Richard Dawkins, the root of all evil...

[sphenisc]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/features/story.jsp?story=674933

New TV series by Dawkins on 'Religion'.

[Hawk one]

And what do you find wrong with this article, to make such a thread title?

[sphenisc]

And what do you find wrong with this article, to make such a thread title?

i was being alanic.

[Melendwyr]

Richard Dawkins is the ultimate cause of pornography, homosexuality, abortion, and immorality. Before the Fall (i.e., his birth) existence was Paradise.

[Hawk one]

i was being alanic.

OK, fair enough. I suppose I could have done with a smiley to easier spot that, but if people think smilies are just about always annoying, then I won't force them to use one.

ETA: Today, people using the expression alanic. Tomorrow, I rule the world. MOWAHAHAHA!

[tsg]

i was being alanic.

:dl:

[...JR]

so is this only going to be shown in England or something?

If someone could clarify what "channel 4" is, I'd really appreciate it.

[dogjones]

Yes, it will only be shown in England. Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/) is the more risque of the domestic British channels.

[Garrette]

"alanic"?

[tsg]

"alanic"?

See Hawk's sig.

[Garrette]

Ah, thanks.

Hawk's sig is one place I usually avoid for the abundance of egregious lies and misrepresentations there. Not to mention he gave me neither a cookie nor a lollipop on my last visit.

[mummymonkey]

Yes, it will only be shown in England. Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/) is the more risque of the domestic British channels.Damn, I was looking forward to it.

[dogjones]

Damn, I was looking forward to it.

Sorry, by "England" I meant "Britain" - primary school error for which ah apologise, likesay!

[Loon]

Richard Dawkins is the ultimate cause of pornography, .

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Loon

[Wolverine]

Dembski isn't too happy with Dawkins.

See: Who Does Dawkins Think He Is? (http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/613)

Enjoy the barfworthy comments on the page.

[ImaginalDisc]

Dembski isn't too happy with Dawkins.

See: Who Does Dawkins Think He Is? (http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/613)

Enjoy the barfworthy comments on the page.

Hmmm, I see a reference to "scientism" in there. How common is this theist dismissal of science?

"Oh look, an atheist! Of course, we both know it's really just a scientist in disguise."

[Peter@Beoworld]

At last something to watch. No doubt it will be competing with Most Haunted somewhere on the schedules! I will wait till I have seen the programme before passing judgement though! I will record it....

[SpaceFluffer]

I was going to post a comment on the Dembski board but you need to log in and it doesn't seem possible to register. Could it be that the board owner does not want to invite criticism?

[Soapy Sam]

Cynic.

[tsg]

Hmmm, I see a reference to "scientism" in there. How common is this theist dismissal of science?

It's the Discovery Institute's reason for being. Read the Wedge Document.

[Anders W. Bonde]

As always, I see that the religious apologists equate 'athesim' with 'nazism' and 'soviet communism'. In their feeble minds they cannot see how non-theism has nothing to do with two dictatorships that a) claimed to have the Christian God on thier side (nazism) and b) merely created their own competing religion - communism. The zealots cannot get their heads around communism wanting to eradicate theistic religion as a competitor to power - the communists weren't communists because they were 'atheists' - they were anti-theists because they wanted monopoly over the minds of the masses and the church was a competitor. To the twisted mind of the religious apologist, anti-totalitarian non-theisism is unthinkable because they themselves want religious totalitarianism. They simply cannot understand how people can be decent without fear of Hell or missing out on paradise. What maroons.

BTW - doesn't this thread belong in in 'Religion' or another more fitting place in the forum?

[hammegk]

Yeah, I know, you'll laugh at the link .... yet, ;)

In Reading Richard Dawkins I am reminded of an anecdote told by Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg and several other great physicists were sitting around one evening talking about God and religion. The discussion ended up being dominated by Paul Dirac, who went into a long diatribe declaring religion to be the opiate of the masses. At the end of the evening someone turned to the brilliant Wolfgang Pauli and said, “You have been very quiet tonight, Pauli. What do you think of what Dirac has been telling us?” Pauli responded. “If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet.”

from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0009.html

[Ririon]

Sorry, by "England" I meant "Britain" - primary school error for which ah apologise, likesay!

Surely, you meant UK? Or is it not on in Northern Ireland? God knows they could use a healthy dose of atheism there...

[Oleron]

Surely, you meant UK? Or is it not on in Northern Ireland? God knows they could use a healthy dose of atheism there...

Amen, brother!

:D

[DreadNiK]

Yeah, I know, you'll laugh at the link .... yet, ;)



from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0009.html

Unfortunately, the person who wrote that article is an idiot:

"What is the difference between believing that one's actions are dictated by the orbits of the planets and believing that they are dictated by the orbits of the electrons in one's brain"

"Those who believe in God, including the very substantial proportion of scientists who do, are every bit as able to thrill to scientific discovery as Dawkins is. They embrace scientific understanding and rejoice in it, as he does. But they have as well the joy of their faith, which tells them that the beauty of Nature points to something higher, to a Wisdom greater than their own. For Dawkins it points to nothing. He is welcome to that conclusion, but there is not the slightest reason why any scientist or scientifically minded person should share it."

[hammegk]

Unfortunately, the person who wrote that article is an idiot ....
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Pauliesonne]

Surely, you meant UK? Or is it not on in Northern Ireland? God knows they could use a healthy dose of atheism there...

and I am one.

[Dragon]

Well, just watched it - Dawkins went to Lourdes, Colorado Springs and Jerusalem speaking to an assorted collection of Christians, Muslims and Jews. I thought he made a strong case for his point that faith without evidence is indeed the root of much evil. Notwithstanding Dawkins' eloquence the case was best made by the certainty and intolerance exhibited by the various believers. I think Dawkins himself was actually shocked by some of what they said, for example the Jewish convert to Islam who told Dawkins to sort out western women and the way they dressed (prior to Islam taking over the world, of course) and Pastor Ted Haggard in Colorado Springs who pulled the old "eye springing into existence" gambit.
Next week - if I read the trailer correctly - religion as a virus of the mind.

[Peter@Beoworld]

Strangely unsatisfying. I think the fact he picked the extremes actually weakened his case as they were so obviously mad. The Moslem who converted from Judaism was seriously frightening! A chat with a Church of England vicar may have made less amusing watching but could have actually have touched on more of what the majority of believers think. We can all laugh at the extreme views on show in the programme, but it is the insidious indoctrination by the well meaning that I find more disturbing.

[DreadNiK]

That's the point he's trying to make though, that the majority are not actually going to do crazy extremist things but it is the tolerance and indeed encouragement of faith without evidence that (arguably) produces or at least creates a disposition towards extremist actions.

[Peter@Beoworld]

I realise that - I just felt that he weakened his case by showing the extremes that any normal person could easily disassociate themselves from. Maybe next week's exciting episode about the virus of the mind will explore the more mundane. I did also feel that the climbing of Mount Improbable was a little naff!

[sat556]

This program really depressed me. I just can't understand the insanity. If there is a god, why on earth would it make it's followers so think? Insecurity?
The Jew turned Muslim was unbelievable, incapable of understanding that woman can't always be controlled by men. The guy from the US evangelical church... Something didn't ring true about him. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I didn't believe that he actually bought into his own bull.
This whole thing scares me, is the planet really going to be controlled by these people? What exactly is it that they want? The Muslim guy wants his religion to rule to world, but to what end? Won't he lose all purpose if that happened? Do the creationists want us to stop looking for answers and just trust what they say? Seems to be, but why? Got to be power, but to do what exactly?
It's late and my head hurts, perhaps my thoughts haven't come across quite as I meant them. I really enjoyed this program (although it made me fume), but it's made me think a bit too much...

[Tanja]

I watched the programme yesterday, and even though I agree with most points Dawkins made, I thought that comparing the evangelists congregation to a Nazi rally was uncalled for - that is always a cheap shot, and I don't think it helped him make any points.

[dogbite666]

I watched the programme yesterday, and even though I agree with most points Dawkins made, I thought that comparing the evangelists congregation to a Nazi rally was uncalled for - that is always a cheap shot, and I don't think it helped him make any points.

He was just saying what he saw, making an observation and a valid one at that. The things the evangelist leader was preaching to his audience, obedience and total submission made him sound like a facist dictator. As did the disgusting Islamic leader Dawkins spoke to, who claimed that 9-11 was justified because the Jews have opressed the Palestinians.

I think this was very good viewing, shame its only a two part series.

[Darat]

I watched the programme yesterday, and even though I agree with most points Dawkins made, I thought that comparing the evangelists congregation to a Nazi rally was uncalled for - that is always a cheap shot, and I don't think it helped him make any points.

I was going to agree with you but then I wonder is this just "us" being too reasonable and too polite? The Nuremberg rallies were after all when the party faithful would gather to be preached at by the party officials, and especially in the 20's before they gained the support they were were the faith was re-enforced for the burgeoning movement. Is this not what that preacher was doing? And given the end sequence (if it was reported accurately) when the preacher returned and told them to leave his land else he would have them arrested, (apparently because he believed Dawkins had called his children animals since Dawkins supports the theory of evolution) was reminiscent of the strong arm tactics used in the early days of the Nazi ascent to power.

Perhaps Dawkins is right to point out the similarities many religious movements have to other terrible historical movements?

I've posted about it several times before but religion for some reason seems to get an automatic "get out of jail free" card for activities and behaviours we wouldn't accept from a "secular" organisation.

[Loon]

It may be a valid observation, but is it useful to make? The corallaries to Godwin's law work off of the internet, too; compare people to Nazis and you start to look like a nit. Plus you get people reacting (against you) based soley on the emotional force of the argument. It's a great thing to say to motivate the troops (say, at Nuremberg...), but a terrible thing to use to win people over to your way of thinking.

As eloquent as Dawkins can be, he also has a tendency to make arguments that total nothing more that "we're better than you."

[rjh01]

The problem with comparing anything with the Nazis is that it does not tell us much. For example the Nazis built many roads. Does that make building roads wrong?

[dogbite666]

I was going to agree with you but then I wonder is this just "us" being too reasonable and too polite?

This is true, however one thing which Dawkins didn't mention in his programme was tolerance. Maybe we should not be asking the faithful to drop thier faith, rather be more tolerant of other people's faith. But then I realised that that is largely impossible. Opposing belief systems can never be tolerant of each other, by the fact they are opposite, or mearly differ, means they will eventually come to blows. The only option is to drop the blind faith attitude and cast our judgement of others purely on factual evidence.

[Darat]

It may be a valid observation, but is it useful to make? The corallaries to Godwin's law work off of the internet, too; compare people to Nazis and you start to look like a nit. Plus you get people reacting (against you) based soley on the emotional force of the argument. It's a great thing to say to motivate the troops (say, at Nuremberg...), but a terrible thing to use to win people over to your way of thinking.


So does this mean you should never use Nuremberg rallies as a valid comparison for something that resembles them? (Genuine question - in other words are they some things that you just can't use even if the comparison is valid?)

As eloquent as Dawkins can be, he also has a tendency to make arguments that total nothing more that "we're better than you."

I've never heard him put that forward as his argument, I would say he argues for that as a conclusion (as if he is doing in this programme) but he does try to substantiate his conclusion.

[Darat]

The problem with comparing anything with the Nazis is that it does not tell us much. For example the Nazis built many roads. Does that make building roads wrong?

I'll have to disagree with the "anything" for instance if I wanted to explain why a certain movement was potentially dangerous I think it is very apt to compare it ro the rise of the Nazi movement (if the comparison is valid of course). Nazism and its rise to power is one of the few very well documented examples we have to use as a comparison. I'm very reluctant to think we shouldn't use it as an example or comparison when it is apt to do so.

[Darat]

This is true, however one thing which Dawkins didn't mention in his programme was tolerance. Maybe we should not be asking the faithful to drop thier faith, rather be more tolerant of other people's faith. But then I realised that that is largely impossible. Opposing belief systems can never be tolerant of each other, by the fact they are opposite, or mearly differ, means they will eventually come to blows. The only option is to drop the blind faith attitude and cast our judgement of others purely on factual evidence.

And that they are convinced that they are right, that they have the truth. Most religious belief systems that I am aware of do not (fundamentally) hold the possibility that they may be wrong that someone else may have the truth, the very act of it being faith based precludes this.

(ETA)

Should we tolerant people be tolerant of intolerance?

[Mojo]

This is true, however one thing which Dawkins didn't mention in his programme was tolerance. Maybe we should not be asking the faithful to drop thier faith, rather be more tolerant of other people's faith. But then I realised that that is largely impossible. Opposing belief systems can never be tolerant of each other, by the fact they are opposite, or mearly differ, means they will eventually come to blows. The only option is to drop the blind faith attitude and cast our judgement of others purely on factual evidence.Actually, I think he did to some extent address this in the section about "holy sites" towards the end of the program. It was very apparent that tolerance was not on the agenda of some the people he interviewed.

[Darat]

I bet you most of them would not consider that they there are intolerant of anyone. It is simply that they know the truth and others don't. I've often heard it coached in terms of "I would be telling you a lie if I didn't condemn you", their religion provides the framework for why they not only do not need to be but why they should not be tolerant of others.

[Darat]

Suggestion - we have two threads going on at the moment - why not carry on this discussion in the other thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1369825#post1369825 so everyone interested can join in?

[PixyMisa]

Should we tolerant people be tolerant of intolerance?

I would say no.

But I like the thread title. :p

[sphenisc]

I would say no.

But I like the thread title. :p

Sorry Pixy, you fail the logic test.
By saying 'No' you are therefore intolerant of intolerance. Therefore the question doesn't apply to you, only to 'we tolerant people'. So logically you shouldn't reply. The only possibly answer is, of course, 'Yes'.

The fact that no-one has replied 'Yes' acts as counter evidence for the existence of 'we tolerant people'. Indeed 'WTP's are equivalent to IPUs. For further counter evidence against WTPs please visit any thread on this forum involving Iamme, Iacchus, hammgek...

[End of attempt at humour] :)

[Interesting Ian]

so is this only going to be shown in England or something?

If someone could clarify what "channel 4" is, I'd really appreciate it.

It's one of the 5 main TV channels.

[Interesting Ian]

i was being alanic.

alanic? What does that mean?

[Darat]

A member of an ancient Scythian people, first encountered near the Caspian Sea. Also attrib. or as adj. Hence Alanic a., of or pertaining to the Alani.

(However in this case I think it refers to how non-ironic a song called (or about) irony is.)

[PixyMisa]

Sorry Pixy, you fail the logic test.
By saying 'No' you are therefore intolerant of intolerance. Therefore the question doesn't apply to you, only to 'we tolerant people'. So logically you shouldn't reply. The only possibly answer is, of course, 'Yes'.

Well, I could always be tolerant and hypocritical. ;)

I still like the thread title.

[drfrank]

To be completely honest, Ted Haggard completely terrified me - the twisted look of evil on his face as he ranted at Dawkins was pretty unsettling.

On the other hand, I am slightly more inclined to believe in God now as Ted Haggard represents strong evidence that there is a devil, so perhaps he does have a place as an evangelical.

Dawkins did miss a couple of solid hits against him, though, although it may have been due to not wanting to be shot dead.

Q: "An eye just can't evolve!" (paraphrased)
A: Well actually, Darwin himself described exactly how in The Origin Of Species. Read it recently? Also, there are a very large variety of different stages of eye development extant in the animal kingdom, varying between simple photosensitive dots to our own eyes and better.

Q: "AND THIS BOOK (the Bible) DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF!"
A: Um, checked Genesis I and II recently?

I was also a little worried by the small group of atheists who were forced to meet in secret - freedom of religion indeed :S

[tsg]

And that they are convinced that they are right, that they have the truth. Most religious belief systems that I am aware of do not (fundamentally) hold the possibility that they may be wrong that someone else may have the truth, the very act of it being faith based precludes this.

Of course not. How many people are you going get to follow you into war with "We Might Be Wrong!" as a battle cry?

Should we tolerant people be tolerant of intolerance?

No. If that makes me intolerant, so be it. I'm all for freedom of religion, but that does not, in any way shape or form, entitle anyone to the right not to have to suffer their beliefs being challenged.

[Jon.]

This is true, however one thing which Dawkins didn't mention in his programme was tolerance. Maybe we should not be asking the faithful to drop thier faith, rather be more tolerant of other people's faith. But then I realised that that is largely impossible. Opposing belief systems can never be tolerant of each other, by the fact they are opposite, or mearly differ, means they will eventually come to blows. The only option is to drop the blind faith attitude and cast our judgement of others purely on factual evidence.

The only way that opposing religions can be tolerant of each other is if they drop their claims to exclusive ownership of the Truth. As in "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." As in "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." And whatever other similar claims are made by other religions. (As I understand it, Buddhism and perhaps Hinduism are the only major religions that do not make this claim.) It is this claim to exclusive knowledge of the only Truth that leads to intolerance; without it, each believer would be much more motivated to let other believe in whatever manner they see fit.

What I didn't see mentioned here (so presumably not in the program, although I could not watch it here in Canada) is how to handle believers in such faiths who are not so extreme, who do not claim their faith is the One True Faith. There are many liberal Christian churches (including the United Church of Canada, one of the largest denominations in Canada) that seem to take such a position. Sam Harris (The End Of Faith) would attack such people as providing "cover" for the extremists. I would certainly ask them to pee or get off the pot, and specifically ask them to affirm or deny John 14:6 (quoted above) and similar passages, and to justify such a position.

[pgwenthold]

He was just saying what he saw, making an observation and a valid one at that. The things the evangelist leader was preaching to his audience, obedience and total submission made him sound like a facist dictator.

Going from memory here, and if anyone has more details, they can help/correct me:

Last summer in Amsterdam, I went to the "Dutch Resistance Museum" (across the street from the zoo). One thing I remember from there was the description of the rise of the Nazi party in Holland. One comment by one of the Nazi party members jumped out at me. He noted that one thing he liked about the Nazi rallies was the marching, singing, and the sense of community and fellowship it gave everyone. This is the same sort of explanations that you hear from religious people about what they like about going to church.

Now, in the end, it's not clear how to interpret it. It is mostly worthwhile to make a comparison between Nazi rallies and church. However, it's not clear what it means. Is it that the churches are like Nazi rallies? Or that Nazi rallies were like churches? Or maybe it is just that you can sell all sorts of ideas by using this type of approach?

The fact that the Nazis used the same approaches does not make churches wrong. OTOH, it really should make people stop and question what it is they are really in it for.

[tsg]

What I didn't see mentioned here (so presumably not in the program, although I could not watch it here in Canada) is how to handle believers in such faiths who are not so extreme, who do not claim their faith is the One True Faith.

Personally, I have no problem with people who wish to believe in gods or such that either is not currently or potentially cannot be answered by science so long as they understand that it is just a belief and may not be correct. If it comforts them to believe in the afterlife, fine. If it encourages them to act kindly towards others, although I'd prefer it if they did it because it's the right thing to do and not out of fear of punishment, I'll take what I can get. So long as they don't insist that I or others should also believe the same things I'm more than happy to let them go on believing and will even fight to make sure they can. They can certainly choose to believe in that for which there is no evidence, for or against. It is not the choice I would make, but that is a philosophical decision. It's when decisions that affect my life are being made based solely on the say so of a long dead prophet that I get upset.

[tsg]

Now, in the end, it's not clear how to interpret it. It is mostly worthwhile to make a comparison between Nazi rallies and church. However, it's not clear what it means. Is it that the churches are like Nazi rallies? Or that Nazi rallies were like churches? Or maybe it is just that you can sell all sorts of ideas by using this type of approach?

Not having seen the program, I can't comment on what Dawkins' intent was, but I would think the third option would be the most valid. It's an example of "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." They may not necessarily want you to commit atrocities, but the possibility is there and is something to watch out for. As always, the context and the end goal has to be considered.

Drawing parallels to Nazism without showing that a certain behavior is "wrong" in its own right is certainly "poisoning the well". However, if you can draw a parallel from Nazism to, say, Fundamentalist Christianity's war on homosexuality then I don't think it falls into the same category. If their end goal was peace and love then similarities with techniques used by the Nazis won't apply.

[brodski]

The only way that opposing religions can be tolerant of each other is if they drop their claims to exclusive ownership of the Truth. As in "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." As in "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." And whatever other similar claims are made by other religions. (As I understand it, Buddhism and perhaps Hinduism are the only major religions that do not make this claim.) Itp>

Sikhism is another to add to the list, the 10th (I think) Guru was killed for defending the followers of a different sect. In theory Sikhism is an entirely tolerant religion, which holds that there are many paths to "god".
However theory and practise haven't always coincided.

[Jon.]

Sikhism is another to add to the list, the 10th (I think) Guru was killed for defending the followers of a different sect. In theory Sikhism is an entirely tolerant religion, which holds that there are many paths to "god".
However theory and practise haven't always coincided.

Thanks for the info brodski. Those kind, gentle Indians ....

[Zendal Darkman]

I liked the program but disliked the title. I would rather had Dawkins focused on demonstrating the absurdity of religion, rather than trying to prove it was the ultimate cause of evil. The only responses the believers are doing (in the UK media) is based around examples of religion doing good and atheists doing bad. Perhaps if the title of the show was based around showing the ridiculous nature and danger of religion, the show could have held point better. (is there such an expression as "held point"?)

Liked the story of the professor who on hearing the proof "his" theory was wrong, embraced the idea that knowing the truth is always better than living in ignorance.

[Interesting Ian]

Unfortunately, the person who wrote that article is an idiot:



I've read the article. I agree with most of it.



From article

"What is the difference between believing that one's actions are dictated by the orbits of the planets and believing that they are dictated by the orbits of the electrons in one's brain"


He's saying both necessitate we do not have free will. In which case there is no difference.



From article

"Those who believe in God, including the very substantial proportion of scientists who do, are every bit as able to thrill to scientific discovery as Dawkins is. They embrace scientific understanding and rejoice in it, as he does. But they have as well the joy of their faith, which tells them that the beauty of Nature points to something higher, to a Wisdom greater than their own. For Dawkins it points to nothing. He is welcome to that conclusion, but there is not the slightest reason why any scientist or scientifically minded person should share it."

Not sure what your complaint is here.

[UrsulaV]

Of course not. How many people are you going get to follow you into war with "We Might Be Wrong!" as a battle cry?


You use that as your battle cry, and I'll not only charge down the hill with you, I'll carry the standard. (I suggest a question mark rampant on field of sable.)

[tsg]

Of course not. How many people are you going get to follow you into war with "We Might Be Wrong!" as a battle cry?
You use that as your battle cry, and I'll not only charge down the hill with you, I'll carry the standard. (I suggest a question mark rampant on field of sable.)

So the answer to my question, so far, is "one".

[DreadNiK]

I've read the article. I agree with most of it.


He's saying both necessitate we do not have free will. In which case there is no difference.

Is he really saying that? Do people that believe in astrology believe they have no free will. This thread really isn't the place for a discussion of the question of 'free will'



Not sure what your complaint is here.

My complaint is with the last part:

"He is welcome to that conclusion, but there is not the slightest reason why any scientist or scientifically minded person should share it."

That is plainly and simply incorrect.

[UrsulaV]

So the answer to my question, so far, is "one".

And I'm nearly useless!

[c4ts]

Richard Dawkins is the ultimate cause of pornography, homosexuality, abortion, and immorality. Before the Fall (i.e., his birth) existence was Paradise.

Back in the 70's, he and Carl Sagan got together and invented them in a SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY!!

[sphenisc]

You use that as your battle cry, and I'll not only charge down the hill with you, I'll carry the standard. (I suggest a question mark rampant on field of sable.)

Make that two - though I'd prefer a background of various shades of grey. :)

[tsg]

Make that two - though I'd prefer a background of various shades of grey. :)

Oh, great. Up to only three members and we're already fighting over the flag.

No wonder Leaders insisted on not being questioned...

[UrsulaV]

Oh, great. Up to only three members and we're already fighting over the flag.

No wonder Leaders insisted on not being questioned...

In the spirit of our cause, I will admit that I Might Be Wrong about the flag.

[Temp3st]

Whilst watching the latest episode of Stargate-SG1, I noticed the dramatic parallels between what is going on with fundamentalist right-wing religious types and the main 'baddy' of the tv series.

Does anyone else think this might be the producers way of trying to speak out about religious nuts to a country that seems to have a growing army of them?

[rjh01]

Make that two

Can I join your cause? I love our battle cry. It is unique.

[sphenisc]

Can I join your cause? I love our battle cry. It is unique.

Here's my suggestion for our anthem...

http://www.last.fm/music/Radiohead/_/I+Might+Be+Wrong :)

[brettDbass]

Does anybody know if this show is available oinline, being repeated or is otherwise viewable by those dullards who might have missed it first time around? :o

[tsg]

Can I join your cause? I love our battle cry. It is unique.

The cause is open to all and it is no more mine (or ours) than it is yours. But I Might Be Wrong! (always include the '!')

Okay, we're up to four. Two more and we have a movement.

Somebody ought to think up a name.

[tsg]

Here's my suggestion for our anthem...

http://www.last.fm/music/Radiohead/_/I+Might+Be+Wrong :)

I like it. The lyrics are pointless and it says "I Might Be Wrong" a lot. It's got my vote.

[brodski]

The cause is open to all and it is no more mine (or ours) than it is yours. But I Might Be Wrong! (always include the '!')

Okay, we're up to four. Two more and we have a movement.

Somebody ought to think up a name.
I'm in.Its kind of like Eddie Izzards "radical liberal" or in America "radical moderate".We kick down the doors of parlment, storm in and say "Listen, we'll pay for the damage..." :)

[tsg]

I'm in.Its kind of like Eddie Izzards "radical liberal" or in America "radical moderate".We kick down the doors of parlment, storm in and say "Listen, we'll pay for the damage..." :)

Reminds me of Life, the Universe, and Everything

The hum level in the room suddenly increased as several ancillary bass driver units, mounted in sedately carved and varnished cabinet speakers around the room, cut in to give Deep Thought's voice a little more power.

"All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer...

[Tez]

I think there is something powerful in seeing people who sincerely believe contradictory things. It would be interesting to have a website containing lots of interviews of people of different faiths. No commentary per se, just many unbiased interviews showing people of intense (not necessarily radical) religious convictions.

[sphenisc]

Just a reminder that the second instalment of "The Root of All Evil" is on tonight, Channel 4, 8pm UK.

[pdw709]

I've finally got round to watching this episode I had recorded.

Never before have my views on religion been put more eloquentley - I will be making my children watch this one.

I think I have found my new god :)

[dann]

It is simply that they know the truth and others don't. But they tend to have a peculiar definition of truth: To believe the words of ... instead of ....
If you think that Einstein was right, your argument wouldn't be: 'Because he said so in his theory of relativity!'