The Route Of All Evil

[Trippledence]

After watching a documentary entitled "The Route Of All Evil" [with Richard Dawkins iirc]centred on how religious extremism has caused the majority of conflict throughout history. I was shocked at the views of some of the people involved, and have produced a small audio clip for reference, its just over 6 mins but please sit it out. Please listen to it, and hopefully the views of this so called 'Pastor' will help fuel the following debate.

http://s41.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3...O298H5CM7JEA20

Are the views of western religious figureheads such as the one featured in the clip as dangerous as Islamic or Muslim extremist?

Personally, I found the sheer arrogance of Ted Haggot scary, when you consider how much political power this man wields in this part of the US, and via his connections, even more so. When you consider his level of intelligence, never even hearing of the Nazi regime. How can someone so narrow minded make a judgement on the creation of the world, his hostility towards the end of the clip, and the look of anger in the eyes of the man is only in my opinion a step away from a suicide bomber, and if it wasn’t for the guidance of Western societies state structure, who can say.

[TeePee]

America has some truely messed up people. Actually it has a lot of them, which is why 'pastors' such as this have so much influence, because they represent so many of the people. His views are only dangerous because of the people who follow him. If the christian right didn't represent so much of the US vote, he'd have no influence at all. The best argument against democracy is ten minutes with a voter.

The difference is that America is a plural society. In most islamic countries the 'pastors' are the government, there is no state law, only religious law. America has many more ideas, from the religious right to the arogant academic democrats the pastor dispises so much and none of these has complete control. The government seeks to appease the majority of the electorate, and this preacher is preaching that the world is flat. His ideas are outdated and religion is in decline, and while 9/11 has resulted in a moral backlash, thats only because there was a frontlash in the first place.

[iranu]

The root of all evil part 2 is on tonight.

I watched the first one and thought it was terrific. Unfortunatly it's impossible to reason or argue with those who poses faith. I would love to live in a country that only allowed athiests in (all though I do have some respect for buddhism - never heard of a buddhist wanting to kill the infadel)

Christian fundamentalism v Islamic fundamentalism = WW3

[RedPutty]

I thought the first one was good too.

The republican party, natural allies to the christian fundamentalists, have become even closer which helped cement Bush's position. If you have a whole bunch of preachers telling you god wants you to vote for bush and, as Dawkins says, are trained to not question or reason then suddenly you have a lot of people voting for you.

Are the views of western religious figureheads such as the one featured in the clip as dangerous as Islamic or Muslim extremist?

The clips of Haggard weren't actually that bad I thought , have you seen the other people who have their own TV channels, the people who say e.g that Ariel Sharon is ill now as punishment for "trying to divide gods land" and are pretty pro war. You have to wonder about the mental state of people who are members of a religion that clearly says do not kill but are happy to do so http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/013/41.72.html

Religious fundamentalism is definately dangerous, sometimes the only difference is how good their PR teams are and whether they can afford planes to strap their bombs to or not.

Its when religion and politics become linked that its most dangerous. Hey if you are so above all these worldy things stop fighting petty fights

[TeePee]

Hang on! That christianity today article is just an opinion. It's pro-war, but not everything pro-war is fundamentalist. The author is trying to reconcile christian ideals with the 'need' for a pre-emptive strike. I'm not pro-war myself, nor am I christian, but that is a well written and justifiable opinion. I have trouble equating that with the lunatic preacher from the first post.

[autopilot]

Damn, i really wanted to watch this, but forgot so cant comment on the the programme.

Personally i don't think religion is the route of all evil in itself, i think that's human nature. There is a destructive and megalomaniac thread in many people, regardless of religion. But yes religion has been used as a tool to help inflict the will of a few evil people on many millions of people over the years. I personally think the bible is the worst of all the holly scriptures, much of it fabricated with the intent of controlling people more. Ultimately it is the use (or miss use) of religion that will bring the human race down. Not just Islam, but just as likely (possibly more likely in many ways) the increasingly right wing religious madhouse which the USA has become. We seem to be going backwards to the dark ages again, only with bigger bombs this time.

Heck, i could go on about religion for hours, so i just say that yes i think it should be made illegal. Only problem is, trying to do that would probably incite the biggest war of them all. Personally i think the Pagans were onto something good.

[fuddam]

LOL

watched the programme myself, I did, with some enthusiasm. Yep, I'm a Christian. And was very unimpressed.

Why? Because the man, for all his qualifications, has no idea of how to put an argument together. He was using ad hoc, spurious, UNreasoned conjecture to put forward his own religion: his fundamentalist belief in the Ultimate Truth of Science. He's not the first modernist, and he certainly won't be the last, but most of the scientific community has moved on a tad.

For example, just the attempt to try to hold science and belief in a God as opposite sides of the spectrum was garbage. Science is about reasoned, impartial observation of phenomena, with attempts to explore cause and effect from all sides. Dawkins simply laid down statement after statement, playing on either the ignorance of his audience, or simply changing tack whenever an interviewee responded intelligently. To be honest, most of the time his statements just left me incredulous - I could not understand how he could be so blind to the one-sided nature of his propositions. It wouldn't have held up in a first year philosophy class, let alone at the level of his 'professorship'. lmao.

But then the bigger picture loomed into view: Channel 4 doesn't care 2 hoots about the scientific validity of the statements made in such a program; all they want is ratings, controversy, noise, a big hoo haa. Have a look at www.channel4.com/culture then click on the forums. Just about every post is about the program - lol. C4 has a hit on their hands.



But as to the details of the programme: He didn't 'prove' anything, all he did was interview people he hoped would support his assumptions, and chose the most colourful candidates to do so. Problem was, although some were a bit wierd (that whole Hell dramatization group seem to have forgotten about using love and compassion as the principle ambassadors of Christianity, not fear and damnation - one can't scare people into accepting Christ), whenever they said something contrary to Dawkin's ideas, he either faded to black, or to distance, or simply changed question. Both the rabbi and the principle of the ACE school had him on the back foot.

for example, science (seeing as he was arguing that route) is about proving a thesis; evolution is NOT fact, simply a thesis that is posited as one of the most likely explanations for the world as we know it. When the Rabbi pointed it out, as just a theory, Dawkins then made the claim that it was FACT. LMAO! Has anyone ever proved it? NO.

And that whole Creation vs Evolution angle is tired and useless, as the ACE principle suggested. FWIW my take, as I assume his might be, is that evolution without a God to guide it requires such incredible FAITH (yes, that is the right word) in chance as to be ludicrous. L.U.D.I.C.R.O.U.S

If you have any real notion of natural selection, you'll understand that it suggests the discarding of what is useless, and the continuation of what is useful. There is no sentience involved.

Well, how does something like the human eyeball come to 'evolve' all on its own? It doesn't work until it is perfectly formed. The slightest change and it ceases to function correctly - the spaces btween the lens and retina, the placement and structure of the rods and cones, the routes of certain blood vessels, the arrangement of specific muscles to cause focus and exposure. There are no 'stages' that will allow it to come into its perfect existence, from the original photo-sensitive cells - anything that doesn't work will be discarded, according to evolutionary theory. Chance does not ALLOW for something like an eyeball to form on its own, let alone the rest of the perfect structure that is the human body.

That above is not a proof of God. It is, however, evidence of something more than a godless universe.



oh, and the idea that religion is the root of all evil: what does he mean by 'religion'? I had a quick trawl of some dictionaries, so that it wouldn't simply be my definition, and on http://dictionary.reference.com it stated:

- Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

That last definition is what interests me. Any of you who hold a belief passionately is guilty of..............religion!!!! muhahahahahaha! Yep, you footballers who practise 'religiously', you atheists who zealously defend your beliefs (as you should) are religious in your practices - LMAO

And you all have FAITH. Yes, tis true. A 'confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing' , i.e. that your current belief is the right one, that your belief is the best direction to follow, not knowing what tomorrow will bring. You have FAITH that the sun will rise tomorrow, but no proof. You act under the assumption that your very faculties of reasoning are sound, you have faith that an evolution without God is correct (but no proof). heheheheh

good times, all

[TeePee]

fevolution is NOT fact, simply a thesis

So is Gravity.

Actually most people's idea of gravity is based on Newton's theory, which is just wrong, and even he recognised there was something that didn't quite work about it. Einstein's theory of gravitation is better, but most people know nothng about it.

You also have no understanding of how natural selection and evolution work. There is no chance involved. The eyeball doesn't form by chance! It could start with a mutation where an organism has an area of light sensitive skin, (statistically this kind of mutation must happen eventually). Since this would be a survival advantage, the organism would have a greater chance to reproduce, and it's offspring might exhibit the same trait. Over a million or so generations vision would develop. There is no chance involved.

This is typical of a christian attitude. They can't be bothered to actually understand anything that doesn't fit with their five hundred year old religious text. Did you pass GCSE science?

[fuddam]

LOL

So is Gravity.

Actually most people's idea of gravity is based on Newton's theory, which is just wrong, and even he recognised there was something that didn't quite work about it. Einstein's theory of gravitation is better, but most people know nothng about it.

so you agree that theories can be overturned with new knowledge - a good start

You also have no understanding of how natural selection and evolution work. There is no chance involved. The eyeball doesn't form by chance! It could start with a mutation where an organism has an area of light sensitive skin, (statistically this kind of mutation must happen eventually). Since this would be a survival advantage, the organism would have a greater chance to reproduce, and it's offspring might exhibit the same trait. Over a million or so generations vision would develop.

LOOOOOOL - you clearly didn't read my post properly.
you say something as glib as Over a million or so generations vision would develop without bothering to think it through. Typical of an unthinking atheist attitude - fortunately some atheists DO think

let me ask you a question: how can that aforementioned eyeball develop to function perfectly when all the stages required to reach a perfect state include redundant evolutions?

Evolution would DISCARD the eyeball in anything but a perfectly functioning state, or anything that contributes to the formation of the eyeball, since it would offer no advantage to the organism until it functioned fully. On one hand are the photo sensitive cells, on the other is the eyeball. There is no middle state, or evidence of a middle state anywhere in a natural history. There are multiple forms of eyeball, of course, peculiar to each species, but each functions fully. There are no species with 'half-formed' eyeballs, other than Long John Silver and his cronies.



we could go on like this for ages, back and forth, wasting energy, so let me ask you a more important question: IF God were to appear unequivocally before you, what would your response be? Acceptance or rejection? THAT is the million dollar question, not whether you believe in Him or not. Assuming you are passionate about the pursuit of truth, if you were presented with the truth that He is real, you would have to choose - sith or jedi?

in the meanwhile, I'll pray for your happiness, peace, contentment and pursuit of truth

[TeePee]

The progression is from light sensitivity, to several areas of sensitivity, to a compound eye similar to an insect's, which has no musculature or focus, to a motive eye with only far distance focus, similar to that of a gecko, to the focus control of mammals. The steps are very small, but each one is of benefit to the organism.

All of these 'stages' exist in current animals, although should only be used as examples. Who is to say any of them are perfect? Not everyone has perfect vision, many develop myopia, cateracts or lazy eyes.

We aren't going to go on like this, because you are a moron. Please don't vote.

[Flibb]

"Evolution would DISCARD the eyeball in anything but a perfectly functioning state"

Errr no, we can see how the eye might have developed by looking at current species. Heres an extract from Darwins Origins of species, that deals with the evolution of the eye.

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw light on the steps by which it has been perfected.

The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision, without any nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by the author just quoted, with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most important step towards the formation of a true, picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed on it.

In the great class of the Articulata, we may start from an optic nerve simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort of pupil, but destitute of lens or other optical contrivance. With insects it is now known that the numerous facets on the cornea of their great compound eyes form true lenses, and that the cones include curiously modified nervous filaments. But these organs in the Articulata are so much diversified that Muller formerly made three main classes with seven subdivisions, besides a fourth main class of aggregated simple eyes.

[Koolpc]

Always been wars over religion and always will be.

[Flibb]

Wonder how many are for religion, and how many use religion as an excuse. Many middle ages wars were about control of trade, not religion. Its suprising how many invaders / rebels, etc were named as the antchrist, and were later admitted to the church.

[fuddam]

Errr no, we can see how the eye might have developed by looking at current species. Heres an extract from Darwins Origins of species, that deals with the evolution of the eye.

nice quote, but looking at simple or complex examples of optic nerves does not explain how the human eye (for example) came to it's perfect arrangement. I agree totally that there appears to be lineage from the simplest optic nerve to the most complex arrangement, but that does not prove anything, it does not prove evolution to be anything other than a theory; rather, it simply shows how some organisms have more complex vision than others.

to put it more practically: evolution without divine intervention is a theory, and as with all other theories, it is not fact. Dawking made the bumbling mistake of suddenly proclaiming it to be fact - can't remember if it was to the rabbi or the ACE principle exactly, but was one of them - lol.

of course, from my point of view, there IS divine intervention, but I don't try to prove it. It's an impossible venture. I only referred to evidence that points towards evolution not holding water.

am sure you share an enthusiasm for facts, but unfortunately evolution is not one of them. As in any science, one can only wait with bated breath for revelations the future might hold, as was forementioned about gravitational theory (since I be not a practising scientist myself).

[fuddam]

Always been wars over religion and always will be.

always have been wars over differences of opinion, and always will be

using religion as a scapegoat is naive; power is usually the prime motivator.

[herulach]

We aren't going to go on like this, because you are a moron. Please don't vote.

Comments like that make you out to be something of a moron yourself.

Evolution vs creation is something that is never ever going to be proved, especially not to someone who has already made up their mind. Theres overwhelming evidence to suggest that evolution did take place, that doesnt preclude the existence of some kind of steering intellect, martians, god, time travellers, whatever. Just that the timescale would also allow the same kind of process to occur by chance as well.

AS far as the whole thigns dont happen by random chance thing, learn something about QED/QCD. everything thats really fundamental is pretty much random chance.

Heck, i could go on about religion for hours, so i just say that yes i think it should be made illegal

What? I thin people who belive in soulmates are daft, so it should be illegal. Ill readily agree that inciting people to violence using religion as a cover should be illegal, (as it already is, hatemongering is hatemongering) but 99.9% of people that are religous are not the kind of people who go round killing people. Those kind of people are probably the ones whod do it anyway, they just want an excuse.