The Trouble With Atheism, Channel 4

[Treacle Toes]

More debates about the life, universe and everything on my telly please!

Agreed!

 

[Relahni]

Agreed!

innit.

Fuck X factor and the like. I want more smug educated twats on the box please!

 

[User 301X/5.1]

innit.

Fuck X factor and the like. I want more smug educated twats on the box please!

nah - i like X-factor - especially the cringe inducing parts of the idiots early on in the series.

 

[Treacle Toes]

innit.

Fuck X factor and the like. I want more smug educated twats on the box please!

Don't have to like the presenters, but the subjects are interesting.

 

[Relahni]

Don't have to like the presenters, but the subjects are interesting.

Agreed.

 

[William of Walworth]

Don't have to like the presenters, but the subjects are interesting.

Conscious that I need to be a bit cautious what I say because I never saw the programme, but surely a bad presenter can get in the way of an interesting subject?

Liddle seems from what folks are saying to have taken a deliberately 'contrarian', confrontational, even trolling approach. And to have been thoroughly misleading about atheism, Dawkins and Darwin.

That would have infuriated me.

(I suspect he's just may up some of his highly familiar sounding rants about 'fundamentalist atheists' from Urban75 )

 

[Treacle Toes]

Conscious that I need to be a bit cautious what I say because I never saw the programme, but surely a bad presenter cna get in the way of an interesting subject?

Liddle seems from what folks are saying to have taken a delibereaterly 'contrarian', angry, confrontational, even trolling approach.

That would have infuriated me.

I take your point William but I still think the subject matter won through.

 

[Fruitloop]

He was an absolute self-satisfied penis, rehashing the laziest possible arguments against atheism and mangling them almost beyond recognition.

On a related note, I just found a quote from Dawkins that made me chuckle:

A recent Gallup poll concluded that nearly 50% of the American public believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Nearly half the population, in other words, believes that the entire universe, the sun and solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, and all the billions of other galaxies, all began after the domestication of the dog. They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book – Genesis – which, by another series of historical accidents, has been translated and disseminated to almost every home in the land plus – infuriatingly – every hotel room. Even before science told us the true story of the origin of the world and the evolution of life, there was no reason to believe the Jewish origin myth any more than the origin myths of the Yoruba or the Kikuyu, the Yanomamo or the Maori, the Dogon or the Cherokee. Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin’s bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal.

This is the nub of the issue, IMO. The existence or non-existence of a diety really depends entirely on how you define the word in the first place, but ontological claims with no basis in fact deserve all the derision they get.

 

[camouflage]

He was an absolute self-satisfied penis, rehashing the laziest possible arguments against atheism and mangling them almost beyond recognition.

On a related note, I just found a quote from Dawkins that made me chuckle:

A recent Gallup poll concluded that nearly 50% of the American public believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Nearly half the population, in other words, believes that the entire universe, the sun and solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, and all the billions of other galaxies, all began after the domestication of the dog. They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book – Genesis – which, by another series of historical accidents, has been translated and disseminated to almost every home in the land plus – infuriatingly – every hotel room. Even before science told us the true story of the origin of the world and the evolution of life, there was no reason to believe the Jewish origin myth any more than the origin myths of the Yoruba or the Kikuyu, the Yanomamo or the Maori, the Dogon or the Cherokee. Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin’s bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal.

This is the nub of the issue, IMO. The existence or non-existence of a diety really depends entirely on how you define the word in the first place, but ontological claims with no basis in fact deserve all the derision they get.

Top quote from Dawkins there, shows up how ridiculous religious thinking is, and why there's pretty much no need to take the details of their position seriously (unless you wanna take Rumplestiltskin seriously too).

 

[danny la rouge]

Don't have to like the presenters

Important point. I've tried to be careful not to go for Liddle's personality - I don't like him, but I think that should be irrelevant when assessing his arguments. I can dislike someone but agree with them, or like someone but disagree with them.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

I saw the programme from start to finish. Mr Liddle questioned a few types of Aethiest, including an agnostic who he wrongly claimed had "turned Darwinism on it's head". I find Dawkins profoundly arrogant and, in many cases though never scientifically, a bit thick.

Watching the programme I was expecting, at some point, Mr Liddle to turn to the camera and say "Yeah religion gives us the rules of morality, but can we really say that any of us adhere to any of these?". He didn't, and that is where the problem basically lies.

If Tony Benn or Norman Tebbit had put forward the issue, the message may have been a lot more feesable. Two men from opposite ends of the political scale who have stayed firm and true to their partners and offspring. Rod Liddle is a filthy sinful love cheat who is bound for the burning fires of Hell. This is a man who deserted his wife and two children for a 22 year young reporter. He is a hypocrite, and has no morals he can really call his own. Unless he either repents for breaking the commandments he has broken, or admits that religion is suppressing his real sexual desires then I feel that he should hide his sinful head in shame.

 

[Fruitloop]

It does sound like he'd be better off if Dawkins was right and the godders are wrong. Otherwise it's sulpurous flames for all eternity for him.

By the end of the prog I would cheerfully have consigned him there myself.

 

[danny la rouge]

"Yeah religion gives us the rules of morality,

But I don't think it does. Religion is neither the source of morality, nor a good teacher of morality, nor is it itself moral. We have been told it is, but on examination it really isn't.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I can dislike someone but agree with them, or like someone but disagree with them.

Quite.
I mean it happens here on Urban all the time.

 

[Fruitloop]

Faith means evidence without belief, which I find a very dangerous philosophy, so I'd like to think its positive aspects could manifest themselves in other ways. Scientists like Dawkins find a sense of fulfilment and meaning in the natural world, which doesn't work for me, but good luck to them. For others it can probably be found elsewhere. Problem is, as the saying goes, that when people stop believing in religion they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

Case in point: all those teenagers converting to Wicca after watching too much Buffy. (Or was that Christian propaganda? Hopefully so!)

Why is Christianity inherently better than Wicca? Wiccans don't moralize nearly so much, and they're much easier to get into the sack.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

But I don't think it does. Religion is neither the source of morality, nor a good teacher of morality, nor is it itself moral. We have been told it is, but on examination it really isn't.

The vague manner of which you have expressed that is what Liddle argues against.

 

[danny la rouge]

The vague manner of which you have expressed that is what Liddle argues against.

I've made my point much more precisely here.

That thread examines Christianity, because I know it best, but it applies equally to the monotheistic religions, and also to Hinduism.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

I've made my point much more precisely here.

That thread examines Christianity, because I know it best, but it applies equally to the monotheistic religions, and also to Hinduism.

I agree, but my point was to expose Rod Liddles' own hypocrisies, as opposed to a bunch of silly old Jews who pretended to be Moses.

 

[Azrael]

Why is Christianity inherently better than Wicca? Wiccans don't moralize nearly so much, and they're much easier to get into the sack.

If one can ignore all the "blessed bes", and if they've got the incense on the go your clothes will stink worse than after an evening in a working men's club. (And be more likely to attract police attention.)

Their co-founder did however get himself expelled from Cambridge for summoning the devil on Trinity Chapel roof, so that's marks up on Jesus.

 

[danny la rouge]

Their co-founder did however get himself expelled from Cambridge for summoning the devil on Trinity Chapel roof, so that's marks up on Jesus.

I understand Jesus failed his entrance exam. He signed his name Emmanuel, despite not being registered as that on his birth certificate, and not being called that by family or close friends, or indeed anyone in the Bible.

Jesus confused about own name shock.

 

[camouflage]

But I don't think it does. Religion is neither the source of morality, nor a good teacher of morality, nor is it itself moral. We have been told it is, but on examination it really isn't.

Totally agree. The nature of human intelligence means that we're prisoners of language, we literally can't think without it (well you can, but personally I can't think abstract thoughts without thinking in a dialogue, or at least monologe).

Here followers some thoughts on Religion and Language.

I thought Liddle and his scientific xtian buddy totally misunderstood Darwinism (or evolution) and the concept of the meme. They seemed to think memetic evolution is some sort of metaphor for something that doesn't really exist because memes "aren't real". But memetic evolution is not a metophor, religion as meme-sets is a linguistic affair, linguistic evolution does take place, empiricaly, and words that can access certain emotions or feeling are an important part of that process. Religions are all about words, they have no other means of existing, symbols, pictures, buildings, at the end of the day the religion is completely lost without the words that go with all that stuff. As humans, we relly on words for our understanding of pretty much everything.

Generally if you say to a xtian for instance, "I don't beleive in the Messiah, I don't beleive in God, I don't beleive in the Church" then what they hear, generaly speaking is "I don't beleive in love, justice or compassion, I don't beleive in meaning, or qualities beyond the human, or infinity, or the value of creation, and I don't beleive in civilisation, interacting in ethical terms with the wider community, or life-long relationships or moral values".

In religion certain 'potent terms' are held as sacred, people have been taught that those words and only those word really mean certain things, and the religious version of these terms always trump the regular version, Gods Love is way more powerful and important then ordinary everyday Love love, religious people have usually been raised since childhood to take this as given. These 'potent terms' are not reducable, they're almost like strategic words because of the ground you can command with them. Opening them up and seeing what's inside them, what makes them tick, or what these words really mean to people is thwarted because their are bound to religious meanings whose only real message is "our club", binding them to religious meaning is the whole idea, it's the trick that allows religion to regard itself as exceptional.

You can only use these potent terms to their fullest if you participate in the religious context, effectively; if you are in "our club". These are words like God, The Ressurection, The Koran, Holy, Divine, Allah, Sin, Islam, Redemption. Anyone who doesn't use these terms in the prescribed manner is therefore not in the club, if you can't say "I beleive in God" because you're not a xtian, it means you can't say "I beleive in a deeper meaning in life, in the beauty of nature, in powers beyond humanity, in infinity, in compassion" because those things are what the term "God" means, and if you're not a xtian, you cannot possibly weild the term "God" except to deny it or come round to it, because "God" means all those things, therefore only people in the club can think of such concepts, (and of course if you're a Christian you therefore also beleive in The Resurrection because that's what Christians Beleive in, that's what the Bible says, that's what the Church says).

Generaly, Xtians and muslims may argue or debate whether God is the same as Allah because the terms are supposed top monopolise the same concept respectively as belonging to Christians or to Muslims. Religious people can agree to share power terms in the wider context of Religion versus non-Religion, better to use the word God than not, but better to use the word Allah than God.

Hopefully I've managed to communicate what I mean, but probably not, to sum up though, words are words, they didn't make the planet.