*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

Invocations (related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism) cannot be called by shinyblurry because shinyblurry is not privileged - sorry.

Hells bells, that is despressing.
A) Maher is right and
B) yeah, he pretty much is the only representation of atheism in popular media

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jim jeffries, standup, comedy, heaven, hell, atheism' to 'Jim Jefferies, standup, comedy, heaven, hell, atheism' - edited by eric3579

De-facto truth. If you are an atheist, and you want to run for office ... don't say you are an atheist.

On the other hand if you are an atheist, and you don't want to run for office, but you DO want to it to be possible to be represented in government by people who either are atheists or at least people who understand and accept atheism:
Never back down from an opportunity to show two things, especially in combination. A) You are an atheist, as well as a normal human being, and you are comfortable / proud about it. And B) you are a good, contributing member of society, who doesn't need the threats of religion to "keep you in line".

Showing that you can be both A and B (again, especially in combination at the same time) is the only way to challenge and break down some of the stigmas associated with being an atheist. Like the one viewing atheism as a "repudiation" of religion, as pointed out by Mr. Frank here.

Not outdated as such. Sure, it doesn't have as readily available content as reddit or imgur, so the "quick fixers" won't come here as much as they would before.

The community seems to have shrunk as well - I suppose we're growing up and busy, so there's less of a vibrant discussion going on. Democrats are in office, atheism is better, cats are cute. There's less to talk about now, unless you get into depressing stuff like Syria. There's no friendly competition anymore and the gamefication seems to have gone away.

To me it feels like videosift is like highschool - I've graduated, so there's very little reason to come back to the little pond, since most of my friends have moved on as well.

Videosift also seems to be developing in a direction that doesn't cater to me anymore - the new design doesn't appeal to me at all. If the whole thing changes to the new layout for single pages, I'm probably out for good.

Oh my god!!! The Atheism IS contagious!!!

It doesn't really matter how many people identify as atheists, although I only know one person in my circle who says he is one. I would consider him pretty moral, also.

As I said before, the pendulum swings one way, then the other, much like the sexuality of many in Hollywood.

Regardless, how do you explain the rise of some type of religion in every civilization? Atheism is most likely a late development although I don't have the stats on it. It's a 20th century invention, I'm sure.

When it comes to religion, my faith rests on those with experiential knowledge. There are multitudes of people who have had direct experience of God, they generally coincide, whereas how can an atheist explain his experience of 'no God'. He can't do it.

So to believe in God becomes a common sense decision.

If you don't, that's fine, it's your life, live it as you wish. Each man is his own philosopher. If you are miserable, you have a lousy philosophy.

Hey! No fair rewriting it after I upvote you!

Your imagination steers you wrong again, many people identify themselves as atheist....
Demographics of atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 2012 poll on the demographics of atheism by Gallup International, featuring over 50,000 respondents worldwide, recorded that 13% of those interviewed said they were "convinced atheists".
A 2007 Barna group poll found that about 20 million people say they are atheist, have no religious faith, or are agnostic, with 5 million of that number claiming to be atheists. The study also found that "[t]hey tend to be more educated, more affluent and more likely to be male and unmarried than those with active faith" and that "only 6 percent of people over 60 have no faith in God, and one in four adults ages 18 to 22 describe themselves as having no faith."
'Good' is good because harming others for personal gain is antithetical to civil society, while helping others selflessly is of great benefit to society.

Give me back my vote!

No.




lol

I would imagine that the reason so few criminals self-identify as 'atheist' is because very few people identify as atheists. So I don't get how atheists can get credit for being moral. Did Ted Bundy identify himself as a Christian? I doubt it. Anyone with common sense would believe that Bundy was godless. And, he had no concept of what was 'good'.

Atheism still can't explain why 'good' is good.

Just like most things, belief can swing back and forth like a pendulum. But that pendulum will never swing one way (toward atheism) and stop.

Because a belief in a higher power is hard-coded into our DNA. Religion is man's attempt to interpret this. Some interpretations are more accurate than others, but 'whatever floats your boat'. There is great diversity in the creation, and great diversity in Man's interpretation of belief systems.

Atheism is also a belief. It requires a great deal of faith. Atheists are the few dissonant chords allowed in the symphony. But if you are drawn to that dissonance, you are out of tune.

The fish doesn't have to believe in the ocean. It's always there and sustains the fish. But the fish can't live outside of it.

I think the author of this video, and presumably the Christians who have spoken to him, have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the bible says about atheists or those who don't believe. I don't know why messenger seems to think this was my argument for theism; I don't recall saying anything like this to anyone on this site, although I could be wrong.

What I believe is that yes, atheists are not able to see or comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But that isn't the end of the story:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So, the colorblind person is given glimpses of Gods power and deity, through the creation, and other kinds of revelation such as in their conscience, to know that there is a God who created them and that they are accountable to Him. If it were simply that nonbelievers couldn't see God, they would have an excuse. Yet, that isn't what the bible says. In the end it's not that nonbelievers can't see God, it's that at some point in their lives they have seen God and rejected Him.

Most atheists I've spoken to have had supernatural experiences for which they cannot write off with materialistic explanations. Some will even change from atheism to theism in the course of a conversation because they suddenly realize that they had suppressed the truth of their own experience. God can and does give ample evidence of His existence and everyone at some point in their life will see it clearly and have a clear choice to make. It's when you choose to suppress the truth that you become self-deceived. It's not up to me to prove to someone God exists; it is up to me simply to be a faithful witness and pray they would respond to the revelation they already have.

This parody article that came out about Dawkins I found to be hilarious:

http://wundergroundmusic.com/richard-dawkins-renounces-atheism-after-smoking-dmt/

It could happen on the spice and I mean it's more than likely if he takes the challenge that people have presented to him (people have been urging him to see the "unknown" loud and clear) that it would alter his perception of reality and how he speaks about these topics completely.

No, absolutely not - if he is right about his atheism, it is surely joyous and enviable that he lived his life free from delusion? And sad that billions live and have lived subject to the whim of clever con artists preying on the easily misled. If - as you say - he is right about his atheism.

This reminds me of the story of the student and the teacher. It is cold, and the teacher blows on his hands. The student asks why...teacher says he is trying to warm his hands.

When the teacher blows on his cup of tea, the student asks why...teacher says it is to cool the tea.

The student leaves in disgust, as the teacher does the same act for two opposite reactions.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is invalid or untrue.

It is sad that Dawkins, if he is right about his atheism, lived a life with no meaning. One brief candle in the darkness, extinguished and forgotten in the vast eternity of the universe. How sad.