1. Comment #22064 by pagemaster310 on February 12, 2007 at 9:27 pm

They didn't give Dr. Dawkins enough time...he got a tiny time slot while they spent the rest of the hour talking about a gay basketball player and whether Barak Obama is black enough to be president. wtf? CNN is screwed up. Dr. Dawkins did a great job with the time allowed though. Keep fighting the good fight.

Other Comments by pagemaster310

2. Comment #22065 by simplicio on February 12, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Thank you Richard!

I thought you were composed and did atheists proud with your positive defense of the atheist position. The panel was ok, but really crammed into a short time.

Other Comments by simplicio

3. Comment #22067 by toomanytribbles on February 12, 2007 at 9:35 pm

beautifully done, richard dawkins. thank you.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

4. Comment #22068 by Martin The Mess on February 12, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Yes, both parts were ridiculously short.

EDIT: The first video was down for a bit, but it's back now. Thanks to whomever fixed that.

Other Comments by Martin The Mess

5. Comment #22069 by DavidJGrossman on February 12, 2007 at 9:38 pm

The panel discussion was pretty weak, as I figured. If Richard was part of it, and was able to actually get a word in, he would have trounced that Christian guy. What a douchebag he was; "atheists are hypocrites" ... he obviously couldn't wait to get that out.

The interview with Richard was okay but nothing spectacular (because it was edited down). The BBC book review interview was much better. I think that if they showed the entire interview, it would have been much better. They should have at least acknowledged that they cut his interview down by 80%.

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

6. Comment #22070 by ross on February 12, 2007 at 9:47 pm

I think that RD probably just did more for atheist public relations than I ever thought possible. A quiet rational reasonable unthreatening presentation on CNN is probably not what any of the anti-atheists expected. It was perfect!

Other Comments by ross

7. Comment #22071 by Ahmedthegreat on February 12, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Richard you owned 'em. They did nt give u enought time but still ur the best.

Other Comments by Ahmedthegreat

8. Comment #22072 by Sancus on February 12, 2007 at 9:51 pm

That discussion panel was run like a quiz show.

Other Comments by Sancus

9. Comment #22073 by Shocking Blue on February 12, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Thanks for uploading the clips so promptly. Richard Dawkins was so brilliant and convincing - considering the short time he was given. Lovely smile in the end... I hope his words will stick in the minds of all who've seen him.

Other Comments by Shocking Blue

10. Comment #22074 by Russell Blackford on February 12, 2007 at 9:59 pm

The interview is showing as unavailable at the moment, so I can't comment on that.

The panel was as good as could be expected. At least the moderator kept control of it this time.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

11. Comment #22075 by troodon on February 12, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Richard presented our side very well, but it was way too short.

I think Ellen Johnson could have been more prepared. She should have shredded the Christian guy when he asked, "where do you get your morals from?", but she let it fizzle and then time was up.

Other Comments by troodon

12. Comment #22076 by MelM on February 12, 2007 at 10:01 pm

I'm getting "This video is no longer available." on both videos. There is a transcript at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/pzn.01.html

Other Comments by MelM

13. Comment #22078 by Shaun1018 on February 12, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Meh, It's a try at correcting their mistake, but I'll stick with MSNBC.

Other Comments by Shaun1018

14. Comment #22079 by Shocking Blue on February 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm

As to the second video clip: "Where do you get your morals from?" From your parents perhaps? From the environment that you've been socialised into? The last thing you want to get your morals from is the bible...

Other Comments by Shocking Blue

15. Comment #22086 by MelM on February 12, 2007 at 10:24 pm

There is a big difference between a demographically Christian nation (which the US is) and a politically Christian nation (which the US isn't). The Dominionists are trying to turn the former into the latter. It's important to recogize equivocal uses of "Christian nation" and be ready to stomp on them.

Other Comments by MelM

16. Comment #22087 by Moparx on February 12, 2007 at 10:25 pm

The interview was well done considering the allotted time that was given to it.

The panel could definitely have been better and that preacher was bigot if I ever saw one.
I just had to shake my head when he used the incredibly predictable morals argument.

Other Comments by Moparx

17. Comment #22088 by moai on February 12, 2007 at 10:25 pm

I thought that Richard Dawkins was great, and obviously heavily edited but represented the atheist position very well. The "debate" afterward was ok and some good points were made, but the end where the Rev wigged out and became accusatory wasn't handled too well. He did do a good job of showing the pathetic nature of his thinking, however.

I would love to find a website that supports his position on this and has comments. Sadly, all the Xian sites are still quoting the Bible to "prove" god exists--as if what the Bible says matters.

Other Comments by moai

18. Comment #22090 by solidsquires on February 12, 2007 at 10:31 pm

I didn't like the part where Revered Peterson asked the question of where an atheist gets his or her morals from when according to him hes gets his from the Bible. When he said that I thought almost immediately of The God Delusion and how Richard put it so eloquently that wherever we get our morals from we surely don't get it from the Bible. I would have loved to see Ellen argue with Peterson about that one, and show him that he should reconsider how much of his morals he actually does get from the Bible.

Richard was fantastic as always.

Other Comments by solidsquires

19. Comment #22092 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Great interview, RD. Friendly and non-threatening, with a "let's discuss this like reasonable civilized people" attitude. By contrast, those jokers on last week's Superbowl "atheism panel" looked even more bigoted and foolish.

The panel this time was not too bad. At least the secularity of government was firmly established. It was too bad though that the "are atheists immoral" question was left hanging. Especially since that question is so easy to deal with.

Other Comments by kkant

20. Comment #22093 by Karen Owens on February 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm

I'm sorry Ellen Johnson wasted her precious little air time to confuse an issue by stating that she disagrees with Professor Dawkins on whether Christians misunderstand atheists. If time to think, she would have realized that she doesn't really disagree. They were each talking about 2 different types of Christians: leaders & followers. Ellen was talking about the many rabble-rousing Christian LEADERS who do UNDERSTAND atheists perfectly, but who deliberately mischaracterize atheists as evil, immoral, untrustworthy, aggressive etc. to their flock of Christian followers. Professor Dawkins was talking about those Christian FOLLOWERS who do MISUNDERSTAND atheists by buying into this terrible false caricature. With so many atheists in the closet, it's often the only representation of atheists that these Christians are exposed to.

The portion of text CNN aired from Professor Dawkins' interview was excellent. Unfortunately they edited out every smile but the last. He condensed several good points within minutes, as always. He continues to be, for my money, the best spokesman for Atheist / Humanist / evolution / & science vs. religion messages.

Other Comments by Karen Owens

21. Comment #22095 by fairyfree on February 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Happy Darwin Day!
To Richard Dawkins and all that support him. He speaks for so many of us. Thank you!

Other Comments by fairyfree

22. Comment #22096 by Ashley1319 on February 12, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Richard, you did a fantastic job with the time given you. Hopefully, the news will, in the future, devote more than five minutes to this important issue.

Other Comments by Ashley1319

23. Comment #22098 by Kingasaurus on February 12, 2007 at 10:53 pm

What I think is funny is that Dawkins gives a very pleasant, positive interview and outlook on the subject, without a hint of abrasiveness.

Then John Roberts (the host) comes back and says "some eye-opening opinions..." Yeah, no kidding. The reason is the US media just isn't used to hearing this stuff. They hear criticism of religion somewhat, but only in the guise of someone on the political left attacking the "religious right" on this issue or that issue. What they never hear someone say is that "there's just nothing to all this 'god' business." So they're surprised when they actually do hear it. Shocks them a smidge.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

24. Comment #22099 by toomanytribbles on February 12, 2007 at 10:54 pm

RD was better than a hallmark card ;)

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

25. Comment #22103 by Mr. Mark on February 12, 2007 at 11:08 pm

As is typical of the MSM, Richard got shortchanged on the time he was allotted.

Richard, I have two words for you if you want to get proper time on CNN: "WEAR DIAPERS!"

It worked for the crazy astronut story and it would work for you.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

26. Comment #22108 by denoir on February 12, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Atheism introduction and debate for people with ten second attention spans...

CNN is thoroughly pathetic and America in trouble if this is the depth that other topics are handled with as well.

Other Comments by denoir

27. Comment #22109 by jazddd on February 12, 2007 at 11:30 pm

That Christian guy really thought he had a point but didn't give the president of American Atheists a chance to answer. For him to ask atheists get their morals from just show how ignorant he really is. Maybe someone should explain to him that that there was mankind and life before the Bible. I would love to ask him where those individuals who lived before the Birth of Christ got their morals from. Can somebody also explain to him the meaning of 'evolution'. It surprises me how many ignorant and uneducated people are allowed to participate in forums such as this one. Wow!

Other Comments by jazddd

28. Comment #22111 by Joe_OD on February 12, 2007 at 11:43 pm

The arched eyebrow and smirk Ellen Johnson gets when the preacher calls atheists "hypocrites" made me smile.

Other Comments by Joe_OD

29. Comment #22113 by Gordon Brown on February 12, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Was it just me, or did the two women really mop the floor with that pompous reverend?

Where CNN in general is concerned, it's too bad that atheists have to "take it to the gutter" to get their opinions heard. Any network that fawns over a 12-year-old girl who paints unctuously derivative canvases of Christian icons is just woeful and anemic.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

30. Comment #22114 by justme on February 12, 2007 at 11:54 pm

(arrrr!! damn forum software lost my message again!)

Summary;

* Not a fan of American Atheists.
* They missed an opportunity to correct the biased 'morals' challenge; should have been easy.
* I appreciate that they are an established voice, even though I'm not a fan.

* Richard Dawkins - Spot on good job. Words and attitude were direct but quite friendly and approachable.

* Paula Zahn - Started out OK, but toward the end she looked tense. Even disgusted. Maybe I was reading too much into her facial expressions.

Other Comments by justme

31. Comment #22115 by Chad on February 12, 2007 at 11:57 pm

This is what I dislike so much about TV. It's all about saying sound bites within the time frame of their programming. It's near impossible to discuss anything in a way that matters when you have 5-10 seconds to get a point across.

Also, it always amazes me that people can't think of where our morals come from if they don't come from God. It's not like experience, memories, culture, nurture, or genetics could account for any of it.

Other Comments by Chad

32. Comment #22118 by TheDigitalNomad on February 13, 2007 at 12:26 am

This must have been at least half as long as the one the other day with all the theists. What kind of crap is that?

Good job to Richard and the two ladies that represented those of us with reason in the world, at least.

Other Comments by TheDigitalNomad

33. Comment #22121 by Zamboro on February 13, 2007 at 12:42 am

Isn't there any way Richard could get a decent chunk of time on American television? OPB? PBS? What about an interview on NPR?

The fact is that the case he makes against religion is a compelling one, and the only way to argue against it is simply to limit his screentime. We need to find some way to give him and his ideas exposure in America if we're to effect the return to secular government that we all hope for.

Other Comments by Zamboro

34. Comment #22123 by Russell Blackford on February 13, 2007 at 12:57 am

I've now seen the interview with Professor Dawkins.

It's very brief, but what is good about it is the sense of easy relaxation. Just having someone make these points in a calm, unruffled, matter-of-fact way is of enormous value. Many people in the same situation would be radiating tension, and making the interviewer and audience feel tense as well.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

35. Comment #22124 by Stewart on February 13, 2007 at 12:58 am

Did anyone notice the crawl text when she was asking him if he hadn't encountered people intimidated by his message? To save your eyes and time, it was a flash about the New York teen whose heart restarted after four days amid claims of "divine intervention." Oh, how we hog the airwaves! Though I notice none of the other stories carried the tag "no claims of divine intervention were made." Interesting that Zahn didn't answer why she doesn't believe in Thor or Zeus. Surely Richard actually wanted to know and wasn't asking rhetorically. Maybe she is a closet believer in some other gods, too. Anyway, why is the woman from the country whose constitution explicitly separates church and state asking someone from elsewhere if he thinks religion should play any role on the public stage? The enormous Christian majority, that now claims the country is Christian and might as well roll over, is precisely what that separation was supposed to protect America from.

Other Comments by Stewart

36. Comment #22125 by GoodbyeGodNZ on February 13, 2007 at 1:02 am

Overall we came out of it pretty damn well!

We're just so fortunate to have Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and so many other brilliant people like them leading our cause.

They wipe the floor with their opposition time after time.

PS. The God Delusion has gone onto the Dymocks Bookshops chain Best Seller shelves here in New Zealand.

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

37. Comment #22126 by Johan on February 13, 2007 at 1:20 am

It's ironic that the black guy claimed that Christians get their morals from the bible. If it were so, he would still be the SLAVE of some rich southern family. Fortunately for him, most Christians don't read the Bible that literarily. But please, don't claim that Atheists are the hypocrites.

Other Comments by Johan

38. Comment #22128 by DavidMcC on February 13, 2007 at 1:44 am

Well done, not only RD, but even CNN! It may have been short, but what did the other US news channels do? (Presumably nothing.)

Other Comments by DavidMcC

39. Comment #22130 by Michael C. on February 13, 2007 at 1:50 am

I thought Dawkins was eloquent as usual. The panel discussion, on the other hand, was horrible. Ellen was abrasive and played into the stereotype of the angry athiest. She also failed to refute the claim that non believers don't have morals. I think Dawkins and Sam Harris are much better representatives of the rational perspective.

Other Comments by Michael C.

40. Comment #22132 by infidel_michael on February 13, 2007 at 1:55 am

It is pity, that the blond atheist woman wasn't prepared for such common question as "where do atheists have their morality from?". Empathy and golden rule could be quite reasonable answer. Or simply - it is more useful, we know that from our experience. The good moral values in bible can be reduced to these principles and they are not unique to christianity, nor Jesus was the originator of these ideas.
Telling stories about Jesus is only one of many ways how to present these ideas to people. When you understand why it is good to behave according golden rule and feel empathy with other people, you don't need to believe in miracles. It is the same as if you understand Aesop's fables, you don't need to believe in talking animals.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

41. Comment #22133 by justme on February 13, 2007 at 1:58 am

Comment #22126 by Johan
"It's ironic that the black guy claimed that Christians get their morals from the bible. If it were so, he would still be the SLAVE of some rich southern family. Fortunately for him, most Christians don't read the Bible that literarily. But please, don't claim that Atheists are the hypocrites."

While I agree on the irony, I'd never bring it up to a black person unless I were a good friend with them and they were used to discussing things abstractly.

Even though that is the case, you can see quite a few women who actually insist that the bad attitudes the Bible has IRT women are entirely justified. They do indeed want to be 'barefoot and pregnant' and they have no additional ambitions.

Other Comments by justme

42. Comment #22134 by Bobsie on February 13, 2007 at 2:17 am

Yeah yeah, well done the Professor.

But also -- well done to everyone who bothered to complain about the previous atheist coverage!

Zahn's sidekick man refers specifically to the complaints they received. So well done RD, but well done RDF too!

Other Comments by Bobsie

43. Comment #22136 by Stewart on February 13, 2007 at 2:39 am

Comment #22125 by GoodbyeGodNZ:

"We're just so fortunate to have Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and so many other brilliant people like them leading our cause."

Too true. I would also add, however, that we are fortunate that we seem to have chosen the side that is right in this argument. If there is a god, then he has changed his tactics radically since biblical days, when there seemed to have been only believers in the right or the wrong gods, but no one who didn't believe in any god. The Old Testament god was not above obliging with signs when proof was needed. Obedience, the blinder the better, not faith, was the point. Christians maintain it's the same guy still running the show, yet somehow it's become very important to him that faith despite lack of evidence is better than obeying any number of commandments, so he's relaxed most of the commandments and stopped giving any sign he's there. Give the believers credit for one thing: they're unswervingly loyal, despite their god never ever weighing in to help them win the argument.

Further to my previous comment, it really is disappointing that the Zeus/Thor question isn't taken seriously, because, in a certain sense, it is almost the whole point. Paula Zahn probably thinks she doesn't have to answer such a question because, duh!, we're not talking about Zeus or Thor, we're talking about God. And while she's thinking "what, how can you compare them?," Dawkins is trying to get her to see there's no difference. Humankind will be a lot healthier when it understands that the only thing separating Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller from the pope is the number of people fooled.

Other Comments by Stewart

44. Comment #22137 by Johnry07 on February 13, 2007 at 2:40 am

I thought these were pretty good. I really can't believe that black guy though (don't know his actual name), he uses terrible logic in all of his arguments.

Other Comments by Johnry07

45. Comment #22138 by DavidMcC on February 13, 2007 at 2:59 am

Stewart, maybe Paula didn't answer Richard's question about Thor, etc because Paula wasn't the one being interviewed. I think it is common practice by interviewers not to allow the interviewee to "turn the table" on them, but rather to allow them to use a question of that nature to make a point to the audience. After all, that, rather than Paula's views on Thor, is the purpose of the interview.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

46. Comment #22143 by a-teapot-ist on February 13, 2007 at 3:40 am

Very cool! Nice and to the point was Prof. Dawkins, and no-one can say he came across at all abrasive. I truly hope this might lead to interest by the US networks to bring "Root of All Evil?" over. I've seen it, but not enough of the secular (North) American populace has.

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist

47. Comment #22145 by darth_atheist on February 13, 2007 at 3:50 am

I really thought Dawkins was to the point, and very polite in his correction of the misinformation against atheists. Ellen Johnson didn't do so well when the "Reverend" asked her where atheists got their morals from. I think she should have turned it on him when he said that rape was "bad" in that segment about the rape "article". Ellen should have pointed out that the man said Christians got their morals from the bible, yet he also said rape was wrong, yet the bible condones rape as a moral behavior. That would have made him look like even more of an asshole than he was.

Other Comments by darth_atheist

48. Comment #22151 by BaronOchs on February 13, 2007 at 4:18 am

Good interview by Richard Dawkins but this whole CNN thing makes me feel that if religion were staying I'd settle for the end of television quite honestly.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

49. Comment #22152 by stephend on February 13, 2007 at 4:23 am

Very composed presentation from Richard. Well done. I fear I would have wanted to give those two "They need to shut-up" women from the panel a verbal bitch-slap if I had been invited on.....

Other Comments by stephend

50. Comment #22153 by Lionel A on February 13, 2007 at 4:33 am

Is it just me or have others detected a slightly venomous inflection on the word 'atheist' when Zahn asks Richard,' Why are you an atheist?'

Once again Richard displays a calm demeanour whilst expounding the rationale behind his atheism in stark contrast to that odious, and clearly argument limited, reverend. How can his opponents persist in describing him as strident etc. without being utterly dishonest?

BTW If this helps others, I have trouble playing the first clip, via the dawkins.net page or directly from YouTube, on an XP Pro based laptop with dual-core processor whilst in a limited User Account and the side panels of pages on the site don't always load, no such trouble with an older 2.8GHz P4 machine with XP Home (running default Admin account type). Yes I know that the advice is to switch from IE6 to IE7 or Firefox but I simply cannot afford (time and possible data loss if things go pear shaped) to do this at present.

OTOH it could be just that I am running into the slow period here again as seems the case since I began looking at this thread.

Doh! Speed up and down like a Yo-Yo ATM.

Other Comments by Lionel A