A rather talented young Atheist named Zachery Kroger created a simple yet powerful video that it earnimg him a lot of attention and praise from the "Godless" community. I’d like to hear what my religious readers think of this video. If you’re going to comment, please note your faith if any. I think it’ll be interesting to see how opinions may or may not differ. Enjoy!
Related posts:
- Martin Thinks Atheists Are That Bad
- Site News
- Dawkins Defending Atheism On CNN
- Viva Las Vegas
- An Atheist’s Worst Nightmare
July 25th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I found the video to be interesting for two things: the statistics at the beginning about atheists, and the statistics at around 3:30 about atheists. Otherwise, it’s just a series of still images set to music of scientists, actors, muscians, etc., who happen to be atheist. I think many of the people pictured are interesting and/or important, but not less or more so than any person who believes in a religious tradition.
Being a social science researcher, I’d like to see a little more about the research before I draw any conclusions about whether atheists are less statistically likely to commit crimes or less statistically likely to get divorced. How did agnostics get lumped in with the atheists? Those are clearly different categories.
I’d also like to hear from someone who has a better understanding of the Bible, and hear a little more about the context of the verses cited. Although I think it’s fine to criticize religion (God knows it’s needed) it feels like there is a lack of critical thinking and it’s more saying, “Religious people are dumb because we have all these smart people who don’t believe in it.” The video feels like it’s taking something out of context and responding to it with flamebait.
But of course, I can be wrong. :)
July 25th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Well, since you asked about my faith, you can put me down in teh Buddhist category. Not that I feel it is particularly relevent…
Anyway, I’m not sure who the intended audience of this piece was, but I hope is wasn’t something to convince religious fanatics to change their minds about atheists. Because if you ask me, the video played right into the stereotypes )and fears) that they have about atheists. Almost the “fools” the video presented were intellectuals and hollywood celebrities… exactly the kind of people the religious fanatics hate! The Bible isn’t saying that atheists are stupid. It is saying they are fools. There is a difference. Religious fundamentalists hate intellectuals. They hate Hollywood. They hate evolution. And they distrust science. The only possible redeeming atheist statistic was the population/prison ratio.
So what was the point of the video? I don’t get it.
-matthew
July 25th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Wow,just wow.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
(Atheist)
I have to agree with Matthew about the effectiveness. It’s a shame, it started out well. The series of celebrities left me wondering if it was a tongue-in-cheek thing made by a devout christian.
July 25th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
I am Buddhist, and I agree with Matthew about the use of the word ‘fool’ and the stereotypes.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Romanus,
While I appreciate your agreement, I’m afraid it is against the secret Buddhist policy to display any sense of solidarity in public, lest the Christians catch on to the fact that we are the ones behind the Great Atheist Conspiracy (GAC) to take over the world. So far we’ve remained below their radar. Nobody suspects the Buddhists, but we have to be careful. Is there anything we could disagree about? Perhaps we could bicker over the finer points of Theravada vs. Mahayana?
July 25th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Agonist, He should have put Thomas Jefferson in there:
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
July 26th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Atheist
I can understand the need to try and explain one’s lack of belief — especially in the US. But Matthew is right — by definition, people of faith are not going to be convinced by fact. Faith is a feeling, facts and the lack of the same feeling in others will not change their minds or their beliefs.
I also agree that it would have been stronger without the actors — include Gates, Buffett, Twain, Susan B, but actors have little bearing (but hey Julianne Moore is even hotter to me now).
July 26th, 2006 at 2:23 am
The only reference I could find on the prison stats:
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
July 26th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Hi,
I can’t understand the distrust in atheists in the US.
I have to say, I’m german.
Even our former chancellor Schröder renounced the additive sentence “by the help of god” in his swearing-in. Atheism is totally accepted here. I find it really sad, that it’s necessary to create such a movie to try to convince christians, that atheists aren’t that bad at all, in such a civilisized community as the US are.
But I can see, not every american is a christian fundamentalist :)
greetings from good old europe
-sebtob
please excuse my bad english
July 26th, 2006 at 6:12 am
Christian, not that it’s relevant to the discussion.
Um. As Matthew touched on, it’s about context, and it’s about language shift:
A ‘fool’ is generally accepted to mean: one who lacks understanding (of the given subject), so in this case, one who doesn’t understand about the existence of a god, for whatever reason.
It’s about the difference between knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. ‘Fools’ in this contxt are people who lack wisdom (again, in context, not generally)
As has been said before: knowledge tells us a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom tells us not to put it in a fruit salad.
There’s also a glaring twist of phraseology between the bible quote at 3:40-45 and the wording of the fram at 3:46-47. Watch it again. Where does it say that anyone is “evil”? The word used is “vile”.
A tuna and chocolate spread sandwich might be vile, but it’s certainly not evil.
As for doing “no good”, again, think about the context: if you’re trying to get across a religious belief, right or wrong, someone saying your god doesn’t exist isn’t doing your cause any good, are they?
As the Bible states that God exists, people who say He doesn’t are doing “no good” as far as believers are concerned.
Also a lack of “good” doesn’t infer “doing bad”. Many people go through life without doing much of either.
Remember, “good” in this context can also be subjective: Microsoft has been taken to court many times over accusations of unfair conduct and monopolising, Woody Allen has been married 3 times, and had numerous affairs, which might be acceptable today, but would probably have got him killed when the psalms were being written.
I’m not saying that not one of them has done anything good, or that I discount the video on religious grounds, but why go to the effort of making the thing if you’re going to be inconsistent? Because someone like me is going to pull it apart.
It’s not well made, and while the statistics are interesting, the rest is misconstrued, and out of context.
Take all that away, and you’ve got a 5 minute video with a 10 second message about some statistics.
Oh, and I’m from England, by the way.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Gnostic
well nice enough show but too much faces without counter balance of christian scientist and actors and even if they are respected the faces on the clip there should be more factual data injected into it.
That is actually more a problem I have with a presentation but apart that nice, albeitly onesided, show.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:53 am
I am a christian.
I take issue with the interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:12 at around 3:17 into the video. While I’m sure that many christians interpret that verse to mean that “a relationship that includes God will be much stronger,” that marriages based on christian principles will be better than those not based on christian principles, that simply is not what the passage says.
Here is Ecclesiastes 4:7-12:
7 Again I saw something meaningless under the sun:
8 There was a man all alone;
he had neither son nor brother.
There was no end to his toil,
yet his eyes were not content with his wealth.
“For whom am I toiling,” he asked,
“and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?”
This too is meaningless—
a miserable business!
9 Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their work:
10 If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!
11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Neither God nor marriage are mentioned in this passage, so while you might be able argue that the third strand referred to is God, saying that Ecclesiastes 4:12 says that christian relationships are stronger is incorrect.
I agree with the previous posters who say that the usage of “fool” in the Bible is different than our usage today. From the footnotes in the New International Version Bible:
“Psalm 14:1 The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.”
So, in this verse, a fool is one who morally deficient. Since morals in the Bible are, not surprisingly, based on belief in the biblical God, then of course the Bible will consider not believing in God to be evidence of morally deficiency. However, this says nothing about the intelligence or skill of atheists in areas not involving Judeo-Christian-God-based morals. Saying “Hey look! The Bible says atheist people don’t have very much smart! Look at these atheists! They got lots of smart! Haha! I proved the bible is wrong!” is as mistaken as is irritating.
As for the divorce rate among christians being so high, I am ashamed of that. I believe the reason behind it may be that christian couples feel pushed into getting married, since it is “the right thing to do.” When they later figure out that they were merely infatuated with one another and that there was no real relationship there to begin with, they get a divorce. Atheists, not feeling the christian compulsion for marriage, are probably less likely to fall into that trap.
I liked the video, presentation-wise. The song was catchy and the editing, though simple, was well done. Anyone know what song is playing in the background?
July 26th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Agnostic.
Hmmm. Video kind of stupid. I thought the idea was good, needed more statistics to support their claims.
Oh and on the interpretaion of vile as evil, perhaps they did a pig-latinish thing by accident and moved the e from the end to the beginning?
July 26th, 2006 at 11:07 am
I very much enjoyed the video. It suprised me to learn how many of my heros are atheists (though I think some of those pictured are actually agnositc). I also appreciate UncleMidriff’s comments. They really helped put the video into perspective. I also found the stats very interesting, but like most people, too few.
It seems to me that atheists are so mistrusted because most Christians cannot fathom morality without being told what is moral. In otherwords, without some authority to dictate moral laws, Chirstians can’t imagine how someone dicides for themselves what is right and wrong. The authority for Christians is (indirectly) God. Atheists have no god. Thus, according to Christian thought, they have no source of moral law and are, therefore, in danger of acting immorally. The fallacy is, of course, that morality can come from reason. One example of many is John Locke’s description of natural law. His natural laws eventually found their way into the fundamental freedoms that America was founded on.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Atheist. I agree with the comments that the video isn’t particularly helpful towards convincing fundamentalists; saying “We’ve got Woody Allen, how can we be wrong?” isn’t the best idea IMHO.
Strangely enough this reminds me of a conversation I had with an ex-girlfriend. She asked if I thought that she and another very intelligent friend of hers that I knew were fools because they believed in god. I asked if she thought I and another very intelligent friend of mine were fools because we did not. At the time I said nothing; now I think I would have told her that she was. Anyway, that was supposed to help illustrate the video’s flaw; I’m sure Christians/other faiths could pull out shit-tons of people in science and hollywood that support them. Maybe showing people that there are prominent atheists (though not necessarily the ones in this video) can lessen their distrust, but it’s not an argument against theism (at least, not a good one).
And the numbers on prison population are highly suspect to me. Not that I wouldn’t like them to be true. But 10% seems high for atheists in the US; checking the wiki says that 2% identified as atheist (4% agnostic) in a 2004 survey. And there was no ‘agnostic’ on the data shown at holysmoke.org. And who knows if atheist inmates might want to portray themselves as religious for various reasons… Anyway, the numbers are not from studies with similar methodologies AFAIK.
In any case, it’s likely not that atheists are somehow more moral that keeps the prison population low. I’d venture to guess that atheists in general are better educated (or maybe I should say that those with better education are more likely atheists) and that’s why there’s not as many in prison. But that’s just an idea; I don’t have any numbers to back it up.
July 26th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
EX-CHRISTIAN FUNDIE TURNED ATHIEST
I think it’s funny how Christians try to weasel around certain scriptures and say, “That’s not how you’re supposed to interpret it. THIS is how you interpret it.” As if they have some secret hotline to ‘god’. So, fool doesn’t REALLY mean fool. It just means someone without morals?? That’s just ridiculous. Webster’s Dictionary says:
Fool n. 1. A person lacking in understanding, judgement, or common sense.
Hmmm… sounds like most religious people. I hate to throw all you guys in one little box, but what common sense is there in believing in a big, invisible guy that we will NEVER have proof of existing. Why not believe in the tooth fairy and elves, too?
So, you say it just means morally deficent. Well, that would be addressed in the prison, divorce, etc. stats.
Oh yeah, the psalmist is in danger though, according to Jesus FUCKING Christ:
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
But, I’m sure you Christians can dance around that one too.
About the Bill Gates thing — So, he was taken to court for blah, blah… He has donated over half of his fortune to various charities. More than I can say about any religious person I’ve ever met.
I DO think it was stupid to list Woody Allen… I mean, c’mon, he’s a fuckin’ pedophile. Hahaha. Oh yeah, and I don’t think Thomas Jefferson was an athiest. But what the fuck do I know, I’m a morally deficient athiest. Time to go rape some babies!
July 26th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Atheist.
I think some of you are missing the point of the video. It is not to change people’s minds about their religious views, but rather to show them that atheists exists all around them and that some of them are doing great things in this world.
Including actors is useful because of their visibility and (right or wrong) we feel like we know them as compared to a total stranger. (Ok, I think Woody Allen is kinda creepy.) Most christians don’t hate actors, just the fever-pitched types that get all the publicity. This video is not so much for them.
Rather, it’s for the more “everyday” christians who apparently also distrust atheists. You have to ask yourself why, because it makes no logical sense. Maybe it’s because of our invisibility; they don’t know us. And to that end, I think the video is also meant to encourage atheists to come out of the closet and show the majority that we aren’t despicable people. We are ordinary humans with pretty much the same lives, struggles, etc. as they have.
Hopefully some day we can be as they are in Europe where no one would raise an eyebrow at the statement, “I’m an atheist.”
July 26th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Bravo Angela! I agree 100%. This was not meant to be some mega-propaganda weapon to convert the masses. I believe it was a response to the general negative attitude towards Atheists. If a religious person walked away saying, “wow, I didn\’t know he was an Atheist” then it was a success in my opinion. Here\’s an article I reported on awhile back that references the study in the video… http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/03/23/atheists-are-americas-most-distrusted-minority/
July 26th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
I agree. The best thing that could happen to the bible,the koran and the talmud is that ALL of them be recyled into toilet paper to wipe off our smudge marks. Religioun is dubicous, hatefull, disgusting and destructive.
Adam
July 27th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Hey people!
I am the guy who made this video… glad to see there is so much discussion about it! Although, I made a new version (its on youtube) that doesnt have einstein in it. Although I dont think einstein believed in any “god” in the supernatural sense, i got tired of defending that position, so i just replaced him.
But anyway, the point of this video isnt to try and convert anyone. As Phil Plait (author of Bad Astronomy) says, “it is foolish to think that emotion would be swayed by logic.” I mostly wanted to show that there are a LOT of smart people that are atheists.
The reason I put all the actors and whatnot is because unless you are interested in science, you arent going to know who ANY of those people are. So I put the actors so that people would see reccognizable faces. I have gotten a LOT of crap about Seth Green (cause honestly, who cares about what he thinks), but incredibly, quite a few christians have been amazed about him. He is popular with the younger crowds.
About the verses I used… they are not out of context at all. The only reason I know about the one concerning marriage is because it was brought up so much in church and youth group and that sort of stuff when I was a christian. If you type them in on google, you will find tons of sites proclaming exactly the same thing that I say they mean.
The main motivation I had for this video was my girlfriend of 3 years broke up with me because I didnt believe in God. Her family HATED me ONLY for that reason (im actually a really great guy haha). So… yeah. If you have any questions about anything though, go ahead and email me. Zachary_Kroger@yahoo.com
July 27th, 2006 at 12:55 am
And here are some christians that agree with my context in case anyone was curious…
http://www.biblechurch.org/m/beyond_honeymoon/
http://www.trinitycrc.org/sermons/ecc4v07-12.html
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/atheism.htm
http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/text-sermon/475-the-folly- of-atheism/
July 27th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Christian. Not American.
I also didn’t see the point of the video, though I guess it makes sense when you see that atheists are a “distrusted minority”. I still can’t quite get my head around that particular piece of stupidity.
I do have to comment on what Jonny said about “weaseling around certain scriptures”. The bible was written in another time, over the course of several hundred years, in another place, for many different groups of people with many different issues to deal with, and in at least three different languages, none of them modern English.
The video seems to use the KJV, which was written almost four hundred years ago, and the language was considered slightly archaic even then.
Trying to understand what it means, let alone what it says, is hard. (The bible is not alone in this, of course; understanding Plato or Confucius is just as hard.) Picking words out of a four hundred year old translation and matching them up with a modern dictionary just plain doesn’t help.
Disclaimer: Not that there aren’t any reasonable objections to some of the stuff in the holy texts of most religions. Just please limit your objections to reasonable ones, not unreasonable ones!
July 27th, 2006 at 9:22 am
There seems to be a lot of talk about how the word “fool” is taken out of context because it meant something different back when it was written. This may be true, but it doesn’t matter very much, because very few people know the original meaning offhand.
Most American Christians are not Bible scholars, or students of Etymology. When the typical person reads the bible, they don’t know that the original Hebrew word that was translated into English as “fool” doesn’t carry that exact meaning. It’s extra confusing, because elsewhere in the Bible, “foolish” is used in a traditional sense (see Matthew 7:26 … a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.) I agree that “picking words out of a four hundred year old translation and matching them up with a modern dictionary just plain doesn’t help.” Unfortunately, that is something that most Christians (and Atheists) do, because most people are not scholars.
It’s a shame that people get persecuted for a misnomer, but I have personally had Psalm 14 quoted at me by ex-friends of mine when I left the church. They then explained that the Bible said that I was an “idiot” for leaving. Now I see that I should have said, “Actually, according to a footnote in a version of the Bible you don’t use, I’m not an idiot, I’m just morally corrupt.” I’m sure that would have smoothed things over.
I can usually appreciate the intellectual discussion about what the true meaning of words in the Bible are, but I can’t abide it when it’s about a something for mass consumption, like this video. We might as well be debating whether or not Alanis Morissette understands the word “ironic.”
July 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I am puzzled with the divorce rates section. I would assume that more Christians do get married due to their belief where as Atheists also marry, but probably not as much, so then the percentage of Christians and born again Christians will always have a higher divorce rate? Argh, my head, I am confused, I hate statistics.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
As was mentioned at the time, the NIV has a footnote that explicitly states “fool” in this verse means “morally deficient”, but here’s a link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2014:1-7;&version=31;#fen-NIV-14082a
I’m no Bible scholar, exegesis is not my forte, and English is my only fluent language–so I’m going to take their word for it. I seriously doubt they’re just making shit up though (though you can hop over to http://www.av1611.org for another perspective on the NIV, among other things).
About the two are stronger than one, and three is even stronger–it’s a very generic message. I have no doubt that it CAN be applied to marriage (or that it has), but that interpretation is not explicit.
I’m not sure who this video’s target audience is. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible knows the “wisdom of the world” is not highly valued in christianity, so this is not going to make anyone say, “Well damn, I guess some smart people believe there’s no god, so my whole belief system is a farce.”
Coming from the middle of the Bible belt, raised christian (in church), and having attended a Baptist university, I think comment #13 hit the nail on the head about the effects of christian “culture” on marriage. The pressure to marry prior to the end of college is certainly there, and the results of that are pretty clear.
Regarding the quote by George Bush–they’re both idiots.
That said, I liked the video. I get some perverse pleasure from deriding stupidity, and lord knows there’s plenty to be found in most organized religions (hint: it’s because people are stupid, not religion). There are plenty of intellectuals on both sides of the divide, but that doesn’t make the message any less poignant or any less true.
Enjoyed execution and music. I second the request to know what song that was.
Oh, and I still count myself a christian, actually.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:32 am
The song is “is this the real thing” by DJ Madson. You can download it off the “The God Who Wasn’t There” website. http://www.thegodmovie.com/cd.php
Also, about Psalms 14:1, I dont think it matters if people use it in the sense of fool meaning stupid or morally deficient. I havent heard anyone use it in the sense of it meaning morally deficient, but whatever the case, both interpretations make incorrect claims about atheists.
Actually I think there is a stronger argument to be made against the bible from the morally deficient perspective.
The target audience was… well, ME and my friends hahaha. My friends include other atheists and moderate/liberal christians. I never really expected it would get popular.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:58 am
as a discordian:
The only thing I cannot understand about atheist is their need to _negate_ the existance of god. Sure god has beed used too many times to control people and justify atrocities, but we don’t know if he does exist or not. WE just can’t tell, and then decide on our own wether to believe in one (or to _believe_ there is not one) or just decide that we do not know enough (wich is what an agnostic does).
Heil Eris :)
Emme
July 28th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
>>27
Wouldn’t a person “less able to distinguish between right and wrong” also be a person “lacking in judgment or prudence” (a fool)? The word “fool” does not mean stupid. Either way you apply fool, I don’t see “book smarts”[1] entering the picture in interpreting this verse.
I see it being about common sense, and one’s “world view”. If you start off believing in god or not believing in god–either way, that’s part of your belief system. Your belief system affects every situation in your life. Every perception is shaded by it. So from the standpoint of christianity, a person lacking a core belief as critical as Jehovah is obviously going to make a lot of errors in the judgement and prudence departments. Thus, they act foolishly.
I think “fool” might be too colloquial of a word these days. Might we like the same verse taken from The Message version of the Bible better?
1 Bilious and bloated, they gas, “God is gone.”
Their words are poison gas,
fouling the air; they poison
Rivers and skies;
thistles are their cash crop.
(from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014:1;&version=65;)
—
[1] The third accepted definition listed for “fool” by Merriam-Webster was the only one that sounded even sort of like the “one who lacks understanding (of a given subject)”:
“3 a : a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding b : one with a marked propensity or fondness for something ”
but taken altogether, I read that definition as “mostly harmless” (aren’t we all). There’s certainly an element of absurdity to it.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Whoops, should’ve been:
“less able to distinguish between right and wrong” (morally deficient) … “lacking in judgement or prudence” (a fool)
both also taken/paraphrased from Merriam-Webster, btw.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
and it converted part of the “fool” definition in my footnote (pasted directly from M-W) into a hyperlink. That should’ve read:
3 a : a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding b : one with a marked propensity or fondness for something [a dancing fool] [a fool for candy]
Geez.
July 29th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
First off, I am a Christian. Secondly, taking God’s word and making it sound like it comes from a human/a Christian is foolish in itself. From a human’s perspective, all the people mentioned in this movie may have been people with great social reach, great scientific accomplishments, great imaginations, etc. However, from God’s perspective, these people are truly fools, for they have not/did not choose to accept God into their life.
As for the divorce rate, not only is a 3% difference probably larger than the margin of error in the study, but A RELIGION IS NOT REFLECTED BY ITS CONSTITUENTS. A religion is what a constituent makes of it. So someone on the outside of the religion who says “Christians are wrong because 1/4 of them get divorces or 3/4 of prisoners are Christian” obviously doesn’t get it. Most of those prisoners who claim to be Christian probably just figured “hey I went to church once when i was 6 I guess that’s what I am.”
By the way, I don’t hate atheists or anything, and neither does God. Personally, I feel bad for you, but I’ll let you make your own decisions and make your own movie.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Hello Jeremy,
“By the way, I don’t hate atheists or anything, and neither does God. Personally, I feel bad for you, but I’ll let you make your own decisions and make your own movie.”
You’ll let them make their own decisions and make their own movie? Be careful how you word things. You have not authority, moral or otherwise, to grant permission for either of those things. I’m sure you didn’t mean to come across that way.
Secondly, I agree with your comment about the divorce rates. What I’d like to know is if the rates are significantly different at the 90% confidence rate. In other words, are the divorce rates different in a statistically rigorous analysis?
Finally, the stats about the prison population do not indicate a high rate of Christian incarceration but a very low rate of atheist incarceration. The percentage of Christians in prison matches the percentage of Christians in the populous at large. The stat does not suggest that Christians are morally deficient but that atheists are morally proficient.
Oh, and one last thing: ”God’s perspective, these people are truly fools, for they have not/did not choose to accept God into their life.”. That’s not God’s perspective, it’s your perspective on what you believe God’s perspective is. I, for one, would much prefer the company of most of those atheists than great scientific accomplishments or great imaginations than the company of the most devout fundamentalists. God just might as well.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:28 am
I think the prison statistic might be misleading. It’s like that old saying, “There are no athiests in fox-holes.” I mean, come on. If you ever want to get paroled your odds are way better if you have “found Jesus” and been “born again.” :-)
July 31st, 2006 at 2:05 am
With regard to the lower prison stats for atheists, I think, as Aaron mentioned, it has more to do with an atheist’s economic standing. Studies show that an atheist is generally better educated than a religious person. More education… better job… more money… better lawyers for white-collar criminals. (Not to mention less incentive to commit a crime in the first place.)
I think sidfaiwu and Richard also made valid points about this.
As for the divorce statistics, certainly the 21% for atheists vs. the 27% for born agains is significant. My guess on that one is that the atheists are busy in college while the born agains are getting married and having babies. With extra life experience behind them, atheists are better prepared to choose a suitable mate when they do decide to get married. Of course some born agains go to college, but atheists are more likely to go on for advanced degrees.
And besides, with no birth control options and abortion being a no-no, it looks like some “imperfect” born agains might end up marrying early (and to someone they won’t end up getting along with) all because of one wild night of passion.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:04 am
Hello Richard,
“I mean, come on. If you ever want to get paroled your odds are way better if you have “found Jesus” and been “born again.” :-)”
I thought about this as well. If that were happening, we would see an increase in Christianity rates in prison. But the percentage of Christians remains the same as the wider population. I think Angela may have found a solid explanation for this stat.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:25 am
Nice movie, although I doubt its effectiveness I do indeed feel there’s a need to step away from the religious classifications. There are too many religious people that have an ungrounded bias against members of another religion. The thing that they do not seem to grasp is that the name “Believe system” already says that it cannot be proven thus that their opinion holds just as much value than that of any other, christian, jew, muslim, hindu and buddhist alike.
The groundrule of almost all religions is “do no harm”. That’s the most important bit. The rest I think is just filler to keep the flock happy.
One thing I kinda missed in the movie though:
The famous quote of Galileo Galilei: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” and although G.G. wasn’t really an atheist he was one of the free thinkers in that age.
PS, I can’t really classify myself in a religious class but what would come closest I think is jainism / agnostic / new age, but often refer to myself as atheist cos that prevents a lot of questions I care not to answer at that given moment ;)
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 am
Not really a very effective video except in learning that some random people are atheist. I think it’s largely irrelevant what religion people believe in, only finding it notable when they make fools out of themselves. Like when Einstein spent the last umpteen years of his life trying to disprove Quantum Theory because he believed “God does not play dice”.
I really don’t care if they want to legislate stupid things like “under god” in the Pledge or “In God We Trust” on our money. Go for it. All I ask is that they get the hell out of my way and leave me and my family alone, don’t spend my taxes on religious nonsense, don’t outlaw things in the name of religion, and don’t kill us in the name of Allah. But obviously all of that is too much to ask. Excuse me while I shoo away this Jehovah’s Witness at the door.
I’m an atheist.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 am
Christian of the Presbyterian persuasion
“My guess on that one is that the atheists are busy in college while the born agains are getting married and having babies.”
Because you can statistically prove that more atheists go to college/value education?
The video seems awfully defensive and since it was created after the aforementioned breakup I can see why. The statistics aren’t really very damning since the message of the Gospel is that we are all (Christians and otherwise) fallen people and in need of a savior. I have heard some of my brethren argue that by necessaity atheists are less moral than Christians and for me that’s missing the point of the message of their professed belief. They are forgetting that their righteousness (morality) is like filthy rags (ancient menstrual pads - gotta love that imagery).
I also find it interesting that we try and pigeonhole people that are dead and have been for some time using the equivalent of pull quotes. Only that individual knew what their relationship to God was at their life’s end. Both sides presume a bit too much regarding our founding fathers.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
There has been much talk about the use and misuse of the word “fool”. You can interpret the meaning of the word fool in many different ways, just as you can interpret the meaning of this video many different ways. However, I believe the point is this. Most would agree that a “fool” is someone who lacks understanding, in the case of the shown Bible quote regarding the athiest a “fool” for lacking the understanding of God. What the video is trying to say is, many of these brilliant minds were obviously not fools in many fields and areas of life, and when these people took the time to dwell upon religion and the divine which led them to the conclusion that there is in fact no God or Gods, they didn’t come to this conclusion in a “foolish” manner. These people did not stop being the brilliant intellects that they were when they weighed the sides concering the divine or lack thereof.
In fact, the percentage of athiests in the intellectual world is far higher than that in the general public. I am not saying that there aren’t brilliant people on both sides of the coin, but there are a few basic principles that can help explain why this is. When one truly is able to analyze things from an absolutely unbiased, unpolluted, objective point of view, free from the “fear of God”, free from being afraid that human death could be in fact the end (no eternal life), and free from being afraid of any stigma of being an athiest in society…. then and only then can a true intellectual discussion and debate begin… and therin lies the truth… a true intellectual discussion and ultimately desicion, requires a true intellectual.
August 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
atheist, former Protestant
As a student of science and a film student I feel there is much to praise about this video, and will definitely share it with friends.
That being said, I do have some criticism: the prison statistics have no place in this video. If they have any message, it’s offensive when viewed in the context of statistics comparing rates of incarceration of racial minorities and women in the US.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:35 am
cap, where you get off thiking that that religion is the precursor for morality is beyond me, but then again, if your a christian i doubt you care much as to backing up your beliefs. morality predates religon, and before you get up on your high horse i suggest you look in the mirror and at a history book. religion has done some very disgusting things, atheism has not.
August 11th, 2006 at 6:58 am
I have visited many prison ..
try find out how may prisinors went into prison being atheiest .and came out beleiving in g-d
they all find g-d there
oh im jewish
August 11th, 2006 at 9:37 am
“try find out how may prisinors went into prison being atheiest .and came out beleiving in g-d
they all find g-d there”
Why is God in prison?…..
Sorry, just a joke. I couldn’t resist.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Statistics, politics, famous people, cool music - obviously, the concept of death is not known to our “young atheist”.
Think of what will happen to you in about twenty thousand days, think about what will happen to this planet in a few billion years, of what will happen to human race one day, and all its magnificent achievements and discoveries. Think of what will happen to the very Universe some day… Perhaps then you will see the value of faith.
I don’t give a flying f**k about your statistics and facts. The society has no place in my private and intimate relationship with the Creator.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
“Think of what will happen to you in about twenty thousand days, think about what will happen to this planet in a few billion years, of what will happen to human race one day, and all its magnificent achievements and discoveries. Think of what will happen to the very Universe some day… Perhaps then you will see the value of faith.”
What is it that you are implying? I don’t think there is an athiest here who hasnt given consideration to the implications of their beliefs. We don’t cower behind mythology because we don’t want to accept logic.
The concept of death being the end is horrifying to anyone. It doesn’t validate your faith.
Furthermore, you have no idea what will happen to mankind in billions of years. Perhaps we’ll truly master our universe and create an afterlife (however unlikely). My point is no one knows, but mankind has great potential… greater than that of fairy tales.
“I don’t give a flying f**k about your statistics and facts. The society has no place in my private and intimate relationship with the Creator.”
No one was telling you what to believe (although most christians don’t hesitate to do so). The video was only meant to disprove some christians misguided views towards atheists.
August 13th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
“No one was telling you what to believe (although most christians don’t hesitate to do so). The video was only meant to disprove some christians misguided views towards atheists.”
I think it has been determined that the purpose of the video was NOT to disprove anything to christians. If that was the point, then it most likely failed miserably. Many Christians already think that atheists are godless intellectuals and hollywood celebrities bent on corrupting the youth with evolution and subversive themes.
It would be much more effective to show “average” people who happen to be atheists but manage to live moral, wholesome lives. Simply showing a bunch of smart/famous people who don’t believe in God is just pointless if not counter productive.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:12 am
“I don’t give a flying f**k about your statistics and facts.”
I believe that sums it up right there. No matter who it harms or how ridiculous it is, there sorts of people hold on to their irrational beliefs no matter what. They don’t have time to consider inconvenient facts, and this guy even admits it. I don’t think that all religious beliefs are irrational, nor do I care if someone holds onto irrational beliefs as long as they don’t try to restrict the rights of others based on their irrational beliefs.
August 14th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“Think of what will happen to you in about twenty thousand days,”
Ah, to be retired down in the Florida Keys at the age of 76 with my hot little librarian significant other. Drinking rum and yelling at the kids on my lawn. I like thems 20,000 days.
“think about what will happen to this planet in a few billion years,”
So about 3.649×10^11 days after my days of sipping rum in the Florida Keys, the Earth might get swallowed by the Sun and reduced to atomic ash. This really concerns me how? Who’s to say if my progeny will still be on earth by then? I don’t really see any reason to worry about it, so relax guy.
“of what will happen to human race one day, and all its magnificent achievements and discoveries.”
Oh you mean when we’ve made enough magnificent achievements and discoveries that the nova of our old home star is nothing but the irrelevent blinking out of just one fusion power source in the universe of vast billions of them? I love to think about those days.
“Think of what will happen to the very Universe some day…Perhaps then you will see the value of faith.”
No thinking about that makes me wish I could have talked with Sagan in his time. Thinking about that makes me want to debate with Hawking and talk for weeks. It doesn’t strike me with terror to think that the end could happen. Fear is the product of irrationality. The rational mind stares at the dark unknown and says, “Hey I wonder what’s in there?” not “Oh lord, sheild mine eyes from the dark, its scary in there.”
August 20th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
@ Zol:
“Statistics, politics, famous people, cool music - obviously, the concept of death is not known to our “young atheist”.”
The concept of death is just that. Death, we will cease to exist. Why should we, mankind, be so special compared to our brethren the mammal, that we should have an eternal soul, and live side by side to “our creator”? What would we do there? What would be the purpose of conserving the essence of billions and billions of people that have come and gone in history?
“Think of what will happen to you in about twenty thousand days.”
I’ll die, and leave this world as heritage to my children and theirs.
“think about what will happen to this planet in a few billion years”
It’ll cease to exist, just like anything that has come and gone. Likely our planet will be far from inhabited by that time though due to some other major catastrophe like a big ass-whooping meteor.
“of what will happen to human race one day, and all its magnificent achievements and discoveries.”
Thesame as what happened to civilizations before us.
“Think of what will happen to the very Universe some day”
The Universe (as far as we can see and calculate now) will be an ever expanding universe. nothing will happen to it.
“Perhaps then you will see the value of faith.”
Nope… sorry, still not
“I don’t give a flying f**k about your statistics and facts.”
Your loss
“The society has no place in my private and intimate relationship with the Creator.”
Honestly, when was the last time your creator has actually talked to you?
@ Matthew:
Here you go, something you might find an interrested read:
http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Having watched the video and read the comments, I would like to emphasise three things.
First, the difference between atheism and agnosticism. They are very different.
In simple terms:
- Atheists believe there is no God.
- Agnostics believe that it is unknowable whether there is a God.
Second, I would like to highlight the fact that both Atheism and Agnosticism are *beliefs* too, like other religions.
Third, if being an Atheist involves a certainty that there is no God, is this not very similar in principle to being certain that there *is* a God, and does this not detract from the strength of some of Atheists’ criticisms of other Religions?
I am agnostic.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:26 am
“Second, I would like to highlight the fact that both Atheism and Agnosticism are *beliefs* too, like other religions.”
Quite right. one cannot prove, nor disprove the existance (or absence for that matter) of a deity therefor both are what one believes to be true.
“Third, if being an Atheist involves a certainty that there is no God, is this not very similar in principle to being certain that there *is* a God, and does this not detract from the strength of some of Atheists’ criticisms of other Religions?”
Well, yes… and no.
Atheist generally use logics to reduce the plausibility of the existance of a deity. Religious people use tales and traditions, and feelings to “prove” to them that there is a god.
The main difference to me though is that most religious people feel a need to “save” those that do not follow their believe, and are in some way indoctrinated such that the _possibility_ that their faith being untrue absolutely doesn’t exist. Mostly atheists have found their “faith” by logics and therefor made it highly likely to them to be true, but they are the first to admit that there is no certainty.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Hello sasserstyl ,
I disagree completely with the claim that theism and atheism are equally valid view points simply because they are both beliefs. What is important is the rationale that leads one to their belief. Some irrational reasons to believe would include ‘because a book said so’, ‘because my religious leader told me so’, and ‘because my family told me so’. There are rational reasons to believe, but few take this route. I’m sure there are people who have irrational reasons to be atheist as well. I would imagine that ‘to be different’ and ‘I got mad at God when I believed’ are possibilities. But few atheists take this route.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a great illustration why not all beliefs are equal. Your argument basically says the following:
1. Theists believe there is a God (true)
2. Atheists believe there is no God (true)
3. All beliefs are equally valid (false)
Thus
4. Theism and atheism are equally valid (false)
Using the same logic:
1. Monsterist believe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster
2. Amonsterists believe there in no Flying Spaghetti Monster
3. All beliefs are equally valid
Thus
4. Monsterism and amonsterism are equally valid
Or
4. Belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster and Belief in no Flying Spaghetti Monster are equally valid
The falsehood of the conclusion is self evident by its absurdity. Therefore, one of the three claims must be false. Since #1 and #2 are true, #3 must be false. Not all beliefs are equally valid.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Strijker/sidfaiwu - thanks for your responses, you both make good points.
At the risk of misunderstanding you both, there is some commonality between your posts(if i understand them correctly):
Stijker implies that logic is superior to “tales and traditions”.
sidfaiwu describes how most atheists use “rational” reasons as opposed to theists who use “irrational” reasons.
Both of these arguments imply that the reasoning atheists use (wrt religion) is superior to that of theists (in general).
Unfortunately it is not possible to define “superior”. Who says that coming to a conclusion on your faith based on logic is superior to following a religion because your parents do?
To me (and I suspect to you), basing your decision on what your parents do seems silly. *But*, because we don’t know (and possibly can’t know) whether there is a God, we can’t rule out the possibility that following your parents is a better route.
Example: Girls.
I am a guy and I have spent a great deal of time over the past few years trying to understand the female psyche and how it differs to men. This is all very interesting, and mostly not important here, however it highlights my point:
Say you come home from work, your girlfriend is there and she’s crying her eyes out. She’s really upset.
What do you do?
As a guy, the logical and sensible thing is to take hold of her, calm her down, understand why she’s crying and then offer advice as to how to solve the problem.
Except, this isn’t what you should do (I generalise of course!)
What the girl wants is for you to listen to her, empathise and show that you understand, perhaps make her laugh, but above all be mainly passive and listen and *under no circumstances* try to solve the issue.
What this dumb (but based on reality!) example highlights is that what seems obviously the right thing to do *to you* is not *necessarily* the right thing to do.
Or put another way: what seems obviously the right way to reason about religion *to you* is not *necessarily* the right way to reason about religion.
In summary:
1. We do not/cannot know whether there is a God
2. Your “right way” is not necessarily someone elses “right way”
3. We cannot define “superior” in an objective way
Therefore, all beliefs *can* be equally valid (even though we can hypothesize that one may be right and all the others wrong).
sasserstyl
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Hello again sasserstyl,
Let me clarify a part of my post. I did not say that all theists use irrational reasoning, just most of them. (I didn’t fully generalize, only partially ;) There are valid, logical arguments that support the existence of God. So the reasoning of an atheist is not always superior to that of a theist.
You are right that I claim that reason is superior to other methods of belief. You said:
“Unfortunately it is not possible to define “superior”. Who says that coming to a conclusion on your faith based on logic is superior to following a religion because your parents do?”
It is possible to define “superior”. For example, suppose my parents believe the world is flat. But suppose I also sailed around the world. The rational belief is superior because the belief is based on observable evidence.
Even if you don’t think that observable evidence is the correct criterion for ranking belief, my argument still holds. I demonstrated that not all beliefs are equal. There must exist, then some criterion with which we can rank beliefs (or say that one is more valid than another). Then there must be some way of defining ’superior’ when it comes to beliefs. Note that this does allow for the possibility of two beliefs having equal validity, but equal validity cannot be assumed, it must be demonstrated. This does leave open the possibility that atheism and theism are equally valid, but claiming that all beliefs are equally valid is not a legitimate argument.
Also, your example about coming home and finding your girlfriend crying falls apart very quickly. You are correct that an emotional response is superior to a logical response. But these are reasons for responding to a human in an emotional (and thus likely irrational) state, not reasons for believing something is true.
This is fun.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Doing or believing in something by example of your parents is always going to be logically unstable, whether or not that something is known to be true or not. Your parents may have this belief because their parents did, and their parents, etc… However at some point in the line there was the person who began this train of beliefs and came to the conclusioin under their own terms, however logical or illogical it may have been. There is really no way to know. The only real way to purue the ultimate truth is to try to observe and learn things yourself in the most objective way possible .
August 24th, 2006 at 10:17 am
sidfaiwu,
Concluding that all beliefs are not equal does not help your case any since, according to your definition, equality depends on known truth or fact and NOT the type of thinking (rational vs. irrational) that lead to the belief. In other words, one could come to the conclusion that the Earth is round through irrational reasoning. For example, I could claim that God told me that the Earth was round in a dream.
So until we KNOW whether or not there is a God, both atheism an theism are equally valid. How one comes to either belief is irrelevent. Agnosticism is actually superior to both because it is relies on a known truth: we do not know if there is a god. Doesn’t matter how one comes to agnosticism. It is valid and superior either way.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Hey Matthew,
I think you misunderstand the goal of my post. It was not to show that atheism or theism is a superior belief. Sasserstyl’s original claim was that atheism and theism (and agnosticism) are equally valid because they are beliefs. This relied on the assumption that all beliefs are equally valid. My goal was to demonstrate that this underlying assumption was incorrect. I think I accomplished that. Thus there exists at least one criterion with which we can rank the validity of beliefs. I proposed, but did not conclusively demonstrate that ‘based on observable evidence’ was a likely candidate.
Atheism and theism my very well be equally valid, but it is not simply because they are both beliefs. Even under the criterion I proposed it can be argued that there is no observable evidence either way, so both theism and atheism are equally invalid. I think this is what you are saying in the second half of your post.
Notice, though, that my criterion does not rely on known truth or fact. If God told me the earth is round in a dream, my belief would be invalid because the reason for my belief is not based on observable evidence. The validity of the reasoning does not affect the truth of the belief. It would be like saying 2^2 (two squared) = 4 because I added the two number I see. It is the truth, but the reasoning is false. We can also se why the reasoning is relevant. Based on my false reasoning, I would go on to conclude that 3^2 is 5!
I would argue that fundamentalists do the exact same thing. They assume the Bible is true. The Bible says that we should not kill people. Thus they arrive at an ethical truth through faulty reasoning. This reinforces their faulty reasoning. Their faulty reasoning causes them to also conclude that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 7 days. The observable evidence (fossil records) contradicts this. Which should we believe? I say the fossil records because the reasoning behind this belief is based on observable evidence.
Does that help explain what I was trying to get at?
August 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Hi sidfaiwu,
This gets too complicated if we cover too much at once!
I actually think there is broad agreement between us. I also think that its easy to misunderstand the term “religious beliefs”, so I’m going to define it here for the purposes of my post:
Religious beliefs refers specifically to the ideas of theism, atheism and agnosticism.
I’ll focus on a specific claim you make:
“My goal was to demonstrate that.. [the assumption that all beliefs are equally valid] ..was incorrect. I think I accomplished that. ”
I agree - but only in a specific case ;)
You use the analogy of sailing round the world:
“It is possible to define “superior”. For example, suppose my parents believe the world is flat. But suppose I also sailed around the world. The rational belief is superior because the belief is based on observable evidence…” (Don’t worry, I’ll get to your next paragraph in a bit)
You’re right here, you demonstrated that, accepting a few basic facts regarding shared perception (i.e. that the world exists and that there is no trickery involved in my perception of the world and that in your example, we are certain of the validity of the claims of the person who says he sailed round the world), once you find a way of proving a theory empirically - such as proving the world round by sailing round it - *that* belief is then generally regarded as superior by most humans.
So in your example, you demonstrate how to prove that one belief is superior to another through empirical testing.
Fine.
But… it’s not possible to empirically test whether there is a God, or even anything about him/her/whatever, and so this criterion for ranking the validity of beliefs is not applicable in the religious context.
You then make the following interesting point:
“Even if you don’t think that observable evidence is the correct criterion for ranking belief, my argument still holds…”
Here you appear to accept that “observable evidence” is not the only valid criterion for forming a belief - I agree with what I infer you mean from this - one person’s “observable evidence” may not be someone else’s, and therefore empirical evidence is not the only valid criterion for forming a belief.
You then say:
“I demonstrated that not all beliefs are equal.”
Again, I agree but with a caveat:
You demonstrated that *given an accepted testing mechanism* (e.g. the presence of empirical evidence) beliefs can be tested for validity.
There is no such mechanism for belief in a God.
And therefore it’s not possible to determine which religious beliefs are more valid than others.
And therefore claiming to have more-valid religious beliefs is mere speculation.
And therefore, counter to what you say, *equal* validity has to be *assumed* and *superior* validity proven.
Until the existence of a God is proven either way all religious beliefs (by this I mean theism, atheism and agnosticism) remain equally valid.
In your last post, sidfaiwu, you begin to include more specific religious beliefs/ideas such as creationism and literalism. Many of these specific ideas should be treated separately from the “is there a god?” debate because we *can* demonstrate empirically that the earth is 5 billion years old and that dinosaurs did not live concurrently with man. In these cases I broadly agree with your “observable evidence” reasoning.
On a separate (but related) point:
Mathew, you say:
“Agnosticism is actually superior to both because it is relies on a known truth: we do not know if there is a god. Doesn’t matter how one comes to agnosticism. It is valid and superior either way. ”
Actually, it is not a known truth that we don’t/can’t know whether God exists.
I know that *I* don’t know whether God exists.
But I can’t know for sure whether *someone else*, say a born again religious person “knows” whether there is a God.
Maybe he really has some insight that I don’t.
If the religious person claims to know a God exists, we can’t prove them wrong, and so agnosticism is only as valid as all other beliefs.
In summary:
1. Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism are equally valid beliefs.
2. The “Is there a God?” debate should be treated separately from other religious “ideas”.
3. The validity of many religious ideas depends on your perspective on any given empirical evidence.
Finally, it’s OK to have different beliefs about religious ideas but these differences should never be used as an excuse to commit acts that are viewed by the wider community as detrimental.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
hmm… I’ve got a lot on my hands at the moment, that’s why I’ve been silent the last couple of days. After monday I might have a bit time to join in again. I’ll bring the tea and cookies then cos I do find this an interresting discussion, and I can’t say that about most religious discussions cos most end up with
“There is a god cos the bible says so”
versus
“The bible is the first fictional roman known to man”
etc ;)
Cya in a few days guys :)
August 25th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Hello sasserstyl,
I think you are right in that there is broad agreement between us. The topic of the validity of beliefs is a very interesting one to me because I have not fully formed an opinion on the matter. By discussing this topic with you and others, I will be better equipped to form and defend my opinions. Also, as per your suggestion, I’ll stay on topic wrt the (non)belief in God.
It still seems that atheism and theism are equally valid simply because they are not testable beliefs. I think that atheists might have a point that lack of evidence is evidence of lacking. I’ll try to form a structured argument around t it makes it easier for me to understand and easier for me to demonstrate my objection.
1. Atheism and theism are not testable
2. All beliefs that are not testable are equally valid
Thus
3. Atheism and theism are equally valid
I’m I understanding you correctly? If I am, then we can equate many beliefs with either atheism or theism. Consider, again, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). I know the FSM was designed as a parody of intelligent design (a separate topic), but it can be useful here is well. Suppose the FSM is invisible, silent, and intangible. In fact, suppose it has all the properties necessary that it cannot be sensed by us or any of our scientific equipment. In other words, there is no evidence confirming or denying the existence of the FSM. Then:
1. Belief in the FSM (monsterism) and belief in the non-existence of the FSM (amonsterism) are not testable
2. All beliefs that are not testable are equally valid
Thus
3. Monsterism and amonsterism are equally valid
We can use the same argument to demonstrate for the validity of belief in many things; from elves who live in the forest and are perfect at hiding their existence to my invisible friend, Pete. Belief in these things just doesn’t seem as valid. I don’t believe in elves in the forest because there is no evidence for the existence of such elves. The lack of evidence suggests the lack of existence.
PS See you soon, Strijker. Don’t forget the tea!
August 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Hi sidfaiwu,
This is interesting for me because prior to this discussion I hadn’t really put much thought into the validity of different beliefs. I actually had subconciously come to the conculsion that Mathew did; that agnosticism was the more valid belief.
However, this exchange has forced me to think it through and I now think that theism, atheism and agnosticism are equally valid, and it is the other “stuff” that should be the focus of any criticism I may have (e.g. creationism, or members of a religion having a superiority complex).
In response to your question, yes, you understand me correctly.
In your example, I am happy to accept that Monsterism and amonsterism can and *should* be treated as equally valid. But, that doesn’t preclude the fact that one of the beliefs might be more valid - we just dont have the means to determine which one it is.
However, reading your post got me thinking:
Your “invisible friend” example made me realise that belief validity is *contextual*.
Running with the invisibe friend idea, I may have an ongoing mental experience of having an invisible friend.
My experience should (and likely will) lead me to believe then that “My invisible friend exists”.
However, no-one else will experience my invisible friend (it’s in my head!), so the most valid belief system for them is “The Invisible friend doesn’t exist”.
Both “everyone else”, and I, have evidence - but it is different and so we reach different (but equally valid) conclusions.
I think this can be applied to religious beliefs.
The more I think about this, the more I realise it’s not belief in a God that bothers me, it’s specific aspects of the doctrine of organised religions that does.
…and continuing with this thought:
Organised Religions gerneally have base of written work from which they draw.
When you read anything, you interpret the text according to your worldview (this is unavoidable).
Your world-view defines your moral/ethical standards.
So although currently there appears to be a “battle” between “the West” and “the relgion of Islam”, I think the battle is between moral and ethical standards, rather than religion.
Example:
Say hypothetically (because I haven’t read it!) say the Qur’an has a piece of text discussing a “war against infidels”.
A Muslim might read that and, using his worldview, interpret that he should take up arms against the West.
Yet another Muslim, with a different worldview will interpret is as meaning that he should merely proselytise.
So the “battle” is one of worldviews, *not* religions. And I submit that a strong determinant of whether someone will seek to kill people is their ethical and moral context.
So I say, fuck missiles/UAVs/Jets. The way to win the war is to educate and debate with those who hold different worldviews so that they can be more closely aligned, reducing friction and improving understanding.
If I were the President of the US!
August 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Hi sasserstyl,
I think I understand your point of view. I’m glad our conversation helped you to solidify your thoughts. All beliefs that are not testable or have no evidence are equivalent in your eyes, but testable beliefs are only as valid as the evidence that supports that belief. Also, it seems that, like me, you disapprove the use of non-testable beliefs to support immoral actions. Thus it is these actions that we should focus our efforts on preventing.
Denying homosexuals rights (for example) is bad enough. Justifying it based on a belief that “that’s what God wants” is worse since the opposite belief is equally as valid. I agree completely.
I still disagree that all non-testable beliefs are equivalent. I believe that consistent lack of evidence is evidence of lacking. But this is a fine point that is ultimately irrelevant to us since ethics, not epistemology, is our common goal here.
Still it was a fun discussion which I am more than willing to continue if you or others are interested.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Athiest
I take some issue with people asting as if this video is supposed to convince Christain fundementaliss of anything. This doesn’t say much about Christianity to me, but more about the idea of Americanism. Particularly with that insane Bush quote.
This isn’t a criticism of Christianity or a piece of Athiest propoganda, but more a commentary. “Well gee, I guess these people just aren’t good enough to be American.” It puts into context some of the most over-quoted Bible lines.
Fools, vile, do no good. They don’t suggest to me that Christians think we’re stupid or evil, but that we’re not contributing anything to society and are unable to contribute anything worthwhile simply because we lack faith in a god.
Somehow, it is unAmerican to no believe in a god, we don’t really deserve citizenship, it’s been magnanimously bestowed upon us.
I spent many years in an obnoxiously Christian area, and the ammount of flack I got was incredible. American public school, I had teachers calling me stupid for not believing in god.
This isn’t about what the Bible or may not actually man (since it is open to much interpretation) but about the levels and kinds of dogma as well as the attitude preached to someone who is athiest.
Do I think the Bible says I’m stupid? No. But apparently many of my elementary and middle school teachers thought it was an excuse to say I was.
And here I thought being American meant the ability to choose your beliefs, not be ridiculed and belittled for the lack of them.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:19 am
Im am a catholic and while I find the video strong, it is misleading. First off most criminals are atheists agnostics BEFORE they are in jail, after they are incarcerated they only hope and thing they can turn to is God, because they know they are gonna die soon or be forever there. People need to seriously take this into perspective. In fact many drug addicts, criminals, conmen, that Ive talked to(ex of course) were hard nosed athiests and darwinists before they landed in prison. This here shows that when a person is truely hopeless they only have one true thing to turn to, God.
Theres a saying that goes:
“Its easy to be an athiest when life is good
Its easy to be an athiest when things are going well for you
“But its VERY HARD to be athiest lying in your deathbed knowing your gonna die soon
Its very hard to be an athiest wondering “What if there is a god maybe”
Its very hard to be an athiest when that happens”
Hard hitting words in my view. The inventions and genuises in the video I have respect for. But remember life on the earth is VERY short. All these inventions don’t mean anything when your near death thinking about your family and children and grandchildren. They are just outer, external lifeless things. Inventions are great and help the world, of course.. But they should not be the CENTRAL point of belief. Because there is no point in that and is self futile.
Remember a light bulb or a PH.D professor does not replicate the truely wonderful things in life like Love, emotion, birth, children, family, guilt, and self nuturing. What its like when a mother holds her baby, or a father plays ball with his son. No invention can compare to those truely unique things. And thats why the Bible is saying. You are what you are by what you have inside and in your soul, than what you create or how much fame and money you can make.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:59 am
Mike,
“Im am a catholic and while I find the video strong, it is misleading. First off most criminals are atheists agnostics BEFORE they are in jail, after they are incarcerated they only hope and thing they can turn to is God, because they know they are gonna die soon or be forever there.”
Do you have any statistics to support this? And how do explain the fact that many, if not most criminals continue a life of crime AFTER getting out of prison? Are they no longer Christian then?
“In fact many drug addicts, criminals, conmen, that Ive talked to(ex of course) were hard nosed athiests and darwinists before they landed in prison.”
ROFL! Ya, I’m sure they were “darwinists.” I’m sure they spent a lot of time chatting with their criminal buddies about natural selection and and quoting from “The Origin of Species.”
You pretty much lost all credibility right there.
“Theres a saying that goes:
“Its easy to be an athiest when life is good
Its easy to be an athiest when things are going well for you
“But its VERY HARD to be athiest lying in your deathbed knowing your gonna die soon
Its very hard to be an athiest wondering “What if there is a god maybe”
Its very hard to be an athiest when that happens””
Ok, but what about all those people who LOSE faith when really bad stuff happens? Stuff that makes a loving God seem so unrealistic.
“Remember a light bulb or a PH.D professor does not replicate the truely wonderful things in life like Love, emotion, birth, children, family, guilt, and self nuturing.”
Heh, leave it to a Catholic to include “guilt” in a list of life’s truely wonderful things. :-)
August 31st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
“Theres a saying that goes:
“Its easy to be an athiest when life is good
Its easy to be an athiest when things are going well for you
“But its VERY HARD to be athiest lying in your deathbed knowing your gonna die soon
Its very hard to be an athiest wondering “What if there is a god maybe”
Its very hard to be an athiest when that happens””
There’s also a saying that goes, “that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.” Just because it feels good to believe that theres a god and humans are special doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make it true, or likely.
“Hard hitting words in my view. The inventions and genuises in the video I have respect for. But remember life on the earth is VERY short. All these inventions don’t mean anything when your near death thinking about your family and children and grandchildren. They are just outer, external lifeless things. Inventions are great and help the world, of course.. But they should not be the CENTRAL point of belief. Because there is no point in that and is self futile. ”
And when these foolish godless men find ways to extend your existence to the point where you don’t need to panic about death to justify your beliefs, where will your faith lie? There’s another saying “The hard work of one does more than the prayer of millions.”
September 19th, 2006 at 8:08 am
well this lil clip left me wide jawwed. ..im kinda confused with my religon since im catholic, and still feelin atheist, so i just dotn talk about my religion. . . @.@
September 19th, 2006 at 10:56 am
This is the perfect place for a person that is confused about their beliefs. I do believe a few of us went from being active members of an organized religion to adopting the non-theist and non-revalistic religions and philosophies. Here you can question your beliefs in a public forum and have both sides respond with all the opinions on it you could ever need.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Christian
I fail to see how 2,000 people who were involved in a survey at the University of Minnesota represent how I feel about one darned thing.
I know that I don’t have a beef with any of the people in that video.
In closing, I certainly don’t agree with a president who declares that any legal, law abiding resident of the United States isn’t a citizen.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:08 am
stupid religion broke my post :/
November 15th, 2006 at 5:20 am
To those who don’t think that Atheists can feel relaxed on their death bed… I would say to you they have the option of looking at time as either cyclic or continuing… in the continuing version then a restoration of life is possible… given a long enough length of time EVERYTHING will happen, this being the case its completely plausible for someone exactly the same as said atheist in memories, looks, behavior and ability to be born some day be it millions, trillions or gazillions of years from now…
OR
The cycle thingy means that eventually the universe collapses and then BAMS! again and the aforementioned atheist gets to do everything all over Weeee! Anchorman was way funnier the 2nd time anyhow…
Im no atheist but I think being left in that situation is much better as its plausible and very provable where as God and heaven is umm not :P
Cheers!
November 15th, 2006 at 5:31 am
Oh right as for the ‘fools’ comments, It matters not how the word was perceived by the author of the video. The statement remains the same all those people listed are fools in the eyes of the supposed “god”. Thats how the religion demands you view them.
I think that at the end of the day we can all say that “fool” has a negative conitation that being the case anyone who follows the bible feels as though they are better then all people listed in the video… simple as that, it shows the ridiculousness of the claim. I know a ton of Christian’s that will have done less for their fellow man then any of the listed scholars… though Im not going as far as to say the same about the actors… I mean common they dont happen to be special, just lucky people who caught a break
November 15th, 2006 at 7:08 am
atheist.
I get it, a lot of scientists are atheists. But you could do the same about christians or muslims or jews or buddists, and come up with quotes from those very atheists damning what they do with equal pith.
The underlying issue is that of course among the liberal middle classes atheism is popular, them also being the least likely group to go to jail, but this is atheisms failure. These scientific-rationalists, Dwarkins and the rest, have done nothing to persuade the vast majority of people that atheism has anything to offer except the truth. Noone cares for the truth if it doesn’t help them live better lives. So far atheists are offering nothing but nihilism.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Hang on, did he miss out Richard Feynman?
January 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I am atheist, and I also feel that all religion is bad for the human race. If anyone has any doubts, I would refer them to the current situation in the middle east, where people are industriously killing each other over MICROSCOPIC differences in their common islamic “faith”. In the US, it has been a source of divisiveness in our political system, resulting in a war in Iraq, that had ZERO justification, aside from Bush’s desire to one-up his dad.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Also, those who believe that old saw about “there are no atheists in foxholes”, think again. I was in combat and have had direct experience of “incoming” artillery, and was and still atheist. My dogtags, (which I still have) read “Rel. Pref.: Atheist”
May 5th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Gentle Giants, that’s what the brilliant people in this video are.
The simplicity of the video and the absolutely perfect background music please me enormously. One must remember, some people need to be spoonfed the truth. Plus, in matters of deep importance, which this IS, understatement can be much more powerful than exaggeration. “Just the facts, Ma’am,” is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Congratulations, Zachery!
And thanks for this Atheist Passion experience.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Asatru Pagan Priest… with Agnostic/Atheist leanings.
This video had a side effect of letting me know alot of people I like’s relgious veiws, including a few of the scientists that inspired me to take science as a career. Thanks for letting us see this, and thanks for been a voice of reason in an age of stupidity, at the dawn of the second dark age of humanity.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Zachary: From another atheist — great video! I have been an atheist for 40 years, ever since I was a junior in high school and read 2 books by Ayn Rand: “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.” I look forward to seeing more of your work.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
The “simple” question I would like to ask everyone is: “How does something (physical or otherwise)come from NOTHING?” Obviously there is no