*quality

I love how stupid the girl in pink sounds. Also "Fair and Balanced" means 3v1 + the anchor taking a side.

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

Truly a man of balls.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Guy really should have attacked the "eyewitness" evidence that one so-called "doctor" gave about the existence of jesus's resurrection.

There are three things I would attack if I were trying to de-bunk Christianity and it wouldn't involve stupid billboards

1. This so-called Christian science. No such thing. People need to be educated (or re-educated) on what science is. I'm not talking about what the people in the labcoats do, I'm talking about the basics of scientific thought. Making observations and performing experiments and peer review and how/why it works and show that Christian science couldn't be further from that.

2. The so-called monopoly Christians have on morality. We hear that all the time, if you're not christian, then obviously you're not moral. There needs to be a concerted effort to show what morality is and isn't and that morality often derives from reason, not faith.

3. Show that Atheists really aren't on the attack like the Christians would like you to believe. Christianity is always pretending that it's being victimized and oppressed and it simply isn't true. That needs to be exposed.

He did a great job not losing his cool during all that.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, July 17th, 2011 7:59am PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

>> ^VoodooV:

3. Show that Atheists really aren't on the attack like the Christians would like you to believe. Christianity is always pretending that it's being victimized and oppressed and it simply isn't true. That needs to be exposed.

Christianity has benefited from martyrdom for so long, it appears they simply cannot conceive of any other approach to an issue. Except those where they simply refuse to accept anything resembling facts, of course.

"Myth" isn't supposed to imply falsehood. A myth is a story which is passed on, often by word of mouth or writing, that has no determinable factual basis.

I really like how everyone in the video was courteous and respectful, even if they weren't making great arguments.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

"Myth" isn't supposed to imply falsehood. A myth is a story which is passed on, often by word of mouth or writing, that has no determinable factual basis.
I really like how everyone in the video was courteous and respectful, even if they weren't making great arguments.


Respectful, eh? They wouldn't last long -here-, would they? LOL

Can't...handle...the stupidity.....head......asploding!

lol +1 for the non attacking attacker. personally i find atheists twice as tedious as christians. At least christans are getting wound up by their own delusions.

>> ^VoodooV:

Guy really should have attacked the "eyewitness" evidence that one so-called "doctor" gave about the existence of jesus's resurrection.
There are three things I would attack if I were trying to de-bunk Christianity and it wouldn't involve stupid billboards
1. This so-called Christian science. No such thing. People need to be educated (or re-educated) on what science is. I'm not talking about what the people in the labcoats do, I'm talking about the basics of scientific thought. Making observations and performing experiments and peer review and how/why it works and show that Christian science couldn't be further from that.
2. The so-called monopoly Christians have on morality. We hear that all the time, if you're not christian, then obviously you're not moral. There needs to be a concerted effort to show what morality is and isn't and that morality often derives from reason, not faith.
3. Show that Atheists really aren't on the attack like the Christians would like you to believe. Christianity is always pretending that it's being victimized and oppressed and it simply isn't true. That needs to be exposed.
He did a great job not losing his cool during all that.

I'm offended by his billboard and Christian billboards.

With that said, I have enough brains to ignore ALL of them.

for those who might be offended:

Wow he handled that amazingly well. Instead of so much Zeus and mythology though, I would have loved to see him stay in the present and ask those same questions about Allah or Vishnu...

LOL!

For the record, I don't want to outlaw either's ability to put up their divisive billboards. I get offended by anyone jamming their religious/atheist beliefs down my throat, so I just ignore them.

>> ^hpqp:

for those who might be offended:
<div id="widget_720898750"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=181913&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script></div>

They continually fail to produce evidence when it is called for. Pathetic.

He uses Zeus (and other older myths) because it is the least offensive mythology to show sympathy towards. If he used Islam then he'd just be labelled a terrorist sympathiser. This is not his first rodeo.>> ^PoweredBySoy:

Wow he handled that amazingly well. Instead of so much Zeus and mythology though, I would have loved to see him stay in the present and ask those same questions about Allah or Vishnu...

>> ^MrFisk:

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.


I just threw up in your mouth too!

My emotional response to nearly everything said within this video is most aptly conveyed by this clip.

But upvote for civility. I wish they had gone more into the separation of church and state because that's what the real issue that the billboard (and those who would demand it be taken down) raises.

if there is no God there must not be hell
if someone tells you that you are an atheist and you will burn in the hell which you don't believe !
why would you take that offensive ?
make no sense at all

Some may find it offensive to have a bunch of xtian a-holes revelling in the thought that they (the atheists) will be tortured for eternity.
>> ^canadianboy:

if there is no God there must not be hell
if someone tells you that you are an atheist and you will burn in the hell which you don't believe !
why would you take that offensive ?
make no sense at all

I love @3:01 where news guy gives the C.S. Lewis quote "If Jesus [didn't do stuff] we have an even larger conundrum: The conversion of the whole world by a myth." and Mr. Silverman nods his head vociferously as if to say, "Yes, that is precisely what happened."

And yes, I agree with the sentiment that, overall, the civility of this discussion is grand.

Because it's the thought that counts.
>> ^canadianboy:

if there is no God there must not be hell
if someone tells you that you are an atheist and you will burn in the hell which you don't believe !
why would you take that offensive ?
make no sense at all

i just had this crazy idea: why dont we all stop putting up these damn billboards, atheists and christians alike?

"your belief that there is no god, is a belief about god that you cannot prove or disprove ... what is your proof that if there is a god that he would leave you empirical proof of his existence/what would be sufficient proof?"

"my question to you to answer your first question is would you be sure there is no santa claus, are you sure there's no zeus"

while thats a fair question to ask, you still didnt answer her question. And turning that question around and asking them what would be sufficient proof to believe in zeus. still. doesnt. answer. the. question. its just beating around the bush. its dodging. its misdirection.

kind of reminds me of the whose line is it anyway sketch where they have conversations made entirely of questions

The Stupid - It Hurts!

*koalaty comment

>> ^JiggaJonson:

quality
I love how stupid the girl in pink sounds. Also "Fair and Balanced" means 3v1 + the anchor taking a side.

"there is not one death and resurrection deity before christ"
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
i am sorry sir,your inability to know your own religious history negates you from participating in any further discussion pertaining to religious history.
the pantheon of death and resurrection deities BEFORE christ is legion.

and this man is representing a seminary?../facepalm

>> ^smooman:

"your belief that there is no god, is a belief about god that you cannot prove or disprove ... what is your proof that if there is a god that he would leave you empirical proof of his existence/what would be sufficient proof?"
"my question to you to answer your first question is would you be sure there is no santa claus, are you sure there's no zeus"
while thats a fair question to ask, you still didnt answer her question. And turning that question around and asking them what would be sufficient proof to believe in zeus. still. doesnt. answer. the. question. its just beating around the bush. its dodging. its misdirection.
kind of reminds me of the whose line is it anyway sketch where they have conversations made entirely of questions


thats not dodging.
the question itself is a false equivalent.
what the man was trying to convey is the fact that these people believe in their religion.the thought of believing in zeus is silly to them,yet they believe in their religion as being true.
he is trying to illuminate the circular logic and these people just do not get it because they are people of faith but ONLY of one faith,to believe in zeus,thor or wodin is ridiculous.

He's not avoiding anything. The common direct answer to that question from an atheist would be, "I would need empirical evidence, and God would become a scientific fact. Any reasonable people, such as yourselves, would be able to determine individually that he's real, and there would be no controversy." Done. But then they'd continue with something like, "Give us one example of something you would accept as empirical evidence of God's existence." And on it would go until he'd satisfied their question completely. Then they'd counter with the, "Belief in God doesn't require direct evidence, and the lack of it doesn't disprove his existence." trope.

Why does this happen? The question wasn't posed because anybody on that panel cares what would change Mr. Silverman's mind. It was posed to show the audience that he is a determined God hater due to his own faith, and nothing to do with a lack of evidence at all. In other words, the question is a rhetorical one that says the common atheist answer of "evidence" is a dodge to avoid admitting that they're just as faithful. Silverman's tactic, instead of wasting all that time arriving nowhere, is to put all religious people watching in his shoes. The point is that if you, personally, have ample reason to believe that something is purely a myth (Zeus, Santa Claus, God), then asking what it would take for you to believe the myth is true is a nonsensical question.

Like someone earlier in the thread already pointed out, this is not his first rodeo.>> ^smooman:

"your belief that there is no god, is a belief about god that you cannot prove or disprove ... what is your proof that if there is a god that he would leave you empirical proof of his existence/what would be sufficient proof?"
"my question to you to answer your first question is would you be sure there is no santa claus, are you sure there's no zeus"
while thats a fair question to ask, you still didnt answer her question. And turning that question around and asking them what would be sufficient proof to believe in zeus. still. doesnt. answer. the. question. its just beating around the bush. its dodging. its misdirection.
kind of reminds me of the whose line is it anyway sketch where they have conversations made entirely of questions

This is why we need Christopher Hitchens. He would have destroyed their childish premise with one or two cruise missile sentences.

>> ^A10anis:

This is why we need Christopher Hitchens. He would have destroyed their childish premise with one or two cruise missile sentences.


I hate to say it, but I disagree. As much as I love Hitchens. You can't convince mouthbreathers to use reason instead of faith when it's coming from someone like Hitchens. From their point of view, he is everything they hate, the "condescending college boy who uses big words and thinks you're dumb" stereotype is misused a lot but it's still an effective method of generating hate and distrust.

Hitchens is the perfect example, IMO, of someone who only convinces people who are already convinced. Just like all the people on the other side who will reaffirm the beliefs of people who already believe in god, but will never convince a single atheist that there is a god.

This is the question that needs to be answered: How do you take someone who has believed in god all their lives and slowly convince them that god has no place in gov't. People have a right to believe whatever they want so I don't really care about what religious people do on their own time, the central argument is to remove their influence from gov't and public education. That's all.

I don't think we need...or want..people who can be easily pigeonholed into that stereotype of someone who just wants revenge on Christianity. I think Silverman did a great job of not being confrontational, respectfully disagreeing and keeping his cool throughout the whole ordeal.

Atheism has a serious PR problem that needs to be corrected and billboards won't fix it. Making lawsuits claiming kids are traumatized by the Pledge of Allegiance won't do it. They need to pick their battles better and represent themselves far better than they are currently doing

So it's "Dr." MacFarland, right?...

Why would you try to make people not believe in God?!?! Why not make little children not believe in the tooth fairy?! I would have said,"Woman, because God is the mother fucking tooth fairy."

I love how in the end he's comparing the Christian God to Zeus and saying that if you went back in time you'd have people saying the same thing about Zeus as they do about God today and they all emphatically disagree, but at the same time the look on all their faces says 'I've never thought of it that way, that Zeus was the God to people in ancient times and our God is the same to us' lol. But isn't that typical with Christians? They all live in this tiny little box where everyone completely agrees, and the vast majority of them have 'never' thought outside that box. When they are confronted with facts such as the Jesus story is extremely similar and mirrors that of other head gods in a myriad other religions going back thousands of years before Jesus Christ himself, they clearly falter.

I find in my own personal experience that it is very rare that I have ever met a 'very' religious Christian who actually had thought about these things, had thought about things outside their own indoctrination and still have faith. In fact the one and only person I've met who actually asked those questions had a stronger faith because of them. I said at the time more power to him. But for me, Jesus is a myth and thats the end of the story.

Edit: Had to add, the guy who talked about all the historical and scientific evidence that Jesus was real is full of this. The earliest writings we have (about 50 years after his supposed death) speak of him as a spirit, not a living man. And there is absolutely no actual scientific evidence beyond biblical writings that the man ever existed in the first place, and modern biblical writings are about as far from 'fact' as one can get.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.