Someday, Sir David will no longer be with us. And I hope when that day comes, he goes to Animal Heaven and not Human Heaven, because he deserves it and so do they.

and ... here we see.. the Attenborough , Taken outside of its normal Environment.. , in what can only be described as remarkable footage..

Granted, I just promoted this and I understand this site has a very heavy atheist user base. Actually, it's the promoted, encouraged and abject hatred of anyone who is religious at all that has kept me away from here. I really don't argue religion, especially here. But I will just post my opinion on the content of this very short video since I happened by it. And I'm going to break it down as it happens.

The question in the beginning seems to be "Are you a religious man?" (when considering the wonders of nature etc). He answers "no". She then asks if it (again his experience with nature) has any philosophical meaning to him and he begins by telling her she hadn't asked him that. When, in fact, that's the question she's now actually asking. But he reveals that he has a particular problem with Christianity even though it was never specifically brought up. If the question is "How does your extensive background in observing nature impact your philosophical view of the world?" and the answer begins with "Well, I don't like Christianity". Then I think that's a problem. There's a skewed view coming from somewhere else that has nothing to do with the question being asked at all.

Then we go into this dramatically told story of the boy with a worm eating his eye. And he leans forward and thrusts this bullshit out trying to force it down her throat into meaning something. But it doesn't. I can tell you all sorts of stories. I know someone who was pushed in front of a subway train. Dead. There was one guy I walked passed in an alley that was being beaten to death with metal garbage cans. I personally have been shot at, electrocuted, stabbed, almost drowned under ice, poisoned, stitched up to the point where I was on a first name basis in the emergency room, fuck .. I should be a super hero .. or at least God's enemy number 1 .. but I don't think it works that way. Bad things happen to all kinds of people. It's a sad argument to say God doesn't exist because human suffering does.

In any event, this worm feeds on other things besides the human eye. Obviously. Or it would be extinct or we'd all be fucking blind. So this worm was not "made by God" to devour some child's eyeball. The same way HIV was not created by God to destroy the gays. It's nature. And someone like Attenborough should know that nature takes it's course without discrimination. It is VERY frustrating to hear him say "you believe it was created by God ... that God said "I will make a worm that can only live by eating/boring people's eyes". Even if you are a hardcore atheist this is utter shit.

He caps off his personal hatred of Christianity with "the Christian idea of a God who cares for each of us". And that the eyeball eating worm is incompatible with that. Well personally, I think his argument is already moot just from what I've said above but there is nothing ... regardless of whatever magic gumdrop land concept of Christianity that he has .. that says that people who follow the faith won't suffer.

If anything, everything about it tells you it is the path to more suffering.

In short, no chtierna. No, it wasn't Satan, it wasn't a punishment and no it wasn't some decree of God beyond our comprehension. The worm ate the eye the same way you eat the cow. Or the carrot if you're vegetarian. Or the way I eat my celery out of bloody mary most sunday mornings.

I wear your downvote with honor ponceleon and look forward to your detailed and reasoned explanation.

^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil. As for a 'detailed and reasonable explanation' where is yours? that post did not refute anything.
Read this, and then tell me if what you just wrote is a 'reasonable' point of view
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm

"^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil."

honestly that's insulting. Do you think I'm stupid? If I am stupid does it anger you or inspire you to enlighten me?
In any event all you've just offered is an insult and some air of unearned superiority.
hmm .. bad things happen to good people .. worms eat eyes .. also the sun will burn you .. not to mention fire

edit .. and now you have edited links into your post so I will edit my post to say this:
If YOU have something to say .. and not some links to other articles .. please share.

So people have an understanding of the time line of events here. The original post just said "^ you clearly have never bothered to read the logic behind the problem of evil."

And for the record what I wrote was in response to this video. A concept some people don't get here. But it's supposed to be the rule for commenting .. imagine that.

Just because a person has not studied something does not make one stupid. Nowhere in my post was it implied that i doubted your intelligence, therefore you took my post completely wrong and assumed i was being pretentious. Well, you are wrong.

However, if you want to talk about the problem of suffering, it is necessary to have some knowledge about it. You also assume I am here to debate the question. I am not. If that is a problem, whatever. If you want to use the sources i gave you to help you polish your views better, great. If you want to ignore them, that's fine too.

That is all

Edit to below: I have already stated, that it was never my intention to debate the matter with you. My whole reason for posying was to point out a flaw, and provide links to help. Second, I don't want to clog the thread further with offtopic subjects. Finally, your statement about the links being bullshit w/o even reading them gives me the opinion that you are not even interested in exploring this thing. Which is more reason for me to not engage in a discussion about this.

How about you explain your point to me?
I took the time to lay out what I thought .. without just passing off links to other sites and someone else's bullshit.

It's funny the way you word things. For an asshole like you there's only two ways. I can learn (agree with) what you're saying .. or I can remain stupid and ignorant. Tough fuckin call. Guess I'll go for stupid for the time being.

And here is my edit after his edit
I see your edit and raise you one more ..
It is uncomfortable trying to conduct dialog this way ..
how about this. Why don't you make a point that has something to do with what I originally said, and we can go from there?
I mean you, not some links to things other people have said .. because I find it troubling that you will not answer me directly but instead accuse me continuously of being uneducated about the subject at hand. So either explain my "flaw" or do refrain from clogging this thread further. And in the interest of sanity STOP EDITING YOUR FUCKING POSTS.

Thanks.

>> ^burdturgler:
The question in the beginning seems to be "Are you a religious man?" (when considering the wonders of nature etc). He answers "no". She then asks if it (again his experience with nature) has any philosophical meaning to him

You are wrong. She first asks him: "are you a religious man?" and when Attenborough answers "no", she follows that up with "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you?" not "does it have any philosophical impications for you?"

When Attenborough says "Well, it does have philosophical implications, and you haven't asked me that" he is correct: The interviewer implied that since Attenborough doesn't believe in God, then he has no philosophical views on nature.

I think you missed the point of his answer. She did ask, "are you a religious man" and his answer was no. She then asked if nature had philosophical implications which is a completely different question. Philosophy =/= religion and I think he answered it quite appropriately, though maybe with too much emphasis on it not being religious and not enough emphasis on the wonder of nature.

As for the worm, the argument makes sense. It was probably Loa loa filariasis which mature to adults in the eyes and under the skin of humans. If life evolved as he believes it did, then the worm makes perfect sense - a creature inhabiting and otherwise empty niche. If God created all life then he specifically created a creature that had to live part of its life in a human host, which hardly corresponds with a god that cares for everyone individually like one of his children.

What he is ultimately getting at is that most creationists (the people he is undoubtedly addressing) tend to point out that god must exist because roses or hummingbirds are so beautiful, but no one says god must exist because there are worms that live in human eyes.

I disagree. You're making the distinction the same way he did. Wrongly so. He obviously confronted the question with bias by his coming out with a direct attack on Christianity, which was not part of what was asked but is definitely part of his mindset. the only person to mention Christianity was him. She was fully accepeting of his answer about religion and wanted to press further ie. OK if it doesn't resonate with religion for you .. do you feel any philosophical impact at all by what you've experienced through nature.?

>> ^mentality:
>> ^burdturgler:
The question in the beginning seems to be "Are you a religious man?" (when considering the wonders of nature etc). He answers "no". She then asks if it (again his experience with nature) has any philosophical meaning to him
You are wrong. She first asks him: "are you a religious man?" and when Attenborough answers "no", she follows that up with "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you?" not "does it have any philosophical impications for you?"
When Attenborough says "Well, it does have philosophical implications, and you haven't asked me that" he is correct: The interviewer is implying that since Attenborough doesn't believe in God, then he has no philosophical views on nature.

>> ^burdturgler:
But he reveals that he has a particular problem with Christianity even though it was never specifically brought up.

Christianity was brought up, when the interviewer asked if he was a religious man. When you talk to a prominent British naturalist about religion, it is not much of a stretch to think that you are talking about Christianity, considering the British, his core audience, are predominantly Christian.

If the question is "How does your extensive background in observing nature impact your philosophical view of the world?" and the answer begins with "Well, I don't like Christianity".

Well, this is an excellent display of the straw-man logical fallacy. Attenborough didn't say he disliked Christianity; He said he doesn't find the idea compatible.

It is quite interesting that you misconstrue his statements as an attack on Christianity and in the process reveal your own hatred and bias against atheists.

>> ^burdturgler:
OK if it doesn't resonate with religion for you .. do you feel any philosophical impact at all by what you've experienced through nature.?

Then she should have phrased it like that. Not: "are you a religious man?" "No" "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you." immediately afterward with a tone more fitting of a statement than a question.

A question can take on all sorts of meanings depending on the phrasing and the tone. How to ask questions is a critical skill for journalists. As an experience interviewer, she would have made it clear by rephrasing, or at least leaving a period of pause if "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you." was not meant to be related to "are you a religious man?"

In either case, you are way overreacting if you think such neutral statements are a part of an attack on Christianity.

I gotta tell ya man. I have no hatred or bias at all. I do get angry. It bothers me a lot when subtle shit goes by in the media or anywhere else. And when I see it I say something. I think everyone has a right to their views. You tell me how welcome religious people are on the sift and then we can talk about bias. Religious people are crazy and stupid. Videos that advocate atheism are praised and lauded. Last time you saw a decent video depicting Christianity or any religion in a positive light in the top 15?

But back to this video. He does reveal he has a problem with religion and Christianity all on his own and in his own words. Look, this is a man who is a legend in studying nature .. telling me the audience was British doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. He was asked the question and that was HIS answer. No one brought it up .. he specifically went out of his way .. in fact he said .. "it doesn't have particularly Christian" implications. So I say that this statement against Christianity specifically when he offered and created it himself makes any kind of straw man argument from me about it complete and utter bullshit.

>> ^mentality:
>> ^burdturgler:
OK if it doesn't resonate with religion for you .. do you feel any philosophical impact at all by what you've experienced through nature.?
Then she should have phrased it like that. Not: "are you a religious man?" "No" "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you." immediately afterward with a tone more fitting of a statement than a question.



It didn't seem like a condemning tone to me. If anything she seemed frightened and in a hurry to end the interview in fear of him. But maybe he has a latent anger or hatred which does seem to come out against a certain branch of religion. And he says so all on his own?


A question can take on all sorts of meanings depending on the phrasing and the tone. How to ask questions is a critical skill for journalists. As an experience interviewer, she would have made it clear by rephrasing, or at least leaving a period of pause if "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you." was not meant to be related to "are you a religious man?"


This isn't his first interview. He isn't some child pulled off the street at the hand of a manipulative career minded "journalist". It's David Attenborough and if you don't think he said what he actually meant then please do get him to clarify it for us all ..

>> ^burdturgler:
No one brought it up .. he specifically went out of his way .. in fact he said .. "it doesn't have particularly Christian" implications.

When you are having a conversation with someone and you ask them a question like "how did you like the movie?", it is implied that you want their opinions on the movie. In fact, it is a sign of mental illness if you ask someone a question and they only respond literally with one word answers and doesn't respond further.

ie: "did you like the movie?" "yes. <silence>"

The interviewer just asked Attenborough: "Are you religious". Of course Attenborough is expected to expand upon it. It's not "are you religious?" "no" "Great lets move on then".

Your claims that Attenborough went out of his way to bring up the subject of Christianity to attack it is way off base.

Bad things happen to all kinds of people. It's a sad argument to say God doesn't exist because human suffering does.

The most-believed conception of God, the God most major religions believe in, is a benevolent, compassionate creator. Not a distant, hands-off creator. The fundamental truth that bad things happen to good people effectively disproves the former concept. If God values life and rewards virtue, it is inexplicable for him to allow a completely innocent baby to be born with a defect and die hours after exiting the womb. It can't be Satan because God is all-powerful.

This source of doubt has been known for centuries. And the way the christians fought it was to create the idea of "original sin," which said that a baby could be punished for sins made by its oldest ancestor, Adam, despite never having had the chance to sin itself. So not only did this supposedly compassionate God not forgive Adam when he disobeyed him, he found it righteous to randomly kill offspring thousands of generations removed from him.

There are still two problems with this argument: one, it is not just to punish an individual for the actions of another individual. We all have free will, a father's actions should bring punishment on him and not his children. Second, the punishment is still disproportionately administered. Innocent babies die without having a chance to sin while others have been allowed to live lives rife with sin. Now, you might say that God could still make it proportionate in the afterlife. However, that raises the question of why he bothered granting us a mortal life to lose at all. If we can just do all the same things dead as we can when we're alive, what's the freaking point in making two realms of existence?

>> ^burdturgler:
It didn't seem like a condemning tone to me.

I never said it was a condemning tone. I said it was a tone fitting for a statement.

But maybe he has a latent anger or hatred which does seem to come out against a certain branch of religion. And he says so all on his own?

Again, stating that Christianity is not compatible with his observations does not mean he hates Christianity. I'm sure he does not find Islam to be any more believable.

The fact that he singled out Christianity in particular does not necessarily mean that he finds Christianity special. It could just mean that it is the religion that he, as a British citizen, is most familiar with.

But that's not how it went. Honestly, I will try to be fair here and say it's impossible for either one of us to truly know what what was in either of their heads during these moments of the interview .. so I would hope that you could at least understand my side of this particular part of the argument. For me, she asked 2 questions. For you she asked one. I see where she was going .. trying to ask questions to get him to tell us about the deeper meaning behind his important work (if there was one). Common themes for this are religion and philosophy. It was really a gift for him to enlighten us all about what philosophical views he might have on the protection of animals .. the importance of wildlife preservation, man's connectivity with nature .. etc ..

Instead it became what it is here. So maybe there is some mental illness that makes him react angrily towards Christianity instead of promoting his own cause and letting us understand the philosophy that drove him to be a man who studied nature and all it's wonder. Instead we hear about how God created a worm to eat a kids eye. Where did that come from? Does that make sense to you in the context of all of this?

MAGIC IS REAL! I don't need evidence. Snakes can talk and so can burning bushes. Magical bird winged flying people live in the sky, and red skinned evil cloven hoofed demons live below the ground. That is all I need to know, so don't tread on and shatter my delusion with your facts and figures!

>> ^mentality:
>> ^burdturgler:
It didn't seem like a condemning tone to me.
I never said it was a condemning tone. I said it was a tone fitting for a statement.
But maybe he has a latent anger or hatred which does seem to come out against a certain branch of religion. And he says so all on his own?
Again, stating that Christianity is not compatible with his observations does not mean he hates Christianity. I'm sure he does not find Islam to be any more believable.
The fact that he singled out Christianity in particular does not necessarily mean that he finds Christianity special. It could just mean that it is the religion that he, as a British citizen, is most familiar with.


This is the thing though. He didn't say Islam. He said Christianity. And he went out of his way to say it. Specifically to say Christianity. I took it as the religion he found the most contempt in considering the question had nothing to do with any specific religion.

>> ^burdturgler:
But that's not how it went. Honestly, I will try to be fair here and say it's impossible for either one of us to truly know what what was in either of their heads during these moments of the interview

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I am so confused why you are adamantly sure that Attenborough hates Christianity and instigated an unprovoked attack against it.

Instead we hear about how God created a worm to eat a kids eye. Where did that come from? Does that make sense to you in the context of all of this?

The interview begins with Attenborough talking about patterns and behaviors that he finds in nature (ie. Chimpanzees). The topic of the interview then swings to religion and philosophy. Therefore, I find it perfectly natural that Attenborough used a example from nature (parasitic worm) to illustrate his views on religion and philosophy.

Yes he is explaining that no ("Christian") God would ever allow such suffering as an eye eating worm. That should be clear to anyone who watched the video. He says in no uncertain terms that no Christian God who loved his people would allow a creature to be created purely to torment His people. That is exactly what he is saying and it is in every way wrong. Both in his assumptions about the creature created and in his expectations that man should not suffer due to God's mercy. In other words he is using the existence of a parasite that feeds on eyes to dismiss the existence of God which is pretty shitty logic as far as I'm concerned.

>> ^burdturgler:
But that's not how it went. Honestly, I will try to be fair here and say it's impossible for either one of us to truly know what what was in either of their heads during these moments of the interview .. so I would hope that you could at least understand my side of this particular part of the argument. For me, she asked 2 questions. For you she asked one. I see where she was going .. trying to ask questions to get him to tell us about the deeper meaning behind his important work (if there was one). Common themes for this are religion and philosophy. It was really a gift for him to enlighten us all about what philosophical views he might have on the protection of animals .. the importance of wildlife preservation, man's connectivity with nature .. etc ..
Instead it became what it is here. So maybe there is some mental illness that makes him react angrily towards Christianity instead of promoting his own cause and letting us understand the philosophy that drove him to be a man who studied nature and all it's wonder. Instead we hear about how God created a worm to eat a kids eye. Where did that come from? Does that make sense to you in the context of all of this?


Are you insane? It's called conversation. She asked him if he was a religious man. He said no. She asked if it had philosophical implications on him. Philosophy could be anything, but since the preceding question was about religion and David seemed interested in talking about it, he started with that philosophic impact. He says he gets mailings from creationists that focus on the splendor and diversity, as if God created nature for humans entertainment and study. I know these kinds of people, they've probably said everything to him while failing to address the many horrific and indiscriminate parts of nature that adversely affect us for no apparent reason. Giving the worm that eats eyeballs as an example is just as good as any. For the type of God these people believe in, it is within God's power to eliminate these sources of human suffering and yet he chooses not to. Why does that worm have to exist? Why not create another butterfly instead? Why not except humanity from viruses and disease? For all your fevered ranting and psychoanalysis, you aren't explaining anything.

>> ^burdturgler:
He says in no uncertain terms that no Christian God who loved his people would allow a creature to be created purely to torment His people.

How does making that statement mean that he hates Christianity? And it certainly wasn't unprovoked.

It seems to me that you found offense to his criticism of Christianity and antagonized him.

By the way, there are many parasites and diseases that specifically target humans, like human malaria. I personally also cannot see how a loving God can do that to his people, but I definitely do NOT hate Christianity. But lets not get into the problem of evil, considering that is quite a lengthy discussion.

@ BansheeX :
Why don't you fart gum drops and unicorns out of your ass? Why doesn't God just send a big meteor of cash hurtling through the atmosphere to explode everywhere? Better yet, why not just slip a few bills in everyone's pocket at the start of each fucking day? Well, to answer your first question .. yes.

Lol... Is she actually giving him Belgian Euro's?

menatlity thanks for the civil discussion.

We disagree and that's it. I think he has an issue and you don't. We just read it differently. As far as why God allows eye worms .. malaria .. pianos to fall on your head .. look .. That's life. People get struck by lightning too. You know people die, right? That's even accepted among the religious folk. Like I said I have been witness to and suffered through some awful shit. Still, I know others have suffered more. There are people starving every fucking day. Most of them don't have to. It's all politics. Half the donated wheat to charities rots on docks because of political infighting and bullshit. People fucking die while food rots in a boat. Shit happens every single day. People cause more plague, war, theft, death, hardship and strife than they could ever blame on God. I'd like to see a graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war. Of course, I can actually see the graph .. so maybe I'm biased.

You've been drinking, haven't you BT! Your last post sounds like choggie. What exactly are you raging against?

he's saying we're all atheist bastards and proud of it

The simple question is 'WHY would a GOD (an all powerful being that is the creator of everything) make worms that eat human eyeballs'? This has nothing to do with freedom of choice and not much to do with evil.

Attenborough answers a direct personal question with a nature based dilemma... This is not subtle and there doesn't seem like there is any bias other than the conversations context.

>> ^burdturgler:
Last time you saw a decent video depicting Christianity or any religion in a positive light in the top 15?

How about right now? That recent enough for you?

Seriously, burdy, it seems to me you're venting frustration for something else here. This is a brief excerpt from an interview ffs.

I think Mr. Attenboroughs point is either rather banal or rather philosophical. I personally think it swings toward the former. (but this clip is rather short)

Atheists have no respect for the right to life of innocent eyeball-devouring worms and cancers that devour the bodies of their child hosts.

What next? Give people born with both male & female sexual organs a choice between which gender they want? I shudder to even think of such a world.

My take on his answers is that he is irritated with religion and does answer another question than the one being posed, but probably because he gets hounded by religious zealots, just the way I think burdturgler feels religion is prosecuted here on the sift and it gets him riled up after a while...

The important point I think is that a lot of religious people have this view of the Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish) God as Good and Loving and seem to be making up excuses for anything bad that happens. If I were a believer, Im not, I wouldnt assume God weeps every time I get a bruise. I guess David is saying that a relationship with God needs to be honest and he doesnt share their reasoning that God cannot be held responsible for anything bad.

Or I completely missed the point and need to grovel and beg forgivness

>> ^burdturgler:
menatlity thanks for the civil discussion.
We disagree and that's it. I think he has an issue and you don't. We just read it differently. As far as why God allows eye worms .. malaria .. pianos to fall on your head .. look .. That's life. People get struck by lightning too. You know people die, right? That's even accepted among the religious folk. Like I said I have been witness to and suffered through some awful shit. Still, I know others have suffered more. There are people starving every fucking day. Most of them don't have to. It's all politics. Half the donated wheat to charities rots on docks because of political infighting and bullshit. People fucking die while food rots in a boat. Shit happens every single day. People cause more plague, war, theft, death, hardship and strife than they could ever blame on God. I'd like to see a graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war. Of course, I can actually see the graph .. so maybe I'm biased.


I've been trying to understand your point of view throughout this discussion burdturgler, and I kind of get what you are saying, but there are a few problems.

First, you seem to have missed the opening lines of his answer. What Attenborough is raging against, if anything, is people using god as an explanation for life by referencing the beauty of nature, while ignoring all of the horrible things that happen. People who say that god exists because the eyeball is so perfect or roses are so beautiful tend to forget or ignore the fact that there are rather gross and horrible things in nature as well.

Secondly, by acknowledging that bad things happen and it has nothing to do with god or the devil you prove that you do not follow the same brand of religion as the majority of Christians/Muslims. Take that as a compliment because you seem altogether more intelligent than most of the religious people I know and your view is infinitely more logical. Attenborough is inundated with the less logical views of your fellow theists, I'm sure, and he is specifically attacking that ignorance.

Third, and I'm sorry if this comes off antagonistic, but your example of a "graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war" would not work in your favor as an example of death and hardship caused by man as opposed to caused by god... Religion has a huge influence on the Iraq war. From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion burdturgler and I honestly look forward to hearing more from your point of view.

I agree I think religion is persecuted a lot on this site. I dont care if your atheist or not does not bother me at all and Im not going to persecute you for being one. I also dont care if there are sifts that question religion either in fact I like them, I have many of the same questions. The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way, and not to mention the comments pertaining to hurt or kill people who are religous.

On a side note kind of scares me sometimes because I do remember a little from my days of attending church and I swear there was this whole prophecy about people who believe in god being persecuted and killed by others before the end of the world is suppose to take place.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

One thing that jumps out at me here in your comment is the line The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way...

Wouldn't you believe that somebody who believed in Zeus was crazy? How about somebody who believed in fire breathing dragons? Unicorns? If you met anybody who believed in these things you'd think that there's something very very wrong with them. What makes Christianity so different? The amount of people that believe it? Does that make it more valid? You know up to a certain point, everybody in the world thought the earth was fucking flat? Does that make it true, too?

Now that we have things to explain what we once filed under "god's doing" why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
I agree I think religion is persecuted a lot on this site. I dont care if your atheist or not does not bother me at all and Im not going to persecute you for being one. I also dont care if there are sifts that question religion either in fact I like them, I have many of the same questions. The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way, and not to mention the comments pertaining to hurt or kill people who are religous.
On a side note kind of scares me sometimes because I do remember a little from my days of attending church and I swear there was this whole prophecy about people who believe in god being persecuted and killed by others before the end of the world is suppose to take place.


As a great man once said “Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.” It applies to every side of the matter, but many don't seem to see it for some reason. It is ironic how some (emphasis on the some; I dont want now people now jumping at me for 'generalizing') atheists act as if their point of view is 100% on the mark, and anything else is stupid, and criticize the dogmas of religion while at the same time are unaware of their own rational dogmas. Maybe your side is right and god is not real, but maybe not, and even even if it were the case, it does not guarantee your view is flawless. Same goes for the other side, maybe you are right and god exists, but maybe he does not, and maybe your rationale for it is not perfect and should be worked on. Whatever the case, don't act so dogmatic about it because it is ridiculous.

I don't think there is persecution on this site though. It is a site with an atheist base majority, but persecution? I don't think so.

Mauz15,

I think the burden of proof here is on the religions. They are asserting something supernatural and I dont think its dogmatic to demand that they prove it somehow. As a previous poster pointed out, we laugh at the idea of grownups thinking santa claus is real, but when it comes to God we must somehow throw all rules aside and be agnostic.

edit:
The key here is why do religions get a special treatment. Religions _may_ be right in the sense that anything could be right. But we are not agnostic about everything, and neither should we be. We normally have some yardstick by which to measure if something is likely enough to deserve to be taken seriously, but when it comes to religions suddenly we need to throw that stick away and just give God a 50-50 percent chance of existing...

I love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this manI love this man

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

One thing that jumps out at me here in your comment is the line The only problem I have with the atheists on this site is the assumption that people who believe there may be a god are crazy or idiots for thinking that way...
Wouldn't you believe that somebody who believed in Zeus was crazy? How about somebody who believed in fire breathing dragons? Unicorns? If you met anybody who believed in these things you'd think that there's something very very wrong with them. What makes Christianity so different? The amount of people that believe it? Does that make it more valid? You know up to a certain point, everybody in the world thought the earth was fucking flat? Does that make it true, too?
Now that we have things to explain what we once filed under "god's doing" why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?


Perhaps the way Christianity threats the existence of god is ridiculous. But that means Christianity is ridiculous in the way it addresses the question. The question of the existence of a being of maximal greatness is separate. Why then do philosophers bother to bring arguments for and against its existence? where is the philosophical argument saying:

Belief in Zeus is silly
Therefore belief in the christian god is silly too

'why are people still clinging on to this ridiculous fucking fairy tale?' because they are taught as children, and many don't bother to question, and they certainly wont start questioning much if the opposite side simply says: you are being ridiculous. Saying that does not help either cause.

>> ^chtierna:
Mauz15,
I think the burden of proof here is on the religions. They are asserting something supernatural and I dont think its dogmatic to demand that they prove it somehow. As a previous poster pointed out, we laugh at the idea of grownups thinking santa claus is real, but when it comes to God we must somehow throw all rules aside and be agnostic.


Sure, but that does not mean you can automatically assume there is no flaw in your rationale for thinking god does not exist. One can be an atheist, but some think they are 100% correct, as if the logic behind it was flawless. There is a reason why Dawkins says he is 99.9% atheist or something along those lines. He does not want to cross onto the dogmatic line, but some people do. I was referring to the type of atheist that don't even bother to check if their argument makes sense. They are just atheist for so and so reason, don't even know the history of atheism, etc. The same way a believer claims certainty and they don't even bother to read the bible.

What I said about the belief in Zeus was to bring a sense of relativity to ctrlaltbleach who had a problem with atheist thinking Christians are crazy. It wasn't to form a response that's obviously weak in logic.

>> ^rottenseed:
What I said about the belief in Zeus was to bring a sense of relativity to ctrlaltbleach who had a problem with atheist thinking Christians are crazy. It wasn't to form a response that's obviously weak in logic.


point taken

Sure, but that does not mean you can automatically assume there is no flaw in your rationale for thinking god does not exist. I was referring to the type of atheist that dont even bother to check if their argument makes sense. They are just atheist for so and so reason, don't even know the history of atheism, etc. The same way a believer claims certainty and they dont even bother to read the bible.


I dont know, to me it feels like atheists dont really need an argument. They are simply not convinced by the arguments of the religious people... Again, the burden of proving something is on the religious people.

Like say someone came to you and said "Santa Claus is real". I dont see how you would suddenly need to prove that he is not real (it would seem impossible). And you dont need to know the history of people who deny Santa is real, you would just need some kind of proof that he is real before you believe it.

Maybe I missed your point.

Edit2: Okay, if you add the 99.9% thingie then we agree 100% ... or maybe 99.9%

thats why i heart you SO mauz!
guys guys guys...
there is no need to bicker,there are 4500 religions on the PLANET.
why is everyone just picking on the semetic traid?
why not the religion where god is a neo-morphic turtle who holds the universe on its back?thats a good one to pick on.
attenborough clearly has a problem with christian dogma,and lets be honest,the book of genesis is pretty retarded by todays standards.maybe 3500 yrs ago it made a modecum of sense,today it just seems dumb.
then again most christians are totally unaware that the book of genesis is a metaphorical representation of the tree of life/tree of knowledge (da'ath).
would christian scholars keep that from their adherent believers?
noooooo that would be intellectually dishonest /snark.

doctrine and dogma should be examined and debated,and ultimately rejected if based on poor theology.it is the fundamentalist who cannot exercise this vital action,for to do so would,in essence,be rejecting god in their eyes.i believe attenborough was addressing these types of believers.
i also believe that some atheists are so confident in their own rational and feel so 100% positively RIGHT they too can come across with the fanaticism of a religious fundamentalist.
so let me give you the literal translation of "agnostic"..
it means "not-knowing".
speaking only for myself,i dont know.i may FEEL,i may THINK but ultimately..
i dont know.
the encounters i have with atheists,and being in the profession i am,i meet a LOT of atheists,the single most common thread is their abhorrance to religion and its inherent hypocrisies,contradictions,revisionist history and mind-numbing FEAR-mongering(semetic triad mostly).i cant necessarily disagree with them,because they are correct.the biggest problem i have had recently has been with the religious right.atheists just pepper me with questions,the religious right sends me subpeonas..talk about a WTF moment.
at the end of the day we are all agnostic,but boy o boy is it fun to poke at fundamentalists! so ends todays sermon..
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!

>> ^chtierna:
Sure, but that does not mean you can automatically assume there is no flaw in your rationale for thinking god does not exist. I was referring to the type of atheist that dont even bother to check if their argument makes sense. They are just atheist for so and so reason, don't even know the history of atheism, etc. The same way a believer claims certainty and they dont even bother to read the bible.

I dont know, to me it feels like atheists dont really need an argument. They are simply not convinced by the arguments of the religious people... Again, the burden of proving something is on the religious people.
Like say someone came to you and said "Santa Claus is real". I dont see how you would suddenly need to prove that he is not real (it would seem impossible). And you dont need to know the history of people who deny Santa is real, you would just need some kind of proof that he is real before you believe it.
Maybe I missed your point.


Yeah, the burden of proof is definitely on them. They are claiming a supernatural being exists, and a whole another range of moral issues, and views of reality come behind it. A lot of conclusions covering everything, and not many reasonable answers.

But santa claus existence does not really affect the way you see reality, and ethics, and yourself. And if you dont buy the bible, they should be able to back it up with proof. But what religion tries to answer is the question of whether something of maximal perfection is out there. if you say you don't think that is the case because you don't buy what the bible is saying, what you are really saying is that you dont believe in the way Christianity is trying to answer that question. But the question can be studied separately from those religious views. And some people never try to while at the same time they claim absolute certainty.

I wasnt claiming Christianity was right for all I know it might be the Hindus. I just believe there has to be something out there and so I dont like attacking other peoples beliefs. Especially if it pertains to comments like they should be wiped of the earth. Im not Jewish but I dont think wiping them off the earth is a good thing nor trying to change their beliefs. I understand the atheist more than I may come across but I still think I fall under the agnostic point of view.

I applaud any person willing to swim against the tide of mindless "Oooh! Oooh! Me too!"-ism that goes on here in the sift. Well done Mr. BurdT. While I'm not a fan of profanity or inflammatory language, I certainly support those who spike the wheels of atheist groupthink.

This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."

This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.

I think Christianity is implied in that they're both of a race is that largely Christian and from countries that are largely Christian. I do think he is deliberately attacking a part of religion, but only one part: creationism. He's not attacking the 99.999% of Christians who, while I don't share their religion, I think are capable of rational thought. Believing the Bible (or any religious text) isn't what his veiled attack is aimed at, just people who take it to an extreme.

>> ^burdturgler:
I wear your downvote with honor ponceleon and look forward to your detailed and reasoned explanation.


I downvoted your comments too. And i'll give you a reason. Because of that comment, and its inherently smug casual demand for something you're not entitled to.

>> ^burdturgler:
I disagree. You're making the distinction the same way he did. Wrongly so. He obviously confronted the question with bias by his coming out with a direct attack on Christianity, which was not part of what was asked but is definitely part of his mindset. the only person to mention Christianity was him. She was fully accepeting of his answer about religion and wanted to press further ie. OK if it doesn't resonate with religion for you .. do you feel any philosophical impact at all by what you've experienced through nature.?
>> ^mentality:
>> ^burdturgler:
The question in the beginning seems to be "Are you a religious man?" (when considering the wonders of nature etc). He answers "no". She then asks if it (again his experience with nature) has any philosophical meaning to him
You are wrong. She first asks him: "are you a religious man?" and when Attenborough answers "no", she follows that up with "it doesn't have any philosophical implications for you?" not "does it have any philosophical impications for you?"
When Attenborough says "Well, it does have philosophical implications, and you haven't asked me that" he is correct: The interviewer is implying that since Attenborough doesn't believe in God, then he has no philosophical views on nature.



And in this case, you were wrong burdturgler. You were approaching an issue with the same bias you accuse another of having. You WANT him to have a bias, that's your bias.

I approached from an unbiased point of view. At first i thought you had a very good point. Then i read mentality's comment, and i realised that actually, attenborough was measured in his response and you were wrong.

Normally i don't vote when i haven't appreciated the video enough, but i upvote in this case simply to cancel out your biased down vote.

>> ^burdturgler:
Last time you saw a decent video depicting Christianity or any religion in a positive light in the top 15?


Not Christianity, but here.

Edit: oops, sorry - this is a dupe of a link from EDDs comment earlier (I didn't see it on my first look through the comments). I upvoted his comment to make amends.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I applaud any person willing to swim against the tide of mindless "Oooh! Oooh! Me too!"-ism that goes on here in the sift. Well done Mr. BurdT. While I'm not a fan of profanity or inflammatory language, I certainly support those who spike the wheels of atheist groupthink.
This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."
This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.

There's a fundamental flaw in the religious position: They have no proof.

And how come it's ok for Christians to claim that other religions are wrong (even different sects of their own) yet when an atheist makes that claim about ALL religions, he or she needs to back off and be understanding? Really you don't want atheists to back off religions, you just want them to back off of yours, because they make your religion look as stupid as it is. Yes I said "stupid", I'm not trying to hold anything back or be diplomatic because, well, your crummy religions are messing up the fucking world. There I said it.

And as for eastern religions Hinduism, Buddhism, etc; all that spiritual stuff, is BS in my book. In my eyes though, those religions are less of a threat to us as a society. Maybe because they don't affect us on the west. Maybe because spiritual practice is more part of a personal journey and the folklore aspect of those religions are understood as metaphors and parables to aid in the guidance of one's own healthy living.

Muslims and Jews though...they need to wake up and smell the dog shit that they're helping the Christians smear all over the world. There is no one true god, no messiah and thus no reason to fight. They're all wrong.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I applaud any person willing to swim against the tide of mindless "Oooh! Oooh! Me too!"-ism that goes on here in the sift. Well done Mr. BurdT. While I'm not a fan of profanity or inflammatory language, I certainly support those who spike the wheels of atheist groupthink.
This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."
This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.


that has GOT to be the worst straw man i have ever SEEN!
you set up the "atheist argument" and then say its a fundamental flaw?
weak my friend..very VERY weak.
show me this understanding of god that you espouse.what is this fundamental understanding that you so obtusely speak of?and this lack thereof?
what does "HE" want?
is it from scripture?which version?publishing date?language?gospels?apocryphal or canonized?greek orthodox or KJV?
i have an entire bookshelf,let me know which i should pull out.

while i can admire BT for standing up for his beliefs,potty mouth aside (bad form BT),i cannot and will not let such a poorly flawed argument slip past and not call you out on it.
mr pennypacker...you sir..are full of cow cookies.

Just wondering, who here has watched the "Life of" Series? Life changing really, it you've never seen or heard of anything like it.

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.

Shouldn't this be *talks too?

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by mauz15.

>> ^Skeeve:
From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

I just wanted to point out that it's really misguided to say that religion caused all these conflicts which happened to have religion tacked on to them. The Crusades, for example, were less about religion than they were about halting the advance of a growing empire. Religion is the excuse and the propaganda tool for mobilizing one group of people against another, usually for political reasons or in competition over resources. We'd have plenty of wars still without religion, and the scapegoating is pointless.

>> ^rottenseed:
And as for eastern religions Hinduism, Buddhism, etc; all that spiritual stuff, is BS in my book.

You clearly haven't researched them at all. Some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism aren't spiritual but pragmatic. Then there's Taoist philosophy which is agnostic when it comes to belief in a soul or an afterlife, but it teaches that ultimately it doesn't matter. I see modern astrophysics and quantum physics making new hypotheses that mirror Eastern philosophical tenets, such as cosmic inflation theory's infinite/eternal field of bubble universes being similar to the Tao. Eastern philosophies can't be lumped in with Western religions, and aren't adequately described as "spiritual stuff."

Burdturgler, you jump to a lot of conclusions based on a small fragment of a discussion. What was said before the beginning of this clip? Did the interviewer really just pop the religious question out of the blue? It seems unlikely to me. Quite possibly, even probably, the discussion before had already been dealing with religion, which would make Attenborough's answer reasonable. I don't think there's enough context here to say his response was the result of a bias against Christianity.

>> ^westy:
and ... here we see.. the Attenborough , Taken outside of its normal Environment.. , in what can only be described as remarkable footage..


haha omfg i lolled

There is no positive light that could possibly outweigh the blight on humanity that is Christianity. When it finally is extinguished and we humans have moved on, the world will be a better place. Christianity is the cancer of the mind.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker
This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."

First of all, I only thus far worked to disprove a TYPE of God, namely the one that 99% of theists believe in.

This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.


This is not an acceptable form of debate. You are not giving reasons, you are just saying "nope, your argument is fallacious. You don't understand God. I win." I perfectly well understand your concept of God, an omnipotent and benevolent God, and I'll repeat it again: he cannot logically exist in that format. That there is human suffering proves that God either:

(a) is not omnipotent and can't stop it.
(b) allows it to happen and is thus, a distant, stoic being that does not particularly favor or seek to reward humans over other creations.
(c) is not there.

If you argue that the suffering is due punishment for sins, I've already argued that his ethics model would have to be inferior to his creations, which is impossible of a creature intelligent enough to create life and the universe. So that choice is invalid and equivalent to (c).

So which one is it? Those are the only choices that make sense. You must concede to one of these if you consider yourself a rational person, period.

Hello all,

I've been folllowing this site for quite some time but am finally registering to say this... burdturgler, your posts in this thread are awesome. Thanks for posting.

It's too bad there are so many people on the internets so angsty towards Christianity, I wish I could have a beer with all of you to talk it over... but then I'd be an alcoholic.

Blessings,
JIMP

This point has been argued before: A big reason there are no videos depicting religion or Christianity in a positive light on videosift is as much that there are none of them as bias on the sifts part. If a video truthfully depicts religion, it is always in a bad light, because it's a bad thing.

If you see some that put them honestly in a positive light, do sift them - I would like to think that I have enough integrity to vote them up if they are indeed truthful. I've just not seen any yet.

>> ^burdturgler:
I gotta tell ya man. I have no hatred or bias at all. I do get angry. It bothers me a lot when subtle shit goes by in the media or anywhere else. And when I see it I say something. I think everyone has a right to their views. You tell me how welcome religious people are on the sift and then we can talk about bias. Religious people are crazy and stupid. Videos that advocate atheism are praised and lauded. Last time you saw a decent video depicting Christianity or any religion in a positive light in the top 15?

I think with religion you have to use a mix of probability and logic. In my mind, the probability of a omnipotent being or creator seems unlikely given the evidence or information that we have so far obtained. The fact that it's unlikely doesn't prove that it isn't true. Given the question 'Does a God exist?' - binary logic cannot be applied as it is an unknown, it can only be applied to questions with definate yes or no answers.

With such a broad subject such as religion, with multiple sects, understandings and uptakes to it's teachings, ranging from a no questions asked 'yes, the earth and everything on it was created by a being in 7 days, fact' to 'I don't believe this stuff ACTUALLY happened, but I think it's a good set of teachings to live by' and everything inbetween, it's difficult to apply Sir David's quote to any particular set of christian beliefs, especially with so little information available. As mentioned before however, it's most likely that he is arguing against the creationist theory, with which he is quite famous for doing so - see his wikipedia page section on this matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#Religion_and_creationism ). It seems natural for David to have an opinion on this matter given his career, and likely many people are interested in his thoughts rather than it being an attack on a religion.

My view is that he is attempting to state his case against creationist belief, that evolution is non-existant, and that an argument for god and intelligent design cannot be made by select choosing examples from nature rather than sampling from it as a whole, you can't choose one thing and ignore another. I wouldn't say that it is an 'attack' on christianity, that would be similar to saying 'I don't believe in santa, because I didn't get any christmas presents' to be an 'attack' on saint nick. He is just putting accross his view/opinion on the question being asked. In my opinion, the interviewer was linking the question about belief in a god and the philosophy of nature.

I for one would like to see the entirity of this interview.

Also,

>> ^gwiz665:
There is no positive light that could possibly outweigh the blight on humanity that is Christianity. When it finally is extinguished and we humans have moved on, the world will be a better place. Christianity is the cancer of the mind.


I find it difficult to believe that someone can be ignorant enough to tar all individuals in a religion with the same brush. Even broadly speaking, that's a strong and highly generalised view. I have no problem with people believing in what they like, as long as they don't put their belief on me, use it in an argument or apply it irrationally to important matters (such as being elected into office lolololol ¬_¬), they can believe what they wish. To call christianity a cancer of the mind could equally be replied to by saying your narrow view of religion is certainly a handicap.

Anything is possible, but why believe in anything that cannot be tested?

Sure, there may be a god (or multiple), but if you can't see them or interact with them then how can you know anything about them? Because of what other people who can't see them or interact with them say?

The point isn't whether or not gods exist, it's whether or not we have any reason to believe they exist. Even if they do exist, we know nothing about them. If you want to believe something about them then you either have to make it up or believe whatever someone else makes up.

There are plenty of things to believe in that are observable, why choose to believe in things that aren't?

Platinga's free will defense is merely a stealthy withdrawal of the axiom of omnipotence. Besides, free will has nothing to do with evolved parasites.

The problem of evil is absolutely unsolvable. The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

The hypothesis of god does not help at all in making accurate predictions about the universe, therefore it should be discarded. Besides, his supposed powers would contradict all known laws of physics.

"Have an open mind and believe" is an oxymoron. By accepting any religion the mind is actually closed, because it tries to fill the "void" of our lacking knowledge with false answers, so we stop looking. All religion is bad. All people who follow religion limit their view of the world. This is why Christianity (and the others) and cancers of the mind.

>> ^Seric:
Also,
^gwiz665:
There is no positive light that could possibly outweigh the blight on humanity that is Christianity. When it finally is extinguished and we humans have moved on, the world will be a better place. Christianity is the cancer of the mind.

I find it difficult to believe that someone can be ignorant enough to tar all individuals in a religion with the same brush. Even broadly speaking, that's a strong and highly generalised view. I have no problem with people believing in what they like, as long as they don't put their belief on me, use it in an argument or apply it irrationally to important matters (such as being elected into office lolololol ¬_¬), they can believe what they wish. To call christianity a cancer of the mind could equally be replied to by saying your narrow view of religion is certainly a handicap.

>> ^jwray:
Platinga's free will defense is merely a stealthy withdrawal of the axiom of omnipotence. Besides, free will has nothing to do with evolved parasites.
The problem of evil is absolutely unsolvable. The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.
The hypothesis of god does not help at all in making accurate predictions about the universe, therefore it should be discarded. Besides, his supposed powers would contradict all known laws of physics.

The concept of evil is not wholly a logical one, so perhaps in this sense you are right - it isn't a problem to be solved: like one solves an equation.
Secondly, omnipotence is partially a paradox, so it probably has an extra-logical "solution." I find the best, and also truly funny, answer to the old scholastic problem of God creating a stone he cant lift this one

God creates a stone he cant lift
God lifts said stone.

This is a proper paradox, I think. But even Descartes said that God perhaps isn't bound by mathematics. Since all of science is basically math + "reality", searching for evidential experience for God is almost a heresy. What would that entail, anyway?

Im sure someone will give me hell for this but I only have one more thing to say about the whole religious people are stupid argument. Again you assume all people who believe in god or a god are the same. I honestly dont give a shit who you are what you are and or what you believe in unless your causing harm to others. And, its not really religion that messes the world up but people who use religion for a reason. Like the old saying goes guns dont kill people, people do. Its in our nature or in our genes does not matter how you preach to people you take all the religions out of the world today people will come up with another excuse to do what they do to the world.
Look I dont know if there is or isnt a god all I know is that its hard for my mind to accept that life and everything we know is some great accident or some strange coincidence. Im not stupid because I want to believe there is more to life than this fragile body that I can loose at any time or place. Because I believe in god Im not to blame for the worlds problems rather the world as a whole is to blame it matters not there excuse.

>> ^burdturgler:
He obviously confronted the question with bias by his coming out with a direct attack on Christianity, which was not part of what was asked but is definitely part of his mindset.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
I wasnt claiming Christianity was right for all I know it might be the Hindus. I just believe there has to be something out there and so I dont like attacking other peoples beliefs. Especially if it pertains to comments like they should be wiped of the earth. Im not Jewish but I dont think wiping them off the earth is a good thing nor trying to change their beliefs. I understand the atheist more than I may come across but I still think I fall under the agnostic point of view.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."
This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.

Burdturgler:

I wear your downvote with honor ponceleon and look forward to your detailed and reasoned explanation.

It's funny the way you word things. For an asshole like you there's only two ways. I can learn (agree with) what you're saying .. or I can remain stupid and ignorant. Tough fuckin call. Guess I'll go for stupid for the time being.

Why don't you fart gum drops and unicorns out of your ass? Why doesn't God just send a big meteor of cash hurtling through the atmosphere to explode everywhere? Better yet, why not just slip a few bills in everyone's pocket at the start of each fucking day?

Some of you are failing to parse the interviewer's questions.

Q: "...Are you a religious man?"
A: "No"
Q: "So it does not have any philosophical implications for you." (I think this is a stupid leading "question" which shows her misunderstanding of the previous exchange and makes the keen observer suspect she's spent too much time in right wing Sunday school and not enough in a real school.)

A: "Well it does have philosophical implications, but they [don't push me towards religion]." To paraphrase, if there were a benevolent god who created all species, he would not have created terrible species of parasites which live only by torturing innocent people.

This video contains David Attenborough's statement of why he is not a christian; This video conveys malice toward none. Conflating it with hate speech against Christians is utter nonsense.

Pretty sure religious people are just as welcome on the sift as anyone else.
But seeing as this is the Internet and not Sunday school, it's probably wise for them to put their hardhat on to protect their noggins against other people's skepticism and outright disbelief in the stuff that's passed on as undeniable facts in regards to a lot of religions.

What a great discussion! Sorry I got here so late.

Firstly, certain morons in this discussion are not actually paying attention to the video.

Q: ... Are you a religious man then?
A: No.
Q: No.
A: No.
Q: It does not have any philosophical implications for you.
A: Um, well it does have philosophical implications, and that, you didn't ask me that. It doesn't have particular religious, particularly Christian implications.

If you understand conversational English, it is quite obvious that she is conflating religion and philosophy, which is a peculiar trait of the religious mind. They may be strongly related, but they are not equal and she was clearly using the two terms interchangeably as some religious people do.

Likewise, if you think of the type of person who would be annoying to a famous non-religious naturalist, your might easily imagine the worst would be those persistent creationists, who would keep challenging the evolutionary explanations for all the bizarre and beautiful (and nasty) things found in nature. So it is quite easy to see why he jumps to that subject. He is faced with a person who thinks religion is philosophy, and that studying the strange beauties of the world would make somebody more religious. So he gives an example of something that is found in nature that would not be easy to reconcile with the idea of a benevolent god.

It's pretty damn easy to follow for somebody with more than half a brain.

But as things are never terribly simple, the eye worm is not as straight-forwardly evil as Attenborough implies. The worm does not only eat eyes, and it does not always cause blindness. At least, not the worm I could find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa_loa_filariasis. If anyone can find a worm that better fits Attenborough's description, let me know.

As for the rest of the discussion here, as usual it breaks down into two categories: those who require evidence to believe something, and those who believe something and shape evidence to support that belief. Both feel righteous, but only one is right.

If you accept that there is no evidence for god, then you must be an atheist or a fool.

If you believe that there is evidence for god, I would love to see it. All I ever hear about is unexplained phenomenon, which simply cannot be used as evidence to support a specific creed.

maxwilder shall be penalized 5 pts for lateness.

This post has been removed from the Nature channel by channel owner arvana. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, June 4th, 2009 6:43pm PDT - promote requested by schmawy.

Is this a * dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sir-David-Attenborough-on-God ? I can't watch the other because it's blocked.

Nope It's from a different interview. >> ^jonny:

Is this a dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sir-David-Attenborough-on-God ? I can't watch the other because it's blocked.

*quality enjoyable comment thread reread.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

When Jesus was with His disciples, He healed a blind man and they asked Jesus whether he was blind because of his own sin or his parents sin. Jesus replied that he wasn't blind for his sin or his parents sin, but that the glory of God would be shown through him. This and other examples in scripture show that we don't always know the reason that bad things happen to good people. Job is a classic example of that. Also, if you read the psalms you will see many where the psalmist cries out to God because of wicked people prospering while the righteous were trodden under.

The conclusion of the matter is this: Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not on your own understanding. God has made a way for every human being to find forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ. We will never know all of the reasons why God does what He does but we will see the final result when God brings every work into judgment, including every secret thing, for good or for evil.

*length=2:26

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:26 - length declared by CrushBug.