1. Comment #13661 by Irate Harry on December 19, 2006 at 3:55 am

The trouble with Rod Liddle - he is apparently a man of no particular conviction. He wanders around the media looking to take a contrary position for publicity.

He has had a go at the christians (as the new fundamentalists), the muslims (as the unequivocal anti-semites), and the Geordies (as monkeys and morons). He has supported the BNP(the British 'Nazi' Party). And all of it just for the heck of it, in a pathetic attempt at substance-free polemics.

He is a hollow man, and it shows in the inane meanderings of his rant against atheism.

The program was not even a patch on the substantive and cogent presentation of the 'Root of All Evil'.

Other Comments by Irate Harry

2. Comment #13663 by ZaphodBB84 on December 19, 2006 at 3:59 am

Only rarely has a program made me squirm like this. Straw men and shallow speculation to camera do not a thesis make. He seems to accept the scientific method when it suits, and resort to vague speculation and assertion the rest of the time.

Anger making TV

Other Comments by ZaphodBB84

3. Comment #13664 by robives on December 19, 2006 at 4:06 am

What a disappointing program. Rod Liddle's main arguement seemed to be "Isn't that an arrogant viewpoint?" No look at the substance of any arguement placed in from of him and no attempt to justify him beliefs. The whole program smacked of smug anti-intellectualism.
What a shame.

Other Comments by robives

4. Comment #13665 by chbg21808 on December 19, 2006 at 4:10 am

Rod Liddle's whole approach seemed to be based around the belief, that if you criticize religion your being arrogant. What's the big deal about religion that you cannot criticize it, even aggressively?

The whole program came across as an attack on atheists for attacking religious dogmatism, with the claim that the atheists are being just as dogmatic. Well, if religion were not as destructive in the World today, as it so clearly is, then Liddle may have had a point... As it is, his claim "rings hollow". Is it so surprising that atheists are so strident, when religion is causing so much violence in the World? ...I don't think so.

One of the most annoying claims that Liddle made, is that atheism is synonymous with communism. But, I agree with Richard Dawkins, it is incidental to it.

Communism itself, I would say is a form of religion... secular yes, atheistic no; there is a difference. It is a dogmatic belief system, which is detached from reality, as is the belief in a personal God... Both theistic religion and communism are dogmatic belief systems, without objectively identifiable evidence of their validity.

Atheism, is not a dogmatic belief system, it is simply the none acceptance of God, based on improbability.

Liddle then goes on to do the same annoying thing with Darwinism, implying that Darwinism and atheism are synonyms (they are not of course, Darwinism is not an atheist Bible)... It is true that an acceptance of Darwinism may weaken an individuals religious convictions. But, the fact that it does is not the primary fundamental of Darwinism ...again, it is incidental. Rod liddle does not seem to be able to tell the difference between fundamental primaries and incidental coincidences. Why did liddle fail to mention that many Christians do accept evolution? ...Would that have weakened his argument?

I found it all rather one sided, with Liddle being far too nice to religion. The time for being nice to religion is up. Look where being too nice and too politically correct, in the name of not upsetting religious sensibilities has got us. It is this wishy-washy attitude to religion, that has allowed religious extremism to fester and spread like an untreated cancer.

It is aggressive ridicule of religion (including through the power of humour) that is necessary, to deflate its "untouchable status".

There was also a comment made, not by Liddle himself (though he didn't dispute it), that without Darwinism there doesn't seem to be any grounds for atheism... This is absurd, it suggests all atheists are Darwinist's and without Darwin atheism is not possible. The proof of the absurdity of this is myself. I have been an atheist all my life. Even as a young child I never bought into the God concept and I held this world-view, before I had any knowledge of Darwin. Of course, I am not denying that some theists may become atheists after reading 'The Origin of Species' ...But one could just as easily say someone became an atheist because they read Sam Harris, even if they are ignorant of Darwin.

And why does Liddle use phrases like "part of the atheist project" ...when referring to Darwinism, is he suggesting that Darwinism is part of an atheist plot to overthrow religion? ...Some kind of mass atheist conspiracy? (perhaps the overthrow of the geocentric view of the universe is part of the same plot). Notice, that not even once does he call Darwinism a scientific theory.

Then Liddle goes on to say that Darwin took on the religious establishment. No he did not, that is exactly what Darwin did not do, again it is purely incidental that Darwin's scientific identifications, where in conflict with religion. From what Liddle says it gives the impression that Darwin's purpose in discovering his theory, was done for the primary purpose of attacking religion. But Darwin was extremely sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and the last thing he wanted to do, was "rock the boat".

Virtually every point Liddle makes throughout the whole program is just plain wrong.

I am also utterly fed up with the coupling of the Nazi regime with atheism... Read this excellent article:

Hitler Was Not An Atheist
by John Patrick Michael Murphy
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=murphy_19_2

And finally, this was both sadly and hilariously the most pathetic comment of the whole program, Rod Liddle's absolutely absurd claim that "Marxism was a utopia based on reason" ...Lol, if I didn't laugh, I would cry at such a ridiculous comment. Marxism was not a system of reasonableness and it was not born out of reasonable thinking; but its antithesis... There was no reason to be found, that is why it was so inhumane... He is doing the same thing that he has done, throughout the whole program, linking atheism with a dogmatic belief system and making a wild claim that they can be coupled together as synonyms.

ENDNOTE:

I get the impression that Liddle made this specifically, as a direct counter-attack on Richard Dawkins 'Root of All Evil?' ...Even the filming style was similar (was it the same camera crew?), the shakey camera technique and even the music had a similarity.

The Root of All Evil? Was a superb series, in fact the only criticism I have of it, is that the interviews were all far too short. Liddle's effort on the other hand was lame.

Other Comments by chbg21808

5. Comment #13667 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 4:12 am

Strange...

I do not feel that Liddle understand how it is. I have never believed in a superantural god. Since we have no good name for that, I am an atheist. So what?

Do that mean that I believe in something negative? Or, that I'm part of a negative belief?

Is he really trying to understand this?

Why do he have to show us a nutcase (the one with the poster)?

We who have no belief in a supernatural, are we like Stalin or Hitler? This is really a cheap shot. His arguments are hollow.

O.J.

Other Comments by Ole

6. Comment #13669 by flashbaby on December 19, 2006 at 4:17 am

I watched it last night. Very disappointing.

"I dogmatically don't collect stamps", would be as valid a statement as any of this idiot's rambling conjectures. I suppose there is now a straw shortage in the UK as a result of the huge numbers of used and discarded straw elephants in this crap. I even missed University Challenge to watch it!

Other Comments by flashbaby

7. Comment #13670 by CreatedAnAthiestByGod on December 19, 2006 at 4:20 am

One visit to this web site or any similar web site would have stopped Liddle asking so many pointless questions. I can't believe he hasn't done his research - he has apparently read the books and talked to the right people - so my only conclusion is that he's trying to stir the mud and make a name for himself. To answer Ole's question, no, he is not trying to understand this!

Other Comments by CreatedAnAthiestByGod

8. Comment #13671 by Will S on December 19, 2006 at 4:21 am

Didn't RD say in the New Zealand interview that he has made two more programmes for Channel 4 to be transmitted later, dealing with modern superstitions like telepathy, dowsing, homeopathy, etc?

If so, then I suppose that broadcasting the Liddle programme might be justified in terms of 'balance' or 'fairness' or something. I'd have thought, though, that the anti-Dawkins brigade might (with some justice!) complain that Channel 4 should have put up a stronger opponent.

Other Comments by Will S

9. Comment #13673 by Roy_H on December 19, 2006 at 4:26 am

Oh goody I can watch it on here. I was going to tape it last night but the hand of god interveined and I found I had taped "Coronation Street " by mistake. The ironic thing is, a lot of people think "Coronation Street" is real too!

Other Comments by Roy_H

10. Comment #13674 by The_Squirrel on December 19, 2006 at 4:29 am

I almost feel cheated with such a hollow program. It kinda made liddle look a bit a dumb.

If I were making a TV program I would look for all the arguments people have proposed and counter them with new thinking and well structured retorts. I got the feeling that Liddle read the "God Delusion" but only the parts which Dawkins said would be the defence of the religious. He then missed out the retorts against this by dawkins which would have been the things to attack. However, reason might have been too hard a thing to attack.

The comment he made saying Hitler was an atheist. Although not clear cut whether he was or wasn't, the evidence says that he was not. Why even use this in a TV program as an example of an atheist if its in doubt. Its poor research and a poor program

Other Comments by The_Squirrel

11. Comment #13675 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 4:33 am

Watching it right now...and right off he set my American hackles up...

Does Liddle actually think that NEW YORK CITY is the 'American Heartland?' I'm wondering if he's forgotten about, oh, I don't know...the entire midwest and the Bible-belt? New York City is, along with San Francisco and LA, one of the most progressive and tolerant places in the States. Liddle's a fool if he's trying to claim NYC as anything but.

Other Comments by Jared

12. Comment #13676 by palebluedot on December 19, 2006 at 4:33 am

An incredibly gross mis-representation of atheists!

Eugenics? 'Origin of Species' a sacred text? Scientific Establishments as temples?

What a load of shite!!!!

Other Comments by palebluedot

13. Comment #13678 by eggplantbren on December 19, 2006 at 4:45 am

I gave up when he said "sacred texts" and it showed Origin of Species. As a working scientist, this is plainly ridiculous. Anyone who has ever actually read a scientific journal knows that it is about as far removed from dogmatic pronouncements as you could possibly get. Skepticism is always there. Every assumption or approximation you've made in your calculations, or possible sources of error in your data are discussed. And if they're not picked up on by the author of the piece, some other scientist will think of it eventually - and usually the first one will be grateful! Indeed this happened to me recently.

People giving this impression of science as being like a religion just makes my blood boil.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

14. Comment #13679 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:51 am

Amongst other things, I didn't like the way that he claimed darwinism will be superceeded. The guy they got in was still saying that evolution happened. Things like this is probably where fundies get their disinformation from.

Other Comments by BillySands

15. Comment #13680 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 4:52 am

He says 'Atheists would argue that the scientific method is all we need to make sense of the world.' That's quite a straw man, there.

I don't think that ANYONE has ever tried to claim this. The scientific method is the best way to attain some measure of objective truth about reality. It's not the ONLY thing we need.

So far, instead of making a real argument, Liddle's piece comes across as no more than a parody of atheism. There are many criticisms one could make about 'The Root of All Evil?' but at least it made a case rather than simply making fun of things. Dawkins didn't need mockingly grandiose music and faux nature program descriptions of "Atheist Territory" to make an argument.

Other Comments by Jared

16. Comment #13683 by beebhack on December 19, 2006 at 5:01 am

As a former colleague I've defended Liddle here before -- largely because he was a good editor who managed to be quite amusing along the way. Unfortunately last night's programme displays the kind of debate he routinely -- and rightly -- used to scorn. Liddle has the kind of intelligence and engagement which should make him the rationalist's rationalist -- yet, as someone here has already pointed out, he chooses to adopt different personas, presumably for showbiz purposes. I think this is the case for many commentators, some of them quite influential.

Other Comments by beebhack

17. Comment #13684 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 5:10 am

Ole, I seem to remember him saying that atheist countries have an appauling record. Norway, so I'm lead to believe is pretty secular (is that true?), but has a low murder rate. Japan, another seccular nation also has a low murder rate. Compare that with USA and Uganda.

Other Comments by BillySands

18. Comment #13685 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 5:13 am

The distinct difference between atheist 'worship' of Darwin and religites' worship of gods or saints or what have you is that, if Darwin's theory gets modified, improved, or even shown to be wrong, we WILL change. It's not the man, it's the theories are important. If the theories don't apply, we change them. It's like Newton and the changes made to his ideas since Einstein and quantum theory.

I'm not going to bother to respond any more unless Liddle really annoys me in the last twenty minutes or so. The only good point he's making here seems to be meta-textual in that, clearly, there is a bit of misrepresentation and generalization about religious viewpoints in the atheist sector. Well done, we all do that. None of the rest of the actual text here is terribly thought provoking.

Other Comments by Jared

19. Comment #13686 by tentotheminus9 on December 19, 2006 at 5:18 am

This is just painful. His conclusions are....

1) Darwin = Atheist God
2) Origin of Species = Atheist sacred text
3) Atheist have no morals, just look at Hitler!
4) Science can't prove God's non-existence, therefore you can't really be an atheist
5) Religion isn't really the cause of anything bad

Utter tripe.

But perhaps i'm being "a tad arrogant"

Other Comments by tentotheminus9

20. Comment #13688 by Logicel on December 19, 2006 at 5:23 am

After reading that article written by Liddle posted earlier at this site, I have decided to use my precious time for something else to do, and not watch this video. Since I can find so much intellectually challenging material on the net, a writer has just one chance to grab my interest, and Liddle failed in that attempt.

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #13691 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 5:40 am

Ugh. Sorry. I just can't stay quiet.

Here's the logical argument:

(a)Three known atheist societies were Jacobins/fascists/communists
(b)All Jacobins/fascists/communists are evil
(c)Therefore, atheist societies cannot be good.

There is much wrong here. The second premise has a lot to do with subjectivity and sociology. There is much to question about people following blindly despite knowing better, and about reasons why that might happen. I don't think those reasons have necessarily got anything to do with whatever it is they are blindly following.

The first premise is, as has already been pointed out, guilty of selection bias. Much of Scandinavia is, for all intents and purposes, atheistic in nature. I've never heard that they've perpetrated any systematically evil acts. This also says nothing of secularly ruled societies, societies like France and (ideally) the US where religion is kept out of laws and government. Liddle is cherry picking here.

The conclusion drawn from these faulty premises is also, quite naturally, faulty and does not necessarily follow even IF the first two were spotless. I could make a similar argument like this:

(a)Several young mothers I've known neglected their children
(b)All mothers who neglect children are evil
(c)Therefore, young mothers cannot be good.

No one would make that argument, and fewer would be likely to believe it. The scary part is that some people won't see through Liddle's rhetoric and that this could actually undo some of the work that's been done to improve the image of atheists worldwide.

Other Comments by Jared

22. Comment #13692 by Kevin Ronayne on December 19, 2006 at 5:43 am

I say, I say: what's the difference between this program and "The Wizard of Oz"?

... there's only one straw man in "The Wizard of Oz"!

All jokes aside, it was a woeful attempt by Liddle to undermine atheism. It seemed to be a case of "OK, let's see if I can argue a case against atheism and atheists". I think he just looked for sound-bites and 'evidence' to suit whatever he wanted to say.

The way in which he presented opinions as facts was just appalling, not to mention playing fast and loose with history itself.

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

23. Comment #13694 by Sam on December 19, 2006 at 5:44 am

Tonight on Channel 8:

"The Trouble with Atrollism"
The interviewer challenges the atrollist's dogmatic, unproven faith in the non-existence of trolls and argues that the worst attrocities of the 20th century was committed by people who were completely atrollistic.

Other Comments by Sam

24. Comment #13695 by Shambler on December 19, 2006 at 5:57 am

I caught some of this program last night and watched it open mouthed.

It was so hollow, every line of inquiry was one sided,mis-informed,biased...it felt like an arguement coming from a 10 year old.

I know this country encourages freedom of speech but please let us have some intelligent debate next time...telly-tubbies are fine for keeping kids amused in a zombie like state but not for discussion important issues -.-

Other Comments by Shambler

25. Comment #13697 by Luthien on December 19, 2006 at 6:03 am

If I were being kind I would say that he has not understood the nature of scientific progress, but I suspect it is more the case that he set out to deliberately misrepresent it.

One of his 'arguments' was that Darwin predicted "gradual change", but here is a scientist that says evolution can happen in 'sudden leaps' due to the nature of DNA, therefore...

therefore...

erm...

Oh yes, science has moved on in it's understanding since "The Origin of the Species" was written, what with the discovery of DNA and all that. So this means that atheists are...

are...

erm...

Other Comments by Luthien

26. Comment #13698 by Ole on December 19, 2006 at 6:04 am

I have a colleague from Poland. He was brought up as an atheist, but met his wife who was a catholic and now he is also a catholic.

I sometimes ask him about his church, the pope, etc. etc. but so far he has no good answers. For instance why would his church argue against contraceptives in Africe and let people die of aids? What about the pope during World War II, etc.?

I think my good colleague and other from Poland (there are many over here these days, and they go to church every sunday) find it strange that Norway and the rest of Scandinavia are so secular.

But ulike, France in the time of the Jacobines, Russia after 1917 and Poland after 1945, we have never "removed" religion. It is dying out slowly.
Well, we still have a few evangelicals, and also some new age types like Wiccas, etc.

Another fact about Scandinavia is how education have risen in the last 100 years.

Perhaps Liddle could take a look at these things?
(Then he should take off his "media-istic" hat and try to be serious.)

O.J.

Other Comments by Ole

27. Comment #13700 by ImagineAZ on December 19, 2006 at 6:10 am

I talked a bit about this concept in my blog on MySpace. I address the question of whether we're being "mean" in trying to get people to think rather than believe. I'd appreciate it if anyone had the time to check it out so far (I'm always re-reading, changing and revising.)

http://blog.myspace.com/timelessimagination

Thanks,
Imagine

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

28. Comment #13701 by penbat on December 19, 2006 at 6:18 am

I find it odd that Richard Dawkins and other secularists dont seem to be aware of emotional intellience (EQ) and narcissism. I basically agree with Richard Dawkins.

Morals and man's behaviour are addressed scientifically by the concept of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) popularised by Daniel Goleman. There are a huge number of books and references on Google about this. Also the science of psychology explains evil in terms of narcissism, psychopathy and bullying etc.

There is no need to drag religion into this. Personally I have no problem with an adult having any religion or belief which they have chosen of their own free will, but feel uneasy about children being indoctrinated into any particular non-scientific belief system.

Evil behaviour can occur in any belief system such as marxism or christianity because of human nature being what it is.

EQ gives some good maxims for mankind. "Treat others as you would like them to treat you" and treat everyone with mutual respect.

Stalin had Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) but some religious people have had this condition too. Anyone with NPD is always destructive to others in some way.

My website on this issue is http://www.bullyeq.com

Other Comments by penbat

29. Comment #13702 by One Eyed Jack on December 19, 2006 at 6:20 am

I thought I would give this video a fair shake, but as soon as he started talking about "Russia's atheist regime" as an example where "atheists have blood on their hands", I had to turn it off. It was clear this was going to be nothing more than a rehashing of the old lies and half-truths.

OEJ

Other Comments by One Eyed Jack

30. Comment #13705 by ImagineAZ on December 19, 2006 at 6:33 am

penbat, don't you think that NPD makes you a religious person by definition? You don't have to believe in any particular commonly accepted god to be religious. Kim Jong Il believes HE is god. That's pretty religious.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

31. Comment #13706 by Paul Knowles on December 19, 2006 at 6:34 am

If I had a whole page to bebut every single point made by this so called journalist it wouldn't be enough. An hour of finely tuned edited nonsense to end with, I quote, "There may be a God, there may not be a God. Why cant we leave it at that?" What was the point of the program then? what a load of clap trap. The only people on the program that came across as sensible, well informed members of society were the Atheists.

Other Comments by Paul Knowles

32. Comment #13707 by ukslim on December 19, 2006 at 6:34 am

While the whole thing was riddled with logical holes, I thought the most telling thing was his treatment of memetics.

Step 1: Have Richard Dawkins begin to explain memes
Step 2: Liddle completes the explanation, but misrepresent it. The meme of religion is "passed from generation to generation because it has the useful feature of providing comfort".
Step 3: Ask a real virologist if virii are exactly like memes. They are not!
Step 4: Point scored: memetics and by implication genetics is flawed.

I'd love to know -- but doubt whether I ever will -- whether Liddle really doesn't understand the core concept of memes, or whether he deliberately misdescribed them in order to make the naive viewer think it's suspect.

Other Comments by ukslim

33. Comment #13708 by ryanjevansuk on December 19, 2006 at 6:50 am

"The true scientific position is that there may be a God and there may not be a God. Why can't we just leave it at that?"

Could Rod Liddle's final comments be any more inane? Should we not be trying to answer that question Rod? No of course not, best just to leave it there and forget about cogent arguments, evidence for and against, probability etc etc.

And is he actually suggesting that he knows more about the "true scientific method" than Dawkins, Singer et al? Please!!

And if I hear one more crass analogy about how science is becoming a "religion" I am going to scream! How hollow does this have to ring before you hear it Rod? This shallow piece of fence-sitting really annoyed me. To compare the fundamentalism of a religious believer with the passionately held and evidence based claims of a scientist is intellectual dishonesty of a repellant kind. Another opportunity for interesting discourse wasted.

Other Comments by ryanjevansuk

34. Comment #13710 by Aaron on December 19, 2006 at 6:56 am

At the end the host states "There may be a god. There may not be a god. Why can't we leave it at that?"

Yeah sure. There are tons of questions whose answers could positively change the future of humanity forever. Ahh...why bother with them? I couldn't figure out the answer with an hour on TV!

What a bafoon!

Other Comments by Aaron

35. Comment #13711 by penbat on December 19, 2006 at 6:57 am

TO ImagineAZ

Yes it is quite common for narcissists to be grandiose and think they are god like or omnipotent. Narcissists sometimes start religious or quasi-religious cults so people can worship them.

Other Comments by penbat

36. Comment #13716 by J. on December 19, 2006 at 7:24 am

Let me get this straight:

IQ = Intelligence Quotient
EQ = Emotional...Intelligence

Hmm. Look what happens to acronyms when you monkey about with Intelligence.

(No offence, penbat! Couldn't resist.)

Can't fully agree with this, though:

'There is no need to drag religion into this. Personally I have no problem with an adult having any religion or belief which they have chosen of their own free will, but feel uneasy about children being indoctrinated into any particular non-scientific belief system.'

*I* have a problem with it. The sign-waving atheist evangelist in The Trouble With Atheism had an opportunity to point out this problem, when Liddle asked him why he was so bothered about other people being religious (but seemed a bit too overawed with the experience of being taken seriously by a film crew to articulate anything meaningful).

I'm human, you're human, we're all human. If we're living by a moral code that proceeds from our common humanity and our common experiences of the world, then we have something we can work with. But, if *your* behaviour is significantly influenced by your *belief* (actual belief, mind - we're not talking about some innocuous spare-time hobby) in something that, by all measures, you seem to have made up, then I have grounds to worry. Your interaction with me and with the rest of the world is tethered to something that exists only in your imagination.

I shouldn't be obliged to suffer the whims of other people's imaginary constructs. That's why even wandering the pavements waving a cardboard sign about atheism is less worrying than genuinely believing in the Christian God, or Allah, or any of those others who would have a say in human affairs.

If EQ (or EI, or EIQ, or whatever) helps us to explain and understand such beliefs, that's excellent news. But an explanation isn't the same as a justification. People need to be very aware of how their beliefs affect their morality and their behaviour towards others. Allowing these to be influenced away from humanistically derived standards by a privately imagined authority is not acceptable. (That's what I reckon, anyway.)

Other Comments by J.

37. Comment #13719 by Zaphod on December 19, 2006 at 7:35 am

Before this program I had seen Rod Liddle on tv shows and actually liked the man. On a show about religion he was in a discussion and stated that you don't have to respect beliefs, only respect peoples right to have beliefs. He also said that the UK should have printed those Mohammed cartoons. He doesn't believe in any religion that I know and before this I thought he was an atheist. Perhaps hes agnostic or deist. As other people have said he does get some things wrong in this 1hr program.

I would say I am like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in my atheism. Like Sam Harris I think the word shouldn't exists. I don't label myself with other stuff I don't believe in. That said I am a strong atheist like Harris and Dawkins. However strong my feelings and opinions are on this matter I won't blow up a mosque. I won't pull a teacher apart with motorcycles for teaching algebra. I won't burn flags and shout death chants because someone draws a cartoon.

Other Comments by Zaphod

38. Comment #13725 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 7:59 am

Penbat,

I somewhat agree with you. I am more concerned about the indoctrination of children than I am the beliefs of full-grown adults who have come to their choices by rational (at least, to them) logic or whatever other means. But I can't see why we should leave religion OUT of it. Taking ANY subject off of the table and out of discussion is a bad thing, I think.

To me, there is no question about fussing with the beliefs of those adults. It would NEVER be MY intent to beat them over the head with my own ideas or otherwise coercing them to my position. I may enter into a logical debate in an attempt to understand them, but it is unlikely that I would go up to a random adult religite and try to evangelize to them.

My primary concern is, as J. said before me, the way in which other peoples' religious beliefs impugn upon the rights of those who do not share them. That is why I advocate for a secular government and laws based on a more rational, rather than religious or popular, morality. Otherwise, if people wish to worship god, the devil, or a sticky toffee pudding I could care less. Just don't tell me that the sticky toffee pudding forbids eating croissants and try to make croissants illegal! :)

I'm not entirely on board with your EQ ideas, though, mainly because I'm not entirely familiar with the concepts and have never been wowed by what evidence I've seen presented. But then again, psychology and psychoanalysis are difficult areas for consensus, sometimes, and can be quite speculative due to high subjectivity and quantitative indeterminacy. The EQ framework, while interesting, still seems to me one of many approaches with similar ideas and goals, each of which may or may not be particularly effective.

But please, don't think I'm mocking your whole thing! I'm just not convinced and wouldn't be being honest if I said I were. Perhaps I'll agree more after I've done some research.

Other Comments by Jared

39. Comment #13727 by tommyudo on December 19, 2006 at 8:03 am

Let's not mince words here: it was crap!
As another poster said, it was Liddle adopting a contrary position for the hell of it.
Particularly annoyed at the Darwin - Galton - Hitler link. Hitler, incidentally, was a practicing Roman Catholic and wrote in Mein Kampf "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work." So there's more of a case for the holocaust arising from treligious fanaticism as from Galton's writings on eugenics.
Another unforgivable aspect of the programme was that it was incredibly dull: none of the thrill of engagement that you got from The Root Of All Evil.

Other Comments by tommyudo

40. Comment #13728 by ukslim on December 19, 2006 at 8:09 am

J - yes, the sign-waving "nutter" did fail to justify himself when given the opportunity (or, if he did, his best answer didn't make the final cut).

After some thought, I decided one way he might have answered -- obviously I don't know his real opinions.

Marx described religion as "the opium of the masses". I'm not enough of a Marxist scholar to know exactly what he intended that to mean, but conventional interpretation is that religion makes its millions comfortably numb.

I'm not sure whether Marx also meant that while numbing and cossetting, religion also had seriously damaging effects (as if numbness isn't enough) -- but one could certainly persuade oneself that this was the case.

If you devoted your life to helping people kick heroin, nobody would question your motivation or call you a nutter. If you went out on the street to try and save complete strangers from heroin addiction, you might even by lauded as a hero.

I think this man believes he is doing just that -- trying to free people from the shackles of a belief system which is holding them back.

Personally, I don't feel that Christianity is harmful enough to warrant this kind of intervention -- but if this man feels that it is, then his actions are completely rational and understandable (even if his methods are confrontational and probably ineffective).

Other Comments by ukslim

41. Comment #13730 by godisanidiot on December 19, 2006 at 8:23 am

He clearly doesn't see the point of atheism.
Religion is based on blind faith.
Atheism is a consequence of reason and constantly questioning things, that's the main spirit and why it can never be fundamentalist of nature.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

42. Comment #13733 by urbanmoth on December 19, 2006 at 8:27 am

Hi all,

First post, so greetings - I believe I am the only person to have a good word to say about this broadcast - basically it forced me to go get online and find somewhere to vent my frustration and as a result I have found this site (where I see that others have already made the key points).

So you see: Rod, God, Darwin, Dawkins (delete as appropriate) works in mysterious ways....

The tribal gene in me feels better that I am not the only one to be morally offended by the implications of the programme, particularly around the 'clear scientific link' between Darwin and Eugenics. If we're going to take that line then lets all get back to the good old moralistic days of the hunter gatherer….

Other Comments by urbanmoth

43. Comment #13734 by Evolved on December 19, 2006 at 8:32 am

I've just sent a complaint about the progam off to:-

ViewerEnquiries@Channel4.co.uk

Many of the above posts do a far better job of getting the point across than I did in my email. Maybe some of you could do a little cutting and pasting and let Channel 4 know its not just me thats pissed off with Rod Liddle?

Other Comments by Evolved

44. Comment #13737 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 19, 2006 at 8:49 am

>>Comment #13708 by ryanjevansuk <<

An Excellent posting Ryan! I've said on here, on numerous occasions that, not all theories can be true. God exists is either (a) True or (b) False. Anything else is wishful thinking! The lack of evidence points to (b). As the Professor himself has stated, publicly, the debate is still alive, though the possibility of a Creator God is obviously slim.

>>Comment #13734 by Evolved<<

Thanks Evolved. I will be sending them my opinion too.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

45. Comment #13739 by penbat on December 19, 2006 at 8:54 am

J and Jared

My paragraph breaks were slightly wrong. When i said don't drag religion into this i meant religion isnt becessary to explain human behaviour because psychology and EQ do this on a scientific basis.

My thoughts about being OK for adults to be religious are my own thoughts and nothing directly to do with EQ.

My comments werent just about EQ, human hehaviour and evil can be very well understood on a scientific basis by learning about the psychology of narcissism and psychopathy etc.

EQ is a scientific approach which can be used to provide a moral framework using simple principles such as mutual respect and "treat others as you would like them to treate you".

Other Comments by penbat

46. Comment #13742 by brianeyre on December 19, 2006 at 9:04 am

Liddle seems to base his whole argument on a common misinterpretation of atheism - that it is a 'belief in absence' (of a deity), rather than an 'absence of belief'.

What more really needs to be said?

Other Comments by brianeyre

47. Comment #13750 by penbat on December 19, 2006 at 9:24 am

UKslim

Who said anything about faith ? I am all for understanding everything purely on a scientific basis. Darwins theory allows you to understand natural selection. Psychology and EQ allow you to understand human behaviour. Human behaviour in any context can have a dysfunctional element due to the existance of personality disorders such as narcissism.

Other Comments by penbat

48. Comment #13752 by ukslim on December 19, 2006 at 9:27 am

penbat: I was responding to David A Robertson, when he said "It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked."

I repeat: atheism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith.

Other Comments by ukslim

49. Comment #13762 by denoir on December 19, 2006 at 10:12 am

Wow, that was really bad. It was just one logical fallacy following another. I could only stomach watching half of it, but from the comments I'm guessing the second half wasn't any better than the first.

I'm not sure though that it was a completely useless thing as it illustrates how quite a few religious people view atheism.

First of all they are making the mistake (as has been pointed out numerous times here) of thinking of atheism as a competing religion - that somehow a lack of belief is a form of belief.

Second, they are sceptical about science and see it as competition. The presenter went so far as to say that believing that science is universal is arrogant. Being universal is an intrinsic property of science. The law of gravity is the same, regardless if you are an atheist, a Christian or a Muslim.

As for general hostility, I think that he as many others have a problem with the aggressive tone of the so called "new atheists". It's understandable - people don't like conflict and truth has a lower priority than politeness. You don't go around telling people how ugly they are even if it is true. In the same way people don't respond very well having their beliefs called stupid. And a direct "I'm right and you are wrong" is generally seen as impolite.

The argument that the criticism directed against religion is no harsher than can be found in a political discussion is, well, dishonest. Dawkins for instance labels religious upbringing of children as child abuse. That's a very serious charge - far far beyond anything that you would find in a political debate. It is hostile and rude.

And it should be. Boundless politeness and unconditional respect and understanding hinder development. Given how much problems religion is creating, rudeness is called for. Religion is a load of superstitious rubbish that we should have grown out of by now. In does too much damage and causes too much suffering to be accepted and condoned out of politeness. It is not only right to criticize it - it is a moral imperative for us, not as atheists, but as human beings.

Other Comments by denoir

50. Comment #13763 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 10:32 am

Hi Evolved, [David A Robertson] has a thread here http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson#13760.
He is publishing weekly (or weakly) "rebuttals" of TGD here http://www.freechurch.org/issues/issues.htm

Have fun my brother in reason

Other Comments by BillySands