Richard Dawkins on CNN

Hawkeye

Thinker
Hawkeye
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
166
Just reminding everybody to tune in to CNN tonight to catch Dawkins on Paula Zahn Now, 8pm EST.

If you missed it, he's appearing in response to the backlash CNN deservedly got for the ridiculous "panel discussion" Paula had on atheist discrimination, which basically concluded that atheists just need to shut up.
He was supposed to appear on Friday night, but got bumped because of the Anna Nicole death story. :bwall There was also going to be a legitimate discussion afterwards which included Christopher Hitchens, but I'm not sure if that's still going to happen.
 
I thought Dawkins did remarkably well-- he didn't come across as condescending very much, except perhaps his little dig at the end suggesting that theists are wasting their lives...

I think he wisely dodged the "theists are afraid" question-- there was really no right answer.

And the panel was vastly better, but the Republican reverend wasted a lot of time with a personal attack on Ellen ("Where do you get your morals?" You're not answering, so you must be amoral.)
 
Last edited:
Ack! I'm at work and missed it.. please post the youtubed version!
 
mfaison said:
I thought Dawkins did remarkably well-- he didn't come across as condescending very much, except perhaps his little dig at the end suggesting that theists are wasting their lives...

I think he wisely dodged the "theists are afraid" question-- there was really no right answer.

And the panel was vastly better, but the Republican reverend wasted a lot of time with a personal attack on Ellen ("Where do you get your morals?" You're not answering, so you must be amoral.)
Click to expand...
I was very pleased with Richard Dawkins. He was eloquent and reasonable without sounding angry (as he sometimes does).

I was sort of disappointed in Ellen Johnson, though. We didn't feel like she represented us (atheists) very well.

Yeah, the reverend's usual attack of "where do you get your morals from" was pretty predictable, I guess. I would've liked to have seen her ask him where the majority of the world gets their morals, since the majority aren't xians. Or ask about the "morality" of getting your morals from the threat of enternal punishment. Or why we, as humans, can't be expected to manage to figure out morality without some old book telling us how. Instead, she just kind of stammered around. This, to me, is the most important question an atheist can be asked, and she of all people should be prepared with an intelligent response.
 
Here's the complete deal. It's way too short, an Dawkin's part was obviously edited, but I think he did a pretty good job with what they gave him.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/02/atheism_1.html

The second video with the panel pretty much sucked. The highlight was the girl that hammered home how our government is a secular one. Putting the Rev. in there was very stupid, but he predictably made a fool of himself with his comments about homosexuals.
 
Dawkins did a great job but that Ellen Johnson didn't. I would of liked to of seen her response to the question of 'where do you get your morals' be 'logic!' or possibly 'genetics'. Ignoring the question didn't do much.
 
Geez, I could have done a better job than Johnson. Dawkins as usual held his own, IMHO.
 
<Sarcasm>
Oh that arrogant curmudgeon, Dawkins! He was so mean, and, cruel and fanatical! He's turning atheism in a dogma and science into a religion! It's no wonder people hate atheists. For the sake of "civility," we should just lock ourselves in our houses, talk only among our freethought sewing circles and Unitarian church pot luck dinners, and do our damnedest not hurt the theist's feelings.
</Sarcasm>

No really, Dawkins was great. I only wish they had him on for longer to specifically answer the claims of guests from the first Paula Zahn show.

On the other hand, I agree, Ellie Johnson didn't comport herself well at all. She had the opportunity to shut that Preacher down and she missed it. Jebus, the whole "atheism-equals-amoral" shtick is one of the most basic and banal criticisms atheists have to face and she fumbled it. THIS is the current president of American Atheists? Come on!

The proper response, Ms. Johnson: "We have the brains to figure out what's right and wrong on our own, sir. I'm sorry to hear that you and your fellow believers need an imaginary friend to tell you what to do."
 
Hmm, yeah. I wasn't horribly impressed with Ellen Johnson, but it was certainly better than the previous, er, "discussion".

The problem is, that this is really something you should devote a whole hour to. I mean, Larry King will devote an hour to sh*tty cold reading.
 
Dawkins did great. His delivery was measured and effective and he was able to complete answering the questions without interruptions. He was able to use some stock, but effective verbiage. Good job.

The panel discussion about the atheist question was a different environment. I might guess more challenging. However, I think Ellen started strong in her opening answer to the first question. The next question went to the preacher but the camera remained on Ellen. Her response to personal attacks were apparent. She was initially shocked, then smiled, apparently waiting for a chance to respond. That chance never came. Later the preacher started badgering Ellen and several on this thread have faulted her for not responding in kind.

Madelyn is a hard act to follow. Madelyn would have resorted to four letter words and yelled back but that's not Ellen. Personally, I like the fact that she doesn't feed the angry atheist stereotype.

The standout surprise was the fiery journalist from Air America. She had her facts straight and stood toe to toe with the larger overbearing preacher. Very entertaining. She got in some good shots and the preacher came off looking like the angry nut job.

The answer to atheist morals has been debated but I doubt anyone could make a good reasoned attempt at presenting it during a panel discussion on an entirely different subject.

Finally, I felt Ellen was a little out her element when the broadcast went on and there was a discussion about a satire in a school paper about the importance of rape in society. Although the panel was in complete agreement about what should be done about the article.
 
Dustin said:
Dawkins did a great job but that Ellen Johnson didn't. I would of liked to of seen her response to the question of 'where do you get your morals' be 'logic!' or possibly 'genetics'. Ignoring the question didn't do much.
Click to expand...

That would have been pretty poor answers. The correct way to respond is "I get my morals mainly through my upbringing, just like christians do" thereafter pointing out that christians are just as divided as everybody else regarding what's right and wrong.
 
I can't seem to find the video on youtube; maybe it'll be there in a day or two. Until then, has anyone else found a source?
 
I was disappointed that the panel members never pointed out the rather recent introductions of "In God We Trust" on our paper currency and "under God" in the Pledge. It is usually a real conversation stopper here in the American south when I pull out a ten dollar bill from 1953 that lacks the theist's favorite motto.
 
Even better when they've just finished telling me how the country was better in the early fifties, before the beatniks ruined it all.
 
plindboe said:
That would have been pretty poor answers. The correct way to respond is "I get my morals mainly through my upbringing, just like christians do" thereafter pointing out that christians are just as divided as everybody else regarding what's right and wrong.
Click to expand...

Then the preacher would of said.."No, Christians get their morals from the word of God!" and then the response would of had to of been longer and more complex than the initial question and they were short on time to begin with.
 
Dustin said:
Then the preacher would of said.."No, Christians get their morals from the word of God!" and then the response would of had to of been longer and more complex than the initial question and they were short on time to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, the preacher would have objected no matter what one would say. Making a valid point, would be vastly better than simply saying "logic". And pointing out how divided christians are is a preemptive strike against his forseeable "word of God" retort.
 
plindboe said:
Well, the preacher would have objected no matter what one would say. Making a valid point, would be vastly better than simply saying "logic". And pointing out how divided christians are is a preemptive strike against his forseeable "word of God" retort.
Click to expand...

Well it's not a valid point to begin with. Saying that someone gets their sense of morality from their 'upbringing' isn't necessarily true. I didn't. I got mine from critical thinking. My upbringing had nothing to do with it. I find many things unethical and immoral that my parents likely would not. Moreover, in response to the question saying "logic!" would unlikely of received any sort of credible response from the preacher other than maybe "what do you mean?". Which could easily be answered.
 
Dustin said:
Well it's not a valid point to begin with. Saying that someone gets their sense of morality from their 'upbringing' isn't necessarily true. I didn't. I got mine from critical thinking. My upbringing had nothing to do with it. I find many things unethical and immoral that my parents likely would not. Moreover, in response to the question saying "logic!" would unlikely of received any sort of credible response from the preacher other than maybe "what do you mean?". Which could easily be answered.
Click to expand...

Upbringing refers not only to the parents who raised you, but the environment you were raised in. Just like chimps learn from their parents to crack open nuts, so do we mainly learn how to behave through observing, especially during childhood. I think it's a pretty humble and realistic point that we arrive at our behaviour protocol just as christians do, and I like the contrast when christians object to it, arrogantly insisting they are above us.

And no, the preacher wouldn't have asked that. A reply like "logic" would have had any christians out there thinking "what an arrogant prick". Not only is it important to make valid points, but knowing your audience is essential.
 
I thought it was interesting how Ellen Johnson was placed to the left of the moderator in the panel, thereby singling her out. After her initial response, you almost forget she's there because the camera pans her out of the frame.

I disagree with is the idea of the "card-carrying" atheist that American Atheists, Inc. wants to perpetuate. I just get a bad feeling from them. Their website is aesthetically indistinguishable from right wing propaganda sites like NewsMax, and I think it's because they share similar agendas. I get the idea that Johnson spends a lot of time preaching to the choir, as it were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom