Ok....you said it, so it's on you, and no excuses...I'll put my $50 in your commissary account if you're convicted......aaaaaannnnnd GO! ;-)
Edit: (Hint)-early drones can be bought without ID and have few serial numbers to erase, think Venezuela, if Trump can try to assassinate a president, he should be fair game for retaliation, right? ;-)

I take the fact that he didn't burst into flames as undeniable proof that there's no god and religion is just another scam designed for little more than to take 10% of your money and rape your children. If God could smite anyone, he would have done it right then.

True. And also proof there is no God.

And continues along wondering what's wrong with everyone else. And where's karma on this? Not one door ding? If they don't have a case of the biggest anal warts ever recorded, I'm going to start thinking there is no God.

To me, the video sorta oversells the difficulty in identifying / escaping from "ridiculous claims", at least in comparison to my personal experiences.

I grew up in a very religious (Christian, Methodist) family / city / state / country. I was questioning the indoctrination at an early age (younger than 10), and rejecting it due to never receiving satisfactory answers to those questions by ~12. Actually, one of the most significant pushes for me was the ultimate reward/punishment thing. Zero consistency and open contradictions between different religions / sects / sources, etc. In symbolic logic, contradictions mean that one of your premises is wrong. Reconsider what you "know" and try again.

With regards to atheism vs (a)gnosticism, technically I'm an agnostic because I don't know with absolute certainty that there is no god / gods out there. However, in practice, I easily and comfortably would rather self-identify as an atheist. Why, when I don't know for certain? Because I also don't know that there isn't an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, or Leprechauns, yet I don't feel compelled to tell people that I'm "agnostic" about those things. No. They are pretty clearly human-invented bullshit, with readily apparent human motivations behind their invention. Sounds like religion to me.

That's basically Russel's teapot.

Yeah, there's a difference between "I believe there is no god", "I don't believe there is a god" and "I know there is no god". Not even Dawkins claims the latter.

As far as I'm concerned, it's Russell's teapot. I can't 100% say for certain that god doesn't exist, but weighing all the evidence, I can say that I find it extremely improbable that he DOES exist, and even if he does, he doesn't meaningfully impact my life, so I may as well ignore him.

Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with being an atheist.

It's 100% reasonable to say that "you don't believe in god" or even that "you believe there is no god". It's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

I agree with every point made here... and 5, maybe 10 years ago, I would happily engage in refuting any argument for god.

But it feels like society has gone backward since then.

OF COURSE, there's no god. There's no Santa, there's no tooth fairy and there's no Zeus. Thor was in an awesome movie, but so was fucking Batman (to be clear, I'm talking about the Dark Knight, not that DCEU shite). Doesn't make either of them real.

We've all made all the same logical coherent arguments for atheism, but at this stage it's so blindingly obvious, it's ... boring.

Is there a possibility of god? Uh, fine, I guess... but it's about as likely as me being the reincarnation of Elvis.

At this stage, I no longer have the energy or the motivation to debate people who still believe. Wanna believe in god? Eh, knock yourself out, as long as you don't try to push your fairytales onto my life or the lives of others, I really don't care anymore....

You keep thinking that so you don't get sad.

I have an uncle who told me that he believes because the idea of no god scares him. I appreciate that honesty. That makes sense to me. I however don't find the fact there is no god scary or sad. It just is. There are enough real things you could be scared or sad about.

(edit) ugh, i don't know why i fell for engaging about god stuff. Now i feel stupid. shinny got me.

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

Congratulations! Your comment on There is No God at CPAC has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

He is not. He is making the point that we made it up. There is a difference. There is no god, we made all that up. Sorry. There is no "sanctity of life" either, its an incoherent phrase that doesnt pass even a shallow honest analysis (as shown in this video)

BUT, and there is a big but, Life is a continuos process, full of degrees and nuances (which, by the way, Carlin makes a point of in the continuation of this clip), and the value of say, a human life, is something that we should estimate on the grounds that we have brains, feelings, relatives, friends and so on.

Saying shit like "Life is Sacred" is both simplistic, hypocritical and complete bullshit. In fact, it is ultimately disrespectful to living creatures whose life should be respected, a point which the ramblings of the anti-abortion team never ceases to illustrate perfectly

Yes, he's making that point. But he also clearly makes the point that there is no such thing as the sanctity of life, that there is no God, etc.

That's funny, earlier you made that the main point of your argument, now it doesn't matter (maybe because you were dead wrong in your assumption?).
You can say the 'pendulum swings back and forth' all you like, it doesn't make it true. Most religious people never 'swing' away from their religion, and most atheists never adopt religion. You're just plain wrong again on this assumption.
Sweet Zombie Jesus! Atheists have been around longer than theists. It's not a new concept by any means, Christianity is a new concept comparatively. One more terribly backwards assumption.
How can you explain your experience of no real Easter bunny, you can't do it. (EDIT:As I see it, there's more evidence of the Easter Bunny, I've seen thousands of bunnies, and every year those colored eggs appear, that's more factual evidence than I've seen of a god ;-) There's no god, so there's nothing to experience, so nothing to explain. Simple, and done!
Believing in the invisible, capricious, self centered bully in the sky is NOT common sense, it's a complete suspension of common sense.
I see far more religious people complaining constantly over their lot in life, and that society doesn't all follow their beliefs, miserable that they can't 'please god' and blaming all their problems on things beyond their control or understanding. Atheists don't do that, and are statistically happier, better adjusted, more tolerant of others, less criminal people. Which philosophy sounds better?

PS. You owe me an upvote!

Hi Ravioli,

I guess that's a fair question. For starters, that would be a contradiction to what God has said about Himself:

Isaiah 45:5-6

I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

If God was not who He claimed to be, I could no longer worship Him according to His desire because we are told He is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth:

John 4:23-24

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

If the truth was different than what God claimed, it would be inconsistent with His desire to be worshiped in spirit and truth.

What the bible says about Gods truthfulness is that it is impossible for Him to lie:

Hebrews 6:18 so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us,

I trust that He is telling the truth, and that He is in a better position to know that than I am. The resurrection of His Son gives me ample reason to put my hope and trust in Him for my eternity. Thanks and God bless!