1. Comment #86658 by Ashley1319 on November 9, 2007 at 10:01 pm

ah I've seen this video before, somewhere else. Attenborough rocks

Other Comments by Ashley1319

2. Comment #86661 by windweaver on November 9, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Attenborough's interviewer,Mark Lawson, is a "sort of" theist.Here he is talking about his religious views:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1738545,00.html

Other Comments by windweaver

3. Comment #86668 by simonchase on November 9, 2007 at 11:08 pm

This guy (quite rightly) is held in such high esteem by so many people in the UK that I wish he would add more vocally (maybe in a book) to the atheist cause.
However, he's a legend whatever.

Other Comments by simonchase

4. Comment #86672 by Will in Aus on November 9, 2007 at 11:51 pm

I was thrilled when I found this video. I've always admired Sir David Attenborough and at the same time wondered how his love of the natural world impacted his religious views. I agree with simonchase, it would be awesome to see him weigh in on the issue of atheism and particularly the fight against intelligent design. Never the less, a true legend of our time.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

5. Comment #86678 by Eventhorizon on November 10, 2007 at 12:01 am

David Attenborough is a British institution and many people grew up watching his natural history documentaries.
His views on creation would be hard for many religious people to swallow simply because they watch his programmes and come away thinking 'what an amazing world god created'.
I've always wished that he would talk more strongly about his lack of belief but working for the BBC must be quite restrictive as they are worried about offending anyone.
Anyway it's a real bonus to have him on our side as he is so respected by the religious in this country.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

6. Comment #86685 by Jaffas85 on November 10, 2007 at 12:38 am

So is he an Agnostic or Atheist?

Other Comments by Jaffas85

7. Comment #86689 by Nick Good on November 10, 2007 at 1:13 am

So is he an Agnostic or Atheist?

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, if you lack god belief, you qualify as an atheist.

Other Comments by Nick Good

8. Comment #86692 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 1:28 am

So many contradicting religious stories by region. Yet the evidence is the same everywhere.

A more concise argument against religion can hardly be made. A little clarification may be needed, but my goodness, is that sharp.

Other Comments by Conrad

9. Comment #86706 by Matt7895 on November 10, 2007 at 2:25 am

A wonderful man. And he doesn't have to speak out against ID because it holds no sway in the UK whatsoever. Evolution is taught on the National Curriculum and there is no way any government is going to change that - our political parties are all secular.

Other Comments by Matt7895

10. Comment #86725 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 3:00 am

Isn't it encouraging that we have most of the intelligent, thoughtful and kind people on our side?

And they want us to believe a "just and merciful god" thought http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841401.stm was a good idea?

If that concept weren't so appalling, it'd be funny. grrr.

Other Comments by monoape

11. Comment #86726 by djgw201 on November 10, 2007 at 3:03 am

His statue should be placed on the spare plinth in Trafalgar Square. No question. Who has brought more awe and wonder to the nation, the Sagan of life science.

Other Comments by djgw201

12. Comment #86732 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 3:19 am

@Matt7895: "... our political parties are all secular".

Q: "Do you believe in God?"
A: "Yes I do" (Gordon Brown, our unelected PM)

We may not suffer the religious piffle that the US of A has to put up with, but let's not get complacent ... the bloke running the country is delusional. And his belief in The Big Sky Fairy is not going to stop our taxes getting spent on subsiding religious organisations or funding 'faith' schools to indoctrinate the next generation.

Other Comments by monoape

13. Comment #86739 by Bonzai on November 10, 2007 at 3:34 am

12. Comment #86732 by monoape,

We may not suffer the religious piffle that the US of A has to put up with, but let's not get complacent ... the bloke running the country is delusional. And his belief in The Big Sky Fairy is not going to stop our taxes getting spent on subsiding religious organisations or funding 'faith' schools to indoctrinate the next generation.

This is a joke, isn't it? So you are saying anyone with religious belief should be disqualified from holding public office? How about womanizers? Smokers? Boozers? Ugly people who are deluded enough to think that they are good looking?

Just because someone is religious it doesn't follow that (s)he cannot see there is a boundary between the private and the public. In my country Canada quite a few Catholic politicians including our former Prime Minister voted for same sex marriage, so there you go. We don't need a reverse Inquisition. "Faith is private" means religious people don't impose their religious views on others, it also means that whatever they believe in private, as long as it doesn't interfere with their public role you should lay off.

I think it is misguided to fund faith schools, but it would be childish to think that the reason faith schools get funding is that the Prime Minister happens to believe in God.

Other Comments by Bonzai

14. Comment #86742 by ericcolumba on November 10, 2007 at 3:40 am

I thiught someone might like to see my vid on possible origins of religion.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HZluiHkv9Mk

Monoape
As someone who teaches in a non faith school in
England I would agree that there is no room for being complacent.
In the last month during assembly with my tutor group I have had to listen to The Gideons openly declare their belief in the existence in the Devil before giving them all a little "gift" to read.
This was followed this week with another guest speaker clutching his bible and proclaiming that he believed in it 100%.
As for the Religious studies teachers, some, not all, happily present their fairytales to kids as if they were presenting facts. "Jesus did this and God did that."

Other Comments by ericcolumba

15. Comment #86744 by Elcristoph on November 10, 2007 at 3:48 am

"Just because someone is religious it doesn't follow that (s)he cannot see there is a boundary between the private and the public. In my country Canada quite a few Catholic politicians voted for same sex marriage, so there you go. We don't need a reverse Inquisition."

Quoted for agreement, I think people can get a bit aggressive, I agree that the biggest issue is religious fundamentalists but theres no need to beat on people who may agree with everything you on every subject but be a theist. I have no issue with people being religious so long as people are willing to discuss ideas and not force them. I have quiet a lot of religious freinds and we all pretty much agree with each other on most subjects the ones we don't agree on...god is never brought into the discussion, they all have secular reasons.

Chris

Other Comments by Elcristoph

16. Comment #86746 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 3:49 am

Sorry to pick on you, Matt7895, but: "... he doesn't have to speak out against ID because it holds no sway in the UK whatsoever"

"City Academies are the government's Big Idea for education ... Of the 46 academies opened by October 2006, 14 – just under a third of the total – will be entirely in the control of Christian organisations or evangelical Christians."

Sir Peter Vardy [literal biblist / creationist], whose wealth comes from ... the second-hand car business he inherited from his father, put up £2 million for each of his three academies, which have cost the taxpayer many times that amount. It is you and I who pay the bills.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1477

Don't know about you, but that scares the bejeebus out of me, not to mention that I'm abjectly pissed off that *I* am paying for children to be lied to. And our government is not listening: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12064.asp

Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.

And many parents think it's acceptable to feed their children microwave pizzas 7 days of the week. It still doesn't make it right.

They may be delusional, but they ain't stoopid. "Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey" springs to mind.

Other Comments by monoape

17. Comment #86752 by mmurray on November 10, 2007 at 4:25 am

Does anyone know where this came from ? I would like to see the whole thing.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

18. Comment #86754 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 4:35 am

Just because someone is religious it doesn't follow that (s)he cannot see there is a boundary between the private and the public. In my country Canada quite a few Catholic politicians voted for same sex marriage, so there you go. We don't need a reverse Inquisition.

If someone is delusional, and anyone who answers "yes" to "do you believe in (a) god", fits that shoe for me. So, once I've established that they are delusional, I don't know where that delusion ends. Gordon Brown, Blair, Dubya, Bin Laden - all delusional. Do they hear voices that tell them what to do? I don't know and I don't trust them to tell me the truth. If they can 'bake the mental pretzel' of religion in their heads, what else is possible?

@Elcristoph - http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

And I'm fucking angry as well.

@ericcolumba - sc-c-c-cary.

... another guest speaker clutching his bible and proclaiming that he believed in it 100%.

If you're not able to do it in front of the kids, would you consider challenging any similar speakers privately with a recent favourite of mine: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/judges/judges15.htm.

Who can read that and believe any part of the fairytale is true? Three hundred innocent animals were tortured, people were murdered by beating and by fire ... and what was the reason? Let's not even start on the logistics of finding and catching 300 foxes!

Other Comments by monoape

19. Comment #86757 by Silent.Bomber on November 10, 2007 at 4:52 am

Excellent. The evidence is the same for everyone. It is only the method adopted by YE creationists and genuine geologists that is different.

A scientist looks at the evidence (the Earth), considers everything and reaches a conclusion: (the Earth is 4.54 billion years old).
A creationist reaches a conclusion by looking in the 'holy book': (the Earth is 6000 years old) and then proceeds to find evidence which fits in with this, discarding anything that does not fit and denying the objective evidence.
And that is why a creationist is an idiot.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

20. Comment #86758 by Bonzai on November 10, 2007 at 5:02 am

monoape ,

If someone is delusional, and anyone who answers "yes" to "do you believe in (a) god", fits that shoe for me. So, once I've established that they are delusional, I don't know where that delusion ends. Gordon Brown, Blair, Dubya, Bin Laden - all delusional. Do they hear voices that tell them what to do? I don't know and I don't trust them to tell me the truth. If they can 'bake the mental pretzel' of religion in their heads, what else is possible?

Not all religious people are Bush or Bin Laden, it is a strawman. There are many examples of statesmen and politicians who hold private religious beliefs yet know where the private ends and the public begins and have the good sense of building a firewall between their private faiths and public duties.

All of us are "deluded" and "irrational" in some ways according to psychological studies. It would be naive to single out religion as the only and the worst manifestation of delusion and irrationality.

A fanatic is someone who sees the world as black and white, they are intolerant of grey areas. Most religious people are not fanatics. Fanaticism is what we should guard against, not private "delusions". Fanaticism can also come from the faithless atheists. You seem to prove the point.

Fanaticism is irrational, whether religious or secular.

Finally as a side note, a lot of wars, devastations and cruelties are caused by "rational" pursuit of state or corporate interests. "Real politik" by definition is "rational". So "rationality" in and of itself is not a magic bullet for all social ills.


Other Comments by Bonzai

21. Comment #86760 by Buddha on November 10, 2007 at 5:16 am

Though I have the greatest respect for David Attenborough, he does get on my nerves sometimes. There have been a couple of occasions when myself and Mrs Buddha have been taking a quiet weekend out in the bush for a bit of a rest, when he turns up with a bloody camera crew. We're minding our own business and he just crouches there whispering to himself then expects a cuddle.

Other Comments by Buddha

22. Comment #86761 by mmurray on November 10, 2007 at 5:22 am

For another opinion on `David bloody Attenborough'

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpbMm0433I

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

23. Comment #86800 by NJS on November 10, 2007 at 7:09 am

I've read something by him before saying "what sort of god creates brain eating parasites" - I then saw a theist reply which suggested the parasites were created only after the fall so now you know that children dying in agony in Africa is because of Eve which of course takes you back to the same question.

Other Comments by NJS

24. Comment #86804 by huxley_leopard on November 10, 2007 at 7:27 am

This is great because David Attenborough is loved and respected by so many people in Britain. I hope he does a similar program about creationism as he did about climate change. Perhaps the reason he hasn't is that he thinks it is beneath him to argue with such idiocy! And I would agree if there wasn't such a resurgence of such views and the pressure in some quarters to teach it alongside evolution.

Monoape and Bonzai - I think this argument could run and run. If the Prime Minister believed in fairies or unicorns, most people would think him certifiable and not fit to run the country.

However, I personally have no problem with people believing in gods or fairies based on personal experience, as long as they don't claim there is proof.

If they know that it is their subjective experience only and other people's experiences and beliefs may differ and be equally valid, they are likely to be more humble when it comes to evangelising others or making rational decisions. As soon as they think they are in possession of the one truth, then there are problems!!

Other Comments by huxley_leopard

25. Comment #86808 by huxley_leopard on November 10, 2007 at 7:33 am

Michael (mmurray), LOL thanks for that!

Other Comments by huxley_leopard

26. Comment #86829 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

"Not all religious people are Bush or Bin Laden, it is a strawman."

There is no strawman.

If you believe, without any evidence, that there is a bloke sat on a cloud, who clicked his fingers, created the cosmos and takes a keen interest in our sex lives and headwear, you are deluded. By my definition and, I would imagine, every vaguely cognisant person on the planet. There's no equivocation, no wriggle room available.

Bush, Bin Laden, Blair, Brown (suspicious pattern there) et al supposedly believe this. They are ape shit delusional in my book. Don't like 'em, don't trust 'em. And it's a testament to how young the human species is that millions of people swallow the story without contest.

I'm absolutely certain there are some genuinely nice people who have succumbed to the religious spell. However, there 'niceness' is borne of society reigning in the madness of religious belief. 500 years ago we'd all be happy to wander down to the village green and burn the witch (aka lonely, old spinster who someone accused of putting a hex on the chickens that all mysteriously keeled over one day) .. and it wasn't religion that woke up to that atrocity, it was rational, humane thought.

[slap] Wake up.

Other Comments by monoape

27. Comment #86830 by Silent.Bomber on November 10, 2007 at 8:51 am

''I've read something by him before saying "what sort of god creates brain eating parasites" - I then saw a theist reply which suggested the parasites were created only after the fall so now you know that children dying in agony in Africa is because of Eve which of course takes you back to the same question.''

Uh...yeeeeah...

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

28. Comment #86833 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 9:08 am

As the [expletive] forum is down *yet again*:

I'm starting a project that will hopefully do a little more than my ranting on these pages:

http://www.theatheistanswer.info/

My hope / intention / plan is that it's a community-driven website that distills all the arguments that we encounter and refute ad nauseum. Anyone can contribute, although if we get too many God Botherers spoiling things I'll need to close down editing privileges. There are many very accomplished writers on RD.net - I hope most of you will help build the site with me.

It's only a few hours old, and the design and content are not in place. I'll work on that in the coming days.

If you'd like to get involved, please register and start editing the home page with your ideas (I've scribbled down a few things that occurred to me).

Other Comments by monoape

29. Comment #86838 by GSP on November 10, 2007 at 9:27 am

monoape: "If you believe, without any evidence, that there is a bloke sat on a cloud, who clicked his fingers, created the cosmos and takes a keen interest in our sex lives and headwear, you are deluded. By my definition and, I would imagine, every vaguely cognisant person on the planet. There's no equivocation, no wriggle room available."

I am afraid that if you did not create a straw man in your first post, you definitely have here. You cannot define god in your own way (man on a cloud, etc.) and then claim those individuals you named (et al) believe in that god.

In the United States there is an organization called "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State." They do great legal work in keeping "the wall" as high as possible. And the founder and executive director is Barry Lynn, an ordained, practicing, minister. You cannot claim that because someone believes in god, they must be unable to function in any other aspect of civic life.

As Bonzai stated, we are all delusional to some degree or another, whether it be in love, economics, politics, metaphysics, etc. We must not forget that science does not deal in "proof." It is limited in the sense that it is only able to explain the world in terms of what we understand.

Descartes' philosophy led others to believe that only humans could feel pain. This resulted in experiments upon living creatures of the most brutal persuasion.

To us, to claim that animals do not feel pain is deluded. But back then, they could not know they were deluded. And since no scientist in their right mind would claim we know everything about everything, it follows that as of this moment, all of us could be deluded about one thing or another. But this should not disqualify us from participating in public life.

Other Comments by GSP

30. Comment #86847 by monoape on November 10, 2007 at 9:52 am

You cannot define god in your own way (man on a cloud, etc.)

My definition of a god was one of flippant brevity and a (weak) attempt at humour.

The never-ending torment of the atheist includes the 'slippery bar of soap' that deists / theists are ... "that's not my god / religion / Jesus / Mohammed you're describing, mine is much more nuanced and defies labelling".

To have an argument one must take a position. No? Define your god and we can then move forward ... until then I can only work with my definition of (one of the hundreds of) god(s) that have been concocted by humans.

Yes, we all develop a 'personal reality' - "I'm witty, handsome and a sublime driver", but those are purely subjective (apart from the driving thing, based on the shiny go karting trophy on my shelf). The assertion that you *know* there is a god that 'did it all' and will look after you when you croke, is baseless. It's wishful thinking (assuming one doesn't subscribe to Hitchen's view of the 'celestial North Korea'). It's pure delusion. And my main point was that if there's a sniff of delusion in someone, I have no way of telling how far that delusion spreads.

Off to drink Guinness now. Adieu.

Other Comments by monoape

31. Comment #86850 by Erech01 on November 10, 2007 at 10:07 am

i agree with attenborough:) the truth is much more amazing than any fairy tale in holy books

Other Comments by Erech01

32. Comment #86896 by eXcommunicate on November 10, 2007 at 11:48 am

" We may not suffer the religious piffle that the US of A has to put up with, but let's not get complacent ... the bloke running the country is delusional. And his belief in The Big Sky Fairy is not going to stop our taxes getting spent on subsiding religious organisations or funding 'faith' schools to indoctrinate the next generation. "



This is a joke, isn't it? So you are saying anyone with religious belief should be disqualified from holding public office? How about womanizers? Smokers? Boozers? Ugly people who are deluded enough to think that they are good looking?

Bonzai, I think the idea here is that he is worried the PM will continue to support state funded "faith schools" and I don't blame him(her?).

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

33. Comment #86912 by FXR on November 10, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I've just finished watching the Planet Earth Diaries. It's a magnificently made series which had it been filmed a few dozen decades ago would have been an uplifting spectacle to watch.

But now it's depressing to see the destruction caused to a beautiful planet because one species became marshalled into a preoccupation with the imaginary and became blindsided to the reality around them.

Its clear that the dominance of those organisations which depend for power on the irrational belief that humanity should tread water worrying about some imaginary destination has played an intrinsic role in something as totally irrational as destroying the only home we have.

One thing that stuck out and pissed me off more than a little was David Attenborough describing an ancient 5000 year old tree as being three thousand years old when "christ" was born. In view of the video above that remark seems even more curious now.

Other Comments by FXR

34. Comment #86929 by ricey on November 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm

FXR:

Well said re your environmental comments. We are all leading lives as though our actions will have no consequences; but I think Attenborough's comment about the birth of christ was just meant to give perspective to the general viewer. Jesus comes from a long time ago, as every school kid knows. So the tree Attenborough referred to was placed in "the olden times" in the minds of his viewers.

I don't think there's anything suspicious about it.

Other Comments by ricey

35. Comment #86972 by Ick of the East on November 10, 2007 at 7:18 pm

He mentioned the Thai belief that a sea of milk was churned by demons.

Why is it that in Thailand, absolutely nobody still believes this, yet in America such a large percentage of the people still believe in rib generation, talking serpents, and magic fruit trees?

Is a puzzlement.

Other Comments by Ick of the East

36. Comment #87001 by riddlemethis on November 11, 2007 at 12:25 am

Monoape - a sublime driver eh? That give a girl real pause for thought!

Seriously though, I am with you. . .the delusional should not be in charge of the nut house. The danger reigns of course in the automatic sympathy they show to the ideas of the faithful, purely because they are, well, faithful. In my country - Australia - we have a good ol' fashioned down home delusional at the helm & whilst everyone who knows no better describes him as a religious "moderate", he counts amongst his friends & give open audience to the head of the Australian branch of the sect Exclusive Brethren. This is a group who refuse to vote, but are allowed to contribute enormous sums of money to the coffers of their conservative political friends & our PM gives them audience on all manner of political issues here. It is fricking outrageous in a country where voting is technically compulsory & most people who do vote couldn't get an audience with the PM if they walked into his office with a loaded gun.

So, Bonzai, I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Mono & Richard Dawkins (among countless others here), the moderate religites are the smoke screen that allows religious fundamentalism to thrive & as such no, I don't want them running my country. Now, if only the politicians who don't really give a toss about god-bothering had the balls to stand up and say so, there might be someone worth voting for. . .

edited to add - Richard Attenborough I now realise planted the seeds for my re-emergence into atheism. Watching his programs as a child was a sublime pleasure & re-watching them as an adult is even better. I only hope when he shakes this mortal coil, he has left explicit instructions that his family do not allow a huge religious ceremony on his behalf & that he is sent off with recognition for who he is - one of reasons true gentlemen.

Other Comments by riddlemethis

37. Comment #87036 by Amanda S. on November 11, 2007 at 4:16 am

Which one of the three major holy books states other religions are equally as valid? The message in each is to smite those who do not believe exactly what is written in this book. But, these god inspired tomes are so darned big and boring the righteous have no clue what they are endorsing.
If someone states they believe we do not know how far the poison of religion has invaded their thought processes. Having an allegiance to an imaginary entity should be an impediment to election to public office.
Do you really want someone who believes in the second coming to control foreign policy? Or would you rather have someone rational who understands instability is a bad thing?

Other Comments by Amanda S.

38. Comment #87053 by Poydah on November 11, 2007 at 5:36 am

For those who know me (and no one here really does), they have no doubt that I am an atheist. In all conscience, I cannot believe in any god or gods. In addition, I myself find religion a troubling thing and personally have found it difficult to understand why people choose to believe in a god, yet they do.

Not only do many believe in a god, but a lot of them fervently believe in a god. Or so they say. Lately though, I have found that people I have questioned in regard to this do not so much believe in a standard god, but they believe in something outside of themselves, whether it be a higher power, or a creator, or something else yet, for want of a better word, they use the word god.

Now this I have found to be very interesting. It has made me think about how people label their beliefs and the more I think about it and talk to people, the more I realise that very few people have proper words for their beliefs, so they lump it all under a belief in a god.

The thing that I am concerned with here is that we atheists may be overlooking a golden opportunity to spread some real enlightenment to those who need to believe.

Let us forget about condemning religion. Let's face it, that makes about as much sense as governments trying to stamp out drug use. It's a losing battle and it is pointless to fight it. I know myself that I have wasted too much time arguing points that in my heart I know the ardent believer is just not going to accept.

In addition, we have to stop ridiculing the other guy. That has never been a points winner, ever. You can't ever change a persons mind about something by ridiculing them, berating them, mocking them or using any other form of abusive tactics. Most people who believe in that higher power are honest in their beliefs, whether it is rational or not. Not only that, but many of them need to have their belief. It is what helps them function. There is absolutely no point in trying to take away something as personal as that from another person without offering something in return.

The point I am trying to make is that these people do not necessarily have to believe in a god or even a religion, but they do need to believe in something and it has to be something that will enrich their lives.

It has to be something that offers them something in return for their belief. It has to offer them hope, stability, security, love, self esteem and a myriad other things. Not all necessarily in the same combination.

So although, from what I have seen of many postings on social networking sites, some seem to have a genuine anger toward or grievance with organised religion, I feel it is time to stop these "attack all" methodologies that many atheists have and start developing some thoughtful and conciliatory dialogues with these otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people.

It's fair enough and meritorious to fight the extremists and fundamentalists but there is no advantage to be gained in alienating the majority of the "middle of the road" believers out there. It is their hearts and minds that need to be won and that can only be achieved through respectful, compassionate and open dialogue.

I have many thoughts in this area and if there are others who feel the same way or are beginning to feel the same way, I would love to hear from you. The battle for a rational world has really just begun and is too important to get messed up by being fundamentalists ourselves.

Other Comments by Poydah

39. Comment #87116 by Silent.Bomber on November 11, 2007 at 8:29 am

''The battle for a rational world has really just begun and is too important to get messed up by being fundamentalists ourselves.''

True.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

40. Comment #87131 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 9:27 am

Bonzai: Just because someone is religious it doesn't follow that (s)he cannot see there is a boundary between the private and the public.

I've said as much many times, and likely will continue to do so. But just between you, me, and the lamp post: I don't believe it.

I say things like, "Yes, of course you can have God, so long as you respect everyone else's right to their God at the same time." I avoid drawing attention to what happens to God as time passes in a society that embraces such a value.

The tactic is a bit like saying, "Of course you can chew your gum, provided you bring a piece for everyone else."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

41. Comment #87148 by GSP on November 11, 2007 at 10:42 am

I have yet to see a good argument on this board as to why those that have beliefs in something other than the empirically-knowable natural world should be banned from holding public office.

I don't even see how the two are related. I don't understand why a belief outside of naturalism necessitates how a person will act in the natural world. I can see how it could (I live under a such a president's rule) but I don't see why it must.

I am somewhat disheartened to learn that self-proclaimed "free-thinkers" believe in banishing from public life those that do not hold their same beliefs. This is the militancy that turns so many off to the eloquent arguments of atheism. It is an authoritarian strain in the atheistic community that must be weeded out.

It's the unwavering certainty in this mindset that scares me. Some of us seem to be elevating science and rationality to a god-like status. Science and rationality are not infallible. Logic, too, can sometimes be wrong.

For the atheistic community to end the freedom of thought and belief is a path I cannot agree with. It makes us no better than those with an unshakable conviction in god.

Other Comments by GSP

42. Comment #87187 by Bonzai on November 11, 2007 at 12:08 pm

32. Comment #86896 by eXcommunicate

Bonzai, I think the idea here is that he is worried the PM will continue to support state funded "faith schools" and I don't blame him(her?).

I think that is based on a very naive assumption that the decision to fund faith schools is the result of protecting vested interests of politicians who hold religious beliefs. This is a cartoonishly outlandish way to look at politics. I suspect the Prime Minster would be able to afford private schools anyway if he/she decides to send his/her children to faith schools.

There are secular politicians who are for funding faith schools and religious ones who are against. There are different reasons and political calculation being one, if not the most important one.

If I go by Monoape's logic there are much more compelling reasons to ban business people and lawyers from holding public offices. There is plenty of evidence that politicians implement economical agendas closely reflecting only business interests because of a tunneled vision that sees the world through the lens of the market, often to the great detriment of other causes.

I am an atheist and I insist faith has to be private. But I am not so naive to see that religion is the only problem in the world, nor am I so blind to tar everyone with religious beliefs with the fundamentalists. As I and others have pointed out on many occasion, the thesis that religious moderates enable fundamentalists is simply wrong and it is not backed up by evidence. It is an irrational dogma of some atheists, often repeated like a mantra without reflection (and it proves that not only religious people can be dogmatic and blind)

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #87189 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 12:18 pm

the thesis that religious moderates enable fundamentalists is simply wrong and it is not backed up by evidence. It is an irrational dogma of some atheists, often repeated like a mantra without reflection (and it proves that not only religious people can be dogmatic and blind)

I can give you examples of this not being irrational dogma.

The first is the attempt by the Anglican church to be 'inclusive'. This means that the Archbishop of Cantebury panders to reactionary African bishops because he is not prepared to dismiss the fundamentalists.

The second is something you have commented on today. It is the Ken Livingstone treating the reactionary Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi as an honoured guest because he did not want to offend Muslims in general.

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #87198 by Bonzai on November 11, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Steve,

Some religious moderates pander to reactionaries but it doesn't translate to the more absolutist assertion that religious moderation always and inevitably enables fundamentalism just because of a common belief of some deities Moreover, when religious moderates do pander to the fundamentalists religious moderation may have very little to do with the pandering.

The COE leadership acted in an dishonourable manner but I am not sure if religious moderation had anything to do with it. It was a political calculation. The archbishop needed to pander to the bigger and growing market for Anglicanism in Africa. On the other hand the threat of schism within the Church indicates there are also many moderates who are pro gay rights. I don't see how they can be accused of enabling fundamentalism.

I am Canadian. Both our former Prime Ministers are Catholics and both supported same sex marriage.

In my province Ontario, the lobby to allow Sharia in family arbitration was defeated by an outspoken counter lobby by moderate Muslims while secular politicians were prepared to give the green light.

For your second example.

Firstly, Ken Livingstone was the one doing the enabling, not moderate Muslims. Ken is not even religious if I understand correctly. Secondly, it might be his assumption that many moderate Muslims would appreciate his gesture, but he could be wrong,--I visited a moderate Muslim forum and many participants from the U.K were appalled by his fawning as they were embarrassed by Qawaradi. Self appointed Muslim lobbies probably liked Livingstone's move, but they don't have any democratic mandate to speak for Muslims, least of all the moderates because they usually are not politically active on "Muslim" issues.

Other Comments by Bonzai

45. Comment #87213 by Mr DArcy on November 11, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Ken Livingstone, "Red Ken", is Mayor of London, a supporter of the ruling Labour Party and a politician. The man will behave like a chameleon, depending upon whom he has to please. Giuliani in the USA as the ex Mayor of New York, is behaving in the same way in his attempts to become president.

David Attenbourgh, on the other hand is a naturalist and knows a lot about what actually goes on in the battle for survival. He has no axe to grind either for against a "creator". The fact that he doesn't believe in one happens to agree with my own view.

His various broadcasts over the years have enthralled both me and my family, and given an awe inspiring view of the world, otherwise impossible from an armchair in London. The man is not interested in God, nor am I. Let's have more of the real knowledge.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

46. Comment #87252 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

GSP: I have yet to see a good argument on this board as to why those that have beliefs in something other than the empirically-knowable natural world should be banned from holding public office.

Consider this dictum: "People ought to be free to swing their fists in the air, provided they don't hit anyone." At first glance, this might seem a statement in support of a lot of fist waving. But in fact, it supports quite the opposite.

Now consider the consequences of this dictum: "People ought to be free to believe in any god(s) they choose, provided their belief does not impinge upon anyone else's freedom of belief."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

47. Comment #87268 by Rational_G on November 11, 2007 at 3:48 pm

"Why don't we take a look at the world around us?"

Indeed. You tell em', Sir David!

Other Comments by Rational_G

48. Comment #87334 by dsainty on November 11, 2007 at 9:40 pm

David Attenborough can definitely take credit for some of my own wonder and fascination in the natural world. He is most definitely a hero of mine.

I love his unequivocal "No" answers in this clip. Blunt dismissal... Religion could do with receiving more of that.

Other Comments by dsainty

49. Comment #87373 by irate_atheist on November 12, 2007 at 2:00 am

Praise the Lord for Sir David!!!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

50. Comment #87463 by celestial_T on November 12, 2007 at 7:41 am

as I have said before, Attenborough for King!

great comment about how much more wonderful the mechanisms of evolution are than a mere 'conjuring trick'. and they're filming in the Natural History Museum - a building stuffed from sub-basement to roof with evidence of the true wonders of the natural world. or we could just say 'oh yeah, god did it'....hmmm!

Other Comments by celestial_T