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

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheist, religion, christianity, faith, hell, evidence, reason' to 'atheist experience, religion, christianity, faith, hell, evidence, reason' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matt Dillahunty, atheism, atheist experiance, interview' to 'matt dillahunty, atheism, atheist experience, interview' - edited by shuac

love the atheist experience

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Atheist, Experience AtheistExperience, Noah, Noach, Ark, found, mountain' to 'Atheist Experience, Noah, Noach, Ark, found, mountain, carbon dating' - edited by xxovercastxx

It's revealed here that "Eve" was not real. This was a prank call by the woman who is now Matt's fiance, Beth Presswood.

"Atheist Experience: a possible conversion deconversion?"

There, fixed.

>> ^Matthu:

What a buncha jerks! Robbing people of their bliss!


Yes poor fellow being deprived of his opiate.

rAmen.

>> ^BoneRemake:

praise the spaghetti monster ! and all the meatballs within.

You seem to keep insisting that there are only two types of people involved in a debate? When, in the history of debate, has it been about trying to sway proponents of either side of an argument? A debate is about attempting to sway an audience. I don't care if it's about religion, gay marriage, climate change, going to war, health care, eating fast food, or whether you should or shouldn't wear white after Labor Day! You are absolutely right, Ray is probably never going to be swayed from his position, and neither will anyone entrenched in either side, but there is a host of people listening who may be somewhere in the grey middle. That is who debate is really for, and unless you want them to go to the other insane, but incredibly vocal, and well organized, side of the fence, then you better be prepared to make a strong case for your greener pastures. Complacency solves nothing.>> ^VoodooV:

Since the idea of a god as we currently know it is a product of our imagination, someone is always going to come up with some imaginative "explanation" that supposedly trumps science's current understanding of the universe.
God uses lightning to show that he is angry with you...
God exists because the stars revolve around us...
God exists because a banana fits in your hand nicely...
All someone has to do is say "God made evolution" and we're back to square one again. It's like a comic book. Every so often they revise the origin stories. Iron Man's origin story originally took place in Vietnam. Now it's Afghanistan.
Debating Creationists is a waste of time. It lowers you, it elevates them and nothing worthwhile happens.

>> ^packo:

i'm all for debate
definitely not a believer or any faith
but i couldn't last 10 mins listening to this
on the other hand, i did find the comments funny
amazing how many people would jump on Ray's incorrect use of words, and also mispell things like:
medicine
evolution
is it anal to nitpick like that? sure
will that prevent people from judging you based on errors like that? no (i mean, to me that falls into the same category as someone nitpicking over the definition of words used too - dictionaries usually have multiple definitions - and dictionaries vary)
have to agree with some that debating over minutia is pointless... astronomy was at one time at direct odds with religion, and has now to a large degree been accepted and 99.999% of it, to a religious person, doesn't contradict their beliefs... the same thing will happen with evolution and other current hot topics
you'll never really convince a person who is so wound in religion over these points, sure you might disprove how they are trying to prove their point, but before becoming an aethiest, they'll most likely just look for more ways to prove their faith to the non-believer... there is no such thing as backing them into a corner with science
i personally think it comes down to the people involved in organized religion. how people abuse/control others using the control structure of the system... you'll never disprove religion by going after something that can't be proven... the everyday, common corruption of the system... much easier


Packo, you're new here so you may not know about westy's thing. Longtime sifters have, over the years, developed the ability to overlook westy's myriad spelling errors and accept him for the intellect that he is. You might even say we've evolved.

TLDNR : Science is not agnostic about specific claims in varoise religouse txts and thats why atheists use science and facts derived from scientific method to dispute religion.



Sceince cannot anser if there is a "god" or not in the brad sense of the word but it has certainly disproven Literal interpretations Christainty ,and many other main stream religions , science and the facts derived from science have also helped us understand that morality certainly does not come from a book claming to be the word of god.

The reasons atheists keep going over the same thing is because Manny people are rleigouse in a way that has a negative impact on other peoples lives , such as helping governments pass legislation to ban gay maradge , or banning stem cell research.

Christains and religoise people in general are very active at spreding what they belive ( chirches in big cities iconography and centries old culture left over from old times) active athiests and sceptics are doing a service to socity helping exsplain scienctific methadoligy and proven things about the world.

You may not convert a christain in a conversation but talking to people who are religouse will help you develop critical thinking skills identify falicies and evan help people listneing understand things better.



>> ^VoodooV:

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.
Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.
This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"
What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.
But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.
Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.
Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.
It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."
I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.

This seems frightfully relevant:

http://videosift.com/video/Why-Richard-Dawkins-Doesn-t-Debate-Creationists

This "debate" didn't do anything but solidify Atheists in the atheist camp and solidify Creationists in the creationist camp. If anything, Ray's status will go up...not down.

Again, I can't stress this enough. You're using logic and reason on people who don't use logic and reason! Laws affect only the law-abiding and logic and reason only work on people who listen to logic and reason.

You've got to drop this notion of false equivalency. Science and Creationism are not equal and opposite viewpoints...stop treating them like they are. If the guy wants to believe that bananas are proof of intelligent design, then let him, but this "debate" was nothing but a win for Comfort as it elevated him and lowered the Atheist Experience people.

Your video, Atheist Experience ep. 702 - Ray Comfort Interview!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^gbfunk:
... before cutting to more important topics like why Charlie Sheen shouldn't bang two hookers carving a pumpkin while his kids are in another room playing monopoly.


You make that sound like a bad thing...