The Root of all Evil, Channel 4, Monday @ 20.00

carl_

Similar to pH, I'm normally a fan of Dawkins work but was quite dissapointed with this program. For me, it lacked a lot of structure, just kind of hopped about the place. He didn't really present any evidence to back up his main points and the content of the program could probably have been fitted into 10 minutes. Not only that, but for someone who has been critical of 'dumbed down science' programs and books (something I would agree with), he has done a fair bit of dumbing down of his own.

pork99

Obni wrote:

When the BBFW was eye-balling Dawkins and admonishing him for his 'intellectual arrogance', I would rather have enjoyed seeing Dawkins point out that it's hard to respect the apparent outrage of a ludicrous goon pedalling bronze age mumbo-jumbo to any gullible victim unfortunate enough to come within ear-shot. Or, to have stopped his interview with the jew-turned-islamic-militant midway, and just said "Get a f***ing life!" and walked out.

It was good that both flavours of fundamentalist were allowed to display their barbaric ignorance. Though, as has been pointed out by OMcGovern, he is in greater personal danger when criticising the Muslim fandamentalist, remember what happened to Theo Van Gogh?

Van Gogh was murdered in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat streets. He was shot with eight bullets from a HS2000 (a handgun produced in 2000 in Croatia) and died on the spot. His throat was slit, and he was then stabbed in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one pinning a five-page note to his body. The note threatened Western governments, Jews and Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contains references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

It's interesting that the Jew->Muslim covert nutball automatically said "I hate atheists" when Dawkins declared that he is an atheist before accusing him of permitting public fornication and similiar bizarre charges. If Richard Dawkins or anyone else went on Channel 4 and said "I hate Muslims" they would be in immediate trouble with the law in the UK.

ronbyrne2005

Dawkins is on newstalk106 tomorrow with george hook from 4.30pm.

Obni

The Atheist wrote:

Hmmm. Not sure that makes for objective documentary making.

Objective documentaries are useless weapons against someone incapable of treating the subject objectively.

The Atheist wrote:

What's a BBFW?

A Bible-Bashing F**k-Wit.
Part of my new 'intolerant skeptic' line for 2006.

MrJoeSoap

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Dawkins is on newstalk106 tomorrow with george hook from 4.30pm.

Thanks for that, not a huge fan of Hook but should be very interesting (especially if there are callers!). Anyone know of Hooks views on religion?

ronbyrne2005

hooks a man of "faith" but i think he agrees with dawkins on creationism in schools etc.

lostexpectation

it was crap program really, I'd prefer to see an hour of him putting his own points across without arguementative interviews...


It was interesting that yerman went straight to fornication when taking about atheist, saying athiest have no moral code. Just like Bertie and his "empty secularism" waffle.

Does one need a moral code?
Are religions Just of groups of people pretending to follow a written(down) moral code?

(Im fed up with the Is there a God argument [It is a only metaphor. Godamnit])


Do Atheist as a grouping have a moral code?
Where do you get a moral code?

I think everyone has an innate knowledge of morals, (right and wrong), _justice_. A gut feeling and that's there's no need to write it down, or profess to sign up a morals club.

legspin

Havn't seen the show as I don't have cable or freeview unfortunatly, but there was a good interview in today's Sunday Tribune with Dawkins.

There is always the probability of some mad mullah or BBFW (great acronym:D ) taking offence to what he has to say. but if it isn't him it will be something else as I do believe that that title of the show has the crux of the situation right there, and they will only ever find definition in hatred

Let them, The Bastards :mad: :mad: :mad:

MrJoeSoap

<

---

REMINDER

---

>

On Channel 4 at 8pm again tonight.

I'll be recording it again.

ronbyrne2005

dawkins was on last word with matt cooper on today fm today, show can be downloaded at todayfm.com

Crucifix

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

dawkins was on last word with matt cooper on today fm today, show can be downloaded at todayfm.com

Any idea around what time? The shows download into two hour long segments.

Morbert

Damn my lack of Channel 4.

I really wanted to see that.

Dades

MrJoeSoap wrote:

On Channel 4 at 8pm again tonight.

I'll be recording it again.

Let me know how you got on with that. Was in work till late last night and missed it. :mad:

Cheers.

archdukefranz

I was quite unimpressed... He started off by making some claims about Christianity that simply served to highlight his lack of understanding of the religion. I wasn't even watching the show at the first it was on in the other room until I heard him saying that Jesus was a man who rejected the traditions that he had been taught as a kid and was turned into God's sacrifice by Paul which is utter bull**** and especially hypocritcal of someone whos sole argument against a belief in a Spiritual being seems to be a lack of physical evidence.

If he had bothered to interview Christians other than some nutjobs who claimed that it was ok to take vengence on abortion workers, (something that you could hardly believe is right if you were a follower of Christ) he might have come across someone who could answer these accusations against faith in Jesus and faith in general.

I am often challenged by what atheists argue, however this wasn't challenging it was simply offensive, I think the only effect it will have will be to increase channel 4's ratings

Zombrex

archdukefranz wrote:

Jesus was a man who rejected the traditions that he had been taught as a kid

He did reject the traditions he was taught as a kid (or at least we are told he did). That was the entire point that the New Testament Christians mean when they use Jesus's rejection of the Jewish Old Testament as a reason why you can't say that Christians follow the rather barbaric traditions in the OT.

archdukefranz wrote:

turned into God's sacrifice by Paul which is utter bull****

That is a quite commonly held historical view, since Jesus did not right anything himself (especially after he died), the foundations of the Christian church were largely left up to Paul.

The concept that Christ was killed and resurrected for the sins of humanity comes from Paul, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Closing Doors

Sapien wrote:

Do you not think it's about time Humanists became a little more aggressive? Humanism has been around, continually, since Petrarch, and it has barely made a dent on the religious mindset. Either we decide it's the way of the future and fight for it, or offer it as an alternative for the intellectual elite, and tip-toe around the thronging masses and their dripping idols.

Ah so you'd rather shove Humanism down kids/people's throats than let the Church, as many around here claim, do the exact same with Christianity? How is that any better?

It's fairly arrogant to assume it's something for the "intellectual elite" aswell.


Anyway if anyone does get that show up on a stream I'd be very interested, I missed both nights.

robindch

...just about the Dawkins briefly -- I certainly agree with Sapien that humanists, agnostics, atheists and the rest of our helplessly sceptical friends really do need to get their act together and try to get their viewpoint out in the public more often. Good on Dawkins, and Miller late last year, for having the brass 'nads to stand up on telly and say what urgently needs to be said against two thousand years of grime-encrusted tradition.

> It's fairly arrogant to assume it's something for the "intellectual elite" as well.

Intellectual elitism would be inexcusable if christians weren't so blazingly unfamiliar with their belief's history, its intellectual origins and its elegant, tail-swallowing, circularity.

> if anyone does get that show up on a stream I'd be very interested

I have a copy of the first one (though with crappy sound) culled from alt.binaries.documentaries last friday evening and I'm sure the other will turn up there in a few days time. When I have the two of them, I'll put them up somewhere for a couple of days for download.

Sapien

Closing Doors wrote:

Ah so you'd rather shove Humanism down kids/people's throats than let the Church, as many around here claim, do the exact same with Christianity? How is that any better?

It is better because it is better. As humanists, I think we can pretty much take for granted that that is what we believe. The agression is necessary because it must be proportional to the opposition.

The alternative, of course, is to try and remove the influence of religion from the lives of the young, but that is more easily said than done. The only viable option is to shout alongside the theists, matching as best we can their volume and energy. It's a nice idea that the inherent correctness of humanistic thought will win out in the end, but religion has proved all too well its ability to subvert the functioning of logic. To humiliate prominent theists frequently and mercilessly in public is the obvious way ahead.

Closing Doors wrote:

It's fairly arrogant to assume it's something for the "intellectual elite" aswell.

That is the accusation invariably levelled by detractors of atheism and humanism. And, frankly, it's generally true. While anyone at any time can see the light of the Enlightenment, it most commonly happens as a result of education.

legspin

Closing Doors wrote:

Ah so you'd rather shove Humanism down kids/people's throats than let the Church, as many around here claim, do the exact same with Christianity? How is that any better?

Most people who have found Humanism have done it themselves, in spite of all the shouting by religion. We haven't had it shoved down our throats and imo we would find it reprehensible to ram it down anybodys' throats. Do not equate us with dogma.

Closing Doors

Sapien wrote:

It is better because it is better. As humanists, I think we can pretty much take for granted that that is what we believe. The agression is necessary because it must be proportional to the opposition.

The alternative, of course, is to try and remove the influence of religion from the lives of the young, but that is more easily said than done. The only viable option is to shout alongside the theists, matching as best we can their volume and energy. It's a nice idea that the inherent correctness of humanistic thought will win out in the end, but religion has proved all too well its ability to subvert the functioning of logic. To humiliate prominent theists frequently and mercilessly in public is the obvious way ahead.

It's "better cause it's better"? You can do better than that

At the end of the day, "their" opinions are as valid as yours. Trying to humiliate people won't gain a lot of support (unless they're complete nutjobs :v: ), it'll just reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with you. People moan about the Catholic stranglehold on our schools, yet mostly because they want to replace it with their own ideas (hesistant to use the word religion here).

Sapien wrote:

That is the accusation invariably levelled by detractors of atheism and humanism. And, frankly, it's generally true. While anyone at any time can see the light of the Enlightenment, it most commonly happens as a result of education.

It's not true at all! I've a great interest in/love of science (physics in particular) & as I've become "more educated" it hasn't made me an atheist. I have several friends in the same boat.

Atheists (not all but some) have a tendency to look down on religious people as "the great unwashed", clinging to their gods/goddesses in a vain attempt to explain things they don't understand. The irony is that a lot of "atheists" are merely people who couldn't be arsed getting up on a Sunday morning, just as smelly and uneducated as the church-goers :rolleyes:

Sapien

Closing Doors wrote:

At the end of the day, "their" opinions are as valid as yours.

Amazingly, I dispute that.

Closing Doors wrote:

People moan about the Catholic stranglehold on our schools, yet mostly because they want to replace it with their own ideas (hesistant to use the word religion here).

It might help to read what I wrote.

Closing Doors wrote:

It's not true at all! I've a great interest in/love of science (physics in particular) & as I've become "more educated" it hasn't made me an atheist. I have several friends in the same boat.

Physics, science in general, is incommensurable with ideas relevant to religion. Unless one has a previous predilection for creationism, training in science will have limited impact on ones religiosity.

Closing Doors wrote:

Atheists (not all but some) have a tendency to look down on religious people as "the great unwashed", clinging to their gods/goddesses in a vain attempt to explain things they don't understand. The irony is that a lot of "atheists" are merely people who couldn't be arsed getting up on a Sunday morning, just as smelly and uneducated as the church-goers :rolleyes:

Sigh. We don't believe in God because we'd prefer a grasse matinée to divine enlightenment. That's the other old chestnut.

robindch

> as I've become "more educated" it hasn't made me an atheist.

Enough education may produce a habit of thought and perhaps a drop or two of wisdom. Keep trying, though, you might get there -- the view is worth it.

> Atheists (not all but some) have a tendency to look down on religious
> people as "the great unwashed", clinging to their gods/goddesses in a
> vain attempt to explain things they don't understand.

And what's wrong with some of us shaking our heads slowly when we hear stories of the dim spirits and shades, the blackened demons and cackling witches, the cheap household gods and fleeting saviours which -- many others tell us -- populate the dark areas in their worlds?

Why are they scared to light these places? Because they fear they'll find their darknesses might be empty too?

Dades

Closing Doors wrote:

The irony is that a lot of "atheists" are merely people who couldn't be arsed getting up on a Sunday morning, just as smelly and uneducated as the church-goers :rolleyes:

Those people are no more atheists than people who are dragged to mass for a snooze are catholics.

Closing Doors wrote:

Trying to humiliate people won't gain a lot of support

I think I agree. I'm not sure vocal humiliation and breaking down of religious dogma by humanists will achieve anything. Ultimately people will believe what they want to believe. If people don't lose their faith as they gain their independence and experience life they don't want to.

By all means promote multi-denominational religion class and real science, but we should be against proselytizing rather than practising it IMO.

Zombrex

Closing Doors wrote:

The irony is that a lot of "atheists" are merely people who couldn't be arsed getting up on a Sunday morning

An "Atheist" is someone who doesn't believe a god(s). Why would (should?) an atheist go to Church on Sunday??

There are a lot of Catholics and Church of Ireland people who couldn't be arsed going to mass on Sundays, but you would not call them Atheists. Unless they don't actually believe in God, and then they wouldn't be Catholics or Protestants.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> as I've become "more educated" it hasn't made me an atheist.

Enough education may produce a habit of thought and perhaps a drop or two of wisdom. Keep trying, though, you might get there -- the view is worth it.

I hope thats supposed to be funny. You know very well that serious christians who examine their faith rigoursly are far from uneducated or unwise. Christianity is as I have come to discover of late is very intellectually robust. I'm not a believer myself but don't try and imply something that just isnt true becuase it takes the argument to a level of rhetoric.

robindch wrote:

> Atheists (not all but some) have a tendency to look down on religious
> people as "the great unwashed", clinging to their gods/goddesses in a
> vain attempt to explain things they don't understand.

And what's wrong with some of us shaking our heads slowly when we hear stories of the dim spirits and shades, the blackened demons and cackling witches, the cheap household gods and fleeting saviours which -- many others tell us -- populate the dark areas in their worlds?

Why are they scared to light these places? Because they fear they'll find their darknesses might be empty too?

There are many christians who are unfortunately uneducated in their own faith. This does not mean that though that the belief system is wrong just merely misunderstood by many. I might be playing devils advocate here but many of dawkins arguments with regard to religion are straw men.

Beruthiel

Closing Doors wrote:

The irony is that a lot of "atheists" are merely people who couldn't be arsed getting up on a Sunday morning, just as smelly and uneducated as the church-goers :rolleyes:

why would any atheist get up to go to a church in the first place?
your comment makes no sense.

People moan about the Catholic stranglehold on our schools, yet mostly because they want to replace it with their own ideas

replace it with their own ideas? what ideas are you talking about?
I would prefer it was replaced with nothing

Rev Hellfire

Beruthiel wrote:

I would prefer it was replaced with nothing

This is a view shared by many posters on this particular forum, but the simple fact this that at present the majority of people seem to be happy with the status quo as regards religion in schools. It seems totally unreasonable to me that what is at present a minority (which may change) feel they have the right to dictate to the majority. But there should be the facility for those who wish to abstain from it to do so, much as certain religious people would have their children removed from sex education class etc.


On the topic of the actual documentary, I found it interesting but not something which would swage anyone on either view, I also disliked the way the program was edited where a question would be asked and as it was answered we would have an overdubbing telling us how unenlightened and backward looking the reply been given was. I prefer to hear an answer and be offered the chance to make my own mind up, it’s the same as shouting down someone in a discussion.

archdukefranz

Wicknight wrote:

He did reject the traditions he was taught as a kid (or at least we are told he did). That was the entire point that the New Testament Christians mean when they use Jesus's rejection of the Jewish Old Testament as a reason why you can't say that Christians follow the rather barbaric traditions in the OT.

Why then did he say that not a word would be striken from the OT?

Wicknight wrote:

That is a quite commonly held historical view, since Jesus did not right anything himself (especially after he died), the foundations of the Christian church were largely left up to Paul.

He wrote a lot, but he wasn't the only one, there was the accounts written by other apostles etc.

Wicknight wrote:

The concept that Christ was killed and resurrected for the sins of humanity comes from Paul, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Read the gospel accounts, they are quite good

CerebralCortex

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

pretty good, nothing i didnt already know ,dont think it will dissuade any religous folk though,the will beleive despite anything.

Yours is not to convince ppl not to believe. Everyone believes something. You perhaps believe in nothing that is a belief system as much as I believe anything is possible.

Closing Doors

Ok, I'll try to fit everybody but don't have a lot of time

Sapien wrote:

It might help to read what I wrote.

I did. You said shoving Humanism down people's throats is better than shoving Christianity down peoples throats because it's better. You want to humiliate theists to acheive. You have yet to say *why* it's better.

robindch wrote:

> as I've become "more educated" it hasn't made me an atheist.

Enough education may produce a habit of thought and perhaps a drop or two of wisdom. Keep trying, though, you might get there -- the view is worth it.

Wow that wasn't condescending at all! Should you ever manage to pull your head out of your ass, we might continue this discussion...but I'm not going to hold my breath.

The Atheist wrote:

Those people are no more atheists than people who are dragged to mass for a snooze are catholics.

Wicknight wrote:

An "Atheist" is someone who doesn't believe a god(s). Why would (should?) an atheist go to Church on Sunday??

Beruthiel wrote:

why would any atheist get up to go to a church in the first place?
your comment makes no sense.

Ok I'm guessing I didn't phrase this well :rolleyes:

What I meant is that there are a lot of people who kind of "fall" into atheism because they aren't arsed being committed to a religion (whatever that may entail). Religion doesn't enter into the equation for them at all, by sheer virtue of the fact they've just been ignoring it out of habit. After a certain amount of time of being "detached" from religion, they sort of become atheists by default. I'm not sure I've explained myself any better, but I've seen this happen so it does exist

Beruthiel wrote:

replace it with their own ideas? what ideas are you talking about?
I would prefer it was replaced with nothing

Atheism would be a belief in "nothing", no? Is that not what you wish to replace it with?