1. Comment #180968 by SamKiddoGordon on May 16, 2008 at 8:08 am

Canada is a wonderful place, but we need a lot more atheists.

(First POST!!)

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

2. Comment #180972 by Tezcatlipoca on May 16, 2008 at 8:15 am

Was the pig farmer/serial killer in Ontario a true believer?

-edit-oops, Robert Picton...from B.C.

Okay, was the serial killer from B.C. a true believer

-edit- Pickton

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

3. Comment #180977 by esuther on May 16, 2008 at 8:22 am

When was this broadcast? I went to the TVO website looking for the survery the interviewer mentioned and found no record of the Dawkins interview. Is it more than a year old?

Other Comments by esuther

4. Comment #180978 by movingshadow on May 16, 2008 at 8:23 am

The pig farmer was from BC, the Vancouver area.

Other Comments by movingshadow

5. Comment #180985 by Mango on May 16, 2008 at 8:40 am

Atheists *are* persecuted in America. I walked out to my car this morning to find that someone had broken both of my side mirrors. Not the first act of vandalism, either.

Other Comments by Mango

6. Comment #180991 by Darwin's badger on May 16, 2008 at 8:48 am

I d/l The Agenda quite regularly, as they have some interesting guests and it's less sensationalist than most current affairs programs. Steve Paiken seems to know what he's talking aboot. ;)

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

7. Comment #180994 by HandyGeek on May 16, 2008 at 8:54 am

If only I could watch YouTube at work. :D

Other Comments by HandyGeek

8. Comment #180995 by BigChiefRainInFace on May 16, 2008 at 8:54 am

I love how they showed Pascals' Wager at the end and then listed atheist authors under "authors that aren't interested in the deal". Subtle, very subtle. I guess it's better than "authors that are dead wrong and you should waste no time reading their stuff" or "Fools" or "read this and burn" but I was hoping for a more professional approach.

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

9. Comment #181001 by Caudimordax on May 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

Mango - I admire your courage. I have been waffling for some time now about putting an explicitly atheist bumper sticker on my car out of fear of the very thing you describe, not to mention the even scarier road rage. And that's from someone living in a blue state.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

10. Comment #181002 by Incredulous on May 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

I think I may have seen this before. Nonetheless, it was an extremely competent performance from Richard.

The conversation between the theists afterwards was simply the usual nauseous fallacies of verbosity, straw men, ad hominem. You all should know the drill by now.

Other Comments by Incredulous

11. Comment #181008 by BCReason on May 16, 2008 at 9:23 am

Met Steve Paiken once. Helluva nice guy.

Other Comments by BCReason

12. Comment #181011 by riki on May 16, 2008 at 9:34 am

I can't bare to watch.

Other Comments by riki

13. Comment #181017 by mad_monk on May 16, 2008 at 9:48 am

Seen this before (on this site I believe). Interviewer is irritating and his questions pretty childish. He seems to have made the calculation that his core audience is made up of slightly dim religious types. He tries to placate them by treating RD as a kind of odd-ball English eccentric. Best bit was RD saying to him "Now come on; be serious" during a profound dissection of fairyology.

Other Comments by mad_monk

14. Comment #181018 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

Would the world be better without Religion?
Define Religion
OED:
religion

• noun
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Without 1 and 2 yes. Without 3 no.

At the end the woman says: "Self-transcendance"

Hitchens: "I do like his point that if you want to see something that's marvelous and awe inspiring, take a look through the Hubble telescope, once you have, you can't really be impressed by the 'burning bush'."

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

15. Comment #181026 by Neuro on May 16, 2008 at 10:10 am

Mango:

Is 'ATHEISM' really on your license plate? Is that why your car is the victim of vandalism?

Other Comments by Neuro

16. Comment #181031 by Mango on May 16, 2008 at 10:19 am

Neuro -- ATHEISM was my official Louisiana license plate for about 5 months before it was stolen in April. I'm working on getting it replaced.

Other Comments by Mango

17. Comment #181033 by mordacious1 on May 16, 2008 at 10:24 am

Did that odd looking iman say: that by saving your pants, you are responding to your jeans?

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #181039 by mordacious1 on May 16, 2008 at 10:37 am

This was supposed to be Richard rebutting some earlier show on religion. Then when he's gone, they bring on a god-panel to rebut him. This panders to the religious audience methinks. Also, Peterson the "psychologist" misinterprets everything Richard was saying and wrote about the god of the old testament. His point (Peterson's) was that the old test. was just reflecting the viciousness of "nature" during the era the bible was written. WHAT? It was your bleeping god that was vicious you moron. If he was a benevolent god, he could have said : ok, nature is vicious, but I want my chosen people to turn their backs on that and be nice, kind, etc. Not wipe out your neighbors and rape the virgins. Kill, kill, kill, in my name, amen. (sound of me chucking my cookies).

Other Comments by mordacious1

19. Comment #181040 by mordacious1 on May 16, 2008 at 10:42 am

Sorry, I'm ranting here. The woman states that you need religion because if you go it alone you're in danger of self-delusionment, as opposed to the community delusions you get with religion. (More cookies coming up)

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #181042 by tedlove on May 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

i love Richard. hes in total command here, and so damn suave and charismatic. damn him!

Other Comments by tedlove

21. Comment #181044 by Chris_The_Positivist on May 16, 2008 at 10:52 am

I feel it's unfair to speak about Richard Dawkins and his book The God Delusion when himself nor anyone who properly understands his position can reply and actually refute what the theists say.

It's unbelieveable that the 3% of those in the survey concerning 'pants saving' can be determined statistically significant. I'm sure most of those 3% were having a laugh!! Secularists indeed have no reason to respond to those 3% of people surveyed, vary rarily is any survey unanimous. We're not drones! Religion wishes to crush the minority voter where secularists aren't so tyrannical and instead recognise differing views as a by-product of human nature and of our free will.

Other Comments by Chris_The_Positivist

22. Comment #181050 by MrPickwick on May 16, 2008 at 11:06 am

Skip 5,6,7 (the usual anti-Dawkins blah, blah, blah).
You've been warned.

Other Comments by MrPickwick

23. Comment #181053 by mordacious1 on May 16, 2008 at 11:10 am

And the douchebag of the panel award goes to:
Jordan Peterson. What a wanker.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #181059 by Caudimordax on May 16, 2008 at 11:17 am

Maybe the 3 percent didn't want to interfere with god's plan.

I just finished watching the whole thing - really the way these people blather on so pretensiously about their little fantasy world.

And I loved the conclusion - 84 percent answered the survey by saying that the world would be better off without religion - and it is brushed off by the wingnuts as "they're just watching for Dawkins." So the only people watching a show about religion are Dawkins groupies? There aren't enough people interested in religion to watch a show about religion?

Other Comments by Caudimordax

25. Comment #181069 by Chris_The_Positivist on May 16, 2008 at 11:35 am

I chuckled too when the host announced that. I think it's really encouraging! :)

I guess the alternative that most intellectually inclined viewers are with the notion of a religious free world is too scary for them to contemplate!

Evidence of the moving moral zeitgeist perhaps? Finally spotting religion hiding behind the hideous atrocities in the name of faith? I think we've all had enough of irrational, out-dated ways of thinking. Behold the 21st century!! The end of the non-thinking dark ages. yay!

Other Comments by Chris_The_Positivist

26. Comment #181088 by evo bevo on May 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm

anyone notice how the banner at the bottom of the screen kept changing, calling RD many different things, such as Atheist, Biologist, etc, and at one point (part 4, 2:00) the banner called him a "Polemicist." while true, it seems like a very strange title and made me laugh.

Other Comments by evo bevo

27. Comment #181091 by mordacious1 on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I've been waiting to see if anyone noticed the interviewer's nose popping in from the left when the camera was on Richard.

Other Comments by mordacious1

28. Comment #181093 by matlot on May 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm

I think Richard was a little weak on altruism.

Other Comments by matlot

29. Comment #181095 by JernJane on May 16, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Atheists *are* persecuted in America. I walked out to my car this morning to find that someone had broken both of my side mirrors. Not the first act of vandalism, either.

I wish we could just live together, peacefully, like human beings. Not that we have a rich history of doing so, but still. I admire your courage, Mango.

Other Comments by JernJane

30. Comment #181101 by mordacious1 on May 16, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Mango I prefer the t-shirt, that way if they have a problem, they have to confront me. So far, in two years, I've received one dirty look and have met some really nice atheists, pagans, and other freethinker types. I live in a pretty conservative area too.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #181106 by acarrionwasp on May 16, 2008 at 12:35 pm

I have some atheist/anti-religion adornments on my car... and I can, unfortunately, report some vandalism. I almost knew that it would happen. My "Darwin-fish" had his rear leg and the ventral side of his caudal fin removed during the winter. I found the leg in the snow, but i could not find the tail. (The patient is in stable condition after 5 minutes of surgery, and the glue is holding nicely--but there is some concern for his ability to ascend in water...) I will put up a picture of my rear bumper as soon as my camera is charged. I am very proud of it, and I would really like to see you all "come out", as well! GET THOSE BIG RED A'S ON YOUR CARS AND LAPTOPS. It makes me feel so good to see them. Have a great day!

Other Comments by acarrionwasp

32. Comment #181107 by black wolf on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm

evo bevo,
you're right, 'polemicist' is an awkward label. Like 'lobbyist', it gives the impression that the proud title carrier would take up any cause if the money's right, without having to know too much about his subject of discussion.
Btw, are theologians anything more than polemicists in that specific area? Has any theologian ever been labeled as a polemicist, given he provided a lot of assertions with little to no evidence?

Other Comments by black wolf

33. Comment #181114 by BCReason on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm

As much as I like Steve I think it was a little unfair to bring on the snipe panel after Richard left. These three brought up common criticisms of Richard's views that I've heard him dispense with before.

Background
Agenda is a production of TV Ontario (TVO). TV Ontario is a government funded corporation set up to provide educational broadcasting for the province of Ontario here in Canada. Sort of like PBS with government sponsorship.

Other Comments by BCReason

34. Comment #181158 by evo bevo on May 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm

black wolf,
i think you are right that people usually use the word polemic (well, not many people use the word at all so you would think those who do use it might actually know what it means) to talk about an aggresive attack or rant that is not backed by rational thought. RD is certainly a polemecist but not in this sort of irrational definition of the term.

and no, i would imagine that we cannot call a theologian a polemecist without offending billions of people (back to the inequity of the discourse argument). i do know one priest from the church of the flying spaghetti monster who proudly calls himself a polemicist, and with outspoken vigour dares anyone to prove that his beliefs are false.

Other Comments by evo bevo

35. Comment #181159 by Wosret on May 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

This is old, I watched this some time ago. It is pathetically biased, and idiotic. First the interviewer is a pompus ass, and then he brings on some people to attack RD without him being present to defend himself.

Other Comments by Wosret

36. Comment #181171 by MelM on May 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm

This is the second time in the last few weeks that I've seen Pascal's Wager put forward while Dawkins wasn't on-camera. In the first case, it was done before the conversation and I assumed that Dawkins heard it but just forgot to rebut it before the main conversation began. In the current case, however, it was put on the screen after the conversation. Apparently, some find it to be an overwhelming argument and have decided that an off-conversation insertion is the best way to make their little point--IMO, it's a sleazy way to do things but I don't expect much better from theists.

Other Comments by MelM

37. Comment #181175 by THEEVANGELIST on May 16, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Is Jordan Peterson really a professor of a bone fide university? His arguments were so illogical as to be unbecoming of university professor.

Other Comments by THEEVANGELIST

38. Comment #181177 by designsoda on May 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Did Jordan Peterson just accuse Prof. Dawkins of intellectual dishonesty? Unbelievable. Prof. Dawkins would have nailed Peterson had he the opportunity.

Other Comments by designsoda

39. Comment #181187 by aratina on May 16, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I get such a kick out of watching Dawkins reach right in, grab these credulous people by their necks and haul them up to reality as he does with this interviewer on several occasions.

That said, I'm not sure why Dawkins conceded that Jesus likely was real. From my own research, I found a real Jesus to be about as likely as a real fairy. What is likely is that a whole bunch of anecdotes about real people were merged into this one character and it took off for the reasons Dawkins mentioned (see 5:20). In that way, a person named Jesus who happened to have taken up the practice of healing could be said to have been real, but he would not have been the comprehensive character in the Bible.

Other Comments by aratina

40. Comment #181188 by I.Kant on May 16, 2008 at 3:15 pm

even though the poll result at the end was obviously highly un-scientific, Jordan Peterson seemed a bit blunt in the way that he disregarded it.

Other Comments by I.Kant

41. Comment #181190 by notsobad on May 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm

this is old
good reminder tho

Other Comments by notsobad

42. Comment #181195 by Serdan on May 16, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Hehehehehehehehehheheheheheheheh...
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

ROFLMFAO!!!

I can't take it anymore. It's ridiculous. Adults talking about what their invisible friend does, thinks and wants from us. Ludicrous! In a sane world they would be locked up! But no, they are actually taken seriously. Lulz.

The world is insane and up is down.

Have a nice day.

Other Comments by Serdan

43. Comment #181202 by Jin on May 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm

The interview part was outstanding. And as expected, the subsequent panel was a series of facepalm moments. I don't know why but I'm always just a little bit optimistic that perhaps some of the apologists or theists will present a reasonable new argument to consider, but disappointment inevitably follows. The more I expose myself to these discussions the more I feel frustrated by every bad argument that someone gets away with.

Other Comments by Jin

44. Comment #181204 by MelM on May 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm

About political action:

I don't think atheism can be a political movement. But, ...

Atheism is not a political philosophy nor even a well defined set of concrete views. Right now, I vote for the party who'll do the least fundamental damage--the least theocratic most likely. I wouldn't vote for atheist candidates just because they're atheist.

Create an "alert" web organizaion.
One thing that could be done, at least in the U.S., is to have a really good legislative alert service on the web. It would be tasked with keeping up with legislation and other government actions (both state and federal) that have an impact on the wall-of-separation.

Give us a warning; we'll take it from there.
The aim would be to give us warning so that we could contact political allies, contact government officials, write letters to the editor, write op-eds or magazine articles, or even mount some special purpose lobbying effort. The nutters are pushing legislation forward 24/7 and it's hard to keep up. (We just dodged a bullet on the "10 commandments weekend" but I still don't know exactly what happened.)

An alert-only organization.
I'm thinking of a "modular" approach where the legislative alert organization wouldn't engage in lobbying; atheists are going to differ on many pieces of legislation that have an indirect impact on the wall. For example, a recent court decision--which may be overturned soon--in California almost made home schooling illegal. Some atheists approve and some don't (I happen to find the decision shockingly horrid). Unfortunately, I don't even believe that issuing press releases from the alert organizaion would be a good idea. It would surely be tempting, but sooner or later, the inclusiveness would be blown and people would stop supporting it. Let other organizations issue press releases.

Too many causes packaged with atheism
Anyway, an atheist lobby would be a difficult thing to hold together and be inclusive. There'd be a temptation to create package-deal causes and certainly to "take over" such an effort for some specific political movement. What's sold as an inclusive atheist lobby, would most likely end up just a "front" organization and a scam. If one wants of create a lobby out of a set of social etc views plus atheism, that's ok, but it should be honest and not spend money on fighting for corn subsidies that most supporters don't know about.

Other Comments by MelM

45. Comment #181205 by Acitta on May 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm

This was originally broadcast on Thursday, May 10 2007, part of a series of programs called "Five Days of Faith." link

Other Comments by Acitta

46. Comment #181209 by MelM on May 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm

It's amazing how adults who believe in infantile fantasies are so concerned about respect. IMO, this is a real sore point with theists--and rightfully so. It may just be that respect from others is one of the "mainsprings" of the religious mind; they can indulge in the bullshit as long as everyone pretends that it's not bullshit. So, stop pretending; break the mainspring.

Other Comments by MelM

47. Comment #181215 by JLD Calgary on May 16, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Really disappointing that Dawkin's wasn't there to school that panel at the end. That was a bad arrangement, bringing a guest on then letting three opponents try and tear into him and his book without him there to set them straight.

I found I kept going through the list of Dawkin-like responses after every statement that he would have said had he been present.

Other Comments by JLD Calgary

48. Comment #181217 by Hayka on May 16, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Mango,

I have frames around my car's licence plates (front and back) that read 'Godless American." A couple of weeks ago I noticed that someone had marked out the 'less' part with an indelible marker, something a bit of acetone quickly remedied.

But I'm still puzzling over the tire I had to replace last year. Some might imagine a puncture in the sidewall of a new Michelin to be an act of God. I'm more inclined to blame it on a badly deluded follower with a sharp pocket knife.

But buying a new tire is much better than being the unwilling center of attention at a quasi-pig roast. From an historical perspective I'd have to say that we've got them on the run.

Other Comments by Hayka

49. Comment #181225 by Andrew Brown on May 16, 2008 at 5:09 pm

If you watch to the end the poll results to "Would we be better off without religion?" are 84% yes and 16% no.

When the numbers are revealed you can hear a little gasp of shock and horror from the religiots, but they soon recover their composure and attribute the number to Dawkins groupies. It couldn't possibly be that they were demonstrating such total ignorance and idiocy that they did Richard's work for him?

As Hitch says, instead of arguing against reigious idiocy sometimes all you can do is underline it.

Other Comments by Andrew Brown

50. Comment #181242 by NowlinMD on May 16, 2008 at 5:54 pm

This is old.
It is possibly the most annoying Dawkins interview I have ever seen.

Other Comments by NowlinMD