Ladies and gentlemen, we have found a nerve!

TWIST FOR GREAT RELIGIOUS JUSTICE

Hmph. I'm an Atheist, and I'm tired of Atheists trying to convince everyone that we're right. I don't like it when religious folk push their values on me, so let us non-religious folk practice what we preach (heh) and not push our values back on them.

Believer or non, to get on TV, give seminars, lead a congregation, proselytize... you have to have some agenda other than the one you're claiming. And I'm sick of everyone's agendas. Dawkins (even though I happen to agree with him) is as big of an egotist as any megachurch preacher out there, and I'm sick of smug, arrogant pricks like these trying to make themselves our spokesmen. It makes us all look bad.

Live and let live, people. Sheesh.

(Sorry, had a big bowl of grumpyflakes for breakfast)

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Live and let live, people. Sheesh.


But that's the problem: the religious (who vastly outnumber us) are not willing to live and let live. They want to tell us who we can and can't marry depending on our gender. They want our kids to believe that evolution is "just a theory" by trying to force their religious beliefs to be taught in public education. They want to stifle medical and scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives. They want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I don't think these guys are "pushing values" on this show. They're giving religious folk an opportunity to state their side of the case--something pretty much every caller has failed to do convincingly or even coherently (Loch Ness Monster, wtf?).

>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Live and let live, people. Sheesh.

But that's the problem: the religious (who vastly outnumber us) are not willing to live and let live. They want to tell us who we can and can't marry depending on our gender. They want our kids to believe that evolution is "just a theory" by trying to force their religious beliefs to be taught in public education. They want to stifle medical and scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives. They want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
I don't think these guys are "pushing values" on this show. They're giving religious folk an opportunity to state their side of the case--something pretty much every caller has failed to do convincingly or even coherently (Loch Ness Monster, wtf?).


All true. And, at the same time, I can't help but feeling like two wrongs don't make a right. Being preachy is being preachy, and these guys have a particularly smug nature that just rubs me the wrong way.

I don't see anything wrong with promoting fact and rationality supported by evidence as opposed to faith based on superstition and folklore. But the pious refuse to look at evidence that threatens their belief, so atheists come off as smug because of some of the nonsense that they are forced to contradict time and time again.

Calling Bullshit isnt preaching. And thats what these atheists do Dawkins, PZ, these guys, etc, all they are saying is "Bullshit, I call your bluff, lets see them fuckin' cards" And whenever we do get a peek at the cards of the pious, its always the same: Arguments from design and first cause, or variations on Pascals wager.

Yet they are still betting and fishing money from the poor and gullible around the table, pretending they are sitting on a royal flush, and, because of this neat, unwritten (except in scripture) rule they've established, no one is even supposed to call them out, its taboo, and when we do it anyway, of course our hands are better, We've been shuffling and dealing new hands for 2000 years since they got the hand they're stuck with. Its like we're cheating. And when we do turn over our cards, who wouldnt look smug?

God is Fred.

The major religions of today didn't get to their major status by sitting on their hands and letting people believe what they wanted to. I certainly wouldn't encourage a crusade to kill the believers, or even atheist missionaries, but if you want the world to be a more rational place then you can't shy away from debate.

Calling the guy arrogant would seem to be attacking the speaker, and not the argument...

Religious people should find Pascal's wager blasphemous as it exhibits greed and deception at the highest level of belief. In effect one who operates by such a mode is using God expressly for their own selfishness.

I am not taking a stance on religion here, but I do think that if this is the one and only life I have, I would not waste any minute or any second of it arguing with people about things we are never going to agree on...

Debunking the arguments of people who believe in a god is one thing. Proving his non-existence is another.

If the default of the concept of "god" is that he has the possibility of either existing or not (the concept of god exists whether or not he does), then if one argues against another person about his existence, either for or against, then the onus is on that person to not only debunk the others argument, but to also show proof that he either does or does not exist.

As yet I have never seen any tangible proof for his existence or his non-existence. All I have seen is logic arguments (from both sides) and faith arguments (from both sides as well).

Get over the fact that you can't prove either way. This is a waste of time (even my response is a waste of time).

If anyone, anywhere in the world can "show" me god, or "show" me that he cannot exist, then I'll believe it. You can argue with words to me all day.

And yes, I know I can't see god by default - but I'm asking for tangible proof of the concept of god - one way or the other. Just like we have concepts in maths and physics that are greater than our actual tangible experience, we've made up a concept of god. And we do actually discover tangible results for our maths and physics experiments that prove things one way or the other, so I expect one to scientifically show me the same results with this.

Show me the money.

It isn't my job to prove to you that god doesn't exist any more than it is to prove there isn't a malevolent pixie living in your asshole.

There is no absolute objective knowledge; when an atheist says there is no god, they mean there is both no evidence for its existence and its existence is incredibly unlikely, extrapolation from evidence and probability is the only meaningful definition of knowledge.

I don't think any atheists are trying to prove that God doesn't exist. That's a common misunderstanding. Instead, they are in agreement with you - that there's no proof that God does exist and that there's no reason to believe in one without proof. Even Dawkins isn't 100% certain that there is no God. But that's not the point.

i can't be arsed to do this any more.

even as these guys are preaching their interpretation of "rationality"... real scientists are discovering alternate dimensions and completely different concepts of reality.

Real scientists don't know shit, they research in wonder. Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee. These guys were so obviously bullied in school.

Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee.

Of course there are deep, interesting mysteries in science, but thats not an argument for anything.. Thats the whole point in the much used imaginary stuff (flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapot etc) arguing in favor of their existence is a non-starter, unless it is based on EVIDENCE. It is no bloody good arguing that the world is so complex/strange/mysterious so we can never know or say anything either way.

The truth is that theists have a very, very bad case, and Pascals Wager happens to be one of the very worst arguments ever, and blowing it apart isnt being a "know-it-all" anymore than your confident dis-belief in Santa Claus makes you a know-it-all.

>> ^MINK:
even as these guys are preaching their interpretation of "rationality"... real scientists are discovering alternate dimensions and completely different concepts of reality.


I had an interesting conversation on Thursday with a post-grad student studying Theoretical Physics, and he pointed out to me that no physicist has "discovered" an alternate dimension yet. Even String Theory (or the blanket M Theory) is a misnomer. They aren't really "theories", they are hypotheses. The Large Hadron Collider will hopefully prove the hypothesis of alternate dimensions, but at this point they are only on paper.

And while they might be discovering "different concepts of reality" our reality remains the same, have you noticed? Reality is reality, and discovering that there might be a dimensional Brane right next to me, right this moment, with an alternate version of me, possibly typing this in German instead of English does not change our reality. We merely understand another level of its complex nature. The physics in every day life won't get turned on its head, we'll just be a little more enlightened to the nature of the cosmos.


>> ^MINK:
Real scientists don't know shit, they research in wonder. Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee. These guys were so obviously bullied in school.


I take a slight cringing response to this broad and sweeping generalization of scientists. Referring to the first sentence, of course. "Real" scientists know an untold amount of things. Be it confirmed theories or merely suspected hypothesis. You are correct, however, by stating they research in wonder, that much is obvious. Without that child-like sense of wonder, amazement, and questioning of our reality, scientists wouldn't discover anything.

Just don't assume in an absolute that every scientist's ideas are resting on the edge of a blade. We're pretty confident in a good majority of our discoveries about our Universe, and our reality. Evolution, Gravity, DNA, the "Big Bang" come to mind.

The nice part about real scientists, though, is that when shown evidence that truly falsifies one of their theories, they will abandon it and take on the new facts, evidence, and theory.

ok get this, i agree with what raigen said. and i am not religious. and i oppose those who use religion for evil or timewasting purposes. i am not even really a "theist".

but EVIDENCE isn't my god, even if bicyclerepairman writes it in capitals.

I would like to hope that evidence isn't anyone's "God".

Being a skeptic, I routinely hear people say I am not open-minded. I could go into a long diatribe about how the phrase "open-minded" has been hijacked in the past two decades or so, but instead I point out I am truly open-minded. You can truly convince me of absolutely anything.

There is one catch, though, and this is where my favourite thing, and not my "God" comes in; Show me the evidence.

I love evidence.

the problem is, some people love evidence too much

>> ^bluecliff:
the problem is, some people love evidence too much



I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I've been looking for someone to elaborate on the whole "loving evidence too much", and I know you're probably not referring to my stance, but the statement piques my curiosity.

I'm a strong proponent of "everything in moderation", though, when it comes to things like evidence, shouldn't that be all which matters when you need to explain something?

the debate here is "can the scientific method uncover Everything?"

How can we answer that question??

We can't. So, isn't the agnostic position more scientific than the atheist?
I mean big wow, you haven't got any evidence for God and "disproving" is not compatible with your method of thinking. So what? You mean you DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. have the courage to admit that. If it's "all about probabilities" then admit that's sciencetalk for "not sure".

So please don't make shitty youtube videos to try and show your friend you are all interlektual and free thinking. By all means criticise God's Salesmen, but to turn that into a total denial of God is just ridiculous.

MINK... you continue to say that athiests and all these videos are trying to say there is NO GOD.

When THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT.

Stop creating a strawman argument. That is not what they're saying, so stop trying to shoot down a case that isn't being made.

What athiests, and these videos are trying to say is that all the organized religions are saying that without a doubt there IS A GOD, with nothing other than some words written by some guys a long time ago to back that up.

ALL we are trying to say is that it's a pretty damn flimsy basis to run your life and try to run everyone else's.

WE ALL don't know the answer, we ALL don't know if there IS or ISN'T something outside of our consciousness etc. but the amount of money, blood, pain, self loathing, etc. etc. that is perpetrated by the church in telling people they DO know the answer and you'd better play by THEIR rules if you don't want to be eternally punished is sickening.

You can be an atheist and still be uncommitted as to whether there is a higher being, and atheist is someone with no theology, not a disbelief entirely of anything outside of our own beings.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism for myself, and most atheists, is largely one of semantics. The logic of the problem dictates that a person cannot truly be completely one hundred percent sure of the non-existence of God just as one cannot disprove the Celestial Teapot, Spaghetti Monster, etc. And in the entire lifespan of the human species, which will be greatly shorter than the lifespan of the universe which is purported to have been created just for us, we will likely never be able to prove the non-existence of God. But given the observed evidence that we do have now, an atheist doesn't see the necessity for a god in the creation of the universe and ourselves, and finds enough mystery, beauty and wonder in actual reality.

but EVIDENCE isn't my god, even if bicyclerepairman writes it in capitals.

This feels more and more like discussing with Stephen Colbert:

Did you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain? Look it up. Now I know some of you are gonna say "I did look it up, and its not true" Well, thats cause you looked it up in a book, try looking it up in your gut.

My point about evidence is that i think its a good idea to ask yourself this question:If I make something up, right now, (such as flying pink unicorns) would I, with any confidence be able to say that the shit I just made up is less plausible than what I actually believe in?

Or, take another example, the hijackers of 9/11. Are they up there screwing virgins as we speak? no? Why not? Well, we cant say for sure, they may have been rewarded with eternal bliss for all we know. Lets say you were given the chance to talk them out of it, what could you say? Their god wasnt evidence, they had faith, they KNEW they were going to paradise. If evidence isnt needed to believe, how can we say that those people are wrong?, arent they just as likely to be right as Rick Warren, or Oprah Winfrey, or Tom Cruise or Richard Dawkins? Are they all on level grounds?

How do you separate ridiculous nonsense from plausible ideas?

the prefix a- in atheism seems to denote opposition to the idea that god exists. I am sorry if I got the wrong idea there, perhaps you guys should rebrand, because even the definition of the word "atheism" is now being brought into the debate.

By some definitions, I am also "atheist".

The flying pink unicorn argument is a classic example of atheists reducing a complex intangible feeling into a ridiculous canard in order to try to make agnostics seem unintelligent. Fuck that one. I don't think hijackers get to fuck virgins, and if you want to believe in the flying pink unicorn then i would be interested to hear why. For a laugh. I think comparing the idea of God to a flying pink unicorn is just juvenile, and demonstrates an excessive faith in logic to solve all problems.

I don't think humans run on logic. Therefore I shy away from using pure logic to explain concepts such as soul or universe or heaven. So did the Bible. Unfortunately modern people try to interpret the Bible with logic, and then they find it is illogical and go around the internet saying "therefore it is wrong and you are foolish"

Some people seem obsessed by learning exactly what "reality" is.
I am not so obsessed. I came to the conclusion that I haven't even seen one speck of reality and this whole thing is just a fucking "illusion" which science can't explain to me. To attempt to understand it is futile. I am not the guy to find the answer. I think i am closest to god when i play music. To you it's just endorphins or something in my blood, but i find that a totally unsatisfactory explanation. I don't even want or need an explanation.

What is more, my belief that "magic" or "god" or "fairies" exist makes complete sense to me, and helps me understand what I want to do in my life. Your obsession with being "correct" just amuses me, because you're never going to get there, and you have absolutely no authority to tell me how to think about spiritual matters.

But it's interesting talking to half of you. Thanks

For once in my life I would like the Large Hadron Collider not to appear as I read it as the Large Hardon Collider

I cant quality my own video.

But I like these comments .

"I don't even want or need an explanation." <-- this is the whole problem, then.
It reminds of a Simpsons episode, then one where they find an "angel":
Flanders: "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"

MINK - It's perfectly cool that some people, such as yourself, don't particularly care about science and how things work (despite all the things you take for granted now because people did bother to work out how things work and invent things). I don't think that most atheists really care if you believe in fairies or a god or whatever.

It's when people who believe in what the bible says try to make that be what's taught to our children, that's when we get shitty. If someone can't realistically get elected into office in the most powerful country on earth simply because they don't state that they believe in a god... that's when we get shitty.

If everyone PRIVATELY believed in whatever higher power or lack thereof then there would be NO PROBLEM.

But when people who are ignorant as to the way things REALLY WORK (such as creationists) try to make their ignorant, stupid views be taught as fact, THAT's when we get shitty.

If they stop trying to tell everyone what they believe is fact, with NOTHING to back them up, and in fact HUGE, INSURMOUNTABLE evidence to contradict them... then people will stop having a problem with them.

Reality is just an opinion.

I do care about science, but i studied maths, physics AND art, and i see the similarities between them, and their respective weaknesses.

I think it's great that we have science to make computers so we can talk to each other at a great distance. I think penicillin was probably a good thing to invent. The steam engine turned out to be quite useful.

But, just because the scientific method has been so successful in so many areas, that doesn't mean that it can or should be applied to God.

spoco, i don't think everyone shares your tolerant and sensible attitude... many people are "shitty" to me here without even knowing what I believe, they just hear the word god and shout "IT FITS IN YOUR BUTT!". That's what pisses me off about atheists, they are wrong AND they love rubbing it in everyone's face... just like religious fundamentalists... you become what you fight. So I will continue to diss Pat Condell, Dawkins, and these clowns, because they are taking a good thing to extremes and turning it into a bad thing... mostly because they get off on it.

I think it is appropriate to link to this particular video here on the Sift, and while House is talking in reference to religion, his last sentence perfectly sums up why seeing reality for what it actually is is so important.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-House-on-Religion-016

>> ^gwiz665:
"I don't even want or need an explanation." -- this is the whole problem, then.

it's not a problem.


It reminds of a Simpsons episode, then one where they find an "angel":
Flanders: "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"


hehe that's a nice way of putting it... but... i disagree that science can tell us how the movie ends.

As for House, well, good luck with your miserable and unprovable "truth".

I think comparing the idea of God to a flying pink unicorn is just juvenile

I understand that you do, of course, that's why I am asking: How can you separate them? How about comparing the Flying Pink unicorns and the 72 virgins? is there any way in which the 72 virgins are more probable than the unicorns? Why? is there any way the resurrection of Jesus is more probable than the 72 virgins? How about the resurrection vs God himself? How do you decide?

You seem to think that the word atheist is because we all "feel" god and we atheists choose to deny it. Well, that's not true, the point is that I live in a world where billions of people believe in a thing, and I dont, so its a way of pointing that out. Like Sam Harris says, we are no more atheists than we are non-astrologers, but we dont define our beliefs as denial-of-astrology, and so yes, ideally, I would prefer not to need the term "atheist" at all, because I think its a rather obvious stance, given that we cant know, and there is no evidence to support the opposing view.

There is also the fact that the world, and more specifically the living world, superficially LOOKS designed, and we humans are creatures who, because WE make and design things, think in terms of painting=painter. "Who made this?" This gives us an intuitive reason to think of God(s) because it feels natural to us. The evidence, however, when we actually look more carefully at the natural world, clearly shows that it wasn't designed at all.

You are still framing your position in logic, and god isn't logical. that's the thing, i don't believe everything is logical. The stuff that isn't logical has some other kind of forces governing it, currently referred to as "god". Perhaps the scientists will discover these forces, perhaps not. I guess not.

The illogical stuff is the best and most interesting... love, music, the human brain...

I am reminded of Mr Spock and how weak his constant pleas of "that's not logical" are, and how inhuman he is.

I am also thinking of the people who really understand love, music, and their brain, and write amazing songs even if they can't play the piano. You don't have to know the rules to feel the vibe, so maybe the rules are a flawed abstraction of the vibe, and the "truth" is not able to be condensed into laws.

Plenty of civilisations are totally fine with this approach. Plenty of atheists probably agree with me, I am just against the ones who are smug about it and think it's clever to point out obviously absurd flaws in the minds of those less educated. Being smug in front of god is probably a bad idea. Pick on someone your own size.

If you cant prove that god exists, and I cant prove that he doesn't then why the fuck are we arguing. Why call a show called the Atheist Experience with beliefs about god and expect the hosts not to flame the caller?


Secondly I know first hand that God finds it amusing that I am smug in front of him.

The illogical stuff is the best and most interesting... love, music, the human brain...

I find those things fascinating, mysterious perhaps, but not illogical, Love and music are things that may sometimes make us irrational, or atleast do irrational things, but that doesnt mean they cant have a natural origin, and I dont have a problem thinking of a few possible explanations, and indeed, with research into the function of the brain, we've make lots of progress on understanding how these things work.

You perhaps want these things to remain mysterious, abstract concepts, with no basis in the natural world, maybe because you dont want to unweave the rainbow, as Keats put it. "God" -in any form- is however no good explanation for the origin of these things, no more than he is an explanation for the origin of our opposing thumbs.

I'm fascinated by love, music, art and culture and its effect on humans, and lots of things can be said about them, what is clear is that you can obviously have all those things, and appreciate them, without any kind of supernatural hankerings whatsoever.

Point in case, as you mentioned Spock, Star Trek for example was created by an atheist

i want things to remain mysterious, yes, and i think they probably will for a long time. i don't think we are necessarily going about the research the right way, you are right about god not being an explanation (i don't really seek one) but even if you CAN have all these cool feelings without god existing, all i can say is why not use the concept if it helps? it's just a mental framework if you want to be strictly scientific about it. I find it easier to understand what to do if i think this way, and believe me I have tried many ways.

what you wrote helped me understand more. i don't think there's much measurable difference between me and an atheist, but i love the bit you can't measure much more than the similarities.

I simply don't, well, believe in mysterianism. There's no reason to keep things mysterious and hidden - that's what con artists do! I would like to have an explanation of the world, even if one cannot be found. I would also like to try to explain the world even if I can't. Saying "I don't know" is not a defeat if you follow it up with "but I'm trying". If you say "God did it", then you haven't really explained anything.

Mink, you say it's not a problem that you don't want an explanation, and on a personal level I can agree. It's your own choice to not seek a naturalistic explanation, but for the human race and our knowledge base I think this is the best course to follow. If it helps you in your daily life to think that something like "feelings" or "consciousness" is something etheric that is not bound, then by all means. That, however, may not be the TRUTH.

Heh, the TRUTH is also a surprisingly tough topic to discuss. Example: Imagine that person A sees the color green as red. It is measurably green (wavelengths) and everyone else sees it as green, but A's brain has a defect that causes him to see it as green. Which is the truth:
a) It is green
b) It is red
c) We don't know
d) It is green for everyone except A for whom it is red.

I think/believe that the answer is (a), because the amount of evidence points to that being the truth. It is very much the same thing with the existence of God; Does God exist:
a) Yes
b) No
c) Maybe; I don't know
d) For some people // for those who believe in him

Of course, absolutes are not something to be trifled with, so these yes/no answers are really not valid choices, unless we say it's like 99.9 % probability. Most people, I think, would fall into (c), because they don't know. This is the strictly agnostic approach, which could technically also be taken with my color example, but which is the most reasonable to assume? In the color example, very few would answer "I don't know", but in the God question many people do. I think culture has something to do with that. If we are agnostic about all the things we should be agnostic of, if we followed all the restrictions set by religious people, we would know very, very little.

Also, if there is a God and this supernatural being have no effect on our world, then why does it matter that it exists? We should all live as if this being did not exist, even if it did.

You get a goddamn Gold Star from me for that post, Gwiz.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, August 20th, 2008 11:44pm PDT - promote requested by gwiz665.

I hate this fucking show, and I hate the two losers who present it.

Would everyone please stick your groupthink up your fucking asses? I absolutely CRINGE whenever people want to act like atheists have anything in common other than a shared disbelief in god.

I simply don't believe in god and think anyone who claims to know god is completely insane. To my chagrin, this allows people to call me an atheist. I'm sick of people acting like being an atheist makes you part of some group. Disbelief in god doesn't make me part of some stupid fucking anti-god club, any more than disliking seafood would put me in some kind of alliance with other people who dislike seafood.

There's all kinds of things I don't believe in, but I don't go around characterizing myself that way. This is why although semantically you could say I am one, I do not go around calling myself an atheist.

>> ^MINK:
i can't be arsed to do this any more.
even as these guys are preaching their interpretation of "rationality"... real scientists are discovering alternate dimensions and completely different concepts of reality.
Real scientists don't know shit, they research in wonder. Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee. These guys were so obviously bullied in school.


What a mouth breather's take on things.

The hold thing about discussing the existence of god is kind of childish. I think if anyone had a clear understanding on science they would be able to make that call without running in circles. I think the key problem really is education or better said the lack off it.

If you want mystery, there is nothing as intriguing as the universe. You want something to conform you at night? If you truly understanding how unlikely you are then I think it should bring plenty of comfort. You want to know the meaning of life? Then understand it first. Then it will be plenty obvious.

Religion can never give you any of that or if it does it is the cheap version. Don't settle for second best!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'The, Atheist, Experience, Pascal, Wager' to 'Atheist Experience, Pascals Wager' - edited by xxovercastxx