Fail.

This is simply dogmatism in a nutshell, and it applies as much to theists as it does to atheists for bigotry can be found on both groups.

I don't remember any atheists ever saying Since you believe in God you're going to suffer for eternity. >.>

>> ^flechette:
I don't remember any atheists ever saying Since you believe in God you're going to suffer for eternity. >.>


I do recall plenty of atheist making claims about a Christian's intelligence solely on the fact of their belief in God.
That is bigotry too. Different degree but bigotry nonetheless

^The point here isn't about bigotry. It's about the hypocrisy of Christian dogma of "spreading the 'one true' faith with sword and fire" among 'non-believers'. Last I checked, atheists had no such universal "mission statement".

>> ^EDD:
^The point here isn't about bigotry. It's about the hypocrisy of Christian dogma of "spreading the 'one true' faith with sword and fire" among 'non-believers'. Last I checked, atheists had no such universal "mission statement".


What you just said applies to any fundamentalism and you cannot define an entire movement into a single facet. The hypocrisy runs both ways that's why I am saying is incorrect to limit this notion of absolutism to just Christianity. Atheism has ranges too, take Dawkins for example, this guy can't even respect someone for two minutes if that person holds a view opposite to them since he generalizes about the degree of dogma that the person holds which is hypocritical in the first place because if he takes that road he starts to resemble the very people he mocks.

I'm right you are wrong...because I say so - Is VASTLY different to I think you are wrong and here's why...

>> ^Zonbie:
I'm right you are wrong...because I say so - Is VASTLY different to I think you are wrong and here's why...


And do you really think every atheist cares to give a why to their claims? Do you really think every Christian never cares to give a why to their claim?

When you tell me here this is in a nutshell 'X' system of belief and that explanation only is considering an extreme then this is like describing a coin only looking at one side.

As if some forms of atheism did not hold absolutes...There can be'religiosity' (for lack of a better word) without theism.

What I'm trying to say is that the behavior given in this video is something we are all vulnerable to regardless of our belief and perceptions about reality. Since this is something that has various degrees of strength is kind of erroneous to associate an entire belief system to a limited degree and then say this limited degree equals the entire thing.

It is as if I showed people behaving unethically and titled it 'atheism in a nutshell' assuming morality is absolutely tied to religion and ethical atheists don't exist.

Dogmatism = Assuming a relative idea as an absolute one. Applies to any Homo sapiens with a brain with limited senses which I think just covers about everyone here.

REPENT! REPENT! OR BURN IN HELL!

Magic is REAL. It really is.

*wiggles fingers.. sparks shoot out*
See?

Religion=Control
Always has, always will!

Most Christians are very quick to criticize and very sensitive to criticism.

Most atheists do not make a point of trying to convert people to their way of thinking.

There are many Christians proselytizing their beliefs, almost always with the caveat "believe what we believe, or burn in hell."

Anyone who wants to equate Christian methods with athiestic methods is simply avoiding reality.

wow. All these wonderful comments over a 12 second animated comedy clip. Lighten up!

Religion, a serious business to some.

>> ^EDD:
^... the hypocrisy of Christian dogma of "spreading the 'one true' faith with sword and fire" among 'non-believers'. Last I checked, atheists had no such universal "mission statement".


Maybe they need one. Then all the non-atheists might take them seriously.

Almost all Christians are idiots and assholes. Almost all Atheists/Agnostics are irritatingly gay. Everyone else in between is a rapist and a jack off, and the few who haven't chosen a side regularly shit themselves.

Critique me now, please.

I think this is funny.


BUT I'd like to to start labeling the group represented in this nutshell as "asshole christians."

There are millions of people who believe in magical things (religious or otherwise) who realize that it's just what they believe and that there's no good reason to force others into believing it too. And I think some of them are Christians, some are also Muslim, Jewish, Pagan and so on. I haven't read the whole bible but I'm not entirely certain that it says you *have* to be an asshole to be a Christian. There are a whhoooole lot of people using it as an excuse, but of course they're speaking louder than those who don't.

Everyone seemed okay with distinguishing moderate Muslims from "Extremists." Can't we start separating the "yur doing it wrong" Christians from the quiet nice not-a-threat-to-society Christians?

>> ^mauz15:
>> ^Zonbie:
I'm right you are wrong...because I say so - Is VASTLY different to I think you are wrong and here's why...

And do you really think every atheist cares to give a why to their claims? Do you really think every Christian never cares to give a why to their claim?

I'd be willing to say that there's no point for atheists to even try to give reasons for their rationale to Christians. For the simple reason that your average Christian is too blinded by indoctrination to assimilate anything contrary to their own beliefs. I won't go so far as to say too stupid to comprehend, rather incapable (perhaps too frightened) of understanding anything that might cast doubt on their faith, and usually responding with pure vitriol and hate.

Sounds like Bush's foreign policy.

Read iwastheturkey's comment. It's a good one.

>> ^rougy:
Most Christians are very quick to criticize and very sensitive to criticism.
Most atheists do not make a point of trying to convert people to their way of thinking.
There are many Christians proselytizing their beliefs, almost always with the caveat "believe what we believe, or burn in hell."
Anyone who wants to equate Christian methods with atheistic methods is simply avoiding reality.


This is not about methods, obviously the two go at it in different ways. This is about a human characteristic, shared by everyone that occurs when we give way too much credit to our worldview; and oh man! we do this on a daily basis.
So it is incorrect to single out this behavior as a strictly religious case and even worse to further enclose one of those belief systems using that characteristic (dogmatism and fallacious reasoning) as the central core (nutshell) of it.

As for some of the previous comments, perhaps it is getting to serious but from who's perspective exactly? I find it fun too see what people have to say. It is certainly a breath of fresh air from all the presidential election comments saturating this place =] And if people point out my errors, even more fun! I learn in the process and it helps to make my opinion about the matter better. Oh and it is not so much about the video, sure it is a comedy show no problem about that, my problem is with the assumptions behind the title of this post. Hence my downvote. Perhaps my 'fail' remark was uncalled for and caused confusion about my intent here? if so, my bad.

Last post. Promised.

Yeah, these character flaws are present in some people on both sides of the issue, but it seems safe to say it's categorically worse on one side than the other, which I believe is a function of one side being faith-based and the other evidence-based.

Or put another way, I think the warning about finding a "symmetry of sin" in things applies here (hat tip to Netrunner, IIRC).

>> ^mauz15:
I do recall plenty of atheist making claims about a Christian's intelligence solely on the fact of their belief in God.
That is bigotry too. Different degree but bigotry nonetheless


There's also allthosestudies they've been doing for the last 80 years.

Though I suppose a scientific study doesn't carry any weight to the religious crowd.

>> ^NinjaFish:
wow. All these wonderful comments over a 12 second animated comedy clip. Lighten up!


Family Guy has the ability to bring out the anger in people.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Sounds like Bush's foreign policy.


...and domestic policy.

Let's face it, he probably says it to his dick when he goes to take a piss.

He's just that much of a badass.

I applaud mauz15's critical thinking skills. Very deft arguing. But I think the argument is flawed from the beginning because it seems to define atheism as the belief that there are no gods (what's known as "strong atheism"). I think most atheists here on the sift would instead identify with "weak atheism"--a lack of belief in any divine entity. The difference is subtle but important. "Weak atheism" is not a unified belief system. How could a lack of belief ever be dogmatic? You can't convince others of weak atheism. "Weak atheists" basically claim there is not enough evidence for them to be convinced of the existence of any divine entity. If such evidence appears, though, they'd be happy to evaluate it and change their minds.

"Atheism" is a very, very broad term that applies to an incredibly diverse group of people.

"Christian" is too. Although you wouldn't know it from reading the Bible...

>> ^SDGundamX:
I applaud mauz15's critical thinking skills. Very deft arguing. But I think the argument is flawed from the beginning because it seems to define atheism as the belief that there are no gods (what's known as "strong atheism"). I think most atheists here on the sift would instead identify with "weak atheism"--a lack of belief in any divine entity. The difference is subtle but important. "Weak atheism" is not a unified belief system. How could a lack of belief ever be dogmatic? You can't convince others of weak atheism. "Weak atheists" basically claim there is not enough evidence for them to be convinced of the existence of any divine entity. If such evidence appears, though, they'd be happy to evaluate it and change their minds.


I see what you are saying. I agree that Atheists (at least weak atheism) are people without a belief in God. The word 'without' makes a difference here. Denying something or "not believing in X thing" implies knowledge about what it is that you are being asked to affirm, in this case God. To be without belief means the concept has no meaning/importance.

How could a lack of belief ever be dogmatic? I don't see how it could be, I agree with this too.

But does it mean atheists are ALWAYS free from holding absolutes that are insufficiently revised or proved to be certain? I think not.

to quote Russell

"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, ABSOLUTE philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is CERTAINTY, whether of knowledge or ignorance"

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^mauz15:
I do recall plenty of atheist making claims about a Christian's intelligence solely on the fact of their belief in God.
That is bigotry too. Different degree but bigotry nonetheless

There's also allthosestudies they've been doing for the last 80 years.
Though I suppose a scientific study doesn't carry any weight to the religious crowd.


Yeah, because we know so much about the brain at the moment that IQ is such a bulletproof variable (bulletproof 'variable' I think that's self defeating) to measure something we are only starting to understand.

But okay 80 years has a lot of weight to it, thing is...my point in that post was about bigotry, a behavior that carries certain arrogance to it. The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell.

Some do this behavior with intelligence, some religious people do it with the illusion of 'moral superiority'

Oh I said I would not post again, damn...

Scott MacFarlane is going to hell, though...

I wonder what kind of response I'd get walking around the neighborhood knocking on peoples doors to speak with them about Atheism and hand them literature on the subject?

Of course I'll make sure to do it right around 5-6 PM so I can be sure to catch them at the most inconvenient time possible. I'll also make sure to not listen to them when they tell me they are <insert religion here> and plod on telling them of my beliefs and how great they are....

>> ^mauz15:
>> ^EDD:
^The point here isn't about bigotry. It's about the hypocrisy of Christian dogma of "spreading the 'one true' faith with sword and fire" among 'non-believers'. Last I checked, atheists had no such universal "mission statement".

What you just said applies to any fundamentalism and you cannot define an entire movement into a single facet. The hypocrisy runs both ways that's why I am saying is incorrect to limit this notion of absolutism to just Christianity. Atheism has ranges too, take Dawkins for example, this guy can't even respect someone for two minutes if that person holds a view opposite to them since he generalizes about the degree of dogma that the person holds which is hypocritical in the first place because if he takes that road he starts to resemble the very people he mocks.


This is almost entirely incorrect. Why do people feel the need to lie about dawkins? He doesn't disrespect people for having a different opinion to himself - he feels sorry for (and superior to) people who believe in an aged and childish belief system of screwing your fists up into a ball and hoping till you cry that life will continue somehow.

You were doing great up to that point, i was with you on the whole "don't tar everyone with the same brush" and "it's not just x religion that does this" stuff. But it seems like you've never listened to an unbiased cutting of a dawkins interview. Either that, or you listen to it with a pre-formed bias (which you are criticising in others)

I mean, if he said he liked radiohead, and you said you didn't, he wouldn't heap derision or scorn on you. If he said he was atheist and you said you weren't, he wouldn't heap derision or scorn on you. If you got into a discussion and you said something stupid, THEN he'd heap derision and scorn on you.

I agree, it was a bad example but read what you just said: he feels sorry for (and superior to) people who believe in an aged and childish belief...

childish? isn't that a disrespectful statement? So Kierkegaard, and Occam, and all those great theistic thinkers are kind of childish too or what are you saying....? isn't feeling superior to someone who according to him does not know any better kind of disrespectful in itself? why would one feel superiority to someone one labels as unfortunate to 'know any better' in the first place? I can see if one feels superior to someone capable of holding that which one is feeling superior about...
I have seen plenty of Dawkins, he is a great biologist, and formidable opponent during arguments, but I also see spurts of arrogance. Sometimes in tone, others in body language, others in words.

As for the 'bias' that I criticize part, well of course I include myself in that category. I'm not saying I'm an exception to any of what I have said so far.

>> ^flechette:
I don't remember any atheists ever saying Since you believe in God you're going to suffer for eternity. >.>


No, we just suffer during life at the hands of those who hate Christianity and anyone who abides by it. see WorthyNews

So just for your own curiosity, I'm a Christian...but here's from the Qur'an:

Say, "O atheists,
"I don't serve what you serve,
"and you don't serve what I serve.
"And I won't serve what you serve,
"and you won't serve what I serve.
"You have your way,
and I have my way."

Nothing about hell.

Are y'all blameless before man? Or hiding behind some arguments?

>> ^mauz15o it is incorrect to single out this behavior as a strictly religious case and even worse to further enclose one of those belief systems using that characteristic (dogmatism and fallacious reasoning) as the central core (nutshell) of it.

I don't think that I'm "singling out" Christianity as much as I'm agreeing with the gist of this video that many Christains have a "believe what we believe or else" mentality.

I'm not necessarily saying that they're the only ones who think that way.

Fascists certainly behave in much the same way.

But think about it: how many other belief systems, besides religious ones and fascism, threaten non-believers with the threat of eternal damnation or physical harm?

And when's the last time you saw a bunch of atheists hang a presidential candidate in effigy?

Officials at a US Christian college have launched an investigation after a cardboard effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was hung from a tree, a statement said Wednesday.

George Fox University, in Newberg, Oregon, said in a statement on its website that the cutout of Obama was found hanging from a tree on campus early Tuesday morning before being removed by staff.

The Raw Story

I think rougy hits a pretty valid point here--the eternal damnation point. If you are a Christian, then you know the Bible tells you non-believers are going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity after the second coming. You can't be a Christian and not believe that.

And at its core, that's what this video is all about and why it is so funny. Unless you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you believe in, you have to admit that the core of Christianity is based on "believe what God says or he'll hurt you." Sure, the New Testament talks about love and forgiveness but the Book of Revelations makes sure to remind you who's the boss in the end.

Christians believe that by being a good person, they will be rewarded in the after life.

Secular Humanists try to be a good person for the sake of being a good person.

You tell me which is a more selfish way of life.

>> He doesn't disrespect people for having a different opinion to himself

Huh. You must be talking about a different Dawkins than the one I've read and listened to on the radio. He's basically a dick to Christians, though Hitchens and Harris are much worse (and then complain about Christians complaining about their tone, which is like the perfect mobius-strip of bitching). IMO, Dan Dennet is the best of the current atheist intellectuals. He does a fairly good job being reasonable, though he does say some disrespectful things from time to time.

>>he feels sorry for (and superior to) people who believe in an aged and childish belief system of screwing your fists up into a ball and hoping till you cry that life will continue somehow.

Huh. And yet we've already gone from nothingness to something once... seems to me that evidence is on the side of Christians.

This reminds me of some crazy Christian I have to work with occasionally who keeps persisting in asking what I do on a Sunday if I don't go to church. I softpedalled my views as getting into religious debates on a client site probably isn't a good idea.

Considering no Christian goes around doing this, the whole point is moot. They portrayed an inaccurate, unrealistic, anachronistic caracature as an extreme example for the express purpose of knocking down the strawman for humorous purposes. Really original stuff there... Nothing athiests like better I suppose than to relish in thier stereotypes and bigotry, assuming it applies in the real world instead of just marking them as hypocrites.

agnostics? anyone?

I recently spoke to a person who was well spoken for some one still in high school, fund raising for a local church.

Asked me if I believe in god, I said no. He asked me why, and I said there was no proof of her.

He said there isn't any proof that he doesn't exist. I said my point exactly.

Shut the hell up none of your opinions matter we're gonna die

anyway, that was hilarious.
That dog got smacked with a bible.

I hate this show.

>> ^HollywoodBob

I won't go so far as to say too stupid to comprehend, rather incapable (perhaps too frightened) of understanding anything that might cast doubt on their faith, and usually responding with pure vitriol and hate.


Yeah, incapable is much better than stupid...

"You're not so much dumb as retarded"... Nah, you did a bang up job of not offending anyone... *rolls eyes*

The problem with Christianity, atheism, vegetarianism, pro-life, feminism etc etc etc (pretty much any divider that segregates people in to groups/factions) is not that people believe a certain thing, it is that they are intolerant of people having their own beliefs.

Don't impinge on other peoples rights and believe what you want. The world will be a much better place...

And for the record I'm agnostic.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>> He doesn't disrespect people for having a different opinion to himself
Huh. You must be talking about a different Dawkins than the one I've read and listened to on the radio. He's basically a dick to Christians, though Hitchens and Harris are much worse (and then complain about Christians complaining about their tone, which is like the perfect mobius-strip of bitching). IMO, Dan Dennet is the best of the current atheist intellectuals. He does a fairly good job being reasonable, though he does say some disrespectful things from time to time.
>>he feels sorry for (and superior to) people who believe in an aged and childish belief system of screwing your fists up into a ball and hoping till you cry that life will continue somehow.
Huh. And yet we've already gone from nothingness to something once... seems to me that evidence is on the side of Christians.


I dunno Dawkins seems pretty respectful here.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2367986806557811071

>> ^Asmo:

Yeah, incapable is much better than stupid...
"You're not so much dumb as retarded"... Nah, you did a bang up job of not offending anyone... rolls eyes
The problem with Christianity, atheism, vegetarianism, pro-life, feminism etc etc etc (pretty much any divider that segregates people in to groups/factions) is not that people believe a certain thing, it is that they are intolerant of people having their own beliefs.
Don't impinge on other peoples rights and believe what you want. The world will be a much better place...
And for the record I'm agnostic.

Incapable, as in unwilling, resistant, hesitant, stubborn, close minded, etc. I didn't call them stupid because stupidity encompasses their whole life, and I know enough successful and intelligent people that go all crazy when it comes to religious dogma. Yeah he's a CPA but he thinks Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs, and that praying can actually cure cancer. So yeah, INCAPABLE was the right word.

As for being intolerant or Religious people, I'm more than happy to say live and let live, but too many of them refuse to live by the same creed. I don't mind the believers that go to church and live by the bible and keep there beliefs to themselves, the ones I don't like are the one that think their beliefs give then the right to demand that society pander to their particular brand of BULLSHIT.

I firmly believe that the majority of societies ills are caused by religion, religion has been the root cause of most of the wars this world has seen, not to mention all the terrorism that has religion as it's origin. And until such time as the people of this world evolve to the point where religion is no longer an influence, we'll continue to have all the same problems.

PS I used to be agnostic, then I turned 8.

>>^HollywoodBob:

Incapable, as in unwilling, resistant, hesitant, stubborn, close minded, etc. I didn't call them stupid because stupidity encompasses their whole life, and I know enough successful and intelligent people that go all crazy when it comes to religious dogma. Yeah he's a CPA but he thinks Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs, and that praying can actually cure cancer. So yeah, INCAPABLE was the right word.


Didn't say it wasn't. I just don't think you come off any less insulting using it instead of stupid... =)


As for being intolerant or Religious people, I'm more than happy to say live and let live, but too many of them refuse to live by the same creed. I don't mind the believers that go to church and live by the bible and keep there beliefs to themselves, the ones I don't like are the one that think their beliefs give then the right to demand that society pander to their particular brand of BULLSHIT.


I didn't call you intolerant. I said the problem is intolerance. I was specifically referring to the sift clip.


I firmly believe that the majority of societies ills are caused by religion,

I think you'll find greed is actually top of that list. Seriously, where does religion work in to a car jacking?

religion has been the root cause of most of the wars this world has seen

Incorrect, the vast bulk of wars were motivated by land grabs (including wars of independence). The most notable religious wars were of course the Crusades.

not to mention all the terrorism that has religion as it's origin.

So let me get this right. Relgion is responsible for all the terrorism based on religion..? Well, you got me there.

And until such time as the people of this world evolve to the point where religion is no longer an influence, we'll continue to have all the same problems.


It'll never happen. Humans need belief, even if it's in themselves. It is a core part of the human condition, we search for greater meaning and even when we eschew higher powers, we seek that meaning in other ways.

Religion will never go away. Scientology proves that. Make up a wacky story, charge admission price and people flock to it, even though the casual observer should be able to figure out it's a huge money scam...

However, that is kinda irrelevant. Removing religion will not cure humanity of it's traits.


PS I used to be agnostic, then I turned 8.


Was that about the same time you turned in to a condescending asshole? *rolls eyes*

>> ^Kagenin:
Christians believe that by being a good person, they will be rewarded in the after life.
Secular Humanists try to be a good person for the sake of being a good person.
You tell me which is a more selfish way of life.


Uh, no we don't.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
--John 6:28-29

No where does it say that "being a good person, they will be rewarded in the after life." Simply believing and accepting are all that are required. Good works follow naturally, but Christians are NOT necessarily and should NEVER claim to be sinless. That would be a contradiction and some seriously flawed theology.

^ ^ .."No where does it say that "being a good person, they will be rewarded in the after life."

Pretty sure that "it" (bible) almost specifically states just that... i think it starts with "who ever shall believe/accept in me will have eternal life.."

something like that... obviously enough to make an impression on me...

you don't argue faith. you have it or you don't. and you choose either way.

for the record, i enjoy some translations of the bible for the empowering ideals... like luke chap 6.. but i appreciate what makes sense logically not just because it is written in the bible... im not that closed off to other things.