What's your religion?

[bugfartboy]

My iPod, which is the only thing I can get you tube on, keeps telling me it can't load the movie. So sorry.

[MikeW781]

gah. why can't you get movie on your main comp?

[bugfartboy]

Parent's blocked YouTube. K9 Internet Security strikes again.

[cyso]

Well, if you can't get to the video, I'll sum it up best I can.
The video states that it is possible to not have a belief whatsoever about the existence of a god. That is, an atheist can lack belief about a god. They don't necessarily believe that it is impossible for a god to exist, but if the claim "God exist", god meaning a supreme being that created the universe, they find the claim "Irresolvable", since "No procedure available to us could reliably establish the existence or non-existence of such an unscientific deity." If the claim "God exist" is made, with god meaning the biblical God, they would find the claim "demonstrably false", stating that, "no being can be regarded as perfect if it needs to be worshiped." (I don't know where he got the needs to be worshiped). But, anyways, they take the above quote as an example as to why they think the biblical God is false. Depending on what you meant by "God" when you make the claim "God exists", you would get a different outcome. Because of the varied output, the simplest way to describe this would be the lack of belief in gods. This definition of atheism (lack of belief in gods) is resisted by some people, who instead wish to define it as a belief that no god exist in order to make atheism seem like a position of faith. The narrator of the video notes that if a person feels at a disadvantage because their beliefs are "faith based and insupportable by logic or evidence" it is much easier to say that those who lack the person's belief have a faith based position than "facing up to the burden of truth" the person gives themselves when they insist others belief as they do. However, the narrator notes that one doesn't have to belief no gods exist "to recognize and expose theistic claims as indefensible." He notes that a person who believes no gods exist (strong atheist) or someone who is just unconvinced may both reject any claims of a god. Even if atheism was defined the belief that no gods exist, there would still be the same number of nonbelievers "dismantling theistic claims." The narrator states that people who fixate on strong atheist are either misidentifying or trying to distract people from their "real problem", which he states to be that "their claims have no valid foundation" and collapse under close scrutiny. The narrator notes that some people say that we would have to classify rocks and dogs as atheist. The narrator points out that we are dealing with people, not rocks and dogs, and that fact should be understood, just like if someone asked you, when you where at a party, to "identify which ones weren't married", you wouldn't say the coffee table. He also points out the suffix -ist denotes a personal noun, hence a person, not a dog. The narrator notes that people start life with a default lack of belief in God. He notes that while the default position is not always desirable, to move a person away from the default, you, not the person in the default position has to provide justification. To convince someone that gods exist, the burden of proof is on the person trying to convince. The narrator notes that some people say that "One cannot lack belief in gods because one needs to believe something about gods in order to reject them." This claim fails if you substitute another noun in the place of god. The narrator, and presumably other atheist, reject theistic claims, stating that the burden of proof falls on those who belief in gods, since the said god doesn't do much to prove his existence, and he can reject the claims made by people due to "defective reasoning, defective definition, or lack of evidence." He notes that some people complain that defining atheism as a lack of beliefs says next to nothing about the atheist attitudes. However, someone saying they're a theist doesn't tell you much either. The solution to this problem is to ask the atheist more questions about their beliefs (like I did not so long ago). He notes that not all atheist "will find another conversation about gods a worthwhile use of their time", especially if the subject has been brought up earlier in the day. Some theist note that some atheist are fervent in their discussions of their believe (or lack of it), and that fervency doesn't come from a lack of belief. The narrator responds by saying that a good deal of the fervency is from the hostility directed at atheist for not believing in gods. Some other reasons for the fervency include: theist attempts to "distort our education", theist attempts to "monopolize government", and theist attempts to ostracize atheist for "not participating in their rituals." He notes that it would be surprising to not see any other group react with the same fervency if they were treated with the same disrespect. He also notes that some of the fervency comes from "a wider sense of injustice in the way human beings are being treated around the world." Some examples include: church leaders using their power to cover up child sexual abuse cases, children dying from torture and neglect after being branded as witches or demon possessed, adulterers being stoned to death, and gay people being hanged, all in the name of an entity which, according to the narrator, cannot be proved exist. He brings up a possible scenario of humans being sacrificed to appease a sun god, and asks, "Which of us would not see the dangerous ignorance in that bloody reasoning?" The narrator finds it grimly surreal to find himself on a planet where "so much wisdom is available, but on which people are still killing people in the name of gods." The narrator notes that people cannot justify their actions by claiming it's what "any god wants", and that "they are accountable for their choices." He states that humans have the potential to end all life on the planet, and that with power comes responsibility. However, he also states that with responsibility comes power. He ends by stating, "We alone fill our world with love and compassion or fear and violence and that the solution to our problems lie in no hands but yours and mine."

I'll comment on this later. Typing it up was a pain.

[bugfartboy]

Communists in China: They believe in no god and have held children at gunpoint telling them to trample a small wooden cross that was given to them. If they walked around it, showing respect, they would be shot. Guess how many were killed in the name of "No Gods!"

[MikeW781]

First up Buggy, if we get into historical misuse of religious views, this thread will reach a scary length. Honestly, every religion has idiots who misuse the doctrine to harm others, even though they are violating the doctrine they are allegedly serving. Think the crusades, the abortion clinic raids, the murder of the gays, etc. Catholicism is no exception. The people who misinterpret a doctrine cannot be said to be followers of it.
Next up, use either spiceface.info or nosepincher.com, two proxy sites that get around web filters successfully and legally. Then you can watch the video.

[cyso]

People have been killed in the name of gods, but, like buggy said, the reverse has happened. You can go either way with it, but personally, I blame the person that does the killing. I do, for the most part, agree with what he says about accountability. People are accountable for their own actions. That means that a person cannot claim before God that they shouldn't be held accountable for what they have done because God made them that way. That would be like a man guilty of murder claiming that he shouldn't go to jail because his genes, his past experience, and the world in general has made them a murder.

[MikeW781]

I just meant that the idiocy of one person has nothing to do with the religon the killer claims to represent, and then went on to say how Buggy's statement on atheists killing people is therefore irrelevant.

[bugfartboy]

It wasn't just one person. It was several.

[Steel Ersatz Man]

That doesn't matter.

[bugfartboy]

So a group of people mass murdering little children doesn't matter? What's wrong with you?

[MikeW781]

That doesn't matter.

That doesn't matter.

I think he was defending my point that both sides commit atrocites, and that they cannot be said to represent their side as these horrible actions are not condoned by the point of view they claim to represent. These people have nothing to do with the main body of atheists, just as not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Catholics kill abortionists and homosexuals

[Steel Ersatz Man]

That doesn't matter.

That doesn't matter.

I think he was defending my point that both sides commit atrocites, and that they cannot be said to represent their side as these horrible actions are not condoned by the point of view they claim to represent. These people have nothing to do with the main body of atheists, just as not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Catholics kill abortionists and homosexuals

That's exactly what I was saying. Don't jump the gun so fast Bugfartboy!

[bugfartboy]

Sorry. The way you just left it on it's own suggested that you care nothing for human life. We are worth more than blue-green foamy pond scum you know.

[cyso]

Well, I have to admit that did sound kinda bad, but I get your point now. A person is accountable for his own actions, not his faith, or lack of one. There have been bad atheist, bad people claiming to be Christians, and bad Christians. But, regardless of how relatively good or bad someone is, all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. Atheist or Christian.
Me being the slacker that I am, I haven't looked up what verse "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." is. It's somewhere in Romans.