This is one of those times that I disagree with Dawkins. I admire what he does but I dont think atheism is one of those things that anyone can just accept. Besides, it seems kind of wrong to go out and recruit atheists. Without some scientific or philosophical backing to it atheism doesnt sound as attractive to the average person as supernatural belief. Most people in this world are stupid and are not possible of understanding even some of the basic scientific explanations for how our world works. This leaves them only to accept blind faith, usually the common beliefs of their own community.
People could always be raised as atheists but i think that could just create more problems than it would solve. The only thing to try for is a second Enlightenment.

It is a huge problem recruting Atheists due to most people stupidity and blind faith.
We have seen over and over that the American public doesnt like to think for themselves and thats all Atheisim offers.
It is not EASY being an Athiest, it makes the world harder and makes you more responcable for your own actions.
To me being an Athiest HAS made this life more special because i cant depend on anything after i die.
This is how i prefere life.
What problems would a larger group of athiest present?

the thing is at its core the same problems aply to an iratoinal atheist as thay do to an iratoinal religoise person.

all you realy need to do is promote ratoinal resoning and understanding and teach that faith is a bad thing. manny poeople still percive faith as a good thing when in realty its a terable thing.
atheists and agnosticks are still capable of unfounded faith in things.

LOL @13:05

Another great TED video is Dan Dennet's take on evolution and more. Find it here: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/94 (I don't know how to upload on videosift, so I'll leave it to you).

westy, pleez tel me yuo spel lik taht on perpus

Seriously. Are you a non-native English speaker and just trying to be nice by writing in English.

Ryjkyj's wife says: If you believe that faith is based completely on a person's lack of intelligence you greatly underestimate the necessity for spirituality in the balance of a humans mind. Faith is not necessarily rooted in a belief in God but it is important for human beings to look outside of themselves even if it is to embrace nature and science. If a person cannot look to or depend on spirituality they become a victim of their own ego, and fall into narcissism. Human beings cannot control the world around them and by virtue of that fact alone spirituality in all their forms may be for the betterment and enhancement of everyone. Faith in God or faith in science (and no matter what the majority opinion they are NOT mutually exclusive, nowhere in the bible is evolution refuted absolutely,it is the distortion of common christian extremeists that has mainstreamed that idea) are equally and totally beneficial no matter your intelligence. Using the word "stupid" to describe another humans belief system or spirituality is not only closeminded but absolutely untrue.

So no idea is stupid, and should even be given credit in inverse proportion to its factuality. Anybody that uses such flawed tools as evidence or reason will inevitably become some kind of maladjusted pervert; truth and understanding are at best worthless, if not damaging; we should all abandon ourselves to fatalism, lobotomise ourselves and search for meaning only in our own private constructions of reality.

Presumably your wife's idea of a perfect world is everyone blind, deaf and paralysed, rotting in a pool of their own excrement, desperately trying to fantasize themselves happy. I think there's a better way.

"Ryjkyj's wife says: If you believe that faith is based completely on a person's lack of intelligence" "

Dont think he said that. In any case the point here is not whether religion is wrong or if it makes you less intelligent and certainly not whether faith in the more general meaning is wrong (it is never even mentioned as such). Faith is a human trademark, both for atheist and theists and is not bound to religion.
His cause is based on his fear that the US, a leading power in this world, is ruled by religious extremist, lobby groups and fanatics. That is a dangerous combination and one Dawkins feels needs to be put down or it might aversely effect this world. It is certainly effecting atheist living in the US already and Islamic people all over the world.

Considering the mounting evidence, Dawkins has a point. I dont agree with his attack on religion but starting a lobby group to fight for the rights of non religious factions in the US is not a bad idea. It seems atheists in the US have a serious PR problem.

Many people in the rest of the world are worried at the developments in the US in general. From the outside, it is starting to look like a country filled with sheep with righteous morals. And with A-bombs. I believe it is in the interest of everyone to keep those people with red buttons away from religion. I would hate to think someone who believes there is a better next life can ruin my current one. If Dawkins can achieve that, he will get every up vote I can give.

"atheists and agnosticks (sic) are still capable of unfounded faith in things."

True, although things much more visceral than God, magic, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, imho.

Like Dennett said, theists are constantly adjusting their tenets/beliefs/dogma as science and common sense gain ground (my words, but that was the idea he expressed). I'm sick of it. Always trying to make god fit into whatever science has shown to be truth. Hovind is a perfect example, and if you've never watched one of his videos, I highly recommend it if you want to see what I'm talking about. Recommended for the comedy alone, but also for insight into what people are willing to believe rather than face the fact that this is all there is.

BTW, Ryjkyj's wife, if YOU need some sort of spiritual foundation to get through the day, fine. If you need to believe the Grand Canyon was the result of a big flood, feel free. Don't assume the rest of us are so needful. If you believe in the bible, then evolution IS refuted absolutely. God hates gays too, so don't try to wiggle out of that one either. You can't have it both ways, and if you ARE going to pick and choose which tenets to embrace and which tenets to alter/manufacture/modernize, you may as well start your own goddamned religion.

Now, there is a very good chance we just have different definitions of spirituality. My spirituality encompasses my moral beliefs (probably no different than yours). It includes introspection, "faith" in others, the way I feel when I can see all of Oregon from the top of South Sister, and even though I don't believe in Karma, I tend to accept when something bad happens to me as I know I probably "had it coming". :-) I believe in the Golden Rule, but I often break it. My spiritual side knows when that happens and tries to make amends (sometimes). God doesn't tell me to do so, nor do I need God to feel bad or guilty about not doing so.

Oy... don't mix Vicodin and Bailey's.

What was I saying?

Never mind.

My problem is with this grouping of atheists together. Disbelief in a creator is all we share. Aside from that we have as much necessarily in common as everyone who doesn't believe in Zeus.

My problem is with this grouping of atheists together. Disbelief in a creator is all we share. Aside from that we have as much necessarily in common as everyone who doesn't believe in Zeus.

Someone once compared it to herding cats. So yeah, it is hard, but I'd say we do have more in common, like sincere trust in evidence over well.. lack of evidence. Its a very consistent way of looking at things... yeah, we may disagree on political issues etc, but the common thing is that we can trust each other in the sense that we used common sense to get there.. If you think the taxes should go up, for example, you think so because there are real grounds for believing it, and not simply because you interpreted the bible differently from me..

I still don't understand why you'd want to recruit atheists? I thought the whole point of atheism was that you don't advocate a system of belief? More atheists have tried to convert me in the past year than fundies have tried to "save" me. Why is that?

I didn't bother watching the whole thing, as really, it is preaching to to converted with me.

Still upvote as the word needs to get out there and what I watched of it made great points.

I'm not sure that what is being advocated is the recruitment of atheists. Rather, Dawkins is commenting on the necessity of politically activating already confirmed atheists. They make up a large part of the segment and yet have no real representation within the national government.

The stigma attached to declaring yourself an atheist is so great that many people who don't believe in a personal god are not willing to publicly declare it. I think Dawkins is right in drawing parallels to the coming-out movement of LGBTs. It has never been their goal to "recruit" people to their way of thinking, but rather to create an environment where those people could securely express their feelings by knowing that there existed a community to back them in their decision.

Also, there is a fundamental difference between a fundy trying to "save" you and an atheist trying to "convert" you. The religious are trying to make you accept an unprovable entity in the gamble that if there is some afterlife you will have chosen the right god. However, the atheists are trying to convince you that belief in something unknowable is ridiculous. One appeals to fear and emotion, the other reason and logic. Saying that an atheist is trying to convert you is like saying your physics teacher is trying to brainwash you by teaching you the laws of gravity.

yay, it was published, Thanks postmortem!
I couldn't post it because I uploaded it to Google Video.

"yay, it was published, Thanks postmortem!

No, No, Thank YOU!!!

karaidl, that's just how Westy writes, he's not an idiot though. He's one of the many colourful characters on Sift

OK, my pleasure

... I don't enjoy being labeled 'atheist'.

There are good reasons why its 'like herding cats' to get atheists organized towards something. One for me is that I don't typically define myself by what I'm not, and 'atheist' basically just means 'not-religious' to my ear, which sounds like I'm either anti-religious or a non-spiritual, non-conformist, anti-social robot from the future... WHICH I AM!

Yes I suppose the one thing we all have in common is our actions and thoughts are not fueled by an imaginary overlord or zombie jesus. Still, there are plenty of moronic atheists with whom I do not wish to be grouped.

And I still think Westy spells that way on purpose.

I think that any atheist movement to gather into a large collective would eventually result in that dispersion of that collective into smaller factions with slightly differing modus operandi and theories... Sounds an awful lot like religion.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, creationism, id, religion, darwin' to 'evolution, creationism, id, religion, darwin, TED, TED talks' - edited by jonny

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, creationism, id, religion, darwin, TED, TED talks' to 'evolution, creationism, id, religion, darwin, TED, TED talks, marginalization, atheist' - edited by jwray

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, creationism, id, religion, darwin, TED, TED talks, marginalization, atheist' to 'evolution, creationism, id, religion, darwin, TED, political, marginalization, atheist' - edited by jwray

*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 chicchorea.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*findthumb

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.