I am an agnostic unbeliever and I still think Dawkins is a raving asshole.
I think the video is hilarious and awesome.
FYI, link goes directly to video file.
I loved it too…It was quite clever.
I’m not sure if this is promoting Expelled or making fun of it- and neither can anyone else in Dawkins’s camp. The analogy of atheist science as a giant robot that attacks creationists makes it seem pro-creationist. Either way, it’s amusing.
That was lame. A animated video whining about those meanie scientists and how smart they think they are. Dawkins has never once said “I’m right because I’m a scientist.” Creos are such crybabies.
I think it’s making fun of everyone. The fact that they know the argument so inside and out, that they put Daniel Dennett in a pimp hat shows me that they probably aren’t exactly what Diogenes afears them to be.
The video is briliant, the acting is superb and the animation is fabulous.
I think the crybabies are the ones who think this is meant to insult scientists.
Sure, the same way that South Park makes fun of everyone. It’s about as balanced.
The title is misleading. IFAIK Dawkins has never said anything like “beware of believers” and I doubt even he thinks like that.
Darwin is out of place in the video- it’s saying that Dawkins thinks religion and science are two opposing forces, but Darwin never felt that way.
Catchy song though.
As reasoned argument, or as a rational contribution to the debate, it is worthless. Pure strawman.
But as comedy, I thought it was quite well done. Catchy tune, amusing visuals. If I were one of the targets, I hope that I would have enough of a sense of humor to be amused. Especially if I were Dennett.
The arguments in the clip are specious, but the creators succeeded in amusing me, and in a laughing-with, not laughing-at, sort of way.
Dawkins regularly says things far stupider and more offensive, though it’s open to question whether he REALLY believes everything he says, or whether he’s just throwing fresh meat to an audience he knows craves such stuff.
Example? Well, even though Diogenes is not a religious person (to put it mildly), Dawkins says he’s guilty of “child abuse” (just as I am) because his child is being raised in a religion.
Does Dawkins really believe that?
If so, he’s a lazy coward, because he’s never taken the slightest action to take Dio’s kids away (or mine) or to have us arrested or to have religious schools shut down (all things that follow logically, if you truly believe teaching a 4 year old about God constitutes child abuse).
If not, then he’s deliberately spouting bullshit to call attention to himself or to score cheap debating points.
Richard Dawkins: fraud or lazy coward? Your call.
astorian, that is an intellectually lazy false dichotomy. Dawkins considers it child abuse to label a child with a religion. True, it does follow that he should take action that he believes will make that happen less often. But your conclusion only follows if the best way for him to do that would be to take peoples’ kids away. I think a little reflection would reveal that that would result in his getting arrested, not the parents he’s trying to stop. Your advice would just be ridiculously bad strategy for accomplishing the aims you attribute to him. He’s not being a lazy coward when he recognizes this.
If you repeat something sincerely and often enough to a child, there is a good chance they will believe it, and continue believing it for the rest of their lives. In your opinion, is there anything you can imprint in a child that you would consider abuse? Communism? That touching yourself will make you burn forever? Anything?
That’s four minutes of my life I’m not getting back. It’s stupid, but it’s so stupid it’s not even worth refuting, though it might serve in rhetoric classes as an example of a strawman.
As a polemic, it’s not very good. But as a funny rap video, it’s one of the best I’ve seen.
Meh. Daniel Dennett is a Dawkins pimp. Or a Dawkins whore…I’m not sure which. Either way, since I’m no fan of Dawkins, neither am I fan of Dennett’s.
And that video was lame, in my opinion.
The visuals were great. Very well done.
The rap was on par with the rap of 10 years ago. Not “bad” but not good at all by today’s standards and not the least bit funny.
The “arguments”, well . . . I’ll admit that Dawkins might not be the first guy I’d pick to go get drunk with at the Improv, but I love his books and I think he speaks for a lot of people who wouldn’t otherwise speak up in a world that can be very hostile toward them.
Don’t change the subject. Dawkins has said that I’m guilty of child abuse, and so is Diogenes.
So, what does Mr. Dawkins propose to do about it?
If he thought his next-door neighbor were beating or molesting his kids, would he write books condemning abuse in general, or would he take some kind of concrete action?
Same principle here- HE is the one who used the words “child abuse.” Well, here I am, a child abuser. What does Dawkins want done with horrible miscreants like me?
If the answer is “nothing,” then he’s full of crap. He’s either pandering to his audience, just like the Ann Coulters of the world, or he’s too lazy to act on his supposed convictions.
I don’t think Im changing the subject. Im just interested in what you would think qualifies as child abuse. I don’t know what specific passage by Dawkins you are referring too, but I suspect that he didn’t mean that every child raised in a christian home is the victim of abuse, but rather those that have imprinted a bad fear of hell, for instance. Which can be pretty detrimental to a persons life, in my opinion.
And as has already been said, what in the world do you want him to do? If the moral consensus and laws are against him, whatever physical action he can take won’t work. Plus it actually might be less effective overall, even if it could work. Why don’t you yourself go to northern Africa and stop genital mutilation case by case?
I watched a video of Dawkins yesterday, and he said that the state should play a role in the child’s religious upbringing to ensure that the religious notions are not reinforced. I am uncomfortable with state education in general, and precisely for the reasons outlined. I do not want my child indoctrinated by either Focus on the Family or Richard Dawkins.
However, this thread is convincing me that the atheists with a sense of humor can be counted on like one hand. If Daniel Dennet in a pimp hat and PZ Myers with a Cigar ain’t funny, I don’t know what is.
It’s not at all one-sided. The giant robot is making fun of creationists at least as much as scientists, that’s why it’s brilliant. The giant robot is making fun of the idea that Scientists worship the Machine. That it dances and has a speaker for an eye is perfect.