people they have to speak english, when they don't speak english.

Demanding proof is absurd to a believer in God (and many say they HAVE seen/felt/heard god, so that IS proof enough for them, whether or not you believe it)

When believers try to be scientific, like this guy, they sound stupid. When scientists try to talk about God, they also sound stupid. God could be laughing at them saying HAHAHAHAHA I INVENTED THE LAWS OF NATURE YOU DUMBASSES! except he isn't human and wouldn't do that. Maybe.

I don't know the answer, at least I admit that up front instead of telling you a scientific explanation for 99% and then demanding that you take the other 1% for granted. ( i mean "you" collectively, not singling anyone out)

Dawkins annoys me. I agree with most of what he says but he annoys me and I am not going to start worshipping him like some people on here do. That's the irony I was trying to point out, the behavioural similarity between both sides, the way the fundamental atheists fall into the traps they ridicule. My downvote was for the title and for Dawkins' patronising aloof bullshit. If you are bored of religious people telling you "stupid shit" about god, then stop writing books and going to debates. If you think answering those questions is beneath you, because of your belief system being inherently so much more TRUE than anything else, then look in the damn mirror.

Personally I am happy to sit on the fence. There's a good view from up here even if it's a bit uncomfortable.

he's spooky, creepy, arrogant, patronising, slimy, self satisfied, and unlikeable. When he says "neo-Darwinism" he sounds like an evil nazi planning a new deathstar or something.

There's your problem right there. You can't always blame the media.

Fletch

I'm angry because you automatically assumed that since I am a Muslim I view anyone who doesn't agree with me as an infidel - that is deeply patronising and ill-informed. You don't know me, yet you presume to know what I believe or how I view other people. Furthermore, without ever talking to me you say that "I'm not going to debate you, because I've seem from past exchanges you've had with BRM that it is pointless".

Then you say "you over-reacted, as usual". I'll tell you why I reacted the way I did. I live in a world which is becoming increasingly polarised by people who see the world in black and white. Some people are responding to this situation by trying to build bridges between people with different, and sometimes opposing, belief systems. I have spent along time on this Site trying to show that there is more to the Islamic world and the Islamic faith than the simplistic stereotypes which pervade so much of the media. I have tried to show that there is a thoughtful, tolerant, rational, pluralist, compassionate form of Islam which is far more widespread than many people realise or would like to admit. My hope is that I can hope to foster understanding, tolerance and apreciation of a culture which is alien to many users of this site. One of the greatest obstacles I - and many others like me - face in this task is the way many people - be they Christian, Muslim, Pagan or Atheist - use simplistic rhetoric to paint anyone who doesn't agree with their opinions as less worthy. If atheists wish to attack religious fundamentalism, intolerance, misogyny, bigotry, I will support them. But they must choose their words carefully. You title your video 'the problem with Islam' and you constantly refers to 'Muslims' (or Christians for that matter) as if they are a homogenous group of people. Islam is not a homogenous religion and the Islamic peoples are not a homogenous group (the same could be said of any other religion). I object to videos and comments which paint the Islamic faith and the Islamic peoples (or any other religion) as a homogenous group - because as a Muslim this means that you are some how equating the beliefs that I hold with every other person who professes to be a Muslim.

I use the term 'bigot' and refer to atheism as 'a religion' because it seems that many atheists are as dogmatic in their denial of the divine as theists are in its defence, and as intolerant of theists as many theists are of atheists or people of different religions. However, I have not set out to condemn atheism or atheists - and I would strongly defend peoples right to be atheists. I have also never used this Site to convince people that there is a God - or that Islam is the right religion - because I don't believe in proseletyzing. But on a daily basis this site is filled with videos and comments which attack and ridicule all religion and try to convince people that religion is all bad and that atheism offers the only solution.

I am sorry if I caused any offense - I did not mean to, and if I did I apologise. All I ask is that when atheists criticise religion they be a bit less aggressive and don't tar all believers with the same brush. I will also try to temper my criticism of atheism.

From their website:

"BritainandAmerica.com is a proud believer in the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. This new blog will focus on political developments in the USA and offer an alternative account of those developments to that provided by, for example, the BBC (the Corporation itself recently acknowledging its tendency to anti-Americanism at its own 'bias seminar').

In some important respects the next US election will be more impactful on British citizens than their own General Election. Only the USA has the military power to defeat the terrorists in nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. If American voters choose isolationism over the next few years the whole world will be dramatically affected. If American voters choose protectionism the international economy and the poorest nations, in particular, will suffer. Without American leadership on global warming the Brown-Cameron commitment to climate change will be almost pointless.

If the implications for the UK of American politics provide one big theme of BritainandAmerica.com another big theme will be British media reporting of US politics:

The Financial Times and Economist have influential readerships in America.
High proportions of the online readerships of The Times and Guardian are from the USA.
And then, of course, there is the BBC. BBC Online is read widely in the USA and BBC foreign affairs programming is supplied to ABC and many US radio stations. BBC journalists are regular pundits on American news programmes. On Sunday night the BBC's Katty Kay was telling Chris Matthews that the world community would be disappointed at America if American voters did not punish the GOP for Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.
In today's global media village the British media are bigger and bigger players in US politics and they tend to help the Democrats.

Updated regularly BritainandAmerica.com will profile the main players in American politics and provide briefings on key themes including the role of Christian conservatives; the power of money in US politics; the increasing ghettoisation of news; and the power of tax policy at elections.

It will also look at what UK politicians can learn from American campaign techniques and use of the internet."

SIMPLISTIC PATRONISING ILL-INFORMED TRIPE. The BBC is an objective news organisation - something which is sadly lacking in America. The last thing we want is the ill-informed ideology driven nonsense that passes for news in the States. It's also about time that British politicians started questioning the so-called special relationship. Blair's blind support of American (and Israeli) government policy has risked our security and damaged our international standing.