Good episode today. I'd write more about it, but I am busy making money.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
dASH
User Karma: 32
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/25 15:52i'm too busy enjoying it to summarize it. great show. and only 9 minutes left... sad!filmfanatix.com
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
I saw he was doing a book tour just now and nearly emailed the show to suggest him as a guest.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Sesh
User Karma: 8
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/25 22:05I really wish they could have Dawkins on for a week.
My first introduction to the guy was in 1991 watching the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on TV here. For quite a few years in the UK these are now shown in 5 parts over the holiday period and a top scientist is chosen to give them to an audience of teenage kids lecturing them in science in an inteersting way. Even though it's slanted at young people without fail anyone would learn by watching them.
Anyhoo I remember seeing the Dawkins one and he spent 30 minutes just completely ripping the shit out of why religions were bogus. I was borderline agnostic/athiest at the time but I was kind of shocked a little even in the pretty secular UK that he was allowed to do it whilst obviously pleased he could. I think that lecture was 50% of me becoming a fundamentalist athiest the other 50% was actually getting around to reading some of the bible and checking some of the historical context as regards the complete lack of evidence for even the New Testament and how it was an amalgamation of various 'pagan' BS copied from earlier religions in particular Mithraism.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
mwfte
User Karma: 3
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/25 22:25I really found this show interesting, but I think Dawkins is a bit of a bigot. I think he'd be more convincing if he wasn't so prejudiced.
I'm a Christian, but I'm not a dumbass and I love science. To hear him say that Colbert may be "too intelligent" to believe in God (he teaches Sunday School, for goodness sake) and other things of that nature really annoyed the crap out of me. Just because one believes in religion doesn't mean that he's uneducated.
I also love the fact that he says the Bible (or any religious text) isn't a good place to get morals, then quotes the Golden Rule, which is an idea that came from Judaism.
He also refuses to see anything good that religion has done, such as the American Abolition movement, which was lead by Quakers. He ignores the fact that it is churches that run most soup kitchens and shelters. I feel that he's being intellectually dishonest.
Dawkins also dismisses religious moderates out of hand. Extremists of all types do this because the moderates work against their arguments (ie. Dawkins's argument that religion only does harm). If only he would actually look at the good things religion/religious persons does/do (some of which have been referenced above) instead of trying to justify himself by invalidating them.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Rustle
User Karma: 1
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/25 23:38Title of Dawkins next book: What Pisses Me Off
Wow what a great hour. I had to make a forum account just to say, That Richard Dawkins is a great guy. Some of us really need to hear plain, honest, sincere talk about these important issues. Sincere talk will sometimes sound rude, and thats just the way it is.
For the people that need perpetually polite and calm discussion, well, thats what Shermer is out there for. We've got that covered. Randi and Dawkins are for those of us that like to cut through the shit, and of course we should not forget Penn, who diligently addresses the needs of those who have an unusual kinky fetish, and want to get talk about it on the air.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Sesh
User Karma: 8
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/25 23:50I would imagine that after touring the US in particular would make Dawkins a little less amiable towards superstitions and might come across to you as bigoted but you have to appreciate logical people are starting to get pretty fed up with the way things are going. An 'extremist' athiest is a bit forceful in their arguments, an extremist religionist kills people.
Also these are pretty big issues to address in a 40 minute interview.
You may find it interesting to look at his TV show on YouTube. Part 1
As a Christian that appreciates science how do you reconcile those two things? I would guess that you have to pick the bits out of the bible like 'the golden rule' yet ignore vast parts of it like Noah, the Garden of Eden, eating shellfish the whole Old Testament pretty much where god seems to be a bit of a bastard generally. The 10 commandments, the time god pops down to set in stone some rules seem a bit odd since if you had to set out 10 rules to live by, objectively you would think he would have thrown some more moral ones in if he was a good guy. Once you start picking and choosing the bits of the bible you want to use then surely that discredits the fact it is the word of god. If it isn't the word of god then it's just the writings of primative people thousands of years ago so why bother with it at all. All you have left then is that it's old. So is slavery which incidently the bible supports. Will your great great grandchildren buy the Ron Hubbard stuff because it's old?
Onto the New Testament we have the huge problem of no contemporary Roman writers(and there were a lot around) mentioning Jesus, the impossibilty of Herod killing the male kids without that being documented(in fact from memory I think he was maybe gone by that point) etc etc.
You say that 'The Golden Rule' came from Judaism. Is that maybe just the first time it was written down?
You also say that Christianity does good which is true in that a very small percentage of Christians actually do the Jesus charity stuff but there are also many many Christians that are ok about killing people and have throughout history leading up to your current president. Maybe the quakers that you talk about were just nice folk that would still have been nice without religion.
Sorry to rant but you will have expected it at this site.
Peace and love and good happiness stuff...
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Rustle
User Karma: 1
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/26 00:02I really found this show interesting, but I think Dawkins is a bit of a bigot. I think he'd be more convincing if he wasn't so prejudiced.
Being bigoted of a persons race is a cognitive error, since the color of ones skin has no impact on the moral of their character. If you're being a bigot about religion, however, you're now judging a person based on what their beliefs are, and what their actions are. That seems like fair-play to me.
I'm a Christian, but I'm not a dumbass and I love science. To hear him say that Colbert may be "too intelligent" to believe in God (he teaches Sunday School, for goodness sake) and other things of that nature really annoyed the crap out of me. Just because one believes in religion doesn't mean that he's uneducated.
Dawkins gave Colbert the respect of taking him at his word (that he is a Roman Catholic). As a rabid Colbert watcher, I have heard Colbert say quite a few things that indicated he knows, at some level, or perhaps just at some times, that there is in fact no god, or at the least, that the idea of god is built on absurdity.
I also love the fact that he says the Bible (or any religious text) isn't a good place to get morals, then quotes the Golden Rule, which is an idea that came from Judaism. Do we use the golden rule, or do we commit genocide on perceived Philistines? Genocide, slavery, woman-as-property... the Bible is a hunk of crap. There is barely anything of value in there, and even when you do pick those few kernels of corn out of the poo, you yourself are making the decision that kernel is worth saving: so if you're picking your own morals, why bother starting with the pig-shit that is the bible in the first place?
He also refuses to see anything good that religion has done, such as the American Abolition movement, which was lead by Quakers. He ignores the fact that it is churches that run most soup kitchens and shelters. I feel that he's being intellectually dishonest. Can people do good things while being part of a religion? Yes. Can they do the same while eschewing religion? Yes. Religious charities exist largely because of the massively favorable tax codes written for them. The good Quakers, do you really think that without their religion, they would have been, in fact, slave owners? Abolish Religion today, and those in the world that already know that they want to do good, will promptly reform.
Just look at how much good that Atheist Bill Gates is propogating throughout the world.
Dawkins also dismisses religious moderates out of hand. Extremists of all types do this because the moderates work against their arguments (ie. Dawkins's argument that religion only does harm). If only he would actually look at the good things religion/religious persons does/do (some of which have been referenced above) instead of trying to justify himself by invalidating them.
What he said was, there is no inherent tendency for a religious person to do good. He has stated, more strongly, in other interviews that he suspects that religion can play a positive role in certain individuals lives.
Speaking for myself, I've just seen too many people rationalize their horrible behavior on some obscure biblical reference, to take the bible seriously as a moral compass.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/26 00:22Bigot: a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience.
Richard Dawkins is anything but a bigot, because his opinion is based on plenty of reason and plenty of experience. He may be intolerant, but he is rationally and justly intolerant. Have you ever read or seen anything by him, other than today's show? He is an incredibly well reasoned human and has all the right in the world to criticize religion and faith.
Religion is a vice, pure and simple. Once you stop using reason to explain existence, it is out of laziness, fear or lack of trust in yourself. You can not say he is a bigot, when you refuse to use reason yourself.
The idea of the golden rule did NOT come from judaism. It was adopted by judaism, like most of the so called morality in the bible. The reason that the bible contains passages that may be truly moral, are only because the bible is man made. Morality is derived from the desire to live, and nothing else. If you derive your morality and ethics from scripture, you are not truly moral. You are just fearful of punishment (hell) and desire reward (heaven).
One thing I do disagree with Dawkins on is that morality is an innate altruistic response. I think it is a selfish response; the desire for self continuation/replication. I think he states this in his books, but this is anything but altruism (selflessness). Once you agree that the desire of life is the basis of morality, you can call life a virtue and that is the reason for true morality. That is the reason most of us do not kill one another, or hurt one another, or rape one another. It is because we value our own life and that shared value keeps most of us existing side by side peacefully.
...and I don't think Colbert is intelligent. He plays a good fool, but I have never seen much intelligence in him. He's a nasty cynic, if anything.
Soup kitchens and shelters really do not benefit all that much in the big picture. The major progress in this world is done by science. Without science, there would not be enough extra food to stock the soup kitchens in the first place. Technology, engineering, science... those are the true saviors of humanity.
Religion and faith are at odds with reason. Faith requires you just to believe, and not think. That is why Dawkins is pissed off. That is why atheists will no longer tolerate* religion or faith of any sort. It is damaging to humanity, by its evil nature of denying the mind.
*do not mistake intolerance to mean violence against. Intolerance simply means we will expose religion for what it really is, speak out against it, and educate the next generation to reject it. The only time violence would be an option is if religion came to directly threaten our individual lives, which in the case of Islam and sometimes Christianity, it sometimes does.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Sesh
User Karma: 8
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/26 00:25Rustle wrote: Being bigoted of a persons race is a cognitive error, since the color of ones skin has no impact on the moral of their character. If you're being a bigot about religion, however, you're now judging a person based on what their beliefs are, and what their actions are. That seems like fair-play to me.
I agree with everything you posted but it's an interesting argument that maybe it is bigoted to attack peoples beliefs when they have been mentally damaged by the indoctrination of superstitions from birth so it's unfair to pull the rug away. It takes a certain intellectual curiosity or strength of character to come to the conclusion that your parents are completely wrong on the most fundamental essence of your existence.
I guess it's all about the degree of attack...
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
mwfte
User Karma: 3
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/26 00:42Just to be clear, I never said that Dawkins didn't have a right to express his opinion. I completely respect that right and he can shout it from the mountains if he wants to.
Sesh wrote: ...you have to appreciate logical people are starting to get pretty fed up with the way things are going.
I completely understand that; I am fed up with the way things are going as well. My real issue with him is that I think he's intellectually dishonest in the way he makes a lot of his arguments.
Thank you for the links, btw.
I believe that science and religion are not compatible because one cannot prove the existence of any god. I think that it is illogical for me to try to scientifically prove that my religion is true because I believe that God functions outside of scientific law and boundaries.
Interpreting the Bible is difficult, and, speaking from the Christian side, not everyone agrees. (Duh. ) For instance, I believe in evolution that was guided by God. Others do not. I think they're wrong, and I tell why I think they're wrong. Of course, that's just one example.
I think it is also important that one looks at the historical context of the time when a religious text was written. There are extensive passages in the Old Testament that advocate what, at that time period, was humane treatment of slaves. Nowhere in the Bible does it say people should keep slaves. It does say in Ephesians that slaves should obey their masters, but one could interpret that as simply being consistent with Jesus' pacifism.
Slavery during biblical times was not the same as we think of it today. Biblical slavery had nothing to do with race, but usually with debt. In the New Testament, doctors, lawyers, and even some politicians were considered slaves. The Bible does condemn race-based slavery in Exodus.
As for the laws about eating kosher, not wearing clothing of mixed clothes, etc... Those are known as the Mosaic laws, and they were dismissed by Paul in Acts 15:7-11.
You say that 'The Golden Rule' came from Judaism. Is that maybe just the first time it was written down?
Yes, that could be. Unfortunately, we have no earlier texts that mention it, so we can't be certain.
Onto the New Testament we have the huge problem of no contemporary Roman writers(and there were a lot around) mentioning Jesus...
Actually, that isn't accurate. Josephus, a Roman citizen of Jewish ancestry, wrote about Jesus. However, one of the references has been disputed due to questions about the translation. Tacitus also mentioned Jesus being put to death by Pontius Pilate in his work, Annals.
the impossibilty of Herod killing the male kids without that being documented...
Josephus also wrote about Herod, and said in Antiquities that Herod committed acts of vengence against those who opposed him, and that not all of those acts were recorded.
You also say that Christianity does good which is true in that a very small percentage of Christians actually do the Jesus charity stuff but there are also many many Christians that are ok about killing people and have throughout history leading up to your current president. Maybe the quakers that you talk about were just nice folk that would still have been nice without religion.
You are 100% right, but I don't blame God or Christianity for a person's individual choices. I also never said that people need religion to be good. I don't understand why more Christians don't take an active part in helping the sick, the poor, and the hungry. Jesus told a man to sell everything he had and give money to the poor, so I think it's pretty clear that we're suppose to take care of those who are less fortunate.
There are those, however, that don't have much. At my church there are people who are poor, but they do what they can. If someone is sick, they cook meals for them. Simple things can also be charitable.
The fact that most people who claim to be Christians are not involved in charity doesn't mean we should dismiss those who are. That really doesn't address my issue with Dawkins arguments.
As for Christians who are for killing, the death penalty, etc... I think they are completely wrong. Most often, Christians who are for those things quote Genesis 9:6, which says that those who shed blood with have their own blood shed. However, when Jesus said that he had come to change the law. In Matthew 5:38-39, he said "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Personally, I think Christians who are for the death penalty forget that verse.
Sorry to rant but you will have expected it at this site.
No worries. I'm really not very sensitive and am rarely, if ever, truly offended. I love a good debate.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Sesh
User Karma: 8
Re:Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25 - 2006/10/26 01:09I think another point worth bringing up in this thread is I've just watched the Dawkins documentary I posted the links to and I'm struck by how most of it was showing the illogical inconsitences of Christianity but there wasn't a lot about Islam.
It's the same with Penn talking about religion or most other people. I'm far from an expert on the Koran but I've had a look at it and to someone coming from an athiest logical perspective it is absolutely fuvking nuts and seems to be built largely on some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder. Mohammed himself after his wife died appears under the Koran to have married a 5 year old but not had sex with her until she was 11. Imagine the Jesus myth where he was a pedophile. All that said there is a fear amongst athiests to attack Islam either because it may be seen as racist in some way or because of the fear of reprisals.
I wonder if the increasingly strident attacks on Christianity by people like Penn, Dawkins or even myself in the local bar are because of our hatred of the superstions of terrorism but we don't have enough guts to take on the Islamists in case we appear racist or bigotted or maybe we worry it will just make their extremists even more extreme.
In the same way ex smokers are the most extreme anti smokers.
I appreciate the counter argument that Bush claims to be born again and he runs the most powerful country in the world but generally speaking you can have a debate with a christian.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
From their Q & A site some selected questions. Question :
I have a colleague who had an operation to remove the opening of the anus and create an opening in his side because of a tumour. My question is: with the new opening he cannot control what comes out or the smell. Is it permissible for him to pray in the mosque or should he pray at home?.
Answer :
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
We ask Allaah to heal him and make him well, and we ask Him to bless him with patience and reward him for the trials he is going through.
With this sickness, the patient cannot control emission of stools, rather the stools come out continually through the opening that has been created in his side. So the ruling in this case is the same as the ruling on continual incontinence.
Based on this, it is permissible for a person who has this problem to combine two prayers if it is difficult for him to offer each prayer at its proper time. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The correct view is that joining prayers is not something that is only for lengthy journeys, rather prayers may be joined because of rain or because of sickness, as is narrated in the Sunnah concerning a woman who was suffering from istihaadah (irregular non-menstrual vaginal bleeding), and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told her to combine two prayers, as was mentioned in two hadeeths.
Al-Fataawa al-Kubra, 1/49
The scholars of the Standing Committee said concerning the ruling on a woman who cannot control her urine because of some sickness that she is suffering from:
If the matter is as described, then she should pray according to her situation, and there is no reason why she should not combine Zuhr and ?Asr at the time of one of them, and Maghrib and ?Isha?, because of the general meaning of the evidence that indicates that Islam seeks to make things easy. This is subject to the condition that her wudoo? for Zuhr and ?Asr be done after the time for them begins, and likewise that her wudoo? for Maghrib and ?Isha? be done after the time for them begins.
The obligation to pray in congregation in the mosque is not waived in such cases, unless by going there the patient is likely to contaminate the mosque or there will be an offensive smell from the new opening, because that will bother the other worshippers.
With regard to the unpleasant smell, if there is such a smell emanating from a person, this excuses him from having to attend prayers in congregation, indeed it is not permissible for him to come to the mosque and annoy the angels and worshippers with this smell.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-?Uthaymeen said:
If there is an offensive smell coming from his mouth, nose or elsewhere that offends the worshippers, then he should not attend, so as to ward off that annoyance.
Al-Sharh al-Mumti?, 4/323
The one who has eaten onions and garlic is forbidden to attend congregational prayer in the mosque, because these two vegetables have unpleasant smells. We may add to that the foul smell of tobacco and cigarettes, which are haraam.
Muslim (564) narrated from Jaabir ibn ?Abd-Allaah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ?Whoever has eaten onions, garlic or leeks, let him not come near our mosque, for the angels are offended by that which offends the sons of Adam.?
If it was this patient?s habit to pray in congregation in the mosque, then the reward for that will be recorded for him even if he prays in his house.
Shaykh Ibn ?Uthaymeen said:
The person who is excused will have the reward of praying in congregation recorded for him in full, if it was his habit to pray in congregation, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ?If a person falls sick or travels, the reward for what he used to do when he was healthy and not travelling will be recorded for him.?
Al-Sharh al-Mumti?, 4/323
With regard to contaminating the mosque with impure things, this is haraam. We have been commanded to clean and perfume the mosques.
Al-Bukhaari (221) and Muslim (284) narrated that Anas ibn Maalik said: A Bedouin came and urinated in a corner of the mosque and the people rebuked him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told them not to do that. When he had finished urinating, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called for a bucket of water and poured it over it.
According to a version narrated by Muslim (285): Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him and said to him: These mosques are not places for urinating or any other filthy thing, rather they are for the remembrance of Allaah, may He be glorified, prayer and reading Qur?aan.?
Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Saheeh Muslim:
It is haraam to bring najaasah (impurities) into the mosque. If a person on whose body is something impure fears that it may contaminate the mosque, it is not permissible for him to enter. If there is no such danger then it is permissible (for him to enter).
Type your friend E-mail address to send this answer to him and press Enter:
Click here for more options
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ?All rights reserved Islam Q&A 1997-2006 Permission is granted to all to take material from this site, subject to the following two conditions: (1) Material used must be attributed to www.islam-qa.com , (2) Material must be reproduced faithfully and without alteration or omission. And Allaah is the Source of strength. Safar 28,1427 March 28,2006
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Are we alone when in the bathroom? Can there be Jinn in with us? If so, what steps do we need to take to protect our modesty?.
Answer :
Praise be to Allaah.
It is known that the jinn can see people, but people cannot see the jinn. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
?Verily, he [Shaytaan] and Qabeeluhu (his soldiers from the jinn or his tribe) see you from where you cannot see them?
[al-A?raaf 7:27]
Because the shayaateen (devils) are evil, they like to frequent dirty places. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ?Bad statements are for bad people (or bad women for bad men) and bad people for bad statements (or bad men for bad women). Good statements are for good people (or good women for good men) and good people for good statements (or good men for good women)??
[al-Noor 24:26]
Genius!!!
Hence the shayaateen frequent the places where humans relieve themselves, and they want to do them harm. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has told us what we should do so that Allaah will protect us from the evil of the shayaateen when we enter the toilet. That is that before entering the place, the Muslim should say, ?Bismillaah, Allaahumma inni a?oodhu bika min al-khubthi wa?l-khabaa?ith (In the name of Allaah, O Allaah, I seek refuge with You from evil and from the male and female devils).? pin:
Al-Tirmidhi (no. 606) narrated from ?Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ?A screen will be placed between the eyes of the jinn and the ?awrah of the sons of Adam when one of them enters the toilet, if he says ?Bismillaah (in the name of Allaah).? (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 496).
Abu Dawood (6) and Ibn Maajah (296) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ?These toilets are visited (by jinn), so when any one of you goes to the toilet, let him say, ?Allaahumma inni a?oodhu bika min al-khubthi wa?l-khabaa?ith (O Allaah, I seek refuge with You from evil and from the male and female devils).?? (Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah, 241).
The word hushoosh, translated here as toilets, refers to places where people relieve themselves, and it includes the ?water closets? that are in people?s houses.
?Visited (by jinn)? means that they are frequented by the devils, with the intent to cause harm to people.
Khubth means evil and khabaa?ith means evil souls, namely the devils, both male and female. So one is seeking refuge with Allaah from evil and from those who do evil.
From ?Awn al-Ma?bood.
If the Muslim says this du?aa? before entering the toilet, Allaah will grant him refuge from the devils.
Shaykh Ibn ?Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The benefit of saying Bismillaah is that it conceals a person. The benefit of seeking refuge with Allaah is that one is turning to Allaah from evil and from the male and female devils, for this place is filthy (khabeeth) and a filthy place is the abode of those who are evil (khubatha?). So it is the abode ofthe devils. Thus it is appropriate if one wants to enter the toilet to say ?A?oodhu Billaah min al-khubthi wa?l-khabaa?ith (I seek refuge with Allaah from evil and from the male and female devils)? so that he will not be harmed by evil or by the evil souls.
) For instance, I believe in evolution that was guided by God. Others do not. I think they're wrong, and I tell why I think they're wrong. Of course, that's just one example.
pin: