Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
The atheist representative wasn't very good.
I turned it off after 10 seconds of the Athiest talking. There were so many good, intellectual points he could of made, but he just went off on an angry rant.
This is the usual skewed BBC stuff. Religious organizations were NOT at the forefront of the rescue effort in Haiti. That was Medecins Sans Frontieres and the US Military.
The Atheist viewpoint was poorly represented (Derek Hatton). It just cried out for Dawkins presence. It was frustrating listening to the theist comments with no proper response.
"every religion preaches of peace"?Which planet is she on?
mitler was not an atheist.
In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country
what did hitler say about god? google it.-
Hitler would have said/signed whatever he needed to to advance his cause as history has shown. He and Stalin commited their atrocities not in the name of atheism. It was for their own evil disgusting viewpoints on how the world should be.
I can't believe the Atheist representative just let the accusation of Atheism being a religion slide like that. It's such a pathetic attack it should hardly need to be refuted, but there are enough stupid people in the world that will believe it and it needs to be opposed every time it's used. I must say Mr Hatton isn't a particularly good representative of Atheism.
when do you suppose hitler stopped being a catholic?
And the millions of Roman Catholic and Lutheran Germans who bought into the Nazi program? I guess they must have been atheists as well. Hatton made some good points but it is hardly a fair panel when you have three people of faith vs. one person of fact.
So now they bring in some more people that helped Hatton a bit. The religious people are just insane....
the atheist is an idiot- it was a 2 on 1 unfair setting-this kind of shit reminds me of fox news...
Good question. Do I get a multiple choice?A) When the bullet destroyed his neocortex.B) When his brainstem died.C) Never, because he accepted Jesus and is therefore in Heaven.
It's funny to me that every time I argue with a Christian, they say almost automatically that I am hateful, bigoted, and spiteful just because I tell them they are wrong to be so hateful, bigoted, and spiteful. Intolerance is the cornerstone of religion.
I fully agree. As soon as it was announced that Derek Hatton was going to represent the Atheist viewpoint, I thought 'What? You're not serious!'. I, & guess many others who remember him as a 'loony left' councillor from a few years ago, thought the same.If Atheists are going to be taken seriously, we must be represented by more far more intelligent, articulate & better prepared people than this clown. I´m not saying Richard Dawkins has to be our spokeman every time either, there are many others who are more than capable.
Derek Hatton is no idiot...he was seated beside two idiots. http://www.derekhatton.com/
Having taken a look at his website, I have to admit that I am amazed how good he looks for his age - however, that doesn't make up for his terrible performance in this interview. For saying his website describes him as someone that 'strongly believes in atheism', he doesn't really strike me as someone who has taken proper time to think about his philosophy on life. As much as it pains me to admit it, he did come across as noticably the most bigoted participant in the debate, more so than people who had (presumably) been born into a faith and defended it with a sort of misguided patriotism. IMHO it is important that atheists accept themselves to be individuals rather than considering atheists a group with some common cause to be aggressive towards other faith groups, especially if, like Derek Hatton, you don't seem to be able to string together a coherent and reasonable argument.By the way, the login options in this comment box appear to be broken.
He got sideswiped by the most obvious false attacks on Atheism. He's just not equipped to go against seasoned apologists as he did. He should have let someone better armed go in this battle...
Did anyone see on his website: "He is a strong believer in aetheism." Maybe I have been going about this all wrong. What is it I should be believing in besides rational truth?
The last two shows I´ve seen it has always followed the same pattern.It is always an unequal fight and the atheist/non-believe is marginalized.BBC license payers should really get their act together do what the Christian right always do and that is protest.I won´t be watching it and I really hope that atheist´s stop participating on this show.
OK, so lets realy discuss whether Religion causes Hatred...I don't think anywone on the show actually disagreed that Religion causes hatred, but they did (implicitly) disagree about what causes Religion!I would agree that Faith doesn't cause Hatred, but it is the first step to religion!A little extreme, but most countries ban drugs that cause damage to individuals or society, yet faith is sold over the counter every Sunday, Saturday, or Friday!If you throw away ancient holy texts that at best are extremely confusing in their message, and just keep your personal thoughts / revelations / experiences private then faith doesn't cause Hatred. The problem is, I have never seen anyone successfully do that and still call themselves Xian, Muslim, or Jew.I would like to see a definition of a 'True' Xian, or Jew, or Muslim. Then I would like this definition to include recognition that all other faiths are equaly valid, that no other belief system is wrong, that everyone is right (even if they disagree).As soon as any faith makes any concrete claims it immediately creates a 'them and us' scenario. As soon as any faith claims privilidge, or land, or moral knowledge, or special revelation it will immediately create conflict.If people of faith such as those on the show really do believe that peace / love is the most important thing, then they should stop associating with any specific set of beliefs and just state that 'faith itself' is important and not the objective of that faith.
Why does noone make the obvious point that a fanatical hatered of Jews is completely illogical outside a christian or religious context? If you don't believe that they killed Jesus, why on earth would you hate them?Oh, and besides, didn't the Romans kill Jesus? And get away with that scot free in the eyes of christianity? In fact, it became its seat of power. Odd, how the wheels of history turn...
The man had the stones to appear on TV...full marks... I too may have got flustered and not come across well after sitting listening to that horse-shit. We are all not Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris...
Religion believes in an Absolute Truth and that is the problem, after all how can you disagree with Absolute Truth?Religion does not need a god belief, but it does need an absolute belief - which is what makes Stalinism a religion.If you believe something absolutely, then it is only a matter of time before someone will do absolutely anything to support that belief.As for the preist, dressed up in a dog collar and wearing a metal cross, to say that there is no 'them and us' is poppycock. Why is see wearing a collar, if not to mark her out as different, if not to assume some authority? Hypocrit!And for the evengelical guy, what happens to those who have no personal relationship with Jesus (Is this some from of necrophilia?). Oh, they go to hell! So disagree with me and you burn for eternity. What utter balls these people spoke!And of course if your not a christian when Jesus returns, well you will be slaughtered by this loving Jesus and by his followers. This is a belief that is inclusive????
How hard is it to say:1. Hitler wasn't an atheist, he was a Catholic.2. Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of it.3. Religion fosters ignorance and violence all over the world and through out history. To ignore the fundamental link is to delude oneself.That's it. The moderator made better points than the designated atheist.