1. Comment #104755 by hayesky on December 29, 2007 at 11:11 am

Well, this is on british t.v., while we in america have 'In god's name' on our tele.

Other Comments by hayesky

2. Comment #104756 by robotaholic on December 29, 2007 at 11:11 am

Professor Dawkins, can I have your autograph?

Other Comments by robotaholic

3. Comment #104763 by Mango on December 29, 2007 at 11:37 am

Autographed photos for sale would be appreciated. I'd buy two, and be happy to do so as a way to fund the Foundation.

Other Comments by Mango

4. Comment #104787 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Don't worry, in Europe they have religious TV shows on tv, too. America isn't the only place where you have to suffer through it. And come to think of it, most of the good programs also come out of the US, too. I've never seen Cosmos broadcast here in Finland. Dawkins interviews on BBC are pretty few and far between... I was lucky to have been tuned to the show then... tried calling in to ask a question, but it seems they only wanted to have questions from the religious. I don't know why... I'd much rather see Dawkins answering a question from a fellow atheist rather than an air head priest.

Perhaps he just needs regular debate practice to keep sharp?

Other Comments by AtheistJon

5. Comment #104793 by AfraidToDie on December 29, 2007 at 12:45 pm

SOSDD, but I still like to keep hearing RD's responses; maybe some day I'll be able to remember them well enough to use them effectively in casual debate. The priest was beyond air head. He really thought he'd catch RD off guard; that's pure stupidity!

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

6. Comment #104802 by robotaholic on December 29, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Professor Dawkins made a good point at the end of the program - he said "you called me an outspoken atheist but you didn't call the Pope an outspoken christian"- it made the moderator grin because it is true.

Other Comments by robotaholic

7. Comment #104816 by Matt7895 on December 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Ah, thank you for the reposting of this. I think Richard did rather well, but then again most of the questions were the same old claptrap.

Other Comments by Matt7895

8. Comment #104820 by lorderan on December 29, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Hey Guys,

Can someone make this file into a torrent. Can't for the life of me download it.

Thanks

Other Comments by lorderan

9. Comment #104830 by someguy435 on December 29, 2007 at 3:24 pm

YouTube links:

part 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=wUGTAFKQLgw
part 2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=6KsarwzUNfs
part 3 http://youtube.com/watch?v=y2ewlBFhuBo
part 4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=CRBW6BpWcTY
part 5 http://youtube.com/watch?v=yIKZCwdVwKY

Other Comments by someguy435

10. Comment #104831 by someguy435 on December 29, 2007 at 3:25 pm

YouTube links:

and part 6 http://youtube.com/watch?v=OImksBf_71s

Other Comments by someguy435

11. Comment #104834 by ASonOfLiberty on December 29, 2007 at 3:34 pm

I would love to buy auto'd photos from my hero!

Other Comments by ASonOfLiberty

12. Comment #104836 by scooternyc on December 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm

The gay priest from FoxNews is condescending and attempts to discredit RD, did anyone else pick up on that one?

Did you notice how his volume on his voice changed when he went into "preaching" mode?

Other Comments by scooternyc

13. Comment #104843 by Shane Williams on December 29, 2007 at 4:27 pm

They always ask the same questions! Just read the books people!

Other Comments by Shane Williams

14. Comment #104846 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 4:34 pm

The highlight of the show was when the ignorant guy from Poland (sounded like he was African) asked what RD would do if, when he dies, he found out there was a god. RD's answer was perfect. i.e. he'd ask, "Which God are you?".

That was a wonderful example of confronting an idiot of the world with a perfect retort. The reaction was tremendous confusion. He also ignored RD's comeback question, "What would you do if you died and found out that there was Baal?" Once, I would like to see a religious blindman, say something like, "Oh yeah, I see your point." Instead, they either take it as an insult, or start speaking in blitherish, as in this case.

Yes, the same questions get asked over and over. Or to be more accurate, they are stuck with the same answers. Rather than questions with no answers, the religious prefer answers with no questions. At least they won't answer your questions, especially if they are good ones like RD's. But, as Hitchen's would say, why should you expect them to change? They've been using the same stale ideas for several thousand years.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

15. Comment #104849 by decius on December 29, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Richard's expressions while the nutbags speak are priceless.

Other Comments by decius

16. Comment #104859 by joeyoap on December 29, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Jon-Nobody has to suffer the religious shows that infect the airwaves because of an amazing censorship device known as the TV remote control.I do occasionally tune in though for comedy value.

Other Comments by joeyoap

17. Comment #104863 by CruciFiction on December 29, 2007 at 7:26 pm

The quality and openness of such discussions on British television when compared to the touchy-feely fantasy crap that permeates American television for our dumbed-down masses is absolutely astounding. Perhaps we'd be better off today if we had lost the Revolutionary war.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

18. Comment #104869 by liberalartist on December 29, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Thank you Richard for that great discussion! I am so appreciative of the internet. Its rare to see this type of thing on television in the US.

What a relief that most of the callers were asking intelligent questions. Well, except for that prick of a priest! I've seen him on Fox and he is a fanatical moron that would be an embracement to most of my catholic family. And as usual this idiot has nothing new to ask except the old tired Stalin-argument. He obviously doesn't know the first thing about history. Richard answered him well. I find it astounding that a catholic priest accuses atheists of Nazism when we all know it was Ratzinger who was literally a member of the Nazi party.

This just made my year - just in time! :)

Other Comments by liberalartist

19. Comment #104870 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Don't be so masochistic Cruc...

British Broadcasting company had plenty of scandals relating to faked footage, phony shows:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/London_48/BBC_engulfed_in_fake_footage_scandal.asp

So, it's not so wonderful if you look beyond this single interview. Anyway, you can objectively measure what country produces the best shows by looking at the % of shows, eg. here in Finland, that are imported from the US.

Check this out:
http://www.telkku.com/?ks=0

In case you can't make out the show names because of all the Finnish, I would say more than 50% of the programs on these (the main Finnish tv channels) are US (I only see 1 British show). So, US is at least more interesting to Finnish viewers, by far.

Also, the news is very left leaning here (even more so than in the US, if that's possible) at least here in Finland. In Britain, I think it's more driven by scandal-mongering topics. Stuff about the Royal family, Madelein McCann, etc... sometimes it drives you nuts. But, I'll grant you that there are some good shows on BBC like 'Hardtalk' and the 'Have Your Say' show.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

20. Comment #104883 by mada2002 on December 29, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Its almost sad to see the priest smirk at the end of his bit like he won the arguement. Some people are too far gone to save. Its also sad that he uses the same "religion is not alone in its badness" arguement, the same as he has used on FoxNews. Completely skips over the science to issues that are covered in history books.

Other Comments by mada2002

21. Comment #104886 by dlitt on December 29, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Father Morris' loud and boisterous diatribe would sit well with American evangelicals. No wonder he's a Vatican spokesman.

Other Comments by dlitt

22. Comment #104889 by dlitt on December 29, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Comment #104863 by CruciFiction on December 29, 2007 at 7:26 pm
The quality and openness of such discussions on British television when compared to the touchy-feely fantasy crap that permeates American television for our dumbed-down masses is absolutely astounding. Perhaps we'd be better off today if we had lost the Revolutionary war.

You'd be better off today if the Republicans had lost the election eight years ago.

Other Comments by dlitt

23. Comment #104890 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Risking anti-heresy dlitt -- hallelujah!

Other Comments by Radesq

24. Comment #104896 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 10:45 pm

You'd be better off today if the Republicans had lost the election eight years ago.

No, but we would have been better off if Ross Perot had defeated Bill Clinton, back in '92.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

25. Comment #104897 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Oh Atheist Jon, I've read how you seethe with disdain for those wonderful days of budget surplus and air wars with almost no American casualties. Good thing for you you're in Lapland because we're about to have eight more years of the Clintonistas!

Other Comments by Radesq

26. Comment #104898 by dlitt on December 29, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Amusing. I have a "Ross Perot for President" t-shirt in my closet that I used to wear when traveling in the U.S.

Other Comments by dlitt

27. Comment #104901 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 11:06 pm

Yes, I'm happy to have missed living in the US for the latter 5 years during those oh so wonderful days. Let's not go there, because Clinton had nothing to do with the budget surplusses... Or if you count the fact that Congress remained in gridlock throughout those years, seems they failed to spend enough to keep up. Or do you seriously believe it was the result of the law which Clinton signed mandating his new tax hikes to go towards paying down the debt?

At least you can't blame Bush for stopping traffic at LAX so that he can have a Beverly Hills hairdresser give him a hair-cut.

Guliani for President '08!

Other Comments by AtheistJon

28. Comment #104903 by dlitt on December 29, 2007 at 11:14 pm

I'm only sorry that a President can't get a blow-job without raising the ire of the entire country.

Other Comments by dlitt

29. Comment #104907 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 11:45 pm

It wasn't really the blow-job itself which raised my ire... it was the lies (denial for months before finally admitting it), the perjury, the subornation of perjury, the obstruction of justice, the hypocrisy of the feminists in not condemning him just because he's a democrat, the revelations by Kathleen Willey, the attempt to destroy people like her (and BTW also "that woman" Ms. Lewinsky during the early days), the vast right-wing conspiracy theory, the visitations to the White House of Rev. Jesse Jackson together with pregnant girlfriend, the revelations of rape of Juanita Broderick which were never thoroughly investigated.

If you read the Biography of Bill Clinton by Dave Maranis, you'll also find that Clinton's own biological father was a, I guess the word is, polygamist, or scam artist who married and impregnated a string of women and then left to the next woman. No, it wasn't just the BJ which was infuriating about the Clintons.

Then there was the Whitewater scandal, the Rose lawfirm scandal, the Susan McDougal scandal, the Chinese nuclear spying scandal, the last minute pardons scandal, the trashing the White House scandal. Need I continue?

On a related theme, anybody read Hitchen's work on the subject? I still haven't read No One Left to Lie To, but I will if it's any good. He has a great series of fraud exposure going... Mother Theresa, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton. Maybe Princess Di as the next target?


What a corrupt administration.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

30. Comment #104913 by dlitt on December 30, 2007 at 12:15 am

I was just trying to induce a smile with that comment.

He should have said, "Yes, the BJ was great - sorry I got caught."

Haven't virtually all Presidents been somewhat corrupt? Jimmy Carter was well liked here in Canada. Corrupt or not, we also liked Clinton. Reagan was an ass and both Bushs were morons.

I think the Presidency has been on a gradual slide toward dumbdom since JFK.

I'm old enough that I've witnessed them all.

Other Comments by dlitt

31. Comment #104914 by Ian on December 30, 2007 at 12:19 am

But, I'll grant you that there are some good shows on BBC like 'Hardtalk' and the 'Have Your Say' show.

Of course you have a right to your opinion, but I view such things as cynical populist theatre (ie:fiction).

I yearn for the days of The Heart of the Matter by Joan Bakewell and Weekend World with Brian Walden. Two programmes which actually analysed ethical and politial issues.

Other Comments by Ian

32. Comment #104919 by d4m14n on December 30, 2007 at 2:32 am

Autographed photos for sale would be appreciated. I'd buy two, and be happy to do so as a way to fund the Foundation.

What a fantastic idea. I already have two copies of The Selfish Gene, a copy of The God Delusion, and my personal favourite The Ancestor's Tale. I'd happily pay oodles more for lovely autographed copies.

Other Comments by d4m14n

33. Comment #104920 by rmelaw on December 30, 2007 at 2:33 am

CruciFiction is right. This more or less intelligent, interesting and informative discussion could never happen on U.S. television where the insipid, banal, celebrity and trivial pursuit reign supreme. Hopefully we will eventually mature as a culture and enable a better way.

Other Comments by rmelaw

34. Comment #104965 by FXR on December 30, 2007 at 7:24 am

It's significant that Herr Ratzinger's lackey is poking his head into the debate. What a golden opportunity! If there is one organisation whose history can be used to show the harm of religionism it's the Catholic Church Limited. The smug arrogance with which Mr. Morris delivers outright lies is just waiting to be put in its place. The thing to remember is that he's not really debating Richard Dawkins he's talking to the flock.

Other Comments by FXR

35. Comment #105012 by seals on December 30, 2007 at 10:30 am

Father Morris (as he is irritatingly known) - was he putting on a big show for the camera or what?

Anyhow, he seemingly accused RD of not being intellectually honest in calling Hitler and Stalin practicing christians - I must have missed RD saying that - all I heard him say was that Stalin's deeds were not done in the name of atheism, and Hitler's were not done in the name of Roman Catholicism. Was this was a careless mistake or deliberate misrepresentation by Father Morris?

Other Comments by seals

36. Comment #105080 by Coelacanth on December 30, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Did anyone else get the impression that the female muslim reporter in Istanbul is perhaps an unbeliever? Her question to Dawkins was so lame and non-proking "Do you think that your book may be offensive to some believers?"

Other Comments by Coelacanth

37. Comment #105085 by matt_shute-07 on December 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

What a woeful bunch of callers.

"It's absurd that we could have evolved by 'random chance'." Check.

"Hitler and Stalin were atheists!" Check.

Etc.

Well done, Professor Dawkins, for managing to keep your cool while being forced to listen to such annoying nonsense.

Other Comments by matt_shute-07

38. Comment #105090 by darlets on December 30, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Richard mentioned in the other link on this, that most of the callers were on his side. And that producer had mentioned this, it just doesn't make good T.V.

However when it's presented in the above format people get the false impression that the opposite is true.

At some point we need to make the true number of non dogmatic religious people and non religious people known. I'm not sure how we go about that but it needs to happen.



Other Comments by darlets

39. Comment #105091 by Coelacanth on December 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm

"The gay priest from FoxNews is condescending and attempts to discredit RD, did anyone else pick up on that one?"

Definately gay . . . you can tell he really rehersed his soap-box rant. Recall how he started out: "You know as I was walking by the pope's window earlier . . . blah blah blah"

Before I became an atheist I was once a seminarian studying for the priesthood in Rome. I have seen Fr. Johnathen's kind.

Other Comments by Coelacanth

40. Comment #105092 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Having watched the original programme - around 25-30 mins - on BBC TV, and having been a little confused as to why the Professor seemed already slightly pissed off on that show, all now becomes clear when I now see this extended, uncut version in which Dawkins is faced with idiotic, moronic gibberish he may be allowed to think will not be permitted to gain airtime on a national broadcasting carrier.

Shame on the fucking BBC for allowing even more than the normal amount of vacuity and inanity in a programme designed to educate.

And more shame on them for not even granting a slight nod at the not wholly disreputable possible theistic speakers they could have had on to debate with someone of the Professor's stature.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

41. Comment #105094 by Steve Zara on December 30, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Definately gay . . . you can tell he really rehersed his soap-box rant.

As a gay man myself, I am interested... was it the ranting, or the rehearsal, or something else that helped you be sure of his sexual orientation?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #105102 by CruciFiction on December 30, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Perhaps many of you aren't at all familiar with "Daddy" Jonathan Morris. He's the religion analyst and regular news contributor for the FOX News Channel in the US.

If you like being utterly disgusted to the point of heaving, there's a channel on YouTube of his television work just for you! Don't know if it's actually him and/or his associates that maintain the channel though.

The videos were always being swamped with people leaving comments that because of the way he speaks and his mannerisms, they all think he's gay. So now they're disabling comments. Just too funny!

http://youtube.com/profile?user=Kostnice

Other Comments by CruciFiction

43. Comment #105107 by Steve Zara on December 30, 2007 at 3:21 pm

that because of the way he speaks and his mannerisms, they all think he's gay

Please, explain.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #105112 by Coelacanth on December 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Response to #41 above . . .

Steve, be assured that I have friends who are gay and apologize if my comment was out of character. His sexual orientation is certainly irrelevant to his views and responses to Dawkins.

In regards to your question above, his soap box rantings and rehersal have nothing to do with him being gay. I was merely confirming #12's obeservation, above. Fr. Johnathen projects a personality that is traditionally consistent with the homosexual culture, i.e. slight lisp, femanine gesticulations . . . might I also mention the Roman Collar?

Other Comments by Coelacanth

45. Comment #105121 by CruciFiction on December 30, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Please, explain.

Sure:

...with people leaving comments that...

Other Comments by CruciFiction

46. Comment #105130 by WithGoodReason on December 30, 2007 at 4:46 pm

(1)The English student in me can't help but wonder if the first caller (Dick Joyce from Switzerland) is a descendant of James Joyce, whose final home was Zurich.

(2)The author of the "atheism only works for over-educated Westerners" e-mail should spend less time wallowing in Western guilt and more time thinking about how much better off the underdeveloped nations of the world would be without religion. This is especially true in the Muslim world.

(3)Overall, this was a good program (much better than the interview with CBC) but I wish someone would come up with some new questions for Professor Dawkins. I, for one, would love to hear a few examples of the science questions he would ask God...Given a chance, this is the question I would ask in an open God Delusion forum: "Professor Dawkins, as a writing instructor and English Masters student, I'm intrigued by the fact that you dedicated The God Delusion to Douglas Adams. I was wondering what you could tell us about your friendship with Douglas. And, a related question: what points do you feel we as readers should take away from Douglas' books that we may not have considered? What are your favorite Douglas Adams books/passages?"

If anyone reading this ever has the chance to interview Professor Dawkins, consider asking that question for your old buddy J. here.

Happy New Year, all.

Other Comments by WithGoodReason

47. Comment #105133 by matt_shute-07 on December 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm

RE: Comment #41

Gay or not, the man was a crass buffoon, albeit an educated one.

If he was gay, that was the only positive thing anyone has mentioned about him. Yet, as a priest, he must remain celibate, cannot even masturbate, and is clearly rather unhinged as a result.

One more of crime of religion - repression of something vital and integral to our identities: our sexuality.

Other Comments by matt_shute-07

48. Comment #105140 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Morris is kinda feminine in the way he expresses himself. Impressionistic thinking seems feminine, but "feminine" is confounded with status.

I'm annoyed with sexist stereotypes, yet find them to be time-savers.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

49. Comment #105147 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I'm annoyed with sexist stereotypes, yet find them to be time-savers.

In what way do they save you time? If for a quicker determination of dickheadedness of the dickheads who spout them, I'm with you. If not, I may be forced to perform a de-Dr-isation on you.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

50. Comment #105149 by Steve Zara on December 30, 2007 at 6:17 pm

In what way do they save you time?

I have given up attempting to derive meaning from the posts of the respected (and I mean that in all honesty) Dr Benway. I have been told I have no sense of humour, but I am learning that I also have no sense of irony. Others have said I have have no sense. So I am increasingly finding that the only posts on this site I am really confident of the meaning of are trolls.

When I was a University lecturer, I was given advice about how to talk to people. A talk should be in three stages:

1. Say what you are going to say.
2. Say it, clearly.
3. Summarise what you have said.

On the internet, (1) and (3) are redundant. The problem is that just about everybody also misses (2).

Other Comments by Steve Zara