Enjoy the latest video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
www.liveleak.com/view
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm
;
www.liveleak.com/view
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm
;
posted by:
|
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, November 29, 2007 - 12:18 PMWow, he simultaneously insults dogmatists and says that he isn't interested in debating his views because he knows they are right. All without a trace of irony. Most impressive.
This is not a plea for rational discourse - this is the answer to the question "What if Jerry Falwell were a hateful atheist rather than a hateful Christian?"
Sometimes Condell is pretty funny, but more often he exemplifies exactly why atheists are so hated even in religiously "free" countries like the US and Britain. Because all too often they act like arrogant believers in a "higher dogma," more interested in insulting people than in having a real conversation. It doesn't take a genius to see that you couldn't do much worse in terms of a public relations campaign for whatever ideology you happen to be selling. If any atheist disagrees with this assessment, ask yourself what atheists gain by having the stereotype of the "angry atheist" perpetuated. -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, November 29, 2007 - 1:16 PMI disagree with your assessment but it's probably due to a misunderstanding of the point in the video - which was actually quite brilliant. I can understand how it would go over the heads of so many.
We've been trying to have a "conversation" with theists for over 2 millennia - how has that gone for us? Well, with over 250 million killed in the name of Christianity and 270 million killed in the name of Islam since their creation as for just 2 examples, it's time we gathered some backbone. The current political environment is not looking good with both Islam and Christianity competing for world dominance, now is the best time to pull ones head out of the sand before we no longer have that choice.
islamwatchers.blogspot.com
"DHIMWIT - "dhim·wit (dmwt ) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity."
www.thereligionofpeace.com/Page...s.htm -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, November 29, 2007 - 3:22 PMA couple points, Chopper. First, when you say
"I disagree with your assessment but it's probably due to a misunderstanding of the point in the video - which was actually quite brilliant. I can understand how it would go over the heads of so many."
Atheists have a reputation for acting as though the people they speak to are mindless sheep, so it's little wonder we are hated by so many. I would like to see this change, because I want atheists to be successful in changing peoples' minds. Condell notes that he has gotten to the point of annoying even fellow atheists, and I think he should have taken that as a cautionary note, rather than just getting more angry.
Certainly a lot of people have been killed in the name of religion. No one can dispute that, but as you know, it's not the whole story. The obvious examples of mass murder by atheists are Stalin and Mao. Mao, for example had his soldiers ravage through China and Mongolia killing anyone who wasn't an atheist. Most of his victims were Buddhists (arguably the most peaceful religion on earth). It seems many ideologies can serve as instigators for the psychopathic urges of men in power. I know that killing religious people is not what you have in mind when you suggest that we need to pull our heads out of the sand, but to me pulling our heads out of the sand means engaging others in dialog. If we can't take them seriously, then we give them no reason to take us seriously.
I worry about fanatical intolerant religions too, but fanatical atheism seems a poor remedy to the problem, and anger seems a bad way to win converts to one's philosophy.
Not sure what prompted the "dhimwit". Was it something I said? -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, November 29, 2007 - 4:25 PMNo sir, Vood, the DHIMWIT thingy wasn't directed toward you in anyway but I can see why you may have thought as much.
V "Atheists have a reputation for acting as though the people they speak to are mindless sheep, so it's little wonder we are hated by so many."
- Fair enough, lets consider that there are always going to be a few bad apples so to speak but then again, many folks probably deserve it. we certainly have well spoken atheists to fill the gap you are validly concerned with. I feel that there is a double-standard at play here. Atheists are not allowed to mock the absolutely ridiculous beliefs of theists while theists are free to put per pressure & their gilt trip on the rest of us. Somebody has to tell it like it is and I think Pat does that. I think Sam Harris does that. I think Richard Dawkins does that. I feel that militant fundamentalist atheists go way to far though & I cannot agree with that.
V "The obvious examples of mass murder by atheists are Stalin and Mao"
- This is not accurate. Nobody has killed in the name of atheism. There have been totalitarian regimes whose leaders may have been atheists but they never killed in the name of atheism.
V "fanatical atheism seems a poor remedy to the problem"
- That is exactly what Pat was talking about - I thought it was as transparent as glass.
-
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, November 29, 2007 - 4:54 PMMaybe what I'm advocating here is a double-standard, I'm not sure. What I really want is for atheists to act as good ambassadors for their belief system (or if you don't like the term 'belief system', then whatever you would call it). I don't mind calling a spade a spade, but it sounded like Condell was saying "your belief system is so stupid, I don't even want to talk to you." I think that was the point of "why debate dogma?"
<"This is not accurate. Nobody has killed in the name of atheism. There have been totalitarian regimes whose leaders may have been atheists but they never killed in the name of atheism.">
Well, it may have been officially in the name of Communism, but lets not split hairs. They were atheists. They were extremely powerful. They were mass murderers. I don't know the demographics of Stalin's killings, but in the case of Mao, he killed people specifically because they were religious. Let's not make excuses for it. These are very ugly chapters of history and they show that the presupposition that we would stop killing each other over insane ideologies if we were all atheists remains unproven at best, and outright refuted at worst.
Who do you think are some of the fundamentalist atheists who go too far? -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, November 29, 2007 - 6:15 PMIt appears that your morals are in the right place, at least IMHO. I also would like to see "atheists to act as good ambassadors" and I do see that . However, in the last few years, I've seen a brand of atheist that I refer as the militant fundamentalist atheist or "positive" / "strong" atheist which is not what I consider "proper", by definition. I think those folks should find a new word that best defines their position because "atheist" isn't it. It's an abuse and misuse of the word.
In my view and the view of others throughout history view the proper definition for atheist as: an absence of belief in any god - *NOT* a belief or denial that no god exists.
V "officially in the name of Communism, but lets not split hairs. "
"No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.'
atheism.about.com/od/isathe...Killed.htm
Totalitarianism had more to do with those killings you mentioned. It really had nothing to do with atheism. -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Fri, November 30, 2007 - 10:10 AMThanks for the article on the slaughters in China and the USSR. I see the author's point, and to a certain extent it's a valid one, thought the fact that these totalitarian atheist mass-murderers were specifically targeting religious people (mainly Buddhists and Christians) makes it look like it's no mere coincidence that they were atheists.
To be sure, my point is not that atheism will likely motivate people to senseless acts of violence against religious communities. My point is that atheists frequently speak as though mass murder could only occur in the name of religion, and if we got rid of religion the problem would go away. Here we have 2 glaring counterexamples to that theory.
Personally I don't understand the nature of belief, and I somewhat suspect nobody else does either. The more I learn about neuroscience, the more I see folk psychology as the art of telling stories about our thoughts and motivations. It may be that some people have naturally homicidal tendencies and they simply hook onto whatever "beliefs" seem most useful for justifying the behavior that they would have done anyway. Religion can help this process along and can help psychotic individuals get followers to carry out their orders, but as we've seen, secular philosophies can have the same effect. -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Fri, November 30, 2007 - 12:56 PMIn my view you may still not be making the connection to the points at hand. You still seem to be trying to accuse atheism/secularism when that is not the case as the article explains. Further,
"People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism.
But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.
Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad. "
atheism.about.com/od/isathe...Killed.htm
Again, to point the finger in the right direction we would be looking at totalitarian regimes - not just atheistic or secular views.
Totalitarianism - atheism.about.com/b/2006/06...-state.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Fri, November 30, 2007 - 4:30 PMTrying to accuse atheism? Nah. I've read the article and I understand it, and for the most part, I agree with the author. It's not that I have a problem with atheism. My point is merely that many ideologies, religious and secular, can be used to justify murderous behavior. Atheists often speak as though getting rid of religion will put an end to this kind of insanity, but given the examples at hand, I don't see that this view is supported by the evidence. Maybe getting rid of religion would help. But then maybe getting religion would just lead us to find other reasons to massacre one another. -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Fri, November 30, 2007 - 6:14 PMV "Atheists often speak as though getting rid of religion will put an end to this kind of insanity, but given the examples at hand, I don't see that this view is supported by the evidence."
- Sure you do. In the US we have something called the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
From the "Separation of church and state" tribe -
"The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular & legal document. It contains no mention of Jesus Christ, Christianity or god. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice –in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian (who's version?). Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator. The U.S.A. is the first nation in history to separate church and state. And for very good reasons too. "
American Christians today can thank the SECULAR US Constitution for taming their religion.
"Pilgrims originally were a tolerant people, when they founded Plymouth in 1620. By 1691, the Pilgrims had adopted the theocratic, intolerant Calvinism of the Puritans, who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. The Puritans came to this land expressly to establish a bible commonwealth, and banished "heretics" and dissenters. In Virginia, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death by burning. Quakers were particularly persecuted. People who were not orthodox Christians were not legally protected, could be denied civil rights and jailed. The founders of the new nation of the United States of America, conversant with extreme religious intolerance and violence in the several colonies, were determined to put an end to it. That is why they established state/church separation."
www.ffrf.org/quiz/script..._results.php -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Tue, December 4, 2007 - 3:39 PMYes, here in the US we kill people for other absurd reasons. See for example Iraq Wars I and II.
I'm really happy the NEI came back saying Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Looks like the "good Christians" on the right are going to have to stop beating the war drums, at least for now. -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, December 6, 2007 - 10:36 AMI think you'll appreciate this if you haven't already seen it, Chopper. friendlyatheist.com/wp-conte...ator6.jpg -
-
Re: video from Pat Condell "Why debate dogma?"
Thu, December 6, 2007 - 2:23 PMYes indeed, I certainly do appreciate those types of things...and I agree that reality can be awesome - as we approach the winter solstice a date worthy of celebration by all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
