h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just finished watching Jonathan Miller's series "Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief" on YouTube, and thought I would post it up here.

It's quite an interesting documentary, focusing on the origins of the theories and philosophical movements that gave rise to modern day atheism. A sensitive enough portrayal introducing a number of characters from the past who were brave enough to question the religious consensus of the times. Packed with wonderful quotes from philosophers and thinkers dating all the way back to ancient Greece.

If you're looking for a polemic, you won't find it here, but it's highly informative. Worth a look if you have the time and inclination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhsMKQF1ROE

I remember seeing that on telly. Fascinating stuff about the French Revolution and atheism and how the heros of that day have been largly forgotten by modern day France.

I saw it too (YouTube doesn't work well on my 3rd World machine). The quote from Epicurus is a clincher.

This one?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Good, isn't it?

yeah woodpidgeon it is.... i would be interested in hearing any arguments against it.... i do miss having a god!!

>i would be interested in hearing any arguments against it<

You might find something here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

One of the bees in my bonnet is that people keep re-defining God. The most egregious example was post-Darwin, when God changed from Designer to Prime Mover. With the Epicurus saying, the get-out involves ideas of Free Will and Original Sin. God sends us travails to test our love for Him. What an odd god!

Theoligizers' technique is to answer one unverifiable concept with another, and another..

I have yet to encounter a coherent, meaningful definition of this god-thing, which would deserve classification as a logical position, let alone one which describes an intelligent agency.

Come to think of it, so far I have not seen any theist arguments for the existence of god, indeed religious arguments in general, which are not meaningless, false and easily refuted.

Indeed. Hence my question elsewhere. If even *they* don't know what they're talking about, how do they expect us to?