Richard Dawkins - BBC HARDtalk Part 3

Part 3.
Richard Dawkins is interviewed by the BBC's Stephen Sackur for News24's HARDtalk.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• HARDtalk
• atheism
• religion
• Christianity
• Islam
• Judaism
• god
• delusion

[majidnba]

he keeps interrupting Richard with spurious and childish arguments.

[Auraruth8]

@majidnba I think he is pretty good, his questions may seem stupid, but he still has to ask them that we understand the guests positions.

[NickPaulOates]

I think the BBC embarrassed themselves with someone giving out questions of that..."quality"

[1TheLoneWolf1]

How stupid is this interviewer? He seems to label science in the same category as religion.

How can you lose faith in science? Or have faith in science? The progress of science can be seen and recorded.

It's not about having faith in science when we have evidence and records to show the progress of science.

It's like saying we have faith that we'll continue to 'age' we have evidence and first hand experience that people age, we dont need faith to believe we'll continue to age.

[fredherbert]

Dear Mr. Sackur, you are a numbty, please take your face for a poo!

[Auraruth8]

@MrMonkeyThumbsticks Thats why I think the state should have as little to do with the state as possible, nowadays the state media is just puppets of the state, not as much as in Iran for inctance but its going in the wrong direction right now, I dont know maybe its good as it is. At least in sweeden. But to be fair Stephen Sackur is pretty ok, he actually tries to challenge every guest that comes on. And HARDtalk used to be harsher to their guests which was better.

[MrMonkeyThumbsticks]

@Auraruth8 I disagree with the whole "fair and balanced" media model. Aside from the fact that it is rarely fair or balanced it also fosters irrationality. Dara O'Briain sums up my view of "balance" in the media pretty good in this act:

/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

[garytcw]

What bigoted questions, would science be progress to religion LOL.

I could think so, it would be like some stargate sg1 or startrek episode of some alien visiting earth or something.

But for all those "super natural" to be accepted as science it has to be based on fucking FACTS.

Current religion has NO FACTS. And it is based on contradicting horribly defined concepts that even Christian themselves don't believe, like eating shell fish, or send your girl to be raped! Or some do.

[garytcw]

@ClosedAperture The better question would be, if you eliminate religion, would people reduce the chance to kill each other?

Can you eliminate the possibility that people will murder each other for resource, if you remove "religion" as a guise for greed, then people will simply form a "club", or group up by location, or race, or professions, and just kill each other with the SAME frequency?

[ClosedAperture]

@TheLi0nnnn "Dawkins accuses Religion to cause murder. this is simply not true." Sorry but you are simply wrong. Belief in a God can cause people to do terrible things, fact. I can provide you with several examples to verify this fact if you require them.