1. Comment #24962 by Shine on March 9, 2007 at 2:22 pm

"He takes the best of science... and the worst of religion... it's not really fair."

Richard Dawkins mentions the good parts of religion many times in The God Delusion. So that's just a terrible misrepresentation of the book.

And "the best of science"? The worst of science is when people keep the margins of science wide, so that they can fit their imaginary friend in the gaps science hasn't filled yet.

Blah...

Other Comments by Shine

2. Comment #24964 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

well,

The best of religion is as bad as the worst of science. Though the worst of science gets exposed as fraud sooner or later. Now, the best of religion thinks they are better than the worst of science and can never be debunked however false.

So what is the worst of science?
Well, maybe cell phones. No, can't be it! most people really wants one. So what's the problem? It seems this guy thinks that people in general is the problem, and that people have failed their God. Maybe he doesn't use computers, television, or cars. I bet he does. Can any of these be created whitout science?

Well, HiHooo, God does not exist! How about that!
.

Other Comments by karlJ

3. Comment #24965 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 9, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Always the same bullshit!!!! The worst of sceince? Sceince doesn't claim to be an enterprise promoted and inspired by the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. So yeah ... sometimes we screw up. What's religions excuse?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

4. Comment #24966 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:35 pm

The selective mind of the religious is completely astonishing!

How can anyone live in this world and denounce science. Its completely bizzarre. Everything around us is "thanks" to science: Electricity, computers, mobile phones, kitchen appliances, stereos, tv, radio, X-ray, Cars, in fact anything more complicated than a stone.

Shame on you!

Other Comments by karlJ

5. Comment #24968 by curvedslightly on March 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Framing an argument in an intellectually redundant fashion like this is just tiresome. Oh well.

Other Comments by curvedslightly

6. Comment #24969 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

What weak minded drivel .... it's not God. it's us. Hello???? God created us you utter fuckwit!!!! Not only did he create us, but he did so in the full foreknowledge of what a cluster fuck things would turn out to be. And this is a good God?

AAARGH ... it is such self evident nonsense from start to finish.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

7. Comment #24970 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Finally .... nationalism is religion. Dogma is religion, you don't get off the hook for your irrational kak by pointing out otherirrational kak!!!!!

So pissed this evening!!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

8. Comment #24971 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I tend to agree with briancoughlanworldcitizen.
You really got to the point!

Other Comments by karlJ

9. Comment #24972 by Zappi on March 9, 2007 at 2:46 pm

After so many centuries of theologians playing with words, it comes to me as no surprise that somebody comes up with something like this. Notice that he spends more time talking about Mohammad Ali and about rabbits, dogs, donkeys and pigs than getting to the real point.

When he really gets to the point and concludes that "we are failing our religions", there is still a lot of explaining to do, like "how" are we failing our religions and of which religions and sub-sects is this fellow talking about. If "we" are failing the Koran, I question myself how would be the world if we were actually following that book, or any other of the senseless bloody tales that came in the name of faith.

Other Comments by Zappi

10. Comment #24974 by False Prophet on March 9, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Here's the difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist:

-A moral atheist has no trouble condemning Stalin as an evil, evil monster guilty of numerous crimes against humanity.

-A moral theist who otherwise would never harm another person or think of performing a violent act, can bend over backwards to justify an act of terrorism on the part of a suicide bomber or a sniper who kills family planning doctors.

It's not that religion encourages evil; it's that it allows good people to defend evil.

There's no evidence to support that religious people are more moral than non-religious people, and religion cannot explain how the world works without a bunch of useless handwaving. So what's it good for? A sense of community? Charitable works? Neither of those requires the existence of a fictional supernatural being.

Other Comments by False Prophet

11. Comment #24975 by NormanDoering on March 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm

There's this Christian libertarian, Vox Day, who wrote "The case against science" for World Net Daily and he declared there:
"...is real cause to doubt the continued benefit of science to modern society, or even its right to a respectable place within it."

I blogged on the vile thing here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/religions-war-on-science-part-1.html

It gets worse than I quoted above.

It's like karlJ wrote: "The selective mind of the religious is completely astonishing!"

Other Comments by NormanDoering

12. Comment #24976 by moudiwort on March 9, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Still waiting for the real George Foreman of religion to stand up. At least I learned something about soil erosion, a topic that would indeed deserve more public attention.

Other Comments by moudiwort

13. Comment #24977 by InManhattan on March 9, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Science is neither a moral system nor a political one. It is primarily a method. On the other hand, religion claims to be, and often is, an ontological, epistemological, moral and political system.

The fact that some scientists advocated eugenics is not the fault of science. To argue otherwise would imply confusion of 'facilitation' with 'prescription'. If science makes the atomic bomb possible, it does not thereby follow that science is responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A necessary condition for something is not always a sufficient condition for it. On the contrary, religion specifically - textually - advocates genocide, rape, slavery, misogynism, and other ills that shock evolved moral sensibilities. Ironically, it is the ambition and scope of religion's claims that tie it with this knot.

Consequently, the evils of scientists cannot be attributed to science per se, but the evils of religionists are those of religion (except in situations where the particular evil is unambiguously prohibited by the religion in question and where the religion's scripture or tradition does not advocate that evil somewhere in its corpus).

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf fails to understand these critical distinctions.

Other Comments by InManhattan

14. Comment #24978 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Ooh Zappi, if we followed the good book or some other fundamentalistic writing, the bloodshed would probably be Biblical!

Other Comments by karlJ

15. Comment #24980 by FXR on March 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm

"The Nazis killed the Jews because they said they were inferior: that's science!"

Really! The Jews were villified because some religious zealot invented a myth blaming them on killing an imaginary guy by nailing him to two planks.

Nothing to do with science.

I noticed God didn'nt make a personal appearance in the video.

Other Comments by FXR

16. Comment #24981 by coach on March 9, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Despite what we unbelievers might think of his speech, this fellow was not speaking to us, he was speaking to believers; and he was effective in helping to relieve their fears that science is somehow threatening religion. On the other side of the coin, he was increasing some our unbelievers discomfort, finding our pain (that religion might triumph over reason in the minds of the multitude) and perhaps being doubly effective, eh?

Other Comments by coach

17. Comment #24982 by Ohnhai on March 9, 2007 at 3:05 pm

"...But I've seen humans not acting like humans."

Sorry but everything a man does is acting like a human. All the depravity, violence, disgusting things we do to ourselves and others, all the kind, good compassionate, caring things we do too. All of it is within the human realm and ALL of it natural. All of it all too human.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

18. Comment #24983 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I agree FXR,
In Science you have to be able to independently repeat an experiment or verify a thesis. For the Jew thing, I cannot see that it has anything to do with science. Seems its more a thing of religion. A religion of the rulers of the time.

Other Comments by karlJ

19. Comment #24986 by Zaphod on March 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

1. After 1 minute it is obvious he hasn't read "The God Delusion", "The End of Faith" or "Letter to a Christian Nation".

2. Dawkins doesn't put Science against religion and compare them. He says Dawkins puts the mohammed ali version of science against a 90 pound weakling of religion. Dawkins doesn't do this.

In my opinion for finding truth religion is a 90 pound weakling compared to science.

3. Science is a methodical, logical and rational process for find truth about the natural world. Science is not a belief system. If you think it is, you don't know what science is.

4. Zaytuna says "humans aren't acting like humans". I beg to differ. Since the beginning of recorded history the one thing we seem to be able to do with record efficiency is kill each other. I do not like this but it does seem to be human nature.

5. He says the wars of the 20th century where over ideologies. Religion is the worst Ideology. Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany etc. all had dogmatic belief systems. Religion is the ultimate dogmatic belief system

6. Zaytuna says "god expects more for us". What religion is he referring to? In the bible god tells humans to kill in his name. He even kills humans himself. Oh yea and anyone who doesn't agree gets to burn forever in a lake of fire. The Qu'ran is just as bad if not worse.

God made man in his image? I think not. Perhaps man made god in his image.

Other Comments by Zaphod

20. Comment #24988 by Mango on March 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Watching this guy was like watching David Brent from "The Office" -- he says something completely inane and then gets this self-satisfied look.

There is no "bad" science, only science that works and science that doesn't. Eugenics isn't "bad science." It works. We can breed horses, and we can breed people. But to actually implement that science is bad. Guns are a great product of science, they work just like they are supposed to, but *how we use* them can be bad. Same with nuclear science, lasers, and just about anything. So he's mixed up about the truths of science and the way science can be used detrimentally sometimes.

Other Comments by Mango

21. Comment #24990 by Mango on March 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm

This guy also has a double-standard for the behavior of humans and animals. Dogs act like dogs, cats like cats, and so forth. But he says he sees people not acting like people -- obviously we are more complex in our deeds than animals so he just needs to broaden his accepted limits of human behavior.

If we do it, it's human behavior by the very fact we do it! QED.

Other Comments by Mango

22. Comment #24991 by chauvinj on March 9, 2007 at 3:35 pm

The is quite possibly the worst attempt of a cogent argument I have ever heard.

I wonder what he would make of the monkey I saw skating the other day...

Other Comments by chauvinj

23. Comment #24992 by perkyjay on March 9, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Eugenics, the sterilization of undesirable groups in society, was an established policy of The Government of Alberta(Canada) in the 30s, several years before the National Socialist Party in Germany, aka The Nazi Party even contemplated The Final Solution, aka The Extermination of the Jews.This man was intellectually ineffectual - a complete lightweight and no competition for either Dr.Dawkins or Sam Harris

Other Comments by perkyjay

24. Comment #24993 by Homo economicus on March 9, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Yet religion is an ideology as a human concept. It divides humanity rather than bringing us together as one.

Call human's demons? You mean like epileptics, and the mentally ill were? Many expressions use animals as a metaphor. If I said you are eating like a demon, rather than a pig, it has no meaning which is that your table manners are not following etiquette.

We have failed our religions? No, we have outgrown them as atheists; we need more than a meaningless concept to answer questions about the natural world and philosophy. This part of human discourse we have moved on from in the enlightenment era.

Man I am so hungry I could eat a demon!

Other Comments by Homo economicus

25. Comment #24994 by MIND_REBEL on March 9, 2007 at 3:36 pm

The Nazis were Christians, and HATED science. Hitler banned all of Darwin's books. Thats a fact.

Stalin was a Christian as well. He actually trained to be a monk, and opened several churchs in the early 1940s.

The truth is the first victim when memes take over your mental functions, and this video proves it.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

26. Comment #24995 by Monsterbeach on March 9, 2007 at 3:38 pm

The Best of religion? is that the "Golden rule"?
That one has been around for along time. (Long before the fairytale of Jesus.)
The Worst of religion. Brrr.. i will not go there to night. (It's to scary)

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

27. Comment #24997 by FXR on March 9, 2007 at 3:40 pm

"Dogs act like dogs, cats act like cats"

I have a dog who pulls the lead out of the electric kettle once its boiled. No other dog I've ever heard of does this.

So he's not a dog after all?

Sorry gottaaaa goooo
I think I've got Beezelbub sleeping in a kennel out my back garden...........

Other Comments by FXR

28. Comment #24998 by Jason E. on March 9, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I am glad that finally a Thiest actually admits that there are bad parts in religion: "worst of religion". Thus far they have claimed that the all powefull, all knowing God is infallible and there is nothing wrong with all the "wrongs in religion". So I think there might be a slight hope for these people. Evolution works wonders.

Other Comments by Jason E.

29. Comment #24999 by MiloC on March 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm

This guy is a bafoon. Science is not 'good' or 'bad', it is neutral.

Other Comments by MiloC

30. Comment #25002 by Carl S. Richardson on March 9, 2007 at 3:49 pm

One has to wonder if this pompous fool has read either 'The God Delusion' or 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. It seems to me that either he's read a view reviews by those ever so "intelligent" theologians and holds himself knowledgeable enough to comment or he actually read the books but was suffering from spontaneous temporary blindness (STB) at the time and hence failed to read half of them..

Firstly both Dawkins and Harris do mention the beneficial effects religion has had on certain individuals. If my memory serves me right Harris mentions Martin Luther King and the profound (although most likely exaggerated in my view*) effect religion had up on his campaign however Harris clearly identifies the hypocrisy in this area when he makes the distinction between how willing theists are to accept Martin Luther Kings claims that faith drove him but are so unwilling to accept the same reasons from Osama Bin Laden.

The thing he misses about science is one of its core features. Unlike faith science has a built in feature, which I dare say is its best feature, which of course is its correcting ability. As new evidence comes forward science somewhat evolved and improves for the better. Theories don't stay static and unquestioned like those in faith.

Another way to look at science is through the example of CFCs, which of course were originally developed by science but due to scientists realising the impact such gases were having on the ozone layer they were phased out. It is scientists who noticed this implication and not theologians.

Ozone depletion wasn't revealed from a higher power. The pope did not receive a telephone call from god warning him of the implications, it was science who noticed those implications and it is science now which is on the look out for bird flu. It is also science which will provide a vaccine, not a prayer to god.

He then claims the atrocities of the twentieth century "Weren't wars about religion… they were fought about ideologies". A somewhat true statement however his STB must have kicked in as he passed through both Dawkins and Harris' books at the point both authors clearly state religion is another form of irrational ideology and the biggest one around today.

Harris also makes it very clear that dogmatism is the problem, faith of course been the biggest form of dogmatism in the world at the moment. As Harris mentioned at the 'Beyond Belief' conference he could have easily named his first book 'The End of Dogma' and said all the exact same things.

He then manages the impossible and goes on about animals; demons and how cats aren't humans for almost 2 minutes but as intriguing as his ability to name animals was he really didn't bring anything new to the table.

* I don't say this to discredit the effect of faith on King however I think some theists go over the top when they make out how influential faith really was on certain people, mainly progressive figures. It seems to be, especially with Wilberforce, that it was more the individuals take on faith that drove them rather then what the church was teaching at the time. That is to say their own outlook influenced them more then anything the religions were teaching at the time.

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

31. Comment #25003 by alovrin on March 9, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Shakyh ya Moani has a mouth and isnt afraid to use it.

Pity he doesnt have a the intelligence to put that mouth to good use like shutting it, or stop it from uttering complete drivel.

Sit a man in front of a BIG bookcase and it makes him look intelligent?
Didnt work this time

Other Comments by alovrin

32. Comment #25004 by tomjlawson on March 9, 2007 at 3:59 pm

That is completely not true! Never seen a dog NOT act like a dog? I have a Pug, a dog, that acts like a cat all the time! He uses his paws to grab toys, he scratches me on occasion, he attacks like a cat, he hisses like a cat, he "cleans" his face with his paws, he sleeps precariously on the back of my sofa, pees like a cat, tries to cover feces with grass and dirt, and hates to be on a leash! I could probably teach him to use a litter box, if I wanted. So there, Shaykh Hamza, there you go! Some animals act like other animals. The human animal is no exception. You got served, dude.

If it walks like a cat, and talks like a cat, it might be a Pug.

Other Comments by tomjlawson

33. Comment #25006 by HappyPrimate on March 9, 2007 at 4:28 pm

First I noticed the smerk on his face as he began to talk which conveyed to me that he knew he was about to spill sludge. His argument that RD and SH are not fighting FAIR was only good for a laugh. Who, including his Allah, ever said life was fair? I certainly find being bombbarded daily with religious drivel unfair. Now who do I complain to? The Nazi superior race thing was actually rooted in religion. He needs to read more if he can stay awake.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

34. Comment #25009 by woe-monger on March 9, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Oh, I wish people only spoke when they had something to say. Listening to this fool's reasoning, it is not clear which shade of theism he supports. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that it matters not which of the world's numerous religions you follow, but that you should follow one – any belief in god is valid, no non belief is.

He makes the following statement in the film to support his diatribe against science:
"… that scientific theory manifested in the Nazi movement, because the Nazis believed the science of eugenics, that they were actually a superior race, and they believed the Jews were an inferior race …"

The claim is made that the Nazis' persecution of the Jews was the result of a scientific theory, and I have heard this argument before, but surely you identify a Jew by the religion that he/she adheres to. Or is there a some sort of histological test that determines Jew from Christian?

We live in a world in which religions contradict each other, even a close reading of the Bible will highlight numerous internal contradictions. Does this surely not show that there is no god, that all religions are man-made? Why should we swallow the b.s. these peddlers are pushing? Someone please help me to understand.

Other Comments by woe-monger

35. Comment #25010 by perkyjay on March 9, 2007 at 4:49 pm

I forgot to mention that the Premier of Alberta who introduced Eugenics into Alberta was an evangelical, known as Bible Bill Aberhart, by virtue of his weekly Sunday morning bible hour on CFCN - The Voice of the Prairies.

Other Comments by perkyjay

36. Comment #25013 by cassdenata on March 9, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I actually enjoyed the part where he mentioned some of the negative byproducts of our modern system of agriculture, along with its amazing ability to feed people. I would also add that much of the phosphates and nitrates, run off agricultural fields and enter groundwater and surface water causing large ecological problems. I personally work, as a scientist on projects to minimize the impacts of excessive nutrients on aquatic systems. The point though is that I am using science to solve the problem...that and government enforcement.

Other Comments by cassdenata

37. Comment #25014 by savroD on March 9, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Hey.... this dude has an opinion. Big deal. I've also heard humans who sound more like jackasses than humans. This is what I heard from this dufus. He wanted to let us all know he's an idiot, plain and simple.
I would expect all animals share certain behaviors and characteristics. After all we all have a common mamalian ancestor.

Other Comments by savroD

38. Comment #25017 by Eventhorizon on March 9, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I would say I dont know where to begin with this guy but I really cant be bothered.
Whatever your name is - you are beyond hope.
Go ahead and waiste your life on fables. You're welcome to it!

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

39. Comment #25019 by AtheistJunkie on March 9, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Looks like this guy really believes what he's talking about. Utter bullshit. Horrible analogies. He's got to be one of the worst I've ever heard in arguing about science.

Please do us a favour and get some education. What a waste of time.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

40. Comment #25021 by USA_Limey on March 9, 2007 at 6:08 pm

I am glad that this forum is adult enough not to censor swearing:

FUCKING IDIOT!

Thanks, I feel better now.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

41. Comment #25026 by neander on March 9, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Mindless drivel!

Other Comments by neander

42. Comment #25030 by Bremas on March 9, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Post 40 USA Limey

With ya on that one.

Just got off the phone with my sister who lives in Durham NC. It seems that religion has seeped into her thru osmosis. Not difficult to snap her out of it by laughing at her though.

Got her to promise to read The Selfish Gene after my father does. Two down, millions and millions (billions and billions?) to go.

Other Comments by Bremas

43. Comment #25033 by Chad on March 9, 2007 at 7:13 pm

*sigh*

I just wasted six minutes and 17 seconds of my life watching that.

Other Comments by Chad

44. Comment #25034 by themoonsays on March 9, 2007 at 7:15 pm

The worst speaker defending the stupidest ideas. The "George Foreman of religion?" Are you fucking kidding me?

The Nazi genocide of the Jews was not about religion? It was science? So anti-semitism in Germany wasn't the result of the legacy of medieval Christianity? And all of the 'science' that the Nazis used to justify their actions wasn't in the least part influenced by religious hatred? Wow, I guess I learned something.

No need to go point for point about this. This insufferable moron doesn't deserve anyone's time. But, he's getting it. Argh!

Who in the world actually believes this crap? Turns out, most people. Not much hope for us, I'm afraid.

Good night.

Other Comments by themoonsays

45. Comment #25040 by 386sx on March 9, 2007 at 8:04 pm

That doesn't even make sense. If a human does something then it is acting like a human because it is a human that is doing the acting. This is the very definition of acting like a human. Shrug.

Other Comments by 386sx

46. Comment #25041 by glittergulch on March 9, 2007 at 8:30 pm

What on earth is he talking about?

Other Comments by glittergulch

47. Comment #25042 by Will in Aus on March 9, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Sorry? Is this guy for real? I've never heard so much rubbish come out of one persons mouth. He quite clearly has no idea of the scientific method, or its applications.

It's also quite obvious that he struggles with forming a coherent argument. Perhaps he needs to go back to high school.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

48. Comment #25043 by CDG on March 9, 2007 at 9:30 pm

"RELIGION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE WARS IN HISTORY, LOOK AT THE 20TH CENTURY- HITLER, STALIN, POL POT WERE ALL ATHEISTS!" or something like that. So what. Thats immaterial.

I have heard this many times before. Including in the GD where Richard tries to explain this phenomenom. But its really not an aberation. We don't have to keep trying to justify the 20th century lunatics.

Just because these struggles were not fought in the name of a god does not mean that the INDIVIDUALS fighting them did not have security blanket as some form of comfort or even motivation!!!

If you took the armies of the USA and Japan and could turn every combatant instantly atheist. The blood shed would have stopped or have been stymied. Emperor who? Jesus Who? What are we doing? Okinawa is a worthless rock!!!

The 20th century dictators were able to manipulate their public and their soldiers, because they exploited a fear in them. And that fear coupled with the bravado to fight derives from the God hypothesis.

Other Comments by CDG

49. Comment #25046 by Cwazy Cat Lady on March 9, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Okay, I gave it a chance, but I had to stop listening once the guy said that eugenics was a 'scientific theory'. Eugenics is not a scientific theory! It was a collection of bad social policy proposals that proponents attempted to shore up with a scientific argument. And you know what? It failed. It failed because science has nothing to say about 'should' but rather what 'is'. It certainly did not determine who is or is not worthy of reproducing. Please. And thankfully, as science is revealing, there do seem to be some universals when it comes to human morality. One consequence of these moral inclinations is that the vast majority of people worldwide find unwillful sterilization abhorrent and cruel. Science did not play a role in supporting eugenics. It can shed light, however on the nature of human morality, which in this case, for example, the Bible could have offered no explanation (did 1st century writers and their predecessors know what sterilization was???). An innate human 'moral compass', if you will, ultimately caused eugenics to go away.
This guy is SO FULL OF IT!

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

50. Comment #25047 by Zappi on March 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I felt uneasy about this video and for this reason decided to watch it again. After studying it a little, I decided it is a masterpiece of religious methods of indoctrination.

The video begins with a cant in a very interesting tone while the video was showing these lines: "In the Name of Allah the Most Merciful the Most Compassionate". If you speak Arabic, the words would resound in your brain, and if you have been brought up in the Muslim world the effect would be even stronger.

Then there is a pause, absolutely no sound for 23 seconds. During this pause they show a good looking and well groomed fellow. Notice that our brain is still longing for sound, expecting something to be said after being awakened by the Arabic chant. "Thoughts on the Science Delusion", and the good looking fellow starts talking about what is "out there", in contrast with an implicit "in here" which would probably represent the faithful.

Notice that he avoids confrontation with the listeners, he only talks about obvious stuff, always something people would have difficulties in denying straight away.

With a somewhat scornful smile, he starts talking about "One of the things that there is out there right now", and then he shows a hint of disguised hatred when he pronounces the words "God Delusion". All of this is intentional, and very well done. His voice is not nearly as tense when he says "Letter to a Christian Nation", the peak of hatred was reserved for Dawkins book. Notice the ups and downs in anger shown by Mr Yusuf. This rhythmic oscillation appeals very strongly in a subliminal level to people that listen in good faith, waiting to hear something interesting from that guy they saw in the picture a few seconds earlier.

Now he goes on to "destroy" Dawkins book by saying that is all about taking the "best of science" and comparing it with the "worst of religion". To the simple-minded guy this would make a lot of sense, for two reasons. First of all, his audience does not understand anything about science at all and Mr Yusuf knows it perfectly well. To most of his listeners this argument makes perfect sense: for them "science" and "religion" are just incompatible explanations of the world. Since most don't understand science, religion remains as the only available explanation. He uses scarce 20 seconds to do this.

Then he starts with the Mohammad Ali comparison, for 30 seconds. This is just to fix in their listeners mind the "truth" he just said about the unfair comparison brought by Dawkins book.

After that he consolidate his point by "proving" there is bad science talking about some eugenics idea that poor should be sterilized. Guess what, most of his listeners would be poor, and the ones that are not would be really shocked by the idea. He won again, he "proved" that there is bad science. He continues to the Nazi, universally accepted as evil, saying something on the eugenics and "science" behind of the killing of Jews.

Notice that Mr Yusuf always is certain of everything, and all the points he makes are very obvious to casual listeners. Compare that with any scientist speaking, and you will see some pondering, doubt, uncertainty. The listener that is longing for "truth" will naturally prefer someone like Mr Yusuf, and will agree with his arguments.

After he briefly mentioned eugenics, he took on to what I think is another masterpiece: he kidnapped the ecologists into supporting him, by comparing biblical field rotation with the high tech agriculture. Needless to say he neglected to say that modern agriculture is what increased yields 10 fold or more. Then he goes on to the gruesome comparison with the woman that is permanently pregnant. Everyone would agree this is abhorrent!! He spends more than a minute talking about agriculture, mostly lies, but in a way that seems perfectly reasonable to a common man, concerned with the environment.

He never uses any metaphor to show the bad side of religion, but he keeps saying that it exists, to give himself credibility. Very smart indeed.

Then he drops another bomb, he "proves" that all the massacres of the 20th century have nothing to do with religion. He takes about 25 seconds in that argument. Again, when he drops a bomb, then he spends some time afterwards to "consolidate" it by repetition of arguments that are reasonable, but unrelated to the point he made. He spend another amazing 90 seconds repeating obvieties about animal behaviour, and sneaking "daemons" in his discourse.

At the end he concludes, briefly, that religions are good, but "we are failing our religions".

Notice that people tend to accept as true something that is surrounded by truth, and this is the reason he spends so much time saying things like "I have never seen a dog that doesn't behave like a dog" and so on.

I would like to make my own comparisons. If Goebbels was the genius of Nazi propaganda, this Mr Yussef is the genius of Muslim propaganda. We should learn something from his technique to be able to better counter attack.

Other Comments by Zappi