Free Documentaries Online

AT DOCUMENTARY-LOG.COM YOU CAN WATCH HUNDREDS OF THE MOST INTERESTING, POPULAR AND FULL-LENGTH DOCUMENTARIES.
NO REGISTRATION OR ANYTHING ELSE IS NEEDED! VISIT US EVERY DAY TO WATCH FREE ONLINE DOCUMENTARIES!

Documentary Updates by Email

    Sign up to get new documentaries to your Email

Week's Popular Documentaries


  • Twitter


    • Recent Comments...

    Documentaries

    Newest Documentaries

    Editor's Picks

    Links

    • Sam Harris – Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0

      1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)
      Loading ... Loading ...

      Sam Harris is an author, a neuroscientist and a philosopher who heads Project Reason. He is known for his being a religious critic and has written countless of books about the absurdities of religion.

      This video is actually his speech about what he thinks of religions like Christiany, Islam and Judaism. Harris says that these religions are filled with teachings and ideas that promotes the “misuse of our intelligence” and have compared the practices to the Ancient Greeks. He talks about his objections to the Bible as it promotes false predictions and does not show proof of who it was that actually authored it.

      Harris instead believes that our spirituality should be based on our understanding of reason and cites examples from the Buddhist and Hindu faith as its basis.

      “There is clearly no greater obstacle to a truly empirical approach to spiritual experience than our current beliefs about God.”

      This documentary is presented by The Science Network, which organizes an annual meeting called Beyond Belief. It is attended by scientists and philosophers as well as social commentators and the agenda is to explore human life.

      please share:
      Published on November 3, 2008 · Filed under: Religion

      You may be interested in:

      1. Does God Exist? (Debate)
      2. Religulous
      3. Christopher Hitchens debates Peter Hitchens: Hitchens vs. Hitchens
      4. The Root of All Evil?
    • Akim

      I don't understand why he needs to bash muslims all the time. Making them sound worse than everyone else. It borders ignorance. They are not special or different, than anyone else in a simillar situation (ie. Palestine)

    • Alan Barnes

      Akim, the documentary has nothing to do with Muslim bashing, please watch the Doc again.
      I gave it 5 stars.

    • Tyler

      I also found no Muslim bashing… he mentions that some British Muslims (36%, I think) believe that people should be killed for leaving their faith, but he makes no moral judgement on it, he only questions the ethics of it. They also mention cutting the head off a raped girl and that Islam permits this (maybe this is really where you see "ignorance," perhaps this never actually happens. nevertheless sharia is inherently biased against women). They do approach that circumstance from their own moral standpoints, but this is in no way an "attack" on Islam. They also mention the concepts of jihad and martyrdom in Islam, and Harris does say something along the lines of "the world would be a better place without this." This is not a claim against Islam itself, but rather the radical fundamentalists within Islam who feel that violence is necessary.

      The discussion centers on religion as a whole, and doesnt treat Islam as any better or worse than any other religion. It just so happens that there are maxims in Islamic faith which much of the Western world are morally opposed to.

    • Tiago C.

      I haven't watched this doc fully (because I simply dint had the patience to finish it) but from what I can tell a guy that closes his mind to ANY possibilities is building, or promoting the possibility to build his own ignorance and narrowmindness. And is therefore as much narrowminded as anyone who's religious. Period.
      This is why I respect atheism and compare it to be like any other religion.

      About saying that atheism is not a necessary word/name/adjective/description because we don't call someone who's not an astrologer a "non-astrologer". But guess what….in this case you are actively taking a stand, choosing an opinion, you are saying you dont' believe something you can't prove to exist or not…wich is God.
      You will not call a black dude a "non-white" even though he's a human being, you are what you are and you also are what you choose to be. So yes, if you take a stand saying you dont believe in God then you are being an "atheist" as much as if you choose to believe in any other things you are being a "christian", a "muslim" or a Buhdist", etc.

      This claim this guy tries to make about the "name" atheist is just a prove that he needs to dismiss other religions to prove himself correct.

      And the most revolting part of this claim is that he tries to make it by making atheism look "superior" to any other religion by saying it doesnt need a word to be called, wich assumes that being an atheist is an inherent condition to any human being that is born!!!!!!!

      No matter how advanced our science is or will be in a near or maybe even far future, there is still a HUGE gap that leaves space to God, that gap is still so huge beyond our comprehension that we still need a God to explain it. And if someone doesn't, then its because that someone is not really getting the "big picture", wich by itself already denotes ignorance and narromindness by the thought of assuming that you can explain and account for "Everything!" (even for stuff we haven't discovered yet, explained or even thought of!!!!).

      I'm not saying that God exists…and I'm not saying it doesnt. I'm saying that from what we know…we just don't know.

      About religion I dont identify myself with any of them. But I respect different points of view. Because if we didn't we'd still believe we were living in a "flat planet".

      And finally after this rant, you can call me what you want, that is, assuming that's what I am.

    • dwyane shaw

      I personally don't have a problem with being called an atheist. I do, however, have a problem with people claiming that atheism is a belief system like religion.

      I don't believe in 9,000 pound plaid gorillas. My disbelief has nothing to do with whether or not these beasts exist. It is based on the complete absence of evidence that 9,000 pound plaid gorillas inhabit our planet. My belief that they don't exist is a conclusion based on the facts we have.

      I'm fairly certain my disbelief in these apes is shared by a vast majority Christians, Muslims, republicans, Tories, etc. But we dont call ourselves apeiests because there are no structured dogmas that accompany that disbelief that would rise to a 'belief system'

      Atheist have no shared beliefs or rituals that can be equated to a religious belief. We simple, in the absence of evidence, do not believe in a God. And, in fact, we share this belief (in degrees) with every one on the planet.

      As Dawkins said, "We are all atheists concerning almost all the Gods that have been worshiped throughout history- some of us just take an extra step"

      Christians are atheists concerning every God but Jehovah. Their belief in Jehovah, and the various structures of rules and beliefs that accompany the belief, is what makes them Christians.

      Atheists can only be said to share a disbelief in a God. There are no weekly meetings, no structured prayer or meditations, no single book that we all adhere to. And, therefore, atheism is not a systematic belief.

      This concept that "No matter how advanced our science is or will be in a near or maybe even far future, there is still a HUGE gap that leaves space to God, that gap is still so huge beyond our comprehension that we still need a God to explain it." is a little silly in my mind.

      While its true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is also, in and of itself, proof of anything. you need other proofs along with absences of proof to make any valid claims of the existance of God.

      For example, in my analogy about gorillas. absence of 9,000 lb plaid gorillas is a telling factor that points in the direction of nonexistance, but it 'proves' nothing. However, when we know that animals don't come in plaid (a cuttlefish might manage it temporarily if it was of an enlightened sort – but hairy mammals haven't the inspiration)and that apes of the 9,000 lb variety couldnt live without leaving a fairly obvious 'footprint' on its habitat, we begin to have enough information to make an educated guess as to reality. We know some things that are absolutly provable that suggest these apes couldnt exist..then we add that they cannot be found.

      It is the same with God..just because we don't know some things but have some traditional stories about superbeings, it is not a reason to believe in a cosmic daddy – and absolutly no reason to believe in any religion that has been passed down thru the hands of man

    • Tiago C.

      My post didn’t have the intention to defend or prove the existence of God, something you said resusmes best my intention: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and like I said: “I’m not saying that God exists…and I’m not saying it doesnt. I’m saying that from what we know…we just don’t know.”

      You say:

      “Atheist have no shared beliefs or rituals that can be equated to a religious belief.”

      1) Atheist share the belief that there is no God (it’s a belief because, like you said, you can’t prove something by absence of evidence)
      2) Even though atheists don’t share rituals comparable to those of religious beliefs, there are some, like the guy in this doc, that take a public stand of their opinion, by writting books, telling lectures, etc .
      Isn’t that kind of the same thing that priests do? Try to “teach” their point of view, “spread the word of God”…in this case he’s spreading the word that there is no God, trying to teach his own view. With what purpose? Gather more “sheeps”?
      Can you not see the similarities here?

      And yes I do believe there is much much more to be discovered yet (let me reinforce that even more: Much, muuuuch more) and add to that what we already know that we don’t know.

      About your example of the 9,000 lb plaid gorillas, what makes you so sure that in the vastness of space there isn’t a race of plaid monkeys that weigh 9,000 pounds? Or that tht race woulnd’t have been, or will never, be created somewhere in the infinitness of time (if it actually is infinite)? Can you prove that this is something that is IMPOSSIBLE to be created in the Universe?
      Wouldn’t you say the same thing about human beings if you had never seen a human being before? …I know I would.

      So yes I believe there is still a space for “God” (whoever or whatever he might be, or not be) and maintain my statement from before.
      “No matter how advanced our science is or will be in a near or maybe even far future, there is still a HUGE gap that leaves space to God, that gap is still so huge beyond our comprehension that we still need a God to explain it.”

     
    Designed by 110Words InfoZoft
    Copyright © 2012 · Watch Documentaries Online - Privacy Policy - Contact