The Trouble With Atheism
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.
I do not believe there is A GOD that created anything. For a deity can create then there had to be a creator to create the deity. That leaves us with an unanswerable question. We know what is but we do not know the very beginning of everything. Evolution is what created everything we know so what set evolution into motion? It is not necessary that we ever know the answer to the question of what was the beginning. We are going to continue to search for that answer.
Says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
I don’t believe in anything whatsoever
Atheism has problems before and after creation.
Before: atheism can not explain why matter is a particle and a wave at the same time. Why the more you know about a particle the least you can say something about it (Heisenberg ), why nothing created everything, why matter, energy and acceleration are so interconnected but something "else" sets the laws that guide them.
After: why after uncovering the fossils of almost all species, the fossils of those intermediate species are nowhere, all we have are the tales made up by biased biologists after the fact . Where are the fossils of all the prototypes of man? Even bigger , what separates man from all other animals? Why we ask ourselves those questions: where did I came from? where am I going ? Why I feel remorse about some of my actions? Why is there inside me that nagging "ought " to do better? All the other animals don't have these worries, but I have them because I was made in the image of God.
When God put man in paradise, He gave them a choice: the tree of life (no prohibition), trusting completely in God for your life, and the tree of science (prohibited), a sort of logical path in life. Today's atheists still think that choosing science is the better path, even though science has left them with many questions, but God is still open to anyone that inquires of Him sincerely.
That's why we have no excuse. If you look for God, you will find Him in trust. When you were born, you did not demand a proof from your parents, you trusted in them, it's the same with your original designer. I did, C.S. Lewis call that experience being "surprised by joy".
As Clapton sang decades ago, "It's in the way that you USE it."
Atheism is a belief in a negative? Temples? Zealots? Blood on its hands? That is how dumb this movie is.
Atheism is a response to the many many claims that there is a god that no one can show to be real.
Atheism is the response of "I don't think so" to the claim "God is real".
No one has killed FOR atheism
There are NO TEMPLES to atheism
Religion IS A problem, atheism is NOTHING more than not accepting the CLAIMS made by those who insist their particular god, one or many of thousands of them, is real.
If people STOP claiming gods are real then atheism disappears so the PROBLEM is NOT atheism.
Atheist are worse than a very mentally disable person. If they claim they do not believe in God...why they make so much effort against the non existence of God? Why they fight against something they claim it does not exist? Why they need to bother people who believe. I think the answer is that they cannot stand the happiness that faith grant to the people who believe in God. For this same reason Atheist want every one around them to be as miserable and empty as they are.
thank you from the universe. great job!
Why are some atheists so hostile towards theists?
'm not an atheist or even religious but I understand that many atheists are hostile to theists when they:
Shun their children because of sexual orientation and decry LGBTQ people as meriting punishment and scorn
Deny their children life-saving medical care based on their notions of religion
Engage in child abuse because of a warped interpretation of Scripture
Justify honor killings in the name of religion
Justify terrorist acts in the name of religion
Insist on the subjugation of women in the name of religion
Justify racial intolerance in the name of religion
Cover up abuse by clergy
Otherwise depart from the path of lovingkindness in the name of religion
And there are plenty of theists who feel just as I do.
It is amazingly hilarious listening to the limited framework within which atheists are stuck to which is reflective of a dogmatic believer, especially the militant ones. Belief and skepticism are two sides of the same coin and I know many of you may find it hard to "believe" or accept but this is known or knowledge and not mere theory or speculation. You atheists and your particular brand of psychological disorder have been studied alongside all fanatical worshipers for millennia by those in the know. Any polarization means that you are firstly trapped in the mind, secondly restricted to duality and relativity, thirdly utterly materialistic. Rather than search for the secrets that emancipate you from mental slavery you quite willingly though unconsciously attach yourselves to "mental slavery". This is your comfort zone and the theory that only the physical world or 3 dimensions exist despite mathematics actually proving you utterly wrong! Once any individual begins to traverse the other dimensions of nature they come across profound realizations but the testimony is for the most part not empirical to the 5 senses they can only be verified by intuition, humility, open mindedness, an awakened heart and extra sensory perception.
Atheists do a fantastic job for the dark-side, though you may scoff at this due to your arrogance none of you would have the courage to investigate these people one could be fairly certain! So really your just as much a problem as fanatical worshipers. Finally an atheist cannot awaken consciousness. You may be surprised by this statement but to awaken consciousness requires that you go beyond the mind and therefore let go of your dogmas be they beliefs or skepticism.
Brilliant documentary by the way. To bad it was so short we could of delved into the extreme lack of substance there is in this unconscious existentialism of atheism. They really are an incredulous lot. So sad because many have the intelligence to "know" better. Like I said a fascinating psychological disorder.
Technical issues with editing makes this doc VERY hard to watch and follow.
Other than that, i see it at most parts trying to present conceptual information in a non-biased way. It definitely poses questions worth asking. The presenter although interviewing some Christians to help support his thesis, does interview professionals in their chosen fields, regardless of religious/non-religious beliefs. Like the conclusion states... its about presenting the evidence, which does not prove either a God or not a god. Its the ideology of 'fundamentalist' atheism that this doc is trying to pry open and critique, which is what makes this doc very interesting.
I find it very amusing to read some atheist comments that their belief is in fact not a belief. Nice cop out. Much like all atheist cop outs such as "you can't prove a negative" and "the burden of proof is on the one making the claim"... as if to say that whatever an atheist says is not a claim. Excuses, excuses. Just stand up for your beliefs. You don't believe in God. Why do you have to beat around the bush. You're free thinkers so be brave and tell the whole world that this is what you believe and choose to follow. It's that simple. Stop hiding behind terminology. You have a belief.
Even with so much evidence, empiricism is still uncertain. In spite of having no evidence, religion is certain. Trying to further define the different epistemologies between the two requires a lot more space than can be expected here, so I guess I'll just go the short cut and move straight into easy ad-hominem. The presenter just looks like he needs to drink less, go have a shower and buy a new shirt "for God's sake".
He makes some excellent points. He is clearly not a Christian, nor does he seem to be enamored by the militant atheists who eagerly villify people of faith as being 'harmful' to humanity. Those who are offended by this program seem to feel the narrator is getting a little too close to the truth. Atheists are creating their own belief system and trying to essentially supplant religion with an Atheistic world view. So no longer is Atheism simply a rejection of Christian, Jewish, Islamic ideology or otherwise. Now it is seeking to replace these belief systems with a formulation of their own. Dawkins ten commandments are a good representation of this effort.
For me (an atheist) God and religion are never involved with my thought process unless it's topic of discussion and when I see God on money or God in the courtroom (tell the truth so help me god) this is nothing more than traditions and if you think the universe is conditioned for the existence of humans and life your thinking about it wrong we're not even lucky to have these conditions we are in fact a product of these conditions the universe and the earth have no agenda for our existence nor do they require, agnolag, or care whatsoever of our existence life is a product and adapted to the random and only conditions provided by the universe
The host completely missed the fact that Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR and RELIGION are totalitarian systems. It's the equating of moral good with the dictates of the supreme ruler that is the problem. I'm an atheist because I oppose the irrational, totalitarian nature of religion, but I also oppose all totalitarian systems such as that of Iran and North Korea. And appreciation for a brilliant insight into the natural world (Eg, Darwin) does not mean that I consider the person that made the insight in any sense sacred. This intentional misrepresentation and conflation of reverence for good ideas and the people who have them with religious concepts of the sacred is truly insulting.
Curious that other religions such as Shinto or Tao don't proselytize, proving that it is possible to enjoy one's religion but not require others to believe in it as well. But Christianity incorporates proselytizing and tells its members to go out and convert others, because they will end up in Hell if they don't believe. Of course there is no evidence of a heaven or a hell.
If you can understand how a single 'God' could have created three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which have 3 different 'holy' books, each of which tells them who they may, and should, kill, please enlighten me. The Christian 'God' resembles the human so much, with his moods and explosive anger, so ask yourself this: How is it possible for a 'God' to create humans and then drown all but a chosen few of them, because they worshipped 'other' gods? Where did these 'other' gods come from?
Ron Liddle is not quite cerebral enough to understand that atheism is intellectually more honest, regarding what we actually know or don't know. There is no evidence of any god or goddess, and for some reason neither God nor Jesus will 'show up' again. It's been two thousand years since Jesus said he'd return before his followers had passed away.
The ultimate question is: what happens when we die? The ultimate truth is that nobody knows for sure one way or the other.
Anyone who says they know is full of ****. You only think you know. In reality you don't have the first damn clue of how to even conceptualize it. You can't know what death is like any more than you can know what it's like to be a tree or a rat or a stone. You can't possibly conceive of heaven or the afterlife accurately; and non-existence is a concept equally foreign to the human perspective of existence. You can come up with theories and conjecture, which very well might be close approximations of the truth on a grossly simplistic view (i.e you die and there's something; you die and there's nothing), but you almost certainly could never come up with the exactly right answer.
What I will say for science is that it has done a lot of effective work in helping us figure out our universe and how it works and where it came from and where it's going. But there is so much science doesn't know. There is so much left unanswered. For every question answered you get 100 more questions; many times, questions science can't possibly answer. The amount of scientific knowledge we have is not even close to how much we don't have. You'll miss more in the blink of an eye than you'll see in every waking moment of your life. There is a limit to what you can know, or think you know, with science.
What I'll say of religion is that it attempts to bridge the divide of what science cannot answer. It gives structure to natural intuitions that man feels. Man naturally feels a sense of right and wrong. Morality and ethics is something naturally intuitive in humans. It is natural for humans to want to think that they're connected and part of something greater; that their life has some higher purpose than to just eat, breath, drink, poop, mate, and die.
The problem with religion is that it says that it knows the ultimate truth for certain. Religion claims that their way is the right way and every other way is wrong (Not all religions claim this, but many do). I believe there is wisdom and truth found in all religions, but that no single one of them holds the ultimate truth.
Again, the ultimate truth is really the answer to the question: what happens when we die? Neither the theist nor the atheist has the answer to that question no matter how much they think they do. If you're being honest with yourself you don't know.
With that being said, I'm a philosophy student and I'm writing a thesis on the ramifications of non-existence i.e. the annihilation of all consciousness/soul upon death. One point that I'm focusing on is the idea that human beings, (human consciousness), is in actuality the universe coming to know itself. In other words we are parts of the universe capable of having the consciousness to know that we are a part of the universe. The entire universe is known exclusively within your subjective experience of it, as it is known exclusively to me from my perspective.
So if human consciousness, the human experience, is the only way to know the universe, and that experience is lost entirely upon death, then it's as if it didn't happen at all once you're dead. That means that your life, and subsequently your experience of the universe, had no ultimate purpose or meaning. You basically experienced all that for nothing. You lived, for basically less than a second, and now you're just non-existent for the rest of forever.
The real kicker is this: since your existence doesn't matter, and your subjective experience of the universe is the part of the universe that knows it existed; then that means that the entire universe exists for no reason. If your life doesn't have any ultimate meaning or purpose then neither does the whole universe. It exists for no reason and might as well not exist.
So why does it exist then? Why do we? Is this all just a freak accident of nature? Everything worked out so perfectly so that there could be beings on this wet rock in space that are able to say that we're here and so is the universe. Everything went right; the laws of physics and nature, the earths distance from the sun, the moon etc... everything went so perfectly right; for no reason at all?
If when we die there is just nothing and none of any of this mattered at all, then life, and the entire universe, will be the greatest cosmic joke there ever was.
Basically my argument eventually boils down to this: either everything is connected and everything matters, or nothing in the universe matters at all.
For me personally, I can't accept that my life, my universe, and all the love and goodness and hope and light that I see in it is for nothing. I can't conceptualize non-existence and I can't fathom its implications.
When I close my eyes i see a black background with a bunch of whirring colors and shapes. I can't even conceive of the idea of pure blackness let alone the absolute black void of non-existence.
I can't stomach it. Life loses all magic and the world becomes a cold and horrible place; a cruel, sick, and twisted joke. Beautiful that it is, it still is a tragedy of the most extreme proportions. The whole universe is just a stupid accident and doesn't mean anything.
I find it much more appealing to follow my intuition which says that we are all connected to the universe and everything matters. I'm inclined to say that humans have a divine spark or a soul or an essence within their consciousness; something that lives on after the death of the physical body; something that really does matter. You are, after all, the universe looking itself in the mirror.
That is why I believe science and religion should ultimately be combined, not at odds. Nowhere in Darwin's work does it say that there is evidence enough to disprove God. That's foolish. Perhaps it does dislodge some religions, but it can't disprove God.
What if evolution and the big bang are just the ways God works?
Religion is sufficient, but it is certainly not necessary for
God. Same goes for science; you could say that there is sufficient
evidence, or rather, a lack of sufficient tangible evidence (besides all the obvious evidence of you or the universe existing in the first place, which I feel like is pretty compelling evidence in its own right) but you cannot say that the lack of evidence necessarily disproves God.
Therefore, no amount of science could ever disprove God. What science can do is to help us understand truth and the way God works or point out how hopeless a situation we're all in.
On the other side of the coin, no religion should be taken seriously that completely ignores science. Science is the best way we have of knowing the universe. And since we are the universe trying to know itself, it would be foolish to ignore wisdom or knowledge of any kind.
Whatever the case may be, life sure is beautiful. I'm sure glad to be alive. I don't know what will await me on the other side. But whatever comes, I hope to live a full and beautiful life of doing good and helping others; a life with no regrets.
I hope that my intuition is right, and the universe and myself do have meaning beyond just this life. But if I'm wrong I guess I won't really ever know it will I? I can take some uneasy comfort in that I suppose...
I'll leave you all with this:
I wish you all a life worth living over a million times. May you never be closed minded to wisdom or truth.
The study of ethics and morality is not atheism, atheism only frees your mind from dogma in one area.
In the end, atheism only prove itself to be delusional as well as faith based. So, you actually hop from one 'delusion' into another one that is proven to be a real delusion. What is there for the atheists? It is a religion about NOT doing nothing but something to get nothing in the end. And it is all about NOTHING. LOL How silly!
Having an independent thought is a good start but you don't hav'ta follow these atheists' religion trying to be so harsh and hard on oneself. Atheism is a religion. Why? It is a "zero", NOT a "null". If it is a "null", then you are not religious - no affiliation, "don't care" mode. Atheists are not "don't care". They are religiously blinded by their "no God, no spirits" stance. This is bad because this is not "null". This is a "zero". And we all know that "zero" is a NUMBER. So, its a religion based on faith that God does not exist without much testing and logical explanation and debates. Too bad, atheism is a RELIGION.
a man after my own heart i love this one
Punggol-if I added up all the seconds that maybe I believed in something supernatural,it would probably amount to less than 10 seconds and maybe it was attributable to pot, which I smoked when I was young and dumb.
Punggol-still the world's most fanatical Commie/atheist! Don't believe in all that fantastical crap they talk about on Ghost to Ghost AM, nor bigfoot,UFOs, Nessie, Ogopogo, yeti, remote viewing, Area 51, Bolson de Mapiimi, Major Ed Danes, psychics or the chupacabra. Es una grande porqueria!
Religion has been the emptiest experience of my entire life.If I just pray to some god I've never experienced, I won't be a poor slave.It's just like psycho-pharmaceuticals-happiness doesn't come in a bottle. I am communist-I believe in a democracy of needs.
Before I engage in the main thrust of my commentary, let me state that I am an atheist. I am an atheist in the original sense of the term, meaning a rejection of theism. Whether or not some being created the universe I don't know, and I'm not sure we can ever figure out (but I don't really care either). However, I have excellent reasons for rejecting the theistic god of Islam, Christianity and Judaism (which of all religions is the most philosophically defensible of the deities). These monotheistic religions believe God is an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. My problem with this position is known as the Problem of Evil: how can an all-seeing, all-caring/loving, and all-powerful god have created a world where there is so much pain and suffering. Now the usual defence to this problem is to blame it on humanity and to claim it is an unfortunate side-effect of the free will God has gifted us. There are issues with this defence which I shall set aside for now because even if we accept it, it only addresses human-caused evil. The horrors of natural evil (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, drought, floods, meteorite impacts, etc) are a result only of the natural world a supposedly all-loving and all-powerful god created. If God loves us so and truly possesses limitless power, couldn't it have designed a universe and planet where we don't have to worry about such problems, don't have to suffer from them? One might respond that natural disasters and the like give an opportunity for us to exercise compassion, but only a grossly unjust god would make some suffer just so we can get a chance to help them out. And if the world/universe couldn't have been designed any other way, that ain't much of an all-powerful god you've got there, so why praise him?
Furthermore, there is abundant evidence in the history of religion (pre-judaism) that the monotheistic god is just the next logical step from early polytheistic religions made by a people struggling to live, a species faced with the beauty, regularity and occasional catastrophes of this planet. I am not going to try to convince anyone that religion has led to too many deaths or that religious people are hypocrites, because whether or not we have religion humans are still going to do bad things to each other. I am an atheist primarily because I believe God is a human creation, and it is one we do not need. We can love ourselves, strive to understand the natural world and our place in it, and have concern and compassion for our fellow humans (and other life forms) without a belief in gods.
I will admit that some atheists and indeed some of the more prominent atheistic authors have been guilty of arrogance. I do not believe religious people are stupid or scared; I fully understand the appeal of religion, and its inherited hold on humanity. I am an atheistic evangelical of sorts--I am out to convert the masses--but I will use only fair, respectful discussion to do so. And my mind is open: I am not an atheistic dogmatist; I am prepared to walk away from my atheism if someone can present me with a bullet-proof argument for believing in a god. This is the most productive and defensible way to approach these issues.
We can now turn to the relationship of science and religion. It is possible to be a religious person fully committed to the logic and discoveries of science if you hold a stance that God created this universe (and everything in it) by giving rise to the big bang, and that because he is omniscient and omnipotent he knew exactly what would follow and so set up just the way he wanted. I believe this is an unnecessary addition to our current scientific narrative, but it is at least logically compatible. So, science does not equal atheism (though it creates problems for young earthers, or anyone who believes God just conjured up us and the universe in a piecemeal fashion over six days). Many scientists are atheists, and probably are so because like me, they believe there is evidence it is a human fabrication designed to explain the universe and our place in it, and that we don't need it anymore.
The contention that atheism and/or science are just like (or even are) a type of religion is laughable. Yes, both religion and science are belief systems that explain the natural world and our place in it, and yes some people are passionately committed to both. But this where they part ways. Science is system wherein its parts (theories) are completely open to modification and even radical change or outright abandonment in the face of contrary evidence. In science a theory is not just a hunch like how the word 'theory' is used in an everyday sense. In science a theory is an explanatory framework; it is a way to explain some of the phenomena we observe. So, plate tectonic theory is a framework to explain the origins of mountains, earthquakes, volcanism, mid-ocean ridges, and so on. And evolution is a theory to explain the origin of species, mating strategies, the adaptation of species to an environment, and (some) extinctions of species (due to maladaptation), and so on. These and so many other scientific theories are cherished by those who have developed or studied them because of their massive explanatory utility, because they allow us to make predictions about future phenomena, and because they have survived repeated tests. When scientists stumble upon evidence that is directly contrary to a theory or that a theory cannot adequately address, they may fine tune some aspect of the theory or, more rarely, abandon the theory and develop an alternative explanatory framework. What separates science from religion (besides the huge difference in explanatory success) is this openness, even willingness to change. Sure individual scientists may be reluctant, even stubborn to abandon a position, but they will be marginalized as the scientific community makes the change because of the evidence.
The claim that any scientific like Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is akin to a sacred text is troubled to say the least. Yes great, innovative scientific works like Darwin's or Newton's or Einstein's may be revered, but they are revered only because they were works of genius that changed human thought and gave rise to new theories and fields of scientific discovery. Unlike a religion's primary or sacred text, a scientific work is NOT accepted as dogma, as something which is beyond criticism. As much as they may admire Darwin's famous book, evolutionary biologists do not believe Darwin got everything right, and they certainly aren't afraid to say so or to pursue a line of research which may call in to question a central tenet of evolutionary theory (indeed there are few things more enticing to a scientist than raising a problem for a widely accepted theory).
Please feel free to respond. I love a debate.
The narrator precedes his thesis that atheism is bad with global examples of religion-based murder and mayhem. 'Nuff said!
Well, one thing's for sure: religion is effing lucrative. There's this church from Brazil called Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, started in 1977 by by one state worker named Edir Macedo. In the 90's they had a midnight show on regional TV and soon they got so big they ended up buying the entire network!! Today they are one of the nation's biggest media conglomerate.
For a second I thought Jeremy Clarkson was narrating. Dear god.
Great balanced inspiring ...you name it ...top docu really : loved it : thanks, folks for that : a warning from history :
I think if people would only watch it & listen to it carefully with open minds ,hearts & souls , they would be more tolerant in relation to each other , to other beliefs , cultures, thoughtstreams ........
I liked the end of the docu , among many other things , when that wise sympathetic great tolerant presentator said something like the following :
There might be a God as there might be no God , why can't we just leave it at that ? I do totally agree with that .
Why can't we just let people believe in whatever they want to believe in ?
Is that too much to ask ?
P.S.: Both religious & atheistic fanatism are signs of intolerance, bigotry , ignorance, despair , confusion , frustration,psychological disorder, disbelief really , even if & especially when they are represented by such fascists like Dawkins, Atkins ....who are suppoed to be rolmodels for people .
How could such brilliant minds like Dawkins, Atkins, Dennett ...become such fascists ? a very interesting study case worth of investigating indeed .
The real true believers in the broader sense neither experience , feel , express , know nor tolerate any kindda fanatism in their hearts , minds or souls .
What a world we live in .
It seems to me that humans seldom learn from history .
Science in general is a method only.
Scientific thinking is a way of perceive reality. Because of its efficiency, scientific theory seems the closest thing so far nowadays to answer questions we don't know.
Science does not state anything.
Scientific thinking means:
- Be critic with everything regardless of person, authority, custom... etc
- try to prove your point, and try disprove it at the same time. The result is a scientific answer.
- Scientific answers can be:
___Proven (likely or very likely)
___Dispoven (not likely)
___We Don`t Know (insufficient information or the question itself not defined sufficiently)
All of these answers are equals, in term of the succession of scientific method. We increase our knowledge even with the facts that we know for sure what we don`t know.
Atheists are far from true scientists because a true scientist should never say he knows for SURE. Everything is possible but maybe very very very unlikely.
The problem is with religion/ atheism is that they hijack free thinking and replaces with ready answers.
Killing the critic and curius mind is equivalent of enslaving somebody.
Imprisoning the mind, makes us all inferior beings.
Human mind can explore the universe, can crack the secrets of cosmos but only if we let it flow free.
this guy is a twat! trying ever so hard to make tenuous connections similarities between between religeon and science. The only thing he has achieved in this doco is proving how much of a r*tard he is.
Look in your pocket. Now thank science for your cell phone. What has religion given you recently? Exactly... There is really no argument or disagreement on this subject. Claims otherwise are simply a joke. Science works. It gives us useful things and makes peoples lives better. Religion confuses people, inflames conflict, and enables social control by the powerful. Use the utility of the subject in question as a metric. Science wins hands down every time. And yes, they are incompatible
"The origin of species" is a sacred text?! LMAO I'd pay to see atheists angrily rioting in the streets over someone burning that book. It won't happen though BECAUSE IT'S A BOOK. Pieces of paper. I've been an atheist since I was 8, no one led me there, I don't have a ******* guru, or a sacred text, and I don't follow an organized or taught doctrine. New atheism involves the SKEPTICISM of religious beliefs and the supernatural, not the other way around.
There is nothing ritualistic, or supernatural about simply not believing in god. If you think relying on science (observation and experimentation, i.e. evidence), which all atheists don't, is somehow a faith or a religion then you're ******* up. Also, if you think "belief in disbelief" (disbelieving in god, something that someone else came up with and CAN NOT PROVE) is religious than you're equally ****** up.
@Serhend Adil Sirkecioglu
while i agree some great works of art have been done in the name of god. please show me how "Architecture, Illumination, Design, Technology, and the Preservation of Greco-Roman Text" happened in the name of god? not that people of faith made discoveries within these areas but these developments came about as a result of their belief. Newton,Darwin, and many others believed in god but their achievements came about out of their intelligence and an attempt to explain how things work. now i have given credit to Islamic society for the preservation of ancient text (saved from Christian torch) but is was the society (at the time) that was open to learning and expanding knowledge not the faith that they had that preserved this knowledge.
God is not real, dudes, come on, even if you think there is something above, how can you think it knows what you are saying?, 99% of the religious people knows that the eden story is, just a story, but they act as if it was literal...why why do they act as if it was real? just because religion has some good stuff, doesnt mean you have to accept everything even the parts that drive your hate to others, others you supossedly love
I love this documentary. I'm sure atheists hate it, but it's 100% right about everything. I highly recommend it. Don't let the trolls on here keep you from watching it.
Awful documentary that is skewed against atheism.
Richard Dawkins is a great man for what he strives for and in his accomplishments, probably far more than you or your god/gods has ever done for humanity Iknowthatgodisreal.
Richard Dawkins in an *****!!! Not ALL religions discourage independent thought, and are divisive and dangerous!! There already have been some rather significant finds BY SCIENCE, that prove "Creationism's" stance!
Ellen Johnson is sickening beyond belief! She can't even keep her story straight!! Nice job on the part of the narrator at tripping her up on the air and making her look like the fool that she is!!
Darwin was a complete "FLAKE!" There is NO WAY that the earth, sun, and moon could have just "accidentally" come together in the most perfect way to be able to support life as we know it! All of the ecosystems and animals that depend upon each other is not an accident! Our extremely complicated bodies, and our incredible brains and how they operate, HAVE to be "intelligent design," and not because of the "Big Bang Theory!"
Atheists have as much blood on their hands as religionists have! The battle between believers and non-believers is as old as time itself! In the Bible, it began with Cain and Able! If there IS a God, I hope that he will step forward and clean up the mess that the planet, and we as human beings, have become!
I like the statement, "Why can't I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and we just live in harmony with one another?"
I'm sorry - I didn't want to comment on this site as an antagonist, but reading the comments here I can't help myself. Sure, atheism is just as much a matter of faith as religion - that is self-evidently true. No-one can prove it either way so the atheist must have an equal amount of faith in his or her belief that there is no deity as the theist who believes solidly that there is a deity.
But they are not the only two options. The world is not black and white. We don't deal in absolutes for the most part. Anyone who gets so outraged that they feel they have to actively insult and degrade others with dissimilar beliefs to themselves, must themselves feel in some way threatened - so they attack as their defence. STOP! We can all believe what we want without it having an impact on others.
But, having said that, stop attacking Darwin. Evolution is a theory only in name. The majority of the theory - the important stuff - has been proven. It is only called a 'theory' because science does not claim to have all the answers. Theists who call it a theory are using the term in an academically dishonest way. Science is a process - not an end in itself. Science is not evil - it is not a religion and nor does it support atheism. In fact, one day in the future, who knows? Science could show us that there is a deity. And if science did discover it, it wouldn't lie about it or twist the facts to suit dogma. Science does not have an agenda, it is a tool for learning.
One thing I can say with absolute certainty (This is one absolute that is possible to deal in) is that whatever the truth behind the Universe is, it is much more beautiful, meaningful and mind-blowing than ANYTHING written down by a bunch of ignorant men a couple of thousand years ago. The mysteries of the Universe are much too astounding to be explained away as easily as any religion would.
Last thing: If you are a fundamentalist theist, from whatever religion, and you truly agree with this doc, then I recommend that you stop using all technology that science has produced - otherwise you are just a hypocrite. You must already recognise that the filmmakers themselves are just that - they are usng technology, which comes from science, which is atheistic, apparently.
So get your facts straight (that's right, FACTS not opinions, and not 'knowledge' obtained from a holy book - it is not, by definition, knowledge) and, if you really do believe the message behind this doc, reconsider what using the internet now means for you - what switching on a light bulb now means for you. It now means that you are being untrue to your beliefs. These are, after all, atheistic devices.
That last bit was sarcasm for all you Americans out there.
Half of this documentary is this guy walking
I'm not liking how biased this documentary is, and how it shoves atheism in the same boat as science.
A person being an atheist in no way implies that they are supportive of or against science. Atheism says nothing about a persons beleiefs on the matter of science, nor does it imply it. But I think a lot of people try to act like it does imply it.
I think the whole point is missed in this debate. We have four issues:-
2. Darwin (aism? sp?)
If I am brought up in a muslim family stands a chance I will grow up to be a muslim.
Likewise Roman Catholic and again Church of England and so on and so forth.
The issue is not religion
I think it has been well argued that it is also a religion. That was one of the main points of the programme.
Atheism and God
Well these are matters of faith. The believer in God cant prove He exists and the unbeliever in God can't prove He does not exist.
In summary, religion per se is not the issue. It is whether one believes God does or does not exist. If you say God does not exist then you become an athiest which is really a form of religion - a dogma - a creed.
If you say God does exist or rather believe that God does exist that belief does not require you to take on a religious overcoat. It is simply a belief about an explanation that satisfies you about how you believe the world originated, developed and is controlled. That is just a valid belief as the athiest who really offers no real explanation to these issues unless he rides on the back of Darwin which, as I have already said, is a religion.
Religion is poisonous. A fundamental mistake made by man in hope of covering his fear of the unknown. A lie about existence. A theory that has lost it's ground in an age where scientific thinking is applied in our daily lives.
I feel like this journalist believes in creationism... The craziest of both sides of thinking. He says he wonders why you cant believe in one of the modern day religions and evolution... They can't coexist in someones mind because one tells you were put here and everything that is here now has always been in its current state for thousands of years and evolution says it was over billions of years of a gradual process. His arguments about darwinism aren't even relevant because he is just questioning his theory, not evolution in general. Even if there are holes in his theory( which is obvious because he came at a time before we cracked the genetic code and many other biological advances.) that still doesn't disprove the earth being billions of years old and that we didn't just poof here from a magical wizard.
What the hell did i just watch. God is made up, get over it or believe in all gods as one please... Don't be hypocrites on top of insane.
I love the way Rod Liddle like to repeat words like "Reeeeeeeewritttttttten" and "Paaaaaaaradigmmmmh-shift" in a deep, slow meaningful voice. He has a condition allowing him to go from full r*tard to genius instantly whenever another religious fr*ak is nearby.
DON'T, DON'T DO ACID ON A WEEKDAY. JUST DON'T! THIS IS BAT COUNTRY!
Richard Dawkins is a product of his elitist environment - wish the guy could think for himself. Why do atheists believe that the moon was created by an asteroid hitting the earth and all of the fragments aggregating in space? Sounds kinda far fetched.
Why do the first and second law of thermodynamics support creationism, but this is never talked about. Everything came from something or someone - it is more practical to believe that something does not come from nothing. Why is there a common moral code? Did that evolve? What about irreducible complexity? How did this "water" planet just arrive at the exact distance from the sun where it neither over-freezes (1 degree more away, and this block of ice would hurl) and where it never evaporates away (1 degree more and the water would dry up)?
Atheism has killed >100 million people via Communism...drastically more than religious conflicts. But whether something (e.g. religion) is good/beneficial or bad/detrimental has no relevance as to whether something is true/real.
The media asserts that science contradicts religion when in fact, science asserts religion. Truth exists as does God, and we can only know Him from His revelation of Himself. That means that some religions are as man-made/media led as atheism...but truth is there...as is He...
Lidl has demonstrated that he is indeed a brilliant journalist.
makes me wanna become one as well.
Lidl has demonstrated with this work that he is indeed a brilliant journalist.
makes me want to be a journalist as well