*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Demonstrates-Laryngeal-Nerve-of-the-Giraffe

It's getting hard not to believe the WBC aren't secretly funded by Dawkins or something.

I said it before, that guy Gawd is a TERRIBLE designer. At least 99.95% of his 'designs' have failed (and the rest are far from perfect, as shown clearly in this video). I would never consider hiring him, his 'designing' record suck ass.

She said it all at 2:46..."this is not an intelligent design"

Thanks again, Dawkins.

Hitch was simply the best. Never, ever, did I see him beaten in any debate. He was succinct, intellectually disarming and erudite. He had wit, common sense in abundance and his rational debunking of religion was a joy to behold. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett are all excellent in their own way, but Hitch? He was in a league of his own, and died leaving so much unsaid.

Richard Dawkins on Dinosaurs & Creationism has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong

You're kidding, right?

We've had Arizona almost pass a law that legalises discrimination, and Uganda actually pass a law that where homosexuality is punishable by death.

Meanwhile 60% of Americans don't accept the reality of evolution.

I wonder where you get the idea that people DON'T listen to really religious people.

And I have watched Chomsky, and I agree that he's a good debater. That said, I've never seen Dawkins be anything other than polite even when dealing with unbelievable idiocy.

I would wonder where in the hell you get the idea that anyone cares what really religious people think. Also why the hell you would think that an "atheist evangelist" would help in anyway shape or form. It just plays right into peoples hands "See he's a psychopath, look at how much of a dismissive dick he is towards differing opinions."

Address criticism and answer to it, I used the example of Chomsky, maybe you should watch something where someone is confronting him in a vigorous manner. He handles himself correctly in my view, my opinion is that Dawkins does not. That he sounds like a dick and he turns people off and it turns out others in the field of science feel the same way. He is not the white knight we're looking for, we want him to grab some pine and shut the fuck up.

Again I don't know where you get the idea where anyone listens to religious people. They're useful to drum up and get votes for but everyone including republicans know they're crazy and do their best to control them rather than do their stupid bidding.

Ahhh yes. I did say I understand Dawkins' lack of respect (love him too), and I even mirror it at times. That said, I still think starting from a point mutual respect and civility (for each other if not the ideas being discussed) can go a long way towards fostering mutual understanding, and vice versa.
You don't need to tell people they're idiots if they believe "x", it's better to explain rationally and have them understand why the idea is idiotic and they simply shouldn't believe it....when that's possible.
I'll also take douchebags over murderers, but I don't think those are the only options.

I would say Richard D can be a dick, but is not always being one (except by name). I can understand why he's so 'outspoken' (disrespectful) with the ridiculous arguments he has to contradict and the obtuseness and intentional misunderstanding coupled with rude angry vitriol and certitude in things impossible to know.
I'm not excusing his lack of decorum at times, I'm just saying I understand it.
EDIT: As always, Tyson is dead on....as even Dawkins admits. I love him.

There's looking at something rationally and logically, and there's sticking your nose in other peoples business and being a dick. Richard Dawkins is a dick if you're wondering.

Even sweet Neil degrasse Tyson says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Interesting talk that I enjoyed a great deal, though I wonder if that was more for the quality of his delivery rather than the material.
It was interesting to learn about reality being wave-based and our perception is that of the particle. e.g the EM wave that is light we see as particles we call photons.
Also I do believe Dawkins was there at the end asking a question.

Actually, I'm an atheist because my local pastor was a cool guy who used to play table football and billiards at my grandmother's pub. And when he realized that many of us couldn't take the stories of the Bible seriously, he never pushed any of his beliefs onto us. So you might say it never took root with me.

The humanistic education of a German gymnasium did the rest. When the internet came along at the turn of the century, with its ready access to the likes of Bertrand Russell and, much later, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, deGrasse Tyson, it merely pushed my attitude from not caring about organized religion into open confrontation with it. Though to be honest, I prefer not to bring up religion in a discussion, ever. It has the uncanny tendency to derail any conversation.

That said, science, specifically my training as a computer scientist, had no part in it. I was a passive atheist long before I took any of my education seriously, aka university.

Had to share this one on FB: "...even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?" ...because I enjoyed it that much. Thanks C.