I wonder how many atheist parents would be happy to let their child tell them "I've found God" and accept it without trying to reeducate that child to their point of view (that god doesn't exist)?

Just as we know that educating a child in one's religious ways will shape their future to be religious, educating a child in one's atheist ways does the same thing (some like to call this brainwashing - either religious or atheist).

How many would call their own children stupid, dumb, illogical, blinded, indoctrinated, etc?

How many could simply "get over it" and just "deal with reality instead"?

This is an American debate and I can therefore point out that the American constitution allows for freedom of choice in religion (or to have none). Would it be constitutional to try and convert that choice one way or the other? Certainly American atheists are often vocally angry at religious people trying to convert them to a religion. Should the child in my hypothetical be just as angry if said parents were to try and convert them to atheism? Or should said atheists just leave the child alone to his/her choice?

Perhaps your right Flood, well said - either way I'm dropping out at this point - it may get too prickly if I continue...

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
And here we are again, reduced to quibbling over semantics in bloated posts than no one with any common sense is going to read. The Videosift Intelligentsia, keepin it ril yall. Work for your CTS, now!


True. Very astute. You have added to it rather than ignore it though.

>> ^joedirt:
- babies are not born as theists. they lack the abilities to be recognizable as having belief let alone in a concept of 'god'
- this "no belief" versus "belief in nothing" is stupid.
You don't speak German or you speak but not German. Does it really matter which?
- You have to similarly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or at least belief there is no proof he does not exist. There is no way to believe in a deity with lack of any observable evidence, and then say you know your deity is more valid or even different from a flying ball of spaghetti.

I'm not afraid of anything.
This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

Keep your manipulations and umbrellas away from me. Maybe I like walking in the rain. Take your chicken little sky-is-falling so you must save everyone and shove it.


Babies are not born theists - 100% agree with you. Neither are they born atheists - they lack the abilities to have any form of definable lack of belief.

no belief vs. belief in nothing - yes it does matter to me. Maybe not to you good for you - no one is forcing you to enter into the discussion.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster - oh the Monster that is simply a synonym for god - what you say - yes a synonym for god - go read the history - it can do everything that god can save it is called a FSM instead of god - making it a simple synonym. Don't believe me - ask yourself - can the Christian god (the god that the FSM was made to mock) appear as anything - why yes he can. He can appear as a FSM - he can appear as a teapot - or he can appear as a giant walking penis with testicles for legs. So yes all the arguments stay the same for the FSM - since it is just a rose by any other name.

Really - keep my manipulations away from you. I notice it wasn't a request - that's right your telling me to keep away - not asking. You are manipulating the people around you to stop something happening that you don't want to happen - that is you don't want me near you (even though you are the one who by answering me have come near me). You are doing exactly as I'd do but you don't see the hypocrisy.

Chicken little what? What are you talking about?

Seriously - you bore me.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^harlequinn:
Atheist = there is no god (a = no, theist = belief in deity). Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of god. Some people think it is the simple denial of theism - without qualifying how one denies it. If you reject belief in god then you must believe some alternative - either that there is no god, or that the existence of god cannot be known (agnostic). Take your pick.

It's pretty clear you are a religious person by your ability to contradict yourself and make false conclusions.
"a = no, theist = belief in deity" Correct. No belief in a deity.
That is NOT the same as "belief in no deity".
Atheist is a term which covers many types of non-religious people. Yes, there are people who believe there is no god, but they are a tiny minority, because most of us understand there is simply no proof either way. You can call that agnostic, but that's not entirely accurate. But because of the fear of being labeled as an atheist, the term agnostic is being used more frequently.
Babies are born atheist. They have no knowledge of a deity, and therefor no belief in a deity. See above, no belief in a deity. There is no such word as "aatheist" because it is a double negative, to "not not believe in a deity" would mean that you believe in a deity.
PS. I'm an atheist. What are you afraid of?


It is pretty clear I'm not anything. Your making an assumption based on a small amount of reasoning presented by me. I warned people against making assumptions - but there had to be one person dumb enough to do it. It is like me saying your obviously Republican (with no grounds to say it).

I disagree with you - I made my position quite clear and gave an explanation why. You make a statement "this is NOT the same..." and give nothing to qualify it. I will state that it is the same - and for the reasons I gave - saying "I just don't believe - it's not that I'm saying he doesn't exist" makes no sense. If you don't believe in a god then you must believe that he either doesn't exist or that you can't know if he exists. There is no sitting on the fence.

Let me say it another way - if you were to say "I don't believe in god" you would be required to also say "I also don't not believe in god - since I can't determine if he exists to not believe in" does that make it clearer for you?

Babies are not born atheist. I gave my reason why. I'm sorry to see you didn't understand it. Aatheist is a word - I just made it up - and you repeated it - meaning that at least two people have used it. It is not a double negative - aatheism = no atheism = no non-belief in a deity - you neither believe in nor not believe in him since you do not know the concept yet to believe or not believe in.

Just to be sure - yes "no belief in a deity" is not the same semantically as "belief in no deity". As I've explained though one cannot deny belief without asserting what one therefore does or doesn't believe in (there is no dead end where you simply have no-belief and don't take it further - unless you are able to freeze your train of thought where no one else can).

Your an atheist - good for you - I actually don't care. Why do you ask what I'm afraid of? Did I imply I have fear of something? I'll throw a dog a bone and answer your question (I'm not obliged to answer - especially when it was a question designed as an implication that I'm afraid of something).

I'm not afraid of anything.

This does not preclude me not wanting certain things to happen - and I will manipulate people and events to make sure that those things do not come to fruition. Just as most people do -e.g. most people are not afraid of water but will use an umbrella to avoid getting wet - they do not want water on themselves regardless of a lack of fear.

Right back at you - what are you afraid of?

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Ya there's no God. The angry/naive/atheist/liberal Videosift intelligentsia came about by itself.

Wah? I mean... WAH? I don't even know what you're talking about.
Firstly, this says there PROBABLY is no god, we can't say for certain, but there's a distinct lack of evidence for one.
And if we don't believe in a god, then how is a comment like 'X just appeared by itself' does diddly... we don't believe it just appeared, that's the creationists viewpoint 'God just made things, they just 'appeared''. We think that things slowly occurred and you can trace everything back to very simple origins if you look hard enough.
Man what a stupid comment.


Can't say for sure - that would be agnostic.

Atheist = there is no god (a = no, theist = belief in deity). Atheism is a positive assertion of the non-existence of god. Some people think it is the simple denial of theism - without qualifying how one denies it. If you reject belief in god then you must believe some alternative - either that there is no god, or that the existence of god cannot be known (agnostic). Take your pick.

As for those who have never been acquainted with theism, then they are neither theists or atheists. They neither believe in god, nor do they not believe in god (yes, George H. Smith got this wrong). If you were to ask them "do you believe in god?" they could neither affirm nor deny - they have as much belief as they have non-belief (i.e. zero), but, after asking the question they soon have the notion of theism/atheism in their head since you then need to define theism/atheism for them to be able to understand the question.

In other words, if you were to call them atheist (as George H. Smith and others do), you can equally call them aatheist (a-atheist) since they have no concept of the non-existence of god either. Oh scary - all children are born "aatheist" since they have no concept of the non-existence of theism or god.

At the end of the day this ad is a waste of time because shameless self promotion of atheism is doing what atheists don't like - advertising ones views with only the thought of changing others views and not just leaving them alone. The minority bites back. When atheists are a majority the tolerance for religion will ebb and they will persecute religious people for any pain that religion may have caused them. Such is the way of man. It is starting right now. Listen to Dawkins talking about religious people as if they are all the same - I can't believe they knighted a guy who stereotypes religious people into one group of behaviour. (sarcasm) Oh yes those religious people - all the same - no brains any of them - all of them believe in a literal bible - all of them are Christians (because that is the only religion right?) - none of them are scientists - all of religion is useless shit (sarcasm).

(I also can't believe he said that if something were to create a flat fish it would be with two eyes on top of its head by design and that if it happened by chance it would evolve two eyes on top of its head by distorting one eye around - wtf? if he were to create fish wouldn't he create a dynamic system (evolution)? of course he would - so why would whoever he is referring to in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bldN-lbyqsE video create it statically? - you wouldn't of course - you'd create a dynamic world - but he wants to shovel shit on religion - and no I don't believe in biblical creation and yes I do believe in provable evolution - only the aspects we can prove - if we can't prove it is just hypothesis thank you very much).

PS. I have not said whether I am atheist or theist so do not assume either way.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^harlequinn:
Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs.
Christians are generally very tolerant. Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions).

BWAHAHA! As long as you are NOT native american jewish muslim.
Sure... You keep telling yourself how "tolerant" Christians are. I hate clueless people.
Please enjoy your pagan winter solstice holiday you call "Christmas" because we all know Jesus was really born in December.... Your one big holiday is based upon corporate slogans and hanging animal entrails on a fertility tree and based upon lies. Bravo!


It is great that you have learned to hate based on your own ignorance. What an achievement.

"Generally". Read it again. "Generally". All Christians are still human - they still make mistakes - but they are generally more tolerant than than non-Christians. If you have had a different experience then I'm saddened to hear it.

You enjoy your "pagan winter solstice holiday you call "Christmas" because we all know Jesus was really born in December.... Your one big holiday is based upon corporate slogans and hanging animal entrails on a fertility tree and based upon lies" as well. Oh wait - I'm just assuming your a dumb Christian. I didn't even bother asking you - because I'm an ignorant idiot.

Don't worry - I've studied the history of all religions extensively before I made this statement (about pagan winter solstice, etc) - just like I know you will have.

Oh and all Christians just love how corporations have hijacked their religious celebration to sell shit. The "season of giving" - oh yes a Christian commandment. No one who isn't Christian gives gifts at Christmas - they all know it is a crock of shit. I certainly know you won't accept anything or participate in any event even remotely related to Christmas this year (or any year) because your making a stand against dumb Christians and their dumb celebration.

Yes. The one big Christian holiday. There is no other. Especially not the most significant and largest one - Easter. I hear that's all based on some pagan ritual anyway. (yes - Easter is much larger and the most important Christian celebration).

>> ^Farhad2000:
Why not the flying spaghetti monster?
Am sick and tired of senseless attacks against the Church of the Latter Day Flying Spaghetti Monsters.


Ahh the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Let me compare the FSM with the Christian GOD.

Are they both omnipotent beings? Yes. In fact the FSM was made to have all the powers of the Christian God (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/) since he is a parody of it.

Could the Christian God appear as a FSM? Yes - he is all powerful. He could appear as a Flying Turd Monster as well. Or a giant walking penis.

Is the FSM a synonym for God? Yes.

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

>> ^Retroboy:
>> ^harlequinn:
Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs. Christians are generally very tolerant.

This is true...

Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions.

...but this is not. You go from trying to reduce one generalism immediately into posting another that's just as bad, if not worse.
Most atheists are extremely tolerant, as long as someone else's illogical belief system isn't being rammed in their face.
What's funny and true about this clip is that most of us atheists KNOW SOMEONE LIKE HIM. The target of his humor is knobs like these: http://www.videosift.com/video/Michelle-Malkin-Treat-At
heists-Like-Trolls-for-Christmas
not so much practicing Christians that keep their faith to themselves.
If you wish to live your life according to the teachings of a two thousand year old book, you're welcome to. There's some wonderful ideals encased in there. But if you find it intolerable that others do not share that same belief in its utter veracity and described pantheon, you're setting yourself up for ridicule, which includes well-deserved parodies such as these.


If you read very carefully I wrote "seem not to be" and qualified it by writing "as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions".

I made a hypothesis and gave it anecdotal support. I didn't present it as an absolute.

You write how most atheists are tolerant except when a different belief system is being rammed in their face. Tolerance is about being able to take these situations on the chin and tolerating religious people - which you readily admit that atheists don't do. Go figure.

You write that I can go live by the teachings of a two thousand year old book. I know I can. Anyone can. I assume you are talking about a religious text of which there are many (and not nearly all Christian or Jewish).

If you find yourself intolerable of those who disagree with atheism, you're welcome to go and be intolerant and make parodies to assuage your pain.

My challenge to all atheists is to go about their way and do as they will without attacking religious people and not trying to indoctrinate people into being atheist.

Atheism needs to be better than the religions it is trying to debunk if it is to be taken seriously. For that to happen, atheists need to have characters that are better than those of the religious people they are trying to be better than (yes better, you aren't trying to be worse).

You all need to be loving, tolerant, studious, humble, etc, etc. All the good things that people can be supposedly without religion.

I just don't see it happening yet, too many atheists in the zealot stage.

B.T.W. I haven't given any hint what my beliefs are yet so don't assume that I'm religious.

The bird is a cockatiel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockatiel

>> ^r10k:
Bluecliff, that's a really bad understanding.
Good comments thepinky.


Really! Why? You can't just say it is a bad understanding without backing it up with why.

Hey I think it is great. Genesis as a symbolic story rather than a representational one. It makes a lot more sense that way.

>> ^thepinky:
The question I pose to you is this: How can we expect Christianity to appear to contain truth when there are so many denominations, all claiming to preach truth, which disagree with each other so profoundly? It is logical to assume that most will be preaching things that are false and illogical because the nature of truth is that there can only be one. Maybe each church contains snatches of truth, and maybe one (and only one) of them preaches nothing but.


Go look at Orthodoxy - being the original Christian church it predates all schisms that broke off from it. The divides that exist only appear through people thinking that they must know better than someone else. This is of course a normal human process - humans love to think they know better than someone else...

>> ^shuac:
When's the last time you saw a Christian video parody of an atheist? As in totally turning the tables? Never, right? It's always a parody of a Christian made by secularists/atheists. Christians never seem to get around to making a cleverly-disguised video (as this one was) that gets people talking.
Why do you think that is?


Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs.

Christians are generally very tolerant. Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions).

Debunking the arguments of people who believe in a god is one thing. Proving his non-existence is another.

If the default of the concept of "god" is that he has the possibility of either existing or not (the concept of god exists whether or not he does), then if one argues against another person about his existence, either for or against, then the onus is on that person to not only debunk the others argument, but to also show proof that he either does or does not exist.

As yet I have never seen any tangible proof for his existence or his non-existence. All I have seen is logic arguments (from both sides) and faith arguments (from both sides as well).

Get over the fact that you can't prove either way. This is a waste of time (even my response is a waste of time).

If anyone, anywhere in the world can "show" me god, or "show" me that he cannot exist, then I'll believe it. You can argue with words to me all day.

And yes, I know I can't see god by default - but I'm asking for tangible proof of the concept of god - one way or the other. Just like we have concepts in maths and physics that are greater than our actual tangible experience, we've made up a concept of god. And we do actually discover tangible results for our maths and physics experiments that prove things one way or the other, so I expect one to scientifically show me the same results with this.

Show me the money.