Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Root Of All Evil on Network 2 7pm 5/01/09

Options
  • 05-01-2009 8:03pm
    #1
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭


    I cannot believe they are showing it. :eek:
    Fair play to RTE for having a set.

    The complaints will roll in.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Chardee MacDennis
    Registered Users Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭Chardee MacDennis


    shocked RTE are this open minded - loving it...


  • Options
    #3
    meldrew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 699 ✭✭✭meldrew


    Hopefully they'll list it under "factual" ! Listen out to Joe Duffy tomorrow theres bound to be loads of outraged aul wans when they see Dawkins in Lourdes!


  • Options
    #4
    MackDeToaster
    Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    My ould fella was watching it there, in total agreement with the D., tut tutting at the hypocritical evangelicals and mad muslims going on about letting the women dress like whores in the street. He even agreed with the tea-pot hypothesis, but yet he'll be back in mass on Sunday. Religion is just a cultural/social crutch after all, what else is there to do on Sunday :(


  • Options
    #5
    D.S.
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭D.S.


    Fair play to RTE for showing this. Think I'll actually send RTE a mail to commend them.

    I am sure there will be loads of complaints but Dawkins hit the nail on the head for me. His book is a must read also for anyone interested..

    Don't know about anyone else but thought he came across as slightly arrogant in some of his conversations???


  • Options
    #6
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I don't think he should have gotten as confrontational and angry with Ted Haggard even if he is the biggest hypocrite on earth. Dawkins just came across as arrogant and almost fundamentalist like. But the program is still well worth watching.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    In fairness, he couldn't have just let Haggard get away with his patronising, smug tone of voice and small-minded opinions without showing some sort of resistance. I think it's hilarious when R.D. raises his voice. He's such an @ss-kicker

    *sets alarm to remind about Joe Duffy*


  • Options
    #8
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    All the usual 'Marys' who ring Joe Duffy will have missed it, Nationwide was on one!


  • Options
    #9
    D.S.
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭D.S.


    I thought it was more a battle of the egos than an intellectual debate when it came to the Haggard interview..I found Dawkins a little patronising with a number of his interviewees..

    That, clearly, in no way detracts from the validity of his argument...


  • Options
    #10
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    I only got to see the 2nd half of the program.

    As usual Mr. Dawkins generalizes too frequently and is uncritical in his thinking.

    It is certainly true that religion has been (ab)used to justify violence but that alone doesn't make all religion bad does it? It's very easy to pick the example of the Muslim extremist who believes Islam should be spread throughout the world by force but then he conveniently ignores the excellent self-sacrificing work done by missionaries and Christian aid organizations to bring relief to suffering people.

    He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.

    If everyone lived according to Christian principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.


  • Options
    #11
    MackDeToaster
    Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    :rolleyes: I'm new here, but cmon, honestly, the evil atheist communists canard ??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I only got to see the 2nd half of the program.

    As usual Mr. Dawkins generalizes too frequently and is uncritical in his thinking.

    It is certainly true that religion has been (ab)used to justify violence but that alone doesn't make all religion bad does it? It's very easy to pick the example of the Muslim extremist who believes Islam should be spread throughout the world by force but then he conveniently ignores the excellent self-sacrificing work done by missionaries and Christian aid organizations to bring relief to suffering people.

    He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.


    The argument isn't entirely that religiosity or atheism causes evil, it's that religiosity causes small-mindedness and a propensity to ignore common sense, a result of which is the evil that ensues from Muslim extremists, terrible domestic policy and suppression of basic human rights.


  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kelly1 wrote: »
    He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.

    But genocidal communist atheists didn't do their deeds in the name of atheism, did they?

    But, I have to agree with you. Religion does instill a will in some people to do damage to society in the name of their religion; but it's certainly not common with religious people, extremely uncommon probably. And it's definitely not indicative of religious people as a whole.

    I've come to live by a new motto: As long as fundamentalist, or any other kind for that matter, religious people don't confront me, and don't try to influence my beliefs; as long as they don't affect me in any sense that is important to me: Then I can live with them. I certainly wouldn't interfer with their beliefs. So be it (Ironic, amen is hebrew for 'so be it') is all I can say.

    Nothing annoys me more than both fundamentalist bible bashers and militant atheists.


  • Options
    #14
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    as long as they don't affect me in any sense that is important to me: Then I can live with them. I certainly wouldn't interfer with their beliefs. So be it (Ironic, amen is hebrew for 'so be it') is all I can say.

    Agreed, I fully accept that people want to believe in God and am perfectly happy to let them do so. I only get annoyed when Catholic ethos influences government policy and inflicts itself on the rest of us.


  • Options
    #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MatthewVII wrote: »
    Agreed, I fully accept that people want to believe in God and am perfectly happy to let them do so. I only get annoyed when Catholic ethos influences government policy and inflicts itself on the rest of us.

    I couldn't agree more. The government, and all of it's decisions, in every single Country, should be completely and absolutely secularist. It's completely unfair that in most Countries it isn't.

    What I find amusing is that Americas founding fathers were mostly atheist or agnostic, they founded the Country to be a secularist one; but yet we see 'In God we trust' on their coins and whatnot. Shows what respect they have for their constitution I suppose.


  • Options
    #16
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MackDeToaster wrote: »
    :rolleyes: I'm new here, but cmon, honestly, the evil atheist communists canard ??

    If it looks like a duck ....


  • Options
    #17
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PDN wrote: »
    If it looks like a duck ....

    it might be a strawduck (decoy)?


  • Options
    #18
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    MatthewVII wrote: »
    The argument isn't entirely that religiosity or atheism causes evil, it's that religiosity causes small-mindedness and a propensity to ignore common sense, a result of which is the evil that ensues from Muslim extremists, terrible domestic policy and suppression of basic human rights.
    What is common sense? If it is anything more than a set of culture-specific prejudices, what monopoly does religion have on ignoring it?

    Without Christianity, especially Protestantism, there would be no guaranteed human rights. In Christian belief, states only last a few hundred years. Christians however, live eternally, so their rights are indeed more important than those of a state.
    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    But genocidal communist atheists didn't do their deeds in the name of atheism, did they?
    That's a very simplistic understanding of history.

    Relatively few of the atrocities commited by Christian tyrants were done in the name of God. Rather, there is typically a pretence that what is being done is in accordance with his will, or Christian morals even, even if not ostensibly in the name of advancing the Gospels.

    Stalin was just the same. His atrocities were done in accordance with "progress", his methods uninhibited by notions of divinely-ordained moral law.


  • Options
    #19
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    I couldn't agree more. The government, and all of it's decisions, in every single Country, should be completely and absolutely secularist. It's completely unfair that in most Countries it isn't.

    What I find amusing is that Americas founding fathers were mostly atheist or agnostic, they founded the Country to be a secularist one; but yet we see 'In God we trust' on their coins and whatnot. Shows what respect they have for their constitution I suppose.

    I agree. However, I find the American tendency to deify their "founding fathers" (language remeniscent of the Old Testament view of Abraham) and their way of treating the words of their constitution as holy scripture to be disturbing.


  • Options
    #20
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    If it looks like a duck ....
    Then you should perhaps smell it. The duck could be from Bombay after all.


  • Options
    #21
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Still feeding the same old tiresome trolls are we?

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055253389


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,970 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    If you folks saw the program, then surely you saw the part where Dawkins complained about the title? Channel 4 imposed it on the show, and he had to fight to get the question mark on the end. He didn't make a programme called "The Root Of All Evil".

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #23
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Húrin wrote: »
    That's a very simplistic understanding of history.

    Yes, I was over simplifying history. I've no doubt that such dictators had complex motivations for carrying out what they did, and perhaps atheism was one of these motivaitons; personally I don't have the historical knowledge to come to any conclusions about it. But, I still believe many more atrocities have been carried out under the cape of religion. What happened in South America is a prime example; but, perhaps I'm just bitter about what happened there as I've an interest in it. So any conclusions I come to about that will no doubt be biased.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Relatively few of the atrocities commited by Christian tyrants were done in the name of God. Rather, there is typically a pretence that what is being done is in accordance with his will, or Christian morals even, even if not ostensibly in the name of advancing the Gospels.

    Perhaps you're right. But, I believe very few atrocities have been actually commited for the sake of God, I personally think that his name was used (and is still) as an excuse; that the tyrants and whatnot had other motivations. But, even the ability to use religion as an excuse is just as bad as doing it in the name of religion.


  • Options
    #24
    newbie2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,477 ✭✭✭newbie2


    I enjoyed the prog. I tried reading the book but was beaten back by the long sentences and lack of pictures.:eek: I do believe however that he seems to try too hard to convince people that religion is bad. I'm a firm believer in non believing - but i also think that people have a right to believe in whatever they like - no matter how stupid it is..... IMO


  • Options
    #25
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    newbie2 wrote: »
    I enjoyed the prog. I tried reading the book but was beaten back by the long sentences and lack of pictures.:eek: I do believe however that he seems to try too hard to convince people that religion is bad. I'm a firm believer in non believing - but i also think that people have a right to believe in whatever they like - no matter how stupid it is..... IMO
    I've never seen you here before, welcome :)


  • Options
    #26
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    newbie2 wrote: »
    I enjoyed the prog. I tried reading the book but was beaten back by the long sentences and lack of pictures.:eek: I do believe however that he seems to try too hard to convince people that religion is bad. I'm a firm believer in non believing - but i also think that people have a right to believe in whatever they like - no matter how stupid it is..... IMO

    I agree that people should believe whatever they like but its they actions they take because of their beliefs is the tough part. Every set of beliefs can be taken on its own merit. None of my RC relations could be called religious extremists but I feel very disappointed when they indoctrinate their children with this garbage. What many people call harmless I call abuse, thats my opinion.


  • Options
    #27
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    kelly1 wrote: »
    If everyone lived according to Christian principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

    Rofl.

    If everyone lived according to Muslim principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

    If everyone lived according to Jewish principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

    If everyone lived according to the principles of Scientology, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

    Why?

    Because each teaches to take care of those in your group, and destroy those who aren't so of course if everyone was in the same "group", things would be a lot better than what we currently have i.e loads of different groups killing eachother.

    Then you should define what is "better"?

    Undoubtedly if stem cell research got the go ahead, we'd see much more progress in modern medicine, yet due to the role of Christianity in the USA they're not allowed do so. The one thing they're saying *could* cure such horrific things as cancer, and they're not allowing it to be researched, developed and used because their "Lord" says it's killing babies?

    So would it be better off all Christian? No, I don't really think so.

    However, Christianity is much more progressive than Islam, for example. So yes, the world may be more peaceful, but depending on your definition it could be a whole lot worse if Christianity was fully spread.


  • Options
    #28
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    Without Christianity, especially Protestantism, there would be no guaranteed human rights.
    Especially for homosexuals - a guaranteed right to discrimination!


  • Options
    #29
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,972 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I only got to see the 2nd half of the program.

    As usual Mr. Dawkins generalizes too frequently and is uncritical in his thinking.
    It's called atheist propaganda. You take the very easiest argument from your opponent and argue it. Then you add some trendy music for all the pro-atheist bits and haunting stuff for anything to do with Religion.

    I wish they'd shown the atheist tapes, with Jonathan Millar. A far more intellectual piece which even includes Dawkins himself.


  • Options
    #30
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Perhaps you're right. But, I believe very few atrocities have been actually commited for the sake of God, I personally think that his name was used (and is still) as an excuse; that the tyrants and whatnot had other motivations. But, even the ability to use religion as an excuse is just as bad as doing it in the name of religion.

    That's the worst anti-religion spiel yet; because someone can use religion as an excuse for a war, that makes it bad? So if I use the green movement as an excuse to bomb a country, the green movement is bad? Or vegetarianism? Your argument makes no sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Dades wrote: »
    Especially for homosexuals - a guaranteed right to discrimination!

    Here's an interesting project. Get a black & white map of the world with national boundaries marked. Leave white all the countries that have the most liberal laws concerning homosexuality. Then colour in pink all the countries where homosexuality was legally proscribed up to the last 40 years or so. Then colour in dark red all the countries where homosexuality is still illegal or where homosexuals regularly suffer violence or severe discrimination.

    Now get another black and white map of the world with national boundaries marked. Leave white all the countries that have experienced a dominant cultural Protestant influence for more than 200 years (eg Reformation Europe, Scandanavia, colonies in North America, Australasia and South Africa). Then colour in pink all the countries whose dominant cultural influence was Catholic or Orthodox Christianity. Then colour in dark red all those countries where Christianity has little cultural effect on the majority population or is a recent transplant.

    There will be a few differences between the two maps (I'm thinking Jamaica, Japan, Cuba & Russia). But overall they will be very similar.


Advertisement