It's a Richard Dawkins quote: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

I assume you don't believe in Ra, Zeus, Odin or Cthulhu. You would probably think it odd if someone were to worship those gods.
I feel the same way about whichever god(s) you worship.

Well, you mention the unborn, yet on the main the thinking in environmental circles is that we have too many humans and that the Earth is unable to support them. Therefore, abortion (over 70 million unborn children murdered in the US since the 70s) is to be embraced, and even more extreme methods of population control are not only openly pondered, but have resulted in mass sterilization programs which have been mercilessly implemented in third world countries. Here are some of the greater atrocities committed in the name of preserving "mother earth":

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

Among the intellectual elite, human lives are reduced to being paid the same consideration as one might the lowly cockroach. Contrary to your assertion, it is the Christian who affirms the sanctity of life and the inherent value of every person, whereas it is the opponents of Christianity that affirm infanticide:

Dawkins approves of infanticide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFWt9cj3uj4

If you would reread my prior comment, you will see that I am in agreement with @RFlagg that we should be good stewards of the Earth. However, the mania of the environmentalists is to devalue human life and subordinate it to their misguided notions of preservation. The sickness of this world is sin, and the only one who can cure it is God. This world will continue to degenerate until the Lord returns because it is in rebellion against its Creator:

2 Chronicles 7:14

if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Interesting. I agree, the photos are very nice.
I wonder if Dawkins kept his?

No shit!-There's gotta be at least 10 examples of Dawkins arguing the case for his camp with non-non-believers here on the sift-Goddamn, Amy Goodman!!...Please do something with that mop of starving peasant hairdo you rock like you never cared...Jeeeez!..and maybe a sprinkle of cosmetics and better posture?? She has that, "Slept in My Clothes" look goin' alla time too, innit??!

I think this is a dupe, but I'm too tired at the moment to search all the Dawkins vids on videosift.

Should have watched more of the video...Rachel's appearance made it clear this was very old.

I think maybe Dawkins has become a bit frustrated and tired of the constant barrage of BS over the last decade or two...and thus less patient with naive or disingenuous interviewers.

I think that's as non-confrontational as I have ever seen Dawkins. He really bent over backwards in that interview. Is this perhaps an old interview?

Alex Jones is nuts. So what else is new?. Sure, I disagree with the nutcase as much as the next guy, but I gotta say, he sure gets things said. Crazy, delusional things, sure, but he does get his message out.

Which I think should be the message to take home from this: in order to get your message out on tv, you need to be insane, like Alex Jones. If you are soft spoken and/or intelligent and polite or just, you know, normal the "journalists" will just talk all over you with their own babble, or bible. Case in point: Richard Dawkins on O'Reilly: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-Richard-Dawkins-on-OReillys-Show
I mean here is a professor of biology, one of the worlds finest public educators and science promoters, making the most eloquent poi.. SHUT UP, TIDE GOES IN, TIDE GOES OUT. Next.

Woah, hey now. It wasn't Richard Dawkins in the elevator; that was someone completely unrelated. Richard just posted a comment in his forum that essentially said she was being a baby about it and there were more important issues to make a fuss about.

@drattus: "But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued."

Fair enough, as I said I hadn't followed it in detail and less so at the beginning than more recent events. At the time I was subscribed to Watson and saw the vid that started this when it was first posted. Don't remember her ever saying who but later Dawkins name came up in the debates and it sounded like that's what they were saying. Maybe they were wrong, or I read it wrong, long ago so hard to say for sure. Regardless, I never expected it to be a debate a week from then let alone many months later.

Dawkins wasn't in the elevator. His involvement came from a few forum posts where he said some stuff that was rather patronizing. Not that I think Watson's position was any less so, but it's a good example of neither side being in the "right".

I'm no fan of atheism+ and that in spite of the fact that I do support most of their claimed causes. I just don't like the censorship and banning, the very conflation of religion with social causes that we've been fighting against for years, or the 'with us or against us' attitude I find when I look to see what all of the fuss is. noelplum99 (among others) has a sourced and detailed playlist of vids explaining his objections, long but it covers a lot of ground. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl8YBXeamXSI4rnZraJTu3RDXnkImNwD7

Rather than a double post I'll reply to the statement by VoodooV above here as well. VoodooV says...

"This video is confusing, it doesn't really introduce itself or the problem very well."

I'm not subscribed to anyone directly involved in the fights so don't really have a horse in the race and haven't followed every detail. But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued.

Freethought blogs took on Thunderf00t as a writer and he expressed opinions which pissed off some of the others at the blog. More people took sides, more drama ensued and Thunderf00t was asked to leave.

And in the middle of this those who took the more (to them at least) 'feminist' view decided to start a new group, atheist+, even they seem to admit these days that the launch of the idea was ham handed and more confrontational than it needed to be and according to them it's all just a misunderstanding. According to their critics it's understood just fine, the critics just don't agree. Yet more people took sides and yet more drama ensued. And here we are.

My favorite comment on the whole mess was probably a post by TheMudbrooker at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMy6zBft4s Can't say that I agree with every word of it but the end at least seems on point for my view. If they need a group to tell them what to do, a social structure, go back to church where they belong and leave the rest of us alone. It's hard enough as it is to get people to understand that atheist mean "not theist" and nothing more without these people confusing the issue. Regardless of any other opinions anyone might have about them for other reasons. I don't approve of mixing religion and politics and it's no more defensible to mix a lack of religion with politics. Separate debates even if they are both worthy on their own merits. It's not helpful.

When an atheist/agnostic is wrong, they learn.

When a creationist is wrong, they declare a jihad, they have a crusade, they excommunicate.

and they may take up to 600 years to issue an apology when they are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

Science is just a tad bit quicker to admit when they're incorrect.

And +1 to the idea that agnosticism or non-theist is a more accurate stance to take than atheism. But yeah, it's hard to dismiss that a term that was once considered negative often gets turned around into a positive one and that's the term that gets used due to the fluidity of language.

Nerd is hardly an accurate term to describe someone, but Nerd is a previously derogatory term that has been turned around into a positive one.

I disagree with Dawkins though. Atheists/agnostics have to be the better people, that's why I've never appealed to the idea of militant atheism. Certain people, IMO, merely want revenge against religion because of the atrocities inflicted by religion and there is a fine line between justice and revenge.

I don't want revenge. Freedom of religion is a good thing, but then again, so is separation of church and state. People can believe whatever they want to, but when it comes to governance, we *have* to govern based on reproduce-able facts, not faith.

Your video, Richard Dawkins & Ricky Gervais on Religion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

And yet you clicked on a video entitled "Richard Dawkins & Ricky Gervais on Religion"

I don't really think you can claim you were tricked into watching it!