http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/6169

Good documentary. Thoughts?

8/4/2007 10:50:52 AM

Dawkins > Hitchins

8/4/2007 10:54:41 AM

The first half of "The Root of All Evil?"? Yeah, pretty good. I watched it last month. It was hi-larious seeing Ted Haggard acting all righteous since the program was taped before he was outed as a hypocritical drug-using faggot.

8/4/2007 11:25:40 AM

dawkins is my boy. i loved him even before the hard-core atheism stuff because of the blind watchmaker and the ancestor's tale and growing up in the universe

8/4/2007 11:54:49 AM

Good documenary. I believe there's also a book by the same name, which is an excellent read. Dawkins makes some compelling arguments for why religion even exists (ie what is its evolutionar purpose? Why would our brains be wired so as to facilitate the experience of religious moments?).

8/4/2007 5:12:37 PM

about a 1/5 of the way through

this is excellent

8/4/2007 5:30:21 PM

very nicely done

8/4/2007 6:12:46 PM

oh, also, dawkins is to blame for a large majority of douglas adams' thinking - the hitchhiker's guide would not have been the same without dawkins' influence.

8/4/2007 7:56:45 PM

richard dawkins is the antichrist

8/4/2007 8:42:05 PM

Dawkins should have done us all a favor and killed that terrorist jew-turned-muslim that he interviewed at the end of the video. That guy was nuts.

8/4/2007 9:24:18 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/newage105.xml

Known as "Darwin's rottweiler", Prof Richard Dawkins caused a furore with a stinging attack on religion. Now the evolutionary biologist has turned his wrath on "new age" alternative therapies, describing them as based on "irrational superstition".

Prof Dawkins says that alternative remedies constitute little more than a "money-spinning, multi-million pound industry that impoverishes our culture and throws up new age gurus who exhort us to run away from reality".

In the two-part television series he challenges practitioners. He asks an "angel therapist" how many angels he (Dawkins) has. The therapist asks him: "Have you asked any angels to come close to you?" Prof Dawkins says he hasn't. "Well you haven't got any then," says the therapist.

He also meets a therapist who says she can teach him how to use his "psychic energy", a kinesiologist who "clears energy blockages in the meridian system" and a "psychic sister" who talks about Mr Dawkins senior as though he were dead, until Prof Dawkins points out that his father is very much alive.

8/5/2007 10:54:39 AM

Did he say that 45% of Americans think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

After viewing the video about why evolution is stupid, I guess I can see why people may think that. But 45% seems a bit extreme.

8/5/2007 5:40:15 PM

^I've heard the about the same numbers from many different polls for over a decade.

It's a truly sad state of affairs, our country.

I think that 45% is the same 45% that "elected" Bush twice.



[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 8:46 AM. Reason : even 5% of professional scientists believe that crap ]

8/6/2007 8:44:58 AM

49% believe in "Evolution;"
48% do not;
2% have no opinion.

As expected, more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:"
74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do:
48% of college graduates
50% of adults with some college
41% of adults with high school or less.

More frequent attendance at religious services correlated with a lack of belief in "evolution:"
24% of those who attend weekly believe in evolution, as do:
52% of those who attend nearly weekly or monthly, and
71% of those who attend seldom or never.

As expected, political affiliation reflects a difference of opinion on origins:
Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not.
61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not.
57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 9:27 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 9:26:53 AM

Typical "You slap me, I slap you" video.

Blame faith for millions of deaths and that should get them to understand where they are going wrong. Blame faith for "brain washing" children and maybe parents will stop raising their children how they want. Blame faith for corruption and maybe it will stop. Right?

If you think so, then ask the same questions and insert "money" or "religion" or "politics". It will also hold true. Insert almost any controversial topic in place of "faith" and it will hold true.

Faith is a beautiful thing. Don't blame faith. Blame the root of it: the human heart. No, not the physical beating one inside your chest cavity. The one you use to produce emotions and feelings. The heart that produces love and care. The very same one that also produces anger and hate. Faith will exist whether we like it or not.

How can we keep people from producing the "evil" things that come out of the human heart? Therein lies the problem. How can you fix something that isn't necessarily broken?

If there is anyone to blame, maybe we should blame science for not figuring out a way to get rid of anger and hate out of our list of producible emotions. Maybe there are neurons we can disable. Hurry up and find a cure for the human heart!

8/6/2007 11:14:10 AM

wrong

we dont blame faith (at least educated people dont). we blame organized religion.

and organized religion is broken. which is one of the MANY reasons why so many countries established secular governments. To act as a balance against fundamentalism. Not just in religion, but in many cases exactly for this reason.

Religious groups become corrupt. Always. So do most other heirarchical organizations, but the lack of accountability for effectiveness and ethics is unique to religion.

8/6/2007 12:23:00 PM

Quote :

"How can we keep people from producing the "evil" things that come out of the human heart?"

Teach them to use their fucking brains more?

8/6/2007 12:25:12 PM

Oh shut the fuck up

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 12:27 PM. Reason : xfangmang]

8/6/2007 12:27:23 PM

Quote :

"Religious groups become corrupt. Always."

So far they have.....
But why are you ruling out the possibility that a religion could someday exist with accountability?

8/6/2007 12:29:17 PM

because accounting relies on falsifiable evidence. Numbers, facts, et al. Religion is a flux. Any leader can effectively change doctrine to meet their needs.

8/6/2007 12:35:51 PM

The organization of the religion isn't the same as the theistic faith basis for the religion. The faith may not be falsifiable, but the rules governing an organization certainly could be.

If "Any leader can effectively change doctrine to meet their needs", then we're not really talking about a system with accountability, are we? Simply make rules governing what leaders can do, how they are chosen, etc. There are even anarchic groups out there WITH NO LEADERSHIP AT ALL. They seem to work, albeit they are new, and have unforeseen kinks to work out every now and then....

Besides, religion isn't the same thing as church. Churches, with their own organizational systems, branch off from and form new religions all the time. The organization of the church is separate from the organization (if any,) of the religion.


[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 12:52:16 PM

Quote :

"If "Any leader can effectively change doctrine to meet their needs", then we're not really talking about a system with accountability, are we? Simply make rules governing what leaders can do, how they are chosen, etc."

Exactly the problem. Those rules are worthless in any religious order. Because all it takes is one person with enough trust from their followers to effectively say "God told me these rules are changed to X". There are plenty of historic precidents for this.

Anarchic groups are non-sustainable. They only last a very short time, before natural organization sets in. And to forcefully keep a group anarchic would be to imposed rules and therefore eliminate the anarchy as well.

The church is a judeo-christian manifestation of religious organization. There are plenty of others, but all are equally susceptable to corruption and power mongering. The problem is that religion inherently breeds the instinct of comfort in numbers. The more around you who believe what you do, the more you feel vindicated in your own beliefs. This natural human instinct is what makes organized religion so powerful and so terrible.

8/6/2007 1:11:26 PM

^I'm not convinced.
Don't get me wrong, though. I share you disdain for organized religion.

But I also feel that people will always form groups. (It is a civil liberty.)
Therefore, religion seems to be an inevitable part of the human experience.

I'm just hoping that it can be reformed, over time, to something far more benign than it's current manifestations.

Also, the instinct you speak of is in play in all forms of government, not just religion.
(Start chanting "USA, USA..." and watch all the redneck nationalists join in....)
It doesn't just make religion powerful and terrible, but governments as well.

Quote :

"Anarchic groups are non-sustainable. They only last a very short time, before natural organization sets in"

I'm really not trying to change the subject here, but that isn't true. You can't prove it. There is plenty of conjecture both ways. And, you don't have a crystal ball. In fact, anarchy is the only natural organization. Anarchy is order.

Quote :

"And to forcefully keep a group anarchic would be to imposed rules and therefore eliminate the anarchy as well."

Again, not true. Anarchy needs rules, and has them. They're just more natural rules, less arbitrary. Anarchy is the absence of leaders, of rulers, not the absence of rules.

(This is not the thread topic, and I don't really have time for it anyway. If you like, you may post a reply, but if I don't reply in turn, it's not because I am unable to debate it 'till the cows come home, just unwilling at this time....)

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 1:47:31 PM

Yea I dont want to steer off on a tangent.

I do completely agree it's human instinct to congregate into groups.

My argument is that there is a fundamental difference between congregating for religious faith, and for any other purpose. Any other purpose has a defineable goal. In government, those goals are set out in a constitution. In business, by the business plan or charter. Same for social groups.

Religion as an organization has no goal other than its proliferation, and as such, it can't be mitigated or controlled using the same concepts that work in other groups.

As for anarchy, the definition is lawlessness or the absence of order. Rules are order and are the most basic form of laws. There is a cycle of governing constructs that anarchy is a part of, which has been borne out of millenia of history. It may be sustainable in theory, but like most organizational structures, it doesn't work nearly the same way in reality.

8/6/2007 2:05:53 PM

Quote :

"Religion as an organization has no goal other than its proliferation"

Perhaps current religions, but how can you know what the future is?

Quote :

"As for anarchy, the definition is lawlessness or the absence of order."

(ok, one reply, no tangent though)

"Lawlessness" is just plain out the wrong definition. Likely a politicized definition.
The suffix -archy means "Rule; government", not rules or laws.
The prefix an- (variant of a-,) means "Without; not" (no disagreement there, duh)
Anarchy is literally "without rule", or "without government", not "without rules" or "without laws".

"The absence of order" is also just plain out the wrong definition. Definitely a politicized definition.
Anarchy is order.
Self-ordering (anarchic) systems have existed throughout time,
and will continue to exist because they are the most natural systems of order possible.
Rulers are usually imposed and arbitrary, therefore not natural....

With something as maligned as anarchy, it's no surprise that published definitions are false. (politicized)
Just look at a [mostly incorrect, certainly politicized] definition of "pagan" that I found:

Quote :

"1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion. 2. One who has no religion. 3. A non-Christian. 4. A hedonist. 5. A Neo-Pagan. "

Quite obviously, only the last six words of definition 1, and definition 5 are correct....

Unfortunately, when enough people misuse a word for long enough, incorrect definitions are recorded out of practicality. Popular culture hasn't exactly embraced paganism or anarchy, and the incorrect politicized definitions that one can find are evidence of that....

IOW,
Thank goodness for Wiktionary:

Quote :

"anarchy 1. The state of a society being without authoritarians or a governing body. 2. A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government. 3. Anarchism; the political theory that a community is best organized by voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by coercive government. 4. confusion in general; disorder Usage notes Anarchists feel it is inappropriate to use the word “anarchy” to mean "a state of chaos or confusion". However, many non-anarchists do use it that way. "

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 2:58:02 PM

You just proved my point; lets look at your two quotes, in order

Quote :

"Again, not true. Anarchy needs rules, and has them. They're just more natural rules, less arbitrary. Anarchy is the absence of leaders, of rulers, not the absence of rules."

Quote :

"Anarchy is literally "without rule", or "without government", not "without rules" or "without laws". "

Do you see the contradiction? Because I sure do.

Quote :

"Perhaps current religions, but how can you know what the future is?"

Because religion is, by its nature, unfalsifiable. It can never be proven or disproven. It has no end goal in and of itself, only that of it's believers. By the very nature of those two elements, you cannot enact any policy that is immune to the interpretation of the group and it's leader(s).

The entire course of human history has shown this to be true. We have not changed any of our primal instincts in the last 100,000 years or so, so why would I expect that to happen at anytime in the forseeable future?

8/6/2007 3:53:46 PM

The only way there can be accountability in religion is if God got involved

8/6/2007 4:13:19 PM

Anarchy is without rules. Anarchism is the idea that people can live in communities without central rule. We did it for 200,000 years before we developed civilization 8-10,000 years ago. I don't know that it's at all possible with 6 billion people, but we have 6 billion people because we gave up on anarchism.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 4:50:25 PM

^it still wasnt anarchism. Even monkey's dont live in anarchy, they live in a structured pack.

8/6/2007 5:10:21 PM

what I'm saying is you're misinterpreting anarchism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government[1] (cf. "state"), and support its elimination,[2][3][4] most often because of a wider rejection of any form of hierarchical authority.[5]

and that's what early humans had - monkeys don't have it and never did, but that's what early humans had.

8/6/2007 8:30:48 PM

early humans grouped in tribal pacts as nomadic hunter gatherers. they still had heirarchical organizations.

8/6/2007 8:50:18 PM

Quote :

"You might think of chimps as MS DOS, and you might think of humans as Windows 2000"

I don't think this guy could have come up with a nerdier analogy.

8/6/2007 9:36:32 PM

AWESOME!!

8/7/2007 1:18:35 PM

Wait, I didn't think anyone over the age of 20 was an Anarchist

8/7/2007 1:45:29 PM

I bet you also think that the "Anarchist Cookbook" has anything to do with anarchism...

[Edited on August 7, 2007 at 4:35 PM. Reason : big 'A' anarchist, huh?]

8/7/2007 4:34:19 PM

The original founders of modern anarchism were much older than 20. Read up.

8/7/2007 7:42:20 PM

Right... see any sane and rational person that has experienced life and responsibility would see that anarchism is a joke. Thus only someone under 20 with no experience on their own would believe any of it's tenets are possible, because they have observed human behavior.

8/8/2007 12:50:53 AM

"The Enemies of Reason"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763

8/15/2007 11:40:27 AM

Debate at the Oxford Festifal

http://podcast.timesonline.co.uk/serve.php/872/oxfordfestivalricharddawkinspart1.mp3
http://podcast.timesonline.co.uk/serve.php/872/oxfordfestivalricharddawkinspart2.mp3

8/15/2007 12:51:01 PM

Quote :

"The God Delusion "

So you don't exist?

8/15/2007 12:51:21 PM

i think Richard Dawkins is now my new personal hero

8/15/2007 1:02:41 PM

i think Richard Dawkins is now my new top douche

8/15/2007 1:34:00 PM

How is he a douche?

OMG he has an opinion different than your own, so he is a douche. Nice logic. He doesn't call people morons, idiots, etc. He is always polite, even with some of the crazy ass people that he talks to.

8/15/2007 2:11:23 PM

I know, he's a good guy. I'm just picking on him. I'll agree that, for the most part, he's respectful, aside from a few sarcastic remarks. Doesn't he have better things to do... like research some cure for cancer???

On that note, that's one thing I'd like to know more about him. He doesn't like how faith/religion/spirituality is affecting this world so negatively, but what's he doing to practically make the world "a better place to live"? Does he have a bio somewhere... I'd like to read up on his philanthropy efforts. Or is he just another zealot?

8/15/2007 2:27:41 PM

all i'm hearing from you is white noise, honestly

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2007 2:33:00 PM

He's an evolutionary biologist. He's probably discovered and explained for the masses more about evolution and zoology than anyone else in modern times. The attacks on religion (at least, the direct attacks) are primarily a recent thing with him after being attacked for years for supporting evolution. He just got fucking sick of it, and I for one am SO SO glad that he's the person spearheading this campaign against silliness. He has credentials, he's eloquent, he's really careful, almost nobody can argue against him because he gets the facts as right as possible, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml

http://www.richarddawkins.com

8/15/2007 2:53:22 PM

God is real, the fact that it is difficult to beleive in him is faith and only the people that go to heaven have faith so its a test

8/15/2007 4:16:43 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't like how faith/religion/spirituality is affecting this world so negatively, but what's he doing to practically make the world "a better place to live"?"

He's trying to rid the world of the fucking psycho fundamentalists and extremists who cause so much suffering in the world in the name of GOD. Which is a hell of a lot more than most religious people are doing.

8/15/2007 4:18:46 PM

If that second debate link doesn't work, try this one:

http://podcast.timesonline.co.uk/serve.php/873/oxfordfestivalricharddawkinspart2.mp3

That's an awesome debate by the way.

8/15/2007 4:43:54 PM

Quote :

"He's trying to rid the world of the fucking psycho fundamentalists and extremists who cause so much suffering in the world in the name of GOD. Which is a hell of a lot more than most religious people are doing."

That's quite an ironic claim. Get rid of the "bad people" and "save the world"? Isn't that the same fundamental and extreme kind of idea that a lot of these religious folks have? Hmmmmmmmmmm... Might want to think that one over. You is silly Neon

8/16/2007 9:25:24 AM