>> ^rottenseed:

The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power.

See, while I don't agree with everything Hedges said here, I think this is the kind of talk that he's referring to. That statement you made just painted all religions in one broad stroke and set it up as if it is "us," the intelligent and tolerant people, versus "them," the ignorant and intolerant masses. It's that kind of rhetoric that he (and I for that matter) find divisive and counterproductive. Religious people--many of them Christians--who would have agreed with you that it is wrong to deny basic human rights to people (such as the right to marry) on the basis of their sexuality are now painted as your opponents instead.

Furthermore, while certainly some forms of religion as practiced by certain peoples in certain countries at certain times do in fact fit your description of religion quite well, "religion" as a concept does not. There's nothing about religion per se that requires a binary worldview nor does it require a lack of relativity or tolerance. I'd definitely agree with you that some instantiations of religion, though, have turned out that way.

I said it in the Greta Christina Sift that I linked to above, but I'll say it more clearly now: I think attacking "religion" is Don Quixotic. Time is better spent attacking specific features of specific religions in specific contexts that result in suffering, such as the denial of marriage to homosexuals on religions grounds, female genital mutilation, and so forth. These kinds of things anger both theists and atheists and we should all work together to eliminate them rather than squabble with each other over our individual preference to believe or not believe in a particular religion.

I really wanted to * quality this because it was refreshing to see a calm and rational opposing point of view to the anti-theism movement. But I can't.

I am a harsh critic of both Sam Harris and Hitchens for many of the reasons that Hedges mentions in this video. HOWEVER, I don't believe for a moment that either one of them condones violence as a means to promoting atheism. What Hedges is suggesting about them is a gross misrepresentation of their positions. See, for example, Harris's rebuttal of Hedges's claims about the nuclear first strike here:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

I wholeheartedly agree with @dystopianfuturetoday that it doesn't serve any purpose to attack people, who ultimately have the same goal as anti-theists--a more peaceful and equitable world--simply on the grounds that those people have faith in a religion. While Greta Christina points out that anti-theists have many reasons to be angry, if that anger turns to blind fury and they begin striking out at innocent bystanders I think it'll doom their movement.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^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?

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.

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?

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.

>> ^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.

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.

Your video, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? - Greta Christina, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^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.

>> ^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?