*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 26th, 2011 2:10pm PST - promote requested by original submitter jwray.

Yes! Angry because of compassion, it is so true. I'm disgusted by religion and it's evils because what it does to people, most of whom are believers. Sure a god might have made the universe (no proof for that though) but it wasn't some human made god.

Looks more like hairy armpit feminist anger to me. Seriously let people believe what they want to, atheists trying to convert are just as annoying as religious zealots trying to convert. Just a different belief system but still BORING.

>> ^thumpa28:

Looks more like hairy armpit feminist anger to me. Seriously let people believe what they want to, atheists trying to convert are just as annoying as religious zealots trying to convert. Just a different belief system but still BORING.


Nice knee jerk reaction without actually listening to the content of the video.

>> ^thumpa28:

Looks more like hairy armpit feminist anger to me. Seriously let people believe what they want to, atheists trying to convert are just as annoying as religious zealots trying to convert. Just a different belief system but still BORING.


HAHAH, good job throwing the outdated 'hairy feminist' stereotype at this too. Most feminists aren't 'hairy armpit' stereotypes. Nor is there anything wrong with feminists anyway, like that is some kind of insult. I'm a man, I'm a feminist, I want equality for all the great ladies I know. The best woman I've known have been third wave feminists who understand that the 'hairy armpit' anger crap was used to belittle genuine problems. They still call themselves feminists regardless, knowing that ignorant fools who know nothing about woman's issues will shout 'ohh angry hairy feminists. What the hell is wrong with equality?

Religion damages the people that follow it, they indoctrinate children, mutilate peoples bodies, and kill each other across the planet. I don't really spread my agnosticism, but I have no problem with these people. Atheism isn't really a 'belief' system, it is more of a reality system.

I actually find it very amusing that thumpa28 provided a really good example of EXACTLY what Christina was talking about when she talked about people telling atheists to "tone it down". Thanks thumpa! Next time, perhaps you should watch the video you're commenting on before making yourself look like a buffoon.

Only the second comment , wow. As I was watching this I was wondering how long it would take for some moron to start making ad hominem attacks on this woman based on gender or appearance. Way to go Archie, I mean thumpa, I think you've set a record.

It's natural that atheists proselytize, because atheism is a religion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-

It has its own creation story:

"Thus, a century ago, [it was] Darwinism against Christian orthodoxy. To-day the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."

Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.49

with its own miracles:

"Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot... given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12.

In which its adherants have total faith:

I have faith and belief myself... I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.

Isaac Asimov
Counting the Eons P.10

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

They believe it even in the face of contradicting evidence

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

EJH Cornor, Cambridge
Contemporary Botanical Thought p.61

It provides a comprehensive belief system:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideaology, a secular religion- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with its meaning and morality...

Michael Ruse Florida State University
National Post 5/13/00

Atheists know they are right no matter what:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

Even if they have to suppress the truth to prove it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

They are true believers:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

It won't be long before there are atheists churches and street preachers handing out tracks.

The claim that atheism is a religion shows not only a lack of knowledge (or willful ignorance) about the subject of atheism, but also a lack of knowledge about the English language and roots of words.

By the way, have you considered the irony in the fact that as an attack against atheism, you try to demote it by calling it a religion? Isn't religion the very thing you're trying to defend? Oh, that's right, all religions are actually bogus, EXCEPT YOURS! Now it makes sense.

"In the last few years the atheist movement has moved into overdrive. "We" have become much more visible, much more vocal, much more activist, much better organized and much less apologetic.

And here you have a call to convert people to your way of thinking. It is sounding an awful lot like a religion to me.

And no, I am not defending religion. Jesus hated religion. Christianity is a relationship with God, not attending church and saying grace.

>> ^offsetSammy:
The claim that atheism is a religion shows not only a lack of knowledge (or willful ignorance) about the subject of atheism, but also a lack of knowledge about the English language and roots of words.
By the way, have you considered the irony in the fact that as an attack against atheism, you try to demote it by calling it a religion? Isn't religion the very thing you're trying to defend? Oh, that's right, all religions are actually bogus, EXCEPT YOURS! Now it makes sense.

>And no, I am not defending religion. Jesus hated religion. Christianity is a relationship with God, not attending church and saying grace.

A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible.* You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.

* You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

Atheism is as much a religion as health is a disease.

@shinyblurry: 100$ says you did not watch the video. Greta lists many of the reasons why people like myself are so adamantly against superstitious beliefs and the organised religions that uphold them. If you can watch her talk and still defend religion, than you are very morally compromised.

A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible.* You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.

You should listen to your friend. Religion is simply the traditions of men. Christians worship God in spirit and in truth. Foremost, it is a personal relationship with God, and we have direct experience by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within us.

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

It isn't an institution we're following, or a set of rituals and regulations, but rather the experiential relationship we have with God through His word and Spirit.

* You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

You assume I would do so, because you don't understand the bible. You're referring to the mosaic law, which were for Israel in that time and place. Jesus fulfilled the law and brought us under a New Covenant. There was a change of priesthood, and so christians follow the law of Christ.



>> ^offsetSammy:
>And no, I am not defending religion. Jesus hated religion. Christianity is a relationship with God, not attending church and saying grace.
A friend of mine says exactly the same thing, and this argument perplexes me to no end. You're talking about a relationship with God. The one in the bible. You follow, I assume, a system of belief. The one in the bible. You are therefore religious, and follow a religion, by definition. If you want to make a distinction between organized religion vs. your own personal "take" on Christianity, so be it, but it seems to me that telling people "religion is bad, god is good" is just a convenient loophole you can use to distance yourself from all the horrible atrocities that have occured over history as a result of the belief in your god.
You cherry pick the things from the Bible you like, and discard those you don't, of course. And this is good, because otherwise you'd be executing your children for disobeying you and beating your slaves on a regular basis.

I watched some of it. I didn't finish it because I don't feel like watching atheists complain for an hour is the best use of my time.

If God didn't exist, you might have a point..but He does exist and the real problem is that your mind is closed, your eyes are scaled over, and your ears plugged. You're like a guy who lives in a cave who denies the existence of the sun. You can't see it therefore it doesn't exist. Face it hpqp, you have more faith than I do.

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped...To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."

Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry: 100$ says you did not watch the video. Greta lists many of the reasons why people like myself are so adamantly against superstitious beliefs and the organised religions that uphold them. If you can watch her talk and still defend religion, than you are very morally compromised.

You are so full of crazy, it isn't even amusing anymore.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I watched some of it. I didn't finish it because I don't feel like watching atheists complain for an hour is the best use of my time.
If God didn't exist, you might have a point..but He does exist and the real problem is that your mind is closed, your eyes are scaled over, and your ears plugged. You're like a guy who lives in a cave who denies the existence of the sun. You can't see it therefore it doesn't exist. Face it hpqp, you have more faith than I do.
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped...To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107
>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry: 100$ says you did not watch the video. Greta lists many of the reasons why people like myself are so adamantly against superstitious beliefs and the organised religions that uphold them. If you can watch her talk and still defend religion, than you are very morally compromised.

shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.

I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.

Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.

It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.

Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins

The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.

Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge

Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."

Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"

Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.



>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Quote mining. Theists best worst weapon

edit: and by the way... you fail to even grasp the basic concept of what is a religion, so please, don't embarass yourself trying to pretend like you actually know anything.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.
Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins
The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.
Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?
Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."
Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156
"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J. & Weldon J. , "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.

>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?


Needs more quotes. But I guess that's what religion is all about, rely on things someone said before you and not think for yourself.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'skepticon 4' to 'skepticon 4, greta christina, atheism, activism, anger' - edited by xxovercastxx

hrmm... much anger, i sense

iirc, the word atheism comes from greek and means 'without god(s)'

as a sidenote, what does this mean for those religions whose core tenets don't include a god or pantheon of gods, ie daoism, buddhism, confucianism?

is greta angry with them? she scares me - lol

*promote truth.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, November 26th, 2011 6:04pm PST - promote requested by LarsaruS.

@shinyblurry
If you are so confident in your position, why do you feel compelled to lie about the positions of your opponents so often?

Mind you, the alternative to lying is tremendous ignorance, so I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.

Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.


What if it was "under Allah"? Still feel the same?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.


1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.

2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).

3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

I was interested in this talk when I heard her talk about the points she wished to address: (1) Are atheists actually angry?; (2) Why are they angry and is it valid?; and (3) Is this anger useful for the atheist movement?

Around the 15 minute mark, I became tired of what had become a crowd-pandering rant about what makes the speaker angry (self-classified by Greta as a rant at least twice later in this talk.) I kept skipping forward to find the end of the rant because I was interest in the other points she had promised to make. I'm not dismissing the validity of her individual points within that rant, but was wanted to hear her other points.

If you already know why atheists are angry, or don't need a warm fuzzy feeling from hearing someone rant about something you agree with, or just don't want to hear the rant in general:
SKIP FROM 6 minutes to 26 minutes.

I thought she made some excellent points when talking about the usefulness of anger within a social movement. People often idealize past social movement figures while ignoring what they don't know or don't wish to know. Also there tends to be a ignoring of the multiple groups working in tandem (although sometimes not more than of strangers taking the same bus to similar destinations) which created the social change that the history books lay to rest on the one idealized (idolized?) leader for one of the groups.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Also, just want to throw in that there's nothing wrong with hairy armpits either.

Nothing wrong with shaving though. I also don't have a problem with African lip extenders or Japanese teeth blacking. Shaving is just another cultural body modification custom. Accepted now. Maybe silly later.>> ^krelokk:

>> ^thumpa28:
Looks more like hairy armpit feminist anger to me. Seriously let people believe what they want to, atheists trying to convert are just as annoying as religious zealots trying to convert. Just a different belief system but still BORING.

HAHAH, good job throwing the outdated 'hairy feminist' stereotype at this too. Most feminists aren't 'hairy armpit' stereotypes. Nor is there anything wrong with feminists anyway, like that is some kind of insult. I'm a man, I'm a feminist, I want equality for all the great ladies I know. The best woman I've known have been third wave feminists who understand that the 'hairy armpit' anger crap was used to belittle genuine problems. They still call themselves feminists regardless, knowing that ignorant fools who know nothing about woman's issues will shout 'ohh angry hairy feminists. What the hell is wrong with equality?
Religion damages the people that follow it, they indoctrinate children, mutilate peoples bodies, and kill each other across the planet. I don't really spread my agnosticism, but I have no problem with these people. Atheism isn't really a 'belief' system, it is more of a reality system.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^krelokk:
Most feminists aren't 'hairy armpit' stereotypes. [...] I'm a man, I'm a feminist
Wait, wait... are you saying you shave your pits?


ha, nope, I'm saying what I wrote. Ignorant people assume all feminists are psycho female 'angry hairy armpit bra burning' sterotypes OR girly men who are 'whipped' by girlfriends (yes because equality is so horrible only a man who is whipped would want that for his gf/mother/daughter/aunt/grandma. Generally loser, insecure, ignorant men who cling to their masculinity like a security blanket go for that one.) Most male feminists I've met have the 'balls' to give a shit about the humans of the opposite gender and want positive change in the world. Dag is right also, though every feminist I've been with has shaved everything.

Very eloquent speech. I'll upvote this kind of rational dialogue on religion that actually takes the counter-points into account any day.

I don't disagree with most of what she's saying here. A lot of where we differ in opinion would be in terms of nuance and perhaps semantics (i.e. definitions of religion and anger). She crafted a very strong argument. I admire how she invoked King and Ghandi at the end--almost implying that these religious and spiritual leaders would somehow approve of how the anti-theist movement [I can't really call them atheists anymore--they've gone beyond just denying a god exists to demanding everyone else denies it too] is going about its movement (I don't believe either King or Ghandi would, though).

I don't have time to write a lengthy post about this video, so I'll simply say this: I feel the anger of the anti-theist movement is misplaced. Targeting "religion" makes about as much sense to me as targeting "government." "Governments" are responsible for the suffering of millions (if not billions) of people around the world. But we wouldn't think of tossing the idea of government out the window on that basis.

Governments can be improved and my position is that religions can be too. Reality checks can be built into religion: is your religion spreading peace and happiness in the world, empowering people and bringing them together, providing social and psychological support in tough times, and promoting equality and justice? No? Then you need to make changes.

My position has been and continues to be that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. It is the responsibility of both religious and non-religious alike to keep the pressure on religion so that it minimizes the chances of it doing harm and maximizes the chances of it doing good. Picking specific instances (the Catholic church abuse scandal for instance) as focal points is a great example. Religions do change over time, and I appreciate the anti-theist movement for "keeping things real" to some extent and exerting this pressure on religion. Ultimately, though, anger is a double-edged sword and I suppose only time will tell if the anti-theist movement ends up falling on its own blade.

Is your religion spreading peace and happiness in the world, empowering people and bringing them together, providing social and psychological support in tough times, and promoting equality and justice? No? Then you need to make changes. ... My position has been and continues to be that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil.

Well said. IMO this is a key truth that the (what I call) 'militant atheist' movement seems to deliberatly ignore because it is somewhat inconvenient to their self-image. Populations of human beings have a spectrum of individuals in them that run a gammut from 'good' to 'bad'. This is true of religions, sciences, governments, political parties, charities, businesses, or whatever else you care to name.

It must be said that militant atheists love to cherry-pick the 'bad' followers of religion, and try as much as possible to ignore the 'good' ones. Are there a lot of bad people who belong to religions? Sure. Do they do bad things in the name of God? Of course. To an atheist, what is a simple statement becomes a illogical grand condemnation of both religion in general, and God as a concept as somehow culpable (to blame) for all the bad things that those people did.

But there are 'bad' atheists too. If all those bad 'God people' were instead atheists, would atheism be to blame? I rather think that militant athiests would deny such a ridiculous statement. And yet many atheists of this militant stripe refuse to follow the same logic and allow people of faith the same leeway. That says something.

As a person of faith, I freely admit my own faults. But I see both God and 'religion' as a means towards self-improvement. I obtain great strength from faith, and have learned many things from both the philosophies of Christianity as well as from the examples of those who follow a religous life. Involvement in religion has provided my with many opportunities for service to others. Put simply - religions and God can lead people to a life of self-sacrifice, improvement, and service to others that they would not otherwise have found.

What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, and I'll rightfully ignore any argument that says otherwise.

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.
Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist. Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good? That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.

It is pretty fucked up to believe in / worship this bloodthirsty megalomaniac without any evidence that he even exists.

Yes, church gives you a sense of community. That's fine. I still even go to a church event once in a blue moon to catch up with some old friends from 10 years of attending the same small Sunday school classes. But for fuck's sake, there are other ways to meet people and serve your community than through glorifying a fictional genocidal tyrant who wouldn't even deserve it if the bible were true.

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

Stupid people do stupid things, whether they are theists or atheists. Faith has nothing to do with it, and your idea that believing in a higher power is a suspension of critical thinking shows that you are intellectually satisfied with a stereotypical and superficial analysis, which itself shows a lack of critical thinking.

With over 90 percent of the world having some kind of faith in a higher power, and 93 percent of this country, you must think you're pretty darn special, considering that you must believe that the vast majority of people on this planet, and those who came before them, are inferior to you. Yet, you have more faith than anyone else. Here is a smart person to tell you about it:

atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.

You apparently don't know the difference between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. They are separate issues.



Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist.

What about poisonous mushrooms? Should He allow those? Someone might eat one. Should He have allowed us to invent electricity, since people have been electrocuted? How about hang nails? Long lines at the grocery store?

Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good?

Man screwed up the world. Sickness, disease and death are the consequences of sin entering into the world through man. None of it was necessary, but God is still capable of using it to achieve a greater good.

You just have a very imbalanced view here. You blame God for the bad but fail to notice the good. If there is anyone to blame for scourge of Malaria today, it is the apathy of human beings:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/malaria-prevention.htm

That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.

Hitler didn't send his son to die on a cross for your sins. God has His hand extended to you to pull you out of the fire at any time, but it's on you to reach out for it.

>> ^jwray:

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.
Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.
Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist. Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good? That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.
It is pretty fucked up to believe in / worship this bloodthirsty megalomaniac without any evidence that he even exists.
Yes, church gives you a sense of community. That's fine. I still even go to a church event once in a blue moon to catch up with some old friends from 10 years of attending the same small Sunday school classes. But for fuck's sake, there are other ways to meet people and serve your community than through glorifying a fictional genocidal tyrant who wouldn't even deserve it if the bible were true.

Oh Boy...somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.

jk i'm angry too, as if the name doesn't suggest such.

I don't want Allah's followers around. Things tend to get messy.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

What if it was "under Allah"? Still feel the same?

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.

2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.

3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?

Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

>> ^jwray:

Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

I disagree with this statement. What you are referring to is blind faith--faith without question. Faith is actually much more diverse than that. You also seem to be assuming that all people who are religious are blindly faithful. Certainly some are. But are the majority of them? I don't believe so, though I don't have any statistics to back that up. I base my belief on my (admittedly anecdotal) experiences talking with people from all of the five major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). I have found many people to be critical of their own religion. Are they critical enough? Perhaps not, which is why I value the anti-theist movement for forcing people to think more about the issues (even if I disagree with the anti-theists' ultimate goals).

I'm curious, @jwray, if someone were to be critical of their religion (as an organization and force in the world) but found their own personal faith to be beneficial to their lives (and not causing any sort of harm in the world) would you demand that they give it up?

>> ^quantumushroom:

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.
2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.
3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?
Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.



Being tall is a bona fides requirement to excel in basketball. Heterosexuality is not necessary to do what the boy scouts do.

I have no qualms with calling the BSA leadership bigots because they are fucking bigots. Nothing's wrong with pledge refusers. Unison recitation of anything is appalling and reminiscent of the Borg, Nuremberg rallies, and church.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^jwray:
Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.
I disagree with this statement. What you are referring to is blind faith--faith without question. Faith is actually much more diverse than that. You also seem to be assuming that all people who are religious are blindly faithful. Certainly some are. But are the majority of them? I don't believe so, though I don't have any statistics to back that up. I base my belief on my (admittedly anecdotal) experiences talking with people from all of the five major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). I have found many people to be critical of their own religion. Are they critical enough? Perhaps not, which is why I value the anti-theist movement for forcing people to think more about the issues (even if I disagree with the anti-theists' ultimate goals).
I'm curious, @jwray, if someone were to be critical of their religion (as an organization and force in the world) but found their own personal faith to be beneficial to their lives (and not causing any sort of harm in the world) would you demand that they give it up?


Lots of people mix faith with reason in their worldviews, but the reason is reason and the faith is faith. Faith is by definition to believe things for which there is no evidence or contradictory evidence. Reason is to require evidence. They are utterly contradictory concepts.

@jwray

Thanks for clarifying your use of the terms. I'd just like to point out that the way you use the term is not the way that many others (including myself) define it, which is why I linked to the Wikipedia site in my previous post because I think that site does a good job of both describing the different "meanings" attributed to the word "faith" and also cataloging (in very general terms) how the various religions of the world consider faith in their respective worldviews. It's a good read, so I hope you'll check it out.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@jwray
Thanks for clarifying your use of the terms. I'd just like to point out that the way you use the term is not the way that many others (including myself) define it, which is why I linked to the Wikipedia site in my previous post because I think that site does a good job of both describing the different "meanings" attributed to the word "faith" and also cataloging (in very general terms) how the various religions of the world consider faith in their respective worldviews. It's a good read, so I hope you'll check it out.


If someone has questioned their religion and come to the conclusion that there is a good reason to believe it (=evidence), that is not faith. That is faulty logic.

Believing in something for any reason other than being convinced of its truth is an impossibility for anyone who is honest with himself (you know, one of the many flaws in Pascal's wager is that a man cannot simply will himself to believe something for a wager). Being convinced of the truth of something without having any evidence for it is illogical.

@jwray

Thanks again for responding and clarifying your points.

I stumbled on this link last night while doing a Google search for something else. Thought you and @hpqp might like it--it's very well-written. Took a look at some of the other articles on the site and everything seems pretty decent.

http://www.naturalism.org/epistemology.htm#action