Discussion in 'Religion' started by (Q), Nov 18, 2013.
I could not have said this any better...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Pat Condell rules. It was through his videos that I discovered Christopher Hitchens.
What a moron (in the video).
Pat Condell is a bit of a dick.
He's fed up.
Looks like he touched a nerve!
He's tired of you religious folks insulting him and he's the moron? LOL.
What about if I don't have a religion but I believe in God
He never said how religion insulted him first, probably because it didn't. I am only insulting him now because he is insulting others. If he wasn't insulting others, I would just let him be the moron that he is without insulting him about it.
LOL, believing in God IS religion, you dope.
Yes, he did, were you not paying attention?
LOL, religions were first to insult, that is his point. Try paying attention.
Somebody didn't watch the video...
Can't explain what makes him a moron, of course. It's just a childish, emotional response because your feelings are hurt.
Actually, it's not. But thank you for the insight into what the hell is wrong with evangelical atheists.
Of course, that they do not understand what they criticize is no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. That much has been clear at least since the O'Hairs.
I listened to the moron again and NO HE DIDN'T.
We've been told many times that we're going to burn in hell... If that's not judgmental and insulting, I don't know what is.
Uh, yeah it is, check the definition.
Did you just make up that term?
You can believe in a God without being part of an organized religion. The guy in the video has a point but he comes off as a jerk because he is treating every religious person rudely rather than those who were rude to him.
Treating the subject of religion rudely I have less problem with for the reasons he mentions.
Simplification for the Benefit of Sounding Smarter Doesn't Always Work
Common dictionary, or academic?
(1) Jane grew up believing that the Universe is the result of a guiding force. But she has no care for the moralization and preaching, and lives her life from day to day doing right because it's the right thing to do. She doesn't know for certain that there is an afterlife. She has not attended church since childhood, does not promulgate, and if asked to explain her theology does not do so, as the guiding force she believes in is a mystery for her to understand, not knowledge for her to preach. By your definition, she is religious.
(2) Joe does not believe in God. But he loves flora. Indeed, he finds something psychologically rewarding about his relationship with trees and plants, which even includes talking to them. Certainly, he has many rituals, which he performs regularly, planting trees on a specific occasion each year, and finding metaphors, insights, and other psychointellectual rewards in thanking the trees for the apples, or the roses for their beauty. Despite his irrational beliefs in his relationship with trees and repeated ritual performances, he is not religious—at least, according to your standard, since there is no god at the heart of his behavior.
Academically speaking, religion does not require "God". It simply requires a higher cause. If we limit "religion" to mere failure to reject the theistic proposition, such fundamental notions of religious function as creed, code, and cult—which have specific definitions in academia—become irrelevant.
Creed— What a group believes.
Code — How those beliefs translate into praxis.
Cult — How the group honors its beliefs—i.e., worship.
These are elements found in any theistic religion, and many non-theistic associations with religion-like aspects.
It certainly makes it easier to criticize "religion" if you have no obligation to comprehend what you're criticizing.
Separate names with a comma.