richarddawkins.net's Youtube account was banned from YT for using some copyrighted stuff, so lots of good Dawkins stuff got lost, but I've now replaced the video with a working, but lower quality one, still viewable tho.

Thanks for the heads up

In reply to your comment:
“this is unfortunately dead - anyone got a replacement? I'd love to see it.”

I agree religion can be personal, modest and harmless, and that the dangerous manifestations of it doesnt apply to every religious person. But if you actually read the Qur'an or the Bible, there really is nothing in there that urges you to be moderate, tolerant and harmless. In essence it urges you rather to be a fanatical, intolerant, unshakable believer.

I suppose the "moderate believer" is a result of cultural collision. Ie: a devout muslim living in an islamic country only ever talking to, dealing with and trading with other devout muslims will be seen as a brainwashed lunatic from the outside. Only when religious people clash with the outside world is religion able to moderate itself. Common sense takes over. A religiously devout person simply cant live in a multicultural world effectively, so even tho your religious book tells you that theyll all burn in hell, your common sense, reason and rationality will win over that doctrine, and you will start recognizing people of different faiths and backgrounds as people too. People deserving respect, even if they are a bunch of criminal fools and devils according to the doctrine.

It seems to be more difficult to give up the irrational faith all together than it is to simply moderate it to better fit reality, even if that means changing the book you "believe in" to become unrecognizable to any outside observer.

Suppose a couple of aliens came to this planet and whipped up a quick survey for research, Suppose it came to our view of the universe, You'd answer "I am a Muslim", So the aliens leave and pick up a copy of the Qur'an on their way off. After reading that, they would now have an idea of you and your thinking inside their heads.

Do you think they would view you as an open-minded, intelligent, tolerant person? Do you think that they would have the right image of you somewhere inside their alien brains? After all, why shouldnt it be right? They would think that book was the inerrant word of god, according to these supposed "muslims" they talked to.

Do you suppose they, or even you, would like the person they thought they had met?

Do you suppose you'd have to take a little "Hey, dont take it to literally!!" precaution shout-out as they were leaving?, Wouldnt you, as a muslim see that as an insult too your own faith, your own God and the prophet who wrote His book?

What do you think they'd think of my opinions on the matter if I handed them "The Selfish Gene"? and a couple of other science books.. Which one of us would they buy a used car from?

"In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism."

Look, if Vietnam wasnt put in historical context and is "Thus Flawed" Then it wasnt rational now, was it? The fact that someone, at some point thought it was rational doesnt make it rational in principle. Again what is the alternative of being rational? Irrational? rational but with emotions? what about hate? Its is not very rational of you to argue against rationality Perhaps thats a virtue to you? How do we fight flawed rationality, by appeals to emotion? No. By explaining to the "rational" person that his logic is flawed, thus he is not being rational, like he might think. Thats the only rational response. its something MORE rational, its the only one that makes any sense, i'm sorry I just cant see it any other way...

Again whats the alternative? Looking for answers to "Should the US attack Iran?" in the bible? in inner convictions? spinning the bottle? No. Only a rational debate will do. ALL pro's and cons thought out. All possible consequences thought of, there is no alternative to that.

The 9/11 hijackers were acting rationally, but it was of course on their terms, their flawed terms. How do we make sure the terms are not flawed? by being rational, right from the get-go. Believing that the Qur'an is Gods word is irrational, and if you build your castle in the swamp. Youre asking for it.

“No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.”

Fixed the link.

In reply to your comment:
“oop, hope you can find a replacement for this *dead one... I can't remember this bit”

In reply to your comment:
“Hey, did you figure the collective submission thing out yet? There's a drop-down menu below the embed-video code box. ”

Yes, but I cant submit the Dawkins interview like you suggested, because its not there when I press edit..