This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Richard Dawkins is the best argument for the existence of God

Richard Dawkins is the best argument for the existence of God - Comments

Stefan Udrea's Avatar Comment 1 by Stefan Udrea

Of course.Richard Dawkins IS God.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:19:05 UTC | #614122

helena!'s Avatar Comment 2 by helena!

Oh no. Well of course now that he's married to a fundamentalist he is all pro-god. I used to like him now it's confirmed he's an idiot. I will not watch any more of his movies. Ever.

Also it's getting ever so more curiouser and curiouser how everyone is jumping on the Dawkins bandwagon. What's the deal?

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:23:33 UTC | #614127

rrh1306's Avatar Comment 3 by rrh1306

She's a funny kind of fundamentalist considering most of her songs are about getting drunk and then having sex. But I guess that is about par for the course here in America were the only difference between Christains and non-Christains seems to be that they go to heaven and you don't.

Comment 2 by helena! :

Well of course now that he's married to a fundamentalist he is all pro-god. >

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:35:34 UTC | #614130

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 4 by ZenDruid

It should have been titled, 'Russell Brand is the best argument for the existence of Russell Brand'.

Yawn.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:38:03 UTC | #614131

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 5 by Stevehill

For the benefit of our foreign friends, Russell brand is allegedly a comedian, of dubious taste, married to popular chanteuse Katy Perry. He's fallen out with the BBC in a major way over the same incident which ultimately did for Jonathan Ross - "Sachsgate".

Witty, I concede, but what on earth he's doing writing for a serious journal like the New Statesman eludes me. (I think it's one of those "guest editor" things with Jemima Kahn). And it's four months old.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:38:46 UTC | #614132

Cosmicshore's Avatar Comment 6 by Cosmicshore

"Galileo Galilei, the man credited with being the first to point a telescope skyward (all previous users had presumably been Renaissance peeping Toms), speculated that heliocentrism was viable: that the earth likely circled the sun. He was imprisoned for this observation, which, viewed retrospectively (through my invention, the retro-speculars), seems unfair. He was, after all, correct."

Wasn't Galileo Galilei a defender of the model but the model was proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus? Also, Galileo Galilei wasn't the first to use a telescope - though he improved the clarity. Brand makes this sound like Galileo Galilei came up with the idea of heliocentrism by looking through his telescope. Nicolaus Copernicus did not have a telescope.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:42:21 UTC | #614134

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 7 by DocWebster

Why can't you Brits keep your trash in your own bin. We'll keep Laurie and Fry you can take back this git.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:52:10 UTC | #614136

helena!'s Avatar Comment 8 by helena!

I was tempted to go see Arthur but thanks to RD.net for saving me the $. I won't even see it once it comes to cable for free.

The ego on this guy is just insane. I have better book for Mr.Bland to read - try 'Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan

Ignorance feeds on ignorance. Science phobia is contagious.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:52:47 UTC | #614137

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 9 by Linda Ward

Russell Brand is no Bill Maher.

There was a time when the universe did not exist, this we know. We also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. This means that something, not nothing, existed before the universe. We do not know what but there is wonder and intelligence enough to suggest that design may have been a component.

Oh my!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:56:57 UTC | #614141

skiles1's Avatar Comment 10 by skiles1

What R. Brand does in this article is simply confuse traditional atheism with new atheism. For instance: I am actually only an "atheist" in the way Bertrand Russell advised, and Bertrand Russell's argument on that subject is actually an example often used by Richard Dawkins. Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin were both agnostics rather than true atheists. Atheism in the traditional sense denies by demand that there is no "higher being" or "higher beings", which is not at all what Richard Dawkins publicly endorses. Instead, Professor Dawkins recommends that we grasp all the negative connotations associated with "atheist" by their metal; doing so is the most efficient way of ensuring our civil liberties and protecting the civil rights of others from the assigned prejudices of religious doctrines, as well protecting the dignity of science from those religious types who approach scientific discoveries with irreverence.

Russell Brand should have done some research on the subject. I wonder if he doesn't have access to the internet, or what else his excuse might be.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:58:10 UTC | #614143

skiles1's Avatar Comment 11 by skiles1

Comment 9 by Linda Ward :

Russell Brand is no Bill Maher.

There was a time when the universe did not exist, this we know. We also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. This means that something, not nothing, existed before the universe. We do not know what but there is wonder and intelligence enough to suggest that design may have been a component.

Oh my!

He's no Ricky Gervais or Woody Allen or Larry David, either.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:03:07 UTC | #614146

BowDownToGizmo's Avatar Comment 12 by BowDownToGizmo

Comment 7 by DocWebster :

Why can't you Brits keep your trash in your own bin. We'll keep Laurie and Fry you can take back this git.

Sorry, we sort of banished him for being a prick without much though to where he'd end up.

We lent you Hitchens, I think trying to keep Fry and Laurie as well would be a bit selfish, don't you?

Didn't get to finish the article though, was incredibly boring.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:03:26 UTC | #614147

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 13 by MAJORPAIN

This was amusingly written but it seems Mr. Brand already has his answer whether he is willing to "tolerate" other people's musings or not. Unfortunately, what little there was became completely lost at the end. And, yes, what is it about picking on Richard? I saw AC on CNN this morning...short but good interview. Why not pick on him? Spread the crap around a little, why not.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:03:43 UTC | #614148

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 14 by Philoctetes

If I was Richard Dawkins and I wanted to discredit the arguments of my opponents, I'd employ Brand to write an article for the New Statesman.

As Bob Monkhouse once said: " When I said I wanted to be a comedian they all laughed. Wdell they're not laughing now."

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:06:41 UTC | #614149

Zelig's Avatar Comment 15 by Zelig

What shameless drivel. Don't you just love the postmodern left? The subtext to this nonsense is quite clear to anyone acquainted with the agenda of the New Statesman.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:07:32 UTC | #614150

Chrisss212's Avatar Comment 16 by Chrisss212

Comment 2 by helena! :

Oh no. Well of course now that he's married to a fundamentalist he is all pro-god. I used to like him now it's confirmed he's an idiot. I will not watch any more of his movies. Ever. Also it's getting ever so more curiouser and curiouser how everyone is jumping on the Dawkins bandwagon. What's the deal?

Katy Perry is no Fundamentalist Christian. Her parents were. She's closer to the atheist side of the spectrum. She reveals this in many of her interviews. Chill.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:07:39 UTC | #614151

skiles1's Avatar Comment 17 by skiles1

It seems to me Russell Brand's first bit in this article goes too near plagiarizing something Stephen Colbert once said about Bill O'Reilly.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:13:39 UTC | #614154

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 18 by xmaseveeve

Dawkins has always made his views perfectly clear and Brand has completely misrepresented him. He should read 'The God Delusion' and then comment on Dawkins' views on God. This was a very silly article, just like Russell Brand.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:20:23 UTC | #614157

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 19 by Alan4discussion

Through Transcendental Meditation, twice daily I feel the bliss of the divine. Through the mental repetition of a mantra, eventually my chattering monkey mind recedes, gently banishing concerns of the past and drawing the inner eye away from speculation and want. I connect to a boundless consciousness that has no pal­pable relationship with my thoughts, fears or desires. In this impersonal state of awareness.

State of awareness!! Ha! Ha! He's got his head stuck up his transcendentals !

Could a witless miasma of molecules and dust ever have created anything as ingenious and incredible as Richard Dawkins? I don't think so,

No wonder he can only muster incrudulity when it comes to science!

Get the full magazine for just £1 a week with a trial subscription.

Does that mean we can burn it after the trial? I'm sure that's an Xtian tradition these days!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:22:05 UTC | #614158

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 20 by Steve Zara

Witty, I concede

Russell Brand is like someone who once got people to laugh when he was 12 by saying "bum", and decided there and then that he could not match this pinnacle of wit and so hasn't tried. He's now about as funny as going for a root canal operation and then when you sit in the dentists chair you discover you have hemorrhoids. He makes herpes seem intelligent.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:23:10 UTC | #614161

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 21 by Linda Ward

or George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:29:56 UTC | #614163

remijdio's Avatar Comment 22 by remijdio

Nice. Wasted a few minutes reading the same old arguments apologists have been using forever. When I first started reading I thought maybe he was being facetious only to soon find out he's just appealing to the masses. His efforts only prove that being a comedian doesn't equate to credibility unless you propose good ideas. Russel Brand: "HELLO! I THINK DAWKINS IS FULL OF BULLOCKS TOO! LOVE ME AMERICA" Dane Cook: "DUDE I WAS HERE FIRST........FUNANA!!!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:31:32 UTC | #614166

Caivs's Avatar Comment 23 by Caivs

Well well, just a silly piece for MTV´s deist teens. An exotic guy with cliche arguments.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:36:28 UTC | #614169

jel's Avatar Comment 24 by jel

I agree with Steve Zara, Mr Brand isn't remotely funny.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:45:01 UTC | #614175

M D Aresteanu's Avatar Comment 25 by M D Aresteanu

I will never confuse Russell Brand with Tim Minchin ever again.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:50:01 UTC | #614177

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 26 by alaskansee

Did Dawkins have a chance for rebuttal? If the article was named after him and was about him it would seem only fair to allow a response, AKA a round trashing.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:53:06 UTC | #614182

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 27 by AtheistEgbert

Um, Brand was a genius, until his drug fuelled breakdown. Too bad the media lets someone still suffering from mental illness to pontificate his pretentious drivel. Get well soon, Russell.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:53:31 UTC | #614183

kev_s's Avatar Comment 28 by kev_s

Painful to read and some of the comments after the article were even worse. Wish I hadn't.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:03:06 UTC | #614186

chawinwords's Avatar Comment 29 by chawinwords

The human family is a family bent on story-telling. As well, much of humanity never rises intellectually above a pre-adolescent level. All children love stories, even stories that are fantastic and filled with fantasy. Children, at a pre-adolescent stage can believe in Santa Claus with all their heart, but when reaching adolescence, the real world takes precedence and the world of fantasy is turned in for a world that works, the natural world. However, those that don't rise above pre-adolescence, continue to believe that sticks can be turned into snakes, that a person dead for days can rise again, or that a human body can withstand the condensed hydrochloric acid in a fishes stomach for days on end -- and on and on. What these people never do is to mature intellectually, continuing to believe in magic and sorcery, losing the power of skepticism. Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they insist upon joint credibility and respect for their pre-adolescent beliefs and always start their debates within that framework -- it's real because I believe it is real. So, don't waste your time!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:07:26 UTC | #614188

Daniel Schealler's Avatar Comment 30 by Daniel Schealler

I always thought that Brand's comedy rested entirely on shock value: Look at me, I'm a beautiful man wearing high-heel boots and glitter and spouting outrageously. Hilarious!

However, I'm usually far more comfortable with social outliers than I am with the people in the safe and 'normal' middle ground.

So I always though Brand would be someone it would be interesting to shoot the breeze with, and have a few good yarns under his belt. But I never got the whole gawking 'Wow how weird and strange, isn't this man funny' angle. Which utterly kills his comedy.

Also: It doesn't bother me in the least that a comic celebrity endorses God and isn't a fan of atheism. 'Meh,' says I - and I with an absence of passion at that. When it comes to the subject of what is true, a single scornfully raised eyebrow from Ophelia Benson carries more weight than Brand's entire article.

So yeah.

No biggie.

Comment 24 by jel :

I agree with Steve Zara, Mr Brand isn't remotely funny.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:10:38 UTC | #614189