Comments on: “The Root of All Evil” Debate

By: “The Root of All Evil” Debate « Unreasonable Faith « Bada Bing, Bada Boom

“The Root of All Evil” Debate « Unreasonable Faith « Bada Bing, Bada Boom — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:59:42 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:50:22 +0000

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. :))

By: Trumpeter

Trumpeter — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:21:07 +0000

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.

By: gfish

gfish — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:22:11 +0000

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.

By: Jabster

Jabster — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:37:10 +0000

@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.

By: gfish

gfish — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:26:37 +0000

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.

By: Whateverman

Whateverman — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:31:20 +0000

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.

By: McBloggenstein

McBloggenstein — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:44:49 +0000

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.

By: Whateverman

Whateverman — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:45:04 +0000

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…