I think one of the biggest fallacies about this transition is the idea that atheism is born out of anger and revolt. But I do love reading some C.S. Lewis.

Smart man. And a great writer.

He was never an atheist if he is serious that he was really cursing gods and displaying anger toward the Judeo-Islamic-Christian god.

its nice that PBS has no problem at all airing this on a national feed yet won't touch this with a ten foot pole.

gluonium: If you are implying that this video, which is part of a series called "The Question of God", is indicative of a bias towards religious programming on PBS, then you are mistaken. The series is born out of a seminar taught by Harvard psychiatrist Armand Nicholi and examines the lives of both C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud, the latter being a committed atheist.

nibiyabi: Technically speaking, atheism is a position that posits the non-existence of God. Claiming that something absolutely does not exist is difficult to defend, since it supposes that we have complete knowledge of everything that exists. The de facto atheism, instead, is a position that claims the existence of God is unworthy of belief, either due to a lack of any convincing evidence or to the seemingly intractable problems that supposedly entail from a commitment to the belief in God's existence.

Such a position is not inconsistent with an attitude of anger towards God, since it may just be the idea of God that the atheist might find repulsive.

perhaps not biased. but timidly middling.

I dont desire an invisible man in the sky watching my every move, and possibly sending me to eternal hellfire for some of those moves, So I guess that by his own standards, that proves Lewis wrong

jlee: "Technically speaking, atheism is a position that posits the non-existence of God. Claiming that something absolutely does not exist is difficult to defend, since it supposes that we have complete knowledge of everything that exists."

That is incorrect. Strictly speaking, atheism is the non-belief in any deity. This is a critical distinction, as anyone who has studied logic immediately recognizes that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. (And of course the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim.)

"I dont desire an invisible man in the sky watching my every move"

I don't desire paying taxes, but I acknowledge the 1040 that comes in the mail.

"That is incorrect. Strictly speaking, atheism is the non-belief in any deity. This is a critical distinction, as anyone who has studied logic immediately recognizes that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. (And of course the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim.)"

What precisely is incorrect? Are you quibbling about my use of the term 'God'? Do you think that I mean to refer exclusively to the Judeo-Christian deity?

Second, "anyone" who has studied logic carefully should be able to see that your claim above, that it is "logically impossible to prove a negative" is clearly false as it is worded. If we were to take your claim at face value, then its falsity can be simply demonstrated by a basic rule of inference, like Modus Tollens.

If p then q.
Not q.
Therefore, NOT p.

I've just logically proved a negative.

It must be the case, then, that you mean something else by the claim above. So what precisely is it?

Hint: MT is merely valid and sound. But where is the necessary test for truth that is required? The test for truth is irrevocably grafted to the realm of the original claim. In other words, (spoken to the theist), prove that a god exists.

don't notice Tibetan monks going on and on about this stuff, they simply are, and they work their mental asses off with the Dharma and discourse....ever seen em shouting with a view to understanding???, walking tigers and keeping the Chinese at bay is child's play compared to logic lessons......an atheist would call out to (..........), and a Christian would shit his pants and shiver, before the all-powerful Bardo, as we all may, and guess what....life goes on with, without, or because of the energy given a concept or ideal-again, the fact that one believes or does not believe in a god or gods, is of no great import-

This is why ol' Dawkin's fear of religion being a threat to progress and science, etc, is fuckin' hogwash.....it is what it is what it is till it aint-how's that for chocolate truffles??? Seriously, poor Richard seems like he needs a vacation or a bloody cathedral, then you atheists would not feel so second-class...get ya some wafers and wine, make the shit up as you go along, like the Christians......and fer crissakes, write the Atheist bible, get a copy for each bathroom, and MOVE! as in forward in your diatribes.......Bleeeghghhh!!! More music, more wine, and moreover.......