1. Comment #13331 by Maff on December 17, 2006 at 5:54 am

That was disappointing. I've rather enjoyed listening to Benn in the past, but his counter arguments were weak in the extreme. Given that Benn is so anti-Bush, it's a pity that Richard chose not to point out that it's the Presidents unquestioning religious support that has enabled him to carry out the very policies that Benn opposes.

Other Comments by Maff

2. Comment #13332 by PositiveAtheist on December 17, 2006 at 5:56 am

What a ridiculous final comment made by Tony Benn just because, as the Americans say, he got owned. Lol I'm surprised Richard managed to get a word in with him around.

Other Comments by PositiveAtheist

3. Comment #13335 by Logicel on December 17, 2006 at 6:00 am

Tony Benn is probably the biggest god apologist that I have ever seen so far in all the various materials presented at this site.

And I think Dawkins went straight for his apolgetic jugular. Benn, of course, got nothing out of this exercise, but I did. And the lesson learnt is that moderate supporters of religious superstitions--like this rosy-cheeked, seemingly innocuous Benn--are the most pronouncely rigid supportors tenaciously clinging to the myth that we are better off with superstitions, and that we will wither and fester without the religiously directed 'moral code'.

Benn concludes that since science is not a religion, and cannot replace it, it is to be rejected as a tool to raise human consciousness so each and every one of us can adopt a basic moral code--the cherry-picked Christian version which existed before the advent of Christianity and which was formed from evolution through the need to co-operate in order to spread our 'selfish' genes.

Benn is so stuck with his self satisfaction that he is tolerant that he cannot see that he is tolerant of being stuck, and that is all. He, in his obnoxiously patronizing but undeniably friendly manner, encourages all of us to be stuck like him, and to rejoice in it. Well, Benn, I am unstuck and this immensely morally satisfying state is one in which I rejoice each and every day.

Other Comments by Logicel

4. Comment #13336 by ImagineAZ on December 17, 2006 at 6:00 am

It sounded to me like Richard just converted his opponent to agnostic.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

5. Comment #13337 by RascoHeldall on December 17, 2006 at 6:05 am

I've never seen Benn make such simplistic, childish arguments - disappointing - still, Dawkins did seem to expose Benn's inherent lack of belief and thereby expose the pointless unhelpfulness of religious moderation.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

6. Comment #13339 by chbg21808 on December 17, 2006 at 6:08 am

I watched this on the television this morning.

Out of all the interviews and debates I've seen with Richard Dawkins, this was the most Disappointing.

I think part of the problem is that the segment was far too short... If it had been able to run, it might have gone somewhere. I was left with a feeling that it never got going.

One thing I found a bit annoying, is that it came across rather one sided, with the hosts and Tony Benn ganging up on Richard... I don't think this was intentional or done with any malice, but it made it almost impossible to get more than a sentence or two in edge ways, before getting interrupted... Why do they need two hosts?

Richard Dawkins is at his brilliant best when he's in full flight on a point he is trying to get across, no one does it better. All his answers were cut off far too short and I was just left wanting more.

Tony Benn seemed to have a total misunderstanding of the role of science. No scientist with an ounce intelligence makes the claim that we get our morals from science. He seemed to be suggesting that we shouldn't get our morals from science (which gives the implication that we do) and therefore religion is neccessary... He obviously hasn't read Richard's latest book or Sam Harris's books for that matter.

I'm not sure... But I also got the impression that Tony Benn was saying that science is a waste of time, if we do not get our morals from it. what good is it? ...I maybe wrong, buts that what it sounded like.

Despite all the nonsense that came out of Tony Benn's mouth, he still came across as a nice chap and not a lunatic fundie... It is hard to have a sharp pull no punches debate with someone who is just unwilling to "throw punches".

Also, when Tony Benn was asked... "Are you cherry picking" he became evasive. Of course that is exactly what he does, whether he admits it or not.

He was also unwilling to answer whether he believes in a personal God... If he doesn't and he is just cherry picking certain versus as part of his moral standards, then I would have to call him the very worst kind of christian moderate. How pathetic is that... To hold on to few versus of scripture, because you think they may have moral virtue and to keep your friends happy.

Other Comments by chbg21808

7. Comment #13342 by Jack Rawlinson on December 17, 2006 at 6:22 am

Very disappointing intellectual cowardice and dishonesty from a man I have a lot of respect for, politically. Benn hammered away at his straw men ("Science can't give me moral guidance!") long after Richard had agreed with him. He totally dodged the central issue of the importance of truth, over and over again.

I suppose, given that he is a politician, it's a little naive of me to be somewhat surprised by that.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

8. Comment #13343 by PositiveAtheist on December 17, 2006 at 6:27 am

Yes and the worrying thing is that Richard comes across as not a nice chap, and is seen as the devil. Which is so very wrong.

Other Comments by PositiveAtheist

9. Comment #13344 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 6:34 am

I'm unfamiliar with this show, not having a TV to watch while I'm here in the UK. However, this little 'advertisement,' as it were, does little to make me wish to tune in.

The hosts seemed a lot more smug, in my opinion, than Prof. Dawkins or Mr. Benn. Benn seemed to be fighting a losing battle while dodging the questions. He appealed to common points that ANYONE would agree with, rather than actually getting to the substance of claims to the existence of god.

His repeated statement that science does nothing to 'tell us how to live,' is patently absurd. Neither does cooking, sport, mathematics, etc. Just because something does not instruct us does not make it invalid. And I suppose one of the whole points of science is to use reason, and it is this use of reason which can teach people how to live, if that is something they feel they need. It is easy in most cases to use reason to determine 'good' actions from 'bad,' and in the cases of something in the 'grey' zone, ONLY reason can build a consensus, and ONLY reason responds to the shifting of time and the presentation of new information.

But the hosts, oh boy, the hosts...they kept on saying things like 'now I know you don't believe in god, but...' and 'we won't convince you in the next five minutes, but...' They acted as if they honestly thought they were presenting Dawkins with novel arguments. But it is very difficult to do that, or to even have this sort of debate, when the people involved have CLEARLY read no more than the jacket blurb or at best a synopsis of the book in question. The hosts in particular come across as smiling panderers to the believers who make up the lion's share of their audience.

I think in many cases I'd rather read or watch a nasty, vitriolic response to Dawkins' ideas than one that meets him with nothing more than vapid, smiling bemusement and condescension.

Other Comments by Jared

10. Comment #13347 by GregPreston on December 17, 2006 at 6:53 am

Oh dear. Poor Tony, he was a great man once. I wish he would stay out of the public arena and let us remember him as he was. I could see Richard struggling not to condescend too much. Ouch.

Other Comments by GregPreston

11. Comment #13349 by Roy_H on December 17, 2006 at 7:09 am

I hope if Mr. Benn ever needs to go to hospital he does not reject ( medical) science as not been able to tell/show him anything!

Other Comments by Roy_H

12. Comment #13352 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 7:19 am

Someone once said that Tony Benn immatures with age. What a wise prophet. Looks like he thinks the truth must have some message for human morality in it. How incredibly naive. Where was he comming from, not believing in the virgin birth etc? Pretty essential if you profess to be a christian. I think he really wants a sky daddy to give him a security blanket and that is why he believes. I thought however Richard should really haver torn him to shreds, and I was disappointed that he didn't. I was almost shouting at the screen to make him attack benn more. Maybe he felt sorry for him?

Other Comments by BillySands

13. Comment #13355 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2006 at 7:55 am

Hi all ... it was sort of interesting that Richard didn't subject him to more of a savaging.

Puzzling oh ... and I deny the holy spirit and Allah can sodomise himself. Erm ....no offence to the gay community ...

The kind of weak unsubstantive theisim Benn retreats to is the only refuge of a geuinely intelligent theist. All the detail is easy to refute, and anyone of modest intelligence who thinks about it can see that.

So it's useful to read what the atheists of the past have said, because there criticisims return to the fundamentals, to the detail and that is where we need to continue to hammer. I've been reading a guy called Robert Green Ingersoll online lately ... and let me tell you he is brilliant. A quote :

All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the coiled form of superstition -- then read the Holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity.

Our ancestors not only had their god-factories, but they made devils as well. These devils were generally disgraced and fallen gods. Some had headed unsuccessful revolts; some had been caught sweetly reclining in the shadowy folds of some fleecy cloud, kissing the wife of the god of gods. These devils generally sympathized with man. There is in regard to them a most wonderful fact: In nearly all the theologies, mythologies and religions, the devils have been much more humane and merciful than the gods. No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such barbarities were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences were sent by the most merciful gods. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality.

One of these gods, according to the account, drowned an entire world with the exception of eight persons. The old, the young, the beautiful and the helpless were remorsely devoured by the shoreless sea. This, the most fearful tragedy that the imagination of ignorant priests ever conceived, was the act, not of a devil, but of a god, so-called, whom men ignorantly worship unto this day. What a stain such an act would leave upon the character of a devil! One of the prophets of one of these gods, having in his power a captured king, hewed him in pieces in the sight of all the people. Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of such savagery?

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

Check it out ... great stuff.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

14. Comment #13356 by anon on December 17, 2006 at 7:59 am

No science doesn't tell us how to be good, but has this man honestly never heard of secular moral systems? He even conceded that Dawkins is moral without religion.

Apart from that, all he has to say is 'religious tradition is nice', the old cherry-picking 'believing in belief' routine.

Benn is a decent man, and it's a terrible shame to see decent people delude themselves so desperately.

Other Comments by anon

15. Comment #13359 by Laurence Boyce on December 17, 2006 at 8:44 am

Tony Benn is the classic "atheist christian" but, as Sam Harris has pointed out, we are paying a terrible for tolerating this sort of secular apologetics for religion. One great quote from Benn though: "I see the Russians have put a spacecraft on the Moon; could we have a better bus service in Bristol?"

Other Comments by Laurence Boyce

16. Comment #13361 by Ole on December 17, 2006 at 8:58 am

Robert Green Ingersoll was quoted:
All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it.

I have been suggesting this to many people. I even tell them they can read it off the Internet (then it will not be a black book with a golden cross).
I've also observed that many Christians perhaps never have read the bible. They have learned some bible history, they know only a few verses.

Here on RDN, I asked "our own minister" David Robertson to read it like a book. He said he had... strange (I don't believe him on that point)... or.. when someone get his paycheck from the church it is perhaps not that easy?

O.J.

Other Comments by Ole

17. Comment #13362 by Yorker on December 17, 2006 at 9:01 am

Tony Benn is not the man he once was; couple that with an attempt to defend religion, and you have a sad case. However, Benn is still one of the few politicians I have ever thought much of.

Other Comments by Yorker

18. Comment #13364 by matt2112 on December 17, 2006 at 9:35 am

Had Tony Benn been on the piss or what? He seemed to think that if he repeated his excuse for an argument enough times it would make it correct.

The presenters were equally lame, assuming the burden of proof was on Prof Dawkins. Still, it was nice to see that he seemed to be happily cruising along in second gear, having heard all this theistic guff a thousand times before.

Other Comments by matt2112

19. Comment #13371 by mikejswalker on December 17, 2006 at 10:04 am

Shit what a graceless interview. Dawkins got interrupted at every turn. Ask a question. Let me answer. Don't run scared all over my words. I'm strong enough to let you finish what you want to say. That is all we ask. tony seemed self absorbed. Very disappointing.

Other Comments by mikejswalker

20. Comment #13373 by godisanidiot on December 17, 2006 at 10:15 am

What an ignorant and rude host that was, continually disrupting RD.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

21. Comment #13375 by Seti on December 17, 2006 at 10:19 am

Oh dear - that was sad. I knew Tony many years ago in Bristol, and really liked him, and I've always had enormous respect for his debating skills. When I saw this, I thought - "Ah - at last. Someone to give Richard a real work-out." Sadly, no. Tony has had to retreat into the only viable position for a rational man trying to hold onto the beleifs his mother taught him to respect - he's watered them down so far, they've almost disappeared.

Other Comments by Seti

22. Comment #13378 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2006 at 10:34 am

Sent the following to ITV.

Hi Guys!

The two interviewers in the segment with Dawkins repeatedly interrupted him, and completely let that other idiot of the hook. Constantly banging on about the same absurd point, which had nothing whatever to do with the existence or non-existence of a god. Clearly they had a theistic bias, and constantly posed questions in a skewed and partisan way.

Dawkins must be commended for his patience with such persistent idiocy. Really ITV, try and get it right next time.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

23. Comment #13382 by seals on December 17, 2006 at 10:43 am

Respect is due, how does RD stay cool in the face of the same obtuse questions... the presenters were highly irritating and smug, and Tony Benn seems to be turning into an old sweetie wife - you would feel bad to disillusion him!

Other Comments by seals

24. Comment #13389 by Diplo on December 17, 2006 at 11:28 am

Benn, sadly is getting old. It's quite clear, though, he doesn't actually believe in God and if he would take a minute to understand what Dawkins is saying (rather than his pre-prejudiced presumption of what he thinks Dawkins is saying) then he might find they are actually in agreement.

Other Comments by Diplo

25. Comment #13394 by petermun on December 17, 2006 at 11:48 am

Tony Benn has been a hero of mine for years. A debate with Richard, how wonderful I thought.
What a total let down. Tony was off with the fairies (if only I believed in them). The interviewers were amongst the worst I have ever seen (who are they and are they stealing a living?)
Only Richard came out of this with any credit. He was restrained, rational and caring. Three cheers for him!

Other Comments by petermun

26. Comment #13406 by Vardu on December 17, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Yes, a real dish of ointment,
But what's all this nonsense about "Science doesn't tell me how to live"!?
Why must we be told how to live?
Perhaps it's something we really have to figure out for ourselves without slobbering over some spiritual dole system, especially one that advocates some theoritical haunted-house model of the cosmos.

Other Comments by Vardu

27. Comment #13413 by jbannon on December 17, 2006 at 2:31 pm

I saw the conversation this morning on TV. As a socialist myself (in the French revolutionary rather than Marxist tradition) I found Tony Benn surprisingly very disappointing as he is usually a sharp debater and was one of the left's better politicians. The argument from morality, which almost the entire conversation consisted of, is just so dumb. Mind you, that goes for most apologetic arguments. Tony Benn kept banging on about how science doesn't tell us what we ought to use technology for. Well of course it doesn't, that's not its job! Don't get me wrong, I don't buy this "science is value-free" nonsense, but the job of science is to tell us how the world works, not what we ought to do about it; that's up to us humans to decide.

I thought Richard did reasonably well in spite of the continual interruption. One small criticism is that I don't think he pushed hard enough. Perhaps he was just giving the questioners room to hang themselves!

Other Comments by jbannon

28. Comment #13414 by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker on December 17, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Comment 13355

I read an entire Robert Ingersol webpage titled 'Why I Am Agnostic', presumably put up as reference to some of his written work. It was a truly fascinating read. I believe that he truthfully leaned more towards atheist though, merely sticking to the title of agnostic to avoid the fact that you can't possibly KNOW there is no God.

Comment 13364

I also take positively (i guess this is due to me sharing almost every viewpoint he has had) the idea that Richard seemed to be unbaffled and 'crusing along in second gear'. His sense of reason is so solid that it enables him to have such power in these situations. He was clearly slaughtered in terms of the verbal contribution in this video, yet we all here seem to agree that Richard 'owned' for want of a better word.

As I heard someone say before, he was outnumbered, but never outgunned.

I know it may be viewed as cowardly to simply take sides; 'hide behind' Dawkins and respect everything that comes out of his mouth, but i claim it not to be my fault that everything that he says fits so eloquently into my brain as the truth.

I cant see the truth sitting directly between these people.

Other Comments by TearTheRoofOffTheSucker

29. Comment #13415 by Martha on December 17, 2006 at 2:39 pm

Can anyone tell me how I can get to se all of this ITV YouTube video? So far, every time I click it on I only get the first 20 seconds then it switches off! I did get to se ALL of The Panel YouTube clip though, and it was terrific!

Other Comments by Martha

30. Comment #13427 by Nazgul on December 17, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Dribble... on Tony's part.

Other Comments by Nazgul

31. Comment #13428 by jefferson on December 17, 2006 at 3:49 pm

"Why is he[Richard] wrong?"
HAHA sounds like a question Fox News would use!

Other Comments by jefferson

32. Comment #13430 by solas on December 17, 2006 at 4:39 pm

Like many other posters, I have great admiration for Tony Benn and I was hugely disappointed by his performance on this programme. Unlike other posters I don't think the problem is that Benn is getting old or soft. I think that the political left has a big problem with Richard Dawkins, one which they cannot admit to.

Firstly, most people on the left do not read his books yet feel free to brand him as a genetic determinist. Secondly they are terrified that science is undermining many of their precious theories. In this they are correct: the marxist left regards humankind as either a 'noble savage' or a 'blank slate', to use Stephen Pinker's terms (a very false view as Pinker ponted out in his book 'The Blank Slate').

Human nature, as is being revealed by science, is making much of the marxist agenda redundant (it is already redundant in practice; but science is undermining its theories and therefore its future). This is what Benn was flailing against. A vain effort.

Other Comments by solas

33. Comment #13437 by Dog Boots on December 17, 2006 at 5:02 pm

Boy, that was frustrating. Neither Tony Benn nor any of the hosts understood any of Richard's perfectly clear points. They were simply not following, stuck in a debate at a floor or two below the discussion Richard was trying to have, which would've been interesting.

When, during the sentence: "You're cherry picking Bible verses", you're being interrupted by: "But let's just focus on the New Testament", the debate is worthless within the time frame given.

Oh how I wished for an extra hour added to the debate time, to allow Richard to rent a clue for them.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

34. Comment #13451 by k1mgy on December 17, 2006 at 7:38 pm

It was as if RD was being gentle with an old friend. Yes, it must have been frustrating, being cut-off and all, but so polite to allow Benn to blather on with irrelevances like "I don't want to go out with a diagnosis". Plus, it permitted him to jab a few in the direction of Bushland, which is a great use of the airwaves any day.

Despite the inherent handicaps in the setup and the lack of debate from the other corner, RD managed to get his point across rather well.

Only problem: his hair. That clump in the front that hung down as if ready to prod poor Richard in the eyeball. Distracting as hell and gave one the impression that Dawkins had just jumped off a motorbike, plunked down his sweaty helmet, and swaggered onto the set.

Other Comments by k1mgy

35. Comment #13458 by Zaphod on December 17, 2006 at 9:30 pm

Tony Benn doesn't even believe in god. He just says "I don't know", "I don't want to be diagnosed". He shouts love each other bla bla bla. This has nothing to do with god at all or religion.

The ass interviewer guy was so on the side of religion.

Other Comments by Zaphod

36. Comment #13487 by BushYakker on December 18, 2006 at 1:57 am

This was typical of the nursery school grade patronising that ITV specialise in.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will tell you that anything to do with UK ITV 'current affairs' is cheap sensationalist tat. A visual version of the gutter press. Dumbed down for the dumbest of the dumb.
I did not hold out much hope for a sensible discussion and I wasn't disappointed.

I have been a long time admirer of Tony Benn. I have been to his political rallies in the past. I have read his books. He was an icon of British politics and at one time, my hero. But what I saw on Sunday morning was sickeningly disappointing.
There again, this is what happens when you become involved with the nobrained tabloid TV trash that ITV have become.

People who regularly watch ITV news and current affairs (or any other ITV programmes) are usually somewhat cerebrally challenged.

RD has to get his message out and unfortunately that includes using this type of media. However, I have the feeling that the majority of the audience for this program would have forgotten what they has seen five minutes after the interview ended.

Other Comments by BushYakker

37. Comment #13491 by Kevin Ronayne on December 18, 2006 at 2:22 am

Re: Comment #13487 by BushYakker on December 18, 2006 at 1:57 am

"This was typical of the nursery school grade patronising that ITV specialise in."
...
"People who regularly watch ITV news and current affairs (or any other ITV programmes) are usually somewhat cerebrally challenged."

Since I supplied the recording, I suppose I'd better clarify! For the record, I wouldn't watch ITV in the proverbial month of Sundays, not for news/current affairs, or for anything else. I don't even scan the ITV schedules, and I wouldn't have known RD would be making an appearance, were it not for the notice on this web site.

None of which means that BushYakker is wrong - (S)he is right on just about every point!

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

38. Comment #13494 by BushYakker on December 18, 2006 at 2:32 am

Sorry Kevin I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your character or intelligence. :-))

I watched the program because it was mentioned on this website. I'm sure most of us here did.

By the way I'm a he (last time I looked).

Other Comments by BushYakker

39. Comment #13508 by Logicel on December 18, 2006 at 3:42 am

Thanks for your insightful comment, Solas

Other Comments by Logicel

40. Comment #13511 by Logicel on December 18, 2006 at 3:46 am

K1mgy said, "Only problem: his hair. That clump in the front that hung down as if ready to prod poor Richard in the eyeball. Distracting as hell and gave one the impression that Dawkins had just jumped off a motorbike, plunked down his sweaty helmet, and swaggered onto the set.

_______

Ok, good, I am not the only one that noticed this! Probably more like he had just jumped off his bicycle. But, then again, nothing wrong having a life outside of his confrontation with theism, and having some fun?

Other Comments by Logicel

41. Comment #13514 by J. on December 18, 2006 at 3:58 am

My word. What a buffoon Tony Benn seems to have become.

I was especially impressed by his attempt to show that Richard was wrong *because* he was right on the 'picking up sticks on the Sabbath' point (ie 'you're wrong to argue against the Sabbath *because* you say there is no god', bafflingly), and by his tactic of supporting his argument for general love and tolerance with the phrase 'Richard Dawkins hates everyone'. Some heavyweight pro-Christian arguments there, alright.

By the way, @ k1mgy:

'...gave one the impression that Dawkins had just jumped off a motorbike, plunked down his sweaty helmet, and swaggered onto the set.'

Now *that's* the sort of atheist figurehead I can look up to.

Other Comments by J.

42. Comment #13562 by Highgate_Mark on December 18, 2006 at 11:40 am

I think R.D. needs to be much more selective about the TV programmes he appears on. Benn has for many years been arrogant and pompous, and condescending Andrew Rawnsley is no better. I am surprised Been did not get on to his favourite hobby horse of how he gallantly struggled through World War Two and now he knows it all and anybody who does not play along with his chirpy style is just too immature to understand. Been clearly does not understand.

Other Comments by Highgate_Mark

43. Comment #13582 by Mr Blue Sky on December 18, 2006 at 3:03 pm

To coin a phrase or 2 "Oh dear! how sad, never mind." and "Any publicity is good publicity."

It all helps in the way of building the RDF brand.

RD is a pro and his new 2 part programme is eagerly awaited. This was a distraction but not totally without value.

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

44. Comment #13615 by blaine on December 18, 2006 at 8:02 pm

Don't they have a person on the set who can tell people when their hair looks funny?

More importantly, I thought RD was very quick on his feet and made several insightful points. Can't blame him for not trying to answer the question that you could see the other three had, "How could an atheist have this moral compass, which you say people use to cherry pick the Bible?", because it's just counterproductive if there isn't enough time to explain the evolutionary rationale.

Other Comments by blaine

45. Comment #14539 by Vegetableman on December 23, 2006 at 4:00 am

I found this interview rather depressing. I have always had a lot of time for Tony Benn, as I suspect does Prof Dawkins. However, he came across as an utter dinosaur with the same old cliched views on morals and faith. The most rediculous thing being that he refused to say he believed in god, in which case, why was he there i the first place. Very sad.

Other Comments by Vegetableman

46. Comment #15405 by Jukey on December 31, 2006 at 3:02 am

Ha Ha! Tony Ben is just lost at sea!! Go Richard!!!

Other Comments by Jukey

47. Comment #16569 by MaxII on January 7, 2007 at 11:48 am

Benn seems like a sweet old man who is the victim a syndrome Michael Shermer has identified. "Smart people are very good at rationalizing beliefs they came to for unsmart reasons." Benn believes in the efficacy of religious teaching because of his early childhood indoctrination, but as an adult with considerable emotional attachment to such things he's in a quandry. Hence all the kinds of things he said in the show. Dawkins, as a debater, seems to only be as mean as his opponent. Benn was engaging and cordial, and Dawkins engaged him on that level.

Other Comments by MaxII

48. Comment #22920 by the great teapot on February 24, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I used to like Anthony Wedgewood-Benn.
I had no idea he was so stupid. His rationale belongs to the 1600s.
This is not a debate between science and religion.
It is reason against faith (otherwise Known as a debate between thinking about things and jumping to cocnclusions)
He is saying "I won't listen to you because what you are saying is not cosy enough for me.
Please leave me in my own cosy little world."
Even an atheist believes we should all be nice to one another - stunning revelation Tony thanks.
Tony, Tony, Tony. I am so dissapointed in you.

Other Comments by the great teapot

49. Comment #24559 by deeznuts on March 7, 2007 at 8:45 am

Benn seems like a nice enough fellow almost to the extent of nausiating.

Other Comments by deeznuts

50. Comment #37792 by cmacblue42 on May 5, 2007 at 5:47 pm

i kept yelling at the monitor to tell the preist to shut up

Other Comments by cmacblue42