The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: dysfunction on February 09, 2007, 03:02:09 PM
-
Richard Dawkins will be appearing on CNN on Monday the 12th at 8 PM EST; Paula Zahn will be interviewing him as a followup to her rather awful 'panel' on atheism recently, which rapidly turned into a bash-atheism session. I'm sure Dawkins will easily demolish the 'arguments' made by the panel.
http://richarddawkins.net/event,123,CNN
edit: Forgot to add the date.
-
You should have noted the date for the noobs that don't bother to look. He'll be on there Monday. I'll set my cable box to remind me as soon as it pops up.
-
Eh. I'll probably watch it. I think I've professed my feelings towards Dawkins and Harris and them enough on here, though.
~D-Draw
-
Unfortunately I haven't got cable to watch it on. So hopefully someone'll upload it to YouTube.
-
I am going to record it. :D
-
I'll try to watch it when nobody else is at home..... They'd be worried if they found out I was watching it ( for obvious reasons). :lol:
-
( for obvious reasons). :lol:
What reasons?
-
They'll think I'm turning atheist, unless I try really hard to explain that I'm just looking at another point of view.
-
Well, they have to realize that you are allowed to choose whichever religion is right for you. Whether you are planning on changing beliefs, or are just trying to view life from a different perspective is completely irrelevant, because in the end the only thing that matters is the religion that you want to believe, not the one your parents want to force down your throat.
-
I'm aware of that.
-
Shit. I hope someone did record this. I only just now realized that it was 10, and I missed the show.
-
So, I watched it. I recorded it on DVR, actually, but I don't have an S-video cable around, otherwise I could put it onto my computer. If I get one, I could probably upload it. Honestly, though, it wasn't exactly spectacular. If you've seen Dawkins' "Root of all Evil" special, you've seen this, basically.
~D-Draw
-
Dawkins didn't even debate, it was just an interview. He answered a few basic questions that I have seen him answer before.
The debate wasn't bad, but I feel they misrepresented the theist side this time. I mean, that guy was a fucking moron. The Atheists clearly won the debate though.
-
Very short interview at that - just over 3 minutes.
Still I think he did a super job under the circumstances, and explained the position well.
edit: apparently that's a cut version of the interview. I read that the full interview goes for about 30 minutes, so will look out for it.
-
They didn't show the full version on TV. :?
-
I saw about seven minutes of it but I think it was also a cut version. The debate part was from about minute three to minute seven and, just let me be the first to say, the Christian that was speaking/debating was an idiot. Even I could've sat there and made him look like a fool.
-
Yeah, the full interview wasn't shown on CNN, I don't think, because it was rather short. Still, it wasn't anything spectacular, like I said.
~D-Draw
-
Yeah the debate was very strong for the atheists. The Christian guy was a fool. I thought the Atheist chick was a little aggressive though. If you're trying to win people to your side, it is crucial that you take the most reasonable approach. Even if what you're saying is true, if you're very aggressive you only win friends with the people who agreed with you anyway.
-
The best such televised debate I've seen was on MSNBC with Matthew Chapman (Charles Darwin's great grandson (or some such relation)). That was a year and a half ago, so there probably won't be much trace of it left. However, he has a really interesting (and surprisingly personal) book called "Trials of the Monkey." I recommend it.
(He is also the writer and director of some really terrible big-budget movies, like Runaway Jury (screenplay))
-
Someone link me up to a video of this, that isn't three minutes long plz.
-
Almost eight minutes.
-
I thought the debate finished rather weakly, with the atheist debater seemingly trying to evade the question of where she got her morality, and then the moderator cutting her off. Other than that, I was pretty pleased with it. I was very happy with their choice of a Christian debater though. I bet a lot of people stopped taking anything he had to say seriously when he started talking about those evil homosexuals and how they're forcing their lifestyle on the rest of America.
-
Well the atheist obviously wouldn't have had enough time to go through all that. If I was the atheist on the show and the Christian had to throw the old 'where do you get your morality from?' card out on the table, I would simply respond by saying: "With all due respect, I'm surprised you're even asking this question. There's so much literature on this subject that this leads me to believe that you're just ignoring the answers that have been given already." I might then reference some works on this subject.
Perhaps I would say something similar to what George Carlin said in his stand-up comedy: "And for all of you who look to the Bible as some sort of moral code, I also suggest you look at Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs, and Humpty Dumpty."
-
I didn't really like the blonde lady. She seemed like she kind of knew what she was talking about, but she bumbled a lot. The other one was really good, though. I like how she mentioned the fact that the founding of our nation was NOT upon Christianity (such as the Christian debater seemed to believe), but upon freedom of religion, even though the culture perhaps is majorly Christian.
~D-Draw
-
I thought the debate finished rather weakly, with the atheist debater seemingly trying to evade the question of where she got her morality, and then the moderator cutting her off. Other than that, I was pretty pleased with it. I was very happy with their choice of a Christian debater though. I bet a lot of people stopped taking anything he had to say seriously when he started talking about those evil homosexuals and how they're forcing their lifestyle on the rest of America.
Her avoiding where she gets her morality from only strengthens the Christian beliefs though. I wanted her to say something like, "I get it from the constitution. I will not deprive anyone of happiness, and I will try to live my life in a manner that is respectable to society and others."
That would have been a better response then, "UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH DUHHH."
-
Her avoiding where she gets her morality from only strengthens the Christian beliefs though. I wanted her to say something like, "I get it from the constitution. I will not deprive anyone of happiness, and I will try to live my life in a manner that is respectable to society and others."
That would have been a better response then, "UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH DUHHH."
That's idiotic, though. Atheists don't get their moral codes from the constitution, nor any social writs. That's ridiculous, and not to mention, it would sound horribly un-solid, and make her look even more stupid than she actually did.
Here's basically my response as an atheist:
'Atheists receive their "moral codes" from an inherent response to the realization that others people have similar mindsets--no matter the finer details varying from person to person--and that all others are too beset with the same consequences that one's self is burdened by.
It's not the type of thing that needs to be written down, it's just an obvious conclusion that results from that realization.'
~D-Draw
-
Her avoiding where she gets her morality from only strengthens the Christian beliefs though. I wanted her to say something like, "I get it from the constitution. I will not deprive anyone of happiness, and I will try to live my life in a manner that is respectable to society and others."
That would have been a better response then, "UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH DUHHH."
That's idiotic, though. Atheists don't get their moral codes from the constitution, nor any social writs. That's ridiculous, and not to mention, it would sound horribly un-solid, and make her look even more stupid than she actually did.
Here's basically my response as an atheist:
'Atheists receive their "moral codes" from an inherent response to the realization that others people have similar mindsets--no matter the finer details varying from person to person--and that all others are too beset with the same consequences that one's self is burdened by.
It's not the type of thing that needs to be written down, it's just an obvious conclusion that results from that realization.'
~D-Draw
In other words, the constitution and society. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
-
In other words, the constitution and society. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
No, from an inherent conclusion that stems from society, not society itself. And certainly not the constitution.
~D-Draw
-
I think the "Where do Atheists get their morals from" argument is extremely weak. Theists only use that when they have no real arguments left.
1) Where do Christians get their morals? Christians get their morals from the bible, which they believe was written by a supreme being. But God is supposed to be infallible, which means that he is not capable of making mistakes. If we can prove one part of the bible wrong, and we have proven many parts of it wrong, then it is proof that it wasn't written by a God. So if Christians morals didn't come from God, where did they come from? Like many scientists believe, our morals are simply encoded into our DNA. It is instinct.
2) And even if you won't accept that the Bible was not written by God, the fact of the matter is that Atheists do have morals, whether you believe that is possible without a belief in God or not. I am a decent person simply because I choose to be.
Many Christians can't understand how people can do good things without the fear of Gods wrath, or the promise of going to heaven. So tell me, who is the immoral one? The Atheist who is good because they want to be, or the theist who is only a decent person because of the fear of God or the promise of reward? Theists are the immoral ones.
And to the Theists who still can't understand how people can be good without God: if God exists, he can read your thoughts. He will know if you are only being good out of fear, or because you want to be rewarded when you die. If you know that you would be doing immoral things without the belief in God, he will know too. And you will be sent to hell just like the rest of the immoral people.
-
God shows us that most people on earth are sociopaths.
-
God shows us that most people on earth are sociopaths.
What? That doesn't even make sense.
~D-Draw
-
God shows us that most people on earth are sociopaths.
What? That doesn't even make sense.
~D-Draw
Don't be intentionally obtuse, it's not even coy.
-
Don't be intentionally obtuse, it's not even coy.
Unless you're suggesting that belief in God leads to Machiavellianism, you're not really making any sense. And if you are implying such, it really doesn't fit in with the discussion at all whatsoever.
~D-Draw
-
Don't be intentionally obtuse, it's not even coy.
Unless you're suggesting that belief in God leads to Machiavellianism, you're not really making any sense. And if you are implying such, it really doesn't fit in with the discussion at all whatsoever.
~D-Draw
Forget it, you're playing super dumb today.
-
Apparently Zoltan agrees. :D
~D-Draw
-
Some stuff on morality:
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?ex=1319950800&en=dd885d3ad10a7340&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
American Scientist (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/52880;jsessionid=aaa5LVFO) (haven't read this one)