The Root of all Evil - Channel 4

[John83]

your right , but at the risk of repeating myself that simple junior cert test ,you are told that fire wont burn with out oxygen so when it the match goes out you assume its due to the lack of oxygen .you automatically link it because you have been told what to expect . is it beyond the bounds of possiblity that`what we accept as fact today will be laughed at in 100 years same as we do now , maybe even maybe they will figure out that there is no such thing as oxygen but what they called oxygen was a comination of 2 gases they werent able to seperate ?

No. There's no chance of that whatsoever. The subatomic structure of oxygen and its place in the Periodic Table of Elements is well known.

Now, for a demonstration of why science is not faith:
"A lifetime of experimentation could not prove me right.
A single experiment could prove me wrong."
-Albert Einstein

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/w...553651249.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html

The most cherished theory in physics - the basis of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and less directly half of modern electronics, is still being tested, debated and challenged.

Try challenging Catholic dogma. Or testing or debating it for that matter. They don't burn heretics any more, do they?

[Hither green]

how does multiplying the bodycount 20-fold rate as less evil when they'd the means to end it quickly with 5% loss of life rlative to the "fair" way?

You’re right in assuming that I think using the bomb was a mistake even though it may have cost fewer lives in the long run. Personally I could never justify the bombing of civilians. But it’s a personal thing, and I admit that I do generally subscribe to principles over realpolitik. I certainly don’t subscribe to shock and awe tactics to force submission.

[anto1208]

You’re right in assuming that I think using the bomb was a mistake even though it may have cost fewer lives in the long run. Personally I could never justify the bombing of civilians. But it’s a personal thing, and I admit that I do generally subscribe to principles over realpolitik. I certainly don’t subscribe to shock and awe tactics to force submission.

the bomb itself can be debated wether it was good or bad ,

what was pure evil was
1) picking a city that hadnt been bombed before so the people were nt expecting it
2) flying 4 or 5 dummy runs so people thought the run that actually dropped the bomb was another false alarm and didnt get into shelters etc .

this was done to get the maximum number of civilian casulities .

but from a country that has murdrered an estimated 25 million innocent civilians around the world its to be expected .

[BohsPartisan]

Just found this thread during a tour of the current affairs section. Interesting stuff. I recently read The God Delusion and would highly reccomend it. It also prompted me to go back and read sections of the Bible. Great fun to leaf through, particularly the old testament. Picked it up the other day and turned to the book of Judges. 10,000 infidels dead in the first paragraph alone. Now thats entertainment.
In the story of Soddom and Gomorrah a crowd arrives at Lots house because they require carnal knowledge of the two men (angels) who are visitors in Lots house. Lot does the decent thing and offers them his daughter to be gang-raped instead. Another almost identical scenario occurs in Judges.
Lot and his family then leave Soddom but his wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back (a bit harsh eh?). Later Lots daughters get him drunk and seduce him. Of course without religion we would have no guide to morality!

[Lionel Ritchie]

Just finished Richard Dawkins 'The selfish Gene' and have started into the God Delusion. Still in the preface and it's already excellent.

That bible sounds like my kind of book.
Hard partying people them Soddomites

[jebus]

Come off it BohsPartisan, how can you recommend the God Delusion? I just went through it myself and I found it to be the most contradicting piece of claptrap I've ever read in my life. Dawkins points about religion are simply the words of a man who wants everyone to agree with him, he doesn't even invite any argument for anything he says. In fact in a few sections, after making his point, he says that there can be no arguing with his 'teachings' on the matter. The guys a raving lunatic, far worse than any Catholic priest, Protestant Vicar, Jewish Rabbi or anyone else.

He's point about how the Boeing 747 theory is flawed, basically because it doesn't prove a Creator's existence 100%, is sound enough, but then he went and spoilt it al by coming up with his own flawed Boeing 747 counter-theory that apparantly can't be argued against! Why? Because you can't prove him wrong! The same can be said of the Boeing 747 pro-creationsit theory, but of course he doesn't say that.

Another thing he says in that attrocious book is that religion is the root of al evil, which to be quite honest is ********. He points out part of the States where the religious 'Red' states have higher crime rates than atheist 'Blue' states. Well he is assuming that all liberals are atheist here, and that all conservatives are religious for one, so thats that part of it wrong, he is also leaving out that 'Blue' California has the highest crime rate in the US, plus if he wants to get into mankind's violent tendencies than why not point out that some of the more vicious characters in recent history, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao were all atheist and very much anti-religious? In fact the 20th Century for me was the first Century in modern man's history where we made an attempt to break away from religion and what happened? We ended up with more bloodshed during that century than in any other in recorded history. Still Dawkins fails to mention that fact too, apparantly being selective is the hallmark of an atheist too, and not just of a creationist.

I had respect for the guy once, after reading the Selfish Gene, wich I would still recommend as a good read, but it's like the God Delusion was wrote by an entirely different author. His facts seem to be based upon his sneery disdain for anyone religious, and not in any scientific process (in fact this book has been rejected by many noted scientists, atheists and religious alike, as the work of an egomaniac in the last few weeks) and personally, I can't see why he sees it as his life work to abolish religion. Plenty of people don't belive in any form of religion, but it doesn't drive them to near dementia as it seems to have done to Dawkins

[BohsPartisan]

Dawkins points about religion are simply the words of a man who wants everyone to agree with him, he doesn't even invite any argument for anything he says. In fact in a few sections, after making his point, he says that there can be no arguing with his 'teachings' on the matter.
.

No he doesn't. The only things he says are indisputable are things that have been definitively proven by science.

Another thing he says in that attrocious book is that religion is the root of al evil, which to be quite honest is ********.

Here you give the game away. You haven't actually read the book because he in fact complains that the Channel Four producers called the TV show "The Root of All Evil" and he said it was a ridiculous term.

plus if he wants to get into mankind's violent tendencies than why not point out that some of the more vicious characters in recent history, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao were all atheist and very much anti-religious?

More proof you haven't read the book. He has a whole section on this. He quite clearly states that Atheist does not automatically equal good and that a religious person is not necessarily bad.


My advise to you would be read the book before you go on a rant.

[jebus]

We must have been reading a completely different version of the book so Partisan because this is what I took from that terrible book. How do you counter his assertion that the Red religious states of America have a higher crime rate than the blue states if he is not pointing out that religion is responsible for this? Why else would he bring up the point about blue and red states?

As for your other points, well Dawkins thumbs around thing like, some athiests are evil, but his general assertion is still that religious people have commited worse crimes throughout the course of history and hence religion itself is to blame. By redaing your account of the book you'd come away thinking that Dawkins had a well reasoned argument with himself about the pros and cons of religion and came away satisfied he won the argument. If you're one of those who worships at this man's alter just say so and I won't bother responding anymore

[BohsPartisan]

We must have been reading a completely different version of the book so Partisan because this is what I took from that terrible book. How do you counter his assertion that the Red religious states of America have a higher crime rate than the blue states if he is not pointing out that religion is responsible for this? Why else would he bring up the point about blue and red states?

No he's not pointing out that religion is responsible, he's pointing out that the arguement that many religious people make I.E. No God = No Morality is completely bogus. He points to those examples to show that secular folk don't need religion to be moral. He is fairly explicit about what he means.

If you're one of those who worships at this man's alter just say so and I won't bother responding anymore

I sure don't. I'm certainly a Gouldite when it comes to punctuated equilibria, which is something Dawkins dismisses but I agree with Dawkins over Gould in the NOMA controversy.
I agree that he is quite patronising in his tone but despite its flaws, the book has more pros than cons.

[jebus]

I agree that he is quite patronising in his tone but despite its flaws, the book has more pros than cons.

Since we generally can never seem to agree to disagree on anything, I'll just say thats where we differ in our opinions of this book, I think it has more cons than pros

[BohsPartisan]

Aww I'm dissapointed I was itching for a scrap on this one.

[jebus]

Aww I'm dissapointed I was itching for a scrap on this one.

I'll get back to you when I'm not so tired

[Lionel Ritchie]

Jebus -just to pull you up on something ...Hitler may or may not have been personally religious but he most certainly realised the power of religion in keeping his underlings tight, concentrated and focused.

Young German women were given a handbook explaining what their role was in Nazi society was to be and it was headed "Children, Kitchen, Church".

Goering expounded that the only way they could walk the German nation into a war with the USSR was to convince them there was a real danger of an imminent attack (sound familiar?) from the Godless Bolshevik east.

On the God Delusion -I appreciate that Dawkins tone can come across as undiplomatic, elitist even, at times. But he warns in the foreword that the gloves are off and he has no intention of affording the degree of unquestioning respect that organised religion of pretty much every hue gets elsewhere.

I personnally love this book already. At one point he says he's been asked does religions contributions to the worlds cultures count for nought and namechecks 'The Golden Bough' and a couple of other titles exploring the religions of the world ..."go ahead and read them all", he implores, "...and marvel at the richness and diversity of human gullability".

[jebus]

Jebus -just to pull you up on something ...Hitler may or may not have been personally religious but he most certainly realised the power of religion in keeping his underlings tight, concentrated and focused.

Young German women were given a handbook explaining what their role was in Nazi society was to be and it was headed "Children, Kitchen, Church".

Goering expounded that the only way they could walk the German nation into a war with the USSR was to convince them there was a real danger of an imminent attack (sound familiar?) from the Godless Bolshevik east.

But just because the Nazi's exploited peoples religious beliefs doesn't mean that this was an act of religion. From my reading of Hitler's views on religion he realised that he could use it as a tool to help win over some of his doubters, but that ultimately he wanted to take it out of everyday German life, because devotion to God took away from devotion to the State.

And Goering wasn't the only one to use the Godless Bolshevik theory to turn people against Russians, American propoganda in the 50s often refereed to them as Godless, whilst showing these crazed half humans stalking the land

[BohsPartisan]

But just because the Nazi's exploited peoples religious beliefs doesn't mean that this was an act of religion.

I think he just meant that the Hitler was an atheist thing isn't exactly true. He was just against any centre of power he didn't control himself.

[jebus]

I think he just meant that the Hitler was an atheist thing isn't exactly true. He was just against any centre of power he didn't control himself.

So he was, I think I was just throwing that allegation around because I've heard it before, that Hitler was a Christian when he was born and so he stands against Christian upbringing, which I find to be a rubbish point