There's no atheist 'movement'. It's an illusion of "progress" here shared by two guys who live in a bubble.

^
"Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds" (USA Today, 3/10/09).

The least risky way to make predictions is to start with the data .

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no atheist 'movement'. It's an illusion of "progress" here shared by two guys who live in a bubble.



I don't see it as a movement either really... it's more of a "trend". More people are feeling comfortable admitting that they aren't religious, but it isn't because of a centrally organized "movement".

A movement doesn't fundamentally mean there has to be an organisation. Movement and trend can be synonymous; as in a movement or shifting of ideas, rather than people

No wonder his shows just aren't so funny anymore. Merely meh attempt at *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by Krupo.

>> ^chilaxe:
^
"Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds" (USA Today, 3/10/09).
The least risky way to make predictions is to start with the data .


Largest amount of ownage in shortest amount of posting space award goes to........................ CHILAXE! Get up here and make a speech.

There's so much athiest/creationist stuff on the sift at the moment. I think it's useful to note this is only really an issue in the United States. The rest of the West does not consider it a burning offence or even really a notable event to be an athiest.

The least risky way to make predictions is to start with the data.

I'll save this gem for when I actually make a prediction instead of stating an opinion.

The highest total I've read for Americans who have "no religious identification" is about 16%. Not exactly moving mountains.

Assuming all the negative stereotypes of atheists can be discounted ("criminal behavior, rampant materialism, cultural elitism") I believe it's fair to also
dismiss any assumed positives, such as a mind "freed of superstition" automatically being more rational, logical or less prone to egotistical self-delusion.

>> Assuming all the negative stereotypes of atheists can be discounted ("criminal behavior, rampant materialism, cultural elitism")

Those are mostly false stereotypes, unless the Bush administration was a bunch of Atheists.

(yeah I know I am answering a logical fallacy with a logical fallacy)

Morality is independent belief in God or any religious belief. This has been known since Plato and Aristotle, and virtually every philosopher since then has concurred. Saints and criminals can be found among both believers and non-believers.

The simpleton who thinks that the only motivation humans have to do good in the world is so that we can get rewarded after we die, is in desperate need of education.

Throwing away assumptions means you have to build from the ground up... and in examining the evidence... you will find that as a mind "freed of superstition", one is logically more rational.

and easy -one for you!

Assuming all the negative stereotypes of atheists can be discounted ("criminal behavior, rampant materialism, cultural elitism")

Instead of adressing the two first of these apparent stereotypes, I'm going to focus on the third: "cultural elitism". cultural elitism.. What exactly is that, and why is it a "negative stereotype"?

To answer this, I cant help bringing up Animal Farm, the book by George Orwell. In this book, the animals, lead by the powerhungry, greedy Pigs, are staging a riot and decide to throw out the farmer and run the farm all by themselves. I guess we've all heard the story, seen a movie or atleast gotten the gist of this story, but the particular part of the story I'm thinking of is the story of the Sheep. The sheep, being not-to-bright, illiterate and easy to lead, are quick to find their place and purpose under the more and more pig-driven "all animals are equal" regime. Their job is to repeat the ever-simpler slogans of the new farm. Starting with a list of 10 or so rules written on the barn wall, it gradually boils down to "Four legs Good, Two Legs Bad".

FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!

The sheep keep repeating the phrase, singing it, again and again, as if saying it proved a point in itself. But while the phrase is catchy, simple and easy to remember, the most important thing about it is of course how utterly EMPTY and MEANINGLESS it is. The sheep and all the other animals are fooled by this illusion that this phrase actually means anything.

CULTURAL ELITISM!

Equally empty, equally meaningless, quantomushroom is a hapless sheep, repeating nonsensical bullshit like this, likely after hearing it from leading sheep like O'reilly and limbaugh and Hannity and Glenn Beck, as if it meant something.

Is Obama an ELITIST?!!! We're just asking, here on FOX!

Meaningless, empty babble. What does it even entail, this mysterious "elitism", is it that these darn elitists have read books? that they listen to classical music? that they are not rednecks? that they are "out of touch" with the common guy?

I thought so. when you think about this stuff for longer than the 2 seconds FOX give to till commercial break, you discover that if "cultural elitist" even means anything AT ALL, why the fuck does it matter? Isnt the important part here, what people actually DO?

The rest of the West does not consider it a burning offence or even really a notable event to be an athiest.

Persecution complex. I have lived in the Bible Belt, the mid-west, the East coast, the West coast, and the Intermountain West and I have never at any time noted an Atheist treated disrespectfully. There are no atheist lynchings, beatings, or anything of the sort.

The existence of religious people is not 'pesecution' of atheism. I think it is high time the 'atheist movement' got over itself.

I dunno. As long as there are people trying to teach ID bullcrap as if it is a scientific equal to the actual, factual understanding of our planet in Government Funded schools, then I and those like me will continue to call out evil despots and their mindless cronies by stating uncomfortable, rude things such as facts.

this guy clearly hasnt read the bible, its the only obvious source of truth.

you can only be moral if you read the bible

scientifically proven with no evidence
verse 22.

I'm not an atheist but I don't think anyone should be persecuted for what they believe or don't believe in. As long as an atheist doesn't try to...de-theist? de-theize??? turn me away from religion I don't care.

As long as an atheist doesn't try to...de-theist? de-theize??? turn me away from religion I don't care.

Well, that's kind of a sticky wicket sometimes. Not all atheists are like this, but there definitely ARE some atheists using the courts and the political system to de-theize as much of society as possible. They do so under the rubrick of separation of church and state. Yet the establishment clause was never meant to imply the removal of religion from the public discourse, nor even the expression of religion by government entities. Yet the thought process of the militant atheist states that any expression of religion in a public place violates the separation clause. It's total baloney, but that's what they're trying to do.

^"Militant atheist states"? ROFL. I want to live in this alternate reality bubble you do.

Do you think there was a movement of people that promoted the heliocentric view of our solar system? Other than the scientists that were involved, no, not really. Strangely enough, religion hindered the progress of that idea. Then people became more educated and woke up and questioning religion became more commonplace. Then religion got "smart" and found new ways of warping reality by sweeping their old world views that we now know are false under the carpet. People got dumb with the capitalization of higher education (or education in general) and here we are...wondering when people are going to grow up, mentally.

People really believe in a magic man in the sky, not in the clouds anymore, though. Because people have been on airplanes. And they believe in a very bad, bad man with all the bad people under the Earth. I don't know if that means in China or the core of the Earth, or maybe longitudinally in Antarctica. But now people say maybe these things exist in "different dimensions". An idea brought to us by scientific hypothesis. The same hypotheses that lead to the theory of evolution, the theory that they deny. None of it makes sense.

Another unfortunate paradox based on the assumption that most outspoken atheists are also leftists: the left readily draws on facts, evidence and logic when attacking faith, but reverses tactics and demands faith when the failures and limitations of socialism are exposed.


My opinion now is thoughtful religionists have a slight edge regarding egotistical self-delusion, because they don't consider themselves the ultimate authority and source of morality.


The maker of cartoons and the other guy who is a cartoon don't have much to say. Their little bubble-world frowns on morality, leaving power as the only metric of personal importance. You don't want to be the P.A. who brings them the wrong brand of spring water.

"Their little bubble-world frowns on morality, leaving power as the only metric of personal importance."

The definition of irony: a Bush-supporter who refused to question any of the man's actions no matter how utterly and undoubtedly wrong they were (both rationally and especially morally wrong) - now attempting to lecture others on substituting power for morality in judging people.

MAGICAL INVISIBLE PEOPLE IN THE SKY ARE REAL! RED HORNED EVIL DUDES WITH CLOVEN HOOFS LIVING UNDERGROUND IN LAVA LAND ARE REAL!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Another unfortunate paradox based on the assumption that most outspoken atheists are also leftists: the left readily draws on facts, evidence and logic when attacking faith, but reverses tactics and demands faith when the failures and limitations of socialism are exposed.

I seriously wonder what makes you say all this moronic shit. Do you have some magical bullshit-hat that you pull random "facts" from? Even on the surface what you're saying doesnt make any sense. First off, the people you call "socialists" in american politics are NOT socialists. Lets just get that straight.

Compared to countries where the word socialism or atleast "social democracy" actually can be used, (such as in scandinavia etc.) even the most leftist democrats in the US can only be considered hardline capitalists.

So, ask ANY of these people if there are any limits to socialism, and they would surely say "of course."

So I ask you, please, come up with one of these "leftists" who are unwilling to admit the "failures and limitations of socialism".

Who are they? Joseph Stalin?

I guess we all are Stalin to you, there seem to be no political landscape between the Texas desert and the 1950's Soviet Tundra to you. You live in a fantasy-world where Reagan is still facing the impending doom of communism in the form of imaginary "communist sympathizers" like Obama. Please get your head straight, you're talking shit.

"militant athiest states?"

It isn't complicated. Apply thought and you'll get it. "The thought process (action) of the militant athiest (person) STATES (says)..." If you thought I was talking about some sort of hypothetical government ('states') being run by militant athiests, then you are an extremely poor reader.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.