That was retarded. What was Dawkins trying to prove? That religious people are closed minded and will gleefully explain how you're wrong and will burn in hell - with charm and a friendly smile? ??? Pointless. It wasn't even entertaining.

I'm on dial-up so it took me forever for that thing to load. What a complete waste of time. Dawkins is a moron for doing the interview. He obviously doesn't have any skill for it. He looked like he was about to choke on his own saliva when that drug using, cock smoking Ted Haggard was talking at him.

Tell your buddy never to do an interview like that again. The ending where Haggard threw him off of the property was super weak, too. How unprofessional of Dawkins to stoop below the people he's trying to educate. Way to be a leader Dawkins!

Forcing people to do things, ill-humor, poking fun at what people think they know, and negative reinforcement are tactics he's employing here. What an as*hole Dawkins is for trying to make these disillusioned people feel worse about science, scientists and intellectuals. You want to know why these people are so united? Because of stunts like this one.

Maybe Haggard has a point (other than the one in his pants that he likes boys to ride on). Maybe this is why intellectuals are the villains in comic books and why America looks down on them; they attack people and make them feel stupid. That's hurting Dawkins's long term goals of eliminating these religious shenanigans. Idiot.

I'm completely shocked by your response to this video. I can't even believe you watched the same video as me.

Fighting this type of thinking is noble. Comparing someone to the Nazis is tiresome and trite. Doing it without wit is painful to watch.

Dawkins would have had a far more favorable impact on me had he just narrated the short video and commented on what he saw, educating me why this type of group-think brainwashing was destroying free thought.

Show me crazy people gyrating, talking in tongues, giving up their hard earned money, saying Amen and nodding in approval while listening why science is the devil. Show me why these people are crazy.

I don't know. The video struck me as unprofessional. Although I've never met Dawkins or read one of his books, I'm less inclined to do so now. This Jerry Springer/ Geraldo Rivera type of contrived drama is garbage.

Leave the sensationalism to the preachers.

Camacho wrote:

Fighting this type of thinking is noble. Comparing someone to the Nazis is tiresome and trite. Doing it without wit is painful to watch.

Yikes! I have to agree with The Prez on this one, minus the cursing and lewd references. I felt uncomfortable listening to Dawkins interview Haggard. First and for most I believe we must always approach others with at the very least basic respect for their humanity. Better yet is to extend the same respect and dignity that we would like to be shown. It really does not matter how much we disagree with their ideas and beliefs. For me, I would even go as far as to say this holds true even if that person acts on his or her beliefs in such a way as to cause me harm or injury. I would hope that I have the strength of character to still treat them with basic respect. It is very clear to me that Dawkins has no respect what so ever for these born again Christians or Haggard. Dawkins' purpose is to show us, rational people, how foolish these folks are. He is not really interested in persuading them to see the light (so to speak) of reason. Dawkins really misses the point of why people are drawn to this type of faith. It is so much more than just wanting meaning in ones life. In fact, I believe he has over estimated the power of science and misunderstood it's place in the grand scheme of things. Science is simply one method of gaining information. It can not now or ever I believe, tell us the meaning of life. It can not comfort in times of great loss or in the darkest part of a night. It can never explain the ultimate mysteries of life such as:
Why are we here?
Why did inert molecules spontaneously become living matter?
Why did the pre-traits that eventually become a body structure ever get genetically encoded in the first place? Case in point, for all those reading Inner Fish - teeth. The first place we see them in the fossil record is in conodonts (a jawless fish that had teeth). So, what was the pre-adaptation that the teeth evolved from? And before that? And before that? Where did the original mutation, gene or what ever come from?
There really are somethings we will never know. I'm good with that.

The role of science and the role religion are very different. Why are we trying to make them go head to head? Why even get drawn into this trap?

I can understand Dawkins' and OConnor's frustrations with these people. It would be OK if they did what they did without getting involved with politics. When people fall for something like religion a logical person can reason why they did it. One reason is that the person needs some kind of emotional ejaculation that the priest provides for them. They give money for this "spiritual" ejaculation over and over. It feels so nice. The Church in this sense provides a valuable service!

When the Church starts convincing their army of addicted closet-cases that science, free thought, and everyone that is not just like them is evil - they become an incredibly subversive element in America. When they pool their zombie's contributions and put it towards swaying government policy it alters the course of the entire country.

Public education was probably a great way of uniting the country when it was created. Think about it. You had children from various nations dispersed throughout the US. Public education gave them a single language and passed along moral lessons, values... a number of things to help everyone get on the same page.

What the Church is doing is undermining this goal by pushing their agenda. They want to make sure people are taught their lessons so that they can remain in business. Jesus is a great franchise. Eat Jesus!

We need to wake up and realize that morals, values, and ethics are important. Jesus, one man, is not. God is not. Can you imagine the finality of dying without an afterlife? Some people say this is a great reason for people to do things without fear of reprisal. The first thing I think is that these people want people to live with fear. The second thing I think is that it's complete nonsense because if you only have one shot to make it right - MAKE IT RIGHT!

The Church can be replaced with science, easily. Science includes ethics and philosophy. It was made by people in the pursuit of truth. TRUTH. Everything we know is because someone worked for it; it wasn't given from some abstract entity. These people refused to shrug their shoulders and say "must be because of god." How lazy is that?

Those questions that you're asking - you seem to be comfortable with shrugging your shoulders. That's what the Church wants. Get comfy - we're here for you. You are one of us. Put up your feet. Can I offer a massage? Look at everyone else. They are so happy. Forget about the issue. Forget. God will do it for you. Relax. Yes. SSSSHHHHHHHHH.

The Church needs to be completely altered.

Camancho:

Public education was probably a great way of uniting the country when it was created. Think about it. You had children from various nations dispersed throughout the US. Public education gave them a single language and passed along moral lessons, values... a number of things to help everyone get on the same page.

Umm, that was the very point of public education.

President Camacho wrote:
When the Church starts convincing their army of addicted closet-cases that science, free thought, and everyone that is not just like them is evil

It will never happen. People are not zombies. Even if they subscribe to a religion. And exactly which "Church" are you talking about? And are you just speaking of the USA?

The Church can be replaced with science, easily. Science includes ethics and philosophy. It was made by people in the pursuit of truth. TRUTH. Everything we know is because someone worked for it; it wasn't given from some abstract entity. These people refused to shrug their shoulders and say "must be because of god." How lazy is that?

Which church? All churches? Freedom to think? Freedom to adopt ones own values? Practice religion or not?

Those questions that you're asking - you seem to be comfortable with shrugging your shoulders. That's what the Church wants. Get comfy - we're here for you. You are one of us. Put up your feet. Can I offer a massage? Look at everyone else. They are so happy. Forget about the issue. Forget. God will do it for you. Relax. Yes. SSSSHHHHHHHHH.

I have no intention of shrugging my shoulders. I was responding to the tactics used by Dawkins in the video. What I was trying to say in my first post in this thread was that the way to have this conversation is with respect.

I say "church" as a broad generalization of some popular organized religions around the globe. I'm sure you know which ones I'm referring to based on my criticisms. I'm attacking religion - not A religion.

As for my colorful remark about zombies, some people are talked into religions that totally control their lives. It's happened before and will happen again. An example of this is the Jonestown tragedy. No, they weren't zombies and there were a significant amount of people that didn't want to drink the kool-aid. I'm aware they did so at gun-point. Why did they give up all their possessions and move to Guyana though? Obviously they believed in the teachings of the People's Temple Christian Church despite what friends and family had to say about it.

Is this the only case where people have sacrificed all their possessions in the name of their religion, their church? Nope.

Let me stop. I don't want to argue religion. You can't. It's pointless and that's what Dawkins - most likely a much smarter person than me, should have known! You can't argue with a brick wall - a zombie! What did he hope to prove or to change by doing the interview? Nothing. He just wanted the jollies of verbally abusing Haggard.

P Camacho:

What did he hope to prove or to change by doing the interview? Nothing. He just wanted the jollies of verbally abusing Haggard.

Yes, exactly. All I was trying to say was I believe this is wrong.