Creationists tell Sir David Attenborough to 'burn in hell'

[Pingfah]

I am an atheist and I do not say "there is no God" but instead I say that because I have never seen any compelling evidence of God I see no reason to believe in him.

I do not consider myself to be agnostic. As I see it agnostics believe that God is unprovable whereas I believe that God should be able to prove his existence.

"Having no belief in God" is not the same as "Knowing there is no God"

Shouldn't everybody believe that god is unprovable though?

That's just a fact regardless of what beliefs you do or don't hold.

I actually hold both your position AND the one i mentioned.

Why would a Christian, whose life is full of experiences that prove to him that God does exist wish to think that God is unprovable.

Not trying to start a fight nor offend anyone, but since we are all expressing our point of view, I can say without a doubt that I know that God exists.

I'm talking about scientific proof, God may have proven himself to you, but you can't prove it. That is what I meant.

 

[cultcross]

I *thought* I knew who he was, until I read his profile on Wikipedia. Considering that most of his work was for the BBC, we don't get to see much of it. And Planet Earth is narrated by Sigourney Weaver in the US, so that wouldn't be a good option.

Sigourney Weaver? hmmmm. No comment.

OK, if that one's a bust, 'Life of Mammals' would be my second recommendation, if you can get it. His other two seminal series: 'Life on Earth' and 'Private Life of Plants'.

 

[nevermore]

^Um, I got Life on Earth from Netflix and it was most certainly narrated by Attenborough.

I am an Atheist and just wanted to clear something up. The letter 'a' before the word means 'without' and 'theist' is someone who believes in deities. An Atheist like myself is someone who is without the belief of gods. Contrary to what some people suggest (including a few posters in this thread), I don't presume definitively that there isn't gods or that there cannot be gods at all. I don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support that theory. I never said that God can't exist. Anything is possible.

That makes you an agnostic by definition. An atheist, by the established definition, is more than 'not believing in a god or gods'. It is the belief that there is not a god or gods. To use your breakdown of the word, they believe they are without 'a' deities 'theist'.

That's a tricky one actually, I hold his position and consider myself an atheist also as do many others.

The only reason I don't discount the possibility of a God entirely is because I know there is no scientific way to discount the possibility entirely, that's a position that should be held by any rational logical thinking non-believer. But the fact remains that whilst I cannot discount the possibility entirely, I am personally quite sure that there is no God.

Just out of curiosity, do you afford the same consideration to other mythical beasts or are you subconsciously privileging the god-concept as being more plausible than, say, the goblin-concept? There is no scientific way to prove that dragons and unicorns don't exist either, after all...

Actually, objectively speaking, the goblin-concept is a damn sight more plausible than the god-concept.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Strong atheism is not a position I can see has any basis in logic since in order to know there is no God one would need evidence to that effect, which does not and cannot exist

I think that to be a strong atheist a sort of 'faith' is required, I do not think that it takes any sort of faith to be a weak atheist.

 

[cultcross]

There is no scientific way to prove that dragons and unicorns don't exist either, after all...

But the nature of some mythological creatures lead us to be able to say some relevant things about their existence - not proof, but evidence.
For example, if unicorns existed with physical form, as 'animals', we can say that we have no trace in the fossil record for that existence. I.e. we have more than absence of evidence, we have some evidence of absence, however slight.
There's no fossil record for transcendental deities so we can't even say the evidence points for or against - there simply isn't any.

 

[Amaris]

^ Not only that, but God seems to have taken great pains to hide Himself from our physical awareness. There's no way in hell I'm going to be able to prove anything by myself.

J.

 

[Pingfah]

^Um, I got Life on Earth from Netflix and it was most certainly narrated by Attenborough.

That's a tricky one actually, I hold his position and consider myself an atheist also as do many others.

The only reason I don't discount the possibility of a God entirely is because I know there is no scientific way to discount the possibility entirely, that's a position that should be held by any rational logical thinking non-believer. But the fact remains that whilst I cannot discount the possibility entirely, I am personally quite sure that there is no God.

Just out of curiosity, do you afford the same consideration to other mythical beasts or are you subconsciously privileging the god-concept as being more plausible than, say, the goblin-concept? There is no scientific way to prove that dragons and unicorns don't exist either, after all...

Actually, objectively speaking, the goblin-concept is a damn sight more plausible than the god-concept.

I don't afford it consideration, I didn't make it a fact that I can't disprove god, it just is a fact and I recognise it when prompted to by discussions such as these.

If somebody asked me to disprove Unicorns I would give the same answer, I cannot but I am quite sure they don't exist.

I have not privileged the concept with any plausibility at all.

 

[nevermore]

^Fair enough.

There is no scientific way to prove that dragons and unicorns don't exist either, after all...

But the nature of some mythological creatures lead us to be able to say some relevant things about their existence - not proof, but evidence.
For example, if unicorns existed with physical form, as 'animals', we can say that we have no trace in the fossil record for that existence. I.e. we have more than absence of evidence, we have some evidence of absence, however slight.
There's no fossil record for transcendental deities so we can't even say the evidence points for or against - there simply isn't any.

Eh, we are constantly discovering fossils for animals we never saw before. There have probably been literally billions of critters roaming this planet over the course of it's existence that never happened to croak in the exact right place at the exact right time to be fossilized, preserved, protected for millennia and then found by us. Absence from the fossil record is hardly evidence of non-existence.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I *thought* I knew who he was, until I read his profile on Wikipedia. Considering that most of his work was for the BBC, we don't get to see much of it. And Planet Earth is narrated by Sigourney Weaver in the US, so that wouldn't be a good option.

Sigourney Weaver? hmmmm. No comment.

OK, if that one's a bust, 'Life of Mammals' would be my second recommendation, if you can get it. His other two seminal series: 'Life on Earth' and 'Private Life of Plants'.

I have been looking at diffeent comments on Amazon concerning the Attenborough vs the Weaver narration

Some of the comments are

The original Attenborough narration is (in my opinion) infinitely better. The BBC natural history unit assumes a certain level of intellect, a decent vocabulary and an appreciation of quality prose. I saw part of one Weaver episode, followed shortly thereafter by Attenborough's version (Weaver's narration happened to be on TV the day my blu-ray copy arrived) which had the following narration when showing a pair of hunting eagles (this is slightly paraphrased, don't hold me to the exact quote):

Attenborough: "...the veil of winter falls..."
Weaver: "...it starts to snow..."

Enough said.

Replacing Attenborough's timeless narrative style with the emotionless, dumbed-down Weaver narration is the greatest travesty in the history of the BBC Natural History unit. The exec that made this decision should be fired immediately. I will not buy the DVD or watch the show with the Weaver narration.

and

prefer the Weaver narration. British accents really get on my nerves after 30 mins. Weaver has a more cool tone in her voice and less "wordy, windy" vocabulary. As Trevor Hirst mentioned, I think her line works better for me. This is nature, not Shakespeare. Her voice narration is similar to her work in the film, Gorillas In The Mist.

So where can I get the Weaver version cheap? I preordered this version back at the beginning of March when it listed Weaver as the narrator. I have many Attenborough DVDs, but Weaver was a blessing. No more choppy sound. David is wonderful, but his age is sounding in his voice and he is no longer pleasant to listen to. I enjoy Weaver much better. Is the Discovery Channel Store the only place to get the Weaver version?

 

[Augustus]

Shouldn't everybody believe that god is unprovable though?

That's just a fact regardless of what beliefs you do or don't hold.

I actually hold both your position AND the one i mentioned.

Why would a Christian, whose life is full of experiences that prove to him that God does exist wish to think that God is unprovable.

Not trying to start a fight nor offend anyone, but since we are all expressing our point of view, I can say without a doubt that I know that God exists.

I'm talking about scientific proof, God may have proven himself to you, but you can't prove it. That is what I meant.

ah, well, guess that is true, but I did find this fossil the other day...

 

[cultcross]

prefer the Weaver narration. British accents really get on my nerves after 30 mins. Weaver has a more cool tone in her voice and less "wordy, windy" vocabulary. As Trevor Hirst mentioned, I think her line works better for me. This is nature, not Shakespeare. Her voice narration is similar to her work in the film, Gorillas In The Mist.

Some people, *shakes head*
Sorry, were nasty Mr Attenborough's words too long for you?

 

[Pingfah]

Replacing Attenborough's timeless narrative style with the emotionless, dumbed-down Weaver narration is the greatest travesty in the history of the BBC Natural History unit. The exec that made this decision should be fired immediately. I will not buy the DVD or watch the show with the Weaver narration.

Thanks for the quotes. That guy needs to give up the coffee.

It wasn't the BBC's Natural History Unit that replaced it anyway, it was the Discovery Channel.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I hope that the comments I selected meant that I gave both sides of the debate a fair go. That was my intention.

 

[Amaris]

I like Sigourney Weaver, but from listening to him speak, I would much prefer Attenborough. The way he narrates is like one of a sage professor who's just having a pleasant chat with a friend. I like that. Again, not to bring it up too much, but he reminds me of the way Carl Sagan brought me into the sciences, like an old friend.


J.

 

[Pingfah]

I hope that the comments I selected meant that I gave both sides of the debate a fair go. That was my intention.

No sorry, it was pure partisan Attenboroughite trickery!

Notice how the Weaver fans both came off as sounding really shallow and ignorant? I'm sure you did that on purpose.

 

[Unicron]

I think I've only heard the Weaver version. I honestly don't have a problem with her narration, but I haven't heard Attenborough for a comparison.

 

[cultcross]

I think I've only heard the Weaver version. I honestly don't have a problem with her narration, but I haven't heard Attenborough for a comparison.

If the best you can say is that you 'honestly don't have a problem', Attenborough would beat her hands down

 

[melancholymecha]

I love his Life Of Birds specials. Ive been watching his shows for years. I adore his voice & accent... so classy!

and I didnt know he was related to Richard A. Thats so cool!

 

[Miss Chicken]

i have always wondered how the third (and youngest) brother, John Attenborough, feels about his brothers' fame. John ran a fleet of garages. Sir David says he has never understood his brother's love of cars. Sir David, the most travelled man in the world, is a non-driver.

I think the most positive proof about how much Sir David loves his work is that he choose it over running the whole BBC, a job he was going to be offered at one point.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I am an atheist and I do not say "there is no God" but instead I say that because I have never seen any compelling evidence of God I see no reason to believe in him.

I do not consider myself to be agnostic. As I see it agnostics believe that God is unprovable whereas I believe that God should be able to prove his existence.

"Having no belief in God" is not the same as "Knowing there is no God"

Shouldn't everybody believe that god is unprovable though?

They do. That's what "Faith" means: Believing in something despite the lack of evidence or in the face of negative evidence.