Also, the conclusion to Richard Dawkin's The Root Of All Evil - Part 2: The Virus Of Faith on Google Video, this is the source material for his book: The God Delusion.

Excellent, keep them coming

That's it...I've had it. I'll scream if I see one more Richard Dawkins video.

Yes, I agree with him...that's fine. Yes, we know...he's an atheist. Check. Yes, he confronts religious types and stands up for science. Gotcha. WE GET IT. I've seen more Richard Dawkins videos in the past 3 months then just about anything else. What does this video say that the several other videos didn't?

Let me distill it down for you all his message (and I'm not disagreeing with it at all mind you): Religion bad; Science good. There, you have Richard Dawkins in a nutshell.

This is by far Dawkin's best documentary (and he's done some seminal works here in the UK). I appreciate that some Sifters don't like it (even those like yourself, who possibly share some of his views). But there's new people who haven't seen it, and neither of your comments put me off posting more.

I think this is the best anti-religion documentary I've ever seen - of which there's multiple parts of on here. It was previously posted by HAMFIST back here: The Root of All Evil with Richard Dawkins - pt 1 - but was pulled from YouTube a few months ago. And there's always the 'Hidden From My View' playlist - so your Sifting sessions can be spent happily ignoring them all, Goofball...

20:33 we see Ted "male hookers and Meth" Heggard.

I liked this video this is the first time I have seem it. I think he is a bit arrogant is like watching a blind man with a hammer walking into a glass packed store. He keeping breaking things not because he is worng (he is not) but because ... he is another extremest.

I do agree however that humanity is taking some backwads steps lately. Sad when tha happens...

I am a Catholic priest and would like to chime in on this one.
1. I accept the scientific method of relying on material evidence and on the idea that a series of tests often lead to a valid conclusion. I also accept that (this positive) science and theology are two different fields and should not be confused. Yet when it comes to ask questions about the meaning of life and our purpose of being, those who are involved in science make a significant step further and leave their own methodology, since those areas do not have a recourse to material evidence. Therefore the initial choice of trusting science only or atheism is casting one's votes for another kind of belief. Of course that does not necessarily mean an organised religion, but it is possible to develop into one, i.e. the practices of cold war Socialist countries or the then officially atheist Albania that often were highly liturgical. If one believes in scientific methodology as meaningful for one's existence, that's o.k. But it is a belief, and that's where it will have to face other belief systems.
2. Regarding evolution, it's too bad that Dawkin switched over to our evangelical brethren and, after treating the issue of Catholic Lourdes, did not go on analysing the Catholic position on evolution. Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII: "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Humani Generis 36).
3. This Pope was indeed mentioned by Dawking regarding the latest dogma of Assumption. The Pope did not sit alone and think of himself that this should become a dogma. That's an accusation on Dawking's part that I find very offensive. What the Pope did was a serious study of the long history of Christians believing in Assumption and found it reasonable to promulgate it. In fact I have found articles of Orthodox Christians in which they criticised the promulgation as unnecessary, as it had alway been present in their theology, liturgy and iconography. It was exactly this long presence of the idea of Assumption that made the Pope reflect. He did not make it up.
4. I do recognise that religious people, Christians and Catholics too, have had a significant role in instigating wars and hatred. And I am sorry for that, since I am part of their circle, the church. And I know that being sorry does not heal the wounds religious individuals and groups inside the church or other churched have inflicted. But I remain with this church believing in and being witness of the desire in many to reflect and revise their attitude, even in the presence of others who stick to their unhealthy approach. The church is a very complex group of much wisdom and stupidity intermingling. I choose to work with the wisdom part.
5. From the bottom of my heart I love atheists. I love how they promote frankness. Their denial of God's existence makes me feel humble about our truths. They shake us, religious people, up from our intellectual and indeed spiritual-theological slumbers, and I do not even mind if they promote a little agenda of presenting facts or views that would underlie their belief and miss out on others that would not, - as shown above.
6. I have in mind many other priest colleagues who would by and large share these views. Cheers, and keep up the good work!

Thank you, catholicpriest for your message of peace. The humility you express is so refreshing. It is a real contrast to the often bombastic comments made in support of Richard Dawkins that appear on this site.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

catholicpriest - how dare you come into a thread of raging athiests and show us reasoned arguments and compassion.

Actually thank you - I've been hoping (praying?) for a theologian to provide a counterpoint to what has, up to now, been a fairly one-sided issue here on VideoSift.

I agree with you on point 2 especially. Dawkins has gone after the "soft target" of wacky seeming evangelical Christians and then tries to paint all religion with the same brush.

Thanks for the appreciation, persephone and dag. I personally see two kinds of people, inside or outside of religion. One is interested in what the other party has to say and tries to get the best out of it, while the other has a conviction to defend adamantly without appreciating the other or opposing view. I try to belong to the former type, and I hope to speak on behalf of others in my "circles" who also see it this way.

I think that religion has many good values and it is in the core of it a good thing. But it is something very old from ancient times that has spread and evolved into the modern era of technology and physical discovery. It is true that many religious circles have political sides to them, one of the many reasons for the spread of these beliefs and acceptance of ancient creeds. Today unfortunately politics and religion are very much intermingled. Aggression and hate have clouded many religious people and places in the world. What Dawkins does not show are the places which are not aggressive and unaccepting. I have been to churches where people love science and encourage study advancement of knowledge and understanding, maybe people are different here in Canada. If people shun their nose at something without looking at evidence and important findings, maybe they are afraid of new direction or maybe loss of position.

Secular societies can be just as pernicious.

"Secular societies can be just as pernicious."

Name one.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

"Name one."

How about two:

Stalinist Russia and the DPRK

Those are not democratic systems so I fail to see how that applies in the context of discussing the difference between atheism or theism in society. Furthermore, we have lead the lives of god fearing people in one way or another since Egyptians, Mayans, Romans before and have been embroiled in various acts that directly went against logic and reason under the banner of religion. I was brought up in a religious society I understand it's need for existence, but I also understand that it has no place when it comes to certain things. Specifically goverment, liberties of other people and science.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Stalin would agree with you wholeheartedy Farhad ... onward to establish the worker's athiest utopia, comrade.

But seriously, if we're talking about secular societies, those two examples are about as secular as you can get. Secular != democratic. And if we're using the word "pernicious" I would say that Stalin's oppression of the Russian Orthodox Church was just that.

Also, I don't think I'd be breaking Godwin's law by citing Nazi Germany as another secular government that put science above all else in backing up its doctrines.

Did I just get called a communist?

First of all, the question of God, and his acceptance or not is subjective to each individual and as such each is allowed to make up their minds. I do not question or argue against that, I will wholeheartedly admit that I am not entirely clear on it either.

However I question religious presence when it comes to issues of national policy and the liberty of its citizens. As for what Dag said...

All the examples you put forward so far have one significant common thread the existence of a higher political order imposed on a population through the systematic elimination of any opposition. The higher political order does what is most beneficial to it's further existence, it eliminates all possible opposition through violent force flying whatever idealogical concept best suits their needs. In Nazi Germany there was the Night of Long Knives, the burning of the Reichstag, and of course the genocide of jews included political dissenters, communists and homosexuals.

In Stalinist Russia it was called the NKVD during World War 2, where the paranoid Stalin would regularly conduct purges to eliminate any possible dissent from the military and the populace. Stalin did not trust his own intelligence thinking it was all lies, thus Russia's response to Germany's invasion was so slow. Then the KGB came that watched over the entire population, again purging any possible dissent.

Exactly where atheism and theism reside in these two engines of war and control I don't really see. Neither Hitler or Stalin cared about religion, they cared about power and control, it's not like they were astronomers mapping space for the benefit of man's evolution, their research focused on war exclusively, there was no correlation between atheism and belief in science and their power over the people. It was fear, control and propaganda. Hitler himself is quoted as saying that he is not here to elevate man but to make use of his weaknesses, he exploited the weakness of a battered nation placing their blame on a political ideology (communism), a race (jews) and anyone else (homosexuals, anarchists and so on) he thought unfit for his vision of a 1000 year Reich.

Never have I proposed that we use science in any such manner, what I see is theism being used time and time again throughout history as a way to placate the population in various endeavors of conflict. I believe religion is beneficial to human development, and I have been brought up as such, however I do not see it's place in the offices of goverment in the conduct of policy. Either as a tool to placate the populace into supporting an unjust war through fear or to sell a political candidate as something he really is not. What God fearing man sends his men to die when he clearly didn't get the facts right but somehow the intelligence is cherry picked but we don't talk about it? And Bishops? Are they so high and mighty? What of the sexual scandals?

Even if the religious texts are from God, clearly his main mantra about you know loving everybody even if they are different is not followed by those who pretend to be devout Christians. There is no God in Iraq marching for the US. What the administration did is use religion and it's supporters to win the Whitehouse twice. This administration doesn't care about family values, or abortion, or stem cells or healthcare. It's machine was engineered to capture the gut feelings of all voters, to activate them, this is how an election during a war on two fronts and questionable economic status was voted on family values, topics like abortion and homosexuality.

Was it really as important as the conduct of military foreign policy under the banner of freedom? The escalation of military forces in Iraq (150,000 currently) with additional 20,000 coming in. Which is dismal to say the least and huge military gamble, there is no additional reserve after that number, and after there is the draft. US forces are engaging fleeing forces from Somalia, in similar operations carried out in Afghanistan. All this to assure a viable source of Oil for the US in the short future as oil reserves reach peak oil levels after which less and less barrels of oil will be produced. Blah blah blah This is all covered in the excellent History of Oil sift

My issue isn't with religion as with it's application as a political tool. That is the proper definition of Secularism, being the ideology that holds that religious issues should not be the basis of politics, it's only extremists who hold that religion has no place in public life for that is an issue for each person to decide for themselves on their own.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I would say that although Stalin was admitably, a pretty evil guy you would have to describe the regime as pernicious and secular, and I was responding to your "name one" comment.

I was just kidding about the communist thing - unless you are one. Which is also fine of course.


I shouldn't qualify this, but I guess I will. I don't believe in a god. But I do believe in tolerance - and the trendy disdain that most of us here have for theistic/spiritual beliefs is just another form of dogma and conventional wisdom.

Sure a lot of evangelists are nutty cook-jobs, lacking in a moral compass or worse. But they are human beings before they are religious nut-jobs.

Classifying them and labeling makes them "the other" and that is the big proglem that has dogged humanity since we were chimps, and is the real cause of all of the strife you mentioned, not religion -it's Man's inhumanity to man.

Either way our civilization is on the brink of probable collapse. Either by depletion of our soon to be dwindling energy resources, over population, mass economic depression due to the peg of the US dollar to oil, newer forms of bacteria and viruses resistant to our dwindling antibiotic stock. Oh shit... global warming? Either way it's not going to be fun.

And I take no responsibility for the belligerent harassment some <ahref="http://www.videosift.com/video/Doin-Nails-for-Jesus--from-Jesus-Camp">people on the sift express towards theists as I do not condone such actions myself.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm hoping for aliens, sentient robots or an escape hatch.

There is no escape. But enjoy the ride.

*long

This video has been marked Long (called by gold star member deputydog)

Cheers Dog - I've another 100+ posts to re-tag and describe!

Same here. Not enough time.

It turns out that the evils which have infested religion are not confined to it, but are ones that can accompany any successful human institution. Nor is it even clear that religion itself is something that the human race either can or should be cured of.

– Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (2004)

*promote

Promoting this classic video back to the front page; last published Monday, January 8th, 2007 9:17pm PST - promote requested by Fedquip.

You make a very adulterous point, comrade Forhad.. :-P.
Just kidding, this is a great discussion.

When it is said that Soviet was an evil, secular society - of course it is correct, but it is not evil, because it is secular; it is evil AND secular. The fundamentalistic taleban regime are evil excactly because (or at least partly because) it is religious.

A guy who sounds like an even gayer C3PO isn't going to do sh-t to anyone's religious beliefs, pro or con.

Faith cannot be proven with science, that's why it's faith.

I'd rather live in a society that freely exalts gods above men and the State than one where the State or a tyrant is propped up as a god.

QM, that's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of free and democratic countries where most people don't believe in god, such as Japan, Sweeden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Belief without any evidence is foolish.

TO CATHOLICPRIEST
Excellent post.

Julian Jaynes proposed in his controversial 1977 book 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' that in pre-Homeric times (before the historian Homer) people did not have the highly developed minds that we take for granted today.

What we call the 'ego' today was for these ancient people what they called a 'god'.

When danger threatened suddenly the god's voice was heard in the individual's mind. This function of the mind has since evolved and become integrated into what Jung called the 'ego'.

Science has nothing to say about the origin of consciousness, aside from Daniel Dennett's reductionist ideas which I don't accept. Religion on the other hand SHOULD have something to say about origin of spirit/consciousness but it has become so sidetracked over the millenia with social control that it has completely lost its way.

Religion in the ancient, shamanic, spiritual, natural sense would be very welcome in the world right now, and would be welcomed by every individual on this planet.

Religion gets a bad rap because it has tended over the last 3-4000 years toward social control, no matter which of the religions you choose to look at. This is why the seperation of church and state is VITAL.

If any one of us were to go back in time and go into Jesus's church, we would be going in there to LEARN, to learn about ourselves, our minds, our consciousness, our spiritual centre. When we 'graduated' we would not need to go back, and we would be informed and learned enough to teach others.

Science teaches. Religion controls.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Fletch.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by Fletch.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.