I must disagree with Vidal. Lying to people about their departed loved ones is not doing them a service, it is not being a good human being. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what he said, because it doesn't match up with the rest of what he said.

There is a fundamental disconnect going on with the religious attitude toward death. On the one hand, the afterlife is set up to be this wonderful place where everybody is happy, rewarded for living a good life. Paradise. But on the other hand, the fear of death is nearly universal. If there really are so many people out there believing in God and Heaven, then why is there a persistent and intense fear of death?

This is why I maintain that the vast majority of people who claim to be religious, don't actually believe what they think they believe. They haven't thought it through. If they did believe, they would be looking forward to death like the greatest Christmas present ever possible, but it's not quite time to open the box yet. That is not the attitude I see in the world.

So instead of guiding a person through the stages of grief, a religious person tries to short-cut by telling the griever that their loved one isn't really dead. Perhaps it is a comforting thought, for the moment, but it conflicts with the obvious gut level knowledge that the person is out of our lives forever. So maintaining this split between reality and the fantasy that the person is still alive somehow, just not physically present, only serves to prolong and deepen the grieving process. I can easily conjure up the mental image of the deeply religious widow who is simply grieving for the rest of her life.

That is not a real comfort. That is not really helping.

"Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what he said, because it doesn't match up with the rest of what he said."

That's correct. Vidal was agreeing with Susan Greenfield.

mr vidal was praising the woman for her compassion,not admonishing her for her choice of vehicles to do so.
as an atheist he,himself, does not believe in an afterlife,but he cannot provide empirical proof that one does not exist.
just as a person of faith,or religion,cannot prove that one does.
to debate the matter is an exercise in futility.
mr vidal was simply stating that the woman far better represented his vision of what a good christian should behave like than the pastor was putting forth.
in that sense i agree with him.
it has been debunked,to the churchs chagrin,that moral behavior has little to do with fear of punishment in the afterlife.
simply put:if a man an asshole,he will behave like an asshole,and no fear of damnation will curtail that.
why?
because he's an asshole.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Gore Vidal, Keith Ward, Susan Greenfield' to 'Gore Vidal, Keith Ward, Susan Greenfield, Melvin Bragg' - edited by jwray

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Gore Vidal, Keith Ward, Susan Greenfield, Melvin Bragg' to 'Gore Vidal, Keith Ward, Susan Greenfield, Melvyn Bragg' - edited by jwray

"Prove that you love your wife".

That's a bit of pwnage right there actually.

What pisses me off the most about this video is actually at the beginning where the preacher claims that Marcus Aurelius was "a christian" even though he came long before christianity even existed in its present form. He basically makes up some shit on-the-stop about how people can be christians "without knowing it."

Sorry, but I call bullshit on that one. If you look back into the history of the christian church, you will see time and again references to the pagans being either in limbo or worse, hell, specifically because they came before a time where they could be saved by jesus. Vidal is spot on calling the christian god a blackmailer because that is exactly what he is. Believe in me or else.

Fundamentally, what I like better about the way Dawkins addresses these silly arguments is that he doesn't concentrate on this christian-centric view. His best argument it is that it is all dependent on where you happen to be born. You are born in a christian country, you are likely going to be christian, you are born in an islamic country, you are likely going to be islamic, etc. Of course, there are many who say that worship is worship, but it seems to me that each religion is BASED on the assumption that THEY have the "story" right. So even the half-assed religious people who are okay with other religions still adhere to their own under that assumption.

Frankly, I feel that missionaries are probably the most honest of all types of religions people because they seem to understand the problematic nature of the fact that most of the world doesn't think like them and they are actively trying to do something to spread the world... at least that has some logic to it.

But anyway back to this video... I suppose my main point is that there isn't uniformity even within one so-called faith. Christianity is so varied that it is total bullshit for that guy to say that Marcus Aurelius was somehow inspired by the christian god to do compassionate things... There are just as many, if not countless more "christians" who would state that Marcus Aurelius is in hell for all eternity for nothing more than being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Vidal sets up a straw man (Christianity = do good and go to heaven) and then knocks it down. In the words of the Dalai Lama: Whoopee.

The god Vidal rejects he rightly rejects. That god does not exist.

The way Christianity has predominantly been preached and believed for many centuries is that each person will exist in a future state of rewards or punishments (read: heaven or hell) depending on his compliance with God. Of course there are liberal sects of Christianity that believe differently (Universalists, for example, do not believe in hell). The flaw in most religious morality is that it consists of arbitrary fiats, of questionable authorship, enforced by mythical sticks and carrots. The golden rule is good - but reciprocity did not originate with Jesus. It is the basis of nearly every moral system, whether religious or secular. A whole lot of mythical bullshit piggy-backs on that one good idea. There are clearly better reasons to follow reciprocity than "Jesus said so", "God said so", or "God will reward/punish me conditionally".

Wow, "PWN" is totally over used on the sift.

But damn. Pwned.

I think the woman in the middle said the most striking thing of all and it seems largely overlooked, which I'm going to badly attempt to paraphrase..

If a person chooses to believe something in their heart, who am I to tell them they are wrong. I certainly cannot disprove the contention there is a god (of any particular denomination) just as religious folks cannot prove there is a god.

So you have two realms of belief, conflicting. If you cannot see something and never experience it, this does not mean it does not exist, it just means that if it does exist, you have not been made privy to it Does this mean anyone should force their belief on another?

My main problem with organised religion is that many try to force others to follow their belief without any proof that there is anything to follow in the first place. Similarly, I dislike evangelical atheists who will go out of their way to break the belief of the religious.

May be if we get the fuck over ourselves and just act with humanity (the point I believe Mr. Gore was trying to make), the world would be a much better place.