Not following the advice of the Bible: never argue with an idiot, it is hard to tell who the idiot is: hoping there is someone here who is more interested in the truth than an ideology, (yeah agnosticism and atheism are ideologies), as well as Christianity. I wise man will hear council and rebuke.
Seriously, I hesitate to say this because it screams out so obviously: this is such a ridiculous argument based on probably an underlying wound from Christianity, or more likely a poor Christian role model. It is designed and constructed on emotion and inflammatory to Christians, so we get so mad we cannot think straight and give a good answer. So let me explain why his founding presumptions are wrong:
He states: Any God that allows such suffering of Children and parents is either impotent or evil.
Really? You can’t think of any other possibilities? How about freedom is more important than suffering? Foremost in the Bible we are all free moral agents. God will not step over this except in exceptionally rare instances. I have the freedom to do good or evil. If I choose to pull out a gun and kill a person, good or evil, that person will die. There are consequences of actions and mitigating consequences frequently leads to a reoccurrence of the action. I am not saying a baby dyeing of malaria is a result of someone’s action but how we (human race) grows is by learning most often by mistakes and pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is what life is all about.
How about looking at the long term consequences over the short term? This is a common mistake made among liberals. It should have been written in scripture no pain no gain. Are you going to say you should avoid the short term pain of a needle to inoculate malaria? The short term pain nets a good result in the end. I know this is a stretch but nobody knows the results of all the suffering going on in the world but as for me I trust God does and is working on us the best way. I like to look at the whole planet and all the living organisms as one thing God is working on. He is out for our best. I can tell you this, there is a purpose for everything, despite the fact that we can perceive it, comprehend it or like it.
You should read the whole series Dune by Frank Herbert, I won’t spoil it for you but the series looks at the Human race in a similar perspective.
I could go on and on but I have to work. I hope this offends.

Even his t-shirt is obnoxious. "Keep calm and" needs to die.

@budzos - I think it's all part of the ego trip that this sort of video is. Not just everything wrong with internet soapboxes but everything wrong with atheism too. This guy's nothing to do with me!

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by brycewi19.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Jimmy-Carr-Atheism-Win

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by alien_concept. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

@vaire2ube, methinks someone down-voted your comment as a reaction to some predictable "religious(see atheism)" semantic triggers of "manna" and "creation." The nerve of some sheeple...

The question seems pretty inane to me. I mean, are we talking about a sort of pascal's wager thing here or are we literally asking what the null hypothesis of atheism is?

The consequences of being wrong shouldn't have any impact on your decision. It is not evidence one way or the other. If you want to get really existential you might as well ask, "What if I am wrong about ME existing".

Dawkins shits me these days. He's a man almost entirely devoid of humour and does not have the temperament to face people with opposing viewpoints to himself.

I recently watched him be interviewed by Australia's own Andrew Denton, and my god did Dawkins come across as a humourless dick.

I hate that he is so much the face of atheism these days, because he doesn't show the humanity of it well at all. I MUCH prefer Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he is a man of humour, of wit, of charm. All of which I think Dawkins lacks.

He just makes me cringe now.

Stephen Fry On Atheism And Homosexuality has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2 on that post.

Atheism is like a nuclear bomb for internet forums.

jesus christ you idiots get over yourselves.

Jeepers, I finally understand why people don't like me!! Golly, I should do something to keep from being IGNORED.....willikers!!

Hey bareboards2.....Am I on "Ignore" anymore?

The ignore option was created through consensus of a minority of users who tend to avoid any confrontation at all costs, including self-expansion and awareness-While I may disagree with a particular user's methods or madness and become highly agitated with political spammage and human suffering for the sake of entertainment, or atheism-as-religion, I'd much rather engage than ignore....

Hey-All you Star Trek addicts??? How much more boring would your plot formulas play out if Picard's frequent entreats to "Engage" were replaced with the coward's war cry, "Ignore!"

Sorry choggie, "You Have "0" Friends."

Your Facebook account is now terminated. (Thank you , Lord!)

"The south" is a pretty big place with many different attitudes. I've known a lot of people in Tennessee that were open about their atheism. Hell, I had a bad religion sticker on my car when I lived there. Yes there are areas where you have to be careful (same for if you are black, homosexual, etc.) but I doubt a place as populated as Oklahoma City would be that bad.

LMGTFY

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Seems pretty fair to me.

I think you made some good arguments earlier in the thread, but saying that "feminism is the concept of female supremacy" is just too broad a generalisation. Are there some elements that believe that? Of course.

And there are some women who hold ridiculous (elevatorgate) or hypocritical (pycon) positions.

But there are also some atheists who have done some pretty bad things (Stalin, Mao), but their views are not representative of atheism as a whole.

I know plenty of feminists (IMHO, it's kinda hard to meet an intelligent woman who isn't a feminist) and none of them espouse that kind of belief.

Personally, my favourite definition of feminism comes from a NZ blog:

"I couldn't help wondering though for a while afterwards what I should make of all this, you know, as a feminist? My conclusion is that feminism is essentially about women having choices and if your choice is to fling your undies at someone famous, I guess I'm allowed to be a bit embarrassed for you but also pleased that you won't be flogged by your father or brother for it."