Here’s a bunch of silly people on CNBC debating about Richard Dawkins “The Root of All Evil” documentary. It’s 45 minutes long, but I listened to it in the background while working. Pretty entertaining.
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5719891339958467942]
(via)
3,200 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Debbie: This world is too full of hate and that saddens me. Live and let live. Abortion is nobody’s... Thoughts from an Abortion Doctor
John C: Anti-no, “I” dont have any credibility either but the difference is that “I”m not... Leviticus Also Said…
Custador: “Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke,... Leviticus Also Said…
Daniel Florien: When you have indigestion when you’re reading it, you know it’s true! I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
Mary Lynne: Hmm – I wonder what a “true fairy tale” would be. Is that like jumbo... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
Antiutopia: John C — Christ himself doesn’t have any credibility with these ignorant morons — do you... Leviticus Also Said…
Uzza: Cool story. It reminds me of Confucius, meeting the mad hermit of Chu, who told him it was... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me John C: Yet what to do when you find the one true fairy tale? When you’ve altogether lost hope... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
|
|
|
8 Comments
That was a great format, and I think the host did a pretty decent job of keeping it civil and lively. I get the feeling that they could have stretched it into a ssecond hour without any trouble whatsoever.
Amidst the debate, there’s one phrase that’s stuck in my head, and I can’t quite figure out why:
Radical Secularism
Instinctively, I reject the notion prima facia. There’s nothing radical in the way secularism is being advocated, or in the things being advocated. Still, I’m going to have to think about that for a while…
I agree. The host did quite a good job there.
I am actually very impressed that this debate took place on a major television channel.
I knew it couldn’t have been in the U.S. though. I would be VERY surprised to see that.
@Whateverman:
I also agree about the “radical secularism”.
I don’t remember who said it, but if I had to guess what they meant, I would say they are referring to this idea that just because an atheist such as Dawkins or Harris points out that religion is not great, that they are suggesting that the entire world be stricken from it’s superstitions no matter what the consequences.
Of course they are not advocating this. I think those atheists would be more likely to promote a gradual change toward a more skeptical and logically thinking world that no longer needs to cling to their beliefs, as unlikely as they are, to thrive as a species.
It was Charles McFeedy (if I heard it correctly), the evangelical Christian who used the phrase. This doesn’t surprise me; use of the term is consistent with their use of the perjoratives “naturalism” and “atheist”.
It seems to me to be a catch phrase designed to portray anyone who disagrees with evangelical values as just as dogmatic.
Radical secularism?
It’s kind of like saying “excessive moderation.”
The whole reason for secularism is to prevent radicalism by looking at all viewpoints of all religions and all personal ideologies. The person using this term seems to think it’s synonymous with atheism which can actually be radical, like any personal value system.
But secularism is there to balance the radical fundamentalists and overly aggressive atheists with the needs and concerns of the moderates. To call this technique of governing radicalism is to show that you don’t understand the terminology in question.
@gfish: To some people the thought that their religion isn’t deserving of special treatment by the state is indeed a radical idea. Take the example of the comment made about the fact that the British Humanist Association (the ones with the bus advert) have been given a £35,000 grant to stage a series of debates about the role of religion in public life. [reported in The Daily Telegraph] Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister who specialises in religious discrimination, said: “It’s a bit like paying the Taliban to lecture on women’s rights.”. Yep that sounds like a reasonable statement to make but it actual is from his point of view in believing in the one true god.
Jabster,
Considering that Roman Catholics have regarded women as the property of their husbands and the whole reason for humanity’s downfall for the last 1,200 years… methinks the pot is calling the kettle black when invoking the Taliban and women’s rights.
Indeed this program is not produced in the U.S. it is actually a former CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) production. Sadly the program itself was canceled after a short run.
What Charles McFeedy doesn’t understand is this:
The line for tolerance is always drawn with intolerance.
Where do you draw the line for tolerance?
Should Hitler have been tolerated for his views? (Yes, godwin’s law. :))
One Trackback
[...] December 16, 2008 “The Root of All Evil” Debate « Unreasonable Faith Posted by omart007 under Links | Tags: Atheism, Dawkins | “The Root of All Evil” Debate « Unreasonable Faith. [...]