Rod Liddle makes sweeping generalized statements about atheists (when they are all different). He tries to make the point that atheists have the belief in no god, when it is quite different, and even Dawkins counters this by saying he has as much belief in fairies as in God, IE none. Of course logically fairies aren't all powerful, and didn't create the universe so due to their infinitely smaller complexity they are infinitely more likely than a creator God which I think Rod is trying to get to.
He then goes on to use the fine tuning argument, something that Victor J Stenger has shot down as has Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, but hey let him go.
Basically this is 50minutes of generalizations, making the argument that because science can't disprove god, that God is a 50-50 chance with no-god... even a 5 year old can see the issues with this argument. He exalts Darwin as atheists messiah, though I doubt you will find many rational people who agree with Darwin on everything (eg his view on homeopathy and eugenics). He goes on to attack the idea of memes, something that has had a lot of research, not by the biological scientist he interviews but by behavioral scientists. Then back to attacking evolution via natural selection, saying as due to it being old it is wrong, well age doesn't make an idea wrong or right, and Darwin's theory has changed since Darwins time, even Dawkins has said this, there has been a lot work since then. punctuated evolution has been
Now he tries to say that because science changes, it is 100% correct so it can't be trusted. No because it changes it's view we are always at the brink of the known, we do know some things with such certainty that they can be accepted, eg the earth is round, gravity works. But Rod seems to miss this.
Now onto eugenics, and of course you guessed it Hitler (even with ominous music), and the origin of morales, he talks to Peter Singer for mere seconds, when singer could have schooled him a lot more. Now to list the Jacobins, and Stalin as "atheistic regimes". Now I had never heard of the Jacobins, so I did some quick research and found they killed both Christians and non-believers and were basically an anarchistic movement. Stalin of course I know about and it seems to me and a lot of historians that he was trying to supplant the churches power and make the state the object of worship. Regardless he didn't kill in the name of non-belief or reason so it is a moot point, and really hard to compare with the millions the church has probably killed with the crusades, inquisitions, holy wars and practices on safe sex. "Atheism has been an integral part of all communist states"... uh say that to North Korea who still worships the dead Kim Jon Il. Stalin was a Koptic to start with, and even started to bring back the Churches on his way out.
Rod obviously is who the person who is so weak that he concludes needs religion. Yes you don't get rid of evil if you get rid of religion, but religion can cause a good man to do evil (eg fatwa's, genital mutilation, sexual abuses and stymieing scientific research); "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg The reason we can't leave it with there may or may not be a god is simple, as long as religion has special power to make rules and demand changes due to their made up beliefs it needs to be challenged. I really don't care what is done in the privacy of your own home between consenting adults, and I doubt you will find an atheist who does, you can worship your fridge for all I care, but if due to your misguided beliefs you get the government to make laws making opening the fridge on Sunday against the law then we have a problem.
He then goes on to use the fine tuning argument, something that Victor J Stenger has shot down as has Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, but hey let him go.
Basically this is 50minutes of generalizations, making the argument that because science can't disprove god, that God is a 50-50 chance with no-god... even a 5 year old can see the issues with this argument. He exalts Darwin as atheists messiah, though I doubt you will find many rational people who agree with Darwin on everything (eg his view on homeopathy and eugenics). He goes on to attack the idea of memes, something that has had a lot of research, not by the biological scientist he interviews but by behavioral scientists. Then back to attacking evolution via natural selection, saying as due to it being old it is wrong, well age doesn't make an idea wrong or right, and Darwin's theory has changed since Darwins time, even Dawkins has said this, there has been a lot work since then. punctuated evolution has been
Now he tries to say that because science changes, it is 100% correct so it can't be trusted. No because it changes it's view we are always at the brink of the known, we do know some things with such certainty that they can be accepted, eg the earth is round, gravity works. But Rod seems to miss this.
Now onto eugenics, and of course you guessed it Hitler (even with ominous music), and the origin of morales, he talks to Peter Singer for mere seconds, when singer could have schooled him a lot more. Now to list the Jacobins, and Stalin as "atheistic regimes". Now I had never heard of the Jacobins, so I did some quick research and found they killed both Christians and non-believers and were basically an anarchistic movement. Stalin of course I know about and it seems to me and a lot of historians that he was trying to supplant the churches power and make the state the object of worship. Regardless he didn't kill in the name of non-belief or reason so it is a moot point, and really hard to compare with the millions the church has probably killed with the crusades, inquisitions, holy wars and practices on safe sex. "Atheism has been an integral part of all communist states"... uh say that to North Korea who still worships the dead Kim Jon Il. Stalin was a Koptic to start with, and even started to bring back the Churches on his way out.
Rod obviously is who the person who is so weak that he concludes needs religion. Yes you don't get rid of evil if you get rid of religion, but religion can cause a good man to do evil (eg fatwa's, genital mutilation, sexual abuses and stymieing scientific research); "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg The reason we can't leave it with there may or may not be a god is simple, as long as religion has special power to make rules and demand changes due to their made up beliefs it needs to be challenged. I really don't care what is done in the privacy of your own home between consenting adults, and I doubt you will find an atheist who does, you can worship your fridge for all I care, but if due to your misguided beliefs you get the government to make laws making opening the fridge on Sunday against the law then we have a problem.
