*related=http://videosift.com/video/Doug-Stanhope-The-Oklahoma-Atheist

Doug Stanhope - The Oklahoma Atheist has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760.

*quality story with a happy ending.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lurgee.

I feel like this needs to be seen by those who feel a moral superiority because of their religion. They need to see how this woman (like many others) put herself in an uncomfortable, even dangerous position simply because she refused to lie because she is moral, not because she feared supernatural reprisal. To me, that makes her morally superior.

Well, it's not like atheism is a choice, it's a genetic trait.

It's known as "intelligence".

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, January 2nd, 2014 9:18am PST - promote requested by lurgee.

who cares? Atheists are like gays...anything for a headline.

They could be worse...they could ignore all the facts in order to claim they're being persecuted. You know, like Christians.

We'll remember that the next time Christians pretend to be oppressed and feign outrage..which is is pretty much all the time.

You really are a pathetic troll.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
-A. Crowley


"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
-Max Planck

About as sick of atheists trying to rationalize their point of view as I am Christians or Muslims, Zorasters or Svengalians trying to do the same through equally nefarious methodologies namely, Socratic method or tired, Platonic argument.

Get a box! Eat a peach! Enjoy the fucking ride for fucksake already !

All hail this woman and her joy in the midst of all the noise

Bring the hate, notherflockers!

Highly overrated that-

Tell us all something VooDooVoo, what's the difference between you shitting all over a post and what you accuse me of, eh? I have a legitimate beef with rabid supporters of any particular ideology or philosophy when the shit becomes tiresome and repetitious when tinctured with rage and anger and intolerance.Lurking around to voice your disdain with me is infantile and boring, as well as passive-aggressive and insulting. Way to show that ass, baby-What would Jesus do, eh?? He'd most-likely wipe the dust from his feet and walk the fuck on, but I ain't a follower now am I??

Not saying I'm any different from you in my irritation with insolence or in my tendency to foment discord, I'm the devil's own advocate. Is YOUR ego larger than any barn or should I be the one staring into a mirror?

Jesus himself told the most pompous and self-righteous religious nuts to pray to god in a closet where he alone could hear and to give a fuck what mankind saw them doing and not to take it into the streets, atheists would do well to follow the same sage advice-

This whole "evangelical atheists are as bad as fundamentalists" argument is bollocks. When was the last time atheists shot a young girl for wanting to go to school?

I would love to never have to mention religion again. If people did actually pray in private, that would be great.

But they don't. The religious continually try to force their beliefs onto others.

So, sorry if I'm not going to sit down and STFU about it.

Getting an Xbox counts?

Sorry if i've got the wrong end of the stick here, but i find it very hard to understand what you're trying to say and i genuinely try my best. Are you chastising voodoov for downvoting your comments? Not that it matters because he has a right to reply when you make comments here, but i think he has good cause to.

For example:
"I have a legitimate beef with rabid supporters of any particular ideology or philosophy when the shit becomes tiresome and repetitious when tinctured with rage and anger and intolerance?" -- Is this a question or a statement?

You've also quoted the law of Thelema and Max Planck's personal opinion (not scientific appraisal, just one person's opinion - who lived in a time of religious persecution) of the existence of a supreme being, neither of which seem related, and you didn't refer to them in the rest of your post. It seems strange to argue in favour of keeping your personal beliefs to yourself whatever they may be when at the same time you use the personal belief of Planck as an opener for your argument.

It isn't clear to me what you're saying, and the parts that are clearer seem contradictory.

My problem is that I think you miss the real flaw when tying fundamentalist attitudes to organized religion. Particularly when you point out that following ideology X(say, atheism) renders one uniquely immune to said fundamentalism.

Zealotry and fundamentalism appear to be in our DNA. Declaring that ANY ideology, system or plan renders a group immune to that zealotry has historically been exactly how each new form of zealotry and fundamentalism is founded and kicked off. The followers of Lenin and Mao all rallied around ideologies of socialism/marxism to justify their atrocities. In particular, the rallying belief that socialism would uniquely create a government that would protect the interests of the people. No organized religion required there, they even used a lot of anti-religious rhetoric too.

My simple point is people claiming that uniqueness for their ideology is EXACTLY the problem and it angers me to see so many flaunting it as the solution.

Oh don't worry about ching, He's just having a little temper tantrum, best thing you can do is ignore him so you don't encourage him.

Ok firstly for ChaosEngine, your paraphrased quote of statements which voiced a sentiment I have had since engaging in conversation with seekers about the existence of 'God or no God': The same mechanism of filtering the words you read through your own belief system is a time-honored technique of the most fundamentalist of back-assward Christians and theologians who read the words of the Bible and fit them conveniently into their limited world view filtered through a similar limited and linear, perception of existence.

(*edit-I now realize that you did not in fact, paraphrase my statement rather, bcglorf's , but the sentiment remains true)

My statement was (and yes Dannym3142, that was NOT supposed to be a question mark, edited with the appropriate period): "I have a legitimate beef with rabid supporters of any particular ideology or philosophy when the shit becomes tiresome and repetitious when tinctured with rage and anger and intolerance."

Your paraphrase of sentiment ChaosEngine, "evangelical atheists are as bad as fundamentalists," then followed by "bollocks" (bullshit), is indicative to me of the rage and anger I attributed to the average atheist's consternation with these 'stupid', 'backwards', 'hillbillies' etc.,(who are too dumb or dense to wrap their heads around the very idea that an omnipresent uni-being does not exist, yadda yadda yadda.) Further, the example used 'When was the last time atheists shot a young girl for wanting to go to school?' to justify your position is reminiscent of any Southern Baptist preacher using similar extreme examples of the human condition to support their own arguments for the infallibility of their 'god'. The words used connote a similar intolerance and ignorance of that which is wholly metagnostic or, 'the unknowable' and I regard the mechanism as the selfsame dynamic.

"So, sorry if I'm not going to sit down and STFU about it." Good. It means you are on the path to enlightenment and intend to continue to seek truths which satisfy the gnawing curiosity that ALL humans are frought with in our tenure here on Earth. Keep at it.

dannym3142: (sorry for the question mark, it confused me as well when reading it again) I used Crowley and Planck's observations as an exercise in tossing a non-linear curve-ball into the circle-jerk of those whose search for absolute truth and the nature of the universe, of matter/non-matter, seemingly ended when they decided that it's a no-brainer as to whether or not faith has a place in the argument for or against the existence of a supreme being. Faith can't be argued either, we all need it to perform the simplest of our daily monkey-tasks.

Yes-I was chastising VooDooV for the blanket of down-votes to my comments because I sense his rage and anger at my input on threads similar, and recognize in atheists the same robotic mechanism they accuse Christians of which litter blog after blog when God is mentioned, by the ever-incrasing rabid anti-god fan-boys who attack with guns blazing at the very mention of that which is unable to be understood when approaching it from linear patterns of thought. That, and I refuse ever-again be ganged-up on on this site by a few well-be-nots who have it out for me because they can't understand what the fuck I am trying to communicate. I let my guard down in the past and it cost me over a year in SIFTJAIL (to all you fucking wannabe cops here present and future, suck my balls!)

Your fight is not with God but with the exponentially-increasing non-linearity of the world we inhabit, and the chaotic desire to process the information coming into the grid with time-honored methods of argument. IMLTHO this doesn't work.

All the seemingly trollish statements I make on similar threads are made with a view to wrenching another way of thinking out of the stubborn adherents to any one pattern or direction of mental process.

It can't be argued that a realm of universes exist outside of our own limited perceptive apparatus and all argument ends there for myself for the sake of my own insanity.

Even the most religious person must surely see the irony in saying "Thank the Lord" when you're standing in miles of rubble while your neighbor is wailing that their spouse didn't make it.

Perhaps the clarity of my last defense will un-thicken yer skull a bit and shut-down the "waiting for a chance to fuck with me" robot-program??

Again, the "ignore' feature was made available here on the Videosift due in no small part to my infamous process of poking paper nests with sticks-Bzzzzzzzzzzzz! OW!

It's not so much that dangerous fundamentalist atheism is impossible. As you said, Stalin and Mao proved otherwise, although an argument could be made that their zealotry was politically based, but I digress.

It's more that even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?

Where was this 'clarity' in that 'defense'? Beyond the understandable defense of your punctuation mistake, I didn't see it.
Question...IMLTHO? Does this mean In My Lithium Taking Hilarious Opinion? I've honestly never seen this abbreviation before.
Interesting, so you do understand that YOU are the problem, so much that the sift had to invent an ignore 'button' largely to allow others to ignore you, you just insist on being the problem and forcing the community to 'gang up on poor little you' so you can whine about the unfairness of life and other people? Why? Has no one ever told you that 'poor little bully' isn't a good look?
Wait a second...I thought you were the 'waiting for a chance to fuck with others' robot program...is that why you're mad, someone else is appearing to infringe on your domain?

Might I remind you of a previous chat we had....

newtboy said : ...Or perhaps (and this seems the most likely) you're a feckless and feculent fecal philiac in love with reading your own sophomoric posts.

chingalera said :Guilty an all charges Von Astute and might I add, how refreshing your critique of my lack of forethought when responding to regular fare here....



Newts don't buzz or attack, but we are deadly when bitten. ;-}

I've followed long rabbit warrens before on this, so let's start with definitions:
I am arguing from the definition of the following:
Atheist as the belief that there is NOT a God or Gods.
Agnostic as the belief that one does not, or can not know if there are or are not God(s).

From those definitions, non-theist religions would be completely compatible for an Atheist to be party to. If we already are in disagreement then hurray, we likely agree and it's just semantics.

From the above definitions though, my problem arises with claims that any particular belief or non-belief is far more 'special' than the others and it alone provides great benefit X to society. Those kind of bold proclamations have historically always led to fanatical behaviors and tragedy.

I don't recognize Atheism as being linked one way or another to forcing ones beliefs onto others. Plenty of theist religions claim strong prohibitions against forcing their beliefs on others. Atheism though, as you say, is merely a non-belief in God(s) and so said people can equally support or oppose forcing said belief on others. What might that look like? Well, North Korea perhaps if one must request the most extreme of examples. From strict definitions, I'm pretty sure it is accurate to describe the <ahem>Great<ahem> Leader(s) as atheists who have whole heartedly embraced forcing their own beliefs on their people at threat of death or worse. One can rest assured no North Korean is able to publicly be found out with the belief that some being exists that is greater than the Great Leader without grave repercussions.

Newt, I'm not responsible for your emotional state-Who's the bully, really. "In My Less Than Humble Opinion," it is yourself and those like you. I will always tire of atheists popping their spittle on this site because there is no point-There are perhaps two representatives of the type of Christians y'all hate the most and they've slinked-off into a corner after being mauled by faithless, hind-brained fanatics.

I see no real difference in either camp.

I never claimed you were responsible for my emotional state, nor did I even comment on it...it's you who's whining that the sift is ganging up on you (for bullying others with ranting diatribes I might add). Once again you've set up a straw man to deflect from your own argument's inadequacies. When you've taken the time to read and understand my positions, you've often come to agree with me and also agreed that it's YOU that caused the upset on both sides by (in your words) 'going off cocked' after making huge leaps of logic and assumption to find something to rail against angrily. You also admit that you post with a design to upset, often not believing what you write (devils advocacy) but writing it simply to get a reaction, all so you can deride the responder with walls of pre-pubescent quasi-intellectual text.
So, you tire of atheists because they have repeatedly made their point?...then how do you think the sift feels about you and your position 'everyone and everything sucks slimy donkey balls but me and the little that I find proper' that you spout in your 'schoolgirl with a thesaurus' manner numerous times daily? Then why do you lurk here on a site where a large vocal atheist contingent resides? Then why do you fill the comment section of posts about atheists with your angry post walls knowing it will garner response? I'm beginning to feel it's because negative attention is better than none, and that's all you can seem to get from others.
I must commend you on writing in a 'normal' fashion in your last post, it was the most intelligible post of yours I can recall, and a refreshing change.
...and I think you are incorrect that the religious have slunk into a corner here on the sift, I see them here near daily spouting intolerance and derision or claiming superiority, it's true though, they often get shut down quickly.
If calling you out on your behavior that you yourself has admitted is improper and designed to inflame and anger is bullying, I'm a bully. Sure.

when did VS get so bitchy?

FTFY

Can't we all just get along?

Choggie works hard to bring that about. I'm feeling like he's headed for another crash and burn.

Can't say I'll miss him any more than I did the last time. The boy's got no self-control and appears to lack any sense of courtesy.

I think it's ridiculous that she finds it necessary to build a separate infrastructure for community aid, when there are several that already exist. So she would rather build a new one than work with religious organizations? Now who's being judgmental?

You will typically find it easier to get a Marxist to work with a Capitalist before getting an Atheist to work with a Theist.

The bitchiness usually is just lurking out of sight, but tends to bubble to the surface especially in "atheism vs religion" and also "cops behaving badly" videos. Some people on the Sift have very strong opinions when it comes to those topics and can't refrain from sarcastically slamming others with different points of view.

For example, if you watch a video of cops potentially behaving badly and don't agree the cops were entirely in the wrong invariably there will be someone on the Sift to accuse you of being a statist or in denail about <insert country name of choice> having become a fascist police state.

Of course, I'll take VS comments over YouTube comments any day of the week. Most people here at least try to be civil even when they're being sarcastic.

I heard that gays would suck a dick for a headline.

@SDGundamX Excellent point and personally guilty on both subjects of discourse, as I have hit numerous brick-walls and spent way too much time in my lifetime arguing semantics with both the police (who will never change) and in the realms of religion vs atheism, an equally as banal and dead-end exercise.

Oh and newt? Fuck a thesaurus and your assumptions-I have a larger vocabulary that most volumes will hold wielded like a coach gun with a hair trigger. Fuck yours and y'alls, didactic adherence to unlikely plausibles. Logic be damned, befaced as we are with the exponential rate of changes coming down the pike. Riiiight. You live in a world whose boundaries reside in logic, intelligence, reason and order. The illusion being, you haven't a clue and none of us do.

Everything we believe true is wrong, a healthy mantra.

In the realm of civility? Civility begets the same with me, uncompromising unshakeable, late-stage, hydrophobic atheists haven't discovered what that means yet.

Had to share this one on FB: "...even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?" ...because I enjoyed it that much. Thanks C.

...hmmmmm...what *ism is self worship?

Narcissus of Thespia.

Did you hear about the the evangelical atheist? She went door to door with a book full of blank pages.

"If God's ways are mysterious, then don't tell me about the plan. Live with the mystery. It's upsetting, it's scary, it's painful, it's deep, it's rich, and it's interesting; but no plan. That's what mystery is. It's all of those things.

You want plan? Then tell me about plan. But if you're going to tell me about how the plan saved you, you'd better also be able to explain how the plan killed them. And the test of that has nothing to do with saying it in your synagogue or your church. The test of that has to do with going and saying it to the person who just buried someone and look in their eyes and tell them, "God's plan was to blow your loved one apart." Look at them and tell them that God's plan was that their children should go to bed every night for the rest of their lives without a parent. If you can say that, well, at least you're honest. I don't worship the same God. But that at least has integrity. "

--Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on those who say God saved them on 9/11.

So getting back on point, I finally got around to watching the whole video.

And I was kinda shocked. Is it really that big of a deal to be an atheist in Oklahoma? She acts like she's admitting to marrying her brother or something....

(disclaimer: atheist)

The whole video makes me sad:
- That CNN did this drive-by-outing, putting this woman's life in more turmoil than literally (correct use for once) a tornado ever could. Yeah, she says she is happy it happened but still.
- That she speaks of coming outing as atheist without seemingly any irony.
- Also: That despite her involvement with these secular organizations and doug stanhope's tip, her descriptions show that when it comes to helping other people religious groups have got it together and us non-believers are mostly just talk :-(

@chingalera ... so you're downvoting legitimate questions now? Not that I expected a coherent response from you anyway....

This makes so much sense. Why would you thank someone who spared you but murdered all the people around you? He should be chastised for killing all the others instead of thanked for saving you.

Bah humbug.

How dare you question gods plan? He works in mysterious ways!

We're all just his children, and as such, should unquestioningly accept that He Knows Best.

This is the actual language used by theists. Even the more rational ones will continually invoke the idea that if a creator exists, we're bacteria or even "clay" compared to him.

He gave you free will and the ability to reason, but you better not use either of them to question his works.