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

cafeeine's Profile

cafeeine's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by cafeeine

More Discussions by cafeeine

Latest Comments by cafeeine

Go to: Why Dawkins's case against religion creaks at every joint

cafeeine's Avatar Jump to comment 81 by cafeeine

Comment 78 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Dawkins (a mere biologist, if not just a zoologist)

James Mackey....a mere theologian, if not a complete prat.

I was going to say that the comment showed Mackey's conviction that he can tell a 'mere biologist' what for, since his subject clearly encompasses everything else, but it could simply be him working his overall angle trying to force RD in a larger claim, one he doesn't, to my knowledge, make.

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:31:18 UTC | #849186

Go to: Why Dawkins's case against religion creaks at every joint

cafeeine's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by cafeeine

"a mere biologist, if not just a zoologist"

I can't help but comment on this, because it gave me pause. Zoology, a specialization of biology is treated as something lesser that it. Does Mackey think a zoologist is the guy who cleans up the elephant cage at the petting zoo?

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:28:14 UTC | #849185

Go to: Happy Birthday to Richard Dawkins

cafeeine's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by cafeeine

Happy Birthday Richard!

Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:22:43 UTC | #607428

Go to: The Real Cost Of Religious Faith

cafeeine's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by cafeeine

Comment 88 by six45ive :

I'm pretty much with DeLogic on his summing up of Jeff and the AE generally.

They could be so much more effective than they realise if they adjust their approach relevent to each individual caller instead of the one dimensional approach of simply trying to appeal to the crass ftw crowd that want another slam dunk from Matt and his colleagues for their YouTube collection.

In the end their approach is pretty ineffective, sending out the message to theists everywhere with more than half a brain cell, that if they come onto the program they're going to get slaughtered with the inevitable result that most theists will just put them on ignore mode leaving the ones with less than half a brain cell to phone in which, let's face it, is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I think Matt and the other presenters do what they do well in appealing to their ftw crowd when they're in their own environment, their comfort zone, and they're controlling the 'Your Done' button but how any one of them would perform out in the real world of having to deal with rhetorical religious bs of experienced debaters who you can't shut up by pressing a button remains to be seen. My guess is that logic, reason and rationality may not be enough.


Your argument would hold more water if they did just have a one-dimensional approach. There is a team of hosts and co-hosts that each have their own style.

I don't know how much exposure you have to the show. It has been going on for a very long time, (there are over 400 hours of airtime available online, and the show has been running since 1997) and Dillahunty has been on the show since 2005. The youtube clips are barely the tip of the tip on the iceberg.

In the fraction of the show Ive watched, I've seen the hosts let people ramble on for hours, with the net result of wasting precious minutes of air time for naked appeals to ignorance or authority. This is a call-in show and the hosts have fruitful conversations with theists when the callers are accomodating. They've had a pastor on the show and even devoted two shows to a discussion with Matt Slick of This is a call-in show and they can't generally choose who wants to call in. If you want to see how Matt reacts outside his "comfort zone" you should look up his recent (first) formal debate (link)

If you are aware of this variety in responses and still stand by your comment I have a question. Since you seem to think the positive results from this experience is the exception that proves the rule, what makes you think a different attitude would have a better result?

Matt Dillahunty has in fact been featured on some years before (link)

Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:10:54 UTC | #596783

Go to: Intolerance breeds intolerance – no matter what religion or race you are

cafeeine's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by cafeeine

Someone who I assume is the author replied to the comments:

Morning, stragglers.

I hadn't intended to turn this thread into a debate about Richard Dawkins. Some posters see in him the same person I see, arrogant, intolerant and, dare I add, lacking humanity in its simplest form. Others defend him in very generous terms. Which goes to show that we have different and legitimate subjective feelings.

I don't think it's fruitful to discuss whether or not Hitler was a Christian. He was the product of provincial late 19th century, very Catholic Austria - Vienna's revenge on Berlin,as AJP Taylor wittily put it. He reacted violently against his unhappy upbringing.

By the same token Stalin had tried out being a monk. Both were clearly atheists who may occasionally have used religion for tactical purposes - much as Saddam Hussein occasionally did, the rogue.

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:50:01 UTC | #576522

More Comments by cafeeine