Topic: The Root of All Evil? (Read 8459 times)

Agent_Tachyon · « **on:** May 21, 2007, 01:35:02 PM »

Just finished watching this, and it kicked ass. It's not flawless by any means, but extremely good nonetheless. A must see for any Dawkins fan, here's a clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjqUmuMhTsM

This struck me as particularily horrific since I'd only watched 'Blind Watchmaker' a month earlier and one of the coolest bits is about the evolution of the eye. Haggard is as hypocritical as ever (I think this was before his little "prostitute massage/meth deal) and Professor Dawkins is clearly a calmer man than I to resist losing it.

Nosferatu · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2007, 03:41:17 PM »

My god, could he find a more arrogent way to say "but please, in the process of it, don't be arrogent!"

His creepy calmness makes my skin crawl. I started having flashbacks to Tom Cruise's psychology rant...

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2007, 08:39:49 PM »

Ted Haggard really is a modern-day supervillain.

Nosferatu · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:41:44 AM »

After watching it, I did follow a related link trail of more Dawkins videos and I must say, this guy really speaks my language.

Not that I want to get into a forum holy war here, I'm sure most can agree that religion does have it's good points, in promoting morals for example. That's when it's not blown out of all proportion and used as a weak excuse for pointless violence. (Whether it's suicide bombings "in the name of Allah" or invading Iraq because "God told me to")

Another disuse of religion that's pissing me off at the moment is the whole "God hates fags" movement that's going on in the US now. That is the biggest load of biggoted bullshit I've ever heard. I'm nowhere near an expert, I haven't been a practicing catholic for over 9 years, but as far as I'm aware, homosexuality is referenced only once in the bible - "no man shall lie with another man" or words to that effect. Wheras the entire book is drowned in claims that God loves absolutelyeveryone, from Jesus, to the Romans that killed him. How - taking these two points into account - do you acertain that God hates homosexuals?

Hell, if a gay guy ends up at the pearly gates and hears "We can't let you in, you're gay." he could always use the "You made me this way!" excuse =P

Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent, this is just something that's been on my mind recently that I thought I'd vent.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:51:06 AM »

The Bible is so loaded with contradictions that I decided to hell (literally?) with the whole damn mess years ago because I got tired of interpreting it all the time. Now I make my OWN contradictions, and they're generally a lot funnier and fewer people die over them.

Nosferatu · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:54:54 AM »

And isn't lolz and a low bodycount the best measure of a lifestyle choice? =P

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:55:40 AM »

I've always thought so!

Paladin · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2007, 01:27:14 AM »

What i find amazing is that there are universities in the US that teach "creationism science" and "inteligent design", and they can give out degrees in biology or geology.
And really unbelievable is the fact that they get money from the state to do that.

RelandR · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2007, 03:00:09 AM »

A prime example of the 'have your cake and eat it too' syndrome.

In the face of mounting irrefutable evidence contrary to classic beliefs there comes a time when the only choice they feel they have is to apply creative translation that allows the re-transfer of credit back under gods domain.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2007, 12:27:43 PM »

Quote from: Paladin on May 22, 2007, 01:27:14 AM

What i find amazing is that there are universities in the US that teach "creationism science" and "inteligent design", and they can give out degrees in biology or geology.
And really unbelievable is the fact that they get money from the state to do that.

I don't think the major life science companies hire too many scientists from Heritage University.

Paladin · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2007, 03:08:51 PM »

Exactly my point, tax money wasted. And not just wasted, but spent against public interest, as the "doctors" of these universities will probably slow down the scientific progress.

ivan · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2007, 03:28:26 PM »

The public's tax dollars should be used to promote what the public wants.

Teaching creationism is the will of the people.

If you don't like it, move to China.

xolik · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2007, 03:46:44 PM »

Quote from: ivan on May 22, 2007, 03:28:26 PM

The public's tax dollars should be used to promote what the public wants.

Teaching creationism is the will of the people.

If you don't like it, move to China.

For the time being, at least. Sometimes the majority will is dumb.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2007, 03:48:29 PM »

Quote from: xolik on May 22, 2007, 03:46:44 PM

For the time being, at least. Sometimes the majority will is dumb.

"Sometimes"?!

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2007, 04:36:11 PM »

I'm resisting the urge to give that classic Hitler quote 'What good fortune for Governments that the people don't think'.

Fuck.

ivan · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2007, 04:48:04 PM »

I don't see how that applies in this case. The current administration is the most church-friendly in decades, true, but it was voted in with nearly half the vote. So half of us wanted this kind of faith-friendly environment. It's not brainless people being led by nefarious dictators, but people of faith who want their point of view reflected in their government.

Face up to it. You live in a religious country. Why should a minority of non-believers get their way here?

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:08:14 PM »

I equate faith with believing in something for which there is no evidence. To me, this signifies the non-use of one's brain, and not thinking. Religion=not thinking. Religion is allowing someone else to do your thinking for you, whether that happens to be a televangelist, a smiling pipe-smoker, or a mouldy old book.

I think that the non-thinking (I'm being nice here, they're not brainless, just conditioned to resist the urge to think independantly) masses ARE being led by nefarious dictators of the worst kind imaginable; those who claim to hold the keys to heaven.

ivan · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:28:26 PM »

So, again, you are a contrarian in a nation of believers. Think whatever you want of them -- that is your right. But in the end they will run this country the way they see fit. There's more like them than there are like you. They are in charge.

xolik · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:41:59 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on May 22, 2007, 05:08:14 PM

I equate faith with believing in something for which there is no evidence. To me, this signifies the non-use of one's brain, and not thinking. Religion=not thinking.

I have no idea where the stereotype of the condescending, arrogant atheist comes from.

"Clearly, this is no God and if you think otherwise, you simply are incapable of rational thought."

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2007, 05:52:18 PM »

Quote from: ivan on May 22, 2007, 05:28:26 PM

So, again, you are a contrarian in a nation of believers. Think whatever you want of them -- that is your right. But in the end they will run this country the way they see fit. There's more like them than there are like you. They are in charge.

I have no problem with them bossing one another about inside the borders they've drawn in the mud, I only pause to remark that it will eventually destroy them (whatever, the majority wanted it!). This only serves to demonstrate the shortcomings of democracy, but that's very far off topic.

Xol, I don't know how to say that less arrogantly. A religion is a substitute for critical thinking, and I say this as a logical truth. Why should a person think for themselves if they've already got the answers (re-inventing the wheel?).

There are advantages to this, for example people who aren't very good at thinking originally don't have to strain themselves, because they've got a book with answers already. It's good for the power-hungry, because they can simply convince the righteous that they've got God's back. It's good for the government, because there's no need to fund scientific research if nobody cares anymore.

My definition of "faith" seems to matches that of the dictionary, arrogant or not.

ivan · « **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2007, 06:12:06 PM »

Well, many generations of brilliant thinkers serve to demonstrate that faith and the ability to think critically are not incompatible.

You can use logic to refute or discredit many tenets of organized religion, but the underlying questions (whether or not there is a controlling sentience, or whether or not our consciousness survives our bodies) cannot be logically proven or refuted. You can be certain one way or the other, and base your arguments on personal experiece, instinct, or an educated guess, but one argument is no more logical than another.

Compare religion to the question of whether we are alone in the universe. You can conjecture all you like, but until someone visits us, there is no proof. It is both logical and illogical to assume there are sentient extraterrestrial life forms.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #21 on:** May 22, 2007, 06:25:25 PM »

Dude, Lacerda has already visited us...

Ooopsss.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #22 on:** May 22, 2007, 06:27:22 PM »

Quote from: xolik on May 22, 2007, 05:41:59 PM

I have no idea where the stereotype of the condescending, arrogant atheist comes from.

"Clearly, this is no God and if you think otherwise, you simply are incapable of rational thought."

Well if one takes rational to mean logical, then yeah I'd say that in a lot of cases an unfounded belief in something for which there is no demonstratable reason to believe is illogical. It is a logical fallacy to believe something simply because there is no evidence to disprove it.

It is a bit douchy of Dawkins to say that Haggard (who is completely heterosexual)'s little rally reminds him of Nazi Germany, that didn't strike me as necessary. Still, Haggard is delightfully ironic when he snidely says that Dawkins shouldn't be so arrogant.

Every religion I've looked at is loaded up with things that wouldn't seem out of place in a kid's bed time story, yet are somehow granted legitimacy by virtue of the fact that they're really old and comfort people (who need authority figures on some psychological level?).

I'd say that there is nothing preventing a person who believes that they are in direct communication with an invisible, all-knowing being (who for some reason requires their servitude) from also thinking rationally about topics that their particular god hasn't said anything about, but the underlying purpose of religion is to pass on one person's (or god's, whatever) thinking to you so that you can be enlightened by it.

Hell, there are many extremely smart people who happen to believe in invisible people, but on that particular issue, and on all those touched by said invisible person, they are not making a lot of sense.

UPDATE: Here's an interesting, and relevant thought:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhwRHtDA0oY

It rambles a bit, but it generally made me think.

BDC256 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 24, 2007, 12:30:51 AM »

Right on ivan. (Sorry quote buttons don't work on my browser ).

I don't see a conflict in creationism and biology and geology. I also don't think th bible tells you to run your life all that much differently than the moral standards most people would live by anyway. That being said I really don't think most the people who go to church and say they believe in god really follow what the bible says anyway.

Nosferatu · « **Reply #24 on:** May 24, 2007, 01:07:10 AM »

Quote from: ivan on May 22, 2007, 06:12:06 PM

You can conjecture all you like, but until someone visits us, there is no proof.

I wonder what side of that thinking you're on. =P

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The Root of All Evil? (Read 8459 times)