Moral .. hypocrisy? How does that work?

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, October 3rd, 2009 3:08pm PDT - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

Blimey, Pat sure has accumulated a lot of anger since his last video.

Awesome finale!

The "attempted murder" rhetoric is a blight on an otherwise great speech.

"Attempted murder" was the only phrase that set off my BS detection kit. Otherwise solid, and darn entertaining to listen to. Rather Carlinesque, in think.

Rather broad brush that he paints "the clergy" with. I think his message is spot on when applied to church itself as a large entity, but frequently false when applied to individual clergy members / ministers / priests / rabbis etc. I think that by and large, a good percentage of the rank and file members of the clergy presiding over local churches honestly believe their message and elected to become a priest in the interest of helping people.

As an atheist, I think that their "help" does more harm than good in most instances, but I believe that in many if not most cases they have good intentions. When I was growing up and gradually becoming more aware that I didn't believe the message that was being pushed to me (my family went to a Methodist church), I actually maintained some level of respect for the ministers at the church. The congregation, on the other hand, seemed to frequently ignore the positive aspects of the message (things like the golden rule that can be taught outside of the scope of any organized religion) while clinging to pointless dogma.

*edited for clarity

What a wonderful diatribe. But, could anyone please tell me actually how he defines these self-evident categories that he sets up? How does he understand "public religion?" And why is it juxtaposed with "personal faith?" What in the world would religion be if it was not public? Religion is social and it has found its inherent expression throughout histories and cultures precisely in public practices. It is, by its very nature, public.

The difficulty with his positions in this video is that he is blind to the limitations of his understanding of religion...probably b/c of his thoroughly modern mindset. Modernism and the rise of the individual has told us that beliefs are the core of religion and, therefore, are best seen as private or personal. And then, of course, any foray of religion into the public arena (however he would define it) is seen as overstepping its righful bounds and encroaching on others.

Both pre and post-modern understandings show us how limited this view is, and he would do well to do some more readings from centuries other than the 1900's. Religion and faith are best understood as rooted in practices and practices are always public. The real truth here is he has his own religion...and it is classic liberalism and it's patron saint...the Cartesian I.

The reality is that relilgion is an outdated mechanism, which should have been rooted out long ago. I have no problem with people need faith to carry on with their day, but as soon as that faith takes precedence over fact, then it's a problem.

>> ^gwiz665:
The reality is that relilgion is an outdated mechanism, which should have been rooted out long ago.


And, is that a scientifically verifiable fact? Or is it an opinion which is not provable, but should be believed nonetheless...like, oh, faith?

I appreciate his commentary re: the upper echelon of the clergy, but there are many men and women of faith who make the world a better place every day by carrying out the ideals proposed by their deity, who aren't judgemental, who do not force dogmatic believe on their fellow men and women. These people may well be great without their faith, we'll never know, but it does mankind a disservice to dismiss or condemn them because they share a religion with the exploiters and the false.

>> ^all4naught:
>> ^gwiz665:
The reality is that relilgion is an outdated mechanism, which should have been rooted out long ago.

And, is that a scientifically verifiable fact? Or is it an opinion which is not provable, but should be believed nonetheless...like, oh, faith?


Since when is faith an opinion?

Weak sauce.

PS I love this guy. But not in a gay kind of way.

Watched this a few nights ago on youtube - didn't realize someone sifted it. Great stuff.
*Quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Sagemind.

>> ^all4naught:
>> ^gwiz665:
The reality is that relilgion is an outdated mechanism, which should have been rooted out long ago.

And, is that a scientifically verifiable fact? Or is it an opinion which is not provable, but should be believed nonetheless...like, oh, faith?


Apologies for not replying to this sooner. I didn't see it.

My "opinion" is readily observable - what positive effect does religion have on society now? Comfort, community and..? There are better ways of being comforted, better ways of being in a community and better ways to get to know the world. Faith is something that can be practiced in private, sure, it is also the root of organized religion, which is nothing but a mechanism to keep weak men in power over strong, stupid men.

Religion has been the excuse for the mass killing of human beings by other human beings since its inception, and still is the reason it is happening today. Religion is truly a mental virus, passed on from parents to their children. Religion is the human species sickness that has enslaved and used us for its own survival and growth. Religion would not hesitate to cause you to destroy other human beings and/or yourself if religion considered itself seriously threatened.

it's slowly dissipating....faster please

Hey look guys, its one religious guy, bashing another religious guy. That sums up what this guy talks about. Yes, being an atheist, is STILL, someone with religious beliefs. Us humans will have a religion of one sort or another for a long, long, long time.

Yes, sometimes, every religion (including Islam) does something right, decent, noble, and good for Mankind. It also does something that is evil, hated, destructive, and horrible for Mankind. The wisdom, is to, strive towards the good, and keep the evil from seeping in.

>> ^Nithern:
Hey look guys, its one religious guy, bashing another religious guy. That sums up what this guy talks about. Yes, being an atheist, is STILL, someone with religious beliefs.

You couldn't be more wrong. Religion requires faith, which goes far beyond simple belief in God. Faith is an intimate relationship with God. Just believing in Jesus hardly makes you a Christian if your belief doesn't impact your life in any way.

Athiesm, by definition, is a lack of belief in God. The fact that I don't believe in God is hardly the same as I have faith that there is no God.

Saying athiesm is equivalent to religion shows an incredible amount of ignorance.

Actually, I'm correct, that this is one religious person bashing another religious person. I never mention the concept of 'faith', which is largely related to Christianity (but not limited to it alone). But, religion, is a belief concept. So, if you believe in God, there are a few religions that you could join or be a part of. Saying you do not believe in God, is still a belief in something.

Now, if my religion was Taoism, would I have faith? Ir I was buddist? Or that I worshipped the spirits of the land? Each region of the world, each language, and each religion, may have a word, phrase, or concept that is equal to or closely like, the defination of 'faith'.

No, my original point is, this guy feels its 'ok' to bash someone else's beliefs and not be held accountable to them. Religious wars started for lesser things a few hundred years ago.