| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2006 04:31:20 AM |
| Object: |
Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Richard Dawkins
06 January 2006
Known as ‘ Darwin’s Rottweiler’, Professor Richard Dawkins relishes
controversy. In his new TV series he explains how religion is a form
of abuse – and why God is man’s most destructive invention ++ Why do
you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your head? The
Yorkshire Ripper claimed his murders were ordered by Jesus
Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no
suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no
Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no
Israel/Palestine war, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern
Ireland “troubles”. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no
public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the
crime of showing an inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews –
no Jews to persecute indeed, for, without religious taboos against
marrying out, the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe.
Hitler invoked “My feelings as a Christian” to justify his
anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: “I believe that I am acting
in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending
myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated by
religion. IRA gunmen didn’t kill Protestants (or vice versa) over
disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties.
The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of “them”
killed one of “us”. “They” drove “our” great-grandfathers out of
ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not religious;
and vendettas stretch “unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me”. Quoting Exodus reminds me, incidentally, that humanists
prefer Gandhi’s version: “An eye for an eye make the whole world
blind.”
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and
various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today’s most
divisive label of group identity and hostility. If a social engineer
set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities,
he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main
point of faith schools is that the children of “our” tribe must be
taught “their own” religion. Since the children of the other tribe are
simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the
rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too
predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=674933
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 01:13:54 PM |
|
|
'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
Bonf.
Do you really think over a hundred years of conflict can be distilled
into one word? If so, I have another word for you: oversimplificaion.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 03:55:08 PM |
|
|
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 06:59:47 PM |
|
|
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can all
be boiled down to a single word (religion) I have another word for you:
oversimplification.
You surely know more about it than I do, but ISTM that if you lop off
part of an island, install foreign lords over the indigenous people, tax
them mightily, and generally treat them like scum, you shouldn't come
all surprised that you've generated a few hard feelings. Little things
like forbidding those folk to own land that had been in a family for
generations, and taking your rent in grain when the food crop failed may
also have played small parts.
_Of course_ there was religious involvement. Cromwell paid the same
bounty for a Jesuit priest as he did for a female wolf. But compared to
the political and economic factors, religion is almost icing on the
cake.
Can you seriously hypothesize that the Irish War (which is what I call
it) never would have happened, if Ireland had been Anglican, or England
had remained Catholic? You *might* be able to make a case that the Irish
would not have been treated as harshly had they been Anglican, but I
would in turn point to the Norman conquest of England. The Saxons and
the Normans were Catholics all- and that sure didn't help the Saxons (or
the Picts for that matter).
Piping up "Religion!!" to account for hundreds of years of conflict is
just a little too pat for me.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 07:27:54 PM |
|
|
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
I have another word for you:
oversimplification.
You surely know more about it than I do, but ISTM that if you lop off
part of an island, install foreign lords over the indigenous people, tax
them mightily, and generally treat them like scum, you shouldn't come
all surprised that you've generated a few hard feelings. Little things
like forbidding those folk to own land that had been in a family for
generations, and taking your rent in grain when the food crop failed may
also have played small parts.
_Of course_ there was religious involvement. Cromwell paid the same
bounty for a Jesuit priest as he did for a female wolf. But compared to
the political and economic factors, religion is almost icing on the
cake.
Can you seriously hypothesize that the Irish War (which is what I call
it) never would have happened, if Ireland had been Anglican, or England
had remained Catholic? You *might* be able to make a case that the Irish
would not have been treated as harshly had they been Anglican, but I
would in turn point to the Norman conquest of England. The Saxons and
the Normans were Catholics all- and that sure didn't help the Saxons (or
the Picts for that matter).
Piping up "Religion!!" to account for hundreds of years of conflict is
just a little too pat for me.
Tweren't me piped up religion.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 08:54:54 PM |
|
|
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:bqe3s1547jq3rrdgufkc4start0344t0pf@4ax.com:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
I agree. Religion is part of that history, but not the whole- and not
even the majority.
I have another word for you:
oversimplification.
You surely know more about it than I do, but ISTM that if you lop off
part of an island, install foreign lords over the indigenous people,
tax them mightily, and generally treat them like scum, you shouldn't
come all surprised that you've generated a few hard feelings. Little
things like forbidding those folk to own land that had been in a
family for generations, and taking your rent in grain when the food
crop failed may also have played small parts.
_Of course_ there was religious involvement. Cromwell paid the same
bounty for a Jesuit priest as he did for a female wolf. But compared
to the political and economic factors, religion is almost icing on the
cake.
Can you seriously hypothesize that the Irish War (which is what I call
it) never would have happened, if Ireland had been Anglican, or
England had remained Catholic? You *might* be able to make a case that
the Irish would not have been treated as harshly had they been
Anglican, but I would in turn point to the Norman conquest of England.
The Saxons and the Normans were Catholics all- and that sure didn't
help the Saxons (or the Picts for that matter).
Piping up "Religion!!" to account for hundreds of years of conflict is
just a little too pat for me.
Tweren't me piped up religion.
Yes. I was agreeing with you 100%
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Vreeland" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 06:04:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 02:54:54 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> opined:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:bqe3s1547jq3rrdgufkc4start0344t0pf@4ax.com:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
I agree. Religion is part of that history, but not the whole- and not
even the majority.
I thought Dawkins was saying that if it were not for their separate
religious identities they would have forgotten their historical
identities and merged into one population.
While the Unionists and Republicans have separate traditions that
might be practiced to maintain their separate historical viewpoints,
the absence of a separate religious practice would certainly weaken
these identities over the long centuries due to intermarriage and lack
of practice until most people were not certain to which group they
actually belonged.
It's hard to intermarry accidentally, though, if religious customs are
practiced.
--
John Vreeland (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 06:48:35 PM |
|
|
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:06u5s1l9922cd86ugi46ugtte31kqsadfo@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 02:54:54 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> opined:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:bqe3s1547jq3rrdgufkc4start0344t0pf@4ax.com:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide
along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what
else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
I agree. Religion is part of that history, but not the whole- and not
even the majority.
I thought Dawkins was saying that if it were not for their separate
religious identities they would have forgotten their historical
identities and merged into one population.
While the Unionists and Republicans have separate traditions that
might be practiced to maintain their separate historical viewpoints,
the absence of a separate religious practice would certainly weaken
these identities over the long centuries due to intermarriage and lack
of practice until most people were not certain to which group they
actually belonged.
It's hard to intermarry accidentally, though, if religious customs are
practiced.
I would probably agree with you in most circumstances, but not with
Ireland. I think the combination of clan structure (in the Irish) and
discrimination (against the Irish) was way too strong to allow
significant amounts of intermarriage, until recently.
But this is intrigueing. Is there a parallel case in another part of the
world? For example, did the Tsutsis and Hutus practice different
religions? (And did I even spell those names correctly?) They've lived
intermixed a long time, and they certainly maintained separate
indentities.
On the other hand, we can look at Central America, where the majority of
people now living are of mixed race (Spanish, and whatever the
indigenous people were).
All I can say is that I stand by what I wrote earlier: it's just too
complicated to call it "religion" and leave it at that.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 06:55:40 PM |
|
|
Chris Thompson wrote:
John Vreeland <vreejack@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:06u5s1l9922cd86ugi46ugtte31kqsadfo@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 02:54:54 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> opined:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:bqe3s1547jq3rrdgufkc4start0344t0pf@4ax.com:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide
along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what
else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
I agree. Religion is part of that history, but not the whole- and not
even the majority.
I thought Dawkins was saying that if it were not for their separate
religious identities they would have forgotten their historical
identities and merged into one population.
While the Unionists and Republicans have separate traditions that
might be practiced to maintain their separate historical viewpoints,
the absence of a separate religious practice would certainly weaken
these identities over the long centuries due to intermarriage and lack
of practice until most people were not certain to which group they
actually belonged.
It's hard to intermarry accidentally, though, if religious customs are
practiced.
I would probably agree with you in most circumstances, but not with
Ireland. I think the combination of clan structure (in the Irish) and
discrimination (against the Irish) was way too strong to allow
significant amounts of intermarriage, until recently.
But this is intrigueing. Is there a parallel case in another part of the
world? For example, did the Tsutsis and Hutus practice different
religions? (And did I even spell those names correctly?) They've lived
intermixed a long time, and they certainly maintained separate
indentities.
On the other hand, we can look at Central America, where the majority of
people now living are of mixed race (Spanish, and whatever the
indigenous people were).
All I can say is that I stand by what I wrote earlier: it's just too
complicated to call it "religion" and leave it at that.
It's most of the time, religion with the power of the state to enforce
it.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 11:33:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brett Aubrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 01:15:45 AM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that form
the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather than just
the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 03:48:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that form
the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather than just
the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
We can only learn from history if we understand its message.
Richard Dawkins has been doing an excellent job of helping clarify
both the historical and the current link between irrationality and
religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brett Aubrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 05:34:42 PM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide
along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form
the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather than
just
the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Well, of course any one word response is cursory, but the thread was on to
one-word summations. I was merely pointing out that your complaint that
history is "merely a narrative" was unjustified - "history" can be viewed as
the events themselves as opposed to the narratives relating to them. You
appeared to overlook this possibility and it seemed to me that the OP
mentioning "history" was referring to this meaning of the word.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
Cite? I'm not religious and tend to agree with this seemingly obvious
point, but am curious how well it's backed up by studies, etc. (I'm sure
someone like Logos would argue that /atheism breeds irrationality/, etc.)
I'll note that I get no hits googling "Irrationality breeds religion" and
only one (Christian) site for "Religion breeds irrationality". I also get
34 hits on "irrationality and religion" and 1080 for "rationality and
religion "; and 202 for "religion and irrationality" and 721 for "religion
and rationality." A quick glance at a few of these sites tells me that a
lot probably won't address your claim directly. I could slog through many
more of them to see if a consensus arose, but thought you might have some
credible (online?) sources up your sleeve.
We can only learn from history if we understand its message.
Richard Dawkins has been doing an excellent job of helping
clarify both the historical and the current link between
irrationality and religion.
I agree in general terms, but await a cite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 05:59:29 AM |
|
|
Brett Aubrey wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide
along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form
the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather than
just
the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Well, of course any one word response is cursory, but the thread was on to
one-word summations. I was merely pointing out that your complaint that
history is "merely a narrative" was unjustified - "history" can be viewed as
the events themselves as opposed to the narratives relating to them. You
appeared to overlook this possibility and it seemed to me that the OP
mentioning "history" was referring to this meaning of the word.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
Cite? I'm not religious and tend to agree with this seemingly obvious
point, but am curious how well it's backed up by studies, etc. (I'm sure
someone like Logos would argue that /atheism breeds irrationality/, etc.)
I'll note that I get no hits googling "Irrationality breeds religion" and
only one (Christian) site for "Religion breeds irrationality". I also get
34 hits on "irrationality and religion" and 1080 for "rationality and
religion "; and 202 for "religion and irrationality" and 721 for "religion
and rationality." A quick glance at a few of these sites tells me that a
lot probably won't address your claim directly. I could slog through many
more of them to see if a consensus arose, but thought you might have some
credible (online?) sources up your sleeve.
We can only learn from history if we understand its message.
Richard Dawkins has been doing an excellent job of helping
clarify both the historical and the current link between
irrationality and religion.
I agree in general terms, but await a cite.
I have a book called "Egyptian Grammar" by Gardiner. In there he talks
about the end of the Hieroglyphic Language.
You can probably find the book in a library. or on EBAY.
As a NOTE the Egyptian Christians massacred the Egyptian Jews. in 150
AD i think. It made them important in the CHURCH.
josephus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 05:45:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:34:42 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide
along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can
all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form
the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather than
just
the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Well, of course any one word response is cursory, but the thread was on to
one-word summations. I was merely pointing out that your complaint that
history is "merely a narrative" was unjustified - "history" can be viewed as
the events themselves as opposed to the narratives relating to them. You
appeared to overlook this possibility and it seemed to me that the OP
mentioning "history" was referring to this meaning of the word.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
Cite? I'm not religious and tend to agree with this seemingly obvious
point, but am curious how well it's backed up by studies, etc. (I'm sure
someone like Logos would argue that /atheism breeds irrationality/, etc.)
I'll note that I get no hits googling "Irrationality breeds religion" and
only one (Christian) site for "Religion breeds irrationality". I also get
34 hits on "irrationality and religion" and 1080 for "rationality and
religion "; and 202 for "religion and irrationality" and 721 for "religion
and rationality." A quick glance at a few of these sites tells me that a
lot probably won't address your claim directly. I could slog through many
more of them to see if a consensus arose, but thought you might have some
credible (online?) sources up your sleeve.
The End of Faith - Sam Harris
Reason in Exile
http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/full-text/chapter-one/
Viruses of the mind - Richard Dawkins
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
++++++++++++++++
Comments and reviews of "The End of Faith", by Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/index.php
The Clash of Faith and Reason
This important and timely book delivers a startling analysis of the
clash of faith and reason in the modern world. The End of Faith
provides a harrowing glimpse of mankind’s willingness to suspend
reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when these beliefs inspire
the worst of human atrocities. Harris argues that in the presence of
weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer expect to survive our
religious differences indefinitely. Most controversially, he maintains
that “moderation” in religion poses considerable dangers of its own:
as the accommodation we have made to religious faith in our society
now blinds us to the role that faith plays in perpetuating human
conflict. While warning against the encroachment of organized
religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from
neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism in an attempt to
provide a truly modern foundation for our ethics and our search for
spiritual experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winner of the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam
Harris is a genuinely frightening book about terrorism, and the
central role played by religion in justifying and rewarding it. Others
blame “extremists” who “distort” the “true” message of religion.
Harris goes to the root of the problem: religion itself. Even moderate
religion is a menace, because it leads us to respect and “cherish the
idea that certain fantastic propositions can be believed without
evidence”. Why do men like Bin Laden commit their hideous cruelties?
The answer is that they “actually believe what they say they believe”.
Read Sam Harris and wake up.
—Richard Dawkins, The Guardian
“The End of Faith articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized
religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read
it, vindicated, almost personally understood… Harris writes what a
sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary
America… This in an important book, on a topic that, for all its
inherent difficulty and divisiveness, should not be shielded from the
crucible of human reason.”
—Natalie Angier, The New York Times Book Review (read the full review)
“Sam Harris launches a sustained nuclear assault… A bold and
exhilarating thesis… The End of Faith is a brave, pugilistic attempt
to demolish the walls that currently insulate religious people from
criticism… The End of Faith is badly needed...”
—The Independent (U.K.) (read the full review)
“This book will strike a chord with anyone who has ever pondered the
irrationality of religious faith… Even Mr. Harris’s critics will have
to concede the force of an analysis which roams so far and wide, from
the persecution of the Cathars to the composition of George Bush’s
cabinet.”
—The Economist (read the full review)
“[Harris] writes with such verve and frequent insight that even
skeptical readers will find it hard to put down.”
—The San Francisco Chronicle (read the full review)
“A radical attack on the most sacred of liberal precepts—the notion of
tolerance… [The End of Faith] is an eminently sensible rallying cry
for a more ruthless secularisation of society.”
—The Observer (U.K.) (read the full review)
“Harris’ tour de force demonstrates how faith—blind, deaf, dumb, and
unreasoned—threatens our very existence. His exposé of faith-based
unreason—from the religious fanaticism of Islamic suicide bombers to
the secular fanaticism of Noam Chomsky—is a clarion call for reasoned
debate in this age of terrorism. THE END OF FAITH shows how the
perfect tyranny of religious and secular totalitarianism demonizes
imperfect democracies such as the United States and Israel. A must
read for all rational people.”
—Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard and author of America on
Trial.
“Here is a ringing challenge to all Americans who recognize the danger
to American democracy posed by the political alliance of right wing
religion and politics and the failure of the tepid and tentative
responses by liberal persons of faith. While one might dispute some of
the claims and arguments presented by the author, the need for a wake
up call to religious liberals is right on the mark.”
—Joseph C. Hough, Jr., President of Union Theological Seminary, New
York
“At last we have a book that focuses on the common thread that links
Islamic terrorism with the irrationality of all religious faith. THE
END OF FAITH will challenge not only Muslims but Hindus, Jews and
Christians as well.”
—Peter Singer, professor of philosophy at Princeton and author of The
President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush.
We can only learn from history if we understand its message.
Richard Dawkins has been doing an excellent job of helping
clarify both the historical and the current link between
irrationality and religion.
I agree in general terms, but await a cite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 04:26:15 PM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may
divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern
Ireland what else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles
can all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
The vast majority of my original post was snipped from this spot.
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather
than just the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause. Certainly religion
came to play a role later, but initially it was the English simply
grabbing a sizable portion of the island, taking it for themselves, and
going on the treat the Irish as scum in their own land.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
You know, the fundies never tire of pointing out the atheism of people
like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Between them, they're responsible for
more deaths than any other trio in history, I'd bet (well, substitute
Hitler for Pol Pot, I guess). But it's as ridiculous to claim atheism is
responsible for those deaths as it is to claim religion is responsible
for all the troubles of the world. Neither is correct.
We can only learn from history if we understand its message.
Richard Dawkins has been doing an excellent job of helping clarify
both the historical and the current link between irrationality and
religion.
Yes, but like anyone with an extreme opinion, he attributes more evil to
religion than is really there.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 04:36:50 PM |
|
|
Chris Thompson wrote:
<snips>
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause. Certainly religion
came to play a role later, but initially it was the English simply
grabbing a sizable portion of the island, taking it for themselves, and
going on the treat the Irish as scum in their own land.
Quite right. Religion is often used as a post-hoc excuse. Or even as a
mere smoke screen. After all, it not only makes hatred of others
permissible, it makes it a moral imperative. Thus it can be used (and
it often has) as justification for any beligerent act.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
You know, the fundies never tire of pointing out the atheism of people
like Stalin,
Stalin went to seminary, didn't he?
Pol Pot, and Mao. Between them, they're responsible for
more deaths than any other trio in history, I'd bet (well, substitute
Hitler for Pol Pot, I guess). But it's as ridiculous to claim atheism is
responsible for those deaths as it is to claim religion is responsible
for all the troubles of the world. Neither is correct.
We can only learn from history if we understand its message.
Richard Dawkins has been doing an excellent job of helping clarify
both the historical and the current link between irrationality and
religion.
Yes, but like anyone with an extreme opinion, he attributes more evil to
religion than is really there.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiny Bulcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 05:28:33 PM |
|
|
Noone Inparticular wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
<snips>
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause. Certainly religion
came to play a role later, but initially it was the English simply
grabbing a sizable portion of the island, taking it for themselves, and
going on the treat the Irish as scum in their own land.
Quite right. Religion is often used as a post-hoc excuse. Or even as a
mere smoke screen. After all, it not only makes hatred of others
permissible, it makes it a moral imperative. Thus it can be used (and
it often has) as justification for any beligerent act.
Irrationality breeds religion.
Religion breeds irrationality.
Its a vicious circle.
You know, the fundies never tire of pointing out the atheism of people
like Stalin,
Stalin went to seminary, didn't he?
Yes, but he got thrown out. Or dropped out, depending which story you
believe. Anyway, the Tiflis Seminary wasn't just a place for training
priests: it was about the only way poor boys like young Dzhugashvili
could get any kind of secondary education.
--
Tiny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 06:23:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:26:15 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may
divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern
Ireland what else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles
can all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
The vast majority of my original post was snipped from this spot.
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather
than just the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause.
Greed has done more to improve the human condition than just about
any other human attribute. Greed is only harmful when ethics are
abandoned. The same is true for many other human behaviors. It isn't
greed that is bad, it is the lack of ethics that is bad. If a person
is both ethical and greedy, then he must produce something of value to
others in order to achieve his goal of acquiring wealth. This benefits
everyone.
Economics 101 (excerpt)
by Walter E. Williams
Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to political charlatans
and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101.
It's popular to condemn greed but it's greed that gets wonderful
things done. When I say greed, I don't mean stealing, fraud,
misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty. I mean people trying
to get as much as they can for themselves. We don't give second
thought to the many wonderful things that others do for us. Detroit
assembly line workers get up at the crack of dawn to produce the car
that you enjoy. Farm workers toil in the blazing sun gathering grapes
for our wine. Snowplow drivers brave blizzards just so we can have
access to our roads. Do you think these people make these personal
sacrifice because they care about us? My bet is that they don't give a
hoot. Instead, they along with their bosses do these wonderful things
for us because they want more for themselves.
People in the education and political establishments pretend they're
not motivated by such "callous" motives as greed and profits. These
people "care" about us but which areas of our lives do we derive the
greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and which areas do
we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have a high
satisfaction level with goods and services like computers, cell
phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas were the
motivation is greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction are in
areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal
services, and politics. Give me greed and profits and you can keep the
caring.
The good side of greed. (video)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1304373
Good greed and bad greed
http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/greed.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 11:23:33 AM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:26:15 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may
divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern
Ireland what else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles
can all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
The vast majority of my original post was snipped from this spot.
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather
than just the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause.
Greed has done more to improve the human condition than just about
any other human attribute. Greed is only harmful when ethics are
abandoned.
Merriam-Webster Online presents this definition (and no other) for
greed:
"excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"
Greed does not mean "a desire for material possessions that can be
taken too far".
So I guess if you want to go ahead and completely alter the meaning of
the word, that's fine.
Please, though, include definitions for all nouns you use in the
future, since we won't be able to tell whether you have a private,
nonstandard meaning.
Chris
The same is true for many other human behaviors. It isn't
greed that is bad, it is the lack of ethics that is bad. If a person
is both ethical and greedy, then he must produce something of value to
others in order to achieve his goal of acquiring wealth. This benefits
everyone.
Economics 101 (excerpt)
by Walter E. Williams
Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to political charlatans
and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101.
It's popular to condemn greed but it's greed that gets wonderful
things done. When I say greed, I don't mean stealing, fraud,
misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty. I mean people trying
to get as much as they can for themselves. We don't give second
thought to the many wonderful things that others do for us. Detroit
assembly line workers get up at the crack of dawn to produce the car
that you enjoy. Farm workers toil in the blazing sun gathering grapes
for our wine. Snowplow drivers brave blizzards just so we can have
access to our roads. Do you think these people make these personal
sacrifice because they care about us? My bet is that they don't give a
hoot. Instead, they along with their bosses do these wonderful things
for us because they want more for themselves.
People in the education and political establishments pretend they're
not motivated by such "callous" motives as greed and profits. These
people "care" about us but which areas of our lives do we derive the
greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and which areas do
we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have a high
satisfaction level with goods and services like computers, cell
phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas were the
motivation is greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction are in
areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal
services, and politics. Give me greed and profits and you can keep the
caring.
The good side of greed. (video)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1304373
Good greed and bad greed
http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/greed.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
11 Jan 2006 05:48:01 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2006 09:23:33 -0800, "chris.linthompson@gmail.com"
<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:26:15 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may
divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern
Ireland what else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles
can all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
The vast majority of my original post was snipped from this spot.
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather
than just the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause.
Greed has done more to improve the human condition than just about
any other human attribute. Greed is only harmful when ethics are
abandoned.
Merriam-Webster Online presents this definition (and no other) for
greed:
"excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"
Merriam-Webster Online presents this definition (and no other) for
acquisitive.
strongly desirous of acquiring and possessing
I have seen no evidence that it is ever harmful to be excessively
acquisitive. It is like saying that something is excessively useful,
it make no sense. There are some who seek to acquire things
unethically by lying, cheating or stealing. It is not acquisitiveness
that is bad, it is the introduction of unethical behavior that is bad.
The same is true for many other human behaviors. It isn't
greed that is bad, it is the lack of ethics that is bad. If a person
is both ethical and greedy, then he must produce something of value to
others in order to achieve his goal of acquiring wealth. This benefits
everyone.
Economics 101 (excerpt)
by Walter E. Williams
Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to political charlatans
and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101.
It's popular to condemn greed but it's greed that gets wonderful
things done. When I say greed, I don't mean stealing, fraud,
misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty. I mean people trying
to get as much as they can for themselves. We don't give second
thought to the many wonderful things that others do for us. Detroit
assembly line workers get up at the crack of dawn to produce the car
that you enjoy. Farm workers toil in the blazing sun gathering grapes
for our wine. Snowplow drivers brave blizzards just so we can have
access to our roads. Do you think these people make these personal
sacrifice because they care about us? My bet is that they don't give a
hoot. Instead, they along with their bosses do these wonderful things
for us because they want more for themselves.
People in the education and political establishments pretend they're
not motivated by such "callous" motives as greed and profits. These
people "care" about us but which areas of our lives do we derive the
greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and which areas do
we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have a high
satisfaction level with goods and services like computers, cell
phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas were the
motivation is greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction are in
areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal
services, and politics. Give me greed and profits and you can keep the
caring.
The good side of greed. (video)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1304373
Good greed and bad greed
http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/greed.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
11 Jan 2006 12:32:45 PM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:rlq9s1h3e6sgon5rdab27rurh0t80g2ql6@4ax.com:
On 10 Jan 2006 09:23:33 -0800, "chris.linthompson@gmail.com"
<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:26:15 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir>
wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that
there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some
tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but
in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The
Troubles can all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
The vast majority of my original post was snipped from this spot.
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be
History, not Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be
the "root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events
that form the subject matter of a history" and "events of the
past", rather than just the narrative. See Point 4 of "History",
at: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem
without qualifying it with the composition of those past events.
When the content of those past events is investigated, it turns
out that the evils of history are almost universally linked to
religion and the subsequent intolerance and irrational thought
inherent to religion.
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be
the first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more
of a factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was
surely more important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause.
Greed has done more to improve the human condition than just about
any other human attribute. Greed is only harmful when ethics are
abandoned.
Merriam-Webster Online presents this definition (and no other) for
greed:
"excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"
Merriam-Webster Online presents this definition (and no other) for
acquisitive.
strongly desirous of acquiring and possessing
I have seen no evidence that it is ever harmful to be excessively
acquisitive. It is like saying that something is excessively useful,
it make no sense. There are some who seek to acquire things
unethically by lying, cheating or stealing. It is not acquisitiveness
that is bad, it is the introduction of unethical behavior that is bad.
Whether from stubborness or some other motivation, you are ignoring the
clear meaning of the modifiers, excessive and reprehensible. You don't
even mention "reprehensible" in your reply. We seem to be disagreeing
only on semantics here. If you want to use your secret decoder ring to
alter the standard definitions of words, be my guest. Just don't be
surprised when people look at you funny.
Chris
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
10 Jan 2006 10:13:55 PM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:26:15 GMT, Chris Thompson
<cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:urk5s1l20ok4i6ucpgvchqrcks2h063ltm@4ax.com:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:15:45 +0000 (GMT), Brett Aubrey
<brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rus3s1dh92h0i1nd5759t1s37tf1gd6qo4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may
divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern
Ireland what else is there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles
can all be boiled down to a single word (religion)
The vast majority of my original post was snipped from this spot.
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
History, according to Merriam-Webster Online, can also be "events that
form the subject matter of a history" and "events of the past", rather
than just the narrative. See Point 4 of "History", at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
It seems cursory to blame "past events" for causing a problem without
qualifying it with the composition of those past events. When the
content of those past events is investigated, it turns out that the
evils of history are almost universally linked to religion and the
subsequent intolerance and irrational thought inherent to religion.
Rubbish.
Religion is a motivating factor is plenty of atrocities; I'll be the
first to admit that. But overall I think simple greed is more of a
factor than religion in causing the world's ills. Greed was surely more
important as a factor in Ireland- as a root cause.
Greed has done more to improve the human condition than just about
any other human attribute. Greed is only harmful when ethics are
abandoned. The same is true for many other human behaviors. It isn't
greed that is bad, it is the lack of ethics that is bad. If a person
is both ethical and greedy, then he must produce something of value to
others in order to achieve his goal of acquiring wealth. This benefits
everyone.
Economics 101 (excerpt)
by Walter E. Williams
Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to political charlatans
and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101.
It's popular to condemn greed but it's greed that gets wonderful
things done. When I say greed, I don't mean stealing, fraud,
misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty. I mean people trying
to get as much as they can for themselves. We don't give second
thought to the many wonderful things that others do for us. Detroit
assembly line workers get up at the crack of dawn to produce the car
that you enjoy. Farm workers toil in the blazing sun gathering grapes
for our wine. Snowplow drivers brave blizzards just so we can have
access to our roads. Do you think these people make these personal
sacrifice because they care about us? My bet is that they don't give a
hoot. Instead, they along with their bosses do these wonderful things
for us because they want more for themselves.
People in the education and political establishments pretend they're
not motivated by such "callous" motives as greed and profits. These
people "care" about us but which areas of our lives do we derive the
greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and which areas do
we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have a high
satisfaction level with goods and services like computers, cell
phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas were the
motivation is greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction are in
areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal
services, and politics. Give me greed and profits and you can keep the
caring.
Games people play
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3576344
Jan 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition
The co-operative and the selfish are equally successful at getting what
they want
The good side of greed. (video)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1304373
Good greed and bad greed
http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/greed.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
09 Jan 2006 07:09:47 AM |
|
|
Scríobh LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:27:54 +0000, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
Scríobh Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUT.bmcc.cuny.edu>:
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:dh23s1hqgjskci1jv6tu910sntf18sm1r3@4ax.com:
Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:jh22s112n7oep9v6qnhqi6qr2jjcjju2b8@4ax.com...
Scríobh Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org>:
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is
there but religion?
History.
I'm afraid you've missed his point. Try again.
I'm sure someone will be along to enlighten me shortly
I can I can.
Dawkins is partly right here. However, if you think The Troubles can all
be boiled down to a single word (religion)
I don't. But if I had to go with one word, it would be History, not
Religion.
History is merely a narrative of past events. How can this be the
"root of evil"?
Perhaps I should have said Memory? It has been said that the tragedy
is the Irish remember everything, and the British remember nothing.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maarten" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? |
08 Jan 2006 03:56:55 PM |
|
|
religion is a terrible thing, that's why Jesus was already against it.
if people just truly accepted what he has done for all of us we
wouldn't be in this me | |
