Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?

Post by **Dalton** » 2006-01-03 04:36pm

Max wrote:Can someone record this and post it for download? I'm pretty sure it won't air in the U.S.

I don't think that's entirely legal, Max. BTW did you deliberately post this three times or were you having connection problems?

Max · Post by **Max** » 2006-01-03 05:33pm

Connection problems. I did NOT hit the submit button more than once. It may have something to do with my work connection.

Is it illegal to record tv clips and then let people download them? I know movies and music it is...but I didn't think TV show clips were...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-01-03 05:39pm

Max wrote:Connection problems. I did NOT hit the submit button more than once. It may have something to do with my work connection.

Is it illegal to record tv clips and then let people download them? I know movies and music it is...but I didn't think TV show clips were...

Yes. At least it is in the US. Because unless the copyright holder (usually the networks that own the license) has granted permission to distribute their material through methods other than airing it on tv, then it's just as illegal as downloading a pirated movie or album.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2006-01-03 05:51pm

General Zod wrote:
Max wrote:Connection problems. I did NOT hit the submit button more than once. It may have something to do with my work connection.

Is it illegal to record tv clips and then let people download them? I know movies and music it is...but I didn't think TV show clips were...
Yes. At least it is in the US. Because unless the copyright holder (usually the networks that own the license) has granted permission to distribute their material through methods other than airing it on tv, then it's just as illegal as downloading a pirated movie or album.

Isn't the show airing in Britain though? Do they have the same laws regarding that??

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-03 06:00pm

Max wrote:
Isn't the show airing in Britain though? Do they have the same laws regarding that??

Yes, ignoring the fact that there are international copyrights anyway.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-04 05:21pm

This thread is actually a bit disheartening. Personally. As many of you know, I've been wresting with such things for months now, . . . trying to rationalize between the two sides, . . . . . it's been a tough journey.

Post like this make me both "sad" and yet still amazed. Sad that the religion I've been raised in is so openly bashed, yet amazed that the "God of perfect love" that I was raised with is seen as the "Root of all Evil". The God who sacrificed his son to pay for sin. Yet, I get pulled back and forth. I've seen good arguments on your side that go relatively unanswered when posed to the christian forum, or they'll state that yes, God is a God of love, but also of Justice.

Make no mistake, . . . . as for how many people have taken the God of the Bible, whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim, . . . . it is certainly true that many horrible things have happened over the course of history under HIS banner. Still being done today. . . . .

My opinion is this, . . . . . going under the idea that God is real and wanted a relationship with us, . . . . we are pretty darn selfish people. We can find a way to tarnish even the most pure motive because of our own greed. Doesn't matter what period of history you would wish to focus on. The same will be true. Even today, in the 21st century, . . . . . . . we are often not much more than children fighting over the toys in the toybox. Rarely will we admit when we are wrong. Too quickly are we poised for conflict. We are seldom happy with what we have. Unfortunately, we don't treat others, regardless of race or sex, equally as we should. All this to say that the ideal of the Golden Rule, if followed throughout the ages, would have resulted in a much better world. Sadly, I doubt we'll see much change anytime soon.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-04 05:25pm

For those in Blighty, the show is on Monday night on C4 at 2000, so I expect part two the week after.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-01-04 06:51pm

Magnetic wrote:Post like this make me both "sad" and yet still amazed. Sad that the religion I've been raised in is so openly bashed, yet amazed that the "God of perfect love" that I was raised with is seen as the "Root of all Evil". The God who sacrificed his son to pay for sin. Yet, I get pulled back and forth. I've seen good arguments on your side that go relatively unanswered when posed to the christian forum, or they'll state that yes, God is a God of love, but also of Justice.

There's precious little in the early part of the Bible to justify the title of "God of Love". Which is a point that most of the moderates like to gloss over, picking and choosing from what is allegedly divinely inspired truth like a scriptural buffet.

Unfortunately, we don't treat others, regardless of race or sex, equally as we should..

The Bible's definition of treating people "equally" could do with some work. Race and sex in the bible are cues for oppression, rape, murder, and general unpleasantness.

God is a complete cunt in the bible, in fact I can't think of another fictional villain responsible for quite as many atrocities as he personally ordered.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-04 09:48pm

Oh yeah? What about HP Lovecraft's "Great Old Ones"? They're basically the most evil gods ever concieved.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-04 10:08pm

Actually they were described as not evil, just alien and they didn't care about humans at all one way or another.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-01-05 01:09am

Rye wrote:-snip-

And I managed to fail to express myself correctly again. I think the problem stems from me misunderstanding Richard Dawkin's position, and thus inadvertedly critizising a strawman and fucking myself over in the process.

Okay, the concept that religion in and of itself (any* religion) being some evil that must be combated against is what I'm disagreeing with. A concept that Dawkins does not seem to, under further consideration, not promoting.
*Reguardless of whether it is a modern humanist religion with some "God" fellow, Buddism, or a modern christian-ish religion that mostly direguards the Bible.

Perhaps another way of saying it is that I felt that Dawkins was attacking those of us that happen to have even a little religion, and thus attacking my 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion (yes, I know he's British).

Note to self: DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH ON A PERSON'S POINT BEFORE GOING OFF HALF-COCKED!

So basically I fucked-up. I'd apologize, but I think that something useful was learned from the fuck-up, and apologizing indicates that I regret making it in the first place.

BTW - By 'little religion' I meant: "I'm not an athesit because the concept of an afterlife tickles my fancy. It seems to be rather preferable to ceasing to exist."

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-01-05 01:11am

Ghetto Edit

Adrian Laguna wrote:A concept that Dawkins does not seem to, under further consideration, not promoting.

[Robin]Holy double-negatives Batman![/Robin]

That second "not" should've been a "be". I'm somewhat paranoid about not expressing myself correctly again.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-01-05 04:41am

Faram wrote:Damn good, I must buy his books!

I love it when someone goes on the offencive against the evil that religion is!

The first of Dawkins's books that I've read was The Blind Watchmaker. It was excellent. I've got Selfish Gene on my shelf now, but I haven't started it yet. I'm staying away from Mount Improbable because of a convincing review by Stephen Jay Gould saying that comparing the evolution of eyes to the scaling of a mountain by an easier method was simplistic and kind of misleading, because the Darwinian process doesn't actively look for ways to evolve eyes. I'm not explaining it very well, but it was a pretty good point.

Haven't got Ancestor's Tale yet, but I recommended it to a friend who's writing a paper on human evolution. I'll probably read it after Selfish Gene, and I want to get Devil's Chaplain (his book of essays and personal writings) somewhere in there.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-05 09:17am

Vendetta wrote:
Magnetic wrote:Post like this make me both "sad" and yet still amazed. Sad that the religion I've been raised in is so openly bashed, yet amazed that the "God of perfect love" that I was raised with is seen as the "Root of all Evil". The God who sacrificed his son to pay for sin. Yet, I get pulled back and forth. I've seen good arguments on your side that go relatively unanswered when posed to the christian forum, or they'll state that yes, God is a God of love, but also of Justice.
There's precious little in the early part of the Bible to justify the title of "God of Love". Which is a point that most of the moderates like to gloss over, picking and choosing from what is allegedly divinely inspired truth like a scriptural buffet.

They will say that God was trying to protect the Jewish people from the false gods of these other races, races that were trying to kill off the Israelites. Also, they say that God's justice is just as strong as God's love. Something along those lines, though I don't quite follow the logic.

Vendetta wrote:
Magnetic wrote:Unfortunately, we don't treat others, regardless of race or sex, equally as we should..
The Bible's definition of treating people "equally" could do with some work. Race and sex in the bible are cues for oppression, rape, murder, and general unpleasantness.

They deny any of the rapes as suggested from the "girls who have not been with a man, thou shalt keep for yourselves". As for the oppression, murder, and general unpleasantness, it goes back to what I said above. And they would say that "you are the clay, God is the potter. Who are you, as clay, to tell the Potter how to make the pot?"

I don't know. It's a point of contention that I'm still struggling with. I can see what they're saying, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in a purely humane approach.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2006-01-05 12:48pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:Perhaps another way of saying it is that I felt that Dawkins was attacking those of us that happen to have even a little religion, and thus attacking my 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion (yes, I know he's British).

The first amendment only covers the government. Individuals can say that all religion is illogical and therefore bad, while still supporting people's right to hold those illogical beliefs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-05 12:57pm

Magnetic wrote:They will say that God was trying to protect the Jewish people from the false gods of these other races, races that were trying to kill off the Israelites. Also, they say that God's justice is just as strong as God's love. Something along those lines, though I don't quite follow the logic.

Have any of them even bothered reading the fucking thing? Most of the groups the Israelites killed while rampaging through the lands in the early part of the Old Testament did nothing to Israel other than happening to live on land the Israelites wanted for themselves.

They deny any of the rapes as suggested from the "girls who have not been with a man, thou shalt keep for yourselves". As for the oppression, murder, and general unpleasantness, it goes back to what I said above. And they would say that "you are the clay, God is the potter. Who are you, as clay, to tell the Potter how to make the pot?"

Then let God himself explain this to me, instead of a bunch of fundie fucktards speaking on his behalf. Until he shows up himself and says this to me, I'm not buying these morons telling me all about him. To use their own analogy, this is one piece of clay talking to another about books that were written by a third piece of clay, so don't give me bullshit about being arrogant for not buying everything they say.

The fact is that the Christian religion deserves all the scorn Dawkins heaps upon it, but Christians are so accustomed to controlling public dialogue that they go apoplectic at hearing someone speak the truth.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-01-05 01:27pm

I think you'll find that if the clay was sentient and capable of telling the potter what to do...and the potter was a mad fuck that knew the clay was capable of feeling pain and suffering and made pots just to throw at the wall and shoot with his bb gun...you'd find most people would agree that the clay ought to tell the potter to go and fuck homself.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-05 01:38pm

Again, you all make valid arguments, at least to ME, anyway. I'm sure that if I were to bring these arguments (censored, of course, because of their cursing rules) they would no doubt have some response that would dismiss what you all say as being influenced by sin, "given over to a reporbate mind", or whatever similar forms of replies.

I'm just. . . . . . not sure where to stand.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-05 02:43pm

Magnetic wrote:Again, you all make valid arguments, at least to ME, anyway. I'm sure that if I were to bring these arguments (censored, of course, because of their cursing rules) they would no doubt have some response that would dismiss what you all say as being influenced by sin, "given over to a reporbate mind", or whatever similar forms of replies.

I'm just. . . . . . not sure where to stand.

They're they're bloody idiots and not worth wasting your time on. If you're unsure where to stand on this issue after all the documented incidents in the Bible highlighting Jehova's malevolence, then I'm unsure as to how clear you're thinking.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-01-05 02:55pm

Magnetic wrote:Again, you all make valid arguments, at least to ME, anyway. I'm sure that if I were to bring these arguments (censored, of course, because of their cursing rules) they would no doubt have some response that would dismiss what you all say as being influenced by sin, "given over to a reporbate mind", or whatever similar forms of replies.

I'm just. . . . . . not sure where to stand.

Ask yourself this:

What word defines believing something to be absolutely true when there is no evidence for it being so?

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-05 04:16pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Magnetic wrote:Again, you all make valid arguments, at least to ME, anyway. I'm sure that if I were to bring these arguments (censored, of course, because of their cursing rules) they would no doubt have some response that would dismiss what you all say as being influenced by sin, "given over to a reporbate mind", or whatever similar forms of replies.

I'm just. . . . . . not sure where to stand.
They're they're bloody idiots and not worth wasting your time on. If you're unsure where to stand on this issue after all the documented incidents in the Bible highlighting Jehova's malevolence, then I'm unsure as to how clear you're thinking.

Uh . . . . .yyyyyeah... .. I'm kind of in a "It just can't BE" state. 30 some years of indoctrination is truly hard to conquer!

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-05 04:19pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Magnetic wrote:Again, you all make valid arguments, at least to ME, anyway. I'm sure that if I were to bring these arguments (censored, of course, because of their cursing rules) they would no doubt have some response that would dismiss what you all say as being influenced by sin, "given over to a reporbate mind", or whatever similar forms of replies.

I'm just. . . . . . not sure where to stand.
Ask yourself this:

What word defines believing something to be absolutely true when there is no evidence for it being so?

In christian circles. . . . . . . faith.

I've seen many posts that clearly point out that if something science comes up with contradicts the Bible, they'll believe the Bible before science, regardless of the scientific proof.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-05 04:22pm

Magnetic wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Magnetic wrote:Again, you all make valid arguments, at least to ME, anyway. I'm sure that if I were to bring these arguments (censored, of course, because of their cursing rules) they would no doubt have some response that would dismiss what you all say as being influenced by sin, "given over to a reporbate mind", or whatever similar forms of replies.

I'm just. . . . . . not sure where to stand.
Ask yourself this:

What word defines believing something to be absolutely true when there is no evidence for it being so?
In christian circles. . . . . . . faith.

I've seen many posts that clearly point out that if something science comes up with contradicts the Bible, they'll believe the Bible before science, regardless of the scientific proof.

In medical circles, the word is "hallucination".

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-05 04:31pm

Magnetic wrote:
In christian circles. . . . . . . faith.

I've seen many posts that clearly point out that if something science comes up with contradicts the Bible, they'll believe the Bible before science, regardless of the scientific proof.

To throw another synonym in, that'd be "delusion". I sure hope you don't know any professionals that live like that, because a doctor or engineer taking a storybook over reality at anytime is a bad precedent.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-05 05:19pm

Hallucination. . . . . .delusion. . . . . . It would seem so.

As far as what I said about their faith in God as opposed to science, they're talking about things like the age of the planet, the Noah flood, as being still true though science sees those events in a radically different light, show evidence and proof as to their side, . . . . . . they will still believe what is said in the Bible as true, and that God DID make it happen supernaturally.