A secular world is sane world.

[Dammit Ann]

Run time: 06:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzladhscMQ   Posted on YouTube: June 27, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 29, 2008 By DU Member: Dammit Ann Views on DU: 2046

 
Very impressive.

[provis99]

1. All of Pat Condell's videos are good

He pretty much says about religion what needs to be said about religion: its all stupid, bigoted, oppressive crap, created by bullies to suppress people they don't like.

[Dammit Ann]

2. Word.

[TonyClifton]

3. Are you serious?

Do you really believe that? ALL religions?

[Dammit Ann]

5. YES.

Emphatically.

[DUlover2909]

8. Read Alan Watts - The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing What You Are

It's a fascinating and enjoyable explanation of ancient eastern philosophy, and yes, religion. No bullies there. It's just an easy to understand logical explanation of the science of vedanta. It's a very short book broken down into several chapters that will pretty much blow your mind. Two other books I am aware of that are very eye opening are The Universe Next Door by James Sire and Thomas Nagel's Mortal Questions. Both are exquisite works that present religion and philosophy in a way that is very different from every day dogma and mythology.

I used to call myself an atheist before I learned that it's not a legitimate world view, as it doesn't describe my belief system but rather describes what belief systems that I reject.

Peace ;-)

[Fearless]

12. Actually that's a very poor definition of atheism. (Rant warning, i.e. I'm bored)

Atheism (at least core atheism) is the belief that there is no god, that everything can be explained through scientific and reasoned means, that there is no fate, no help through prayer except perhaps in some internal and solely human decision-making, no sin and no Savior, no life after death but life during life, that morality should be followed for the benefit of each other not because of the fear of eternal damnation, that morality is not tied to a deity but to personal responsibility, and that no one for any reason has the power to dictate a doctrine over atheists as each themselves decides what is reasonable based on a form of Aristotelian scientific method.

So you see, atheism, is not in my opinion a means to reject, but a means to accept personal observation of the world around you, not taking others views point blank. Personal atheism is always changing as one's perception of the world changes and their understanding of how the world works changes. It is built of the fundamental principle that the existence of an all-powerful, omnipotent being is a non-sequiter argument.

That is, that if god exists and is perfect, then sin would not exist. (But as sin is just deviation from religious doctrine, I digress.) If god exists and is omnipotent then he/she/it already knows that man is going to sin, doesn't stop them, and punishes them regardless, that in actuality he/she/it knows everything is going to happen the way it is going to happen already and had since the beginning, thus making us puppets in an intricate play and still punishing us for something we have no control over. If god is distant as some religions try to say, then like a lackadaisical parent, who are they to punish you for what you do? And finally, if god is extraneous of time, that is, god always was and always will be (a circle with no beginning or end), then god cannot change at all. God cannot therefore do anything at all because to do so creates time itself, a time before it and a time after it. If two actions are taken, then we get a measure of time, the distance between two actions. And, if god does millions/billions/etc. of things then they cannot exist without time and therefore must also be restricted by the confines of it. Therefore, even if god exists we might as well just call god... morality or a list of suggested rules as it does nothing unto itself and, like a book, only has an impact if read. And as there is no absolute morality -- Platonic perfection thereof if you will -- then it too is not a valid argument.

I hope that makes sense, and isn't too rant-ish. As I said, I was bored this morning and couldn't resist.

Cheers!

NTF

[DUlover2909]

27. I'll try to respond a little bit

The books that I mentioned in my post do a good job of locking down what is real and what is imagined. You seem to suggest that you reject monotheism (a conscious and active creator). The books that I mentioned open the door to a different way of thinking. The Universe Next Door would place your beliefs in (probably, since I don't know ALL of your beliefs) either existentialist, naturalist, or maybe nihilist (but less likely). They are all equally valid world views and they are consistent within themselves.

Alan Watts book would be a fun read for you. They are all fun to read really, but Watts would probably take the approach that The Baghavad Gita does about God, loosely. You don't die because you were never really born in the sense that you think you are. Your individual choices are not really your own choices. Your individuality is an illusion. Sin doesn't really exist because God is all things (including you) and therefore all evil things and good things are just happening to and by the same thing. It's God that does evil against himself for his own amusement and in attempt to discover the truth about himself over millions of years.

That's alot to swallow and I am not a college professor so my explanations probably aren't the best. But the books I mentioned really are pretty short and very interesting. They aren't preachy and religious, they're just really cool.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. All religions are about is one thing:

control. Plain and simple. Some obsess about it more than others, but they want to control their followers to some degree. And a large majority of them are not happy unless they are control those who are not followers. In the last twenty years it is scary the hold that religious groups have taken on our government.

[MindMatter]

26. All but yours.

I'm sure yours doesn't have any of those problems, but the rest of the religions, I'm sure you'll agree, are rotten to the core and an impediment to the progress of mankind.

[UndertheOcean]

6. What about Buhddism ?

[Fearless]

10. Does Buhddism push itself on others?

That's the real problem, not the fact that people believe in some superstition over another. That's harmless. It's when they try to force others to believe as they do that all the trouble starts.

[trusty elf]

4. I like this guy.

K&R

[CadenBlaker]

7. Pat Condell is dead on.

I've been grabbing Pats podcast for a while now and he's pretty freakin' awesome.

Check out his myspace here http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=119389495

[midnight]

9. This guy makes you think.... The Netherlands

have allowed religion to compromise their freedoms? Sorry to hear that. If I understand this video. It is not so much religion, but zealots who feed off of us who are religiously tolerant of zealots.

[Cassandra]

11. Or, rather, the fundies...

who are not in it for the spirituality but for the power and ability to dominate.

[pipi_k]

13. I don't think religion itself is the problem

I used to hate religion....all of it.

It's not religion that's the problem. It's the people who USE it to do evil, bigoted acts. These people are sick in the head and heart and if religion didn't exist, they would no doubt find some other way to justify their cruelty and stupidity.

[mrfocus]

14. We need more "religiously incorrect" people like him!!

As explained beautifully in Dawkins' "God Delusion" we need to stop giving religous fairy tales of any kind the absurd amount of undeserved "respect" they are enjoying. Believe in talking snakes? No respect. Believe in magical rainbow snakes whose eggs started the world? Cute, but no respect. Believe that Moby Dick is a factual description of what really happened to Cpt. Ahab? Wow, but no respect.

In short, just because an individual (and dozens, thousands, or millions of other people) believes something without a shred of evidence doesn't make it any more true than the 9 foot tall pink bunny that keeps following me around. Or not. ;)

[awoke_in_2003]

16. K&R

Pat is right on target, as usual.

[iconicgnom]

17. Extraordinarily shallow crap. Non sequitur after non sequitur

mixed with boilerplate nonsense.

There are as many approaches to religion as there are to government (to wit, infinite, limited only by our imagination) - and no, "the problem" isn't gov't either, tho' railing against "government" is another easy hook for blowhards to hang their interminable opinions.

As if "secular" beliefs are somehow intrinsically "sane", in comparison.

Here we're in the concluding years of a decade defined by the notion that "democracy" and "freedom" can be "exported" by pure military force, by bombing whole nations, whole systems of gov't up to and including their basic infrastructure, clean out of existence (erasing them from the pages of history, so to speak) - then by attempting to lay down some "superior" alternate, defined by us. The only system that's perfect, of course! The only system that's knows from morality, of course! And this jackass misses the message of the decade entirely - focusing on the evils of religion, on religious belief, as somehow being causative of "the problem". While at the same time, again of course, singling out Islam as the great threatening evil.

phooo... :puke:

[uberllama42]

19. Talk about a non sequitur

What does Pat Condell's critique of religion have to do with the idea that democracy can be imposed on other countries by force? He's talking about how people should conduct themselves in Western democracies. He says nothing about what we should do to other countries.

Also, he explicitly says that Islam is not unique, and that all religions cause problems. He does not "singl Islam out."

[iconicgnom]

24. Listen again. Then think about it.

[uberllama42]

25. Thank for not making any attempt to rebut my ideas

I watched the video again and came to the same conclusion. Condell doesn't suggest that we impose anything on anyone by force or try to remake another country in our image. He doesn't say that secularism is infallible.

All he advocates is standing up assertively for the separation of church and state. Don't stand by and allow regressive and superstitious (not to mention extremely misogynistic) values to be legitimized, and don't pretend that the effort to do so deserves respect. I don't see any equivalence between institutionalizing a wall of separation and imperialism.

Maybe you'd like to explain why I'm wrong. Or maybe not. Your choice, I guess.

[Jemmons]

18. Pat Condell needs to get laid more often.... n/t

[Plucketeer]

20. I agreewith this guy.

If we could change ONE THING on this planet - eliminating the stupidity of god-worships would be the one that would have the most positive impact!

[jjr5]

21. And a boring world. n/t

[AlbertCat]

23. Boring???

I don't find science boring. The wonders it shows are certainly more amazing and awe inspiring than anything religion has made up. And they're REAL! I do however find Christian mythology boring because we get it over and over and over. I'm use to it...but other mythologies are fascinating. All these ancient beliefs would still be there to study and explore just like ancient Greek mythology is here today to study, explore and even apply to our lives....without taking them literally or even making decisions based on their more whimsical notions. All this can still happen in a secular world.... plus life and death decisions won't be made on Stone Age baloney!

[Pastiche423]

22. I wish I could reccomend this more than once