Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Mon Nov 3, 2014, 10:29 AM Nov 2014

Russell Brand: Richard Dawkins Is a Proponent of “Atheistic Tyranny” For Rejecting the Supernatural [View all]

November 2, 2014
by Terry Firma

Last year, the comedy actor and activist Russell Brand did an eleven-minute interview with BBC Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman that was a bit of Rorschach test of one’s political sensibilities. Brand had full-scale political revolution on the brain, and he talked less than coherently on the matter, clearly exasperating the more practical (and more jaded) Paxman.

Scores of moderate and right-leaning pundits found Brand confounding and lacking in intellectual heft. Many on the left, however, thought the interview was a thrilling example of someone finally speaking truth to power, possibly heralding a beautiful dawning of the Age of Aquarius Anti-Capitalism.

The excitement transcended national borders, with the YouTube clip

… being passed hand to virtual hand among Scandinavian intellectuals like a samizdat copy of Solzhenitsyn behind the iron curtain,

… in the memorable phrasing of David Runciman.

Pleased by the reverberations (and never one to underestimate his capabilities as a Buddhist pop philosopher), Brand decided to write a book on how we ought to overturn the old strictures and structures. It just came out (title – what else? — Revolution) and it reads a bit like Karl Marx Marries the Dalai Lama — for Dummies.



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/02/in-new-book-russell-brand-says-richard-dawkins-is-proponent-of-atheistic-tyranny-for-rejecting-the-supernatural/#ixzz3I10ur4O

Someone's bollocks have been twisted.
45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Karl Marx Marries the Dalai Lama — for Dummies" Great clip, but couldn't help but think of... NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #1
I've never seen this show. Is it worth the watch? cbayer Nov 2014 #18
I think it's worth a shot. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #19
Love Idiot Abroad, so would probably like this. cbayer Nov 2014 #22
“Atheistic Tyranny” For Rejecting the Supernatural - what utter bullshit. djean111 Nov 2014 #2
The good things religion did can be counted on one hand: DetlefK Nov 2014 #3
Well, that's a neat pile of bullshit. rug Nov 2014 #4
I wasn't trying to be dogmatic. Would you mind adding examples to increase the count? DetlefK Nov 2014 #5
I won't search your posts but I'll let you know as they come up. rug Nov 2014 #7
I can't even begin to count the number of good things cbayer Nov 2014 #9
Sad if the only reason they did good things was because of religion. n/t djean111 Nov 2014 #10
Good people do good things. Sometimes they are religious and sometimes they are not. cbayer Nov 2014 #11
It would be sadder if they didn't do it at all, religion or no religion. rug Nov 2014 #12
My apologies. Part of my response was due to my mistake that cbayer Nov 2014 #15
Thanks. djean111 Nov 2014 #16
I was talking about religion as a whole, like the post that I responded to. DetlefK Nov 2014 #13
The whole is the sum of it's parts. cbayer Nov 2014 #14
I took "religion as a whole" to mean "groups with a belief in some sort of deity". not an attempt djean111 Nov 2014 #17
Then I also object. Groups with a belief in some sort of deity have cbayer Nov 2014 #23
I agree with the counted on one hand part. djean111 Nov 2014 #28
You honestly don't think that religion or religious groups cbayer Nov 2014 #30
I did not say I believed that. Not Once. I was just responding to the objection to the phrase djean111 Nov 2014 #31
Ok, I misunderstood. My apologies once again. cbayer Nov 2014 #32
Nice framing Lordquinton Nov 2014 #21
Thanks, I can agree with that statement completely. cbayer Nov 2014 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author rug Nov 2014 #6
It looks like Watt and Stark are on Brand's side. rug Nov 2014 #8
Russell Brand vs Richard Dawkins on the nature of things AlbertCat Nov 2014 #20
Which you go with is up to you, but neither has credentials when it comes to religion. cbayer Nov 2014 #25
There are no "credentials" when it comes to believing in a deity or not. None. djean111 Nov 2014 #29
What neither one can do is expound on what anybody ELSE should believe. Or not believe. AlbertCat Nov 2014 #34
Yes people must be saved! cbayer Nov 2014 #36
Oh, admit it. You just made that up. rug Nov 2014 #38
By the way, you have been quote mined and are the subject of a post in the A/A group. cbayer Nov 2014 #37
OMG! Quote mining! AlbertCat Nov 2014 #39
Why, Albert, you left out the beginning: rug Nov 2014 #40
Actually it had absolutely nothing to do with getting people alerted on, cbayer Nov 2014 #41
And did you know that EVERY person blocked from A/A skepticscott Nov 2014 #42
A ringing endorsement of quote-mining. rug Nov 2014 #43
Sorry, your revisionist history about why you were banned is incorrect. beam me up scottie Nov 2014 #44
Wow, people are still believing this fool is some sort of deep thinker? arcane1 Nov 2014 #26
Dawkins or Brand? Ampersand Unicode Nov 2014 #27
Russell Brand also refuses to vote in elections because all the parties are supposedly equally bad. LeftishBrit Nov 2014 #33
appropriately harsh comments on Thatcher and Bush!) AlbertCat Nov 2014 #35
A pox on both their houses. Odin2005 Nov 2014 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Russell Brand: Richard Da...»Reply #0