Darwin Day party coming right up!

I'm already seeing the promo's for it and I'm getting kinda sickened... The word "backlash" is becoming grating. It should have been, we did a report on atheists and "we fucked up."
CNN is tiring.

PAULA ISN"T GUNNA BE ON!?!?!?! BULLSHIT!

I hope someone posts it somewhere (preferably not in youtube :-/), because I can't watch it! waaaahhh!!!

John Roberts is filling in for Paula Zahn. She "has the night off". I wonder if that's meaningful. Is it possible that she couldn't get the egg off her face? Couldn't stomach the crow? We'll see.

right now, all i see are ridiculous posturings about whether Obama is "black enough".

*sigh*

Dawkins was great -- he didn't have a lot of time for each question and was able to get his point across with a good economy of words.

Atheist hang out online? NEVER!

That reverend has his head up his ass. The atheist woman, isn't doing well. Rachel Madow was great.

I agree that Dawkins came across fairly well, but the interview was heavily edited. It would have been nice to have seen the whole thing. I just wish Dawkins had mentioned the morality of the atheist worldview in his final comment.

"We get our values from God, from the bible. Where do you get your values from?"

If I hear this lame-ass stuff one more time, I'm gonna puke...

Yeah, as if "our values" implies some monolithic interpretation of value and membership...

And why the hell can't xians just read an intro to ethics textbook?...

Sorry for the rant...ggrrrrrr...

CNN gets it wrong again.

Dawkins was OUTSTANDING!!!!!! He communicated his points very well. I'm amazed he could say so much in such a short time.

in such a short time.

GRRRRR.

flip away for a couple of minutes and miss the whole damn thing. I really wasn't interested in hearing if Barak Obama was "black enough" to be elected president.

oh well, not like I would have heard much new, and it's not like it was an open debate or anything, either.

Dawkins seemed a bit pissy to start off, but he ended it very, very nicely, although the video was obviously heavily edited.

I love the preacher guy, he was perfect. What a loony.

I agree, PZ. It was a good segment. I think CNN should get kudos from us atheists for doing a much better job the second time around.

That rev guy made me angry when he sidetracked and demanded that the atheist guest account for atheist morality. The answer cant be given in a simple sound byte, and where morality comes from was entirely besides the point. The issue at hand was atheist persecution and Constitutional law in regards to being atheist in America.

Too bad Dawkins wasnt given the question "where do atheists get morality from?" because he would have had a kickass answer. Dawkins was on an NPR radio segment a month or two ago where he was asked that question and he nailed it, then went on to show that theists cannot get their morality from God because they have to make a moral judgement to accept or reject His rules in the first place.

Wow, believe it or not it is the 1st time I actually watch that channel ... and I missed the segment! =( How can anyone listen to those people without getting a headache is beyond me. *goes to get some aspirin*

So, for those of us without TV... YouTube links? Anyone?

I was actually disappointed. They could have rebuked the preacher a lot better. Man, I wish I could have been on that show.

The last time I checked, atheists weren't trying to get theists to stop believing in God, nor are homosexuals trying to get you to have sex with men, dear sir. All they are doing is trying to keep the government from endorsing religion. People originally fled Europe for North America to gain religious freedom--specifically, freedom from the religions imposed upon them by the governments in Europe. America's constitution was set up to prevent the government from explicitly endorsing any particular religion--or indeed any religion at all.

When atheists try to get the endorsement of theism removed from the secular government, it isn't because they are trying to "impose their way of life" on theists--theists can go about praying and believing what they wish. All they are doing is STOPPING the imposition of theism upon non-theists that is unconstitutionally thrust upon them by these phrases in the pledge and on American currency. Notice that atheists aren't advocating that currency say, "In no God we trust, because God does not exist"--rather, they just don't want the government endorsing any type of religion at all.

How can theists be so deluded? Arguing that atheists are imposing upon their lifestyle is ludicrous.

I hope CNN puts Ellen Johnson on more frequently. She did a nice job. I'm going to e-mail CNN and suggest it.

Missed it. Dang!
Is it up on the net yet?

Here's a link

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

Dawkins was excellent, as usual. The Rev Peterson blew it completely with the idiotic comments about gays. Ellen Johnson was good but missed the obvious riposte when Peterson challenged her about morality.

Woot! thanks mg!

I'm satisfied. I actually thought it was going to be shorter. This time I think it WAS balanced and it made atheists look good.

Why was there a pastor on the panel at all? Not good enough to have all three last time, they had to be in on this one too?

I wonder if it would have been a good move to pull the race card, just to see how the Rev. handled it. When he started in on how America was started as a Christian nation, one of the other two could have shot back that it was also started as a slave nation. They also could have hit back harder that even minorities have rights that can't be trampled by the majority.
I thought the Air America woman was more succinct and better spoken, and wish she could have had more time. However, I think they did a good job overall, and the Dawkins answers were very good, although I got a little twinge up my spine right at the end when he mentioned "living life to the fullest", because that kind of statement could be twisted around.

Totally disappointed. Ellen Johnson was dealing with a Fundie, not an intellect.

When asked where we get our morals, she should have said we evolved most of our ethics and morals, and that they are hardwired in us. If we murdered and stole from our tribe, we would be extinct. We are hardwired to do good things and possibly get rewarded for it (like not getting killed, or even better).

Also when making that point of why people are leaving religion, she should have stated the obvious: Scientific fact destroys the literal and people with half a brain understand this.

I'm afraid the homophobic Rev supported his cause well when Ellen didn't answer the morality question directly, no matter how much of an assmonkey he is.

Ellen did ok, but not great. In particular, she did not handle well the question: "Where do you get your morals?"

What would be the best one to three sentence soundbite response?

Wow, that panel "discussion" was so short! Lame. And that preacher did come off sounding like a total idiot.

nor are homosexuals trying to get you to have sex with men, dear sir.

NOOOOO! They are too! They're making me attracted to men with their psychic powers! PLEASE PRAY FOR MEEEEEE!!!

"Running out of time, so make it quick!" Pointless waste of time.

Hey, it's great that we got some redress after the previous hatchet job on CNN, but, Christ, is this what passes for debate on US TV?

Where are these issues discussed seriously? Is there a public news channel you can watch? Please tell me there's something!

That was incredibly vapid. But television must be packaged into five-minute intervals, never longer than an attention span.

Issues? Discussed? Ha! I laugh in the face of comment 29! There's the internet, and that's about it. Actual discussion doesn't sell well to advertisers. Viewers are only the secondary market for media.

Post 26: What would be the best one to three sentence soundbite response?

"Reason, and respect for my fellow man."
Okay, that's a fragment, but still...

The thing about Reverend Jesse Peterson is that he has no constituency. He is a tool of right wing conservatives who fund his organization so that right wing African American voice on television. That's why he kept going off message and attacking college liberalism. Sean Hannity has him on his program all the time and for a few years Peterson would have a "Repudiate Jesse Jackson Day". I don't know if he still does it or if he stopped because it was a failure.

I met Rev. Peterson once in Washington, D.C. about 10 years ago. I was once involved in the immigration restrictionist movement and he was part of the California contingent. Again, with respect to bashing immigration, Reverend Peterson provided a black face so that white immigration restrictionists can point to him and say "Look, he's on our side, so we're not racist."

As for his badgering Ellen Johnson about where atheists get their values from, I've been thinking of a pithy way to answer that. I would say something to the effect that I derive my values from the accumulation of thousands of years of human experience and wisdom that expressed itself among other thngs in the humanism of the Greeks and the Enlightenment values of liberty and rationality. As for Peterson's boast that he gets his values from God and the Bible, I would have shot back at him "The God you worship does not exist and the Bible is not the inerrant word of the Creator of the Universe, so what makes your value system better than mine?"

This is off topic but Speaking of the DI, they are now advertising that John McCain is speaking at a luncheon in Seattle they are co-sponsoring with the City Club of Seattle and the Seattle World Affairs Council February 23rd. From their announcement, there is no clue as to whether he'll address ID or evolution but I think he may skirt that issue and talk more about general economic and political ones given the other two sponsors.

"The Myers household is going to celebrate the day in half an hour -- we've got the cake, we've got the chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream, we've got the hot chocolate -- and we figure we'll party by watching CNN at 8ET to see if Dawkins and Hitchens are going to go on a rampage."

This guy is religious! i knew it all along! closet ritualist! lol!

"It's like the homosexual agenda...[etc.]"

I agree completely with the good reverend: atheists are forcing a godless existence upon Christians in exactly the same way that gay men and women are forcing a homosexual existence upon them. By which I mean not at all. It is quite clear that this is not about anyone forcing anything upon Christians, but rather about equality and the frustration of Christians at not being able to dictate the lives of their fellow Americans.

"Where do you get your morals?"

Reverend, are you honestly saying that without the bible, you would completely fail to be a kind and decent human being? Because if the admonitions of an ancient book are the sole source of morality for the vast majority of this country's citizens, we have far more to fear than the atheist minority.

So each speaker got about 45 seconds to make a quick sound bite and they call that a panel debate? Rachel Maddow did the most with her time. Ellen was OK, but don't you think by now she would have a quick snappy comeback for the ol' "you can't be moral without God" argument? The Rev didn't need any help from Rachel or Ellen to make himself look like the ignorant bigot that he is, but Ellen not putting him in his place at the end kind of makes her look wishy-washy.

But really, the thing was so short and they hardly had any time to say anything meaningful and to refute the Rev's bigotry, that I don't know if this helped our cause much. At least it made us look reasonable and sane next to that lunatic Rev.

This guy is religious! i knew it all along! closet ritualist! lol!

religious?

hardly. more like a rabid sports fan looking for a good brawl on ESPN.

ritual? maybe.

religious? nope.

PZ:

You thougt the CNN show went well?! Sure, Dawkins was good, but come on! The whole thing was ridiculous! Fantastically short, nothing but sound bites, no apology to the atheists. The whole thing was just embarassing. CNN deserves to die slowly. And painfully. Well, a bit anyway.

When Peterson asserted that he gets his morals from The Bible, Ellen should have helpfully pointed out that The Bible condones slavery, even telling you how hard you may beat your slaves. Then ask him if he thinks slavery is moral because of The Bible, or whether he has opted for his own sense of morality instead. Of course, thinking of a good response in two seconds is a little tough.

Yes, I thought it went well, but my expectations were low going into it. I knew that Dawkins was going to have a 20 minute interview edited down to 4 minutes; they could have butchered his comments. I thought from the original plan that it was going to have Christopher Hitchens vs. 3 theists; what we got was, for cable news, a fairly balanced panel, and it helped that the one guy they picked for the other side was a moron.

What I expected was a grossly biased and rather stupid blipvert. What we got was a short, shallow blipvert in which a few of the good guys managed to squeeze in a decent word or two.

Oh, and compare it to the Hunter/Schlussel inanity -- this was a great leap forward.

Wow. I'm amazed at how negative the comments have been. Did everyone SERIOUSLY expect a long winded apology to all atheists for CNN being so biased and then followed by a two hour discussion with Dawkins, Harris, and Myers on how to get rid of religion in America?

I mean c'mon people, this is a NEWS channel. They HAVE to make things short and to the point, otherwise people will stop watching.

Issues? Discussed? Ha! I laugh in the face of comment 29! There's the internet, and that's about it. Actual discussion doesn't sell well to advertisers. Viewers are only the secondary market for media.

I think you mean comment #28. #29 was me ejaculating my usual poor attempt at humor.

They HAVE to make things short and to the point, otherwise people will stop watching.

hmm. I often wonder about the popular mythology behind that concept, given that 60 minutes has been on for decades now.

Help! a couple of months back I remember a post here that showed a visual perspective on the geological time scale. PZ had a table but I thought there was also a visual graphic. books on a shelf maybe? does anyone have the link?? I am covering geological time & evolution in Bio II tomorrow. Thanks!

hmm. I often wonder about the popular mythology behind that concept, given that 60 minutes has been on for decades now.

Good point, but personally I don't even know when or where 60 minutes is aired. I actually watched it a couple of times and wanted to watch it again, but you know how it is and so I never did.

I think CNN gets FAR more viewers than 60 minutes. It also appeals to a greater audience (I would GUESS that 60 minutes appeals more to older, more... ehem... informed people that are more likely to accept atheists) and so I don't know if I would rather have a 60 minutes episode devoted to atheism (I'm sure there have been?) or this short CNN segment.

kathryn, I think I know the post you're talking about. It wasn't this one- http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/a_135footwide_web_page.p…
but I couldn't find the other one. The one I think you're talking about was a map in google maps right? and I think it put it into "bible lenghts" or something?

This will work. It isn't exactly the one I am remembering. I am picturing a screen full of books and the lower right is is one book of modern time or something similar. I just want a to-scale visual for them. Thanks TAW.

I don't know if I would rather have a 60 minutes episode devoted to atheism (I'm sure there have been?)

that's a good question, actually. The original Zahn show that focused (initially) on the persecuted family would likely have been handled in a far more thorough fashion by the guys at 60 minutes, er, supposing that the parent station would let them, that is.

TAW, any network program gets a vastly bigger audience than any cable program, simply because the networks are acessible to a greater number of people, and have habitual viewers who are used to watching them.
I thought the segment went about as well as I expected it to. Remember that answers had to be given in the discussion not only with total length in mind, but also that any pause in the logorrhea would allow an immeadiate interruption by another panalist. I was most disappointed that the two women never pointed out that the "In God We Trust on our paper currency as well as the "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence were added in the 1950's, when our government decided that if we all were forced to pledge Jesus the nasty commies couldn't hurt us(and no, they did not mean for Jews to be able to join the fun. They intended Jesus' God only).

TAW, any network program gets a vastly bigger audience than any cable program, simply because the networks are acessible to a greater number of people, and have habitual viewers who are used to watching them.

I doubt that's true for *any* pair of programs. Firefly vs. CNN news? But 60 Minutes is pretty big and high status. 6pm Sundays on CBS in Chicago; might shift an hour in other time zones.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/

Happy Darwin Day...

Wow. I knew 60 minutes was big, but I didn't know it was THAT big. That's hardly surprising though, seeing how I practically live under a rock.

The response to the reverend's bit about "Where does your morality come from" should be something like: "If you feel a personal need to ask that question, the police should probably keep an eye on you. Pretty scary that you have to rely on dubious mythology to convince yourelf that you shouldn't go on a rampage. I guess if you lose your faith, you're liable to murder us in our beds. How can you trust people who need to be told that they shouldn't kill anybody?"

Issues? Discussed? Ha! I laugh in the face of comment 29! There's the internet, and that's about it. Actual discussion doesn't sell well to advertisers. Viewers are only the secondary market for media.

I think you mean comment #28. #29 was me ejaculating my usual poor attempt at humor.

Actually, he was replying to me when my comment was #29. My comment has now mysteriously moved to #31. Not sure how extra comments get inserted mid-stream, but maybe PZ can tell us.

Actually, he was replying to me when my comment was #29. My comment has now mysteriously moved to #31. Not sure how extra comments get inserted mid-stream, but maybe PZ can tell us.

Such silliness! You should know that the correct answer whenever you are ignorant of the cause of X, Y and/or Z is "Goddidit"! Shame, shame, know your name!

Strib newsroom editor and conservative DJ Tice is blogging on behalf of creationism/ID/whatever they're calling it this week, using the old "if scientists aren't totally certain about something then creationists must be right!" fallacy: http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=533

You know what to do.

Here's a YouTube link of the panel if anyone is interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbLbweVWN8

At least this panel didn't have anyone with a voice that made my skin crawl-damning it with faint praise I guess...
Off topic, a review of the Creation Museum.

Here's a YouTube link of the panel if anyone is interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbLbweVWN8

Hey thanks for the link, buddy. Yeah, people are interested. :-)

When I see Dawkins I am always surprised how reasonable he sounds. Listen to some people and you would expect him have horns and eat babies.

Wow, I wonder when people are going to find out that they didn't take prayer out of schools, nor could they even if they wanted to. I'm very saddened hear (from the Rev., I think) that atheists are hypocrites. I never knew dat! Stupid atheists!

Happy Darwin Day:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_rad…

I am an atheist living in Europe (I am currently preparing for my suicide attack as an Islamist next year). I watched the 'show' just now and have to admit I am very disappointed. Yes, Ellen Johnson is a very nice woman, but she didn't make a point. And well yes Rev. was an idiot but is that the point? Millions of people have the same ideas as him and they are all considered idiots by us atheists. So, what do we get? He made his point very clearly, and I am sure many many Americans who watched the show are in total agreement with him. He didn't blow it up; he just said what most Americans believe! We shouldn't just say: 'Oh, he proved what an idiot he is', but taking that into account we should start asking ourselves what WE can do to answer their stupid questions. And in the simple question where do we get our morals from, there is just one simple answer... We need to answer their stupid questions, not just dismiss them because they are stupid! This is the whole point! And it wasn't short. 5 mins is enough time to express ones views. How did the rev and Rachel Maddow manage? I am very very disappointed.

In the response to "where do atheists get their morals from?" I would answer the one thing that would really throw off the minister. "The same place that christians get their morals from." What I mean is that our moral code develops from our interactions with our families, our schools, and our community when we are young. We look around us, find the people and ideas that work (using reason... OK, that's a difference), and emulate them because they show us how to live in a civil society. There's gobs of evidence that supports the idea that children who grow up in nurturing environments grow up more well-adjusted, happy, etc. I take that to mean that they have developed a strong and healthy moral view. There's nothing implicit in that statement to say that that requires religion, or that it requires a lack of religion. It's all about the early developmental plasticity of the prefrontal cortex!! But that might be too cerebral for CNN (pun intended).

Kathryn,
There are a lot of interesting comparative time scales out there - I like the pint of beer one (don't know if you're doing college or high school).
exercise

It has an exercise for making students create their own comparative scale, if you're interested in that.

So each speaker got about 45 seconds to make a quick sound bite and they call that a panel debate?

Because CNN is a private broadcasting corporation that lives off advertisements. To get discussions that last an hour or more (though most commonly only among politicians before elections), you need a public one that is financed by a tax. Germany's RTL (private) is not going to have such a discussion, Germany's ARD and ZDF (public) are.

In case you wonder... yes, public broadcasters do not put commercial breaks into movies, only between them.

Dawkins looked good.

Because it was heaviliy edited.

I, on the other hand, actually met the prick at KU in Lawrence. If he and your kind ever get control, I'm fucked!!

To all who are surprised at the positive comments, please understand, this was good *considering the source.* Regardless of whether the audience truly would stay tuned for an in-depth debate, that's clearly not what this show is about. Given a five-minute window and no formal debate procedures, I think Johnson and Maddow did very well.

Plus that reverend was a total loony. Later, they were discussing a satirical college newspaper column on rape, and the furor it inspired. Rev. Peterson said it was all about the liberal elite at colleges trying to silence conservative voices. Maddow said, "Wait, are you saying that advocating rape is a conservative issue?!" She got talked over quite a bit, but I think it came through. He was clueless and just said the same thing again in response.

RR: While you don't flatter yourself with your tone, I have to tell you I'm very comfortable with your proposed outcome. :-)

Here, our public braodcaster, the BBC, in all its radio and TV channels, has NO COMMERCIAL BREAKS AT ALL!

GT, I've heard some pretty wild stories about the Beeb's revenue model. The wilder stories suggest that instead of charging for the television programming, they send men in vans around with ray detectors to enforce payment of a hefty annual "television tax". For the naive (read: Americans) among us, is there any truth to these stories? Forgive my saying, but it sounds like a scheme that would look a bit silly in practice.

Ouch. I don't take kindly to sites whose first order of business is to misspell Dawkins' name. Shee'sh!

autumn1971 wrote:
I was most disappointed that the two women never pointed out that the "In God We Trust on our paper currency as well as the "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence were added in the 1950's, when our government decided that if we all were forced to pledge Jesus the nasty commies couldn't hurt us

Or, more effectively, point out that "under God" and "In God We Trust" were results of McCarthyism, and are its only enduring legacies. Most people have a gut reaction against McCarthyism even if they're religious.

Did any of you manage to slog through to the very end? There was a story about a college newspaper editor who printed a "humorous" article about rape. It naturally caused quite an uproar on campus, and they turned to the panel to "discuss" it. Ellen was freely allowed to make a completely nonjudgemental statement about it being fine because of freedom of speech, opening the doors for the good reverend to reiterate his previous stand of atheists being immoral. However, he descended into lunacy, talking about liberal plots and attacks on conservatives, and while Rachel Maddow tried to interject that he was implying that the publication of the story was a conservative plot, the host allowed him to ramble on, ignoring Maddow as he had during the earlier segment. It was clearly designed so that atheists would still look immoral and strident, and even my 12 year old was appalled at this presentation.

"Ellen did ok, but not great. In particular, she did not handle well the question: "Where do you get your morals?"

What would be the best one to three sentence soundbite response?"

Three sentences?!? Three words is enough.

'From our humanity'

SteveinMI: you are basically correct.

Everyone who owns a TV set in the UK capable of receiving BBC channels (whether they want to or not) is required to pay the yearly TV licence, at a cost of £131. The TV licence, despite its name, also funds all the BBC radio and website elements.

You are correct, there are indeed bogeymen known as TV detector vans, which will come knocking on your door if they suspect that you have a TV that isn't licenced. It is hard to tell exactly what the vans can detect as the BBC obviously mythologise their magic powers as much as possible.

Anyway, they aren't law enforcement so you are within your rights to tell them to bugger off the first couple of times until they bring the police along, in which case you can have gotten hold of a licence.

Yes, though, the citizens of the UK pay basically what amounts to a compulsory tax so that all you merkins can enjoy the BBC News website :P

G. Tingey wrote:

Here, our public braodcaster, the BBC, in all its radio and TV channels, has NO COMMERCIAL BREAKS AT ALL!

Stop! You're making me homesick!

And here, by contrast, we pay a hefty fee every month for cable tv, which...still has commercials. Wait a minute!!!

I don't know who the moderator guy was, but he sure made it clear that he thought atheists were assholes for complaining about their earlier piece. You could practically see the snark dripping off his face when he announced the segment.

Disappointingly short, too.

I would assume that two comments (at least) were held for moderation before I posted, and PZ subsuquently let them through. Curse you PZ! This numbered comments thing won't work if you up and put all the numbers out of sorts willy nilly-like.

mothworm @ 82 (for now at least): They're just upset that their viewing public is engaged and not just tubedrooling.

When I see Dawkins I am always surprised how reasonable he sounds. Listen to some people and you would expect him have horns and eat babies.

He was in disguise. And the interview was short, so he didn't pack a lunch.

Oddly enough, the answer to "Where did your morals come from?" is From our human nature. The Bible got its morals from the people who wrote it, with a God who resembled an oriental despot of the times and was addressed as such; and most people still get their morals from their human nature whether they believe in God or not. But Brain Pollution from early childhood indoctrination can warp those morals into something hateful, whether it's racial or religious prejudice or something less well defined.

Here, our public braodcaster, the BBC, in all its radio and TV channels, has NO COMMERCIAL BREAKS AT ALL!

That's not true. The BBC has frequent breaks, between and even during programmes, but uses them all to advertise itself and its various bits and pieces.

So each speaker got about 45 seconds to make a quick sound bite and they call that a panel debate?

Because CNN is a private broadcasting corporation that lives off advertisements. To get discussions that last an hour or more (though most commonly only among politicians before elections), you need a public one that is financed by a tax. Germany's RTL (private) is not going to have such a discussion, Germany's ARD and ZDF (public) are.

In case you wonder... yes, public broadcasters do not put commercial breaks into movies, only between them.