CNN Promotes Militant Atheist Richard Dawkins and His New Book

NewsBusters.org ^ | 11/25/2009 | Matthew Balan

[Pyro7480]

CNN correspondent Max Foster’s short report about Richard Dawkins on Tuesday’s Situation Room played more like a commercial which promoted the militant atheist’s new book. Despite Dawkins’s past inflammatory statements about Christianity, Foster only labeled him “an outspoken critic of creationism....[whose] atheist views have put him at the center of controversy” [audio clip available here].

Anchor Suzanne Malveaux’s introduction for the correspondent’s report highlighted the 150th anniversary of the printing of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” and how Dawkins was a “controversial successor [to Darwin] carrying the torch for evolution.” Foster gave a very basic description of Dawkins’s career during his report, only mentioning his controversial stances only in passing. Video straight from the Richard Dawkins Foundation ran on-screen as Foster, an anchor for CNN’s sister network CNN International, gave his voice-over....

A CNN graphic during the report also described the biologist as “Charles Darwin’s Rottweiler,” but this doesn’t describe the extent of Dawkins’s intolerance for religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. MRC President Brent Bozell highlighted one key quote from the atheist’s best-selling book, “The God Delusion” in a 2008 column:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

[cdcdawg]

You presented two logical fallacies in your post. You now ignore them, and I don’t blame you, because they are blatant. If calling you a “bigshot” for attacking a straw man strikes you as ad hominem, then simply take that out of my post, then respond. Don’t let my lack of reasoning distract you.

I don’t recall making an assertion beyond ridicule of the exactness of the 364,000, other than the assertion that you are illogical. I supported that to the point that you can’t respond to it. If you think you can, show me where I referenced God.

I’ll tell you what, I will find a link (known as “evidence” to you) that suggests that the evolution of the human eye took longer than 364,000 years. Then you can point out where I referenced God. We will both have resolved our debt to logic. Ready? I give this a 36/64 chance of working.

Your assertion that I was appealing to God fails. Just man up and admit it.