I love the sideburns.

I'm pretty certain he would be happy to be in that group of deep thinkers instead of one with dumb ass Elvis, the anti drug-pill popper.

Religious people cannot be wholly logical, belief in the unseen unproven physically impossible and largely disproven and debunked supernatural is not logical or rational. (1) Putting your faith in the unproven is irrational and illogical, then using that misguided belief as a cudgel to berate others as +-99% of religious people do is just evil. Way worse than justifying military weapons in the name of science (which isn't reality, btw), it uses belief in the irrational and unprovable to justify USING those weapons on innocent populations, often for believing in the wrong irrational and unprovable supernatural ideas.
The worst atheist ape is more rational than the best believer, and on average around 10* more pleasant to talk with. They won't ever tell you all the ridiculous reasons you're going to hell, unless they're arguing directly from the theist's dogma and not reality....I often slam anti gay religious people for the much worse sin of mowing on Sunday, wearing cotton poly blends, or eating shellfish....but I don't believe it or even pretend to.

There's a logical explanation for Trump....think about how intollerably stupid, self centered, and irrational the average person is....now realize the truth that 1/2 are stupider, more self centered, and more irrational than that....add in the fact Trump lost by >3000000 votes but won the electoral college anyway, and boom, it makes sense. Maddening, soul crushing sense.

X-Secret devil sign on my forehead and spit twice, like Dio's mother taught him.

(1) That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Protestants and Catholics spent a long time trying to kill each other for myriad reasons. Can you find a Catholic or Protestant leader in your area, or even your country that takes your view of things as accurate?

Poolcleaner simply observed that he appreciated being able to agree to disagree with diverse groups of people. He added a throw away comment that atheists can be the worst for disrespecting each others beliefs though. You took umbrage with that, and are still here proceeding to not only condemn theists for their beliefs, but are going beyond that and ADDING beliefs they themselves REJECT to condemn for those too.

You have to see the problem/irony in this, no?

@newtboy,

Hate to single you out, but your missing most of poolcleaner's points by focusing exclusively on one. And your even doubling down on 'proving' the sentence you object to.

You first object by saying:
Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us.

But then one sentence later:
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

And then your next post leads with:
Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?


It is EXACTLY your extremely vitriolic responses that poolcleaner was no doubt referencing in saying Atheists are often the worst for disrespecting the beliefs of others.

Read over the balance of comments above, particularly including Shinyblurry's unapologeticly evangelical one, and tell me which group's representative in this thread is showing the most contempt and disrespect for the beliefs of the 'other'?

Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us. About 75%+ say being atheist makes a person untrustworthy and ineligible for public office, but an IQ of <80 doesn't.
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

EDIT: Also, theists are FAR MORE disrespectful of any other theists beliefs than atheists are. Atheists have never once started a religious war because 'they worship wrong'.

Think you sorta cherry picked that paragraph. I agree with pool that atheists are completely shit at treating any theist's beliefs with respect.

I like the "destroy all books, science and theist, which will come back in 1000 years the exact same way?" argument. Even the Theist Colbert thinks that's a good one.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

The narrator's tone in this video was clearly condescending, and that is not how you reach the other side of an argument. Even if every statement she made in this video was objectively factually accurate, the way it was presented all but ensures a full-on backfire effect.

I would compare the tone of this video to the youtuber thunderf00t. Even though he is someone with whom I agree on nearly every topic, I still find the tone of his videos to be overly patronizing, and as a result the message doesn't reach as many as it could.

I usually despise overused, banal platitudes, but there is one, I think, that should be considered. "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Even if it is factually incorrect, the spirit of what implies is clear. You will have a greater chance of conveying your side of an argument if you treat the other side with dignity and respect, even if they don't deserve it. I have learned this the hard way over the years in many of my debates with theists.

-----

All that being said, I can give the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe her tone was entirely for comedic effect, even though I think it utterly fails in that regard, and is a missed opportunity to contribute to a real debate.

Answer #1: I don't know what makes you a douchebag. I don't think "speaking out against" anything makes someone a douchebag. Telling me I'm an addict, a murderer, a RAPIST because I live and eat the way mankind has since before we made pictograms on cave walls? That's douchey. Trying to make your point by quoting people is no more effective than any other religious nut standing on a soap box.

Answer#2: Anyone can make a point by using hyperbole and extreme cases. Would I get pissed off if someone was using human toddlers, locked in black rooms, as a food source? Please. You do realize the issue between my view on food, and your view on food, is a mere distinction between what you and I consider sentience?

I'm against corporate food production. Corporations have a long and rich history of fucking humans over, I can only guess what they do to animals. I am vehemently opposed to unnecessary pain and suffering in any creature. Except pedophiles, rapists, Republicans, and those guys who flip you the bird when THEY have cut YOU off. We can do medical testing on them, no problem.

I guess you just will never understand, I don't particularly disagree with the message, just the messenger.

You can be described as "holier than thou", your arguments come from your feelings of elitism, superiority. Showing us how misguided and base we are. It's the reason why theists will never listen to Dawkins or Hitchens. (Conversely why atheists don't listen to theists either, truth be told.) They talk down to them as if they were idiots. They might BE idiots, but no one ever likes being called one.

You attack us and wonder why we get pissed off. THAT'S why you're a douchebag.

Elie Wiesel was talking about you, not us. We don't go around attacking vegans. We only react to their attacks on us. You are the oppressor here, the tormentor. I was fine before you started the name calling.

I think 'Zealous Anti-Theist' is a much better description of this person than 'atheist'. While it's likely he is atheist, his words and actions are anti-theist. There is a clear distinction between the two, even though both classes often overlap.
Let's please not give this kind of outrageous action any shred of legitimacy by calling this 'atheism'.

I think that would have been an over the top response for what was clearly meant as a bit of a joke.

OTOH, I think Colbert got a little overly defensive toward the end.

The problem is that this kind of show isn't a place for a serious discussion and people tend to be pretty humourless with regard to religion.

Theists don't appreciate the flaws in their beliefs being pointed out and atheists don't like people attempting to indoctrinate them.

No. Not everyone thinks like a theist.

I have no idea whether life exists on other planets or not. I can theorise about the probability of it, but that's as far as I'm willing to commit.

As for the nonsense "roll a seven on a six sided die" argument... I really don't know if you're trolling or just genuinely have no understanding of logic, math, probability, statistics, etc.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable. The video tells us that the latest evidence is that there are around 20,000,000,000 sun size stars and probably about 4,000,000,000 earth like planets. Now, the video gives the odds of life on each one at 0.1% (and then somehow comes up with 1 million instead of 4 million, but I digress).

So we have 4 billion planets that might possibly have earth like life. But let's say that abiogenesis is really, really improbable. In fact, let's say, it's 1 in 4 billion. We've been testing out the various abiogenesis theories for a while now, but I doubt we've conducted anything like 4 billion separate experiments, so it's really no surprise that we haven't observed it.

But it might be even more unlikely. Maybe it's 1 in 400 billion! Seems pretty unlikely, but let's roll with it. There are still 200 billion galaxies out there. Even if only 1% of them are like the milky way that's still 8 billion billion potential life bearing planets. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of them could have life.

You don't need a seven, but maybe you do need an edge, or a corner!

Do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"?

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that. Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

Now you're taking the position of the theist and I am taking the position of the atheist. The size of the Universe really has no bearing if you only have a six sided die and you need to role a seven. Your creation story virtually guarantees alien life, but only so long as abiogenesis could plausibly happen somewhere else (it couldn't happen once plausibly, let alone multiple times by the way). But in spite of how implausible that is you take it on faith that they're out there and you use the traditional theist line to the atheists assertion that they've seen no evidence for God, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Quite a reversal, wouldn't you say?

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!

Anyone who is honestly "baffled" by ignorance and stupidity isn't that smart to begin with. Ignorance and stupidity is easy to understand. What's difficult is dealing with it in a constructive way.You cannot change someone's mind without proof of some sort.

Theists basically need God to come down from Heaven and tell them that he doesn't exist. That's how hard fighting ignorance and stupidity is.