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 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.
Its more about fighting the ignorance that religious people often put out, e.g. global warming is a "hoax" because "only God decides" what excessive CO2 levels are.
Sorry Pit but you completely miss THE point here. Go read John Smith (04/23/2018), he totally nailed it... oh btw he's NOT an Atheist 😉
thank you from the universe. great job!
There are a lot of Atheists who don’t bother people who do believe in God. I’m atheist but I don’t feel miserable or empty.... I also don’t try to convince anyone that God isn’t real. I don’t believe in God but I still respect people who do.
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.
I'm Atheist and i respect every words you said John. U totally got the point here. Wish they were more people with the same lucidity as you, theist or not. Have a good day from Quebec 😊
Atheism has made possible the killing of 60 million Americans that have been aborted because they are " a lump of cells" , not to mention Christianity brought respect for women, orphanages, hospitals, schools in an otherwise civilized Greek culture.
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.
Sincerely, a great comment there but gotta put every sentences in reverse 🤦♂️
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.
Zack - I generally agree with you, especially about us being the universe becoming conscious of itself (I think that's a Julian Huxley quote). But you are creating a false dichotomy: "either everything is connected and everything matters, or nothing in the universe matters at all." Meaning is necessarily subjective, and each one of us creates our own meaning. So you and I can have meaning even if the universe as a whole does not. You are committing the fallacy of composition, which is to say that you are assigning a quality of the whole to the individual parts. We do have meaning, and have it despite the fact that there is no reason to think there is meaning, or intelligence, or intent to the universe in aggregate.
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!
To hold belief for lack of evidence is anything but delusional. To assert otherwise is ridiculous, and to assert atheism is a religion is just stupid.
Umm I don't think asking for evidence is either delusional or faith based. Its evidence. Its like evidence at a crime scene you simply can't just ignore what is or isn't at a crime. Something either happened or it didn't or there isn't enough evidence to show either. In religions case its the lack of evidence. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Is truth to scary to think about?
Even if Atheism is a religion its not about nothing its about not accepting every little thing someone spits at you and believing it. It's about using logic and using at least a small fraction of your brain to think for yourself and looking outside that silly box and living life not in fear of repercussions for not "believing" in some dude who has some pretty ridiculous and uptight ideas of how a person has to live life. I'm not religious or Atheist I simply like living my life for now and not some other world that I'm not at. If I die and go somewhere then I will take care of that hurdle when I arrive but its non sense to be asked and judged on what you do now. Its like making a 2nd grader take the SAT and telling them they better do good because this is what will determine your future you haven't reached yet and I don't care that you know nothing just have faith and you'll do great. And in the end Atheists aren't getting nothing but I'm bored of this topic so if you can manage you can think for yourself perhaps what it is that they are getting.
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.
if you want to know what an atheist thinks where the existence of god is the question why not ask them? you will find that most atheists in general state "i do not know" and "there is no convincing evidence for" instead of making the claim of no god. myself personally i am open to the possibility of a god and if one exists in the way most religions claim he would know exactly what is needed to convince me. but instead of providing this proof he chooses eternal punishment for being the person he designed me to be. atheism is not a religion any more than not believing in leprechauns,Bigfoot or Elvis sightings is a religion. do you believe in one of the 28 000 000 gods that have been claimed to exist? if so is your non belief in the 27 999 999 others each a religion? if not why is my non belief in one more god than you automatically a religion?
Actually it is more complex than you think. No one can really tell you what they are. It isn't digital like a "1" or "0" logic states. They are possibly analogue. Each and everyone who may claim himself or herself to be an atheist may not necessarily be an atheist after all. Some may be classified as agnostic instead. But, atheists are very sure or rather cocksure about their stance that God and spirits do not exist.
I have silenced an agnostic at YouTube who said that evidence is needed to prove (God's existence). But, he is now not sure anymore that this is the right reason for God non-existence claim.
I said, "I coined this, TRUTH does NOT require any evidence or witness." For truth exists without the need for anyone to know of its existence. Evidence is for the unbelievers, not the believers. That's why you need to prove something or an allegation with the help of an evidence or a witness. For believers do not require much or any evidence or witness to prove their faith. Therefore, even an agnostic scientist mentioned that the atheists are REQUIRED to prove their claims instead since they say they are facts and logical reasoning driven while the theists may NOT require to prove their claims since they are FAITH driven. This was shocking indeed. It does make sense!
This is like a glowing black pearl that sits in a garden without the need of any witness to confirm of its existence. Without you or you knowing it, it still exist. That's the truth. Truth exists as it is whether you believe it or not.
And how do I know that He exists?
And the truth is that I have seen God personally during the receiving of the Holy Spirit just many days after my baptism.
God was a manifestation of energy. And we all know that in science, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, God or Spirit is eternal. So, don't ask silly question like who created God and yet believing that the universe is eternal. That's hypocrisy.
Game Over.
thank you for not addressing any of my questions. where did i state anything to make you think i believe "the universe is eternal" or that i would ask "who created God"? are straw men all you have? sorry you also have a personal testimonial from an anonymous poster on the internet. that holds a lot of water "facepalm". do you have anything more than straw men, personal testimonials and analogies? and finally i never stated anywhere that "god does not exist" so don't play that game with me
Scientists believe in an eternal universe. Didn't I say that? LOL I was merely saying it as a general statement, not at you. Why are you so defensive?
The greatest joke is that atheism is now adopting version 2.0 like the ones in religion. Why? Morality? I don't understand what has morality to do with atheists. There is no such a thing morality for atheism. It is merely about being fair or not, but not morality.
again do you have any proof for your claims? and you said "don't ask silly question like who created God and yet believing the universe is eternal." clearly directed at me. but semantics aside. do you plan on answering my questions and do you have any demonstrable proof for a god?
More folderol from the "my truth is true and yours (whatever it is) isn't" crowd.
Who is the final arbiter of what is truth? Can we believe him/her/it?
I don't believe you have actually seen god.
did you mean to post this to me?
Not AT you, but to you regarding the god-seeing truth-knower you were replying to.
cool i can be slow sometimes
Yes, you are right. Once you have seen and talked to God, things in the bible become clearer. You are not the only skeptic anyway. Being jealous like the useless Pharisees or Sadducees is not going to get you any further from falsehood and nearer to the Truth.
I suppose I could be jealous of your delusions, but I'm not. If you were telling the truth, you would want to share the good news, but you appear to be more like the gloating Pharisee who thanked god he wasn't like "ordinary" men.
Well, that's what the atheists always say when they started to believe in another fantasy called Atheism. So, atheism has evolved LOL to version 2.0, huh? And now it is getting from bad to worse. There's no logic in atheism, it is purely another religion, that's all. But, atheists will like to believe it to be totally different with 'logic'. Rite.
What is it you believe atheists always say? You went off into nowhere land and lost me.
Sorry, what most men did at that time was becoming more like politics than religion. The same goes for the science community. Politics comes first, truth comes later. If it does not fit into their liking, out goes the theory. Hypocrisy is everywhere including 'science'.
Atheists Delusion.
Which "god" magic man are you referring about because all you believers in all religions can't agree on the same magic man so can you be more specific which one I should be looking out for so we could talk.....Or I could wait until christmas and ask one of the fake santas that will be touching up our unsuspecting children.
The actual thought of talking to an imaginary magic man and expecting an answer or even worse believing I got one, goes beyond all logic. Then to say that has occurred without any evidence to prove said claim, that would make the claimant either, insane or a liar.
You can only blame the magic being for being too choosy. LOL
Isn't it normally the person that chooses god and not the other way around as you proposed? Are you a believer in predestination?
It is said the bible that "many are called but few are chosen." At first, even I could not accept this scripture. I was saddened when God revealed His answer why certain ones can come to the assembly but yet not able to survive the devil's onslaught.
Every child that comes out of the bowel of the church is often weak and easily killed taken away like a seed that is not sown properly into the ground. Those that survive will spring forth bearing fruits. That evil Herod will kill many but only one anointed is created.
In some way, our existence is already pre-destinated before we are borne.
So, why would a benevolent god (or even a pissy one) punish those he doesn't choose? They/We are just so much chaff anyway?
To be frank, I too find it rather unacceptable because we find such choice as discrimination. But the world is created in a way that it has echelon. Even this is found in the animal kingdom. You will find the lions killing their weaker competitors in Africa.
So, democracy or equality is not God's choice. We have to understand and to accommodate God's plan and design for all things (on Earth). We cannot impose a 'standard' thought that we seem to favour on Him. Remember that the vessels cannot ask why the potter has fashioned them to be weak or poor. Some will become vases, and some as incense urns, and to some as cups, and a few as potties. The world is UNFAIR.
Are you saying there's no hope for me in your magic man's world? So should I count myself lucky that he leaves us thinkers alone, as we all know these pesky questions us thinkers ask is a blight on religion and it's dishonesty?
i personally have come to the conclusion that he/she is either a troll (the Hitler emoticon was a hint) or he has no plan on actually having a debate on facts. just my opinion and i hope you (and others) have more success at getting a straight answer than i did
I realized that a straight answer was never going to happen, after his first reply to me.
Yes, 'Punggol is a troll trying to get a rise out of people with all his stock answers about his Ho of a god, my suggestion is do not feed him. If he keeps up with his troll comments he is off topic, which is not allowed.
I don't think he is trolling, i think he REALLY believes everything he has written thus far. In fact his words could be the exact words of millions of people, those who have been taught exactly this way. Religion is in a way, a school. Religion, in my opinion, is the worst enemy of personal spiirituality, it confines one in a Faith box of possible experiences. Religious people believe because of firsthand experience, an experience that maybe different for each and every one of them but contained within boundaries. A non believer wants the experience to be the same for all in order to believe.
When a religious person argues with a non believer, it will always be that the believer will give you personal experience as his proof and non believer will ask for physical empirical proof.
I acknowledge that science is the best and only tool to understand the world around us, but not the best to understand the world inside of us.
Not sure how you see him being off topic though.
1i
Yes, he is a troll, either English is his second language or he does not know how to formulate sentences and proper spelling, it is obvious most of his posts are copy and paste.
"The only way to understand the world inside of us" what do you mean? what world inside of us? are you talking about spirituality again?
I believe I have had enough of it. :)
Rite. Well, I'm not forcing you to accept what you don't want to hear.
Any chance of you answering any of the questions put to you or are the people trying to understand your point of view wasting our time.
You can only be faithful to one master like what Jesus or the Bible had said before. If you have entrenched yourself into atheism, there's not much thing I can do here. There will always be believers and unbelievers. Nothing has changed since men were created in the beginning. We choose what we want to hear. That is the way how the world was, is and will be.
I have not wasted my time since I have known Him. He is real and He will continue to lead me till the end of my life. I'm sure when I look back at my life, I will not say that I have lived in vain.
Okay, now you are proselytizing, you cannot do that, so consider this a warning, any more such posts and you will be banned from SeeUat Videos, govern yourself accordingly.
That's not my problem if God has not or unwilling to reveal Himself to you.
Everyone in my church receives the Holy Spirit in different fashions just as those in the bible.
Like I have said earlier on, "Truth exists without the need of any evidence or a witness." The glowing black pearl just exist without the need to tell people that it is there. Or rather that the owner of the fish tank does not need the fishes to know him at all. He simply sits there and watch them go on with their daily activities. He has a choice, can He?
Can he what? Make a fish sandwich?
Your god was a manifestation of energy?? tell me what that means? And what do you know about science? How do you know your invisible gods that are created only in your mind are real and by what avenue, what scientific method do you expose your pipe line to your gods.
And yes, since you have made your claim that your gods exist, you do have to show empirical evidence as such, without resorting to the poppycock I believe, so it must be true idiocy.
Atheists are not interested in science. They will tell you that their opinions are far more important than facts that their opinion is now an "undeniable fact".
Too bad, their 'undeniable' fact can actually be denied by so many ways that theists are now more entrenched to their beliefs than before with much deeper faith and adoration to their "Intelligent Designer" while the weak atheists make their breaks and defect to theism or deism instead.
With atheists losing debates continuously, this is not going reflect a true 'undeniable' state of what they would like us to believe it to be. And with atheism now going into a near silent mode, that is even worse!!
What you characterize as your deep-seated faith and adoration to your Ho of a "intelligent designer" is merely the pedestrian and the obvious cloaked in vertiginous and amorphous nebulosity and blithering sententiousness.
In other words, (reductio ad absurdum)
This was one of the worst comments I have ever had the pleasure to respond to. So many lies and fallacies here I could have just left it as it is and it would be its own testament to how ignorant and plain a** wrong you are. Most atheists ARE interested in science, that's why their atheists.
Atheism is a default position on all religious beliefs, and until evidence is found which shows without a doubt one of these world changing views is real, there's no good reasons to think otherwise(in fact its destructive to do so).
I spend many hours watching religious debates it's sort of my hobby as well as critical thinking. Link me some religious debates where the atheists position loses.
G'day Punggol,
which Church do you belong to mate? Wouldn't happen to be a Seventh Day Adventist by any chance?
Nope. It's from OZ, mate. Yep, it's from down under. Definitely not a 7th day thing. Some people just hate us and they call us cult.
A Brethren brother? :)
Whys that so shocking? In logic any assertion must have reasons to believe, here's a reason to believe some agree and disagree on... I ASSERT THERE IS NO GOD UNTIL HE IS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN, because there is no evidence at all which would justify such a claim as that. In other words atheists should be respected for being modest, everyone of them would believe in "god" they may not all like him, but if he showed himself than its just as easy as that.. "then there's a god," to many religious people are thinking differently about it, thinkers are skeptical unless they are gullible and thus not skeptical. THE END
Zero is the lack of numbers.
re·li·gion - Noun
1 - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2 - Details of belief as taught or discussed.
So, are you agreeing that Atheism is a religion or not?
Zero is still a number and not lack of numbers. It is also an integer FYI.
There is a certain belief in atheism. The belief is that there is no God. Therefore, if atheism is a religion because it involves belief, than I guess my belief that my lunch was really tasty is also a religion.
So, to answer your question: No, I am not agreeing with you.
You still don't understand. An unbeliever may say, "Okay, maybe there is a God somewhere but I'm too lazy to get involve with the so-called salvation." Do you see that? He did not assert his claim as "There is absolutely no God." The "no God" claim is an atheist's belief. Dawkins did not do a good job on this (the proving part), that's the reason why he lost the argument.
Atheists believe "There is no God". It is a belief. If I tell other Christians and weak atheists that I have actually seen God and that this is a good example how God communicates with me, then this is a 'good' evidence or witness of God's presence than not saying anything at all which it will create a false sense that God may not exist at all. How wrong! He exists! If this is true, then atheism is just another religion or unicorn. Remember, atheism is about claiming and believing the non-existence of God or a deity. In this case, it will automatically become a falsehood when Christianity is the truth.
Most beliefs are religious.
"Truth does not require any evidence or witness" - Punggol
The null hypothesis is that there is no supernatural stuff. Supernatural - Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Evidence is exactly what it needs to make it a viable option.
No one till today can explain why people get messages from an unknown source to predict the future. This can't be the work of randomness or errors. I have interpreted dreams before. And they work rather well. This means prophetic dreams are designed.
That's because no one has been able to predict the future with any good accuracy. The so called prophets fail much more than they get it right. This is what's referred to as "selective sampling."
Not true. Why would a teen girl dream of a combo of lottery numbers? Why, she should be dreaming of random things like sitting on a sofa and watching The Simpsons, or she should be waiting at a bus stop in the evening preparing to head home, or something really trivial.
But no!! Her mum bought that numbers and won. It's still designed, not a work or error or randomness. Why the future? It doesn't make sense.
Here's some suggestions:
1. She lied.
2. She retrofitted.
3. Randomness(I know you hate that word) but many people dream of numbers. When you consider the amount of state and national lotteries in the world, and the amount of people who hope for the numbers and dream for them, then IT WILL happen once(at least once) on a long enough timeline. And, on an infinite timeline, it will happen an infinite amount of times.
4. Selective sampling. If you're really interested in the answer to your question, you have to consider all cases, not just the one that hit. How many people have dreamed of lotto numbers and had the wrong picks? What would the ratio to dreaming of wrong picks to right ones be? Would this constitute a miracle or is it purely possible within mathematics?
5. ESP and Destiny. People can see the future. The future is predetermined. You may think you have an original thought, but the fact is, it was thought of long ago and put inside your head. You may think you have a choice in whether or not to respond to me, but you dont. Its your destiny. You may think you have a purpose, but without choice, the word is meaningless. Every debate you ever lost, every time you felt like a fool, every time you were picked on, was because a higher source made it happen.
6. God. God literally wanted that woman to have money for some reason. Many pray for it, but he finally decided to answer that pray for the trillionth caller.
In closing, I would like a link to the story your talking about. I would also like you to prove she wasn't lying, prove she wasn't retrofitting, prove it wasn't math. It is only then, that you can start believing something supernatural was at play in a rational manner.
Remember, if you say that you believe she wasn't lying, then that means your belief in her is religious.
You can say whatever you want. But, I know that I and my mom have been encountering such messages before. Like Joseph or Daniel the prophets, I interpreted strange dreams which they became true in the future. This kind of encoding is definitely the work of a designer. Such prophetic dreams have strengthened my Christian faith further.
I can proudly tell Christians and neutrals of my 'miracles' that I had ever performed before to strengthen their opinions in Theism. I will conclude that theism is the truth while atheism is linked to stupidity and madness.
Atheism cannot exist when theism is real.
You and your mom? how old are you? good grief probably another kid!
You say "Not true." show evidence then.
I'll explain why sense you clearly cant look this stuff up on your own: chemicals, psychological problems, wishful thinking, lying.
And regarding your so called Interpreted dreams; I could go stare at a pile of dog crap and interpret a supernatural god of crap, does that mean hes real? Or better yet tell me he isn't and then continue your line of thinking..
Most beliefs aren't religious. ONLY the belief in a supernatural, supervisoral being, and then following that beings "word" is a religious belief.
As an athiest, I don't say, "there is no god." What I say is, "I don't believe there is a god." Just like I don't believe there is 25 ducks in the fridge that disappear every time I open the fridge door. My lack of belief in the ducks does not constitute a religion. My lack of belief in a supernatural, supervisoral being does not constitute a religious belief. And in fact, it is a rather weak belief. Because if I was given proof of a Gods existence, or given proof of the disappearing ducks, I would start believing in it. My faith in things is either made, or destroyed, with evidence.
What's the difference? LOL Some atheists just love to play with words. In short, you believe there isn't any god or deity in this universe. That itself is a belief. A zero is not a null. It is still a number, an integer. That means = religion.
I think I have mentioned that atheistic belief is more like analogue than digital. Some people may not be atheists at all because there are some variations and degrees of believing of God's existence. Some may have to be classified as being agnostics rather than atheists.
But, an unbeliever can be an agnostic or rather a "don't care". But, unbelievers do not care about God's existence, they choose not to take side. If you don't tick a box, you have not chosen an option. Therefore, no religion - a null.
"Yes, there may be a God or no God, but I don't care." should be an agnostic stance. Agnostics are people not knowing whether there is a God or not. They should not be atheists.
But, atheists will claim "there's no God". There isn't a need for any proof or witness. It's a faith thing. No amount of evidence and witness telling you that "there is a God" will sway them. They are loyal and faithful right to the end. Therefore, atheism is a belief.
The so-called weak atheists are a different lot. They may suspect that science has not progress in such a way that atheism is correct, they fear and switch side.
But, there are some fake atheists who are just being sore about God's power. So, they do believe there may be a God out there but they just want to say it out of pique. Sigh.
OK, ya got me. Yes there may be a God and there may not be. Yes there may be a Zues and there might not be. Yes there may be a Kronos, and there may not be.
Yes there may be a Xunu, and there might not be. Yes there might be an Odin, and there might not be. Yes there may be a Moroni, and there might not be. Yes there might be a Vishnu, and there might not be. Yes there might be a flying spaghetti moster, and there might not be.
Yes there may be a Krishna, and there might not be. Yes there may be a Jesus, and there might not be. Yes there may be a Satan, and there might not be. Yes there may be a Ra, and there might not be. Yes there might be an Athena, and there might not be. Yes there might be a ball, and there might not be.
Yes there may be Jinn, and there might not be. Yes there may be Vampires, and there might not be. Yes there may be Zombies, and there might not be. Yes there may be Sasquatch, and there might not be. Yes there may be Freddy Kruger, and there might not be.
We can't prove Freddy Kruger doesn't exist even though we have proof of it's fiction, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist(according to you logic.)
Yes there may be 25 ducks in the fridge that disappear everytime I open the door, and there might not be.
Your disbelief in the 25 ducks constitutes a religion(according to your logic.)
(This is actually kind of fun, but I'm moving on now. I invite my fellow commentors to join in and reply to our friend Punggol. "Yes there may be a ______ and there may not be.")
"No amount of evidence and witness telling you that "there is a God" will sway them."
There is NO evidence. A witness does not constitute "evidence." It's testimony, and testimony IS NOT evidence. If I say you raped a baby, is that evidence that it happened? If I can get people to believe my testimony, does that mean that you actually did it?
I love how you make all these conclusions like some kind of math equation for example:
"That itself is a belief. A zero is not a null. It is still a number, an integer. That means = religion."
"If you don't tick a box, you have not chosen an option. Therefore, no religion - a null."
"They are loyal and faithful right to the end. Therefore, atheism is a belief."
I could just say 2+2=5 so therefore Atheism is a belief.
Just because you believe something doesn't automatically make it a religion.
And that whole bit:
"But, atheists will claim "there's no God". There isn't a need for any proof or witness. It's a faith thing. No amount of evidence and witness telling you that "there is a God" will sway them. They are loyal and faithful right to the end. Therefore, atheism is a belief."
Let me break down why your mind can't grasp and conceive atheists, besides the fact that for most, such as yourself, it is difficult to think outside of how one was raised and the fear of this almighty being punishing you for whatever you aren't doing or are doing.
Atheists say there is no God for the simple and understandable fact that there is a huge lack of evidence to back up any claim of a God or any high and mighty being.
And why wouldn't you need proof or witness? this thing you refer to as faith isn't reliable in any way. Why not let all the rapists, murders and plain crazies out and say I have faith in you that you won't run around killing and raping everyone. Just because one has faith doesn't mean killing and rape isn't going to happen. But then again if some don't murder and rape does that mean its because one had faith?
If you found evidence (legit hard evidence) then I think that is what could be shown to Atheists and could sway them or at least you would have a whole different argument going on. Buuuut its not there so here we sit and until then yes Atheists will stay loyal and faithful to the the non existent evidence.
This is what I've concluded at least from my perceptive of religion and Atheism as both ridiculous ideas. I can just relate more easily to Atheism because I never believe anything anyone tells me unless i see it for myself with my own somewhat reliable eyes or if there is substantial evidence shouting in my face that one just can't deny.
Christianity is not THE truth, you made it your truth.
I bet you anything if you sat 2 Christians from 190 countries and ask them all the same question, their answers would all be different.
And YOU would think YOUR answer is the right one.
1i
That's why I have said earlier in another post saying that Atheism is a belief. And there's no amount of evidences or witnesses telling you that God or spirits exist can sway you because you are faithful and loyal to your 'new' belief or religion right to the end.
Christianity is supposed to be a straight forward and a simple religion as I would like to believe it to be. But, I was wrong. From what I have experienced over the years, it is rather a complex religion.
Christianity is also affected by strange or pagan beliefs. Catholicism is a pagan religion that tries to pass off as a Christian faith. It isn't. I was borne a Catholic and I knew its teaching was rather flimsy. Pagan style of worship is also another reason why I sought for the Truth. And God saw my heart. 3 months later I was brought to a strange church where everyone of them spoke in tongues. Tongues or languages can both be known or ancient languages. Languages cannot be a work or error or randomness.
You just go on and on like the energizer bunny. Most of what you say is backwards, and completely false. I suggest slow down and read some more. ATHEISM is the LACK of belief, If people ran around believing every s*upid thing they heard, we would never get anywhere. Everyone is mostly an atheist, even if they are die hard religious nuts, because you aren't believing for instance Greek mythology, or both Christianity and Buddhism at the same time obviously. How in gods name(pun intended) do you KNOW Buddhism is wrong and god exists or that Zues is not real but some guy that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago called Jesus is the sun of god.
This is what I define as arrogant. If there is a creator than we shall find him through science, and if not than I guess we were never meant too, screw you for looking down at people that don't take so called truths as real reals without any real evidence. If we all did this we would be walking morons filled with myths and rubbish subjective nonsense which holds no tools for reality.
Furthermore, there would be a war or at best a complete societal disconnect for every stupid belief; not to mention most believing they are right and the rest will burn in hell forever or some form of that.
-so very arrogant
What right do you or anyone else have to assert an "anthropomorphic being" also known currently as "god" created everything. Show me your evidence.
And most beliefs are not at all religious, I would safely assume 99.999% of them.
I'm not sure whether your "anthropomorphic" is referring to a human characteristics or a human physical form. I have only seen God as the Holy Spirit when it descended into my body as a cloud of energy or perhaps it was more like a sun. I did not see a physical form of a human being.
God has a tendency to choose His believers and even then He chooses the few within the lot that He will use them as prophets or messengers. So, your request for more and more evidences may not be practical. But, that does not mean He does not exist. Like I have said before about the glowing black pearl.
You have 7 deleted posts in a very short time period right now, and in one of your deleted posts you have said "stop the struggle and surrender"
you are plainly trolling and proselytizing, I have given you warnings, therefore you are banned, goodby.
Anthropomorphic meaning human characteristics.
Furthermore, If god wanted to spread his info why would he put it in a book 2000 years ago knowing language changes and that that obviously would be one of the worst ways to reliably "spread the word".
If I believed everyone on word of mouth alone I would be in a state of contradictorily belief regarding hundreds if not thousands of brands of religious and or supernatural beliefs.
So you really think out of the 7 billion people on earth, YOU are a chosen one, YOU won the GOD lotery of this century?
1i
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.
People with higher intelligence will always stay away from those stuff.
sometimes your mind can be such a burden that u need something to bring u down to everyone elses level...
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!
Ghosts have been proven by electronic gadgets especially voice or sound recorders. Thermometers have also recorded sudden drops of temperature and regain back to normal as soon as they pass by. Witnesses' accounts were unanimous too.
Oh, I think I get it - you're kidding, right?
Ghosts have been proven many times by skeptics as well as paranormal investigators. Though paranormal members had made progress, they do not conclude that ghosts exist. Why? Trying to be neutral?
First you say that ghosts have been proven many times. Then you say they do not conclude that they exist. You are arguing with yourself.
I am trying to avoid posting more reply to you, as I think I have already replied to like 6 of your comments, Its just so tempting though, you really are talking nonsense.. Show me proof of ANY supernatural ANYTHING..
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.
I know what you mean. This is also why some Christians are becoming proto-agnostics. If you are not chosen by Him, you have a much harder time to follow "blessed are those who believe and have not seen me." It is going be harder to convince someone who hasn't receive any good from Him as a promise. That's why you guys are seeing so and so who was a pastor or priest is now an atheist.
But, as for me, I have seen Him with my own eyes (bright light like the sun) during the reception of the Holy Spirit on one night. Well, He is a Spirit and His presence was a manifestation of various form of energy. I, being a witness of God, I will have a much harder time to be convinced that God does not exist - almost impossible. I'm more than just a gnostic theist. God chooses His believers.
Atheism cannot exist if God exists.
But atheism does exist so following the logic in your last sentence, what does that suggest? I assume you mean personally however so that is irrelevant.
How can you be sure your experience was not an illusion, or a trick of the mind? was anyone else with you at the time? did they see it too?
Also, if god chooses his believers (-why are they 'his' and not 'hers'?) then there is no point trying to believe until you are chosen, right?
Please don't be offended I am genuinely interested in you elaborating your experience a little further.
"God chooses his believers."
What are the rest doing here, or more correctly said for you, why did god put the rest on earth if he wasn't going to choose them - for kindling in hell?
A "gnostic theist" - seems like an oxymoron to me.
You don't know what you are talking about. The worst religion is atheism. See for yourself how many debates that they have lost so far. Atheists are either mad (insane) or they are liars (evil).
What is the basis for the claim that atheists are either mad or liars?
There is no point in discussing who won the most debates.
I'd say I'm an anti theist. I'm sure someone with your great wisdom will understand the difference?
That means you are a militant atheist. I hope you know what that is. LOL
I'm not surprised at all. Most atheists nowadays are in that form. Even people like Einstein and Dawkins will stay away from being labelled as atheists sometimes. They actually look down on these atheists at some point in time.
Sometimes, militant atheists don't know why they are so engrossed with the word "God" all the time.
With what I've read of yours it would appear that you should stop believing in fairy tales, let go of mommy's skirt and grow up.
Answer me this, how do you know the magic man you worship is the right one out of all the magic men, man have created?
You don't really understand what anti theist mean do you. So let me give you my version of my stance on the God sh1t.
I don't no if there is a "God" however I don't believe any version that has been produced so far. Now if there is a "God" with what I've seen I think he'd be the type of pr1ck I would tolerate or would like to know.
Hey, fairy tales may be the theists favourite part but the atheists just love sci-fi. Tell me what is the difference. LOL
Some losers or gays just claim that they are now atheists but they aren't. If they are, why will they want to get married? Marriage is for theists NOT for those who wants to be in atheism. Gosh!
So, God is s##t? But, you don't even know whether there is a God or not, so why do you want to hate something that may not exist at all? It does not make sense here. You can hate Obama if he doesn't do a good job because he exists. But, you can't hate a leprechaun if he doesn't exist. Do you see the point now?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem as I never said that there is a god I said IF there is a god. So it would appear that you have once again shown yourself to be the young idiotic fool you are.
Einstein was a pantheist. Anymore faulty information and I think people may start demanding you be removed from this forum. Furthermore, the further back you go through history the less you will hear of people not believing god as it could mean the end of your life if the church found out.
YOU are either (insane) or a religious nut.. or both. AND again atheism is not a religion.
You said again "the worst religion is atheism", Again It's not a religion which I've stated half a dozen times already.
Religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."
Atheism: "The theory or belief that God does not exist."
How is Atheism a religion?!
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 contention that atheism is a type of religion is laughable"... it sounds laughable because it's completely absurd, but there are some poorly informed atheists who use science as a type of religion. I've met and had conversations with plenty of them, and the problem is that most of them have a very basic understanding of science, and don't really have an openness or willingness to change their own ideas because (to them) overcoming the lie of their religious upbringing was change enough, and their intellectual development stops there. Then adhering to "the scientific method" becomes for the layman who's never published in a peer-reviewed journal or looked through a microscope, who hasn't actually examined the world around them since college, merely an appreciation for "sciencey" things that appeal to their self-righteous trust in their own logic. They're not using evidence, not finely tuning a theory based on data, all they're doing is using pseudo-science they read on the internet or heard on television to engage in arguments with anyone who has a different belief from their own. I think real scientists or anyone who has spent a good deal of time studying a real science has moments of genuine awe at the complexity of nature and the universe we live in. Regardless of whether they attribute it to some sort of creator or an explosion of densely packed matter, these moments tend to be humbling, and incompatible with "extreme" atheism who's only aim is rightness, not the discovery of new information.
"Extreme" atheist views are also entirely reactionary, which results in a very aggressive intolerance towards other viewpoints. I don't know a single extreme atheist who wasn't raised in a similarly extreme religion. The idea of framework of belief is very ingrained in them, and presenting science as an alternative framework offers enormous appeal in that it supposedly kills God (the persecutor of all questioning children) once and for all, and is based on logic, something we're told to appreciate but never use outside the framework of a standardized, public United States classroom.
I think the differentiation between extreme atheists and agnostics or soft atheists is an important one. Someone who has the psychological makeup to be an addict (or zealot) can choose any number of substances or even something not traditionally thought of as a drug, like exercise for example. A zealot is the same, whether religious or atheist, still a zealot.
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 .
Because then people do things like reject modern medicine, and pray while their children die of preventable illnesses.
You know it happens.
Who does that ? Are you delusional ?
I know people RIGHT HERE In my podunk redneck town that seriously doubt vaccines, they think that birth control is run by satan, and that all modern technologies and medicines are just temptations to lead us away from GOd.
DO you go outside or just live in your own little bubble world?
Seriously.
Because just "letting" people believe in whatever they want, leads to witch hunts, unjustified wars, insane assaults on personal liberties, and cultist mindsets... Seems like a VERY damn good set of reasons to get rid of these mentally incapacitated ideologies.
Who the hell are you then to make such unnuanced fascist stupid statements ?
I can say the same in relation to your beliefs , either religious or secular or atheistic ,so, but i choose not to .
What happened to the freedom of thought or of belief , of speech , freedom tout court ,individual freedom ....tolerance ...
That's what democracy is all about ,right ? unless you wanna act like fascists by excluding all other thought than yours , then ,we will have to exclude yours as well .
Let's just erase each other from this planet then instead : that's the very core of your fascist message , stupid.
Democracy is a failed attempt, a sick twisted narcissistic game where the uneducated "average joe's" get's to decide the fate of the entire mass of people. Your arguments fail, your logic is vitriolic, yet your heart is in the right place. You seem to be missing some fundamental realities, such as, belief, whether truly believed or imagined, is still FALSE reality.
I met a group of South African tribals in college, they were in America to visit our country. They told me about their faith, which they believe in whole heartedly, and it involved drinking some jungle juice and then laying on the ground while a fellow villager dropped heavy stones on your head, if your skull busts, god don't love you, if you survive, you're now a man and God does love you.
Pretty stupid eh? But they were 100% serious about their faith.
The point is, you can have faith, and believe in sky fairies. Cool, but you're still wrong and any outside group with COMMON SENSE and basic KNOWLEDGE is going to TELL YOU that you're wrong.
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.
@GreatMoel
this may seem like i am being picky but. you stated "Science does not state anything" yes it does. while germ theory, the theory of evolution, theory of gravity, and so on are theories and not stated as fact. the phenomenon they describe are facts and almost any scientist in the relevant fields would state as much. also please do not confuse atheism with science they are two separate things. next just because something is possible does not grant it equal or even any time in the discussion with an answer that is probable. i am not accusing you of this behavior but the " teach the controversy " folks do not seem to understand that this so called controversy is only in the heads of those who do not understand the arguments. also while science will never prove or disprove god (supernatural agent not even discussed by science) it can and increasingly does remove the need of a god or gods to explain the natural world. finally while science is not atheist it is one of the very few places that are supposed to be free of religion and i for one will defend that separation. in my part of the world religion is everywhere and while some may play the victim (war on Christmas, not allowed in schools and so on) the religious are a huge majority controlling elections (atheist has no chance to be leader), organizations avoiding taxes and for some reason allowed to come to my house and threaten me with eternal torture if i don't do as they say (i could never get away with threatening someone like that without hiding behind a 2000 year old book). it boils down to you have every right to believe whatever you want but that right ends where my right to disbelieve starts and if a discipline says that religion is not qualified to play in their arena then stay out of their arena.
Science in itself can not state anything. Only scientists or individuals can state something as a "fact" but at that point it becomes a subjective notion.
For eg. gravity. It is very very likely that the laws of gravity are valid. Yet this is one of the most puzzling force in nature because of it's unknown origin and some strange properties. So anyone who states that gravity as it is a Fact. They skip that few percentage of probability.
I think religion and science can live happy together as long as the individual measures and balances information on it's own.
My problem is with organised religion and, cults, dogmas, hardcore atheism ... (etc.) That theese don't leave space for free thinking.
"...also science will never prove or disprove god..."
- this is not a probable statement.
One of the biggest problem of applying scientific method on the "God question" is that science is a tool to have answers.
While no one has ever defined "God" therefore you can not ask a precise question to work on.
If someone defines what is god, then proving the existence of it will be possible.
Many people around the world think completely different views of "God". Usually the term served for something which people didn't know, or didn't have any idea where to look for answers.
For eg.
- The origin of the world --- God
- Questions in death of life-- God
- The cosmos itself -- God
- Ever looking eye, humanity's "supervisor"-- God
- The controller of fate - God, Gods
- omnipotent, superhero like cretures - God, Gods
- Anything unexplainable -- God and it's "ways"
- ... (etc)
So proving or disproving "God" would be like proving or disproving the meaning, or existence of "Thing".
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
and science has given us, Biological and Nuclear Weapons, Small Arms and other Conventional Weapons(which kill more than the former two combined and counting), Ethnic Genocides(thank you, eugenics), The Corporation, Oil and all related byproducts(which slowly destroy the environment because mindless progress is the "rational" choice"), and Hard Drugs such as LSD, Meth, and Heroin(all first made in labs). i'll admit there are many conflicts around the world due to religion(Israel/Palestine conflict, "the war on terror", Northern Ireland, Etc.) but conflicts based around scientific advancements, such as The Global Drug War, the small arms black market, the spread of nuclear weapon tech, and man made disasters such as Exxon Valdeez, Piper Alpha, and the BP Oil Spill were because of the dogmatic and mindless progress of Science and Profit. I dare you to find in any law of science the word "Humilty". atheism is no better or worse than religion, both are on two side of the same coin.
Sorry Serhend but I couldn,t let a couple of things pass.
Science didn't give us the things you have listed. Take nuclear weapons. Science provided the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon but it was the United States Government that gave us the nuclear weapon. The same applies to everything on your list. Science only provides the knowledge, not the end result and how it is used. That responsibility rests on all of us believer and atheist alike.
Which bring us to my other comment. You were streaming along there talking about science and at the very last sentence you tossed in atheism. I may be mistaken but it does appear you want to link atheism with science. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance but atheism has nothing to do with science. You need not know the first thing about science to be an atheist. There were atheists before there was science. The two are unrelated.
Your right it was a was a typo in the context to the what i was replying to, but don't atheists consistently use science as a means of justifying their stance? also your first reply can be applied to religion, Religion is not good nor bad, it has been used as an inspiration to do good and also bad. atheists tend to inflate the bad, and my gripe is with that as if they are answer to the worlds problems, when they are no better or worse than theists.
PEOPLE used that technology to induce harm onto other people, science merely discovered new fields of research and humans harvested those findings in order to benefit. Meth was created through chemical processes, understood, but it is the drug cartels and greedy individuals who reproduce and profit from these industries on a larger scale. That being said, without any sort of scientific inquiry you would probably be dead by the age of 30 due to lack of medicine, and that computer you used to type up these comments on here? Yeah, non existent.
"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.
Gothic and Romanesque Cathedrals, Mosques, Synagogues, Illuminated Manuscripts(Codex Gigas, Gospel of St. Mark, Book of Kells, Numerous Polyglots and Book of Hours), Architecture and Design(Central Planned Churches, Chapel Churches which were the inspiration for Shotgun Houses in the USA, Arabesque, Catholic instruments for Mass), Technology(Prayer Compasses, Bible, Torah, and Quran Apps, ) Preservation(Mentioned in the Quran several times on building upon knowledge of the past)...sry im far too busy to give more precise citations.
Atheist have a habit of creating this imagined dichotomy/clash which most theist fall for and get defensive(or vice versa), really not leading to a rational or reasonable discussion since both sides only bother measuring the other on their terms. faith and intelligence are intertwined imo and have more than been able to be apart people's live equally.
I'm what you call a "secular" Muslim(though the term is like saying "the nice black guy", more for the security of the naive), but does that mean i'm incapable of reason and logic which are instinctive and apart of human nature and not a lifestyle choice born out of some adolescent disdain or collegiate epiphany. in a sense i would have been a Romantic, I love intellectual pursuits, film, comics, and art history, perhaps more than my own religion but Islam is still my North Star despite my sporadic practice of it, i cant see any incentive of stop being a Muslim. Darwin or Newton, they simply pursued their field out of love for discovery not to refute god, in fact may have even seen their discoveries as the clock-work of god(this is obviously speculative). i feel were on the same subject in different books, live and let live?
that is a lot of text to say nothing at all
wow the typical atheist reply, which is some variation of "well...your stupid!"
@Serhend Adil Sirkecioglu
you never showed that these things were the result of religion. only that religious people did some good things. most atheists would agree that religious people have discovered and built good things.
And cathedrals and the building of mosques relies on religion alone? Oh sorry, I forgot about the scientific field of ENGINEERING.
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
consciousness is what people try to explain as god but religion is designed to take peoples money and control all of them. science can understand consciousness as it is showing itself within every discipline we aren't able to make up the truth and enforce the idea (like through history) we can only examine truth and experiance it it is what it is not what we want it to be.
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.
I'm an atheist (be careful with your definition), and I don't hate this documentary. I in fact have no opinion on it and have no desire to watch it, since the main argument presented in the summary 'science may not be as far away from religion as you might imagine' is laughable, I'd end up continually verbally correcting my laptop screen. Total waste of time. If you're a theist, don't let me keep you from watching though (not exactly sure how I'd do that...) knock yourself out.
Regards,
Sam.
first let me say im not a theist or any "ist" if your really an atheist how do you account for the anomalies contained within each disciple of science? if we lived in an strictly materialistic reality, why is there evidence that subjective affects the objective? im just wondering what answers are acceptable to you in order to hold that worldview thank you.
Like I said, be careful how you define it. My being an atheist does not require me to account for anything other than my own thoughts and actions. I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to subjective/objective. Are you discussing the placebo effect? what is the evidence you mention? exactly what anomalies are bothering you? and where did you get any of that from my previous reply to thedudethatscommenting?
Regards, Sam.
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.
So what about Carolygean, Romanesque, Gothic, Islamic, Buddhist, and Renaissance Art, Architecture, Illumination, Design, Technology, and the Preservation of Greco-Roman Text? That all happened in the name of god. Dawkins is just the Jerry Falwell of Atheism, your giving him too much credit.
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.
please, do comment more.
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:-
1. Atheism
2. Darwin (aism? sp?)
3. Religion
4. God
Religion first
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
Second Darwin
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.
Thomas Moore:
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...
never heard how the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics supports creationism. could you tell me?
No, you're right. It's more likely that God made the moon out plasticene in the same week he made Adam.
The 'common moral code' exists only in humans, and it's little more than common sense - don't do things to other people that you wouldn't want them to do against you. After millions of years of evolution organisms have learnt (unsurprisingly) that it's better to stick together for the most part and help each other rather than kill / rape / steal from each other.
The fact that Earth appears to be so perfectly placed is because you aren't considering all the billions of other planets that aren't perfectly placed. Why didn't God make more than one livable planet?
Religion has killed many more than 100 million people, you can't deny that. Atheism doesn't equal communism.
How does science assert religion?
"The truth exists, as does God" what?! God exists 'because I said so.'
Good argument! Id**t.
You will die and rot in the ground just like everyone else.
*sigh* the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't support creationnism. the big bang never argued for creation ex-nihilo. creationnism actually is.
the second law really? the second law only says that in a closed system entropy is never reduced. So if our universe is closed entropy will never be reduced. how does that support creationnism in anyway?
communism didn't kill as a result of its anti-religionism.
Scientific illiterates need to stop acting as if they had a clue.
Oh so dust men and rib women aren't far fetched?
fantastic documentary.
Lidl has demonstrated that he is indeed a brilliant journalist.
makes me wanna become one as well.
Fantastic documentary.
Lidl has demonstrated with this work that he is indeed a brilliant journalist.
makes me want to be a journalist as well
Richard Dawkins - can that man GET any sexier? didn't think so!
I think the issue is using the -ism it's not a series of dogmas the same way theism is - it's just not believing. It's not a 'thing'.
The existence of god: "there is nothing to preclude it - yet there is nothing to suggest the necessity of it"
Best answer EVAR.
I turned it off when he started talking about the bible in terms of morality. arrogant and laughable.
Sarah Palin looks almost smart when compared to this guy. How can you possibly compare the Origin of Species to the New Testament? Now I can see why some atheists are less tollerant to non sense...
interesting doc
As a teenager I began to have a lot of problems with my Anglican / Protestant religion. The biggest problem I had was that I simply didn't believe it. More over I couldn't understand how a group of people could get together listen to a sermon from the priest and believe that everything in the Bible came directly from God or Jesus his supposed son on Earth.
What scared me even more was seeing large groups of devote Christians behaving with uniform ceremonial behaviour in churches all over America and Canada. What causes people to behave like this, I wondered?
As far as I was concerned the Bible was a history book. A collection of stories of past human events from thousands of years ago. Nothing more and nothing less.
To worship a history book of past human culture struck me as being very odd.
And people behaved like this all over the world, no matter what their religious beliefs were. So what characteristic is it in some groups of people (no matter where they live in the world) to behave like this and have this religious gene. Because what ever it is I seem to have been born without it.
My questions with modern day religions were no doubt summed up in the fact that religion seems to create more wars, conflicts and deaths of people fighting over the fact that their religion is better. Does this make sense to anyone? Aren't religions supposed to teach peace and harmony among people?
My conflicts with my Anglican / Protestant religion came to a surprising conclusion this year when I watched the documentary "The Naked Truth". All modern day religions have their origins in ancient Egypt and then even further back in human history. Christianity is just a modern version of a dozen similar past religions. Now the Bible started to make sense.
And the Bible itself is the story of Astrotheology. The study of the stars in the heavens.
Now what about God. For the longest time I really didn't believe in the concept of God meaning that I guess I was an atheist. However I wasn't a very good atheist because I kept having this feeling that their was an intellectual presence around me.
In 2011 this presence in the universe has been gaining more and more traction as stories are beginning to surface all around the world of children being born with memories of previous lives. This in and of itself would not be so bad except that I was one of these children. Meaning that for a period of time up until 10 years old I had very definite memories of a previous life.
A Google search of "Previous Children's Lives" will reveal several stories of children that have been born with memories from a previous life that have been proven to be true. Now this only has to happen once for the underlying concept to be true.
Therefore today the new understanding of life is that there is a life force in the universe, it does exist, and we are all connected to it. After we die, our spirit rejoins this life force to be later reborn to live again in another person or other life form.
The aspects of being reborn have been proven. It is not up for debate. This is happening to people all over the world. And it only has to be proven once for it to be true.
So this puts a new spin on God. God as we understand it through Christianity and other religions may not be accurate. However a life force in the universe could be very accurate and this life force interacts with our brains that are biological quantum computers.
Agnostism is not caring either way. Atheism is not believing in any of it. I do not believe in religion or God so I am an atheist.
Agnosticism is not just not caring either way. Many people have a misconception of what the term agnostic means. The only intellectually honest position is agnostic atheist. Agnostic/gnostic refers to knowledge, atheist/theist refers to belief. So if you are an agnostic atheist you do not know for sure whether there is a god/gods or not but you see no evidence or reason to believe there is a god or gods. Just like you don't know for sure there is not a tiny teapot orbiting Jupiter but you have no reason to believe that there is. You are either a gnostic atheist (you state unequivocally that there is in no way that a god or gods exist) or you are an agnostic atheist (you state that you see no evidence or reason to believe in god or gods). If you take the gnostic position than the burden of proof falls on you. You would have to prove that there is no god. Just like a theist who states there is a god must bare the burden of proof. If you take the gnostic position than you are baring the burden of proof for an unfalsifiable claim. Agnostic atheism is the default position.
google this unified field of consciousness
It's OK to believe in anything. Just don't attack and affect each other's lives.
Hmm... You're right @Az.
Shame it's Rod Little. He's such an arrogant, bullish bloke.
He is right about the intolerance of atheism though. I've met a lot of atheists and they're often filled with bile, anger and vitriol. Live and let live...?
That's completely true.
It is the years and years of dealing with ignorant and stupid people that often creates frustration in an individual, especially when you see people fighting for freedom in their country yet those same people being scared of admitting their lack of faith/difference in faith than their parents because they are scared of their parents disapproval with their own ideas on religion. This is how so many people get roped into belief anyways... through generational absorption of religion that has been forced down upon them. It's sad seeing this and definitely angering hearing those people have a lack of belief in not only themselves, but in science, which has moved society to completely new levels of innovation in a relatively short amount of time.
You don't understand the extent religious people go to express their misogynistic and oppressive views on those who oppose their religion. We've been dealing with it for thousands of years-yet an atheist who protests out of anger at a believer is instantly criticized for their inconsideration towards the other person's feelings.
I think it's about time atheists stood up and started arguing THEIR opinion in the face of those who have had the chance to argue theirs for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Shutup, sit down and listen, like we've been forced to for years. -__-
I will kindly ask you if you could change your avatar @Pointless Question.
Specially the way your photograph is taken Vlatko...really looks like you're looking at the buns, and mine doesn't look less inhibited! lol
this documentary is wrong on so many levels. You can't name a scientific book an Atheist sacred text are you serious? Atheism is the lack of the religion, and that can not be itself a religion. That's like saying being bald is a hair style. Most atheist don't hate on anyone, if anything they feel bad that all these people give up reason and logic and choose to blindly follow texts which have no factual validity of truth.
You're right, by definition atheism is not and can't be a religion; however, it is a faith and a foolish stance. Why choose atheism rather than agnosticism? It's choosing an absolute that can not be proven.
In Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, he claims to be an atheist (fine); but then writes a chapter called: Why God Almost Certainly Doesn't Exist. Now that's just bloody stupid.
I am a pragmatist for a period on i
i am a dot
a simple pixel
azdali when i feel like it
nice buns, but this site
is bunny less!
cheers
az
Your problem is that you're not familiar with the definition of atheism.
You stated "atheism is a faith and a foolish stance." Why is it foolish? If i don't believe in Santa is that foolish too?
d-k
you seem to be pronouncing a set of notions i have a hard time even understanding as facts, without either adequately defining them, or providing support for them.
if there was not some intrinsic compassion within us, quite apart from our 'parental units', we would not be a social species.
dogs have compassion. so do elephants, whales, etc. at least, in this sense: social animals must develop an ability to read & assess the states of other animals, within their own species and especially within their own pack, appropriately. emotions and their expression are a sort of language, with their own signs & meanings. hopefully, you can see this. if not, you need to adjust your sight.
to the only point i was trying to make, which you -seem- to discount - our capacity for language, the very fluid of modern social interaction, our culture, our technology - is hard-wired into our brains. but you seem to think our emotional language legacy, which is more ancient still but is also very much part of the very same evolutionary history which resulted in a language capability, is wholly absent, a blank slate (tabula rasa - hah).
please provide a better explanation in support of your assertion here that humans are bereft of innate tendencies towards cooperation.
all the evidence i've found argues exactly the opposite.
if you respond with a bunch of gobbledygook like last time, though, i'm going to give up on you. :)
I heard a sentence the other day, that kinda sums some of these things up; "You can't separate biology from it's environment"
What does that mean, essentially? Well, I understand it in the way that we (as is with all forms of life) adapt to our environment. And being a human, complicates these environmental influences quite a lot, since we are not only adapting to a natural, physical environment, but social, technological and reasoning ones as well.
And religion, like somebody mentioned earlier, helped us gather under one flag in the past, to create a basis for a much needed co-operative atmosphere, as opposed to "tribe-killing-tribe" and pointless bickering that did more harm then good.
And that's essentially what's happening right here, right now... instead of tribe attacking tribe... it's ideology vs ideology. And yes, much like many things, atheism has become just that (whether or not it technically was meant to), perhaps not for everybody that calls him/herself an atheist, but for a great deal of people that do.
People are followers, to a large degree. That is, I suppose, a big part of the reason why religion was (and still is) such a successful franchise!
It's a simple concept;
"What I got here is the ultimate truth! Believe it, it's easy... simple answer to a complicated question! You'll have an answer, a quantifiable certainty - about all you believed uncertain - and you won't have to worry about again!!"
To me, that's sort of what religion boils down to, since I was in an evangelical pentecostal christian church (what a mouthful!) and for 16 years, that was my reality...
...a finite answer for infinite questions, in a way.
But that's the EASY way out... and putting complete trust in a "truth" that has not been guaranteed to be truthful, is nothing less then a complete "Pseudo-Truth"!
And this term, "Pseudo-Truth", can be attached to so much more than exclusively religion; it's any idealogy that does not allow for a change, does not seek to evolve..
Science, however, is a mode of thinking; a progressive, constantly evolving body of observations, thesis and empirical data, that has been tested, retested, and finally put into practical application. Hence, "truths" that have been verified and although not final, are considered truthful. Science constantly reviews and retests, solidifying it's collection of knowledge that is considered as truthful as we can logically consider any "fact" to be.
But, importantly, STILL NOT FINITE TRUTHS!
And any scientist will tell you, that the quest for scientific truth, is anything but easy and straightforward.
Bottom line of my "little" monologue here; truth is very, very elusive. Don't assume anything to be completely true, because it just might turn out to be wrong. Or partially true. Or a slight misinterpretation of a bigger picture.
We just can't be sure of so much...
...So stop pretending to be!
Certainty in religion? As much as in science perhaps. It seems the fault of religion and aethism is fundamentalism, the need to justify oneself and beliefs. We all have beliefs of one kind or another because knowing all for any individual is impossible.Arrogence is indeed a part of a nature not easily disposed of.
For a religion to be worthwhile it must not claim to have all the answers regarding this world/universe/reality, that is the domain of science. Mystery is important and so is the humility to recognise that to us somethings will remain mysterious.
No, religion is, or should be about community, co-operation and the faith and encouragment to step outside ones own selfish interests for another. Its precepts should encourage community cohesion.
In a globalising society with faith group coming more and more in contact with one another, obviously conflict will occur at some point. The real test though is does the religion and its dogmas encourage mutual respect, tolerence and dare I say love, or not- not withstanding those who would abuse the power imbued upon them by the authority of the community, for ill. Does it encourage abuse of power by its very nature and cause harm, or are its fruits in the community good? That alas is human nature as even Dawkins grudgingly accepts may be the truth.
Nations used not to be defined by the state but rather the tribe and its shared cultural and religious bondings. The tribes of Israel may be thought as such, no less the goths, the vandals and innumerable other tribes through history. Today in multicultural nation states people have multiple tribal affiliations, often so many we are fed a confusing hodge podge of many different 'beliefs' so much so that the more multicultural we become, the more the intelligensia and they who follow them will start to believe in nothing save some of the properganda spouted from various media outlets. This leads to a diminishing of community where each man is his own island and others may become less important making their dehumanisation easier (Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot etc). I believe multi-religious nationstates are a prime cause for rising aethism and individualism (alongside consumerism) despite their obvious worldly scientific and technological benefits. The answer is I guess to be all of one faith or none, and as the only aethiest states I know of failed horribly, I would say one is better than none.
There is only one faith I know of that transcends national boundaries having followers universally throughout the world whilst respecting cultural diversity and encouraging cohesion of all. It respects science and is the faith shared by many eminent scientists that brought us science in the modern conception. It does not rely purely on its holy book for all the answers especially of the earthly variety. It develops its dogmas carefully in light of new knowledge yet keeping them remaining unchanged in essence. I therefore think it is the one we should all share however I respect that many do not accept my POV. I would hope the way I lived and my prayers would encourage more people to have faith in the religion of which I am a part, not what I say I believe.
I've deliberately left my faith ambiguous, find out from the description if you wish.
Thanks for clarifying.
After birth.
Also; eww
@D-K~
"... formed in the early stages of life (post prognatus) and..."
Post-prognatus? Does that mean 'after birth' or 'afterbirth'?
Simple; We derive the context from any given situation/scenario through our frame of reference. The frame of reference is formed in the early stages of life (post prognatus) and allows us to judge/rationalize/percieve situations in accordance with our taught expectations and imposed pre-dispositions (as "gifted" by parental units).
The FOR is a requirement for compassion to exist, which is why infants (pre forming of FOR) do not exhibit behaviourial traits recognized as compassion, despite exhibiting other behaviour which is, in fact, human nature. Compassion is oft referred to as the prime instrument, the cornerstone of human social behaviour and even hailed as the very foundation of our species' progress (as shown by sam^)
This is a meaningless romantization of human nature. Men are born animals, human nature is animalistic, social behaviour defies that, but it is learned/taught, not intrinsic.
I hope that clarifies my position.
"indifference would not be the normal feeling, if another person were in great need or suffering. that fact illustrates par of the binding force. mutual purpose or interdependence is another. so we see both utility/calculation and compassion/feeling driving humans to cooperate. they are distinguishable. they both adhere"
What fact? you assert that indifference is not the default
"setting" but I see no foundation for that assertion, please clarify as I don't understand what that paragraph refers to
@d-k
didnt really follow your point, beyond that you apparently think socialism is bad.
humans think, humans have certain tendencies, capabilities, legacies. one aspect does not overturn the other.
instinct is probably a word best avoided. it implies a non-reflective reflexive action, or set of actions. human behavior in generally more-complex than that.
of course our emotions - such as empathy, wrath, maternalism - are guided by circumstance.
indifference would not be the normal feeling, if another person were in great need or suffering. that fact illustrates par of the binding force. mutual purpose or interdependence is another. so we see both utility/calculation and compassion/feeling driving humans to cooperate. they are distinguishable. they both adhere.
could you sort those ideas a bit, if you would differ? or if not, no harm. :)
*cough*
My last comment (currently awaiting moderation) was directed at Riley.
Socialism does not equal compassion. Compassion and indifference are two sides of the same coin, the fact that one must make a choice between these two mental states would suggest that reasoning is involved. Reasoning is acquired at a later stage in life than conception, as such I personally cannot recognize "compassion/indifference" as an intrinsic trait.
Further supporting that notion is that a sense of compassion is always grounded in context (do we know the person whom hartship befalls? Do we care? Do we recognize his woes as our own?). Even today with "globalized reasoning" these same standards still apply. Instinctive behaviour (read: human nature) is not initiated by reasoning, but rather by instinct as the name would suggest, compassion, as I've shown, does require reasoning.
I feel compelled to add that these are not facts though, merely my $0.02
d-k
humans were mixing, trading, cohabiting in large extended family unites and/or clan groups for scores of thousands of years, at least, prior to the invention of agriculture.
compassion must then run deeper than simply a latter-day adaptation, and indeed should be considered intrinsic to human behavior, on that basis alone.
our large-scale social groupings would not be possible in a species that did not have strong innate social-bonding capabilities.
all of our important emotions, compassion, envy, anger, maternal/paternalism are quite ancient, is my expectation.
along with, as well, the negative aspects of the human behavioral palette. the latter, though, exploited and elaborated with the rise of states, priests, elites.
humans have been much as they are for at least 50K years - and probably much longer. we just don't have the stories from long ago, though more is revealed by paleoarchaeologists, paleoanthropologists, etc., as time goes by. the evidence, and common sense, strongly suggests that paleolithic man was fully modern, both cognitively and behaviorally.
To clarify, I'd put "compassion" under reasoning, as it is acquired behaviour, thus not intrinsic to human nature. One is either indoctrined with a moral compass/sense of compassion or one actively chooses (i.e reason's) to be compassionate. The way you depict it would imply it is a significant part of human nature, whereas I'd assert that it's simply a supporting pillar of acquired modern-day social behaviour with a self-validating component, i.e social morality.
@Sam:
Colour me Freudian but sleep and death are not one and the same, for in fact "sleep" requires semi-consciousness and a functioning brainstem, whereas death requires neither. In fact, death requires and absense of both those criteria.
Also, do you honestly believe that compassion is humanity's driving/defining force..?
OK I'm nearly done watching this now and yep pretty much as I expected, all the presented arguments are ancient and hollow. I absolutely despise the concept that morality is the sole province of religion I am not a criminal I do not wish anyone harm or suffering and I don't need god or fear of god to convince me about right and wrong.
All you need to live a good and conscientious life is, in this order :
Compassion, Logic and Reason.
And stop worrying about death for goodness sakes. It'll be the best sleep you ever had and it will last for all eternity. For me that is a very comforting thought.
Yawn.... anyway I'll end here with my own atheist prayer. (as an atheist my prayers must stay with the living)
I pray that you and I, can forget the nation we were born into, that we can unlearn the religion that we were indoctrinated by, that we can realise that our separation from the universe that surrounds us is but a fragile yet unavoidable illusion. That we can learn that compassion is the most noble and important human gift and driving force.
For then, We will know, that the person standing next to us is our brother, not our enemy. Then we can stop wounding one another. Thy will be good, as it is when we are unhindered. For art thou on Earth, the insignificance and the humility.
A-bl***y-men
Namaste,
Sam.
As an atheist and having read the description of this guys arguments and the multitude of comments here, I will echo previous commentors by saying :- Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is a strong suspicion backed up by logic and reason that religeous descriptions of reality are false at their core, and a belief that scientific descriptions that are open to question in a way that religion is not, and may at some future point in time be proven incorrect, are more accurate. Arrogance would be to assume (believe) that a given argument is true and not open to testing (questioning). Which in my humble opinion is a view often held by many (not all by any means) religeous people. The most crucial part of atheism for me is that in the absense of supernatural gods and devils, humans and humans alone are responsible for their thoughts and actions and are therefore (ought to be) held accountable. I can gaurantee that the logical counter to all Liddles common and circular arguments can be found in Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' and I haven't even watched this one yet.
On the other hand... Religion seems to be a positive force in some peoples lives and it would be very wrong IMHO to try to deprive said people of this positive effect. I believe that in the past, many millenia ago, religeous beliefs acted as a sort of catalyst for co-operative action and were instrumental in pushing human development forward. However, we have developed since those times. Humanity would do well to remove religious doctrine from governments and primary education as it is increasingly being used as a tool of segregation and manipulation by greedy, power hungry and... well lets not beat around the bush here, quite plainly INSANE people, not to mention the problems that arise when religeous teachings are contradictory with PROVEN FACTS.
What p****s me off the most though is this idea that religions and atheism are on equal ground. WE ARE IN THE MINORITY HERE. Just look at the b****y state of the world right now. How many people will confidently say 'I am an Athesit' compared to the number who willingly subscribe to any religion?
Question everything. question religion (It has no answers - in fact it denies questioning), especially question authority. My mind is open. Show me proof of God or Allah and I WILL change my mind. I do not deny the possibility that god exists, I just think it is infintesimally likely. And if he does exist then obviously he wants me (and you aswell) to be atheist.
Regards,
Sam.
=> #237
"There must be some kind of way out of here,
Said the joker to the thief..."
There isn't.
So I believe whatever gets you through the days and nights is OK. For the most part, I mind my own business, but I also mind my manners and love my brothers. That's the only way I manage to enjoy it while it lasts.
sam
atheism and deism are not opposites, are not equally reasonable propositions.
if a question has no certain answer, that does not imply then that any purported answer is as good as any other.
in fact, the postive assertion that no affirmative answer makes any sense is the best response.
atheism is the most reasonable position on the question of what beingness, if you will, might exist outside of the universe.
characterizing the person who stoutly defends the most reasonable position as 'arrogant' really needs defending.
we either feel our notions about things are sound, or we do not. if we don't, we could make a virtue of that, or hide our resentment of those that do, by calling them 'arrogant'.
or, we can make a reasonable case for why another, perhpas more nebulous position, is superior.
i dont feel arrogant. i feel honest, and on solid ground - also, have the cold comfort of a lack of wishful thinking on my side, which is ground, in itself, for suspicion whenever that is an aspect of 'belief'.
belief is a poor word to use in this connection, in any case, because it is one of the primary cognates used to latch people onto the various religious world-views (making a virtue of credulousness, or un-critical acceptance of received ideas).
so sam, i think the thing was is most un-thought of, the least considered, is rather the infirmity of the religious position, for the reasons previously stated, in short and mainly its presumptuous dismissal of the reasonableness of the atheist position, the lack of awareness or adequate defense of credulity (a defect in reason) which is the hallmark of the religious.
Atheism has nothing whatever to do with personalities; nothing whatever to do with religion; nothing whatever to do with science; nothing whatever to do with emotion; nothing whatever to do with misapprehension; nothing to do with anything, whatsoever, save non-belief in god(s)/deism/theism/superstition: 'vacuous' is 'vacuous'; the 'not' of 'substance of belief' in 'the supernatural'; 'absence'; a silent 'PERIOD'.
When ever will it finally sink in?
I think many of the viewers are misunderstanding the premise of the documentary. The documentary is not about shedding light on ferverent religious beliefs. The premise is to simply offer a perspective about how atheism has it's own arrogance by way of absolutism. If you cannot detect the unknown with your 5 senses, does it exist? If your answer is yes or no, then you are either fully convinced of a god/deity(s) or fully in disbelief of such, respectively. If you can agree that there is no possible answer to this question, then you are philosophicaly ept and rational. Good documentary, some solid points, and a perspective that needs to be listened to and understood.
maybe there are things in the the universe that are simply beyond the understanding of man, try to explain algebra to a 2year old. Every generation thinks the one before it was retarded. I have read of the first inkling of humility from the science community on the massive amount of data that the latest super computers are spitting out "we are approaching the limit of our ability to understand" but its fun to read comments from people who understand everything in the universe.
@Tom
You're reacting like a religious nutjob though, with all the emotional keywords included in your comment.
Liddle sums his point up in the end: "There may be a God or there may not be a God. Why can't we leave it at that?"
This is an agnostic position, which should not be a problem. The only problem is a person who wants to impose their view of the world on others and it does not matter if it is an Atheist or religious person.
Live and let live, but do not hurt anybody else, because there is no excuse for that.
@Steve
I didnt mention anything about creationism. In fact I dont believe in creationism or intelligent design. But I do believe GOD exists ( i am more of a dualistic pantheist---essentially that GOD and the universe are one in the same, and it has a consciousness and will).
I know a lot more about science than I care to elaborate on. My point was that, apropos to this documentary, that some scientists are arrogant as all hell. Some stubborn scientists insist on their theory is correct ( anyone seen A Universe from Nothing on this site?). When in reality a lot of theories are bookmarks because they really dont know but it makes sense on a chalkboard. One example is dark matter......its described as an invisible, undetectable, mass that should just exist to make sense of some observations ( sound familiar?....sounds like faith to me ;) ). Dont get me wrong....there is a mechanisms that exists to explain the observations, but some invisible make believe stuff isnt it ( again refer to phlogiston---nearly the exact same description in chemistry was made to describe what combustible objects were made of..it was a bookmark that people thought was 100% true).
What I love about the scientific method is that it allows for revisions of theories. Which is great! . In fact religion should definitely take a lesson from that. Its ridiculous to think that a group of people whos greatest technological advancement in the whole planet at the time is a tube of sulfur they called greek fire ( flame-thrower), had something as complex as GOD or the universe down pat. And again i reiterate that there are modern day scientists that believe their theories, ass full of anomalies as they are, they think its the pure answer ( even Einstein was stubborn in saying some things that were proven wrong).
The honest, humble, modern day scientist knows there are far more questions than there are answers. Which my paraphrasing of Plato alludes to.
@sweepinghubris
I don't mean this disrespectfully - but your comments reveal a lack of knowledge about science as a process.
Even if all those things turn out to be wrong (and are replaced with theories that fit the observed facts more closely), that does -not- make creationism true.
@young
Interesting. Sounds like you are describing science as well (like you know... anomalies in string theory, dark energy/matter....and does anyone remember phlogiston?).
To paraphrase Plato---I know just enough to know I know nothing.
There may be a leprachaun living in my fridge which disappears everytime I open it, and there might not be. Let's just leave it at that.
Charles Manson may be the messiah, he may not be. Let's just leave it at that.
What a BS documentary, absoloutly stupid film
@Mark
Maybe I am not recollecting properly since I have not seen this doc in several months...but did the host really say they did in it in the name of atheism???? As in "lets kill these other people because they Believe in GOD and we shouldnt"?...as in they rallied up troops and support by condemning GOD/Jesus/Mohamed/Allah etc?
I mean maybe I missed it but I thought he meant they started those wars for non religious reasons, like most wars do......sure there may be religious undertones in some wars but they are political power grabs and in the pursuit to attain resources ( look at the crusades or Americas war on Islamic terrorism; and yes I know some are done solely for the purpose of religious ideology like the inquisition.).
@Soulglow
I did not cherry-pick, I only chose a few examples that stood out to me because they are the usual already-been-debunked "examples" of bad "atheists". I have problems with the entire show.
If he has to cherry-pick to make his point, then it isn't a valid point. And the title is "The Trouble With Atheism", not "The Trouble With Some People of All Ideologies".
Do you understand what cherry-picking is? It means choosing only data that supports your point while ignoring data that does not. It is bad logic at best, and lieing at worst.
I don't know about you, but I simply shut down when somebody makes the "factual" statement that Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler did what they are said to have done in the name of Atheism.
What the f..k did atheism have to do with anything?
Maybe their common feature was a result of both of them having had alcoholic fathers who beat the shit out of them?
@Steve
I think you missed the entire point of the documentary. He is saying both atheists and theists alike have a fundamentalist way of thinking...a void that is fulfilled regardless of what they believe in (science or religion). Hence why he pointed out atrocities can be manifested for religious and non religious reasons.
Yes religious people can be hypocrites....because they have power and blood lust...but so do atheists. Just like how some Judges, politicians, cops, etc. break the very laws they pass and take an oath to uphold.
Again...the whole point of this documentary is that people can be screwed up. A screwed up person will warp the logic in a scientific theory or the philosophy of a loving religion to quench their lust for power, chaos, murder, destruction etc.
And of course he is cherry picking ( just like you did with the examples you pointed out;) ) to prove his point. His point being that screwed up people exist everywhere. I suggest you watch the first 5 minutes of the intro again and keep it in mind while watching the rest of the documentary.
Wow... what an incredibly biased show. He cherry-picks, misleads, and outright lies throughout.
He talks about atrocities committed by "atheists" that "were heretofore unimaginable". Since when?? Heard of the Inquisition? All the innumerable pogroms, atrocities, and genocides committed in the name of religion? And for Stalin, it was the "religion" (aka ideology) of communism and Marxism. In fac to be fair to Marx, what Stalin did was more for personal power than for any other reason.
And of course Hitler gets trotted out. You mean Adolf Hitler, Roman Catholic? Direct line from Darwin? How about a direct line from the Pope? Will you blame India for the religious symbol the Nazis stole from them?
What a load of barf.
Reply to Riley~
Did somebody encourage you to share your written opinions in spite of your lack of intelligibility?
PS: Isn't it amazing when some guys have a few beers or a 'doobie' then start thinking they can throw around big words without having mastered their meanings first. LMAO.
---The Old Master of Style, Professor Pimiento
Here's the catch.
No Christian is exempted from being human by believing in God. Conversely, no non-believer is ever banished from the family of human beings for atheism either.
While I agree with the idea that the abandonment of belief is not itself a belief system, I am frequently annoyed by atheists who display just as much blind faith in the absence of any gods and in Science as any religious zealot does in their own dogma.
I find it particularly unpleasant that people seem to be able to abandon particular religions without getting it together to abandon the kind of thinking whereon religion thrives. Sure, I'd rather see more atheists than more Christians, Muslims, etc., but I'd much rather see more people with more to say on the subject than "I believe in Science"
Sure, Christianity is transparently stupid, but that should be obvious to anyone not so disposed to to believing it that no amount of argument holds sway, and having just enough sense to realise that doesn't make you Richard Dawkins.
In brief, being an atheist is great, but learning to think is better, and plenty of people don't quite seem to make it all the way.
@Chelsie
It seems like you tend to prefer to turn a blind eye if something bothers you (" I had to stop the video......feel sorry for those who actually watched it all the way though"). Sure there is a bliss to ignorance, but one hardly improves themselves through stagnation.
For instance improving yourself with knowledge ( I guess that's why we are all here though right?). Instead of just reiterating the atheist mantra of " religion has caused more deaths and war than anything else"... if you you talked to any peaceful theist you would hear them preach love and tolerance as the true root of their religion.
Oh but one would quickly point out the wars, terrorism, religious racism, segregation, etc. Very true and legitimate. But I would tell you this. Those people are NOT staying true to the tenants of their religion. The Crusades? 9-11? The Inquisition? Yeah all those people screwed up in terms of religious devotion. For instance in the Bible it explicitly says thou shalt not kill...not, thou shalt not kill unless you bless your weapons with holy water and put a red cross somewhere on you uniform.
Whats more is that wars due to religion are, for the most part, guises. Look at how much land, money, resources, and voters/tax payers....i mean "followers/converts" a society gains after a "religious war". Look at the past and today....how many political figures rile up voters by preying ( pardon the pun) on their fears and hate.
The people who create so much destruction, hate, and chaos for religious reasons ARE not real believers in what they preach. And they know EXACTLY what they are doing. A true believer hardly has such aspirations for hate and material gain. Its kind of like those hypocritical cops, judges, and politicians who break the very laws they swear to uphold ( like the New York Governor who spent years and millions of tax dollars trying to shutdown prostitution rings....then he gets caught with spending $80,000 tax dollars on hiring prostitutes for over the course of YEARS!). My point is some people are hypocrites and/or purposely manipulative.
i had to stop the video right when he said "if we all became atheists tomorrow, would the world be a better place" this is obviously about to turn into a "moral" argument and epic face palm.. atheists are NOT claiming that being an atheist makes you a more moral person. the only thing that we ARE claiming (i am not speaking for ALL of course) is that there has been a lot of set back and killing because of religion... the end. and no.. this guy is wrong again saying that atheists are confident that there is NO GOD. no where do we claim that on the most part. we merely claim that we do know for a fact that the god of the bible and all other man made gods are fictional.. the end jesus.. i hate the time and money that was spent to make this video and feel sorry for those who actaully watched it all the way though.
@rebellius and others - Science is NOT about pure truth. Apparently you are not a scientist. Science is "best guess" based upon "certain" facts. And those facts do not have to be truth, its whats accepted as "facts" and hypothesis are formed from there. Also there are many "sciences" so it will depend on the particular field of science. Some "science" do present truths, others "guesses" based on the available, present information.
Religion is FAITH based on: CERTAIN TRUTHS. This depends on the interpretation. What might not be a truth to one religious person or religion might be a truth to another. SCIENCE is beginning to find out that the Scriptures is PURE TRUTH. Over many years the Bible has been ridiculed regarding dates, times, names, places, people. But Archaeology (a field of science) has been proving the Bible to be completely accurate. For instance: the bible states that rabbits chew cud. I can remember that it was thoroughly ridiculed within the science community and the bible was completely wrong. Only to find out later, THROUGH SCIENTIFIC STUDY that rabbits in fact do chew cud. Science was forced to recognize this fact presented in the Scriptures, thousands of years ago. Again there are passages that mentions things like "the earth is hanging upon nothing" or "the circle of the earth". While early science was determining if the world was flat or not, the bible already contained the answer thousands of years ago. Granted the sciences have certainly evolved since then. My point is: science is not perfect. Granted there have been great discoveries, and scientific achievements, but it is far from being "pure truth". Some scientists are now beginning to remove themselves from evolution to believe in creationism. Of course there is ridicule, but they are doing it based upon facts. Now these are scientist. You said that science is "pure truth". Are you going to say that the facts they present which moves them to creationism is pure truth also? Logically, you must stick with what you said, then it must be "pure truth" that moves them to creationism. Facts which might not be "pure truth" to you, may certainly be to them (scientists moving to creation) and others.
too biased and religiously oriented!
Alot of these posts are depressing, why are you so scared of knowledge, religiots? You where indoctrined into a narrow and ridiculous way of thinking as kids. This religion helped your potato farming forefathers get through the day without crying themselves to sleep every night. But you have everything! You have the time and the comfort to think for yourselves, you shouldnt need an insane and fantastic story to follow blindly.
As all of the rational posters have tried
to get through your (very, very) thick skulls:
Atheism is NOT, I repeat NOT a belief system. It's a tool, a simple tool. That's it! It's a tool called critical thinking, which is a basic tool. It's even simpler put just the act of putting a question mark at the end of information we recieve. This then makes us use a thing called LOGIC, which we use to analyze and filter whatever informatio is being fed.
( Religious people, read this post as if it was a pre-school teacher teaching your 6-7 year old self a basic skill. Yup, it's pretty elementary and obvious stuff. But I understand it's hard to accept fact when your entire life has been based on fiction, must be a psychologically traumatic experience.)
What's funny, is that this will just be discarded and I know even if I wrote this whole thing.
Here's a few quotes which I sadly don't know the source of (probably not correct down to the word, but the message is still there).
You just can't reason with someone who has abandoned reason.
It makes no sense.
or
You can't argue using fact and evidence against someone who doesn't understand the concept of it.
and a final question for the theists:
So, do religous people also believe in the easter-bunny?
or is that just plain silly? :P
Atheism is amusing to the Great Mother...almost as amusing as organized religeon.
First off; it is absurd to compare belief in religion with non-belief in such things because people who dont believe in gods/religious dogma, usually do believe in the scientific method and humanism. Basically, in things for which there is abundant evidence even if we cannot see many with our senses. (gravity, cells, evolution, a barrel of oil, etc etc)
it is not that god might not exist, but that because our brains are a subsequent part of the this process we simply cannot hope contain or even understand the whole. We name things and manipulate them, but we really have no idea what they are.
Religion is the birth of ignorance attempting to answer life's most prfound uestions. Answer? =magic. Postulating a god only begs the question of it's own genesis and answers nothing Worst of all, it teaches people to accept and be satisfied with not knowing. Saying 'God did it' or 'God does it' and being satisfied by such 'answers' is in reality being deluded.
We should all be offended by organizations which as part of their history fought, and continue to fight, science at every step. The church tortured and killed millions of innocent people on charges like witchcraft and heresy (charges people are still condemned to death for in some places in 2010). Today it is the acceptance of casual believers and religion as a subject beyond critique, or as a doctrine of moral standards, that put us on this 'slippery slope' (to paraphrase Dawkins) to fanaticism.
(and this phony 'war on terror.')
Ethics come from reason. Scratch my back Ill scratch yours. Together we could move this object, but not individually. Ethics has many aspects which are the direct result of people wanting to do what is best for oneself and his/her fellows.
They must be focusing on the christian God and the other God's on the planet are simply discarded. The God who never makes the newspaper ends up a figure of speech, it's ironic the newspaper in which displays the countless deaths and it's cause is constant religious war.
The colider, or perhaps plan B for instance, direct funds on a high tech train that travels 2000mph, maybe holds 2000 people from coast to coast. What humanity needs is a colider for whoever's progress doesn't seem so logical. I'm no expert but I'd rather have the magnet rail system twice the speed of sound traveling safe on the ground instead of 30,000 feet burning tanks of jet fuel. Instead of the massive amount of funds invested into a collision which helps who out? Just whos in charge on top? Who's ever occult it is has no belief in any God, with the Laws and restrictions they inflict on enslaving humanity they most definately have on-going planned dark agenda for us.
What God on a planet of love would run the human race like they do today? If God saved one rape or one death I'd still have to think about one existing. Are those so nieve that they simply are told only selected bible script by pathetic preachers from a book dictators paid scribes to write durring the Dark Ages to command and obey, threaten with a hell, to enslave their nations, then enslave their neighobor countries, is something of history, not ment to bring into mans future. God restricts new understandings, Dark Age rulers were holding the pen to paper, no God wrote any bible ever, it was simply man wanting society to focus on only the thought of a God, they knew how to enslave a nation. They, using this same method knows today that you will still fall for the same old ancient trick, and there not about to stop, unless you awaken to their deceptive practice. Be free void of projected religious fear. Simply erase a the terror of illogical religion out of the minds of man so humanity may be free to focus on mankind alone without outside interference of invisable supernatural entities that trick you and invent places that don't even exist. These evils and fear create an affect within the focus of this planet on a massive scale. The ones that brought you hell are the ones that make you believe there is a one God. Just be kind and good and a member of the human race, void of any religion, until then we will evolve into greater understandings.
Isn't having a sacred anything against atheism? atheism isn't about science either thats a different philosophy.
It blocked out the word stupid, so what I meant by stupid I meant dumb
Really quick: That guy needs to dress better.
Crusades cause the deaths of millions alone. Not as much as the soviets, but religious related wars still go on today and since the time of the crusades one can only imagine the death toll.
The beauty of science is that it is wise enough to accept a wrong theory. The universe is a like a puzzle, pieces all scattered about, what science does is to - one by one fit all these pieces together.
Of course theories (not all) will start to unravel,the men that made them are not infallible and the same goes for the writers and revisionists of the bible.
People are stupid, even atheists, but you can You Tube creationists and really find some impressively dense people.
Oh right ... I forgot to give honorable mention to the fact that western religion really dedicated itself to maintaining a power structure ... holding the divine hostage over the common folk. Clearly people dont forget that kind of thing ... way to go abrahamic religions! You spoiled it!
Im having a giant party and all the atheists and religions are invited, except the abrahamic ones. And dont park on my lawn because thats something an abrahamic religion would do!
Oooo I think I stayed up too late :D
How easy it is to burn bridges and point fingers. I did not enjoy watching the religious side point fingers at atheists. Also, some atheists may not make a belief out of disbelieving ... but some go that far. There is enough stupidity and ill will to go around on both sides as far as I am concerned. Would that I could wash my hands of it! Atheism has undergone an evolution of meaning ever since its origin in ancient Greece ... just as there are thousands of religions with all conceivable manner of deities, atheism and its history are no less complex. If you are going to compare atheism with a religion, I would pick hinduism (hear me out!). In the same manner that there are almost as many ways to be a hindu as there are hindus ... there are almost as many ways to be an atheist as there are atheists.
What I find interesting are religions that are seemingly compatible with atheism, and other things that bridge the gaps that our current social structures lack. I like to envision a ”religion” where if you choose, the entire universe can be seen as divine, and thus the laws of science would necessarily be respected truths that could not be ignored. God does not necessarily have to be considered separate from ourselves or the world or energy. You can ”devote” yourself to truth (accepting all the truths of science), and practice discipline of the mind and cultivation of kindness. You could have ”faith” that truth cannot be hidden over time, and that slowly we will overcome obstacles to uncover the whole truth. You can ”pray” for wisdom and patience instead of objects of desire. The central tenets of Western religion are not completely invalid for modern society ... they are just unnecessarily steeped in thousands of year old myth.
What I dont understand is why Jesus couldnt have been just a normal guy, who realized his connection to God and expressed it in the context of the trinitarian understanding of God held at that time in that geographic area. Why does he have to be magically resurrected and immaculately born against all our modern scientific understanding ... the hardliners on both sides of the fence could show a little leniency methinks :)
Squee :)
ps: yes lets leave it at that, there may or may not be god, leave the science alone, u bunch of stupid donkeys.
omg he stole it from ben stainnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111one1!!
i facepalmed it. The whole thing.
creationist bingo won !
I just have one question: why would you limit your religion to something that narrow ? The world is beautiful intricate in full of wonder, stop ignoring it, learn, read, get your self a telescope and a pet, watch their behavior and learn to relate to the world, don't shut it down !
The world is beautiful, stop ignoring it for what it is !
this guy liddle and ben stein play the same instrument.
vitriolic, & at once pedantically luddite.
baiting reasonable folks with nonsense, as schtick.
AAAGGGHHH He's uncovered our atheistic belief systems and our belief in none belief. He knows about our darwinistic evolutionist bible. Our days are numbered. Does he know that we secretly believe in God and we are atheists because god hsa hurt us? It's all come out fellow atheists!!!
@kara and the big bang - what happens when light goes through a black? well it travels faster than the speed of light, thats why it is a black. could it therefore travel back in time? it could occupy the same space but in a parallel time. matter obviously gets compacted to super dense then explodes out the other side. so maybe this universe got sucked through a wormhole in a parallel universe in the future. maybe thats where antimatter lives cos its the but we can't see it. i don't know who invented universe number 1 but i suspect that it was a flying spaghetti monster.
@kara
science is the explanation of the natural world through testing and observation within the scientific method. a hypothesis is and i quote"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." saying that science is fitting the information to the hypothesis is wrong, actually scientists try to prove themselves and others wrong and when they can't they only then accept the hypothesis.then you completely misrepresent and misunderstand the big bang theory (sorry but i will not explain it to you look it up. i will not FILL this page with the required text to properly explain it)
shut up kara i bet u live alone so slobber on some dudes knob haha
science is the art of interpreting data to a particular hypothesis.
a hypothesis is a guess. Science is about making the data fit to the hypothesis. So keep tossing out data until you get something that you have interpreted into fitting.
and atheism is the choice of absence of belief. If one has a choice to not believe, then the person also has the same choice to believe. And it impossible, even in quantum physics, for something to not be there completely. If something is there, even in minute form, it is still existent.
The Big Bang is a theory, based on what? Laws of Thermodynamics.
first law, nothing is created, only changed.
second law, all energy is transferred and can entropy over time.
So then, energy, which is not created, suddenly existed in a nothingness? And that energy compressed itself until it exploded?
The definition of energy according to merriam-webster says "a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work"
Within a physical realm. There was, according to Big Bang Theorists, no physical realm.
So no physical realm has no ability to create within itself a physical entity that has not only the capacity for energy, but the mechanism for energy transfer.
Then isn't energy at the Big Bang just a myth? A non-existent form suddenly creating a physical property? Wow, and people don't believe in God, saying God can't create anything. But at the same time believing non energy suddenly exists. Energy exists only in the physical realm.
atheism is the absence of beleif rather than a belief. great.
I however want to make a church of atheism. get together every sunday morning and sing songs about how great science is and how you can be compassionate just cos youre nice not cos youre worried about burning for eternity.
I would also need a church of atheism book to worship. i think steven hawking could write the book of genesis about the big bang. then maybe a bit by dawkins about evolution. chuck a couple of modern parables in and close with a book of revelation warning how the world will end in nuclear war and pollution or an energy crisis. also crucial to the book would be the advocation of contraception.
atheist or religion is just a facade
the problem is in the lack of compassion
- The mind sees itself AND others, it wants to take and creates our world in scarcity. This is our separate ego.
- The heart sees itself IN others, it wants to give and creates a world in abundance. THIS is evolution.
As Albert Einstein said "a problem can not be solved with the same level of consciousness that created it".
use the mind as a tool. I hope our destiny lies in the RE acceptance of living from our hearts.
The narrator completely misunderstands virtually everything he talks about. The section where he discusses memes is representative of this. Dawkins wins hands down, but the narrator doesn't even know it. This guy's powers of argument are at about a fifth grade level.
His major problem in this is that he assumes that being atheist means that you rely on science for all of history. Or even that all atheist believe the same things. I'm an atheist with a copy of the bible in my library but no copy of the origin of species.
Just as quickly as an atheist can come to a realization that they have no proof of a god in their face they can also come to a realization that they have no proof of how the universe came about. Whether they pursue the idea may rely on science but only because they have cut out god at the start so that's all left to cling to - physical or mathematical proof. That is why a great many turn to science.
See, atheism just says I've stepped off the agnostic fence where there could be a god or could not. It does state there is no god, with no real proof other than a lack of evidence. It's skeptic belief because it looks at religious texts and says - that was written by a man and that isn't a god. That part atheism does have proof of that men are not gods therefore things coming from mans lips are not derived from a god. It's logic, not science.
The atheist contempt he mentions is because atheist can finally say what they feel at times. Imagine years of being told there is a god and saying well I just don't think that. Having to recite religion in your political songs and it being sprawled across money that you touch daily as reinforcement that your views are not welcome as an atheist. In fact, if you voice them we will attempt to convert you, in turn atheist do - and i have been guilty of sometimes trying to get the first foot up and say I will convert you before you convert me lol
Morality in atheists I can explain simply. I get my morals from what I personally want to happen to myself. I don't want to be killed suddenly - murder is wrong, law one. I don't want to have things taken from me, stealing is punishable, law two. etc.
It's very simple and it's probably why atheist are sometimes on the side of abortion rights. Until that wad of guts makes it out of the womb, it's not human enough to deserve life because before it is born the importance is on the mother that already has life. A fetus to medicine is literally a parasite, it robs calcium from the mother's bones and utilizes her blood supply and food. If she chooses to remove it - that is to preserve her body and is her choice. The fetus will never be aware that it was denied existence. Until it matures even a brain, I don't call it sentient nor can I believe that it has some static life force, that is the realm of religion and that's why they usually say all life is precious because it has a god signature on it.
I lost a job because of outing myself as an atheist when I kept shrugging off requests to go to a church with a coworker. There are times when you can talk about it and times that you can't. What it does do is make you seek out likeminded individuals for relationships. I won't get involved in a serious relationship with a religious man - don't care the religion but I already know that it would end badly because it always becomes strife. They say things like, if only you had god you wouldn't worry. I roll my eyes and we gain enmity.
Excellent!
This is just another example of bad journalism, and Liddle trying to embed the idea that atheism = anti-theism.
There they go throwing Hitler in with the Atheists. He said himself he was Catholic and was completely against secularism. It's in Hitlers speeches go look them up. More rewritten history from Christianity. More people have been murdered in the name of the Christian God then for any other reason on earth.
Great doc.
He nails the problem - it's not belief in god or disbelief in god. It's fundamentalism, religious or athiestic. "True" religion and "true" reason would tolerate the other.
The problem with people who are they themselves religious, who go out and supposedly unbiased talk to atheists or non-believers is they assume that they need to explain themselves our justify why they don't believe. And that it is a us versus them, when most atheists and secular humanists believe in the growth and expanse of humanity, all of humanity and do not want and strife to occur to anyone, everyone should have access to Maslow's hierarchy of needs and have them met, regardless of gender, belief, or monetary levels. Talk to athiests the issues are the religious strife that comes with those who push religious values in front of valuing people all people and loving everyone, then let each individuals heart decide if they want to be buddhist, wiccan, druid, atheist, christian, hindu, muslim.... you get the point.
@ ImPoster
I see your point but I can't agree for I think there is a logical error. The purpose of a particle accelerator has nothing to do with disproving god as science has nothing to do with disproving god. Science has established a way of thinking where you can't just claim anything you make up to be a fact, you have to prove it scientifically otherwise you are just talking nonsense. People didn't start thinking this way because they wanted to attack religion but because it simply worked much better than making stuff up.
Furthermore every institution and every source of information is biased, Google is far from being an exception.
I must disagree seb.
"A temple is an impressive building and a particle accelerator is an impressive building, ergo the ideology which led to building the one is the same as the ideology behind the other."<-- Is not a bad argument just useless. Kinda like throwing around evolution destroys religion.
Ideology(from Merriam-Webster) - 1: visionary theorizing
2 a: systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Temple(from the Latin word templum) - a structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities (interestingly the entirety of Rome was a kind of templum)
Particle Accelerator - A tool to inquiry into the dynamics and structure of matter, space, and time.
The Ideology that connects these is of course creator/no creator. One to worship a creator and seek spiritual enlightenment. The other to prove it doesn't exist or to understand how that part works. A better argument would be what is the LHC going to do for humanity.
Alas though I do agree most documentary are biased to their side. Which is why my first rule of controversial information is lots of google searching.
@soulglow
That's not what I meant. Of course not a single documentary about this topic on either side of the argument is unbiased. Every filmmaker will try to show the interviews and comments of the participants in a way that supports his point of view (thinking anything else would be more than naive). But to do this you actually have to let them talk and you have to outsmart them at least rethorically. Liddle is not letting anyone talk except for himself and he apparently loves to hear himself talking. There is absolutely no finesse in this.
Dawkins on the other hand plays on an entirely different level in terms of quality and intellectual standard. I can't see why his arguments should be shallow especially not compared to "The trouble with Atheism". I mean we are talking about arguments like: A temple is an impressive building and a particle accelerator is an impressive building, too, ergo the ideology which led to building the one is the same as the ideology behind the other. That's just plain stupid.
@seb
Dawkins does the same thing, except his narrative is not only shallow but mocking.
In a format such as filmed documentary, I think its an inevitable tactic to let a speaker say some keypoints, and then paraphrase anything else that is said. But only a very unbiased journalist will paraphrase without bias.....i doubt thats the intention of either Liddle or Dawkins.
The difference between an atheistic worldview and a religious one is pretty simple. The one results from personal thougth and reflection of as many sources as you can get your hands on. The other derives from simply believing what you are told to believe because it is a virtuouss thing to belief whithout questioning. In this context it is very frustrating to find a decent and logical source which challenges your worldview in a stimulating manner if you are an atheist. "Documentaries" like this are a good example for a frustranting source. The guy visits people with big names to give his statements credibillity. He leaves hardly two or three sentences of what they said in obviously more extended conversations in the film while constantly narrating his own views which are - to put it mildly - pretty shallow. While I`m really interessted to understand the arguments of the religous side, I almost always regret having wasted time on watching rubbish like this.
Why has this video been cut/edited?
Look, Atheists will hate this documentary, the few religious people who watch it will like it. Just goes further to so the point that all people have a belief in something or the other and are uncompromising in that view. Let's be real, Atheists are no better. They are people and people are passionate.
Also, Communist regimes DID kill in the name of eradicating religion from their societies, same way that religiously radical regimes kill in the name of their religion. Maybe not all the violence was in the name of Atheism, but the Communist vision was "heaven on Earth..." so...
@Mike
What a fantastic image! A non-sequitur cannon!
Wonderful...
This guy is like a non sequitur cannon.
damn i wish i caught this in May when Serviam said it.
he said:
"I think you’re forgetting about pantheism and deism.
Also, your definitions of atheism and theism already invalidate your ignostic position. An ignostic would claim that there is no steady (i.e. logical) definition of god. Yet you say you live your life as if god (which you claim is undefined) does not exist. How is this possible?"
my answer would be the same way if i told you there is a jjkdhuijkb that existed you would live your life the same way you did before i told you. you have no idea what it is. you dont believe it in but you cant NOT believe in it...you dont even know what IT is.
Vicki is typical of a very disturbing American attitude:
"I don't know stuff, and I am poorly educated, BUT, I am going to speak with authority anyways!!!"
Makes the bile rise in my throat.
Vicki, I have been more religious than anyone in the world, but I walked away from that and found enlightenment with science, math, and engineering...
You can't, and should NEVER, change your skin color, but you CAN, and should ALWAYS, change your mind.
@Vicki who wrote:
"Faith is part of human experience. There is no society in history that existed without some form of religious faith. It is part and parcel of being human...."
That thesis is fundementally incorrect. I will mention just one of the human societies that lived prosperously WITHOUT religion, gods, or superstition. The Ionians, of which Carl Sagan wrote extensively and who I, as a World History major, wrote several papers on.
This civilization, as part of Helenistic Greek culture, rejected all of the religions, mythologies, and preisthoods that ruled the region and with their clear-headedness, were able to create a working evolution concept, some 2600 hundred years before Darwin, and gave birth to such enlightenment thinkers as Democritus, (you know, the guy from which the term "Democracy" comes from?).
Of course, the surrounding superstitious monsters fell on them and destroyed them... as much for their riches as for their resistance to conventional stupidity.
As far as racism, I am insane on racism. Race is NOT a choice. Religion is just a bad idea. It is not only acceptable, but our moral obligation, to mock and deride bad ideas.
You can walk away from a bad idea and into the good ideas of rationalism, and reason. Militant, aggressive atheism is NOT bigotry, it is critical for the existance of our species.
You seem to side with the evil, mostorous, World Destroying lunatics that destroyed the Library of Alexander and the Ionians... and any other thousands of horrendous crimes perpatrated by the religious on rational people.
Shame on you.
@Imposter:
"is atheism truly the answer when science is being used by politics to do the same thing.."
There is no answer, not yet. Which ironically, would make agnosticism the answer, I guess. Semantics are fun.
"random tidbits"..!?
RANDOM TIDBITS!?
My verbalized genius is not a random tidbit! You insult me sir!
(I kid..)
Egads! The "ImPoster" strikes again! I found this doc on my own, and here she was with her commentary summary! Do you have a photographic memory, or just a lot of times on your hands?
But, this doc does have a good point; atheism is just as dogmatic and intollerant and just as evangelistic as any religion anywhere! Now that's a fact. The bloodiest days of "Godlessness" are still ahead of us.
I'm glad I don't live in England nor even Europe; perhaps this is the preparation for the anti-Christ that will rule that area of the world with an iron hand, as he proclaims himself as "God". I wonder if he'll do that as an Atheist. Perhaps.
@ siso05/07/2010 at 00:17 "clearly a documentary not worth watching. the presenter should does not even understand that atheism is not an ideology, it is the absence of it…."
lol
pure ideological statement ha ha you clearly dont understand anything about ideologies - go read Zizek
(but i do find the presenter gettin on my...)
@Vicki I agree you have to define what God is before you can disprove it. If God doesn't live in our realm, never interferes with the natural world, cannot be observed or measured then God cannot be proved or disproved and there is no reason to believe in a God. If you define God as what is described in any of the religous documents, then that God definately does not exsist (most prove themselves wrong). Religous folk tend to believe in just the one religion, oviously it's the right one, which makes all the others wrong, so by default they're atheists to all religions but their own.
"Actors are stupid, their movies are stupid, their culture is stupid."
"Musicians are stupid, their music is stupid, their lifestyle is stupid."
"Comedians are stupid, their jokes are stupid, they act stupid."
"Politicians are stupid, their politics are stupid, they make stupid desicions."
Most people know that racism is wrong and discrimination is wrong, so that's a weak arguement. All the above areas are criticized quite brutally at times, i'm very passionate about music. When people criticise bands I like I think, how can you think that way? But i don't loose my mind over it.
So when people say they believe in a certain religion and the only evidence is a document, which has unbelievably stupid storys and insanely stupid morales attached to it. Why shouldn't we criticise? It's no different to you insulting the almighty Led Zeppelin in my opinion.
@erie666:
Ha,Ha, check out our girl vicki, on new doc..."Richard Dawkins: Faith School Menace"
Good for a laugh, tranquilizers anyone (LOL)
@ Viki
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there , kitten. Atheists do not deny facts as the holocaust deniers first off. And if anybody is like the KKK its religion. You don't see atheists burning christians or muslims etc at the stake for not seeing the truths and facts of science and reason/logic. In fact I believe it was the non believers that were on those stakes burning while their wives and kids watched and were then persecuted ,beaten, enslaved,raped,tortured and murdered all throughout history.
More people died in the name of a god than anything else.
Corect me if I'm wrong and please tell me where youy get this from and why you feel as such.
Settle down, take a deep breath and calmly explain.
@vicki:
What are you talking about??
You are talking about humans, humans are not gods, well not yet anyway, unless you are a Mormon.
Gods are supposedly supernatural, supernatural gods do not exist, therefore if they do not exist, what is there to deny?? That they do not exist, if they do not exist? com'on woman!
There is no type of gods anywhere, and at any time. Period!
p.s. I know what bigotry is. I grew up in the South. There were lynchings here as recently as the 1950s. If you take the anti-religious statements of atheists in ANY documentary (pro or con) and replace the word "religion" with other words like "blackness" or "Jewish noses" it suddenly sounds very bigoted, no?
"the ideas are stupid, the beliefs are stupid, the theology is stupid"
Now:
"blacks are stupid, their beliefs are stupid, their culture is stupid"
Also:
"I don't believe we should tolerate any religion at all"
Now"
"I don't believe we should tolerate any (blacks, Jews, Muslims, Asian immigrants, Mexican migrant workers, etc etc) at all"
etc etc
You get the gist of it.
Atheists are unabashed bigots, and there is simply no whitewashing how despicable they are.
They are Ku Klux Klan without the sheets and burning crosses.
Atheists are like Holocaust-deniers. Let me explain. Faith is part of human experience. There is no society in history that existed without some form of religious faith. It is part and parcel of being human. Even atheism itself is a religious viewpoint - you have to be able to define what God is to be able to deny his (or her) existence. If you say God does or does not exist, you have to define what IS God? What collection of attributes are you saying doesn't exist? The Christian concept of deity? the Muslim concept? the Hindu concept? It's a slippery slope, because most atheists are disbelievers in a specific faith, in most cases they are reacting to some form of Christian belief they don't like. So, essentially, they are bigots, spreading hatred of someone else's very personal and precious religious identity. Atheism = bigotry. End of story.
so many comments when a film like this appear ;O
Ladies and Gentlemen we have a winner (drumbeat)-
and the winner is Paul at over one thousand words.
We always have to keep in mind that "Documentary, after all, can tell lies and it can tell lies because it lays claim to a form of veracity which fiction doesn’t”. Some of the documentaries are made just to discredit some particular person, party, organization, system etc,
The greatest lines from religious wackos are when they try to prove we were founded as a christian nation. They quote things like "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" but have no historical knowledge of these words. They forget that our Founders were deists and despised organized religion. They have no concept of what a freethinker is. Jefferson rewrote the new testament to take out all the hocus pocus and superstition. Adams declared christianity to be an evil organization. It just goes on and on but they attempt to pervert our foundations in order to institute a theocracy in America all the while condemning "islamo-fascism". Christian fascism is no different.
Hesus:
Oops, replace "when" with "if" in my comment. I did not mean to imply that it'll actually happen like that, I was merely sketching out cause-effect to Jim.
I also doubt it'll be that quick, and the incremental defragmentation, so to speak, would be more likely and less apocalypticcy..
@ D-K
I doubt it is going to be a single moment when religion is going to lose its hold over humanitiy. It is a long and ongoing process of people with old beliefs dying off and new generations with a changed mentality taking their place.
I think this is one of the reason why mortality is essential for progress of the species. Otherwise we would stagnate.
@Jim:
Actually, when religion is debunked in one single crystalizing moment, say in a single day.. society will indeed feel the massive wave of instant-nihilism.
Religion, while no more than a comforting delusion, does keep the creatures of lesser intelligence in check. Most people that tend to let emotional reasoning outweigh rationality will have all ultimate consequence stripped from them in a single second.
No more pointing finger, no more imposed lifestyle, no more comfort and no more answers.. just a bunch of disillusioned, angry people that have no more guidance.
It's not gonna go over well.
Funnily enough I saw this plant in a flower show (largest flower), but wasn't aware it attracted flies rather than bees (seems rather obvious now that you mention it). But thanks for that, truly amazing how nature becomes increasingly efficient.
@Ashish who wrote:
"I’m actually reading Richard Dawkins – Greatest Show on Earth atm. Some very interesting points made in the book, one that springs to mind:
Why do flowers look the way they do?
The tastes/preferences of bees. I don’t know about you guys but I never saw a flower in that way..."
Yes. Now, listen to this, if you don't already know about this... in Africa, (and South America and in Australia there are a family of these plants, but I will mention the African strain here), there is a plant known as the "Corpse Flower".
Do you know of these? When I was a James Lovelocke devotee back in the day... this plant really knocked me out.
It looks alien, but it smells like rotted meat, or decaying flesh, to attract flies to pollinate it, instead of bees. I wondered, as did James Lovelocke, "How does a plant know what rotten meat smells like, and that it can attract flies..."
Well, I think, the answer is in Natural Selection, that a random confluence of events, over an enormously vast amount of time, cause a plant to smell a little "ripe" attracting flies, then they succeeded- and then made offspring- and so on for about a billion years until it is perfected...
But still... pretty amazing, eh?
lol , i give this doc 10 out of 10. when u belive in some thing more then other it become reliogen, xd, top doc
also, it's amazing he says "when you take away religion, you get societies whose behavior was unimaginable up until that point..." just after his disproven Stalin diatribe.
To this I would say, only so he would understand, at least Stalin just shot people in the head. Irish priests have been screwing young children for five hundred. I doubt they would consider "shooting to death" unimaginable. They have vivid imaginations.
This is what happens when a religious hate-mongering bigot puts together a documentary on theology before watching a single decent debate on the subject to understand the arguments of both sides.
@ez2b12: Couple of things:
- Women are/is not a minority
- Naive idealism is not inspirational
- humans aren't inherently compassionate or intelligent, unless you define intelligent relative to other species, and you're slightly pretentious.
- You're going in from the assumption that deep down human beings are "decent" judging from your frame of reference, while you deem other cultures' customs wrong still from YOUR frame of reference. Hipocrisy is thy name.
You say: "It basically says that we humnas can have no absolutes that everything is relative. If you follow this dogma you have to say its fine if the Islamic men want to kill their daughters that got raped, deny education to females, and kill the infidels- after all its all relative right- no right and wrong"
- Indifference is not consent.
- You imply there is an absolute right and wrong, which is downright laughable.
- You somehow see it fit for the UN to rule the world or pass absolute judgement upon it's inhabitans..?
Your entire comment seems ridiculous to me, and for god's sake man.. paragraphs!
I think it is very dangerouse to support nihilism in any way. It basically says that we humnas can have no absolutes that everything is relative. If you follow this dogma you have to say its fine if the Islamic men want to kill their daughters that got raped, deny education to females, and kill the infidels- after all its all relative right- no right and wrong. Come on, we are merely dodging our responsibilies here by saying that everything is relative. We all feel this in our hearts but we are scared to say anything about someone elses culture, we have been raised to believe that all belief systems must be respected and that we have no right to meddle in other cultures. Generally I would agree with this however, their are some actions that we as intelligent human beings should easily identify as harmful toward the harmoniouse interactions of society- murder, rape, honor killlings, treating women or any other minority badly, etc., etc. These are things that impede the progress and harmony of the entire earth and we as compassionate and intelligent humans have an obligatioin to assert our selves and say this is wrong. Not relative to the situation but wrong. Your religion or citizenship should not allow you to be a monster and get away with it. Now if you take the nihilist approach you have to say, "Well who are we to judge man can never really know anything. Everything is relative and we should just mind our own Ps and Qs." Thats a cop out and you have just become a useless member of the human race. For if nothing is absolute and no one can really know anything, why not just please yourself and shirk all responsibility and compassion for others. On the other hand if you go to far in the direction I recommend you end up with Bush and Cheney, two men that should be lined up in the sreet and shot repeatedly. I do not support military action or forcefull insertion of democracy. We certainly have no right to tell other countries what political system or social structure they should have. That being said we should assert peoples civil rights. I know that these actually do not exist as they are so restricted and heavily policed that they are a joke in America but, they do save us from the most horrible atrocities faced by those in the Islamic countries. Basically i feel that if a religion or state violates the rights of a citizen of this planet that state or religion should not be recognized by the UN or any other country in the world. In other words the UN should prosecute to the full extent of international law anyone caught commiting crimes against a member of the human race's civil rights. Right now we do not have a list of civil rights that apply to the human race as a whole, we should. This should be followed by the structuring of international laws and courts to inforce these rights. For until we can secure the basic rights of all the people, realize a common goal, and impliment a global solution we will face horrible atrocities as a people both from the state and from mother nature. We can make it better yall, lets get started.
@Randy:
I just re-read that statement, and I learned something. I always figured it'd be dopamine, endorfine or seratonine that would give feelings of love.
It's just fascinating that it's all just built from amino acids (polypeptides). The versatility and profound significance of amino acids is also something that's endlessly captivating, THERE IS SO MUCH FOR ME TO LEARN! lol.
@ D.K.
Yeah, the brain is where it is at! Scientist are already observing neural activity whilst people are having a religious experience.
Actually I read some book on Neuro-Linguistic Programming, embedded commands and hypnosis these studies primarily look at communication with the sub-conscious mind. Its hardly a science, but the effects are significant on some individuals.
But to really understand the brain we need technology to catch up, although with the introduction of the functional MRI scans we are making progress, there is some way to go before we truly understand the depth of the brain. I suspect that is why scientist have such a hard time creating realistic A.I. because we don't understand our own intelligence.
Ah yes, the subtle beauty of a co-dependant ecosystem. The very essence of nature is it's sustainability, which can mostly be attributed to the fact that every cycle is an actual cycle.
Grow, sustain, fulfill porpose, die, sustain, new life, grow.. etc.
Wereas humans end up with waste on one side of the spectrum and shortages on the other. How ironic that with all our intellect and broad perception, we fail to accomodate our own species in the long term, let alone be part of an ecosystem that benefits it's surroundings (including other species).
Humans rarely have a positive influence on the ecosystem they introduce themselves to.
@ Randy
No apology needed my friend. You are rational, objective thinker who supports his claims with evidence and you don't try give answers to things you haven't researched. I have nothing but appreciation for that, which is why I respect your opinion.
Like you, I too find it hard to tolerate religion and pseudo-sciences. Sometimes I do throw in opposite ideas to trigger a debate (debating can be healthy for the evolution of thought).
@ D.K. & Randy
Genes are like a well shuffled deck of cards, so I guess its natural we feel that we are at least a little bit alpha and beta.
I'm actually reading Richard Dawkins - Greatest Show on Earth atm. Some very interesting points made in the book, one that springs to mind:
Why do flowers look the way they do?
The tastes/preferences of bees. I don't know about you guys but I never saw a flower in that way.
Sorry I realise my train of thought keeps shifting but I'm at work and it literally takes me 3 hours to write each comment. LOL.
Hah, I don't get offended by "intrusive", you can see my overwhelming disregard for social etiquette in the "guys and dolls" doc comment section.
Like I said, I need to get more familiar with the brain, truly fascinating stuff.
Keep in mind, the Beta's are usually the thinkers, the Alpha's are the workers. Usually. Of course there are exceptions. The lines do blur, no doubt.
As far as hormones and the brain, I was very amused by your post! I dimly remember feeling that way hundreds of years ago, LOL!
Well, keep in mind that in the male brain, the sexual curcuits and the language circuits are almost right on top of each other, which is why you may find it difficult to speak when you are confronted by a beautiful woman.
Oxytocin is the "love" chemical and floods the brain when you meet a woman that seems to be of good "breeding" quality to your cellular structures, (I'm sorry, I'm just talkin' science here... sounds creepy, though, sorry...)
Anyways, what you must remember is that the powerful "drug" oxytocin WILL wear off. Maximum half-life of six months! That is usually when men and women start to "wander".
After that, you have to really bear down and be objective about your partner. Look closely and think about living with them for the rest of your life. The oxytocin rush is AWESOME and, frankly, very addictive to many people, but when it is over, and you can see clearly, look close and think...
Anyways... sorry, that was not helpful and certainly not on topic.... and- a little intrusive and creepy... I apologize!
LOL!
I have not been able to classify myself one way or the other, I seem to have characteristics of both alpha and beta, as well as that I seem to lack certain key differentiators.
Ultimately, I think i'm more of a beta man as well though..
I'd also like to add that our brains are constantly in conflict between hormonal decisions, instinctual decisions and rational decisions.
Damn fr*aking hormones.. I'm 22, yet I still feel like I did when I was 14 when I'm approached by the opposite sex. I really need to know more about the brain..
@D-K
Excellent! Yes. Very well put.
At an early age, I learned all about Alpha Males, Beta Males, and Alpha Females, Beta Females. Not literally, but certainly instinctively.
As a Beta Male, I knew I had to be trickier and smarter than the Alpha Males, (not hard, they were too busy building muscle mass and throwing footballs!).
Darwin spoke about this cleverness in Beta Males in his dissertations about the green marine iguana. Perhaps you've read it? Fascinating stuff...
"new science" is the collective name I give to studies that are considered controversial and immoral and are thus objected and campaigned against.
Nanotech, Cloning, Stem cell research, quantum ..., transhumanism, etc. etc.
I have studied into a bit of R-complex and Basal Ganglia for this very reason, and I'll tell you this. Brain anatomy and traffic just astound me. Even so, it is my suspicion that humans are indeed hardwired to exhibit dominance or to remain docile, alongside of it being taught from an early age.
Our early lives are based on dependancy, which is becoming more and more the case. Nihilism is liberating indeed, but the many pitfalls are massively counterproductive to the human collective in terms of societal bonds. Nihilism should, in my opinion, be used in philosophical questioning and scientific experimenting, albeit to a lesser degree. However, our technological prowess is based on the infrastructure we have created and it's this infrastructure that would fall to pieces in the hands of a nihilist.
Nihilism is the counter to behaviour as dictated by the R-complex, which affects a man's tendency to become docile and compliant in the face of authority, and the 2 stages are in a sort-of equillibrium at this moment, although a little more nihilism to drown out the moral and ethical objections in "new science" would be nice.
Codes of conduct must exist indeed, but I would have them be rational.
It's as simple as that, really.
@Ashish
I owe you an apology, I was very harsh and gruff with you in the past. I liked your post.
But, in America, christianity is ramping up for another Grand Inquisition, so the islamo-christians are gonna be burning me at the stake any day now...
A declining Empire, like ours, always, (and this is historic and well established), turnes to some diety or dieties to save it before it falls. This is just natural. Rampant Fundamentalism is just a symptom of the last gasp.
I will shake my fist and stand defiant, but in the end, the flames will take me. Eh.
Thanks, Ashish, and again, I am very sorry if I ever offended you.
@D-K, again, I'm just fascinated with this subject, please forgive me-- D-K wrote:
"In the end, intellect must give way to social pressures in order to sustain itself. As long as our current moral/ethical standards are in place, balance must be maintained.
Sadly..."
------------------------------
I re-read this part of yur post and thought about it and I just would like to make this comment, if you don't mind:
The more I study evolutionary psychology, the more I realize that, as social mammals, we have hard-wired hierachical rules and "codes of ethics" if you will. Like wolf packs, or ape troupes, there is always a leader, and there are always rules of society.
True in so called, "lesser mammals" (but, I think they are greater, that's just me), true in we human primates.
So, what I am saying is, rules and ethics and codes of conduct, although always shifting, kind of-- MUST exist, don't you agree? Nihilism is a liberating, trailblazing leap forward, perhaps, but I think our brains seem to rebel against it...
Thoughts?
Your kind words colour my cheeks, good sir. I am but young and arrogant, feedback is much appreciated, be it positive or negative.
Having said that, positive feedback is always welcome (and awesome)
My thanks, kind sage.
@ Randy
I find Christianity has lost a great deal of its venom (at least in Europe) over the ages. Of course extremist sects still exist (evangelists +), but on the whole the Christians that I know do not accept the Bible as literal truth, nor do they agree with all of it. They do not believe in the efficacy of prayer or even believe that Jesus was the Messiah. But they still call themselves Christians despite not subscribing to the most widely held beliefs.
Personally I feel far more threatened by Islamic beliefs, especially here in England.
@D-K
Beautifully stated. Absolutely correct, sir, in my opinion...
You sculpted those thoughts in wonderful bas-relief. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Sorry to gush...
@Randy: Agreed, I find Nihilistic approaches to be quite liberating, though socially deplorable. Individualists, like myself, often use nihilistic approaches to gather a more zoomed-out perspective.
Although one should always be wary of the many pitfalls of nihilism that renders those of weaker intent incapacitated and intellectually incapable to sustain themselves within and according to, societal moral codes.
As much as it pains me to say, we need our current (inaffective and irrational) moral codes because progression, both technologically and intellectually, are directly linked to social bonds.
In the end, intellect must give way to social pressures in order to sustain itself. As long as our current moral/ethical standards are in place, balance must be maintained.
Sadly..
@D-K
Yes, Nihilism. Viewed from that perspective, his thoughts seems clearer.
I respect Nihilists, and understand well their ideologies, it's very seductive.
However, in my experimentation with the ethos I felt I was "floating in space"!
I guess I needed some solid ground on which to walk. I suppose that is why I studied law and medicine...
But, as usual, very interesting thoughts!
Philosopher², any extrapolating comments?
"Why should I value others if even I am inherently and fundamentally false?"
This I can answer though, it is much the same as answering any question put forth from a nihilistic mind; Meaning is subjective, as is purpose. Both concepts of the mind, of the "self", and both concepts philosophically attainable.
Relative purpose can be attained by narrowing the scope of knowledge, individualize it, set goals and achieve them. All things ARE relative, such is a given, this does not however, mean that everything is void of meaning or purpose. That which can be conjured by the self, can be manipulated by the self.
Nihilists tend to be active as well as productive members of society, common goals lead to common social objectives and subordinance to rules of that social structure.
"...nothing has purpose" is an incomplete thought.
@Philosopher:
There is no "now" as the concept of (space)time is relative and flexible. Materialism/Naturalism appreciates timespace as not being a constant. As such it is unclear to me why you'd claim not to exist, seeing as you cannot only alter your perception of reality, but mine as well.
Perhaps you can elaborate?
Oh, BTW, in case anyone doesn't know by now, I am an AGGRESSIVE ATHEIST! (Which is what Satanists call themselves nowadays...)
I despise christianity, (and to a lesser extent all other religions and gods), and rebel against it at every chance and every way that I can.
Not that you care! LOL!
@Philosopher²
Hmmmm... I read and re-read your post. Fascinating. I don't think I get all of it... I have a "piece" of it... but... a very illusive and complex thesis.
I like it as art, but I don't know if I agree with it, yet. Can you unpack it a little bit for me?
For example:
"What philosophical implications does the perpetual void of physical death have for our lives? Not any pleasing or mentally sane ones. Why should I value others if even I am inherently and fundamentally false?"
What are you saying there? It sounds like something Hamlet would say!
Please expound!
The problem with atheism is that in a strictly material universe, there is no room for me as an observer/actor to ever truly exist. I am one with an eternal void and my perception of the "now" is entirely false in every way according to materialist dogma. What philosophical implications does the perpetual void of physical death have for our lives? Not any pleasing or mentally sane ones. Why should I value others if even I am inherently and fundamentally false?
@c'est la vie
This is a common misconception, that Hitler rejected cristianity. What he actually rejected was the idea of the Catholic churches political standing. He actually did promote christianity among some of his followers. He would not tolerate any interferance with his authority though, not from the church or any one else. In fact he often claimed that he was sent by God, yes the christian God, to lead Germany out of poverty after WWI. Obviousely the man was delusional and in no way reflects on the christian faith, which is morally upright. Don't get me wrong I am not downing christianity at all. Hitler merely used christianity and other deeply spiritual beliefs like patriotism to his own ends. However it is interesting to me how all the christians want to imediately distance their religion from Hitler. It is fine to say that in your opinion he did not act christian, I would agree with you. It is also fine to say that when he did promote christianity he did so for the wrong reasons. But please stop saying he rejected christianity publicly- its simply not true. if you can point out one single speach where he openly rejected christianity and post me a link, I'll eat my own words. As far as being involved in the occult heavily, this is also unproven speculation. He did meet on several occasions with fortune teller types but, that hardly makes him deeply involved in the occult. The fortune teller he met with turned out to be Jewish and Hitler had him killed eventually. It is fair to say he was interested in the potential of sixth sence type stuff and super human abilities but, it never really went any where. He was not a peracticing occult member at any time as far as anyone knows. It is odd how people want to paint him into the evil they understand. The man was an evil all his own, we are never going to know why. You can blame it on the devil or the occult but in reality it was Hitler himself that was evil and crazy. Occults are just flimsy fantasy, at the most a few hundred drink the kool aid and die. Hitler killed thousands man, by envoking patriotism and giving the hopeless hope. Seems like good things doesn't it, well it depends on your ends. As Hitler showed all of us, just because someone waves the flag and offers hope does not mean that they are not evil to the core. Not all the bad guys wear black.Read a history book America, please.-preferably not one that was written here as they merely reinforce American misconceptions and lies.
waste of my time, could have spent it on another documentary, some of us (atheists) are arrogant, most theists are arrogant, i am atheist, and i am completely open to the idea that i am wrong, if i die, and some magical dude in robes meets me at a gate, i will gladly burn for eternity
*facepalm*
I'm an atheist, we're not all as arrogant as this seems to let on. I go about my day not caring about what religion others look to. The way I see it is if you don't try to convert me, I won't try to convert you.
@Kelly
I dont think the documentary was trying to blame the holocaust on Darwin.... He was comparing Eugenics thinking to Jihad like thinking ( exclusivity).
Just like Jesus words are that of love....people have twisted things as to create Inquisition like atrocities.....And The theory of evolution by natural selection has been twisted into Eugenics and then the holocaust followed suit. Its obvious Jesus and Darwin never meant for the atrocities that followed to happen and you cant blame them, instead blame the ones who actually committed such crimes against humanity.
Hitler was hardly a Christian, you do realize he was HEAVILY into the occult right? And he (quotably)rejected Christianity various times in public speeches.
Um... any other Atheists consider "Origin of Species" a "sacred text" or Darwin a prophet with magical powers and God for a father? No science textbook reads like the Bible, Kuran (sp?), or Torah.
The only thing I agree with is that some Atheists are arrogant. But of course so are many Theists...so... if you got 50 minutes to throw away, do it somewhere else.
Haha oh wow... I love how they try to blame the Holocaust on Darwin and Atheism - Because you know Hitler's insane Christian beliefs had nothing to do with it.
And if you disagree just remember he killed homosexuals along with the Jewish people.
meant to say *anti-atheism* in the last paragraph
@Jimmy
And that has what to do with this documentary?
I think you just proved a point from this documentary....that fundamentalists ( theists and atheists alike) are so egocentric and have such a one tack mind...that they will bring everything back to their fundamentalists beliefs, whether its related or not.
Its like in other documentaries ....such as child sex abuse ( The Day my GOD Died) or a documentary about nuclear fusion ......a christian or muslim fundamentalist will start quoting scripture for no apparent reason aside from wanting to spew out their beliefs....such non-sequitors and such nonsense.
If you think this a documentary about pro-relgion or anti-theism....check back on the first five minutes. Its about fundamentalist thinking and how atheists are not immune to that way of thinking.
Do I need science to not be superstitious? No, just common sense. What is more likely? A dead man resurrected or his followers wrote a story to deify him and gain fame?
I like this movie.
western religion:"Right is Might" (God is on our side; morality and might conflated in the person of Jehovah/Allah)
western science: Knowledge (the new "right") is Power (the new "Might") The power referred to is "Power-over" an alienated nature of course.
western science is a reaction of adults stuck in adolescence against adults stuck in childhood. I suppose its an inevitable thing really, very dangerous however since adolescents can get themselves in as much trouble as children. Even more really since they tend to be more clever. Lets hope the human race (and "science") grows up before the worst happens. I am doing my part.--I-P
...
@Ashish:
Actually, logic dictates that when a certain explanation/hypothesis cannot be disproven, it cannot be neglected as possible or a probability. Atheism discounts the existance of god not only as inprobable, but flatout denies existance of any diety in any form.
Discounting a hypothetical explanation without having exhausted all possibilities or means of attaining probability is illogical. With unknown variables, unknown measures and sources of arguable credibility, Agnosticism is the only logical/scientific position.
Atheism is built on the axioms of logic.
@Eric
Hey good to hear from ya. Ive been occupying myself on this site with more social documentaries. The "Ross Kemp on Gangs" series is pretty eye opening...interesting to see the individual as non-existent, exploitation of these brainwashed "zombies" by psychopaths, and assertion of power simply by assertion of fear ,etc ( sort of like in organized religion and big government? ).
@andrew
I didnt say conversion simply by questioning...I said conversion by questioning and defending ones own opinion ;) ( as to persuade someone that you are correct by defense, and they are flawed by questioning)
I guess i shouldn't have used "conversion" since it has a stigma of religion . Maybe "convincing" would have been a proper term since it has a stigma of science and logic ? ;)
And I think Liddle made the initial statement that he was comparing FUNDAMENTALISTS as being similar for both the atheist and religious, not the average passive non-zealous believer or thinker. But Liddle didnt do that great of a job of maintaining that initial statement throughout the documentary since it was lost on a lot of people as evident by the postings.
I definitely agree its important to read views from both sides of an opinion and make ones own decision while keeping an open mind ( and eye) and re-evaluating objectively as one exposes themselves to more and more. I know I know...way easier said than done, I attempt to try and do that but it is admittedly difficult to dig up, break up, and rebuild a foundation.
to oliarguello
well not necessarily i don't think by questioning someone I'm converting them by any means. And yes that may have been the point of the documentary but the way that Rod Liddle did the documentary wasn't quite accurate he viewed atheism as a scientifically provable belief that went hand in hand with science but thats wrong since atheism is simply not believing in god.( you cant prove an atheist wrong using science as much as you cant prove him/her right using science). In other words atheism's fundamental roots are never and could never be tied down with Darwin because they are in different categories all together. And i do agree with you profoundly that people should be taught to think for them self's(critical thinking) rather than following the zeitgeist of the time.for example I'm an atheist and i have read many atheist books but iv also read and have read much of what i don't believe in or disagree with because i like seeing both sides to the argument. i do think people should draw there own logical conclusions though.
Hey Oli! Long time no see around.
@DK
Yes , sir. Well said.
Myself ,as a person who doesnt believe in any kind of creationism ,at all , not one , I notice that all religious people put everyone who doesnt agree with them in a category all together. For example , I dont believe in anything religious but I am to be called an Atheist , in which I dont really like the categorical term , as I dont like labels. At the same time , as of the categories available , that would put it best, so I dont get upset. .But try calling a Baptist a Mormon? Or try telling a Catholic his beliefs are just as lame as a Muslims beliefs?
So , you see that , society as a whole will categorize any who disagree and cast them into a category with the others of conflicting beliefs. Its sad.
I prefer to look at the facts and make all decisions of beliefs off of this.Ever heard the term , if it sounds too good to be true than it is? That is why we question and evaluate evidence as logical and rational thinkers. Its easy to just say ,"Oh well , I dont get it so I guess god did it."
Quitters never win or achieve anything. Winners prevail because they spent more time looking at whats in front of them , evaluating it , practicing and studying.
@Oliarguello
It's called (scientific) scrutiny, and the fact that it's anything but abundant is saddening indeed.
@andrew
"I would be more than happy to live and let live but the true believe (in his religion) wouldnt be so i am left with no other option but to defend my point of view and question other people’s beliefs"
Which was kind of the point of the documentary no? That a true believer( religious or atheist) is so steadfast in their beliefs that they feel they need to convert the other( defending their opinion and questioning the opposition).
I dont mind a discussion in seeking the truth.....but to find a person who is well versed in the facts that support their opinion AND well versed in the facts that support the opposition ( to further support the original opinion) is very hard to find. People tend to be close minded and get offended ( and shut off their mind...or not listen and start thinking about their own opinion again)so that circular reasoning and conversation goes nowhere.
and just so people wont misinterpret what i mean is that. I would be more than happy to live and let live but the true believe (in his religion) wouldnt be so i am left with no other option but to defend my point of view and question other people's beliefs
the narrator imposing his point of view on the documentary. He groups atheist as scientist who don't accept god and praise Darwin. This is why the documentary is flawed and the reason of course why we cant leave it at that ( his question at the end of the documentary) is because and only because"The true believer will not rest until everyone bows a knee to his belief" Christopher Hitchens
Atheists are without morality? Last time I checked, more people have been killed in the name of a god than in any other cause.
And it pisses me off towards the end when he compares atheism to communism and facism (nazis)
Commuism and facism: you shall not have a god because your leader is your god (kind of).
And then he says we dont have morality, that makes me wanna wish I didnt have one...
He's talking about loopholes in science and "Darwin-ism", isnt that the whole point? Finding new answers to everything? Thats at least the point in my life as an atheist. I did not like this Doc one bit, its just noncence, all of it, he's saying we cant live on "cold logic" alone. Cant we? I sure do
Very well-done documentary! A thorough, thoughtful, balanced critique of atheist supremacism. Not actually a critique of atheism; atheist non-supremacists need not take offense. BTW, acceptance and non-supremacism are central to Unitarian Universalism! Go UU!
wow this guy is stupid
Its amusing to see these athiests commenters cry about not being a religion =p. Kinda like when you attack someones religion and they cry ^^. Silly athiests trix are for kids =p
Eugenics is hard to argue against?!?! Darwin is connected to the theory BY A LINE? Pul-eeeeese.
The Russian Govt' killed a billion people? ...right. nothing to do with politics or power, just Athiesm.
Laughable. Nice try though, I appreciate the effort....cinematography was great and his narration was pretty good.
Calling the name God has always been just an expression, -of our greater needs and concerns. Not a single living entity, serving 3.5 billion people,at once, how? Does the other 6 or 7 one God's around the world make one bit of sense either? It seems so silly until you see the followers miss-lead to various religions. Now it's just like a sickness within and the virus of humanity.
By the way I'm only criticizing him, not all religious people..
I'm not as close minded as him.
What a shame... He could have made a good documentary about this kind of "extremist" atheism which I think is bad (although not quite as bad as religious extremism...), but he resorts to some of the most stupid arguments against science I've ever heard.
He criticizes ALL atheists about their "arrogance", and then goes on confidently stating that evolution "will be superseded".. If you don't understand it that's a pretty arrogant claim..
And if you believe that evolution theory "only explains how novelty evolves, not where it originates from" (hint: g*netic mut*tions), you just don't get it.
@Ben:
Ha!
You should check out the "miracle of jesus" doc, there's a discussion between me and Ilovemyself.. about that very thing.
In my experience, believers have a hard time grasping non-belief. They seem to automatically equate it to disbelief, which is wrong, obviously.
You got it wrong though:
Atheists believe there is no god.
Agnosts have a lack of belief in god.
Atheists claim his inexistance
Agnosts claim nothing either way.
People need to understand the difference in "I Believe god does not exist" and" I don't believe god exists"
Atheists have A LACK OF BELIF in god, not a belief that he does not exist.
@ Christian
Why is it those that don't believe in a God without evidence responsibility to prove there is no God? You are claiming there is one. Prove it. You can't prove something doesn't exist. Prove there is no such thing as unicorns, etc. Are you a devout believer in unicorns as well? If not, why?
The Sun Is My Father And The Earth My Mother.
The World Is My Country, Science My Religion.
Last time I checked, bald people aren't on a mission to convert, nonstamp collectors aren't on a personal jihad to destroy stamp collectors. Atheists, at least their militant wing as represented by the New Atheists, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, are waging a war on everything and anything religious; how can a "lack of belief," as these atheists have tried redefine atheism, be the rallying point of their antireligion mission? No, there must be something more, a positive claim that there is no God. This is what atheism truly is; if you do not make the claim that God does not exist, you are not an atheist. At most, you are agnostic. "Atheism" is "a term that combines the Greek theos, meaning god, with the negative prefix a- which often denotes the negative form of a word; the philosophical position that denies the existence of God or the gods; to be distinguished from theism and agnosticism." The problem with such a claim is the lack of evidence; thus atheists have tried to shift the burden of proof to the theist by redefining the term, or moving the goal post, as atheists often do rather than admit their position has no merit.
While I'm satying mostly out of this, this statement needs some finetuning, i think:
"We i.e. people will come up with more and more theories and evidence which will answer all these questions in time"
Theories do not answer questions, they explain the nature of the answer, but do not answer anything itself. Scientific Theories are explanations of phenomena, that are based on fundemental laws. Science is a structure, not an answer-book. Answers are adamant conclusions, and there are little adamant conclusions in science (in the grand scope), as of yet.
Having said that, I would implore the future of our species (the children, yes.. someone is please thinking of the children) to take science and the explanation of all that surrounds us to further define the species, and define it's own evlutionary trajectory, rather than adhering to man-made moral obligations.
I will now exit undetected.
*poof*
@oliarguello
I am not an evangelist. It is not faith or belief that I have in science but it is commitment to it. Facts are not going to change if you or me do not 'believe' in it. Facts are facts. And please do not call science as fundamentalist. It is not.
@making it hard
I got the point that science and atheism are not related. Noted and acknowledged. But saying both God and science are required for explaining or working does not have my vote. When both have very very different views/positions on some of the most important things, I cannot see how they can co-exist all the time. I am happy for you being a scientist though!
@SS,
there is a large gap between atheism and science my friend, they are not even remotely the same. I am a devote lover of God but I am also a scientist and give much respect to science. I see no reason why the two cannot be joined together, just under the condition (as atheists love to point out) that God is not a necessity of creation. Just because it is not a required part of the equation does not mean it isn't hiding in there anyways ;)
@Shashikiran Srinivasa
Sounds like you were actually proving Liddles point on the fundamentalism of science with things you said such as
"We i.e. people will come up with more and more theories and evidence which will answer all these questions in time."
"Let science and rationalism prevail!"
If thats not faith speaking I dont know what is. And also Sounds very evangelist'ish no? ;)
The point of doc wasnt to prove anything about god or aiming for science to fail. It was about fundamentalist (science or religious) thinking and why it exists and persists.
How the hell did he become an award winning journalist/film maker if he makes these kinds of movies which have no sense? Science is not there to disprove god and it does not even NEED to prove/disprove it. It is there to explain how and why things are the way they are. Science is based on facts and not fiction. Just because we do not know what happened one millionth of millionth of a second before the bang, does not make science fail. We i.e. people will come up with more and more theories and evidence which will answer all these questions in time. We cannot get answers in a flash as science does not work that way. Let science and rationalism prevail!
@sg
Paradox of tolerance? Please elaborate.
I saw this film depict hypocrisy in fundamentalism ( atheism and theism alike) but not a paradox of tolerance.
There are a few issues with the youtube video(Imagine If All Atheists Left America; havent seen the second one) you posted by the way. Namely that the impoverished countries ( except maybe Yemen)are due to atheist tyrrants, clans fighting over resources, or undeveloped countries where there economy is based on agriculture.
Some of the atheists pointed out are not true atheists but subscribe to a different type of philosophical/theological doctrine thats not part of organized religion( such as I do and I am also a scientist)some depicted are spiritualists and others agnostic and some even are atheist who "doubt less about theology".
Some of the stats are skewed for the previous reason and especially the prison stat( those stats have been proven to be grossly inaccurate due to the data collection methods)...but most importantly the "unwanted" attributes increasing due to atheists leaving suggest that theists are the cause or propegate those issues, when in fact a lot of those issues are committed by self proclaimed theists who dont really subscribe to what they say they believe in ( its like those lawmakers and evangelists who break their own laws and commit the very sins they strongly preach against).
the real problem is not the religion, is the belief, no religion wont solve anything, cause today product replace god, and if you don't have a kind of product, your not in a certain concept of living, yesterday it was war for religion, tomorrow it gonna be corporate war, to force you believe a product is necesary and better than the other(same pattern with religion) cause human believe, the end of this problem is not human, so stop try to believe yourself that you have the answer cause you dont have nothing, just prejudice and misunderstand of the primary base of what is a human. Cause human need to believe, if its not god, something else will be put in place to fill that believe.
@eireannach666
I am pretty sure I never called atheism a religion since I dont think it is one. I called it a belief structure. I thought that was clear when I made by bigfoot-atheist analogy. You must have skipped that paragraph or glanced over it. Calling atheism a belief is not identifying a hair color but simply a color ;)
As for the tabula rasa of infancy, thats true of everything. We are only born with our genetic dispositions and nothing else. We are not born with rules or laws, only innate instincts. To teach a child nothing would be irresponsible. Its a reality of the world that you are indoctrinated with the social contract of your culture. In one country its vile and despicable if a widow with no child gets knokced up by her deceased husbands brother...in other cultures its law. The age of consent is 18 in some states, 16 in others, and 13 in some other countries.
But I do agree its equally irresponsible to trap a child or person into one way of thinking by intimidation, fear, deliberate deception, or deliberate ignorance. If a child wants to venture into other avenues of thought , I think thats fine as long as warnings and consequences are communicated in a matter-of-fact tone and they were raised with a foundation of love.
Besides not just a few false analogies between Christian church dogma and scientific "dogma", rehashing the fact that in logic we cannot prove a negative proposition (i.e., the existence of fairies, unicorn, Thor, God etc.), Liddle's main complaint would appear to be that atheists are rude in their denial of God.
Who wouldn't be rude who would be constantly barraged by idiots who insist on the existence of something that they have absolutely no evidence? Worse, with the reintroduction of Christianity into Western political dialog, we have people making national decisions based upon religion, something that is supposed to be illegal in the US as one of its founding ideals enshrined in the Constitution. This alone is enough to make me extremely cranky. I understand why atheists are pissed. Look at the US in the post-Clinton era. We have nobody else to thank but the false Christianity of Bush and the corruption of his cronies, something that we seem destined to pay for for generations to come.
@oliarguello
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Its an oxymoron.
Thanks Dan Hirschberg.
We are all born atheist but most are brainwashed by the beliefs of old and trust their elders enough to belive anything they say.Which is , in my opinion , mental abuse and a shame. To take away the free-mindedness of a child at an age where he/she has not been shown both sides of the coin is an outrage. To teach a kid morals is one thing but to blind them from the facts just simply because you were taught by your parents and theirs etc to belive in magic is warped.
this isnt really the trouble with atheism
its rather the trouble with having a camera, a microphone, a travel-budget and a willingness to distort scientific & ethical thought in service of some nebulous religious agenda.
sort of a muddy i.d. perspective, in the guis as a non-loaded, disinterested perspective, which came across to me as very insidiously dishonest.
which is a sin.
furthermore,
'the “very stupid human craving for certainty and justification”', is just the sort of instinct which draws the ideologue, the religionist, the cultist
atheism, or agnosticism, is based upon a much more realistic view of the limits of human knowledge. its farther from the tribe, the priest, the king.
we're like cats. we resist herding. sorry about that.
if anyone believes in unicorns, and to them i
say - "i don't believe in those unicorns, because i've never seen them, and have no reason, other than your fervent believe in them based upon accounts in a book written by some people neither of us have ever met which testifies to their existence and their marvelous, indeed miraculous properties"
does that make me arrogant? or just decently skeptical of far-fetched notions.
who, in fact, is being arrogant? the atheist, for not accepting the fantastic notions of others, or the theist for promoting their problematical 'beliefs', and deriding those who don't accept them supernatural conjectures?
think about that ;)
I thought this documentary made its point extremely well. It showed up many ardent atheists for the arrogant reactionary fundamentalists they are! The vacuum their non-belief in God creates is filled to brimming with their own bursting egos. As Oliarguello rightly notes: the doco wasn't about theism versus atheism at all. It was about human nature and how, whatever 'enlightened' ethos we may choose, we end up turning it into a dogma.
very well put Oliarguello.
I have read about half of the comments ( will read the rest at another time) and will comment on the film and some of the comments.
Its interesting to see that a lot of atheists missed the point; largely because I think they got offended early on and became defensive. This in fact has proven Liddle's message that the close minded fundamentalists think and react a certain way.
The point the Liddle was attempting to make was that any form of ideology/belief structure carries certain charactersitics due to human nature. He wasnt arguing that there is a GOD, or that atheism is incorrect, which for some reason ( bias and presumptions prior to viewing?) people think Liddle was attempting to do simply because he is a theist. I think he showed that there is room for theism and atheism and understands why they both exist for the human mind, and how the absence of theism wont create some utopia. I think another great point he made was that both atheism and theism fundamentalism has dire consequences.
As for the atheist person saying this documentary is stuck in the high school level of thesis writing...I disagree. He made a few statements, did find things to support his statements, and here is the key thing....included ideas from the opposition to further support his ideas who are respected intelligent people in their fields.
I am not sure why people are arguing that atheism is not a belief. Someone can argue all day long about how the Bigfoot exists but its my belief that no such creature exists( a sort of Bigfoot atheist). The important phrase there is MY BELIEF. Some people here made the very astute point about how you can not argue beliefs, especially in the hope of changing a close minded persons mind. I dont blame an atheist for not wanting to keep an open mind and seek the oppositions ideas in a receptive manner and with their oppositions point of view. If you show me a bigfoot documentary or article my eyes will instantly glaze over and I would give a huge sigh. This is not to say GOD doesnt exist, because I believe GOD does ( albeit with an unorthodox premise) but I can understand the the resistance to truly keep an open mind and attempting to see an opponents view as truth.
I agree with Dawkins at the end when he said it is sad that the average person does need something to replace the ideological vacuum when religion is absent, but I think its unavoidable.
I agree with atheism in terms of independent thought because organized religion can be very constricting due to some of the propaganda. But religion does have its virtues as well...well not religion per say, but theology. If people were simply able to reflect and practice self improvement, the golden rule, and base their ethics on the people outside themselves flourishing , not only would they be much happier individually but humanity would be a much more enlightened race.
Of course that is an ideal and wont happen anytime soon. I am no island, but I try to live my life with that philosophy, I attempt to create a circle with people with the same ehtos, try to convert people to the same ehtos, and distance myself from people who are selfish, negative, opportunistic, etc.
P.S. Yes I am very well aware that my philosophy is another ideological structure, but like I said its unavoidable.
@Sick of Lies
It doesn't hurt how feelings, it hurts our brains. To think there are that many fools on Earth.
Have we just found another???
aw, seems the doc hurt the feelings of many atheists out there.
@Skye-hook
It does matter though. I can never understand how people can say it doesn't. Religious beliefs don't impact me and my life personally but the fact that it DOES impact some peoples lives in the way the law is crafted around certain religions and oppressing genders, orientations, law/research and when two different religion collide... it's war(whether small or large, neighborhood or country). That to me is way it DOES matter what people believe and it always will matter, whether it effects me personally or not and that is why the more forums and more openly discussed and researched the beginning of time is, the better.
Oops! "What would want it to be?" above was supposed to be "What would you want it to be?" (Which is what we're actually talking about here, isn't it? What we WANT it to be.)
Whether we "believe" in something doesn't really matter does it? I don't think our puny lil' human beliefs make any difference whatsoever to "any something" we might care to think of. And if someone else believes a different thing than we do, what does that matter? Whether anyone is correct or not? Does it really matter so much that people must rant and rave? Or try to prove how smart they compared to someone else? Or try to influence what others think or believe? I like a good intelligent discusiion, or even a debate, but when it comes to anyone's beliefs, it is all just so much "drawing with your finger in the clouds". Whoop-de-doo. There either is or isn't, we'll all find out eventually.
Can you put self and ego aside long enough to think open-mindedly about this question?-- What caused the beginning of EVERYTHING & what was there before that? At some point in "Time" was there Nothing? What could possibly make nothing become something? Ok, if you can think about that for a few minutes, and find what you may think is an actual possibility..what 1 possibility or more do you come up with? What would want it to be? Just a little somethin' to think about. There had to be something before the "Big Bang" or there wouldn't have been anything to explode. What made that something happen? I don't know, I'm just asking. I do FEEL that at some point way, way back, there was nothing. And what I think about even that doesn't matter either. Just putting the mind-expanders out there. For fun. It doesn't matter if you do or don't agree with me about anything. It doesn't matter if you don't want to think about that or anything else. In some ways i guess you could say that all that matters is matter. Maybe. lol :)
Just some thoughts I had while reading the comments after having watched the film.
Seems that some missed the whole point of this video.
Rod Liddle tried to argue that no matter what you belief or do not belief. There is no final evidence in anything mankind tries to build his world on. Be it science, religion, atheism, darwinism or a mixture. The FULL truth is yet to be discovered.
I would like to comment on someone tho. AquaticApe fx. I agree allot that the world would not be a better place without religion. And you argue very well of why.
" The world would not be a better place simply due to the absence of religion. If there’s anything that history proves to us about this, it’s that if one group attempts to impose its ideals upon another group rather than provide a rational argument in an open forum, you’re going to have problems."
And Gordon I like your argue "Silly questions like… If everyone became atheists tomorrow would the world be perfect?
Obviously the answer is no… because it requires the philosophical exchange of ideas, experimentation, civil conditioning etc. to determine a way for us to live together in harmony.
Even tho Gordon I do not agree with everything you said.
But there is another point to be maid here about Stalin, Hitler, Mao or any other killing people in the name of something or in the belief that the world will be better without certain people with certain beliefs. Who knows what they were thinking, maybe these persons just used the religion or non religion (atheism) as a tool to hold on to power and get rid of rivals.
Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
However it's important to emphasize that Stalin's religious life has contradictions of whether he truly was an atheist or not.
It also must be remembered that Stalin was a totalitarian dictator and that the primary reason he would have "gotten rid of" a religous person would because they would be somehow against the state and in essence him.
Now to a persons comment about God is letting all this evil happen in the world.
The very essence regarding of christianity is that we were created with free will. The free will to follow God or to turn away from him. According to christianity this still stands today. God will hence not prevent all evil as this would be against the creation of mankind uniqueness with free will and higher consciousness. We are responsible for our actions and it is way to cheap just to blame it all on God.
rebelliuss05/06/2010 at 23:08
His whole concept is just stupid. religion is about pure faith.. science is about pure truth..
there can be no comparison. the only truth in religion is your personal truth. where as science has no place for interpretation, just fact.
Ahhaaa Rebelliuss... you are correct about religion is about pure faith. But I don't agree totally with you on the science issue. Yes Science is about discovering the pure truth about objects that can be measured and observed. But science too have relied on believing in theories based on observations and measurements and announced something to be the truth about something and later discovered that it was far from the truth. So I say yes there can be comparison even tho science say they only base there "believes " in facts. It is only a fact as long as other evidence not are found to change the "pure truth" .
And now to the many of you who know what an atheist is and to those who are desperately trying to defend yourself because you got your feeling hurt a little because you missed the point of this genius video. There are obviously many atheist (those who deny God) or any gods, that build there lives on other things like Darwin and science etc. At the end these are also believes as many things in modern science are based on theories. Off course those theories are based on observations and measurements But still it is a theory and it holds only as long as the facts from the observations and measurements don't change, but if the scientist find a observation that contradict the theory he has to reevaluate the theory.
How many times hasn't the scientist altered the story and the theories of the universe finding new facts that contradicts their theories.
One can in a way compare the observations, measurements, historical documents on fx. Christianity vs pure science. There is allot of evidence that what is written in the bible is true. Evidence fx. found through archeology, written documents and testamoniums.
But with that said it will always be faith at the end. Because we simply don't have all the facts to prove if God really exist or Not.
At the end I see problems with both views atheism vs religion. At least the religious person has hope for something better where as the atheist in this world only has worries.
The solution to the problem according to Stalin is this.
" Death is the ultimate solution. Without mankind there is no problem."
Stalin was a confucian???
While I have no time for the religions which are divisive and have been one of the greatest causes of bloodshed and violence, I have no time for Dawkins, either, how could I? After all, he seems to think he is no more than a lump of walking, talking, thinking meat.
@Sol:
I believe there is a "submit a doc" feature in the forum. Being pro-active trumps complaining.
'bout time topdoc put one up worthwhile for us "religies".
The old "atheism is a religion" argument. I've become so tired of this one that I found it hard to stay awake while watching this doc. While I disagreed with 99% of everything that he was attempting to present in this film, I must admit he did have one valid point. The world would not be a better place simply due to the absence of religion. If there's anything that history proves to us about this, it's that if one group attempts to impose its ideals upon another group rather than provide a rational argument in an open forum, you're going to have problems.
@Amy.. very interesting.. Are you suggesting that he basically saw his dad in the Jews and decided to punish them for his crimes?..
or do you think that his history was just a by product, influencing how he dealt with opposition. but not the reason for his political views?..
I have a few theories of my own but I am interested to hear yours..;o)
@ rebelliuss..late note..also cursory digging into Hitlers childhood reveals evidence that his father was a bastard, rumored to have been the result of a jewish merchant's dalliance with Hitler's grammy. Hitler was severely beaten from a very young age, by his father, and it is my personal opinion (informed by reading Alice Miller and others) that his violent reactionary policies were informed by this family history of violence, which made him into a creature of extreme cruelty.
In regards to the doco's attempts to pair science with the holocaust and eugenics..yes, science was used. Just as religion was used to advocate slavery in the "new world" however religious apologists point out that these were the actions of men not god..the actions of men not the scientific method. Also the church in its different incarnations has supported the pogroms against jews and the roma for centuries before mengele used science to gas them.
@what?
I think your last sentence is what every 'non theist' wants.
The initial reason for my atheistic beliefs started when I was young and possibly like a lot of people here. I "found out"(when I was old enough) that certain religions not only frown upon an individuals way of life but lobby governments to restrict these peoples natural state. That alone made me furious and made me dig deeper into the absurdity that is religion.
I don't want to hate religion but certain sectors give me no choice. If something is worth going to war for it is to perhaps not stamp out religion (as my younger/angrier self wanted) but to simply cut all of the HATE religions have against people trying to live their lives in peace and happiness, whatever gender, race, sexual orientation.
Peace.
This documentary is pretty terrible.
The opening statements are rediculous.
Fairly typical.. include..
Suggesting that the communist Stalin ordered people to death on the basis that they weren't aethist is moronic. Stalin replaced god with himself, if people did not serve and obey him they were killed, regardless of their faith.
Silly questions like... If everyone became atheists tomorrow would the world be perfect?
Obviously the answer is no... becuase it requires the philosophical exchange of ideas, experimentation, civil conditioning etc. to determine a way for us to live together in harmony.
Simply not believing in god isn't the answer, it's just the device that let's you begin to start asking the right questions...
It's not really worth watching this, it really is a sensationalist piece of tabloid nonsense.
@ Hesus
Though the word animism itself is greek, that is nothing more than a symbol. The concepts I am actually referring to is somewhat different, but very similar. From what I gather from their writings, Plato held a more panthiest perspective, and Aristotle a more animist. The two being distinct but similar.
The America perspective was slightly different. The languages are different of course, and things are translated differently etc.
For instance the common term "Mitakuye Oyasin" is often translated as "for all relations," or "all my relations," and is meant to give reverence to the extended "self", the spirit (life energy) which surrounds us and travels into and out of us.
Theres no way to claim we don't metabolize, or excrete wast. That is, in fact energy flowing into and out of us.
I never said animism was conservation of energy, I said re-incarnation was. Animism, or "spirit moves through all things" is the energy-mass equivalence.
People capable of self-reflection will judge opposing arguments by the validity of the arguments presented, and as such will gain an outside view.
This often leads to a mutual exchange of garnered wisdom based on life experience, and both parties will be all the wiser for it. Sweeping criticism under the rug, or assuming nobody cares about what you think will stagnate an individual's personal development.
While that may be fine for you, some of us discuss to learn, to broaden one's view, not just for the sake of arguing. The irony in your statement is also so thickly layered that I could frost a cake with it..
@anybody/everybody
no one cares what you think. no one cares what i think. so let's all live our lives how we see fit, and let others do the same.
Besides the points made by amy and rebellius, trying to devaluate a worldview by calling it a name does not discredit the content of said worldview. It merely shows a lack of logic and solid arguments in one's arsenal.
You can discredit something by disproving it or showing flaws in the fundamental logic that warrants it's existance, unsubstantiated heckling reflects more on the heckler than the .. err.. hecklee(?) as it were.
@Amy.. well put..
Although Hitler was in fact a very religious Catholic, albeit a messed up one.. ;o)
@Nicole..
to call Atheism an ideology is like saying not believing in leprechauns or fairies is an ideology or a religion (as i think someone already pointed out). Atheism has no rules or rituals or membership requirements, i could tell myself that Darwin's theories are bull and still be an Atheist if i want (as Amy so eloquently put it). but to be a member of almost all religions, whether they be the big 3 or even polytheist or buddhist incarnations, i would have to accept the rules and rituals of each or i would not be considered a "true believer".
get it.. the only truly common thing among Atheists is that we require proof, plain and simple,
not evidence but full on PROOF..
if Wanting the facts before i make a judgement is considered a religion, then you can call me vicar.
peace.
Hi Rebelliuss,
Hitler wasn't a Catholic. He was reared a Catholic and as a young man flirted with the idea of priesthood (= education, power). But the Hitler we know as Hitler had no notion of God.
For a psychological explanation of Hitler's pathology, his earthly father is the better candidate.
I just watched a video yesterday, something called the Hitler Diaries, he was INDEED a very religious man and seriously believed his mission was blessed by God. Just listen to his speeches, and what he wrote in his diary. He references god about as often as a preacher.
Nice try though : )
my basic points of contention with this doco are as follows: 1)Darwinism is not the foundation of atheism. Perhaps some atheists consider Darwinian theory to be particularly important to their personal world view, however one does not need to understand or even read Darwin to be an atheist.
2) Therefore, Origin of Species is not the "new testament" for all atheists everywhere. This is a ridiculous and untrue statement.
3)Stalin, mao and hitler were all pointed to as Atheists that were responsible for great violence and apparently this is the so-called blood on atheisms hands to rival the inquisition, witch burnings, child sex abuse scandals, zionists, suicide bombers and so on of various religions. My disagreement would be with the simplistic tone of this arguement. Politics in various regions and eras, influenced by different religions as well as social unrest and class/land disputes are likely the cause of most of the bloodshed referred to above. Religion was simply a justification, as was atheism. Not a cause.
4)It is continually astounding to me that Darwin's heinous act was placing man in the same continuum as the rest of the creatures in the natural order, and that somehow christians think this separates humans from divinity. the doco mentions this as if regarding man as the same as plants and animals somehow means we are then separate from any morality. To me this is patently absurd. How can being in contact, communion and fellowship with the rest of creation (as we know it) by sharing cells, dna and whatnot make us less than. Do we really need to believe we have dominion over to feel the sacredness of life?
@Nicole:
One could predict behaviour correctly, yet miss the motivation for this behaviour entirely.
It would create the illusion that someone is completely right, even if they are mistaken on the most important part of the equation. 2 things that I know of will elicit defensive reactions factoring in this specific source material;
-people being pidgeonholed and/or generalized
-people being pidgeonholed and/or generalized wrongly.
I think its so funny that so many of the glaringly dogmatic comments several atheists have made with regard to this documentary serve to further support the central argument of the documentary.
To "siso": atheism, as it is exists as a negating belief system, is an ideology and cannot exist in some magical space outside of ideology, nor can anything or anyone else. It is arrogant and naive to assume otherwise.
@ Realism
First sorry about the mistake of confusing animism with animalism. I have had to look it up in more detail to try and fully understand what you are saying.
I agree with you that some cultures are more in harmony with their enviroment than other.
So basic principle of animism is (quote from w w w .scribd. com/ doc/ 214545/ Animism)
Scholastic philosophy, with Aristotle
and the Christian Fathers, vindicates the true dignity of man by proclaiming the soul to be a substantial and spiritual principle endowed with immortality. The soul is a substance because it has the elements of being, potency, stability, and is the subject of modifications--which elements make up the notion of substance. That the soul is a spiritual substance, i. e. immaterial and a spirit, is inferred from its acts of intelligence and of freewill, which are performed without the intrinsic cooperations of the bodily organs. By immortality is understood in general terms the future life of the soul after separation from the body.
Where I disagree with you is the claim that basic principle of animism is the conservation of energy. Like I said there is a vast difference between energy and soul. Soul is not separate from the living being. Without the body soul or more accurately consciousness cannot exist.
Also invention of atom bomb is a question of technology as much as convictions. But I also agree with you here - societies with animistic view of the world probably would not create such a weapon even if they possessed the knowhow.
@ Rebelliuss
Thanks I will look it up. Hopefully population will stabilize though if we do not change the way of life to a much more sustainable one I think even 8 billion is too much. There is another doco on this site called How many people can live on planet Earth and it is not as optimistic.
Yours truly Shrimp devourer AKA Hesus
@wayne:
It's a technique called "self-humbling superiority" and you have a keen eye for regocnizing it.
Although you should realize that science is also built on credence of historical people, mostly how they predict unproved phenomena and form laws based on this. To this day, many of these concepts are still in place as laws, and new theories derive from said concepts.
Yet another presenter telling the world that everyone is activly fighting to remove religion from the planet. Playing on the sympathy of those convinced they are being attacked. The presenter gave excessive credence to historical people and concepts in order to validate his position. In the end, after bashing science, he proposes a truce as if it was a new idea. But aren't most documetaries biased in favor of the presenter?
I really enjoyed this documentary. He's not saying atheism is wrong or right; he's just saying that because it's a human ideology it can also be misguided by humans into ignorance, dogma and arrogance--just like religion.
We are humans and sometimes, we use what we believe to mock, hurt, destroy and kill eachother. I agree with everything he had to say.
People, no matter what you believe put your biases aside and really try to understand the argument being put forth; it's fundamental. Don't just brush this aside as garbage because of what you believe, think it through and do some reading. Whether it's atheism or theism neither of us are perfect.
@Sick Hick
If someone performed numerous REAL miracles like if he made someone’s amputated legs grow back etc. in front of many people then I wouldn’t need to run tests in a lab and I would simply believe that there’s some supernatural miracle performing creature.If this creature told me that he/she/it is christian god or any other god and he's the only one etc. why would I believe him/her/it? Well I wouldn’t. God is nothing but idea.
I'll say this..I personally think it is naive to think that religion itself has ever caused a war when in fact it is nearly always politics, Religion is just a weapon used to unite armies under one banner. and it will always be so. but it is not naive to say that religion has been misused by many leaders past and present to get people to hate each other and be suspicious of each other and thus do unspeakable things to each other. but that being said I'm sure it has also caused a lot of good and helped people find peace within themselves. in this respect the 'god's' exist, not literally, but within those who believe.
Science has found that people are inspired by different things, some by basketball stars, some by religion, and some by money...etc. Some people are inspired by truth. Throughout history man has had an open mind when it comes to improving science because of outdated theories. Usually this is because of technology. Man's nature is "Us and Them, Now or Never." With or without religion, I believe man unites with those of proximity, similarities, power struggle...etc. My point is that man is no more civil today than when Adam and Eve walked this earth. So what corrupts people? How many wars have been started because of religion? How do leaders get US to fight THEM? Those who share good and understanding, may God bless you. Those who share evil and chaos, may God show you His way. Those who share truth and science, may God inspire you to not give up simply because you cannot find God NOW. If God were to appear before you, what instruments would you use to prove he is the real deal? Would you believe him when he does a miracle or would you set forth and try to emulate your findings in the lab for verification of this phenomenon? Can the miracle be repeated by another being, and if so, who or what is God? Is there more than one God, scientist?
@ hesus according to british scientist Fred pierce, the worlds population growth is actually slowing down as people the world over are having less and less children. according to his research women are having half the amount of children that they were a generation ago.
He expects the worlds population to stabilise at around 8 billion by the year 2040 and then actually start decreasing slightly after that. he recently did an interview on the daily show with jon stewart which you can see at Blinx remote if you are interested. Food for thought.
@Frank Tigani to correct you, atheism is the belief in definitive proof of god being absent thus it has nothing to do with faith as this is a fact, there is no definitive proof of any god.
awful man. thank goodness for the atheists and their "cold logic". religion is not inspirational, science certainly is!
@ Tom P. To correct you, for you are mistaken, atheism is the belief in God being absent. That is a belief, a faith, like religion.
It is a rather arbitrary equation as no one has ever turned energy into mass, and recorded energy gained from mass is not proportional to the gains predicted by the equation. Even in the practical sense its basic physics....
E(N*M [or kg*m/s^2]) != M (kg) C(s^2)
or to make it easy
kg*M/s^2 != Kg*s^2
The point is the concept that mass is made of energy, and an incredible amount of it.
That is also the fundamental principle of ANIMISM, that is animism. You perceive it to be animalistic, which is a misunderstanding. In stead of animal think of animate. Same root. The root means animating principle. The energy which gives us all, every being (or all mass), our being-ness itself. And most of it doesn't even follow the laws of physics as we experience them (quantum physics).
This knowledge requires no super-natural anything. Those shrimps "souls" (or you could say the energy of which they consist) go into your digestive system and literally become you. (you are what you eat HaHa) BAM reincarnation, shrimp soul into your soul...lol All until it hits a dead end where all the molecules and atoms (energy) are broken down completely by plants fungi and bacteria.
You should read my first post about the wolves again...cause your still denying the existence of the wolf.
Einstein led the western world into the nuclear age because he realized the energy mass equivalence. He did not discover this fact, those who discovered it before him did not create weapons or exploit it, rather they revered it.
This is because it was understood to a deeper extent. The understanding of the energy mass equivalence resulted in a deep reverence for nature (that which with we are at one). This developed into very "unitarian" behavior (such as maintaining a population size, and thus in proportion with resources) Those with this understanding are prone to acceptance, unity with what is and what happens, even death.
Those without this understanding as I'm sure it is plain to see are more egoic, exploitative, "Estranged." Thus we have our atom bomb, our energy dependence etc...
So I'm sure you can see how the same concept can be looked at by different people with different perspectives, and a conflict can emerge. It doesn't mean that the facts are different, they are simply perceived through the eyes of the beholder of the eyes of the exploiter.
@ Realism
An arbitrary equation? It does look simple at first glance but it is far from simple. How exactly did animalistic cults (there are many so did all of them reach the same conclusion and if not which exactly?) figure the relation between mass energy and light? Please do elaborate. Animalistic view is common in many hunter-gatherer cultures. I actually like the philosophy of such belief as humans are considered as a part of nature, rather than superior to it. Common sense that fails many of the world religions.
God = energy? It is true that recent findings point towards the notion that all matter consists of energy, however saying that this is god is just wishful new age thinking.
You say that reincarnation is the rebirth of life. Paradox m8. This statement requires a specific number of souls that are reborn over and over until enlightment. If anything number of souls should decrees with time. At present human population is expanding at a rate never before seen in history of our planet. However mass extinctions in the history of our planet make your argument even more illogical. There should be some consistency regarding the number of souls vs. the population of living beings on the planet. There is none.
Next you state that life feeds on life. I guess to confuse yourself to a point where you can accept this paradox. Explain this - where do all the shrimp souls go after I consume a whole plate in a restaurant.
Who exactly are this wolves you keep refering to? I am sorry to hear that you lost your cousin. Grief sometimes clouds common sense. Thank God all my four cousins are alive and well. None with the name Billy though.
And your last statement that somehow native americans had knowledge of nuclear technology is a fabrication worthy of a shepard.
I suggest you change your name as you have no touch with reality.
What a disappointing documentary. I was really expecting something different, something more factual. To be honest, Rod Liddle may as well have cut this documentary by 46 minutes and said something like: "If you can't prove God doesn't exist, then stop trying."
I suppose he doesn't realize that many atheists consider themselves agnostic-atheists, meaning that they cannot disprove god (that would be like disproving a negative), but through scientific understandings, are able to determine that 'God' as explained through the dominant religions, cannot possibly exist as claimed. There is simply too much that we do not yet understand about the universe to say that there is no god, but there is also no quantifiable or measurable proof to the contrary, especially in the religious texts that claim to be absolute truths. The burden of proof lies with the believer.
@Hesus
Actually E=MC^2 simply describes the energy mass equivalence, It is actually quite an arbitrary equation. The concept is that mass is energy, this FACT is also the fundamental principle of Animism.
In abstract:
Reincarnation is the idea that all life is reborn. Well it is, life feeds on life, it is a necessary cycle.
You have totally adopted the "The wolf doesn't exist" stance I hope you see.
Just because the words (symbols) don't fit with your conceptualization of the same phenomena doesn't discredit their validity.
I'm the one thats ignorant really? That's laughable.
It all depends on how you conceptualize it.
For instance if one claims "God" created everything, that isn't an invalid statement if you think of God as the energy which condenses to form matter. FACT, Energy creates all things (from the scientist perspective)
Denying another persons way to acknowledge this and revere it is ignorant, because wolves do exist.
They might not have actually killed your lying cousin billy. This doesn't mean worship the shepherd!
It means don't lie.
If colonizing europeans learned from the natives instead of casting aside their logic as superstition, we wouldn't have regressed from the nuclear age into the oil age and then back. (in the America's)
The fact of the matter is scientific hubris slows progress as much as religious hubris.
I wrote my last comment before i saw the end of this doc.
Religion holds nothing for me and it never has, if i was brought up into a religious family, that would most likely be a different story.
I find more wonder and interest in Science, The Big Bang and Evolution, so yes i guess i'm an Atheist. But i don't go around telling people that their God doesn't exist, or religion is stupid. I try to respect other peoples beliefs, i say "try" because when religious people knock on my door and tell me that what i believe is wrong, and then try to convince me that god exists, it pisses me off, because they only leave when i get rude and i hate them for making me do that "What part of I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND".
And iIve found that some Evolutionist (Including me on occasion as stated above), especially the academics, can be extremely rude and belligerent, to them i say, "Chill the f*** out, you not helping".
If they leave me alone I'm happy, but they never do, its like they have an Atheism Radar.
Atheist and Religious types are all the same, always trying to convince the other that their right and your wrong, i guess its human nature, because with or without religion, we'd still fight, still go to war, we'd just find something else to fight about or to go to war about, Land, Oil, etc.
Epi...
I think you're forgetting about pantheism and deism.
Also, your definitions of atheism and theism already invalidate your ignostic position. An ignostic would claim that there is no steady (i.e. logical) definition of god. Yet you say you live your life as if god (which you claim is undefined) does not exist. How is this possible?
no true atheist can tell you that there is 100% no 'god'.. but they can say that there is no definitive proof of a 'god'. and thus they can't believe until that has changed. which is pretty much the same as an agnostic.
@will. the fact that you don't care has no bearing to 'god's' existence or lack thereof.
no offence.
@ Epicurus.. well put..;o)
AGNOSTIC touches on ones knowledge....GNOSIS means knowledge.
so everyone is an agnostic...we dont know if there is a god or not, even the theist is an agnostic.
HOWEVER, what position do you live your life by...do you live as though you believe there is a god or do you live as though you do not believe in a god.
that would determine whether you are atheist or not. the definition of atheist is NOT one that says he knows there is no god. it is one where the person lives life as if there is no god.
we are all agnostic as we dont know but whether we are atheist or theist depends on what stance we do take.
me personally am an IGNOSTIC as i am ignorant, or dont know what one means when one asks "do you believe in god" first define this god thing with a universal definition and i will tell you whether i believe in it or not.
however im an atheist towards all the gods man has presented thus far....agnostic atheist, just like charlesB and others here are agnostic theists. they dont know if there is a god no matter how much they delusionally tell you they do
PS delusionally is not a word....fuuuun.
Have read all comments.
It seems what all the comments are mostly portraying is the (CA), "cosmological argument" from since Plato's time.
i see it as potentially rascist and hateful that 1 billion chinese people shall go to hell, because god decided to share his secret with a primitive bronze aged culture from the middle east instead. oh and then stole it from the jews and reissued this eternal bliss to the christians/muslims/mormons. i think what is missed here is it isn't science that disproves religion its history- science improves our lives'and god forbid admits to failure', history if headed prevents us from making the same mistakes as our ancestors.
Well, yes, that's true, THEY care if he exists, but I'm saying that I don't.
The problem with atheists is that they allow theists to frame the issue, they allow theists to define what god is. The reality is that if there IS a god, then chances are that it's absolutely nothing like the one described in the major religions.
Secondly, you're mentioned this idea of allowing your life to be lead according to the superstition of religion. I haven't commented simply because I assumed that you would realize that I agreed, so I'm not sure where you're going with that, but we agree on it. As well, in terms of your ET life analogy, an apt one for sure.
I discuss the issue because I like argument. I'm also a philosopher, and the issue of metaphysics is near and dear to me.
I would be careful about proclaiming to another that he is or isn't this or that thing the way you're insisting that I fit into your chosen category. That's precisely the kind of arrogance that theists own and that many atheists argue against. Ultimately what you think of me has no impact whatsoever on my life, so it's hardly worth getting upset about, but still, it's a shame to see a discussion go south simply because one interlocutor has simply DECIDED, with no small degree of finality, that the other is this or that.
Will; clearly the millions of followers of the major theistic religions in the world cares if god exists. And I care if he exists, because the universe we live in clearly is a quite different place if supernatural forces are real than if they are simply fantasy. (Even if the supernatural forces doesn't influence our visible, measurable reality in any way). My life here on earth is in no way directly influenced by the possibility of life on distant planets, but I still think that it is an intriguing thought, and I would be very exited if we found evidence for it (which we might).
If you were truly an apathetic agnostic you wouldn't bother with examining these questions at all, you would be too busy scratching your butt or doing some equally important task. Anyway, you can call yourself whatever you like, but it seems to me like you just don't want to have to call yourself an atheist. Ah, well, a rose by any other name... :-)
Poor. I was expecting something well thought out and planed while going after these fundamental atheists without resorting to Hitler and Stalin.I'm a little disappointed. His last statement gives away his true intentions. BOO. Thumbs down. Waste of time.
bit too vitriolic sorry
they have a hidden agenda, even if they cant see it-anyone that derives moral virtue from a scripture/doctrine/teaching that says rape,murder,infanticide,genocide,slavery,Ad infinitum...is gods will then says you cant question this because said god is all good and knowing and i really dont believe the bad bits anyway. jesus 'follow me or suffer eternal damnation' pompous brat. christus- ancient greek word for ancient roman god.
Will
I have to say you really know how to spin it. Great job. Isnt open to believing but not at this moment, a belief system in itself?
Explain away..I'm waiting. I'm sure youve had this conversation in your own head before just in case someone like me asks this very question.
i haven't watched this documentary and i'm too drunk that all your opinions are making me dizzy, but my thought of the day is of how my general discussions with christians have them usually falling back on 'well if jesus wasn't the messiah as the texts that were written 40 years after his death confirm, then why did the apostles die for him'. to this i say ' mein fuehrer! i can walk!
Dag;
Lemme try this out, then, as I think you got caught up in the language I used.
What I'm trying to say in that last paragraph is this;
Given what we've experienced as a species and as individuals, IF God exists... who cares?
I'm not an atheist agnostic, I'm an apathetic agnostic.
Will; thank you for a sensible comeback to my comment. I believe we believe the same thing(!). However I also feel that even though I also accept the POSSIBILITY of a superior agent outside our percieved reality (how can one not), there is no factual evidence to support this idea, hence it can only be treated as an idea, or as a fantasy if you will (a fantasy that CAN be true, but most likely isn't). To base one's life on the idea of a divine agent is ludicrous as long as this idea for all practical purposes can be seen as nothing more than a fantasy. Should evidence supporting the idea ever arise (they won't), the case would be different.
The question you pose in the end is not a real question at all, as asking it prerequisits the belief that the supernatural agent is actually there, a belief that is ludicrous as long as no evidence exists. (this would require unsubstantiated belief). The only logical conclusion is that there MIGHT be such an agent, but there PROBABLY isn't. To put it in other words; there might be a god, but I don't BELIEVE there is.
Anyway, I need to get some work done now, have a nice day!
I love all the intelligent, detailed comments from atheists here. Good stuff to read. :)
Dag;
That's been tried on me before, both by theists and atheists. This is where we try to split hairs about atheist agnostics, and theist agnostics and then we end up chasing each other around the definition of what God is, and is "it" the god taught about in Judeo-Christian land or is it some other formless entity and/or intelligence. No, no, my friend, I'm not about to have that particular twelve page debate in the comment section of a documentary site.
I will not say "I believe that God does not exist" just like I won't say "I believe that God does exist". Instead I say "I doubt there is any such entity as described by any religion on Earth, however I'm entirely accepting of the POSSIBILITY of a superior agent that exists outside of our percieved reality."
The real question is whether or not it's actually aware of us in any real way. If it's not, and/or doesn't care, then what difference does it make if it exists or not? But that's a seperate question.
Will; You say you don't want to open yourself up to unsubstantiated belief. This seems to me to be the same as saying you don't BELIEVE in the existence of god, although you cannot KNOW for sure that there isn't one. This means that you are already an atheist. An agnostic atheist that is, one who doesn't claim to KNOW that there most definitely is no god, but rather says that until you see evidence suggesting that there might be one you will live your life as if there is no god. This is how I view the question of god, i addition I find it much more likely that there isn't a god than that there is one. (I assume the you do the same, otherwise you should have to call yourself a theist rather than an agnostic). I am an agnostic about god to the same degree that I an an agnostic about any supernatural claim. It cannot be scientifically disproven, but until evidence shows that it is a likely claim i don't believe it.
Q; the difference between atheism and fundamentalist religions is that most atheists would immediatly become religious believers if compelling evidence FOR the existence of a god should ever arise. Religious fundamentalists believe in the existence of a divine being in spite of the lack of evidence for the existence of this being. To coin ateists as fundamentalists because we don't believe in god is as stupid as calling someone a fundamentalist for not believing that unicorns or chupacabras might exist in spite of the lack of evidence for their existence.
The idea that atheism is as Rod Liddle puts it "The belief in non belief" is of course false. Atheism is simply the rejection of belief in the non-provable idea of the existence of a god. In the same way as I don't believe in the existence of unicorns until somebody proves to me that they do in fact exist, I don't believe in the existence of a god until somebody proves that there actually or probably does exist a god. The factual evidence is simply not there, and the philosophical reasoning in favor of the existence of a god is, for me, far too weak to be taken into account. So the only logical conclusion is that it is highly unlikely that there is a god. I don't believe that the world would be a peaceful utopia if all religion was done away with, I don't think anyone seriously believes this. But I do believe the religion is a potent divisive force, and a false belief that clutters up the way we as humans regard ourselves and the universe. Science is of course not perfect, and scientific ideas are not absolutes, this is what is good about science. Science changes based on the currently available evidence. One example is the idea of group selection, the basis of Eugenics. Group selection is not the way darwinian scientists view the process of natural selection today. It has been discarded as false and is not, as Rod Liddle argues "difficult to argue against". The idea of god was not put forward by atheists, it was put forward by theists. The only thing you need to do to call yourself an atheist is to look at the available evidence FOR the existence of god (none), and land at the only logical conclusion; it is highly unlikely that there is a god. (Just as it is highly unlikely that there are unicorns). For all practical purposes we can say that there is no god with the same conviction that we can say that there are no unicorns.
Ironically, many comments here protecting atheism does make it seem like a fundamentalist religion.
I can understand what they're saying in the documentary. An agnostic will say "I do not believe in God", but an atheist says "I believe God does not exist". One is a statement of the absence of a belief while the other is a statement of active belief in the non-existance of an agent. Given that we can't know whether or not God exists, in any way shape or form, until we know the nature of the universe one cannot possibly KNOW that God does not exist, in some fashion, at this point.
By all definitions atheism, in many ways, is very much like a religion. Atheists gather with each other to discuss their atheism. They have their prophets or "leaders" who proselytize to the faithful in the hopes of converting them to their side. They have their holy texts in the form of Origin of the Species and others, I believe. All of these to support a specific statement of belief; "I believe that God does not exist".
I've actually been arguing this for years, it makes most atheists nuts... but it's true. I think they should just shut up and accept it, then anytime someone criticises atheism or atheists they can squawk religious persecution like everyone else.
As for me, as far as I'm concerned the only really rational approach is agnosticism. It's the only position where one doesn't open one's self up to unsubstantiated belief.
Still crediting and agreeing with the sentiment and statements towards this topic by Sam Harris:
There should be more focus on the use of freethinker and/or apatheism over atheism. The chap from Bad Buddhist Radio (podcast), lays it out in a very pleasant way and takes a lot of the sting for the rejection of the metaphysics that people tend to feel when challenged to ...think.
Which religion and magicalthinking is of that brood of sometimes interesting, though nonsense of course.
It is a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism can not work in the ways religions do - it does not work as a cult. However one thing it comes my mind is that the people if evolved enough to care for the TRUTH, will arrive to their own conviction of the possibility of the exsistance of God.
Oh Thank God...There are morons in every worldview! But at least atheist view is not based on fairy tales. Mankind is generally selfish to anyone outside their group, but I would rather live in a world that is no based on the belief in magic!
The thing that hurts me most about documentaries like this, constant facebook religious belief statuses, conversations with ignorants, the media, etc. is this constant use of the word athiesm, and athiests, how they're pagans. whatever. This documentary couldn't argue against the non christian believer (or any other religion that exists today) that are agnostics, if you take the word agnostic for the deepest understanding, that is. I won't go into further preach about my personal philisophical views because that would be a rant on forever. However, there's a lot of nothingness in everything. Every time a single person says a word they are generalizing something. When you make that realization and see how much our earth civilization depends on words, you will see how ignorant we all really are. A little meditation and spiritual thinking can help everyone. I recommond some alan watts and robert anton wilson, just for starters. Ultimately though, even if you are a complete christian, you can be an agnostic. You can have complete faith but it's also very important to understand that we only experience the world through our senses, through out brains, and that's as much as we know and (can trust?). You have to be willing to admit, that even in the worst consequences, you cooouuuld, quite possibly, be wrong.
the trouble with atheism is that there isnt enough of it.
also that it is so misunderstood as shown by the existence of this video.
if atheism is a religion, then off is a tv channel.
NOT collecting stamps is now a hobby....get the picture?
I could barely make it through this garbage.
He misses every point and redefines what an atheist is. Evolution and Darwin are separate issues. Evolution is a fact. Not a belief or a tie to being an atheist.
Not believing in gods or supernatural crap is all it means. Yes i understand the fact of evolution. Accepting facts is not a religion. Turning scientific methods into a holy book is as retarded and far reaching as you can get. So gravity is a religion too?
@ Realism
Early civilizations like Maya did have a vast knowledge of astronomy. I doubt they used Einsteins formula. For them patterns in the sky served for keeping time, predicting seasons, orientation. All ancient knowledge was mixed with religion. This however does not insure the validity of their gods.
Reincarnation is not conservation of energy but of consciousnes. These two are far from the same.
The fact that you believe everyone else to be ignorant just shows how ignorant you are.
As for the rest of your post it is just nonsensical rambeling. Go hug a tree hippie.
Equal ignorance, as far as I'm concerned, from both ends of the spectrum.
I'm sorry, but if I told you the story about the boy who cried wolf you could have 3, of many, reactions.
Athiest---Theres no such thing as wolves
Thiest---- We must worship the shepherd who risk their lives for us...
Logical person--- O.k.... maybe I shouldn't lie...
Oh and by the way E=MC^2, or the energy mass equivalence, is the fundamental principal of the pre-colonial america's "religion". They used this knowledge (which is both fact and religion) to stare at the stars and contemplate astrophysics in awe of the divine nature of our universe... They didn't make a bomb...lol
Reincarnation is conservation of energy...
Call it religious or scientific, either way your clinging to an ideology and closing your mind to new info.
More often than not its not a clash of science and religion, its some ethnocentric ass who wants people to perceive them as intelligent and innovative, and isn't afraid of discrediting other methods of describing the SAME PHENOMENA.
Yes that includes Einstein.
In fact for most of history knowledge has been very protected, not propagated to everyone like today's internet.
It was protected from those who would misuse it, not marketed and exploited with disregard for the consequences.
The situation in the United States is so, that Atheists have to have some form of organisation in order to seperate state and religion. Who knows, what would happen, if that barrier ever should fall:
Public burning of books, concentration camps for homosexuals and "heretics", witchhunts, morale police raids, children to be instructed to spy on their parents, brain wash television, crusades against "infidel" nations.
It is true: Under the communist regime tens of millions of people had to die. But few were killed for believing in god.
On the other hand we have Adolf Hitler who declared himself to be catholic (and by the way was never excommicated) and sent his soldiers away to fight for "Gott und Vaterland".
Nameless atrocities were committed over thousands of years and religion was recklessly used to justify the brutalest oppressive regimes. (Why do you think, communism is so anti-religious?)
No wonder, that some people are so disgusted by the frivolous demands of the "true believers" that they themselves became somewhat militant.
I think they have a point: Everything should be tolerated but intolerance (=religion).
If you have to speak and make a documentary or write a book about god, that very act tell me he doesn't exist.
If he existed there would not have been any book or people convincing us over and over again. Simply because god (I am talking about the christian highly interactive in people life type of god) is fully capable of making himself known in a way that is undeniable, he is fully capable of speaking and doing things for himself.
Do you like having people (kids) speaking for you and putting words in your mouth? If you are orally or mentally handicap then that's fine. Or are you guys saying christian god is mentally challenged?
Seriously don't get the idea of anyone even talking for god let alone making a documentary. Maybe if theist stop talking the soft spoken mumbling guy will have the chance to speak for himself?
@ Hate Machine
If science is the art of observing and testing of natural phenomena and there is nothing in nature that could confirm or indicate that a god exists then it is fairly safe to assume that it does not exist. At least not in the form of any world religions. So atheism is not a belief. It is the ability of free rational thought like David D stated. It is the realisation that religion in its core is false. That it is a lie. Nothing more.
what a pile of rubbish, no doubt the producer is a creationist who noes nothing yet try to convince with nothing but rubbish
This is so moronically stupid. Stating that morals come from God?? How would he explain so many species looking out after each others existence? Morals are what is instilled in us as beings and animals. It has nothing to do with religion or God. One might now stand up and say "well God gave you morals" but that again is so flawed because then we wouldn't have killers among us and animals eating their young.
You can't teach a dolphin to save a human being because the dolphin read the bible or believed in God. It comes down to creation and if someone wants to put creation and everything in this world in God's hands then that is a very ignorant and inhumane God as we all know that this is one messed up world we live in. One question that still remains unanswered....if God created heaven and the earth and everything we know.....what or who created God???
Religion is for people who are too simple minded to look for answers because in their world they found them. Atheism is for people who know better and still seek the relevance and truth behind our existence.
Im a christo-atheist. I do not think we have magic stuff in us called a soul. I do not think there is a heaven or hell.
My logical mind says I cant really exclude a possibility of a being that has sufficient technology to make it seem to be godly, but my logical mind also says that such a being most likely has never been to earth and if it had it would not be a secret.
My logical mind says that most likely all super-natural or spiritual beings(gods angles dragons elves ghosts) are just figments of an over active imagination.
But can I prove this?
Science is the art of trying, testing, recording and retesting the natural world. The "truth" of science is no more then reproducible observations. Since all reasonable deities can only be observed at their on whim they are out of the realm of science.
Science is not atheism. There is no science in atheism. If it cant be observed tested and reproduced it is not science. Since there is no experiment to test for the lack of a god there is no data to confirm the lack of a god.
Atheism is a belief structure. Ethics is a belief structure. Art, Religion, Fine Dinning, Superstition is a belief structure. You cant argue a belief structure.
clearly a documentary not worth watching. the presenter should does not even understand that atheism is not an ideology, it is the absence of it....
Man's incapability to deal with an unanswerable question ultimately lead to faith. In the absence of fact, consensus on speculation takes it's place, and the mind of men is content.
Without ultimate rewards/penalty's there is no peacekeeper, man would not be bound be the laws of God to act on "reasoning" rather than instinct. While religion may have humanized mankind in it's early stages, the same religions hampers progress now that we've outgrown said early stages.
Unlike our understanding of nature and it's processes, ethics don't evolve, they decay, whither, are forgotten and die only to resurrect in new form. Religious ethics, or God's word, is not subjected to this change, as man made sure this ethics are fixed in position as they incorporate the words of an infallible superior being.
The quantum revolution will free part of mankind of religion, sadly it will result in inevitable conflict.
I thought people had the right to believe in what they want.
The only problem i have with Athieism and religion is that if you teach your views on either to a child and not give the child a chance to find its own way of thinking about life
Then how do you know when you grow up that what you were taught to believe in by your parents is true..
I left both out of my childrens upbringing and when they got
older they took there own path.
We are only on this earth for say 80 years or so if we are lucky, but we could die in the next second.
so sooner or later every one of us will find out if there is a God, why worry about it now...
Enjoy every second of your life it might be your last..
And most of all stop killing each other...
Live with love in your heart, and peace in your life.
i do not liked this documentary. my English grammar is bad, so i`m incapable to explain it wherry well :)))
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -- (Epicurus)
His whole concept is just stupid. religion is about pure faith.. science is about pure truth..
there can be no comparison. the only truth in religion is your personal truth. where as science has no place for interpretation, just fact.
Atheist : from Greek. atheos "to deny the gods, godless" from a- "without" + theos "a god".
Interestingly the etymology (origin of a word) of 'heretic' is from Greek hairetikos "able to choose".
So when you're called a heretic, just smile, they are acknowledging you as a 'free thinker'!
This doc kind of made me facepalm.
When I was in high school, my German teacher (who as it happens, had studied theology) taught us a simple and proved technique how to write readable essays: 1. put forward a statement 2. present arguments in favor of your statement 3. present an illustrative fitting example which supports your arguments. Repeat 1-3 to produce as much text as is required.
In grad school I learned another name for this fine technique: "cherry picking", and understood why it is not enough to satisfy a fairly intelligent audience (say, readers of a scientific paper). However, the maker of this documentary seems to be stuck at the high school level.
@ Tom P.
Whereas I agree with you in general terms, I think that atheism is not the absence of belief, it's simply the absence of belief in god as it has been presented to us (all religions included). As a principle, I dislike labeling of people, it's stupid and it's always wrong. What about those who are in between the currently existing divisions? Other than that, you're absolutely right about what you said.
-insert random quote completely independent of my creative skills which supports my ideology.-
You guys got anymore Atheist-scripture?
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
'amen' Tom P ^^
LOL! @ "Wendy" =)
And bald is not a hair color.
What a pantload of nonsense - sorry but atheism is just the absence of belief, not a belief system to rival any religion. Religious nutjubs here in the States have been using this line of BS for years to try and undermine our Constitutional separation of Church and State. It's a weakass and untruthful meme that needs to die a death.