The Trouble With Atheism

  • More Options

VN:D [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 4.0/10 based on 1156 votes cast.
Is This Documentary Broken?
(Click Here To Let Us Know)

The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism, as well as science, for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

Liddle begins the documentary by surveying common criticisms of religion, and particularly antireligious arguments based on the prevalence of religious violence. He argues that the “very stupid human craving for certainty and justification”, not religion, is to blame for this violence, and that atheism is becoming just as dogmatic as religion.

In order to support his thesis, Liddle presents numerous examples of actions and words by atheists which he argues are direct parallels of religious attitudes. He characterizes Atkins and Dawkins as “fundamentalist atheists” and “evangelists”.

In response to atheistic appeals to science as a superior method for understanding the world than religion, Liddle argues that science itself is akin to religion: “the problem for atheists is that science may not be as far away from religion as you might imagine”.

He describes Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory focused on particle physics, as a “temple to science”, and characterizes Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species as a “sacred text” for atheists.

Related Documentaries

From The Web

  • AnarchoRationalist

    Not a particularly well made documentary, but it’s point is valid. Personally, I prefer Robert Anton Wilson’s comments on the subject.

    Science is not a monopoly on the truth. In fact, anyone familiar with philosophy can see that science makes no statements about the truth, only subjective observations, relative to the instruments and scientists making the observations.

    In the vast majority of cases, science simply has no information regarding any particular religion, or any of the individual statements within a religion. There is simply no evidence, no observation, and thus science holds no position on the relative truth value of the statements.

    Anti-theists, or fundamentalist materialists, go beyond that and assert that “religion” is untrue, without any evidence! They are, ironically, very bad scientists.

    Instead of admitting uncertainty, and accepting the relative nature of information, they take an extremist view, and only end up being ignorant of non-scientific thought.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of human thought, and day to day intellectual activity and interaction, is informal, unscientific, and intuitive. To reject unscientific information, is to choose willful ignorance, over understanding.

    • Anti-theist

      @AnarchoRationalist

      Nobody in the real world cares for absolute certainty. It’s an utterly useless concept outside of philosophy. In any pragmatic manner science is the best way to determine truth in the world. Religions make claims and although they have no evidence for them, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Apply science and logic and this pretty much destroys any theistic god. They are just too obviously man-made. When everything points in this direction, it’s not absurd to accept this as fact. Once again, you don’t need absolute proof. Especially if you’re trying to show a negative statement to be true, which can be nearly impossible to achieve. The burden of proof lies with the claimer (religion), not the one discarding it as nonsense (scientist). You can’t fault a scientist for disregarding unicorns. Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean giving any idea credibility. That would be lunacy.

      • vegetable underpants

        it is a well balanced documentary- it is a simple point well made.

        Nobody knows if there is a God or if there is none.

        It doesn’t even matter what it is that arrogant, intolerant people believe(or don’t).

      • John

        and yet, science cannot tell us why the results of en experiment made at a subatomic level will vary depending if you measure it or not…(see documentary on this site)..our thoughts change reality

        Or the fact that living cells can react instantaneously when separated by miles,

        or the fact that the latest theory points to multiple dimensions, and the fact we may not even exist.

        Or the the growing proof that our consciousness are connected

        we will at some point have to accept we know nothing..we are not gods and there may be one to look for.

        • Anti-theist

          Scientists have a good understanding of the uncertainty principle and it has nothing to do with our thoughts. That’s just as stupid as all your other points. You should watch a real documentary or read a book. No, What The Bleep Do We Know is not a scientific documentary; It’s new age pseudo-scientific nonsense.

        • Theamazingrichards

          John.  You seem to have your very own precious definition of the word, and concept of, ‘fact’.  If it works for you, I give you joy of it. 

          But others, far more knowledgeable and thoughtful than you (almost anyone in fact) will either stomp you flat if they’re in a bad mood, or simply ignore you otherwise.

          But I, of great and kindly spirit, offer you help:  I urgently suggest you study the Dunning/Kubler Effect.  It applies to you, John.  Repeat:  it applies to you.

      • Nigel Thompson

        @ Anti-theist

        “Religions make claims and although they have no evidence for them, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Apply science and logic and this pretty much destroys any theistic god.”

        Unless you are able to support these claims with evidence, your argument fails. I don’t know where you’ve been looking for this evidence, but it’s quite prevalent. Look at mathematics, biology (evolution doesn’t necessitate the nonexistence of God), physics, philosophy and logic, cosmology/astronomy, archaeology, and history. Each one of these fields (and many others) of academia adds at least one valuable piece of information to the cumulative case for God’s existence. To deny there is no evidence for God’s existence is similar to denying there is no evidence that Evolution is correct. You are simply mistaken.

        “As expected, it’s just a long concatenation of logical fallacies and colossal misunderstandings about atheism, science in general and evolution.”

        I’d love to see where the logical fallacies are that you speak of. The only ones I spotted were about Atheists and their arguments. They use Ad Hominem arguments as if it were in high fashion. Atheism on the whole lacks massive amounts of explanatory power.

        1. How did the universe come into existence? If you answer that it made itself exist then you’re arguing for an illogical absurdity for nothing can make itself pop into existence. If you answer that it has always existed then you’re going against overwhelming current cosmological evidence that states otherwise.

        2. How would an Atheist explain a miracle? For example, say that a man in a coffee shop comes up to you and is able to tell you your name, phone number, home address, and family members’ names. But he doesn’t have access to any of your personal information. He hasn’t got a computer or anything. He merely knows all of this about you. Even if you were to exhaust all possible logical possibilities, you would be daft to chalk it up to “luck.”

        3. How would an Atheist explain necessary beings such as numbers? Sure contingent beings such as the universe can’t create necessary beings. That would be metaphysically impossible.

        I’m starting to rant now though, so I’ll stop. It can be said objectively and with much confidence that logic will always trump subjective observations. The scientific paradigm fails in explanatory scope and explanatory power when compared to its philosophical predecessor.

        • Anti-theist

          I don’t need to explicitly prove this claim. To put it with Sam Harris’ words: “Just look at the mass-grave of gods we call mythology.” If you think Yahweh, Vishnu or the one you prefer has more weight, you’re free to make your case. With what you have presented the best you could argue for is a non-specific deistic god.

          Furthermore, If you want to take the state of the world as evidence for god, that’s your personal view. Equating it with the hard evidence for evolution is dishonest. For me, all those lines of reasoning only show how you don’t need a god to explain the world.
          My question to you would be: How would the world have to be for you to not assert a god. Maybe some inconsistencies in physics? Oh, whoops, we wouldn’t be here if that were the case. It’s not at all surprising that we find ourselves in a perfectly working world.

          To the last point; Atheism has by definition no explanatory power, because it’s only a response to a claim and not a claim in itself. Do you believe in god? No, I don’t. That’s it. Atheism neither asserts there are absolutely no gods nor is it a synonym for science. Making shit up is by the way not a way of knowing things, to put it bluntly. Neither side has any explanatory power.

          1. The Big Bang Theory only describes the expansion of our universe. It claims nothing about the actual beginning, so I don’t have to go against mainstream cosmology. It’s perfectly possible for a hypothesis to coincide with expansion and still work in an eternal framework. Also, your harsh dismissal of a universe from nothing isn’t necessarily the end of the argument. You may wanna look up the talk “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss on YouTube.
          One important point here is, in science the beginning is always simple, like quantum fluctuations. This allows us to draw a straight line from quantum physics, to inflation, to cosmology, to planetary formation and geology, to chemistry and finally evolution. A gradual build up from very simple beginnings to increasing complexity. Putting an intelligent and therefore very complex god in the beginning of this process is horrendously contra-productive, achieves nothing and magnitudes more improbable.

          2. First of all, an atheist most likely doesn’t believe miracles happen. Secondly, if something weird/unexplainable happens, “I don’t know” is the proper response. Asserting god (which one depending on your birthplace) did it, is called the argument from ignorance. Unless you can somehow demonstrate god did it, you assertion has no validity, even if it were true.

          3. I don’t understand the question. Numbers are an invention of man to quantify things. The rest sounds like metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

          “The scientific paradigm fails in explanatory scope and explanatory power when compared to its philosophical predecessor.”

          Woah, I’d like to hear more details about those so-called explanations. (This is not sarcasm)

      • bradders

        @ Anti-theist

        You say the burden of prove lies with the claimer ( religion ), but you and i both know that religion deals with faith, surely the burden of prove lies with the science believer. If you are going to prove or disprove anything scientifically you are going to have to show some evidence. Ok so evolution is some evidence, and you are perfectly entitled to base your ideology on this, but it might be slightly premature to think this is the last we are going to hear on the subject. Now i understand what you are saying about the lack of a need of explanatory power because it is a response to a claim and not a claim itself but that is only if you ask the question correctly ( which you did ). But what i find occurring more frequently among atheist’s is they are asking a different question, which is “is there a god “to their reply “no there isn’t”, they seem to think that their answer is backed up by more than just their opinion. It is this kind of arrogance that is starting to concern me, and that kind of arrogance is being perpetuated by many establishments. Let me give you an example of what im talking about, just the other day i was watching a documentary about the history of religion on this very site when my 14 year old nephew came in from school and said to me “our science teacher told us that science was created to try to prove there was a god, but ended up proving that there is no god “, I had to explain to him that was only one point of view, and that there are many scientists that are agnostic. It didn’t suprise me that he had never heard that word before, he thought there was only two options religion or science. Its not exactly encouraging critical thinking, in fact sounds more like brainwashing to me. I believe that kids should be taught how to think critically for themselves and if the evidence supporting atheism is strong enough then the science can speak for itself. It all has the whiff of a politically motivated agenda to me, and i refuse to be a pawn in anyone’s game. I have held many viewpoints in the past including atheism, but it is this type of restrictive teaching that makes me consider being more open to believe in other theories. I would like to add that i have nothing against atheist’s who understand that is just a personal opinion, the same as everyone else, but it is the really aggressive confrontational ones who denounce every other belief that i have a problem with.

        • Ed Moore

          I love what Liddle says that “there might be or might not be a god, why can’t we let it be that way?”. The problem is definately human nature, always trying to prove itself right about what it does or thinks.

        • Ed Moore

          I love what Liddle says that “there might be or might not be a god, why can’t we let it be that way?”. The problem is definately human nature, always trying to prove itself right about what it does or thinks.

        • Ed Moore

          I love what Liddle says that “there might be or might not be a god, why can’t we let it be that way?”. The problem is definately human nature, always trying to prove itself right about what it does or thinks.

        • swan

          this is the problem u would have faith in everything in life even without god..it would just be something or someone else….my belief is that god is not a being or any type…. there is no heaven or hell this is in the mind a sense of peace or unrest with yourself….back to god…god is only energy the energy that runs through me, u, the sun stars universe, the plants, the ocean all things…religion(all except for ancient african and native american belief in the earth)  have construed and misused what could have been the most symbolic and accepted view of the universe…there is no god just energy….energy

        • swan

          this is the problem u would have faith in everything in life even without god..it would just be something or someone else….my belief is that god is not a being or any type…. there is no heaven or hell this is in the mind a sense of peace or unrest with yourself….back to god…god is only energy the energy that runs through me, u, the sun stars universe, the plants, the ocean all things…religion(all except for ancient african and native american belief in the earth)  have construed and misused what could have been the most symbolic and accepted view of the universe…there is no god just energy….energy

          • Swan

            What like Lucozade, praise o holy Lucozade. What do you think of the Dj Fresh tune being used in the advert?

    • Gold

      While science tries to support its claims with evidence religion doesnt.  Science is not a monopoly on the truth – there you are right. Science is a method to discover the truth.

      You say that Atheists assert that religion is untrue without any evidence. That is because there is NO EVIDENCE supporting the existance of a deity. I am sure most normal sane and rational thinking adults would dismiss the statment that Green Unicorns are chasing pink Elephants in the back of their car. Why? Because there is NO EVIDENCE pointing to Green Unicorns chasing pink Elephants in the back of anybody’s car. Would anybody consider this arrogant? No – just common sense and sanity.

  • AnarchoRationalist

    @Anti-theist

    Why address that statement to me? What does it have to do with my comments on the relativistic nature of information, and the impossibility of “truth”?

    Did I once assert that “religion” is true? Did I suggest that science is untrue? No, I asserted that given the available information at this point in time, the idea of truth itself is a fallacy.

    If you really feel the need to reason out a way to prove that the set of information that you have an affinity for is “true” then go on, but it’s just reasoning, it will never be truth. You cannot just ignore the fundamental philosophical foundation of science.

    Ironically, you seem to be asserting certainty in science, while claiming that certainty is irrelevant.

    If you must know I am an atheist, and even a materialist, but it’s zealots like those demonstrated in this documentary that make me almost ashamed to use that term anymore.

    • Anti-theist

      @AnarchoRationalist

      You obviously didn’t understand anything I’ve written. I neither claimed anything about your believes about science or religion nor did I write certainty is irrelevant, absolute certainty is. Knowing everything isn’t a requirement for knowing anything. It’s an absurd standard you hold other atheists to, which creates the false impression of them being arrogant zealots, just because they don’t take a philosophical predicament about absolute truth into account. Why should they? You can use the same argumentation for unicorns and wizardry.

      ___
      One comment on the documentary itself: As expected, it’s just a long concatenation of logical fallacies and colossal misunderstandings about atheism, science in general and evolution.

  • claudia

    this dawkins fellow is the biggest camera whore ever! he’s in every doc about religion, paranormal, atheism, you name it. i´m an agnostic open minded person but his arrogance annoys me.

    • Daniel

      The Documentary producers ask HIM to appear and for good reason …whats arrogant is religious people saying they know theres a god and know they are following the “right” one…Dawkins is a very smart man and is one of the best public supporters of science over blind faith…This Documentary is pretty silly though

      • Ed Moore

        Then you are an arrogant yourself for thinking you have the truth based upon your reasoning. It’s all the same thing atheists, you are as arrogant as a religious fanatic and stubborn as an old catholic lady from Mexico… stop being intolerant and stop playing the”we are the only smart people left” role and consider religious people dumb or absurd.

        You religious and atheist people do really have many things in common.

        • Sissum71

          LOL!!!! So true. 

        • CrackedPepper86

          Just so you know, this comment makes you sound very arrogant and intolerant yourself.

          • Anonymous

            Just so you know, this comment makes you sound arrogant and intolerant of my ass. It is deeply offended, so please kiss and make up.

          • Anonymous

            Just so you know, this comment makes you sound arrogant and intolerant of my ass. It is deeply offended, so please kiss and make up.

          • Anonymous

            Just so you know, this comment makes you sound arrogant and intolerant of my ass. It is deeply offended, so please kiss and make up.

      • Sissum71

        Atheist say there is absolutely no God and there is no absolute proof of that. How is that not arrogance? You defend Richard Dawkins much like christians defend God. Hmmm…..

        • Bustedetm

          Hmm.. Yeah but there’s no absolute evidence of fluffy pink flying one-eyed unicorns not existing either..(call me arrogant!) but are you saying that it’s a possibility they exist too?? This remind me of the famous argument ”Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, and by the way I tend to disagree with this too. However different strokes for different folks, so how about we all just try to get along instead eh? 

        • Stu

          Atheists don’t say there is no god only that there is no good evidence/reason to belief in his existence. 

        • Stu

          Atheists don’t say there is no god only that there is no good evidence/reason to belief in his existence. 

        • Stu

          Atheists don’t say there is no god only that there is no good evidence/reason to belief in his existence. 

        • Stu

          Atheists don’t say there is no god only that there is no good evidence/reason to belief in his existence. 

        • swan

          yes except he is not our god there is none.but this person is very visible and interactable, i can talk to Richard dawkins.. richard dawkins could actually help me do somthing unlike the imaginary ghost.this is a problem with believers u equate everything u see,hear, and read to god or to him being real u never take the skeptics seat  ever and this is y religion is so popular because u are bombarded with fear of sinning against gods rule”the rule of some human 1000’s of years ago”end quote………..
          so in conclusion u will never not believe that there isn’t a god because u are scared to go to hell because u believe in heaven and god…circular thinking  its wrong

        • swan

          yes except he is not our god there is none.but this person is very visible and interactable, i can talk to Richard dawkins.. richard dawkins could actually help me do somthing unlike the imaginary ghost.this is a problem with believers u equate everything u see,hear, and read to god or to him being real u never take the skeptics seat  ever and this is y religion is so popular because u are bombarded with fear of sinning against gods rule”the rule of some human 1000’s of years ago”end quote………..
          so in conclusion u will never not believe that there isn’t a god because u are scared to go to hell because u believe in heaven and god…circular thinking  its wrong

          • Swan

            yes folks circular thinking is indeed wrong, im more of a square thinker. What do you think dawkins is? Maybe you should ask him since you bestie pals.

          • Swan

            yes folks circular thinking is indeed wrong, im more of a square thinker. What do you think dawkins is? Maybe you should ask him since you bestie pals.

        • http://evolutionguide.blogspot.com/ William Bell

          “How is that not arrogance?”
          Well because you have the burden of proof.
          “You defend RD much like christians defend YWH.”
          I think that he was just pointing out that RD didn’t try to get into the film, they asked him.  If that is being a camera whore I think you would probably be much more easily put into the category of attention whore, idiot, and bigot together.

        • http://evolutionguide.blogspot.com/ William Bell

          “How is that not arrogance?”
          Well because you have the burden of proof.
          “You defend RD much like christians defend YWH.”
          I think that he was just pointing out that RD didn’t try to get into the film, they asked him.  If that is being a camera whore I think you would probably be much more easily put into the category of attention whore, idiot, and bigot together.

        • http://evolutionguide.blogspot.com/ William Bell

          “How is that not arrogance?”
          Well because you have the burden of proof.
          “You defend RD much like christians defend YWH.”
          I think that he was just pointing out that RD didn’t try to get into the film, they asked him.  If that is being a camera whore I think you would probably be much more easily put into the category of attention whore, idiot, and bigot together.

      • Anonymous

        I will agree that faith in religion is just that, faith. But you also use faith when you accept science. You did not personally discover atoms, or evolution; but you believe in them so strongly. I do too, they are accompanied by very good arguments. But don’t kid yourself, faith in science is blind in many aspects as well. Oh, and don’t get me started on history. I don’t know that there was ever a George Washington, but I believe that there was one because so many writings reference him. I wasn’t there personally though, so I can’t say that I “know.”

      • Anonymous

        I will agree that faith in religion is just that, faith. But you also use faith when you accept science. You did not personally discover atoms, or evolution; but you believe in them so strongly. I do too, they are accompanied by very good arguments. But don’t kid yourself, faith in science is blind in many aspects as well. Oh, and don’t get me started on history. I don’t know that there was ever a George Washington, but I believe that there was one because so many writings reference him. I wasn’t there personally though, so I can’t say that I “know.”

        • Calum

          That’s an interesting point. I for one don’t know anywhere near enough about Physics or Inorganic Chemistry to definitively say that,for example, Black Holes are real, and that we are not just being duped by the Physicists. I suppose in that sense I do simply have FAITH that they know what they are talking about.  However, my point is that, as a Zoology student, I know that Evolution is almost certainly, defiantly, nearly absolutely true (get used to that. No scientist ever says “100% certain, which is why I don’t think Atheist’s are all arrogant. Or those of religious tendencies. People can be arrogant, that doesn’t mean everyone in a certain group are!) because I have seen the evidence 1st hand. So while I do have faith in the scientists in other fields, I think it’s a different kind of faith, because i at least know that other people do know all the evidence and understand it; in a similar way to how many people believe in Evolution because they know that there are people such as myself who know the ins’and’outs of the theory and all the evidence that proclaims it to be scientifically true. Can the same be said of Religion? Do most Christians have faith, knowing their Local priest has all the inns’and’outs and evidence to say that there is a god?

          The History part i have to agree with as well. We can’t definitively prove anything can we? If I drop a book will,it hit the floor? Yes it will. But we don’t KNOW it will. What if a meteor hits my house at precisely the right time to vaporize the book before it hits the floor? I’ve just dropped a book. And yes, it hit the floor. But it’s important that people realize how difficult it is to prove anything for certain. 

        • Calum

          That’s an interesting point. I for one don’t know anywhere near enough about Physics or Inorganic Chemistry to definitively say that,for example, Black Holes are real, and that we are not just being duped by the Physicists. I suppose in that sense I do simply have FAITH that they know what they are talking about.  However, my point is that, as a Zoology student, I know that Evolution is almost certainly, defiantly, nearly absolutely true (get used to that. No scientist ever says “100% certain, which is why I don’t think Atheist’s are all arrogant. Or those of religious tendencies. People can be arrogant, that doesn’t mean everyone in a certain group are!) because I have seen the evidence 1st hand. So while I do have faith in the scientists in other fields, I think it’s a different kind of faith, because i at least know that other people do know all the evidence and understand it; in a similar way to how many people believe in Evolution because they know that there are people such as myself who know the ins’and’outs of the theory and all the evidence that proclaims it to be scientifically true. Can the same be said of Religion? Do most Christians have faith, knowing their Local priest has all the inns’and’outs and evidence to say that there is a god?

          The History part i have to agree with as well. We can’t definitively prove anything can we? If I drop a book will,it hit the floor? Yes it will. But we don’t KNOW it will. What if a meteor hits my house at precisely the right time to vaporize the book before it hits the floor? I’ve just dropped a book. And yes, it hit the floor. But it’s important that people realize how difficult it is to prove anything for certain. 

    • Sam Scott

      Truly, Dawkins is one of the smarmiest motherfuckers I have ever seen, It’s too bad he’s the poster boy for atheism.

    • Sam Scott

      Truly, Dawkins is one of the smarmiest motherfuckers I have ever seen, It’s too bad he’s the poster boy for atheism.

  • kadath

    This documentary is anything but balanced. All of the points raised by the journalist have been well argued against and refuted time and time again. Truly rational people don’t believe in absolutist dogma. Stalin? Hitler? Please. He tries feebly to make a ‘link’ between Darwinism and genocide, but think about the countless massacres that we could wage in the name of any number of passages in the Bible. The only thing he manages to bring up against Darwin is that the theory has itself developed over the years and that there are differing views about how new genetic information enters a population. However, all you are really left with is the last bastion of belief in a higher power in the face of modern science and that is the ‘god of the gaps.’ And he simply asserts that believing in a god is a much simpler or elegant solution that the multiverse theory, for example. This is absurd. Anything that could intelligently fashion an entire universe must by definition be more complex than that universe itself and had to have had its own creator.

    • Ed Moore

      Even if Hitler would have killed only a single jew it would have been enough, imagine the countless massacres we could wage in the name of the “survival of the fittest” dogma.

    • Ed Moore

      Even if Hitler would have killed only a single jew it would have been enough, imagine the countless massacres we could wage in the name of the “survival of the fittest” dogma.

  • Ken

    Atheism and anti-theism is arrogant. I no longer believe in God. It seems that every religion that I come across presents inherent contradictions in the nature of this being(s). Much of the religions seem to dissuade followers from doing away with unjust conditions imposed by authorities while justifying actions with peers. I am currently under the impression that souls exist but if I could even prove the existence of such, I could not make the jump to a creator and if I could prove the existence of this creator, I could not prove that such a being is omni-anything. The questions that people have about religion presenting correct morality, sustainability, or even the position of human kind within nature are valid.

    • Goo Goo

      I don’t understand … What are souls , and how do you know they exist? I feel the notion of a soul can be appealing , but I never saw or read or was given any evidence such a thing exists. I’m not trying to make fun , but I am trying to understand why people think this way. If souls should exist , do they live on after a bodies death , and where? Is there a dimension where they go , or is it reincarnation? How are souls created? I feel this might be a result of fear of death more then real evidence, and maybe some romanticism. Do animals have souls? The only evidence I am aware of is hear say and stories people tell about a light at the end of a tunnel observed by oxygen starved brains in near death circumstances. What made you believe in souls? Hey you may be right , but I just have a hard time thinking as you do. I have read and talked to many people who believe many things , but for the most part it seems just to be folks who are more or less just hoping what they believe to be so. I just don’t understand this need for supernatural things. But maybe if I understand more I can.

      • John

        on the subject if the light at the end of the tunnel…..there is a good documentary on this very site that provides proof from 3 separate individuals
        In once instance a woman saw a shoe propped on a ledge of the roof of a hospital as her soul rose above the building…after she returned, they checked and the shoe was there..

        check it out…great documentary

        • eric nye

          What about a the reincarnation of the dhali lama doing miraculous things. There are stories to inspire faith for every religion. None of them have proof or physical evidence.

          • Wecantsee

            Who would i better believe in?
            .
            Mockerts: as pleasure is the responsible for the survival, Gullibs find ways to tickle their feelings.
            .
            Gullibs: Mockerts? they are controlled by satan!
            .
            I would vote for Mockerts!

  • AccessDenied

    This is how it is in my opinion. Nobody knows how everything started. There are so many things that are far beyond human comprehension in this universe. We are 100x smarter than we were when religions or scientific discoveries started. We have more reason, intellect and more technology etc etc… Getting tied up in arguments over stories of the bible or telling a scientist to scientifically prove that love exists, blah blah blah, is a waste of time. Human beings put human values on a universe that NOBODY fully understands. I don’t think there is one person who isn’t intrigued by the questions of “Why are we here? Where do we come from? Where are we going?”. The bigger we find the universe to be, the more we discover about the universe, the more insignificant our existence seems. A true scientist should never make the claim that there was never a “Creator” in the universe. It is one theory among many of how this universe began and should tested like any other theory or hypothesis. But for the religious people who claim absolute certainty about any specific God without presenting evidence beyond the bible is, I personally think, delusional. That is placing human values on a universe that nobody understands. That is just ridiculous. I think if people would become more scientifically literate and could evolve beyond belief and focus more on finding the truth rather than believing stories told from people who once thought the earth was flat and would murder people for not believing what they believed… then we could find the true answer to what nobody clearly knows or understands. Just remember this if you lay claims to invisible certainties about our existence. The smarter the person, the better they are at rationalizing beliefs they arrived at for non smart reasons.

  • muthu

    hi,

    Richard Dawkins do not want everyone to become a atheist, but rather wants everyone to be reasonable and logical.
    It is simple as that.

    • Sissum71

      Which means being an atheist…arrogance.What happend before the big bang? answer: We do not know.Neither side has definitive proof. 

      • swan

        the word u want is logical atheist are all logical rational beings… those who side with religion are idiots illogical fairy tale believing nut cases..where is ur god? the only answer i ever get is that he moves in  mysterious ways well he sounds alot like a superhero in a comic book or any other idol that we humans have created over time… people could have seen superman movies and thought of him as a god if they seen him 300b.c they were desperate looking for answers not believing that a time like 2011 would ever exist or that the technology would ever exist they made the shit up..sorry to ruin ur perfect world

        • Swan

          where is YOUR science swan? What sort of logic are you taliking about?

          • Inquartata

            Probably the logic in not believing in anything that is unproven or which has been proven false. Being skeptical. Using reason.

            If you believe in god, then why not flying spaghetti monsters?

          • Inquartata

            Probably the logic in not believing in anything that is unproven or which has been proven false. Being skeptical. Using reason.

            If you believe in god, then why not flying spaghetti monsters?

  • eric nye

    This man is smart but so are all the atheists. I choose to be agnostic, simply saying “I dont know.” The idea of Jesus, and the flood and all the other Genesis and even new testament stories are total garbage. Christianity and organized religion in general is a terrible misinterpreted idea that is much to prevalent in our supposed advanced society today. This man is wrong,science today DISPROVES the christian god. But the idea of “something” supernatural is not all that unrealistic. What made the big bang? What made evolution and the laws of physics and matter so perfect? Maybe there is some sort of consciousness to life? The only thing that I know is that everyone who thinks they are completely correct, atheist or baptist, is wrong. Overall this documentary lacked facts and was extremely biased. Although it did do a good job at showing how atheist are wrong, it said that Christians are correct! This is just as stereotypical as atheists saying they are right. This documentary proved that taking a side and sticking to it no matter what is stupid.

    • Inquartata

      I liked you post but have to reply as well…
      All atheists are not smart. There are many who are atheist simply because they do not care, a kind apatheism I guess. Then they loose their mother to a sudden accident and BAM they feel a need to believe in god. All atheists are not smart. Some just don’t care about god or evolution.The idea of something supernatural is by many considered irrational. What is supernatural? Everything that exists is by definition natural, no? Implying… :)What made the big bang would not have to be supernatural. These kinds of questions are often misstated and therefore hard to answer. Example: Q:”What existed before the big bang? Nothing? No time? What do you mean? Are you retarded? There had to be something before. You are being arrogant!” No. This questions is very similar to asking things like “What is north of the north pole?” Nothing. The question simply doesn’t make sense.Evolution perfect? No. Evolution is definitely NOT perfect. Nothing MADE evolution. Evolution emerges in a population due to some individuals doing better than others and their genes being spread more widely. That’s it. If you ever had your wisdom teeth removed you know there is nothing perfect about it.As for sticking to one viewpoint, this is unfortunately what YOU are doing. If you can logically prove to me that I am wrong then you know what? I will change my opinion. Would you given similar circumstances? Or are you desperately trying to keep in the gray area, not taking any opinion at all? Not wanting to read up enough to make an informed decision? Sure seems like it to me.

  • amara

    i think you are all profoundly stupid. watch it again without your preconceived ideas of what you think he is saying, and you will see that he isnt arguing for or against anything, mearly stating that everybody believes something, regardless of wether it is god or science or darwin. and all of these factions have zealots who proclaim absolute truth without much concrete proof. there are good reasonings for both sides of the god/science debate, but nobody will ever know for sure unless some form of diety comes from wherever and proves either one or the other false. science and religion complement each other, what was before the big bang, nothing because a god hadnt created anything. how/why does evolution work, because a higher power has a deisgn…who knows, who cares, believe what you want as long as it doesnt hurt anybody else :)

    • Just Gold

      how can you say what was before the big bang,nothing as god had’nt created anything!do you think the people at c.e.r.n spent all that money building the L.H.C if they really thought god existed,come on.,come on.

    • swan

      see this is the problem we do not understand life not even 1% i believe… there is a lot more to life than meets the eye but it is not deity….science is only unraveling the ginormous information highway that life is….life is more of a system than a book or story…believing in a deity is dangerous for all.. genetically and evolutionarily it is de-evolution…the belief in god is a planetary hitch in the advancement of humans and of all life on earth…we may end ourselves and every other species believing in such far off beliefs people are not scared of life but are of  death because they believe they are two different things but i believe they are one in the same cant have one without the other like a chemical reaction until u are willing to die to live u will always be a bitch to life.

      • Swan

        What less than 1%. I think you maybe only describing yourself here and judging by your posts I would say yes you belong in that category.

    • Gold

      This is wrong reasoning.
      1. Beeing an atheist does not mean that you belive everything Darwing wrote regardless of whether it is good science or not. Darwin makes a postulation and he puts down some compelling arguments. Not proof though. However science and the knowledge of our world tends to support Darwins theory. The opposite is true with religion. Just read your history books to see how science has chipped away more and more of the once fundamental truth which the Bible was considered to be.2. There is actually very little good reasoning for the god side in this debate
      3. You say” but nobody will ever know for sure unless some form of diety comes from wherever and proves either one or the other false.” So basically we wont know if god exists untill he/she chooses to show him/herself?? I am sure you would like to re-phrase this in order not to sound silly.

      • Nptrtgms20

        Darwin’s theory only showed there was evolution on a horizontal scale and not on a verticle scale.  Species cannot evolve into other species and kind reproduces after their own kind.  The Bible has stated that.  The Bible although not a scientific book contains scientific fact which the world had not yet discovered yet the  unbelieving scientific world wants to ignore that and say there is an answer but it is not God.  Science has not chipped away at anything the Bible has stated.  Science has shown there is an intelligence to the cosmos.  

    • Nptrtgms20

      Amara…interesting but that has never given man confidence to just kind of believe whatever they want to believe as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.  Since the beginning of time man has been hurting man so man devised a judicial system or rules for living and penalties for not following the rules.

      But what about the penalties for the judges or the authorities who pass out the judgments but then themselves are guilty of violating the rules?  What happens to those who don’t follow the rules and are never judged?  Did they get away with the violation and never have to pay for their violation?  Is there no final justice?  Is man just like a plant or an animal who comes to life and then dies?  What is the purpose of life if it is just live and then die and the process is repeated?  Where did all this start and where will all this end?

      Science has taught us the Big Bang Theory and Evolution and some ‘cosmic accident’ for bringing the world into existence are just silly because there is order, complexity and design and could not have happened by chance.  

  • sstjesus

    I am a non religious theologian; I study and write on these topics everyday. i found myself agreeing with the beginning of this documentary, but the more i watched and as the documentary tried to discredit and question atheism it moved into the realm of statements of substance. Many of the anti atheist ideas stated within this piece are entirely unsearched and removable with even the smallest amount of thought. The subtle connection between atheism and Hilter’s final solution (a ridiculous idea) was the point at which i began to see this piece as propaganda rather than an opinionated documentary. The science which is sited in this piece is largely discredited and for lack of better term “hackish”. the idea of morals has a root in evolution this is visible in chimps and other species close to us, the documentary negates this idea because science has yet to confirm it’s results with regulated testing.

    i am not an Atheist nor am i religious but i can see two major flaws with this piece
    1. it was clearly written by a religious person who wished to tear down Atheism without offering counting opinions. This means of course that more people will assume that the opinions given have no counter
    and
    2. the documentary began by addressing a legitimate point, but in addressing it, it set the standard of Atheistic fanaticism to high, this meant that it could make wild accusations and unfounded statements while remaining with a the created level of intensity

  • http://plabebob.blogspot.com Martha

    The man’s an idiot! He seems to think that because we can’t prove there is no God it’s logical to suppose there might be one, as if both ideas are equally plausible. What a moron, the burden of proof clearly lies with those who postulate a God, it’s not up to science to prove non-existence.

    • Anonymous

      How can you say that? How is it “clear” that the proof of burden lies with those who postulate a God? Is it because it’s ‘such an outrageous claim?’ If it were, then why can’t it be disproved? And, I’ll grant you the “flying spaghetti monster” argument, I can’t disprove that one. But to say things like, “clearly” and “obviously” just makes you sound arrogant. There is no right or wrong, only what you happen to be thinking at the time. I guess what I’m getting at is, why start in with disrespectful comments? You’re making a conjecture as well, only your statement includes calling someone an idiot. So who is worse?

      • http://www.facebook.com/mdmagnusson Magnus David Magnusson

        Martha does make a solid point beyond mere conjecture. It may sound arrogant but the burden of proof is clearly on the one making assertions without evidence since it’s impossible to prove that something DOESN’T exist other than simply pointing out that facts that there is no evidence to support that it does. The blatant lack of any evidence to support the existence of a god is pretty overwhelming.

        If anything that cant be scientifically disproved is evidence of it’s being then it is EXACTLY as probable that there are giant pink unicorns roaming the streets of New York hunting green penguins as there is a god/gods. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/mdmagnusson Magnus David Magnusson

        Martha does make a solid point beyond mere conjecture. It may sound arrogant but the burden of proof is clearly on the one making assertions without evidence since it’s impossible to prove that something DOESN’T exist other than simply pointing out that facts that there is no evidence to support that it does. The blatant lack of any evidence to support the existence of a god is pretty overwhelming.

        If anything that cant be scientifically disproved is evidence of it’s being then it is EXACTLY as probable that there are giant pink unicorns roaming the streets of New York hunting green penguins as there is a god/gods. 

        • Nptrtgms20

          The evidence for God is so over-whelming it is the blind who do so but their own biases who still believe He does not exist.

    • Nptrtgms20

      If man through millenniums of time has proved anything it is how ignorant he is.

  • Overkill

    Calling Atheism a religion is like calling a bald a hair colour

    • Si

      But there are people who preach it as if it is religion, thus not staying true to its definition. I think that’s more the point.

      • Fairvlad

        How can you possibly preach atheism ? They might be preaching critical thinking, philosophy, secular humanism or maybe raëlianism or buddhism (since they are technically atheist “religions”). Whatever gnu atheists might be “preaching” isn’t atheism, because atheism doesn’t have any dogma. Atheism = not accepting the theistic claim.

        • Replier

          “Atheism = not accepting the theistic claim” Based on this definition, Christianity could also be considered an “atheistic” religion as well. It has long been (though forgotten) the Judeo-Christian tradition that man can not speak of “God” because it undermines what “God” is. At best, man can only speak about their understanding of what “God” is.” Thus, the tradition is to reject all theistic claims as limiting or insufficient but still believe that there is something to claim. A sort of an (a) theism. I think that this can give us hope. We have seen what has happened when any group of idealists demonstrate a mindset of certainty. Lets all be uncertain for once.

        • Replier

          “Atheism = not accepting the theistic claim” Based on this definition, Christianity could also be considered an “atheistic” religion as well. It has long been (though forgotten) the Judeo-Christian tradition that man can not speak of “God” because it undermines what “God” is. At best, man can only speak about their understanding of what “God” is.” Thus, the tradition is to reject all theistic claims as limiting or insufficient but still believe that there is something to claim. A sort of an (a) theism. I think that this can give us hope. We have seen what has happened when any group of idealists demonstrate a mindset of certainty. Lets all be uncertain for once.

          • Lord Xenu

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism -Read the fist sentence, simpleton. I am certain you are wrong. I seriously laughed hard at your statement. Christianity is atheistic? Then christ isn’t god. Case closed.

          • Lord Xenu

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism -Read the fist sentence, simpleton. I am certain you are wrong. I seriously laughed hard at your statement. Christianity is atheistic? Then christ isn’t god. Case closed.

          • Trina4mayor

            hahah! You DO know it is considered bad form to post Wikipedia links to back up your claims..

      • swan

        they preach it as a lifestyle a thought like religion because religion is a mockery of what life is….great story should have been made into a badass action film staring Arnie..u can preach anything i can sit here and preach that being gay is what u should aspire to but does that make it right thats all i try to get across to religious people ur wall of religious logic is riped like wet paper everytime somone questions this belief…. i dont believe that darwin has everything right he obviously didnt if it is not already accepted as a standard.. life is niether one of these beliefs there is more to find..all im saying is that no one has the answer yet not that book not darwin…

        • Swan

          Is gay wrong swan? ‘Riped’ like an orange. Does such a word exist?

      • USMC

        Who are these people?

  • igor

    A prototypical troll documentary. All these lame theist/agnostic arguments have been rebutted countless times.
    Troll harder.
    But of course the lemming masses eat this crap up

  • PETE

    Someone mentioned DAWKINS being a “camera whore”? What a simpleton.
    He’s an authority on the subject and a very credible one at that- VERY much unlike every proponent of the theistic or agnostic perspective in this baseless opinion piece (NOT documentary).. especially the lard ass imbecile narrating and puking up his myopic musings.
    Pure garbage.

  • victor

    this documentary does not make a valid point at all, atheism is the lack of belief, not the belief of the disbelief thats so absurd. And as all biased religious person who criticizes atheism, he starts by saying Richard Dawkins its a brilliant man bla bla bla, but hes so stupid and arrogant and dosent know what hes saying at all. Is so sad people still believe in any representation of God, im amaze on how did the Santa Claus thing weared out really. Its an abomination to compare atheism to a system of belief such as christianity anyone who dosent see this dosent need an explanation of why. and the interviews are so blatantly edited is depressing really.

  • John

    I watched the entire film. I’m still not sure what the trouble with atheism is. Also, I don’t know if I’m an atheist. Is there a blood test or something I can take?

    • Swan

      Listen to swan, he has all the answers. Im Swan with a capital s.

    • Swan

      Listen to swan, he has all the answers. Im Swan with a capital s.

  • bandit

    This documentary is a trivial point stretched out over 47 minutes. Some atheists think everyone should hold the same ideals as they do. We don’t need Rob Liddle to figure this out for ourselves. Its’ just people being people.

    • Smack

      This documentary is a trivial point stretched out over 47 minutes.  Some theists think everyone should hold the same ideals as they do.  We don’t need Rob Liddle to figure this out for ourselves.  Its’ just people being people.

    • Smack

      This documentary is a trivial point stretched out over 47 minutes.  Some theists think everyone should hold the same ideals as they do.  We don’t need Rob Liddle to figure this out for ourselves.  Its’ just people being people.

  • Pingback: Creationism vs Science (Part 2) « Thoughts into Words()

  • Sam

    What a LOAD OF SHI%#T!!!!! History proves that God exists, (Jesus) So much evidence.
    Time magazine said: We must hand it to the Christians, the historical evidence is proven to a staggering 99.6% More accurate then any historical writings.
    We believed the world was flat not to long ago, Bible says its a sphere 1000s of years before.
    We believed there was only 6000 stars not to long ago. Bible says that there endless 1000years ago.
    Look up the deviance before you decide if God exists. Dawkins was asked to show one piece of evolution evidence and was stumped by the question…look it up!!
    The oldest desert in the world is around 4000 years old. The oldest tree in the world is around 4000 years old. The oldest coral reef in the world is around 4000 years old. So on and so on. Check it out for yourself.
    Look at the evolution debates against creation…very interesting…Evolution don’t have a clue.Or case, everything is an assumption. The universe is to perfect to come from the big bang theory. Check it out for yourself.
    I’m bored not writing any more..But please look at the creation side of things before deciding.

    • Societies Failure

      Jesus Christ, indoctrinating kids into this idiocy should be illegal. Your parents should be ashamed.

  • Sam

    What a LOAD OF SHI%#T!!!!! History proves that God exists, (Jesus) So much evidence.
    Time magazine said: We must hand it to the Christians, the historical evidence is proven to a staggering 99.6% More accurate then any historical writings.
    We believed the world was flat not to long ago, Bible says its a sphere 1000s of years before.
    We believed there was only 6000 stars not to long ago. Bible says that there endless 1000years ago.
    Look up the deviance before you decide if God exists. Dawkins was asked to show one piece of evolution evidence and was stumped by the question…look it up!!
    The oldest desert in the world is around 4000 years old. The oldest tree in the world is around 4000 years old. The oldest coral reef in the world is around 4000 years old. So on and so on. Check it out for yourself.
    Look at the evolution debates against creation…very interesting…Evolution don’t have a clue.Or case, everything is an assumption. The universe is to perfect to come from the big bang theory. Check it out for yourself.
    I’m bored not writing any more..But please look at the creation side of things before deciding.

  • Sam

    What a LOAD OF SHI%#T!!!!! History proves that God exists, (Jesus) So much evidence.
    Time magazine said: We must hand it to the Christians, the historical evidence is proven to a staggering 99.6% More accurate then any historical writings.
    We believed the world was flat not to long ago, Bible says its a sphere 1000s of years before.
    We believed there was only 6000 stars not to long ago. Bible says that there endless 1000years ago.
    Look up the deviance before you decide if God exists. Dawkins was asked to show one piece of evolution evidence and was stumped by the question…look it up!!
    The oldest desert in the world is around 4000 years old. The oldest tree in the world is around 4000 years old. The oldest coral reef in the world is around 4000 years old. So on and so on. Check it out for yourself.
    Look at the evolution debates against creation…very interesting…Evolution don’t have a clue.Or case, everything is an assumption. The universe is to perfect to come from the big bang theory. Check it out for yourself.
    I’m bored not writing any more..But please look at the creation side of things before deciding.

    • Nitu Andrei

      Dude, you have… you have GOT to be shitting me.. me look it up? you look up evidence for evolution, see what you find, there is an immense amount of evidence supporting it, if nothing, just skim over the Wikipedia article ‘Evidence of Common Descent’, even though that’s just a fraction of what you should read, or the ideal place from which you should read it… the oldest what now? the oldest piece of mineral dates to 4.5 BILLION years ago, with the first living organism tracked at ~3.5 billion years ago, just sayin. Too perfect? what is too perfect? perfection is something arbitrary chosen by us to define something that we have become accustomed to. How would you define an imperfect, a chaotic universe? As for the Time magazine, i humbly request a link or some amount of proof that they said that, furthermore, their own proof on which they have based such an assumption. And the earth was long since thought to be round, from greek astrologists to be more prcise, very few cults still claimed it to be flat by the dark ages. It’s far from my goal here to appear arrogant, I just want to make sure, like you have apparently, that you are familiar with the evidence before posting something like that,

    • Nitu Andrei

      Dude, you have… you have GOT to be shitting me.. me look it up? you look up evidence for evolution, see what you find, there is an immense amount of evidence supporting it, if nothing, just skim over the Wikipedia article ‘Evidence of Common Descent’, even though that’s just a fraction of what you should read, or the ideal place from which you should read it… the oldest what now? the oldest piece of mineral dates to 4.5 BILLION years ago, with the first living organism tracked at ~3.5 billion years ago, just sayin. Too perfect? what is too perfect? perfection is something arbitrary chosen by us to define something that we have become accustomed to. How would you define an imperfect, a chaotic universe? As for the Time magazine, i humbly request a link or some amount of proof that they said that, furthermore, their own proof on which they have based such an assumption. And the earth was long since thought to be round, from greek astrologists to be more prcise, very few cults still claimed it to be flat by the dark ages. It’s far from my goal here to appear arrogant, I just want to make sure, like you have apparently, that you are familiar with the evidence before posting something like that,

    • swan

      THE WORLD IS ALOT OLDER THAN 4000 YRS OLD PLEASE IT TOOK WHITE PEOPLE 50,000 YRS TO LOSE THERE COLOR SO THE WORLD IS A LOT OLDER THAN U THINK….ALSO DINOSAURS LIVED ON THE EARTH A LONG TIME AGO THE BIBLE SAYS NOTHING OF THEM…IF THE BIBLE HAD ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT SCIENCE OR DINOSAURS OR MATH I WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THIS BULLSHIT BUT UNTILL THAT TIME I WILL NOT BEILIEVE IN ANYTHING BUT MAN IN  REALITY

      • swan

        IT TAKES 20,000 YEARS FOR A GENETIC MUTATION TO OCCUR IN HUMANS 5000 GENERATIONS LATER AND THIS WORLD IS WHAT CAME OF IT…..WE ALL COME FROM TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD SEX THIS IS CLEAR WE WERE NOT CREATED BY A GOD….JUST CHANCE

        • Swan

          20,000 years, that is some old scientist to measure that. Is there a chance you are an idiot?

    • Sam Scott

      Actually, it has NOT been proven that Jesus existed, outside of religious texts.

      From Wikipedia’s “Historicity of Jesus” page: The historicity of Jesus concerns how much of what is written about Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable. The historicity of Jesus covers a spectrum of ideas that range from “the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus”[1] to “the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus’ life including his very existence”.

      • Swan

        Its Wiki, must be true!

      • Swan

        Its Wiki, must be true!

        • Guest

           That’s just an example fucktard, do your own research. But if there actually was proof outside of religious texts, it would probably be mentioned in Wikipedia.

        • Guest

           That’s just an example fucktard, do your own research. But if there actually was proof outside of religious texts, it would probably be mentioned in Wikipedia.

      • Swan

        Its Wiki, must be true!

      • Swan

        Its Wiki, must be true!

      • Swan

        Its Wiki, must be true!

    • TheOpinionator

      Haha that’s funny you say that. Especially since there’s no prove that Jesus even existed. Actually a lot points to him being nothing but a myth.

  • The Legend

    Every person in the world (past present and future) has been wrong, is wrong, and will be wrong … about everything … always. I am the only person who is 100% correct … always

  • Jean B.

    I thought this was a good documentary. I myself do no believe in god, and I believe that there is some compelling evidence supporting evolution. Just stating my stance before presenting my comments. One problem I want to assess is the conclusion, which states that all good and bad behavior is the result of human nature. I find this very limiting as a conclusion, because much of the violence occurring today is the result of people’s beliefs. Killing in the name of god, has always been present, and yes you could argue that it’s human nature to want to protect your beliefs. Removing religion wouldn’t obviously create the utopia desired, but it would certainly remove much of the violence seen today. One last thing about Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was christian, not a very good christian obviously, but he perceived himself as a christian. Stalin didn’t remove religion for atheism, but to create a cult of personality to basically give himself god status, which he believed religion would interfere. In both cases Atheism has nothing to do with

    So overall good documentary, but I felt a lack of research and personal bias skewed some historical and scientific interpretations, BUT I 100% AGREE on the fact that there is a staunch arrogance among certain atheists. Well we cannot prove that god doesn’t exist, we can certainly refute many claims that god does exist, which is a whole new argument.

  • Jean B.

    I thought this was a good documentary. I myself do no believe in god, and I believe that there is some compelling evidence supporting evolution. Just stating my stance before presenting my comments. One problem I want to assess is the conclusion, which states that all good and bad behavior is the result of human nature. I find this very limiting as a conclusion, because much of the violence occurring today is the result of people’s beliefs. Killing in the name of god, has always been present, and yes you could argue that it’s human nature to want to protect your beliefs. Removing religion wouldn’t obviously create the utopia desired, but it would certainly remove much of the violence seen today. One last thing about Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was christian, not a very good christian obviously, but he perceived himself as a christian. Stalin didn’t remove religion for atheism, but to create a cult of personality to basically give himself god status, which he believed religion would interfere. In both cases Atheism has nothing to do with

    So overall good documentary, but I felt a lack of research and personal bias skewed some historical and scientific interpretations, BUT I 100% AGREE on the fact that there is a staunch arrogance among certain atheists. Well we cannot prove that god doesn’t exist, we can certainly refute many claims that god does exist, which is a whole new argument.

  • Realist

    haha people getting all mixed up with preconceptions of god and what not….

    Its about intolerance to others truths based on your truths and how athiests in this sense can commit the same sins as religions…. there is no need to add god into the equation. How athiesm or any idealogy can become dogmatic and intolerant and fall into the same set of pitfalls that make religions so dangerous; its just so ironic when atheists do. The intollerance of athiests is the same as the intollerance of religions.

    • Ed Moore

      Amen! LOL

    • swan

      atheism sprang about to challenge these losers who believe in fairy tales its that simple…we dont wanna be intolerant we just dont want u to believe in fairy tales…do u believe that jack climbed the bean stalk or that the pied piper lead the snakes out of the town…actually that one is kind of believable only because there are real snake charmers….but do u believe in peter pan or Sasquatch, or the locness monster, or the Bermuda triangle or aliens visitor, or talking dogs…what is out of ur belief system none of these are logical except for alien visitors…. but all cold be believed…that is the flaw wit religious beliefs they can never be disproved or approved because they dont exist only time will tell and  kill off any ill-logical theories….most other religions believe the other religions or beliefs are wrong…. most Christians and everybody else believe that Scientologist are wrong but they are the only ones thats fairy tale is even amusing.. the whole point to religion is not to be tolerant…other wise u would just have people up there talking about how awesome everything is and how everything is allowed and how everybody is invited into heaven no matter what peace love and happiness to everything..Religion is the tool of the intolerant just fighting fire with fire is all…..

    • swan

      atheism sprang about to challenge these losers who believe in fairy tales its that simple…we dont wanna be intolerant we just dont want u to believe in fairy tales…do u believe that jack climbed the bean stalk or that the pied piper lead the snakes out of the town…actually that one is kind of believable only because there are real snake charmers….but do u believe in peter pan or Sasquatch, or the locness monster, or the Bermuda triangle or aliens visitor, or talking dogs…what is out of ur belief system none of these are logical except for alien visitors…. but all cold be believed…that is the flaw wit religious beliefs they can never be disproved or approved because they dont exist only time will tell and  kill off any ill-logical theories….most other religions believe the other religions or beliefs are wrong…. most Christians and everybody else believe that Scientologist are wrong but they are the only ones thats fairy tale is even amusing.. the whole point to religion is not to be tolerant…other wise u would just have people up there talking about how awesome everything is and how everything is allowed and how everybody is invited into heaven no matter what peace love and happiness to everything..Religion is the tool of the intolerant just fighting fire with fire is all…..

      • Lew

        Why do you care what other people think? This is the kind of thinking that brought about the Crusades and all the other instances of religious violence that aethiests love to bring up so often.

        • swan

          if people never believed in religion there would be no crusades to speak of people would not have died for their beliefs so when u say y do i care look at history and then say something…i care about humanity in general everybody that doesnt kill urself we dont need u….i want people to come back to reality….it scares me that people are to blind, or delusional to see the truth…

          • Anonymous

            Basically, you’re just as stupid as them for trying to force your beliefs on anyone. That’s the point. No one is blind or delusional, because everyone is just speculating. Instead of not buying it, you’ve jumped on the atheism bandwagon to race all the other bandwagons. No one wins.

            You take for granted that you’re right and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong. This makes you a bigot and consequently, just as blind as you claim the theistic are. Militant atheism is just as intolerant, which begets further intolerance. Be the change you want to see, and by that I don’t mean just “DURR GOD DOESNT REAL” I mean try not to shove your shit down peoples throats and fight about the irrelevant. Just live.

          • Swan

            Basically swan is just stupid, look at all his posts. I believe swan has not yet mentally developed.

          • Inquartata

            What an ignorant comment. You will excuse me if I cannot address every last fallacy in your post since there are too many. Please feel free to repost any of them if you feel like I am intentionally ignoring one, because I assure you I am not.

            >everyone is just speculating

            Yes. The only difference is, one side is speculating with facts to support their reasoning. The other side seem to be high on shrooms or something. Their claims go more or less “You just have to have faith” or “God did it”.

            >You take for granted that you’re right and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong

            If one uses logic, reason and facts to support ones claims, then this is PERFECTLY valid. Lets say I state that China, not Japan, attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. You can show me photographs of downed Japanese planes with the imperial sun painted on them, signed statements from witnesses and other historical proof, yet according to your post, you are a “blind bigot” simply because I refuse to even listen to you or change my position???

            BULL. SHIT.

            >Militant atheism is just as intolerant, which begets further intolerance.

            Hah! Militant atheists have public discussions. Militant fundamentalists fly planes into buildings and blow up government buildings…riiiight….they are the same. You are right about intolerance begetting more intolerance however. When it comes to people spouting off uninformed opinions like you, I am intolerant. I am also intolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia and child-abuse, among many things. These things should NOT be TOLERATED!

            >try not to shove your shit down peoples throats and fight about the irrelevant. Just live

            Atheists don’t kill in the name of…nothing. Religious people kill in the name of their god. The “SHIT” you mentions is the product of religion. Religion enables insanity to be accepted. Religious fundamentalists who want others to forcibly follow THEIR rules is why atheism is one the rise. If religious fundamentalists wouldn’t hurt others, there would be no need for “evangelical” atheism.

          • Inquartata

            What an ignorant comment. You will excuse me if I cannot address every last fallacy in your post since there are too many. Please feel free to repost any of them if you feel like I am intentionally ignoring one, because I assure you I am not.

            >everyone is just speculating

            Yes. The only difference is, one side is speculating with facts to support their reasoning. The other side seem to be high on shrooms or something. Their claims go more or less “You just have to have faith” or “God did it”.

            >You take for granted that you’re right and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong

            If one uses logic, reason and facts to support ones claims, then this is PERFECTLY valid. Lets say I state that China, not Japan, attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. You can show me photographs of downed Japanese planes with the imperial sun painted on them, signed statements from witnesses and other historical proof, yet according to your post, you are a “blind bigot” simply because I refuse to even listen to you or change my position???

            BULL. SHIT.

            >Militant atheism is just as intolerant, which begets further intolerance.

            Hah! Militant atheists have public discussions. Militant fundamentalists fly planes into buildings and blow up government buildings…riiiight….they are the same. You are right about intolerance begetting more intolerance however. When it comes to people spouting off uninformed opinions like you, I am intolerant. I am also intolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia and child-abuse, among many things. These things should NOT be TOLERATED!

            >try not to shove your shit down peoples throats and fight about the irrelevant. Just live

            Atheists don’t kill in the name of…nothing. Religious people kill in the name of their god. The “SHIT” you mentions is the product of religion. Religion enables insanity to be accepted. Religious fundamentalists who want others to forcibly follow THEIR rules is why atheism is one the rise. If religious fundamentalists wouldn’t hurt others, there would be no need for “evangelical” atheism.

          • Swan

            What, seriously! You need to go back to history class.

  • Dead Pixel

    He tries to put Atheism as ‘dark light’. Tell you what, ‘dark light’ does not exist. Darkness is mere the absence of light and not an entity itself.

    Our brains are putting light upon the dark through discovery, inventing and THINKING. God never brought the light, and never will, because it are Ancient Stories made by people thousands of years ago.

    It’s that simple people. It is not a religion, it is the absence of a religion.

    • Nptrtgms20

      Dead Pixel if you have some theory which is believable about how light came to be, the world began, life began, you began I would be happy to hear it.

  • Ed Moore

    Anyone can believe what he/she decides to believe in and guide his/her life with their own dogmas as long as those beliefs/dogmas do not hurt another human being in any level. Stop trying to convince people of YOUR beliefs. Why can’t we let it be that way?

    • swan

      because people in the world are oppressed because of these religious beliefs…it is wrong absolutely wrong..u die its over…actually do something while ur here instead of believing these outlandish out of pocket beliefs…people actually think there is a god and that i transcend at death and go to some alternate dimension called heaven or hell……sounds a lot like Scientology or mythology when its described like that…but people never describe heaven as a planet it has to be some rip in time and space where some dude is just chillen watching everything with ur dead relatives and others…..seriously?? u cant believe in this bullshit if u want me to call u an intelligence, critically thinking human being…i believed at one point only because its thrown in ur face usually but im here to let u know it is okay to step out of the imaginary box and join the rest of the human atheist race….honestly i dont feel safe knowing that there our people in the world that believe in fairy tales as real life and would be willing to end someone else life or life in general because they believe that there is someother place that this spirit will be free….religion is alot more serious than u may think or ignore…

      • Swan

        You are so right swan, I once believed in Pixies and murdered a group of Mormons cos the Pixies hate Mormons. Don’t tell the police please.

      • Swan

        You are so right swan, I once believed in Pixies and murdered a group of Mormons cos the Pixies hate Mormons. Don’t tell the police please.

      • Swan

        You are so right swan, I once believed in Pixies and murdered a group of Mormons cos the Pixies hate Mormons. Don’t tell the police please.

      • Swan

        You are so right swan, I once believed in Pixies and murdered a group of Mormons cos the Pixies hate Mormons. Don’t tell the police please.

      • Swan

        You are so right swan, I once believed in Pixies and murdered a group of Mormons cos the Pixies hate Mormons. Don’t tell the police please.

  • Ed Moore

    Anyone can believe what he/she decides to believe in and guide his/her life with their own dogmas as long as those beliefs/dogmas do not hurt another human being in any level. Stop trying to convince people of YOUR beliefs. Why can’t we let it be that way?

  • Just Gold

     Turned off half way through,what a one sided view of atheism,and what has this guy got against Darwin and science for that matter.really makes me cringe when the religious try to take apart reason and logic when the book they base thier lives around is just that a manmade book,how dare they challenge science,then the bit about dawin and the nazis being linked was just plain laughable ,is the presenter employed by the sun or daily sport,well who ever he wors for lets just say he rhymes with anker.sorry but i am fuming!!!!!!!!!

  • Just Gold

     Turned off half way through,what a one sided view of atheism,and what has this guy got against Darwin and science for that matter.really makes me cringe when the religious try to take apart reason and logic when the book they base thier lives around is just that a manmade book,how dare they challenge science,then the bit about dawin and the nazis being linked was just plain laughable ,is the presenter employed by the sun or daily sport,well who ever he wors for lets just say he rhymes with anker.sorry but i am fuming!!!!!!!!!

    • swan

      same i hate when logic and common sense are thrown out the window…shame we have so many that are idolize in this stuff from birth and don’t have the human capacity to challenge radical beliefs with real logic and purpose other than spreading someone elses preconceived ill-logical fairy tales… i dont feel safe knowing that there are these pods as i call them walking around they are more like zombies than humans… they spend there whole life trying to impress something that is not there if that’s not insanity i dont know what is…if it is not i may have to change my view on the whole world..there are real problems in the world tat are brushed aside because peole feel thatt this superbeing has a hand in it…pure madness

    • swan

      same i hate when logic and common sense are thrown out the window…shame we have so many that are idolize in this stuff from birth and don’t have the human capacity to challenge radical beliefs with real logic and purpose other than spreading someone elses preconceived ill-logical fairy tales… i dont feel safe knowing that there are these pods as i call them walking around they are more like zombies than humans… they spend there whole life trying to impress something that is not there if that’s not insanity i dont know what is…if it is not i may have to change my view on the whole world..there are real problems in the world tat are brushed aside because peole feel thatt this superbeing has a hand in it…pure madness

      • Deep Thought

        Careful, folks, your fundamentalism is showing. If your God is named “logic and common sense”, that’s fine, but let’s not pretend that you’re being any less one-sided that you claim others are being for calling their God by a different name. The real “pods” are those incapable of accepting that different people see the world differently. Religion is not dangerous. Intolerance is.

        • swan

          i have no god…there is no god …common sense and logic are things like me, and you, and energy, and the word energy…..religion is intolerance everything is wrong except it…always….if u cant see from history class and from the way the world is today that religion is the root of all evil..u are as brainwashed as i thought…until we understand who we truly are and not some immortal being that lives on thru death we will always be behind as human beings…u die thats it… at most u can say u join the world at that point not live on in some heaven or hell….u join everything that lived before u and after u because until the end of time everything will die unless scientific break thru happens…not godly break thru ever

          • Swan

            Religon the root of all evil? Really? You sure about that swan. Money, power, sex, greed blah blah!

          • Swan

            Religon the root of all evil? Really? You sure about that swan. Money, power, sex, greed blah blah!

          • Swan

            Religon the root of all evil? Really? You sure about that swan. Money, power, sex, greed blah blah!

        • swan

          also the pod in the sense is a person a human being who was been brainwashed into thinking irrationally out of desperate need of a sense of being u dont feel comfortable in reality and the thought of ur mortality that u created some imaginary being that has super powers and all knowing(just everything humans are not) and to not be just mortal anymore he then will let u come to his heaven and live with him forever….humans walk around everyday believing that there is some force moving then to do this and that…not ever truly being a human being in reality with ones self and only ones self…believing is equal to insanity..

          INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE WORLD EVEYONE SITS BACK AND WAITS FOR NOTHING
          THIS IS WHAT A POD IS

        • swan

          also the pod in the sense is a person a human being who was been brainwashed into thinking irrationally out of desperate need of a sense of being u dont feel comfortable in reality and the thought of ur mortality that u created some imaginary being that has super powers and all knowing(just everything humans are not) and to not be just mortal anymore he then will let u come to his heaven and live with him forever….humans walk around everyday believing that there is some force moving then to do this and that…not ever truly being a human being in reality with ones self and only ones self…believing is equal to insanity..

          INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE WORLD EVEYONE SITS BACK AND WAITS FOR NOTHING
          THIS IS WHAT A POD IS

        • swan

          also the pod in the sense is a person a human being who was been brainwashed into thinking irrationally out of desperate need of a sense of being u dont feel comfortable in reality and the thought of ur mortality that u created some imaginary being that has super powers and all knowing(just everything humans are not) and to not be just mortal anymore he then will let u come to his heaven and live with him forever….humans walk around everyday believing that there is some force moving then to do this and that…not ever truly being a human being in reality with ones self and only ones self…believing is equal to insanity..

          INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE WORLD EVEYONE SITS BACK AND WAITS FOR NOTHING
          THIS IS WHAT A POD IS

          • Swan

            Shit man we need to get rid of there pods, or as I call them ipods! Sony walkmans, are they like pods as well? So apart from posting on this forum what are YOU doing?

          • Swan

            Shit man we need to get rid of there pods, or as I call them ipods! Sony walkmans, are they like pods as well? So apart from posting on this forum what are YOU doing?

        • Djb3500

          Nonsense.  Having an opinion, even a strongly held one, does not make you a fundamentalist or a zealot.  Believing you have the right to kill other people’s children because your book of creation myths says you can, does.  (Book of Numbers, Ch 31, Moses orders systematic Genocide & the deaths and mass rape of children.)  The main difference between a Theist and and Atheist is that Atheists believe what they do because of the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, not despite it.  Present an Atheist with good proof of God and if he will believe you.  Try the same with a large number of the World’s religious and they will try to stone you to death. 

        • Djb3500

          Nonsense.  Having an opinion, even a strongly held one, does not make you a fundamentalist or a zealot.  Believing you have the right to kill other people’s children because your book of creation myths says you can, does.  (Book of Numbers, Ch 31, Moses orders systematic Genocide & the deaths and mass rape of children.)  The main difference between a Theist and and Atheist is that Atheists believe what they do because of the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, not despite it.  Present an Atheist with good proof of God and if he will believe you.  Try the same with a large number of the World’s religious and they will try to stone you to death. 

          • Nptrtgms20

            Christianity does not follow ‘Mosaic  Law’….No Christian is going to stone anyone who does not agree with them but many religions like Islam/Catholicism just might.

            Atheists/agnostics promote their beliefs regardless of the material evidence in the order, complexity and design of our cosmos.  It is impossible all this happened by chance; there is and was an intelligence behind the cosmos and despite that evident conclusion the gnostic/atheist chooses to remain blind.

        • Humanzee

          In theory, both of your last two statements could be taken as being true. However, the sad fact of the matter is that religion & intolerance are locked in an eternal embrace of hatred and death without the slightest implication of ever morphing into anything less brutal, lethal, or, most ironically, forgiving.

          Praise God!!
          Lettuce prey,
          Ahhhhhhhhhhhhmen!

        • alyssa eddinger

          look up the paradox of tolerance.

        • alyssa eddinger

          look up the paradox of tolerance.

        • alyssa eddinger

          look up the paradox of tolerance.

      • Swan

        Are they like er…you know ipods? Cos I see them everywhere, next time I see one  I will tell them to wise the fuck up and find some logic and common sense.

    • Deep Thought

      This documentary is far from one-sided; Liddle’s argument is not to dismiss atheism, but to highlight the dogmatism that is just as endemic to atheism as to any other religious perspective (atheism, let’s remember, by taking a position with regard to metaphysics, is a religious perspective). The links between Darwinism and Nazism are common knowledge among historians (you’ve never heard of Social Darwinism?). Your rage against what is in fact a very even-handed presentation seems to me support Liddle’s point. Why do you feel such blind loyalty towards Darwinism?

    • Deep Thought

      This documentary is far from one-sided; Liddle’s argument is not to dismiss atheism, but to highlight the dogmatism that is just as endemic to atheism as to any other religious perspective (atheism, let’s remember, by taking a position with regard to metaphysics, is a religious perspective). The links between Darwinism and Nazism are common knowledge among historians (you’ve never heard of Social Darwinism?). Your rage against what is in fact a very even-handed presentation seems to me support Liddle’s point. Why do you feel such blind loyalty towards Darwinism?

      • swan

        athiesm is only a thought into creation because religion was thought into creation…without the belief in god and religion athiesm is just life

        • Anonymous

          Not really. Humans have always had a natural inclination to find their origin, which is stressful because it is impossible to know without a doubt what it actually is.

          You condemn the religious the same way they condemn you as being a heathen or “unsaved”, just saying. You’d go so far as to call a majority of the population “insane”? Majority dictates sanity as I’m sure you know. And unless you conduct your own studies and theorize about the beginning of the universe yourself, you’re being led in the same way as the theistic, you just follow a different doctrine than them.

          Also, you should start writing properly because it makes your shit easier to read and take seriously.

          • LOL

            My god are you brainwashed. Let me guess, grew up surrounded by religion?

        • Anonymous

          Not really. Humans have always had a natural inclination to find their origin, which is stressful because it is impossible to know without a doubt what it actually is.

          You condemn the religious the same way they condemn you as being a heathen or “unsaved”, just saying. You’d go so far as to call a majority of the population “insane”? Majority dictates sanity as I’m sure you know. And unless you conduct your own studies and theorize about the beginning of the universe yourself, you’re being led in the same way as the theistic, you just follow a different doctrine than them.

          Also, you should start writing properly because it makes your shit easier to read and take seriously.

  • Sissum71

    When you die,you /we will find out what the truth is….until then its all just blah,blah.We are all going to find out eventually.I choose to believe what I believe and no person will convince me otherwise. 

  • Sissum71

    You can not prove that God exist…you can not prove God does not exist. I like when he asked what happened before the big bang….you could tell it killed that guy to say basically “I do not know.”  what about the species that are deformed. The deformity pops out of nowhere then evolves….but if Darwinism is absolute how does it explain sudden appearance of deformity in a species? It only evolves after it suddenly appears. It is an interesting question. Neither side can provide absolute proof.That is a fact. 

    • The Legend

      I think you really need to learn a lot more about Evolution by Natural Selection, and then you’ll have a better idea about deformities. Please don’t tell us that you believe Darwin posited that we were descended from apes, and that Evolution cannot tell us how life began …. that would make me cry!

    • swan

      how many elephant man cases have been found, or to the number of deformed cases how many are not deformed…this is natures only job to regulate not to be perfect..science isnt perfect but it is the most right…nothing is perfect or does the world not show u that… do u ever stop to think that the world is vastly different from when it was formed and when we were formed in it…all the pollution and toxic waste dumped into the waters and on the land of our planet… all the toxic fumes kicked out from are cars and boats and planes and nuclear test sites and nuclear reactor meltdowns, and disease, and processed foods, what are really in those foods do u know i don’t…. i can keep on going on about how we have hindered are planet and ourselves… also if nature shows u anything it does not give a fuck about u so shit sometimes happens naturally….did u know u might have a recessed gene that could now be very dangerous to u if it was active…who knows what nature is doing but all i do know is that it is not god or any gods for that matter……also the only life that seems to be showing evolution now are humans/ mammals and marine life

    • swan

      how many elephant man cases have been found, or to the number of deformed cases how many are not deformed…this is natures only job to regulate not to be perfect..science isnt perfect but it is the most right…nothing is perfect or does the world not show u that… do u ever stop to think that the world is vastly different from when it was formed and when we were formed in it…all the pollution and toxic waste dumped into the waters and on the land of our planet… all the toxic fumes kicked out from are cars and boats and planes and nuclear test sites and nuclear reactor meltdowns, and disease, and processed foods, what are really in those foods do u know i don’t…. i can keep on going on about how we have hindered are planet and ourselves… also if nature shows u anything it does not give a fuck about u so shit sometimes happens naturally….did u know u might have a recessed gene that could now be very dangerous to u if it was active…who knows what nature is doing but all i do know is that it is not god or any gods for that matter……also the only life that seems to be showing evolution now are humans/ mammals and marine life

    • swan

      how many elephant man cases have been found, or to the number of deformed cases how many are not deformed…this is natures only job to regulate not to be perfect..science isnt perfect but it is the most right…nothing is perfect or does the world not show u that… do u ever stop to think that the world is vastly different from when it was formed and when we were formed in it…all the pollution and toxic waste dumped into the waters and on the land of our planet… all the toxic fumes kicked out from are cars and boats and planes and nuclear test sites and nuclear reactor meltdowns, and disease, and processed foods, what are really in those foods do u know i don’t…. i can keep on going on about how we have hindered are planet and ourselves… also if nature shows u anything it does not give a fuck about u so shit sometimes happens naturally….did u know u might have a recessed gene that could now be very dangerous to u if it was active…who knows what nature is doing but all i do know is that it is not god or any gods for that matter……also the only life that seems to be showing evolution now are humans/ mammals and marine life

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Bell/100000537925244 Michael Bell

     I made it to 20:00, I’m going to go watch “The Perfect Vagina” now.

    • Michael Bellend

      Bullshit comment used just to get a link to his Facebook page.

      • Tyler

        oh noes.

    • Clix (ክሊክስ)

      Don’t bullshit us, ‘The Perfect Vagina’ is the entire reason you’re here.

      • Islakay

        The Perfect Vagina was actually a qual documentary. I suggest you go there. 

        • Clix (ክሊክስ)

          I did…couldn’t get past the sheer stupidity of it.

        • Clix (ክሊክስ)

          I did…couldn’t get past the sheer stupidity of it.

          • Bob

            don’t bother watching The Perfect Vagina because its just an hour long still shot of a pocket pussy.

          • Geust

            Bob rocks!!!

          • Dan the Man

            The movie I’d like to see is the Problem with the Perfect Atheist’s Vagina. It’s all about intelligent design vs. Darwinism in the formation of a woman’s privates.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/2C5TKEKLCM5QP52UNJE2KHZ4HU jeff ferris

            Funny stuff…you should take it on the road, or write for someone who is

          • Bob

            don’t bother watching The Perfect Vagina because its just an hour long still shot of a pocket pussy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1299383203 Paul Rohe

            lmao

      • Fghjm

        your a troll get of the www

        • Bountyqpqp

          Yeah, get of the www, wtf? You mean get off and who uses www, what are you….80?

          • funkyboonutz

            loling hard on the www!

    • billybatarded

      aCTUALLY ???? NO BUT NOW THAT I SEE IT IS IT WORTH A WATCH?

    • Paparrty

       I made it to 02:00 was very hard…

    • rain

      I like both!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Bell/100000537925244 Michael Bell

     I made it to 20:00, I’m going to go watch “The Perfect Vagina” now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aneurinsanders Aneurin Sanders

    i believe   this documentary was created bye a intelligent designer called Rod Liddle end of

  • Jay

    “There may be a god. There may not be a god…. why can’t we leave it at that?” Did he really end on that line? That is the weakest point of view I’ve ever heard. For all the crimes that religion is responsible for and may be responsible for in the future? That’s like a murderer standing trial and his lawyer standing up in court to say “my client may have murdered that family, he might not have though…. why can’t we leave it at that?” The reason we cannot leave it at that is because science and religion are not small little matters that are just going to go away. One will eventually be proven correct on this point beyond any reasonable doubt.

    • Swan

      Shit do I need to give you an answer one way or the other. Will the world end otherwise, never thought it was that serious.

  • austin

                First off I consider myself an agnostic, a-religionist. By that I mean I don’t deny the existance of god but all the same reject religion. Now I understand religion is a broad term and I will tell you which ones in particular I don’t like.
                                       They are as follow: 
                                                                   -any religion that makes you wear a hat, the end

         Most religion is misleading and can be very dangerous especially if you were drafted into the crusades or something. Historically religion is responsible for so many deaths you begin to laugh when you hear “though shall not kill”. I am also not a fan of the religion of santa claus what the hell is that, why do we feel the need to teach kids all this bs. I think as a culture we are poisoned with bs and  religion is truly the ultimate form of bs. I mean most religions are based on some secret meeting with god someone had when do these religion starting visions ever happen in an ampitheater? It gets really ridiculous like the mormon leader pulled his religion out of a hat.

            So in sum up I don’t deny the existence of some sort of god whatsoever but will try my hardest to oppose the bs of religion and the world in general. In the words of the late George Carlin the key to a really great religion is hats optional.
                                  

    • Anonymous

      Just FYI:

      Gnostic = knowledge, so agnostic means “without knowledge”

      The only people who are actually agnostic regarding religion are the people who answer “What are you talking about?” when asked “Do you believe in god?”

      It is a position of ignorance.  I am agnostic about delivering a baby because I know nothing about it whatsoever.  Agnosticism is an often misunderstood position.

      • Bradders

        You may be right about agnosticism often being misunderstood, there are few variations but I consider myself agnostic not because I am “without knowledge” but because i am without “the complete” knowledge, not sure what varition that comes under but it seems true to the basic definition, Oxford would probably put it down as a”weak agnostic’s” view. So seeing as EVERYONE is “without the complete knowledge” we could all potentially be “weak agnostic’s”(I know, they ensured its popularity with such a flattering name) and it is far from being a position of ignorance as everything is still open for study, we can only move closer to “complete knowledge”, although i believe the day we get there if we ever do is the day the human brain becomes redundent, so cant we just enjoy investigating every possible avenue.

        I’m not totally convinced by your anology too, you know a few things about delivering a baby, where its gonna be coming out of for one, if ever your stranded alone with pregnant woman whose gone into labour I’m sure your get along just fine, even a caveman can do it.lol

      • Bradders

        You may be right about agnosticism often being misunderstood, there are few variations but I consider myself agnostic not because I am “without knowledge” but because i am without “the complete” knowledge, not sure what varition that comes under but it seems true to the basic definition, Oxford would probably put it down as a”weak agnostic’s” view. So seeing as EVERYONE is “without the complete knowledge” we could all potentially be “weak agnostic’s”(I know, they ensured its popularity with such a flattering name) and it is far from being a position of ignorance as everything is still open for study, we can only move closer to “complete knowledge”, although i believe the day we get there if we ever do is the day the human brain becomes redundent, so cant we just enjoy investigating every possible avenue.

        I’m not totally convinced by your anology too, you know a few things about delivering a baby, where its gonna be coming out of for one, if ever your stranded alone with pregnant woman whose gone into labour I’m sure your get along just fine, even a caveman can do it.lol

      • Anonymous

        Yes, “agnostic” literally means without knowledge but in this context it refers to ignorance as to whether or not God(s) exist, as it usually does in reference to religious stances or lack thereof.

        It doesn’t refer to ignorance of the concept of god, religion, etc.

        Just FYI, of course, because you seem like one of those people who commonly misunderstand the position.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, “agnostic” literally means without knowledge but in this context it refers to ignorance as to whether or not God(s) exist, as it usually does in reference to religious stances or lack thereof.

        It doesn’t refer to ignorance of the concept of god, religion, etc.

        Just FYI, of course, because you seem like one of those people who commonly misunderstand the position.

      • Nptrtgms20

        I do not know how to deliver a baby but having to do it I know I could do it because my God has promised me He will never tempt me above what I am able to bear.  If He put me into a position to deliver a baby He would either give me the ability or the situation would change somehow so the baby would/could be born.  I know this because I have been in unlimited situations where I did not know how to do something or had no answer to a situation and He gave an answer or I came through the situation.  I am not an ‘agnostic’ when it comes to delivering a baby…the use of ‘agnostic’ in that situation is a misuse of the term.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/alvaro.neto Alvaro Neto

      If a mathematician makes a mistake in his mathematical calculations, does that render maths bs?

      • Smack

        no, but it does suggest he needs to re-evaluate his calculations.

      • Smack

        no, but it does suggest he needs to re-evaluate his calculations.

      • Austin

        Last time I checked religion has a hard time with math. I will admit they are pretty good with the calender… well they had to be because they started to realize they weren’t celebrating their holidays on the right days. However they have a real tough time with carbon dating and ice cores. Just how old is the earth and how did Noah fit 2 of every dinosaur on the arc? I honestly don’t understand how your comment is even a reply to my comment. Does 1+1= no hats cause thats all I want clearly stated. Why dont you go back and see how your maths are rendered bs.. first off stop using letters  Normal people use numbers.

        • Nptrtgms20

          Who said Noah had to fit 2 of every dinosaur in the Ark?  If God is God could not He command His creation to perform His will and have a sampling of every species on the Ark?

          Christianity is not about celebrating holidays on the right days….that is religion.   All the ceremony of the Old Testament was done away with and what was left was 2 ordinances…remembering His /Jesus death in communion and baptism which is a public demonstration of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.  No one has to do them to be saved but they are directives to show to the world one is of the ‘church…the called out ones’….meaning we have dual citizenship…we are in the world but not of the world.

          It does not matter to the Christian how old the earth is.  God knows and that is good enough for the Christian.  I was watching a documentary on the Grand Canyon in Arizona and it is said by the world it took millions of years for the Colorado River to create that landmark,  But two years after Mt. St. Helens (in 1980) ? there was another seismic episode which produced a ‘small grand canyon’ in a short time and yet the world disregards that.  Why?

          In 1990 there was discovered a fossil of a dinosaur in Montana which contained  soft blood cells  which supposedly has never been found before. It is said blood cells can only last for a few thousand years which means the dinosaur had to have died within a few thousand years ago.  Why does the world ignore that fact?  

          It constantly amazes me why there seems to be so much evidence for an intelligence behind our cosmos but the unbelieving world just wants to ignore it if it suggests maybe the cosmos was created and designed.

  • Deep Thought

    “What’s wrong with arrogance if you’re right?” This is the statement of a dangerous fundamentalist. This documentary is an excellent expose of the reality that fundamentalism is just as endemic to atheism as to other ideological perspectives. If it offends or outrages you, ask yourself: are you a fundamentalist atheist too?

    • swan

      YES I AM AND I AM PROUD OF IT I WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO BE SKEPTICAL OF THESE BELIEFS I WOULD RATHER STAY NEUTRAL IN THE WHOLE MATTER THAN TO JUST PUT MY FAITH IN SOMTHING…RELIGION IS JUST WRONG AND AS A HUMAN BEING I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BEING WRONG OR AT LEAST NOT JUST JUMP OFF THE FUCKING BRIDGE ON FAITH….RELIGIONS CORE BELIEFS OF FORGIVNESS AND LOVE ARE FINE BUT THE BAD SIDE OF RELIGION IS THAT IT DIVIDES CULTURES AND PEOPLE SO THAT THE THOUGHT OF HAVING A WORLD OF FORGIVNESS AND LOVE AND WORLD PEACE WILL AND CAN  NEVER BE ACHIEVED…ASK YOURSELF THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD AND RELIGION THAN THERE ARE THAT DON’T BY A LARGE PERCENTAGE 90/10 WHY IS THE WORLD SUCH A BAD PLACE…IS THE 10 PERCENT OF THE DEVILS ARMY THAT MUCH STRONGER THAN UR GODS ARMY…… THINK ABOUT IT

    • swan

      YES I AM AND I AM PROUD OF IT I WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO BE SKEPTICAL OF THESE BELIEFS I WOULD RATHER STAY NEUTRAL IN THE WHOLE MATTER THAN TO JUST PUT MY FAITH IN SOMTHING…RELIGION IS JUST WRONG AND AS A HUMAN BEING I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BEING WRONG OR AT LEAST NOT JUST JUMP OFF THE FUCKING BRIDGE ON FAITH….RELIGIONS CORE BELIEFS OF FORGIVNESS AND LOVE ARE FINE BUT THE BAD SIDE OF RELIGION IS THAT IT DIVIDES CULTURES AND PEOPLE SO THAT THE THOUGHT OF HAVING A WORLD OF FORGIVNESS AND LOVE AND WORLD PEACE WILL AND CAN  NEVER BE ACHIEVED…ASK YOURSELF THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD AND RELIGION THAN THERE ARE THAT DON’T BY A LARGE PERCENTAGE 90/10 WHY IS THE WORLD SUCH A BAD PLACE…IS THE 10 PERCENT OF THE DEVILS ARMY THAT MUCH STRONGER THAN UR GODS ARMY…… THINK ABOUT IT

      • Sam Scott

        Please don’t write in caps, it immediately discredits whatever you’re going to say.

        • Swan

          Could you back up your claims of 90/10…where did you get you statistics from? Don’t recall you knocking on my door with a questionairre.Let me see proud, skeptical, neutral, wrong…contradiction maybe! Sam, he doesn’t need caps to discredit his own argument.

          • Sam Scott

            Dude when you want to use alter egos to play devils advocate, it helps if you change your name. Also why the fuck are you giving me shit about 90/100 when that’s what YOU wrote? And more importantly, why am I even validating you with a response?

          • Sam Scott

            Dude when you want to use alter egos to play devils advocate, it helps if you change your name. Also why the fuck are you giving me shit about 90/100 when that’s what YOU wrote? And more importantly, why am I even validating you with a response?

  • swan

    dude said that the guy who changed his name to darwin was a loon from what he was saying c’mon he is no simply stating fact instead of a religious loon stating that god will strike u down for ur disbelief..i have never seen anyone or myself been struck down by god and never will …fact…

    • Swan

      Fact you say…surely we will only know that after you have passed on. Isn’t that science? Loon haha, who uses that word?

  • swan

    we dont need god to be nice or accepting to people preaching love and peace is different but take out the ideology and religion would be fine…no apocalypse, nor creation, nor heaven or hell, or god, just someone being peaceful and accepting of all people because there is no chosen people………. life is something completely different y do u think it looks like we are doing it so totally wrong because we are common sense is no were to be found in this day and it obviously never will…for god and religion to die almost all people will have to say that they are wrong and people hate being wrong so it will never happen…..
    cold logic lol people are pussies u cant handle the truth

    • Swan

      I hate being wrong and never admit to it, does that mean I believe in God! Help me with your enlightenment Swan!

  • swan

    “there may be a god there may not be a god y cant we leave it at that” this is what losers say when they know they are wrong….y cant we leave it at that because u claim to want to know about who and what we are yet u believe this crap instead of actually doing some thinking…believing in god is the easy way out….u cant handle the reality

    • Swan

      You can’t handle the truth! Swan

    • Swan

      You can’t handle the truth! Swan

  • swan

    everyone who believes in god today go and put ur self in a mental hospital u have problems a lot more than atheist or continue to live in ur disillusioned world….

    • Swan

      Ok Swan

    • Swan

      Ok Swan

  • Gavinpatton

    To Just Gold.
    My thoughts on you turning this documentary off are these. Firstly you were just bored because although you like to think of yourself as deeply interested in a wide range of issues, like the LHC you mentioned, but in reality you arn’t. Secondly I ask myself if you turned it off because it was asking questions for which you have no answer. And you boast that you turned it off, that you stuck your head in the sand. The issue of athesism attracts a certain kind of middle class and up, pseudo intelligencia. The type of human who likes to chatter in starbucks etc on issues like athism and Salivor Dhali. I watched this documentary and came upon this forum by chance. And I find you have all massed together . Hello!!!!!!!!

  • Gavinpatton

    To Just Gold.
    My thoughts on you turning this documentary off are these. Firstly you were just bored because although you like to think of yourself as deeply interested in a wide range of issues, like the LHC you mentioned, but in reality you arn’t. Secondly I ask myself if you turned it off because it was asking questions for which you have no answer. And you boast that you turned it off, that you stuck your head in the sand. The issue of athesism attracts a certain kind of middle class and up, pseudo intelligencia. The type of human who likes to chatter in starbucks etc on issues like athism and Salivor Dhali. I watched this documentary and came upon this forum by chance. And I find you have all massed together . Hello!!!!!!!!

    • swan

      wow u really sound like an asshole…the issue of atheism attracts a certain kind of middle class an up, pseudo intelligencia….wow im not middle class or up in fact what middle class y pseuda intelligencia??? wow i claim to be an average human being who would like for other human being to believe that they are human beings…i dont drink starbucks coffee and i’d much rather create like the likes of dali( u spelled it wrong) geez ur on a computer and dont even second check somthing so simple to do, before u just post, and u want to try to insult people on top of that….ur not just the type of person who believes they are holy than others just wost u think ur just plain better than others because u know 2 latin words wow i have to say wow to u mister smart man………………. do yu haf anty other wurds for us guys to learns…fucking idiot ur names GAVIN U MUST BE ASSHOLE WHO WEARS ASHCOTS AND EATS A HEFTY DIET OF VIEGAN DELICACIES

    • swan

      wow u really sound like an asshole…the issue of atheism attracts a certain kind of middle class an up, pseudo intelligencia….wow im not middle class or up in fact what middle class y pseuda intelligencia??? wow i claim to be an average human being who would like for other human being to believe that they are human beings…i dont drink starbucks coffee and i’d much rather create like the likes of dali( u spelled it wrong) geez ur on a computer and dont even second check somthing so simple to do, before u just post, and u want to try to insult people on top of that….ur not just the type of person who believes they are holy than others just wost u think ur just plain better than others because u know 2 latin words wow i have to say wow to u mister smart man………………. do yu haf anty other wurds for us guys to learns…fucking idiot ur names GAVIN U MUST BE ASSHOLE WHO WEARS ASHCOTS AND EATS A HEFTY DIET OF VIEGAN DELICACIES

      • Swan

        The irony is deafening

      • Swan

        The irony is deafening

  • Myrkon

    Dumbest “documentary” I’ve seen for a while. Ron Liddle doesn’t make a case for anything but for his own religious populism and poor choice of words and angle.

  • Myrkon

    Dumbest “documentary” I’ve seen for a while. Ron Liddle doesn’t make a case for anything but for his own religious populism and poor choice of words and angle.

  • Myrkon

    I watched 10 more minutes of it and it just got dumber. I wonder if Liddle realizes that his approach is so completely debunked in the God Delusion (Dawkins) that one cringes to listen to that closed-minded, lying sofab.

  • Playmateen

    Bigger CRAP I’ve ever seen!

  • the truth

    I say this as an atheist……It is true that there are similarity’s between religion and science  ( I mean how many ppl actually understand quantum mechanics, I know i don’t) ….Its true millions of people have died under atheistic regimes in the 20th century….It is true that social Darwinism is really fucked up and scary….most things  said in this documentary are pretymuch true (tho explained in a very bias way) but none of these things make me believe in god at all. All I realy got form this doc is that humans beings really like to right ( about everything) and are sometimes willing to kill others that disagree with them. Witch is clearly not a good thing but its a part of our nature and we got to deal with it. 

    AS for the premise that there is something wrong with atheism….I would accept this if ppl would admit that there is something wrong with religion.  I meen fuck man if it took god to make the universe then were did god come from? If the universe is so complex it could not have just come from nothing then its seem very unlikely that the being that was able to create it came from nothing to..      just sayin

    PS. Darwin is the shit and evolution is the most amazing thing ever

  • the truth

    I say this as an atheist……It is true that there are similarity’s between religion and science  ( I mean how many ppl actually understand quantum mechanics, I know i don’t) ….Its true millions of people have died under atheistic regimes in the 20th century….It is true that social Darwinism is really fucked up and scary….most things  said in this documentary are pretymuch true (tho explained in a very bias way) but none of these things make me believe in god at all. All I realy got form this doc is that humans beings really like to right ( about everything) and are sometimes willing to kill others that disagree with them. Witch is clearly not a good thing but its a part of our nature and we got to deal with it. 

    AS for the premise that there is something wrong with atheism….I would accept this if ppl would admit that there is something wrong with religion.  I meen fuck man if it took god to make the universe then were did god come from? If the universe is so complex it could not have just come from nothing then its seem very unlikely that the being that was able to create it came from nothing to..      just sayin

    PS. Darwin is the shit and evolution is the most amazing thing ever

  • the truth

    I say this as an atheist……It is true that there are similarity’s between religion and science  ( I mean how many ppl actually understand quantum mechanics, I know i don’t) ….Its true millions of people have died under atheistic regimes in the 20th century….It is true that social Darwinism is really fucked up and scary….most things  said in this documentary are pretymuch true (tho explained in a very bias way) but none of these things make me believe in god at all. All I realy got form this doc is that humans beings really like to right ( about everything) and are sometimes willing to kill others that disagree with them. Witch is clearly not a good thing but its a part of our nature and we got to deal with it. 

    AS for the premise that there is something wrong with atheism….I would accept this if ppl would admit that there is something wrong with religion.  I meen fuck man if it took god to make the universe then were did god come from? If the universe is so complex it could not have just come from nothing then its seem very unlikely that the being that was able to create it came from nothing to..      just sayin

    PS. Darwin is the shit and evolution is the most amazing thing ever

  • 808

    how many times can one man use the word certitude in 47 minutes? that aside i think liddle does a good job

  • 808

    how many times can one man use the word certitude in 47 minutes? that aside i think liddle does a good job

  • 808

    how many times can one man use the word certitude in 47 minutes? that aside i think liddle does a good job

  • Fail. Just fail.

    Is it arrogant to call religion wrong? Absolutely not when it’s been disproved by science. Yes. It’s been disproved folks. Read the bible, half the shit it says is untrue and logically unsound. Ask and ye shall receive. Go ahead and ask. Ye shall receive naught.

  • Fail. Just fail.

    Is it arrogant to call religion wrong? Absolutely not when it’s been disproved by science. Yes. It’s been disproved folks. Read the bible, half the shit it says is untrue and logically unsound. Ask and ye shall receive. Go ahead and ask. Ye shall receive naught.

  • Steve Z

    A rather silly view of Atheism. 

  • Steve Z

    A rather silly view of Atheism. 

  • Steve Z

    A rather silly view of Atheism. 

  • Bradders

    Why do some people get angry when they come across an opinion that does not agree with their own. Do they honestly think that what they believe is the finished article, the ultimate belief that cannot be challenged, because by resorting to putdowns and name calling it would suggest that they think they are superior.
     
    So they think they are superior……. then why get angry? what is that going to acheive? certainly not change the opinion of the person they are putting down, it is harder to change a persons mind while being hostile to their current beliefs, if they truely believe they are superior in their way of thinking they are going to have to rise above any name calling or putdowns and try to make some valid points that are designed to atleast make the person being put down consider their way of thinking. It amazes me that these people want to live in a democratic society while at the same time be intolerant to any other beliefs. Democracy is nothing but a token gesture if we do not have respect for one another, just because we have freedom of speech does not make it ok to abuse others. The western world wants to bring democracy to the rest of the world but we ourselfs haven’t got it right yet. If we are saying our way is the best we have to make sure it IS the best, we have to be the ones who rise above our differences and be tolerant toward others. This is why i think agnosism is a healthier disposition to have in a democratic society.

    If i am being brutally honest I too find it hard to contemplate there being an almighty god or an intelligent designer but i get around that by taking a more scientific approach by saying the probability of there being such a being with the current information is something like 0.00000000001%, but always leaving room for any advancements in any studies or theories that might change my opinion.

  • Bradders

    Why do some people get angry when they come across an opinion that does not agree with their own. Do they honestly think that what they believe is the finished article, the ultimate belief that cannot be challenged, because by resorting to putdowns and name calling it would suggest that they think they are superior.
     
    So they think they are superior……. then why get angry? what is that going to acheive? certainly not change the opinion of the person they are putting down, it is harder to change a persons mind while being hostile to their current beliefs, if they truely believe they are superior in their way of thinking they are going to have to rise above any name calling or putdowns and try to make some valid points that are designed to atleast make the person being put down consider their way of thinking. It amazes me that these people want to live in a democratic society while at the same time be intolerant to any other beliefs. Democracy is nothing but a token gesture if we do not have respect for one another, just because we have freedom of speech does not make it ok to abuse others. The western world wants to bring democracy to the rest of the world but we ourselfs haven’t got it right yet. If we are saying our way is the best we have to make sure it IS the best, we have to be the ones who rise above our differences and be tolerant toward others. This is why i think agnosism is a healthier disposition to have in a democratic society.

    If i am being brutally honest I too find it hard to contemplate there being an almighty god or an intelligent designer but i get around that by taking a more scientific approach by saying the probability of there being such a being with the current information is something like 0.00000000001%, but always leaving room for any advancements in any studies or theories that might change my opinion.

    • Gold

      Bradders, 
      of course you are right. Rudeness, name-calling etc. is never going to get you far in any debate.
      I also agree that one has to be respectful to the opinion of others. But when the others opinion is just downright (having a hard time finding a word that is not disrespectful – silly perhaps) then how can you be truly respectful? I mean for example – is one truly respectful to a child´s belief or is a child´s childish belief simply dismissed with a smile for what it is – an innocent fantasy and nothing more?Would anybody seriously argue the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy with a grown man?

      • Bradders

        thank you for your response but there is one major flaw in your logic and that is a child is not born with a belief in santa clause or the tooth fairy it is because someone they trusted or someone with a certain authority has told them mistruth’s, now having said that are adults really that different to chidren?

    • Nptrtgms20

      It takes a greater leap of faith to not believe in God than to believe in Him.  The only thing man has shown in thousands of years of history is he continues to make the same mistakes.  Man can create great inventions but man cannot control his behaviour…he is still a liar, a thief, an adulterer, a blasphemer, a coward, a bully and thinks if he is just powerful enough or rich enough he can avoid having to live by the rules like everyone else.  That trully is foolish and shows how deceived man is.  

  • anonymous

    atheism is a useless, weak morality for adolescents. atheism isn’t a doctrine and it isn’t a “religion,” it’s just a negative statement. it’s the same morality as christianity and liberal modernity but without the “rational” complication of god. after accepting this (obviously, painfully true) premise and shoving it in everyone’s face, atheism spawns in the atheist a will towards CONVERSION, a true hallmark of dogmatic thinking. once you adopt the trappings of the atheist, it seemingly becomes your responsibility to ‘enlighten’ the uninitiated, the believers. religion has been around for the entirety of human existence, and it’s frustratingly naive and self-aggrandizing to think any “humanist” post-modern bullshit is gonna replace it.

    • CrackedPepper86

      You throw a large blanket generalization on atheists the same way as SOME atheists do to religious zealots. They’re not all the same, stop sounding like a bigot.

    • Queen of the Shadylands

      I think that’s a little harsh. As an athiest I feel it’s just one part of my life, a part that does not come up very often unless in discussions such as this, which I enjoy and move on from. None of my athiest friends shove it anyones face but then neither do any of my Christain, Muslim or Hindu friends either.

      It is not a doctrine and yet even without the apparently rational complication of any gods/goddesses/spirits/buddhas I have pretty good values (if I do say so myself) that seem pretty much the same as my Christian freinds and some of my muslim friends (not all). It’s not about replaceing (although I do like to win arguements and one of my friends close encounter with a cultish group got me worried and got me attempting to talk her away from it), it’s about only worrying about what people belive if it endangers people or brakes laws and that is not limited to religion.

    • Queen of the Shadylands

      I think that’s a little harsh. As an athiest I feel it’s just one part of my life, a part that does not come up very often unless in discussions such as this, which I enjoy and move on from. None of my athiest friends shove it anyones face but then neither do any of my Christain, Muslim or Hindu friends either.

      It is not a doctrine and yet even without the apparently rational complication of any gods/goddesses/spirits/buddhas I have pretty good values (if I do say so myself) that seem pretty much the same as my Christian freinds and some of my muslim friends (not all). It’s not about replaceing (although I do like to win arguements and one of my friends close encounter with a cultish group got me worried and got me attempting to talk her away from it), it’s about only worrying about what people belive if it endangers people or brakes laws and that is not limited to religion.

    • Nptrtgms20

      Christianity is anything but useless, or weak moraltiy.  In this wicked, lost world it is the only thing which makes sense.

  • Sam Scott

    This documentary tries to say that science is a religion in it’s own right, which honestly has at least a little bit of merit. But none of us really “know” anything, we’re thrown into this world and do our best to understand our surroundings, and what’s going on. It’s like Plato’s cave, we use science because it’s what we know, but there are slews of things of which we are unaware. However, when it comes down to it, science has much more merit than religion does, and missing links are better than no links at all.

    It also tries to say that without religion we would just be a bunch of unscrupulous assholes, to which I actually take offense. Unless you’re a psychopath, you have an intrinsic recognition of right and wrong. Now, this may differ from other people’s morals, but they are morals nontheless.

    And I must say, it’s retarded to assume that it’s one or the other, in regards to evolution and Darwinism. Why the hell can’t they coincide together? Other than some of the blatantly fallacious aspects of religion, (the world only being 5,000 years old, for example) they should be able to work together. An evolutionary plan would make it easier for me to believe there is a plan at all, instead of just living through chaos and being judged in the end.

    Finally, it talks about paradigm shifts, and how Darwins theories will get updated. There’s two points of irony here. The first being that religion has already had that a little bit with the Old Testament. The second is, I don’t think Darwin would be turning in his grave if his views and theories on evolution, evolved.

    • http://www.facebook.com/alvaro.neto Alvaro Neto

      To say that science has more merit than religion is no different to say that maths has more merit than verbal communication. There are all sorts of fallacies with their corresponding Latin technical terms in such analogies.

      • Inquartata

        Your analogy fails since math and verbal communication are not in disagreement, with one field having facts wildy contradicting the other. In fact, religion has no facts supporting it at all, while science has got almost nothing except facts proving or rejecting its theories.

        Instead, a more proper analogy would be that between psychology and astrology.

        Psychology has various theories regarding why we act in certain ways based on such things as genetics, how we were raised, and what our childhood was like. These theories are not 100% accurate but they are refined over time, getting closer and closer to the truth. Related areas such as biology and chemistry support the theories in psychology.

        Astrology says the stars affect who we are. No reason why. “THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS”.

        It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see that one field has more merit than the other. Why so many people fail to make the same comparison with science and religion I fail to understand. I only have childhood indoctrination as an imho reasonable explanation.

      • Inquartata

        Your analogy fails since math and verbal communication are not in disagreement, with one field having facts wildy contradicting the other. In fact, religion has no facts supporting it at all, while science has got almost nothing except facts proving or rejecting its theories.

        Instead, a more proper analogy would be that between psychology and astrology.

        Psychology has various theories regarding why we act in certain ways based on such things as genetics, how we were raised, and what our childhood was like. These theories are not 100% accurate but they are refined over time, getting closer and closer to the truth. Related areas such as biology and chemistry support the theories in psychology.

        Astrology says the stars affect who we are. No reason why. “THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS”.

        It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see that one field has more merit than the other. Why so many people fail to make the same comparison with science and religion I fail to understand. I only have childhood indoctrination as an imho reasonable explanation.

        • Geust

          Inquartata, I’ve never been able to see how psychology is better than astrology.  [Note that this is off-topic.]  I consider astrology to be an advanced form of psychology.

          Astrology has been around for thousands of years, continually refined.  How does it work?  Well, Jung separated a person’s personality into the Id, Ego, and Super ego.  Astrology splits the personality something like 36 parts.  Therefore astrology is more fine-tuned.  Why does it work?  Uhhh, I dunno, it just does, which should be enough for any science-type to look more into it.  An observation doesn’t need a theory to be correct.  That’s a common mistake people often have in their thinking.

          I DO know that on Earth, we have the “sky”, with clouds in it, and beyond that is “outer space”.  The Sun, however is different.  The Sun’s “sky” has a bunch of rocks in it, including the Earth, and this makes the solar system all one system.  For instance, if Mars were hit by a huge asteroid and its orbit was altered a bit, Earth would be disturbed as well.  In a very real sense, everything in the solar system is connected.

          So why would identical twins separated a birth each prefer red cars?  According to geneticists, it’s because there is a gene for preference of red cars!  Science actually *teaches* this!!!

          I personally am not that much into astrology; I just think that most psychology is bunkum.

          I would highly suggest you search your area for a respected astrologer and give it an honest try.  You’ll be impressed; you still won’t know how it works; and you’ll start to see why so many otherwise intelligent people fall for religion (a form of mass psychology?).

          I got into this debate with my psychology teacher in college — almost made him cry!  But I bet you and I would agree on about 99% of everything else.  Make that 85% of the time: Your taste in music sucks.

        • Nptrtgms20

          The Bible has limitless facts supporting it.  And the Bible has scientific facts although not a science book long known before science discovered them.   As for wisdom the Biblical wisdom far exceeds and will always do so because the wisdom of Scripture came from God. 

          • Timgale

             There is NOTHING in the bible validating its supernatural claims whereas it is riddled with hundreds of mistakes and contradictions. The creation and proliferation of language is accounted for by the study of linguistics and not the tower of babel for a start. This is 100% conclusive and demonstrable. The bible even claims that the earth was created before the stars, which is asinine; as if god would have created The Universe with the light from it’s stars already in motion by a billion years or so.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

            Since no one was there we only have to rely on what we can observe or what was recorded and I am satisfied the Bible is true and man is grasping at straws because he does not want to be held accountable for his sin.  

          • Timgale

             In which case why do you reject the records and testimonies of all other religions? The biblical stories such as the flood and the tower of babel have been disproved in their entirety; you believe because you want to. Don’t call it anything else but faith, or an unshakable belief despite the mountain of evidence against.

          • Nptrtgms20

            I don’t believe because I want to; I believe because God has revealed Himself to me and to the world.

            Religion is man-made and all kinds of gods are made because even ignorant savages know there exists a higher power in the world.  But those gods are useless because they are man-made.

            God created the first man and woman and God told them their limits.  When they strayed outside those limits there were consequences and those consequences were revealed to them prior to their straying.

            Mankind today also has been told if they obey God they will be blessed and if they disobey there will be consequences.  But mankind refuses to believe those restrictions apply to them and mankind has been living and dying with the same result over and over.

            God has proven He exists since the beginning of time and when Jesus came into this world it was God’s final sign to mankind how much He loved His creation.  Rejecting Jesus is rejecting God and the consequences will occur.  But man in his ignorance and pride refuses to acknowledge his Creator with the same results.

            Again, I believe because God has revealed Himself to me and has shown me I am a sinner, I have violated His commands, I deserve just punishment which is death but if I repent He will forgive me and restore my relationship with Him.

            God offers the same reconciliation to anyone who dies to self and makes Jesus Christ  Lord of their life.  The consequence of rejecting Jesus is eternity in the Lake of Fire.  Even a child can understand right from wrong and consequences for their decisions.         

          • Timgale

             

            You claim that god has revealed himself to
            you through a personal revelation, but this is unconvincing
            when consider the sum of all other testimonies – that of hundreds of millions
            of Hindus for example – that claim exactly the same thing, but with their revelation
            coming through a mutually exclusive god from yours. Why should I believe you
            over them, or vice-versa? Just as you reject the testimonies of 1 billion Hindus,
            believing them to be credulous, superstitious and susceptible to wishful thinking,
            I reject yours, and those of the 4,500 other active religions in today’s day and age. You all can’t be
            right, but you all can all be wrong. Moreover, you write: “God created the first man and woman and god told them their limits.” But he didn’t. The earth is demonstrably
            NOT 6,000 years old, but instead 4.5 billion years old, and there was no Adam
            and Eve, but instead a Y mitochondrial African Eve and a Y-chromosomal African Adam, living 10,000s of
            years apart and whom all humans have descended from. This is a scientific fact
            confirmed by DNA and is not up for debate. Your god assertion is a vague and
            untestable hypothesis, whereas I have a claim backed up by testable and verifiable
            evidence, making it a fact. Finally, if I had no other reason to reject your unsubstantiated
            supernatural claims, then you final threat of a lake of fire for eternity for
            simply not believing the way you do, despite a lifetime of good deeds, gives me
            pause to consider just how immoral and asinine your uncorroborated beliefs are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

            I am interested in hearing more about these ‘Y’ chromosones so if you can send me some kind of information I can research I would appreciate it.

            I would also be interested in learning from another philosopher or theologian or wise man who spoke more truth than Solomon or Jesus.
            If you can provide their names I will hear what they have to say.

          • bran

            If i remember correctly, The Christians BURNED the Library of Alexandria.

          • Timgale

             

            Although the bible and the teachings of Jesus have some
            good moral guidelines, modern day secular morality, which has been carefully
            thought out, debated and implemented, by far surpasses the sum of the truths found
            in the bible. When Jesus said: Give away all your possessions and follow me, ultimately
            making you a liability to your friends, family and society as a whole, or when
            he failed to say single word against slavery, and instead told all who were
            listening not to beat their slaves too brutally but according to what they
            deserve, or when the bible tells of Jesus painstakingly making a whip to use on
            those merchants selling their wares in the temple, or when he tells
            unbelievers, like me, that they can expect hellfire for simply not believing despite
            a lifetime of good deeds being done without any proverbial stick and carrot
            offer of reward, we can discernibly see the failure of biblical morality and
            common sense. Moreover, all 4 gospels were written decades after the alleged
            events in a faraway land and in a foreign tongue by non-eyewitnesses who had to
            use the error ridden Septuagint, or Greek version of the Torah, to make prophecy
            appear as if it was coming true, and all this at a time when Christianity was
            vying for the hearts and minds on Roman pagans. Additionally, Mark was written
            first, 50 odd years after the alleged death of Jesus, with Mathew, Luke and
            John being written much latter with many of their parts having been lifted in
            their entirety from Mark’s gospel – a bronze-age copy and paste if you like.
            So, we really have no idea what Jesus said or thought in that who can remember
            the best man’s speech at the last wedding they attended despite the fact that:

            (1) Unlike the gospel writers, you were there in
            person,

            (2) It was recent, and not between 50 to 120 years ago,

            (3) The best man spoke the same language as you.

            Unlike the unsubstantiated supernatural claims found
            in the gospels, life is, and has always been, about what is likely, not about
            what is possible. The late and great David Hume wrote: What is more probable,
            that the laws of nature might be suspended or that a Jewish minx might tell a
            lie? 

          • bran

            “man is grasping at straws because he does not want to be held accountable for his sin.  ”
            This is one of the silliest things Believers say.
            IM TRYING TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY FOR GRAVITY CUZ IM SICK OF IT HOLDING ME DOWN. 

            IF ONLY I COULD FIND AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GERM THEORY OF DISEASE CUZ I DUN WANNA GET SICK NO MORE’

      • Inquartata

        Your analogy fails since math and verbal communication are not in disagreement, with one field having facts wildy contradicting the other. In fact, religion has no facts supporting it at all, while science has got almost nothing except facts proving or rejecting its theories.

        Instead, a more proper analogy would be that between psychology and astrology.

        Psychology has various theories regarding why we act in certain ways based on such things as genetics, how we were raised, and what our childhood was like. These theories are not 100% accurate but they are refined over time, getting closer and closer to the truth. Related areas such as biology and chemistry support the theories in psychology.

        Astrology says the stars affect who we are. No reason why. “THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS”.

        It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see that one field has more merit than the other. Why so many people fail to make the same comparison with science and religion I fail to understand. I only have childhood indoctrination as an imho reasonable explanation.

      • Timgale

        Science is demonstrable, testable, peer reviewable, and its results repeatable. Religion is based on faith. Faith is dumb.

        • Nptrtgms20

          timgale…you live on faith on a daily basis so does that make you dumb?

          • Timgale

             No, In life, I have reasonable expectations based on evidence, whereas you have an unshakable belief in a vague and untestable hypothesis, which is ridiculous. I don’t take an umbrella to work because i have faith in the weather forecaster.

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

          timgale   you live on faith on a daily basis.

          • Timgale

             No, when I take an umbrella to work, I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. You have faith in a vague and untestable hypothesis and that is stupid. I have no such thing.

    • Seraph

      That is if you accept that Science automatically equals Atheism.

      Science isn’t a position. It’s neither good or bad, left or right. Quit trying to change a beautiful thing. 

    • Nptrtgms20

      There is no ‘paradigm shift’ in regards to Christianity; the prophecy of Jesus goes back to the first book in the Bible.

  • chan

    i don’t think he is a good reporter at all. he skews and takes what is said completely out of context. and would it hurt him to educate himself before questioning scientific method? i believe its great to question, but at least have solid evidence that you at least understand what you are trying to disprove and or otherwise.

  • chan

    i don’t think he is a good reporter at all. he skews and takes what is said completely out of context. and would it hurt him to educate himself before questioning scientific method? i believe its great to question, but at least have solid evidence that you at least understand what you are trying to disprove and or otherwise.

  • chan

    i don’t think he is a good reporter at all. he skews and takes what is said completely out of context. and would it hurt him to educate himself before questioning scientific method? i believe its great to question, but at least have solid evidence that you at least understand what you are trying to disprove and or otherwise.

  • Julietc59

    There is an assumption is this doco that atheists are zealots.
    I am an atheist who feels no need to defend my position, nor to decry the religious beliefs of others. I imagine most atheists fall into this category.

  • Mitchy

    “‘presented by Rod Liddle” all that is needed to show this isn’t worth watching

  • Mitchy

    “‘presented by Rod Liddle” all that is needed to show this isn’t worth watching

  • Brendan K

    Everyone needs to remember that even those who are religious are Atheists of the more than three million gods, godesses and deities that have existed thoughout history, Atheists just go one god farther. 

    • Matt

      I think you are confused as to what atheism actually means. To understand it, first we must understand the root word, theism. It just means that you believe in a deity, or deities. That is all.  No matter which deity or deities you choose to believe in, if you believe in one or more, you are a theist.  It doesn’t mean you have to believe in all deities.  Therefore, atheism means that you believe in no deities, not just some. It is impossible to be both a theist and an atheist at the same time.   You are using the term in the wrong context.

    • Matt

      I think you are confused as to what atheism actually means. To understand it, first we must understand the root word, theism. It just means that you believe in a deity, or deities. That is all.  No matter which deity or deities you choose to believe in, if you believe in one or more, you are a theist.  It doesn’t mean you have to believe in all deities.  Therefore, atheism means that you believe in no deities, not just some. It is impossible to be both a theist and an atheist at the same time.   You are using the term in the wrong context.

      • Inquartata

        Although this is technically true, the belief people have in some gods and not others can be well illustrated by Brendan K’s reply. If you are atheist in regards to some religions, but not others, then why is that? Why not require the same standards for all religious claims? Why not be atheist?

        • Matt

          Yes, I was being a little picky, just having a little fun.  I completely understood what he was trying to say, I just think he should have chosen a different way to say it.

          However, are you trying to say that people should believe in either all gods or none at all? What is wrong with just believing in one god or a few gods? 
          Even though it is easy to pick out contradictions in many of religion’s claims, would it not further exacerbate the problem by asking people to reconcile different religions that inherently contradict each other? 

          • Inquartata

            Thank you for your well-written and coherent reply. Most unexpected in a place such as this. :)

            I was indeed stating that believing in either all gods or none is the only consistently logical choice. Of course, religion is not based on logic, but still. Since many religions contradict each other to a high degree, as you mention, the only remaining choice is to believe in none of them.

            To phrase it differently, believing in one over the other would require some form of logical reason. Otherwise, one is simply suspending judgment on ones own religion.

          • Sasha76

            Yes, your theory would be correct if all religious choices would be equal. And they’re not. The only real choice is to be Catholic. It is impossible to ignore the arrival of Jesus Christ, Son of God and His messages so Christianity is the only way to go really.

            Furthermore, the Catholic Church was founded by St. Peter, the person chosen by Jesus Himself for this task. Whatever may be the history of Catholic Church, it is stil and always will remain the only organisation ever established by God Himself for the purpose of spreading His message to all the people in the world.

            Even the word Catholic means universal or all-embracing. We all know that “nomen est omen” so why would anyone want his or her religion be named as “protestant” or “orthodox”. Also, the best way for His message to get disolved is to segmentate and destructure the organisation established exactly and only for the purpose of spreading His message. This is the only thing really accomplished by separations of Orthodox, Protestant and other non-Catholic (i.e. non-universal) Christians. Why ever support such a thing?

            I know that this sounds radical and politically incorrect in our world but Jesus Christ true message always is such by secular standards. That stil doesn’t make it less true and everyone is stil free to be wrong and make a mistake of ignoring it if blessed by knowing of it.

          • Chloe Kodrun

            That’s not true. You can’t say that the only choice available is Catholicism, nor is it the only religion established by God. The Koran is considered to be a direct dictation of God’s final message to mankind, as delivered to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel. Basically, Muslims were Christian until they received this final message… so saying that being Catholic is the only choice is completely incorrect. 

            Catholics choose to ignore that Mohammed is the prophet who received God’s message, just like Jews refuse to believe that Jesus is the prophet. Same choice, different outcome.

          • Chloe Kodrun

            That’s not true. You can’t say that the only choice available is Catholicism, nor is it the only religion established by God. The Koran is considered to be a direct dictation of God’s final message to mankind, as delivered to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel. Basically, Muslims were Christian until they received this final message… so saying that being Catholic is the only choice is completely incorrect. 

            Catholics choose to ignore that Mohammed is the prophet who received God’s message, just like Jews refuse to believe that Jesus is the prophet. Same choice, different outcome.

          • Bea

            Actually, Muslims were not Christian until they became Muslim, they would more likely have been Zoroastrian. Zoroastrianism was the largest religion at the time of Christ , the thre wise men were supposed Magi, that is , Zoroastiran priests. In the region now made up of the Middle East, Zoroastrianism was the largest religion at the time of Islams arrival ( the other big religions in the world were Christianity and Manicheism). Zoroastrianism is the World’s oldest monotheistic religion and many concepts from the three major religions were borrowed from it, such as good and evil, resurrection, free will, creator God etc.  Their population is very small as they do not accepts converts because they believe that all religions/beliefs have good points and that they are all different paths to the same destination and that ultimately you should live a good life because it makes it more enjoyable for everyone now, and if you do so, by focusing on doing good now, you have nothing to worry about afterwards. Here is a link if you want more info to Zoroastrtainism, although htere is info on lots of different religions too http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/

            Open your mind and lead a good life, no matter what beliefs, or lack of, you have

          • Timgale

            Thanks for you informative post. However, as you might already know, there were not 3 wise men, only 3 gifts. The number of Magi are not specified in the biblical account.

          • Timgale

            I could just say that you chose to ignore the fact that Jesus said no one shall go to the father except through him. Now we have 2 contradictions. You need to demonstrate why the supernatural claims of the Koran are true and correct. And Christians need to do the same. But both of you can’t.

          • Nptrtgms20

            Christians have what no other faith has…we have an empty tomb…our Saviour rose from the dead proving He had power over death. 

          • Timgale

            Yes, and where is this empty tomb? Also, one person writing (Mark) that there was an empty tomb does not (1) make it so, or (2) make it miraculous. This argument is akin to me saying if Harry Potter isn’t real, then how do you explain his wand?

          • LordPride

            I have an empty bottle of Arizona Green Tea. Can I claim my savior rose from that? Cause he totally did. Seriously.

          • TimWebb

            Let us approach this matter from a different angle. The angle of mathematics. Whether you are a Jew, or a Christian, or a Moslem; whatever; mathematics stands spotless and perfectly logical, at least in its less esoteric forms. It is unpolluted, despite having lived alongside us for millenia. All would agree thus far? Dawkins? Hawking? Hubble?Galileo?
            OK.
            Now let me tell you something that you will never have heard before, and then leave you to draw the unavoidable conclusions.

            Ancient Hebrew, and Greek, could be transformed from letters to numbers. This sort of thing is often done in simple cryptography, eg A=1, J=10, etc. You get the picture.

            The first seven words of Genesis, ie the first verse, in Hebrew, add up to the number 2701. Those of you with above-average savvy will know that this is a triangular number. Interesting, but not yet definitive. So 2701 can be spelled out in counters; it will form a triangle. The words “and the earth” at the end of this verse add up to another triangular number, which curiously, fits exactly into the first triangle, upside down. Each side of the larger triangle is made out of 216 counters. 216 anybody? You at the back? Good. 216 is 6 x 6 x 6, which, you will be aware, is quite a special number. There are also 666 counters comprising each of the triangles external to the central one.

            2701 is factorisable in only one way. Anybody? OK, I’ll tell you. 2701 is 37 x 73. Each is a prime number, which makes them quite special. Do you notice that they reflect each other, ie they are bilaterally symmetrical, just as we are? Do you remember that we were made in the image of God ? So are we being told that God is bilaterally symmetrical too?

            Please visit the website “The Other Bible Code”, by Vernon Jenkins. There you will learn many things. You will learn that the number for Jesus Christ can be made to form a gnomon. A gnomon is a hollow cube. This hollow cube fits exactly around the solid cube derived from the words “and the earth”. So could we hypothesize that we are being told that the Creator perfectly surrounds and protects His creation?
            You will have heard of the sons of Jacob. There were 12 of them. They had different names. You will assume that their names were somewhat randomly chosen. They were not. Every letter in every name is there for a reason. The reason is that these names were written on gemstones which were embedded in the breastplate of the High Priest, so God would see them when the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies once per year. These names, translated into their respective numbers, spell out the Name of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

            There is a great deal more.

            We have been informed above about the difference between wisdom and knowledge.

            “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from iniquity is understanding”.
            “Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man”.
            And, “If you love me, keep My commandments”.
            Finally, let me suggest something to you. Currencies are rendered counterfeit-proof by inserting invisible watermarks and other phenomena into them. This proves that the notes are genuine. I will here point out that what we have in the opening verse of the Word of God is a simple proof, for simple people, like us, that we are being spoken to by our great Creator.
            “Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your heart”.

          • Another atheist

            So you’re saying that Mohammed, the true god, told muslims to kill all infidels and everyone that does not accept Islam as the one true religion???
            It is ALL Bull Crap, Every religion! And the cause of so much hatred, pain, deaths, war and bickering between humans for all of history! The world would be better off and alot happier if there were NO RELIGIONS!!!

          • Nptrtgms20

            If you get rid of morality/justice  to any society what your have is horriic violence; that has been proven over and over in history.  

          • Nptrtgms20

            Islam like Catholicism is man-made religion.  Christianity is different in that it was God who sent His Son to die for mans’ sin, who created man and who is the ONLY TRUE GOD.  Both Catholicism and Islam is taught to hate their enemies and Christianity teaches to love your enemies.

          • Logic and Reason

            Catholics are Christians, and until Martin Luther if you were Christian, you were Catholic.

          • God

            Dear Sasha,

            I am very glad that there are still some true followers out there. Indeed the Catholic Church is the only religious institution instated by Me.You truly deserve to be My prophet. Tell all of humanity about Me – also, I am back to Old Testament now: everybody who does not believe in me will be turned into bath salts! And there will be trumpets!Oh, and because you are such a good and devote follower and prophet, I will let you in on some special knowledge: You have been born in the year 1976 after that Maria girl had my bastard child. This you knew. You will die and come to my paradise party on December 25th, 2011. That’s right, Christmas! You are welcome!

            Yours truly,
            God (aka Zeus)

          • Another atheist

            Bull Crap!

          • Nptrtgms20

            Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man soweth that shall he also reap.  One day you will stand before God and have to give an account for every idle word you speak.

          • Frosty

             God sounds like an asshole.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

            Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that
            men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
            judgment.

          • LordPride

            “Hi, I’m God. I like to wear polka-dot dresses and big floofy bloomers!” I seem to be doing a pretty adequate job of mocking him right now.

          • Blah

            Snore zZz

          • Timgale

            The catholic church as we know it was a product of Paul, not Peter.

          • Nptrtgms20

            The Apostle Paul never started the Catholic church and if alive today would have nothing to do with it because Catholic dogma contradicts Scripture.

          • Timgale

             Paul bought Christianity to Rome: FACT! Paul wrote: I have become all things to all people and  happily ignored the Jewish laws, which Jesus followed, and the original followers, friends and family of Jesus tried to kill him for: FACT! Only Paul screaming I’m a Roman to some Roman centurions saved his life. All in his own words. Moreover, John Calvin burned his best friend at the stake over a semantic rendering of scripture and Martin Luther enticed hatred against the Jews and had their synagogues burned down: FACT!

          • Jim

             FACT: Paul never met Jesus. FACT: all other authors of the testaments did so over 150 years after the birth of the supposed Jesus for whom FACT: there is no evidence he ever existed, except someone who never met him, (he admits it in his writings) and Matthew Mark Luke and John who … never met him.

          • Cycling

            Just a few FACTS:

            All the 4 Gospels were written around 70 AD.

            The whole New Testament was written between 50-90 AD.

            Paul died in 64 A.D.

            The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John were written disciples of Christ.

            Mark’s Gospel was written by a disciple of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness.

            Luke writes in his Gospel and in Acts that he wrote on the basis of
            eyewitness accounts.

            “All four Gospels and the book of Acts were written during the eyewitness
            period-during the time when eyewitnesses were there, could comment on
            the text, could correct what was written, could refute it or accept it.”

            There are many historical evidences about facts present in New Testament.
             

          • Timgale

             Bullshit!! Shame on you for coming here with your
            pious fraud. You write: “Mark’s
            Gospel was written by a disciple of the apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness.” How do you know this? Please reference this claim! You
            just made that up! Moreover, if Luke was writing with the testimony of eyewitnesses,
            why the need to lift pull passages from Mark’s gospel verbatim? All four gospels were written
            decades after the events, in a far away land by authors whom we have no idea of,
            and at a time when the Roman Christians were vying for the hearts and minds of
            pagan Romans. Not to mention the church has a long and demonstrable history of
            lying, like you.

          • Cycling

             So what does this have to do with Catholic Church???

            Your Bible reading is wrong. Read ALL that Paul has written not only what you think you can twist. You’ll find out that he was talking about other “laws”.

            Calvin and Luther did some wrong things, as almost every man did.

          • Bella

            “It is impossible to ignore the arrival of Jesus Christ”. Yes you can! I’ve been doing it for 40 years :)

          • Nptrtgms20

            Catholicism never has been and never will be Christianity.  Catholicism killed millions of Christians who did not believe in their man-made religion.  Cathlic dogma contradicts the Gospel of the Bible. 

          • LordPride

            You speak blaspheming falsehood! You are an agent of the Adversary! You are trying to lead people astray from the one true path! All praise the one true god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Ramen!

          • Mark Henderson

            If Catholic means universal which it does , how then can you put Roman in front of it (you left that bit out ) and still maintain it is universal and then insert non scriptural doctrines into the mix, like say asking a man to forgive your sins instead of God and vows of chastity that lead priests to abuse children and last but not least put Mary before Jesus . None of these things are in the bible or taught by Jesus . Your catholic religion is just as watered down and politicised as the ones you are trying to debunk. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through me , not through a priest or through a political body .

          • Mr G

            I dont think you understand religion, religion is a product of philosophy, philosophy is a product of logic and reasoning, the problem that I have is that all sciences branched out as a result of philosophy and logic. Scientist now (especially cosmologists and astrophysicist ) are now saying we must not include philosophy when dealing with physics or origins of the universe, therefore they are ignoring the most fundamental science in their conclusions and selling it to the public as the most plausible theory. If you dont use tomatos to make tomato paste, then you cant call it tomato paste and claim you used tomatos as to make it, simple as that. 
            It is shocking how little aitheist know about science and just how limited science is, and how in many instances it actually proves the existence of god when you start understanding massage of scientific theories.People dont understand one of the most fundamental principal in life which is wisdom, knowing ‘knowledge’ doesnt make you wise, but wisdom is far more important then knowledge.
            I believe you have no idea about the logic of M theory or the big bang, becuase if you did you would not be questioning religion on ‘logical’ grounds.

          • timgale

            Yes, there are things we don’t know yet, and probably things we will never know. You still don’t get to fill those gaps with god.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Watcher.In.The.Shadow Mark Sharp

            Nor do you have to assume that he/she/it doesn’t exist. The logical position when presented with a lack of evidence is to take no position. Or, withhold judgment. Thus Argumentum ad Ignoratum being a fallacy.

          • timgale

            You don’t know your definitions. A lack of belief in a god is not the same as the denial of one, with atheists not assuming there is no god. I don’t know if there is a god or not, making me agnostic, and I don’t believe that the likes of you have made your case for a particular god making me an agnostic atheist; the two terms not being mutually exclusive. Atheism is spelled with a small ‘a’ because it is not a worldview and does not make a positive claim about the world we live in such as ‘there is no god’.

          • Inquartata

            First off, you say science stems from philosophy. Ok, fine. Vague but ok. So does Religion. This does not mean that philosophy is science or that religion is. 
            >selling it to the public as the most plausible theory. 

            It is because science can be tested. If you removed all religious texts in the whole world both from peoples minds and elsewhere, any number of new religions would appear to fill the void.

            If  you did the same with science, it would come to the same conclusions as before.

            THAT is the difference here.

            >It is shocking how little aitheist know about science and just how limited science is…[]

            It is shocking how religious people think science has to have all the answers to be valid. Do you ask  your microwave to wash your dishes too? No. It does not do EVERYTHING. Oh, and not being able to spell atheist is a dead giveaway. Fix that.

            []…and how in many instances it actually proves the existence of god when you start understanding massage of scientific theories. 

            No. Just…no. Citations SORELY needed. 

            >People dont understand one of the most fundamental principal in life which is wisdom, knowing ‘knowledge’ doesnt make you wise, but wisdom is far more important then knowledge.

            Way to be vague. Wisdom, not knowledge. Well done. Your statement boils down to…nothing.
            >I believe you have no idea about the logic of M theory or the big bang, becuase if you did you would not be questioning religion on ‘logical’ grounds.

            You can believe anything you want, just like I believe you did not really read/understand what I posted.

          • Guest

            When you say that if you get ride of all scientific books and you start over, we will get to the same point? Really I doupt it. Science is a human construction (has religions in my point of view), and a social one. It is not neutral of objective because nothing is neutral and objective. It an illusion to think that. Every scientist is influence by the society that he is living in, and it is ok! You need a referential to start elaboration theories. Even in pure science like mathematics. The referential is usually the axioms. We state that some things are true, and we build on that. Science do the same. If you don’t take anything as true at the beginning where do you start building? When you stat thinking that way, you are not after some ”TRUTH” but more after the viability of the model that you elaborate. So, wish models are more valide? Those giving by religions of by sciences? Wish one feed me, build my car, give me aces to internet? Science give me more viable models, and if they chance there paradigms (and ye that append some times) , it’s not a problem because we are not looking for the truth anymore but viability!

          • Kris

            Off course!!.If logical is everything U can demostrate,religion is far away from that. The concept of “logic” comes from a way of thimking,but religion is based in “beliving”.Logic can be demostrated, religion can`t.

          • Guest

            Where do you start to demonstrate logic? You don’t have any assumption? Nothing to start with? Sorry, but you need a paradigm to start thinking logically. Even religion is logic by the way, if you consider them in there own paradigm. It’S the same for science, but science would never be logical in religion paradism and the other way around

          • Kris

            Off course!!.If logical is everything U can demostrate,religion is far away from that. The concept of “logic” comes from a way of thimking,but religion is based in “beliving”.Logic can be demostrated, religion can`t.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Watcher.In.The.Shadow Mark Sharp

            It’s common enough when you popularize something. Which is what brought us religion out of spirituality.

    • Matt

      I think you are confused as to what atheism actually means. To understand it, first we must understand the root word, theism. It just means that you believe in a deity, or deities. That is all.  No matter which deity or deities you choose to believe in, if you believe in one or more, you are a theist.  It doesn’t mean you have to believe in all deities.  Therefore, atheism means that you believe in no deities, not just some. It is impossible to be both a theist and an atheist at the same time.   You are using the term in the wrong context.

  • Brendan K

    Everyone needs to remember that even those who are religious are Atheists of the more than three million gods, godesses and deities that have existed thoughout history, Atheists just go one god farther. 

  • Brendan K

    Everyone needs to remember that even those who are religious are Atheists of the more than three million gods, godesses and deities that have existed thoughout history, Atheists just go one god farther. 

  • Fatbum

    i beleive and know that the univers was only a roll of the dice and that there must be a infinite amount where anything could be posible…

  • Jane

    My pastor quit and is now an atheist. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2TD3RAKD4ALGFE4NDV563JY36A Andrew

    Although he is a good presenter, I find his arguments sophomoric at best and propagandist at worst.  He seems to miss the fundamental difference between science and theistic religion; science is purely an epistemological and phenomenological pursuit, whereas religion presents a code of conduct, universal morality, and individual ethics as part of its basic thought structure.  Science does not attempt to answer these questions because there is no phenomenon that mandates a certain action as praiseworthy over another.  The major theistic religions of this world tell us what to do and how to act; surely there’s a difference that cannot be overlooked.  Neither do scientists look to wield supreme political power.  To announce smugly that science builds its own cathedrals in the same way religion does is bald fallacy.

    Humans do tend to the dogmatic, of course, whatever the belief systems involved, and so of course there is an element of truth to what this man says.  Science, as a collective, was formed as–and still exists as–a sort of anti-dogma, even though an individual scientist can be dogmatic.  Western religions as they are currently practiced cannot survive without dogma.

  • Guest

    I’m only 20 mins in to this documentary… I browsed a few of the comments below… some passionate (clearly), some passive. now, I’m not going to dispute anybody… but I honestly don’t think it’s necessary to get angry about a documentary. documentaries are supposed to be provocative… there are some hard facts in here (Riddle didn’t just go and make them all up – skewed, perhaps… made up? doubtful, there must be some truth to the matter). he’s arguing that there are always going to be contradictions in both belief systems. and that is truth, is it not? even in lab reports, trial of error needs to be calculated… it’s the big ‘what if’ question that haunts us all. maybe everything will get discovered, but what if it never gets all figured out? what then? he’s saying that atheists have a hard time grasping the idea that there might be a god/a creator JUST AS BADLY as hardcore Christians negate the idea that there can’t be one. even that one scientist says that before the big bang, there’s nothing to preclude the existence of God, but nothing to form the necessity of one. So there is no absolute… no absolute facts for atheism as well as no absolute facts for religious faith. see, that can I live with as an argument. richard dawkins, although, may be brilliant in his own way… or that professor atkins (probably spelled his name wrong)… I find it really hard to give them any credibility when they instantly say ‘well religious people are wrong’ similar to how I can’t credit any christians that say ‘atheists are going to hell’. contradiction all around. Riddle even shows the contradictions when he interviews them. that Professor Atkins kept saying “there isn’t a god” and then when Riddle questions him, and he says “but I do believe it, you might question the psychology behind it, but I do believe that.” Richard Dawkins even says “I treat God similar to fairies”… I, I, I… they argue that Christians are conditioned… but everyone in society is conditioned to a form of thinking. the Law binds us to what is right and what is wrong. So there is a contradiction itself. No one cares if it’s a personal opinion, it’s the outreach necessity to make that opinion heard, understood, and followed… which both religion and atheists do to some extent. I find the biggest threat in this world is insecurity. No one is comfortable with not knowing… Religious people say that God exists – that allows them to ‘know’ the meaning of existence. Atheists believe in science because that allows them to ‘factually’ know where the world came from and how we all evolved. But no one is okay with being alone in their opinion. They always need an army behind them as support. And armies are recruited at the end of the day. I do respect atheists or christians that believe what they believe, and don’t preach about it to anybody, or try to persuade anybody. they know what belief system is right for them, and that’s how it should be. we don’t need collective thoughts on everything, or what’s the point of opinions? if everyone actually WAS tolerant of differentiating opinions/beliefs… the Crusades wouldn’t have happened… the religious fighting going on today wouldn’t be happening. People could actually coexist in the world then… and be themselves. 

    That’s just my two cents. I think that’s the biggest problem in our world, intolerance. We can’t just live in peace with the unknown, that’s why we need to dominate. If it’s not done physically, it’s done intellectually.I quite liked this documentary… got the brain thinking quite a bit. 

  • Guest

    I’m only 20 mins in to this documentary… I browsed a few of the comments below… some passionate (clearly), some passive. now, I’m not going to dispute anybody… but I honestly don’t think it’s necessary to get angry about a documentary. documentaries are supposed to be provocative… there are some hard facts in here (Riddle didn’t just go and make them all up – skewed, perhaps… made up? doubtful, there must be some truth to the matter). he’s arguing that there are always going to be contradictions in both belief systems. and that is truth, is it not? even in lab reports, trial of error needs to be calculated… it’s the big ‘what if’ question that haunts us all. maybe everything will get discovered, but what if it never gets all figured out? what then? he’s saying that atheists have a hard time grasping the idea that there might be a god/a creator JUST AS BADLY as hardcore Christians negate the idea that there can’t be one. even that one scientist says that before the big bang, there’s nothing to preclude the existence of God, but nothing to form the necessity of one. So there is no absolute… no absolute facts for atheism as well as no absolute facts for religious faith. see, that can I live with as an argument. richard dawkins, although, may be brilliant in his own way… or that professor atkins (probably spelled his name wrong)… I find it really hard to give them any credibility when they instantly say ‘well religious people are wrong’ similar to how I can’t credit any christians that say ‘atheists are going to hell’. contradiction all around. Riddle even shows the contradictions when he interviews them. that Professor Atkins kept saying “there isn’t a god” and then when Riddle questions him, and he says “but I do believe it, you might question the psychology behind it, but I do believe that.” Richard Dawkins even says “I treat God similar to fairies”… I, I, I… they argue that Christians are conditioned… but everyone in society is conditioned to a form of thinking. the Law binds us to what is right and what is wrong. So there is a contradiction itself. No one cares if it’s a personal opinion, it’s the outreach necessity to make that opinion heard, understood, and followed… which both religion and atheists do to some extent. I find the biggest threat in this world is insecurity. No one is comfortable with not knowing… Religious people say that God exists – that allows them to ‘know’ the meaning of existence. Atheists believe in science because that allows them to ‘factually’ know where the world came from and how we all evolved. But no one is okay with being alone in their opinion. They always need an army behind them as support. And armies are recruited at the end of the day. I do respect atheists or christians that believe what they believe, and don’t preach about it to anybody, or try to persuade anybody. they know what belief system is right for them, and that’s how it should be. we don’t need collective thoughts on everything, or what’s the point of opinions? if everyone actually WAS tolerant of differentiating opinions/beliefs… the Crusades wouldn’t have happened… the religious fighting going on today wouldn’t be happening. People could actually coexist in the world then… and be themselves. 

    That’s just my two cents. I think that’s the biggest problem in our world, intolerance. We can’t just live in peace with the unknown, that’s why we need to dominate. If it’s not done physically, it’s done intellectually.I quite liked this documentary… got the brain thinking quite a bit. 

    • nK

      Lots of ifs… and here’s one more. If it really were so that everybody just minded their own business, then there wouldn’t be problems, like you said. But as long as we have extremists and fundamentalists it will never be like that. In a world where a person or a group of people are killing in the name of his/her/their beliefs, it is a bit shameful just to say “everyone just live your own life…”. I mean, how can you say that if the purpose of someones life is to kill as many infidels as possible?

      Now I said “in the name of belief” and I’m ready to put atheism in with other beliefs (very reluctantly though because believing, say in the laws of gravity, is quite far from believing in heaven and hell for example) But even if atheism is categorized as believing, there is one big reason that makes me to choose the side of the atheists here. And that is because as far as I know, nobody has never killed anyone in the name of atheism, whereas the history is full of examples of killing in the name of this or that god/goddess.

      And why are people like Atkins and Dawkins so feisty about this matter? So feisty that it might indeed look like religious rant? Well I’d say its good that somebody is doing what they do, because again we have to remember that the “opponent” is not using only words (or if they are, of what I’ve heard, they are in totally different level that what these two are) but bombs and bullets.

      So in short, saying let everyone live their own life is really nice motto, but it does not work until every single person of the 7 billion living on this spec agrees on it. And until that happens, I think it is not wrong to take even aggressive stance on the side that says a world without religions would be a better place.

      Oh and by the way, world without religion does NOT directly mean a full blown anarchy and the collapse of civilization. We still have the laws, written by man. It is amazing how religious people always think this way. Almost like the religions is the only reason they are not raving anarchists them selves.

      Well, that was my two cents =)

      • Queen of the Shadylands

        Funadmentalists come in all shapes and sizes, to be fair, and they almost always let down the ideology they preach and are what makes it scary. It is also true that tolerance must be achieved on both sides, but it is still a good ideal to look up to and you should not be so quick to mock someone who wishes it a possibility. To discuss is wonderful and I love a fiesty and fuelled agruement but in the end the conversation moves on. If, beyond that, you become agressive and pushy then you do become as bad as them (them as in religious people who try to ram religion down your throat,like the preacher outside my work.)

        True, a world without religion is not anarchy,  I was brought up without a concept of religion beyond assembley prayers (that I never actually thought about- was an absent minded child), the adventures of Hercules and All Dogs go to Heaven and yet I would say I have a reasonably good moral compass. Equally a world with religion is not necessarily bad. I have a number of Athiest friends, a few Christian, a few muslim and one or two Hindu and have rescently gotten to know a sikh. Despite this mixture we do somehow… somehow, get along without religion being an issue or it even being brought up.

        Well, that’s my two… um, we don’t have cents and I don’t know what the equivilent would be in my money… my two pennies?

      • Queen of the Shadylands

        Funadmentalists come in all shapes and sizes, to be fair, and they almost always let down the ideology they preach and are what makes it scary. It is also true that tolerance must be achieved on both sides, but it is still a good ideal to look up to and you should not be so quick to mock someone who wishes it a possibility. To discuss is wonderful and I love a fiesty and fuelled agruement but in the end the conversation moves on. If, beyond that, you become agressive and pushy then you do become as bad as them (them as in religious people who try to ram religion down your throat,like the preacher outside my work.)

        True, a world without religion is not anarchy,  I was brought up without a concept of religion beyond assembley prayers (that I never actually thought about- was an absent minded child), the adventures of Hercules and All Dogs go to Heaven and yet I would say I have a reasonably good moral compass. Equally a world with religion is not necessarily bad. I have a number of Athiest friends, a few Christian, a few muslim and one or two Hindu and have rescently gotten to know a sikh. Despite this mixture we do somehow… somehow, get along without religion being an issue or it even being brought up.

        Well, that’s my two… um, we don’t have cents and I don’t know what the equivilent would be in my money… my two pennies?

      • Queen of the Shadylands

        Funadmentalists come in all shapes and sizes, to be fair, and they almost always let down the ideology they preach and are what makes it scary. It is also true that tolerance must be achieved on both sides, but it is still a good ideal to look up to and you should not be so quick to mock someone who wishes it a possibility. To discuss is wonderful and I love a fiesty and fuelled agruement but in the end the conversation moves on. If, beyond that, you become agressive and pushy then you do become as bad as them (them as in religious people who try to ram religion down your throat,like the preacher outside my work.)

        True, a world without religion is not anarchy,  I was brought up without a concept of religion beyond assembley prayers (that I never actually thought about- was an absent minded child), the adventures of Hercules and All Dogs go to Heaven and yet I would say I have a reasonably good moral compass. Equally a world with religion is not necessarily bad. I have a number of Athiest friends, a few Christian, a few muslim and one or two Hindu and have rescently gotten to know a sikh. Despite this mixture we do somehow… somehow, get along without religion being an issue or it even being brought up.

        Well, that’s my two… um, we don’t have cents and I don’t know what the equivilent would be in my money… my two pennies?

        • Another atheist

          LOL! I love it! Regardless of where you are from or what money your country uses, the correct vernacular is “two cent’s worth”. I enjoyed reading your post, very well written. Religion, any one of them has nothing to do with morals, it is simply a good guide for some folks, but morals are one of those things that one either develops,  because it is the correct and proper way to conduct oneself in this world, or one does not. No amount of religion will make a person conduct themselves properly, after Adolph Hitler was a Christian, and we all know the rest of the story!

          • Seraph

            Hitler rejected Christianity when it didn’t serve his purpose anymore.

          • Seraph

            Actually some can say that Hitler became an Atheist. But personally I just see Hitler as someone who wanted more power, belief systems didn’t matter to him.

          • Nptrtgms20

            Hitler never accepted Christianity. 

          • Cycling

             Love your logic: “morals are one of those things that one either develops,  because it is
            the correct and proper way to conduct oneself in this world”.

            This is from the category “the grass is green because is… grass”.

            That is the whole problem: what it is the absolute “correct and proper way” of living and why? That is one of the major subject of religion.

            “No amount of religion will make a person conduct themselves properly”

            Actually, it does, but it’s not something as a magic spell.

            That’s why Christianity expanded so much after the apparent death of their leader. Criminals are changed and became good people after becoming Christians. Not only that, but they even sacrificed for others.

            “we all know the rest of the story!”

            No, it seems some don’t.

            In your oppinion, the doctrine of supremacy of one species is a Christian doctrine? If I declare that I’m an atheist and then I commit some crimes, you’ll start to blame atheism?

            Hitler was also a believer of evolutionist theories and he had some of the best scientists in the world.

            In general, you are not only what you declare you are, but what you do.

        • Cycling

           “I would say I have a reasonably good moral compass”

          How do you know that?

          “a world without religion is not anarchy”

          First: speaking generally about “religion” is stupid. There are so many religions, many of them with principles opposed to the others.

          2nd: you don’t know how a world without “religion” might be.

          3rd: the problem is complex, because we are born with some moral instincts (and that is contrary to the evolution theory). So even if you don’t assume a moral ideology, you still might have some instincts about right and wrong.

          Just my two… hemispheres :)

          • bran

            Moral Instincts are not contrary to Evolution by Natural Selection. 

      • Queen of the Shadylands

        Funadmentalists come in all shapes and sizes, to be fair, and they almost always let down the ideology they preach and are what makes it scary. It is also true that tolerance must be achieved on both sides, but it is still a good ideal to look up to and you should not be so quick to mock someone who wishes it a possibility. To discuss is wonderful and I love a fiesty and fuelled agruement but in the end the conversation moves on. If, beyond that, you become agressive and pushy then you do become as bad as them (them as in religious people who try to ram religion down your throat,like the preacher outside my work.)

        True, a world without religion is not anarchy,  I was brought up without a concept of religion beyond assembley prayers (that I never actually thought about- was an absent minded child), the adventures of Hercules and All Dogs go to Heaven and yet I would say I have a reasonably good moral compass. Equally a world with religion is not necessarily bad. I have a number of Athiest friends, a few Christian, a few muslim and one or two Hindu and have rescently gotten to know a sikh. Despite this mixture we do somehow… somehow, get along without religion being an issue or it even being brought up.

        Well, that’s my two… um, we don’t have cents and I don’t know what the equivilent would be in my money… my two pennies?

      • Salmelid

        ” And that is because as far as I know, nobody has never killed anyone in
        the name of atheism, whereas the history is full of examples of killing
        in the name of this or that god/goddess.”

        That is true……… If you exclude Mao, Stalin and other good atheists…… (Communism is a branch of atheism…..)

        • Phil

          Communism is not a ‘belief’. Please re-educate yourself. Even being that they were ‘Atheist’, they didn’t kill in order to push a religious belief. Communism is a social, political and economic ideology.

        • Dreed72

          “(Communism is a branch of atheism…..)”

          I hope you eventually come to realize just how wrong this statement is.

          • Nptrtgms20

            Atheism leads ot communism.

        • Timgale

          Atheism is nothing more than a subgroup of skepticism. It is an empty vessel with no dogmas or tenants. It is simply a rejection of a claim that a god exists until the claim has met its burden of proof.  

          • Cycling

             The problem is that no man can live having only that “empty vessel”. He must fill that vessel with principles of living, with a world view. And so appeared communism, marxism, materialism, etc.

            Pure atheists don’t exists, just in theory.

          • Timgale

            Well I suggest that, if you would go out and rape, kill and pillage, if you found out that your beliefs were delusional, you continue to believe in your celestial theme park in the sky. However, there is no logical pathway from NOT having a  world view to committing an atrocity.

        • Another atheist

          Bull Crap! atheism has nothing to do with Communis and vice versa!!! Where in the world did you hear this rumour???

    • Nptrtgms20

      You made some interesting comments but they are comments.  The  Bible although not a science book has scientific facts  which were known by the witers long before science discoered them.   And evolution and the Big Bang Theory are so preposterous as to be stupid based on science.    

      • bran

        So then, why did we have to Re-discover them? Why was the Heliocentric Theory so widely fought by the Church?

        The entire Bible could be made infinitely more useful merely by replacing  the entirety of it  with ANY one chapter of ANY one Science Text book. (Sheesh, even the GLOSSARY would be a substantial improvement.)

  • Borris

    “What’s wrong with arrogance if you’re right”?! Love it!

    This guy is actually arguing that science is a religion, it’s intellectually depressing when people proclaim this.

    Recognising that morality is not absolute, is important in shaping a cohesive society. It is important to realise how our environment affects us. It is important to have empathy. If morality is absolute, it presents serious problems for religious groups who come into contact. Like Islam and Christianity.

    This guy is very eloquent and does a great job at arguing his point. But put him in a debate up against Dawkins or Hitchens and they would rip his arguments to shreds.

    Atheism is not tied to any moral or religious code. To say Atheism is a religion, is just plain stupid, by definition it cannot be a religion. To say that Atheism inevitably leads to Eugenics or Communism is also stupid. To say that Atheists have a “utopian” view of global atheism, is completely without basis.

    But his overall message “Live and Let live”, I suppose, is something that I, an atheist, firmly believe in. But I do not see any problems with someone like Dawkins arguing against Christianity. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression. I find it pathetic that religious people are always horrified by “attacks on religion” by people trying to convince them their belief system is wrong. When you have Evangelical Christianity, which by definition asserts a position without any scientific basis. Where as even Dawkins clearly said that he is not 100% sure that God doesn’t exist. The main argument is against organised religion, and not in a belief in God. Atheists in my experience, really never argue against the existence of an omnipotent god, they argue specifically against a particular belief system.

  • http://www.facebook.com/evilraz Eval Razza

    This is one of the most idiotic, biased and uninformed documentary i have ever seen. I skipped to the last part after watching 20 minutes of this crap. When the host stated Hitler was an Atheist, he lost all his credibility(the little he had) in this documentary. 

    I respect the host as much as i respect Bil’O Riley and Ben Stein. 

  • Mailvern

    Yes, I agree with this documentary.  We should ignore the huge leaps in technology and wonders of science, and stay with ancient myths and superstitions to rule our lives.

  • Mailvern

    Yes, I agree with this documentary.  We should ignore the huge leaps in technology and wonders of science, and stay with ancient myths and superstitions to rule our lives.

  • Sarabdz

    cant wait for the day of judgment 

  • Sarabdz

    cant wait for the day of judgment 

  • Jesus

    Now I have heard the most pathetic line of reasoning ever.  There is no “trouble” with atheism, only “trouble” for the religious, as they silly outdated myths are being left behind.

    Interestingly, this doco fool wants to claim athiesm is like a religion. Downgrading science and rational thinking to that of a religon.  Unwittingly admitting that a religion is something with little value.

    Also claiming because god can’t be DISproved, (like you can’t disprove fairies), then it’s a 50%-50% chance that god or no god could exist.  As if because we don’t know what happened BEFORE the big bang, that therefore we can believe ancient myths and superstitions, instead of carrying on searching for evidence and using the intelligence of science to find the answers to the questions we currently DO NOT know about.

    A Doco only worth watching to see how the deluded mind of the religious works.

  • chris cunningham

    how could someone try ti argue there point when hey dismiss the other sides point right off the bat by declaring it stupid and not listing or thinking about it.

  • chris cunningham

    how could someone try ti argue there point when hey dismiss the other sides point right off the bat by declaring it stupid and not listing or thinking about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=593051003 Jack Lee

    Another silly documentary based on poor thinking.

    Too tedious to even comment further.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=593051003 Jack Lee

    Another silly documentary based on poor thinking.

    Too tedious to even comment further.

  • Guest

    How do you know you’re in love, do you get factual scientific evidence to back it up? Isn’t that based on intuition, attraction, needs and a whole lot of other unquantifiable variables? Gues below has got a good attitude to this, all intolerance is dangerous, and fundamental atheists are just as angry and insecure as their religious equivalents. 

  • Guest

    How do you know you’re in love, do you get factual scientific evidence to back it up? Isn’t that based on intuition, attraction, needs, those all allusive feelings and a whole lot of other unquantifiable variables? Gues below has got a good attitude to this, all intolerance is dangerous, and fundamental atheists are just as angry and insecure as their religious equivalents.

  • Terry

    Unbeleivable that such a pathetic topic could reach so many posts…

    all this doco appears to me after 10mins is bible bashing non believers.. lol

    just ask yourselves and please feel free to leave an answer as to which religion/god is the real one of the vast quantities available eh,  so i can say i believe in him/her/it, before i die (if i’ve got time) so i can go to heaven too eh..

    and then just shut the fuck up about it..   or it don’t work like that?   and if so what’s up with priests in prisons talkin’ to people about to be executed? 

  • Terry

    Unbeleivable that such a pathetic topic could reach so many posts…

    all this doco appears to me after 10mins is bible bashing non believers.. lol

    just ask yourselves and please feel free to leave an answer as to which religion/god is the real one of the vast quantities available eh,  so i can say i believe in him/her/it, before i die (if i’ve got time) so i can go to heaven too eh..

    and then just shut the fuck up about it..   or it don’t work like that?   and if so what’s up with priests in prisons talkin’ to people about to be executed? 

  • Johnny_Reb

    The problem with two opposite and both radical thoughts (theories) is that both of them are actually equally far from the truth.
    The case of “evolutionists vs. creationists” is one of the finest examples…they don’t know they both can be right…
    How’s that? – you may ask…
    It’s just a lack of proper education.

    The truth is well known and accessible even today, but forgotten and abandoned long time ago.

  • Johnny_Reb

    The problem with two opposite and both radical thoughts (theories) is that both of them are actually equally far from the truth.
    The case of “evolutionists vs. creationists” is one of the finest examples…they don’t know they both can be right…
    How’s that? – you may ask…
    It’s just a lack of proper education.

    The truth is well known and accessible even today, but forgotten and abandoned long time ago.

    • Inquartata

      I don’t know if you are being intentionally vague to sound intellectual or if you do not know what you are talking about.

      Evolution is not far from the truth, it is an undisputed fact. It is also a scientific theory, meaning it has been tested and has not been found wanting.

      There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”. Evolution does not require faith. Creationism requires faith alone. Disregard the evidence and be a creationist or understand logical reasoning and the world around you and understand evolution. Not believe, understand.

      • guest

        a scientific theory is “found wanting” by default otherwise it would be referred to as a law. Laws are undisputed fact, theories leave room for debate.

      • guest

        a scientific theory is “found wanting” by default otherwise it would be referred to as a law. Laws are undisputed fact, theories leave room for debate.

        • Seanjsharp

          Actually, no one has made a scientific “law” since before Einstein. Since everything is now considered relative, the scientific community can no longer propose a safe law, because EVERYTHING has room for debate, even the “law” of gravity.

          • Inquartata

            Yes, and that is the beauty of science. Anyone can question anything. Even gravity. If someone were able to prove that gravity does not in fact work as we now think, then the theory/law would be updated to a more accurate description of reality.

            Not so in the case of religion.

          • Inquartata

            Yes, and that is the beauty of science. Anyone can question anything. Even gravity. If someone were able to prove that gravity does not in fact work as we now think, then the theory/law would be updated to a more accurate description of reality.

            Not so in the case of religion.

          • Nptrtgms20

            You may not believe in gravity but try jumping from a tall building and see what happens.

      • guest

        a scientific theory is “found wanting” by default otherwise it would be referred to as a law. Laws are undisputed fact, theories leave room for debate.

      • Mxdkjhbvdk

        actually when you really look at all the evidence without a biased opion just because you dont want to believe in god, you’ll find that evelution requires much more faith then christianity. isnt it true that every icon of evalution has been proved to be fraud? then why do people still believe it?………

      • Nptrtgms20

        Evolution has always been and always will be DOA…dead on arrival.  It is understood by science and acknowledged by Christiantiy evolution happens on a horizontal plane but never on a vertical plane.  Kind reproduces after their own kind but never evolves into a higher or lower species.  Life can only come from life…evolution has never been able to explain that.  Anyone who believes evolution explains life is just blind.

        Creationism does not require faith alone; I am a Creationist/Christian and I see the marvelous creation and understand science has never explained it away by some theory of mankind.  The cosmos has order, complexity and design and evolution could never have created this by a Big Bang, or Evolution or a ‘cosmic accident’.  Only a Creator could have made this our cosmos and His name is God.

    • outofoz

      seriously…what an idiotic post

    • austin

      Wow I just wanna say I agree with the first bit but not with the last part . I feel that neither are right. Ok ok I know crazy right what do you mean your clearly a creationist blah blah blah. What I mean simply is I dont think the earth was made in 7 days and there were dinosaurs on noahs ark or whatever else the creationists claim but I also don’t believe word for word what most evolutionists or more specifically darwinists say. Anyone who has read Velikovskys’ books will know what I am talking about. I beleive in evolution yes but disagree with the process of which darwin stated it occurred. Which would be survival of the fittest specifically slow gradual changes. I feel that all theories need re evaluations even the law of gravity which by the way Newton said was created by god (he just explained the process by which it affects objects on Earth). I think that mass evolutions may occur based on evidence of the fossil record. I would also like someone to show evidence of something that has evolved during the present era I would like to see some evidence of bacteria or something evolving through natural selection not just getting wiped out. Heres a good example of what im talking about if only the fit survive how come mastadons teeth were more evolved and efficient than modern day elephants? Could it be that there habitat was different and elephants survived not because they were more evolved but geographically luckier. Anyway Ive talked to much just my thoughts on Creationists vs evolutionists.

    • Nptrtgms20

      Education has only shown man how ignorant they are.

  • Tara

    this documentary is shit.

    • Clix (ክሊክስ)

      Would like to elaborate?

      • Idontlikemail

        Because this ‘documentary’ is just a bunch of people’s opinions, no factsinformationproof and most importantly no main argument line just a bunch of snippets. This is a failure of documentary, but consistent with most journalism.

        • Mr G

          According to you that means if it was a documentary on how god ‘doesnt’ exist or ‘trouble with god’ it would also be a shit documentary as that too would only have opinions, no facts and no proof but only personal opinions.

          • Christian Nichols

            I’d like to thank you for pointing out the obvious. You failed to supply an argument. This documentary is shit, nonetheless.

          • Ncjmartin

            It isn’t shit it’s a valuable insight. Whether you’re too bias to hear what this documentary is attempting to convey or you’re being purposefully immature for no good reason, all it does is prove you don’t have a valuable say in the matter. Obviously this documentary doesn’t prove anything, it obviously isn’t intended to, it’s simply a very nice look inside atheism and a mostly non-bias look at some of the questionable points which lie therein. I’m posting as an agnostic here with a big interest in all things religious and all things not by the way, just so you don’t attack me from a ‘moral high ground’ if you would have otherwise.

          • jgmitzen

            Every single observation of science since its beginnings demonstrating no “magic” involved in the universe would certainly be facts, along with all of evolutionary theory, astrophysics, contradictions in holy texts, debunking of miracles, etc.

    • Clix (ክሊክስ)

      Would like to elaborate?

  • DcHady

    A great and fair documentary – not too pushy, but merely highlighting essential problems with an ideology – Atheism. Most of us are aware of the fundamental problems in Christianity, but few are aware of these.

  • DcHady

    A great and fair documentary – not too pushy, but merely highlighting essential problems with an ideology – Atheism. Most of us are aware of the fundamental problems in Christianity, but few are aware of these.

  • swttiff1m

    I enjoyed this documentary.

  • ds

    I dont think much of the teleological counter-argument propagated here by Liddle, but i do think anyone who says Science can answer everything is exhibiting a form of faith, no so different from religious faith. There is obviously a lot we can know through Science, but the belief it can answer everything requires faith. 
    I take no issue with Atheism which recognises the need for the existence of a mode of human consciousness and expression outside rationality, such that the ideas described by Nietszche. However, the certitude of Science fosters a kind of arrogance which I feel deserves its comparison with the attitudes of religious institutions. Skepticism is healthy; cynicism is not. All too often, proponents of Atheism display the former, not the latter. If one is truly skeptical, precious little can be proven or known, and I believe this is a precarious state of being humans struggle with. The need for certitude, the quest for and belief in some kind of objective, all encompassing Truth, is what both Science and Religion share, and it is what i see as their fatal flaw. Scientific dogma has changed dramatically and rapidly since its inception, as documented by Kuhn, I find it difficult to see how anyone can uphold contemporary dogma as some kind of ultimate truth; if history is anything to go by, it will mostly be in the scrapheap in a few hundred years.

    I really love Dawkin’s idea of the meme; does anyone here know if he has applied it to his own ideas? They have definitely reached meme status.

  • ds

    I dont think much of the teleological counter-argument propagated here by Liddle, but i do think anyone who says Science can answer everything is exhibiting a form of faith, no so different from religious faith. There is obviously a lot we can know through Science, but the belief it can answer everything requires faith. 
    I take no issue with Atheism which recognises the need for the existence of a mode of human consciousness and expression outside rationality, such that the ideas described by Nietszche. However, the certitude of Science fosters a kind of arrogance which I feel deserves its comparison with the attitudes of religious institutions. Skepticism is healthy; cynicism is not. All too often, proponents of Atheism display the former, not the latter. If one is truly skeptical, precious little can be proven or known, and I believe this is a precarious state of being humans struggle with. The need for certitude, the quest for and belief in some kind of objective, all encompassing Truth, is what both Science and Religion share, and it is what i see as their fatal flaw. Scientific dogma has changed dramatically and rapidly since its inception, as documented by Kuhn, I find it difficult to see how anyone can uphold contemporary dogma as some kind of ultimate truth; if history is anything to go by, it will mostly be in the scrapheap in a few hundred years.

    I really love Dawkin’s idea of the meme; does anyone here know if he has applied it to his own ideas? They have definitely reached meme status.

  • ds

    I dont think much of the teleological counter-argument propagated here by Liddle, but i do think anyone who says Science can answer everything is exhibiting a form of faith, no so different from religious faith. There is obviously a lot we can know through Science, but the belief it can answer everything requires faith. 
    I take no issue with Atheism which recognises the need for the existence of a mode of human consciousness and expression outside rationality, such that the ideas described by Nietszche. However, the certitude of Science fosters a kind of arrogance which I feel deserves its comparison with the attitudes of religious institutions. Skepticism is healthy; cynicism is not. All too often, proponents of Atheism display the former, not the latter. If one is truly skeptical, precious little can be proven or known, and I believe this is a precarious state of being humans struggle with. The need for certitude, the quest for and belief in some kind of objective, all encompassing Truth, is what both Science and Religion share, and it is what i see as their fatal flaw. Scientific dogma has changed dramatically and rapidly since its inception, as documented by Kuhn, I find it difficult to see how anyone can uphold contemporary dogma as some kind of ultimate truth; if history is anything to go by, it will mostly be in the scrapheap in a few hundred years.

    I really love Dawkin’s idea of the meme; does anyone here know if he has applied it to his own ideas? They have definitely reached meme status.

  • ds

    I dont think much of the teleological counter-argument propagated here by Liddle, but i do think anyone who says Science can answer everything is exhibiting a form of faith, no so different from religious faith. There is obviously a lot we can know through Science, but the belief it can answer everything requires faith. 
    I take no issue with Atheism which recognises the need for the existence of a mode of human consciousness and expression outside rationality, such that the ideas described by Nietszche. However, the certitude of Science fosters a kind of arrogance which I feel deserves its comparison with the attitudes of religious institutions. Skepticism is healthy; cynicism is not. All too often, proponents of Atheism display the former, not the latter. If one is truly skeptical, precious little can be proven or known, and I believe this is a precarious state of being humans struggle with. The need for certitude, the quest for and belief in some kind of objective, all encompassing Truth, is what both Science and Religion share, and it is what i see as their fatal flaw. Scientific dogma has changed dramatically and rapidly since its inception, as documented by Kuhn, I find it difficult to see how anyone can uphold contemporary dogma as some kind of ultimate truth; if history is anything to go by, it will mostly be in the scrapheap in a few hundred years.

    I really love Dawkin’s idea of the meme; does anyone here know if he has applied it to his own ideas? They have definitely reached meme status.

  • Pingback: Is it time to return to religion? - Page 21 - The Liverpool Way()

  • Curriculite1964

    The presenter is no more than a mere vain presenter and the content that he presents is no more than a garbage view of human thought,

  • Curriculate1964

    Rod liddle is an intellectual child and his grey hair hides the truth that he is an imaginative idiot and his efforts to portray anything remotely real is only a sad reflection of how hubris can overcome maturity in a tv world.  I hope his children change their names.

  • Pgonsa1052

    God Vs Darwinism? Grow up!  

  • Pgonsa1052

    God Vs Darwinism? Grow up!  

  • Pgonsa1052

    God Vs Darwinism? Grow up!  

  • daniel

    weak!

  • jesus in another guise

    no one can say god doesnt exist and no one can say he cant, problem is that too many religions result in voilence and so it should be law that people have to keep their religious beliefs private. I dont think churches or Mosques or religious dress should be allowed in any civilised country because it is a form of bigotry.

  • jesus in another guise

    no one can say god doesnt exist and no one can say he cant, problem is that too many religions result in voilence and so it should be law that people have to keep their religious beliefs private. I dont think churches or Mosques or religious dress should be allowed in any civilised country because it is a form of bigotry.

  • Davemayhemsays

    I made it to 7.54 before stopping it. Any argument he has posed so far has been completely flaccid.

  • Cheers

    it is so funny that religious people still think atheism is a religion… how fucking stupid can they be….

  • Cheers

    it is so funny that religious people still think atheism is a religion… how fucking stupid can they be….

  • Cheers

    it is so funny that religious people still think atheism is a religion… how fucking stupid can they be….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Mahma/100001233628685 Joe Mahma

    Wow… Atheist “dogma?” Atheist “sacred texts?” Atheist “beliefs?” Atheist mass murderers?!!?!

    Sure, there are bad Atheists, but bad Atheists don’t kill people unless they also happen to be evil dictators, who I’d guess would commit mass murder even if they weren’t Atheist.

    Of the top 10 “Most Violent Countries,” most are Christian nations.

    I think the worst crime Atheists could be capable of is a little intolerance of those of us who choose to be superstitious and blindly follow the writings of foreigners who lives thousands of years ago in the Middle East.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YT2UBHV6YLL2L5RXMDESP3P5TA Ryan Dominguez

     American Atheists.Liddle begins the documentary by surveying common criticisms of religion, and particularly antireligious arguments based on the prevalence of religious violence. He argues that the “very stupid human craving for certainty and justification”, not religion, is to blame for this violence, and t

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YT2UBHV6YLL2L5RXMDESP3P5TA Ryan Dominguez

    CentHub.com

  • Alex

    What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t juxtapose atheist comments with fundamentalist Christians or Muslims of whom I’m sure he would find individuals who wish death or hell upon atheists; much worse than calling another person’s belief misinformed.

  • Alex

    What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t juxtapose atheist comments with fundamentalist Christians or Muslims of whom I’m sure he would find individuals who wish death or hell upon atheists; much worse than calling another person’s belief misinformed.

  • Sterbo

    Putting all your eggs in one basket is dumb. Religion or Atheism. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE TRUTH IS. YOU CANT KNOW. The thing is you may or may not ever know. NOBODY KNOWS THAT EITHER

  • Sterbo

    Putting all your eggs in one basket is dumb. Religion or Atheism. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE TRUTH IS. YOU CANT KNOW. The thing is you may or may not ever know. NOBODY KNOWS THAT EITHER

    • Inquartata

      Although true in principal, your position is not logical. Do you walk around worrying that the sun will suddenly fall on you? That gravity might suddenly invert and throw you into space? No. Why? You can’t KNOW how gravity works? Sure you can. Maybe we don’t understand HOW it works but we don’t question that it does since we have no reason to. It seems to be constant. So, do you believe in pixies? Unicorns? Fairies? Goblins? Why not? You cannot KNOW they do not exist.

      See the problem? If we continue your analogy, the religious basket is carried by a wobbling one-legged man who is trying to run through a minefield, while the atheism basket is carried 1 cm over the ground, has padding around the eggs and an auto-gyro system to maintain balance at all times.

      Also, the analogy is flawed since you can’t both believe in a god and NOT believe in a god at the same time.

  • Sterbo

    Putting all your eggs in one basket is dumb. Religion or Atheism. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE TRUTH IS. YOU CANT KNOW. The thing is you may or may not ever know. NOBODY KNOWS THAT EITHER

  • Sterbo

    Putting all your eggs in one basket is dumb. Religion or Atheism. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE TRUTH IS. YOU CANT KNOW. The thing is you may or may not ever know. NOBODY KNOWS THAT EITHER

  • Doug

    Did Prothero from V for Vendetta make this?

  • Hello

    The problem is arrogance, my friends! The scientific method is about neutrality and objectivity. Religion is the extreme illustration of arrogance since they discard every possibility blindly with the most intolerant of approaches. But some scientist take it also too far because they assume an arrogant sense of superiority. However, “real” scientists remain open, tolerant and neutral because they dont care aber “winning” an argument. They understand that we are to accept natural phenomena and principles without jumping to wholistic conclusions based on hypothesis. In short, any physicist that doesnt acknowledge that there is indeed a mystery about the creation of the universe or the entity that holds the universe in which we are in is just as arrongant (or should we say hard-headed) as any vatican bishop or any other Ajatollah.

    Greetings

  • God

    This documentary is AWFUL!!! I made it to 11.05 before I couldn’t take any more. He doesn’t even bother to construct a single argument at all just make ridiculous statements and finds one piece of completely irrelevant “evidence” as justification. Fucking idiot

    • Islakay

      He keeps saying: “But don’t you think that’s arrogant?” Who did you learn your interview skills from, Tyra Banks? 

      Also, he keeps interchanging religion and God. 

      • Queen of the Shadylands

        But it is arrogant to simply dismiss someones thoughts in a way that says your wrong, I’m right and you sound stupid. Its was the one thing that put me off Richard Dawkins when I first saw him, he spoke with the presence of a pushy religious person, displaying one of religious people’s most annoying traits. Thankfully I happen to agree with everything he said so looked past his attitude and read his brilliant book the God Delusion.

        In discussions you sometimes need to be pushy in order to geta point across but that does not stop it coming across as arrogant and a quick reminder of this could be healthy as arrogance often becomes embarrising.

        Your last point is good though.

  • Yoingtin

    Boooo! Heard all these empty ridiculous arguments before. This is as weak as saying God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t exist. Waste of time. Don’t bother

  • s.u.m.o.n.e

    i feel as humans we like to place blame on others for their wrong doings from wat ever faith religion ethnic culture or what ever in the end we cause the problems to me no matter where u from what u believe in we are all humans an need to take responsibility for ourselves instead of looking for help from any deities or anything period we need to check our selves an believe in only ourselves humanity  screw everything else thas jus my opinion on the subject   

  • s.u.m.o.n.e

    i feel as humans we like to place blame on others for their wrong doings from wat ever faith religion ethnic culture or what ever in the end we cause the problems to me no matter where u from what u believe in we are all humans an need to take responsibility for ourselves instead of looking for help from any deities or anything period we need to check our selves an believe in only ourselves humanity  screw everything else thas jus my opinion on the subject   

  • Islakay

    He doesn’t once give a clear definition of God. 

    And if he wants to use morality and non-violence interchangeably, then the most moral train of thought to follow would be non-violent veganism. In more specificity, it would be non-violent veganarchy – the end of all oppressive systems, including the monetary system. 

  • Anonymous

    One piece of nonsense after another. I gave it six minutes. Sloppy reasoning. A much, much better job could have been done. And that’s coming from an atheist.

  • Anonymous

    One piece of nonsense after another. I gave it six minutes. Sloppy reasoning. A much, much better job could have been done. And that’s coming from an atheist.

  • Cewgwer

    What an idiot, that’s all that has to be said.

  • Moderate Athiest

    I think this documentry is very true.
    I’m an athiest, and I was appoled by some of the athiests on this program. I’ll stay an athiest however. I just think that, as was said at the end, maybe ther is a god, maybe not; why can’t we leav it at that?

    I thionk this documentry would be better named as ‘the trouble with athiests’ not athism.

    • Inquartata

      >I think this documentry is very true.
      Elaborate? Found very little true about it myself. What exactly are you referring to?

      >I’m an athiest, and I was appoled by some of the athiests on this program. 

      Since you can’t even spell atheist (among other things) I doubt you are one. Do you even know what atheist means? And who are these atheists you speak of that appall you?

      > I just think that, as was said at the end, maybe ther is a god, maybe not; why can’t we leav it at that?

      And surprise surprise, there we have it. You are an agnostic. If you could state that you believe that there is no god then at least you would be an agnostic atheist. As it stands now you aren’t really anything. Maybe you should read up on the subject to have a more informed opinion?

      >I thionk this documentry would be better named as ‘the trouble with athiests’ not athism.

      Again, a value statement without any explanation. And for crying out loud, get a spell-checker. You might learn something.

    • Inquartata

      >I think this documentry is very true.
      Elaborate? Found very little true about it myself. What exactly are you referring to?

      >I’m an athiest, and I was appoled by some of the athiests on this program. 

      Since you can’t even spell atheist (among other things) I doubt you are one. Do you even know what atheist means? And who are these atheists you speak of that appall you?

      > I just think that, as was said at the end, maybe ther is a god, maybe not; why can’t we leav it at that?

      And surprise surprise, there we have it. You are an agnostic. If you could state that you believe that there is no god then at least you would be an agnostic atheist. As it stands now you aren’t really anything. Maybe you should read up on the subject to have a more informed opinion?

      >I thionk this documentry would be better named as ‘the trouble with athiests’ not athism.

      Again, a value statement without any explanation. And for crying out loud, get a spell-checker. You might learn something.

  • Moderate Athiest

    I think this documentry is very true.
    I’m an athiest, and I was appoled by some of the athiests on this program. I’ll stay an athiest however. I just think that, as was said at the end, maybe ther is a god, maybe not; why can’t we leav it at that?

    I thionk this documentry would be better named as ‘the trouble with athiests’ not athism.

  • Queen of the Shadylands

    I can’t say I agree with most or even much of it but some interesting thoughts.

  • SushiSamuraiXD

    Bwaha! At 4:20-4:24, when he asks, “If we all became atheists tomorrow, would the world suddenly become a better place?”, does anyone else hear that little kid in the background say, “Yeaa!”? XD

  • SushiSamuraiXD

    Bwaha! At 4:20-4:24, when he asks, “If we all became atheists tomorrow, would the world suddenly become a better place?”, does anyone else hear that little kid in the background say, “Yeaa!”? XD

  • SushiSamuraiXD

    Bwaha! At 4:20-4:24, when he asks, “If we all became atheists tomorrow, would the world suddenly become a better place?”, does anyone else hear that little kid in the background say, “Yeaa!”? XD

  • SushiSamuraiXD

    Bwaha! At 4:20-4:24, when he asks, “If we all became atheists tomorrow, would the world suddenly become a better place?”, does anyone else hear that little kid in the background say, “Yeaa!”? XD

  • Anonymous

    How the #$@% can a human being that can simultaneously walk and chew gum, believe that atheism is a RELIGION?

    Atheism is no more a religion, than not playing chess is a religion. Not doing something, cannot be a religion – this is self-evident. Atheism is basically the act of asking theists for proof. None has ever been provided to any atheist in the history of mankind.

    So what is wrong with US again? No wonder you believe in an invisible deity handed down from ancient tribes. You have no critical thinking skills. I think it would be just lovely (divine?) to have a God. However, I need a real one, not one I made up, and not one someone else made up.

    And “real”, requires evidence. Demonstrate to me a SINGLE miracle, and I am sold.

  • K.Samuel

    I think this is a great documentary. And unfortunately, the comments are the same as the comments for documentaries that criticize religion, posted by religious people. Therefore, mr. Liddle’s point is made.

    Furthermore, I think some of the people that posted, missed the point that Liddle is trying to make: He is criticizing science for it’s absolutism in believing the evolution THEORY, thus posing a problem for the scientist, as he has to rely on belief, rather than scientific proof.

    The bottom line is, that both the theory of god and the theory of evolution, base themselves on indirect proof, and can not be put through the scientific method.

    • Gold

      K.Samuel,
      this is where you are wrong. Science/Atheists are not absolute in BELIEVING in the Theory of Evolution.
      However, Atheists point out the overwhelming number of facts which confirm Darwins postulations. Ever since its release more and more scientifically gathered facts and theories blend perfectly with this theory. 
      The same cannot be said about any religion. The more we find out the more religion has to put back.

  • Orin

    Atheism is NOT about certainty, its about what is more probable. Most things related to god are very improbable. Darwin’s theory has scientific creditability, Religion has no credibility. It is self explanatory. It’s true because it is written in the bible. No evidence needed. If one chooses to believe impossible, improbable things he is naive. Comparing the highly improbable scientifically unprovable, illogical things such as god, dragons, magic to the statement that there is a very high probability that there is no god,  dragons, magic is just absurd. Because we can never be 100% sure about anything everything is a probability. So the probability of the existence of god is similar to the existence of superman—highly improbable. The guy in this “documentary’ has no idea what is atheism, and why do atheists oppose religion.

  • Orin

    Atheism is NOT about certainty, its about what is more probable. Most things related to god are very improbable. Darwin’s theory has scientific creditability, Religion has no credibility. It is self explanatory. It’s true because it is written in the bible. No evidence needed. If one chooses to believe impossible, improbable things he is naive. Comparing the highly improbable scientifically unprovable, illogical things such as god, dragons, magic to the statement that there is a very high probability that there is no god,  dragons, magic is just absurd. Because we can never be 100% sure about anything everything is a probability. So the probability of the existence of god is similar to the existence of superman—highly improbable. The guy in this “documentary’ has no idea what is atheism, and why do atheists oppose religion.

  • Ngor020

    Bollocks.

  • Ngor020

    Bollocks.

  • Ngor020

    Bollocks.

  • Ngor020

    Bollocks.

  • Erick

    I don’t need to watch this doc to understand it’s premise.

    Atheists are assholes. Pushy, dogmatic assholes. Makes me fucking ashamed to associate myself with such ineffectual trash.

  • Erick

    I don’t need to watch this doc to understand it’s premise.

    Atheists are assholes. Pushy, dogmatic assholes. Makes me fucking ashamed to associate myself with such ineffectual trash.

  • Erick

    I don’t need to watch this doc to understand it’s premise.

    Atheists are assholes. Pushy, dogmatic assholes. Makes me fucking ashamed to associate myself with such ineffectual trash.

  • Loree

    I only made it to 4:39.  I couldn’t get past the tu quoque fallacy that seems to be the entire message of the film.

  • Loree

    I only made it to 4:39.  I couldn’t get past the tu quoque fallacy that seems to be the entire message of the film.

  • Loree

    I only made it to 4:39.  I couldn’t get past the tu quoque fallacy that seems to be the entire message of the film.

  • Danny77_naveed

    it is so true im not sure if good is real or not but it points out a very good thing which is atheists think theyre smarter than the religious believing

  • Moral Thinker

    Science is not complete and will never be .the theories and observations will change with time and a religion or way of life that depends on science will fail with times as well as those theories.Science can never prove that there is NO GOD.More over you can never create a moral world without god.atheist should understand that even if god doesn’t exist humans need god for there moral needs if a person is not moral then no matter what religion he belongs or he be atheist he will be like a beast and will justify his act if religious he will blame on religion if atheist he will blame on science.the only reason there is less blood on the hands of atheist is because very less atheist have rose to power as other religions in history.if they were given power they would do the same.they have already started to follow religion by inviting people to convert have there own ideas follow there set of believes have there own scriptures later will have there own fundamentalist.the bitter truth is,is in human nature for greed that caused all the wars and killing.if human wants he can use god for all the good things and if he wants he can use him for all the evil things.if he becomes atheist he will use science for same things .if u follow Darwin theories according to natural selection we should not cure sick let there anti bodies fight the illness ,if we do this then may be in decade or two human will be extinct.the arguments will never end but stop telling the people who don’t follow your faith are fools or dumb (u sound fundamentalist) and by saying such things u portraying  that are intelligent and know everything inside out ? i can see how dumb atheist are how cant even see the future of the humans with out god.do u think the people abstain from crime because of fear of punishment of law.No law or police will be enough to stop people from  crime if god is removed from the picture,

    • Kristi

      Are you telling me that since I don’t believe in God I have no morals? If so, you are extremely wrong.

    • Gjportwood

      There is so much wrong with this i dont even know where to start. You are incredibly uneducated.

    • Gjportwood

      “if you follow Darwin theories according to natural selection we should not cure sick let there anit bodies fight the illness.” you’re saying people who believe in natural selection dont believe in healing others? do you realize what you’re saying? the theory of natural selection does not contain anything on human ethics lol

    • Inquartata

      >Science is not complete and will never be
      You seeing that as a bad thing seems to show you do not understand science

      >less atheist have rose to power as other religions in history.if they were given power they would do the same.they have already started to follow religion by inviting people to convert have there own ideas follow there set of believes 

      …nor do you understand atheism.

      >if u follow Darwin theories according to natural selection we should not cure sick 

      Ok, so you don’t understand evolution either…

      >if we do this then may be in decade or two human will be extinct

      Yeah, you don’t understand math or biology (or how to spell) either…not surprised at this point.

      Yeah, won’t waste my time on you. There isn’t a sentence that makes sense in your whole wall of text…

    • Inquartata

      >Science is not complete and will never be
      You seeing that as a bad thing seems to show you do not understand science

      >less atheist have rose to power as other religions in history.if they were given power they would do the same.they have already started to follow religion by inviting people to convert have there own ideas follow there set of believes 

      …nor do you understand atheism.

      >if u follow Darwin theories according to natural selection we should not cure sick 

      Ok, so you don’t understand evolution either…

      >if we do this then may be in decade or two human will be extinct

      Yeah, you don’t understand math or biology (or how to spell) either…not surprised at this point.

      Yeah, won’t waste my time on you. There isn’t a sentence that makes sense in your whole wall of text…

    • Just Wright 68

      So even u agree man …or government created god to control man by fear…with out fear man will not abide by the laws of man unless god say it is wrong?
      Hmmm…lol…god bless you….lol

  • http://www.yoism.org Yo

    I find he loses his track quite a bit – trying to trap atheists into saying religion is silly, but then not addressing his view on Pastafarian’s beliefs – (Praise be to the FSM).

    Also many otherr things he raises seem to lack deep thought. However, I do think he is addressing a real underlying issue, that Dawkins somewhat agrees with him on at the end. http://www.yoism.org makes a lot more sense in answering this problem Rob Liddle raises.

  • http://www.yoism.org Yo

    I find he loses his track quite a bit – trying to trap atheists into saying religion is silly, but then not addressing his view on Pastafarian’s beliefs – (Praise be to the FSM).

    Also many otherr things he raises seem to lack deep thought. However, I do think he is addressing a real underlying issue, that Dawkins somewhat agrees with him on at the end. http://www.yoism.org makes a lot more sense in answering this problem Rob Liddle raises.

  • Lotti

    guh, made it to almost 8 mins in, this guy sucks so bad

  • QuietSky

    I feel this entire documentary portrayed atheism as a religion, rather than exploring the nature of atheism in a fair way. There will be fundamentalists in any belief system, but to use them as a focal point of a documentary is ridiculous. 

    There is nothing wrong with believing in God, as there is nothing wrong with being atheist, but what needs to change is human nature and the way we see each other. I think the only way for us all to truly relate to each other is on a human level. If we can all consciously agree on our similarities as a race, then our secondary beliefs including the origin of life will inevitably cause a lot less conflict. 

  • Caterina

    I am speaking as an atheist.I do not believe in God,nor do I blindly believe in science.I accept all things defined by logic and research and accept too that there are things we do not and cannot know.But to believe in God and worse still,a religion when you have no proof of it,is against basic logic.It’s like showing someone a box and telling him “We haven’t seen what’s in it.Nor can we find out.Please accept the fact that inside is a pencil,though we can’t prove it’s not a pen.”
    People are the same:Some are stuck up,even fanatic,be they religious or atheists.
    Some are acceptant,be they religious or atheists.
    Some,like me,do not crave to base their reason of existence on something,accept that they can’t know everything,believe what is logical and reasonable and walk through life with a completely guilt-free and moral conscience and a light heart,not hindered spiritually by anyone but themselves.And those are atheists.
    The problem is that people often confuse God and Religion.God in the wider sense is universal.It’s a spiritual,timeless deity that created all there is.
    Religion in a series of Dogma and ecclesiastical rules on one’s approved lifestyle in order to please and abide by the judgement of a certain god.
    The fact that people need religion for moral guidance only comes to emphasize of how poorly they do believe in God and how weak their conscience is.I am moral and I need not believe upon the punishment of God if I do something wrong.If the moral dogma of a religion cannot stand without the faith in the god,then the followers cannot be considered true believers.
    Most religious people are god fearing instead of god following.They are mesmerized by the idea that if you do what God wants you to,you will walk into paradise which in fact says that you will achieve an afterlife,a happy one.If you do not,you shall rot in the pits of hell.
    Who would believe in God if there was nothing securing a reward?Something to take your mind off the idea of becoming one with the soil and disappearing after you die? 
    The spiritual weakness of the masses makes it almost necessary to keep religion in order to avoid havock.
    And truthfully,religion can sometimes be the source of evil.Egyptians used to kill the wife and servers of nobility when they died,because they thought they would follow them to the other world.
    “The ancient Chinese are known to have made sacrifices of young men and women to river deities, and to have buried slaves alive with their owners upon death as part of a funeral service.”
    ‘Believers’ who need to attack atheists are intimidated by them.

  • Zhuljiks666

    Well, apart from some crucial mistakes in presenting facts, like communism (which Dawkins explained perfectly well), morality and evolution, it was pretty interesting. There certainly are atheists similar in their believes to religious people, and I think it should be addressed.
    I cannot understand tries to degrade science and blame it to be arrogant. I can only agree with Atkins – what’s wrong with being arrogant if you’re right!?

  • Anonymous

    I am speaking as an atheist.I do not believe in God,nor do I blindly believe in science.I accept all things defined by logic and research and accept too that there are things we do not and cannot know.But to believe in God and worse still,a religion when you have no proof of it,is against basic logic.It’s like showing someone a box and telling him “We haven’t seen what’s in it.Nor can we find out.Please accept the fact that inside is a pencil,though we can’t prove it’s not a pen.”
    People are the same:Some are stuck up,even fanatic,be they religious or atheists.
    Some are acceptant,be they religious or atheists.
    Some,like me,do not crave to base their reason of existence on something,accept that they can’t know everything,believe what is logical and reasonable and walk through life with a completely guilt-free and moral conscience and a light heart,not hindered spiritually by anyone but themselves.And those are atheists.
    The problem is that people often comfuse God and Religion.God in the wider sense is universal.It’s a spiritual,timeless deity that created all there is.
    Religion in a series of Dogma and ecclesiastical rules on one’s approved lifestyle in order to please and abide by the judgement of a certain god.
    The fact that people need religion for moral guidance only comes to emphasize of how poorly they do believe in God and how weak their conscience is.I am moral and I need not believe upon the punishment of God if I do something wrong.If the moral dogma of a religion cannot stand without the faith in the god,then the followers cannot be considered true believers.
    Most religious people are god fearing instead of god following.They are mesmerized by the idea that if you do what God wants you to,you will walk into paradise which in fact says that you will achieve an afterlife,a happy one.If you do not,you shall rot in the pits of hell.
    Who would believe in God if there was nothing securing a reward?Something to take your mind off the idea of becoming one with the soil and disappearing after you die? 
    The spiritual weakness of the masses makes it almost necessary to keep religion in order to avoid havock.
    And truthfully,religion can sometimes be the source of evil on a poor mind.Egyptians used to kill the wife and servers of nobility when they died,because they thought they would follow them to the other world.
    Religion has been the cause of human sacrifice:”The ancient Chinese are known to have made sacrifices of young men and women to river deities, and to have buried slaves alive with their owners upon death as part of a funeral service.”

  • Anonymous

    I am speaking as an atheist.I do not believe in God,nor do I blindly believe in science.I accept all things defined by logic and research and accept too that there are things we do not and cannot know.But to believe in God and worse still,a religion when you have no proof of it,is against basic logic.It’s like showing someone a box and telling him “We haven’t seen what’s in it.Nor can we find out.Please accept the fact that inside is a pencil,though we can’t prove it’s not a pen.”
    People are the same:Some are stuck up,even fanatic,be they religious or atheists.
    Some are acceptant,be they religious or atheists.
    Some,like me,do not crave to base their reason of existence on something,accept that they can’t know everything,believe what is logical and reasonable and walk through life with a completely guilt-free and moral conscience and a light heart,not hindered spiritually by anyone but themselves.And those are atheists.
    The problem is that people often comfuse God and Religion.God in the wider sense is universal.It’s a spiritual,timeless deity that created all there is.
    Religion in a series of Dogma and ecclesiastical rules on one’s approved lifestyle in order to please and abide by the judgement of a certain god.
    The fact that people need religion for moral guidance only comes to emphasize of how poorly they do believe in God and how weak their conscience is.I am moral and I need not believe upon the punishment of God if I do something wrong.If the moral dogma of a religion cannot stand without the faith in the god,then the followers cannot be considered true believers.
    Most religious people are god fearing instead of god following.They are mesmerized by the idea that if you do what God wants you to,you will walk into paradise which in fact says that you will achieve an afterlife,a happy one.If you do not,you shall rot in the pits of hell.
    Who would believe in God if there was nothing securing a reward?Something to take your mind off the idea of becoming one with the soil and disappearing after you die? 
    The spiritual weakness of the masses makes it almost necessary to keep religion in order to avoid havock.
    And truthfully,religion can sometimes be the source of evil on a poor mind.Egyptians used to kill the wife and servers of nobility when they died,because they thought they would follow them to the other world.
    Religion has been the cause of human sacrifice:”The ancient Chinese are known to have made sacrifices of young men and women to river deities, and to have buried slaves alive with their owners upon death as part of a funeral service.”

  • Coolibahboy

    this documentary is terrible.. firstly the definition atheism!

  • Objective

    I think that all humans, whether they label themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, etc., should stop thinking that they have it ALL FIGURED OUT. All too often we make the mistake of thinking that we need to know all. 
    “The only thing I know, is that I know nothing” – Socrates

    • Inquartata

      I would agree, if it were not the case the scientists, not labeling themselves as anything, are accused of being arrogant just because they think they know something (not EVERYTHING). Science does not claim to know EVERYTHING. You have to go to religion for that kind of arrogant thinking.

  • Ocean Writer

    Its kinda funny how stupid this guy is. His biased views and lack of research really hit me when he tried to say that atheism and science is a religion. YES he is COMPLETELY correct… I am a devout aleprechaunist and I think that the church of logical deduction is AWESOME. As for all atheists really being agnostic… I think that Richard Dawkins put it nicely when he said that he just viewed God as he did fairies and unicorns. 

    Also everything he said about evolution was indicating that he was really thinking that darwinian evolution was Inheritance of Acquired Traits. That is a PROVEN WRONG THEORY created by a man of the name of Jean Baptiste Lamarack. Darwin evolution involves mutations occurring and then natural selection will either favor the trait or not. I’m not quite sure how stronger individuals surviving more than weaker ones is not “comprehensive”… but maybe it’s because this guy never actually listened  throughout school and passed by lucky chance. The reason why Darwinian evolution doesn’t involve anything about genetics is because GREGOR MENDEL came AFTER DARWIN!!! that means that Darwin had no idea DNA existed. It was only after DNA’s discovery did we realize it fit completely with Darwin’s theory of evolution… Unless he’s going to start spewing that DNA doesn’t exist.
    Finally if you want to know what evolution is, its ACTUALLY the change of frequency of an allele frequency or phenotype through time. Natural selection simply states that this “change” will probably occur so the species will be better adapted to it’s environment (through survival of the fittest).There was not one argument this guy made that I could not refute with evidence, experience, observations etc.

  • Ocean Writer

    Its kinda funny how stupid this guy is. His biased views and lack of research really hit me when he tried to say that atheism and science is a religion. YES he is COMPLETELY correct… I am a devout aleprechaunist and I think that the church of logical deduction is AWESOME. As for all atheists really being agnostic… I think that Richard Dawkins put it nicely when he said that he just viewed God as he did fairies and unicorns. 

    Also everything he said about evolution was indicating that he was really thinking that darwinian evolution was Inheritance of Acquired Traits. That is a PROVEN WRONG THEORY created by a man of the name of Jean Baptiste Lamarack. Darwin evolution involves mutations occurring and then natural selection will either favor the trait or not. I’m not quite sure how stronger individuals surviving more than weaker ones is not “comprehensive”… but maybe it’s because this guy never actually listened  throughout school and passed by lucky chance. The reason why Darwinian evolution doesn’t involve anything about genetics is because GREGOR MENDEL came AFTER DARWIN!!! that means that Darwin had no idea DNA existed. It was only after DNA’s discovery did we realize it fit completely with Darwin’s theory of evolution… Unless he’s going to start spewing that DNA doesn’t exist.
    Finally if you want to know what evolution is, its ACTUALLY the change of frequency of an allele frequency or phenotype through time. Natural selection simply states that this “change” will probably occur so the species will be better adapted to it’s environment (through survival of the fittest).There was not one argument this guy made that I could not refute with evidence, experience, observations etc.

  • Brooklyn

    Science will never be able to bring life to a human being, or animal, no matter how much fancy equipment/technology they have. Why? Because only God can.

    • Ocean Writer

      you would be very very very surprised at just how close science is to creating life. I’d personally give it another 20-50 years (provided no religious interference which will never happen), perhaps even less before science creates a living cell from scratch.

      • CJ

        I’m actually fairly certain i heard something about a living cell being created in a lab not too long ago

    • Brooklyn

      To be more clear, I’m saying that in a science lab a scientist cannot CREATE a human or animal. They cannot grow it from scratch, on their own, without having to use sperm to impregnate a woman. Nothing exists without a creator.

    • Nicobellic

      Well it depends on how you look at it… your mother gave you birth, a doctor might have saved one of your relatives from death.. I’d rather see us all as one, and that every human being is god, cause we are the ones making miracles happen!

    • Nicobellic

      Well it depends on how you look at it… your mother gave you birth, a doctor might have saved one of your relatives from death.. I’d rather see us all as one, and that every human being is god, cause we are the ones making miracles happen!

    • Flottpale

      I was dead for about 13 sec once, but a paramedic brought me back using knowledge & equipment that science has provided for us.
      Maybe he was allmighty Jehova….or maybe you should take a scienceclass & learn something.

    • Flottpale

      I was dead for about 13 sec once, but a paramedic brought me back using knowledge & equipment that science has provided for us.
      Maybe he was allmighty Jehova….or maybe you should take a scienceclass & learn something.

    • Flottpale

      I was dead for about 13 sec once, but a paramedic brought me back using knowledge & equipment that science has provided for us.
      Maybe he was allmighty Jehova….or maybe you should take a scienceclass & learn something.

  • ultimate spork

    Darwin only had the first rough draft of our understanding of evolution.  We’ve had over 100+ years of research to refine his ideas. Liddle has not done his homework at all.

    And worrying that evolution leads to eugenics is like banning steak knives because somebody got stabbed.  Any tool can be misused.

  • ultimate spork

    Darwin only had the first rough draft of our understanding of evolution.  We’ve had over 100+ years of research to refine his ideas. Liddle has not done his homework at all.

    And worrying that evolution leads to eugenics is like banning steak knives because somebody got stabbed.  Any tool can be misused.

  • adgj

    Well God created people so who’s to say that life created by people isn’t also divine…

  • Bobswede1

    There are over 2200 different and unique religions around the world and atheism is becoming one of them.
    God much infinity cannot be explain and there is no reason to do so. Religion is a belief system and science is a methodology system of proofing facts. Two separate things. Why do you think separation of Church and State is for?

    • Ocean Writer

      Atheism is as much of a religion as not believing in unicorns is. You don’t see people going to church to worship the non-existence of unicorns.

      I personally want church and state to separate because I’m tired of people basing their vote on stupid things like their stance on contraception instead of the actual issues. I’m tired that the pope “approved of the conservatives” and thus people voted for Harper in the masses. I’m tired with the inequality in representation of beliefs. Why the heck do I have to suffer because some deluded person thinks that God forbade abortions. Why the heck do the homosexuals of the have to suffer because they think God forbade homosexuality. If I wanted my tax money to go to building a school that only teaches Catholicism, I’d go and donate to the creation of making such a school. Beliefs should be kept to the group that holds them, not to everyone else.

    • Ocean Writer

      Atheism is as much of a religion as not believing in unicorns is. You don’t see people going to church to worship the non-existence of unicorns.

      I personally want church and state to separate because I’m tired of people basing their vote on stupid things like their stance on contraception instead of the actual issues. I’m tired that the pope “approved of the conservatives” and thus people voted for Harper in the masses. I’m tired with the inequality in representation of beliefs. Why the heck do I have to suffer because some deluded person thinks that God forbade abortions. Why the heck do the homosexuals of the have to suffer because they think God forbade homosexuality. If I wanted my tax money to go to building a school that only teaches Catholicism, I’d go and donate to the creation of making such a school. Beliefs should be kept to the group that holds them, not to everyone else.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YZ45ET3BLK7Z5A4M4KGQWOI2WI Adrian M

    Rod Liddle’s brain is as liddle  as his rod :)
     

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick-Pilmeyer/1760482510 Nick Pilmeyer

    If Atheism is a religion, bald is a hair colour.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bigdean636 Zack Dean

    When all it takes is a little critical thinking about insight about oneself and ones beliefs to become an atheist, it’s a little hard not to look down your nose at those who refuse to do it.

  • Lauren

    Obviously the documentary maker is a religious man. Fair enough. What I don’t agree with is the way he misrepresents the scientific facts that have led many people to become atheists. If he is going to make a documentary on the problems of atheism he could at least present all the facts associated with this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/honkeydong Jaysun Mosmann

    Religion is the cause of EVERY war the Pope was the head guy for saving pedophile priests. gee I wonder why he got the job? Absolute power corrupts Absolutely

  • Brendan

    A narrative of one guys perspective is NOT a documentary. A real documentary shouldn’t editorialize nearly as much as this guy does; 

    10 minutes in and we already have several hasty generalizations about Atheists, backed by not even a SINGLE example. Then show a guy’s response to one question and label him a nut, because he is carrying a sign? Make claims like “Atheists are active believers in nothing”? Use the soviet union as an example for Atheism promoting violence?The idiot makes states his opinions a hundred times but can’t even manage to find a damn video clip or interview to back them up.And what the fuck was that fermilab shit? He takes us to the location one of the greatest technological feats of our time and calls it a “temple”, then says that “choosing between the big bang and a creator is choosing between two things of which there is no scientific proof.” You have got to be fucking kidding me. Did he get paid to make this piece of shit?

  • Just me

    I cant help but notice that ppl that do not believe in any god llok like Crap!

    • Sandra Day

      * sorry that is “Look like Crap”

    • Sandra Day

      * sorry that is “Look like Crap”

  • Clayton

    great documentary, very interesting

  • Clayton

    great documentary, very interesting

  • Tamar Mentzer

    The comparisons drawn in this documentary reek of pure subjectivity and rhetoric and nothing more. I don’t think this is a very professional job.

  • Alex Efrain Sarmiento Muñoz

    Directed and produced by Ned Flanders.

  • Alex Efrain Sarmiento Muñoz

    Directed and produced by Ned Flanders.

  • http://twitter.com/FriendlyFucker RoosterCockwell

    Fuck all this noise what happen´d way way back people are still dying due to thirst,starvation and being used as a slave labor for us high thinkers in the western world.Like i say lets clean house get our self´s in order and once that happens we can start looking at origin of our worlds and compile data, but for our all sake drop this religious debate and look at your slave labor shoes,watches and clothes, if you have a diamond ring odds are that there is at least one murder to get that piece of gold from Africa to your fat little fingers so don´t even play like its there choice its supply and demand.
    If we would not demand it then there would be no supply.
    I don´t believe in the gods concepts nor in this cold world of direct answers.
    I think us non believers should stop trying to swing these bastards and rather show our ideas in work and if we have none then shut it until we have them.
      

  • http://twitter.com/FriendlyFucker RoosterCockwell

    Fuck all this noise what happen´d way way back people are still dying due to thirst,starvation and being used as a slave labor for us high thinkers in the western world.Like i say lets clean house get our self´s in order and once that happens we can start looking at origin of our worlds and compile data, but for our all sake drop this religious debate and look at your slave labor shoes,watches and clothes, if you have a diamond ring odds are that there is at least one murder to get that piece of gold from Africa to your fat little fingers so don´t even play like its there choice its supply and demand.
    If we would not demand it then there would be no supply.
    I don´t believe in the gods concepts nor in this cold world of direct answers.
    I think us non believers should stop trying to swing these bastards and rather show our ideas in work and if we have none then shut it until we have them.
      

  • http://twitter.com/timjanszen Tim Janszen

    This documentary stenches of bias and cynicism, starting out at the very beginning with “I wonder if Atheism is truly the answer to our prayers”. Documentary/journalism standards seem to have been simply disregarded, yet again shown throughout the entire piece, “Is it religion per se which is to blame, or that very stupid human craving for certainty and justification”. This oxymoronic statement (why is it stupid to seek certain and justification in first place?) is basically a ‘pejorative’ description of atheism. This forces the audience (us) to take sides, establishing a certain polarity between team religion (the good side) versus team atheism (the bad side). At best, Liddle makes us choose between the lesser of two evils, a technique very intertwined with propaganda or its more accepted version we now call public relations. 

    Rather than brainlessly criticizing an entire system of beliefs, investigate what constitutes this system. Reducing atheism to an absence of belief is unjustifiable – atheists believe in the absence of a God, which is not at all the same as saying they do not believe. 

    This documentary is merely an oversimplification and is borderline propaganda – watchers should be advised and think critically!

  • Gunnar80

    This documentary was a good laugh for me. In the end, why can*t we leave it at that? Because religion keeps shoving their silly ideas down our throats every day. Me for one, is sick of it. Also funny how he cuts in the middle of what Richard Dawkins was saying in the end to try to make his own point. 

  • Anonymous

    I’m curious why a documentary which has received such a low rating and bad reviews stays on the “Most Popular” list. Surely there must be much better docs that deserve the spot. Makes me wonder if this site has an agenda. O.o

  • Adamsheather1

    This documentary, (what I saw of it) was rubbish with a very clear religious agenda which tries to bash atheists for being critical of religious ideas, ie a circular argument of “I am going to be critical of you because you are critical of someone…”.

    Of course it is frustrating for someone who tries to be a rational grown up to see other rational grown ups with real adult life experiences believe in “magic fairies”.

    Belief in religion is incongruent for someone educated in the modern world. If you told the stories that are told in a religious context in your normal life & espoused them as being factual, you would be locked up.

    I honestly belief that life & society without religion would be an altogether more tolerant & mature one. At the end of the day, any atheist that is an atheist for the right reasons, ie they consider themselves a rational & thinking human being has to come to the conclusion that we are all human.

    I have friends who are religious & I do not try & convert them to atheist because they devoutly believe in whichever particular magic pink bunny they happen to believe in. They are probably frustrated with me because the magic pink bunny will exact some sort of retribution because I don’t believe in her.

    If I thought it would work, I would try & convert them to atheism if only to save them the time that they waste on religious rites but it would not work so I leave it alone. They are adults. As long as they don’t spout their ignorant religious dogma at my child & they are not hurting anyone else who cares, right?

    Should see two fervent believers of different faiths go at though…

    I was brought up as a Christian. When I  started to grow up & think for myself, (teenage years) I started to realise that the whole belief system & everything it was based on was utterly ridiculous. I am so embarrassed at some of things I used to say to try & save people I cared for from the nasty cook that lived downstairs.

    The only reason I have commented on this documentary is in the hope that someone in their more formative years who has been raised in a society which has preached religion at them since they were infants sees it & is prompted to have a good hard rational think about whether what they have been taught makes sense or not & can then just treat other people with respect & dignity because they are people, not because of fear or blind faith.

    Sermon over!  😉

  • Or Paz

    Here is the difference between religious and science. The common assumption is the man became so different from the ape  because it went off the trees and into the savanna. this is the running man hypothesis (by Darwin). When I first heard about the alternative hypothesis about a month ago (the aquatic ape hypothesis) I Listened with my mind open. I then researched it a lot, and found that there are some good argument about it. I am still not sure what is wrong and what is right, but the fact that I can accept that I am wrong and that the running man hypothesis is wrong Is the proof that atheism is different than religious. No matter how much alternative you will give a religious guy, he will still believe the bible. and ton just that – he will be proud of his non-skepticism way of thinking.

    In short – atheism encourage skepticism and pluralism and religious proudly resist it.

    P.S. Sorry if I have grammar mistakes. english is not my first language.

  • Triforce

    Being an Atheist myself, I can say for certain that I do not hate any religion nor despise the people that worship it. In fact, I actually love the the type of self restraint and moderation that certain religious people abide by. I just don’t happen to believe that a god or gods exist. I would never want or even try to put a person down for their belief system as long as it does not persecute people who are not in any way a threat. In other terms, just because you say that you are a christian, jew, muslim or even a zoroastronist, it does not mean that you are a good person or even a real follower of the faith. If I had to choose a belief system, mine would be tolerance and understanding. What’s yours?

  • Gcaml

    7 minutes….Bullshit

  • Anonymous

    Bullshit. I agree.

  • Mrzivkovic

    worst documentary ever

  • Anonymous

    He tries to say that science is its own religion because people are so sure or, as he calls them “arrogant” about it but his hypothesis falls flat because science is based on verifiable facts and religion is based on faith.

  • James

    One of the biggest issues I have here is that there are many different religions, but Dawkins in particular seems to attack Christianity far more than any other religious concept. To me it feels like Dawkins has a personal grudge against Christianity.

  • Logicaldude

    Biggest load of horse shit I have ever heard. Not many atheists I know say anything about the concept of God execept that it does not exist. Now if you want to believe in the supernatural like God, Ghosts, Spirits, Fairies, unicorns you welcome to do so.
    Rod provides all the arguments made by the atheists. Such as they depend on the scientific methods (which are subject review and constant improvement), that the scientific ideas are open to review at all times, every conclusion drawn is of a tentative nature. Where as in religion questioning the dogma is hearsey and the concepts are more or less constant. All religious beliefs are just that, beliefs with no evidence. Neither is there a need for evidence.

    Obviously science can not answer all the questions and it never will but it has answered many questions. From a practical standpoint we are curious about everything, and it will be nice to know everything but does believing in any religion is going to make humanity better informed about anything. 

    To my way of thinking folks who want to shift responsibility of discovering everything thing just place that job at the feet of a diety. God knows best etc. Similarly they tend to lay blame for worldly developments on God’s shoulders. Why did so and so die, because it was God’s will.

    As for the religions giving humanity a moral code. That moral code first of all is not open to questioning, review and revision at least not as readily as precepts of Ethics. Surely Rod has heard of Ethics, the branch of philosophy dealing how we ought to behave and then there are secular laws to govern our public behaviour. This leaves a small ground not covered by either body where morality is relevant. But even that gap can be filled with a code of conduct derived from reasoning. So we really don’t need the fairy tales of God and code of morality provided by the religion.

    I am sorry I wasted an hour watching this documentary.

  • Rael0505

    This is so dumb.  I’m so disappointed at the closed minded stance this asshole took.

  • Devin Rocks

    Hello everyone, I am an atheist that has morals, and I can prove why my morals exist through reason. The idea that religion is necessary for morality is like saying children will only behave if they are told santa clause is watching them. I do agree that atheists are comparable to theists in their nature, however I disagree with the idea that atheism causes as much certainty as theism. Religion essentially says this is the way things are and this is how you should live your life. Atheism uses the certainty that God does not exist in order to open up a vast number of other possibilities and explanations for our universe. Uncertainty, I believe, is essential for the creation of the need to know more. Furthermore, I believe that the need to know more is the most healthy of addictions, and discomfort with our current state is what drives us to advance in our understanding of the universe.

  • http://imprecious.com.au i am

    So basically, the problem with atheism is it’s too much like religion… I can live with that.

  • Anonymous

    Compared to ‘the thinking atheist’, this documentary is an honest balanced comprehension, without the extreme rhetorical arguments expressed between the ‘for sures’ and the ‘for sure nots’. With that said, only the open minded and the true critical thinkers will get something from this, and is worth checking out. If, however, you are set in stone on either side of the fence, this documentary is likely not for you.    

  • Campbellnova

    funny china russia, and north korea are atheist countrys

  • Pingback: Someone share the documentary, “The Trouble With Atheism” with me and this is what I commented | Thinkahol's Blog()

  • Haydenak

    hmmm well to be honest this is meant to be confrontational but my issue the immense editting to improve the hosts view point and to hurt the scientists views and for him to make blatent statements with noone to challenge him on it.

    • Haydenak

      also this was made in 2006 there has been many more scientific advances, including the kepler space telescope which drastically discredits devine creation and a universe just for man.

  • Jukker95

    I find it frustrating when people say that religion and atheism are the same. As an athiest I know that one cannot definitively say anything about anything, but we can make some determinations about probabilities. I do not know with a hundred percent certainty that the earth was not formed on the back of a gigantic turtle, but all the evidence that we have makes this a vanishingly slim possibility, so I dismiss it. I do not know with a hundred precent certainty that god does not exist, but looking at the claims for god made by religions, and the fact that the scientific method helps us to provide answers for those claims which do not require the supernatural, I can state that the likelihood of god’s existence is slim enough that I dismiss it as a possibility. When atheists say that we do not believe in god, thats what we mean, if someone were to present strong evidence in favour of gods existence, then atheist would be open to changing that evaluation. For example some christians believe in the Rapture, the idea that millions of christians will suddenly be taken up into heaven, before the final battle between good and evil. Now if one morning I awoke to find that millions of people who identified as a fundamentalist christians had suddenly disappeared, without a trace, I for one would seriously rethink my ideas about the existence of the christian god, because that would be some seriously powerful evidence to suggestthat hey maybe they were right! 

    • Nptrtgms20

      And when it happens as it will because God cannot lie and He always keeps His promises and you are left behind it may be too late.  There are still debates whether there will be people saved during the Tribulation.

      • bran

        I’m sure those debates are riveting and no Doubt dripping with Physical Evidence. 

        Also note that “The Rapture” is uniquely American Theology, and can’t be read directly from the Bible itself. One has to do quite a bit of mental Gymnastics to tease out (or make-up whole cloth) the concept of the rapture. If one does some research about it, you’ll see that the whole concept is a collection of Random and Disparate quotes STRETCHED to build the idea. The guy who originally ‘teased it out’ (Im tempted to use the “whole cloth” metaphor here) also ‘figured out’ the date that it would happen. Needless to say, there were some very disappointed and very much still ‘earth-bound’ Followers.

      • bran

        I’m sure those debates are riveting and no Doubt dripping with Physical Evidence. 

        Also note that “The Rapture” is uniquely American Theology, and can’t be read directly from the Bible itself. One has to do quite a bit of mental Gymnastics to tease out (or make-up whole cloth) the concept of the rapture. If one does some research about it, you’ll see that the whole concept is a collection of Random and Disparate quotes STRETCHED to build the idea. The guy who originally ‘teased it out’ (Im tempted to use the “whole cloth” metaphor here) also ‘figured out’ the date that it would happen. Needless to say, there were some very disappointed and very much still ‘earth-bound’ Followers.

  • Danyg

    This documentary is a fucking joke. It is just a shitty journalists approach to discredit scientists by over talking them and careful editing. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lucas-Buchanan/100001265940291 Lucas Buchanan

    I love your comments guys! If judging purely based on the anger in them, I must conclude that it is indeed an excellent documentary. Such comments, such passion in them, is usually found in the religious right, oh, I guess this was the point of the documentary, now I get it 😉

  • Andreiuta171

    this documentary is smart only for stupid people

  • Justsayin’

    Not Believe in God is a Sin that even The devil did not do #justsayin’ …

  • Claudia R Gaines

    There is a fundamental flaw in Mr Liddle’s logic. Religion and religious fanaticism and fundamentalism has been causing wars, conflict and and death for thousands of years, while atheism, however similar to fundamentalist religion Mr Liddle argues it may be, has never in the history of mankind, caused a war or any significant conflict resulting in minor or mass loss of life. 

    • Eric Schneboll

      Any fanaticism and fundamentalism will cause conflict on all levels. People will always have silly ideas, be it claims on supernatural to political ideologies. Rod Liddle is not wrong per say when he says atheism is like a religion. But I do think the word atheism means different things to different people.

  • billbatard

    is it fair to blame atheism for communism

  • billybatarded

    Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so “proves” that the original policy is undesirable. For example: “Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler].” Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.[3]The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting, enjoying classical music, or owning dogs.[edit]

    • SOL27

       The subject at hand is too big for a small internet reply box, so I’ll keep this short.

      What you cited can be used in the same way for atheists argument against religion. Because people are Christians, and they murder other people, Christianity is bad. Aside from actually killing somebody in the name of your God, I seem to find that people tend to say God is on their side…post murdering. Specifically I’m talking about war, which this movie mentions atheists believe religion causes. I don’t know of one soldier who kills in the name of their God. Whatever their God is. They believe God is on their side though. Regardless of that fact, they would still go to war. So I think it’s a little unfair to say that all religion does is cause war. There are examples of where it does, and that’s on both sides.

      Secondly, to address Darwinism. I think the whole argument against Darwinism is that 1. it’s incomplete, and 2. it’s not evolution that’s so much being argued, it’s the Origin of Species. Meaning to extrapolate how everything in the universe evolves, including the universe itself, from a relatively short amount of study done on a small amount of biological species. is too much of a stretch.

      • SOL27

        I would also just like to add that I’m not a really religious person. I just don’t know enough to make a judgement either way. I tend to connect with ideas presented in Buddhism the most I find. So I’d much rather believe in placing the responsibilities and moral choices of mankind, in mans hands, and not the supernatural. Ignorance is the cause of all suffering I read. So just as wholeheartdly preaching that God exists and we have to do as he says, certainly has it’s ignorant moments. So to does preaching he doesn’t, and every other way of thinking is factually wrong.

        Science isn’t out to prove God doesn’t exist. It’s not written in a theory somewhere. It’s not even on the agenda. Science is after truth. Nothing more. Atheism tends to push an agenda that science is proving God is a delusion, and you’re simpleminded to think anything but.

  • Sabinelinfoot

    I made it to 4:47. This isn’t very good. The Perfect Vagina it is.

  • Phill Alixe

    I don’t usually comment on videos but when I do I it is to warm people for wasting their time. I watched for about 20 mins and had to stop. The doc itself is just poorly made. If you are like me you will watch the vid anyway but you can’t say you weren’t warned.

  • Syd Nadim

    Actually, Dawkins is not so dogmatic after all, it seems. In fact, he says in his book, The God Delusion, that on a scale of one to seven (one = there is a god; seven = there’s definitely no god) he says he’d have to be a six. If there’s ever evidence for it then he’ll convert. As would I.

    Until then I’ll continue to go for an evidence-based approach to life over a faith-based one every time. That’s not to say that there isn’t a fantastic amount of wonder out there and much to understand and be amazed by. The fact that we’re watching this on a computer right now is a testament to what science can help us achieve.
    This film demonstrates some pretty big misunderstandings about our current understanding of evolution. Scientists are not wedded to Darwin’s book – that was just the start of a journey of discovery that could lead humanity into a period of freedom from religious dogma and make-believe. I didn’t see any serious challenge to evolution here either (the usual reductionist theory even raised it’s head inappropriately).

    Most scientists (nearly all) are convinced that the mound of evidence for evolution is compelling and once we accept that we can find out the answers to the big questions through scientific process and reason, we can step away from the shackles of superstition and myth. It’s a wonderful place to be.

  • Humbleforest

    1st
    type of Atheist…( False or Fake Atheist )

    is
    one who uses the word blindly or follow blindly,
    just as to
    protect or make an excuse of oneself for personal gain , egoism ,
    fame , power , greedand glamour. It shows that one does not fully
    understand about nature
    and spiritual knowledge because one’s potential
    capacity of one’s mind is less than five percent
    developed. So
    the human mind of spiritual knowledge of comprehension of God or
    demi-gods, or even fairies is very, very,very limited. This is
    due to one’s pure-self which is covered
    with the past and present sins.This
    type of atheist may be a hindrance to societyand may mislead or
    cause confusion to the innocent ones.

    2nd
    type of Atheist…( Secular Law Abiding Atheist )

    knows
    how to behave positively without going against the law
    but have
    self-esteemed and is strongly attached to worldly material
    things.One may be of curiousity and chasing after
    illusive proofs. But one does things fairly and moderately.One’s
    emotions are not stable. As stated from a proverb, “ curiousity
    kills a cat ”. This type of atheist is arrogrant and at times
    one may isolate
    from others who are better than oneself or one may
    think highly knowledgeable of oneself.  Moderately one does one’s
    own way.

    3rd
    type of Atheist…( Moral Practioner Atheist )

    knows
    how to cultivate one’s inner and outer-self morally and practise
    calmness meditation. These two methods are of paramount importance to
    oneself because they help to liberate one’s pure-self. One has
    no strong desires for these materialistic things. One may isolate
    from others,but does not hate, disturb or cause any harm to
    others.
    One may be in harmony to society and at
    times volunteer to help the society. No doubtthat one does not
    believe in the existence of GOD, fairies and devils but one does
    respect them just like to human beings irrespective of races as
    well as to nature.
    One does not pollute and contaminate the land,
    sea and space.
    One is in line with moral values and nature.This
    type of atheist is better than those religious persons whose
    hearts are empty of love for others and always claim one’s
    religion is the most correctand supreme. If one’s thought still
    remains with an iorta of
    impurity then one is within the realms of samsara,

    one of the 31 planes of the “Three Worlds”of reincarnation.

    4th
    type of
    Atheist…( Enlightened Atheist )

    A 4th
    type of Atheist who has gained one’s
    enlightenment in
    receiving one’s Universal wisdom of ” spiritual knowledge ”
    which supersedes humanknowledge of comprehension requires a basic
    condition
    to fulfill one’s attainment of this Cosmic
    Consciousness through “Morality” and its Natural Way

    in calmness meditation as well.

    Inorder to
    attain this spiritual knowlege one needs to fulfill the conditions
    of self purification in one’s body,
    mind and soul in practising
    daily moral values with a compulsory
    in calmness and stable
    meditation. They are inseparable.
    There must not be a single impurity of
    tangible or intangible
    issue in one’s thought. It
    should be totally
    pure to
    liberate one’s pure-self
    out of the 31 planes of samsara
    or the “Three Worlds” of reincarnation. This indeed is a true
    and pure moral cultivator who detaches all
    worldly desires and can perceive in comprehension of nature

    and the world beyond.

    Then one becomes a non-atheist.

    Whether
    one is an atheist, religious, or a non-religious, The Supreme
    Almighty still loves all. HE does not discriminate any but is
    discriminatedby many. Whether one believes in HIM or not,
    HEstill delivers many things for humans, animals.sea-creatures
    and plants to survive
    through
    many millions years until today.

    They are air, water, sunlight, cosmic energies,

    sea, air and land
    creatures, crops, minerals
    as well as
    many seen or unseen objects.
    Only
    the ignorant, selfish, egoistic, stubborn,

    greedy and deluded humans are disobeying and

    destroying what HE has given.
    Mankind
    can only destroy the environment
    but they cannot replace back to
    her original state

    Please
    have a heart of gratitude and Indiscriminate Love
    to all living and non-living beings, as
    well as to the
    Supreme Almighty so as to be classified as a
    One Civilised
    Humankind. Thank you for the sharing.

    _______________________________________________________

  • Humbleforest

    Dear
    Global Friends…
                                           ” Atheists or Religious ”
    What ever can be seen
    are all illusions and are all temporary real even our
    own body. Whatever can be seen where all the proofs and the
    truths are being distorted, twisted, abused, misinterpreted and
    misled by many immoral people to confuse and complicate the innocent
    people to follow their immoral ways or for their selfish gains and
    interests.
    Whatever cannot be seen are forever the Absolute
    Truth. They are IMMUTABLE. They exist before human beings were on
    this Earth.
    In fact, GOD is in front of us every second. So,
    how can one see GOD if one’s mind or knowledge is limited ? A
    limited mind or the undeveloped potential capacity of one’s mind is
    not fully developed to comprehend the ” Unlimited ” or the
    spiritual knowledge.
    Mother Nature or GOD as one called,
    gives all living and non-living beings, Air, Water, Sunlight, Cosmic
    Energies, etc, etc for billions of years free of charge and without
    even expect anything in return from human beings. Even everyone’s
    ancestors or forefathers need HER generous and priceless necessities,
    without which we won’t be here today and talk, discover and invent
    any technologies. Without our ancestors we won’t be here on this
    website today, as well. So, for those who are stubborn and ignorant,
    please shut your nostrils and mouth for a few minutes to see what is
    that that cannot be seen. Even non-living things need HIS invisble
    blessing, “oxygen” to create a fire.
    So, my dear
    atheists, please have a heart of generosity to thank the Merciful
    Almighty for the blessing in giving you free oxygen to sustain your
    daily life or else you need how much to pay for the artificial oxygen
    from the commercial greedy “ clever or intelligent ” people so
    self-proclaimed. Don’t be too egoistic.Clever people know how
    to destroy Mother Nature’s environment but they are unable to replace
    back to their original state. This is what is happening to the
    various natural disasters occurring, being created by mankind’s
    intelligence or cleverness ( stupidity )

  • Humbleforest

    Dear Global Friends,

    For a professional people they have their professional code of ethics by NOT exposing their client’s picture in public, like here in this internet video. 

    The world is going into the extreme in showing other’s people bodily parts through professionalism of unethical or immorality. It is like in the past histories where the native or primitive people did not understand their moral values of shame or disgracefulness by exposing their nude body or bodily parts as a correct culture.
    By right they were not able to discover how to cover themselves by making clothings.
    So we can’t blame nor comment on them.

    But it is different nowadays at this so called “civilised” world of modern space age where more shedding of clothes are seen in public without knowing the moral values of modesty and chastity. There are varieties of fashionable clothings to choose to cover our body decently, but still there are indecent exposures of bare body to show-off in public. So, a high academic education WITHOUT moral education is like no education at all, is just like bubbles in the air, resembling the primitive age of half or full nakedness.

    Morality is to be upgraded in one’s attitude rests on one’s freedom of choice.
    Increase one’s dignity or lower one’s standard in status ? 

  • A. Alba

    This guy tries to hard to present an argument and fails miserably. I would be ashamed if an Atheist made a documentary and went up to crazy religious people on the street and religious fanatics preaching evil in the name of god. What he does is almost equal on the other end. He shows crazy atheists holding signs in the street with no proper understanding of what their disbelief is and ignorant radical atheist television shows. Anything can look a certain way if you look at it from a certain stand point. 

  • john

    The same comment as below….

  • ohthehumanity

    mr LIDL is a fool. If i were a believer and met all those geniouses who had read more than one moldy old book (the bible) i’d actually have stayed and listened some more. Unlike cutting all the “juicy” footage to support my own arrogant view of the world BASED on the moldy old book. This is the biggest and worst flaw of LIDL that carries through the whole mockumentary. Thats what it is, not a documentary – a mocumentary.

  • Guo_lettue

    The generalizations made about atheists and atheism in this documentary are truly sickening, almost insulting.

  • jim martin

    “the soviet atheism killed 20 million people”  hahahaha what?! Sorry, I´ve made it till min 6, cannot took it any longer.

  • Guest

    That whole time just to come to the conclusion that the world would be worse off without religion… are you kidding me? That’s not the debate, that’s a whole other debate. p.s. Sweden has the most atheistic population in the world and they’re doing alright. 

  • Thedraker

    The only thing this doc seems to get at is the fact that it’s human nature to act similarly about the different things we believe in… or what we believe we don’t believe. Easily compacted into a sentance. I’ve saved you all an hour of your life. (Your one and only life, I believe)

  • TL

    Atheism is not a religion, just as non-belief in unicorns/ghost is not a religion. A religion claims to be privy to information about or from a supernatural source. Atheism is not a “faith” either as Atheism is based on evidence (or lack there of). Yes, Atheism is a “belief” but it’s not a “belief system” as a word “system”implies multiple beliefs and Atheism has just one namely “there’s no God”. Also, Atheism is different from anti-theism, some Atheist and also Anti-theists some are not. Anyway… Please, Please, Please, for you own sake, READ YOUR BIBLE, nothing will turn you Atheist faster!

    • Thedraker

      The emerging systematic belief of Atheism is a reaction to those who give no validity to the many atheists that exist but are not banded together like a religion. It’s like a way to ante up and emulate the believers.

  • Humbleforest

    Dear Global Friends,
    Atheists without professing any religious belief and does not attach to any intangible or tangible issues, but with true practices of moral values and follow the Natural way of non-action can reach the plane of eternity of non-reincarnation.

  • Humbleforest

    Dear Global Friends,

    1st
    type of Atheist…( False or Fake Atheist ) is
    one who uses the word blindly or follow blindly,
    just as to
    protect or make an excuse of oneselffor personal gain , egoism ,
    fame , power , greed and glamour. It shows that one does not fully
    understand about nature
    and spiritual knowledge because one’s potential
    capacity of one’s mind is less than five percent
    developed. So
    the human mind of spiritual knowledge of comprehension of God or
    demi-gods, or even fairies is very, very, very limited. This is
    due to one’s pure-self which is covered
    with the past and present sins. This
    type of atheist may be a hindrance to society and may mislead or
    cause confusion to the innocent ones.

    2nd
    type of Atheist…( Secular Law Abiding Atheist )

    knows
    how to behave positively without going against the law
    but have
    self-esteemed and is strongly attached to worldly material
    things.One may be of curiousity and chasing after
    illusive proofs. But one does things fairly and moderately.One’s
    emotions are not stable. As stated from a proverb, “ curiousity
    kills a cat ”.This type of atheist is arrogrant and at times
    one may isolate
    from others who are better than oneself or one may
    think highly knowledgeable of oneself.Moderately one does one’s
    own way.

    3rd
    type of Atheist…( Moral Practioner Atheist )

    knows
    how to cultivate one’s inner and outer-selfmorally and practise
    calmness meditation. These two methods are of paramount importance to
    oneself because they help to liberate one’spure-self. One has
    no strong desires for these materialistic things. One may isolate
    from others, but does not hate, disturb or cause any harm to
    others.
    One may be in harmony to society and at
    times volunteer to help the society. No doubt that one does not
    believe in the existence of GOD, fairies and devils but one does
    respect them just like to human beings irrespective of races as
    well as to nature.
    One does not pollute and contaminate the land,
    sea and space.
    One is in line with moral values and nature.This
    type of atheist is better than those religious persons whose
    hearts are empty of love for others and always claim one’s
    religion is the most correctand supreme. If one’s thought still
    remains with an iorta of
    impurity then one is within the realms of samsara,

    one of the 31 planes of the “Three Worlds”of reincarnation.

    4th
    type of
    Atheist…( Enlightened Atheist )

    A 4th
    type of Atheist who has gained one’s
    enlightenment in
    receiving one’s Universal wisdom of ” spiritual knowledge ”
    which supersedes humanknowledge of comprehension requires a basic
    condition
    to fulfill one’s attainment of this Cosmic
    Consciousness through “Morality” and its Natural Way

    in calmness meditation as well.

    Inorder to
    attain this spiritual knowlege one needs to fulfill the conditions
    of self purification in one’s body,
    mind and soul in practising
    daily moral values with a compulsory
    in calmness and stable
    meditation. They are inseparable.
    There must not be a single impurity of
    tangible or intangible
    issue in one’s thought. It
    should be totally
    pure to
    liberate one’s pure-self
    out of the 31 planes of samsara
    or the “Three Worlds” of reincarnation. This indeed is a true
    and pure moral cultivator who detaches all
    worldly desires and can perceive in comprehension of nature

    and the world beyond.

    Then one becomes a non-atheist.

    Whether
    one is an atheist, religious, or anon-religious, The Supreme
    Almighty still loves all.HE does not discriminate any but is
    discriminatedby many. Whether one believes in HIM or not,
    HE still delivers many things for humans, animals, sea-creatures
    and plants to survive
    through
    many millions years until today.

    They are air, water, sunlight, cosmic energies,

    sea, air and land
    creatures, crops, minerals
    as well as
    many seen or unseen objects.
    Only
    the ignorant, selfish, egoistic, stubborn,

    greedy and deluded humans are disobeying and

    destroying what HE has given.
    Mankind
    can only destroy the environment
    but they cannot replace back to
    her original state

    Please
    have a heart of gratitude and Indiscriminate Love
    to all living and non-living beings, as
    well as to the
    Supreme Almighty so as to be classified as a
                                                       

  • http://twitter.com/dolores_haze Dolores Haze

    Oh dear. Can’t one be an atheist and not hate or disparage organized religion? I’m an atheist because I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD OR THE SUPERNATURAL. It’s fine for others, and in general, I think that religion is a positive force for humanity. Like all human endeavors, religion is an imperfect but occasionally radiant enterprise (much like science, Hollywood movies, or French cuisine). 

    I’m not anti-religion. I get vague when I encounter people who are ardently religious and try to avoid stating my atheism outright because they usually get so excited about arguing with me. I’ve no desire to argue with them about my non-belief. It just is. Religion requires faith, and I know myself well enough to say that I’ll never be capable of that kind of faith. Sometimes I think it’d be nice to be a believer (I imagine it’d be like going from tone deaf to perfect pitch), but it ain’t happening. I’m a cynical rationalist at heart. 

    On the other hand, organized atheism is more silly than incredibly destructive. 

  • Johnny Bonny

    6 minutes and I stopped watching. This is ridiculous.

  • JJ

    A very interesting documentary

  • Ozren

    it’s so funny…nobody ever asks…”can you describe this god you don’t believe in?” …it’s not like one man’s idea of god is any similar to other man’s idea of god …it’s just the word that sounds the same… they think they talk about the same “thing”…but they all have something different in mind…funny

  • Anusan Moorthy
  • Mathew Toll.

    Well, it’s not the best documentary. I was hopeful though.

  • Mathew Toll

    P.S.  There is just so much which is wrong and confused.

  • http://twitter.com/smuffle89 clairessa brown

    So if religion is removed then another ideology must fill it’s place?

    This may be so but it still says nothing to the legitimacy of Christianity being implemented or any other religion. It also doesn’t make the point that atheism is inherently bad. I think he tries to imply that atheists are amoral since they don’t have a 3000 year old book but just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, ect…, these world views have always been constantly evolving with, if not 100% or at least a good 99% seeing at least one barbaric type of moral ideology somewhere in its past. 

    Concerning atheistic morality, I’d agree with what one of the other scientist said on bringing up a utilitarian viewpoint on doing what’s best for a large number of people. While that has it’s problems as does other theories in the realm of philosophical ethics, religion’s followers present similar problems in their justifications for mass murders, discrimination, ect. I know that the goal of this documentary was to try and paint atheism as similar to other religions but I don’t quite get how that helps prove anything about those religions at all… or how that discredits atheism. 

    Like both of the scientists said, those people (Hitler, Stalin, ect…) they killed in not the name of atheism but what I’d say is in the name of what one could see as a personal religion that they made up. And in the same way, atheists must believe that all other religions have been made up by people as well.

    As a final note, denying the existence of a god doesn’t mean you make yourself into one. It just goes to say we’re not accompanied by any deity and so these so-called “god-of-the-gaps” arguments where he’s trying to imply “just because scientists can’t answer  certain questions now means there’s no argument” that he was trying to give earlier on in the documentary where he’s talking to the guy in Illinois at the particle smasher place doesn’t hold at all. One could’ve said the exact same thing about discovering how traits are passed down from generations 1000 years ago and now it’s been proven that way of thinking is wrong.

  • Jthedon9124

    This guys actually has a very valid point 

  • Anusan Moorthy
  • Anon

    Atheism is the worst of idolatries

  • Mo Hassan

    I am a Muslim. I don’t “know” whether God exists or not. I just believe.

    But I wonder, will Richard Hawkins be punished by God for not believing? Is he evil for not believing in God? Is “he” really rejecting God’s existence, or is it his understanding that can’t grasp God? 

    I think if God does exist then Richard Dawkins is “mistaken”. But surely he has a right to be mistaken. Surely to be mistaken is not a punishable act.

  • Geust

    Wow.  There is so much wrong with this.  He starts by pointing out what an enormous amount of horrible violence is caused by religion, then says that atheists are just as bad because they suggest that religious people might be stupid, and sometimes some atheists are even rude.  That’s his entire point of the documentary.

    Darwin’s book a “sacred text”?  I doubt there’s one page of that book that hasn’t been updated and refined since Darwin’s time.  Mr. Liddle seems to have no idea how science works.

    Would the world become a better place if everyone suddenly became an atheist?  Suicide bombings would cease; does that count?  Dubya never would have invaded Iraq; does that count?  Nearly all the tensions in the Middle East would go away; does that count?  An international group of organized child molesters would be left without access and protection; does that count?  9/11 probably still would have happened, but at least we’d have a chance at nabbing the perps.

    How can religious people claim the moral high ground?

    No war has ever been started by Science; no war has ever been stopped by Religion.

    However, I share Liddle’s confusion over organized Atheism; I guess that’s because I’m a disorganized agnostic.  My neighbor won’t celebrate Thanksgiving because he thinks it somehow has something to do with God, whereas I think it has significantly more to do with turkey and mashed potatoes.

    I also agree that Dawkins and a few others can be obnoxious about their Atheism.  But maybe they’re morally indignant, disgusted by the violence and stupidity perpetrated on the rest of us by religious zealots.  Most reasonable people can understand that, I think.

  • Friendly Atheist

    Didn’t make it to 20:00, switched off when the presenter tried to suggest that it was atheism that inspired the killings under Stalin/ It wasn’t, it was Stalin’s imperial delusions. Not worth wasting time on this one. 

  • Joe Atheist

    This documentary is totally disingenuous! At least I hope so. Here’s why. The host spends a lot of time trying to show how there are a lot atheists that are steadfast in their belief that there is no possible way that a god could exist. But what is really going on here is that most of these atheists are rejecting a very specific type of god – usually the one of the three largest monotheisms, but more generally one that intervenes in the world causing events to happen which appear to violate what is understood to be the natural laws of the universe. They also reject the type of god that reveals “truths” to particular people that others in principle can only have access to second hand (e.g., through holy texts). That means, the “truths” cannot be perceived in the physical world again a second time around, but rather can only be held as true by believing them without evidence. The discipline of history, for instance, may seem to work the same way, however physical evidence must be brought to bear on any given question, otherwise it is speculation; and if it is written evidence, there has got to be more than an assertion in a text that for instance what we understand to be the laws of the universe were violated. Something that leaves more than a written record as a trace.

    The host’s words make it appear as though these people are rejecting the possibility of any kind of god whatsoever (incl. a deist god, a pantheist god, etc.). He makes the point that many atheists think that “scientists who believe in god are guilty of dualism. That is, they understand the world in two contradictory ways” (18:15). But no atheist I have ever met, whose books I have read, or whose talks I’ve listened to on the subject believes this about a pantheist or a deist. They just say that there’s no positive reason to believe in such a god, because nothing is different except that we have added to the formula: +X. That is, we have said the following: “and by the way, it’s not impossible that there is also a thing that we basically don’t know anything about, can’t experience in any way, have no physical evidence for, and by the way it doesn’t even have to be a ‘thing’ at all… i.e., it can be totally ‘transcendent'”. Now, this could be the case. But it’s no different that Carl Sagan’s invisible dragon, or Bertrand Russell’s teapot (if you don’t get the references, look them up in google). It is not the case that many atheists believe this. What most rational atheists do believe is that scientists who believe in god are playing by two different sets of rules: they require physical evidence to believe in anything… but a god. Let’s put it this way to you, the reader: why don’t you believe in fairies? Why don’t you believe that dinosaurs live in your backyard? Well, the obvious answer is that there is no evidence for these things. In every other aspect of your life, when the existence of something is posited, you require evidence for it. Many will bring up love as a counter example. Well, this is also disingenuous: if I were walking down the street with you, the reader, and we walked past a beautiful woman who didn’t acknowledge my existence, and I said to you: “that woman loves me!”. Well, you would think I was crazy of course. There’s no reason for you to believe it, but there’s no reason for me to believe it either! Why? Because even an affection for someone comes along with certain actions that are minimally more than acknowledgment, even if we can play around with what evidence can be brought to bear. It may be complex evidence, but it’s certainly not no evidence. If there’s no evidence, then it is in practice the same as no existence, not just with love but with everything. 

    The host spends a lot of time trying to convince us that atheism is turning into tomorrow’s new religion if we don’t do something to stop it, but how this is so is not quite clear. What is clear is that the host puts forth a great deal of effort to play with words in such a way as to conflate respected institutions or people amongst many atheists with revered sacred objects and holy people. The Kaaba and the Fermi lab are not the same thing, and atheists do not understand the Fermi lab to be anything like the Kaaba or a church. The Fermi lab is not a center where scientists interpret texts from 2,000+ years ago which are said to contain “truths”; it is not an object that atheists touch, throw stones at, or gather around to feel the transcendent god within them. As I write this, I even have difficulties using the right language to compare them because a religious person sees the world and specifically sacred objects in just a totally different way. Now, playing with language is a non-obvious circular argument: the conclusion is being drawn simply by using the same language in one domain in the other domain such that it becomes obvious that they are the same domain. But the argument is yet to be made, because I don’t hear atheists using this type of language about the Fermi lab, for instance, or any other institution other than when they talk about sacred objects in relation to religious people themselves.

    Now, the host also plays on the same playing field as the scientists, buying the conclusions they make from empirical evidence. He also doesn’t seem to buy the argument that there is a god that is anything like a Christian god. So, to me this whole documentary seems to be a kind of straw man argument. If it isn’t, I’m sorry that these atheists are so closed-minded. But I’m willing to bet that the clips were strategically chosen, or if not mis-portrayed, then certainly misunderstood. 

    • Can’t-smile

      Wonderful response, unfortunately, the brick wall you are talking to has no ears :(

    • Notorious P.I.D

      cool story bro

      • Jjjjjjjj

        i get it but i dot due to brick wallish elements

        • Josh Atheist

          You can’t just cover your ears and scream at the top of your lungs to make the ‘big bad atheist’ go away. I found Joe Atheist’s comment to be an apt analysis of this dreckumentary.

          • somefool

            YES KILL THE BLASPHEMERS WHO DISGRACE SCIENCE (praise and logic upon its method) AND DO THE WORK OF THE PIOUS!!!

    • Joe Agnostic

      I disagree with your assessment of the documentary. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in any form of supreme being, not a specific god such as that found in the modern monotheistic religions. And atheism is not just a belief in the absense of a god, but a belief that a god principle is totally unnecessary to add to scientific explanations of what is going on in the world. So atheism in practice is equivalent to a scientific materialistic view of the world the specifically excludes the existence of a god (in any form). Ask any atheist and they tend to believe that science offers a complete explanation (or as complete as possible), and that god is just a superfluous addition to such an explanation.

      This is atheism in practice. The belief in science is very strong, and Occam’s Razor is used to dismiss “transcendent” philosophies. I do not know any atheists who believe in a patheist or deist god… they invariably remove any concept of god from the equation.

      With regards to belief, there are many things we believe but have no evidence ourselves for. In fact, science itself is so enormous, that most scientists have to take on faith the assumptions they base their research on as they do not have the time, resources or inclination to check everything themselves. Just because science has effectively proved something today, does not mean that we can assume it is correct for tomorrow. After all, science itself goes through revolutions where old theories are disgarded for new ones.

      It is not atheism per se that is turning into tomorrow’s new religion, but scientism (which is effectively atheism in practice today). And it is becoming a religion because belief in it exceeds its actual remit, so that you get people like these scientists dismissing “transcendent” philosophies when in actual fact they cannot dismiss them or confirm them. The actual position of a science is one of agnosticism, not atheism. So any scientist that is either an atheist or a believer in God is actually operating outside of the scientific paradigm. Nothing wrong with this — its personal choice — but there is no way that atheism itself is backed by science, nor religion dismissed by science.

      Joe Agnostic

      • Jacob Merphy

        I love when people try to describe what they don’t understand.  the sheer lack of knowledge if always so obvious. Don’t worry. You’re on the right track.  I hope that you will understand the subject which you are trying to discuss someday.

        • Jacob Merphy

          Sorry for the typo. I meant to write is*.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6SUTIJVTD6NTGA7I2FXZL7GLPE aaron

        I would say most atheists… me included are willing to believe in a god. We  just have not seen any valid evidence for it. If we were to then it would not be called “FAITH”. Its not a religion. Its not cut and dry…. many baptist believe one interpretation of the bible, catholics another, Pentecostalism yet another, judaism, ect… Atheism is a lumped together group of people with deferring views. We don’t get together to solidify them(there are some groups) like religious groups. 

      • c4p0ne

        Umm, well, yeah, except for the fact that it’s all just decently-worded horse sh*t. 😉

        The bottom line which has been stated ad nauseum by science is that not only is there no “compelling” evidence to suggest a god-creature, but no evidence at all. Period. When valid evidence presents itself… well, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it (which seems unlikely to ever happen).

        IN THE MEANTIME, believing in whatever propositions you want as long as they make you feel all warm and comfortable luxuriating in your own ignorance, (and on zero evidence) is NOT OK when it affects other individuals in a negative (and in the case of religion, many times LETHAL) way. So lets just keep that “personal-god” garbage on the back-burner until we have some ACTUAL evidence. This will permit our species to finally progress out of the dark ignorance of religiosity and into a type-1 civilization. This is an absolute requirement if we -as a species- are ever to spread our genome off of this planet…

        I mean it’s enough we’ve got the mind-cancer of religious nonsense to deal with already without having to deal with the fact that we’ve got “all our eggs in one basket” as far as the existence of mankind goes. Because we don’t exist anywhere else but here, therefore, our chances of survival in the face of some potential global catastrophe are severely mitigated realizing this is the only home ALL of us have.

      • gsjikwblao

        I agree with you that none of the specific “versions of God” given by organized religion make sense. But you said that a scientific understanding of reality has no need of a God to explain what we see around us today. We know that each state of reality was produced by the state that came before. It is driven into existence by “causation”. If you back up in time you eventually come to the “big bang” 13.7 billion years ago. From that point onward everything was an inevitable development born of the driving effect of causation on the expanding singularity. This means that everything that science is observing today was an established future fact 13.7 billion years ago. How does a believer in “causation” account for the existence of “causation”. Obviously this question cannot be answered as well as a million other questions that we haven’t even asked yet. Of course this does not prove the existence of a conscious designer but surly it is not unreasonable to consider it. Science does not need a “God” to explain anything it considers because it does not consider the cause of the expanding singularity, 13.7 billion years ago. It is significant to note that the attempt to unify the ultra fine tuned fundamental forces has not seen a forward step in over 50 years. Because we know that the enormous complexity we see today which is most likely only a tiny portion of all there is, was locked into these fundamental forces to be released by causation through linear time, we can understand that the information density in them was also enormous. This information not only produced everything that observe, but it produced us as well.. According to Ochams razor, or the law of probability do atheists consider this to be by “dumb luck” which according to the “law of causation” does not even exist or is it more likely that it has a designer? While this does not prove the existence of a conscious designer, surly it is worth considering. It is as good a therory as any in front of us at the present time.

    • Cycling

        “The Fermi lab is not a center where scientists interpret texts from 2,000+ years ago”

      No, they interpret things from today and make “truths” about what it was
      millions of years ago and about the origin of Universe, although they
      don’t have any means to prove that empirically.

      Meanwhile they reject testimonies of witnesses written 2000 years ago.

      • Veggiecrusader

        I am curious as to why you would say, “testemonies of witnesses”, when it was not written by someone with a first hand account.  That is if you are referring to the bible. 

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6SUTIJVTD6NTGA7I2FXZL7GLPE aaron

          veggie you are correct. Many of these “books” were written by different people after the fact. One book of the bible might be written by 5 authors who are relating stories passed down oraly for generations. Then when they were put together they were originaly about diffrent people but made to be about this or that one person. 

  • Byron

    The central argument of this film, ie that ‘the “very stupid human craving for certainty and justification”, not
    religion, is to blame for this (religious) violence, and that atheism is becoming
    just as dogmatic as religion’ is deeply flawed in that it fails to explain why athiests aren’t declaring violent jihad against those who disagree with them when so many religious fanatics do.

    Isn’t this ‘stupid’ craving for certainty and justification the very same craving that drives science?

    Are there scientific fundamentalists out there that i don’t know about blowing themselves up in the name of Darwin?

    • Agnostic

      Blowing yourself up is wrong but atheist regimes where millions of people died under atheist leaders are fine? You didn’t watch the documentary very closely at all and you’re clearly bias towards atheism so why pretend you even have a valid opinion?

      • Geust

        Fellow Agnostic, Lenin and Stalin are the only atheists leaders I know of, and the only two mentioned.  They did NOT crusade to spread atheism, as you falsely infer.  They were psychopathic power-mongerers who murdered their own followers.

        The documentary is clearly biased against atheism, so why pretend that it even has a valid opinion?

  • Jim

    I felt it was biased and therefor annoying.

  • Aaron Jones

    Interesting documentary, a solid and well rounded take on Atheism.

  • JMGING

    Oh stop your blubbering. The only thing Atheists can actually prove, is that the Bible cannot be taken fundamentally. It is a work of man and has been twisted and turned through the ages and translations again and again. Of course believers can’t prove God exists. But Atheists are no closer to proving that God doesn’t exist. If you are an Atheist you merely have a SUBJECTIVE opinion that God does not exist. If you are a believer then you have found subjective faith that God does exist. The Atheist who claims any sort of objective stance towards the existence of God is the same as the believer who also claims objectivity. You aren’t smarter because you don’t believe in God, and you aren’t dumber if you do. You are however a fool if you state your case as objective fact regardless of which side of the line you fall on. You either doubt, or you have faith; still, not a one of you knows. But you know you’ll sit on your deathbed, Athiest, Christian, Muslim; where fear and doubt will creep in. I’d suggest at least placing your belief somewhere however, and for the Athiest I do hope it is not in Human Kind. Most Athiests will say science, who’s wonders grow each and every day. I suppose it could all be just a big accident, but are the chances of such an accident really any better than the chance that possibly there is more to our world than meets the eye? I’m not sure, and neither are you. 

    • timmuh

      Atheists don’t have to prove anything. The theist making the positive assertion has the burden of proof on their hands. As an atheist, I’m simply saying I don’t and won’t believe you until you can back up your supernatural claims with a lick of evidence. If the burden of proof was on you or I to disprove claims, and not on the one asserting them, we would all be forced to believe in all kinds of things until we could disprove them. Also, faith is dumb. I have faith in nothing, but instead reasonable expectations based on evidence. Can you tell me one other thing in your life where you just believe with no evidence? Moreover, to advise the readers here to simply put their faith in something on their deathbed, as if it’s some kind of wager, is just dumb. I will, and have, put my faith in human kind. Finally, you may want to read a science book and stop referring to life as a big accident. There is no need to evoke god as we once did to explain plagues, earthquakes and eclipses. Science filled in those gaps and is continuing to fill the remaining gaps that religion has been pushed into.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vladimir-Rakic/515057908 Vladimir Rakic

    The problem with atheism is that it claims there is no God with absolute certainty, while it ignores scientific evidence on the contrary. They only pick out the parts of science that go along with there view, and then they have the audacity to claim their view is purely scientific.

    Science has always been the study of the observable physical world, it’s regulation on its field of study is clearly only limited in the materialistic, therefore excludes the capabilities to study anything beyond it.

    Even though science has this limitation it still proves mathematically that at least the possibility of existence beyond only the materialistic world is highly plausible. Different dimensions have been speculated to be possible by almost forms of universal theories that came out of the school of physics( theory of relativity, string theory…etc). In fact, if we look at the calculations of black holes we can see a very interesting result. Black holes are theoretical phenomenon in the universe where time and matter collapses on itself, in order to create a sort of vacuum where the calculation states that both time and space are infinite in the other side of this so-called vacuum, which completely suggest the existence of a different dimension with different laws than of our physical world. This is basically what all religions that have survived to this day claim God or Gods to be in, since almost all of them claim they are beyond the physical and that they exist outside the concept of time.

    Although there is no way of proving this to the utmost degree, neither is the perspective of the atheist, and that is why this documentary makes an interesting point. Science, especially through Darwin has created a philosophy of Social Darwinism that goes beyond the scientific truths behind, and turns it into a moral system, almost a religion that has its ground on the concept of survival of the fittest. This is where believing that one race is superior to the other, and competition between brothers stems from, and has created a culture where selfishness is more highly respected than selflessness, and therefore has turned the behavior of humans away from its natural needs of altruism that are contained in all major religions, and replaced it with a competitive view of human interaction and that is why just as the the state and religion should be separated, also spirituality and science need to be separated.

    • Timmuh

      You don’t know what atheism is. Atheism doesn’t pertain to knowledge, but to belief. Atheists NEVER claim there is NO god. You, as a theist, say there is a god and his name is xxx, and i say, as an atheist, I don’t believe you, and won’t believe you until you can provide some evidence to back up your claims. Theism is the assertion that a god is real. Atheism is simply the rejection of that claim until some evidence is presented. Moving on: You write that science is limited to only studying the material world. You, me and all the scientists of the world have absolutely NO knowledge of anything other than the material world, so why assume it exists. Before you assert it, you need to provide evidence for it. Moving, moving on: There is absolutely no relationship between atheism and Darwinism. An atheist can deny evolution and still be an atheist and some atheists do just that. Moreover, evolution does not make the assertion that one race is superior to another, but even if it did, so what? The fact that you and I wouldn’t like it doesn’t make it untrue. In conclusion, it’s not about what is possible it’s about what is probable. And there probably isn’t a god.

      • Vladimirrakic

        First of all I never said I was a theistic, secondly if you belief in the possibility of God your an agnostic, they belief in the possibility of God, while atheist exclude it. And finally, I just showed the possibly from a scientific perspective that the possibility of an existance beyond the material is is possible, but that science is to limited in its scope of study to even take it into consideration.

        • timmuh

          Thanks for getting back to me, but I still have to say no. Atheists do not exclude the possibility that there is a god. They reject the claim that there is a particular god. Atheism pertains to belief in that he/she will say to the theist, “I don’t believe that you have made your case and so I will refrain from believing until you do so.” Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, in that the agnostic is simply saying I don’t know.

  • teahouse.

    Hmm… perhaps Richard Dawkins might be the root of all evil? A scientist – not a theologian, not a philosopher, not anyone with any sociological or religious studies background – AND not one to be making sweeping social statements about religious convictions.

    As both a scientist and Christian, it seems as though we are faced with a choice in life. There is not much material certainty on either side — quite similar what God states in the Bible. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.’ (Joshua 25:15)

    Good Documentary. 

    • timmuh

      Given that the bible is such an unreliable historical source and in direct conflict with what we know about the natural world, your aforementioned choice is an easy one to make.

      • Seraph

        All historical sources are unreliable.

      • bigbear

        “Given that the bible is such an unreliable historical source” actually you’re wrong since it’s an excellent historical proof, and any scholar will tell you tell that the four canonical gospels were dated back to withing one century of Jesus. And it wasn’t just the Christians that kept accounts of Jesus, but jews and pagans. If you think the bible isn’t good historical proof, look at the thousands and thousands of manuscripts written by the jews and christian forebears that could reconstruct the whole new testament minus 11 versus. In conflict with what we know about the world? “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.”

        • Nptrtgms20

          Well said.

    • TYLER STURGESS

       But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.’ (Joshua 25:15)
      I fucking hate that verse my mom always uses it as her explanation as to why I have to go to church when I am an atheist. only 6 more months ^.^

      • Nptrtgms20

        There is no such thing as an atheist; while you are at church try to learn something like Romans 1:19-20.

      • Nptrtgms20

        It is 6 months later and now you can go out and really find out what life is about like….. you will never get away from authority…someone will always be telling you what to do…be an employer, the government or other authorities.  You would be wise to listen to them.

    • Nptrtgms20

      There is all kinds of material certainty of God; there is order, complexity and design.  Science tells us kind reproduces after their own kind; life only  comes from life; the life of the flesh is in the blood…the Bible tells us all these things.

  • Reed

    This bloke is totally full of shit. His arguments are un-based and close-minded like most arguments made by creationists.  He really has no idea about the idea of atheism and is guilty of the same bullshit that he uses his unfair editing to draw from the few extremist atheist.  He slowly and clearly outlines why atheist ideas exist then rebuts them by interrupting rudely and throwing his non-fact based crap at his interviewees.

    I was looking for an honest, interesting & intelligent criticism of atheism and this doco failed on all fronts.

    • Seraph

      Or perhaps it hits to close to home for you?

      • Samantha

        no, this really is biased bullshit.

    • Nptrtgms20

      There is no such thing as an atheist…..Romans 1:19-20.

  • http://www.homepagedaily.com Simon Moore

    I have not even begun to watch this documentary and yet I am already witnessing the inane and persistent commentary that seems so inherently tied to internet discussion beneath. Atheist, Monotheist, Polytheist, who gives a fuck, how about just examining the same traditional mundane discussions and arguments with a fresh look and entertaining some new debate that does not fall into the same two sided bullshit? Alas I fear this documentary also falls into the same trap as most of you have. but we shall see! 

  • Ranum

    Haha what a moron! This guy doesn’t even understand basic things like: proving the negative is A LOT more complicated than proving the positive. I hate when people lack the intelligence it takes, to handle documentaries like this one. Like the retarded Ben Stein documentary etc.

  • dont call me atheist

    The ultra-rational wing isn’t doing any good to the rest of us who also don’t believe in a god. They’re just there to have their public appearances an interviews edited so they can be painted as lunatics (which some of them are not far from) and make everyone else who doesn’t believe in a god look like a science-nazi.

    At any rate, even though I do think atheism is turning into a religion to a lot of people (that’s why I say ‘I don’t believe in a god’ instead), this doc is feeble and far from unbiased.

  • Ranum

    Well, that was terrible. How did this man ever win anything…

  • Timo van der Kraan

    Seriously, all this documentary does is say, you are not 100% sure of your case.. so that means we are right. Christians and any other religious persons (apart from Buddhists) are just plain childish and stupid.

  • HAHA

    the big joke is that nobody needs to justify their existence
    not with science, not with religion, not with ideas
    accept your existence and live for everything

    • Nptrtgms20

      Life had to come from somewhere; it did not just magically appear.

  • Glowzomed

    When you say that Athiesm too has blood on its hands because the Soviet Unions Athiest regime killed millions, you’re talking crap…Those millions were killed by an Athiest for reasons not related to religion, or disbelief of religion..A lunatic killing for his own sick reasons…The millions killed by religion have generally been killed for predominantly religious reasons..Therefore your logic is flawed.

  • Samantha

    awww, shit! he’s pulling out the eugenics card. I’m outta here.

  • Gavinlaird1985

    truth is none of us are religious or athiest
    were all dont have a fucking clue ( ist )

  • Nvkeltch

    This guy is a retard. I want to watch it being a open minded person, but i really need facts.

  • Mind-Control

    What a ridiculously boring and unintelligent piece of tripe this documentary is.   Chanel four should be embarrassed.  Don’t waste your time with this.  It’s clearly about the weak-minded narrator’s inner dilemma that he knows he is an atheist but doesn’t want to offend anyone and is trying to come to terms with the fact that creationists around him who he loves and respects (ie. friends and family) can just be wrong.  Just take the leap !!!  It’s freer on the other side.  It doesn’t mean you still can’t love each and every person in the world.  We’re moral too!

  • Hobo

    wow I dont usually post stuff, but wow…….this is bad. This guy is an idiot

  • Atheism

    Interesting subject pathetically tackled in this documentary.  Read the description and do your own research.

  • ReBasEco

    Disappointed. These guys are stuck in a rut and asking the same questions over and over. Everybody is analyzing too narrow a beam. The question seems simple to me, does order rule or does chaos? forget he buzz words like God or supernatural.

    For the record, I believe in higher levels of order. The buzz words “Higher power” connote a higher ‘mind’ which is pure human vanity.

  • jon

    i don’t believe in religion too but this man is making a valid point and you people should respect that, if anything, you are all extremely biased!

  • macca

    Why can’t people just accept that maybe just maybe it’s all pointless, And go about living life to it’s fullest potential. You may go to sleep tonight and never wake up again or you may live for 100 years, Really doesn’t matter if there is a god or there isn’t,There is no guarantees in life. The sun will die out in 5 billion years maybe we will be on other planets by then,Who is to say the universe itself may one day cease to exist and it starts all over again. There is no escape so just live life and respect each others choices without interferring in any way.

  • Paul

    We can’t leave it at that because there isn’t any evidence for it. The time and resources we spend are better put, if human suffering is what we are looking to minimize, somewhere else. It’s foolhardy to make up gods to explain what we do not know rather than just admitting we do not know.

  • rores28

    This documentary is a master’s class in sophistry.

    It is interesting to note that the documentarian’s problem with certitude is directly mirrored in his certitude that neither camp (theist/atheist) should attempt to impose their views of one another.

    Really low rent stuff.

  • rores28

    This is a master’s class in sophistry.

    I find it interesting that the documentarist’s (?) problem with certitude (god/no god) is mirrored in his own certitude of his philosophy, “live and let live. He doesn’t see this because presumably he feels as though he is taking a null position. But of course “inaction” if it can even really be called that is just another type of action. A lack of a position on the issue is in fact a position on the issue.

    Really low rent stuff. There’s something troubling and vaguely nauseating about an adult making a documentary about something of which they have such a superficial understanding. The entire time I wanted to take him aside pat him on the head and say, no no no you have misunderstood what someone means by x, y, z. This is how it works. This would be sad but understandable in most cases, but becomes unacceptable when one is making a documentary on the subject.

  • pov

    we can t understand INFINITY, we are LIMITED. We live in a cause-effect world and there ar things that aren’t rule by those laws… accept that and then you will never be a fanatic anymore because you will know that you don’t have certitudes!!! Remember, the atheist don’t have certitudes, the religious people don’t have certitudes… SO, ALL WE HAVE IS FAITH!!!

  • liz

    Judging from most of the inane comments on this page, I’d say the guy is spot on!

  • Leon

    Hmm… “Atheism too has blood on it’s hands too, the communist revolution killed….” lol, that’s like saying: “Muslim terrorism killed a lot of people, the Spanish Inquisition alone killed x-amound of people.”

    This is so ridiculous, it’s funny to watch.

  • Ram

    How much I wish this guy should have met Christopher Hitchens is unreal

  • alex

    what a fucking morong..stalin and hitlers were athiests but they didnt kill people for the name of athiesem.. they killed people to maintain theire place as the leaders of thier country..they were just sick minded people.

  • http://bb booble

    Hitler not a church-goer but a christian nonetheless, simply chose to limit the church’s power because he wanted domination.

  • Wayne

    I agree that the problem with atheism is because it is an hour long documentary !

  • Etienne

    I think that the most striking inconsistency in this documentary, is that the argument of human nature is used to criticize the…. naturalization of politics, ethics, psychology, religion, etc.
    Basically, it argues that since bigotry (in a broad sense meaning dogmatism) and violence are in human nature (which is a highly controversial statement, scientifically, since there is no evidence of the necessity of mass conflicts and wars), then we should better keep using religions to… prevent violence, instead of replacing it by atheism (rationalism could have been a better and more interesting and accurate term here, since atheism comprises a negative reference to a god).
    So this guy just gives a naturalistic explanation (like evolutionary psychologists do by the way) of bigotry, linking it violence, to explain that the naturalization of religious belief is as dangerous a belief as religion is.
    This is circular and highly unproductive, and I think it would have been more honest, as well as more interesting to compare the grounds of theories (religious and scientific) and the reasons to believe in them. A fair and accurate comparison between the arguments of the origin of species and those of the bible, as well as the relevance of their explanations about nature might have helped (as it helps kids understanding the world, or would have help scientists when they faced inquisition and obscurantism). This documentary, although mobilizing highly emblematic figures of the philosophy of biology, who do their best to answer very naive questions, clearly lacks very basic notions of epistemology, and falls under the category it vainly tries to criticize : dogmatism.

  • Joe

    I watched this all the way through. Not good on any level. It shows that Rod Liddle was determined to stick to his pre conceived ideas and that passed up a number of opportunities to listen to some great thinkers. He also manages to make a number of huge blunders of understanding regarding Darwinism as well as other topics. I say again, BAD on every level.

  • http://NIL humbleforest

    Dear Global Friends,

    1st type of Atheist…( False or Fake Atheist )
    is one who uses the word blindly or follow blindly,
    just as to protect or make an excuse of oneself
    for personal gain , egoism , fame , power , greed
    and glamour. It shows that one does not fully understand about nature and spiritual knowledge because one’s potential capacity of one’s mind is less than five percent developed. So the human mind of spiritual knowledge of comprehension
    of God or demi-gods, or even fairies is very, very,
    very limited. This is due to one’s pure-self which is covered
    with the past and present sins.
    This type of atheist may be a hindrance to society
    and may mislead or cause confusion to the innocent ones.

    ** 2nd type of Atheist…( Secular Law Abiding Atheist )
    knows how to behave positively without going against the law but have self-esteemed and is strongly attached to worldly
    material things.
    One may be of curiousity and chasing after illusive
    proofs. But one does things fairly and moderately.
    One’s emotions are not stable. As stated from a
    proverb, “ curiousity kills a cat ”.
    This type of atheist is arrogrant and at times one may isolate from others who are better than oneself or one may think highly knowledgeable of oneself.
    Moderately one does one’s own way.

    ** 3rd type of Atheist…( Moral Practioner Atheist )
    knows how to cultivate one’s inner and outer-self
    morally and practise calmness meditation. These two methods are of paramount importance to oneself because they help to liberate one’s
    pure-self. One has no strong desires for these
    materialistic things. One may isolate from others,
    but does not hate, disturb or cause any harm to others.
    One may be in harmony to society and
    at times volunteer to help the society. No doubt
    that one does not believe in the existence of GOD,
    fairies and devils but one does respect them just
    like to human beings irrespective of races as well as to nature. One does not pollute and contaminate the land, sea and space. One is in line with moral values and nature.
    This type of atheist is better than those religious
    persons whose hearts are empty of love for others
    and always claim one’s religion is the most correct
    and supreme. If one’s thought still remains with an iorta of impurity then one is within the realms of samsara, one of the 31 planes of the “Three Worlds”of reincarnation.

    ** 4th type of Atheist…( Enlightened Atheist )
    A 4th type of Atheist who has gained one’s enlightenment in receiving one’s Universal wisdom
    of ” spiritual knowledge ” which supersedes human
    knowledge of comprehension requires a basic condition to fulfill one’s attainment of this Cosmic Consciousness
    through “Morality” and its Natural Way in calmness meditation
    as well. Inorder to attain this spiritual knowlege one
    needs to fulfill the conditions of self purification in one’s body, mind and soul in practising daily moral values with a compulsory in calmness and stable meditation. They are inseparable.
    There must not be a single impurity of tangible or intangible issue in one’s thought. It should be totally pure to liberate one’s pure-self out of the 31 planes of samsara or the “Three Worlds” of reincarnation.
    This indeed is a true and pure moral cultivator who detaches all worldly desires and can perceive in comprehension of nature and
    the world beyond. Then one becomes a non-atheist.
    Whether one is an atheist, religious, or a non-religious,
    The Supreme Almighty still loves all.
    HE does not discriminate any but is discriminated
    by many. Whether one believes in HIM or not, HE
    still delivers many things for humans, animals.
    sea-creatures and plants to survive through many millions
    years until today. They are air, water, sunlight, cosmic energies,
    sea, air and land creatures, crops, minerals as well as many seen or unseen objects. Only the ignorant, selfish, egoistic, stubborn, greedy and deluded humans are disobeying and destroying what
    HE has given.
    Mankind can only destroy the environment but they cannot replace
    back to her original state.
    Please have a heart of gratitude and Indiscriminate Love to all living and non-living beings, as well as to the Supreme Almighty so as to be classified as a One Civilised Humankind.

    Thank you to all of you for the sharing.
    humbleforest…peace of love at all.

  • http://NIL humbleforest

    Dear Global Friends,

    ” Humans and Science ”
    In the material world, any theory must be scientifically proven
    before the theory can be accepted to all. However moral values
    have no such test or evidence.
    Moral values are all based on the natural practice of one-self.
    There is no need for science to prove the TRUTH of Morality.
    Instill the moral values in one-self and inculcate the moral
    practice in one’s soul.

    Do not be confused or too attached to mundane world
    understanding that all theories must be proven or
    scientifically tested. This itself is an action. Anything
    that has action is no more a natural way.

    However, one must never dispute the mundane world
    practice, due to too much dependencies on the forms.
    Without form it will almost impossible for those in the
    mundane world to grasp the idea or theory.
    So, as a true Great Dao cultivator, one must be able
    to differentiate this fact.

    If one looks from Dao’s perspective, sometimes
    certain theories or incidences cannot be proven
    scientifically or with test. These incidences or
    happenings are all due to Nature. Even science
    is still unable to find the reason why such
    incidence occurred.

    So, those in the mundane world will blame
    this is an “Act of God” or “ Force Majoure ”
    Why blame this to God when science is unable
    to explain the phenomena., is this fair ?
    Again all these are due to the cleverness of
    human to blame others. When no one else
    to blame, God is the target. This is the
    understanding and way of practice in
    the mundane world.

    On the contrary, if one looks at this from the
    Great Dao, one will understand that all
    these are due to humans themselves,
    and also the affinities that had been created
    from many life-times ago.

    The difference between mundane world
    understanding and practices are very much
    the opposite of Dao De ( Natural Way ) teaching.

    Dao cultivators must not be too attached to
    material or mundane world beliefs and practices,
    but must realize the difference, so that one is
    not confused.

    God does not do what the mundane world thinks
    and does. God cannot be described. God’s action
    is beyond human’s limited mind of comprehension.
    God provides moral guidelines and values for all,
    but it would be difficult for one to understand if one
    does not believe in God and His Holy advices.

    One must treasure one-self and believe in God with
    full respect and with sincere faith. HE just guides us
    back to gain our original pure-self in seeking our
    once lost eternal Pure-Land or “HOME”.

    All practical research and experiences are later put into
    theoretical facts and figures are considered to be the truth.
    But they are temporary real or truth in the mundane world only.
    Through the experiences of many trials and errors of research
    and development the temporary “proven” result is later put into theory.
    ________________________________________________

  • http://NIL humbleforest

    Dear Global Friends,
    1st type of Religious Person whose teaching contains discrimination, intimidation and oppression on its followers or others is not a true moral religious teaching. It misleads others for one’s selfish benefits in gaining power, prestige and wealth. This is dangerous as this type may create chaos and confusions ( even bloodshed )

    2nd type of Religious Person whose teaching persuades others or its followers with false promises, mystic power, attractive benefits in tangible or intangible issues for its selfish gains is not a true moral religious teaching. This type craves for supernatural power, popularity and wealth.

    3rd type of Religious Person whose teaching does not teach the comprehension and practice of self moral cultivation and calmness meditation in harmonisation of Heaven, Earth and Mankind is not a true religious complete teaching. This teaching may mislead others for one’s personal interest and gains. This may be the mundane world of morality teaching. Temporary in moral practice.

    4th type of Religious Person is whether one is religious or not, does not matter. This is a teaching that advocates the principle of self-realisation to purify oneself in moral values so as to seek one’s original lost eternal “HOME” of pureness. It is a freedom of choice, whereby one is at liberty to choose one’s true religion or no religion. As long as there is a true moral teaching which guides one to regain one’s pure light energy as to liberate one-self from this world of uncontrollable temptations, pleasures and lustful desires in returning and merging with ONENESS of Permanency, then it is the right path. This is where Universal Love and Justice radiates to all. No expectation of rewards or claim credit for anything done. It is natural non-action in pure moral values.
    Praying faithfully to The Merciful Supreme Almighty without showering true love for all mankind does not mean that one is a religious person or a true moral cultivator. Heaven is judging what mankind is doing in moral or immoral.
    Judgement Day will be befallen to those who have abused, misinterpreted and misleading the true teachings of Heaven’s Truth in Moral Values and HIS way of Universal Love and Justice.

    Note :- Human beings can do whatever they like, but in the end they have to answer for their deeds when the messengers of Death come for their call.

  • http://NIL humbleforest

    Religious teachings guide everyone to love, share and care one another with a moral pure heart. They do not teach anyone to hate, discriminate nor to kill one another. They guide us to seek our original lost eternal Pureland.
    It is human beings who tend to be too clever to go against Its moral path, thus fallen into this deluded world as to confuse oneself and others.

    Religion and, You or I ”
    1. Religion teaches us the true moral way of life in moderation, justice peace and harmony with indiscriminate love in sharing and caring one another.
    2. Religion teaches us to have filial piety towards our parents and elders.
    3. Religion teaches us to be humble, polite and respect one another without any discrimination whatsoever.
    4. Religion teaches us not to be greedy, selfish and dishonest.
    5. Religion teaches us not to cheat, pretend and be lazy.
    6. Religion teaches us not to be arrogant by threatening, suppressing, despising or belittling anyone.
    7. Religion teaches us not to commit adultery, infidelity and sexual misconduct by craving for more than one wife unless the one-wife cannot conceive or under infertility.
    8. Religion teaches us to dress moderately well by not be too seductive nor exposing one’s bodily parts.
    9. Religion teaches us not to chase strongly after fame, power and immoral wealth.
    10. Religion teaches us not to be too rigid in one’s moral practices
    Many moral teachings are set for human beings to practise, but it is due to a small group of immoral people who are against Heaven’s Principles in misleading the innocent or the ignorant ones for their selfish interests or gains.
    Freedom are being given to human beings by the Supreme Almighty, but many ingratitude people are abusing and misusing freedom for their personal or selfish gains. Most of the times moralities are being distorted, twisted and misleading by these immoral people.
    Too Dictatorship the innocent people suffer without freedom. Too Democratic or too much freedom the innocent people also suffer because the secular laws are being abused and misused by immoral or greedy people or leaders for their personal profits.
    Therefore, Moderation in walking the moral path leads one to Peace and Harmony to develop into a future of a One Global Civilised Mankind.
    1. Atheist or a Religious person has one’s choice to decide…..
    2. Satan (Demon) or Divinity has one’s choice to merge………. 3. Moral or Immoral is one’s choice to walk………

  • Hullflyer

    Dear Humbleforest, though I appreciate your attempt at spirituality, your response in hogging the comment section is impolite and bed mannered, which puts you in the category of religious fanatic and oddball.

    To the other abusive commentators.

    I personally thought that the documentary asked some very pertinent questions.
    Regardless of one’s beliefs, we should all be aware of the dangers of bigotry and ideological dogmatism.

    Whoever is the most persuasive or coercive group in a society will eventually capture your mind, regardless of how intelligent you are or think you are. Unless you have an extremely strong moral imperative to deny your conditioning, the power of peer pressure will eventually cause you to buckle and do stupid things, like commit horrible inhuman experiments in the name of science or genocide as a result of religious or political dogma as in the Nazi death camps and Stalinist and Maoist purges, which Richard Dawkins admits may be the result when morality based religion is removed.

    Since only about 13% of the world’s population are agnostic or atheist you will have to acknowledge that belief in God is far from dead and it is simply stupid and futile to attempt to deny the human Spirit the need for hope in something bigger than oneself.

  • Fillyfresh

    Well there are a few decent bumbling points here but nothing you cant find out from trawling the comments on videos like this…

  • Heps

    My goodness, I can’t believe the stupidity of this poor fool. The way he ask questions, convinced that he’ll have everyone thinking…”hmmm, he’s really onto something there”. Of course, the truth being, that anyone with the intelligence and capability to think further than a foot in front of their face, are in awe, that someone this stupid gets to be on TV, asking questions the average Joe can answer, with a thinking pause of approx 0.8 seconds. Seriously, what a waste of network money and peoples time.

  • Heps

    @Humbleforest: Are you on the same planet as us?

  • shay

    Fuck this guy. Couldn’t even get 5 min in and I’m neither Christian nor atheist

  • Aaron

    Atheism is a religion!!!!! It has become a religion with this new atheistic dogmatic movement. Dawkins is the head of the atheist church. He’s essentially the “pope” of the atheistic religion.

    Secondly, from my perspective atheism is more dangerous than religion. Why? Because if everyone lost their faith overnight who knows what would happen the next day. maybe CHAOS AND ANARCHY SO TO SPEAK.

    Atheists are delusional. The natural order is to follow god and live closer to nature aka have a natural organic god-given diet, exercise and be at peace.

    • Timgale

       Atheism is simply a subgroup of skepticism with not dogmas or tenets. It is not a worldview or a belief system but the rejection of one. It does not deny that a particular god(s) exists, but instead withholds belief until the theist offers some proof for their yet unsubstantiated beliefs.  

  • Trevor LeFiles

    People say to respect other people’s opinions, I don’t.
    Cause many opinions are wrong ethically, and wrong logically.
    So stop pretending we should respect eachother’s opinions when that’s living a lie.
    Toleranc starts with things in comm on, not things in diverse thought and beliefs.
    Don’t believe the stupid things people say. Test it. Test it til your dead, and I believe (know) you will come out a better man than most people on earth.

  • Beckyv1265

    I think that there are fanatics on both sides of the equation. As an athiest I personaly don’t care what others believe. I am an athiest. I don’t believe in Gods of anykind. I do not practice any religion including athiesm. I think this guy is an ass. He is trying to mock athiest. I think he is the one who is arrogant. I think he is just trying to justify his own belief. This was not an objective vies of athiest but a witch hunt for athiest. Oh well I guess it takes all kinds.

  • Sam

    Is the producer of this film an atheist or religionist? I think there is a sense of bias in this film.

  • Brian

    this guy bring a shame to english accent

  • Bobby

    People who believe that without religion, there would be no war (or hate) are just as misguided as those that believe in God. Religion is just a platform through which the hate/evil of mankind is conveyed.

  • John Smith

    Bias, Bias, Bias. Could not watch much past halfway. Too intolerable. Condescending and clearly has an agenda whilst trying to come across as impartial. Used fringe opinions to back his biased opinion and edited interviews to the same effect. Not recommended.

    Hoped for more from this too.

    :-(

  • http://www.villageartgallery.com backstreetpoet

    great pains were taken to examine atheist morals but I didn’t hear the same examination of religious morals. IMO the documentary had an agenda in favor of creationism and proceeded to edit toward that conclusion…an incorrect conclusion IMO…bsp

  • Ray J Wilson

    Bad documentary, not impartial so now I believe that faries exist because science cannot prove they don’t

  • CataCova212

    This is the one of the stupidest things i’ve ever seen, don’t waste your time watching it. Seriously.

  • Will

    This guy has no clue and doesn’t understand the difference between rational thought and irrational thought. His representation of what atheism is is innacurate. COMPLETELY innacurate.

  • Kristo

    As someone said here already,i think this guy aint to bright mabey…BUT there are some interessting bits,and the subject is valid,but tackled horribly by this poor fellow…..Btw what makes it valid for me,is that i just watched one docu on some of the greatest mathematicians who went insane and eventually either died or killed themselfes just working on a particular theory trying to explain well….infinity and therefore uncertanty!and here We are in this day and age who on a whim just believe in something and will argue pages just to justify what we believe in is true,without actually spending mabey more than days in our lifetime,thinking about it……i think aslong as your ideas are constantly changing and evolving,no matter how far left to right and up and down,you are on somewhat a good path,anyway enough of this….apologies for my spelling as im from the moon and language not my thing

  • Kristina

    OMG dude, he morality IS a product of evolution!! humans, like other animals, form societies, and there is clear advantage to those societies who protect their members!

    And, no, science is not used as a guide to live our lives, its used as a means of understanding how our world work!

    Man, this guy pisses me off! He is so misinformed! Feels like he has an agenda, this documentary is really, really disappointing!!

    Last but not least, think atheism is “dangerous” and “destructive” to societies?? Take a look at Scandinavia.

  • Jakub Kotyza

    What an dishonest quote mining hack. He knows almost nothing and poisons the well along the way. Shame!

  • Bopnbell

    extreme beliefs nomatter what they are, have proven to be dangerous as people fight for their point af view. We should all just respect eachothers views and not try to impress them on anyone unless they ask, and if you dont agree, simply walk away. all views can be disproven.

    • Timgale

       Yes, you’re are right in that atheism is not a belief, but instead the lack of one spelled with a small “a”. No one has ever committed a good or bad act in the name of atheism. It is just a subgroup of skepticism. As for the second half of your comment, I don’t respect all people’s beliefs, but instead tolerate them, as the law commands. Also, if they are not based on logic and reason, I ridicule them as is  my right in a modern secular society. I’m free after all.

  • A Closet Christian

    Looking at Joe Atheist comments it appears that he is not arguing against Christianity or Judaism but his own bigoted and intolerant stereotypes of a world view he simply does not understand. To be able to have a rational arguement with this sort of person we would first need to establish what Christianity and Regilion is because what he is talking about is not Christianity or Religion as I know it. In short he himself is guilty of that which he accuses the documentary. It is hypocritical.

    • Timgale

      Given that Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive in that they both can’t be right, I too would stress the believers of one or the other are demonstrably superstitious, wishful-thinking and credulous. So he’s at least half right, right?

      • Closet Christian

        Wrong. Life is much more complex than such judgemental and condesending attitudes. The reality is much more nuianced and colouful. After all it is no coincidence that a complex european society with christianity playing a central role basically invented science as we know it.

        • Timgale

          So are you claiming that two mutually exclusive religions, with different dogmas and tenets, which both claim a divine and historical revelation of an ultimate, but completely different, truth, can both be true and correct? Or that because some scientists in the past believed in the existence of a particular deity, this adds weight to the validity and truthfulness of the theist’s supernatural claims?

          • Closet Christian

            I am not claiming anything of the sort. It is you that is trying to assert the point that they are mutualy exclusive. My assertion is that to use such irrational and poorly thought out arguements is basically racist/discriminatory. But to takle your ascertion straight on christianity and judaism are obviously very similar share large amounts of ethics beliefs and share vast tracts of scpripture. Your insistence that they are mutually exclusive is the height of ignorance. Please learn something about other peoples culture before you pass judgement on them.

          • Timgale

            Firstly,
            by pointing out that if the Muslims are right, then the Jews are wrong is not
            racist, but instead a FACT. This “irrational and
            poorly thought out argument” is not mine, but instead that of Bertrand Russell; world
            famous philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian,
            and Nobel Prize winner! The problem
            with religious pluralism is that it eliminates all possibility of a specific
            and historical divine revelation, which is the BACKBONE of the theist belief in the first place. The pope, Joel Osteen and Gandhi agree with me. And yes, it really is that
            simple!

          • Closet Christian

            Using this arguement all beliefs atheist or not are incorrect as we do not have complete understanding and never can, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, and thus any ascerion that we know something for certain is falacious. Are the beliefs of Bertrand Russell and Quantum Physics mutually exclusive? Regards to racism the prejudical and discriminatory nature of your comments do fit the picture especially when we consider the UN definition of racism as including discrinination against people of a religious group. it would be wise to drop the ascertion that knowledge is complete as it stands. Even chstian thought is not standing still, even the bible issubject to new translations and new historical analysis to help us understand to culture of the time, the context and thus how it relates to modern life and its complexities. Invitably new christian writings need to fill gaps that could not have been envisaged by man 2000~3500 years ago.

          • Closet Christian

             Correction to last comment. It isn’t the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is the Heinsenburg uncertainty principle.

            Also isn’t your beleif in Bertand Russell amount to a dogmatic following of one man, would not your beleifs become outdated and arcaic as soon as the next philosopher came along? Has Bertand Russells works been subjected to Historical review? You mention he won a Nobel Prize, but it wasn’t in Philosophy or Mathematics but in Literature. To hold this up as a credential is very misleading and lacking in integrity.

            In fact according to your logic if Bertrand Russells beliefs are not exactly in line with all other philosophers they can’t both be right and must therefore be both neseccarily wrong. You I am sure would not accept this so it is hypocritical to assert what doesn’t apply to Bertrand Russell does apply to Christianity. In fact we could take this logic further and consider that if all science doesn’t agree exactly then all science is neseccarily wrong and can be discounted. This is obviously preposterous. The hole in your arguement is that you assume knowledge is full and complete. It isn’t it never will be. You position does not allow for the posibility that someone may be partially correct. Indeed even Darwin was only partially correct and under current scientific understanding no one believes in the origins of species as written but rather modifications have been made to the theory to eliminate areas where the theory did not match observations. In conclusion all I am asking is for you to have an open mind to the possibility that there are things in this world we do not understand and that in our individual lives that amount we don’t know will vastly outweigh what we do. All people are in the same boat.

          • Timgale

            There are many types of truths but we are talking
            about universal truths that states if the god of the bible is valid, then Krishna is invalid: FACT! This will never change and is
            only common sense that Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest philosophers of all time and Nobel Prize winner, vocalized, but definitely didn’t think up. You write: “In
            conclusion all I am asking is for you to have an open mind to the possibility
            that there are things in this world we do not understand and that in our
            individual lives that amount we don’t know will vastly outweigh what we do. All
            people are in the same boat.” You have just described
            atheism for what’s it worth which is nothing
            more than a subgroup of skepticism.

            http://www.truthforsaints.com/what_is_truth/what_is_truth.html

          • Closet Christian

            Then christianity and atheism have common ground and you will need to adjust your attitude of hate unless you want to live in contradiction to the world about you.

          • Timgale

             Jesus Christ, did you read or understand a thing I wrote?

          • Closet Christian

            The feeling is mutual.

          • Timgale

             No, no, no, you don’t know the definition of atheism. Atheism and religion
            are NOT mutually exclusive because atheism does NOT say “THERE IS NO GOD.” Atheism pertains to belief in that the atheist does
            not believe that the theist has made their case for their particular religion,
            but does NOT deny that a god or even their god is valid. It’s called the most intellectually honest position to
            hold when you claim not to know the unknowable, as the theist has done. Moreover,
            religion is NOT the only thing in our society above critique, and I have to tolerate
            the beliefs of others but not respect them. I hate religion, but not the
            believers; my family is full of them. Finally, the beliefs of Bertrand Russell
            and quantum physics are also not mutually exclusive; I have no idea where you
            are going there, nor do I understand why you bought up the second law of
            thermodynamics, which is also not mutually exclusive with not believing a
            theistic claim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/John.Kennington.4 Ryan Van Camp

    I love how you guys won’t acknowledged that a lot of atheists are whiny condescending assholes. It’s almost as if the primitive human trait of overtly loyal tribalism that many atheists say they don’t have are alive and well within them

    • Timgale

      Stop being so whiny and condescending. Caveman angst and how to deal with it, or the first primitive realization of death and the subsequent invention of a happy posthumous life thereafter, is the ultimate primitive human trait that we are attempting to rid ourselves of.

  • becc

    I am so sick of hearing people using their religion as grounds to be prejudice and rude while totally disregarding any positive messages that come from their scriptures. they flaunt it that they are “Christian” after discriminating and calling people with other faiths (or no faith) immoral. No your just an asshole (and what the bible would call a hypocrite) why not read the messages on loving others of all different walks of life in the Bible and focus on your own happiness.  I am agnostic/ atheist, but raised Catholic (not that you guys would care) personally I cant believe in the what, I think are man made religions, but we should respect everyone’s faith because in the end it is all for happiness, however and through what god or outlet you achieve it. I dont think that religon is the source of evil and cause of devastation, it is the work of greedy corrupt individuals in power that use religion as a means to justify evil acts. Wow it feels good to express my feelings, I never do this!!!!    

  • Mason

    So much for unbiased documentaries. 

  • Bruce Garry

    I came to realise that a good Muslim is just as likely to return my lost wallet as a good Christian and that we have a great deal more in common than disparate.

    When I was brought to my knees by the circumstances of my life I was very grateful to discover meditation given that I needed so much more at that time than belief and faith; I needed the God damned truth, and peace.

    Correct meditation observes a very strict criterion of truth: Cultivate the mind to be equanimous whilst observing the sensations on the body neither fearing nor craving, given that your body appears to be what you are and isn’t open to that much discussion in a physical world: Whatever comes of that is your lot and I can tell you from experience that it’s good beyond measure.

    Remember the Buddhist monk who immolated himself to protest the repressive government of Vietnam?

    Meditate.

  • Notonyourteam

    The trouble with this documentary: It’s definition of Atheism. It is not a belief in a negative. It is a lack of a belief. If you keep that in mind, every argument made becomes faulty… a straw man.

  • DONT BOTHER WATCHING

    Rod Liddle is in my opinion a complete and utter nonsense talking idiot. I find his logic difficult to comprehend because it is being filtered through his arse. Don’t bother watching this programme its rubbish. Doc-heaven should be ashamed to add this to thier amazing collection because it’s not a documentary at all, just an idiot with a camera with too much time.

  • Jwsyt

    Anyone who has an adult grasp of history knows that humanism has ALWAYS and will ALWAYS result in genocide. Today humanism/atheism is at work having murdered over 57 million Americans in the USA alone. Anyone born in the last 38 years is a survivor of abortion and a great many of them have lost siblings to the RELIGION of Dawkins & co. That means: their brothers and/or sisters were murdered. 27.5% of all Americans are murdered in the womb at present. 40% of all American citizens are murdered in the womb in New York State – by whom? By atheists. Now atheists have sharpened their knives for the aged, sick and depressed- Euthanasia.

     Many atheists are in fact closet satanists. Pol Pot was a humanist/atheist just as was Lenin and Dawkins and the other fool “professor” interviewed here.

    In Europe as in all the West today, people are murdered on a vast scale by Dawkins & Co. and their co-“thinkers.” In the canton of Geneva 40% of all Swiss people are murdered in the womb- literally sacrificed to the atheist god of convenience (this is genocide  on a large scale) and the shortfall in labor is offset by importing moslems to take their place. Humanism/atheism  is busily at work today. Dawkins has proclaimed that “aliens” brought life to our earth check it out on Youtube. So much for this fool.

    And for dessert:
     Darwin declared that men are more highly evolved than women (sexism). Darwin declared that the white race is more highly evolved than any other such as Africans and Asians etc. (racism). Ah OK, you didn’t know that about Darwin. Are you still a follower and believer in the religion of Darwin?

    Are you still going to keep passively lapping up the evil brew that our media keep feeding you as fundamental truth- while at the same time denying that there is any truth? Or are you going to start studying instead?

    Time to study up- what else don’t you know about Darwin? Get going now and google up why Darwin himself wrote that his theory of MACRO evolution was mortally flawed and would never be accepted-

    because there has been not one single fossil ever found to date of an intermediate transitional species- not a single one. Yet Darwin wrote that for his THEORY to be valid there would have to be countless billions of such fossils- whole mountains upon mountains of them. It is not an argument between Darwin and God/Christ. Darwinsim does not need to prevail against religion, merely against real science.

    Darwinism is not science because it is not based on science or the scientific method. It is not really science at all rather it is a philosophical outlook.

    • Timgale

       

      You are a mess. Atheism, spelled with a small ‘a’, is not a
      worldview or a belief system with dogmas or tenets, and is instead nothing more
      than a subgroup of skepticism. Nobody has ever committed an atrocity in the
      name of wondering if someone’s unsubstantiated and supernatural story is true
      or not.  Hitler’s worldview was expansionist nationalism, racism,
      antiliberalism, anti-Marxism, and, not least, antisemitism, whereas Stalin and
      Pol Pot were Marxists. Those worldviews lead them to commit atrocities coupled
      with the fact that they were just lousy and deluded people. Atheism had nothing
      to do with it. Also, there is no relationship between not believing in a
      particular god and abortion. This is demonstrated by the FACT that more
      Christians have abortions per capita than non-Christians, whereas there is a
      very demonstrable link between abortion and a lack of sex education enabling
      young people to protect themselves. Moreover, evolution and its working
      mechanism natural selection is a demonstrable fact supported by a MOUNTAIN of
      evidence whereas creation consists of “so as you see children, god did it!” You
      claim that there has never been a transitional fossil found, but the reality is
      evolution is ongoing and all fossils are transitional. Finally, tell me the
      working mechanism behind creationism, as natural selection has been scientifically
      demonstrated to be through a body of evidence, and then offer me just one
      scientific application to compete with the many scientific applications that
      evolution has provided the human race from greater fish yields to disease and
      pest control to bioinformatics etc. etc. etc., or go away!

      • Dannooll

        you really think the theory of evolution has enabled fish farming, modern medicine, modern agriculture, and genetic sequencing? Perhaps micro-evolution has allowed us to anticipate changes in disease and pests, but the only result of a knowledge of macro evolution is philosophical. It has shaped our attitude towards the future and spurred some national projects, given us more certainty in our stewardship of ourselves, but it doesn’t have any applications but in psychology.

        • Timgale

           Yes, i really do. Evolution is a demonstrable fact.

          • Nptrtgms20

            …Not verticle evolution….species do not eolve into other species…that is science.

      • Nptrtgms20

        Timgale no one is denying there is evolution within a species but to suggest there is evolution into ‘another species’ is to deny what science has proven.

        To say there is not a relationship between believing in a particular god/God and abortion  is to be blind to the behaviour of individuals.  People have abortions because the child is an ‘inconvenience’ to them and they can do whatever they want without consequences is to be blind to consequences of choice.

        Every civilized culture has a stigma about committing murder but when it comes to abortion those who accept the idea as ‘my choice’ or ‘my body’ or ‘just a fetus not a person’ do so in the face of science which has proven that fetus has a heartbeat, feels pain and is a separate being from the mother. 

        Atheism says “I don’t believe in God” regardless of the fact God has revealed Himself in the cosmos by creating order, complexity and design.  But to acknowledge him one would have to say I am accountable but then that would infringe on my desire to do whatever I want so I won’t acknowlege Him.  If the cosmos happened by ‘chance’ what is the answer to the order, complexity, design and consistency?
        There is no answer so answers are ‘manufactured’ in the mind, repeated in a culture and in time accepted.

        There is no MOUNTAIN of evidence for evolution; there is only conjecture which takes more faith to believe than the faith of a Christian who views the world, reads the Bible and understands the Bible clearly explains the condition of man, the nature of man and the end of man who rejects the truth.

        Good luck with your ‘psychology’ and your ‘theories’ which are only that but then there is no luck as luck is superstition and superstition is for feeble minds. 

        • Timgale

          (1) There is no such thing as micro and macro-evolution;
          there is just evolution. You and your cronies simply made those classifications
          up so your bible would be shown for what it is: a bronze-attempt by superstitious
          and credulous wandering shepherds to explain the world around them. When DNA
          was discovered, it completely validated the theory of evolution, making what
          was already a fact an undeniable fact, and your assertions here nothing more
          than pious fraud. Let’s look at the alternative. After leaving
          the ark, 2 kangaroos, with 2 koala bears on their backs, who happened to be
          their closest DNA relative, hopped and swam all the way to Australia
          without leaving a fossil record along the way. This is really what you believe?

          (2) I don’t believe in god and I’m against
          abortion. Moreover, you didn’t address my point as to why more religious teens
          in America
          have abortions than non-religious. If god turned up NOW and gave you a free
          pass into heaven no matter what you did from this point on, all because you had
          been such a good guy, would you go out and rob and rape? Yes or no? Now, you know where I get my morality from. By the way, if you answered yes, then keep
          believing.

          (3) You claim that The Universe had to be designed,
          but science tells us it is not. Reductionism, or the ability to explain complex
          phenomena from a simpler set, is the demonstrable way of The Universe, and life on this planet, in that all structures are irreducibly complex step
          by step. The Universe is nothing
          more than gravity acting on hydrogen. Moreover, even if I was to grant you that
          the order of The Universe was proof of a god, which I have not, you can only
          claim Deism and still have an impossible gulf to cross in proving that that god
          is your god. As the late and great philosopher David Hume stated: What’s more
          likely, the natural order is suspended or a minx should tell a lie?

          (4) Faith is dumb, I don’t have faith. Faith is
          unshakable belief in the face of all the evidence against. I have reasonable expectations
          based on evidence. The bible is a book, just like the book of any other
          religion, full of unsupported assertions, which have been disproved in their entirety.
          I
          can prove the earth is NOT 6,000 years old,
          there was NO Adam and Eve, but instead a demonstrable mitochondrial Eve and a
          Y-chromosomal Adam, both living 10s of thousands of years apart from which all
          human life has descended from, and that linguistics demonstrates the creation
          and proliferation of languages and The Tower of Babel does not. These few FACTS are in direct confrontation with
          the Christian founding documents.

          (5) If you get back to me, I want you to (1) address
          how those kangaroos got all the way to Australia, (2) why Australia’s wildlife
          are their own closest DNA relatives, reference the scientific peer reviewed journal
          that claims, with evidence, that speciation has been disproven, and (3) explain
          to me why DNA confirms the theory of evolution in its entirety. Of course, if
          you can’t, I can provide evidence for it all. Thanks.

  • Ahhhhhh………..

    Enough already. There are good religious people and there are good atheists. There are also horrible religious people and horrible atheists. Good and bad are not confined to any one belief systems. You can not use the actions of a few to define the actions of many. This documentary is an opinion. While I do not completely agree with every statement and find some level of hypocrisy in the underlining motive, I also believe that atheists can be just as prejudiced as any other belief system and just as understanding. What I can’t stand is the arguments on this page that use such limited views to define such complicated issues. Humanism does not lead to murder and neither does religion. Fanatics do. Please let that get into your head and maybe next time you post angry and generalizing comments on websites, you will at least try to have an open mind. Because without an open mind there is no point in watching a documentary. If your looking for something to just confirm your own views go watch an angry rant on Youtube.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nielsen.3726 David Nielsen

    There are no good people or good religious people and there certainly are no atheists…

    Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is
    no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none
    that doeth good. Psalms 14:2 The LORD looked down
    from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did
    understand, and seek God. Psalms 14:3 They
    are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is
    none that doeth good, no, not one.
     Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is
    manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the
    creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
    made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
    excuse:

    If someone wants to remain in blindness and darkness let them do so but God has said there will come a day of judgment.

    Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but
    after this the judgment:

  • Marius Bogacki

    I need to get my brother to watch this documentary. Anybody knows where to find Polish or at least English subtitles? 

  • I Dunno

    This whole argument misses the point for me.

    It seems that the major concern is the proper label to apply to a person’s belief system (for lack of a better phrase) and an argument over which label’s mean what.

    I personally, after long years of intense consideration, realize that I believe in science as the best means to understand my empirical experience. But it doesn’t explain my existence or my purpose or many of the puzzles that being an intelligent physical being presents.

    So I don’t know what God is. It’s troublesome that the word “God” carries so much baggage that it is virtually useless. I fall back on “That Which is Divine”.

    So what is that? What is “That Which is Divine”?

    It is a simply a label for something that I not only can’t prove, but can’t clearly define. I have come to believe that every physical thing an expression of divinity by virtue of it’s apparent existence. I know, it sounds way, way zen.

    ‘Bottom line for me is there is no way to compare my personal belief to someone else’s because I cannot experience their experience. So any label for something that is so unique to each individual is going to have potentially huge variations in meaning.

    So, what am I? An atheist? An Atheist? An Agnostic?

    I’m still learning, evolving. So maybe I’m in that nether-world of of un-labelable (yeah, I made that word up) things. A trait that I share with my “God”.

  • John Freeman.

    I’m sorry but religion has caused more death than any weapon ever created by man.

    • Nptrtgms20

      Christianity is not  a religion.

  • Buster Bennett

    There are ton’s of fossils. Go to a museum! 

  • Buster Bennett

    tons even

  • Ash

    Many people need religion in order to provide a much needed structure for their lives and to answer those critical questions for which they would otherwise have no answers. This need often overrides the capacity for reasoning. The truth is not as easy as a nice religious pre-packaged solution to those hard question. The truth is that some questions remain unanswered.
    I can understand the temptation of people taking the religious path. Its a part of human nature. When my precious daughter was confronted with a missing pet kitten, I told her it had ran away to live in nature, instead of that the neighbours dog had ripped it up. In levels of belief and understanding, on a grand scale, the human race seems to be somewhere between realising the tooth fairy isnt real and still hoping that santa brings a new bike.

  • Ash

    Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.Ambrose Bierce said it best..

  • ryanjp12

    I’m not religious at all…but I couldn’t agree more with Rod Liddle. The problem isn’t religion, it’s being human, clinging to ideas, and creating a “I’m right, you’re wrong” scenario…as Atheists have proven.  Listening to them preach sounds… well… religious.

    • Timgale

       Atheists don’t say there is no god, but instead that they do not believe that the theist has made their individual case for there being one. It is the most intellectually honest position to take. We are entitled to say that we are “right”, when we simply say we don’t know and disbelieve those who claim to know, as we agnostic atheists do.

  • lee

    stopped watching after he suggested the Russians kill 20mill people because they where atheists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439261384 Marcello Preite

    No,
    no, no.

    Atheism does not mean that
    you leave one religion to embrace another belief. Those who become militant
    about it have just switched side with something else that “they” call
    Atheism.

    But it isn’t.

    I will keep my name and continue
    to respect believers as long as they respect me.

    There is no trouble at all with
    Atheism. I am afraid the author has muddled matters. Communism was atheist and
    has caused 20 millions victims.

    Wait, wait. He is trying to pull a fast one here and a very simplistic one at
    that. Communism caused 20 million victims so Atheism caused 20 million victims.
    What sort of logic is that?

    Hitler caused 7-8 millions victims and was a vegetarian. Does it follow
    that vegetarians are genocidal?

    Instead of shedding light this
    documentary just repeats a number of long established prejudices to feed its own
    line.

    Religious strife between sects erupts when one seeks to overcome the other to
    rob their possessions or to control power by right means or foul. (Sunni-Shia)
    (Catholics-Protestants) (Jews-Muslims) (Orthodox Christians-Others).

    Religion is the veneer to cover other less principled purposes. It gets
    aggravated when some misguided clergy stands by the side of the gunman, whoever
    and wherever he happens to be.

    Atheism is liberation from the
    muddle and the refusal to believe in any sort of coercion of one’s own
    conscience in the name of this or that including the “atheism preachers”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hugh-Beaumont/100001403673700 Hugh Beaumont

    Atheism is dead. It had it’s hour and petered out in the 20th century after massive failures. An atheist is like an old kook – a professor in a tweed jacket. Pure Satanism is the next move. So get with the program, quislings.

  • Lucias Fawkes

    Oh, he’s biased and ridiculous… I’m disappointed.
    He referred to places of science as temples of atheism…
    And that atheism is a belief in not believing. No, that contradicts the very word itself.

    Didn’t want to waste any more of my time watching the second half of this garbage.

  • Matt

    Everything about this film is a failure. The theories it presents, the argumentation, but most of all its host. 3.9 stars is grossly overrated.

  • Moos2much

    I remember watching ‘The root of all evil (?)’, a documentary mentioned in this one, some time ago and it actually made me enjoy this one even more! Here is why:

    The root of all evil looked like a really promissing documentary until [spoilers] Dawkins interviewed a moderate priest and couldn’t fathom how someone representing a religion could actually be able to relativize scripture content. His reaction gave me the idea that this priest’s ideas were so radically different of what he thought of religious people, that it just wasn’t possible. As if this priest was some sort of fraud for seeing the Bible’s words, but also it’s history and the different time frames in which it was written.[/spoilers] That one moment was enough for me to question Dawkins’ integrity as a scientist really, as I believe and have always been taught that a (wo)man of science shouldn’t just toss away the things that seem implausible as what could seem as an implausibility at first could actually lead to and eventually prove the next world-changing theory or, in his case, something to broaden his own mind on. Unfortunately, as the documentary on this page also managed to convey, that didn’t really happen. Or at least not out in the open (who knows what goes on in people’s minds).

    With ‘The root of all evil’ still in memory, I felt I could understand Rod Liddle here obviously I was happy to see that even though his title might suggest he’d only talk about how ‘bad’ atheism might be, that wasn’t the case. The documentary does hand you some questions to tob over and answer yourself, rather than trying to impose own views even when those same views just got pawned in front of the lens. I do see however that people with a different background than mine can actually disagree with me on this point. =)

    In short: Loved the documentary! Would recommend it to anyone, even in combination with ‘The root of all evil?’. It’s always nice to see things through different eyes.

    Does anyone know if there is a documentary on atheism through the eyes of true believers, because that would be the icing to this religion-atheism track I’m doing methinks.

  • Moos2much

    I remember watching ‘The root of all evil (?)’, a documentary mentioned in this one, some time ago and it actually made me enjoy this one even more! Here is why:

    The root of all evil looked like a really promissing documentary until [spoilers] Dawkins interviewed a moderate priest and couldn’t fathom how someone representing a religion could actually be able to relativize scripture content. His reaction gave me the idea that this priest’s ideas were so radically different of what he thought of religious people, that it just wasn’t possible. As if this priest was some sort of fraud for seeing the Bible’s words, but also it’s history and the different time frames in which it was written.[/spoilers] That one moment was enough for me to question Dawkins’ integrity as a scientist really, as I believe and have always been taught that a (wo)man of science shouldn’t just toss away the things that seem implausible as what could seem as an implausibility at first could actually lead to and eventually prove the next world-changing theory or, in his case, something to broaden his own mind on. Unfortunately, as the documentary on this page also managed to convey, that didn’t really happen. Or at least not out in the open (who knows what goes on in people’s minds).

    With ‘The root of all evil’ still in memory, I felt I could understand Rod Liddle here obviously I was happy to see that even though his title might suggest he’d only talk about how ‘bad’ atheism might be, that wasn’t the case. The documentary does hand you some questions to tob over and answer yourself, rather than trying to impose own views even when those same views just got pawned in front of the lens. I do see however that people with a different background than mine can actually disagree with me on this point. =)

    In short: Loved the documentary! Would recommend it to anyone, even in combination with ‘The root of all evil?’. It’s always nice to see things through different eyes.

    Does anyone know if there is a documentary on atheism through the eyes of true believers, because that would be the icing to this religion-atheism track I’m doing methinks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brent-Scott/100000551775643 Brent Scott

    Trying to make atheism out to be a religion is precisely the problem with religion. The host is projecting the tendency of the religious onto everyone else, in this case atheism. And, as is consistent with the arguments against religion, he’s unwittingly setting up the very polarization which atheists oppose.

  • Cringe Shrapnel

    i couldn’t get past the written description, what a load.

  • victor

    forgive me as its now 5am and ive just finished watching, but this video hardly deals with the question it poses, ‘the troubles with atheism’. all i got from this was seeing the narrator stupefied from his discussions with dawkins and other athests. he really doesnt have much of a spine and nothing valuable to say

  • victor

    forgive me as its now 5am and ive just finished watching, but this video hardly deals with the question it poses, ‘the troubles with atheism’. all i got from this was seeing the narrator stupefied from his discussions with dawkins and other athests. he really doesnt have much of a spine and nothing valuable to say

  • http://www.facebook.com/Watcher.In.The.Shadow Mark Sharp

    hEh.
    It’s fun to watch the usual deflection, massive illogic, and party lines soo many atheists throw up when criticized… Almost as fun as pissing off their counterparts….

    • timgale

      How about a lick of evidence for your god. Which one of the 100,000 deities do you believe in without any evidence what-so-ever? Although we’re all scared of dying, we atheists automatically reject all unsubstantiated claims of wishful thinking.

  • oscar

    my main issue with this:
    how does reliion in anyway promote moral longevity? the bible is a text that suggests that you should stone your daughter to death if she refuses to marry someone who raped her. Yea sure you can keep siting the commandments that make sense but if you are going to use the ‘oh it was a different time’ defense at all you are completely contradicting the idea that your morality is absolute and unchanging. turns out there arent just fixed moral truths and just like science it is an ongoing discussion about what is the right thing

  • honestjoe

    This documentary is depressingly ideological

  • Nathalia Bell

    Oh no someone is asking is questioning Atheism! Heresy!! Lets all make obscene comments on how stupid it is!!

  • Gallant Gesture

    When it comes to Christian vs. Atheist Christians are in a no lose situation where atheist are not for if the atheist is right that there is no God then nether he nor I win or gain a thing when we meet death because theres nothing after death but if Christians are right we gain a blissful immortality and the atheist is disconnected from the source of all life and light. If that don’t make you see that you can’t see past the tip of your noses a truth more tangible; History records many Christians past and present have been martyred in the name of Christ and all some had to do you deny Him and live but the chose not to. My question is would you be just as willing to die for your unbelief as they were for their believe? No, man you would not be. Finally your position can’t be held and you would be the first to change it if a man told you, “If you believe you live if you don’t this shotgun is gona bust your head like watermelon!” I’ll answer that for you, “Praise the Lord another brother who believes in (jebus) same as me!!!”

    • Jinxer

      I m afraid that your own comment is a demonstration of why it doesn’t matter whether you gain or lose in the afterlife.You have already lost some of your freedom to think in THIS life which is the one that matters for sure since you’re actually living it.You can bet on the afterlife unicorn but don’t neglect the living horse…

  • nuttycrunch

    ok….i watched the documentary then read approx 400 of the 581 comments .What i want to know is have we come to an answer yet ??..is there a god or not.?..i need to know as its way past my bedtime

  • marine

    this documentary is good, it has a good range of different opinions. all the bad comments are unjustified

  • Sophievdm

    Atheism an anwer to ‘our’ prayers? No dummy, if you are an atheist you don’t have anyone to pray to and if you pray, you’re not an atheist. Maybe an agnostic, but not an atheist…
    Comparing places of research to places of worship is such bullshit; they serve a totally different purpose.

  • [email protected]

    Very slanted one sided sucker-punch on rational thought.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1093950141 Stephanie Lynn Rothenberg

    I don’t know if I’ll make it to 10:00.

  • Jules

    At first I thought it was trying to make an interesting point about how atheists’ hostility towards religion in general might sometimes be misguided and detrimental to healthy social conversation… but it quickly turned the retarded to 11 with a very tenuous grasp on the anthropic principle, a baffling belief that science’s ability to adapt is somehow a proof that it’s wrong (??), a hilarious Darwin = Hitler bit that I’m still reeling from and the caricatural moral-of-the-story “ethics cannot exist outside of religion”.

  • http://twitter.com/SarahFloria Sarah Sceviour

    First of all, like many documentaries, this has one viewpoint; attacking the atheist. When Liddle asked one of the protestors about his beliefs he said “Isn’t that arogant?” and the interviewer he said (paraphrasing) “Why do you have to have a collection of atheists?”. He attacked the atheist by saying that the atheist is attacking religion.
    I am an agnostic atheist, and I do not specifically attack religion (although I will admit I argue religion is flawed) but the point of me being an atheist is that I am NOT A THEIST. I do not believe in god. Atheism is sort of like a religion of its own, to some people, not myself. Having our own set of beliefs, and our own ways. The smart atheist is just a plain atheist, not conforming to collective “atheistic” views.
    An atheist does not make someone hate religion. An atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or gods. This documentary makes no sense.

    Check out my blog post about this documentary at dadcanihavesomecrackerjacks.blogspot.com to be published April 18, 2013

  • Bloody Hypocrite

    The problem being that in the US, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, laws exist based on those religious beliefs. Politicians play to those bases in order to be elected. There are relatively no atheists in political power within the US, because they are atheist.

    • Bloody Hypocrite

      I have no problem with folks believing in whatever they believe. When that belief infringes on others rights of other people that’s where the problem lays.

      • Bloody Hypocrite

        What the everliving fuck? Eugenics? Moral imperatives based on evolution? All of this is so fucked.

  • rain

    I’ve had experiences with God and I don’t need anyone to tell me what to believe or not.
    Let’s celebrate our differences instead of pointing fingers.

  • Chase Copeland

    It was actually informative to an extent. I am atheist. Many stupid points were made like the classic “With out religion there is no longer reason to be moral.” Bull shit of course. You can learn morality from interacting with other humans. When you punch your little brother around he eventually gets pissed and gets a baseball bat or something. Or your parents punish you or what ever. Thus you learn that treating others as you prefer to be treated is best.

    But it did talk about times where atheism kind of caused bad things to happen. Like how Hitler believed Eugenics and well… you know what happened there. And apparently some place in France in the 1700s decided that religion was bad so they started killing all the religious people.

    One thing that they tried to make out to be ridiculous and laughable was the idea that religion is a result of evolution. If you read the book The Science of Good and Evil it explains this really well. But the documentary didn’t explain that point at all and tried to make it out like it was saying a physical virus actually created religion when it was really just an idea like science that helped humans to explain how the world worked so we could deal with the crazy thought of being alive and having no idea why or what that even means. Which is still trying to be answered.

    It was definitely one sided and made for religious people so they can feel like they still have a good reason to stay religious. And they were trying to blame atheism for Hitler and Stalin and crap and failed to mention how many people were probably killed in the name of religion.

    “I hold this fistful of degenerate ideas
    For every genius that was murdered in the name of Jesus
    Still deaf to the bells that claimed to free us
    But I pay homage to my melody cause she’s the sweetest”
    Micheal “Eyedea” Larsen from “Music Music” by Eyedea and Abilities

  • Religion is for retards

    Wow, such an amateur argument. Frankly if atheism is like a religion, then celibacy is like a sex position. And ‘science may not be as far from religion as you imagine” – what is this guy on about? Science is simply what is observed. You drop a 1kg ball from 5 metres 100 times, if it takes 1.5 seconds every time, then you record the results. Do millions of other tests about a million other things, record the results, humankind learns. Whereas religion is believing a whole load of stuff that cannot be proven in a test. The two are the absolute opposite. Loser Street

  • dan

    This documentary is breathtakingly sloppy in it’s characterization of the issue. It presents atheism in a very simplistic view and constantly makes incorrect assertions. For example, in saying that atheism pretty much started with Darwinism, overlooks the fact that buddhism and hinduism don’t believe in a god that created the universe, so they are both more “atheistic” positions ultimately.

  • dan

    To find one scientist who casts doubt on the validity of the darwin theory, is to ignore the absolute vast majority of scientists, for whom the many strands of independent evidence continual to validate and strengthen the darwin theory.

  • Mich

    this is looking at a specific type of Atheist (one who grasps on to Atheism as if it were a religion)….although I’ve never personally met any non-believers who act this way. If I were to make a documentary about the problem with religion and only looked at religious extremists, it would also make religion look bad. Dawkins gives fair answers to everything as usual. I like his humble approach, as he is ready to admit that science doesn’t yet explain everything, and probably never will as it’s always up for revision, but it’s an honest, logical and humble approach to trying to find out the truth.

    I agree with the bit about human nature at the end. Whether or not society would be better or worse without religion is irrelevant, though, to whether god exists or not. I think many members of society will always ‘need’ some kind of belief system to help them through life, whether they throw themselves into religion or use atheism as some kind of religion. Let’s not forget that in it’s true sense, atheism is not a ‘thing’, it’s just NOT BELIEVING in a god or gods. To me this seems like the default position, the neutral, and if a religion or god somehow presents itself to you in a way that you can’t deny, then fair enough, start believing in something. Personally, though I’m not sure if some kind of supernatural-seeming experience would lead me to believe in god. could be wrong, but I feel that there could be many simpler explanations before concluding that there is a god who created everything.

  • john

    yes religion is stupid …. i even don’t understand why there is need to keep demonstrating the idiocy of religion over and over and over again.

  • john

    i don’t want to vote unlike, because i like the fact that here we have one more example of a failed attempt to show that religion has some sense, and another failed attempt to show that science cannot know everything.
    the power of science is that science operates with reason, knowledge, research, verification, review, recognizes its limitations and provides the best explanations that a human must use in order to make any judgemet.
    any attempt to “demonstrate” the veridicality of religion is shallow, hopless and simply guaranteed to fail.

    • PJ

      u r insane and ur mind is cover by false knowledge

      • Potato

        I don’t know what this “false knowledge” is, exactly, but let me take a guess. Is “false knowledge” defined as anything that doesn’t come out of Christianity’s main scripture?

        Would this mean that “false knowledge” is therefore responsible for entertainment, health, education, irrigation, farming, transport, sanitation and everything we’ve come to associate with our modern comfortable lives? Are you further suggesting that anyone who embraces these things is insane, and therefore should be shunned?

        This leads to my follow-up questions and resulting conclusions:
        Are you actually Amish? It’s the only way my assumption can be correct and not turn you into a raging hypocrite.

        If you are Amish, why are you on the internet?

  • Tom Caram

    I made it to 06:00 . Worst documentary ever. This guy is really misinformed

    • nick

      I got to 5.12…

    • bobb

      i got to 9:10 because we all know what happens at 9:11

  • Anon

    The biggest question raised by this documentary is whether or not atheism is a “belief” just like religion or an “absence of belief” on a higher order than religion. Liddle argues the former – that atheism is on par with theism by simply asserting the opposite. However, this “either or” perspective (either god exists or he doesn’t) hinges on the cultural legitimacy of believing in god. Liddle’s argument is made weaker by thinking “either Santa claus exists or he doesn’t. Either fairies exist or they don’t. Either magic particles of good and bad luck float around in the air or they don’t.” Supernatural entities such as these are generally rejected by our culture, and those who don’t believe in them are not challenged to defend their “claim” of nonbelief. (Just realized I think this is Russel’s teapot argument)

  • Vadim Korolov

    Great movie … love it !!!

  • tom19r

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all atheists!!

    • Pwndecaf

      Everyone has some good points. They may have kept a nice lawn, too.

    • Marj

      Hitler, however, was never an atheist.

      Hitler was born and baptized as a Roman Catholic

    • stick

      it doesn’t mean it’s an atheistic regime, that’s just a sad way to form an argument.

      I’ll try to explain it this way; Catholics are almost just as atheistic as atheists are.. they don’t believe in any gods what so ever except their one God.. if you would lose your belief where would that put you?
      In comparison, by not doing sports you’re not doing a sport. not sporting isn’t a sport in itself.

      I hope I’ve clarified the matter a bit. it’s sad to see people hold on to such an untruth as their first most argument.

  • Curtis

    “Even has some of it’s own sacred texts.”

    *Shows a picture of origin of species*…

    Sigh…

    Please explain to me how a book written by a scientist, about a piece of science which is widely considered to be scientific fact, is a sacred text…

    • Calvin

      I imagine he’s saying its immutable/unquestionable/highly revered

      • http://yolol Adam

        Which is a nonsensical statement because ‘On the Origin of Species’ is not unfalsifiable so by definition it cannot be a sacred, undeniable text.

      • Potato

        People question it all the time. It’s because it -was- questioned thoroughly that it became accepted as fact. If the available evidence didn’t support it, it would be thrown out just as easily as Superstring Theory was.

        • jockmcdock

          In fact, it’s now regarded as being somewhat outdated. For example, Darwin knew nothing about DNA (how could he?). So, it’s a well respected text but by no means a sacred text. Richard Dawkins was once asked for the full title of the book and couldn’t come up with it (it was first published under the title “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”).

  • Nicola

    really interesting second look at atheism once you get into it. i found the scientific understandings about the origins of life and how they are changing especially interesting

  • Vanesa

    Rod Liddle, you’re a bit of a moron.

  • Matthew Theriot

    Mythology is a waste of time. But an individual’s religious beliefs only potentially influences their empathy towards others negatively or positively. You have people with the same set of religious beliefs who are both monsters, and good people. Similarly, atheism does not predictably influence someone to be a good person or a bad one. Religious beliefs, or lack there-of are only one variable to a person, and it is incorrect to assume that any one group of people who share philosophical or religious beliefs will behave in a certain predictable way. That being said, religion is a waste of time. Moral lessons taught through it could simply be taught on their own without it, and every religious group has it’s extremists who can commit terrible crimes in the name of their religion. The most harmful aspect of religion is when there is a rejection of science, or a view that causes violence/lack of empathy. Science is important not only to our survival, improvement as a species, understanding of the world, and quality of life, but science promotes and fosters empathy among people. The study of life, promotes the appreciation of it, and when religion serves as a substitute or a hindrance to scientific thinking, that is when intellectual harm is being done.

    • Potato

      The problem is that most religious people believe that science is unassailable; that the world with continue to have plasma televisions, and scientific progress and new and better toys whether they attack it or not. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Teaching children to distrust science and ensuring they continue with that distrust is a recipe for disaster. Sooner or later, that distrust in science will spread, stifling research and scientific progress and leading the way to a second dark age.

      It seems like an extreme prediction, but a lot of ignorance is exponentially more harmful than a little knowledge. Unfortunately, so many Americans are intent on spreading ignorance as far as humanly possible.

  • Alex

    Excellent documentary, doesn’t bash any involved party (though expresses an obvious distaste for ideals forwarded by certain people without specifying the non-universal expression of those ideals amongst the community from with those people originate). I feel like the presenter did well at not being biased in religion’s favour despite me being left with the impression he’s most likely religious. Almost seems like support for an agnostic and unobtrusive standpoint. Live and let live to all parties involved.

    • Potato

      It’s just a pity that he’s so misinformed about his subject matter.

  • http://documentaryheaven.com bodey

    768 comments, most defending atheism, further proof atheism and fundamental religion are two sides of the same coin. this documentary was a breath of fresh air, thank, dare I say it, god. just because the cartoonish superhero version of god that the religious heads cling to is ludicrous, doesn’t logically follow that there isn’t something more to this life. agnosticism is a far more reasonable approach, and is more in line with scientific thinking, in my opinion,

    • Potato

      So disagreeing publicly with something is merely proof that the point you’re disagreeing with is true?

  • PJ

    @Mark Sharp Well said mate. Awesome documentary as it raises a lot of logical points. I think a lot of people wants to be or are atheists as it makes their life easier. I believe in science but cannot deny the fact that we would not have perfect conditions to develop life on planet earth without a supreme power.

    • Potato

      Atheism makes life easier? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28616115

      To quote a paragraph: “The parents of Katelyn Campbell, 19, from West Virginia, have been very supportive of her stance as an atheist. Her problem has been other members of the community. “In high school, when I walked down the hallway it would be completely silent, or I would be spat on,” Katelyn says.”

      Does that sound like an easy life?

  • Ib

    I think gods were created to explain the inexplicable.
    And Today, most of the inexplicable are explained with science.
    But humankind has too much history to stop believing in a higher power.

    • Potato

      ‘Humankind has too much history to stop believing in a higher power’? Why? If you swap some words out:

      ‘Toddlers have too much history to stop using the plastic potty’
      ‘Dictators have too much history to stop ruling their countries’
      ‘Governments have too much history to stop telling lies to their voters’

      It becomes an argument against change. Why are you so afraid?

      • canaduck

        What the hell are you talking about?

    • charley coryn

      Yes, the gods have considerable history, and a reading of Anthropology is required to really appreciate the entire phenomena. Humans lived in small hunting and gathering groups for thousands and thousands of years, each group possessing water and wind and storm ‘spirits’ which eventually evolved into gods and goddesses. For example, T. Meeks, in his book “Hebrew Origins” suggests that Yahweh originated as a storm god that came up from Arabia. In his words:

      “There is good reason to believe that the Hebrew tribes before they amalgamated to make the confederacies of Israel and Judah had each its own tribal god…. As one tribe conquered another or brought another into alliance with itself, the sway of its god was correspondingly extended. The god grew in prestige as the tribe grew, and could grow in no other way in ancient times……. From being a confederate god Yahweh gradually became the god of the Hebrews as a whole….” Hebrew Origins, p.112

      Reality, to my mind, will likely replace guesswork and imagination as science proceeds to answer more and more questions. But given the propensity to believe in a ‘higher power’, as suggested, perhaps religion will continue, but likely in a diminished role as fact becomes isolated from the plethora of imaginative explanations.

      “Science is founded on the conviction that experience, effort, and reason are valid; magic on the belief that hope cannot fail nor desire deceive.” B. Malinowski in ‘Magic, Science and Religion.’

  • lawmanbutchino

    Why do people even make these doco’s, sure atheism can be a bit dis-tasteful in it open manner of criticizing of religion. But can you not see it’s an argument, of LACK OF EVIDENCE and EMPIRICAL DATA, if you want atheist to stop criticizing your ignorance stop claiming things to exist without evidence, go get one. . . just one piece of empirical evidence, proving higher powers may exist, if there is no empirical evidence, then either we do not have the ability to measure or detected it yet, or it does not interact with the universe, basically at this point in time you may as well be arguing the existence of the ether. (which like theology is a complete waste of human brain power) Dont criticize people because they believe in evidence, just because your to scared to admit, that its the only logical way to eliminate all other hypothesis. and yes that’s right you ignoramus’s, in case you didn’t know (which i find a lot pro theist don’t) science doesn’t prove anything, it eliminates the measurable possibilities of opposing idea’s, evidence is used to dis-prove. So go on go dis-prove that higher powers don’t interact with our universe. . if you can find any evidence that they might. Which i doubt you will. Have a good day in this universe that scares and confuses you so very much.

    • lawmanbutchino

      Also if you think that, religion influences you into doing moral right actions, your morally skewed, i don’t ever wanna meet the guy, who only has morals and values based on the fact, that some higher power we have no evidence for may send them to hell, I’d rather associate with ‘non-cop-outs’ who do things with a moral code, because they genuinely think they are right, opposed to doing them for their own ‘percieved’ personal gain.

      • Bon Bon

        You missed a very strong point of this video. In fact, your words and intent – should you ever act on them – exemplifies this point.

        • Potato

          Please be kind enough to illuminate the rest of us on what this ‘very strong point’ was.

          • Bon Bon

            Obviously, you’re not intelligent enough to understand.

          • Potato

            I asked you for information, and you reply with an insult to my intelligence. Have you not learned the difference between ignorance and stupidity yet?

            I’ll ask you again to share what you thought the strong point was, please. If there isn’t one that hasn’t already been addressed, please say so and move on. Insulting people merely makes you look childish.

          • Bon Bon

            “you reply with an insult to my intelligence.” “insulting people makes you look childish.” -like every one of your negative, insulting, condescending and argumentative posts within this entire thread.

          • Potato

            I’ve given you ample opportunity to share the strong point you said was within the documentary, and so far you’ve used it to do nothing more than attack me personally. I’m forced to conclude that there is no strong point that hasn’t already been discussed, and that you lied about it either to make yourself feel important, or to provide misinformation.

            Which was it?

          • Bon Bon

            No.

          • charley coryn

            Cop out….. We’re waiting for your brilliant arguments Bon Bon….

          • Bon Bon

            Troll.

          • charley coryn

            If you say so……

  • Bon Bon

    I find it curious that the majority of people commenting on this video are displaying the very behaviors this video brings to light. The comments actually prove the point.

    • JSL

      Was thinking the very same thing….

      • cinesimon

        Can’t have been thinking very hard. ‘Some people are laughing at the documentary’ – therefore, science has been proven to be a religion! Fantastic logic. Door dishonest people not interested in objective reality, maybe.

    • Potato

      Religion doesn’t question its texts, and believes them wholeheartedly.
      Science questions everything, and doesn’t believe anything at face value.

      Yup, definitely the same.

      • Bon Bon

        Human behavior isn’t always depending upon one’s belief system. So, I’m not understanding your point. I’m not defending either. I think many are confused because, really, not too many care about the study of humanities for which this video is based. It’s not really an argument for or against atheism. It’s a portrayal of human behavior with religion and atheism in the mix.

        The point is: Humans always find a way to demean other groups based upon stupidity – whether that be religion or the normal causation of established mores. Not point a finger at you, but to minimize this documentation into a petty argument of atheism versus religion diminishes its point.

        • Potato

          I understand the underpinnings of this trap. Allow me to counter:

          “Human behavior isn’t always depending upon one’s belief system.”
          Only atheists believe this.
          source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

          “So, I’m not understanding your point.”
          Religion and atheism are not the same. It’s not hard.

          “I’m not defending either.”
          Then why are you replying to me?

          “I think many are confused because, really, not too many care about the study of humanities for which this video is based.”
          I won’t go into what this video studies, but you are wrong about why people are confused; mostly it’s because people lie so often or encourage others to lie.
          source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/may/7-levelslying.html
          http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-do-believers-want-atheists-lie

          “It’s not really an argument for or against atheism. It’s a portrayal of human behavior with religion and atheism in the mix.”
          The Trouble with Atheism. Reading comprehension translation: ‘Why atheism is a flawed argument’.

          “The point is: Humans always find a way to demean other groups based upon stupidity – whether that be religion or the normal causation of established mores.”
          Not so. People demean other groups because they have a different label for them, itself categorised as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It doesn’t matter whether they volunteer to go to dangerous places, or set up Christmas hampers for orphans, or are really kind to animals. If they’re labelled “black” or “muslim” or, most dangerous of all, “atheist”, that’s all that matters.
          source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people

          “Not point a finger at you, but to minimize this documentation into a petty argument of atheism versus religion diminishes its point.”

          Anyone who watches it sceptically and researches what the presenter offers as proof would immediately come to the conclusion that it -is- yet another petty argument of religion versus atheism. The only people who wouldn’t see it like that are the ones who want to believe all of its points and accept them uncritically.
          Source: the video itself.

          • Bon Bon

            1) I fail to see the trap in exposing “human nature”. I think you’re only being argumentative.
            2) I understand this. I am not an atheist.
            3) Religion and science are not the same. That’s true, but the engineers behind both are always human and subject to human nature. Why is it we tend to think our ideologies – religious or otherwise – are bigger than the man itself? We invented these, ourselves.
            4) I state I’m not defending either because most people don’t usually care about someone’s thoughts unless they are being dramatic. Your statement “Then why are you responding?” is a perfect example. Must everything be about you? Can it not just “be”.
            5) I agree that people lie. In fact, it’s up to me to hold myself accountable and not lie to myself so I can garner the truth of the matters and look at something objectively. I really is possible.
            5) People label people out of being mental loafers, being self-serving and ego. Whatever serves mankind’s interest, absolves them of fear or acquires the gain they desire is usually the motive behind any psychological dysfunction. In a way your statement confirms comment in this regard.
            6) Your statement about who watches them are massive generalizations. In essence, it stops short of labeling people. This might make sense for the world that involves your mind, but there’s always a different viewpoint. There really are more people who are honest, open with their thoughts and those who don’t need to draw final conclusions from a single stupid documentary.

            It’s not unlike your sources. I never conclude with just one source to back up a claim or make an objective decision to the validity of anything – including ideas. A general consensus should come into play. It takes time. It’s the stuff that theses are born of. And, then, they’re only theses – not confirmed as true one way or another. It always amazes me how those who claim to support science over “anything” don’t take into consideration the righteous process of scientific examination. And they’re always leaving out the “theses or hypothetical” for everything.

            I spend a great deal of time studying these scriptural texts from an archaeological standpoint to their validity. Essentially, I attempt to use a rational approach instead of blind “faith”. I simply toss out inconsistencies, things for which that are not historically sound, e.g. And that’s alot. But what’s interesting: Atheists who would report that non-Atheists lack rational ability would have the same throw the entire works out based on a relatively few indicators of falsehoods. Its a a hypocrisy, of sorts.

            Since I love the study of humanities I’d be remiss if I did not add state that most people who claim to be atheists but are not at peace with the “believing” section of society are not really atheists. They’re agnostics with a chip on their shoulder while sitting on the fence. There are a lot of those in this forum. I wish all of them peace because some of the coolest people I know are atheists, but only of the kind that are real atheists. Some things take time, though.

            Peace

          • Potato

            I’m going to reply to one thing out of your entire argument:

            “1) I fail to see the trap in exposing “human nature”. I think you’re only being argumentative.”

            Yes. It’s a worthwhile hobby that has led to me applying critical thinking to everything, including the news. Sometimes I overthink.

            Now don’t get me wrong: I’ve read your entire reply, as I’ve read all of them. I’d like to thank you for a few entertaining evenings, and I hope you didn’t take everything too seriously.

          • Bon Bon

            Absolutely fine. I was think I appreciated the conversation. Difficult to find willing participants for deeper thinking, but when I do it is mostly from atheists!

      • ZealKing

        “Science questions everything, and doesn’t believe anything at face value” Science doesn’t but stupid people do, like stupid atheist that would bet their lives evolution is 100% fact and that they know for sure God doesn’t exist. So the main point of the video is proven by all the fanatical atheists making comments here calling names on religious people cause they believe in God.

        • charley coryn

          “…. like stupid atheist that would bet their lives evolution is 100% fact and that they know for sure God doesn’t exist.”

          An atheist says ONE THING ONLY gentlemen : “I have no evidence for any God or Goddess, therefore I will suspend judgement. Please show me your evidence for anything supernatural.” That’s the whole ball of wax…..

          Please, show me any evidence of anything supernatural. It’s quite obvious that to believe in ‘Jesus’, one must believe in a God first. Show me any evidence of a “God” that people will agree upon, it’s painfully obvious that each person invents his own ‘God’ ……..

    • cinesimon

      Of course, you say that without bothering to bring up, let alone critique, any of the actual comments you claim proves the point of the docu-drama. How about some honesty? And do you actually think that some cherry picked comments means that your fantasy of science being a religion is therefore true? That’s seriously how reality works for you?

  • wur

    The guy hosting this is such a fucking idiot. Suggesting that Atheism has fundamentalists and Holy texts is utterly ridiculous.

    • Potato

      Why is it ridiculous? From a religious standpoint, it’s possible that people can really believe that ‘Origin of Species’ is the equivalent of a religious text.

      Of course, this is ignoring the fact that scientists tried to disprove it for -decades- before accepting it as the best theory that fits all the available facts. It’s also ignoring the fact that it’ll be discarded in favour of a theory that fits the facts even more closely, or if other indisputable facts come along to discredit it.

      • cinesimon

        It’s ridiculous, because you’d have to be either very ignorant, or very dishonest, to seriously suggest such nonsense.

  • Jamie Holmes

    Ohhh man.. This guy is a joke. He accuses every one of being over judgmental when he himself is no better. He needs peeing on.

  • Jamie Holmes

    So?

  • http://www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net Syed Kamal

    He/she who swears loses the argument. The End.

    • cinesimon

      Water is fucking wet.
      Therefore water is dry.
      Great logic!

  • JS

    When I meditate, self identification with this body dissolves, and I become everything. This is not a feeling, its what literally happens. Can’t prove it, but to me it’s authentic from the raw data experienced to the subjective meditator. I believe in this experience that you can have, not some abstract interpretation…of a translation…of a book. Too many dualisms in language to place someone on a pedestal as an official interpreter. It’s better to go directly to the source and find out for yourself. After you experience it, you don’t feel a need to cosign to a belief system…because none of them do it justice.

    • Potato

      Subjective data is usually biased.
      Objective data is usually unbiased.

      What you feel when you meditate might be your brain’s interpretation of specific sensations you experienced while you were performing your version of meditation. There is no way to prove that what I say is correct, just as there is no way to prove your version, until you stop relying on a subjective interpretation. The fact that you haven’t disintegrated into a whiff of energetic cosmic gas is merely circumstantial evidence supporting my claim over yours. It takes experimentation and careful observation to find out what really happens.

      But that’s what science does: it provides objective methods to find out what really happens.

  • Potato

    Ah. The ‘There’s a china teapot orbiting the sun. Since you can’t detect it to prove or disprove my claim, it must be the correct one’ argument.

  • Potato

    Did you know that you’re an atheist? You don’t believe in the Olympian, Egyptian, Babylonian or Norse pantheons. Clearly, the belief in this negative is just like the people who used to go around believing in them, therefore you’re all as bad as the evangelists of all of those religions put together…

    Exactly how does my argument hold water? It’s obviously an insane rationalisation dreamed up by someone who wants to pull the wool over your eyes. Now listen to this video up to 7:00 and compare his argument to mine. Obviously, it must be different because he’s talking about Christianity, right..?

    Please be intelligent.

  • fjpos

    I never knew not accepting people’s non-evidential claims for their god(s) could bother people so much. Apart from a good dose of self examination, I, an atheist in doing my best to consider what I do and why I do it without religion fail to see any intrinsic justification for comparing atheism to that of a religion. Clearly an atheist can have rituals and beliefs and be spiritual but that is not a result of atheism. A very lazy investigation of people who do not believe in fairies.

  • Jethro

    There are two big problems with this documentary.

    First, the host lacks the nuance to go beyond atheism and religion and identify the real problem: dogma. The big problems caused by societies have consistently come from a dogmatic approach, both atheist and religious. The Jacobins, Stalinists, and eugenicists each replaced a form of religious dogma with a dogma of their own. Forcibly insisting on an ideology without any ethical or logical reason to do so can lead to problems.

    Second, in the host’s effort to discredit “secular” societies, he badly misses the true meaning of secular. Secular means to be disconnected with religion. The societies the host talks about all forcibly removed religion from the state. Many other harmful societies used religion in conjunction with the state. Each can be equally oppressive. The less oppressive societies tend to allow for certain freedoms among citizens in terms of ideologies and religion.

    Finally, if atheists as a collective leave it as “there may or may not be a god, and we just don’t know,” then only the voices of the religious will be heard. That is the host’s true reason for trying to cut off the debate.

  • cinesimon

    Not a surprise that ‘the problem with atheism’ is defined by a person who’s either not interested in, or incapable of presenting an honest argument. I wonder if that’s because he realizes from the outset that the only those who already know and agree with his ‘arguments’, will accept them. Those interested in an actual, substantive debate have heard all this tired, overt dishonesty before. He doesn’t even explain what atheism is, for goodness sake! He wants it to be a religion, fine. That doesn’t mean much of anything, except that he apparently believes that because he wants something to be true, that automatically makes it so.

  • valentin

    the war on religion ?! NO!NO!NO! is only a war on stupidity and ignorance.

    • Letem Dangle

      Ta Da! This documentary proves you exist.

    • Owen

      Stupidity and Ignorance. Interesting, ok I have an IQ of 152 I am a member of MENSA and a certified Genius by that token I am also a Christian, I was not raised Christian I became a Christian through logic and reason. Now you say I am stupid so please give me a theory any theory which disproves conclusively the existence of God,,?

  • Potato

    So that’s four atheists who caused mass murder.
    Now name all of the religious people who caused mass murder throughout history, and are -still- causing it. “Ethnic Cleansing”, otherwise known as genocide, counts.

    Does it reach the double or triple digits now? I kind of lost count.

    The point is, this reflects badly on the person doing it -not the beliefs that person holds-. Judging the entire group in this manner results in the worst kind of hypocrisy.

  • Haris Segetalo

    The host wants so hard the atheists to be as dellusinal as the religious, that its ridiculous.

    There is not one valid argument throughout 47 minutes and 17 seconds that I wasted.

    And this is a mockumentary in second place in top 100.

    Bahahaha…

  • Dhruv

    Not surprised that this documentary exist. Just surprised this was #2 on top 100 list.

    • Letem Dangle

      Controversy sells.

  • TheLastBattalion

    I find it amusing that the comments are basically supporting the points that the documentary is making with their behaviour. They prove the overall point as a few people have mentioned before.

    This documentary isn’t the best documentary on this site but it does bring up good points about the atheist community as a whole and it is certainly worth a higher score than the one that it currently has.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of dishonest and biased people here who are too immature to be open-minded about the video.

    • timgale

      Theists say there is a particular god whereas atheists say they are unconvinced. What is so closed minded about the latter position? I perhaps can understand your argument if you believe that atheists claim there is no god like this documentary fraudulently claims at the very beginning.

      • TheLastBattalion

        I honestly don’t care what you believe so long as you respect the beliefs of others.
        Unfortunately, that isn’t what is being shown here (in the comment section) as people are putting their views above others by calling the theists and agnostics as idiots as several of the comments below.
        If you’re a person who is open minded and tolerant with people (regardless of their beliefs) then my comment wasn’t directed to you.

        • timgale

          You should not necessarily respect the beliefs of others but instead tolerate them, but only if those beliefs do not infringe upon the liberties of innocent parties. I would put it to you that there are many beliefs you do not respect. In my case, for instance, I don’t respect the notion of telling a 5 year old that they will burn for eternity unless they believe a certain way as I was told by my parents and teachers throughout the first half of my life.

          • TheLastBattalion

            Oh I wouldn’t say that.
            After all, each belief has its own history and infringing upon the liberties of innocent parties can mean a lot of things to different people (I would know as I used to study law).
            Telling someone what you believe to be the truth isn’t infringing on their liberties but never the less, it wouldn’t be the best way to teach a child about a religion in the first place (which you have my condolences for your teacher’s inexperience).
            Then again, there are people that have told children that religion is the poison of the world (along with the people that follow it) which is simply idiotic to any educated person who has studied philosophy, history and/or theology (or knows anything about it in general).
            Needless to say, there are people on both sides that shove their opinion down other people’s throats.
            The point that I’m making is that it isn’t that hard for people to simply “live and let live” as the video suggests but instead of having that, the majority of the comments are rather bigoted to say the least.
            Overall, it’s simply disappointing to see but not a surprise.
            Anyways, I think that we have said all that needs to be pointed out so I’ll retire from this discussion.

          • timgale

            You wouldn’t say what? That all beliefs deserve respect? Does that extend to those who claim racial or gender superiority for instance?

            When a stranger tells you on the bus that they are the reincarnation of Elvis, do you move closer or further away?

            People have the right to have beliefs but they surely do not have the right to have those beliefs respected.

          • charley coryn

            Please……. “Live and let live’ is a meaningless, empty phrase when you consider how Christianity attempts to indoctrinate the entire world with it’s myths and stories in the Bible. Before science had any influence over men’s minds, Christians didn’t hesitate to shove their beliefs down everyone’s throat…. and then to cut the throats of the non-believers. One has only to read the ‘holy’ book of the Muslims to understand that ‘live and let live’ is simply not possible when the holy book itself tells you who to kill and not to kill. There are 19 different places in the Bible that tell Christians who to kill, which is anyone who believes differently than the religion requires.

            Religion is a cultural phenomenon seen in about all primitive groups, as it evolved as a primary way to control a small group of hunting and gathering people. A common ‘god’ was essential to each group, to unify and strengthen the group. If your group was victorious, your ‘God’ became widely known and feared. It’s all in the anthropological books if you are interested in facts and not fictions.

          • TheLastBattalion

            If you bothered to put that interest into reading facts and not making up excuses for your bigotry then you would see that it is more than possible to have meaning.
            You seem to have confused evangelizing as forcing people to comply with their rules which is not only false (or you don’t bother to understand religion in general) but a clear sign that you simply don’t want to be tolerant yourself .
            Atheists have slaughtered, tortured and caused genocide for people that have had a religion whether they had a book or not to support it.
            They’ve also caused quite a few of the great disasters in history with casualties that are catastrophic.
            That doesn’t mean that they can’t be tolerant with people of other beliefs and religions if they try and the same can be said of the religious.
            As for the places where it has told people to kill, do bother putting them into context and where it is actually said as theologians can support that it is a religion of peace at the core (which put their whole life into researching religions).
            As for your final theory, do bother to study theology any time soon (instead of picking fights with idiotic points) as they contested and have gotten rid of the theory that religion was made to control people long ago.
            Ultimately, you’re wrong that it is an empty phrase without meaning.
            It is people like you that make up excuses and support your bigotry/hatred that are the reason why people can’t “live and let live”.
            I could bother to spend more of my time shooting down whatever excuses you could make but I have better things to do so I’ll end it here.

          • timgale

            That’s an old broken argument that holds no water. It’s frightfully dishonest or uninformed of you to use it. Stalin and Pol Pot were Marxists. This worldview lead them to commit atrocities coupled with the fact that they were just lousy and deluded people. Atheism had nothing to do with it. Certain conflicts, however, have been purely driven by religion, such as the Inquisition, for instance, but the Tamil Tigers and the IRA, despite being purely Hindu or Catholic were divided along religious lines but not motivated by those religions to do what they did. For you to persevere down this path, you must also argue that Jeffrey Dahmer was motivated by Christianity, which of course he wasn’t. He just happened to be Christian.

            Moreover, even if being unconvinced there is a god, which atheism is, did cause people to do terrible things, it does not make any one of the many gods people believe in real.

          • charley coryn

            Well, I see that timgale has answered some of your objections in his response below, so I’ll skip around a bit. I am disturbed that Ron Liddle even got this film on the market it’s so wrong. He creates the atheist he hates. Atheism is a personal belief, it is not an organization anything like a church. There is no structure to atheism, no hierarchy of command, no money given to support immense building projects and worldwide missions.
            Atheists have only one point, which is that there is no evidence to support your claims. There is no evidence of a god or deity, no real evidence of anything supernatural. The O.T. Bible is a manual for genocide, where God even throws down hailstones to kill. Atheism doesn’t contain anything so quaint as ‘Do exactly what God says or you will be punished in hell. You said:

            “As for the places where it (the Bible) has told people to kill, do bother putting them into context and where it is actually said as theologians can support that it is a religion of peace at the core.” A religion of peace?

            Wait just a minute……. You’re saying that Biblical context will make God’s killing OK? That you can kill whoever your religion tells you can be killed? It’s the amount of killing in the Book that tells me this is just one more man-made power structure to control a population.

            Ron Liddle is dispensing lies in this film and is the reason I bother writing this.

          • Jolo5309

            You don’t have to respect someone’s beliefs, you should respect the human.

    • canaduck

      Yes, obviously the fact that people are annoyed with this documentary because they consider the creators to be either uninformed or intentionally misleading is proof that it’s right.

      Wait, what?

      Of course the atheist “community” has problems, because atheists are people and people are generally kind of terrible–but science being a quasi-religion isn’t one of them. There’s also the issue of stating that we all need to “live and let live”. I agree–that would be ideal. But in order for that to happen, people would need to stop using their personal religious beliefs to dictate law and oppress others. Most atheists just want to be left alone (obviously there are a few who are assholes who spend their time trying to find opportunities to argue pointlessly) so that they can live their lives without religious interference.

    • TheAnathema

      Live and let live? I, as an Atheist, can be executed for no other crime than my disbelief, by letter of law, in 13 countries on this planet, right now, in the 21st century.

      I have less rights in my own country, Ireland, a developed Western European state, than my religious countrymen, as expressed by the fact I can potentially be prosecuted under our flat-Earth blasphemy laws, while a religious person can say whatever they please about Atheists, with impunity, short of ordering their faithful to explicitly murder us; implicit instruction via reference to cute tracts of scripture like those found in Deuteronomy is fine though..

      In America there are 7 states where under state law an Atheist can not hold public office.

      If religious dogma didn’t impact on our lives so heavily we’d happily live and let live, in fact that’s precisely what secularists have been trying to do by separating church from state; neuter the religionists’ ability to enforce their will on everybody, competing religionists included, so we can ALL live and let live, within the letter of man-made law, which should optimally be based on reason as opposed to alleged divine revelation.

      Unfortunately, too many religionists aren’t fans of reason, which Luther himself described as a whore and an enemy of faith, so we need to wrestle constantly to prevent the religious from screwing everything up, for everybody, believer and non-believer alike.

  • Hoeby

    Atheism is not a “belief” it’s living life without belief.I couldn’t passionately kill for beliefs I don’t actually have. I follow the methodology of science and therefore have an understanding of the world that is shaped and can therefore be changed by evidence. So unlike any religion my atheism embraces any challenge against it, you’d just better provide evidence or else your challenge will fall on deaf ears. Would this world be better if we were all atheists? Yes. Is that possible? I have not seen any evidence to suggest that it is.

  • charley coryn

    Very superficial discussion……. by a nerd named Rod Liddle ……. such bad generalizations, suggesting that atheists are this and atheists are that. But atheists don’t have a power structure like churches do, and history has shown us how the leaders become corrupt, and powerful, and rich.
    But there is an incredible difference, anthropology suggests that religions are the social backbone of small group behaviour, a social ‘glue’ if you will, that identifies members of the same groups and strenghtens the group. Whereas atheism is a simple statement that no evidence has been observed that would identify a ‘god’. Apples and oranges……..

    • Letem Dangle

      You must first imagine, the knowing only comes after that. Einstein once said that physics is nothing compared to the imagination.

      • charley coryn

        Brilliant! Just brilliant…..There have been thousands of gods and goddesses recorded throughout history, so which one catches your fancy? Maybe the one you were indoctrinated to believe in when you were a child. “There is no antidote for religion mixed with mother’s milk.”, Robert Ingersoll said.

        Yes, tell us the truths your imagination has revealed to you…. what have you ‘imagined’ to be true or false concerning religion and the world. Perhaps it disturbs you that atheists prefer reality as revealed by the scientific method, which also requires peer review and confirmation.

        Step up to the plate my friend and tell us how the world works……

        • Letem Dangle

          “There is no antidote for religion mixed with mother’s milk.” Wow! If there ever was a false statement that would be it. People frequently change their striped, regardless of upbringing. You do realize it was the Catholics who developed the scientific method?

          • charley coryn

            False statement? It’s a humorous generalization. People don’t ‘frequently’ change their ‘striped’, it’s more like ‘occaisional’. And you might research that last sentence regarding Catholics, in a few minutes you could learn the real history of the scientific method, which began back in the 1st century B.C.

            “By the middle of the 1st millennium BC in Mesopotamia, Babylonian astronomy had evolved into the earliest example of a scientific astronomy, as it was “the first and highly successful attempt at giving a refined mathematical description of astronomical phenomena.”

            It was the ancient Greeks who engaged in the earliest forms of what is today recognized as a rational theoretical science,

            Several scientific methods thus emerged from the medieval Muslim world by the early 11th century, all of which emphasized experimentation as well as quantification to varying degrees.

            In his account of a method, Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.

            After the accession of Pope Clement IV in 1265, the Pope granted Bacon a special commission to write to him on scientific matters. In eighteen months he completed three large treatises, the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium which he sent to the Pope.[44] William Whewell has called Opus Majus at once the Encyclopaedia and Organon of the 13th century.[45]

            Part I (pp. 1–22) treats of the four causes of error: authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance by a pretense of knowledge.

            Part VI (pp. 445–477) treats of experimental science, domina omnium scientiarum. There are two methods of knowledge: the one by argument, the other by experience. Mere argument is never sufficient; it may decide a question, but gives no satisfaction or certainty to the mind, which can only be convinced by immediate inspection or intuition, which is what experience gives.

            Experimental science, which in the Opus Tertium (p. 46) is distinguished from the speculative sciences and the operative arts, is said to have three great prerogatives over all sciences:
            It verifies their conclusions by direct experiment;
            It discovers truths which they could never reach;
            It investigates the secrets of nature, and opens to us a knowledge of past and future.

            Roger Bacon illustrated his method by an investigation into the nature and cause of the rainbow, as a specimen of inductive research.[46]

            §

          • Letem Dangle

            I was referring to modern scientific method.

          • Letem Dangle

            You should check out the Vatican’s work on cosmology if you doubt the Vatican’s support of science. Start here… http://www.modernteknews.com/book-publishing.html

          • charley coryn

            I’m sure the Vatican supports science, at least the things that pass the Pope Test, while the scientific method is designed to avoid such a ‘test’ through corroboration, verification and peer review. Does the Vatican send out it’s research to independent observers for verification and confirmation? Let’s take an example, say the concept of a place called Limbo……

            “The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

            In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation”.’

            What are we to think? For centuries the church and the Popes said this place existed, Limbo is a place, and now the Pope declares He has changed His mind? Where is the reality in any of this? Millions of people believe in a Heaven and a Hell, so where is the proof, is there any evidence of these places?

          • Letem Dangle

            Yes, much of their work is peer reviewed and appears in many journals. Research it, it’ll really surprise you.

          • TheAnathema

            I’m more concerned with the work they did raping our children here in Ireland, leaving me, an Atheist, not to mention every other non-Catholic, to pick up the bill for damages to the victims of their disgusting, institutionalised perversions through our taxes. You should check that out. Start here… http://humanrights.ie/law-culture-and-religion/abuse-redress-property-and-the-catholic-church-in-ireland/

          • Letem Dangle

            Children get raped and molested by all kinds of professions that have access. Teachers, coaches, child care workers etc. The pedophiles will join what ever gives them access to children. If the orphans of Ireland were taken under the care of a non secular department, the pedophiles would have gone there.

          • TheAnathema

            The church, right up to the very pinnacle of it’s hierarchy were complicit in covering up said child abuse, moving predator from parish to parish, enabling and facilitating their systematic sexual and brutal physical abuse of the most vulnerable members of our society, our children.

            The fact that the Pope was complicit in this cover-up and the fact that he enabled and facilitated sexual predators on a worldwide scale, coupled with the fact that he is, according to Catholic doctrine, supposed to be infallible and God’s numero uno in this universe makes the entire institution a sick and cruel joke.

            The fact that you would shrug this off as no biggie, thankfully marks you as being majorly out of step with many of my fellow countrymen who are beginning to wake up and distance themselves from this poisonous institution. Our people have suffered under a sad and humiliating case of Stockholm Syndrome long enough.

          • Letem Dangle

            I don’t dismiss it, in fact I am even a stronger advocate for children than you, because I recognize it in all institutions where adults have access to children. The pedophiles will not disappear if all of Catholicism was forever removed from the planet, they will simply set up shop in other places and that is my concern today.

          • TheAnathema

            You’re missing the point, I’d posit deliberately. The litany of abuse and the blood that is on the hands of the Catholic church is unforgivable. It’s entire history is steeped in murder, brutality, venality and unrelenting, manipulative exploitation.

            That good people still align themselves with this cadre of vicious, greedy perverts is a tragedy, especially when often these people’s own personal ideologies are at odds with the church itself. They are used as sandbags to insulate the filth that lies at the heart of the institution from criticism.

            Their good works, which are a credit to their humanity, are hijacked by the church, who have the temerity to claim that it is the church that drives these people to do good deeds; it is not, it’s simply good people doing what good people do.

            The Catholic church has utterly betrayed every human being that has ever put their faith in them, again and again, and again. It’s an organisation which needs to be abandoned, which is precisely what people are doing in record numbers.

          • Letem Dangle

            All organizations eventually get taken over by psychopaths and sociopaths including governments and NGO’s. The church has a long history so you are going to see a lot of them there. Our entire civilization is fraught with evil doers from the beginning of time to the present. The larger and older the institution the more corruption there will be.

    • owen

      Except the best theories science can come up with are just theories they are scientific guesswork. Evolution is not fact as you put it is a theory one which has evidence behind it but is not definitive and conclusive. As the scientists in the video pointed out when discussing the theories this is what “we believe” is the case “we think” happened same as a person with a religious bent would say “we believe” and “we think” but neither party “knows” as you put it. Incidentally, there is evidence for the existence of God and indeed the Big Bang Theory is a catholic theory it was derived by Father George Lemaitre and Einstein said it was the most convincing theory he had heard of for the existence of God.

  • Chip/Richard Somers

    This guy is a dogmatic idiot!!!

    • http://gokante.com Kante Anderson

      Quantum physics is actually coming up with theories re: the interaction of electromagnetic fields between people and groups of people, and how that relates to what some people call prayer.

      • timgale

        Quantum physics is actually coming up with theories re: the interaction
        of electromagnetic fields between people and groups of people, and how
        that relates to what some people call TELEPATHY, is also an untestable asinine claim wrought with wishful thinking.

        • http://gokante.com Kante Anderson

          It’s untestable TODAY. Science isn’t over. Although I’m sure it would be if more scientist were like you, hyper confident in your complete lack of imagination.

          • timgale

            There are many things that are untestable, but that does not add credence to their likelihood, however, the very first study into the effectiveness of prayer was very simply and smartly carried out in England 200 or so odd years ago. Knowing that the incumbent royals were routinely included in the prayers of their devoted subjects, there was a natural assumption that they would in fact live longer and healthier lives than those whom they ruled over. However, more often than not, they in fact died well before the common man most probably due to access to life’s guilty pleasures and perhaps a little inbreeding. Moreover, lab rats go into remission at the same rate as cancer patients that have been prayed for by loved ones, and amputees who have been prayed for do not grow back new limbs. There is no reason to believe that prayer works but very good reason to believe it does not.

          • kiowhatta

            It’s over-optimistic, wishful thinking fools like you who are better off writing science fiction novels than working in grounded science

  • Letem Dangle

    I could tell this was going to be a good video because of the negative feedback from atheist. No one gets angrier or self defensive than atheist.

    • Davy Jones

      God is not real. Prove me wrong.

      • Letem Dangle

        You made the assertion, you prove otherwise.

        • Andrew Dube

          Actually since there is no REAL tangible proof of God, it’s up to the religious folk to prove it to the rest of us. You can point fingers and claim assertions all you want, you can’t escape that rock solid truth!

          • Letem Dangle

            “Rock solid truth”? Wow, you are delusional.

          • Andrew Dube

            The only delusional one here is you, and people like you, you actually believe in an omnipotent deity, so insecure in himself, that he needs to take Sunday attendance and have lowly human beings to worship him. Oh and please, don’t start quoting the bible … the last thing any of need is to hear more ranting from an ancient sheep herders with an infinitesimal world view. get where I’m going here? Probably not. Religion was made up by the ignorant mind to give definition to what humans could not yet comprehend. Today’s religion is merely a haven for the greedy, bigots, racists, liars and pedophiles. Go ahead, try and prove me wrong … I can bring up news article after news article basically backing all of that up. You’re such hypocrites that you should all be neutered, you would be doing a great service to the human race!

          • Letem Dangle

            All walks of life exhibit the same problems.

          • Andrew Dube

            Not really, I could not have cared less about what religious folk did or said provided they didn’t interfere with my life. As a result of the religious right rearing its ugly head in the last 10 years and claiming its being discriminated against because society at large won’t allow them to discriminate (such ridiculousness); I am now on the defensive. Religious people don’t get it; when their religious observations start interfering with the freedoms and rights of others, then you no longer have a right to your religious freedom. Religion can never take first place above the rational, observable, the tangible and the realistic. Religious ideology will NEVER supersede personal freedoms and rights and it never should!!! Let me reiterate, I wouldn’t be taking these views had they not cast the first stone (Anti LGBT, Traditional Marriage, Anti Abortion, Anti Birth Control, ETC ETC ETC ETC). They love telling the rest of us how to live but they forget, they have NO RIGHT!!! The most pathetic among human beings if you ask me.

          • Letem Dangle

            The most educated man knows he is ignorant. The least educated feels he is all knowing.

          • Andrew Dube

            PehLEASE! You should be looking in a mirror while uttering those words, it would far more apt. But hey, whatever gets you through the day! :)

          • TheAnathema

            The all-knowing can be found on the pulpit and knees-down in the pews, in spades, yet oddly enough their presence in the lab is conspicuously absent, fella.

          • Chris

            Wow… Bigotry anyone? I wonder if u can scientifically back up “You’re such hypocrits that you should all be neutered….” Go ahead… Write out a response… You might call it a hypothesis, then 20 years from now Richard Dawkins will write a book asserting your hypothesis to be undeniable…. That’s real openmindedness… Sounding like Hitler, gotta get them out of the gene pool. Hypocrisy is too friendly a term. I guess, its true… People can be stupid, regardless of what their beliefs or political affiliation may be. It’s alright though, I don’t blame you. Those who taught you hatred, sure didn’t teach you much else… Like the irony of posting a bigoted and hypocritical message… About bigots and hypocrits. I haven’t even seen the documentary, but its certainly got you riled up. The audacity… Of believing something other than what I believe… I’ll show them… Threaten their manhood. *rolls eyes* I will say, the funniest thing about athiests is that they don’t notice bigotry in themselves or others who share their beliefs. That’s like scary kind of bigotry… On that note… I’m gonna watch the documentary.

      • http://gokante.com Kante Anderson

        What does the word God mean to you? Because it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.

    • TheAnathema

      You’re so right. Christians and Muslims take criticism so well, they are the epitome of calm in a debate or when confronted with a cartoon they don’t like. That’s why you can’t actually debate most of them face-to-face for fear of them exploding into psychotic fits of unbridled rage.

      I’ve lost count of the number of times people have pleaded with me to drop the subject, simply because some god-botherer was throwing their toys out of the pram and fixing to throw hands; many are inherently violent, just look at the way they believe that god blesses their acts of mass murder.

      Theists, where their beliefs are concerned, are critically hobbled, rendering them childlike in their abilities to check their emotions in the face of criticism.

  • Tina Dewey

    There’s only “Good” and “Bad” in this world. It’s simple not complex you either love or hate. God is Good and the Devil is Bad that simple. If we choose to love it’s better, but it’s hard to love one who hates. That’s why I wish there will be more of us who believe in God “the Creator” the “Great Mystery”. It’s not superstition it’s Fact, my friend my brother/sister. I’m no one just little me, in God’s beautiful world. He gave us the most beautiful things which are free. He encourages diversity, he gave us variety. Thank you God. Ha’hou’. I AM NOT INDIAN I AM AN ARAPAHO FROM WYOMING.

  • godsadick

    This guy looks like the retard he is.

  • godsadick

    Tina, since when is god love and kindness, HAVE YOU READ THE BIBLE? In the old testament the devil kills 7 people and got kills 7 million?????

  • pierseM

    so the film producer just spent 47 minutes describing how bad atheism is . how did he do it ? he described it as a worser religion , basically saying that religion is as bad as it sounds . nice one .
    and yes i am an atheist at the end of the day . but only 99% , we atheists still do not have proof that god dosen’t exist . so unitl then ….

  • chip griffin

    well, you fixing to get all you want and then some, death that is as the atheist get to go crazy. have fun folks, after all it is what you wanted…

    • Laughter

      Hey, Chip. How was your trip to Israel?

      Back already?

      Didn’t the 7 year trib start in July of 2008?

      Are we in overtime or extra innings now?

      Better check with them angels again.

      • chip griffin

        keep up that smile and that fake grin, no one thinks everything is ok but the few who can’t care,and those in prison, etc.. july 08 started the money troubles and it hasn’t been fixed and it won’t be. dec. 2012 started the last 7 years and life as we know it is about to change on levels that will cause you to poop those tiny pants you wear. you go and laugh, it is fine with me. i have a safe out, but you, well that is another story all together. you laughed and others planned and you will cry while others slide out without being seen. you were too smart for your own good and it came crashing down as you played like children do.
        i have seen it, i have a front row seat. they will eat each other while throwing their foolish gold and silver into the streets, now it has become nothing and piles of it. those who want to eat will take their mark into their bodies and they will eat as they think about hell that waits. you will sit with them as the tears roll down your face. a few simple things could have changed everything, but it was easier to laugh and play thinking life was but a joke, the joke is on you clown…

        • Laughter

          That’s sure strange. For the past 5 years you’ve been telling everybody that the last 7 years started in July of 2008. I suppose because we are past that date that you had to move the goalposts like Harold Camping did and like all of the pseudo prophets of god did. You are no different. Your record proves it.

          As for “planning” – your planning is nothing more concrete than the wish you have for survival. Your so-called safe city is a plot of land that you do not own and you have not even thought out nor provided for the basic problems of sanitation. Instead, you believe your god will feed you and also take care of the latrine, something that was overlooked in the fable of Moses and the Exodus. No problem – you never saw Hollywood cowboys go to the bathroom either. This happens in “stories”.

          If and when the spaghetti hits the fan, anyone foolish enough to follow your lead will end up worse holding their mouths open to the sky thinking that manna will drop into it.

          There is a lot to be said about credibility. You have none. Everything you have said for the past 5 years has been totally wrong. Tell us – why should someone take you seriously?

          • chip griffin

            don’t do as you wish…

  • kiowhatta

    It is true as when Nietzsche proclaimed ‘whither is God? I will tell you.We have killed him – you and I. all of us are his murderers.But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?’ – What Nietzsche is implying is we went to far. Yes it was time to do away with a moralizing, praise addicted, vengeful, life denying deity, but we had also done away with all truth and arrived at nihilism.
    We has simply killed god and dressed him up as as science and technology..think about it..most of us take comfort and solace in the belief and/or hope that one day science and technology will save us from over-population, poverty, disease and climate change and so on.
    Nietzsche pointed out repeatedly that we must change our inner values in order to change the world. We must accept reality: Humans die, exploit, hurt one another and we live in a sick, weak age because christianity demonized natural parts of who we are, and Socrates gave birth to a world where we live in our minds, coupled together, we are totally disconnected from reality, ourselves and the fact we are just intelligent animals part of this planet.
    Just like religion there are fundamentalists within the atheist movement. A healthy atheist ought to really be a sceptic, just like a good scientist and what I identify as a philosophical pessimist, which means I don’t need superfluous childish needs that manifest in adulthood, like in religious types who are just still stuck in needing a paternal deity to comfort, reassure, guide, promise and tell them they are special with a special gift. rubbish I say.
    there are almost 8 billion people on the planet, are they all special with special gifts? there is no evidence whatsoever other than this world is an ‘aesthetic phenomenon’ as Schopenhauer said.
    We exist to survive, reproduce and gain what little pleasure we can from our mostly disappointing, insignificant, miserable existence. We will all die and turn into compost one day.
    A true agnostic/atheist believes the question ‘is there a god?’ pointless and erroneous.
    We lack the intelligence or power to dwell in such hypothetical realms, and it is denial to live one’s live in faith based optimism or providence. The same denial that everything is crap and not worth trying is the other end of the spectrum.
    I experienced such a relief and liberation when I stopped searching for the system or blueprint that would explain everything and this is ultimately driven by the need for empowerment which, in turn, is driven by fear. Oscar wilde said ‘The basis for optimism is sheer terror’. Fear that we are not special, we are going to die and we have forgotten as communities how to teach our young men and girls how to deal with their fear, so we live in a fear driven world.
    We have even come to believe that if we think positive enough, hard enough, often enough, this will manifest what we want in our lives. What garbage! another way to express that is wishful or magical thinking. Wake up you idiots.

  • matt

    Millwall scum