Feel like getting really really angry? Watch this!

[Tero]

Religin is good even if it not true, cause of the constraining influence on..the pope?...Hitler?...anyway, I did not know O'Reilly was still on the air.

[Exi5tentialist]

Religin is good even if it not true, cause of the constraining influence on..the pope?...Hitler?...anyway, I did not know O'Reilly was still on the air.

It's not an isolated opinion that he expresses, and I oppose censorship.

[Jason]

Couldn't watch more than about 1 1/2 minutes of that tosser interrupting his guest and shouting over him.
O'Reilly is an annoying fucking bell-end.

In this video, he's actually very polite compared to older clips I've seen. I think he's had anger management counseling or something.

Yes, he seems a bit more passive-aggressive now than simply aggressive and loud.

[Tero]

There is no evidence religion makes people behave better. Rather, it and the people interpreting the books, just reflects the society around it.

[Exi5tentialist]

There is no evidence religion makes people behave better. Rather, it and the people interpreting the books, just reflects the society around it.

Exactly. And substitute 'atheism' for religion and you have the basic problem with the new atheism - that neither religion nor atheism cause anything. They are reflections of civilisation's ills, not causes of them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is no evidence religion makes people behave better. Rather, it and the people interpreting the books, just reflects the society around it.

Exactly. And substitute 'atheism' for religion and you have the basic problem with the new atheism - that neither religion nor atheism cause anything. They are reflections of civilisation's ills, not causes of them.

Love your dogma, man.

[Jason]

There is no evidence religion makes people behave better. Rather, it and the people interpreting the books, just reflects the society around it.

Exactly. And substitute 'atheism' for religion and you have the basic problem with the new atheism - that neither religion nor atheism cause anything. They are reflections of civilisation's ills, not causes of them.

What do you mean by 'civilization's ills' and how is religion and atheism reflective of these ills?

[Exi5tentialist]

There is no evidence religion makes people behave better. Rather, it and the people interpreting the books, just reflects the society around it.

Exactly. And substitute 'atheism' for religion and you have the basic problem with the new atheism - that neither religion nor atheism cause anything. They are reflections of civilisation's ills, not causes of them.

What do you mean by 'civilization's ills' and how is religion and atheism reflective of these ills?

War, conflict, oppression, killing. eg The Iranian regime has killed many people, and this is put down to religion (simplistically), whereas really the oppression of the Iranian regime was an assertion of Iran's right to define its role in world capitalism and not simply be a US client state. eg The USSR regime was described as atheist, but its oppressive behaviour arose not from its atheism but from its need to compete as a state capitalist power in a highly competitive capitalist world. There are many examples.

[Jason]

I see. So what you mean is that it is used as a blind. A red-herring.

I thought you meant to argue that there was a causative relation between the affairs of states and religiosity.

[Exi5tentialist]

I see. So what you mean is that it is used as a blind. A red-herring.

I thought you meant to argue that there was a causative relation between the affairs of states and religiosity.

No, I wouldn't argue that. The behaviour of states is caused mainly by economics. Religion and atheism get dragged along in their wake.

[DaveDodo007]

Richard should so go on O'Reilly as the parents might already be deaf to other view points but it would be beneficial to their children to be exposed to other view points. I think it's called 'lurker syndrome.'