A Fascinating Video about the current ATHEIST MOVEMENT

[blue_cristal]

You know Bush has the launch codes, right?

 

Yep. But hopefully he is not excessively mad.

[bascule]

This video's rabid content didn't seem that bad compared to the immensely crappy production value.

 

If you're going to make a video that just reads like a web page... try making a web page. It'd at least spare me the crappy XM MOD quality music (no offense to XM MODs)

[doG]

I tend to like this video much better...

[iNow]

I tend to like this video much better...

 

What's your take on Dan's proposal to mandate the teaching of factual history of all the world's religion? I like it.

 

Thanks for sharing the link. Overall, a very organic and rational approach to a subject which ignites a lot of passion.

[doG]

What's your take on Dan's proposal to mandate the teaching of factual history of all the world's religion? I like it.

 

I like it too. I think it could counteract much of the intolerance taught children by their parents.

[gcol]

What's wrong with letting the religious people be religious?

 

Because some of them want to kill me to convert me. Can't think of a much better reason for them to be wrong than that. Same sort of example as vegans wanting to ban meat-eating, and cyclists wanting to ban cars, but taken to the nth degree. Think laterally, use your imagination, and many more examples will come to mind.

[Mr Skeptic]

Because some of them want to kill me to convert me. Can't think of a much better reason for them to be wrong than that. Same sort of example as vegans wanting to ban meat-eating, and cyclists wanting to ban cars, but taken to the nth degree. Think laterally, use your imagination, and many more examples will come to mind.

 

As your example shows, the problem you have is not with religion, but with people curtailing your liberties due to their beliefs. Basically, you have a problem with the intolerance of people who think differently from you. Is that correct?

[iNow]

As your example shows, the problem you have is not with religion, but with people curtailing your liberties due to their beliefs. Basically, you have a problem with the intolerance of people who think differently from you. Is that correct?

 

Others may also have problems with people approaching the universe using premises grounded in nonsense, suspending rational thought for their personal belief and faith. Why is this different than belief in unicorns or faith in the flying spaghetti monster? Wait... it's not.

[Mr Skeptic]

Others may also have problems with people approaching the universe using premises grounded in nonsense,

 

Oh. What do you ground your premises in? How are your premises better?

 

suspending rational thought for their personal belief and faith.

 

People who suspend rational thought are dangerous, (almost completely) regardless of what they believe.

 

Why is this different than belief in unicorns or faith in the flying spaghetti monster? Wait... it's not.

 

Exactly.

[iNow]

My premises are grounded in an inherent skepticism, and are subject to change when evidence indicates that previous premises are false. This is why they are better (but that is subjective and qualitative, not objective and quantitative, so take it for what it's worth).

 

Also, agreed on suspension of rational thought being bad regardless of topic. Good expansion of my point. Thx.

[Mr Skeptic]

My premises are grounded in an inherent skepticism, and are subject to change when evidence indicates that previous premises are false. This is why they are better (but that is subjective and qualitative, not objective and quantitative, so take it for what it's worth).

 

I agree with that sentiment. However, I am just as capable of rational thought when I start off with different premises (eg, "the bible is the word of god" vs "[the scientific method]"). Only difference is what I am studying, and for what purpose. I can argue theology, or I can argue physics. If I want to speculate about unobservable things (eg religion or math), then I need premises about unobservable things. If I want to speculate on observable things, then I need premises related to that (ie, the scientific method).

 

In all this, I do not kid myself that the premises I start with are somehow better than other premises. Premises are always assumed and never proven (though you can show that some premises follow from other premises). All true statements are necessarily of the form if [premises], then [conclusions], even though the premises may be ommitted if they are implicitly assumed.

 

I suppose that is more or less what you meant by "subjective and qualitative, not objective and quantitative"

 

Also, agreed on suspension of rational thought being bad regardless of topic. Good expansion of my point. Thx.

 

Well, I don't think people who absolutely and irrationally believe in complete tolerance are dangerous to me. That's the only exception I could find to the "suspension of rational thought is dangerous". Anyhow, you're welcome.

 

----

 

PS: You wouldn't beleive how betrayed I felt when I found out that Euclidian geometry wasn't true. It had seemed so obvious!

[iNow]

PS: You wouldn't beleive how betrayed I felt when I found out that Euclidian geometry wasn't true. It had seemed so obvious!

 

So you're telling me that two parallel lines will intersect?

[Mr Skeptic]

I forgot to add, I can also reason within the realm of Star Trek or such.

 

That, and my absolute horror when I realized that the principle of non-contradiction is not necessarily true. (That is, the possibility that contradictions might exist.)

[gcol]

So you're telling me that two parallel lines will intersect?

 

Why just two? consider an infinite number of parallel lines. Something has to give, somewhere... or perhaps spacetime is not curved.

[blue_cristal]

Well, I don't think people who absolutely and irrationally believe in complete tolerance are dangerous to me. That's the only exception I could find to the "suspension of rational thought is dangerous".

No really.

 

Actually the myth or even the “sacredness” of “absolute tolerance” is a dangerous and delusional fallacy.

 

If you are tolerant to people who are radically intolerant, they might take full advantage of your tolerance and kill both, you ( and all unconditionally tolerant people ) and completely destroy the social contract based on tolerance.

 

In other words, absolute tolerance is self-destructive. So is absolute freedom.

 

Therefore tolerance and freedom should not cross a line where they become self-destructive.

[Mr Skeptic]

I never said it wouldn't be a dangerous attitude for them

[swansont]

If you're going to make a video that just reads like a web page... try making a web page. It'd at least spare me the crappy XM MOD quality music (no offense to XM MODs)

 

Exactly. Ugh. I stopped watching after 30 seconds; not everyone reads at the same pace, and sitting there waiting for the next slide doesn't do anything for me.

 

I did find the video linked in this blog interesting, though, discussing "polite" vs "not so polite" atheism.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/speak_it_brother.php

[iNow]

I did find the video linked in this blog interesting, though, discussing "polite" vs "not so polite" atheism.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/speak_it_brother.php

 

I love it.

 

"What a waste of an enlightenment," indeed.

[blue_cristal]

I did find the video linked in this blog interesting, though, discussing "polite" vs "not so polite" atheism.

 

Yep, Pat’s videos are my preferred ones in the YouTube.

 

He usually makes good points with an articulate and crystalline clarity.

 

Why didn’t you provide the link straight from YT ?

 

Here it is:

 

 

And if you want to see all his videos, go here:

 

http://youtube.com/subscription_center?s=ywRyNIU2Dxs

 

However, it is a shame that he seems to lack a solid scientific background.

 

He seems to have an artistic side. He consider himself a comedian ( indeed ).

 

Regarding MMM, he is not originated from an English-speaking country. Neither I, so I understand his problem. That is the reason for his preference for written text than voiced communication.

 

But I think that his best videos are these:

 

1) “BEING ATHEIST IS NOT ENOUGH”

 

 

 

2) “Sexual Behavior - Rape , Cheating , Gold-digging ,etc”

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=As49mSwIWWw

[swansont]

Why didn’t you provide the link straight from YT ?

 

Because I viewed it through the blog, and that's the link I had.

[YT2095]

erm... I provided a Link????

 

care to show me Where please?

[blue_cristal]

"Science without religion is lame.” Einstein.

 

Science do fine without religion. Actually, religion was (and still is ) an obstacle to science most of the time.

 

You see, intelligent people also can say incredible bullshit.

 

Our brain has a lot of specialized and compartmentalized neural circuitries. We can be a genius in a mental faculty and an idiot in another one.

 

 

“Religion without science is blind." Einstein.

 

Religion is based on blind faith ( dogma ) therefore it is blind WITH or WITHOUT science.

 

In the past, the church supported science for while because they thought that science could prove the existence of god ( hahaha...)

 

Instead, scientific findings started demolishing religious dogmas. Then the Church immediately started persecuted scientists and undermine science.

 

So, as you can see, this is yet another Einstein’s bullshit.

[YT2095]

that`s not a Link, that`s a Quote! LOL

[blue_cristal]

that`s not a Link, that`s a Quote! LOL

And who said that it is a link ?

 

I am criticizing your Einstein's quote.

[YT2095]

Why didn’t you provide the link straight from YT ?

 

 

 

coz I didn`t Provide one in the 1`st place perhaps?