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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 =)
” 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…..)
Bull Crap! atheism has nothing to do with Communis and vice versa!!! Where in the world did you hear this rumour???
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.
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.
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.
“(Communism is a branch of atheism…..)”
I hope you eventually come to realize just how wrong this statement is.
Atheism leads ot communism.
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.
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?
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?
“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 🙂
Moral Instincts are not contrary to Evolution by Natural Selection.
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!
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.
Hitler rejected Christianity when it didn’t serve his purpose anymore.
Hitler never accepted Christianity.
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.
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?
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?