at 3:37?
easy answer, to bishop mark hanson's 'key question'. "eachother."

the fact that he would even need to ask that, shows how little time he has spent, imagining if it could be true. too scary, to think big daddy's not at the wheel.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheist, minority, god, religion, cbs' to 'atheist, minority, god, religion, cbs, science, rational, dawkins' - edited by winkler1

73-80% of Americans believe in god? wtf?

Unbelievable. I can't believe they say those things on TV. I canceled cable a long time ago and haven't seen a "news cast" in quiet some time. If it wasn't for the title card at the beginning of the video, I would have thought this was satire.

It'd be very interesting to see how many of the so called agnostics are simply declaring themselves as such to mix with society or in fear of going to hell.

Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.

--Gilbert K. Chesterton

of those people believing in G-d, I wonder how many subscribe to biblical denotations or defer to a different, more personal reflection based on experience rather than dogma. It seems that's what the atheist view relies on, IMO.

Argh! That darn bishop... Why do we need to have some mythical figure to 'turn to' in times of need? That's just a coping mechanism and an easy way out. The BETTER way to cope in such times is to find constructive outlets for whatever anger, hatred etc. there might be, or find solace and comfort in family and friends in times of need.

Just incredibly narrow minded to not believe that humans are capable of functioning REALLY WELL without having to pile any issues they have on a phantom dude with beard in the sky.

And the horrible tone of this piece such that athiests are some weird, out there group, and wow, isn't is amazing they can make friends.

Fuck you mainstream US tv... fuck you big time. This is the sort of condescending bullshit that makes Atheists seethe. We're not as abnormal as you may think you know.

I almost have to take offense to that one spoco. Your entitled to your opinion though, so I wont.

(playing devils advocate)
So I'm narrow minded for having faith in a higher power am I? I believe perfectly well that humans are capable of "functioning really well" without dropping everything off on a "phantom dude." For you to say this makes you just as narrow minded as what your trying to claim I am.

Of course I can handle my issues on my own. of course you could. So what if life is better for me because I believe in God and Jesus? Why does it bother you?

And how was that mainstream? It was a local station. And on top of that, how could that EVER be conceived as condescending? If anything, they were trying to show people that atheists are normal people and are capable for normal lives, and that you AREN'T heathens of some kind.

Chill out. Let people believe what they want to believe, and you believe what you want to believe.

(I am a Christian, though and extremely right wing conservative, but not in the fact that you should eat Christ Chex for breakfast)

Magical men! Flying people! Talking snakes! Old men walking on water! ITS ALL REAL! 100% REAL! REAL REAL REAL!

Send me $99.99 and you too can get a stake in the magical joo joo. No delivery required. I simply need to channel it to you through the ether, and WHAM! Its in your pocket!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.
--Gilbert K. Chesterton


I don't know if that was provocative 100 years ago, but it's irrelevant today. I've never heard anyone make such an assertion.

>> ^arsenault185:
I almost have to take offense to that one spoco. Your entitled to your opinion though, so I wont.
(playing devils advocate)
So I'm narrow minded for having faith in a higher power am I? I believe perfectly well that humans are capable of "functioning really well" without dropping everything off on a "phantom dude." For you to say this makes you just as narrow minded as what your trying to claim I am.


My issue was that he was saying that he couldn't fathom how anyone can function WITHOUT said mythical dude... not that people chose to, but rather that he almost took offense in the fact that people could dare to get by without him.


Of course I can handle my issues on my own. of course you could. So what if life is better for me because I believe in God and Jesus? Why does it bother you?


Ahh, because you have the arrogance to assume that your life is better than mine thanks to your belief. If it makes you happy, so be it, but to do a snide 'my life is better than yours because I believe in them'... that's condescending.



And how was that mainstream? It was a local station. And on top of that, how could that EVER be conceived as condescending? If anything, they were trying to show people that atheists are normal people and are capable for normal lives, and that you AREN'T heathens of some kind.

It's still a tv station, and it demonstrates the media attitude in general in the US... and not condescending? On second watching I think, perhaps they were trying to not be condescending... but it comes across that way in spades. All this incredulity that Atheists can amazingly be good people and lead moral lives, and that... oh my goodness, there's quite a lot of us. Then:

Firstly the Bishop is a major condescending dick suggesting that it's a better culture for people who are 'having struggles with faith', and those that ... pause, stammer 'don't believe in god' can be more 'forthright and honest' about the fact. He's trying to suggest that there are not more athiests, just that all them good christian types allow them to speak up. What crud, it's an even more religiously zealot filled media and parliament than ever. The second speaker on that point nails it.

The "the children have had no problem making friends at school". As if they're some sorts of freaks who should be finding it difficult.

Then 'yeah, good points from both sides'... um... what points exactly did the pro religious have in this piece? Um... none... that's right, just the bishop with the insanely ludicrous 'who do you put your faith in' comment. Just Argh... Argh...

Just the term 'Believers vs non Believers'... it is putting a positive spin on those that believe. Rationalists vs Religious is less divisive.

And 'It's mainstream now' as it fades out... as if it's some closet thing.



Chill out. Let people believe what they want to believe, and you believe what you want to believe.
(I am a Christian, though and extremely right wing conservative, but not in the fact that you should eat Christ Chex for breakfast)

I am more than happy for people to believe in whatever they wish EXCEPT when it causes detriment to the world at large:
* When lack of belief in scientific facts is harming education
* When people's narrow minded interpretation of their bible is trying to be forced into country's laws
* When people are being discriminated against because of who they want to share a bed with
* When those that believe in god are of the opinion that EVERYONE should believe in their god.

That's what has all us atheists all riled up, the people you have running for office in the states all proudly proclaim their faith, and it would seem would have NO ability to ever stand for office if they did not.

It's a horrendous state of affairs where the religion of the running member has any baring on their election chances.

Rick Astley is my God.

Heaven is 1987, forever.

I just came in here to profess my love for Spoco2.

Spoco, he meant his life is better for him, not that it's better than yours.

>> ^tmcdermid:
73-80% of Americans believe in god? wtf?


Why are you so surprised? I thought it was actually more.

Born and raised Roman Catholic, received most of the sacraments (including last rites).
I, however, am an atheist. Like many, the religion never made sense to me.
Believe that you are entitled to believe whatever you wish, as long as it does not impose on anyone else.

No trouble making friends at school? Wow! Really?

I don't think I ever had a religious discussion with any kids in grade school. We were too busy running to be first on the tire swing at recess.

That TV-station is doing what is needed in GOD-land to make a piece about atheists, seeing it from the mainstream view. So when they say "they have no trouble fiding friends in school" and so on, it's because their viewers would believe that they indeed had problems with it.

I think religion should have a lot of weight in an election, just basically the opposite of what exists in america today. You're no allowed to be a racist in the presidential seat, you're no allowed to be mentally deficient (to a certain degree, I'm looking at you GWB) and you shouldn't be allowed to believe in fairy tales, unicorns and any other proven delusions.

But it's not just the belief in supernatural beings that I don't like. The morals of the bible and the quaran (sp?) are horrendus and if electees actually follow those morals they should not be in any position of power.

>> ^gwiz665:
The morals of the bible are horrendus and if electees actually follow those morals they should not be in any position of power.

God is dead, and no one cares.

The piece itself wasn't bigoted, but it was playing to their supposedly ignorant audience. The superficiality of it is reminiscent of a teacher talking about black people and white people on the first day of kindergarten to 5 year old white kids who had never seen a black kid before.

Hey, a fellow former Catholic!

I'm pretty much in the same boat as Spoon_Gouge, and just couldn't buy it. No animosity towards religious belief in general, but a lot of the dogma of what I was raised to believe just didn't make sense to me. That wouldn't bother me except that I believe some of it to be harmful, or potentially so at any rate.

The 6000 year old earth nonsense and staunch opposition towards evolution always just baffled me - haven't those been pretty effectively proven?

The Bishop does sort of have a point though - earnestly believing that God has Plan would be kind of nice. Sort of makes all the bad stuff that happens to everyone (death and all other sorts of tragedies) seem useful in some way, or at least part of something bigger. I don't personally believe it, but *man* would that be nice sometimes.

I feel Atheism has some advantages, if it's correct - if there is no God, I can go through life without any concern about ending up in Hell. The flipside being that death really, really sucks and I also don't get to believe that I'll end up in Heaven.

That's why I'm an agnostic leaning towards Pastafarianism. Just makes the most sense from a cost/benefit perspective.

'The certainty of science as opposed to the magic of religion'

To me that totally misses the point, it's the uncertainty of science that makes it such a powerful method of discerning fact from fiction. If anything, religions are the ones that are 'certain' about the nature of existence where as science will adjust it's view according to evidence and uses uncertainty as a jumping off point.