Same guy from http://www.videosift.com/video/ATHEIST-Do-you-believe-in, I believe. Excellent stuff. *quality.

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

The one true God is the imaginary pink unicorn in the sky. Suck it up, atheists!

They didn't even mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I'm offended!

^ I used to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now I'm trying to get more followers for my Swimming Macaroni Critter spin-off faith. In a few centuries we'll see who rules the world!

>> ^demon_ix:
^ I used to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now I'm trying to get more followers for my Swimming Macaroni Critter spin-off faith. In a few centuries we'll see who rules the world!


You're just copying my Trotting Pasta Demon religion, formerly known as the Limping Alphabetti Fiend association

Atheists make Santa cry.

Atheism, the new bigots...

I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.

In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others. This is how Aquinas used similar arguments in the 13th century, and it's how theistic thinkers deploy them today. They are only intended to weaken the atheist position generally. NonStampCollector doesn't even attempt to address them on this level.

In the second place, it's asinine to assume that every religion is the same--either with regard to how well they are supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, or how much or little they incline their followers to religious violence. As it happens, the Hindu has a much better case than the Christian or Muslim for saying that these arguments support his religion. Brahma, unlike the God of Abraham, does not have a seemingly petty concern with particular tribes of humans or become angry or feel wronged because of sin. Brahma is described as illimitable, all-embracing. Brahma is a more cosmic God, better supported by the discovery of the age and vast distances of the universe.

Other Gods or divine realities so supported include Plato's Form of the Good, the Logos of the Stoics, the God of Leibniz or Spinoza, and even the God of A. N. Whitehead (co-author of the Principia Mathematica with acclaimed atheist Bertrand Russel) and Charles Hartshorne.

Tendencies toward violence differ considerably between religions. The Hindu and the worshiper of Amun have no reason to get into a fight about religion. Hinduism is not a single religion, but thousands of intertwined religions which have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. A plurality of religious beliefs and practices--including atheism--has long been not fought by Hindus, but embraced. Only when aggressive evangelistic monotheisms actively attack Hinduism does anything like an instinct to violence come into play--and even then it tends to arise mainly in extreme circumstances. (As in Orissa in 2008, when the assassination of a Hindu leader by Christian Maoist extremists sparked a riot and violence by members of both religions, or the year before, in 20007, when Christians deliberately provoked Hindus by .) Likewise, there is no reason anyone would go to war over Amun. It would not be appropriate to describe the religions of Egypt as tolerant--the word implies a perception of annoyance or burden in allowing others to co-exist, when co-existence was assumed as a daily fact of life. In fact, the priests of Amun welcomed Zeus-worshiping Greeks to the oracle of Amun at Siwa, which once declared Alexander the Great to be the son of Amun.

But, of course, NonStampCollector doesn't actually know any of this. He just assumes, like nearly all the New Atheists, that all the other religions in the world are more or less just like the ones he's most familiar with. Makes it easier that way; you don't have to do as much studying or thinking.

>> ^HadouKen24:
I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.
In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others.

Actually, it does not necessarily support religion over non-religion either.

Lets suppose the "fine-tuning" argument actually has merit, rather than big bang start of our universe being a lone successful outcome after a trillion unsuccessful big bang attempts that happened before. If we dispense that likely possibility, then the best argument we can make for a creator is that there is an intelligence at work in the universe.

To get from an intelligence in the universe all the way to a God requires an incredibly selfish delusion that we humans are unique in the universe, and that the sole purpose of the intelligent creation of the universe was to create us. Without this big non-sequitir of an argument in the chain, an intelligence capable of adjusting the laws of physics to its design is so foreign to human experience, it is far more likely that this intelligence has no human qualities at all. Therefore, it is impossible to claim that this "intelligence" cares one iota about humanity, nor does it look out for our well being, nor hear our answer prayers, and certainly does not dictate scripture. It may as well not even exist!

Boring,lasted 1:27

God, (not as an in a great infallible being that is neither here nor there but rather everywhere at the same time, but rather as a... fuck it, you know how I meant it) I'm getting tired of this. Both atheists and theists are WRONG. (In my humble opinion.) And not only that, the whole core argument in this clip is wrong. Yes, theists have a "tendency" to be bottomliners, but take an actual gander at the atheists and you'll see that they clearly function the same way, because no ideology is ever rational - rationality is the great adversary of ideology. It is of course illogical to assume that there is a God since there is actually no acceptable evidence of there being such a being. On the other hand, it is completely wrong to assume that there is no God since - guess what - there's no acceptable evidence of there NOT being such a being. Take Dawkins for example. He's a great biologist, only accepting meticulously tested data, but when you get him started on religion, all scientific theory gets thrown out the window. He cites incongruent scripture, he mockingly points at specific people and he uses these pieces of "evidence" to angrily exclaim that there is no God. The Bible, for example, has changed wildly over the years. It is commonly agreed that it isn't trustworthy, so for an actual scientist to use it in a refutation of Christianity is attrocious, far more disgusting than any bottomlining theist claiming that the Big Bang is rational proof of God
Science, (real, actual falsificative and investigative science) on the other hand, points to religion being much like an organ, necessary for a society where people are becoming conscious to function, and I think it's silly to assume that religion can just be "removed,", it is firmly lodged in what makes us human. It's part of a healthy neurosis. Religion doesn't have to take the form of some kind of deity-worship, it's simply culture, and without culture we aren't human.

M'eh - nothing new here. This is just another in a long line of athesistic oriented strawman arguments. Personally cherry picking your opponent's point of view for them so you can knock them down is the laziest, most simplistic of methods. Yawn.

The reality is that atheists really kind of miss the whole point in the argument. I'm going to help all you atheists out for a second here. Accept or reject the assistance as you will...

The main problem with the atheistic argument is that they misplace their conclusions. The many 'problems' that atheists cite tend to be the foibles, mistakes, and misapplications of PEOPLE. And yet, athiests say that these problems mean that GOD does not exist. This is misplaced blame. Merely because followers make mistakes, misunderstand things, or are imperfect practicioners of their religions does not logically conclude that God does not exist, or that he is 'making' these people so screwy.

Most religions are more than willing to conceed that they are not perfect. The central tenant of many religions is that men are flawed and must follow after the higher ideals that 'God' represents (however clumsy the attempt).

So ultimately, videos like this are silly. They take the mistakes, weaknesses, and extreme examples of error that are inherent to 'people' and try to make the case that 'God' is wrong/bad/non-existent. They knock at religion in general, but offer no superior moral system to replace it. Real religion is the effort to improve the self. No atheist argument is going to be able to halt that effort.

Even though I am an atheist, I don't think this video makes a compelling demonstration of of religious apologists and the actual arguments they make. While the prime mover argument is made over and over, this is used to argue for the existence of a god. Generally, they go farther before they get to proving that their particular god is the one "proven."

To Winstonfield_Pennypacker: You said, "Real religion is the effort to improve the self." This sounds like the road to a No True Scotsman logical falacy. If I were cite Southern Baptist Christianity as an example of a religion that does not meet your criteria, would you claim this is not a real religion?

No - I would say that it is one of many thousands of religions which is filled with imperfect people who in thier own way are seeking after self-improvement and enlightenment. Religions are temporal organizations that imperfectly attempt to represent God's perfect truth. Each specific religion has good points and bad points - and the 'bad points' are generally more intrinsic to the imperfect people within the religion than the religion itself.

In the end, neither you nor I are qualified judges of what is in the hearts & minds of the practicioners of the Southern Baptist faith. You may choose to fixate on the specific tenents that you feel stifle or promote proper growth. You might also fixate on the errors and foibles of individual members (who may or may not be adhereing to proper tenants). But in the end it cannot be argued that it is nothing more than a bunch of like-minded persons who have come together in an effort to seek after something deeper and higher than themselves.

should be in *downunder, too, but I guess channels are maxed out.

Adding video to channels (Downunder) - requested by maatc.

Wicked!
So maximum is 8 channels now?

>> ^Psychologic:
Atheists make Santa cry.


Atheists make Satan cry.

I'd like to hear from an Atheist the qualms they might have with the Buddhist religion/philosophy.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^demon_ix:
^ I used to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now I'm trying to get more followers for my Swimming Macaroni Critter spin-off faith. In a few centuries we'll see who rules the world!

You're just copying my Trotting Pasta Demon religion, formerly known as the Limping Alphabetti Fiend association


The eternal ravioli void slime will CONSUME YOU ALL!!!

>> ^EndAll:
I'd like to hear from an Atheist the qualms they might have with the Buddhist religion/philosophy.


Not that I would become a practicing Buddhist, but I have no qualms with the Buddhist Philosophy as a whole. I find a lot of Buddhist teachings to be worth reading. I also understand the benefits of meditation. From a pragmatical viewpoint Buddhist philosophy has much in common with many Atheist/Humanist philosophies.

I do have qualms with the Buddhist religion. I am not an expert on the religion by any means of course, but from an outsiders perspective I see many Buddhist temples, statuary and relics covered in gold, and it makes me wonder. Then I see how many Buddhist dominated cultures are also male dominated cultures, treating women as second class citizens and it makes me wonder some more.