Great find, thanks!

oh no he DIDN! Race this precious video to the top already and let it stand there on the mountain looking down on all the lesser clips.

might http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz2ET5K6zY0 be it?

uh something that isn't the dream sequence appears. I don't speak german, but *dead

*dead

*dead

@Myslig you are assuming the targeted audience is the religious. I think these billboards are for closet-atheists to let them know it's okay to question religion openly. Once a critical mass has been built we can get rid of the stigma of being an atheist and have more intelligent discussions about religious beliefs.

>> ^Mysling:

Even as an atheist, i actually have to agree with Bill here. Those billboards are very insulting.
Is it possible to ask Dave Silverman to adopt af different title? "Basher of Religious Befliefs"? If his goal really is to promote atheism, I really hope he would stop doing it by insulting people. That doesn't help anyone, it just digs the trench deeper.

Aliens travel across the galaxy only to succumb to our inferior weapons. It turns out their weakness is they cant feel LOVE!

@SDGundamX

To be absolutely honest I haven't done much reading about how many Africans were killed as a direct consequence to the preachings of the Catholic Church. I do however believe that in poor parts where people are uneducated, a missionary loaded with the dogma and latest rationales about the sinfulness of using condoms can do significant damage (especially if it fits the culture). I will try to fit some time in to do more research on the topic and get back to you. My somewhat uninformed view is that the Pope now having changed his mind opens a brighter future, but significant damage has been done and will linger for a long time. For now I assume we both agree that the Catholic Church has done more damage than good when it comes to the spreading of AIDS in Africa.

If we flip the argument a bit instead, imagine a church that actively supported the use of condoms for stopping the spreading of AIDS and did not believe in abstinence (which has been pretty much proven ineffective). Members giving contributions to send missionaries that could do sex education and supply free condoms and advice about sexuality. I bet that religion could save countless lives, but instead we are stuck with the Catholic Church and its books and dogmas. The Catholic Church did not want people to get infected with AIDS but at the same time I've a hard time seeing how its dogmas help the situation. Either way I will read up on the subject and we can have another round

I don't see this video as aimed at religious people. I see it squarely aimed at people who think religion is nonsense but cave in to the taboo of not calling it just that. The emperor has no clothes; people do not need to give the respect that religions think they owe. Calling religious people idiots dispel peoples belief that some thoughts deserve to go unchallenged.

A quick word about religious moderates. I do not think they exist because the church realized one day a new way of reading the bible. I do believe moderates exist because science just made people realize the Bible or any other holy book cannot be read literally. This whole thing about reading the Bible (or any holy book) in a new and better way; I simply cannot see how it comes from religion itself, built on authority and dogma it just wont move on its own. This to me means that if moderates have a somewhat better perspective and attitude they do not owe it to religion.

Let's just be grateful it ended up in Spielberg's hands and not say ... George Lucas' *shiver*.

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

@SDGundamX

Are you agnostic in respect to Elvis being alive? Are you agnostic in respect to the flying spaghetti monster or the pink invisible unicorn? If this had been a video calling people that believe Elvis is alive and well idiots would the wording have offended you so? What if he called people who believe in Poseidon and Zeus idiots. Would that offend you? If not, why not?

I used to be agnostic like you. I thought since I couldn't prove something didn't exist, I couldn't really argue against that thing. But in reality we do this all the time. Most people (I'd say everyone) have a set of filters setup against believing in anything and everything. Are you really agnostic about everything that you cannot prove/disprove? I'd think not (I may be wrong), and it wouldn't be very useful.

I am all for people being happy, but not at the expense of others. Gays being persecuted, Africans killing children because they believe they are posessed, Africans not using condoms and dying of AIDS because condom usage is a sin, people blowing themselves up for virgins in the afterlife, evolution being denounced and attacked from all sides. What is this madness and why can't we call it madness?

BURN! Excellent comment, keep them coming.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^bluecliff:

Why should your moronic belief in democracy or "equality" get any respect either?
Pathetic.


Since when are democracy and equality beliefs?

Democracy is a system of government. There's no question whether or not it exists; you can find proof in a number of countries. Not believing democracy is a good form of government or that it fulfills certain goals is not the same as not believing it exists.

Equality is a social concept. Not believing that all people are or should be treated equal is not the same as not believing in equality. As a concept, its existence cannot be disputed. A concept exists as soon as it is defined.

I find your "critique" holds no water. Please try again.

And still, when it comes to other people and their beliefs we do not always respect them (or their beliefs). Imagine someone who believes that Elvis is still alive and "preaches" it. We effectively marginalize such people and do not respect their views. I would go so far to say we do not even respect them.

In most other areas, as Sam Harris puts it, to be highly certain of something with a low order of evidence is a sign that something is wrong with your mind. However, when it comes to religion, we must suddenly flip this on its end and respect other people's beliefs. Why?

When it comes to tolerance, I could care less what people believe in their own heads. If it would only stay there. I do not want their views imposing on my life as it does now through the hindering of science and an attachment to ancient moral values. They are actively hindering me from fulfillment in this the only life I think I have. And while their lives appear better to themselves it comes at the cost of almost endless suffering felt by others. Condoms in Africa anyone?

Summing it up: Believe what you want, but as soon as you put it out there and it affects others be ready to have your reasons inspected and challenged.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I'm 100% with mgittle on this. You don't convince people by disrespecting them. While you don't have to respect people's ideas, in a civilized society at least, you should respect the person who formed them and not assume they are a total idiot just because they don't agree with you.
My basic problem with his argument is that it assumes that faith is somehow imposed from the outside--as if the faithful have all been suckered--and he's here to save them all from it. A lot of faithful that I know are willingly faithful. They know there is no "hard" evidence. They have a choice and they choose to be faithful. Why? The answer is simple really: because their faith makes their lives better.
And how can you argue with that? Would you honestly accept someone else telling you demanding that you change because that's what they think is going to make you happy? It works both ways, of course. Most of us here hate it when one of the overzealous faithful shows up on our doorstep to proclaim how much better we'll be worshiping their particular deity. This guy is just doing the same thing in reverse. Like mgittle said, showing them how happy you can be is far more persuasive.
Problem, of course, is that again it works both ways. Some people see how happy a certain faithful person is and choose to embrace the faith as well. I honestly think certain people are happier and more productive when they are practicing a religion and others are happier and more productive when atheist. It just depends on the individual. And I absolutely agree with justanotherday that it is entirely possible for all of us to get along... if we all learn some respect.
That said, there are serious problems within many major organized religions, and these do need to be addressed. But I see that as a separate issue from that of faith (in Christianity), which is mostly what the video was about.

Wow. This changes everything. Now no-one will watch Fox News anymore.