Ok so I was trying to find out how to submit the Richard Dawkins interview on the Late Late show but since you already have it I guess theres no need.

He also made a brief appearance on "The Panel" which should be viewable here in a day or two: http://www.rte.ie/tv/thepanel/video.html

I understand he is also speaking at a university in Dublin this week if I see a link anywhere I'll send it in.

The Richard Dawkins interview was upsetting in that many people proposed many complex—though very myopic—views about their beliefs and did not allow Richard to fully elaborate on them. In particular was that man that spoke without pause and didn't even allow Richard to answer. Did he just want to vent, or was he seriously awaiting any sort of response? I very much doubt it!

There were questions that were simply preposterous like, "Would you let your child believe in Santa?" The problem with religion is that it teaches people to not see the gradients in things and see the world in absolutes—black and white as it were. Beliefs come in all forms of gradients. To believe in Santa is not the same as believing in the Catholic religion simply because religion, for the most part, encompasses a variety of beliefs and superstitions that deal with many aspects of one’s life: personal morals, hopes and desires, interaction with deities or other ghastly figures, etc.

When an atheist uses the analogy of Santa or the tooth fairy to talk about religion, they do so simply because there is no analogy that is so perfectly going to fit in with the idea of religion. It is used to simply show that people can apply a level of trust and confidence to things for which there is no evidence for but pure conviction and self-assurance. That is why the man who said “narrow view of evidence” is out of his mind. He is now redefining evidence to mean anything that convinces me to accept something must be so. In that case, a person holding a pencil near the edge of either tip and moving their hand up and down to create an image of the pencil flapping its ends is now evidence that it is, in fact, a flexible pencil instead of an optical illusion. If we get back to the idea of Santa, in a sense I am for it. I think it serves as a useful tool to teach children about how vulnerable they are and how easily they can fall prey to ridiculous magical thinking. Fantasies at that age are somewhat inevitable and even some children create fantasies of their own when they, for example, claim to have an “imaginary friend.” What is problematic I think is to carry on this sort of thinking to adulthood simply because they were never taught the difference between reality and falsehoods.

There also was a discussion on “survival of the fittest” and eugenics programs in the United States. Social Darwinism is always thrown out to atheists in order to attempt to debunk Darwinian evolution. Herbert Spencer created the term “survival of the fittest” and it was he, not Darwin, that suggested you can take this form of biology and apply it to social groups. This involves beliefs not science; the belief that one race is superior above all others. In fact, Hitler who is often marked with following Social Darwinism, thought in these terms, but more importantly thought in terms of bloodlines (a Biblical view). I don’t know why people keep using this weak argument to further their point.

In regards to the chubby fellow in the green shirt who just wouldn’t shut us, he corrects (sic) Dawkins about what fundamentalism is by saying that it is, “being intolerant of other people’s beliefs.” Fundamentalism in an unshakable faith in a particular belief or beliefs and to call someone a fundamentalist simply because they reject certain forms of absurdity is ridiculous. Dawkins many be very strident in his scientific knowledge, but this isn’t about trust, its about knowing. We know things because of the ample evidence that exists for it. Whether I believe in evolution or not is meaningless simply because evolution stands on its own two feet given the amount of evidence there is for it. The word “theory” in science stems from evidence and is not to be confused with “theory” in the colloquial sense which is equivalent to pulling and idea out of your ass. All of the information we have about the universe comes form scientific inquiry. We set things in high or low probability given what we have as evidence. So far, nothing convincing exists for the notion of God. If one wishes to continue to fool themselves, that’s their own business, but to call Dawkins a fundie on the basis of not accepting the delusion of communicating with a sky-god is ludicrous.

Dawkins needs to brush up on responses to religious idiots. Here's a good place to start:

Click here, these responses are hilarious!

Thanks for the links Mike and yes if you see anything on the University of Dublin appearance please let me know.