Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Aug 18, 2009.
What the hell are you guys talking about Jesus camp is like the new cat's ass.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No its the documentary. Did you see it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is a link there somewhere where you can look at it online.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He saw it.........
Lucy you should watch that one Deliver us From Evil that is even more disturbing.
Just found it here online:
I'm going to watch it.
Tell me what you think later........
I am off to bed, shit it's 3 am!
I like these documentaries:
Ok. I've been watching this Deliver Us From Evil for exactly 11 minutes and 52 seconds and Father O'Grady must be a psychopath. I mean the man seems to have no idea, NO CLUE, that what he is doing is wrong, total pedophiliac numbness to the abuse. He talks of kissing on the mouth and 'cuddling'. At one point he says that the only thing he thinks he is guilty of is 'cuddling them too much'. Please tell me that he drops dead when the film hits 15 min.
I saw the PBS one on Teddy Roosevelt I thought it was good but too long [I fell asleep halfway through the second disk]
My recommendation :
The Story of India - Part One Part Two - Michal Wood
Thanks. I will definitely take the time to watch it. I'll leave a post on my impressions.
I don't know what to say, its too overwhelming and has silenced me. I can only recommend for everyone to watch it.
That sounds right.
As I look around I see a knife, a window, and a bottle of turpentine.
Oh but the knife would be so painful, maybe I wouldn't be able to kill myself completely with it. I could jump out of the window, but don't some people survive big falls? I guess I could drink the turpentine, but again I don't know how much and how painful it would be... If only I could get my hand on a guidebook of sorts!
Oh well gonna go get some food
Well Roots of Evil are in two parts and I saw part 2 but not part one where he went to Israel.
Well I still didn't see the jewish person who converted to Islam. There was a religious fundamentalist who hated all atheists and secular society but he wasn't jewish or at least he wasn't identified as a convert. There was a Jewish man who was upset that he couldn't enter the temple of the mount but I don't think that was who you were referring to.
Well maybe I am living in a parallel universe but I have never experienced being discriminated against because I’m an atheist. Really the subject doesn’t come up too often but then again I am not a teacher or living in Colorado so who knows. Its probably a very different experience living and working in NY or LA or San Fransico than it is in other parts of the country.
Is Dawkins being unfair? I don’t think he is being unfair in challenging religious beliefs, even you challenge atheists on the science and for the most part this is deemed ok.
Is religion divisive? I believe it is, it would be interesting to know what the world would look like if there was no religion, would there be less warfare for example. It might just be that there will always be something to war about but how much that would arise without religion as a mobilizing device is uncertain.
I disagree with his assessment of 9/11. I don’t believe the secular west was hit because its secular, I believe it was hit because of political and military interference in the middle east. Also I think he makes a common mistake of believing that the troubles in Israel are religious, I would say they are tribal and that the trouble is land not religion. I wondered why he didn’t highlight the use of religion as a political tool to sway the masses. It could be argued that an atheist population is less likely to go to war for god and country, they would not go to war over the belief that it was ordained by god or that one is killing infidels or religious enemies but he really doesn’t focus on how governments use religion as a means of rallying a nation into a violent fervor. If you think about it an atheist population asks too many questions to be trusted by a government interested in swaying a population with this device for their own non-religious reasons. He also doesn’t go about showing how religious views can interfere in the lives of non-believers. Abortion in the U.S is a great example, the religious are not satisfied that they do not choose abortion they want to infringe on the rights of other women who choose abortion. Religion as a political tool is more important than how many people believe in the myth of mary or jesus going up to heaven on a cloud. If grown adults want to think these things then best of british luck to them so to speak it doesn’t really concern me. What I would actively fight against is religion seeping into secular life and infringing on my rights.
I still disagree with you that dawkins is hawking a new religion, he isn’t. He is deeply troubled by the lack of critical thinking, I still see this as his main purpose and not one of trying to dissuade in order to redoctrinate. I am not a scientist, science is hardly my forte yet I am still an atheist and came to it through my own thinking process, no one tried to convince me. I was raised in a household where all religious thought was open to investigation, this is why I was able to study vedanta as well as go to a church, dabble in catholic doctrine and look into various belief systems not any one of them was considered any better than the other simply different in their vision of man in the world. The books were there for me to read if I so chose and yet still I don’t think this was the definitive reason why I am an atheist. If Dawkins was sincerely trying to convert as you say he would require you to take on a new set of beliefs based on science and he doesn’t. He says one should believe or not believe AFTER looking at the evidence. He admits that science cannot disprove the existence of god. He is against religion as an authority who calls first dibs in who gets to mold the mind of a human being, he isn’t interested in any outside authority molding anyone’s mind towards anything the person cannot freely criticize or question. Science does not say you cannot question and refute. He does say that religion creates an inflexible morality and I believe this is true, he is also worried about the affects of religion on children and after watching Jesus Camp (you can find the link in this thread) I am inclined to agree with him. Its not that I don’t think children shouldn’t have religious instruction, I just don’t believe in religious indoctrination of children. He asks whether religious myths should be taught in schools and I would agree with him that they should not. It is up to the parents to decide what a child should learn in terms of religion and so should be kept out of schools. I would also say after watching Deliver Us From Evil that one should be careful of religious authority in religious schools but that is probably a knee-jerk reaction to having watched this documentary as its very intense and disturbing not that I really have anything against children going to religious schools though I don't think it should be paid for with tax payer dollars.
Perhaps Dawkins is alarmed because of all the religious rhetoric flying around since 9/11. His reaction could come from the fear of living in world were religion can decide how people will react to a governments call to war, or a call to discriminate against others. Remember that England had a long history of religious struggle; catholics pitted against protestants not only threatening the stability of the nation as it almost descended into civil war. England also had to go to war with other nations because it refused to yield to the authority of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. So perhaps to see religion raise its multi-faceted head again and stir up feelings of fear and hatred has set him on a course of trying to instill 'reason' into the mix.
I will have to watch the link I gave you to locate the Jewish convert. [ugh!]
Reagardless you have summed up my feelings about the documentary quite well except for one exception. You are making the same mistake as Dawkins in assuming that Jesus Camp or Deliver Us from Evil are somehow representative of all religion.
Moreover, I would lay bets that as many athiests as theists [proportionately] were for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan even if for different reasons. Just look at Christopher Hitchens.
I agree with you that no one should dictate what someone else can do. Let everyone have all the options and be free to choose what they want. Even Dawkins "rescued" his daughter by keeping her away from religious indoctrination and I suppose she is an atheist now. Which doesn't make him different from any of the other parents, including the fact that like them, he knows what is better for his own child and makes sure she is protected from harmful beliefs
As to religious indoctrination, just look at communist countries.
I find the anti-theist stand of Dawkins fans more alarming.
No I wouldn't disagree with you on those two documentaries. I do believe that jesus camp is an extreme experience that most parents would not subject their children to. Deliver Us From Evil however is dealing with a serious problem in the Catholic church that they are unwilling to deal with, namely the large numbers of pedophiles they are protecting but that isn't a matter of religious thought though it does threaten to shake the faith in the church right out of its believers.
I would have to google christopher Hitchens as I have no idea who he is.
Oh yeah I also added an edit to the last part of the post.
Deliver us from Evil was a really disturbing eye opener eh? I felt like strangling him every time he spoke with that grin on his face. I had such a knot in my stomache watching that one. I made a thread about it a long time ago. Can you believe that some tried to defend it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Defend it? They didn't seem to know what was wrong with it!!!
I felt sorry for the priest in a way because he seemed sooo sick. So detached in his manner and unaware that there was harm involved. He had a real difficult time thinking of it all as abuse, he kept saying it was 'affection', that he was showing affection, meanwhile his youngest victim was 9 months old. The reaction of the church was powerful in its silence and cover up. Their treatment of the victims was deplorable and I don't see how any catholic even if they continue to be catholics could continue with the catholic church. Did you see the part where he was recounted his childhood? He was molested by a priest and his brother, he was having sex with his sister. He was sick from jump street! I mean when they asked him about the priest molesting him he said 'it ONLY happened two or three times' as if that wasn't 'a lot'. He needs some serious serious intervention like a long stay in a mental institution.
But he's a lefty liberal against vietnam, the bombing of Sudan, he even supports Irish unification and he thinks waterboarding is torture. What's wrong with his views?
This doesn't seem like he's pro-Israel:
Israel doesn't "give up" anything by abandoning religious expansionism in the West Bank and Gaza. It does itself a favor, because it confronts the internal clerical and chauvinist forces which want to instate a theocracy for Jews, and because it abandons a scheme which is doomed to fail in the worst possible way. The so-called "security" question operates in reverse, because as I may have said already, only a moral and political idiot would place Jews in a settlement in Gaza in the wild belief that this would make them more safe. Of course this hard-headed and self-interested solution of withdrawal would not satisfy the jihadists. But one isn't seeking to placate them. One is seeking to destroy and discredit them. At the present moment, they operate among an occupied and dispossessed and humiliated people, who are forced by Sharon's logic to live in a close yet ghettoised relationship to the Jewish centers of population. Try and design a more lethal and rotten solution than that, and see what you come up with.
Ok WAIT! I found it. It doesn't explain why a man who was against vietnam would support the war in Iraq. Any thoughts?
You're the atheist :shrug:
Yeah but atheism isn't a belief nevermind a political belief. An atheist could be communist or conservative or liberal or an anarchist. What I don't understand is his reasoning? Unless he bought into the whole 'the muslims are coming, the muslims are coming' rhetoric. But if someone can disbelieve and question the whole 'the red commies are coming the red commies are coming' and fight against the vietnam war, what makes this war any different? I don't get it.
Separate names with a comma.