• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

This is how you don't defend Atheism.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it normal for people not to wear shoes?

This disturbs me greatly.

They were probably just flesh coloured toe-shoes:
five-finger-shoe.jpg
 
This is infantile. The kinds of angry thoughts and feelings this dude is experiencing are what I might expect from someone who only recently lost their religion and is adjusting to a new worldview in an immature and highly emotional way. But this garbage coming from an adult? Ridiculous. You don't have to compromise your beliefs or pull punches in a debate for the sake of not offending anyone, but you need to maintain your composure and act like a reasonable person if you want to be taken seriously.

I say this not from a smug perspective of "OHOHO EXTREME ATHEISTS ARE JUST AS BAD!" but as an atheist who is fed up with what people like this guy do to our public image. The angry rebellious teenager stereotype will be around forever if certain atheists don't grow up and stop demonstrating it so perfectly for our detractors.
 
This is infantile. The kinds of angry thoughts and feelings this dude is experiencing are what I might expect from someone who only recently lost their religion and is adjusting to a new worldview in an immature and highly emotional way. But this garbage coming from an adult? Ridiculous. You don't have to compromise your beliefs or pull punches in a debate for the sake of not offending anyone, but you need to maintain your composure and act like a reasonable person if you want to be taken seriously.

I say this not from a smug perspective of "OHOHO EXTREME ATHEISTS ARE JUST AS BAD!" but as an atheist who is fed up with what people like this guy do to our public image. The angry rebellious teenager stereotype will be around forever if certain atheists don't grow up and stop demonstrating it so perfectly for our detractors.

There are always going to be immature atheists just as there are always going to be immature christians or jews or muslims, there are nutjobs everywhere. So you might want to get used to it.
 
There are always going to be immature atheists just as there are always going to be immature christians or jews or muslims, there are nutjobs everywhere. So you might want to get used to it.

Thing is, atheists have less of an excuse because atheism doesn't have any dogma, at least not if taken at face value. The problem comes from chuckleheads like the guy in the video getting "dogma-lite" from hellholes like r/atheism that reinforce being mean-spirited, condescending, and intellectually lazy as if those things went hand in hand with atheism. Seriously, it just makes my blood boil.
 
Thing is, atheists have less of an excuse because atheism doesn't have any dogma, at least not if taken at face value. The problem comes from chuckleheads like the guy in the video getting "dogma-lite" from hellholes like r/atheism that reinforce being mean-spirited, condescending, and intellectually lazy as if those things went hand in hand with atheism. Seriously, it just makes my blood boil.

Atheism doesn't have a dogma, but "Brights" do.
 
One shouldn't have to defend atheism

Well, it depends on what you mean by that. If you take a world without God as the null hypothesis, disagreeing with someone who makes testable claims about God is defending atheism in a sense, which I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do.
 
i can't even make it to the 1-minute mark, my embarrassment level is way too high

Yeah it ends with the police coming around and the guy screaming whatever as he goes back to jogging barefoot....

I can clearly say it was sufficiently humiliating to me and my fellow atheists..../shakes head
 
As the default, I don't think atheism needs defending.

I admire this crusader for trying though.

Atheism is only the default based on which definition of it you subscribe to.

The definition I use based on my social experiences with the phenomenon is a belief that there is/are no god(s) rather than a lack of belief in god(s).

The subtle distinction, for my point of view, plays a major role in shaping attitudes and active discussions about the topic, to the extent that atheism doesn't really qualify as a null claim but rather an alternate positive claim.
 
Yeah it ends with the police coming around and the guy screaming whatever as he goes back to jogging barefoot....

I can clearly say it was sufficiently humiliating to me and my fellow atheists..../shakes head

so does the guy just scream at the christian for 9 minutes? i genuinely cant bring myself to look at the rest
 
People shouldn't be surprised if people replace theist dogmatism with whatever dogmatism, even if it means atheist dogmastim somehow.

God is a powerful idea for a reason, it occupies a place in the the human need for answers in very clever (and culturally potent) ways. Taking that away leaves a hole even in most level headed guys. It's just that level headed people tend to acknowledge that somewhat and keep the search elsewhere.

Belief is not a choice. It is something that happens to you, by a number of factor, rational arguments being just on of them. The mistake of neo-atheist people seems to be to equate good argument with ground for belief, which would be true if we were angels acting by reason alone, but we're hardly that.

Picture this: the depressed, ex-drug addict guy who is on the bottom of the pit and delivers himself unto God because it's either that, suicide or back to drugs. Now, take this guy and make him a nonbeliever; someone who can't believe, who is convinced that there is no god for any number of reasons. Then he sees the ad on bus saying that you can be happy this life right here right now and happy news: you don't even need the religion you can't believe in the first place.

That's the recipe of a guy holding to his faith that atheism and reason equals a better, happier life as much as the guy is holding the sign.

In a way, this theme of just calling religion bullshit and not taking it seriously make people don't take seriosuly the lack of religion either. Being an atheist is a path you are chosing, it says very important things about how you view yourself as a mortal human being in a body that was designed for fucking and eating, but that can, on occasion, think about other stuff.

God is a powerful notion that hijacked a great deal of topics, if you throw out these topics along with the god concept, you risk falling into this kind of trap where you cling to atheism with the same lack of reflection as someone clings to Jesus, meaning, not for reasons, but because there lies the salvation.
 
so does the guy just scream at the christian for 9 minutes? i genuinely cant bring myself to look at the rest

Pretty much, he gets out of breath like a bajillion times, lowers his voice, raises his voice, walks back and forth, does a lot of finger pointing, cracks his voice, keeps repeating Hitler was a catholic and how faith based religions ruin everything, slavery...ect...

Its funny because the crowd was also against him, many people kept on trying to rationalize with the dude and many onlookers were taping his meltdown...

Its sad because he actually posed some good points, only if he remained calm and coherent but he just ended up looking like an out of breath fool.
 
"Why are you afraid of a reasonable conversation?"

"BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM KILLING ANYMORE JEWS OR ANYMORE QUEERS"

I do have to admit I lost it at that part; so damn funny :lol.
 
Atheism is only the default based on which definition of it you subscribe to.

The definition I use based on my social experiences with the phenomenon is a belief that there is/are no god(s) rather than a lack of belief in god(s).

The subtle distinction, for my point of view, plays a major role in shaping attitudes and active discussions about the topic, to the extent that atheism doesn't really qualify as a null claim but rather an alternate positive claim.

Yet most Atheists I know and interact with use the latter definition. Instead of using your preconceived notions of what you think Atheism is, find out what the person actually thinks. As such, my position of agnostic atheism is neither a positive claim or a position that is subject to the burden of proof.
 
Pretty much, he gets out of breath like a bajillion times, lowers his voice, raises his voice, walks back and forth, does a lot of finger pointing, cracks his voice, keeps repeating Hitler was a catholic and how faith based religions ruin everything, slavery...ect...

Its funny because the crowd was also against him, many people kept on trying to rationalize with the dude and many onlookers were taping his meltdown...

Its sad because he actually posed some good points, only if he remained calm and coherent but he just ended up looking like an out of breath fool.

He sounds like someone trying to condense every Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens youtube video into one statement lol

i'm just gonna assume he was shouting because of a lack of oxygen after his jog.....
 
I think it's hilarious how everyone just pins things they hate on Hitler, regardless if it was true or not

HITLER WAS GODLESS PAGAN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST VEGETARIAN, THAT'S WHY HE WAS IMMORAL

No, wait...

HITLER WAS A SECRET PRACTICING CATHOLIC, THAT'S WHY HE WAS IMMORAL
 
That's like, completely wrong.
Apart from missing my edit, it's not.
Who is a Jew?

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Who is a Jew according to Halacha (Jewish Law)?

According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish. According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. According to the Orthodox movement, the father’s religion and whether the person practices is immaterial. No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html

That's two Jewish sites.
 
He sounds like someone trying to condense every Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens youtube video into one statement lol

i'm just gonna assume he was shouting because of a lack of oxygen after his jog.....

I noticed how he kept losing his tempo and train of thought every few seconds, like he makes a point and then starts trailing off as he catches his breath and the screams another generalizing statement and then starts getting winded and forgets where he was in his point. It was a struggle to say the least.

And at least the late Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris would let their opponent get a word in edgewise. This guy seems like the type that needs to shout over you to make his point.

His position was and eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. As in he's shelling out all the hate and bigotry back at the people of faith he's accusing throw at Atheists all the time. Lol. Self proclaimed champion of justice for all Atheists. Give the man a standing ovation.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug tho...
 
Yet most Atheists I know and interact with use the latter definition. Instead of using your preconceived notions of what you think Atheism is, find out what the person actually thinks. As such, my position of agnostic atheism is neither a positive claim or a position that is subject to the burden of proof.

The number of conversations a person has had about their 'lack of belief' in something is evidence that it's more of an active belief in the non-existence of something. How often do you thing about your lack of belief in flying dogs?
 
A lot of anger there and what sounds like repeated words he may have heard or read from people far more eloquent than himself.
 
The number of conversations a person has had about their 'lack of belief' in something is evidence that it's more of an active belief in the non-existence of something. How often do you thing about your lack of belief in flying dogs?

The only conversations I have about religion are on GAF, I don't think about my atheism at all and never refer to myself as an atheist in any conversation. It's the standard, regardless of how its dressed up as agnosticism or whatever. Validations of your non-belief are irrelevant and only serve to empower the other.
 
The number of conversations a person has had about their 'lack of belief' in something is evidence that it's more of an active belief in the non-existence of something. How often do you thing about your lack of belief in flying dogs?

About as often as flying dogs comes up in conversation.
 
Well, it depends on what you mean by that. If you take a world without God as the null hypothesis, disagreeing with someone who makes testable claims about God is defending atheism in a sense, which I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do.
I meant one shouldn't have to defend their belief. I think Religious people are hypocrites for attacking atheists

I don't think my Original comment had anything to do with the OP but i was just leaving my drive by comment I suppose
 
The number of conversations a person has had about their 'lack of belief' in something is evidence that it's more of an active belief in the non-existence of something. How often do you thing about your lack of belief in flying dogs?

In my everyday life, as in when I'm not posting on GAF, the existence of God is not something I think about. If we had people enacting laws regarding the belief in flying dogs then I would also be an agnostic aflyingdoggist.
 
I meant one shouldn't have to defend their belief. I think Religious people are hypocrites for attacking atheists

I agree. The beliefs oneself has should only be validated and valued by themselves. It's like having an interest in something, you shouldn't have to argue it to anyone. If it is not causing malice and/or persecution of others, it's perfectly fine to have. Keep it to yourself and rock on.

But that is not how a lot of people act and live. Many use their religion (or lack thereof) to "fight" one another over views and what matters, to create views that aren't encompassing to all, but of a specific viewpoint, which then becomes a silly argument to see. But I guess it's in the nature of many to have a view on anything and make it a sword or a shield.
 
Old guy in the straw hat is pretty great. He's clearly enjoying the meltdown and even helping the hippie along. It's a great way to deal with stupid people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom