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

← British Book Awards shortlists 2007

British Book Awards shortlists 2007 - Comments

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 1 by -TheCodeCrack-

Go Richard! You can do it. It's a great book. Your easily the smartest person in the list, but that catergory probaly dosn't win as many awards as it should. Never-the-less, goodluck to you, and I hope you win, but, if you don't, I'll be very dissapointed in you Rich, very dissapointed!

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:40:00 UTC | #22459

VanYoungman's Avatar Comment 2 by VanYoungman

One day, just one day MAYBE,

The Nobel for Literature.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:25:00 UTC | #22468

faouloki's Avatar Comment 3 by faouloki

I would love to see Richard and Judy (the personification of the Daily Mail) interviewing Richard Dawkins about his book if he won.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:27:00 UTC | #22469

davorg's Avatar Comment 4 by davorg

You can vote for your favourites too.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:42:00 UTC | #22471

MartinSGill's Avatar Comment 5 by MartinSGill

I've voted.

Votes close in about 2 weeks time, so get moving... and tell all your rational friends to vote for RD as well :)

They want an email address, so you can't really ballot stuff, not that we'd ever stoop to such practices... hmm.. I'm sure I had a 2nd email account somewhere :P

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:02:00 UTC | #22473

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 6 by Billy Sands

Strange, neither God or the bible got shortlisted. Guess they dont have an infanticidal bronze age mythology award

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:41:00 UTC | #22478

Yorker's Avatar Comment 7 by Yorker

6. Comment #24701 by BillySands

HaHa! I liked it Billy!

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:56:00 UTC | #22479

denoir's Avatar Comment 8 by denoir

One day, just one day MAYBE,

The Nobel for Literature.

Rubbish. The Dawkins personality cult on these boards is really getting to embarrassing levels.

He is a talented and eloquent popular science writer but his works are not literary art. "Book of the year" awards is about the right level or recognition. And I seriously doubt that Dawkins himself has any major literary art ambitions.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:14:00 UTC | #22485

AtheistJunkie's Avatar Comment 9 by AtheistJunkie

Voted. Go Richard.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:18:00 UTC | #22486

LookToWindward's Avatar Comment 10 by LookToWindward

Nobel literature prizes are usually awarded with more than a small nod to how influential the work is, not just its literary quality. Can you seriously rule out RD being considered very highly influential in time? Anyone with three book-length rebuttals to his work has got to be considered pretty influential!

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:46:00 UTC | #22489

John P's Avatar Comment 11 by John P

Reader's Digest Author of the Year Award?

That's ...odd. Reader's Digest is not known for its stance on atheism. It's a very conservative magazine, promoting good old American family values.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:59:00 UTC | #22490

AntonyR's Avatar Comment 12 by AntonyR

I have voted too. Also, I have added this to and emailed all the UK groups, BHA, HAI, NSS, etc and also put this on the Brights Forum.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 07:01:00 UTC | #22491

Homo economicus's Avatar Comment 13 by Homo economicus

Well compared to the other books, TGD should win hands down.

'Rubbish. The Dawkins personality cult on these boards is really getting to embarrassing levels.'

May I draw your attention to the difference between your accusation and hero worship?

'A cult of personality is a term applied to a political institution in which a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. The term often refers as well to leaders who did not use such methods during their lifetime, but are built up in the mass media by later governments.

A cult of personality differs from general hero worship in that it is specifically built around political leaders. However, the term cult of personality is often applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders; an argument could easily be made, however, that the only notable differences to be found between the terms "hero worship," "cult of personality," or even, more simply, excessive admiration are largely in the context of the person making the accusation.'

Hero worship of Richard Dawkins on a Richard Dawkins website. Seems rational that such things will happen.

I do not think we see Dawkins as a political figure. A voice of reason crying out in the wilderness that other people, whether they like it or not, are having to listen too a bit more now.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 07:46:00 UTC | #22498

Bizarro Dawkins's Avatar Comment 14 by Bizarro Dawkins

Wow, I didn't know a book containing little more than strawmen and hyper-dogmatic vitriol was considered higher literature, even in Europe.

You know, I think I'm going to write a book over the summer. I've already thought of a title and cover. I'll call it "Strawman", and there will be a caricature of a strawman sitting in the middle of a white backround with a little target painted on its stomach and a sign around its neck that says "Kristianity". I think the title explains the content well enough. What do you all think about that?

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:01:00 UTC | #22499

Druid's Avatar Comment 15 by Druid

Congratulations Dawkins. Personnally, I enjoyed the success of the god delusion.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:16:00 UTC | #22500

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 16 by Billy Sands

Bizzarro, I actually think you are a retard that is indulging in strawman making of his own. But hey, for hypervitriol, you just cant beat the bible. The bible says that we all deserve to go to hell, especially those nasty moabites that must never enter the congregation of god - you know like the ones Ezra kicked out after reading the law of god. Oh wait, I just remembered, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (one of the few ones Matthew and Luke can agree on. Oh dear, does that mean the whole philosophy that you build your understanding of the universe on is bullshit???????

It would have been nice if you actually had something worth saying, instead of launching into a vitriolic attack - but hey, thats the bible for you. By the way, Does richard deserve to be stoned for saying god almost cetainally does not exist? It's in the Babble afterall. Like I say, Retard!
PS Hear the one about the ot prophecies foretelling that jesus would be born in Bethelehem to a virgin and that he would return one day?
NA?, me neither, they don't exist.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:19:00 UTC | #22502

couldbethelasttime's Avatar Comment 17 by couldbethelasttime


Please don't resort to name calling, it makes your argument less affective. I know it is easy to get angry at people who appear to have not really thought things through. You really are best off ignoring them or engaging them in polite conversation. Perhaps it would be more constructive to ask bizzaro dawkins what strawmen he/she is refering to. Insulting someone for the sake of it makes you sound foolish and rude.
We should try and keep dawkins website from becoming yet another good resource ruined by people who only want to insult each other.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:34:00 UTC | #22503

moudiwort's Avatar Comment 18 by moudiwort

Hello Biza, I'm afraid "Strawman" alone won't do. Better try "Dawkins' Strawman", but please let it be unbeknownst to any potential reader at which higher institution you are gaining your academic merits. ;-)

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:36:00 UTC | #22504

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 19 by Billy Sands


I have come across him before. His only intention is to wind people up, not disuss anything. Therefore, he deserves my contempt.

PS, I'm not angry, I'm just telling it how it is. Do you really think reason will work on someone who comes in and makes a comment like that?

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:37:00 UTC | #22505

Bizarro Dawkins's Avatar Comment 20 by Bizarro Dawkins

Actually Billy, I've carried on numerous civil discussions with those such as Mouthalmighty and Janus. I don't often respond to you because, no offense intended, but there is usually nothing worth responding to in your comments as I think you've demonstrated rather well. I respond only to those who at least express some semblance of an open mind. If someone wants to make themselves look hatefully intolerant and closed-minded, I'm not going to stop them.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:49:00 UTC | #22507

couldbethelasttime's Avatar Comment 21 by couldbethelasttime

I don't think that telling someone that they are a retard will really work either. If they won't listen to any reason then ignore them and let their comments be self evident in their absurdity. If you rise to the bait then timewasters will carry on posting rubbish. I don't think anyone is really interested in your contempt for others no matter how derseved.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:54:00 UTC | #22508

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 22 by Billy Sands

Bizarro, You clearly come to this forum with a closed mind, so dont accuse me of what you are. Tell me was your first post really a loving christian comment? If jesus was real, he wouldn't be happy with you alienating folk with comments like that. It puts people off anything you may have to contribute - which n terms of gods existance so far has been nothing Got a photo? an inerrant book? real prophecies about jesus that have not been contrived? evidence of a 6 day creation? No?
I'm sorry you cant see that biblical problems totally undermine the bible itself. Perhaps this is you puting your head in the sand and hoping it will go away here.

PS, I have had civil debates with civil christians like Shaun, Theo , mark tauton etc and spoken out against those who insuled them. Get the point?
The more junk people publish, the more people will see how absurd faith is.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:01:00 UTC | #22510

couldbethelasttime's Avatar Comment 23 by couldbethelasttime

The more junk people publish, the lower the quality of content on this site.

Perhaps is enough to highlight how absurd faith is without goading people into spouting junk. I would rather see good quality content than junk.

Which people are you refering to when you say "more people will see how absurd faith is?"

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:17:00 UTC | #22513

Ian's Avatar Comment 24 by Ian

Please forgive me Sir Professor Sunshinesthroughyourarse Dawkins (Well, we are supposed to be part of a cult of personality, aren't we?), but I voted for Terry Pratchett as well.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:18:00 UTC | #22514

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 25 by mjwemdee

Well, I thought this thread was starting out to be something we could celebrate, but the last few comments seem to have descended into reciprocal invective...

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:28:00 UTC | #22517

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 26 by Billy Sands

I am refering to those who have doubts about god.
I too would like high quality debate, but people like bizzaro fail to provide it (his bias is clear in his choice of pseudonym). Usually all we see are personal attacks on dawkins, atheist, ignorant mythology, arguements from incredulity and preaching. No positive evidence of god. It would be worthwile debateing only with those who are open minded enough to realise that they may be wrong. Most atheists (myself included) do accept there is a small possibility we could be wrong, however, we see no evidence that we are. As I keep saying, I will re-evaluate my position on evolution if someone shows me an articulated fossil human in the earliest rocks - even with articulated dinosaur fossils would do (half expecting someone to mention the glen rose dinosaur tracks now - check the size of them guys!)
I dont see many theists on this site with that attitude

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:35:00 UTC | #22518

Riley's Avatar Comment 27 by Riley

I wish I could cast my vote for Richard's book without beeing forced to cast votes on a whole gambit of other books and authors that I've never read. And I'm not British either, does that matter?

oh well.

I recommend also reading/voting for:
"The Testament of Gideon Mack" by James Robertson. Great book.


Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:38:00 UTC | #22521

FXR's Avatar Comment 28 by FXR

It should be obvious to anyone reading Bizarro's comments he's a fourteen year old with a spell checker. Some day in the future it will dawn on him that he's been misled. You don't have to know the date because you'll hear the scream......

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:05:00 UTC | #22525

Planeswalker's Avatar Comment 29 by Planeswalker

I voted for Dawkins and his book. I must admit that I haven't quite read TGD yet, but what the hell, it has Richard's name on it...

Riley: I didn't have a problem with not voting on some of the other categories?

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:41:00 UTC | #22532

Henri Bergson's Avatar Comment 30 by Henri Bergson

Dawkins deserves to win, but I think Denoir above has a point. Dawkins does not compare to a writer like Nietzsche – the real anti-christ.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:20:00 UTC | #22545