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.
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.
If Atheism is a religion, bald is a hair colour.
Rod Liddle’s brain is as liddle as his rod 🙂
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?
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.
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.
Well God created people so who’s to say that life created by people isn’t also divine…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
I’m actually fairly certain i heard something about a living cell being created in a lab not too long ago
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.
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.
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
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.
this documentary is terrible.. firstly the definition atheism!
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.”
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.”
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!?
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.
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.
guh, made it to almost 8 mins in, this guy sucks so bad
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.
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.
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,
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
>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…
>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…
“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
There is so much wrong with this i dont even know where to start. You are incredibly uneducated.
Are you telling me that since I don’t believe in God I have no morals? If so, you are extremely wrong.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bollocks.
Bollocks.
Bollocks.
Bollocks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
I can’t say I agree with most or even much of it but some interesting thoughts.
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
What an idiot, that’s all that has to be said.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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