1. Comment #88426 by Mango on November 16, 2007 at 2:57 pm

What an amazing program. But it's inconceivable that a show like this would air nation-wide in the US. Only a handful of stations chose to air Jonathan's Miller "Brief History of Disbelief."

Other Comments by Mango

2. Comment #88431 by Cartomancer on November 16, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Ahhh, BBC educational programming. Taught me everything I know today.

(Well, maybe all those tutorials at Oxford helped a bit...)

Other Comments by Cartomancer

3. Comment #88434 by PaulJ on November 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm

(Well, maybe all those tutorials at Oxford helped a bit...)

I hope those tutorials weren't with someone like McGrath, who always seems (as here) to be delivering a lecture - albeit one with very little content.

Other Comments by PaulJ

4. Comment #88437 by Theocrapcy on November 16, 2007 at 4:18 pm

NO wonder the church is peeved, imagine all that power they used to have. They once were simply able to instruct any non-believer to be executed, and it was impossible to question their control.

Now, well look at them. Whimpering in the corner of the room, still wearing those clown suits, and having to sit there and take the abuse from the great secular intellectuals whose books are freely available. And they can do bugger all about it.

Perfect.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

5. Comment #88445 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:33 pm

theocrapcy:

NO wonder the church is peeved, imagine all that power they used to have. They once were simply able to instruct any non-believer to be executed

so good to have been born at the end of the 20th century!! so good to have a taste of relative freedom.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

6. Comment #88461 by discipline on November 16, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Excellent. Part I mentions Baron D'Holbach, the 18th century French atheist. A quick search turned up this superb quote:

"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests."

And

"If ignorance of Nature gave birth to gods, then knowledge of Nature is calculated to destroy them."

This was written in 1770! It proves, once again, that the "argument" over the existence of god has long been resolved in our favor. What remains is a socio-political-educational battle.

Other Comments by discipline

7. Comment #88491 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 4:37 am

Enjoyed this one, especially Copley's idea of what RE is and what it can accomplish (though I do not like the tie-in with McGrath's emphasis on atheistic believers). And viewing McGrath again, I can only marvel at the man's consistently floating waffling with amazement.

I added Atheist Media to my Google RRS. Seems like a good source for relevant info and news.

Other Comments by Logicel

8. Comment #88516 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on November 17, 2007 at 9:14 am

Just watching through it now. It seems to me the guy in part three is an atheist rather than an agnostic, he just doesn't use the term because he doesn't understand what it realy means and doesn't like the emotional bagage that other people apply to it. Could be because it would piss his wife even more than she already is - could be one truth too many for her and he doesn't want to harm the marriage.

It's interesting to watch Sam Harris talk about not using the term atheist and then seeing someone doing it.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

9. Comment #88520 by Zaphod on November 17, 2007 at 9:58 am

I watched this program a few weeks ago and found it interesting although I didn't agree with everything in it.

Other Comments by Zaphod

10. Comment #89309 by BeyondBelief on November 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but it seems like an absolutely BRILLIANT (and actionable) idea to advocate for this type of programming being included in any "comparative religions" course... which of course, should be renamed, "Comparative Worldviews" or "Comparative Belief Systems."

I don't expect to see this played over public airwaves... hell, I was glad to see we could get the "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" broadcast on PBS...but I think this could be a great item for individual, local activists to pick up and push: Does your publicly funded high school have a "comparative Religions" course? Does it include any reference to the 100% legitimate position that perhaps there is no need for ANY God?
What is the "slant" of the comparison? Does it only show similarities, and hence imply "See, God must be true, since so many different faiths have enacted "worship" to him."

Loved the show, not only for content, but for its potential! Spread it around folks. If you're looking for a way to be a more active, vocal proponent of secular values, this is a good one.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

11. Comment #89312 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 9:29 am

8. Comment #88515 by crazy old man

>we have a creature who has found himself a very comfortable living coming up with fancy ways to say "Yeah...well MAYBE!"

Well said. And neither his fellow Oxford academic colleagues, or his students, or his publishers, or the journalists that interview him, seem to see through the charade.

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #89329 by Bonzai on November 20, 2007 at 10:06 am

Speaking of "secular believers" I know of a person from some small Greek village who enrolled in a seminary because he wanted a cushy job as a priest and in the meantime got almost free room and board. He kept up the charade while knowing that the whole thing was bs.

He was kicked out when they caught him with a prostitute.

Other Comments by Bonzai

13. Comment #89687 by windfall on November 21, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Funny, I just noticed that when talking about the history of the pantheon at 1:01 of part 2, he pretty obviously edited in 'and women' after 'a place where the nation could honor its great men'.

Take a listen, it's quite obvious. Gave me a chuckle.

Other Comments by windfall

14. Comment #89800 by etny on November 21, 2007 at 6:34 pm

McGrath utters the most despicable worlds, in passing: he says to the interviewer that "he hopes, for his sake that he is right" (not to believe in God).
Hopes "for his sake?"
Here we have it. The vengeful God, lurking in the background, McGrath's fear-based belief, and this underlying thought that whoever does not believe in God (though Christ, I suppose) will burn in hell.
McGrath should be ashamed of himself. Under a thin veil of tolerance and intellectualism, those who pay attention can see (as in these few words) the barbaric medieval thought that animates this man and many "born again" christians. McGrath does not deserve any respect and diplomacy. He is a man with a dangerous thought. A despicable, judgmental, self-righteous fool. I hope that Rich or Hitch can really nail him one of these days, and expose him for what he is. And I know many Christians who would be just as disgusted as I am.

Other Comments by etny

15. Comment #91469 by Mango on November 28, 2007 at 11:54 am

There's an amusing part between 0:45 and 1 min in part 2. The host is on screen and says "a place where the nation could" then it cuts to a different shot and his voice continues "honor its great men" and then, OBVIOUSLY added on later during editing, you hear him say "and women." Cherry.

Other Comments by Mango