The Trouble With Atheism: Proof?
Offline This is a documentary in which journalist Rod Liddle explores and exposes Atheist propaganda. Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Liddle shows that atheism too has its dogmas and beliefs like the organised groups it opposes. Meeting professors and anti-religious associations, Liddle reveals how atheists give to science a certainty when in fact there is none(Youtube video summary, not my words).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Atheism
Theists and Atheists I would like to get your views on these videos.
Theists, do you think this is an accurate depiction and comparison of Atheism with religion? If so...why?
Atheists, do you think this is the same style of journalism that programs like the "Root of All Evil" by Richard Dawkins, portray theists and supernaturalists? If not...why?
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
He puts forth the idea atheism is a religion. He suggests Darwin's Origin of the Species is our New Testament. All science theories are forever under scrunity including Darwin's though he acts as if this will discredit atheism. Some of the content is balanced but in a way such as Fox News would consider as balanced. He discusses Dawkins and Peter Atkins as our Evangelists. I see this as unfair as Dawkins had nothing to do with my deconversion nor do I ever use his views as justification. Some atheists are shown as militant and that is dwelled upon. I think there are very few atheists that go door to door promoting non-belief especially compared to the Christian Evangelists. Few atheists suggest people who believe are stupid which is said though its done in a way suggesting that is what we think of the believers. Secularism is shown as bad drawing on the Jacobites, Stalin, and Hitler as examples. Though it is refuted by Dawkins as governments of repression to the state the impression is still put out there. It's the typical broadcast journalism take on atheism in general in my opinion.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Yes, so much of the commentary of these docs, like the root of all evil, put the spin on the conversations. This really did make me think about the root of all evil documentary and his conversations and editing with the subjects Dawkins portrayed as irrational and deluded. I think it was very similar in style, but that the content of the beliefs and scientific viewpoints posited were a bit misleading at times here. When that wasn't the case, the narrator really does take the arguments of atheists, and then refute them off screen without regard to the statements the men made. The Darwinism=Hitler's eugenic anti-jewish rhetoric is one of those Pro-Religionist Memes that will not die regardless of how many times it has been refuted or its total lack of truth. I think the problem with these types of arguments...Darwinism is a religion that is dogmatic and evangelical, are false dichotomies based on the narrator's lack of imagination or objectivity when dealing with the lack of belief in things. That is the heart of the issue in which the misrepresentation of one point of view, Atheism being a militant proselytizing endeavour based on ancient texts(origin of species), is portrayed as truth, while it is in fact a false premise. This is consistent with Fox News style opinionalistic "news" masquerading as journalism. I just found Root of All Evil a bit more honest in representing the ideas of his detractors than this particular narrator.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Haven't seen the Dawkins documentary, but thought I would comment anyway.
I liked it until about mid-point, when he violated Godwin's law and began droning on about Hitler, etc. His strongest point, I think, is the idea that 'man does not live by cold logic alone,' so isn't god-belief a part of human nature? Could be...most people use all kinds of rationalizations and denials to cushion their view of reality. As long as people have emotions and lizard brains, they'll never be 100% rational. The question becomes whether religious rationalizations do more harm than good--a separate argument from the existence of god. (On god's existence, the narrator doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Overwhelming likelihood is that god is a human invention.)
His final plea is something like "god may exist, or he may not...why can't we just leave it at that?" I just finished a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and could give him a laundry list of why we can't just "leave it at that." God may not exist, but religion does, and as long as fanatics try to push it on others, nonbelievers have the right to push back.
The whole video starts off with an enormous straw man. He makes believe that atheism means that "God and everything about him, intuition, a sense of mystery, blind faith" is to be rejected etc. etc. blah blah blah.
This is his fundamental dishonesty, and it begins in the second sentence he utters. We need not, and in fact we don't, reject intuition or a sense of mystery. We just don't accept intuition as absolute truth and a mystery as proof of the supernatural.
But I and everyone use intuition every day, and when I contemplate the universe, I get a great sense of mystery, which I call 'wonder'. Wonder is real. There's no denying that. But wonder doesn't prove God. At the end of the day, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It usually also entails a rejection of blind faith, but not of intuition or wonder.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Not much really needs to be added to this...
I think this documentary shows the strong correlation between secular fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Secular fundamentalism ? Sorry, there's no such thing.
Apparently, you did not bother to watch the videos presented in the OP.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Apparently, you believe everything you see on tv.
The moderator of this thread asked the participants to first view the Rob Liddle videos presented in the OP and then provide commentary. You failed to view the videos. Consequently, your commentary can be summarily dismissed. Next time do your homework before you express your opinion.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Hmmm...actually, I think I'll express my opinion whenever I feel like it.
View the videos ? Lady, I watched that thing on tv. If he managed to prove there's such a thing as secular fundamentalism, he must have been very subtle, because I don't remember that happening.
But sure, I'll watch it again after I finish my actual homework. This better be worth it.
Zing!
Oh, snap!
Pwned!
Choo choo mama!
Haberdashery!
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Nope.
First I am of the opinion that all inherit labels should disappear. We shouldn't be labeling each other all manner of things because that is what creates unneeded segregation. And that segregation is what leads to hate.
But because that won't ever happen in our lifetimes, my opinion comes from how the bible defines believers and non-believers. Simply, those who do not believe are those who's purpose on this Earth may not be to believe. It is not an automatic "condemn them to hell" kinda thing, just simply this is why you are here (ref Romans 9).
Now I think that is more of a per individual thing. As to organizations that represent either theists or atheists, dogma does tend leak out. I don't think that is something that could ever be avoided.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Okay, you I like.
Damn, I like you a lot.
Please run for Pope.
Crap. Did you just suggest there's such a thing as "atheist dogma" ? I'm gonna pretend you didn't, so I can keep on liking you a lot.
I'll give you an example: "The blasphemy challenge." An individual atheist would not issue any such challenge because he/she does not believe in the bible. Something very fallacious in an argument that starts with "The bible is false but I'll directly challenge a section as true to prove it is false," especially from any atheist.
Now a group that represents a "label" such as atheists protrays a kind of dogma that is relative to that group, not the label of "atheist." An example from the theist perspective would be how Baptists believe the only true way to be baptized is to be submerged while Catholics believe in water on the forehead. Baptism is baptism is baptism (from the physical act point of view) but making it a dogmatic issue came from the groups, not the individual members nor the source. Of course, it is only natural that the members follow along.
See what I mean? It isn't "atheist dogma" but rather "group/organization dogma" that I was referring to.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I like you too, RAZOR
Who are the greatest fighters of DOGMA ? I say the atheists ! Hey, GOD is an atheist of course .....
Atheism Books.