The Root of all Evil? The God Delusion.
Well it appears that religion is a very contentious area.
Just to add some more information to this discussion I thought I would inform whoever maybe interested of a two part series that will be screening on the ABC Australian TV or maybe downloaded via the web. I haven't had a chance to watch much of it yet, but from what I have seen and read so far I think it will certainly add some fuel to the fire in the debate on religion.
The documentary is: The Root of All Evil. Part 1 - The God Delusion. Part 2 - The Virus of Faith.
The only problem I have from what I have seen so far is the presentator's very condescending manner to those who do believe in religion. If he wasn't so condescending I think I would feel a little bit more comfortable watching his presentation. I believe it is fine to constructively criticise religion, but it isn't fine to belittle people for their beliefs and that works both ways whether you are a believer or not. All people should be respected.
Screening on Australian ABC TV Sunday 20th and 27th May, 9.30pm on Compass.
or maybe downloaded at: http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00004
For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F
Comments
There seems to be quite a rash of anti-religion stuff coming onto the market. Must be the new way of making a buck.
I might have a look at it later, but I'm past having to reinforce my beliefs, or lack of. I think I'd sooner look at the moon. Maybe try howling at it. I don't think anything would surprise my neighbours any more...
What I believe is this and it is simple really. We should try and treat others with kindness, try to understand people, accept people for who they are, try to help people if they want our help and share our good fortune with others is they are genuinely in need. If we all did that it would be a far better world. If people can achieve that through religion then I am happy for them, if they can do it wothout religion then I am happy for them.
Hubby's Mum always says that alcohol is the biggest curse in this world and my answer is always the same, "No I think organised religion is." Too many people have been killed in the name of religion. But maybe it isn't the religion that is at fault, maybe it is the people just using the religion as an excuse to create acts of harm on other people.
So Snowy you go and look at the moon and enjoy it as it is beautiful and if you feel like howling then go for it..................................enjoy :-)
George Pell has a regular newspaper column where he touts the virtues of Christianity - in a world with only newspapers, he has the monopoly voice. In a world where every person has the ability to say what they believe publicly and unfiltered, the monopoly vanishes.
Now that there are millions of declared atheists, publishers realise that there is money in producing a book by Dawkins or Hitchens - it's the same old way of making a buck (there are religious bookstore a minute's walk from Town Hall), just a new market.
Even though it is a religious program, they seem to pick up a wide range of programs and don't just lock in to one faith.
Thanks for the Heads Up.
Yes Compass is a good program, it does to its credit give a wide range of views which is always refreshing :-)
I can see where people could feel uncomfortable with his method of delivery, though. On his website www.richarddawkins.net he recently reviewed a book tearing apart post-modernism. As someone with more interest in post-modernist theory than religion I found myself quite angry not just at what he was saying but the way he was saying it. I'd imagine that many non-atheists would see his anti-religious articles and presentations in the same way.
Regarding the title of the series ('The Root of All Evil') in 'The God Delusion' on page one he says that he was unhappy with the title that the BBC gave this series. He does not feel that religion is the root of all evil because no one thing can be said to be the root of all anything. So you'll have to blame the BBC marketing department for that one! ;-)
I think when we present things we should be respectful of all people's views. It doesn't mean we can't constructively criticise them, but if we do it in a non-respectful/condescending manner then I think it detracts from the argument. Just because some religious people maybe condescending doesn't mean that those criticising religion should be condescending - you know what I mean, "two wrongs don't make a right."
I think it is obvious that I have a slight problem with the hard line Zionist movement, but I haven't said that they are stupid for believing what they think. But I am trying to (hopefully) get people to understand that maybe they and the US are being hypocritical with some of their actions. I certainly don't want to instigate violence towards the Jewish community or even the Zionist movement, but I would like to see them understand what they (Zionists and the US Government) are doing to other people and why those other people may be upset with their actions. But I believe that it is better to try and do this in a non-condescending manner. I may not always succeed at being non-condescending due to emotions getting in the way, but I do at least try. From what I have seen so far of Dawkins presentation he doesn't even try and I feel really sorry for some of the people who granted him an interview with them.
Even if I believe what some-one says I am still put off by them using put downs to try and strengthen their arguments. If an argument is strong enough they shouldn't have to resort to belittling people.
I am glad to hear that he is much more polite when he is in an interview situation and that he doesn't like conflict. Sometimes I guess the publishers of documentaries and books expect a bit more controversy and he is expected to deliver it. It will be a shame for me if I get detracted from his possibly valid arguments by his off putting manner in this documentary series.
Thanks for dropping by, very much appreciated :-)
Yes. I completely agree that putting someone down to try and build your own argument up is a poor form of argument. I too believe that even if you don't respect someone's views you should treat the person with respect. I think Richard Dawkins is quite possibly just a naturally arrogant person (sadly I am very well acquainted with this particular affliction, often suffering from it myself) and rather than deliberately using condescension as a communication tool, he's just a natural intellectual bully. I guess the difference is that I try not to come across as an elitist prat (with varying success), whereas he uses it as a publicity tool. :-)
I should really set aside some time tonight to download and watch this documentary to see how bad he is for myself! Thanks so much for posting the link!
Let me know what you think about the show when you watch it. I haven't had a chance to watch very much of it yet, but my 1st impressions of the presentators manner did put me off. But I shall have to watch the entire series to really give an opinion.
Have a great weekend.
What these people don't seem to realise that there can be, logically, no such thing as 'atheism'. It is a logical impossibility. Ideals, an idealised self, the belief in the unknown, moral exemplars, rituals, etc, are a part of Life. How could so many get something so simple so wrong, boggles the mind.
S/he who shows me an 'atheist', shows me one who has been pronounced 'clinically dead'.
Thanks for the smile.
Some where amongst all of this discussion, not this entry but either in my blog or on someone else's I said I didn't care if people thought we came from planet Mars, just respect everyone's Human (Martian) Rights.
That cartoon sums it up nicely.
Miles of Smiles
All people should be respected.
Actually, I've met people who shouldn't be, and I bet you have, too.
Atheists have been forced to live in the closet for a long time. The fact that they're breaking out of the closet in a little bit of a mood shouldn't be too surprising. It's typical of every other movement for equality in history.
There is also the very real and legitimate argument that by overlaying the common person's understanding of reality with mythology and irrationality, religionists are doing a great disservice to humanity. From that point of view, religion is something to get angry about.
That is the impression that I am getting from many of the people who claim to be atheists, that they don't believe in God or Gods.
I do believe that all people's opinions should be respected and that works both ways. I believe we all have rights and we all have the right to decide what we believe in as long as our views do not oppress other people. We are also doing ourselves a great disservice if we don't listen to other people's views, how can we grow unless we are prepared to listen and learn from others.
For me personally I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to "Agree to disagree" and I find myself getting angry at that very fact and I don't like being angry.
I can also understand why people get angry when their rights aren't respected. It is the whole point of of my core argument at the moment, we oppress people because we don't agree with their way of life or their religion (or lack of) or we take their land or invade their country, then we wonder why they get a bit upset and strike back.
I believe in peaceful methods of conflict resolution, but I understand why people get angry. It is taking a lot of my inner strength at the moment not to get angry at the people throughout the world who are oppressing and/or killing people, especially when they appear to be so hypocritical in their actions.
However, generally it appears that the majority of us do the best that we know how at the time, if we knew a better way then we would conduct ourselves in a better manner, as they say hindsight is a wonderful thing. So I guess if we limit our sources of information then we aren't as well equipped to make well informed decisions. So as an example in George W Bush's case when he went into Iraq, he honestly thought that he was making the right decision and I would say that his decision was based on a limited breadth of knowledge, as in my opinion he made the wrong decision (but that is only my opinion). As the leader of the US, I would expect that he should obtain his information from a wide variety of sources before making decisions which affect the whole world.
This is a George W Bush quote and if he honestly believed what he was saying then he honestly thought he was making the correct decision at the time. But in my opinion he should have thought about his actions and widened his sources of information.
"For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations."
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, September 21, 2004
43rd President of US (1946 - )
Anyway I possibly got a bit side tracked in my reply, but I just wanted to add a few extra comments.
"
Legal system
Saudi Arabia does not have much of a formal criminal code, and thus much of its law is derived from an ultra-conservative form of Sunni Islam commonly Wahhabism or Salafism. To that end judges are free to impose capital punishment or corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for certain crimes such as murder, robbery, rape, drug smuggling and for various forms of sexual behavior such as homosexuality and adultery. The courts may impose less severe punishments, such as floggings, for less serious crimes against public morality such as drunkenness [7].
The punishments, especially the executions, are carried out in public in order to add humiliation to the convicted person and also to act as a deterrence. Judges are generally given a tremendous amount of discretion in deciding how to punish a particular individual, and will make such decisions based on the particular school of Islam that they follow. For example;
Theft is punishable by the amputation of the right hand, unless the thief is poor and the stolen money is from public sources or a company (i.e. the thief is a well-off adult who stole private, secure money). If the right hand has already been amputated, the left hand is chosen instead.
Drinking, selling, or buying alcohol and sniffing drugs or injecting drugs is punished by a sentence of eighty lashes. Smuggling heroin or cocaine into the country is punished by death (beheading with a sword).
Fornication is normally punished with 40 lashes. During flogging, the face, head and vital organs of the person are protected.
Adultery can only be proven by the testimony of four reliable witnesses. It is punishable by death by stoning.
Murder, accidental death and bodily harm are open to punishment from the victim's family. Retribution may be sought in kind or through blood money. The blood money payable for a woman's accidental death is half as much as that for a man.[8]"
I believe this is why many people claim to be religious (and hate atheism) - they do not believe what they say, they simply think claiming to believe it is their only option. This reason most churches focus on their community is that when your community is defined by a faith, no longer holding that faith makes you an outcast. It may look silly from the outside, but from inside it can be very intimidating.
1. Chezz - yes, while my atheist beliefs do fall under the "textbook" definition of an atheist, i, personally also happen to hold the view that "by overlaying the common person's understanding of reality with mythology and irrationality, religionists are doing a great disservice to humanity" (courtesy of Pax) - this may not be the view of some atheists (we are a varied bunch as well), but it is, increasingly, mine - that's all about that - and yes, we'll obviously have to agree to disagree on that:) - as to the...
2. respect issue that Pax brought up - i would be absolutely lying if i said i respected the religious views of evangelical christians - i don't - unequivocally - and i am quite honestly, unapologetic about it - there it is...- also, he is right, that some of the atheists are in "a bit of a mood" - and sometimes, i am one of them - mostly, i try to keep it to myself unless provoked in a particularly nasty way - i don't personally enjoy going off on people, but, sometimes it has to be done - i can do it without yelling - that said, i usually reserve my really snarky remarks for the most obnoxious and intolerant people:)
That is an interesting point you make about Saudi Arabia having much of its law derived from an ultra-conservative form of Sunni Islam. That is the same type of Islam that Saddam Hussein followed is it not? Plus it appears that a lot of the fighting/bombings in Iraq are being carried out by Sunni's. Correct me if I am wrong.
I am not sure if there is a point to my observation but it is just an observation.
But yes it appears hypocritical to state that the reason for going into Iraq was to stop oppression in Iraq and the Middle East and then openly allow oppression in Saudi Arabia and actually fund the oppression in Israel. Besides I thought we went in there because there were weapons of mass destruction - but I may have got that wrong :-P
For whatever reason we are doing the best that we know how at the time due to the factors that you have indicated. Okay we may know that is isn't the best decision at the time but due to circumstances, information, pressures, it is the best decision at the time because we didn't know a better way to resolve the issue and yes maybe we didn't want to know a better way because we preferred to stick our heads in the sand, or we were too impatient, or we didn't want to know the truth, etc. But we are only human.
Remember I say that is the general way for people, there will always be exceptions.
I think you are looking at Athetism as an organised group instead of just a loose label for folk who reject religion.
I have seen folk try to claim that Atheism is some sort of conspiracy but I just put that down to fear of the unknown or perhaps an attempt by the church office bearers to suppress thinking among their followers. It does have the potential to reduce their incomes afterall.
Thanks Snowy and Lollerkeet for that bit of info as I have to admit that I haven't had the energy to try and figure the whole Sunni Vs Shi'ite thing out. Only to think how strange it seems to follow the same religion and fight over who thinks which bit is right and which bit is wrong and kill each other over it. Anyway what would I know :-P
I realise how much worse off Iraq is since the US invasion and once again that is a case of not thinking things through on the part of the Bush Government.
I could really head in another tangent now.
Do some countries need dictators to keep control?
Also does power go to one's head and affects judgement?
It isn't neccessary to answer these questions - I am just thinking, I guess that explains my headache!
So by agreeing to disagree on "by overlaying the common person's understanding of reality with mythology and irrationality, religionists are doing a great disservice to humanity", I am agreeing that I am irrational and doing a great disservice to humanity? *wink and a smile*. Actually I am not sure where I said that I disagreed with this statement, maybe I did and I don't realise it or maybe I have misread what you have said. *still smiling*
Now the issue of respect. The word respect has many meanings and I use the word respect in this case with this meaning, "To show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights or to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy."
Now that all said and done, I respect the right for you to feel the way that you do :-)
What a little beauty.
Next week he discusses the "most vindictive character in fiction".
Can't wait
9.35 Monday night is Denton's "God on my Side". Another must see.