"Religulous".....comments? (ducks and covers)

Posted by: winkyincanada on 09 October 2008

Just saw this . Loved it, and thought it an important movie. I have never laughed so hard out loud in a movie, yet thought that message is as important as can be. However, I think that perhaps it was (dare I say it) "preaching to the (non-)converted".

Any comments?

Disclaimer - I'm a confirmed atheist/(agnostic?) in the Dawkins-style.

Posted on: 16 November 2008 by Consciousmess

quote:
quote:
I will do something, however, and that will be to run the Birmingham half Marathon next year. I will do this for the Richard Dawkins Foundation charity and see how much money I make!!!

Your choice Jon, but, as others have pointed out, there are many, far worthier causes that need your help. I think that chasing this narrow, abstract idea of rationality has blinded you to that fact. The irony is that Dawkins has plenty of wealthy, well-connected chums, who will chip in anyway, so he hardly needs your measly £1000.

I think you're in danger of fetishising rationality so that it becomes, for you, the only true, meaningful way of engaging with the world. But, really, is it rational to aspire to total rationality? Is it irrational to make space in our lives for a measure of irrationality?

Regards
Nigel

Nigel,

I have to say I see the point you are making. I also have some degree of agreement with it, but the reason for me choosing to support the Dawkins Foundation is that I feel passionately out of principle. I am not a wealthy person so I cannot donate a lot myself, but in doing the half marathon, I will use the opportunity to inform my sponsors of the foundation I'm doing it for.

It also forces me to get back into cardio training!

As an end note, I think everyone should read Sam Harris' v. short and easy read "Letter to a Christian Nation". It may well have been cited in a previous post in this thread, and I must add that the texts recommended from the theist camp I will not personally ignore.

I think I'll spend my two week Xmas holiday reading...

Regards,

Jon

Posted on: 16 November 2008 by Don Atkinson

quote:
I will use the opportunity to inform my sponsors of the foundation I'm doing it for

Does your conviction, and your morality, extend to seeking widespread sponsorship amongst your work colleagues?

If not, why not? (No need to publish your answer here)

Be true to yourself, would be my recommendation.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 16 November 2008 by droodzilla

quote:
I think I'll spend my two week Xmas holiday reading...

Regards,

Jon

Fair enough Jon. If you're planning to do some reading over Xmas, this might be to your liking:

Haven't read it yet - but I believe it comes down firmly on the side of atheism, while defending spirituality - so, basically, a defence of humanism. It's an interesting tack, and promises to be more nuanced than Dawkins' approach, which (to my mind) risks throwing out the baby (spirituality) with the the bathwater (traditional concepts of God).

Regards
Nigel

Posted on: 16 November 2008 by 555

quote:
his Foundation is a religion

Belief & religion are two separate things in this case.

Posted on: 16 November 2008 by Don Atkinson

quote:
Belief & religion are two separate things in this case.

?
cheers

Don

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by 555

quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
?

You forgot to post your question.

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by Don Atkinson

quote:
Belief & religion are two separate things in this case.

....meaning ? (given that it was you who introduced the word "religion" in the context of Dawkins)

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by 555

Apparently not Don ...

quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
And when Dawkins accepts his Foundation is a religion, i'm sure he'll see the funny side of this.

Re: meaning of belief & religion as two separate things.
I believe chocolate is yummy. Having this belief doesn't make a religion IMO.

Cheers - John

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse

quote:
Originally posted by 555:
Apparently not Don ...
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
And when Dawkins accepts his Foundation is a religion, i'm sure he'll see the funny side of this.

My meaning re: 'belief & religion are two separate things'.
I believe chocolate is yummy. Having this belief doesn't make a religion IMO.

Cheers - John

Not a great example? You know chocolate is yummy because you can taste it. You may believe that such and such a brand is the best chocolate in the world due to your experience but relying on a degree of faith (because you have not tried every chocolate ever made). You may not be a member of the chocolate-worshipping religion because you don't want to be part of a systematised, regulated hierarchical community (who may perhaps also want to stuff it metaphorically and literally down everyone else's throat!)

Maybe we should find a better analogy!

Bruce

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by 555

The example works fine IMHO,
unless you know of a chocolate-worshipping religion Bruce!

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse

quote:
Originally posted by 555:
The example works fine IMHO,
unless you know of a chocolate-worshipping religion Bruce!

My wife would be a willing disciple.

My clumsy point was that belief is not just about fact or logic, it requires a step beyond that. Faith/belief is about conviction that may be in spite of logic, evidence, analysis or calculation.

Bruce

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by 555

On second thoughts maybe I am an unaware member of the Church of chocolate!

Now I'm with you Bruce re: belief is not just about fact or logic.
No clumsy point on your part, just me being dim.
However I still see religion & belief as potentially separate entities.

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse

quote:
Originally posted by 555:
On second thoughts maybe I am an unaware member of the Church of chocolate!

Now I'm with you Bruce re: belief is not just about fact or logic.
No clumsy point on your part, just me being dim.
However I still see religion & belief as potentially separate entities.

Agree. How about 'belief is personal, religion is joining the club?'

Bruce

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by 555

Sounds right to me Bruce.

Cheers - John

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by Don Atkinson

quote:
Sounds right to me Bruce.

Finally, you got there.

Look back through my posts in other threads.....

Now in this thread, you introduced the concept of "religion" with your quote from Chesterton, hence my comment. Probably worth your while re-reading.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by 555

You still aren't there are you Don?

The concept of "religion" was introduced in the title of the thread.

Cheers - John

Posted on: 17 November 2008 by winkyincanada

Honour Killings

A short newspaper article on some recent controversy about terminology, attitudes, communication and outcomes. Worth a read.

Posted on: 18 November 2008 by Don Atkinson

quote:
The concept of "religion" was introduced in the title of the thread.

Oh, i'm "there" all right, mate.

I was just trying (unsucessfully I admit) to help you catch up with your own rambling text and your fading/selective memory. But enough. I shall allow you to enjoy your ignorant bliss.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 18 November 2008 by JWM

quote:
Originally posted by 555:
The concept of "religion" was introduced in the title of the thread.

To be more precise, the concept of "anti-religion" was introduced in the title of the thread.

Winky very cleverly added 'religion' and 'ridiculous' to make 'religulous'. So this thread is in fact about anti-religion, not religion.

(Perhaps I should add this to the pedants' thread?)

Posted on: 18 November 2008 by 555

Did you personally conduct the Spanish inquisition Don?
How ironic that you are such a good example of what's wrong with organised religion!

Posted on: 18 November 2008 by winkyincanada

quote:
Originally posted by JWM:
quote:
Originally posted by 555:
The concept of "religion" was introduced in the title of the thread.

To be more precise, the concept of "anti-religion" was introduced in the title of the thread.

Winky very cleverly added 'religion' and 'ridiculous' to make 'religulous'. So this thread is in fact about anti-religion, not religion.

(Perhaps I should add this to the pedants' thread?)

It wasn't me being clever. I was referring to a film title. The thread was intended to invite discussion on the film and the issues it raises.

Religulous - IMDB page

The film challenges the basis and practices of organised religion.

Posted on: 18 November 2008 by Frank Abela

My God! Ten pages and only now do people realise what he was on about at the start!!

Now is that a reflection on the whole thing or what?!