1. Comment #20339 by scooternyc on February 1, 2007 at 11:23 pm

"whether his unshakeable faith in science is just as fixed as the beliefs of those he condemns."

What a ridiculous statement, science is not a belief system, religion is; science has proven methods by which theories are tested and observations are made; theories are then submitted as evidence to fact.

One doesn't need a "faith" in science, the sheer nature of even placing the words together is the inability to understand the nature of science itself.

I don't wish to be rude, but this lack of semantics just borders on the stupid.

Other Comments by scooternyc

2. Comment #20341 by MacGruder on February 1, 2007 at 11:30 pm

After hearing "discussions" such as these, I get concerned that the magisteria of science and religion are indeed non-overlapping. Scientists and theists simply operate in different spheres and speak different languages.

I have an idea...let's get to people's minds when they are young...we can set up institutions where children are forced to go at least once a week...we'll indoctrinate them with rationality and critical thinking skills...we'll convince the kiddies that if they don't believe what we teach then really bad things will happen to them...Come on guys, it's our only salvation...come praise and have faith in logic!

Other Comments by MacGruder

3. Comment #20343 by beLIEve on February 1, 2007 at 11:41 pm

I dont think the people there really understood what kind of government either Canada or the US has. Im an American so I dont understand Canadian govt as well, but we have a Constitution that guarantees Rights no matter what the majority wants. So the christian preacher there can want to create a christian theocracy by democratic means all he wants, he's not going to be successful though because the Constitution wont allow him to. He'd have to start another revolution and scrap our Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which seperates church from state). This is a "Constitutional Republic", not a pure democracy.

This is why "democracy" probably wont work in Iraq or most other places in the middle east, because Islam has too much influence and would win at the ballot box anyhow. You'd have theocracy by mob rule, and that may even be worse than a dictatorship (ie Saddam). The only way you can guard against that is with a good Constitution that seperates church and state and guarantees rights and liberties, and unfortunately most people dont seem to understand that.

Other Comments by beLIEve

4. Comment #20344 by He-man Daunted World on February 1, 2007 at 11:46 pm

If god is love, why is same-sex love a problem? It's still love, isnt it?

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

5. Comment #20345 by Will in Aus on February 1, 2007 at 11:47 pm

There were far too few atheists on that program, 2 atheists versus 8 theists is not a good ratio.
Furthermore, I really think that arguments such as this are useless when the people involved do not understand science. One must understand the scientific method in order to understand the arguments surrounding evolution and the existence of God.
It's really quite simple:

Evidence for God - 0%
Evidence against God - 100%

Evidence for evolution - 100%
Evidence against evolution - 0%

The Bible does not count as evidence. It's claims cannot be tested or observed, and so it is nothing more than here say.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

6. Comment #20354 by MacGruder on February 2, 2007 at 12:51 am

beLIEve - Good point Constitutional Republic versus Pure Democracy. Scary to think how easy it is for a theocracy to get in power in any country without a strong constitution. I guess this is what happened in Iran. However, even with a constitution, the pious majority only need to vote in a born-again christian as president to make redundant any notion of seperation of church and state...

Fellow Aussie Will - The evidence against God is not 100% - it is in fact ZERO, just as the evidence against fairies at the bottom of the garden is zero. The geatest comfort to theists is the fact that their proposition is unfalsifiable. Having said this, the evidence FOR god is also ZERO. The burden is on theists to provide the evidence, not for atheists to dis-prove their proposition.

Other Comments by MacGruder

7. Comment #20356 by Johan on February 2, 2007 at 1:00 am

Even though some ideas being aired in this debate make me cringe, the program itself is a positive thing. The "sacred" bubble that has sheltered religion from any kind of crtiticism has been popped. Religion and faith are being dragged out in the open to debate and discuss in a civil manner.

But I agree with Will in Aus, too many religious people and too few atheists. Or at least the atheists go too little air time.

Other Comments by Johan

8. Comment #20358 by kniggit on February 2, 2007 at 1:16 am

Sam Harris would have been in his element amongst that lot....

Other Comments by kniggit

9. Comment #20359 by jomo87 on February 2, 2007 at 1:19 am

I'm 5 minutes in and already my blood is boiling from the inanity of the first two commenters!

That woman going on about "what if God is love?"! She should realise that Richard is arguing against the notion of a supernatural omniscient being, rather than against an ill-defined concept such as Nature, or Love etc... Right at the start of TGD, he makes it very clear that he's not attacking the Einsteinian notion of God, just the Judeo-Christian type ones.

To be fair to her, I can't remember if he said so in the film, but even so she ought to know better than to just shift the goalposts like that, and to imply Richard is unloving by saying "is Richard then saying he doesn't believe in love?" was flat out rude, I thought...

Other Comments by jomo87

10. Comment #20367 by Newton30 on February 2, 2007 at 2:58 am

I hate watching programs like these. I get so frustrated I feel like reaching out and throttling everyone in the audience.

Other Comments by Newton30

11. Comment #20369 by Pob on February 2, 2007 at 3:16 am

I wasn't impressed by this programme either. The only really good moment was when the presenter was laying into the evangelist about his literal interpretation of the bible and the fact that he selectively took the bits he liked literally and ignored the bits he didn't like. It was a shame that the presenter then backed off just as he seemed to be totally cornering the guy.

Other Comments by Pob

12. Comment #20370 by Dog Boots on February 2, 2007 at 3:21 am

I forgot who, but someone in the studio uttered the phrase: "unquestioned science". What on Earth is that? People obviously haven't got a clue about what science is.

"God = Love"? - she'd make a great new-ager.

"Richard doesn't believe in love?". Crikey! Check out it size of that strawman! Whooo-hoo!! Wha'a beauty! (best Steve Irwin impersonation)

"Mr. Dawkins, can you stop your heart at will and start it again?" - what an incredibly inept piece of reasoning. I, along with Avi, suspect that Richard's eyes must have been exploring the limits of their sockets at the time. Mine were.

I thought that Avi Lewis guy was really good! Quick to come up with the right questions in exactly the right spot. I wish Richard was given a bit more time, though.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

13. Comment #20371 by John Phillips on February 2, 2007 at 4:05 am

Interesting program and while I find the same old, same old trotted out by the religites frustrating I found the host excellent as he generally allowed nobody to get away with rubbish statements. For example, he at least got the Jewish commentator to admit that the old atheism is bad because of Hitler, Stalin etc, argument was invalid because it was not down to their atheism but to their characters, though he did trot it out again later in the show. He also did well in showing up the contradictions of the fundy picking and choosing the bits of the bible that supported his beliefs while ignoring the bits he didn't like. Or at least said he didn't like in an open forum, I wonder if he disabuses the bits he claims to not like in public when with like minded people in private. I think more shows like this are needed as the more they are allowed to talk, or shout over people as the fundies always seem to like doing, the more intolerant and empty and irrational their beliefs appear. Additionally, isn't it strange that the fundies always demand tolerance to their beliefs while not being prepared to be tolerant of others.

Other Comments by John Phillips

14. Comment #20387 by infidel_michael on February 2, 2007 at 5:43 am

I love the believer's logic:

Atheist: Your god doesn't exist.

Believer: But, my God said, that we should eat fruit and vegetables rich in vitamins. What's bad on that? Fruit and vegetables are healthy, without vitamins we would be sick! Therefore it is good to believe in my God.

----

Christians simply don't understand, that people can love each other without God's command to do that. "What is wrong with loving your neighbors?", what a stupid and irrelevant question.
This is the most arrogant thing on christianity - they think, that they have the patent for love and peace. When somebody argues against them, he automatically argues against love and peace. Such a stupid trick, used in almost every discussion.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

15. Comment #20390 by alfonso on February 2, 2007 at 6:25 am

@Comment #20369 by Pob

I think it was correct from Avi Lewis to do back off at that point. As his role should be to flatten out the blatantly obvious assaults to the audience intelligence, without taking sides.

What I found amazing is that Charles McVety was using a possessive pronoun with the word 'fact' to disqualify its validity. So, by claiming that Evolution is Richard Dawkins' fact, this somehow makes it less valid. His fact vs bible's fact.

Amazing, how on earth can this people have any credibility?

Other Comments by alfonso

16. Comment #20393 by Lionel A on February 2, 2007 at 6:46 am

McVety on tolerance; strewth what a hypocritical, overbearing, 'adjective of your choice', either intellectually challenged or intellectually dishonest ('Secular Fundamentalism', for Darwin's sake!), considering what is at stake, and mentioned below, I believe the latter.

McVety wants democracy for all who think as he does. Does he understand the meaning of the word democracy? Is this cognitive dissonance or something more sinister? I believe the latter given the huge financial donations from Christian Right to the Bush election campaigns, the same Christian Right organisations, who have increased in number since and who enjoy tax exemptions; this is larceny and fraud on a grand scale, the fraud element being why they fear exposure by argument from atheists.

Cheri DeNovo; just the wishy-washy thinking to be expected from one of her conviction. She stated that her kind do not 'leave their brains and the door' when entering an 'institution of faith' (whatever that is) but she sure left some of her brain behind before coming on to this show, after all she opined that if the peoples of the various faiths abided by their written commandments then they would not kill other human beings. Has she not looked at the Koran, or much of the Bible for that matter? Does she not appreciate the dire warnings inherent in the Koran's instructions with respect to the unbeliever and in particular the apostate, in effect the religious traitor?

DeNovo clearly did not appreciate that it is just her kind of religious moderation that allows the raucous proselytising of the likes of the frightening McVety. McVety provides a window onto what the political landscape would be like if Bush style administrations continue and people think The Inquisition is history. Mcvetyites unopposed will make it the future.

Well done Richard for your gently, gently rebuttals, without any arm waving or finger pointing so characteristic of 'faith-heads'. Note the applause after Richard's expressed fear about 'bringing Christian Values as a matter of law into a country like Canada or America [US]', also note the heckle by McVety during the early part of this particular Dawkins talk. McVety is obnoxious as became more clear in his diatribe immediately following during which it was clear that many in the audience wanted to take issue with McVetyism. Good point about the true origin of the cartoons that were truly offensive to the minds of Islamic fundamentalists, an act of 'fundamentalist deceit'.

Charles offered a very good rebuttal of McVety. How did McVety respond, well by stating that 'evolution is based on death', has he ever looked hard at religion, for Darwin's sake! Then he proceeded to invoke 'Moa, Lenin, Hitler and all these others' with a good deal of good old fashioned snake-oil salesman arm waving and finger pointing. Then he just won't shut up, what a boor. Later he acknowledged his ignorance about Sharia Law, and that is not the limit of his ignorance. See him wriggle on 'following all of the teachings in the Bible', a classic display of evasion and obfuscation so typical of his type, and of incumbent political masters on both sides of the Atlantic. The chorus of laughter at McVety's display here spoke volumes.

The dark haired lass with spec's, and a very level head, following this hit the nail on the head on how Christian values enshrined in law would usher in an exclusive state, for that is exactly what would happen and IMHO with an inquisition following as night follows day.

Another display of cognitive dissonance came with Ben-Ami's response to his position being equated with that of Richard Dawkin's, that is his websites warning about the rise of radical Islam against the west, his response was as if Christian extremists had never existed and would never rise again. How can he state such things given the thinking of the likes of McVety?

Good point from de Sousa on how blind faith, even without war, can be responsible for much suffering and death around the world given what is happening in Africa and the Catholic Church's dogma. The catholic apologist, predictably, completely missed the point. A point re-enforced in Richard's response. McVety's response has been, kind of, torpedoed by none other than evangelist incarnate Ted Haggard recently.

I liked the way Avi Lewis quickly jumped on fundamentalists trying to change the subject and brought them up when needed, not letting them highjack the arguments.

It would be interesting to see a follow up edition of this programme following TGD.

Other Comments by Lionel A

17. Comment #20396 by Pastafarian on February 2, 2007 at 7:17 am

Newton30,

I couldn't agree with you more. How Professor Dawkins manages to keep his cool in the face of a tsunami of sheer ignorance baffles me, but then, he's had far more experience with it than have I. In the US, we have NO shows on television like this that would dare question the validity of religion. My hat is off the the CBC for having the balls to do it, however it might have been executed. My only gripe with the show was actually with Professor Dawkins, but only because he didn't squash more of the inane arguments as soon as they were made. I've now read TGD twice, and I was somewhat disappointed that he didn't share more of it's ideas in a more forceful manner. Someone else posted that at least the conversation is starting to become more widespread, and that is a good thing. I take heart that TGD has been on the NY Times Bestseller list for so long (along with Letter to a Christian Nation, another marvelous tome). At any rate, it was a good show, and I would just like to see more of Professor Dawkins mixing it up with the believers.

Other Comments by Pastafarian

18. Comment #20399 by Feuerbach on February 2, 2007 at 7:48 am

That Charles McVety is one overblown boofhead. Completely lacking any ability to reason, his tactic is one of personal attacks, misepresentations, and appeals to pity. Absolute fool.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

19. Comment #20400 by ridelo on February 2, 2007 at 8:11 am

Richard seemed a little bit tired to me. If anybody deserves a good vacation it's he. I hope to have him around for a long, long time.

Other Comments by ridelo

20. Comment #20402 by scooternyc on February 2, 2007 at 8:32 am

First of all, the U.S. Constitution, which I happen to admire, makes the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is any religion an establishment? Yes, it is. Does Congress make a law respecting its establishment? No it does not, it should not and will not.

If marriage then is biblical and religious, then we should be abolishing marriage since its precepts are rooted in religion and laws governing marriage and its definition are not endorsed through our Constitution.

If marriage is not biblical, then what those who would oppose gay marriage, can only be considered as bigots, is unmasked.

We need to have the discussion in our Congress and political arenas that reveal the ideology and bigotry of this behavior toward a segment of our society for which people can have their opinion but they cannot impose it on others through law.

But it's not just gay marriage, it's ANY law that would endorse ANYTHING that has to do with religion - we just don't do it.

Second, anyone who makes reference to any sort of "personal experience" of god, religion, etc. is no longer valid in the conversation. The sheer nature of endorsing personal experience brings subjective opinion, not fact, into the discussion; the very nature of personal experience is discriminatory toward all facts, and much like "faith" is not a valid argument.

Every time someone talks about their personal experience in religion they should be admonished, humiliated and shamed publicly as we would for someone endorsing that Elvis is still alive - it's stupid, it's ludicrous, unintelligent and deserves no contemplation.

This is the harsh reality of demeaning religion, but it needs to be done once and for all. Sometimes the medicine leading to health doesn't taste well going down, but it has healing effects that we welcome in the end.




Other Comments by scooternyc

21. Comment #20403 by notdeluded on February 2, 2007 at 8:36 am

I have to appreciate this program on CBC that made me know about RD, his work, and the whole worldwide movement against any kind of superstition and their efects.

Other Comments by notdeluded

22. Comment #20405 by ShinobiLo on February 2, 2007 at 8:37 am

Pastafarian wrote: At any rate, it was a good show, and I would just like to see more of Professor Dawkins mixing it up with the believers.

Unfortunately Prof. Dawkins isn't in the habit to debate religious nutters. I don't totally blame him either as, without a moderator in the conversation, (as I personally have experienced) religious fellows tend to make silly claims or get off track which likely will not be prepared for and might get thrown off.

Thank his mother that Avi Lewis was there to play ref, otherwise I think McVety and the guy in the turban/head dress would have turned it into a circus, instead of an intelligible debate.

Other Comments by ShinobiLo

23. Comment #20407 by celestial_T on February 2, 2007 at 8:51 am

Well, that was quite entertaining, in a shout-at-your-mac kind of way. The presenter was very good. Who is this fathead McVety? he certainly did a fine job all by himself of putting people off him and his views. How does RD keep his cool in the face of such idiocy? - I don't think I've ever seen him flustered and his calm reasoned response to every kind of loon that's paraded in front of him should be celebrated.

I agree with John Phillips's comment (20371): it's good to see these kind of shows out there even if the content is frustrating. Maybe by small increments religion is being brought down to at least a level where people are allowed to ask serious, concrete questions about it - and that's got to be a good thing.

Other Comments by celestial_T

24. Comment #20417 by eggplantbren on February 2, 2007 at 9:45 am

Geez so called "moderates" frustrate me. What exactly do they believe? God is love? No, love is love, that's why we have two different words.

Seems to be some sort of woolly minded language that isn't really a belief at all. More like poetry than religion...although it is pretty terrible poetry if you ask me.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

25. Comment #20422 by Mr. Mark on February 2, 2007 at 10:10 am

It's on TV, so naturally the biggest idiot got the most air time.

Why the show decided to have a discussion on Dawkins' film and to have him beamed in from an overseas location to participate in the discussion, only to give him less than 10% or the air time is typical of these lopsided "honest" debates. Maybe the presenters felt that Dawkins had been given enough air time through the showing of "Root of All Evil," who knows? Or maybe they simply allowed the theists to bury themselves with the own words.

Oh well. At least Canadian TV has SOMETHING like this available.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

26. Comment #20423 by ksskidude on February 2, 2007 at 10:17 am

Why doesn't Professor Dawkins speak up more when people use Einstein as theological reference and explain Einsteinian religion and what it entails?

Like many of you, I find myself frustrated when watching, but can't seem to stop watching. What is great for me, is being actively aware of the evolution of the human mind away from beliefs in the supernatural. Slowly but surely deities are dying out. In another 1000 years or so, those people will look back at our history and laugh at what the masses of people in this time still believed with all the evidence otherwise.

Other Comments by ksskidude

27. Comment #20433 by The Science Pundit on February 2, 2007 at 11:28 am

"The bible interprets itself."

That line alone made this well worth watching.

Other Comments by The Science Pundit

28. Comment #20435 by tomjlawson on February 2, 2007 at 11:42 am

What I would have liked to have heard was a scenario where all religious texts are eradicated around 1000 CE creating a separate timeline where humans are left with nothing but their well-evolved wits about them, and where no atrocities occurred based on religious ideologies, i.e., the Inquisition, the Crusades, witch trials, infanticides, genocides, racism, slavery, sexism, hate crimes, beheadings, stonings, civil wars, 9/11, familial an societal ostracisms, and on and on and on. Not that we humans have been good little boys and girls, for we've killed over the pettiest of things (one merely has to watch the evening news), but at least those abominations above would not be in the history books.

Religion is an addiction, like cigarettes. Smokers know it is bad for them yet they do it anyway. They are inducted while in their youth and by the time they notice the effects it is having on them they are lost in the quagmire of addiction. But it makes them feel good. It comforts them when they are stressed. Where have we heard this before? There is a Judgement Day, my friends, but it is a single day in every religious person's life where they realize their "error in judgement," and when the days are complete we will all live in peace and harmony. THAT is my idea of heaven on earth. Of course, we'll keep the police around because nobody's perfect.

Other Comments by tomjlawson

29. Comment #20436 by nine9s on February 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm

God is "love?" So "love" created the universe, people pray to "love," Jesus was "love" incarnate, and "love" sends unbelievers to hell. Suicide bombers kill in the name of "love" and when we can't explain a gap in the fossil record, "love" did it.

Gosh, I never saw it that way before! All this time I disbelieved in love and I didn't know it!

Other Comments by nine9s

30. Comment #20437 by RickM on February 2, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Excuse me, but we need religion to understand thou salt not kill? We need a huge religious infrastructure to tell us do unto others; as if they own that? No way.

Religion is nothing more than a big bate and switch scam.

Bate: Do onto others, love thy neighbor, God loves you……

Switch: kill fornicators, kill adulators, kill homosexuals, kill Sabbath workers, kill girls that are not virgins on their wedding night, kill someone worshiping another god along with their family and everyone in their town, kill children that misbehave, beat your slaves (except don't knock their eyes and teeth out)……

Sure, lets take the bible as a whole and not take things out of context; sure, right!

And Christian values in government? Well, folks, here's what you get:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm


Other Comments by RickM

31. Comment #20448 by perkyjay on February 2, 2007 at 3:19 pm

It should be noted that Charles McVety is a mentor of Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, at least until we can vote him out, of Canada.

Other Comments by perkyjay

32. Comment #20450 by Zaphod on February 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Alot of scary people in that audience. I felt for the few sane ones.

God is love? Ok we don't need another name for love. We have many.

God is incomprehensible and will never be understood by finute humans? OK that is arrogant and intellectual cowardish.

Evangelist guy is just a complete wank.

Dawkins, The Philosopher (forgot his name), the host and the old atheist guy where all great. There where many levels of faith and religion in the room and if you really watched that video with an open mind you will Dawkins was nowhere near a fundamental or the most intollerant. Watch it openly and try and disagree with me. Dawkins hardly spoke.

Other Comments by Zaphod

33. Comment #20452 by Mango on February 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I just want to echo an earlier post about how these kinds of programs would never air on American television.

Other Comments by Mango

34. Comment #20459 by Sancus on February 2, 2007 at 5:32 pm

I love it. I just get so giddy watching all those religious people get their feathers ruffled by one other. Their lack of interest in evidence assures their mutual discomfort. Moths to the flame -- only they just keep burning! Man, that's entertainment.

Mango, I forgot that American television even exists. The net has totally replaced it for me.

I would argue that much better discussion programs appear on C-SPAN than what we have here, just without the commercials and glitz, but then I don't want that to be interpreted as a defense of American television. Even though its paid for by American cable and satellite companies, C-SPAN is available on the web.

Other Comments by Sancus

35. Comment #20460 by seals on February 2, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Whoa, the religious nuts are becoming caricatures of themselves... entertaining, if it weren't so deadly serious. The more I see of these discussions, the more I think space travel sounds like a good idea - there should be an escape route in case they take over the world. The good guys were good though! And for a change the presenter wasn't on "the other side".

It looked like RD on a videoconference?, so maybe it wasn't too gruelling for him. It must be so wearisome to meet the same cliched accusations every time. Even I start to see a pattern emerging...

Other Comments by seals

36. Comment #20461 by Sancus on February 2, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Whoa, the religious nuts are becoming caricatures of themselves... entertaining, if it weren't so deadly serious.

Deadly serious Canadians? Bahaha! :D

Oh, it's probably good for Canada. It's character building.

Other Comments by Sancus

37. Comment #20464 by HappyPrimate on February 2, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I am pleased to know that so many people in Canada were exposed to the program Root of All Evil? because it demonstrates so much of the lunacy of the super-religious in the world today and the harmful effect of their actions or intended actions. I thought the evangelical guy got tramped not only by Dr. Dawkins, but the audience as well. I must echo other comments that I too would be very happy if such a program as this could be aired in the US but sadly I do not believe any broadcaster would have the guts to do it. There have been some daring programs on PBS but not as in your face as this one. I also note that this was obviously shown before Ted Haggard was exposed and I wonder if the conversation would have been different if shown post-exposure.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

38. Comment #20467 by Zappi on February 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm

The most delightful feature of this video is that it constitutes a proof that religious seem to believe fundamentalism is always somewhere else.

"I believe literally in the Bible"... but I'm not a fundamentalist.

I'll concede that Ms "God is Love" seems to think there is something wrong with fundamentalism...

To the Jewish guy I'd recommend the movie "Kadosh" about fundamentalist Jews. Wait a minute, when he was confronted with the subject, every contortion of his body denounced clearly he knows jewish fundamentalism too well...

Other Comments by Zappi

39. Comment #20469 by CDG on February 2, 2007 at 7:08 pm

AWWWW! I was so irritated by the host. He Has Richard Dawkins, one of the biggest intellects of our time fighting for time against all the small brains. CMON!

Other Comments by CDG

40. Comment #20475 by thompjs on February 2, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I loved when the host pinned down the Evangelist on his literal belief in Scripture. I was very surprised to see how hard he pushed.

He really stuttered his responses.

Thanks for having this posted, very interesting
comments

Other Comments by thompjs

41. Comment #20478 by Shuggy on February 2, 2007 at 11:03 pm

"Extremism isn't a function of belief, it's a function of personality."
OK, but isn't religion supposed to make people BETTER than they were?
What are we to conclude, that the average religious person's baseline virtue/personality is WORSE than the average atheist's, and that the Crusades, the Inquisition, Ireland and the Middle East would be EVEN WORSE if religion had not been a factor?

Other Comments by Shuggy

42. Comment #20479 by DistrictSelectman on February 2, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Hilarious, if you ask me. The only moderate who was worth listening to was the Muslim woman early on who never got to talk again. The rest of the time was divided between the fundies, who couldn't decide whether to conquer government or each other; Dawkins, de Sousa (great job), and the guy who had to shout down Porky Pig to get a word in; and the moderates, who quickly found themselves marginalized by standing for absolutely nothing. As far as that moderate/relativist/god-is-love blather goes, to quote Stephen Colbert, "That's not gonna sell any books."

That piece succeeded in showing two strong positions -- one rational, the other harebrained -- and the risible irrelevance of the middle ground. Too funny.

Other Comments by DistrictSelectman

43. Comment #20481 by Pantore on February 3, 2007 at 1:46 am

@ comment 3

So USA is a democracy?
USA is the christian version of the middle east it's so funny that Americans think they live in a democracy because they can choose between fuhrer A and fuhrer B.
Look at your own country first.

Other Comments by Pantore

44. Comment #20485 by Newton30 on February 3, 2007 at 3:01 am

I noticed that, with the exception of Richard, of course, the more prominent and influential the speaker, the stupider the remarks. The truly brilliant and concise replies came from unknown and unnamed audience members.

The politicians and clerics were all dim-wits. This does not bode well for Canada's leadership.

edit: The philosopher guy de Sousa was pretty good though.

Other Comments by Newton30

45. Comment #20493 by linck on February 3, 2007 at 6:09 am

"Can you make you heart stop?"

Why bother - all the gods must be really pissed about Dawkins by now.
Why has none of them stopped his heart yet - preferably live on the show with an accompanying thunder bolt and a a fiery writing on the wall "Don't mess with us, sucker!"

That would have been a great argument for the existence of supreme beings and would have skyrocketed the ratings.


"Who died and made you God?"

Yes, a very persuasive argument that Dawkins is proclaiming himself as the new universal authority.

The evangelical was not so much frightening as downright stupid.
He talks about freedom and democracy - I hate those people, whether religious or nazi or others, that fight for their own freedom while their agenda clearly states that as soon as they are in charge they will deny it to everyone else.


And marriage is not a religious institution.
I do not know about all countries in the world but in most european states the ceremony is performed by the state and entitles you legal right (taxes, enheriting, pensions, not having to give evidence in court etc). No one askes or cares about what, if any, religion the two getting married have.
Following his argument atheists are automatically banned from every marrying.


The "God is love"-argument is just as good as "God is beauty" "God is inspiration" "God is fun" etc.
The Flying Spaghettimonster is love - you feel love in your heart = the FSM is in your heart = FSM exists.
Case closed.

Other Comments by linck

46. Comment #20496 by Godless on February 3, 2007 at 8:43 am

An interesting side note:
The woman who accuses Richard of Scientism is one of our (Toronto's) municipal politicians.

This show was so poorly orchestrated, the host Avi Lewis was terrible, and it was clearly structured, not as a debate of the issues, but as an attack of Richard's film, 'The Root of All Evil'. Many in the audience were invited, yet as some here have pointed out, very few actual atheists or representatives of atheism attended. There was no excuse for this as Toronto has many secular organizations; members of which would have been chomping at the bit to get their 2 cents worth in there. Yet this tapeing was not advertized or announced in any way that I am aware of. Many audience members were taken in off the street aside from the handful of theists who were actually invited.

Also, Richard wasn't given a chance to get a word in edgewise. Which may have inadvertantly worked in his favour as the Theists did a good job of slitting their own throats throughout this gab-fest. This had the positive affect of making some Theist sympathizers change their mind about the film they had just watched through the course of the arguing.

All in all, this show was an embarrassment to the city of Toronto and should not be seen as an accurate sampling representative of what our broadcasters are capable of.

Other Comments by Godless

47. Comment #20497 by Lionel A on February 3, 2007 at 8:54 am

Comment #20452 by Mango

'I just want to echo an earlier post about how these kinds of programs would never air on American television.'

Well that is a measure of how democratic your democracy is, sadly. How much worse it could get if McVetites get more sway is a worrying prospect. Ours in Britain is not a whole lot better right now, pressure from the Bush administration being what it probably is.

The mad thing is that about 57 percent on a poll in the Forum think that certain events went much as the US media said it did. Sure if all you watch is Fox News and the likes of the odious Bill O'Reilly. See Al Franken's books for some examples.

Other Comments by Lionel A

48. Comment #20498 by Laurence Boyce on February 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

"What if God is love?" said Cheri DiNovo as if this were the most profound insight. Why does she think this buys her anything?

We've already got a word for love, which is, as you might expect, "love." Having two words adds nothing. Moreover, religious people don't believe that God is love. They believe in a God who listens to prayer. Love doesn't listen to prayer. Love is an emotion. It can't listen to prayers. Then of course there's all the outright nasty stuff in scripture which does rather tend to falsify the notion that "God is love."

Cheri DiNovo came over as one of the more "reasonable" speakers, but she merely underlined just how religious moderation is so much more part of the problem than it is part of the solution. Her obfuscatory use of language goes only to serve the ends of the fundamentalists she purports to despise.

Other Comments by Laurence Boyce

49. Comment #20499 by Dog Boots on February 3, 2007 at 10:44 am

"So now you're arguing for polygamy?"

Actually, I would have loved to stop Charles Whats-his-face right there.

What's wrong with polygamy? Isn't actually pretty stupid that society sets rules like that? Where's the harm?

I sure as hell wouldn't want it, neither for my self or my girlfriend, and neither would she, I know, but why should the government decide? If all involved parts agree, I can't see the harm.

I guess what I'm arguing is an abolishment of marriage as a legal issue, more than legalization of polygamy... I bet, in Charles' head, it's just "polygamy is bad", and he has never once sat down and thought about why this is...or really isn't.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

50. Comment #20501 by fallenone on February 3, 2007 at 11:20 am

I'll say... I will have a screening of "The Root of All Evil" at my uni next Thursday. Seeing that even 'grown up adults' had such a heated, and at times chaotic, discussion leads me to wonder what is in store for the audience after the screening...

While some guest speakers have been invited, I do have high hopes that some constructive feedback, possibly even criticism, will come forth from the students as well. Unfortunately, I find that most kids take after the belief system of their parents, with little active doubt on their part...

Furthermore, while I do like that CBC embarked on showing the documentary, this fact still leads me to ponder the state of evolution in Canada. It seems to me that many of my science colleagues hold on to the belief system from their country of origin to which they continue adhering long after being exposed to the liberal 'evils of the West.' The odds that they are bound to become 'religious scientists,' a seemingly oxymoronic combination, are quite high. It is as though, to lift a sentence from the above debate, in some sense they leave their brains at the door, and are willing to live a double life, rather than to acknowledge that science, their profession of choice, is quite incompatible with what is held dear and true at home.

My uni, UofT at Erindale, has invested a substantial amount of (tuition) money into creating a multi-faith centre on campus a few years ago. A sort of one-size-fits-all approach to the religious needs of students on campus. It is of note that the religion courses offered on campus are quite popular among some ethnic groups of students, as they are seen as a source of easy marks. I suppose that, in any area of study, being tested on something one already knows in some depth makes things sound pretty good indeed. However, one cannot help to wonder what is the role and place of religion outside an anthropological context in an institution of higher learning. Furthermore, the ratio of outright religious groups (including the aptly named Campus Crusade for Christ) to (the only one) secular Mississauga Freethought Association is 10:1. This excludes many other non-ethnic and subject-oriented clubs and associations.

However, I have just realized that I have gone off on a slight tangent from my original query.

Given that I happened to chance upon that following article here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,555,Unscientific-American-US-Almost-Last-in-Understanding-Evolution,RJ-Eskow-The-Huffington-Post

The fact that Canada is not listed got me quite worried. I have looked on the original research paper from AAAS quoted in the article. While the graph is more detailed, Canada is still missing from the countries listed. After doing some googling, I came across an interview by an apparent creationist Laurence Tisdall, M.Sc., the president of L'Association de Science Creationiste du Quebec (ASCQ) and a voting member of the Missouri-based Creation Research Society.

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/031113evolution

In the interview, he makes a dubious statement: "… in every survey done, almost 50 percent of the Canadian population don't believe in the theory of evolution as taught in our schools."

It is quite unfortunate that he did not name any particular surveys. Undeterred, I came across the Humanists Perspectives website outlining the Evolution Education Research Centre ongoing research into the state of belief in evolution among immigrant populations in Canada. 'The Centre has numerous projects planned and in progress. Two significant research studies are currently underway; one study is examining the extent to which various Canadian curricula cover evolution, and another study is exploring how evolution is understood by Muslim university faculty, high school biology teachers and high school students and their families.'

http://www.humanistperspectives.org/issue154/EERC.html

Finally, I have stumbled upon Compas Inc Public Opinion and Customer Research Survey from 2000:

http://www.compas.ca/data/001124-NPostHotButtonFederalElection-EP.pdf

Sadly, it seems that Mr. Tisdall was not far off the mark. According to the survey, about 43% of those interviewed believe in the theory of evolution to explain the origins of life. Understandably, this point of view has a positive correlation with the educational level. '

'Adherents of evolution are generally better educated (27% of those with high school or less vs. 38% of those with some college vs. 60% among university graduates)'

It is of note that, according to government statistics data, in 2004 about 45 per cent of immigrants entered the country with degrees. Top two countries of origin include India and China (both missing from the AAAS study). On a side note, as a girlfriend of mine concurred, the religious agenda is strongly propagated throughout vast majority of the social strata in India.

While it is good to hear that education has an inherent ability to set people free, the overall percentage of people who subscribe themselves to the theory of evolution would place Canada somewhere between Cyprus and the US of A. Keep in mind that there are no details provided on the sample size and the accuracy of the data presented by this (private?) company. On my part, I have no time to inquire them further about the details of the survey they have carried out seven years ago…

To conclude, is Canada loosing the good fight? Is there any other reliable data published on the subject? It seems as though the debate on the issue of evolution seems to be kept out of the public spotlight in the media.

Well, I for one can't wait for the showing of "The Root of All Evil," just a few days away…

Other Comments by fallenone