Options
Root of All Evil
ironjade
Posts: 10,011 Forum Member
✭✭
This would've been hilarious if it weren't so sad and scary.
Richard Dawkins speaking to a selection of religious fanatics, one of whom bore a disturbing resemblance to Andrew Robinson's Scorpio Killer from Dirty Harry.
If any more evidence of the toxicity of these moth-eaten fairy tales were needed this show certainly provided it.
The sooner we are rid of religion's dead hand the better.
Dawkins should get a Knighthood for having the guts to make a show like this and C4 deserves high praise for showing it.
It should be repeated on all channels twice a day and replace Songs of Praise ASAP.
Richard Dawkins speaking to a selection of religious fanatics, one of whom bore a disturbing resemblance to Andrew Robinson's Scorpio Killer from Dirty Harry.
If any more evidence of the toxicity of these moth-eaten fairy tales were needed this show certainly provided it.
The sooner we are rid of religion's dead hand the better.
Dawkins should get a Knighthood for having the guts to make a show like this and C4 deserves high praise for showing it.
It should be repeated on all channels twice a day and replace Songs of Praise ASAP.
0
Comments
But as soon as he started talking about things in a deeper manner a really nasty side came out.
That American evangelist near the start was getting very scary and intimidating. Then ended up losing it off camera.
And that Islamic fundamenatlist near the end sounded freaky telling him to fix his women.
Rubbish! The bible is riddled with contradictions.
Check here for some...
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/inerrancy-1.html
I did zap a little throughout, but it seemed like it aimed more at exposure rather than any kind of real insight or analysis, which is fine, I guess. I had just hoped for something a little bit more interesting.
Are you seriously calling Dawkins inept?
He is one of the most widely respected scientists and critical thinkers around....and damn clever to boot.
Whatever you think of the man he is not inept.
I wonder how brave you would be entering a lions den?
I got the impression that he was getting quite emotional during the diatribes of the interviewees. Which is totally understandable for a man of science and logic when faced with such creatures that are incapable of debate.
Excellent programme.
As these people are totally beyond the reach of rational argument it would have been too exhausting to try and refute their claims individually.
His subjects put their case by means of repetition, baseless assertion and intimidation, none of which require either intelligence or education.
Incidentally, there are plenty of UK nutters who think like this: I remember seeing James Randi being booed and hissed at when he suggested that there was no difference between "real" and fake mediums and that astrology was nonsense.
Perhaps they should be invited to prove some of their ridiculous beliefs instead.
Is it perhaps because at long last somebody has had the bottle to tell THE TRUTH !
A fantastic programme and well done channel 4.
I liked the gutsy tone of the programme though. Every now and then, someone needs to stand up and denounce religious belief for what it is. I don't dislike my mother for what she believes and understand why she believes it (and why she needs to believe it), but what she believes is still a load of crap (or rather based on a load of crap).
The problem here is that religion is one of the very few forces in the world which can make good people do evil.
I wonder how you know that the few friends and family you mention would be lesser people without religion, it is an impossible assumption to test. Personally I don't belive you can properly describe yourself as atheist if you hold such beliefs.
Only in the case of fundamentalists and extremists should there be any need to dislike someone personally because of their beliefs. Hard to see how you can 'understand why she believes' yet think it's 'a load of crap', mutually exclusive I would have thought.
I can NEVER understand why anyone believes in god anyway, especially when one looks at world events motivated by or through religion.
The whole point of this programme was to show that a group of people who believe in something that does not exist, and are brainwashed from childhood to do so, can be and is very dangerous !
Yeah, becasue the world would be soooo much better without it.
As to a replacement: common sense would be a good starting point.
The sooner we do away with the primitive need to believe in a supernatural entity, the better.
I fear you have not understood what Dawkins was saying, or you would not have to ask.
It is not a question of a replacement for religion, such a notion could conceivably end up as bad as religion or worse. Something 'instead' of religion is quite different to there being 'no religion'.
Nor is a 'new world order' what Dawkins wants, he simply wants people to think rationally and use their logical minds to work things out for themselves with the benefit of evidence not dogma, however were this to happen it would undoubtedly change the world.
Your sarcastic tone does you little justice, try to say what you mean in proper English.
And for what it's worth, YES the world would be hugely better without the scourge of religion in it.
Saying religious fundamnetalists are dangerous is pretty much shooting fish in a barrel - it hardly qualifies as genius programme-making. Of course they are dangerous. 9/11, Madrid etc... Duh.
What is equally stupid, in my view, is calling the a programme "the root of all evil" when it applies to religion generally. Let's see... Hitler... Stalin... Pol Pot... Chairman Mao... not excactly shining beacons of the greatness of Athiesm, are they? And tell me, exactly how evil were Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Wilberforce...
As to the science of it all, when under half of Cambridge University's theoretical physics department are themselves athiests, it's not exactly an open and shut case.
Dawkins is the last person who should be discussing evidence or logic. He has adopted a view of a complex subject so black and white it should be admired by the very people he decries.
It's pathetic, sloppy, intellectually-bankrupt, stupid and just bloody annoying (you can see why I didn't watch it now - my own property is simply not safe). Dawkins' own views are so extreme, he is borderline fundamentalist himself. A pox on the lot of 'em.
far too confrontational in style and therefore did not get any real new insight into from the interviewees. he could have had a great discussion with the jew/muslim convert or the tele-evagalist.... oh well
There was nothing contradictory in what I said. I view religion/superstition as a crutch that some people (like my mother). Without that crutch, they would be unhappy and/or dysfunctional (and possibly more selfish). I don't want my mother to be unhappy, so I tolerate her beliefs (and it isn't always easy).
(the title was "The Root of All Evil?", btw)
I think he wants reality to replace fantasy, that's what he seemed to be saying anyway. I think he was mainly trying to shine a light on the crazier religious types to show how crazy they are in an attempt to persuade people to abandon religion.
In reality it probably won't work as some sort of fairly effective defence mechanism will probably evolve, such as the muslim sharia instruction to kill unbelivers or people who change to another religion. Parisitic belief systems (e.g. religions) always tell you that you can't live without them.
Oh please, it was a typo.
Yes, a particularly brilliant line of thinking.
Hey, here's an idea. How about a TV show where we see 1 hour's worth of interviews with rapists? That'll mean everyone will abandon sex!
I, too, would like more people to question and think for themselves, and Dawkins is an excellent subject to start on...
You may not agree with him or like his approach but his arguments, unlike yours, are rooted in logic and based on evidence and correctly quoted facts.
Hitler for instance was most definitely NOT an atheist, and where does Dawkins ever say that atheists are neccessarily 'good' people ?
Nor does he ever suggest that ALL religious people are bad,
you grossly misrepresent his views (and mine).
He is a Biologist and Geneticist NOT a Physicist, one hugely respected by his peers regardless of their own religious views. If you had taken the time to watch the program or better yet read a couple of his books you could not suggest his views are simplistic, his are the most detailed descriptions of genetics and evolution you could ever find.
But then by and large people with views like yours are unlikely to be receptive to sensible reasoned argument, so I probably waste my time here.
And your simplistic comments do you no justice. The fact is that "religion" means so much, and covers so many areas.
Is someone who beleives in God but does nothing about it religious. Do you need to go to church to be religious. Are you good if you don't go to church, and bad if you do. Are good people always religious, or are bad people always religious.
Dawkins does a lot of this sort of thing, I've encountered his work before. And I am happy for him to stive to produce answers. The thing I don't like is his seeming determination that all religion is bad.
I don't believe that "religion" alone can be bad, I believe that people make choices. Sometimes those choices are wrong, sometimes those choices are influenced by people with an agenda.
The Sun newspaper could be accused of influencing people on a massive scale, does that mean its bad, or good?