1. Comment #2162 by Hylo on October 19, 2006 at 11:26 am

That interview is absolutely fantastic. It's quite rushed at times but the interviewer was excellent and some of the callers gave a good insight into the outdoor insane asylem that is religious America.

At times it was even funnier then the Stephen Colbert interview.

2. Comment #2163 by mintcheerios on October 19, 2006 at 11:27 am

If the people around me are not murdering solely because of God, I don't know if I want them to turn atheist anymore.

3. Comment #2168 by William on October 19, 2006 at 12:03 pm

>>Listening to this interview I was embarrassed by the type of comments Dr. Dawkins was receiving from the majority of the call in audience. If this is any kind of cross-section of the population, my fellow Americans are scary, uninformed people. Maybe it’s a FOX thing?<<

Jean-Marie: Don't be embarrassed! We have MANY uninformed people here in ye olde England too! It's not ordinary people's fault half the time: Many people are WAY too busy, working, raising families, paying bills etc., to REALLY think about existence at all. This and the fact that relgion tends to be inherited from your parents and what part of the world you originate from.

I thought this interview was great! I think the professor did a tremendous job and the Mr. Colmes was EXTREMELY fair and professional!

Kind Regards, William.

4. Comment #2171 by Randy Ping on October 19, 2006 at 12:38 pm

It's not a cult of Personality; it's the simple fact that Richard Dawkins is able to properly articulate how a great many of us are thinking.
And it's not about being mean, it's not about hating "God" or religious people...
It's about what we KNOW from scientific investigation.
I find it amazing that the vast majority of Americans love the True Crime programs on cable television and the Forensic Dramas - which center on evidence arrived at through scientific processes, yet they cannot accept the same type of conclusion when it comes to religious beliefs.
Those same people can look at the evidence against a murderer, find him guilty based on the scientific evidence. But, when it comes to the origin man, they can still repeat the "well, there's big holes in the records that have yet to be filled in..." argument.
I find it astounding and flabergasting that there is a double standard for evidence in this argument.
Science has tried to play nice in both politics and in affairs of faith for too long, perhaps.

5. Comment #2173 by Mike on October 19, 2006 at 12:40 pm

Also embarassing was just the questions that Alan Colmes was asking. Jeesh.

Thanks for recording.

6. Comment #2177 by Mike on October 19, 2006 at 12:53 pm

I have to step back a bit about the inane questions by Colmes. I think he was trying to ask some of the stupid questions his audience wanted to ask.

Another thing, now that I've listened to this - there are some really really scary people out there. It really is a good thing that many people believe in fairies, gods, etc. Whatever it takes to keep them inside of their little boxes and keep us safe from them. There are a large number of people out there without ANY morals at all.

7. Comment #2192 by Mycroft on October 19, 2006 at 2:31 pm

I thought Colmes was suprisingly reasonable in that conversation, the way he dealt with the man who claimed he might kill his neighbour without God was very amusing. If only they had more people like that on their TV network.

8. Comment #2199 by Robert on October 19, 2006 at 3:22 pm

The caller's point about there being no reason not to rape and kill people without a belief in god comes up a lot. Am I being paranoid, or does this terrify everyone else as well? Even the most sincere true beleivers must have doubts at times. Are they really teetering so close to the edge of madness?

Robert

9. Comment #2205 by Mike on October 19, 2006 at 4:46 pm

Wow I cannot believe that guy just said he would kill his neighbor if there was no god. That just shows you how "moral" these religious people are!

10. Comment #2206 by Anonymous on October 19, 2006 at 4:47 pm

"even though he sounded awestruck by Dawkins, he also sounded the most intelligent."

I would sound awestruck as well. It would be an honor to chat with him.

11. Comment #2207 by Janus on October 19, 2006 at 4:53 pm

If I didn't spend so much time at christianforums.com, I probably would have been horrified by the callers' ignorance. Dawkins did well to keep his cool, it showed how much more rational he is than the Christian nutcases.

It's really quite amazing that these people expect Professor Dawkins to explain things like the evolution of sexuality in 30 seconds. It's not only ignorance about evolution itself, it's ignorance about the _scope_ of science as a whole.


Prof. Dawkins, if I may make a suggestion, the next time a religious believer claims that God doesn't need a beginning because he's eternal, or outside of time, or transdimensional, or whatever, why not reply with the following:

"It is blatantly illogical to explain the complexity of the universe by saying it was caused by something even _more_ complex, which God must have been to design the universe. To assert that God is eternal/timeless/etc may explain away His existence _itself_, but not His complexity. The only way to explain complexity is by a gradual process of small steps starting from something fundamentally simple."

Well, or something to that effect, you're much more eloquent than I am. The point I'm trying to make is that practically all Abrahamic religionists don't realize that 'explaining' the _existence_ of God isn't enough, they also have to explain His high degree of organized complexity. They think that explaining the former means explaining the latter. The few who do realize it claim that _God_ is fundamentally simple, which is obviously nonsense if you realize that intelligence, by its very nature, cannot be simple.

While this doesn't disprove that an intelligent designer created _our_ universe, it does disprove the existence of an intelligent super-being who created _everything_. In other words, the best religionists can hope for is a God who is only an intermediate cause, as opposed to the First Cause (much like we humans are the intermediate cause of televisions, for intsance, not their ultimate cause).

- Simon

12. Comment #2212 by Alan on October 19, 2006 at 5:39 pm

I think Alan Colmes did a fine job, especially going after that idiot from Missouri. It was like trying to get a straight answer out of Bush. Futile, of course. It's best just to let there ignorance speak for itself.

I am in awe of Dawkins, mainly in regards to the patience he shows at the never-ending stream of completely moronic and repetitive questions he has to address.

I am an American, and listening to these imbecilic callers trying to challenge the veracity of Dawkins claims about the validity of evolution, I can only cringe in embarrassment. It only serves to underscore the dangerous road the US is travelling down.

13. Comment #2217 by Ryan on October 19, 2006 at 6:56 pm

The argument about God being "outside our dimensions" is so irritating, but I've come up with a good analogy: how is that different from telling a child Santa can visit everyone's home in one night because he's "magic?"

14. Comment #2218 by Greg on October 19, 2006 at 7:14 pm

My favorite part of the interview:

"Where did the human body come from?"

"Darwinian natural selection."

"NO WAY!"

Once again the argument from personal incredulity rears its ugly head. How often have we seen this? A complete ignoramus has trouble wrapping his head around Darwin's simple idea, and rejects it out of hand in the most unscientific way imaginable. I tremble at the thought that he represents a majority of my fellow countrymen.

15. Comment #2224 by Greg on October 19, 2006 at 10:13 pm

Ryan,

That's a fantastic analogy, and one I shall immediately begin to use myself. Great work.

16. Comment #2226 by Cora on October 19, 2006 at 11:03 pm

WOW! The ignorance being spewed out by those callers was astounding. Three callers completely unable to understand that we are not the amazing pinnacle of 'creation' and who seem to think that humans are completely unlike other species.

I'm an atheist myself but am not sure how I feel about Dawkins approach towards the religious. I find him at times too harsh in his criticisms but then when I listen to these ridiculous questions he must deal with all the time I can hardly wonder. There is no question that we atheists do need to speak out more and make our opinions and ideas known. There seem to be many misconceptions about atheism out there and I'm sure that many of them (like the morality thing) are being actively taught in churches.

I wish that if people are truly amazed at how the human body works or the morality of our society or the order in the cosmos that they would EDUCATE themselves on those topics. Falling back on 'God did it' is not only lazy but it leaves us unable to make progress.

I'm currently reading The Selfish Gene, I can't wait to finish it and start on The God Delusion.

17. Comment #2227 by Cora on October 19, 2006 at 11:04 pm

WOW! The ignorance being spewed out by those callers was astounding. Three callers completely unable to understand that we are not the amazing pinnacle of 'creation' and who seem to think that humans are completely unlike other species.

I'm an atheist myself but am not sure how I feel about Dawkins approach towards the religious. I find him at times too harsh in his criticisms but then when I listen to these ridiculous questions he must deal with all the time I can hardly wonder. There is no question that we atheists do need to speak out more and make our opinions and ideas known. There seem to be many misconceptions about atheism out there and I'm sure that many of them (like the morality thing) are being actively taught in churches.

I wish that if people are truly amazed at how the human body works or the morality of our society or the order in the cosmos that they would EDUCATE themselves on those topics. Falling back on 'God did it' is not only lazy but it leaves us unable to make progress.

I'm currently reading The Selfish Gene, I can't wait to finish it and start on The God Delusion.

18. Comment #2232 by God on October 20, 2006 at 1:46 am

Psalms 14:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

19. Comment #2234 by Anonymous on October 20, 2006 at 1:57 am

After the interviewer had pushed that guy to admit he would kill his neighbour if there were no God and Richard commented (in perfect comic deadpan) "Well, you're not a very good advertisement for religion then", well, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

Brilliant.

20. Comment #2241 by Gauldar on October 20, 2006 at 4:08 am

Comment #2232

Uh oh, now God's posting on the forum quoting from his latest book. I wonder if he is on tour.

Great interview, I'd expect this type of interview from FOX...accept with more yelling.

21. Comment #2256 by Derevirn on October 20, 2006 at 6:44 am

I felt sorry for all those ignorant people mocking evolution...

22. Comment #2264 by Martin on October 20, 2006 at 8:15 am

Comment #2232 :

That's obvisouly a typo.. it should read:

Psalms 14:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, there is God."

23. Comment #2265 by Andrea Ventura on October 20, 2006 at 8:30 am

Very interesting interview. The argumaent that mutations never add "information" to the genome also comes up very often in this kind of debates. As Dawkins said there are many ways mutations can indeed add information. An obvious one: gene duplication with subsequent divergence. This is definitely a net addition of information (and a rather common one too).


By the way, I was in Cambridge (MA) yesterday,listening to Dakins' presentation of his new book. Really enjoyable.

24. Comment #2266 by Haymoon on October 20, 2006 at 8:36 am

I presume this interview is part of Dawkins' publicity tour for his new book - The God Delusion.

Given the violent nature of some sections of US society - I'm thinking here of the "God Hates You" placard carrying type - Dawkins is placing himself in real danger of an assassin's bullet if he continues to speak in public forums along the lines evident in the interview.

I just hope he's taking precautions

25. Comment #2274 by Jason on October 20, 2006 at 11:44 am

Fantastic interview. Hilarious, with the evolution-sceptics and especially that nihilist.

The interviewer asked "how do you get something out of nothing?" referring to the origin of the universe. The answer is: you don't. You can't, nothing can't do anything. You have to start with existence, not non-existence.

26. Comment #2286 by Arizona Atheist on October 20, 2006 at 12:24 pm

I really enjoyed the program...I sort of wish Dawkins was given a little time to debate some of those callers, but he gave very good answers, though I'm curious what counter arguments would have come out of their mouths.

I was also appalled at what that one christian said about killing his neighbor if there was no god...though maybe comment 13 is correct, that he just wasn't able to properly articulate what he wanted to say. But like in Dawkins' documentary Root of All Evil, that's exactly what that one man said when asked that same question, that he would kill, and rape, etc. if there was no god. I don't doubt that there are many who would do harm without the threat of their immaginary friend looming over them.

About comment 40, I've read that Sam Harris takes measures for his security, so maybe Dawkins does too. I doubt anything would happen, but you never know.

27. Comment #2384 by Anonymous on October 21, 2006 at 3:36 am

That caller towards the end ("No WAY!!") was hilarious!

People just don't get the evolution thing do they, though it's no surprise: our respective education systems are a pile of pants. I did A-level biology and evolution was hardly mentioned - no wonder there are so many people are so desperately ignorant about the world around them.

28. Comment #2385 by realitybites on October 21, 2006 at 4:16 am

It is OK to obsess over the man as well as the message. Atheists need a charismatic spokesperson to rally the troops. :)

I don't mind Dawkins being the man. Ever since Morrissey disappointed me this summer, I've been searching for a new hero. :D

Great interview.

29. Comment #2395 by realitybites on October 21, 2006 at 5:07 am

It is OK to obsess over the man as well as the message. Atheists need a charismatic spokesperson to rally the troops. :)

I don't mind Dawkins being the man. Ever since Morrissey disappointed me this summer, I've been searching for a new hero. :D

Great interview.

30. Comment #2399 by RobB on October 21, 2006 at 5:48 am

What strikes me is that despite his personal religious beliefs, he seems to have actually READ 'The God Delusion', and seems to think it has something to add to the philosophical debate over the value of religion in providing a 'moral' framework to society.

I havent read the God Delusion but have read some of Dawkins's other books. After reading "the blind watchmaker" the first Dawkins book I read any belief in a kind of god I had was completely destroyed. Up till then I had some kind of vague belief simply because I did not understand that the natural beauty and sometimes breath taking magnificance of nature that we see around us could come about by natural selection.
After reading the book I could not understand how anyone who read Dawkins could any longer have a belief in God.I thinks Dawkins makes it very clear that not only is there no need for a god to make our wondrous world but the kind of god we are expected to believe in by most religions is obvously a deeply flawed, dangerous, spiteful and egotistical character. As even my 4 year son pointed out after listening to some bible stories (Moses and Noah) at a local childrens club run by otherwise very nice and child friendly people " if there is a god then he horrible and I dont want anything to do with him."
If a 4 year old can deduce that , and I did not indoctrinate him, why can't otherwise intelligent adults particularly those who have read Dawkins?
I am completely baffled

31. Comment #2519 by goddogit on October 21, 2006 at 4:01 pm

This was like watching some chess grandmaster playing $20 against-all-coomers match, swatting down "strategies" as fast as you or me can read.
Imagine an amateur being checkmated and saying, "No way! You are so wrong!" in such a situation? They'd be properly laughed out of the hall. Unfortunately, in Prof. Dawkins case, MORE THAN HALF the challengers are dingbats like this.

32. Comment #2592 by Sarah on October 22, 2006 at 2:08 am

Wow, I am listening to this interview and it is HILARIOUS!! I am crying... Alan and Richard are doing a great job of handling these callers. I love the guy who calls after the man who says he would kill his neighbor and says
"Jeez, I'm glad I'm not his neighbor... and I'm glad he believes in God."

I have always liked ALan Clomes... I just never understood how he could do a show with (for!?)that half-wit Sean Hannity.

I really was wondering after this interview... why do these people think human bodies are 'perfect'?? If they were, wouldn't we all be cookie cutter people--little gingerbread boys and girls?

33. Comment #3036 by Jim on October 25, 2006 at 7:34 am

Does anyone have a transcript of this by any chance?

34. Comment #12938 by chbg21808 on December 14, 2006 at 1:45 pm

It's great to see individuals on this post who have actually come out.

For me it's slightly different. I have never bought into the God concept. Even as a young child I saw through religion as mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

The way I look at religion is that the human brain is a complex organic computer and it is "designed" and has evolved to integrate and understand reality. All religion does is destort the mind with mysticism; which cuts one off from fully grasping reality.

The more "honesty" religious an individual attempts to become, the more indoctrenated in religious dogma they become. Honesty in religion simply means dishonety qua reality... The two are fundamentally incompatible.

Imagine an engineer building a bridge. He or she does not do this from a basis of faith. The engineer would have to honestly integrate certain laws of the universe to know how to build a bridge. The better he or she understands those laws the more efficient the structure. Thus, the very act of understanding those laws is in a sense a "wiring" of the brain that matches objective reality.

Religion is the exact opposite... religion does not integrate reality, it disintegrates the minds ability to fully grasp that reality. It does so because religion scrambles the "wiring" of the brain.

And talking of scrambled brain wiring, that chap who said he would kill his neighbour... Well If I was his neighbour, I think the For Sale sign would be up by now.

And as for the questioners comment: "Where does the perfect design of man and women come from?" ...The fact is that we are not perfectly designed. Look at our backbone for example. An engineer could come up with a far more efficient design to eliminate back pain. Another example is the blind spot in our field of vision. If this was the work of God then he was very sloppy in his creation. The fact is that evolution is limited in the materials with which it can work... also, evolution cannot go backward and "re-engineer" bad "designs"... As species evolve they are left with a lot of left over "garbage". Look at all the junk DNA we now carry around... If God was responsible then he was very wasteful with his materials.

I for one am fed up to the "back teeth" (is that the right expression?) with religion and hope we will someday live in a World without it. I do not want to sound to pesimistic because I am an optimist by nature... But I do worry that as our technological ability advances a large section of the general public remain ignorant, because of their backward religious dogmas. Such technology in the hands of such ignoramuses frightens me.

What is even more disturbing and has been pointed out by Sam Harris, many of these religious fanatics may be unreasonable and ignorant with reference to and because of their religion... But they may still be intelligent enough to build a nuclear weapon, that is what is particularly frightening.

Other Comments by chbg21808

35. Comment #60529 by sane1 on August 2, 2007 at 6:33 am

"The creator is boundless; you can't prove he does not exist." --Priceless.

Other Comments by sane1

36. Comment #60531 by sane1 on August 2, 2007 at 6:46 am

Just found this interview. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful.

"How do you explain the perfection of the human body?!" said the moron.

"You can't disprove god so he exists," said the other.

"I'd rape and kill if there was no god to define right and wrong" said the third.

Holy Smokes! The Fox News Radio has some very entertaining listeners!

Other Comments by sane1

37. Comment #226926 by freiheit on August 9, 2008 at 12:05 am

"NO WAY! ... NO WAY! NO WAY MAN!"

I listened to this while in a public place and was totally incapable of holding back a severe bout of laughter when he said that.

Other Comments by freiheit