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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
Did Prothero from V for Vendetta make this?
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
CentHub.com
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
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.
it is so funny that religious people still think atheism is a religion… how fucking stupid can they be….
it is so funny that religious people still think atheism is a religion… how fucking stupid can they be….
it is so funny that religious people still think atheism is a religion… how fucking stupid can they be….
I made it to 7.54 before stopping it. Any argument he has posed so far has been completely flaccid.
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.
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.
weak!
God Vs Darwinism? Grow up!
God Vs Darwinism? Grow up!
God Vs Darwinism? Grow up!
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
I enjoyed this documentary.
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.
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.
this documentary is shit.
Would like to elaborate?
Would like to elaborate?
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.
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.
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.
I’d like to thank you for pointing out the obvious. You failed to supply an argument. This documentary is shit, nonetheless.
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.
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.
Education has only shown man how ignorant they are.
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.
seriously…what an idiotic post
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.
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.
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?………
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.
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.
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.
You may not believe in gravity but try jumping from a tall building and see what happens.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
What a load of BS. I am a generalizing here but theists seem to suck at analogies. Stating that you are in love is a personal choice and love is an emotion, which at the moment(!) cannot be quantified easily unless you are in a brain-scanner the size of a room. BUT Nowhere in the world are there people forcing you to love, even brainwashing you to be in love. Nowhere is love a part of politics. Nowhere will you and the life of your family be in danger if you do not proclaim that you love someone.As for the rest of your statement:All intolerance is dangerous? More BS. Are you tolerant towards slavery, paedophilia, racism and cults? No? Some things should NOT be tolerated. You can have whatever stupid uninformed opinion you want and I have the right to not respect that opinion.Fundamental atheism is as angry and insecure as religious fundamentalism? Get real:http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/05/Atheist-pope.gifhttp://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/024-respect.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/nqjIW.jpg
Since the formatting of this forum is lacking, here are, hopefully, the links with the spaces I had between them. *sigh*
http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/05/Atheist-pope.gif
.
http://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/024-respect.jpg
.
http://i.imgur.com/nqjIW.jpg
Since the formatting of this forum is lacking, here are, hopefully, the links with the spaces I had between them. *sigh*
http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/05/Atheist-pope.gif
.
http://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/024-respect.jpg
.
http://i.imgur.com/nqjIW.jpg
What a load of BS. I am a generalizing here but theists seem to suck at analogies. Stating that you are in love is a personal choice and love is an emotion, which at the moment(!) cannot be quantified easily unless you are in a brain-scanner the size of a room. BUT Nowhere in the world are there people forcing you to love, even brainwashing you to be in love. Nowhere is love a part of politics. Nowhere will you and the life of your family be in danger if you do not proclaim that you love someone.As for the rest of your statement:All intolerance is dangerous? More BS. Are you tolerant towards slavery, paedophilia, racism and cults? No? Some things should NOT be tolerated. You can have whatever stupid uninformed opinion you want and I have the right to not respect that opinion.Fundamental atheism is as angry and insecure as religious fundamentalism? Get real:http://unfollowingjesus.com/files/2011/05/Atheist-pope.gifhttp://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/024-respect.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/nqjIW.jpg
Another silly documentary based on poor thinking.
Too tedious to even comment further.
Another silly documentary based on poor thinking.
Too tedious to even comment further.
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.
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.
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.
cant wait for the day of judgment
cant wait for the day of judgment
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.