- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Dec 11
&feature=channel_video_title
This is a video of a talk (appx 48mins long) from the recent Skepticon IV conference the video's
from which I have been slowly and steadily watching as time allows as I wasn't able to go (sadness).
The title of this talk is the same as this threads title, and is dealing with the titular question which Atheists get asked allot,
including on this forum. (and also covers other things like what we might be doing on a spirituality forum arguing with theists,
which we also get asked allot, and I just did get asked)
Now I could type out a big long OP on the subject, but I am not sure I could do justice to the 48 minute talk
given at the conference by a prominent atheist blogger. And if I did I would land up with an OP that consisted of an intimidating
Wall-Of-Text that nobody would read.
I appreciate that not everyone has the bandwidth or time or inclination to watch a 48min video so I respectfully ask that...
If you don't want to [or can't] take the time to watch the video, or are not interested in this, then please feel free to ignore this thread.
However if you are prepared and/or able to watch this great explanation of why atheists (not all but many, we are a diverse group)
are angry, and what about, then this thread is open to discuss any issues or arguments you want to make having watched the video.
Note: For reference here, Atheist is simply defined as someone who doesn't have a belief in the supernatural or god or gods.
This includes people typically described as Agnostics (almost all Atheists are Agnostics as well) as well as secular humanists and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
09 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE&feature=channel_video_title
This is a video of a talk (appx 48mins long) from the recent Skepticon IV conference the video's
from which I have been slowly and steadily watching as time allows as I wasn't able to go (sadness).
The title of this talk is the same as this threads title, and is dealing with ts and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
Note: For reference here, Atheist is simply defined as someone who doesn't have a belief in the supernatural or god or gods.
This includes people typically described as Agnostics (almost all Atheists are Agnostics as well) as well as secular humanists and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
Atheism is distinquished from Agnosticism
Encyclopaedia Britannica -
" atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."
William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens discuss the definition of Atheism
Ignore the video maker's sarcasm. Just focus on the issue seriously discussed.
09 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYoda has the explanation ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE&feature=channel_video_title
This is a video of a talk (appx 48mins long) from the recent Skepticon IV conference the video's
from which I have been slowly and steadily watching as time allows as I wasn't able to go (sadness).
The title of this talk is the same as this threads title, and is dealing with ...[text shortened]... ts and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
Atheists are the dark side of the force " .. anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, suffering leads to atheism .. " 😀
09 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think we should be worried right now about the precise definition of "atheist" or "agnostic"Note: For reference here, Atheist is simply defined as someone who doesn't have a belief in the supernatural or god or gods.
This includes people typically described as Agnostics (almost all Atheists are Agnostics as well) as well as secular humanists and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
Just focus on the issue seriously discussed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsyhpZxKa3I
googlefudge's video raises legitimate concerns that should be addressed. I think that theists in this forum should be extremely angry about most of the things this woman is angry about.
It seems that the biggest issue for her is that too many religious people use their faith to blatantly persecute and discriminate against those with whom they disagree, and they are too quick to justify any atrocities that may be committed by a "fellow believer".
Now, it is easy to argue that she's trotting out a bunch of strawmen that don't represent the behavior of most religious people. But too many of those strawmen do exist, and they do cause a great deal of harm.
So - Jaywill - what do you think should be done to minimize the sorts of things this woman is angry about.
09 Dec 11
Originally posted by Melanerpes
I don't think we should be worried right now about the precise definition of "atheist" or "agnostic"
googlefudge's video raises legitimate concerns that should be addressed. I think that theists in this forum should be extremely angry about most of the things this woman is angry about.
It seems that the biggest issue for her is that too many religio ...[text shortened]... do you think should be done to minimize the sorts of things this woman is angry about.
don't think we should be worried right now about the precise definition of "atheist" or "agnostic"
googlefudge's video raises legitimate concerns that should be addressed. I think that theists in this forum should be extremely angry about most of the things this woman is angry about.
It seems that the biggest issue for her is that too many religious leaders use their faith to blatantly persecute and discriminate against those with whom they disagree, and they are too quick to justify any atrocities that may be committed by a "fellow believer".
Now, it is easy to argue that she's trotting out a bunch of strawmen that don't represent the behavior of most religious people. But too many of those strawmen do exist, and they do cause a great deal of harm.
So - Jaywill - what do you think should be done to minimize the sorts of things this woman is angry about.
Wouldn't you know it? I haven't even seen the video yet.
Give me a half hour and I'll watch it.
Oh, for evangelical Christians who are still Christians but have fiercly turned on the so-called "Religious Right" in disillusionment, Franky Schaeffer is one to hear.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Dec 11
Originally posted by jaywillI don't want to get hung up on the definition of atheism in this thread, if you (anyone) really wants to discuss itNote: For reference here, Atheist is simply defined as someone who doesn't have a belief in the supernatural or god or gods....[text shortened]... Just focus on the issue seriously discussed.
This includes people typically described as Agnostics (almost all Atheists are Agnostics as well) as well as secular humanists and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsyhpZxKa3I
I can start a new thread on the topic.
But What I was giving was MY definition, and the one widely used by atheists and by those organisations running the conference.
(like the atheist alliance of America and the international atheist alliance ect)
I really don't care what some dictionary or encyclopaedia defines it as, particularly when they get it wrong.
If you really want to know what atheists mean when they call themselves atheists, you have to ask the atheists in question.
Looking up the meaning of the word in a dictionary wont get you anywhere, particularly if that dictionary was written by
theists who don't like atheists very much (or by people who buy into the definitions come up with by theists).
Agnosticism IS separate from atheism. They are not the same idea.
Atheism and theism are about belief in the existence of deities (and whether or not you have any).
Gnosticism and Agnosticism are about knowledge of (in this case) the existence of a deity (or the lack of existence for a deity)
An Agnostic is someone who claims not to know if a god exists or not.
However most people who identify as an Agnostic (or who get called Agnostic) do not have a belief that a god exists.
Thus they are also Atheists, as well as being Agnostics.
If you want to discuss this further I recommend doing it in a new thread so as not to hijack this one.
09 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't want to get hung up on the definition of atheism in this thread, if you (anyone) really wants to discuss it
I can start a new thread on the topic.
But What I was giving was MY definition, and the one widely used by atheists and by those organisations running the conference.
(like the atheist alliance of America and the international atheist nt to discuss this further I recommend doing it in a new thread so as not to hijack this one.
Looking up the meaning of the word in a dictionary wont get you anywhere, particularly if that dictionary was written by
theists who don't like atheists very much (or by people who buy into the definitions come up with by theists).
Incyclopaedia Britannica written by theists ??
C'mon!
I'll set the whole definition thing aside for now.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Dec 11
Originally posted by jaywill"(or by people who buy into the definitions come up with by theists)"Looking up the meaning of the word in a dictionary wont get you anywhere, particularly if that dictionary was written by
theists who don't like atheists very much (or by people who buy into the definitions come up with by theists).
[b] Encyclopaedia Britannica written by theists ??
C'mon!
I'll set the whole definition thing aside for now.[/b]
Nobody is an authority on what Atheists mean when they call themselves Atheists other than those
Atheists.
Would you accept any definition of what it meant to be your brand of Christian simply because it said
so in some dictionary? (rhetorical question)
But yes, lets discuss that actual issues raised in the presentation rather than the definition (I actually
put it in simply to clarify what I (and the speaker) meant by the word, this was evidently a mistake).
10 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"(or by people who buy into the definitions come up with by theists)"
Nobody is an authority on what Atheists mean when they call themselves Atheists other than those
Atheists.
Would you accept any definition of what it meant to be your brand of Christian simply because it said
so in some dictionary? (rhetorical question)
But yes, let ...[text shortened]... n simply to clarify what I (and the speaker) meant by the word, this was evidently a mistake).[/b]
Would you accept any definition of what it meant to be your brand of Christian simply because it said
so in some dictionary? (rhetorical question)
The argement is not about "ANY" definition. Is it?
It is about an adaquate one that is fair.
Yes, as far as a basic workable definition is concerned.
I don't think a basic definition of either a Christian, a theist, or an atheists so ties one up that finer nuances and aspects cannot be discussed.
No I would not say that it is impossible for a secular dictionary to present a basic working definition of a theist or an atheist.
And anyone claiming that their position is so special that it cannot be basically defined for shop usage is probably afraid to commit to something. We all know that no position or a very fuzzy position is the easiest to defend.
10 Dec 11
5 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe woman in the video admits that she is angry about many things that she
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE&feature=channel_video_title
This is a video of a talk (appx 48mins long) from the recent Skepticon IV conference the video's
from which I have been slowly and steadily watching as time allows as I wasn't able to go (sadness).
The title of this talk is the same as this threads title, and is dealing with ts and the
vast majority of skeptics and/or freethinkers (those that are doing it right).
describes and blames religion as the root cause of all her anger.
1. She says she is angry that there is a battle to teach evolution in school.
It is my understanding that evolution is already taught in school and the
battle of the atheists is preventing an alternate theory of Intelligent Design
along side evolution. She dogmatically states that evolution is the foundation
of biology because that is what she has heard someone say. She obviously does
not know that study in biology goes back long before the theory of evolution
came about and the ideas from evolution is only a small part of modern biology.
2. She says that she is angry that preachers tell women must submit to their
husband even when they are getting beaten to death. I have never heard a
preacher say that; it has always been the opposite. Yet she may have heard
some cult leader or false teacher say this. But this fact eludes her.
3. She says she is angry that children are taught to hate their sexuality by
religion. I can only speak from my own experience, but I was raised in a
Baptist church and was only taught to abstain from sexual activity until
marriage, not to hate my sexuality.
4. She says she is angry that she was asked something about someone being
either Baptist of Catholic. Maybe that is someting to be angry about, if true,
however I am almost certain the official question is "Do you have a religious
preference?"
5. She says she is angry that the Roman Catholic Church covered up the sexual
abuse by their priests. We Christians are also angry with that so why must
she blame religion in general?
6. She says she is angry that she has to know more about the religion than
the religious person and the religious person is always asking for evidence
that proves them wrong. I find that on this forum it has always been the
atheists that have asked for evidence that proved God existed or created
the heavens and the earth. I have pointed out that atheist never prove
anything or attempt to because they claim they do not have to prove a
negative.
Many of the things she is angry about are from false religions and false
teachers, but she says she doesn't care and doesn't give a damn about what
the original text says. And other things she is angry about I believe are
legitimate to be angry about for we Chritians are also angry about them.
However, she is so angry with religion that she ignores or will not accept
the truth of Christianity.
She understands the importance of anger in politcal movements and even
quotes two religious leaders in support of her idea. She even says something
about David, who is told about in the Holy Bible, to support her idea. But
she doesn't understand God's anger.
She says theists want atheists to shut-up. That is strange because on this
forum that is a request from atheists for Christians to shut-up because they
don't what to hear about our belief in Jesus the Christ.
She speaks of compassion for those who have been done wrong and seems capable
of being a good Christian if she would accept the love of Christ in her heart.
P.S. She seems to ignore all the bad things atheist do for she defends
athesists as having so much compassion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by jaywillNot doing it tonight but I'm starting a new thread for this because it's evident it's not going to die.Would you accept any definition of what it meant to be your brand of Christian simply because it said
so in some dictionary? (rhetorical question)
The argement is not about "ANY" definition. Is it?
It is about an adaquate one that is fair.
Yes, as far as a basic workable definition is concerned.
I don't think a basic de ...[text shortened]... to something. We all know that no position or a very fuzzy position is the easiest to defend.
10 Dec 11
Originally posted by MelanerpesJust out of curiosity, what part of the teachings of Christ or Paul have led you to believe that you need to respond to these kinds of concerns.
I don't think we should be worried right now about the precise definition of "atheist" or "agnostic"
googlefudge's video raises legitimate concerns that should be addressed. I think that theists in this forum should be extremely angry about most of the things this woman is angry about.
It seems that the biggest issue for her is that too many religio ...[text shortened]... do you think should be done to minimize the sorts of things this woman is angry about.