This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Interview with Salon.com

Interview with Salon.com - Comments

migg's Avatar Comment 1 by migg

It's also clear, from the book's first pages, that Dawkins isn't very tolerant of his creationist opponents (the book includes a memorably confrontational encounter with Wendy Wright, the creationist president of Concerned Women for America).


If only there was a reason to be tollerent with creationists...

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:12:00 UTC | #406291

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 2 by Jos Gibbons

I bet Rogers felt really proud of his wittily original "Guy who denies Nessie: Nessie amongst non-Nessieists" title. Maybe when he learns Cameron was not praising Darwin he'll feel less proud of that bit.

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:21:00 UTC | #406294

FishSci's Avatar Comment 3 by FishSci

"Salon spoke with Dawkins (...) about creationism's popularity in America, its connection with religion... "

WHAT? Creationism's connection with religion? They aren't connected, they are two facets of the same dung heap!

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:24:00 UTC | #406296

Koreman's Avatar Comment 4 by Koreman

The first pages of The Origin of Species were written by Kirk Discomfort and Ray Banana.

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:30:00 UTC | #406321

adamd164's Avatar Comment 5 by adamd164

Ugh...more of this "Dawkins as a god" crap.

I'm getting so sick and tired of faith-heads trying to sooth their wounded egos with talk of atheism being "just another religion". Complete and utter nonsense.

We recently set up a student group for atheists at my University and I had someone say to me "organised atheism? that completely misses the point of atheism! you're just imitating religion now"

Where does this stem from!? Is it the fact that atheism is typically viewed as a sort of anarchic response to social norms?

It can't just be the fact that we're trying to organise it per se... if that was the case, then any organisation the world over could be referred-to as "just another religion"! Banks and credit unions would be pseudo-religions!

Gah...maybe it's just gullible faith-heads clinging to another intellectually vacuous line they've been spoon fed by the shepards to save face.

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:52:00 UTC | #406324

Sterling Voth's Avatar Comment 6 by Sterling Voth

adam164 I totally agree. The idea that "not believing" in fairytales as fact, does not require a "support group" to do so. Shared religious beliefs require a religion and constant support. However believe in facts of nature or science do not. Even the religious can agree that the sky is blue, yet we don't need to band together and sing songs in constant support of that fact. Atheism is not a "belief" at all. It is simply "not believing" in fairytales as adults. Not believing is simply that and doesn't require any sort of organization. I personally think that the biggest obstacle to getting folks to admit that their religion is a fairytale with no basis in reality lies in the fact that the two hardest things to get adults to do is to admit they "are sorry", and also to admit "they were wrong". As children most of us were taught to believe in Santa Clause and usually wound up being embarrassed by some of our older friends when we finally learned the truth. Fast forward that same emotion to 20, 30, or even 50 years later as an adult and hard to get an adult to admit that they were "duped" by hokey pokey fantasy BS for all that time and bought it hook line and sinker, even when the facts of reality were there for them to see all along. It is one thing for a 15 year old to say that "I've been to church and it just ain't for me", and another thing entirely for a 50 year old who has been active member of a church for all their life, donated money, volunteered time, dedicated large segments of their life to their religion to then admit they were "conned" for most of 50 years.

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:14:00 UTC | #406353

Anters's Avatar Comment 7 by Anters

Am I the only one who finds it a bit anoying, that the video has been edited so much? I feel a bit cheated that I dont get to hear whatever Richard is laughing at halfway through the video, right after a cut.

It would be nice to have an unedited version, like with some of the interviews done by Richard, for instance with Daniel Dennett.

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:41:00 UTC | #406381

HardNosedSkeptic's Avatar Comment 8 by HardNosedSkeptic

Just in case anyone didn't know, the full interview with Wendy Wright is on YouTube.

The first part is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

Maybe Josh will post it here in the fullness of time? It would be very interesting to see your comments.

She’s a prat isn’t she?

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:35:00 UTC | #406433

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 9 by SaintStephen

8. Comment #424677 by HardNosedSkeptic on October 18, 2009 at 3:35 pm

God why did I watch that Wendy Wright interview again... that was shocking. People like her make me fear for the world. And that facetious smile of hers was sickening as she had the audacity and utter idiocy to demand "evidence" from one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the friggin' world.

It's like Wendy and others of her ilk (Kirk Cameron) have this nonsensical notion about transitional forms that just won't go away. It's too bad I wasn't there behind Richard, because I could have said what he was too polite to say "Every fossil is a transitional form, bitch."

Ms. Wright then goes on to claim DNA itself as evidence for Creation -- because we're all so 'different'. I don't think Wendy's particular flavor of battiness is easy to combat. This nutty broad is content to literally spit on science, brazenly question one of its most honest and courageous warriors - about matters she possesses not an inkling of actual knowledge about, and then cackle at Dawkins' answers and profess faith in her own Creationist explanation which is nothing short of doolally.

Pathetic women like Wendy Wright are one of the proud products of religious America.

EDIT: I have to continue ranting.

I mean, what the hell is going through the diminutive blonde head of Wendy Wright? What, do you think this extremely learned and accomplished man of science standing next to you has wasted his entire life, yea verily barked up the wholly wrong tree by studying evolution? He's got it all hopelessly wrong, is that it Wendy? This Oxford professor is trying to corrupt children and lie to them, right?

You stupid bitch. There. That's better. I feel better now.

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:20:00 UTC | #406438

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 10 by alaskansee

Again the "we're idiots but so are you defence", brilliant!

I liked your "organised" analogy adamd164

organised religion = religion
organised atheism = religion
organised pedophilia = religion

yes it all works so well, surprised Richard made it through the "interview"

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:27:00 UTC | #406451

shonny's Avatar Comment 11 by shonny

When you read the comments in Salon, you soon realise the problem the US has with a not only ignorant, but down-right stupid large segment of its population.
But then again, getting GWB for president was a clear sign that something is very sick about the US American society.
Thankfully, there are PZ, Josh, Mike, Joe, and the rest who are trying their darnest to knock some sense into the ones that are not too far gone.
Obama is a dubious ally as he is trying to placate the GFers as well. Ah, well, no need to get US visa again.

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:20:00 UTC | #406646

Reckless Monkey's Avatar Comment 12 by Reckless Monkey

Just watched the Wendy Wright interviews. What struck me is how polite Richard was in the face of such blatant wilful ignorance. I'd couldn't have held my temper for an hour of that.

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:16:00 UTC | #406671

shonny's Avatar Comment 13 by shonny

Richard is a paragon of politeness and patience when it comes to dealing with religious imbeciles (excuse the tautology).
And then they portray him as 'aggressive', 'militant', 'intolerant', and whatever else they can come up with, all of which can be applied to the 'critics'. And like this nincompoop's drivel about 'the god of the atheists' is just feble. But hey, we're dealing with a journalist, so we can't expect the bar to be set high when he wants to crawl over it.

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:20:00 UTC | #406790

MEHDI DARWIN's Avatar Comment 14 by MEHDI DARWIN

Thank you Mr Dawkins.
You're deffending such a great cause and I hope
more and more atheists will end their timidity and join you.

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:53:00 UTC | #407199

TheCroatianGuy's Avatar Comment 15 by TheCroatianGuy

HardNosedSkeptic:
Oh man, why did you put up that link??
I love watching Richard talk, but that woman...ARGGGGHHH...I was swinging my fists through the air while she was talking! I'm usually a calm person, but man, I wanted to strangle that woman seriously!!! Such ignorance and stupidity!
And one more thing, Jesus Christ(of fairy tales)has nothing on Richard Dawkins regarding tolerance,calmness,understanding,manners, I could go on and on... My hat's off to you good professor, I'd be in serious temptation to commit a sin;) of murder if I were the one talking to that "lady"! Uhh...

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:00 UTC | #407311

hadespussercats's Avatar Comment 16 by hadespussercats

Regarding this bit:

organised religion = religion
organised atheism = religion

Are you saying that the act of organization by its nature removes logical thought and accountability?

And if so, by participating in this forum, are you indulging in a religious act?

I understand that it's difficult to build a movement around a lack of belief. But my understanding of the atheist movement, beyond the trappings of scarlet letter lapel pins and flying spaghetti monster t-shirts and such, is that it is in fact centered on a strong belief in the virtues of examining evidence and employing good sense whenever possible.

I suppose you could call it a moral code of sorts, though it's a loose one. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove it a religion.

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:13:00 UTC | #407464

huzonfurst's Avatar Comment 17 by huzonfurst

Wendy Wright's far-right nut group, CWA (C*nts With Attitude) has been around for decades and is opposed to every economic, social and scientific advance since the Middle Ages.

Why Professor Dawkins even gives her the time of day is beyond me.

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:35:00 UTC | #409244

DrawingYou's Avatar Comment 18 by DrawingYou

The religious minded (yes I know it’s an oxymoron) have a limited vocabulary of ideas. To them existence is the proof of god. But it is the quantum leap from “we are a miracle” to I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of god that gives rise to the stench of rotting brains. Only through the abuse of brain washing children could such obvious wrong ideas pass as truth. I hope Richard’s children’s book on critical thinking will be the antidote that will end the generational addiction to the crack religion.

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:04:00 UTC | #410176