Faith transcends reason the way a criminal transcends the law... hah! Love it!

*quality

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

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more. In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.

>> ^justanotherday:
Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more. In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.


What are you talking about?

>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

Wait, was this guy trying to sum up how I feel around Christmas or...hmmm...

We are more than we appear [to be]. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.

You are asserting without evidence. Science, so far, has actually more and more established that we indeed ARE (broadly speaking*) the sum of our parts. Theres is, of course, still a possibility that we are "more" than that, but theres nothing so far to suggest it, other than our feeling that we sort of are. This feeling need not be more true than our feeling that the ground is stationary.

*by this I include the interaction between our parts, and these parts interaction with the world around our bodies, including each other. What I mean is that theres is no sign of an independent "soul" or "spirit" etc.

The best in anti-religious trolls, for sure.

I think the drops in Church attendance I keep hearing about in the US and UK/Europe have to do with this guy's rant about submitting to clergy,etc. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance there for people living in a free country...they don't want to be dominated by someone or some organization.

But, I don't think there's necessarily a corresponding drop in people's faith in their religion. People identify some portion of their church that they don't want to be associated with, socially, so they stop going to avoid the negative social impact. When I've argued with my family about all the awful things organized religion does to the world, they just disconnect their faith from the various organizations. They don't feel their subscription lends credence to anything anyone else does with their faith. "Anyone who would do that isn't a real Christian", etc.

All the religious people I know who don't attend church regularly still do bible study stuff and have various other social religious functions on a smaller organizational level than a church that has to maintain a building and such. The ones who identify themselves as Christian but aren't regularly performing any Christian rituals above getting married in a church also don't talk about their faith and don't use it to justify any of their beliefs. I don't think any of these people are true believers...they just grew up with it and the hideous negative social aspects of being a non-believer in their community.

Point is, I think this guy's reasoning has an effect on religious people and does slowly drive some people away from church, but it's not persuasive...he's just making himself feel better by saying it. I agree with the guy and his sentiment, but I think living an Atheist/Agnostic life and leading by example is going to be a better way of convincing people they don't need religion to be happy. Being sort of militant about it is just going to give ammunition to critics.

@mgittle More bee's with honey than vinegar? I can see the reasoning there. You're dealing with people are by their nature not rational, attempting to sway them with reason or derision isn't really playing to their strengths.

Why should your moronic belief in democracy or "equality" get any respect either?
Pathetic.

I'm 100% with mgittle on this. You don't convince people by disrespecting them. While you don't have to respect people's ideas, in a civilized society at least, you should respect the person who formed them and not assume they are a total idiot just because they don't agree with you.

My basic problem with his argument is that it assumes that faith is somehow imposed from the outside--as if the faithful have all been suckered--and he's here to save them all from it. A lot of faithful that I know are willingly faithful. They know there is no "hard" evidence. They have a choice and they choose to be faithful. Why? The answer is simple really: because their faith makes their lives better.

And how can you argue with that? Would you honestly accept someone else telling you demanding that you change because that's what they think is going to make you happy? It works both ways, of course. Most of us here hate it when one of the overzealous faithful shows up on our doorstep to proclaim how much better we'll be worshiping their particular deity. This guy is just doing the same thing in reverse. Like mgittle said, showing them how happy you can be is far more persuasive.

Problem, of course, is that again it works both ways. Some people see how happy a certain faithful person is and choose to embrace the faith as well. I honestly think certain people are happier and more productive when they are practicing a religion and others are happier and more productive when atheist. It just depends on the individual. And I absolutely agree with justanotherday that it is entirely possible for all of us to get along... if we all learn some respect.

That said, there are serious problems within many major organized religions, and these do need to be addressed. But I see that as a separate issue from that of faith (in Christianity), which is mostly what the video was about.

Deep thoughts - By Jack Handy>> ^justanotherday:
Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more. In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.

>> ^bluecliff:

Why should your moronic belief in democracy or "equality" get any respect either?
Pathetic.


Because they can be defended by centuries of philosophy on the human condition, and they conform to our innate sense of value in other people, and that all the evidence to date suggests these ideas improve human welfare?

because their faith makes their lives better. And how can you argue with that?

The short answer: we cant. On the other hand, someone who has faith that a militaristic version of islam, where believing that you can blow yourself and innocent people up probably makes you "feel better" on some level, that just doesnt make it true.

The core issue that if you can be the most harmless person ever who secretly and privately believes jesus will save you, you are just as delusional as a hardcore islamic suicide bomber. in both cases you make extraordinary assumptions without extraordinary evidence, or infact with no evidence at all..

Pat Condell makes no such assumptions, he makes no claim to be able to tell you what to believe, and I may be a fan of his, but theres no way he could tell me what to think or believe, and I think he'd be ashamed of himself if I got that impression. He's saying "this is bullshit" (about faith/religion) and I agree. Beyond that, we might have many disagreements.

@KnivesOut Exactly.

However, respecting the person is different from respecting their ideas. You can argue about ideas, but there is a certain type of logic that allows people to arrive at the belief system they have. It may be technically wrong, but that doesn't mean they're not emotionally and historically attached to them. Attacking their ideas is like attacking the way they became attached to those ideas, and that can be very upsetting to people.

The one thing Richard Dawkins keeps saying is that he thinks there will be a critical mass of non-believers at some point in the future...and that when we reach that point it will become much more socially acceptable and normal not to believe. I agree with that, and I think the best way to get to that point is to not make a war out of it. Just letting your friends and family know that you're not religious and you're perfectly happy about it is enough. That way, any of your family members who may be leaning that way will know they're not alone.

@SDGundamX

Some people are certainly happier practicing religious rituals, but I believe the mysticism attached to those rituals is the source of the problems religions cause. I think people benefit from prayer because it affects their brains in the same way meditation does. fMRIs have proven this recently.

Check out this Talk of the Nation (NPR) show from the other day...it's about Neurotheology...a.k.a. your brain on religion. Wish it was a video so I could sift it =(

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=12-15-2010

And still, when it comes to other people and their beliefs we do not always respect them (or their beliefs). Imagine someone who believes that Elvis is still alive and "preaches" it. We effectively marginalize such people and do not respect their views. I would go so far to say we do not even respect them.

In most other areas, as Sam Harris puts it, to be highly certain of something with a low order of evidence is a sign that something is wrong with your mind. However, when it comes to religion, we must suddenly flip this on its end and respect other people's beliefs. Why?

When it comes to tolerance, I could care less what people believe in their own heads. If it would only stay there. I do not want their views imposing on my life as it does now through the hindering of science and an attachment to ancient moral values. They are actively hindering me from fulfillment in this the only life I think I have. And while their lives appear better to themselves it comes at the cost of almost endless suffering felt by others. Condoms in Africa anyone?

Summing it up: Believe what you want, but as soon as you put it out there and it affects others be ready to have your reasons inspected and challenged.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I'm 100% with mgittle on this. You don't convince people by disrespecting them. While you don't have to respect people's ideas, in a civilized society at least, you should respect the person who formed them and not assume they are a total idiot just because they don't agree with you.
My basic problem with his argument is that it assumes that faith is somehow imposed from the outside--as if the faithful have all been suckered--and he's here to save them all from it. A lot of faithful that I know are willingly faithful. They know there is no "hard" evidence. They have a choice and they choose to be faithful. Why? The answer is simple really: because their faith makes their lives better.
And how can you argue with that? Would you honestly accept someone else telling you demanding that you change because that's what they think is going to make you happy? It works both ways, of course. Most of us here hate it when one of the overzealous faithful shows up on our doorstep to proclaim how much better we'll be worshiping their particular deity. This guy is just doing the same thing in reverse. Like mgittle said, showing them how happy you can be is far more persuasive.
Problem, of course, is that again it works both ways. Some people see how happy a certain faithful person is and choose to embrace the faith as well. I honestly think certain people are happier and more productive when they are practicing a religion and others are happier and more productive when atheist. It just depends on the individual. And I absolutely agree with justanotherday that it is entirely possible for all of us to get along... if we all learn some respect.
That said, there are serious problems within many major organized religions, and these do need to be addressed. But I see that as a separate issue from that of faith (in Christianity), which is mostly what the video was about.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pat, condell, faith, religion, reason, respect' to 'pat condell, faith, religion, reason, respect' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^bluecliff:

Why should your moronic belief in democracy or "equality" get any respect either?
Pathetic.


Since when are democracy and equality beliefs?

Democracy is a system of government. There's no question whether or not it exists; you can find proof in a number of countries. Not believing democracy is a good form of government or that it fulfills certain goals is not the same as not believing it exists.

Equality is a social concept. Not believing that all people are or should be treated equal is not the same as not believing in equality. As a concept, its existence cannot be disputed. A concept exists as soon as it is defined.

I find your "critique" holds no water. Please try again.

God-winned.>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more. In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.

@mgittle

Agree with you partly. However, I think focusing on religion just in terms of neuroscience is far too narrow a view. Religion brings many, many other benefits in socio-cultural and psychological terms (see here and here for two examples). Far more, in my opinion, than the dangers. But that is not an excuse to overlook the dangers either, and it certainly isn't justification of evils committed in the name of religion.

@chtierna

It really depends on what you call "evidence." Harris clearly sets the bar very high--he will only include as evidence anything that can empirically be tested.

But I think most believers do in fact look at the evidence in their own lives--purely subjective evidence. Has this belief system been useful to them? Has it helped them and the people they care about be happy? Can they see positive benefits in their lives? They may not even believe any of the mystical stuff, but if they answer yes to these questions they have very little motivation to change. Honestly, I think for most human beings, the subjective evidence is far more compelling than the empirical when determining our belief systems.

@BicycleRepairMan

But he clearly is telling us what to believe in this video. You are too. Both of you are telling us to believe that those who are religious are delusional. Delusion is a pathological problem caused by illness. Neither the field of psychology nor psychiatry consider religious beliefs to be delusional (Freud did, but not based on any empirical research--it was his personal view). There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that religious beliefs are delusional in the medically defined sense. They may be "mistaken beliefs" but that is not the same thing.

This may seem off-topic a bit, but let me explain why I hate these kind of videos. "Atheism" means not believing in a god. That's it. Atheists (after the term "fundamentalist atheists" started floating around) have gone to great lengths to protest that atheism is not a belief system (and hence it is impossible for an atheist to be "fundamentalist").

And yet I see more and more videos like this one which in which atheism is clearly being portrayed as a belief system. It is being associated with a positivistic worldview in which only that which can be measured is real or meaningful. Atheists are presented as more rational and logical than other people. And anyone who is not an atheist is demonized as the "other"--for instance, in your own very words as "delusional" --and described in terms of what they are not (i.e. rational, intelligent, etc.) rather than in terms of what they are (i.e. human beings with complex motives and reasons for believing). In other words, atheism is presented as being downright hostile to religion--though oddly enough "religion" is often narrowly defined as Fundamentalist Christianity and Radical Islam.

I'm an agnostic atheist. That means I don't believe in any particular deity though I don't deny the possibility he/she/it/them may exist. I make no claims about my rationality or that of others. I make no claims about the nature of human knowledge. When I say I'm an atheist I mean I don't believe in a god or gods. That's all atheism should mean. Being an atheist does not make one any better than any other human being on the planet. The condescension that I see in most of these videos is, frankly, disgusting. The fact remains that neither atheists nor believers have any concrete evidence that their particular side is correct. You don't agree with the other side? Fine. But if you want to be treated with respect (and judging by these videos, atheists so desperately do) you need to act in a way that is worthy of respect. That is what will get people listening seriously to what you have to say. Not chastising them as if they were a child.

@SDGundamX

Are you agnostic in respect to Elvis being alive? Are you agnostic in respect to the flying spaghetti monster or the pink invisible unicorn? If this had been a video calling people that believe Elvis is alive and well idiots would the wording have offended you so? What if he called people who believe in Poseidon and Zeus idiots. Would that offend you? If not, why not?

I used to be agnostic like you. I thought since I couldn't prove something didn't exist, I couldn't really argue against that thing. But in reality we do this all the time. Most people (I'd say everyone) have a set of filters setup against believing in anything and everything. Are you really agnostic about everything that you cannot prove/disprove? I'd think not (I may be wrong), and it wouldn't be very useful.

I am all for people being happy, but not at the expense of others. Gays being persecuted, Africans killing children because they believe they are posessed, Africans not using condoms and dying of AIDS because condom usage is a sin, people blowing themselves up for virgins in the afterlife, evolution being denounced and attacked from all sides. What is this madness and why can't we call it madness?

@chtierna

With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.

With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.

In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.

I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

@chtierna

I think maybe you confused my points a little bit. I wasn't saying atrocities don't happen anymore. I was saying that people use religion to justify atrocities but that doesn't automatically mean religion is the cause of the atrocity. So to take your AIDS example, I don't think AIDS is spreading rampantly in Africa due to the Catholic Church's disapproval of condoms. I think the price and availability of condoms along with cultural attitudes and a lack of education have a lot more to do with it. As evidence of this, you don't see the epidemic of AIDS in other Catholic countries that do have cheap and readily available condoms as well as education about the risks of unprotected sex.

And the Church's attitude towards condoms is not "Hey we hope everybody gets AIDS." They've repeatedly stated their stance that sex should be for procreation only. Some of their faithful (a good deal I would wager ) choose to engage in sex for pleasure rather than procreation. The Church feels that condoms promote sex for reasons other than procreation and therefore are against condoms on those grounds. The Pope recently clarified that if people are going to choose to engage in "sin" (as defined by the Catholic church i.e. recreational sex) then using a condom may be considered the lesser of two evils if there is a risk of the transmission of disease. But they haven't altered their fundamental viewpoint that sex should be for procreation only between two (heterosexual) married adults.

So I hope that clarifies a bit what I was talking about with atrocities. To sum it up, someone doing something in the name of religion doesn't resolve them of their personal responsibility for their actions. In many cases those actions are motivated by reasons other than religious reasons (in other words, people are just using religion as the excuse). In other cases, their narrow interpretation of the religions teachings are what I would call "extreme" (suicide bombers for instance).

This brings us to your other point, which is what to do about people who have extreme views? I wasn't offended by this video because of the religion it was attacking. I was offended by this video because it is tacitly approving disrespecting people because of their beliefs. It approves of belittling people and treating them with condescension for their beliefs. I still hold that even people with extreme views need to be treated with respect--they are no less human beings despite their misguided views. We need to separate the views from the person. We can and should point out the problems with extreme or misguided beliefs. We need to be patient but persistent. And we need to keep an open mind. It's far to easy to take the attitude "I'm right and my opponent is wrong" and miss out on areas where you both agree.

So yes, I still would have downvoted if the video called followers of Zeus idiots. That isn't going to accomplish anything but to add more intolerance and hatred to a world that is already seething with both. You said:

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns

I absolutely agree with that, but I disagree with your sentiment that we should call them idiots. If the followers of Zeus are advocating human sacrifices then by all means we need to criticize the idea. We can do that, though, without being intentionally disrespectful to the people involved. However, as @mgittle pointed out, some people may feel disrespected anyway because their beliefs are tied so closely to their identity.

@SDGundamX

To be absolutely honest I haven't done much reading about how many Africans were killed as a direct consequence to the preachings of the Catholic Church. I do however believe that in poor parts where people are uneducated, a missionary loaded with the dogma and latest rationales about the sinfulness of using condoms can do significant damage (especially if it fits the culture). I will try to fit some time in to do more research on the topic and get back to you. My somewhat uninformed view is that the Pope now having changed his mind opens a brighter future, but significant damage has been done and will linger for a long time. For now I assume we both agree that the Catholic Church has done more damage than good when it comes to the spreading of AIDS in Africa.

If we flip the argument a bit instead, imagine a church that actively supported the use of condoms for stopping the spreading of AIDS and did not believe in abstinence (which has been pretty much proven ineffective). Members giving contributions to send missionaries that could do sex education and supply free condoms and advice about sexuality. I bet that religion could save countless lives, but instead we are stuck with the Catholic Church and its books and dogmas. The Catholic Church did not want people to get infected with AIDS but at the same time I've a hard time seeing how its dogmas help the situation. Either way I will read up on the subject and we can have another round

I don't see this video as aimed at religious people. I see it squarely aimed at people who think religion is nonsense but cave in to the taboo of not calling it just that. The emperor has no clothes; people do not need to give the respect that religions think they owe. Calling religious people idiots dispel peoples belief that some thoughts deserve to go unchallenged.

A quick word about religious moderates. I do not think they exist because the church realized one day a new way of reading the bible. I do believe moderates exist because science just made people realize the Bible or any other holy book cannot be read literally. This whole thing about reading the Bible (or any holy book) in a new and better way; I simply cannot see how it comes from religion itself, built on authority and dogma it just wont move on its own. This to me means that if moderates have a somewhat better perspective and attitude they do not owe it to religion.

@chtierna

For the record, I didn't say people in Africa were uneducated. I said overall there is a lack of education about condoms--their use and their connection to disease prevention. I also said there is there are severe cultural obstacles to rolling out their widespread acceptance. So maybe before calling me naive, you ought to read the NY Times. I'd like to highlight the part of the article where the AIDS-infected counselors are giving speeches in church urging condom use. Nowhere in that article do you see anything about people not using condoms and getting AIDS because they are Catholic...probably because--like I originally said--that's not been a major reason for the spread.

As to what might have happened if the church had a different view, all I can say is read the article again. Those problems don't go away just because the Pope makes a proclamation.

For your other points--I guess we just disagree there. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "religious moderates." Religion is not the same thing as dogma, although if your only experience of religion is Catholicism then maybe I could understand why you believe that. Also, I don't think calling anyone an idiot has any positive effect on their core beliefs whatsoever. It is much more likely, in fact, to make them ignore what you say entirely. I believe this is true whether we're talking about religion, politics, baseball, the weather, or pretty much any topic on which a person might have an opinion.