digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Atheist Richard Dawkins Owns Evangelical Christian Ted Haggard

youtube.com — Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world leader in evolutionary biology visits the Bible Belt in America and questions Pastor Ted Haggard. This footage was recorded before Pastor Ted was outed as a gay methamphetamine user and fired from the 14,000 member New Life Church. Haggard clearly gets owned, and gets a bit out of control towards the end

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Chaser12, on 10/12/2007, -13/+81I watched the movies of this a few months ago. It's called "The root of all evil" There are two parts 1 + 2. Search for them on Google video, they are really good. First one is prolly better. Pretty long though.
    • flicknut, on 10/12/2007, -12/+173Root of All Evil Part 1
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1501157684453512889&q=root+of+all+evil

      Root of All Evil Part 2
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1808651100501597451&q=root+of+all+evil
    • LOLDOORS, on 10/12/2007, -19/+221"The bag of meth and a male prostitute penis *somehow* just formed itself by accident into my ass"
    • gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -22/+67The Root Of All Evil is probably the best documentary on the argue for atheism. Richard Dawkins is great, but I think he could have made a better argument with the faggy pastor. Although people like that usually get out of hand when confronted with logical reasoning, as seen in the video, so it's understandable.
    • jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -67/+27I agree with his views, but Dawkins comes off as kind of a dick.
    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -37/+10*LOLDOORS
      No you fool, God put it there.
    • elroy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+69I love the frames where he's standing in the middle of the congregation looking PISSED OFF. Dawkins is quite the character. I welcome more videos from him.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -51/+56I'm an atheist and I agree with Dawkins on many things but the way he belittles people just isn't right. The god Delusion? sure, but that's up to them he can't complain that people are trying to push their views on him while doing the same to them...

      Oh well maybe that's just me point of view, I just don't like evangelizing at all too many people trying to convert me too many times I guess...
    • dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -176/+32The new trend on Digg:

      Be Atheist!


      Am I cool now?
    • baloo0, on 10/12/2007, -19/+57This video is hardly a battle of equals, its not hard to "own" someone with the intellectual capacity of a pea so stop patting yourselves on the back
    • answer42, on 10/12/2007, -22/+72@dmoney22:

      Nope, you're still an asshat
    • dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -102/+15@answer

      Exactly, I'm an asshat for not being atheist.
    • mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39The Root of All Evil was an awesome documentary, and I think Dawkins and Ch 4 did a very good job with it. The Haggard bit was one of the best parts. I love it when Teddy boy goes "But please, in the process, dont be arrogant," while he is spewing arrogance. You can mute your volume and you are still bombarded with his arrogance.

      Not to convict him based solely on an accusation, but when I first saw this clip (well before this whole thing came out), I did get the feeling that he was gay.
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -8/+92"I agree with his views, but Dawkins comes off as kind of a dick."

      I thought he came out as kind of a dick too, but I think Pastor Methy McGay came off as a huge pompous douchebag, so it all works out.
    • Kypt, on 10/12/2007, -32/+63I'm sorry but I don't see how he got owned. Where I was brought up the guy that gets mad first loses. Dawrkins lost his cool from almost the very beginning while Haggard kept his cool. As to what happened on the end is anyone's guess.

      Now this is going to get dugged down because I'm somehow in league with these "nuts" and a gay pastor which I'm not. I'm just looking at it with no bias...
    • erikbra81, on 10/12/2007, -45/+34Dawkins is right to oppose creationism, because it is fake science. In the movie, however, he also implies that faith in itself is somehow irrational; that atheism is the only logical conclusion of observations made by science.

      That is not true, because it is not certain that the human senses are capable of recording reality in its entirety, i.e., there may be aspects of reality outside of what we can hear, see, and touch. The Matrix illustrates this in a nice way.

      Science, therefore, is useful to make sense of the things we see around us, but useless when we ask ourselves, how come we see all these things? Is there a purpose? This is where Dawkins, like Haggard, goes too far in his assertiveness.
    • ashlvsya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25He also has a book out "The God Delusion"
    • CandidateZero, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47@ kypt

      Yeah, I agree. I think Haggard is a total douche, but he knew how to frame the argument better than Dawkins. The fact that Haggard was saying everything with a smile and Dawkins was grimacing and over-blinking through a lot of it makes Haggard appear as the better positioned one.

      Dawkins did seem to come off as arrogant and pissed while Haggard was maintaining a cool demeanor. However, Dawkins may have been on the wrong turf. Being a pastor by profession, Haggard is skilled in verbal manipulation... and also happens to be a massive hypocrite.

      He lost some credibility towards the end when he got all "get off muh land" on them, too.
    • xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@TGMD That's ludicrous. Haggard was pushing views on others and telling his congregation that Dawkin's evidence is to be ignored because his views were better. If you have an opinion on a matter good for you but in the face of evidence you will look like an idiot by denying it.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -31/+18"The Root Of All Evil is probably the best documentary on the argue for atheism. Richard Dawkins is great, but I think he could have made a better argument with the faggy pastor."

      Nicely put. And I bet if you found out he were half-black, he'd be the "Niggerish" pastor, and if he were Asian he'd be the "chinky" pastor.

      ***** bigot.
    • TomRemixed, on 10/12/2007, -29/+37I find it very annoying when people digg up any article or video that "shows" how stupid Christianity is. In no way do I consider myself a conservative. In fact I am quite liberal on many subjects. However, I go to church and I've been confirmed. Evolution is not in question of faith to me. It is commonly accepted by the Pope and most other Christian churches. Dawkins makes the mistake in going after the big leaders who in all respects are morons that have enough money to fill stadiums with other morons that believe every word that enters their ears.

      When I read these comments though all I see are people who do not know what Christianity is really about. I do agree that religion has caused many wars. However, if you took away religion people would find something else to fight about. It's funny that this can be represented by the latest southpark episode:
      http://www.dailymotion.com/flash/flvplayer.swf?rev=1162521619&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fget%2F12%2F320x240%2Fflv%2F982857.flv%3Fkey%3Ddb09a9f6e8f1b290abfcd9dfa46e367f127c0a0%26log%3D1%26log_blog_key%3D1cMFUkroOZiYW47Gx%26log_referer%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fallsp.com%2Floading.html%3FoldURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fswf%2F1cMFUkroOZiYW47Gx%26timer%3D10000&previewURL=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.dailymotion.com%2Fdyn%2Fpreview%2F320x240%2F982857.jpg%3F20061102061358&autoStart=0&playerURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fxl2dl_1012-south-park&estatEnabled=1&estatClient=players_dm&estatSection=blog
      In the last few scenes it shows different sects of the atheists fighting each other in the name of science. (just take away the whole otter thing) I know it's just a joke but it's a simple illustration of how people find things to fight about all of the time no matter if there is religion or not.
    • ashlvsya, on 10/12/2007, -18/+65I like this definition of religion (Urban Dictionary):

      "The biggest lie in human history. It has been responsible for more deaths throughout human history than all other unnatural causes combined. For a thousand years the Church was a tyrannical dictatorship that used religion to control the uneducated masses. Free your minds and come into the 21st century"
    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@TGMD:

      Check out the book first before you go after the title. In Preface or the first chapter he explains the title, and it's not as absurd as it seems.

      I'm reading it right now--and it really shows Dawkins logic to be quite impressive.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -10/+79"he also implies that faith in itself is somehow irrational"

      Faith is irrational. That's pretty much the definition of the word.
    • jacoplane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13See also:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5I've read the book and like I said I agree with him on many things

      but Dawkins is an evangelist and I simply don't like him as a person. If you don't agree with his perspective he won't go right out and insult you, that'd be respectable, he implies your crazy... keep in mind I'm an atheist and I agree with him on many things but the way he goes about it is just wrong.
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36I think it's important to note, if you've seen the whole film, that Dawkins does not come off as a dick so much as a man passionate about saving humanity from what he considers a disease, an affliction that has plagued mankind for centuries, causing unsurmountable amounts of hatred and violence.
      He gets angry because he sees how we are going backwards, going back towards irrational fanaticism. Not just Christians, but Hebrews and Muslims get dissected in this film as well.
      I understand that many of you think that he is trying to press his belief structure on other people but it isn't a belief structure. He isn't trying to get people to believe in "Dawkinism". He is trying to get people to see the truth. Scientific fact. He is trying to get people to stop having irrationality and faith control their lives. It's a rather noble cause in my opinion.
    • flicknut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39Christians on this thread seem to be defending their faith by alleging that it's more comforting to believe in eternal happiness than being eaten by worms.

      I've always been more interested in the truth than what's comforting. I can't understand why people are willing to believe a lie just to avoid a harsh reality.

      Your personal religion is largely dependent on the GEOGRAPHY of where you are born. If you were born in Thailand, you would most likely be Buddhist today. If you were born in Afghanistan, you would most likely be Muslim today. How's that for free will?
    • GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5"Faith is irrational. That's pretty much the definition of the word."

      Well duh..... A definition of Faith is a belief in things unseen. of course its irrational. rationality and faith are complete opposites. If you can rationally explain the existence of God or No God then its not faith its logic or scientific fact.

      but here is the million dollar question. If faith in a god is stupid, should you put your faith in other things? How about science? It would seem logical to be able to put your faith on science but science is based on the interpretation of things observed by humans. And we all know we are flawed creatures capable of royally screwing up. I mean i do it all the time. I royally screwing things up.

      Not to mention whats wrong with having faith in a god for the promise of eternal life. Because that would just suck to be a good person and then we die and go into the ether and have nothing to show for it. I mean science doesn't provide the promise of eternal life. Sure medical science is improving but i haven't seen science perform any resurrections. And supposively history has documented the Jesus Christ as resurrecting through the eye whiteness accounts of the gospels in the Christian bible. I dont blame people for having faith, If someone truly rose from the dead then maybe they can impart an opportunity for after life towards me.
    • TheScareScrow, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7Ummm... I don't really know what video you guys are watching but from a debate standpoint I think Richard Dawkins got owned. Haggard was calm the whole time and simply stated facts. It's funny that half you atheists on here claim the Bible contradicts itself etc etc, when science proves itself wrong every day. There is a reason Evolution is only called a Theory. There is no concrete proof that it's correct or it would become a Law. I guess my biggest request is prove to me there ISN'T a God. Look all around you and there is plenty of proof there is a God, but not one piece of evidence to suggest there isn't a God.

      Go ahead digg me down now for not jumping on to the liberal atheist asshat bandwagon.
    • flicknut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26"...but here is the million dollar question. If faith in a god is stupid, should you put your faith in other things? How about science?"

      I don't need faith to believe in gravity. I don't need faith to believe in facts. It's humorous that your only argument against science is that everything is a faith. Everything is not a faith.
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Torrent for both parts.

      Many seeders, fast download.

      http://www.meganova.org/details/296435.html
    • winebox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11definition from dictionary.com

      irrational: without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
      reason: a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
      belief: confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
      faith: belief that is _not_ based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

      im not saying this cant be discussed and is infallible but its one way to get some people to think about their faith. its wiser to stimulate thought then to regiment it.

      "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
    • EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Unfortunately, the modern world -- and Dawkins himself -- defines "Faith" as "Blind Faith." Totally with reason or rationality.

      This is a misunderstanding in the modern world, since there are actually rational and reasoned arguments for belief in God... though they do NOT reside in the discussion of evolution vs. creationism!

      -Pie
    • aristotle1990, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I'm not religious, but to tell you the truth, Dawkins was completely owned. Haggard is simply more forceful a person. His vicious smile throughout the whole thing gave him an evil glow. Dawkins was clearly flustered.
    • 955701, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Tom remixed.

      Sounds like you're close to gettin the whole picture. If you look at the particulars of your religion, you'll realize that your belief is actually Pantheism - all knowing all encompassing god that exists and doesn't in everything and nothing at the same time. This actually resolves itself into agnosticism if you look at it logically. Several Philosophers have paved the way. A good book about it is Atheism: The case against God.

      Good luck sir.

      I think there is something that Christians don't realize: When you are an atheist or of another religion - Christianity comes off like a mindless bombarding juggernaut so hell bent to convert you that they permantently trample their reputation with you instead.

      Once you sort out the issues with religions and take the leap that we're in this together but without an omnipotent leader you can look back on Christianity and you'll be shocked how overbearing it is...
    • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -10/+8The Root of All Evil movie was interesting. I'm not an Atheist. I think becoming an Atheist would be more difficult than keeping religion. I appreciate the difficulty and science in it, but I really don't like Richard Dawkins' condescending and pretentious tones. (Referring to the Root of All Evil movie, not the thing w/ Haggard)
    • Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16I saw this documentary on TV, but had to turn it off halfway through.

      I am a proud atheist, I believe in what I see and I don't believe there is a greater intelligence guiding us. The difference between me a Dawkins, is that I respect everyone else's right to disagree with me. Dawkins does not.

      Haggard was completely right calling Dawkins arrogant, because he is. He pushes his views onto the religious, and basically implies that they are stupid or backwards if they don't agree with him. Now, I don't agree with Haggard either. But as long as they keep their religious views and values to themselves, it's their right not to have them confronted and questioned.

      By going around and confronting everyone else's religious opinions, he seems to me to actually be WORSE than evangelical christians or fundamentalist muslims. He actually claims to be a man of science, yet lacks the decency to let other people think for themselves (and by doing that sinking even lower than those he attacks).

      The best thing you can do for science and rational thinking, is be scientific and rational. Science will prove itself, there's no need to go around a preach about it. I'd like to think that in a civilized world, we're all free to think whatever we want without having to defend ourselves, no matter what one believes. Dawkins seems to think differently.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@ashlyva

      I think if you study history a little bit more you will find that governments have killed far more people than religion or anything else has or could hope to.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The best thing you can do for science is be calm and collected, Dawkins is neither. Sure I think Haggard is a peabrain, but I'll never tell him that or make a movie stating that. Just spend some time with him, ask him some polite questions and you'll get the answer you need, no need to belittle the guy. These guys always have a habit of putting their foot in their mouth(or putting their penis in a gay prostitute while high on meth). You get the point. Just quietly laugh at the ludicrous things these creationists think, but don't shove their ignorance in their face.
    • cpmcd2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Collection of Dawkin's videos online...

      http://digg.com/videos_educational/Collection_of_Richard_Dawkins_Videos_All_worth_watching
    • MartinBob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Owned? He goes on the attack the entire time, not willing to bring a speck of evidence to promote any concept he brings to the table. Whether or not he is correct doesn't shade the fact that he got hotheaded first, and couldn't successfully even present his argument without losing his cool.
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      "The Earth is X Years Old!"
      "Says who?"
      "Says Science"
      "Science could be wrong"
      "But it isn't"
      "Says who?"
      "Says me."

      Really convincing argument...
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I find it odd that many of the regular GOP-apologist diggers are also here to the defense of the pastor. It's as if they believe religion and politics go hand-in-hand...
    • damentz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Someone above said it would be difficult to convert to being an athiest.

      Convert is the wrong word since your not changing over, your simply dropping a religion. Dropping any faiths or beliefs you previously had. What you do afterwards is up to you.

      Im an athiest since i was born so i wouldnt know how hard it would be anyway or what these supersticious people are thinking anyway when they hear the word athiest.

      I think what bothers people the most are morales. You don't need a religion to set up your own morales, you should be responsible enough or smart enough to know whats right and wrong. Its just common sense.
    • brokensk8er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0raaaagh delete
    • IWriteCode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0tweaq
      I love your example of evolution and then use Gmail (a created application) as an example for it. By chance evolution != Intelligent modifications to an application.
    • jmahler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey anyone know why the root of all evil videos are no longer available on google video?
    • cryptographix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This video has been removed but the full thing can be found here:
      http://atheistmovement.blogspot.com/
  • afzilla, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6112338.stm

    Pastor Ted Haggard is a hypocrite.
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -30/+19yeah but even though i like richard dawkins. he didnt have to be a total ***** like that. hypocrite or not haggard was still trying to be cool to richard but he insisted on being a dick.
    • eatmyjustice, on 10/12/2007, -46/+33all Christians are hypocrites
    • bssj4, on 10/12/2007, -33/+19eatmyjustice, you are extremely ignorant for lumping all Christians as hypocrites. Seriously, people like you shouldn't be allowed to speak.
    • redpoint13, on 10/12/2007, -26/+17All is an overstatement, sure, there are probably 1 or 2 christians who arent.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7The paster *did* look gay... it must be the teeth.
    • LunarOcean, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14There's hypocrites everywhere, be it related to religion, race, or gender. Get over it. The christians aren't all religious hypocrites because they're some who are. The muslims aren't all terrorists just because there's some islamic fundamentalists out there. Atheists aren't perfect, unlike the impression given by comments on digg. I'd wager that there's less 'hypocritical atheists' because, as far as atheism is concerned, there's not as many ways to 'screw up.' There aren't as many specific values (to my knowledge), so while a christian who has nothing against homosexuality is a hypocrite, an atheist with nothing against it is just fine, cause they never commited to any other general beliefs of a religion.

      Take a look outside the 'Every Christian is a hardcore, Vatican loving person' mindset. You may say they're hypocritical for considering themselves as christians while not agreeing with what officials say. I think that they think Christianity is about more than what the guy in the pointy hat says. There's more important things the religion proclaims.

      Ok, so I went into some tangents there. Point is, there's hypocrites everywhere, no one is perfect, and the vast majority of christians - like the vast majority of any religion - are good people, and it's sad to see a mindset that says otherwise flourishing here, cause it's just arrogance talking.
    • eatmyjustice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14bssj4, I’m ignorant about many things, but I challenge you to show me a single Christian who has not lied about something or cheated. Christians may try to be perfect but ultimately fail because it’s impossible… and while they’ll tell you it’s not ok to lie, steal, or sleep with your neighbors spouse. They’ll do it themselves. Thus….they’re hypocrites.
    • LunarOcean, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I ask you to find anyone who claims that telling lies is bad that has never told one. Nobody is perfect, everyone has told at least one lie.

      Thus, virtually everyone is a hypocrite in your eyes. Somewhat hypocirtical to be calling people as hypocritical and using it to insult them, when you're almost certainly one yourself.
    • ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Everyone is a hypocrite. The problem is when people ride on the high horse, condemning others.

      Many evangelicals are like that.

      What is it? Pull the plank out of your eye before you try to pull the splinter out of another persons.
    • nobodyshero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@eatmyjustice "I’m ignorant about many things, but I challenge you to show me a single Christian who has not lied about something or cheated. Christians may try to be perfect but ultimately fail because it’s impossible…"

      Exactly. However as I understand it, the purpose of Christianity, that is the belief in God's love for mankind for which He sacrificed His only Son, is to save mankind BECAUSE none are without sin.

      In other words, if we were perfect, there wouldn't be any need for His sacrifice or forgiveness.
    • ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So, then you admit that it is a personal problem, right? A personal relationship with your God and it has nothing to do with others. Just you two.

      I would have less of a problem if there was not always a push to believe what evangelicals do. Hell, they usually don't even believe what is written in the bible.

      For the record: Judaism, where christianity came from, does not have you asking for forgiveness from God. HE is not the one you messed with. You have to ask for forgiveness and give restitution to those you wronged (when possible) and then you can ask for forgiveness from God. THAT is what I call personal responsibility.

      If I were to go back to religion, I would probably go for Judaism.
    • clintstarkiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But Haggard did say he did something wrong and that takes balls.
  • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+127It's amusing to hear Haggard say that Dawkins do not understand evolution, and is being guilty of intellectual arrogance when he says the world is more than 6000 years old.

    Seriously, I don't care who Haggard is screwing or how much crystal meth he does. His *real* sin is being good at spreading known, proven, lies and having gullible people believe them.
    • someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37Well... i dont think most Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. I mean, it even says in the bible that a day to God is like the blink of an eye. Last time i checked, i blink quite a bit in a days time.
    • Chaser12, on 10/12/2007, -6/+62According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48 to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). [11] (See the chart)

      When it comes to human stupidity, NEVER underestimate yourself. I wish I could find the poll that had to do with how old the earth was =
    • gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -40/+3how can lies be known and proven?
    • erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30@gardnert1
      Lies can be known and proven to be lies. What's the issue?
    • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -42/+6Chaser, so human stupidity = not believing what you do? Using that rationality, you would be a ***** idiot in the eyes of anyone who is remotely religious or believes in a 'god'. Using that fact and by your stats and others, since there are more religious people than people share your beliefs, you are a bigger ***** idiot.
    • hypoxide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24@someguyyouknow

      What I find interesting is that as our scientific knowledge increases, the Bible is constantly being reinterpreted in order to sound more feasible. If you were to read a translation of the Bible from the 14th century, there would be no metaphorical representation of eons of time passing from the creation of the earth because it wasn't in the scope of knowledge. In Revelations, you would see references to a "dome" covering the earth that held out rain water until God opened it. There are many vague remnants of this archaic lore in current translations.

      You have to remember how absolutely little the people who wrote the Bible knew about the natural world. And you must also realize how easy it would be for the Bible to evolve along side of science in order to stray from sounding ludicrous and also become more and more ambiguous so as not to violate political and scientific correctness. (I wouldn't be surprised if Leviticus [certainly the most entertaining and humorous book of the Bible–yes, I realize it was merely ground rules for early Jewish communities] becomes extinct in future revisions.)

      Essentially, as one becomes more versed on both science and their faith, they will inevitably be faced with the act of willful ignorance from facets of either as they simply cannot coexist.
    • alex.will, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@manifestdata

      No, Chaser ISN'T the 'bigger ***** idiot'. What he believes is supported by scientific data, and what those 'religious people' believe in is supported by blind faith. BTW, swearing and name calling is a bad practice when trying to represent the side of 'God'.
    • ridgelawrence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@someguyouknow

      So God created the earth in 7 blinks!?!?
  • neptytune, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30Did you notice how he manhandled guys compared to the way he greeted women? I mean come on!
    • irieKEN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4If people think that you're straight, it would inappropriate to be grabbing women in public.

      But, yeah, it's a little touchy-feely.
  • admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -32/+59Where was the ownage again? Looked like a discussion between 2 opposing viewpoints.

    ar‧ro‧gance [ar-uh-guhns] –noun: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

    Walking onto somone's complex with a video camera simply to tell them they are wrong, and you are right (and more educated and obviously 'have a clue') Would certainly be arrogance, no matter how right you are.

    I dont disagree with dawkins viewpoint, but the going out of your way (looked like he had quite a crew and traveled a long way) to tell someone they are wrong and you are right.... fairly sure that's the essence of arrogance right there.
    • jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37I agree, but thats how you make a documentary such as the one he was making, thats what the audience likes to see. Besides, I'm sure that Haggard agreed to this interview, and knew when they were coming and what they would talk about. I doubt they just stormed in their and started ripping him apart.
    • sanitychek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19I'd have to say what I saw was Dawkins allowing Haggard to act like a complete ass and make Dawkins point for him. The whole "arrogance" speech was patronising as hell and all the way through you're thinking "but this is what you do, every day". This hypocrite obviously had no idea of what he was talking about and no way to debate the issue sanely.

      Someone in that position, spouting that level of insane drivel should have least invested the time to come up with a better argument than "6,000 years, yah boo sucks".
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12While I consider myself both a Christian AND an Evolutionist (I, for one, believe that the Bible was written by men and was generated to use parables to help us along a moral path, but also believe in God and that God set evolution on its way), I do honestly have to say that Dawkins did seem quite hostile during that interview. His tone of voice, the words he used—they were all geared at putting Haggard on the defensive and were just this side of insulting towards Haggard's own beliefs.

      Anybody who says that Haggard is a hypocrite is absolutely correct. But his beliefs as a creationist are not affected by his behavior, and nobody deserves to be insulted for his views. Not a Christian, not an evolutionist. I frown on it coming from both sides, and Dawkins was in the wrong to treat it the way he did. It might be good television, but it's bad for honest debate.
    • streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Yeah... the video isn't really a "debate" at all.

      I mean, I'm Christian and my best friend is a staunch atheist, and we have good, academic discussions about this stuff without pissing each other off.

      Of course, this probably has something to do with the fact that I acknowledge that a completely logical, scientific view of the world is best -- but that it just seems to me like a hella boring place if we assume there's nothing more out there than what can or may be scientifically demonstrable.

      We agree to disagree.
    • w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This video isn't just about evolution, it's about how Dawkins feels that religion in itself is wrong for humanity.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2But does that make it any more "right" than the Creationists' own backward views? Forcing beliefs on a culture is wrong no matter what it is, isn't it? Just like forcing democracy on a country that doesn't want it is pointless.

      I fully acknowledge that there are other religious beliefs out there—I can absolutely see the perspective that a person might have where he says that there are spirits in everything like trees and rocks and water, a la Shintoism, or that there's this thing called karma that rules the universe. I myself happen to believe in the Big Bang AND *gasp* Jesus' teachings. I think the guy had the right idea: Love each other because it's the right thing to do. Accept others for who they are. Not bad ideas in today's era of my-way-is-right-and-yours-is-wrong.

      But Dawkins, in this video, was just as stonewalling and unwilling to accept a real DEBATE as was Haggard. Neither is willing to consider the other's opinions, so what's the point of the two of them getting together to discuss it, besides making for a televised argument?

      By the way (and I'm sure it won't help anyway), I love that I get modded down just because I happen to use the phrase "I'm a Christian" even though I COMPLETELY AGREE with what most people on this board believe, which is that evolution happened and is a part of nature. I just love how the spirit of acceptance is alive and well.
    • luma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"I do honestly have to say that Dawkins did seem quite hostile during that interview. His tone of voice, the words he used—they were all geared at putting Haggard on the defensive and were just this side of insulting towards Haggard's own beliefs."

      What I don't get is that people who have no problem insulting somebody's beliefs on drug policy, gay marriage, or whatever will get all bent out of shape if somebody suggests that their religion is a farce. I can say you're wrong for voting for the Republicans or whatever, but I shouldn't dare suggest that religion is a giant lie.

      PS: religion is a giant lie.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"What I don't get is that people who have no problem insulting somebody's beliefs on drug policy, gay marriage, or whatever will get all bent out of shape if somebody suggests that their religion is a farce. I can say you're wrong for voting for the Republicans or whatever, but I shouldn't dare suggest that religion is a giant lie."

      I find it interesting that you assume that I'm (a) a Republican, (b) against gay marriage, and (c) anti-drugs, because you couldn't be more wrong on ANY of those. (A portion here edited out because I don't want to sound critical of something I'm not critical of but did sound that way when I wrote it.)

      Once again, though: For the last time, I'm NOT ANTI-EVOLUTION. I'm not a Creationist, nor am I some kind of wacko super-right-wing social conservative who believes that anybody who has facial piercings is going to hell (*****, I think facial piercings and tattoos on the right woman == absolute hotness ). For that matter, I'm not so sure I even believe in hell. For those of you who are digging me down, ALL that I'm saying is that it doesn't seem any use for two people who are so set in their ways to argue about something neither of them is going to change his mind about. That's ALL. Now quit treating me like I'm some, well, hypocrite, because when I said I liked the ideas of "acceptance," I really meant it. I don't believe in berating a person for what he believes. What I DO like to do is have an honest debate, because I'm not even sure I know what I believe. So quit treating me like I'm doing bad things.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3By the way: I'm NOT the kind of person who goes around preaching to other people. I don't believe at all in pushing my views on others. I find this an interesting juxtaposition next to somebody who felt that a jab about religion being a big lie was warranted or even relevant in the discussion I was trying to have.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5One final thing (and so sorry for the triple post) about this particular quote:

      "What I don't get is that people who have no problem insulting somebody's beliefs on drug policy, gay marriage, or whatever will get all bent out of shape if somebody suggests that their religion is a farce."

      There's a reason I used the term "insult". I think that it's one thing to disagree and respectably state why you disagree. That's what the scientific method is FOR. What I DON'T like is when you (the generic "you," that is) ridicule somebody for what they believe. I don't do it to other people and I don't like it when it's done to me. I think that Creationists are insulting me when they say I'm going to hell for believing in evolution. I also think that atheists are insulting me when THEY say that I'm stupid for believing in something when I can't prove it exists. In both cases I feel that the criticism is unwarranted.

      My belief in God harms nobody. I don't push it on others and I don't think less of anybody who doesn't hold my belief. In fact, I'd say that I'm one of the most reasonable Christians you'd ever come across. I would NOT say that I get the same benign treatment from EITHER side of the argument.
    • luma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I find it interesting that you assume that I'm (a) a Republican, (b) against gay marriage, oand (c) anti-drugs, because you couldn't be more wrong on ANY of those."

      Nope, I made no such assumption about yourself. Those viewpoints were chosen strictly due to their association with traditional conservative views that are often tied to religious beliefs. My point stands however, you could replace those topics with any other hot-button and have a civil discourse. Replace them with religion, and people freak out when it is suggested that their belief in a mystical supernatural all-powerful ghost is a pretty silly assertion.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Nope, I made no such assumption about yourself. Those viewpoints were chosen strictly due to their association with traditional conservative views that are often tied to religious beliefs."

      Excuse me, I stand corrected. The directness of it made it sound like it was addressed at me.

      "My point stands however, you could replace those topics with any other hot-button and have a civil discourse. Replace them with religion, and people freak out when it is suggested that their belief in a mystical supernatural all-powerful ghost is a pretty silly assertion."

      I agree completely. Most hardcore Christians think that anybody who disagrees with their faith are personally attacking them. In other words, they take it WAAAAY too personally. And as I said earlier, I think that evolutionists are exactly the same.

      The truth of the matter is this: BOTH sides tend to think that anybody who disagrees with them—for WHATEVER the reason—is stupid or ignorant or both. And BOTH sides are wrong in that situation.
    • brokensk8er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@AndrewJC:

      I didn't even read your *****. Dugg down for being a ***** gaybashing republican piece of *****.

      And a hypocrite on top of it all.
  • someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -42/+24hmmm... i dont know who got owned there but i would be hesitant to say that Haggard got owned.

    As a Christian, i dont see what the big deal is. Believe what you want... thats why God gave us all free will.
    • therage96, on 10/12/2007, -12/+52Free will?

      Ok, cool, then I'd like to use my free will and say that I do not wish to be subjected to either heaven or hell when I die, and more importantly, I would like to be put outside of Yahweh's control.
    • Chaser12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40You realize Dawkins was just like yea ok w/e idiot. I mean this ***** up said evolution is random, and Dawkins let him get away with that. Arguing with people of "faith" is just a useless thing to do. No matter what they say, they are always right. And then he gets his panties in a bunch and kicks him out of his brain washing facility.
    • mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+54"As a Christian, i dont see what the big deal is."

      The big deal is that this ***** met once a week with the President of the United States. Looking at the policies and stances of this White House it's sickening to realize that they're guided by the beliefs of a hypocrite and an ***** not on research and implementation that has been proven elsewhere. You might be OK with someone running a country based on beliefs, because they happen to line up with yours, but remember that you're not the only one living here. This policies affect everybody, I don't want some troubled man living a lie to have any influence in them whatsoever.
    • Burly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Watch the whole program, Dawkins explicitly explains why it is a big deal.
    • Twango, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Believe what you want... thats why God gave us all free will."

      There you go: whether we have free will is an open question; what's your evidence?

      But there's no free will when it comes to law. Some Xtians tell me that I have to live the way they want ... and, to make sure that I do, they make laws based in "eternal truths". That's not free will, is it?

      That's one of the reasons that America's founders separated church and state. And that's why they embraced reason.
    • someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7@ mushoo

      Why dont people realize that arguement goes both ways? If an Atheist were in office, there would be people who oppose him and his believes. You will NEVER please everyone so to try is silly.

    • someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5"Some Xtians tell me that I have to live the way they want ... and, to make sure that I do, they make laws based in "eternal truths". That's not free will, is it?"

      Well if you HAVE to live the way WE wanted you to live, you would be living that way right now, right? I mean, you have no choice or say in the matter right?
    • hhOwArdrOarKk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.
    • someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"We have to believe in free will, we have no choice."

      Do you not want it?
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -65/+14God pwns Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard at death.
    • joshman5k, on 10/12/2007, -17/+71There is no God, so this won't be an issue.
    • patience, on 10/12/2007, -47/+8you will regret this comment (and those who dugg him up)
    • WebJohnny, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5The Gay Meth Man took Dawkins to school. Evolution is all about impossibilities, and the lies come from the Evolutionists who are not upfront about their presuppositions.

      www.answersingenesis.org
      www.joahc.info
    • gib0r, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3your mom.
    • ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@patience

      And I bet that makes you feel better knowing, in you head at least, that someone who doesn't share you fantasy will be eternally damned.
    • vermin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Guys, I'm afraid patience has got us good =/

      In Luke 2:12 it states clearly "Those who digg up a sinner, shall face my wrath in heaven or hell."
    • rokinroj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@WebJohnny

      Biblical websites to back up a biblical opinion? Whats the point in that?

      Thats like saying I believe in God cause the Bible says so, and I believe in the Bible cause God says so?
    • Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yahweh is going send all those intelligent men and women who follow logic and reason to hell. While those with blind faith and no significant contributions the advancement of mankind get a free ticket to eternal life.
  • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+42this was ridiculous. dawkins came across like a complete *****. that's not to say that his points aren't valid but he went into this interview completely on the offensive. he starts off by comparing the service to a nuremberg rally.

    i'm not defending haggard but if anyone got owned here it was dawkins. not because haggard had the "truth" or the "moral high-ground" on his side but because when dawkin's arrogance became evident, haggard shut him down.

    dawkins could've had a much more powerful report if he had kept his personal bias in check and questioned haggard respectfully.
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -22/+11I got the same impression. Dawkins was just as big of ass as Haggard.
    • ScnnrDrkly, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10It's very obvious that Dawkins has an agenda based on some of his comments and comparisons and also his overall combative demeanor. Subjectivity is as close to sin as you can get as a scientist. Taking the bible literally is completely foolish but just because Haggard is a throbbing tool does not automatically invalidate *everything* he is associated with.

      I haven't been sure of what I believe in for a long time but I do find it funny that atheists don't realize that they too belong to a "faith". One whose members hold a set of beliefs based on the non-existence of a creator. No one on earth will ever know the absolute truth until that last breath has left their body.
    • Burly, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Sometimes you have to be direct to get your point across.

      To the comment above, wiki atheists, they do not hold beliefs on that at all.
    • flicknut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Atheists do not belong to a faith. That's a Christian talking point repeated over and over again by Christians who have no other argument against atheism. I assume you don't believe in Santa Claus. Is that a faith? When someone doesn't believe in something that there's absolutely no scientific evidence for, it is not a faith.

      When you begin with an assertion that there is a god, the burden of proof is on you. "Atheist" should not even be a word, just as there is no word for people who don't believe in Santa. If I say there is a flying spaghetti monster, there is no word for people who don't believe in it. Not believing in the flying spaghetti monster is certainly not a faith.
    • seth197725, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I took a Nazi Germany class once, and the scene in the church did look a lot like a Nazi rally.
    • streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9This is why I stay away from churches with more than 1000 parishoners and pastors with a creepy, Enzyte-commercial smile.

      There are churches out there where pastors actually keep it real, the services are tasteful and low-key, and people meet during the week to actually discuss things and not just answer "true!" when the pastor tells them to.
  • gr4v3d1gg3r, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6I like both Dawkins and the Bible.I think people give Dawkins too much credit for the concept of the meme.

    "Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them.
    Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
    And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
    But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

    • gr4v3d1gg3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Oh so Christians are close minded but your not.Who's the hypocite now?
      Dawkins compared ideas to viruses ,Jesus compared ideas to seeds several times in the Bible.Nobody knew what a virus was then.So dig me down for quoting Jesus and go read Dawkins instead.The bad part is some of you who need to read the Bible the most are turned against it by people like Haggard.
      How about this quote instead.
      "Know them by their FRUITS"
    • nobodyshero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@gr4v3d1gg3r "Know them by their FRUITS"

      "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:13-23 ESV)
  • AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42i wouldn't call it ownage, but Haggard obviously never really tried to learn about evolution from an actual scientist
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28I agree, "ownage" sounds pretty stupid.

      However, Haggard showed what a moron he is and taking into consideration the recent discoveries about him shows how hypocrites the self-righteous people could be.
    • crawf061, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dawkins should work on his body language, because he definitely appeared (based solely on visuals) to be backed into a corner for some of the discussion.
  • zerocomm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51Haggard has such a weird looking face
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -13/+44***** sucking lips like mark foley
    • erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30His lips kinda remind me of horse's lips.
    • kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46crystal meth will do that. it is a hell of a drug
    • Sonderiaom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31I agree; I couldn't watch it for too long, not because of the content, but just because I wanted to deck Haggard and his weirdly stapled-up top lip.
    • mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37He's Stiffler's dad.
    • cpmcd2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A duck-billed platapus comes to mind.
  • neave, on 10/12/2007, -16/+50Thank goodness (not God) for Dawkins. Somebody needs to stand up to these insane neo-Christians and their bible bashing ways. Professor, I salute you.
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -29/+9yeah but he didnt have to be an arrogant prick about it. if you had to work with a person on a daily basis id work with haggard over dawkins because haggard seems to be a friendly guy hypocrite or not.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Yeah I agree, he can sometimes come across as an arrogant, all-knowing scientist. He's softened a bit since this programmed was filmed (especially since publishing The God Delusion). I just think he got a bit riled up by the pastor's assumption that evolution is an 'accident'.
    • Twango, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Interesting: in this video Haggard points out that no two scientists, in any field, agree. But daily, Haggard asserts that he knows, for certain, all kinds of things ... based on no evidence ... while claiming that Xtians "embrace the scientific method."

      In this video we see *why* scientists with Dawkins' ferocity are necessary. Amazingly, Haggard is surrounded by, and relies on, countless fruits of technology made possible by scientific inquiry ... with no apparent sense of gratitude.
    • Sumyunguy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6@neave - Interesting that you claim "neo-christians" are "bible bashing", when in actuality it is the athiests that are bashing the bible and the beliefs of millions in the world.

      Just be happy in your lack of faith and move on.
    • knuckles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Sumyunguy

      I have to take Neave's side on this. I'm an atheist and I have to say that the only time I ever talk about god is when some Christian just can't believe I'm an atheist and standing in front of him and wants me to either (a) prove god doesn't exist or (b) accuse me of somehow spreading hate. It's otherwise never on my mind in the same way that I don't think of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. I suspect that most atheists are the same way, we simply never think about god or talk about *the lack of a god* amongst ourselves. In fact, I don't know anyone else close to me that's truely an atheist, my wife doesn't go to church but I am fairly certain she believes in a god and I don't deny her that belief.

      However, it's amazing that you think we sit around bashing your beliefs all day. I don't think about you or god at all.

      Ironically, my last name is Lord...
    • cpmcd2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lets not forget thanking goodness he stands up against radical islam
  • erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Ted Haggard disgusts me.
  • LRoy12, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23United Atheist Alliance!
    • ellimist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26NO! The Allied Atheist Allegiance!
    • fearlessfrog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Splitters!!!
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Shhhh...the cyborg otters are coming! They'll hear you!
  • Santabot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I've seen that clip before from an atheist site, but after him getting caught, the first person I pictured him as was actually really him, i looked back and laughed at the clip of the evangelical getting owned by dawkins, and this confirms my intuition, i could tell that guy was into what he was
    • flicknut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Colorado Springs is not only home to Ted Haggard and his sheep, but James Dobson and Focus on the Family. Dobson might be the most successful brainwasher alive with his books and AM radio programs. Funny quote from James Dobson:

      "It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation. Ted Haggard is a friend of mine and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment -- which Ted strongly supports."

      http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/james-dobson-hearts-ted-haggard-20061102.php
  • jmann, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Since when is Colorado Springs, Colorado in the Bible belt?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_belt
    • mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32It's widened in recent years. Just as the nation keeps getting fatter, so does the belt expand in girth.
    • FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17See according to Christians, the Milky Way is the Bible Belt...
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6That's exactly what I was going to say--Southern Colorado has plenty of crazy conservatives, but it's certainly not the "bible belt".
    • piper999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I live in Colo Spgs and the religious freaks are all over the place.

      A lot of the suburbs, especially up North by the New LIfe Church building, are like Stepford Wives for real with these perverts and their idiot wives running around like ultra judgemental semi-sedated little Hitlers.

      Incidentally the Focus on the Family building is very close to the New Life Church and is hated so much even by Southern Coloradans that they have literally amassed a whole armoury of weapons inside it ready for when it turns into another Waco.
  • cyphin6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I believe evolution will find its bearings throughout the time span of humanity simply because our instruments to measure scientific information is becoming more advances and more accurate, as the decades progress we will have the power to understand the science of our universe like never before, evolution has evidence backing it from every part of the world. The truth about our universe will always elude us because it is so old, but to deny our own people who spend their lives trying to better society by explaining how there are able to stand on the earth is saddening to me.
  • imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7who owned who????
    Dawkins looks so arrogant its disgusting
    but Haggard looks so gay LOL
  • FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4It's reported that after this eye/ear argument that Ted Haggard was upset and got blown by a gay guy and did some meth.

    Liberal Lies!!!
  • TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45Everyone claims that Dawkins was being an arrogant prick, but that's what it takes when arguing with a religious zealot. These people WILL NOT accept modern, factual science and instead have devoted their entire lives to a fictional character.

    We shouldn't be nice to these people anymore. They are causing all of the worlds pain and suffering because they are stupid. Yes, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are, you guessed it, stupid.
    • Nin10dude, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21Please, don't base your entire opinion on the Christian faith on things such as this. That isn't what the majority of us are like at all. To generalize stupidity into a group such us Christians, Muslims, or Jews, is very ignorant.
    • daharris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4here here
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16I'm an atheist, but I disagree. Humans would find a reason to wage war and kill each with or without God.
    • Sumyunguy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5A "fictional character"? Who? Jesus? Jesus in mentioned in many more historical works than just the bible. Josephus' "Antiquites", and writings of Tacitus for example.

      If you want to claim that he was God...fine. But don't claim he didn't exist just because you are ignorant and don't have the same beliefs.
    • xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@dBLISS yeah blind faith in anything allows that kind of nonsense. I think it's time we fight blind faith itself. Care to join the bandwagon?
    • kelvie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I have to agree here. In Dawkin's new book (The God Delusion), he explains the reasoning behind this ferocity. Too often, scientists will just turn a blind eye (he repeatedly uses the phrase "bend over backwards") whenever religion comes into play, and why shouldn't they?

      Especially in the States, our government is run by Christians. An atheist will have no chance to ever get a seat in Congress -- whether or not they are actually atheist is debatable, but if you are running for office, you will tell people that you are most definitely not atheist. To do otherwise would be political suicide.

      The same holds for scientists. Most scientists are reluctant to state their opinion with any hint of ferocity due to the fact that their grants will get cut. There are huge incentives for being a religious scientist (read: The Templeton Foundation), and yet, the majority of scientists still fail to believe in a personal god. We need people like Dawkins in order to expose people like Haggard, or else, (to quote P+T), we're all screwed.
    • WeeklyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree. Us peace loving athiests have been quiet for too long. There's a cultural civil war coming soon, and they own all the guns.
    • BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kelvie
      There's a reason scientists will bend over backwards to avoid stepping on religionists' toes, while the reverse is not true. People of faith have no qualms about criticizing atheism.

      It's because religionists are emotionally invested in their beliefs about reality, while scientists are not.

      Scientists hold their beliefs for the rather mundane reason that they appear to be true given the available evidence. If contradictory evidence emerges, they will be happy to change their beliefs without emotional turmoil.

      A religionist who is faced with a change in beliefs is not so lucky. They may lose their friends, their family, even their perceived reason for living. They have to start from existential scratch. There is a huge amount of emotion intertwined with their beliefs. This is why they are immune to persuasion via rational debate. It is not a simple argument for them, it is a struggle for survival. Look at what happened to Ted Haggard when he faced reality. The life he knew was effectively over.

      Benevolent rationalists are sensitive to this, which is why it is taboo to criticize someone's religious beliefs.
  • snapdeus, on 10/12/2007, -26/+4its like two retards butting heads.

    dawkins is a douche, and haggard is a turd.

    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Dawkins is far from a douche. He may come of as pretentious but the is still a brilliant man. Go ahead and read one of his books (Not necessarily the God Delusion) like Unweaving the Rainbow. An eloquent brilliant book and If it doesn't give a you a knew perspective on science then.. well so be it.

      I did enjoy his quote on The Colbert Report, and I'll paraphrase.

      A lot of people are atheist about gods such as Thor, or Zeus, but some of us just one one God further.

      Now, it's not that insightful but it does make for a good sound bite. Cheers to Dawkins, Sagan and the rest of the wonderful Scientifc authors that try to bring the beauty of the world around us to the masses without clouding it in Supernatural Mystery.
    • Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Dugg up because I hate Dawkins more than I like Haggard.
  • 10poundbrown, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5I dont like the drugs but the drugs like me........................

    BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SOOOOOOOOOO
  • Nin10dude, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Wow. Why is it that all leading Christians are like that? Why can't anyone find a Christian who can uphold an argument without childish attacks like that? I'm a Christian, and I'm totally embarrassed for my religion when I see things like that. For once, I'd like the chance to talk to someone like Richard Dawkins, something so people can see what the majority of the Christian faith is like.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I'm sure most Christians are moderate and nothing like this guy. I have total respect for people with religious beliefs so long as they have respect for my (atheist) opinion also. Christians are welcome to believe whatever they wish to believe, but when they chose to impose that belief on other people (as with these brain-washing sermons) then all respect is lost. Let people decide what to believe by themselves, don't dictate their beliefs for them.
    • andreit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6It is obviously a controversial subject and Dawkins is exploiting it. Besides, he is acting the same way as evangelicals like he is on some kind of crusade.
    • vermin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"Why can't anyone find a Christian who can uphold an argument without childish attacks like that?"

      Because when your argument is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, your arguments tend to fall apart very quickly.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Because no "literal interpretations of the Bible" would have anything to say about abortion, maybe? These guys are easy to attack because most Christians have got better things to do than pick on Atheists, so the Atheists go after the loudest, most obnoxious guys ever. It's unlikely that they would go after a Unitarian or Episcopalian because these are the guys who let gay people get married and don't give a crap. They go after the Baptists and the Mormons and the Catholics because of both the ritualism and the regional ignorance and the cultural homogeneity you can find among these groups.

      He's in short attacking a cultural group, not a religious group, but the cultural group hides behind their religion and Dawkins ends up attacking a culture through their religion.

      Think of it this way. Most of the country lives on the East, West, and South Coasts, the East and West Coasts are disproportionately liberal, and the South is disproportionately conservative.

      The country is 82%-84% Christian. If you go to liberal strongholds you are going to find a Hell of a lot of Christian intellectuals, far more Christians than Atheists in fact. Now, Atheists taking a random sampling of Christians from any area that is not a predominantly poorly-educated rural area is going to find their prejudices completely unsupported. They will find Christian philosophers who studied Judaism and Islam in high school, Christian scientists (small "s") who are studying astronomy. In short, Dawkins will be arguing with someone who can understand why he is an Atheist, accept his arguments about evolution, and still create a substantive argument for his belief in Christianity.

      In short, the smart, educated Christians look at their religious beliefs through the lens of evolving scientific inquiry and discovery. They reconcile contradiction by confronting and avoiding hypocrisy, not ignoring it. In the absence of hypocrisy, Dawkins would be left impotent with his point, he would come across as the imbecile.

      What a man like Dawkins cannot grasp is spirituality in and of itself. He believes it is a substitute for reason, while your average Christian sees it as a supplement to reason.
    • kelvie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Before digging up the comment before mine (and remember, read it in its entirety first), remember this:

      If you are an Atheist you will _NOT_ be elected into government. This alone means that at least 90% of the people in a "liberal stronghold" will _not_ admit to being an atheist, ever. It is common sense in that it is political suicide.

      Take a poll in say, the fellows of the Royal Society, and see how many of them believe in a personal god.
    • Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Why can't anyone find a Christian who can uphold an argument without childish attacks like that?"

      I think it is because the Atheists realize they would lose, so they go for the low-hanging fruit. It entertains the Atheists and makes them feel good about themselves. It is like the Jerry Springer show! Would Jerry have built his fanbase if he had upstanding, middle/high class whitefolk on his show? Dawkins knows exactly who can kick his miserable ass, he is just avoiding them.
  • davy2002a, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8There seems to be a lot of Atheism along with hypocricy with half of the users of the Digg community, I'm starting to question the religious validity of the whole internet community now... :/
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8You can rest assured most of them don't know a damned thing about evolution or science themselves other than what they slept through in a high school biology class.
  • nyxalpha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8its sad that people like this represent the christian community. In fact he is being extremely arrogant, and self-righteous. I would agree that he is a hypocrite. My pastor would never act like this. Modern mainstreamed christianity is going down the wrong path. I believe God because God is foundational, just read about presuppositional apologetics. Haggard's few arguments are weak and disjointed, I'm suprised that someone who knows so little, is such a large leader. Maybe his intentions are good, I don't know his heart, but he sure is putting on a bad portrayal of true followers of Jesus.
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12You're very right and I will take it a step further: the modern, mainstream interpretation of Christianity represented by goons like Haggard, and as practiced by the majority of protestant religions in American is completely irrelevant and devoid of direction and meaning.

  • norsurfit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15How ironic, Haggard accuses Dawkins of arrogance, and of telling people, "if you only knew what I knew, if you only talked to the people I do" you would know the truth.

    But isn't that what Haggard did every day? Didn't he go out and lecture to his flocks every day about the 'truths' of the bible and god and the afterlife that he happened to know somehow.

    Isn't the whole reason that he is able to lecture to his evangelical followers because he claims to communicate with god and know truths about life and they universe that they don't know?

    How ironic that this is the same knowledge arrogance of which he accuses Dawkins.
  • spamfiltertest, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7"Oh, yea, pound my monkey hole Richard!"
  • rippyd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25To many evangelicals knowledge = arrogance. It's amazing to me that after hundreds of years of scientific advancement, people of faith still react with fear and anger to anything the see as a challenge to that faith.

    It seems crazy to us now that Galileo was imprisoned for supporting the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. American evangelicals are doing the exact same thing with evolution. They see it as a threat to their beliefs are literally trying to have it outlawed in some parts of the country. Science has taken us to the moon, but theologically we're still in the middle ages.
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Comparing religion to science is ludicrous. Are you saying theology should have taken us to the moon as well?
    • whiskerlickins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Comparing religion to science is ludicrous."

      Exactly. Yet religion has influenced school districts to removing evolution in our children's curriculum in schools. Religion has brainwashed our president into turning against embryonic stem cell research. So yes, I agree that religion should butt out of science.
  • eatbeefjerky, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7I don't think Haggard got owned in any way. He certainly sounded like a 5 year old, essentially saying "Yeah? Well my daddy (God) can beat up your daddy!" but Dawkins didn't actually bother to refute any of Haggard's remarks during the actual interview portions of the video. I couldn't believe he let Haggard's comment about the Bible having no contradictions slip by... anyone who has read the Bible knows that it is LOADED with contradictions.
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Agree. I was a devote "god fearing" Christian and until I actully read the bible. Nothing will drive a rational, critical thinking person from religion like reading the bible.
  • moofree, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Science damn you, United Atheist Alliance!

    The world will soon be ours!
  • Boorad420, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3TheNik:
    Don't compare religious extremists to evangelical Christians.
    I realize it's tempting, we do it every day with Muslims.
    And I'm glad you can make absolute value statements about the existence or lack thereof of God, you know, because of all the factual evidence disproving God.
    You are on the opposite extreme of Haggard, and just as stupid.
    • Coestar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8...and here we see how they will trot out the only defense they can come up with, weak as it is: "You can't disprove God!"

      I can: The Crusades, stoning, nuclear weapons, "well, our bible is the right one (and our God, the real one)", suicide bombers, 9/11/01, jihad, child-molesting priests, Ted Haggard... all these things are plenty enough proof to disprove the existence of a god, and there's plenty more!

      I refuse to be a part of any group that is responsible for so much blood spilled, needless death, hypocrisy, lies, torture, ignorance, and prejudice.
  • postal21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, download these BBC specials, they are very interesting.

    "the root of all evil" and "the virus of faith"
  • ajame007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5II saw the Dwarkin's doc a couple months ago....Thought Haggard was a moron...RONTFLMAO when I heard what happened to him on the news...My Grandfather and Dwarkin were right Religion is the root of all evil! Dwarkin was really as arrogant as he could've been; he just let Haggard trip and fall over his own irrational position, and make an idiot out himself!! It was funny as hell!!
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I think he kinda of sounds more arrogant then he's trying to be. He's just very smart and has a British Accent. No matter what, that's going to sound arrogant.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@dBLiSS ha ha - I'm British and I agree with that.
  • bbqplate, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3if i was dawkins age, i would rather spend my time with family and friends. not spending it to disprove things that i dislike. thats like wasting my time argueing with people about what tastes better, food cooked on a gas grill or charcoal.

    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2but charcoal is WAY better
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Yeah. What a moron. He's on quest steming from his lives work to bring knowledge and understanding to the people.
    • bbqplate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0science is not equiv to spiritual lessons. both are entirely different.
      like wisdom vs knowledge.
  • Coestar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I don't see how Dawkins was being arrogant. If any of you had seen the entire "The Root of All Evil?" documentary, you'd see that he's talked to many other religious persons without incident. If anything, Haggard's accusation of Dawkins being arrogant is merely a weak defense from someone with a weak mind. I can't blame Dawkins for getting angry either considering Haggard was spewing lies at him for the entire discussion.

    The truth is, we shouldn't be debating anything with anyone of deist religion. All that does is give them implied validity when the truth is that they have no ground to stand on whatsoever. The only truth behind deist religion is fear, and we will all one day fall because of them if nothing is done.
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5dude. dawkins is MEAN. thats the problem i had with that interview.
    • slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We can't ignore them any more than we can ignore any virus. Not if we want the body of humanity to get healthy. We've got to *be* the anti-virus.
  • B0jangles, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Eurgh, Gays.
  • carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I find it really odd how in debates, religious authorities will often play the "but how do you REALLY know that your scientific conclusions are true?" card... trying to wield the limitations of human knowledge and perception as a weapon against science.

    That's exactly what the scientific method is based on! The whole point of science is to try to find viable ways for humanity to cope with those limitations. Religious fundamentalists are 10x as guilty of ignoring these limitations as even the worst scientists out there. It's almost the very definition of "faith".

    Fundamentalists who open up that can of worms instantly cripple their own standing in the argument. They may as well paint targets on their chests at that point. Better to hope the conversation never goes in the direction of the nature of truth, because the other side has vastly superior firepower in that area.

    It's good to call out a scientist who's come to believe that our understanding of the universe is a finished work, because he's lost his way. But harboring unchallengeable truths certainly isn't a flaw of science itself.
    • renwoshin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The basic idea is:
      Everyone has to presuppose something. Athiests and Christians. Athiests presuppose the scientific method is true. Only then can they say things are "scientific fact". They prove everything based on that presupposition. So how do you prove the scientific method with something else? You can't, any ultimate truth must be self-authenticating.

      on the otherhand, Christians take the Bible as the ultimate truth, the ultimate standard. And one asks, how do you prove the Bible is the ultimate truth with something else? Answer is, you can't. It's self-authenticating.

      All worldviews are circular because they all have presuppositions.

      But going back to your question, that is why the argument is used in debates.
    • streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@carbonetc

      I think you're painting a false choice here.

      Anyone who really, truly *believes* in a religion will tell you that they could be wrong, but hey, that's why they call it *faith*.

      And science requires faith in our ability to understand our observations (the old holographic universe or Matrix trope) -- which a good theist should never use try to discredit science, but rather to simply remind us that everything requires a basic degree of faith, merely some things more than others.
    • Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To really pick the nits here, you're all making the mistake of assuming that an atheist automatically believes in science. I'm not saying atheists DON'T believe in science, but that it's wrong to automatically assume so, purely on the basis that they don't believe in a god or share a religion.

      Anyone and everyone should be free to believe whatever they want, without being questioned or be made to back ones beliefs up with evidence. The whole premise of belief is that it doesn't require any evidence
  • monkeywrench, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Who gets owned? Starting at around 4:54 the pastor rips the other dude and he just takes it.

    I'm not on either side, just saying what it looks like to me.
    • postal21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah, In his interviews Dawkins does tend to come off fairly unconfrontational. He tends to let the other person spout what they have to say without allowing himself to get too worked up. It can work sometimes, but other times it makes you wish he would get more worked up and be aggressive.
    • Burly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9But listen to what he is saying and then tell me is that sense.
    • balloot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You thought Dawkins came off a "unconfrontational?" What video did you watch?
  • BygTex, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Most atheists that I meet in every day life are not like this. I find that the anonymity of these comments allows people to completely arrogant jerks. If you would like an honest debate of the issues, then make it so. This is nothing other than a typical atheist flame fest. I note that most Christian viewpoint comments have been buried. Very good way to prove the point. I'm counting from now to see how long it takes this to get buried, instead of one intelligent response being posted. Time starts now.

    I do get a giggle however to note that AdSense pwns this thread.
    • Coestar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10There is nothing to debate. Theologians have no truthful points with which to debate, and thus, no validity whatsoever.
    • Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"I do get a giggle however to note that AdSense pwns this thread."

      A joke that the truly enlightened will never get. Firefox+Adblock+Filterset (where are you!?) ;)
  • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Wow, Haggard was getting worked up there at the end. That man needs a backrub.
  • lukehudson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4if dawkins claims life isnt black and white why does he make the debate black and white-religion vs. science?
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Because his science is his religion; his mythos.
  • brokencode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Haggard owns himself with his gay sex scandal haha.
  • VicHislop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Well, to be fair to Mr. Haggard, in light of recent events, he has some new evidence to support his claims that evolution is baseless bunk.

    If this confrontation were to happen today, it would be very one-sided and go something like this:

    "You see Mr. Dawkins, the male penis, with its shape and function, is perfectly suited for insertion into the anus. How can this possibly have been by accident? It certainly could not have been! Surely you can see the divine design inherent to this appendage!"

    Later, there can be a video with Kirk Cameron providing a visual display of this argument.

    Et cetera.
  • RedViper1999, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8And people are surprised he's gay? I've never seen this guy before, but from watching that video it's pretty obvious he is.
  • Naomarik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Good stuff. Richard Dawkins has a good cause, I hope more people realize religion is BS so we can get on with technological development. I was raised to believe but realized it was fake in high school.
  • erikbra81, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Eyooo
  • sourwood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5
    What about Haggard passing those young men on the front row as he slaps them on the ass and almost kisses them?
  • dyl0n, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6All religious people need to be repeatedly told, there is no such thing as god, father christmas or the tooth fairy, until it starts to register a doubt in the childhood brainwashing they underwent.
    Wake up!
    • Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dyl0n:
      Oh, that will work really well, you asshat!
  • dangsta, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5i cant stand the way his upper lip moves when he talks.
  • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I believe that someone made everything around us BUT!

    *The world was not formed in 2,000 years.
    *Evolution is Gods design that took billions of years.
    *Creation does not happen over night.
    *The universe is was formed in billions of years
    *Bible is not a Science book.
    *Someone or something made everything we see, feel, touch and think.
    *The Universe is to dynamic to have ignorant singular view points.
    *Atheist CAN NOT even explain how there own brain works but they can say God does not exists.
    *Evangelicals are so blinded by there own self righteousness that they forget about God!
    *The air you breath in order to live is UNSEEN.
    *We know so little about ourselves and the Universe but there is a genius or a genius about our design in all of us.
    • JeffD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"*Atheist CAN NOT even explain how there own brain works but they can say God does not exists. "

      Do you believe in unicorns, trolls, and the flying speghetti monster too? Theres loads of stuff written about them and despite the fact that I cant explain how the brain works I still dont believe in them either.
    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@JeffD
      "Do you believe in unicorns, trolls, and the flying speghetti monster too"

      You don't use those things everyday. But you use your brain everyday!
    • Coestar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Your arguments for creationism are weak and lacking any actual evidence. It's easy to say "Evolution is God's design that took billions of years" because you can mold "god" into whatever you want him/her/it to be. It really brings light to the reason deist religion is so dangerous; the muslim religion has been altered in some groups/areas to allow for the killing of infidels, for instance.

      Deist religion can be altered to allow for anything you wish for it to allow, regardless of evidence, reason, logic or truth. Christianity, judaism, and muslims are notorious for this.
    • Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"*Atheist CAN NOT even explain how there own brain works but they can say God does not exists. "

      I don't see the parallels in your argument. Just because we don't completely understand how the brain work does not rule out or bring into account the existence of god. Science is constantly making discoveries about things like just such things. That doesn't make god any more or less likely, unless you are implying that the brain operates on some kind of supernatural level that is beyond human comprehension. In which case, I would have to disagree
    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@Coestar
      Don't get God and Religion confused. Yahweh has been around much longer then any religion has been. Just because you're smart enough to know that someone or something made everything around us for a Purpose, does NOT mean you have to be religious. I still digg your comment!

      -ff


    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@Toast1185
      The point I am making is that the brain is Amazing. The brain has ability that we are just now understanding. Its ignorant to think that some how magically the brain just formed all by itself and no one designed it. Things do not JUST happen for no reason.


    • hypoxide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"You don't use those things everyday. But you use your brain everyday!"

      What does that have to do with anything?

      We can explain how the brain works. Despite the fact that it's incredibly complex, we still know how it works. We know a lot about the brain, actually.

      "*The air you breath in order to live is UNSEEN."
      The air we breath is perfectly visible and tangible. Not only can it be compressed to a solid or liquid, it can also be viewed through an electron microscope.

      Everything you've said is a perfectly unfounded point of view said with utmost condescending certainty. Your facts are supposed to support your argument? lol
    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2hypoxide
      "Do you believe in unicorns, trolls, and the flying speghetti monster too?" -JeffD

      Ask JeffD what the hell Unicorns, trolls and flying speghetti monsters have to do with anything!

      "We can explain how the brain works."
      Hah! Saying you can explain how the brain works is like sorta saying that the Bush's Policy in Iraq is working.

      "The air we breath is perfectly visible and tangible."
      Right now, without using any compression show me Air in its natural state with your Natural eyes.

      God did not create religion. Man created Religion.

      Yahweh/God is a scientist, we're just rediscovering and figuring out what has already been made.






    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@fatfinger - you're an agnostic. No shame in that ;)
    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@neave
      I can digg it ;)
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4..........
      "Do you believe in unicorns, trolls, and the flying speghetti monster too?"
      ..........

      You ignorant heathen. Get your facts straight. His name is the Flying SpAghetti Monster. You think you are sooooo smart making fun of my beliefs doncha? Ok prove he and his loyal servents (the wise trolls and beautiful unicorns) don't exist.

      Ha. See you can't.

      Only people that believe in FSM are good people and the rest of you are all under the influence of the evil one.... Chef Boyardee.
    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@there
      uhu? What you say?

      Actually I do believe in YAh so I can't be an Agnostic
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.