There was a whole host of contraceptive methods that I didn't mention. That some methods are more effective than others doesn't stop the existence of accidental pregnancies. I hope nobody is coming here for contraceptive advice, but if they are I'll thank you for the additional information anyway. I wouldn't recommend a 19 year old male has a vasectomy under most circumstances, though, any more than I would a hysterectomy for a similarly aged woman.

Sex isn't 'designed' for anything at all. It's a verb. It is no more designed than 'driving' is (a reasonable argument may exist that it is less designed than driving). It has many functions, procreation isn't the only one (which is why sex seldom results in pregnancy even when intended (I think its about 0.3% to 1% effective at causing pregnancy per attempt). The analogy is not the thing, the important point is the linguistic parallel rather than the similarity of action. One of a car's purposes, as you hint at, is to collide with things. This is not the norm, but it exists - whether it is for science or entertainment. Also, some people buy cars so that they can crash them for insurance purposes. Thus, one can crash a car deliberately, or by accident. Like a pregnancy. The fact that the car was built in a factory and the body was built through billions of years of evolution is not important.

An accidental pregnancy is a socially useful label used to describe the phenomena when people who have sex get pregnant, though pregnancy was not the intent of their sex. It is in contrast to a planned pregnancy in which the couple intends, as one of the outcomes of the sex, to procreate.

Most of these are the same reason, and none are really arguments against the viewer's existence so much as what we think of as their conventional physical presence. Descartes, who was a half-wit, nevertheless managed to make a convincing argument for existence, even if he did pussy out of exploring some of the dimensions of his experiment in order to pursue his religious agenda.

The idea of simulated reality is pretty difficult to dispute. Of the many simulated universes we reasonably expect to be eventually created, what are the chances of finding ourselves in the single original 'real' reality? What's amusing is this doesn't really have any significant consequences for the way we live.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Atheist, Experience, Transcendental, Argument, God, Existence' to 'Atheist Experience, Transcendental, Argument, God, Existence' - edited by xxovercastxx

While it's quite apparent that creationism, in the fundamentalist's sense, is an untenable argument, there exists no compelling evidence that proves or disproves a God created universe. Hence, each is left to ponder their own uniqueness. How did supernova remnants and lighter elements end up driving a convertible, staring up at the night sky in wonder at their own foundry. Coalescence by gravity, organization by molecular bonding, and inevitable complex structure? Nothing proves it's inevitable. Nothing proves it's accidental. Embracing the science is awesome. Bending science to suit a myth, not so awesome.

The problem Skeeve is that the close-minded individuals you refer to who are more fundamentalist/absolutist in their Christian beliefs are the more vocal.

I don't think this video is particularly demeaning of religion on the whole - it's simply pointing out the idea of Hell was never a logically sound justification for practicing religion, given certain conditions on the concept of a omnipotent, omniscient "God." The speaker's argument is by no means new or innovative, these arguments have existed for hundreds of years. He very nearly recites the Epicurean Paradox word for word.

Absolutely, there are many other reasons to practice religion, and certainly science and religion can coexist. It's when people start blindly accepting translated texts written thousands of years ago by fallible, mortal individuals that problems occur (yes, I mean "faith"). Don't take offense to "religion-bashing" sifts overmuch, because this sift in particular is pretty tame compared to the religious zealots I encounter daily telling me that I am going to Hell.

It seems that the majority of the more visible members of this community are atheists. Would that be fair to say?

If so, for those of you who are atheists, would you say that it is irrational to believe in a god of some sort?

As far as Dawkins goes, while he is obviously a good biologist/zoologist, a philosopher of religion he is not, and his book, The God Delusion, fails in so far as it attempts to do philosophy/theology. See here, here, and here for reviews.

For some good atheistic philosophy of religion, see William Rowe, J.L. Mackie, Richard Gale, Michael Martin, et al.