The tyranny of scripture
Jan.16, 2008 in
Other
patcondell asked:
Humanity in chains.
Saudi police raid “gay wedding”
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=125&id=15836&t=Saudi+police+raid+gay+’wedding’
Anglicans in conflict over female and gay bishops
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_qFWRaqED_10PSnvSL6pgMet42A
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2437868/Bishops-boycotting-Lambeth-Conference-are-weakening-churchs-efforts-to-resolve-crisis.html
Creation museums
http://www.nwcreation.net/museums.html
Creationism in Louisiana
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300
Creationism in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/16/religion.world
You can download an audio version of this video at http://patcondell.libsyn.com/
Custom Search
January 16th, 2008 at 2:08 am
“I never claimed you had to believe in bullshit, at any point.”
You do when you suggest that ‘scientifically minded’ and ‘spiritual’ are on opposite sides of a spectrum.
Again, theists do not have a monopoly on spirituality. It’s part of universal human experience.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:15 am
I’m going to explain to my love sick friend that his feelings are nothing more than a natural system that exists to help social creatures survive. I’m going to tell him that the fact he irrationally spends a fortune on a girl who hates him, while ostricising long time friends is all part of nature, it’s just an emotion, no mystery. I doubt he’ll sleep any better though. Am I getting through to you, at all?
January 21st, 2008 at 6:38 am
Equating apples to oranges does not a good argument make. Analyze my comment and see that burning witches and all that other rubbish has nothing to do with what I said. He flames those who “tell others how to think” and then proceeds to tell them how they should think. It is in that manner that he is just like those he defames. He is truly a comedian, albeit an unintentional one.
Next time someone is arguing about X & Y, don’t try to squeeze a W in there, it makes for a poor debate.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I never claimed you had to believe in bullshit, at any point.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I was referring to your extreme examples concerning the ‘sick child’, but now you bring me to this. Belief in a ‘God’ of any kind is not really unreasonable. It’s self deception, and human beings like to lie to themselves, and to others all the time, about all manner of things. The little and the big lies are nothing new, we all do it, all perfectly unconcious of it, while other, more neutral parties may see the truth of the situation, we blind ourselves stubbornly, just to survive.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“And exactly what use is your scientific explanation of love to a person who has ever felt those strong and complex emotions.”
Um, it’s an emotion. What other kind of explanation are you looking for? What exactly is the mystery here?
Are you suggesting that emotions require a supernatural explanation?
You to continue to confuse spirituality with religion. Spirituality is part of human experience, whether you’re a atheist scientist or fundamentalist cleric.
January 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“No, I’m really not”
Yes, you are. When you say, “science can stick to what it does best, and spirituality to what it does best”, you are suggesting they are opposite sides of a spectrum. They are not. Spiritual experience is universal, totally independent of whether you are educated and sober minded or credulous and ignorant. You don’t have to believe in bullshit to be spiritual.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:00 am
“religious texts do not automatically drive every person to abandon all logic”
Huh? What religion is based on evidence or reason?
Christianity exalts FAITH above all things! You needn’t be good to be saved you need only BELIEVE, and without evidence (if you had evidence, you wouldn’t need faith). How is it not abandoning reason to decide something is true not because evidence or reason supports it, but because it feels good, or because you’re afraid of the consequences of not believing?
February 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
No, I’m really not, they should be mutually beneficial. If you can take the value of both, then you’ve really got something. Why should spirituality be concerned with trying to disprove complex substantive scientific fact. And exactly what use is your scientific explaination of love to a person who has ever felt those strong and complex emotions.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 am
“If science can stick to what it does best, and spirituality to what it does best then there’d be no reason to argue.”
You’re speaking as if science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. They are not. Spiritual experiences are universal.
“than science can explain love”
Love is an emotion, evolved for it’s survival advantage among social animals who pair bond and raise children. No great mystery there. Moreover, it’s universal, and has NOTHING to do with believing fairy tales.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Secondly, I think you’re are rather unfairly focusing on the negative extremes, religious texts do not automatically drive every person to abandon all logic in the face of reason, believing some intangible parent figure is the answer to all questions.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Compromise is a two way thing. If science can stick to what it does best, and spirituality to what it does best then there’d be no reason to argue. Scientology can no more explain sunburn than science can explain love.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“I never suggested abandoning reason or believing in magical figures”
You said “you’d think there’d be room for compromise…” We all enjoy magic, we all enjoy moving, inspirational stories, so we can certainly find common ground, but how do you ‘compromise’ with someone who thinks your sunburn was caused by galactic overlord Xenu throwing your spirit into a volcano ages ago? How do you compromise with someone who begs an imaginary friend to help their sick child, rather then see a doctor?
February 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“Why do people believe in god? Because of the testimony of people.”
The Abrahamic faiths are just the latest in an endless serious of imagined gods. For all those who’ve testified for *your* imaginary friend, just as many testified for Osiris, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Xenu, Oni, or any of 3000 known gods, not to mention the countless others lost to history. Men are easily taken in by bullshit, which is WHY the scientific method was developed (evidence, skeptical peer review, etc.)
February 14th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I never suggested abandoning reason or believing in magical figures, that’s a very obscure interpretation of the term ‘spiritual’. You can learn interesting things from fictional stories, you don’t have to take them literally, but they can be thought provoking, illustrative or moving.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:40 am
“Science […] can’t necessarily explain things as transient as ‘beauty’ though”
Yet. Emotions are not supernatural.
“Spiritual sorts can say a lot too, about things which are far less quantifiable, they each have thier own place, you’d think there’d be room for compromise….”
The thing is, we ALL have spiritual experiences. Science reveals a Universe that is awe inspiring, majestic, beautiful, humbling. But that’s no reason to compromise our reason and start imagining magic father figures.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Science explains a lot of facinating things, all of which are backed up by demonstrable evidence. It can’t necessarily explain things as transient as ‘beauty’ though, as Einstien says, ‘it’s like describing a Beethoven Symphony as variable wave pressure.’ Spiritual sorts can say a lot too, about things which are far less quantifiable, they each have thier own place, you’d think there’d be room for compromise….
February 16th, 2008 at 5:03 am
“empty rhetoric. why? whether god exists should be determined by something ‘tangible’/’demonstrable’ (i.e. the testimony of people)”
testimony of the people is neither tangible or demonstrable!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:07 am
HeadDominion –
“he IS the local imam”
that explains all the porn that he has in his favourites then!
LOL!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
he IS the local imam lol *cue shocked hamster*
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
empty rhetoric. why? whether god exists should be determined by something ‘tangible’/’demonstrable’ (i.e. the testimony of people), not by this philosophical rubbish of ‘god’ being cruel – and him being cruel according to YOUR standards.
Q: why do people believe in god? because of the testimony of people. Q: how do you disprove God? A: attack the testimony of the people. and your “reasoning” on this key issue is very very weak indeed!
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
KingdomVanDoth –
“You’re still here? Do you live your life watching Pat Condell videos and stroking your tiny cock to his ugly face?”
no kondom – i get off thinking about seeing your head bursting after being hit by a .50 caliber jhp round
peace!
February 25th, 2008 at 1:38 am
psychologicly you clearly were disturbt in your early years by the church and all that, but frankly i dont think young ppl give a damn about all that now, you were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time. no offence
February 25th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“I’ve concluded that the Pledge should either be said as written”
originally written, of course!
February 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“You are only talking about the bad parts and thats dis-information”
the good parts of religion…… like…… er……
the wine!
monks making beer!
some nice buildings…
er… that’s it.