1. Comment #134140 by toomanytribbles on February 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

this isn't playing for some reason so yes, an mp3 would be nice.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

2. Comment #134145 by Zakie Chan on February 27, 2008 at 10:20 am

It works for me. Though, an mp3 would still be nice. Can someone change this RP into mp3?

This interviewer is terrible! Her little "yeeeeaaaaaah..." after Dawkins' says anything is really annoying, her questions are totally lame, and she doesn't seem interested at all.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

3. Comment #134154 by Matt7895 on February 27, 2008 at 10:34 am

It works for me. Though, an mp3 would still be nice. Can someone change this RP into mp3? I bet Jesus could do it!

I doubt any desert-dweller from 2000 years ago would know the first thing about computer technology.

Thanks for the link to the interview, always nice to hear Richard. The second caller-in seems kind of rude from where I've got to.... Richard asks for evidence and she says 'Excuse me I am talking!' in a rather brash manner... I hope this doesn't set the tone for the rest of the programme.

Other Comments by Matt7895

4. Comment #134172 by Nuspirit on February 27, 2008 at 11:01 am

An mp3 version would be fine. You pretty much have to hate your computer (and by extension yourself since you still have to use your computer afterwards) to install RealPlayer on it.

Other Comments by Nuspirit

5. Comment #134174 by HourglassMemory on February 27, 2008 at 11:03 am

It's a nice interview, like all the others.
One or two people who called in were quite peculiar.
and the interviewr didn't seem to have questions ready for him. She seemed to ask questions in a sort of "mmmm I guess I'll ask him this now."
It didn't flow, it seemed to me.

The woman spoke of Dawkins going to Wisconsin to the Wisconsin Union theatre.
Here's a picture of the place, for those who are curious.
http://www.union.wisc.edu/uniontheater/venue_clip_clip_image002.jpg

I t think it is, at least that's what shows up when you Google it.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

6. Comment #134178 by Heretic on February 27, 2008 at 11:05 am

You pretty much have to hate your computer (and by extension yourself since you still have to use your computer afterwards) to install RealPlayer on it.

True - I use Real Alternative, which lets you play RM audio and video without the horrid Real Player

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

Other Comments by Heretic

7. Comment #134182 by Nuspirit on February 27, 2008 at 11:13 am

As do I but I can't get it to work with realmedia streams (as opposed to files).

Edit: Actually nevermind, just got it working with MPC.

Other Comments by Nuspirit

8. Comment #134190 by AllanW on February 27, 2008 at 11:27 am

Yep, nice session. The interviewer was a little hesitant at first but then let things flow as the callers come online. She cut things off when calls got too long as well so congrats to her.

Dawkins was quite a bit more agile in his responses; I'm so pleased to hear that. He was abrupt but crucially full of facts in response to one caller which shows his developing presentation and debate skills; more feisty is good sometimes.

I came away from the show with a warm feeling that he is in good shape to take on all-comers in whatever guise they appear; the responses are sharper, pointed, and still fact-packed. Please, someone photo-shop that scene on the steps in Philly from 'Rocky' with Dawkins' head superimposed as my abiding reflection is that he is finishing his pre-fight training in preparation for his american tour :)

Other Comments by AllanW

9. Comment #134191 by Venice on February 27, 2008 at 11:30 am

Okay. I have to agree with Sam Harris's comment at the Athiest Conference last Novemeber. The meme about Stalin, Hitler, Polpot is not going away. No matter how many of these debates I hear the religious always bring that up as a trump card (or so they think). Sigh. I suppose on the other hand it is good to see they have been reduced to that and not much else.

Other Comments by Venice

10. Comment #134193 by Incredulous on February 27, 2008 at 11:36 am

Richard asks for evidence and she says 'Excuse me I am talking!' in a rather brash manner

Yes, I heard this and was completely annoyed at her for not simply providing the evidence and then getting off the line. Typical of these time wasting windbags.

I loved his response to some guys version of pascal's wager. There are so many of these god things out there, how would you know which one was giving you a hard time.

Isn't Richard fed up with having to trot out the same replies to the same dreary questions every time he speaks?

Having said that I guess America is a big place and many would probably not have heard his many lectures and interviews.

Other Comments by Incredulous

11. Comment #134211 by He-man Daunted World on February 27, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I wish people wouldn't call into radio stations while driving their car!

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

12. Comment #134215 by BCReason on February 27, 2008 at 12:22 pm

I've a better response to the Stalin killed for Atheism argument.

Let's say a man who was a baptist, a republican and a mason kills a whole bunch of people. Could you say he killed those people because he was any one of those things? It would be illogical to say any of those were the reason he killed unless you had some evidence that he did. Even if he confesses to the police that he heard God tell him to do it. That means he killed because he's crazy not because he's a baptist.
He could of killed for money, power or jealousy. Reasons that have nothing to do with the groups he belonged to.

Stalin was a communist who killed to gain and retain political power in the name of communism. Being an atheist was incidental to that.

Other Comments by BCReason

13. Comment #134225 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Isn't Richard fed up with having to trot out the same replies to the same dreary questions every time he speaks?

After all, Dawkins is described as being a "professor of public understanding of science at Oxford", which is the sort of job, if I had to guess what his job responsiblities are, that would have to tirelessly answer the same old stupid questions. Really, there probably are many strategies to educate people out of their mythical thinking, but I suspect that radio interviews such as these with Q&A sessions are one of the many highly effective methods one would use.

Carl Sagan has several biographies (I've read 2 of them) which talk about his role as public communicator of science. They say that he was only tangentially or superficially involved with any really deep scientific work once he got famous, years after he did his PhD work on Venus, and that this was a cause for resentment by his colleagues at Harvard, Cornell, etc... For example, when Sagan wrote The Dragons of Eden, "real" brain researchers resented the fact that he wrote a book with lots of speculation on the subject because any non-famous person would be criticized for it. Many scientists even felt he was taking credit (by popularizing the ideas) for research that they had done. Of course, this is a far cry from books on religion... I doubt any biologists would be complaing about Dawkins stealing the limelight by writing TGD, for instance.

I hope that RD doesn't have to suffer the same kind of resentment for doing public education kind of work. I don't know his personal story well enough to guess if he has been treated similarly by other biologists who do "real science". It'd be interesting to know.

Maybe Dawkins will write his own autobiography one day, rather than relying on someone else to tell the tale.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

14. Comment #134234 by Matt7895 on February 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm

AtheistJon - What beer are you drinking in your profile picture?

Back on topic, I've finished listening to the interview, I thought Richard did well, his patience far exceeds mine, but I suppose that's why he's a Professor and I'm not :P

Other Comments by Matt7895

15. Comment #134239 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Guinness, naturlich ;-)

Reminds me of a joke:

After the Great Britain Beer Festival, in London, all the brewery presidents decided to go out for a beer. The guy from Corona sits down and says "Hey Senor, I would like the world's best beer, a Corona." The bartender dusts off a bottle from the shelf and gives it to him.

The guy from Budweiser says "I'd like the best beer in the world, give me 'The King Of Beers', a Budweiser." The bartender gives him one.

The guy from Coors says "I'd like the only beer made with Rocky Mountain spring water, give me a Coors." He gets it.

The guy from Guinness sits down and says "Give me a Coke." The bartender is a little taken aback, but gives him what he ordered.

The other brewery presidents look over at him and ask "Why aren't you drinking a Guinness?" and the Guinness president replies

"Well, if you guys aren't drinking beer, neither will I."

By the way, I thought I read on one of the other items, that RD was retiring from Oxford. Yet during this interview, the lady never mentioned it.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

16. Comment #134241 by mdowe on February 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Re: Comment #134234 by Matt7895
...
Richard did well, his patience far exceeds mine ...

I think I half listen to these clips waiting, with a kind of morbid fascination, for that one program where RD finally loses it =) I've heard him get mildly annoyed from time to time, but that's it. Honestly, I don't know how he does it.

Other Comments by mdowe

17. Comment #134243 by Matt7895 on February 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Guinness, naturlich ;-)

Reminds me of a joke:
A Real Beer

After the Great Britain Beer Festival, in London, all the brewery presidents decided to go out for a beer. The guy from Corona sits down and says "Hey Senor, I would like the world's best beer, a Corona." The bartender dusts off a bottle from the shelf and gives it to him.

The guy from Budweiser says "I'd like the best beer in the world, give me 'The King Of Beers', a Budweiser." The bartender gives him one.

The guy from Coors says "I'd like the only beer made with Rocky Mountain spring water, give me a Coors." He gets it.

The guy from Guinness sits down and says "Give me a Coke." The bartender is a little taken aback, but gives him what he ordered.

The other brewery presidents look over at him and ask "Why aren't you drinking a Guinness?" and the Guinness president replies

"Well, if you guys aren't drinking beer, neither will I."

Aha, excellent! Well, I'm not really into stout, I'm more of a bitter and ale fan. I heartily recommend trying out 'Doom Bar' if you ever see it. 'Tribute' is good too, both are Cornish ales.

Other Comments by Matt7895

18. Comment #134244 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Matt,

I have to add one other hilarious joke (which came with the last joke which I found by Googling)... and then let the conversation return to RD...

An Englishman, a Scotchman, and an Irishman are sitting at a bar, each with a beer in front of them. All of a sudden, three flies zoom in and land right in each of the beers. The Englishman pushes his away in disgust, gets up, and leaves. The Scotchman simply pulls the fly out, tosses it on the ground, and continues drinking. The Irishman however, pulls his fly out and begins beating it against the bar while shouting, "Give it back, give it back!!"

By the way, the picture of me is from a trip to Dublin, Ireland a couple of years ago. The funny thing to me was that in Dublin, there's a huge Guinness brewery, and right on the adjacent street to the brewery is an alcoholics rehabilitation hospital. ;-)

Other Comments by AtheistJon

19. Comment #134261 by Richard Feldmann on February 27, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Well done, Richard.

Is it just me that gets riled every time I hear someone mispronounce Richard's last name as Darkins? I must be sensitive to that sort of thing because people do it my last name all the time. I know, wash or warsh, potahto or potayto, etc. :)

I do think that most people who call in to such shows have simply never read any of Richard's books and have never had a discussion with an intelligent atheist (angst-ridden teens just don't represent it very well). The only arguments they know are what they've heard from the pulpit or from Sunday brunches after service.

So, was the interviewer supposed to be an atheist? I loved how when Richard said "of course you and I are too [reasonable/intelligent] to believe in such things" and she stammered. Perhaps she's on the fence and just got tipped in the right direction? ;)

Other Comments by Richard Feldmann

20. Comment #134262 by Dogrev on February 27, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Greetings to all, I am an athiest of some 50 years standing and have been a regular lurker on this site as I really enjoy many of the contributions and discussions. To those of you who have had trouble with playing this link, if you are using IE, I suggest you try right clicking it and selecting the save as option. It worked for me and as I live in South Africa where we pay heavily for bandwidth, I like to have the option of accessing the file on my hardrive whenever I want to replay it.

Other Comments by Dogrev

21. Comment #134265 by Epinephrine on February 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I didn't find the woman who objected to being talked over that offensive; I think Prof. Dawkins was perhaps a bit overzealous in trying to respond immediately. Granted, I also think she was batty, but that's entirely separate.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

22. Comment #134268 by Geoff on February 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Was it just me, or did she seem to talk much more slowly, with lots of pauses, when addressing her listeners than when she was talking to Richard?

...The...God...De..lu...sion...

And Richard to the Stalin guy:

"What on Earth are you talking about? I've just given you the answer!"

Priceless!

Other Comments by Geoff

23. Comment #134271 by Orion on February 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Richard Feldman: "I loved how when Richard said "of course you and I are too [reasonable/intelligent] to believe in such things" and she stammered."

Richard wasn't referring to the interviewer there, he was discussing OTHERS who say "Of course, you and I are too reasonable..."

Other Comments by Orion

24. Comment #134274 by DasSquid on February 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Off Topic.

Is it her voice is it her accent? but it frustrated me to no end everytime she said "The Gaaahd Delusion."

Other Comments by DasSquid

25. Comment #134278 by ToTopl on February 27, 2008 at 2:22 pm

As for the statistical correlation whit mental health and religion, there is also positive correlation between inteligence and depression.

Other Comments by ToTopl

26. Comment #134284 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

AtheistJon -

"The Irishman however, pulls his fly out and begins beating it against the bar while shouting, "Give it back, give it back!!"

Allowing for the percieved national characteristics, should this not have been the Scotsman's role?

Other Comments by NMcC

27. Comment #134285 by al-rawandi on February 27, 2008 at 2:35 pm

NMcC,



Agreed. It is usually the dirty potato eating Irishman and the tight fisted dress wearing Scottsman.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

28. Comment #134290 by Quetzalcoatl on February 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm

DasSquid-

I've got to agree with you, her voice is irritating!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #134293 by DasSquid on February 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm

By the way, the picture of me is from a trip to Dublin, Ireland a couple of years ago. The funny thing to me was that in Dublin, there's a huge Guinness brewery, and right on the adjacent street to the brewery is an alcoholics rehabilitation hospital. ;-)

Intelligent Design perhaps?

Other Comments by DasSquid

30. Comment #134302 by ab_initio on February 27, 2008 at 2:52 pm

I haven't finished listening to it yet, but its actually hosted as an MP3... am I too late and the quicktime plugin has been added since people requested it?

If not, then here's the MP3:
http://media.richarddawkins.net/audio/2008/jca080227c.mp3

Other Comments by ab_initio

31. Comment #134309 by NMcC on February 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #134265 by Epinephrine on February 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

"I didn't find the woman who objected to being talked over that offensive;"

I certainly found her offensive; what she was trying to say in a totally unjustifiably arrogant way was: here's a book that refutes everything you say. Yet, she couldn't say what the qualifications of Lee Strobel were, she said herself that it was a while since she read the book and she was too stupid even to know that the book in question, The Case for Christ, has next to no bearing on anything in TGD and that it has been torn to shreads by skeptical reviewers for the unfounded, preposterous, dishonest claptrap that it is.

For those of you who don't know, Lee Strobel is a ridiculous christian apologist. He trumpets the fact that he is a former 'investigative' journalist who was also formerly 'an atheist' (weren't they all!) who became a Christian after bringing his 'investigative' skills to bear on the claims of the Christian religion and finding these claims sound. In fact, he became a Christian as a response to his wife becoming one and if his investigative journalistic skills were anything like those displayed in his farcial books the world of investigative journalism has lost nothing and doesn't need to go into mourning.

To cut a long story short, here's Strobel's idea of hard-nosed, investigative journalism as displayed in his dopey books:

Strobel: "Isn't it the case that the Christian religion makes total sense, is founded on absolute truth and is exactly what everyone is looking for?"

Some other Christian apologist: "Yes, it certainly is".

Strobel: "Well, there you have it reader, the facts speak for themselves".

How does Strobel deal with the views of the skeptics he interviews? He doesn't. Interview any, that is!

I've simplified the above, of course, but only just.

So for this arrogant half-wit to berate Dawkins with '..have you read this book..?' is offensive in the extreme.

Other Comments by NMcC

32. Comment #134324 by Szkeptik on February 27, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Well, It didn't contain anything new. The same boring old questions that always get asked.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

33. Comment #134343 by toomanytribbles on February 27, 2008 at 4:02 pm

just listening to the mp3 file now. thanks.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

34. Comment #134347 by 82abhilash on February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm

To a simple observer, it may appear that Richard Dawkins was contradicting himself when he first said that religion is harmful and then later said that religious people are capable of doing good things, sometimes only because of their religion. If that is the case religion cannot be inherently harmful.

Unless of course that harm does not always come from the behaviors that religion motivate, but rather from their tendencies (of all religions) to distort truth and discourage intellectually honest conversation. Perhaps someone will catch Dawkins on that and he will clarify.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

35. Comment #134354 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Comment #134347 by 82abhilash

Unless of course that harm does not always come from the behaviors that religion motivate,

I believe the degree to which religion motivates behaviour is overestimated. What religion does is enable and support behaviour. People have natural inclinations and they pick the bits of their religion that support those.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #134356 by PLAYBALL on February 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I love Richard's enthusiasm and his voice is very sexy!!

Other Comments by PLAYBALL

37. Comment #134359 by 82abhilash on February 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm

35. Comment #134354 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I believe the degree to which religion motivates behaviour is overestimated. What religion does is enable and support behaviour. People have natural inclinations and they pick the bits of their religion that support those.

The reality is a bit more complicated. In a free country what you say is true. But in a Theo centric state, it is not that simple.

And besides, the people who want to put creationism in class rooms, their beliefs are motivated by religion, although I am reasonably sure that their leaders are charlatans. I would think nurture has a domiant role here, you know to shape those natural inclinations.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

38. Comment #134367 by jesus_christ_himself on February 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm

God Bless Mp3. May RealAudio taste the hell-fire.

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

39. Comment #134373 by Star Spangled Eagle on February 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm

The host was awful, most of the callers were ignorant, but damn Richard was brilliant! It seemed like he was prepared for every question that came from the callers, providing a great response, no hesitation, no frosting, just facts.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

40. Comment #134393 by 4horsefins on February 27, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Richard...brilliant as usual.
I actually enjoy listening to the creationist's call in...and the dumber the better I say. Every once in a while, one of these callers will say something even the most sophisticated theologians would agree with. These are the moments when Richard's venom is most potent.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

41. Comment #134394 by Mr0Joshua on February 27, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Is the host even paying attention to what's going on? She sounds like my dad when I call him up and he's watching TV. "Yeah... Hmm... Yeah... Uhhh..."

Other Comments by Mr0Joshua

42. Comment #134401 by Saerain on February 27, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Who is this Gad fellow she keeps referring to?

Other Comments by Saerain

43. Comment #134402 by LorienRyan on February 27, 2008 at 6:13 pm

More of the same, but what else really is there to expect. Richard, I thought, answered all the questions appropriately and fairly. I think accusations of Richard being a bit 'shrill' are probably more related to the people who say that. I get the impression that it is because Richard genuinely cares about the subject and reacts in a natural way to inanity.

I noticed some commenters complained about the interviewer, mostly personal comments, that's alright but I didn't see it, I thought she did a fairly good job.

What impressed me most is Richard's ability to converse about highly complex subject matter in a natural and 'down to earth' way. It's always refreshing to hear sound logic expressed well.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

44. Comment #134407 by Mitchell Gilks on February 27, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Did anyone else laugh out loud when that women accused all of RD's arguments as being non sequiturs, and promently demonstrated some for our listening pleasure? I found that astondingly ironic.

That interveiwer's accent was funny "er..ah...RichAAArd DAAwkins is here to talk about about...er...ah..Gawd!"

Anyone else impressed at how a theoretically physcists was incapable of wraping their head around elementary logic? "But if you are claiming that A motiviates actions, then how can you not agree that B motivates actions?"

I don't even watch these to hear RD, I can practically guess which lines he will pull out of his extensive collection of retorts verbatum after having watched every available interview, and lecture on the subject. I am actually quite thrilled when they reword them, or upgrade them with a better version. I listen for the callers, and the interviewers. It is always good for a laugh at the very least.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

45. Comment #134410 by catalinmerfu on February 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

This is the Pew Forum Survey:

http://religions.pewforum.org/

Interesting that only 1.6% of the unaffiliated declare themselves atheist.

Other Comments by catalinmerfu

46. Comment #134422 by coastalguy on February 27, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Earle Doherty (Jesus Puzzle) provided an in depth response to Strobels, termed "Challenging the Verdict" in the format of a withering cross examination of "Case for Christ - Strobels". If RD had know this he could have also issued up a cheerful challenge to her to read Doherty as well as Strobels for both points of view...

Ref: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Other Comments by coastalguy

47. Comment #134454 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 8:08 pm

"Why do you uh..say its uh..bad?"
Joy has had a great deal of the new age quacks on her show. I think she has a bit of the post-modernist "oh well it all good....if it is right for you it can't be wrong."

"That just means we have a poor education system." Refering to a point Dawkins made about the widespread belief that the Earth is 6000 years old. This is just moronic. It has nothing to the education system. I've read dozens of science text books and not one of them has ever said the Earth is between 5.6 billion and 6000 years old. The 6000 year belief is a product of religious indoctrination and as such gets hammered into kids I daresay a bit more often than the time they spend doing science. Ms. Cardine is either too dense or too polite to point that out, or accept it as damning the religious mindset.

Other Comments by MaxD

48. Comment #134475 by Phasic on February 27, 2008 at 9:10 pm

The interviewer sounds half-asleep at times. It's odd.

Other Comments by Phasic

49. Comment #134487 by Chispita on February 27, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Richard refers to Atheists who are okay with the existence of religion as "patronizing and condescending." Yet I noticed some of his answers to callers were very patronizing and condescending. That's the only way I know how to deal with believers. Therefore, I shall remain in my intelligence high horse until there's an easier way.

Other Comments by Chispita

50. Comment #134490 by nephmon on February 27, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Quite interesting. I wish the woman who accused Richard of employing non sequiturs would have listed one or two of them... In general the apologists were as lame as you'd expect.

The interviewer was pretty bad, too. She really made me appreciate the awesomeness of the hosts of the Forum program on my local station, KQED (and of Terry Gross, of course).

Other Comments by nephmon