Good interview. And good straight talking interviewer. Straight talking is a trait often associated with Aussies and good for them!

world's most militant atheist

We all tie for that spot, with zero militance.

a pot-stirring, ignorant bigot

If he’s stirring the pot, presumably it was fine before, right? If he’s ignorant, refute his claims with evidence.

Dawkins has written any number of books fanning heated debate between believers of any faith and non-believers

Only one of his books was about religion.

he's at it* again in ... The Greatest Show on Earth

At what? Not religion bashing, as it happens. (* Absent in the transcript but said in reality.)

Negus caught up with Richard Dawkins in, of all places, his quite God-fearing home town

That’s not surprising, is it?

Is there a danger that you could become an extremist yourself?

Extreme how? You either believe or you don’t. Only belief comes in degrees.

you're questioning the very basis of their existence by questioning the existence of God as their creator

How dare he question it! (At least he doesn’t outright contradict it with the same confident hypocritical assertion of alternate dogmas seen when the members of one faith critique another.) Do these people’s lives really lose all meaning if God is as imaginary as the Santa Claus who joyously animated their early Christmases?

Very interested to hear what you think ... when there has been a natural disaster

It’s due to natural laws. Duh.

The latest thing I thought I would throw at you ... is this whole Mossad situation where you have, people who are, I imagine, of the Jewish religious faith, who are secretly killing people in the name of God.

I wonder if maybe he’ll ... oh, I don’t know ... disapprove of it?

an atheist NGO is what we're talking about

Better an atheist non – governmental organisation than an atheist governmental organisation, which any secularist knows would be as wrong as a religious governmental organisation. What’s so wrong with organising anyway? That’s certainly not what’s wrong with religion. There are many special interest groups. Who are atheists the only ones teased for it?

He's giving atheists a bad name. Atheists are becoming as annoying as the believers used to be.

Atheists in not shutting up remain far less annoying than believers have been at any time in the past or are now. Name one religion feared the world over for nothing more than trying to persuade others it’s on to something.

You have such a strong antagonism towards other people who have faith and religion

Well, he thinks religion is a mistaken path, but that’s not the same as being antagonistic to every individual practitioner.

if that doesn't spark some pretty fiery dinner party carry-on, I don't know what will!

How about someone spouting religious bigotry?

Being passionate about truth is something all good people should aspire too. This is an excellent interview. Dawkins here is relaxed, clear, diplomatic and concise especially in responding to questions inspired by critics of the work. Comparing Theology to Leprechaun-ology riles believers however the facts are hard to argue with.

Softball questions.

Since when is the Mossad eliminating enemies of the Israeli State "the latest thing"? I think they've been doing that for awhile now.

George Negus claims that Brisbane is "god fearing" but does not provide any evidence of this. Having lived there, I was not aware of any great religious fervor. Nor does he point out that our Deputy PM is an atheist as are a lot of other politicians. Religion is usually not an issue when running for office in Australia. George knows this and should have pointed it out.

Before that previous PM, thier religion was not considered an issue. I'm old enough to remember them back to the 1960s, and the PM's religion was raised only in reference to one of them before Howard. And that was because he was an avowed atheist while his father had been an ordained minister. People thought the contrast was amusing but not relevant to his ability to do the job.

For anyone interested, Richard will be on Q & A on ABC1 at 9:30 PM 8 Mar 10 (AEDST, UTC 11).

Kliwon
>Nor does he point out that our Deputy PM is an atheist as are a lot of other politicians

Unfortunately the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader are two of the most religious people in their parties. In the UK, Blair was one of the most religious in his party. Something about being religious gives you the energy to rise to the top.

I thought this was a dating show... lol.

Lots of softballs in that interview. It was also quite bizzare

About the Mossad for example. I don't believe Mossad assassinations are any more religiously motivated than CIA Assassinations or any other kind of government assassinations. Intelligence organizations the world over kill people for their governments, and not for God specifically. Plus I would be very surprised if Israeli Mossad agents tended to be very religious. Intelligence agencies tend to attract people that are... well... intelligent, and therefore more likely to be more secular then their societies' average.

This is bull. The interviewer was just trying to be clever and talk about current events. He did the same when mentioning the "religiosity" of Australian politicians, without making the distinction between a religious politician and one that leads with his/her religion (A distinction that Richard Dawkins did make).

There's been a lot of goofy nonsense in Australia lately..

Had it been taped in the USA, the label below Dawkins' name would have said "atheist"..it's really nice to see "Evolutionary Biologist" for a change.

good interview. much better than the fran kelly one. i like how the two of them just "have a chat" as it were. negus is not trying to score points of any sort.

Scientology was in the news recently here in Australia with major news channels exposing their dirty tricks and ex-members giving shocking revelations and stuff, but I kept thinking, why do they stop at Scientology? Just because it's the new kid in town? Why not do a similar exposE on Christianity or Islam or Hinduism? The news channels seemed to be completely oblivious of the glass house they are living in.

Something must be done to sway the minds of those who believe we are "just as annoying" as believers. For centuries the religious have been filling the world up with their bad ideas, immoral doctrines, and truth claims based on zero evidence. They impede scientific progress and stifle human rights. They try and force their baseless views into the education system by lying and cheating and remaining ignorant of basic science. They confuse people by blurring the lines between poetry, metaphor, symbolism, and reality. They indoctrinate children to believe falsities about the world, who grow up to vote and spread more religious memes. They advertise, they promote, they knock on our doors, they yell at as from the television, they build places to worship their imaginary gods on nearly every street corner displaying messages that are often insulting non-believers and the public in general(In fact, during the Olympics here in Vancouver, I saw a sign reading "The greatest prize is God, not gold"). They have discriminated against atheists, women, homosexuals, and various races for countless years, and finally, some of us secular folk decide to write books pointing out the overwhelming lack of reason and evidence provided by the religious, oh, and signs saying things like "Don't believe in God, you are not alone" - and we're considered militant and annoying.

Why are people so dumb? why?

"Do you think you're outnumbered though? Do you think you're a voice in the wilderness still, or are people saying "This guy is onto something."

It's humorous (and unfortunate) how journalists project their own facile worldviews onto the rest of us. This session went well, and George Negus was clearly a gracious host, but I couldn't help getting the feeling that he was treating Dawkins like some kind of "scoop" in the news.

Richard Dawkins isn't "on to something", Mr. Negus, unless the unembellished truth of our existence is merely a novel new I-Phone app for you. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but it is almost like Negus wasn't quite giving Dawkins the respect he deserves, as a Fellow of the Royal Society for instance. Dawkins didn't "invent" anything, George. The Good Professor has certainly been busy clearing brush and debunking LIES that have been left unpruned for eons; but everything Richard knows are simply facts that have been around FOREVER.

#metch
That "just as annoying as believers" made me think about gays/lesbians/black ppl/women who had to (and unfortunately still has to) fight for their rights.. Many ppl used to say "well I agree they should have same rights but why do they have to go to streets etc"
They went to the streets because their rights werent same. And until they were it was necessary to be heard, to be loud, to make a stand. And, for me anyway, its the same with atheism. Many religious ppl can say "ok, they should have same rights blabla" but it should stop there. Its not just about being able to get a job or being respected whether I am or not a believer. It should go further, we should fight for actual separation of state and religion because even that is our right. Mby not as a atheist but as a citizen of particular country (afterall its not just for our/atheists protection).

But I would go even further and thats, I guess, what makes even atheists angry. We should show others that critical thinking is the right way, that accepting "truth" on a faith is a FAIL.
In the world, there are 2 things I hate most. Its a (manipulative) lie and an injustice. Religion (belief in god, religion, acting on this belief), in my eyes, represents both of these things.

As an Australian I find George Negus's broad Aussie accent incredibly grating. It almost sounds like he's putting it on!

Great interview. I always get a kick out of the "leprechology" (or "leprechaunology" this time around) comment. :)

Julie

Dawkins is right - most of the questions should be put to religious people instead. Why ask an atheist to defend or justify or explain religious violence or irrationality? There are so many original, interesting questions that could have been asked.

I'm always frustrated by journalists who are granted an interview with Dawkins, and then blow it by asking exactly the same thing everybody else has asked.

Look what I discovered:

http://www.xamuel.com/inverse-graphing-calculator.php?phrase=Jesus is Lord of the universe

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Maybe it does not really matter too much what the interviewer says as long as Richard can get some good points across. We can't expect all interviewers to be up to speed on evolution and religion. The more airtime the better, keep building up the points for the general public. The weight of science and philosophy will make more people think and question.

leprechaunology" always worth a laugh

Good interview.


I had a double take at this though:
"...your friend, Pat Robertson..."

I doubt they're friends. LOL.

Thats the stuff...good on you Dawkins, and Negus did a good interview - yes I agree that it was good to see 'Evolutionary Biologist' as a sub instead of just 'Atheist'.
Will be seeing Dawkins in Melbourne this weekend!!!

@ Jos Gibbons
"He's giving atheists a bad name. Atheists are becoming as annoying as the believers used to be."

"Atheists in not shutting up remain far less annoying than believers have been at any time in the past or are now. Name one religion feared the world over for nothing more than trying to persuade others it’s on to something."

I have to answer that one: Jehovah's witnesses. They are rightly feared for a number of things (what do you mean, we can't celebrate little Johnny's birthday?!), but there is nothing they are feared more for, than their 'trying to persuade others they’re on to something'. And that they're not, of course.

OK, so maybe 'feared' is not exactly the best term, but what else do you call it when you close the curtains, turn off the lights and sit behind the door tightly gripping your shotgun* as soon as they enter your street?

*note: no, I do not own a shotgun and I do not condone physical violence towards anyone, even Jehovah's witnesses.

" I wonder whether religious politicians ask themselves whose side God is on."

When he mentioned this, it brought to mind Mark Twains' "War Prayer". http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html

Both sides of any war, between religious people, ask their god(s) to aid them by destroying their enemy. Rarely do you hear them pray for their god(s) to get the enemy to give up peacefully.

"...your friend, Pat Robertson..."

I did get a chuckle out of this.

Comment #467390 by jasperwinkel

It's not just trying to advance a proposition's truth that's annoying there; it's the way they do it. No-one should be visited in their homes for the purposes of a debate over whether something is true. Besides which, I would hope the thing about JWs to which people most object, even if they don't show it in their behaviour (because they needn't close curtains just to criticise), is their willingness to let their children die rather than have a blood transfusion.

interesting how shocked Richard looked when presented with the idea that our politicians were quite tied up with religion. he seemed skeptical that they wore it on their sleeves. tonight on ABC he was on Q&A with young earth creationist Steve Fielding...how disturbingly his eyes must have been opened to our increasingly conservative political climate.

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the following (the text is taken from a transcript on the SBS website):

GEORGE NEGUS: True. The latest thing I thought I would throw at you, because we are a program that deals with contemporary issues, is this whole Mossad situation where you have, people who are, I imagine, of the Jewish religious faith, who are secretly killing people in the name of God.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why would you think I would think I mean, you should be asking a religious person whether they find that strange. I find it not at all strange because I find that religion really does motivate people to do horrible things because they have this passionate faith in whatever their religion happens to be, and it teaches them that the other religion is the wrong one.

I can't believe this was allowed to go unchallenged. What evidence is there at all that the Mossad go around killing people in the name of God? I don't think anyobdy who knows the first thing about the Mossad would suspect that they are particularly religiously motivated at all, and I am dissapointed that Richard fell for this.

Comment #467397 by joe1986

Their seal is Proverbs 11:14, for crying out loud. Just how secular can they be? Considering their behaviour's similarity to that of all the other Jewish extremists in that area, probably not very.

perhaps i missed something, but when asked if he thought an atheist could get elected in the states, dawkins replied that 'HE couldn't get elected', implying that said atheist would be a man. consciousness raising, mr. dawkins! i do understand that it's likely to be a man that is elected, but to assume it's a man is slightly sexist, no£ am i being too sensitive£

Wasn't Blair saying he prayed about invading Iraq wearing his religion on his sleeve? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm

Confused Pinhead Interviewer.

Dawkins definitely has teeth, but obviously the interviewer hasn't spoken with Hitchens. That guy pulls no punches.

I know this comment is irrelevant and I apologise for it, but please watch it with Google's captions on. It is so funny. At one point, RD says, 'I know most decent Christians will agree with me on that...' and the captions say ' I know the secret service will agree with me on that...' LOL.

Many of you are giving this interviewer way too much credit. I like the line by line dissection of his inanities, posted by Jos Gibbons.

More of the "You're just anothe form of organized religion, aren't you?" and "You're just as fundamentalist as the fundamentalists, no?"

Tripe across the board, with the exception of Richard's aplomb in answering this twit.

BTW, the CDM: I actually think Richard would agree with you and apologize for making such a slip. Richard's no saint, he's human, and at age 67 (or whatever) I'd be willing to bet he's purged more of the bad societal tendencies of his generation than most. Not to excuse him, mind you.

Brisbane is not GOD-Fearing. Well at least I'm not and I'm from Brisbane. Did anyone from Brisbane go to his show? How was it?

George Negus isn't one of my favourite TV personalities. They recently had him nightly on the 7pm Project, and that show is about as inane and opinionated as you can get. Not that I had a whole lot of respect to begin with, but he certainly lost some by agreeing to be on that show.

It's a pity Enough Rope isn't on anymore. Andrew Denton was at least thoughtful about his questions and not too afraid of offending the guest.

As for Brisbane being god-fearing: generalisations are always problematic. I don't notice any particular religiosity, but general prejudice seems to be higher here than in other cities so there might be a connection. Queensland as a whole could be said to be more conservative, and maybe more religious, than other states (we gave the country Pauline Hanson and Joh Bjelke-Petersen, after all) but I don't have any stats to show this. However if it is true, the higher incidence of prejudice in Brisbane could be explained by the typical rural-to-urban migration of Queensland youth. They are raised in more isolated and religious areas and bring their intolerance with them when they finish school.

deziner says

As for Brisbane being god-fearing: generalisations are always problematic. I don't notice any particular religiosity, but general prejudice seems to be higher here than in other cities so there might be a connection. Queensland as a whole could be said to be more conservative, and maybe more religious, than other states (we gave the country Pauline Hanson and Joh Bjelke-Petersen, after all) but I don't have any stats to show this. However if it is true, the higher incidence of prejudice in Brisbane could be explained by the typical rural-to-urban migration of Queensland youth. They are raised in more isolated and religious areas and bring their intolerance with them when they finish school.

The core of the Australian young earth creationist movement originated (and is still basedin) Quuensland. Answers in Genesis, its split off, Creation Ministries International and the near one man band Creation research organisation of John "Necrophilia" Mackay came from there.

Moreover, they were initially finance through Queensland government finance. The Queenland government got creationism into the school science lessons and John "Necrophilia" Mackay and Ken Scam started off their dubious careers by selling creation science books to such schools.


For what it is worth, the stupidest creationist on the Internet, Laurie Appleton of regurgiquote infamy lives there.

There seems to be some commentary that the interviewer was confused or his questions ignorant. In fact, as RD noted himself during the course of the interview it was easy and friendly.

Negus is an atheist offering RD a platform from which to speak, by bowling up a bunch of the usual Dorothy Dix questions.

Just a general comment about the last couple of interviews:

Richard has evidence for what he says. Even if someone chooses not to "believe" him, still he can point to the real world for his examples. The religious can not say this. And yet...most interviewers still ask questions with the attitude that Richard should "justify" his stance. Are similar questions ever asked of the religous?

And why, indeed, is Richard continually labeled "outspoken"? He is not asserting crazy suspicions as fact. He is simply stating the current state of our knowledge as humans. Are priests, for example, who devote their entire lives to their religious beliefs, and who hold weekly services about them also "outspoken"?

If for no other reason than the assumptions in the "introductions" usually given to atheists by journalists and moderators - whether complimentary or not - history will have to look back on our age and realize that - unfortunately - the Dark Ages were not over - not quite yet.

Comment #467397 by joe1986

"Their seal is Proverbs 11:14, for crying out loud. Just how secular can they be? Considering their behaviour's similarity to that of all the other Jewish extremists in that area, probably not very."

First of all the motto is actually an accurate description of the agency's purpose (as an intelligence agency) and before you describe them as 'Jewish extremists', you should be able to mention one action the agency has taken in the name of religion.

Know what your talking about before you spew words onto paper

Excellent interview
Leprechonology? :-)