"The Root of all Evil"
Discussion
Although I normally agree with Richard Dawkins, in his own way he can be just as dogmatic as any fundamentalist. However, we need people like him, if only as a counter blast against the extremists on the "other side".
That Reverend Haggard was plain "SCARY".
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 9th January 22:12
That Reverend Haggard was plain "SCARY".
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 9th January 22:12
Quinny said:Dawkins is just as bad as a rabid right-wing Christian evangelist. Hmm, let's see now, worst mass-killers of the 20th Century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - religious belief? None.
Excellent program. Professor Richard Dawkins seems to be a voice of reason at last.
Did you see that nutty American evangelist though? Pretty scary stuff the hold those people have over their flock
Certainly didn't like being critisised. Made all sorts of threats.
Nutters the lot of em
The Professor gets full marks from me, a fellow atheist.
What a bunch of nutters those Evangelist brainwashers are, and as always, if you can't win an argument intellectually, resort to threats and intimidation
Did anyone else think the loony preacher looked like a (scary)
Jim Carey ?
What a bunch of nutters those Evangelist brainwashers are, and as always, if you can't win an argument intellectually, resort to threats and intimidation
Did anyone else think the loony preacher looked like a (scary)
Jim Carey ?
See my post.
However, I will agree that ideology is the problem as much as religion. Even if religion had never existed, men would (and do) find plenty of reasons to hate each other. Indeed, Hitler is a good example. Not particularly religious himself, he evinced a religious-like belief from his followers. And, of course, he did select one particular religion as the chief target of his hatred.
However, I will agree that ideology is the problem as much as religion. Even if religion had never existed, men would (and do) find plenty of reasons to hate each other. Indeed, Hitler is a good example. Not particularly religious himself, he evinced a religious-like belief from his followers. And, of course, he did select one particular religion as the chief target of his hatred.
Zod said:
Excellent program. Professor Richard Dawkins seems to be a voice of reason at last.
Did you see that nutty American evangelist though? Pretty scary stuff the hold those people have over their flock
Certainly didn't like being critisised. Made all sorts of threats.
Nutters the lot of em
Er sorry ?
How many has Professor Dawkins killed ?
Zod said:Ah yes, but the quote was "Good people do good things, evil people do evil things, but for good people to do evil things, takes religion". So I reckon those folks fit under 'Evil people do evil things'. Although ultimately it is an oxymoron, if good people do evil, they're evil, not good. And what are evil people that do good things? I'm confused!
worst mass-killers of the 20th Century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - religious belief? None.
I'd say there are a lot of people with an issue about organised religion in it's more extreme manifestations. As usual Dawkins makes huge simplistic sweeping statements, then limits himself to a subset of useful examples to back his P.o.V.
He doesn't even bother to mention that there are great religions in the world which don't posit a creator, and which are mostly non-violent.
His treatment of 'the big three was interesting, particularly his choice of representatives of Islam. A nut job American convert, and The Mufti of Palestine taken out of context saying that the Al Axa Mosque was non negotiable. Makes you wonder what the question was. Easy to make people look like extremists when you control the editing. No mention of the Islamic council of britain and the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to dissuade Blair from taking us into a stupid illegal war in Iraq either.
Religion may historically have been responsible for a lot of bloodshed, but look at the the chief scientist in charge of the biggest single mass murder of the C20th, Mr Oppenheimer, and the American scientists who worked alongside ex Japanese military bio-scientists on the chemical and biological weapons sold to Saddam Hussein before Halabjah. Scientists and politicians hands aren't too clean either really are they Mr Dawkins?
He doesn't even bother to mention that there are great religions in the world which don't posit a creator, and which are mostly non-violent.
His treatment of 'the big three was interesting, particularly his choice of representatives of Islam. A nut job American convert, and The Mufti of Palestine taken out of context saying that the Al Axa Mosque was non negotiable. Makes you wonder what the question was. Easy to make people look like extremists when you control the editing. No mention of the Islamic council of britain and the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to dissuade Blair from taking us into a stupid illegal war in Iraq either.
Religion may historically have been responsible for a lot of bloodshed, but look at the the chief scientist in charge of the biggest single mass murder of the C20th, Mr Oppenheimer, and the American scientists who worked alongside ex Japanese military bio-scientists on the chemical and biological weapons sold to Saddam Hussein before Halabjah. Scientists and politicians hands aren't too clean either really are they Mr Dawkins?
tallbloke said:
I'd say there are a lot of people with an issue about organised religion in it's more extreme manifestations. As usual Dawkins makes huge simplistic sweeping statements, then limits himself to a subset of useful examples to back his P.o.V.
He doesn't even bother to mention that there are great religions in the world which don't posit a creator, and which are mostly non-violent.
His treatment of 'the big three was interesting, particularly his choice of representatives of Islam. A nut job American convert, and The Mufti of Palestine taken out of context saying that the Al Axa Mosque was non negotiable. Makes you wonder what the question was. Easy to make people look like extremists when you control the editing. No mention of the Islamic council of britain and the Archbishop of Canterbury trying to dissuade Blair from taking us into a stupid illegal war in Iraq either.
Religion may historically have been responsible for a lot of bloodshed, but look at the the chief scientist in charge of the biggest single mass murder of the C20th, Mr Oppenheimer, and the American scientists who worked alongside ex Japanese military bio-scientists on the chemical and biological weapons sold to Saddam Hussein before Halabjah. Scientists and politicians hands aren't too clean either really are they Mr Dawkins?
I found that nut job convert particularly disturbing. If he represents even a minority of muslims, you can see why we are having problems.
The hardest contradiction for me to reconcile is how faithful people can believe all the tennets of their own religion, yet scoff at other equally widely held beliefs of other religions. Why is theirs right? Seems the ultimate hubris!
>> Edited by DanH on Monday 9th January 23:33
The American guy he was talking to might as well have had an AK47 in his hand, nutter.
I am not religious so just do not understand how people can get so worked up about it all, live and let live.
If you believe something fair enough but to have so much hatred of others belief's is wrong IMO, if what ever religion you worship can not tollorate others beliefs and cultures then doesn't strike me as anything worth believing in.
I am not religious so just do not understand how people can get so worked up about it all, live and let live.
If you believe something fair enough but to have so much hatred of others belief's is wrong IMO, if what ever religion you worship can not tollorate others beliefs and cultures then doesn't strike me as anything worth believing in.
grahamw48 said:Er, where did I claim Dawkins had killed people? I said "Dawkins is just as bad as a rabid right-wing Christian evangelist." this meant: Dawkins is as biased and blinkered as a right-wing Christian evangelist. Right Wing Christian evangelists will attribute all evil to the godless. Dawkins attributes all evil to the religious.
Excellent program. Professor Richard Dawkins seems to be a voice of reason at last.
Did you see that nutty American evangelist though? Pretty scary stuff the hold those people have over their flock
Certainly didn't like being critisised. Made all sorts of threats.
Nutters the lot of em
Er sorry ?
How many has Professor Dawkins killed ?
Think before posting!
DanH said:
May I enquire if you have a strong faith? You seem to be reacting fairly vehemently!
I found that nut job convert particularly disturbing. If he represents even a minority of muslims, you can see why we are having problems.
The nut job represents his own noise and braggado. The muslim people I know would've told him to STFU in short order.
I'm a free thinker who rejected Christian orthodoxy at a young age (8) with a spiritual and humanist outlook and a humanities degree on top of my technical and scientific qualifications. I believe in the broad correctness of the theory of evolution, but find Dawkins interpretation of it narrow and unjustifiably dismissive of other possibilities.
Zod said:
Excellent program. Professor Richard Dawkins seems to be a voice of reason at last.
Did you see that nutty American evangelist though? Pretty scary stuff the hold those people have over their flock
Certainly didn't like being critisised. Made all sorts of threats.
Nutters the lot of em
Dunno why you think Dawkins is in the same category.
Also Nazism and communism are very similar to religions, that is philosophies and beliefs taken on faith not reason. (reason would always doubt the 'truths' declared by the 'authorities')
Regret I missed it - but presumably it emphasised
the role of religion as a political tool; as it
happens, I was having a bit of a Jethro Tull
retrospective this evening, and this sums the
whole thing up for me, almost perfectly;
When I was young and they packed me off to school
and taught me how not to play the game,
I didn't mind if they groomed me for success,
or if they said that I was a fool.
So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm --
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said -- I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers --
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school
and have all the bishops harmonize these lines --
how do you dare tell me that I'm my Father's son
when that was just an accident of Birth.
I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth.
In your pomp and all your glory you're a poorer man than me,
as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
the role of religion as a political tool; as it
happens, I was having a bit of a Jethro Tull
retrospective this evening, and this sums the
whole thing up for me, almost perfectly;
When I was young and they packed me off to school
and taught me how not to play the game,
I didn't mind if they groomed me for success,
or if they said that I was a fool.
So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm --
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said -- I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers --
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school
and have all the bishops harmonize these lines --
how do you dare tell me that I'm my Father's son
when that was just an accident of Birth.
I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth.
In your pomp and all your glory you're a poorer man than me,
as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
Zod said:
Dawkins is as biased and blinkered as a right-wing Christian evangelist. Right Wing Christian evangelists will attribute all evil to the godless. Dawkins attributes all evil to the religious.
One also has to ask why, since he's an atheist, is Dawkins framing his argument in terms of religious concepts like Good and Evil anyway.
All that guff about Lourdes got me too. As if Dawkins doesn't get a similar glow of 'belonging' at a scientific symposium or an Oxbridge alumni love-in.
tallbloke said:
May I enquire if you have a strong faith? You seem to be reacting fairly vehemently!
I found that nut job convert particularly disturbing. If he represents even a minority of muslims, you can see why we are having problems.
The nut job represents his own noise and braggado. The muslim people I know would've told him to STFU in short order.
I'm a free thinker who rejected Christian orthodoxy at a young age (8) with a spiritual and humanist outlook and a humanities degree on top of my technical and scientific qualifications. I believe in the broad correctness of the theory of evolution, but find Dawkins interpretation of it narrow and unjustifiably dismissive of other possibilities.
This is unfair. Show Dawkins some evidence to the contrary and he will change his mind in a shot. Until then you go with the best theory we have, and be very skeptical about evidence free ideas.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff