After the debacle that was the previous show on Atheism, CNN received an enormous amount of criticism. As a result, they booked Richard Dawkins to clear the air a little. Unfortunately Dawkins was not present and was there via satellite just to make a statement. He was not part of the panel.
The panel this time was a little better. There was an actual Atheist present and an extremely annoying Christian who repeatedly interrupted everyone. He just kept badgering the Atheist lady about not having morals. He just kept asking where did she get her morals from if it wasn’t the Bible. Ignorant to say the least.
Thanks to onegoodmove for the video! My SageTv missed it :(
Richard Dawkins
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
CNN Panel
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
- Richard Dawkins — The God Delusion
- John Safran Takes Atheism On The Road, Mormon Style!
- Atheists Under Attack On CNN
Here are some morals strait from the holy bible it self like you said Mr. reverend.
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)”
Now if you’ll excuse me I off to purchase me some Canadian slaves.
With the US dollar doing as poorly as its been, I think we need to look at some different countries where the dollar is doing better. Europe is out because the Euro is kicking the dollars ass.
Anyone have suggestions?
gasmonso
The idea that 5 minutes of rapid-fire accusations from all sides is in any way a justified method of displaying such a complex issue simply appalls me.
At least this time they had an atheist on the panel, but even then, she couldn’t answer questions properly (such as “Where do atheists get their morals from?”) because the answer is so contrary to what people in America want to hear that her only option was to ignore it or get cut off in mid-argument when the time ran out.
That was really a travesty.
And here I thought that the world’s religious problems could be resolved in 5 minutes ;(
Here’s a salute to the American media and their in-depth coverage!!
Actually, can anyone outside the US describe how religious issues are talked about in the mainstream media in their respective countries? I for one would like to know.
gasmonso
First off, Dawkins is Jesus.
Second, Imposing Lifestyles! I would like to kick every preacher of a church that has advertising, a tv show or some 40 foot sign out back, in the nuts.
Third, hehe and most importantly… Canadian slaves are a poor buy; we’re a washy mix of asians, natives and paki’s. You’d get more out of your money buying Mexicans; but on the down side, we grow better weed. But the way our dollar is looking these days, I think I’ll be shopping out shopping for Americans pretty soon.
I’m just learning about all this World debt stuff, what our “Federal” taxes and such pay for. It’s uhh, kind of a crock of shit eh. America and world governments all over need to stop paying income taxes on Federal Debt right now. (For many of you, this may mean much, much more fornication and free time)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TljEe0Dzemc
^^ The looking glass I was, um, refering to…
@ gasmonso
“how religious issues are talked about in the mainstream media in their respective countries?â€
To understand how Norwegian mainstream media handles religion you need to understand a few things about Norway first.
1. In my country close to none would think of challenging for example evolution, evolution is taken as a fact. Challenge it in open media and you would have a bunch of scientist picking your argument apart for 30-45 minutes (this is the normal show time for such a program). Debating evolution has been tried a few times but today the religious people do not oppose it openly anymore because they know they can not back up their claims, so getting a debate going is hard.
2. The same, as point 1, goes for a lot of different stuff. When it comes to fundamental issues few will debate it because they know that if they can not back up their claims, or at least, find a few good arguments, they will not be able to win any debate because any argument that only refers to the bible will not be accepted among the panel or by their viewers.
3. In any situation where religion plays a main part, the public will often side with the secular forces, and they will voice their opinion. For this reason Norway have actually been awarded the prize of being the most anti-Israel nation in the world by the Israeli government, mainly because the public opinion do not accept claims that is based on scriptures and not facts.
This doesn’t mean that religion have no voice in media, they are indeed a part of it, but then as:
1. Moral/ethic(what a priest do for a living) input to a general debate.
2. When debating stuff that is already tainted by a good/bad angle from the start, for example stem cell research, in such debate the religious people will bring in their big guns to tip the outcome to their side.
These are the two main areas where religion plays a part in Norwegian mainstream media. There is a third and fourth angle where religion is brought into media, but these is more seldom, and that is when:
3. Some religions inner playground is leaked into the media
4. When some far out priest think that he will scare us into believing.
In the first instance(3) a priests/spokesmen will enter mainstream media to do damage control and in this process find himself under fire from different angles, but often the media will restrain the firing squad so that the spokesman is able to explain his side of the story. In the second instance (4) we end up having a good laugh at the “holy mans†expense ïŠ In this last instance the Norwegian broadcasting agencies have sometimes been involved to save the preacher from himself. Last time the Norwegian broadcasting agencies was involved a female reporter attacked an anti-abortion/ anti-gay priest on her show so fiercely that it wouldn’t have been aired if it wasn’t broadcasted live.
The “Atheist Lady” is Ellen Johnson, President of the American Atheists. Their tv-show/podcast Atheist Viewpoint is entertaining on occasion (although, they should fire their sound technician) and often covers this same issue.
I had the honor of meeting Ellen Johnson in person at a Washington Area Secular Humanists meeting, and found her to be a most capable and confident speaker. It is extremely disappointing that she was dragged down to this little mudslinging exercise where she could not make a complete and reasoned discourse without facing inane questions. She also made one critical error of disagreeing with Dawkins when she without being allowed to properly represent her position. Nor was she even given the chance to explain the origins of secular morals and ethics. At the very least, Dawkins came off incredibly strong, although somewhat because he had the stage to himself and was not being constantly badgered. Overall, I fear this was all a big waste of time for all parties involved.
On a side note, ever notice how this sort of arena shapes the debate content? When asked a question, nobody can simply answer it. They have to scatter the answer through a variety of statements that are somewhat losely connected to the intended answer just to get a word in. It makes it appear that everyone is trying to dodge the questions and follow their own tack. In these circumstances, they would have never simply allowed Dawkins to speak and the rest of us listen. (Never mind he is very well educated and greatly experienced, and we would all do well to shut up now and then to let him speak.) Instead, a predefined set of questions were asked that severely limited his ability to properly convey the viewpoint. In other words, the respondents must struggle out of their constraints to properly inform the listener. Needless to say, this is an inefficient and ineffective method of engaging the public.
Of course, my first link to Wikipedia should have actually contained the reference. The location I intended to use was “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Johnson”. Could an administrator possibly correct my error and delete this post? ;)
Gotta say, Dawkins somes across as being a lot less angry in person. I also have to disagree with his statment that religious folks don’t live this life to the fullest because of our anticipation of the next. I’d be interested in knowing why he thinks that (or any of you for that matter). If it just boils down to not doing things we find immoral then okay, but is that it?
Also why is anyone worried about what the PoA says or doesn’t say?
Speaking of Dawkins, this video is a hysterical critique of his ideas that I found on edge.org. Ultimately, the critique fails, but it is funny nonetheless.
Now if you’ll excuse me I off to purchase me some Canadian slaves.
Sorry but that passage applies only to Israel.
And finally, I actually do side with anyone who wants religious stuff out of school. If I want my kids to have a religious education I have plenty of avenues in that direction.
I have always wondered that, I mean if you are a religious person and wish your child to have same faith, why do you let strangers teach religion to them?
I personally would let children to learn of different faiths as it is done in Scandinavia but not to preach of a faith. They can decide for themselves when they are old enough.
And well the latest local new regarding religion was discussion of female priests and clergy who opposes the idea.
@Scott:
What Dawkins said about living life to the fullest is mostly just empty rethoric that’s intended to have a certain ring of putting atheists in a favourable light to it. Although, one can always point out to religious extremists, who are eager to die, kill or otherwise suffer or cause suffering for their faith. And, I believe, there is a degree to which moderately religious people also tend to, on occasion, make decisions favouring the imagined afterlife over this one; something which, bizarrely enough, may manifest itself as opposition on issues such as assisted suicide in case of terminal illness.
Scott:
Allow me to make a short list of the things you are choosing to abstain from.
- Freaky-ass sex with sexually/mentally liberated people
- Anal sex with sexually/mentally liberated people
- Drugs and Alcohol with sexually/mentally liberated people
- Intelligent conversation… (we don’t count)
- Spandex
- Inner peace
Well, I live in the south (if you can call Florida part of the south) and I can tell you that I know a LOT of people who are living this life as if its only purpose were to prove them worthy of entrance to heaven. Based on my experience with christianity, this is their main goal in life. If that is not living this life for the magical fairyland that comes after, then nothing is.
If I didn’t enjoy the wacky mental contortions believers put themselves through when talking to a non-believer, I swear I would never talk to them. It is exactly like trying to talk a can of paint into just jumping up on the wall by itself. Completely useless. These people are so indoctrinated they are like the borg. Wow, I wonder if the people who created the borg for Star Trek were thinking of religious folk?
I hate to post twice in a row but something I have always wondered but never really asked just needs to be asked. How can ANY semi-intelligent person actually believe in god? It is so fantastic and wacky that it astounds me. There are so many myths to believe in, why do you pick the christian god? The islamic god? Here, let me tell you: Because you were TOLD by someone, usually someone you trust, that it is the way. Your parents. Your clergy. Someone, usually when you were very young and impressionable, told you all this nonsense. Now, I was told all this garbage too. Yet, I rejected it fully around the age of 18. I believe this is when I realized I was an atheist, but I am not sure when I actually stopped believing in god and started thinking for myself.
So, my question is: Why is it that people believe in god when there is more proof that Santa Clause exists than god? Or Bigfoot. There is more evidence for aliens than there is for god. How can you people keep lying to yourselves like that? It really does boggle the mind.
Michael:
From what I hear many parts of Florida (especially those on the interior) can very much be considered -The- South. That’s important because you have to remember that people in the South are, shall we say, different. Not that I want to bash Southerners or anything, but, well, they were the Confederates…and then the big places for continued racism…and then the biggest places for Christianity (no, I’m not equating Christianity with racism). They’re always the loudest patriots. And from what I’ve seen of voting patterns, it’s “all or nothing” with them. First it’s DEMOCRAT all the way, then REPUBLICAN all the way. It’s kind of wierd. I myself live in the Northwest, and it seems like the people here don’t really care. Most religious people I meet are “half-way” Christians in that they go to church and that’s about it. The point is that the people you talk about vary greatly depending on the region. It’s not “The South” for no reason, after all. Also, I agree with you pretty much whole-heartedly in your second post. What we are told (especially when we are young) has to be taken into account.
Notice the way they have the guests standing. That’s showing a lot about their position on the matter.
The two Christians and the host shoulder to shoulder, talking to the one Atheist there…
In case you are interested in TV discussions in Germany:
Most often they will last for about an hour and have a handfull of guests. The shows on the state-owned channels are on the average considered the better ones as they do not depend on the number of viewers as much as the private channels do. They are funded to a good extent by the state and are required to maintain a certain level. Also, after 8 pm, there are no commercial breaks on state-owned channels.
Yet, there are good and bad shows on all kinds of channels, of course. My favourite one is a weekly show on a state-owned channel. On the other hand, one of the shows that disturbs me the most is also on a state-owned channel. Depends heavily on the host and the composition of guests.
Although according to my viewing habits the CNN clips in this post are too fast with the guest hurrying through their answers, I still have the same problem with the German shows. They may be a full hour, it still isn’t enough. If the topic is interesting, why not talk for two hours, giving people some time to explain themselves?!
[Si]dragon complained about the hurrying format forcing the guests to ignore questions and break up their statements into several answers. I must tell you: It doesn’t get much better if you give them more time. I’m actually sick of people (especially politicians) coming to a show for the sole purpose of spreading their message, no matter what the original topic of the discussion was. A good host makes all the difference. My favourite (from the show mentioned above) is a woman called Maybrit Illner. She keeps coming back to her questions and cuts her guest’s speech if they start bullshitting. But of course, she also asks the right questions. I think the questions in the Dawkins interview were entirely stupid (except for the opener “Why are you an atheist?” but that was it). It was all about the christians vs. atheists issue and not about philosophy.
Religion is not a big issue on German TV, as far as I know. There are reports and discussions about lots of issues connected with islam (laden with prejudice, if you ask me), but nothing about the above-mentioned christians vs. atheists issue. The church (especially protestants) doesn’t feel threatened by atheists. They recognise that their flock is decreasing, but they don’t blame it on some kind of atheist campaign. They do freak out when the pope comes over for a visit (the “German” pope, my ass, he’s a vatican citizen now) but get back to daily life when he leaves.
Also, similar to Norway described by NewOne, the clergy is invited to discussions about ethical issues, stem cell resarch being the perfect example.
Now I’d like you Americans to answer a question: Is this clip from CNN typical for discussions on US television? Especially: Is the length of the clip the length of the total discussion? I hope it is not.
And Richard Dawkins, besides my criticism of the interview, doesn’t look so smart to me. His “there is no proof for God” argument misses the point of belief. Belief implies no proof. There’s no proof for God but there’s also no proof for not God. It is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist. So we are left with three choices:
1) Believe in God (or Gaia or a rebirth system, I don’t care). You may do so because of having been told but maybe with age you will find good reasons for keeping up you faith.
2) Give in to your incapability to know anything, call yourself an agnostic.
3) Don’t believe in God.
As long as the choice is made according to a certain reason that accounts for you and you don’t impose your belief on others, what’s wrong with that? Dawkins should accept that belief in science and reason is also belief. In my opinion, science does not interfere or compete with religion and religion does not interfere or compete with science. I was a christian but I chose not to believe in God. Simply for feeling better. The choice is not more rational than the choice of believing in God.
I must admit that all I know about Dawkins is the clip from this post and a newspaper article. So correct me if he has already stated something pointing in this direction.
Shaze,
Religious people aren’t necessarilly required to abstain from any of those things. I like my sex life just fine. I drink and smoke what I want. I get plenty of intelligent conversation, don’t like spandex and don’t have the body for it, and I suspect that anyone who says they have achieved “inner peace” just isn’t paying attention.
Hallo atheist,
Viel Dank for sharing. I’m sorry to report that the CNN clip is typical of American television when discussing issues. Public radio is better. Perhaps Public television (we have only one station) is as well, but I don’t watch it.
Why didn’t Dawkins go for the jugular? When asked “Why do you think [certain religious types are] so remarkably intolerant of atheists?”, I’d've replied, “Because they love the money and the power!”
athiest:
There may not be any *proof* against a god, but there is plenty of evidence that the current major world religions are false. Stealing myths and rituals from one another, laughable creation myths, incorrect history, incorrect science, persecution of people who spread provable facts. And if belief requires no proof, why are so many Christians hellbent on finding “proof” of Creationism? Because they, as they have since their inception, fear reality, fear knowledge, fear science, and fear truth.
I don’t exist. Move on, get a life.
You don’t believe in science. The whole point of science is that it works without your input.
This leads us to the classic slogan: “Science. It works, [female dogs].”
Science is all about proof, which is why it shapes my opinions. Science can be demonstrated. For example, the science of ballistics was developed by firing cannon again and again with different elevations and different charges. Eventually, it allowed us (I am a US citizen, and relatively proud of my country, regardless of our fallacies and idiosyncracies)to get to the Moon. Science either conditionally accepts or conditinally does not accept a certain idea based on available facts. When new facts come to light, theories are revisited and revised. For example, science does not accept that there is a Bigfoot. If we found evidenc of a bigfoot (such as bones or — gasp! — an actual specimen), that would change. Until then, you can go look all you want, and believe in Bigfoot all you want, but science conditionally rejects the idea of there being a Bigfoot. This is part of my problem with America (and larger portion of the world than you might at first imagine . . .): a misunderstanding of how science works.
And, by the way, Dawkins did all right, considering the limited time he was allowed. I would like to see the industrialized world in general get away from the “faster! faster! faster!” philosophy of doing things. In that respect, I do admire the ancient Jewish concept of “Selah,” or “a pause to reflect.” It might help people to remember to listen and consider first, and then respond. Unfortunately, too many folks are just waiting for you to stop talking so they can speak again. I include Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians in this criticism; in my experience, they are all too much like Americans (both North and South)in this regard. And I’ve met a good many, from many different countries and cultures.
You made various good points there. I did a search on the subject and found a good number of persons will have the same opinion with your blog.