Description:
Controversial British journalist Rod Liddle examines the rise of militant atheism, and its similarities to the fundamentalist religions which it despises. Part 2 of 2. (24min 13sec) - Part 1 is here.
- Interviews
- Guest Articles
Support TDG!
Got something from TDG? Give a little back:
Your support is appreciated!
User login
Navigation
Poll
Sub Rosa
Issue 6:
- Robert Bauval
- Collecting Crowley
- Secrets of Fatima
- Manly P. Hall
Popular content
Interesting, but weaking offered.
I watched both parts. Many of his arguments seemed weak. Many times he wished to put his own ideas and thoughts about atheists into the atheist argument. And he went after the truth that science will every few decades or so say to the world "We were wrong". Religions are set in stone. Science is meant to be self corrective. Atheist are not a religion, yet. He is correct in pointing out that people behave badly no matter if they are religious or not. Maybe its the selfish gene:)
new religions
I didn't watch the program you are commenting about, but I have watched some of the actions of atheists. Similarly, I have watched some of the actions of hard-line animal rights organizations.
They do seem to be quite consistent with fundamentalist religions:
- angry suppression of opposing views
- justification of violence in support of their views
Of course you can also say this for some political movements.
----
Experience: it enables you to recognize your mistakes even as you repeat them
I think we use religion
or any special club or group we belong to, as a way of saying we're better then anouther. It sometimes only means, we're more organized. And have a lawyer.
Interesting
I really enjoyed this program. Not because it "put those atheists in their place" or something along those lines, but because it addressed a very real problem that can crop up in any shared philosophy or religious world view: that my camp is Right and your camp is Wrong. This is usually followed by the second problem: If you are not Right, then we'll do you Wrong.
I'd like to reiterate that, while the guy running the broadcast seems to disagree with atheism on a philosophical level, he really seems to be frustrated by what could be described as "Atheistic Fundamentalists." I think the aim of the show was really to show that, just because you have a PHD and deny the existence of a god you are not immune to basic human self-righteous stupidity and ideological dogmatism.