Richard Dawkins on Paula Zahn Now

February 14, 2007 youtubemovie

Youtube Commments:
Ah all I have to say is Eugenics, Can anybody please explain why in the future a Atheist leader won’t use Eugenics to further his cause? Because when there is no set of values written somewhere leaders will make whatever they wish as what happened in history time and time again. I should not have to mention any leaders here just to be respectful.

According to the Bible, God drowned everything he created because he made a mistake, which totally makes sense since he’s supposedly perfect. And apparently, God also wants you to own slaves and kill adulterers and people who work during the Sabbath.

Can anybody please explain why in the future a Christian leader won’t justify slavery by quoting verses from the Bible?

Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened before and during the American civil war.

What’s with your fixation on eugenics? There’s nothing about atheism that makes it more appealing to an atheist than it is to a theist.

Islam doesn’t only if ruled though pure sharia mentioned in Quran, hadith and interpretation of both is covered by Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Please don’t take the literal meaning of quran just read Tafsir Ibn Kathir. It will explain everything in detail. Atheist are closer to Muslim than Christians ( that exist today). As you guys reject dogmatic stuff. Again no harm intended. seriously

Islam doesn’t only if ruled though pure sharia mentioned in Quran, hadith and interpretation of both is covered by Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Please don’t take the literal meaning of quran just read Tafsir Ibn Kathir. It will explain everything in detail. Atheist are closer to Muslim than Christians ( that exist today). As you guys reject dogmatic stuff. Again no harm intended. seriously

khalifa987: Because when examined closely Eugenics does not stand up to reason. For a little more on the topic watch my video “Re: Hey, Atheists!! pt.2”.

The good thing about ethics that is based on reason is that it gets better with time (just like science). With religion you are stuck with ancient texts that condone slavery, genocide, hate towards woman etc.

russia a atheist coutnry and look what they did in afghanistan, now in checnya and also degestan. Also china has complete control over 40 million muslims that are suppressed and oppressed. Imperial britian, france, and soviets. what have they done good to people they occupy?

(khalifa987) For Britain we have mainly withdrawn peacefully from the Empire – most of those countries CHOOSE to be in the British Commonwealth. Sometimes fighting has broken out between the people we left in those countries. We also gave them soccer, cricket, decent legal frameworks and democracy either as a fact or something they strive for

Russia is an atheist country? Since when? As to imperial Britain and France, I’ve never heard anyone argue before that these were atheist. I don’t get what point you are trying to make. If it is that atheism doesn’t guarantee ethical conduct then noone has ever disputed that.

Bad leaders can and will kill ppl regardless if they follow religious beliefs or not, if they have enough sheeple to blindly obey them. Religion is most often used to justify mass slaughter as it is easy to exploit ppl’s fear with things that no-one understands.

Ah all I have to say is Eugenics, Can anybody please explain why in the future a Atheist leader won’t use Eugenics to further his cause? Because when there is no set of values written somewhere leaders will make whatever they wish as what happened in history time and time again. I should not have to mention any leaders here just to be respectful.

Please don’t fool yourself. There isn’t a leader in the world, Christian or otherwise, who wouldn’t use Eugenics if they felt they had something substantial to gain from doing so. To start with, they would try to keep it a secret, maybe using a fertility program as a cover. Then if they felt they’d grown powerful enough they might just come out publicly with it. Religion and morality are not one in the same.

It would be quite easy for an omnipotent being to prove its existence. The first step would be to stop being invisible, and from then on it can actually do something useful like ending poverty and preventing (or is it stop creating?) tsunamis, earthquakes, and all the other things that’s out to kill us. However, you are quite right in saying that theists don’t really need proof of God because they just believe in it without any justification.

Nonsense. All we would need is a miracle that could only have been done by God. For example, what if every time a Christian sincerely asked God to heal someone, God did it? Just like in the Bible, lepers would be instantly healed, etc.

Or alternatively, a proof that the universe is designed would work. For example, the ten commandments written in gigantic letters on the face of the Moon. Or a message encoded in the cosmic background radiation.

You can’t sit on your throne and demand God to come begging to give you your enlightenment. You have to be humble – so the ego will deflate and the gateway will open. On one hand, you could say that Christ’s body, even moving at light speed, wouldn’t even have left the galaxy yet…but on the other – in order to understand the language of the Bible and other Holy Books, you have to learn to think with your heart and feel with your brain more.

No you’re coming from within the bubble of not hearing what I just said. Learn to think with your heart more and feel with your brain – you’re comment is nothing more than thinking with your brain. Try to understand what I’m saying. It takes a high emotional IQ to do this.

It’s impossible to understand what you’re saying paramchi, because you’re spouting complete gibberish! “Think with your heart more and feel with your brain” – WTF?! What an insufferable buffoon you are!

I hope you have a “high emotional IQ,” because your mental IQ is seriously deficient.

Perhaps atheism puts their own faith in doubt. Haha Oh my…ahh do I really have to point out that if their faith is that fragile that they cannot hear people of other beliefs or lack of beliefs speak, it probably wouldn’t last on it’s own anyway.

You clearly have not watched the video because I was mocking a statement made about atheism putting doubt in people’s faith. Try to read closer as well. Notice how I am laughing ” Haha Oh my…ahh do I really have to point out that if their faith is that fragile…” I am talking about religous faith here. Of course I know atheism does not invlove faith. Take a look and read my thoughts on my channel. Jeez some people are idiots.

I hate to sound like a PR firm but atheists could do well to improve their image not just by attacking religion but showing the alternative as a beautiful, viable option like Richard did at the end. Emphasizing the “true” gift of life we have and how amazing it is that we are here.

But China and the Soviet Union are also in the grip of ideological fundamentalism which is most certainly irrational. Religious fundamentalism and ideological fundamentalism end up producing the same effects – dogma that is followed blindly as they seek to fulfill their “historically inevitable” prophecies. Stalin’s and Mao’s beliefs in Marxist Leninism was much more like a religious belief than any kind of rationally and pragmatically conceived enlightened system.

This whole Paula Zahn Now show and its segment Out in the Open are just wastes of time. They accomplish nothing. You can’t sufficiently explain a concept or defend your position in a 3-minute blurb. There were typical things like the unconstitutional behavior of our country and how this is *not* a Christian nation, which deserved more discussion with that “panel”. I don’t think most people understand those concepts.

They make it look like Hawkins is calling evolution an “opinion” by editing in a *different* part of the interview at around 2:30. Look at when he says “what’s there to be frightened of in just an opinion” for a few seconds he is in a different pose before and after that statement, has a different expression and his voice is at a different maintained pitch. I have experience with editing and I don’t want others to be fooled!

Christianity is not inherently evil, bro. It’s only when faith runs rampant and overwhelms reason that it becomes dangerous. Now, I understand where you are coming from. A doctrine of faith allows for the possibility of fundamentalism. But if we try and censor people’s thoughts, to police their ethics, we would become no better that Christians. If Christianity is to be undone it must come through debate.

Historically, Christianity has been EXTREMELY evil, leading to the worst cases of mass genocide humanity has known(see: The Spanish Inquisition; Hitler). Aside from that, it is these conservative Christians who still support the war in Iraq (because they don’t give a shit about Muslim life, they’re taught not to in fact (and the reverse is true of Muslims)).

You superstitions are fine until it affects the lives of others, at which point you’re not to be tolerated.

life is more fulfilling as an atheist because each day is lived knowing that she/he will die, therefore the atheist has dreams and the motivation to get to those dreams before time is up. whereas, if you believe in eternal life, then why do anything at all? you have all eternity to do it

just my 2 cents

atheism is a LACK of dogmatic belief system.
Everyone is free to have an opinion, but that doesn’t mean every opinion deserves the same respect nor every opinion should be accepted as true.

And to those people always asking ‘why are atheists so angry?’, it’s because we get treated as inhuman simply because we don’t believe in imaginary friend(s) and we get taunted and assaulted for no good reason. Remember, we are humans too; we have emotions too. And some of us do have tempers hahaha

in my view, it came from hot gases and other stuff swirling around in space.. which originally came from the collapse of a star .. this process would have taken billions of years. however, God can do anything, so He could have made the earth through this process in a matter of seconds. Arguing that God does not exist is impossible, because God can do ANYTHING. However, my common sense tells me that there is no Muslim God, or Christian God, or Hindu God, or Judaism God..

You are not being serious, are you? Statements like that simply prove that you have made absolutley no attempt to understand the science of the world that you live in. Do some reading of logical sources and you will see why the majority of science minded people feel that it is far more logical that there is no godlike being then in the existence of one! Honestly!!?

Actually, I was just trying to open up a discussion rather than watch people trolling all day. I have a degree in engineering, and I make a living doing work that is quite advanced. All I can say is that this discussion hasn’t developed past a 7th grade level aside from what Brawn had to say. There are many technical explanations for how the Earth may have formed; however, with each one, a believer can ask, “Who created the star that collapsed?” or something similar.

Also, don’t believe everything you hear on the tv about the scientific community. To answer haunterex as best I can, the human mind would not be able to comprehend how God was created. Many great philosophers have tried to address this just as many great scientists have tried to address the Earth. Scientists base their beliefs on fact. If a scientist can definatively tell you that there is no God, then he is nothing more than a man/woman with an agenda.

To get the context of this video you need to watch the other two parts to CNN where they had debates against Atheists without having an Atheist there. It was the single most disturbing TV ever to watch. If you had changed the word Atheists to “Gays” or “Blacks” their would of been a lynching over the show.

Don’t avoid the subject: Dawkins is saying words are harmless and Hitler used only words. Try to stay on topic – it takes a good awareness, but then again atheists, having no morals or subtlety, like to destroy their awareness with alcohol and other drugs.

Atheists, “having no morals or subtlety, like to destroy their awareness with alcohol and other drugs.” WOW, talk about a wild and totally unjustified accusation. You’re obviously completely unhinged.

Hitler, as the leader of the Nazi Party, dictator of a country that at one point occupied most of Europe, and head of the German army used a lot more than just “words,” you dumbass.

There is no proof for people to believe in religion. Sure, just because something cannot be proven it may still exist but people have no reason to even think religion is true to begin with. We’re all born with no knowledge of religion so we must only imprint things into our brains that can be proven.

oxford university i think certified him, as well as years of studying and researching in the scientific community.
Hitler used words always, but those words led to actions that murder many people.
And dont say Hitler was an atheist, he wasn’t. He was catholic and his speeches were religious influenced in order to persuade the general german population to buy his crap about a white christian nation without jews.

Does years of studying and memorizing the house of mirrors which makes up the intellect mean one can then say he is armed with the truth? Is the mind not a myth built on conditionings, projections and dillusions? Spirit is the truth and the Book of Knowledge exists in the heart. When awakened, like mine is, one can write their own books without a university degree.

I believe in God and live in the south and have never had single moments qualm with evolution or the scientific process. Many self-righteous Zealots are actively trying to pit rival forms of faith and reasoning where there is and never has never been any TRUE conflict. “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct them to hold in higher esteem those who would think alike than those who think differently” Nietzsche… And Galileo Was a good catholic!

Sorry Brawn, God cannot do anything. Here is a fun question. Can God create a rock so big that not even he could lift it? God cannot break the rules of thought, nor can he have something that is eternal have a unique event. Oh and sorry, let me clarify, rules of thought are 3 things.

Rule if identity, rule of non-contradiction and excluded middle. First one is a is a, second is not both a and non-a at the same time and.. uh forgot the other word haha. Lastly either a or non a. Cannot refute them. You should take philosophy, you may learn something new, like help you understand some of the stuff you believe a tad better.

Oh and I am taking donations for the square-circle foundation, where we are trying to find a square-circle in the universe.

because he’s just as extrmist as the religions that he crticises, also as irrational too, ‘There is not a Shred of Evidence that he exists’ with reference to the Judeo-Christian God, well there is not a shred of evidence that there isn’t so what kind of rationality is he talking about. Perhaps if he talked about how (selfless love is expressed among Athiests, then that would be more intelectual than interesting, but he’s honestly very boring as he comes out with nothing new every time

Believing something because there’s no evidence against it is not equivalent to disbelieving something because there’s no evidence for it. The first is neither logical nor rational, and nobody lives their life that way except in respect to their religion.

Once again there is a catastrophic failure to understand the fundamental guidelines of faith, God, and most religions. We live in the physical realm; God is not a part of the physical realm. Therefore: You cannot prove Gods existence by physical means. Humorous though “You aren’t living your life to the fullest by believing this is your only life” Richard Dawkins: Expert in Living life to the fullest. lmao

OOH, you’re going to burn in hell Mr. Dawkins. Of course nothing will happen to me when I die. Ha ha.
Well, here is my question, what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? From my understanding one believes there is no god, the other is not sure if there is a god. Is that correct?

More or less. Darwin actually described himself as an agnostic, though at the time even that was quite a brave thing to do. Hugh Miller, an early palaeontologist, was very religious and faced a hostile reaction to his attempts to justify his new opinions on the age of the earth and so on. It’s incredibly depressing that there seems to be a movement back towards an acceptance of religion as ‘the norm’ after a period when it seemed there could only really be a gradual fading of religious belief.

I don’t see it as depressing to see a movment back towards acceptance of religion as the “norm”. I see it as bell curve, where the majority of people are not the fundamenalists. I also think it is a great time to be an anthiest or agnostic. Though you may see yourselves as victims, you have never had more freedom than now.

Actually, the terms are as such, and you can be both.
Atheist – does not believe in a god
Agnostic – does not claim to know whether or not there is a god.

I do not know. I do not believe.
I am an Agnostic Atheist.

However, I do NOT believe that there is no god. That is a belief against. I just don’t believe either way. Common misconception that you have, but I hope I’ve cleared it up.

Dawkins has described himself as an antitheist – going one step further than atheism to the point of actively denying there is a god. Probably most stated atheists would agree with this, whilst accepting no proof is possible. Just as it is impossible to prove the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

“being an athiest frees you up to live this life properly, happily, and fully” he sounds like a cultist. maybe i should convert, so that i can finally be happy in this super duper happy world!

btw, what does he mean by living life to its full. how does an athiest live lift to its full compared to a theist? teach me the ways Great Leader Dawkins!

Who can honestly say the world is a better place for religion? I concede it may well be a big help to individuals, and I wouldn’t go as far as to say there is anything inherently ‘bad’ about it, but overall it tends to be used as an excuse for some terrible activities and close-minded bigotry. It should at the very least be a completely personal thing and removed entirely from institutional bodies except for reasons of historial education.




Entry Filed under: interesting, video, videos, youtube

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to comments via RSS Feed




February 2007
« Jan   Mar »
%d bloggers like this: