1. Comment #117789 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Watching this at the moment. It seems to me that Richard is the only atheist in the room! It appears to be full of religious people. Though I suppose it would be arrogant to say there isn't maybe one or two non-believers among them. Damn Christian Voice, they have their heads up their backsides.

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #117790 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Well, the one thing I didn't like was when Prof. Dawkins agreed with Lord Carey that the freedoms and liberties of "western" societies is a basically a product of Christianity... definitely not!

Other Comments by MPhil

3. Comment #117797 by tangerine_tree on January 29, 2008 at 4:58 pm

anyone know when this is/was on ?

i tend to watch this on lazy sunday morning and gape in amazement at the sheer ignorance of the guests/audience.

Other Comments by tangerine_tree

4. Comment #117799 by notsobad on January 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Well, the one thing I didn't like was when Prof. Dawkins agreed with Lord Carey that the freedoms and liberties of "western" societies is a basically a product of Christianity... definitely not!

I concur. Thanks go to the Ancient Greeks. The only nation in the world that invented democracy.
And the Italians came with the Renaissance after translating classic Greek writings and Muslim writings.

Other Comments by notsobad

5. Comment #117800 by Skepsis on January 29, 2008 at 5:05 pm

anyone know when this is/was on ?

November 25, 2007 on BBC1 according to the Atheist Media Blog

Other Comments by Skepsis

6. Comment #117803 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm

notsobad,

add to that the enlightenment. I never tire of quoting Kant:

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity." That's when freedom of speech, press and assembly was given a strong political voice.

Other Comments by MPhil

7. Comment #117805 by 82abhilash on January 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm

I noticed RD claiming that he could find no Arabic publisher to print his book. Irshad Manji had the same problem with her book "The trouble with Islam" and she solved the problem by putting an Arabic, Persian and Urdu translations of her book freely available on her website.

If RD can do that with his book, people who have been living in forced ignorance for so long will get a chance to understand new ideas. PDF files are easy to read and attract less attention, especially in those parts of the world where you can get killed for reading the wrong book.

Notice it won't affect book sales. But what if it gets him killed?

Other Comments by 82abhilash

8. Comment #117807 by Sally Luxmoore on January 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Typical British daytime TV: debate 'lite'.
It was not possible for the debate to reach any level of sophistication as the format did not allow it. Nonetheless, Richard got in some good soundbites and we should at least be pleased that even daytime TV now feels that there should be proper atheist representation in a 'religion-based' debate.
I imagine it must have been frustrating for Richard, but his presence there was still important.
We need to make the god-botherers uncomfortable and keep them feeling they have to justify themselves!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

9. Comment #117810 by MaxD on January 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I am happy that Dawkins was so far seems to be the one who garned the biggest applause with his if you don't like it don't read it or don't go see it.

Man this is hard to watch with all these twits who just want to give their freedom of thought and expression.

Other Comments by MaxD

10. Comment #117812 by maton100 on January 29, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Christards abound. I thought they were "over that shit" in the UK. Adults with costumes. Run kids...fucking run. The moron brigade is holding its ground.

Other Comments by maton100

11. Comment #117818 by 82abhilash on January 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Lord Carey was sitting there shamelessly and deliberately trying to confuse education with indoctrination. I was hoping he would be a man I can respect, but I guess being mild mannered and being honest is not the same thing. I will remember that.

And Ann Widdecombe was most irritating, reminds me of an old English school mistress who has a particular fondness for the cane.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

12. Comment #117821 by jakelovatto on January 29, 2008 at 6:09 pm

I can understand Richard's point about having to lie to protect your private life but the point was lost on the audience.
I think the tactic is a poor one though because it of course doesn't keep matters private it merely makes public a false private life.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

13. Comment #117822 by LorienRyan on January 29, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Great discussion, I thought it was conducted very well. Lets talk, debate and discuss issues more, and more openly. It seems some of the commenters in this thread would not be able to participate in a reasonable discussion.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

14. Comment #117824 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 6:25 pm

LorienRyan,

I think what you just wrote is much more true of the other video, "The Big Debate"... this one was shallow and poorly moderated... with largely note very well qualified participants, meaning that they didn't really forward arguments, but positions and stories without forwarding a justification for them.

If your comment just appeared on the wrong thread, I agree... if not, I'd suggest you watch the other vid and compare.

Other Comments by MPhil

15. Comment #117825 by jakelovatto on January 29, 2008 at 6:26 pm

I was hoping Richard would be asked to make a point about whether John Barryman's comment (The special Guest, the Actor/Singer) that 'God' made him gay.
Richard has a discussion of the evolution of homosexuality on his FAQ at his Oxford website but I found it hard to follow. It's a question that I've never been able to satisfactorily explain, and it is of course such a big issue for the fundamentalists, that being gay is a lifestyle choice etc.
I must add its merely an academic question the answer wouldn't affect the fact that I believe people are free to do whatever they wish with the obvious caveats.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

16. Comment #117826 by Jack Rawlinson on January 29, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I would just like to say that I despise Ann Widdecombe with a passion that transcends all human understanding. On the other hand, she looked like an intellectual giant compared to whoever the hell that first speaker was.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

17. Comment #117832 by LorienRyan on January 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Mphil,

Watched the other vid. Have to agree with you now.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

18. Comment #117836 by Skauhn on January 29, 2008 at 7:00 pm

I was appalled at the subjective 14 year old. He read the GD with his Christian view point, not with an unbiased eye. I am sure that everything he read he either misunderstood or refuted, or ignored it with his Christian mind.

Other Comments by Skauhn

19. Comment #117844 by robotaholic on January 29, 2008 at 7:28 pm

they were a bunch of retards except for Richard Dawkins

Other Comments by robotaholic

20. Comment #117854 by He-man Daunted World on January 29, 2008 at 8:17 pm

"Do you think god is remotely bothered ...?"

"Yes, I believe he is"

What bothers me is people who think they can speak on god's behalf. And still they accuse us of arrogance

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

21. Comment #117861 by Foth on January 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Lol... John Barrowman's video made me laugh

Other Comments by Foth

22. Comment #117864 by Mbee on January 29, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Well I think the debate was great - I just wish that this would be available on the US TV! Nobody here (ie ABC, NBC, CBS , PBS) would have the guts to put on a debate like this that would allow such open discussion of the subjects covered.

I'm English and live in California and am very thankfull for the internet to allow this type of discussion to be available to anyone around the world.

Only if we can have this type of discussion will more people be able to come to the correct conclusion.

Other Comments by Mbee

23. Comment #117867 by MikeV on January 29, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Too bad they didn't let Richard talk enough...

Other Comments by MikeV

24. Comment #117873 by Smith on January 29, 2008 at 10:20 pm

God of free speech!

Other Comments by Smith

25. Comment #117874 by AtheistAspy on January 29, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Blaspemy law! WTF? America may be full of fundies, but even we don't have laws like that.

Besides, how do you define blasphemy? Couldn't the law be used for secular reasons without clear boundaries?

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

26. Comment #117878 by ic0n0clast on January 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm

I hate to say, but this was rather boring.

Other Comments by ic0n0clast

27. Comment #117879 by AtheistAspy on January 29, 2008 at 10:39 pm

I think it's funny how theists always accuse atheists of being arrogant when relatively atheistic countries (e.g., much of Europe)have blasphemy laws and state-sanctioned churches.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

28. Comment #117880 by Cartomancer on January 29, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Hah! King Alfred did it so it must have been right! Priceless, absolutely priceless...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

29. Comment #117889 by mrjonno on January 29, 2008 at 11:27 pm

For anyone who is interested the 'Big Question' is a 'debate' program shown every Sunday morning (when most people are still in bed) on BBC1 in the UK. By law the BBC has to dedicate a few hours each week to religion. As so few people in the UK give a toss about religion and the viewing figures for christian stuff is pretty close to zero they show stuff like this

Other Comments by mrjonno

30. Comment #117894 by YssiBoo on January 29, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Just had to comment on the awful intro-music that sounded like it came from day-time tv from the 80's.

edit: Just saw mrjonno's comment which explains the dog-awful music.

Other Comments by YssiBoo

31. Comment #117897 by Artful_Dodger on January 29, 2008 at 11:50 pm

"Well, the one thing I didn't like was when Prof. Dawkins agreed with Lord Carey that the freedoms and liberties of "western" societies is a basically a product of Christianity... definitely not!"

Definitely not indeed, that is if you are prepared to rewrite history, and able to get away with it!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

32. Comment #117902 by Communist on January 30, 2008 at 12:15 am

notsobad wrote:

I concur. Thanks go to the Ancient Greeks. The only nation in the world that invented democracy.
And the Italians came with the Renaissance after translating classic Greek writings and Muslim writings.

I disagree with this. The so-called democracy of the ancient Greeks is totally hyped up. The massive suppression of slaves and women was a matter of course to the 'democratic' ancient Greeks. There is evidence that certain Roman emperors such as Domitian did more for women and slaves than the leaders of Athens ever did.

Modern pluralistic democracy is a superstructure on top of the capitalist economy. It is a product of the progressive struggle of the middle class from about 1700 and onwards, and the working class from about 1820 and onwards.

And Christianity probably played a part. In Christianity, god became man of flesh and blood in Jesus. This translates into a respect for the material world (and for work as a virtue) that you don't see in for instance Islam. I am not a Christian, but I regard Christianity as probably the most progressive religion, because it resembles secularism and atheism most closely.

Other Comments by Communist

33. Comment #117904 by Apemanblues on January 30, 2008 at 12:25 am

'The Big Questions' is a bloody awful show.

It's there to fulfil the BBC's religious programming quota, not to actually confront any real 'questions' with any kind of genuine philosophical discourse. They hardly ever have a non-religious or rational speaker on their panel and on the rare occasion when they do they are always vastly outnumbered by a largely religious audience.

I find it best to go out for a walk on Sunday mornings instead and grab a nice fresh breath of honest reality.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

34. Comment #117906 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 12:29 am

Artful Dodger,

studied European History a lot? Instituting human rights and basic liberties as codified law was neither explicitly based on Christian dogma or faith, nor was the church a driving force behind it. Movements to establish these were almost always opposed by the church. Same thing for United States history. Yes, the people had a broadly Christian faith... but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Read up on the history of the enlightenment... honestly. Then read up on the actual events and movements that lead to these rights being made into law... and concerning the ideological history of these liberties and rights - Brush up your history of philosophy - and include Kant.

Other Comments by MPhil

35. Comment #117907 by rhlong on January 30, 2008 at 12:30 am

It was hard for me to watch even the first lady speaking. it makes me want to shake her. Honestly, if there were a God, why would he care about blasphemy? The universe is enormous beyond human comprehension. Why would a God who created it care about what someone on earth thinks about him?

Other Comments by rhlong

36. Comment #117909 by sarah95 on January 30, 2008 at 12:54 am

Even the bumbling idiot of a bishop (or whatever the hell clergy-thingy he is) wasn't as dim-witted and nonsensical as Anne Widdecombe. She didn't make a single point in the whole thing. Why in the HELL is there even a debate about the blasphemy laws in the first place? It's 2008 for Christ's sake(pun intended)! What a nutcase! Yes, tradition is nice, even RD recognizes that, but that lady was just nonsense...didn't support her "arguments" at all. Not to mention her hellish voice.
It's sad that the only alternative to fundies is wishy washy softie moderates who sit around and whine about semantics, "progression", and the non-existent monopoly they think they have on morals and tolerance. Of course, they're not going to blow anybody up, but I can't guarantee that their whining won't make my head explode.

Other Comments by sarah95

37. Comment #117918 by AdrianB on January 30, 2008 at 1:39 am

I posted similar to this over on the forum, but having watched this I have to mention this again.

I continue to be totally appalled by the total hypocrisy and poison that comes forth from the lips of Ann Widdecombe. A woman who obviously converted to Catholicism on realising that the Anglican Church was too nice.

Her hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality is well known, and it is quite stark to see the difference between the horrible Ann Widdecombe and nice John Barrowman.

A few days after this programme John Barrowman was on the Jonathan Ross radio programme, and he was talking about his sexuality and how he had decided to be very public about his homosexuality. Talking about the downside of this, he mentioned how he had met Ann Widdecombe during the filming of this show and it was obvious that she was disgusted at his very existence.

Her hypocrisy is obvious. She claims that homosexuality is an abomination based on The Bible. At the same time ignoring her own unique sexuality.

She is a self-confessed virgin. I cannot imagine her having any sort of sexuality at all. Now isn't this just as odd, or normal, as homosexuality?

I would never claim to have any objections to somebody's sexuality, whether opposite sex, same sex, no sex or even bicycle! But if you are going to spout poisonous nonsense about homosexuals based on scripture, you'd better be scripturally squeaky clean yourself.

Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2:15)

So what are the chances of a old barren, man hating, self proclaimed virgin like Ann Widdecombe got of going to heaven then?

Other Comments by AdrianB

38. Comment #117922 by dazzjazz on January 30, 2008 at 1:51 am

Gosh, Richard didn't get much of a look in did he?
I did like his question to the Archbishop - "Where are the secular schools?" (or similar)

Other Comments by dazzjazz

39. Comment #117924 by Eventhorizon on January 30, 2008 at 1:54 am

I watched one of these programmes last sunday and was so annoyed at the lack of secular representation that I emailed the makers of the programme. They replied and said that they always have atheists and secularists on.
Well they may be on but rarely get the opportunity to voice an opinion.
PLEASE EMAIL AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thebigquestions/comments_and_questions.shtml
This goes to the makers of the programme and the bbc are copied in too.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

40. Comment #117931 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 2:33 am

I'm not sure if I can be bothered to watch all of this because the first section plumbs new depths of inanity. However, with regard to that section, here are my comments.

God is not the lawgiver for our nation. That is Parliament, on the authority of the people. The Christian woman displays her ignorance proudly from the get-go.

The problem with blasphemy as a crime is that whilst it may be possible to prove mens rea, it is not possible to prove the actus reus quite simply because it is not possible to prove (certainly not beyond reasonable doubt!) that a God exists to blaspheme. In other words, blasphemy cannot be a crime. More fundamentally, it cannot even be an action!

King Alfred reigned from 871 to 899. How is that man's theological interpretation of our legal framework relevant in 2007? In any event, if it is relevant, it appears that King Alfred, not God, is the lawgiver for our nation, according to that woman.

What if she had not been from Wantage? Another accident of birth issue, perchance?

The representative of Ekklesia immediately begins referring to "my God" as if it makes a difference what one believes. This just underlines how inane the whole debate is. Even the Christians can't agree on whether there should be a blasphemy law, so why should one be imposed on everyone else?

As for blasphemy "striking at the core of society" - hardly. God is not Britain. How dare that woman conflate the two. Fairness stems from a rejection of hypocrisy - the principle that no-one should deny anyone such rights as he would claim for himself. Nothing to do with God. Was Calvary fair? The woman is a screaming banshee of hypocrisy.

The fact that the Queen is Head of State as well as Head of the Church of England is a constitutional abomination, not a cause for maintaining the blasphemy law.

So, we have to base out society on something? Absolutely. America and France have managed it without God, to name only two. Let's try Liberty, Equality and Humanity for starters. Fuck your God.

I see Widdecombe decided to turn up wearing a crucifix and a fish. Obviously one or the other is insufficient to convey her zeal for the Lord. Her blathering was, regrettably, entirely vacuous.

Our man with the homosexual website is a politically correct coward who throws in an unwarranted barb against "militant atheism" to appear balanced. A good way to lose any respect I might have had for him.

Good on RD for sketching a faint outline of the allegation of hypocrisy that should be levelled at all defenders of this awful law.

Muslim talking about atheistic arrogance... Hmmm...

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

41. Comment #117934 by Andr3w on January 30, 2008 at 2:51 am

Was not Jesus Christ killed for this crime of blasphemy? How ironic is it that blaspheming a blasphemer is blasphemous.

Other Comments by Andr3w

42. Comment #117946 by pyota on January 30, 2008 at 3:40 am

Blaspemy law! WTF? America may be full of fundies, but even we don't have laws like that.

well, don't get too encouraged, america has far worse laws which have religious subtexts: laws against gay marriage (and even practicing gay sex), the right to die, to be able to buy alcohol on sunday, prostitution, etc. ad nauseum!

Other Comments by pyota

43. Comment #117947 by Darwin's shitsu on January 30, 2008 at 3:40 am

testing

Other Comments by Darwin's shitsu

44. Comment #117948 by pyota on January 30, 2008 at 3:42 am

the annoying thing about these debates is they allow too many people to speak, so everyone then has a shortage of time to make their points clearly! gnarr!

Other Comments by pyota

45. Comment #117950 by notsobad on January 30, 2008 at 3:46 am

I disagree with this. The so-called democracy of the ancient Greeks is totally hyped up. The massive suppression of slaves and women was a matter of course to the 'democratic' ancient Greeks. There is evidence that certain Roman emperors such as Domitian did more for women and slaves than the leaders of Athens ever did.

Modern pluralistic democracy is a superstructure on top of the capitalist economy. It is a product of the progressive struggle of the middle class from about 1700 and onwards, and the working class from about 1820 and onwards.

You disagree and then confirm what I said. The Greek democracy was first. The Romans and later Europeans used it and improved it. Without Ancient Greece there would probably never be democracy in the world on a larger scale than a tribe.

And Christianity probably played a part. In Christianity, god became man of flesh and blood in Jesus. This translates into a respect for the material world (and for work as a virtue) that you don't see in for instance Islam.

This part was played only after the Renaissance started, inspired by Greek and Muslim writings as I already stated.
BTW, Islam was much more progressive than Christianity before the Renaissance. Muslim scholars adopted Indian decimal system and came up with advanced mathematics. It was later imported into Europe, which was still using the Roman numerals inadequate for advanced mathematics.

I am not a Christian, but I regard Christianity as probably the most progressive religion, because it resembles secularism and atheism most closely.

The latest god-is-love Christianity may resemble secularism but it's not because of Christianity. And there still are many denominations, dogmas and particular believers who are as silly and ignorant as always.

Other Comments by notsobad

46. Comment #117953 by Darwin's shitsu on January 30, 2008 at 3:59 am

In response to MPhil and notsobad
i could be wrong but i thought that Dawkins was agreeing with lord carey that the CofE could 'take it on the chin' when compared to other religions, not that they were the source of freedom and liberty.
cheers

Other Comments by Darwin's shitsu

47. Comment #117957 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 4:23 am

Very interesting to note that all of the people who called or emailed the show in relation to blasphemy as quoted in the second segment said that criminal blasphemy was an affront to demoncracy, civilised society, freedom of speech and good sense. Good on them. Perhaps that could be said to be more representative of the general population? Did the show get any calls from viewers with the opposite opinion?!

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

48. Comment #117958 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 4:24 am

Darwin's shitsu - that's what I thought as well.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

49. Comment #117962 by notsobad on January 30, 2008 at 4:43 am

Darwin's shitsu,
that may be true, but I have heard people giving credit to Christianity for things it actually oppressed.

Other Comments by notsobad

50. Comment #117981 by Matt7895 on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 am

well, don't get too encouraged, america has far worse laws which have religious subtexts: laws against gay marriage (and even practicing gay sex), the right to die, to be able to buy alcohol on sunday, prostitution, etc. ad nauseum!

Yeah I was about to say the same thing myself, but being British I didn't want to seem to come off as arrogant or anti-American. At least in Britain you can be gay and in a physical relationship, and be 'married'. Not being gay that doesn't really affect me anyway, but a law against alcohol certainly would! I hear there are some areas of the US where you can't drink even as an adult! Relics of prohibition, I suppose. And then of course there's the death penalty... I'm glad we abolished it in the sixties.

Other Comments by Matt7895