Richard Dawkins on Q & A

[Lord Blackadder]

Richard Dawkins will be a guest panelist on tonight's Q & A.

ABC1, Monday 8th March at 21:35 (DEST).

As a bonus extra, Four Corners will be presenting an exposé on Scientology.

ABC1, Monday 8th March at 20:30 (DEST).

[Praxis]

WooT! Thanks for that LB - we'll tune in :)

[owheelj]

Should be good. Our favourite politician, Steve Fielding will also be on. It should definitely be a better episode than last week, that had Peter Garrett on it, but was almost entirely pro-arts masturbation, even when trying to discuss the insulation debarcle. I am a strong supporter of the arts, but found it tiresome and tedious. It was also ridiculous when the arts people started criticising the two politicians for talking about the insulation issue when they were merely responding to questions from the audience. [/rant] :P

[Praxis]

Should be good. Our favourite politician, Steve Fielding will also be on.
REALLY? Oooooh those wicked ABC people!

I hope hope HOPE creationism comes into it somewhere and we can watch Fielding flubber around and Dawkins respond.

:D

[davo]

Should be good. Our favourite politician, Steve Fielding will also be on.

"A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don't support this."

How's that for logic? what a knob.

[Lord Blackadder]

Fielding and his evil twin Conroy should be knackered after their little venture into internet filtering. The things that have been done in the name of "protecting the children"... :mad:

[Seamus]

Thanks LB. I'll record both to watch at leisure during the day.

At 8.30 I'll be veging out on "The Mentalist".At 9.30 I'll be continuing to wade through series One 1 of 'Spooks' which I have never seen.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Senator Fieldiing has just stated he is a creationist what a cretin:mad:

[gruber]

Senator Fieldiing has just stated he is a creationist what a cretin


I found all the politic,ans seemed to be squirming and pissed off by dawkins:D

[Lord Blackadder]

Richard Dawkins was on fire! :D

Fielding is a twanker. And if what he says about KRudd is true (that he is a Creationist and that he carries a Bible in his pocket), then I am very, very scared. It also makes KRudd a hypocrite and a liar, as he declared to Laurie Oakes that he absolutely believed in evoultion. See, told you KRudd was a religious whore... :mad:

[davo]

After Julie Bishops death stare into audience I'm rethinking satan

[Atrax Robustus]

After Julie Bishops death stare into audience I'm rethinking satan

"I don't like the direction this debate is taking" . . . <evil stare>

Dawkins' response - "It's what your fuckin book says BITCH!"

<evil stare>

[gruber]

After Julie Bishops death stare into audience I'm rethinking satan


I like how the audience was yelling at her to answer the dam question

[owheelj]

The above comments make me feel like I'm the only person who follows politics. Surely everybody knew Fielding's positions on religion and science prior to the show?

I think the real question that needs to be addressed is Fielding's accusation that Rudd is a creationist. That would be a concern, although I guess Rudd could commended for keeping that specific part of his religious views outside of politics.

Dawkins dominated the debate, which is good to see, but helped by the fact that there was only person who could be viewed as a qualified academic on the panel other than him (McGorry). The others were clearly way out of their depth, as seen with Julie Bishop's hilarious attempt at explaining evolution by listing the process of non-evolutionary biological development.

I thought Dawkins came off slightly worse from the exchange with Bishop and then Burke about respect with religion where he attacked the new testament. While I agree with what he said, I don't think it would have won any points with people not already won over, especially the bickering with Burke about what he actually said. What he really should have said in response to Bishop's comments about respect of religion was to question her on her respect of political beliefs and why they're different to religious beliefs.

I really laughed at Bishop's word games on that question though, where she talked about a lack of respect for religion and then Dawkins started to take issue with her suggesting that he was disrespectful and she backed off and was like; "I didn't refer to you, just extremes in general." Surely she would know that everybody sees through that kind of retarded political word games. edit; And who are the "extremes" who are opposed to religion that she was referring to? Hu Jintao?

[Fearless]

How many school master stares did you see from Julie Bishop :eek:

A lot of support for Dawkins in the audience which was promising and I am so glad he outlined the typical cherry picking avenue which most believers take.

When Fielding made a comment about not agreeing with a part of the bible and Dawkins responded with "Why not!?"... that was a golden moment for me.

Tony Burke and his Stalin/Mao argument... I think I could feel a collective sigh from Atheists watching as he made that feeble point... I would be interested to see what that guy is like when he loses his cool. I was waiting for some form of dummy spit.

It was good... unfortunately they spent too much time on the boat people issue (imo) but it might have been good to have some other secular spokesperson on the panel too instead of almost all being people of faith.

I think he held his ground well... but I didn't expect anything less.

[gruber]

A lot of support for Dawkins in the audience which was promising and I am so glad he outlined the typical cherry picking avenue which most believers take.



I was actualy waiting for someone to say the pretty much statement more then a question , that without religion there arent morals.

[Fearless]

How many school master stares did you see from Julie Bishop :eek:.

Actually it kind of reminded me of this:
y8Kyi0WNg40

[Atrax Robustus]

I was actualy waiting for someone to say the pretty much statement more then a question , that without religion there arent morals.
The Muslim (I suspect) guy went very close with his absolute morality question though - and Dawkin's sank that with a standard response.

[Lord Blackadder]

The above comments make me feel like I'm the only person who follows politics. Surely everybody knew Fielding's positions on religion and science prior to the show?

I think the real question that needs to be addressed is Fielding's accusation that Rudd is a creationist. That would be a concern, although I guess Rudd could commended for keeping that specific part of his religious views outside of politics.

I've known for a long time what Fielding's religious position is. What frightened me was his statements about KRudd. I'm still hoping that it's just little Kevvie trying to be Mr. Popularity with everyone, but I wouldn't put it past him to actually believe that crap. What makes me laugh (or cry) the most is that the main stream media have been giving Abbott grief about his beliefs (Catholicism), but no-one has pressured KRudd about his. Perhapes it is about time for them to get a definitive answer from Kevin.

Hang on, did I just say "get a definitive answer from Kevin"?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *sniff* *deep breath* BWHAHAHAHAHA!

God, I crack me up sometimes...

[NakedApe]

I thought Dawkins came off slightly worse from the exchange with Bishop and then Burke about respect with religion where he attacked the new testament.

Seemed to me he was accused of being "disrespectful" for simply pointing out to them what is in their holy book.

[owheelj]

Well I think it's fair to say that whatever Kevin Rudd's religious views, he keeps them out of politics, which is more than can be said for Tony Abbott, at least until he became leader (he seems to be getting better, although is being asked a ton of questions by the media about it, and he hasn't really been tested yet).

Politicians should have as much right to express their religious views as anybody else, and Kevin Rudd certainly does that (see his response to the Australian St. Mary), but they shouldn't base policy decisions on their religious views, and I'm yet to be convinced that Rudd has done that.

Of course the thing you have to remember is that it's usually politically advantageous to make compromises to religious groups, because they're much more likely to vote on issues that could be seen in a "running of the entire country" context as trivial - such as gay marriage. Most people who support gay marriage will vote on serious issues that effect everybody like the economy, public services such as health and education, etc. Religious people, on the other hand, think these issues are entirely important and significantly out number the people who support gay marriage and will actually vote on the issue. If you're not in government you have no say in how the country is run, so making compromise on tiny issues to win votes and get into government is clearly in the best interests of all political parties regardless of their religious views.

[owheelj]

Seemed to me he was accused of being "disrespectful" for simply pointing out to them what is in their holy book.

Sure. I'm not saying I disagree with him, I'm saying that he didn't come off as well from that exchange as from the earlier exchanges - from the perspective of PR for atheism, not from an accuracy of statements perspective.

[Lord Blackadder]

Rudd's handling of the Mary MacKillop saga was embarressing, to say the least.

He was born Catholic. He then swaps to Anglican when he gets married. He then decides to be Mr. Catholic again and barrack for Our Mary because IT WINS VOTES with the gullible. His photo stops outside church are legendary (oh, look at me - I'm so very moral because I go to church).

The fact that he is still blocking legal homosexual unions tells me that his religious sensibilities are coming into play.

Yes, Abbott is a Mick. But at least he is honest about it. As I have stated before on these forums, Rudd would become a Muslim for a day if he thought there was a photo opportunity in it. Which makes me concerned about Fielding's claims that Rudd is a Creationist. Creationism is not particulary popular with mainstream voters, so if Rudd isn't making a song and dance about his beliefs, it has everything to do with politics and him maintaining his popularity, and we should be concerned about it.

[mmurray]

I loved the way when we moved onto the boat people we stopped talking about religion. What does their hippy sermon of the mount version of jesus have to say about boat people I wonder?

Pity they hadn't got some other atheists on the panel. They must have rung up the politicians prayer group. The Australian of the Year has gone down in my estimation.

Michael

[mmurray]

Which makes me concerned about Fielding's claims that Rudd is a Creationist. Creationism is not particulary popular with mainstream voters, so if Rudd isn't making a song and dance about his beliefs, it has everything to do with politics and him maintaining his popularity, and we should be concerned about it.

Yep so is the bible in his top pocket all the time or did he just have it there to annoy Fielding ? Prize to the first journalist who asks him.

Michael

[Lord Blackadder]

For those of you that missed it:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep05.flv

Transcript will be available from 14:00 on Tuesday 09/03/2010.

[davo]

http://diy.despair.com/output/poster90156363.jpg

[Lord Blackadder]

Nice work Davo! :D

[davo]

#juliebishopdeathstare is trending on twitter lol

[Fearless]

Actually I might have had one of those stares by my own mother one or more than a few times when I was young and 'challenging' it was a good sign to start running.

[GenericBox]

I was frustrated just watching that. It bothers me these people have power.

What frustrates me even more is that from a PR perspective - Dawkins came off shocking - even though he had the most correct/accurate/"right" answers.

He had alot of people won over somewhere in the middle, with cherry picking and what not - but lost it all with the "words" with the Agriculture Minister.

Don't get me wrong - I think Dawkins was right - but the Minister came off more favourable. The public cannot distinguish the truth and disrespect. Truth means arrogance ("You think you know better than me!?") to the public. And the Minister's 'ol "I'm being extremely disrespectful to you, and showing complete ignorance and intolerence - but by criticizing my belief you are being rude!" - Theres a cartoon along the line of that.

Still, the whole "panel" couldn't help but make me facepalm.

[Fearless]

I felt the Minister for Agriculture showed a bit of the occa quite well. :p

[mmurray]

They should have got the Min of Ag on gay marriage. I think he is the one on record as saying men can't marry men because marriage means that men marry women.

Michael

[gruber]

BTW, I loved the "Love treats people equally" or similar shirts on the chaps behind Mr First Question From The Floor.


The equal love shirts.

[NakedApe]

Sure. I'm not saying I disagree with him, I'm saying that he didn't come off as well from that exchange as from the earlier exchanges - from the perspective of PR for atheism, not from an accuracy of statements perspective.

I know, and I agree with you. What I'm getting at however was the over the top reaction of the God botherers on the panel to what was, after all, pretty mild criticism. Religious theists are often quick to label anyone who questions their beliefs, however politely, as "disrespectful" and claim they are being "attacked" or "ridiculed". It's a cynical ploy to silence opposition - after all, who wants to be seen as disrespectful or bigotted? It reminded me of the way Islamists (and their Western apologists) accuse anyone who criticises Islam in any way of "Islamophobia". I thought it was a shame that the opportunity to discuss the hyper-sensitivity of theists to criticism and to question why we as a society still give a free pass to the fake virtue of faith was ignored. I'm sure RD would have had plenty to say on the matter, but he wasn't given the chance.

[Ateo]

I enjoyed the show a lot.

Dawkins, as someone already said, was on fire.:D

Even the exchange about the new Testament left Bishop and the other moron looking like idiots.

Most people haven't actually stopped to think about the fundamentals of religion, like the torture and sacrifice of god's son that turned out to be himself.

When you put it plainly most believers feel confronted, and a natural thing to say is they are offended, but the message sinks in eventually, it did for me.

At least there was agreement about Intelligent Design in the panel, that is to not teach it in science schools, that is good.

Also the comparative religion statements were good.

[mmurray]

I thought it was a shame that the opportunity to discuss the hyper-sensitivity of theists to criticism and to question why we as a society still give a free pass to the fake virtue of faith was ignored. I'm sure RD would have had plenty to say on the matter, but he wasn't given the chance.

When I was a kid people always said things like `don't argue about religion or politics'. It would have been good to try and get the panel to talk about why politics is now ok but they don't think religion is. I also was interested in the fact that Burke thought it was ok to joke about Richard's non-belief in heaven at the end. An atheists beliefs of course are not off bounds.

Michael

[NakedApe]

I also was interested in the fact that Burke thought it was ok to joke about Richard's non-belief in heaven at the end. An atheists beliefs of course are not off bounds.

Michael

Too true... Burke is probably still completely unaware of his own hypocrisy in demanding respect while refusing to give it. What a tool.

[OzAtheist]

on the Dawkins disrespect/arrogance, I've asked the question (before I'd seen this thread) on this thread: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4255

Would appreciate your thoughts.

[Peter A]

I noticed Richard Dawkins staring at the ceiling a lot during the course of this program. He must have been very annoyed and frustrated, being surrounded by such stupidity (i.e. Fielding, Bishop - appropriate name - and that idiot of an Agriculture Minister, Burke).

All he (Dawkins) did was try to point out the, rather obvious, idiocies in the Bible, and for this he was - pardon the pun - practically crucified. I had to feel sorry for him, he looked very uncomfortable. He must have been relieved when it was all over.

[Seamus]

I loved it!

Dawkins was in top form,he's nothing if not mentally quick on his feet and highly skilled at being aware of his audience. I thought his criticisms were rather mild; EG: He could easily have torn that woman a new one when she started rabbiting on about respecting the beliefs of others..-- And I thought he was quite gentle with 'the gentlemen of Middle Eastern appearance' who seemed to be a little out of their intellectual depth.

I respected how Dawkins declined to comment about the refugee issue on the grounds of ignorance. Obviously no politician.

I loved the death stare from what's her name, unwisely attempting to bully the audience. (without success) What a great photo! I bet Labor just can't wait to use that against her in the next election.

That Family First drongo reinforced every negative thought I've ever had about that scary political party. I'd like to think his performance cost them a few thousand votes,but I guess that's too much to hope.

I really liked the rabbi; smart,tolerant and articulate. (I'd do her in heartbeat):p

[Fearless]

His name escapes me right now but I do believe the host is non religious. I don't think he would have let Richard take a hammering anyway.

I read his staring at the ceiling as a gathering of thoughts or focusing on what was being said. Respect to him for his response to the boat people question. It was heart felt I thought.

[Homosapien]

Felt sorry for Dawkins. 5 believers to 1 non-believed. That's horrible odds. Some other non-believers on the panel would have been nice.

It always amazes me how the believers can talk about requiring to 'respect' others and their beliefs, when they are the biggest perpetraters of not giving 'respect' and tolerating other peoples views and beliefs. They are often the most intolerant towards anyone not like them.

Dawkins could have asked them where their 'respect' for homosexual rights for marriage were. And that's only the tip of their 'Intolerant Iceberg'. But I think he knew that the show was time limited and that not a great deal would be achieved in such a short time scale. I think he did a pretty good job in the end.

Overall, I enjoyed the show. :)

[davo]

here's a repost of stuff I wrote about this :

Dawkins seemed to get the religious folk in a bit of a huff with this comment :RICHARD DAWKINS: The New Testament – you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn’t think of a better way to forgive humanity’s sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that? I agree wholeheartedly in Dawkins opinion, I would however of cut to the quick and said something along the lines of “It’s not much of a sacrifice to send yourself to suffer a couple of days pain, as a supreme being, knowing you are going to be raised again to spend eternity as a ruler in heaven”.
Anyway this got Julie Bishop a bit riled then Tony Burke jumped on the bandwagon both claiming ‘being ridiculed’, but anyway read for yourself, let’s follow what happened next reproduced here for your convenience :JULIE BISHOP: No, I’m saying that what disturbs me about this debate and we see it often is that there are extremes. And whenever I see extremes I’m concerned.

RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul’s view, which is accepted by Christianity. That’s why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity’s sins. If it’s extreme, it’s not me that’s being extreme, it’s the new testament that’s being extreme. He is very right there, Dawkins did not ridicule religion, he outright said his view that the notion embroiled in the christian doctrine is depraved. What kind of moral teaching is it to have someone tortured and executed for forgiveness of sins? It’s a horrible notion, totally lacking moralistic basis and you would think a supreme being that was omni-benevolent by it’s very nature would and could not do such a thing. Why not just forgive them? Why go through a process so .. depraved, as that?TONY JONES: No, well, I’m going to jump in here, because is that not a story of sacrifice and therefore has something admirable attached to it which is the opposite of what you suggested?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it’s admirable? You think it’s admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?

TONY JONES: That is the Christian view obviously.

RICHARD DAWKINS: That is the Christian view. If you think that’s admirable, you can keep it. Indeed. Nothing said here other than his opinion on the claims, for which he was directly asked if he thought it was admirable, of course he does not, either do I.TONY JONES: Okay. Tony Burke, first of all, quickly?

TONY BURKE: I don’t think your ridicule of people’s faith is much better than what you’re criticising. I really don’t.

RICHARD DAWKINS: But I just stated it. I didn’t ridicule it. I simply stated it. AHA! that little gem of the religious lately, anything that goes against their concepts is ridicule. He asked a question which contained a clear representation of his impressions of the concepts.
Let’s look at the dictionary definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ridicule) :

n. Ridicule
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing: “I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon” (Dorothy Parker).

tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.
[French, from Latin rdiculum, joke, from neuter of rdiculus, laughable; see ridiculous.]

Tony has taken Richard’s opinion after direct questions, because they differ wildly from his as ridicule. This is just simply wrong. Dawkins was not at all trying to make a joke about it.TONY BURKE: No. No. No. No. Sorry, if you go back over the words you used, once you’re stating it you did then ridicule it. You did. And if you want to look at the challenges and the conflicts and making a community around the world work together, then the level of respect that so many religions have not shown for each other absolutely needs to be lifted and your level of respect and tolerance could probably be a bit better too. Well there you go, really his comments are about this :

“What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

That’s opinion on your claims Tony Burke, not ridicule. The way you deal with stark difference over your opinion says a lot for how you actually view your opinion held. If you have to call it ridicule you obviously feel that there must be something underlying your concept that lends itself to that. This does not mean Dawkins actually did it. You just perceive it that way.
Would you say the same thing if we switch the topic?

“You think blah blah should happen with regard the boat people! What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

Would you then turn to another in political belief, and say they are ridiculing your position? Would it be ridicule? No. It is vastly differing opinion get over it.RICHARD DAWKINS: Let me answer that. Let me answer that. I did not more than state the Christian doctrine and Tony then said, “That is the Christian doctrine. Isn’t it admirable.” People said, “Yes, it’s admirable.” So how is it disrespectful if I simply state what it is and half the audience think it’s admirable? What’s disrespectful about stating it?

TONY BURKE: Press rewind, hear your own words. You have changed them.

TONY JONES: Okay.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I have not. Tony Burke that was a lie, he didn’t change the words, he didn’t ridicule, he just didn’t realise that you actually can’t deal with a difference of opinion when it comes to religious belief.

[Tent]

I watched the entire Q and A yesterday and a few things stood out.

1. Don't get politicians to represent their religion in a debate. This is a reason why they try (mostly) to leave religion out of politics. Their job is not to defend their religion. Leave it to the religious experts, but they really should have had a better response. Difficult to do especially if you don't want voters to be off side.

2. When Richard Dawkins said that it was a depraved notion to be tortured and executed for the sins of humanity, he was correct. There is no controversy here. Crucifixion was not meant to be a heroic death, but reserved for the criminals and traitors of Rome. The main point here is to understand the reason behind it: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

3. People who believe in religion are no better than atheists and this argument should not be used to say that religious people are more moral than atheists. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3) Therefore, we are all alike - religious or not and history proves this time and time again.

Thanks for listening to my views and I believe that a healthy discussion and debate is much better than abject apathy!

[Praxis]

Hi Tent, and welcome to the foums :)

You might like to put up an introduction post about yourself in our New Members forum, so people can drop by and say hi and we can all get to know a bit about you.

It's also a good idea to read the forum rules, which can be found here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=12, particularly about proselytising. Not saying you have done this, just that it's always good to be informed of the rules of a forum when one joins. Also have a look around and get a feel for the place.

You will see that we have a forum called Fantasy Island, which is a place specifically for those of faith to discuss their views and beliefs.

We look forward to seeing you around the place and hope you enjoy your time here.

[davo]

Welcome to the forum Tent :) good post, tho I have a question as posed in my own post above.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

How is this really a sacrifice? Jesus is god yes? He didn't 'give his son' to anything, he knows all, knew that for a bit of pain that his son (himself) would be resurrected and spend the rest of eternity .. eternity is LOOOONG in the bliss of heaven.

That's not sacrifice to me, it's just having a barborous act performed.

How is this sacrificing anything? Wasn't jesus resurrected? Wouldn't god have known that being omniscient?

[atheist_angel]

I believe that a healthy discussion and debate is much better than abject apathy!I do too, Tent. I do, too. :(

I also think there would be a lot less blind faith in the world, if everybody took the time to engage in such discussions... which would be a good thing, IMHO.

[freehead]

Really saddened that Tony Burke was representing the ALP on Q&A

Can someone tell me, who are the politicians in Australia who've had the guts to stand up and say they are atheists?

It seems like there are more pollies proud to say they are climate change skeptics, than atheists.

[Ateo]

The main point here is to understand the reason behind it: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

Hi Tent,

I have always wondered what is the reason behind, I have asked many people and never get a clear answer, so could you please give me yours?

This is the thing, the character called God sent himself to be tortured and suffer pain for a couple of days and then went back home in heaven, he did that to free someone from their sins. The question is: who is the people liberated from their sins, the people in that town at the time, the people born before that time or all the people that ever existed?

And in any case what does that free you from? does it mean that whoever has been freed from sin due to that action will be freed forever and can do as they wish with no consequence anymore?

Even if that character comes back again, what would happen? because as far as I understand he will judge everyone, but also everyone is forgiven so why the trial then??

My head hurts Tent, please help:confused:

[Loki]

@Davo

Quote off the old RDF, can't remember who but someone here might know. I'm paraphrasing.

"Crucified, dead for 3 days, then eternal life. Thats not a sacrifice, that's giving up a long weekend."

[Ateo]

@Loki

thanks mate, but hopefully Tent will give his explanation (if he hasn't been sent to Fantasy Island already;))

[DomOnline]

If KRudds alleged creationism turned out to be true, would I be right in assuming then that he doesn't genuinely acknowledge the odd 40,000 years of Aboriginal inhabitance of Australia seeing as he believes the universe to only be a quarter of that age?

[Fearless]

Dom, you would be suggesting there is some amount of hypocrisy in faith and politics?

Say it isn't true!

;)

[DomOnline]

I agree that Fielding may have been talking out of his hat (I did say 'alleged'). Throughout Fielding seemed unprepared and cautious about what he said, like he'd never been questioned on this before. His constant name-dropping of Rudd was most likely a move (intentional or not) to say, "look out, I've got the big man behind me on this".

Regardless, I really hope he gets reeled in for it, I'm sure Rudd didn't want Fielding ejaculating his name all over the place in that discussion just weeks after he had very clearly told Laurie Oakes that he does accept evolution.

[owheelj]

Given that a number of Aboriginal activists (admittedly fairly conservative ones) have come out in favour of the intervention, I don't think you can use that as evidence of his opinions regarding Aboriginal people. The intervention was clearly bought in as a solution to a terrible problem, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that it was motivated by anything other than genuine concerns. That doesn't mean I support it, nor do I know enough about the situation to be able to put forward a meaningful response as to whether it's the best approach that could be taken to the problem or not, but it's obviously genuine.

It really bothers me how frequently deconstructionist philosophy is used in trying to explain the world. Evoking some kind of conspiracy or hidden agenda is ridiculous. Politicians have two agendas; 1. Do what is best for the country. 2. Get elected. You can debate the order of those priorities, but it's a chicken and egg kind of debate.

[Fearless]

owheelj, I know you are passionate about politics so i am not going to go head to head, but if i could only believe there are only 2 points of agenda for a political party and how clean cut point 1 is. I admire your 'faith' in the system but how many decisions are made that are actually in the countries best interests, is something that could be debated until the cows come home.

If they were always doing the right and just thing by the country, by rights one would think they should remain in power surely.

I don't know, both major parties frustrate me now. Time for a change I say.

[KeithW]

I'm watching the Four Corners program on Scientology with iView. Plenty of sad stories but a voice keeps jumping in my head saying "don't blame Scientology, fucking blame yourself".

If they were stupid enough to get involved with these nutjobs, and subject their families to this crap then be it on your own head.

Now having said that it is time to wrap this cult up once and for all.

[Fearless]

Problem is, you blow Scientology out of the water and I have little doubt they will retreat into hiding somewhere in splinter groups.

It has to be done but I doubt it will eradicate it completely... probably goes for most religions. :rolleyes:

[Loki]

If they were stupid enough to get involved with these nutjobs, and subject their families to this crap then be it on your own head.


The trouble is these groups target the insecure, confused and inexperienced. I remember they used to have a shopfront on the main pedestrian route from Central Station to QIT (yes, I am that old, and this is Brisbane for all you foreigners) and they would actively ambush all the first years. I bought their book for a read and then made kicking over their sign part of my daily commute.

In a caring society we have a responsibility to protect people from this sort of thing. I'm not sure where "a responsibility to protect" turns into "do what we say", and therefore not healthy, but it is well above the level where these predators operate.

[kencooke]

I'm watching the Four Corners program on Scientology with iView. Plenty of sad stories but a voice keeps jumping in my head saying "don't blame Scientology, fucking blame yourself".

If they were stupid enough to get involved with these nutjobs, and subject their families to this crap then be it on your own head.



Yes I too had to walk away from the TV half way through after seeing case after case of seemingly intelligent people fall for this con job. They can look out for themselves as far as I am concerned.

However I believe a case can be made for society to come to the aid of the unfortunate children caught up in this. It would seem that members of the public, health professionals, teachers and grandparents have a duty to report such cases to the relevant child protection agencies as they would for any other form of child abuse. Furthermore such agencies should be obliged to take protective action in the interest of the children.

[Annie]

After Julie Bishops death stare into audience I'm rethinking satan
I've been teaching for many years, have lived through having teenagers and have still not managed to ever produce such a venomous stare. Bishop's slip was showing and we saw a glimpse of nasty piece of work that lurks within. I hope the image is plastered all over the place.
Fielding is just a big dumb f*ck. Burke is a big dumb f*ck, with a big mouth, in an akubra. I was embarrassed to be part of the electorate (australia) that voted these idiots into office. :o

[davo]

I've been teaching for many years, have lived through having teenagers and have still not managed to ever produce such a venomous stare. Bishop's slip was showing and we saw a glimpse of nasty piece of work that lurks within. I hope the image is plastered all over the place.

It's not gone unnoticed ;)

s_jKKnO9NE0

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=350346971049

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/09/deathjulie/

http://twitpic.com/17c9t6

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Julie+Bishops+death+stare (about 12,100 entries ;)

[Homosapien]

@davo

Thanks for that. That was fantastic.

ROTFLOL!!! :D :D :D

[Seamus]

It really bothers me how frequently deconstructionist philosophy is used in trying to explain the world. Evoking some kind of conspiracy or hidden agenda is ridiculous. Politicians have two agendas; 1. Do what is best for the country. 2. Get elected. You can debate the order of those priorities, but it's a chicken and egg kind of debate.


I tend to agree with your comments about the intervention. It seems to me to to be a case of historically typical government incompetence when dealing with aboriginal people.

I reject your view of politics apart from the focus on re election. My perception and ideological position is that politics is by its nature amoral. As a practice it is based on one and only one principle "the ends justify the means".

Sincere,idealistic politicians terrify me. Thank goodness I haven't noticed any currently holding elected office in Australia.I'm sure some individuals have their moments.However,overall, the hallmark of the professional politician is mediocrity of intellect and ability as well as a refined moral flexibility. It may safely be said of politicians that they are just like ordinary people only moreso.

[Seamus]

-and the prize of one internet for pithiest, most typical Aussie comment goes to;

"Imagine rooting THAT!" (via one of the links provided by Davo)

I'm so thrilled I could just shit! I'm hoping that 3 second stare and curled bottom lip cost the Libs a few swinging votes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw the Scientology thing too.The I did not find the adult victims sympathetic figures. I felt sorry for young kids who were exploited. However. I'm in no position to judge the level of the intellect or psychological vulnerability of the adults. My perception is that the appeal and hooks are emotional and powerful to the vulnerable and those of modest intellect. (Tom Cruise springs to mind;not very bright and a damaged human being)

I've had limited experience with Scientology. I was once approached in the street by a young man who did not initially identify himself as a Scientologist. He claimed to be conducting a survey and began asking personal questions EG "Are you happy? Wouldn't you like some one to make decisions for you?" (I answered "Yes" ,"No") I soon became suspicious and took a look at his clip board.It was blank ,with what appeared to a few chicken scratchings. It was was then I confronted him and he admitted being a Scientologist. I said some unkind things, ending with 'fuck off!'

Today if approached in person or by phone a survey,I tell them I charge $2.60 a minute for my time.That fixes that.:p

[A Monkey Shaved]

You know what I think, there is not a whole lot of votes in atheism even though I would quite happily vote for an atheist just on the basis they appear to be generally more sincere than theists; I just wish more people could be aware of that. But after listening to Fielding's affirmation for creationism and how much of a ridiculous clown he made of himself by stating that, there would surely be far few votes in creationism. In fact unlike the USA where creationism could be promoted as a political strength in this country it is political poison. Unlike 40% of Americans, virtually all Australians do not believe in talking snakes like Senator Fielding does.

[Seamus]

Unlike 40% of Americans, virtually all Australians do believe in talking snakes like Senator Fielding does.


Really? WOW! I didn't know that. I don't actually know anyone at all who takes Genesis literally. (that icludes Adam and Eve, Noah, The Tower Of Babel,Sodom and Gomorrah, etc)

Be thrilled to learn of your evidence for such a startling claim.

[loubert]

Please tell me you where refering to politicians..............

[nari]

Unlike 40% of Americans, virtually all Australians do believe in talking snakes like Senator Fielding does.
Umm..do you mean talking snakes re religion and Genesis? Or something else? If it's the former, methinks you are seriously deluded...or something.

nari

[A Monkey Shaved]

" 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. "




I have argued with a few fundamentalist Christians who take that very literally and they truly believe snake initially created with legs and God punished the snake for telling Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.



http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg


Just for fun I just googled "Christianity" and and clicked on images and this was the second image that appeared

[A Monkey Shaved]

Dear Mr Monkey: The issue is not the fairy tale, but the "virtually all Australians do believe in talking snakes like Senator Fielding does" bit.

If you have a reputable source of a figure to show this is true regarding "virtually all Australians", may we please see it?

I would hope that wildly pulling figures out of the ether was not the way we do things.

Even wildly ambitious claims by our foes
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/moral-values-deficit-in-australian-government/7803.htmas shown in the quarantined link above, claim only 64%...


Your "virtually all" is at odds with this.

Sorry:o I made a serious typographical error in leaving out the word not :o. I have just corrected it. I sure makes a big difference.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Dear Mr Monkey: The issue is not the fairy tale, but the "virtually all Australians do believe in talking snakes like Senator Fielding does" bit.

If you have a reputable source of a figure to show this is true regarding "virtually all Australians", may we please see it?

I would hope that wildly pulling figures out of the ether was not the way we do things.

Even wildly ambitious claims by our foes
http://au.christiantoday.com/article/moral-values-deficit-in-australian-government/7803.htmas shown in the quarantined link above, claim only 64%...


Your "virtually all" is at odds with this.

Sorry:o I made a serious typographical error in leaving out the word not :o. I have just corrected it. I sure makes a big difference.
I meant Unlike 40% of Americans, virtually all Australians do not believe in talking snakes like Senator Fielding does.
How embarrassing:o

[Annie]

Phew! You havent been back on the mainland for very long at all!! I was beginning to think you were fond of island living. Of all the words to omit!!
(ignore the signature - it's not you). :)

[A Monkey Shaved]

Phew! You havent been back on the mainland for very long at all!! I was beginning to think you were fond of island living. Of all the words to omit!!
(ignore the signature - it's not you). :)

It will teach me to read it more carefully next time. For a while I could not work out what the fuss was about until I read what I posted through again and thought :mad: how could I post some such stupid error.

[ozeb]

I watched QandA the other Monday and found Dawkins to be by far and away the best debater. No one else came close. I also believe Tony Burke to be very wrong when accusing Dawkins of ridicule. I sense that Dawkins was brassed off by the quality of the debate.
The biggest disappointment was Steve Fielding who wasn't prepared to tell anyone what he believed in.
However, the subsequent news item regarding Dawkins' put-down of Fielding was most surprising.
Quote:-


Dr Dawkins's comments about Senator Fielding were reported by the ABC broadcaster Robyn Williams, who also addressed the convention yesterday.
"I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words," Williams said in his introduction.
"Senator Fielding. Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful."


Dawkins has always had a reputation of being mild mannered and polite compared to, say, Hitchens and for him to make such a statement about Fielding was disappointing to say the least.
Does anyone share this view?
And was Robyn Williams right to reveal what was possibly a private conversation? I don't know the circumstances about that utterance. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Loki]

People are prone to making little jokes when amongst friends. I'd like to think this was the case last weekend and these comments show we are indeed starting to come together as a community. These are in-jokes, acts of solidarity, and in the case of the conference I think should be seen as nothing more and a good thing in the greater context.

[davros]

People are prone to making little jokes when amongst friends. I'd like to think this was the case last weekend and these comments show we are indeed starting to come together as a community. These are in-jokes, acts of solidarity, and in the case of the conference I think should be seen as nothing more and a good thing in the greater context.

I agree. Also, its not like Dawkin's talk or the conference would have been reported more sensibly if Robbyn Williams hadn't made the comment.

Possibly, this remark might have lead to more media mentions of the conference (by media who consider it newsworthy where more considered statements are not).

I could also speculate that many Australians might agree with the description of Fielding and may even be interested to find out more about the people who made the comment.

[heresy]

I just made this little clip


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI00dqOcbzU

iI00dqOcbzU

I'll post it in the youtube thread... just put it here as its a direct quote from the Q and A section...

i had 5 minutes on my hands ... and well... you get my drift...