Atheists unite

Glaucus said:
Lol, can't say that's for me.

Tbh haven't found much on their I like. I love the idea and can't wait for more creators to get on their. In fact can all TV shows move to it. Bypass sky, virgin etc. Pay per show.

I want a decent BBQ show, fine dining cooking show, DIY gadget hack, and lots of science shows.
Click to expand...

ok maybe saying lots of high quality content is over exaggerating. I only spent last night watching a view videos. But from what i did listen to is was a bit above your average youtube curd. I think they would have to be if they are taking in $1000+ per video.
 
Castiel. I find his videos quite unique in that he does not beat around the bush and is not too timid to point out the problems of religion or creationism.

His knowledge of Phylogeny is extensive and I am yet to see any video presentations that cover that topic. He also tries to debate religious in public and in formal setting. Sure you could donate to sam harris or other atheists, there are many deserving of donations. They do not have a patreon account and have written books that allow them do work on that field full time, which aron ra has not done. He also focuses on the fight against creationism in schools specifically by going to school board meetings and doing presentations defending science in the class room. Something the likes of Sam Harris and so on have not done. You should watch his video series i posted earlier if you want to know if its worth supporting. I was not expecting religious people to donate, i was appealing to the atheists.
 
Castiel said:
I'm not religious. Also, there is no shortage of hard hitting, direct and opinionated videos pointing out problems, both real and imagined on Religions and Creationism. I don't see AronRa as being particularly unique in this area.

However, a better and more extensive reply that of Sliver and I thank you for that. The work he does in schools, I would assume that is based solely on the opposition of teaching Creationism outside of Religious Education and in lieu of Evolution, rather than simply proselytising Atheism? Does he have a certified program which he operates within the School System?
Click to expand...

I think it is more a long the lines of keeping creationism out of science class completely. His wife is a science teacher, he wants to work with his wife and create school level specific information on Phylogeny and evolution in general. I think he wants to create a program that he will then with his wife help try and get in to the syllabus, well that is as far as i understand it.
 
Without evidence for green dragons or blue people we can say that they do not exist, until it can be proven that they do. Same goes for god or any metaphysics. It is not required to prove that green dragons or blue people do not exist, that is not the way it works.
 
Dimple said:
And why has an atheist do I need to know that?
Click to expand...

Not everyone is completely convinced as you in being an atheist. Some people are on the fence and they need someone to go through the effort and explain why the religious are wrong. It is also the only way the religious will ever be convinced otherwise, if someone goes through the effort and challenges their opinions.

Even as an atheist i have still learned a lot from him about evolution and why religion is wrong.
 
Castiel said:
Which is an oversimplification of the concept, an often quoted misconception based on the teapot analogy. The fundamental difference is that, like the teapot, both green dragons and blue people are defined within the parameters of our objective perception, the concept (as opposed to any given specificity therein) of God is not...therefore the same is not true of both as you suggest. Any definitive claim as to the existence or non existence of God has equal burden, as each require an attribution of a specific nature with which to define the concept in order to adequately address the question. The problem always arises that by creating that specificity of nature and defining the concept, you also narrow the definition and are only either supporting or opposing that specific interpretation of the term, rather than the objective concept itself. Essentially making either claim subjective and therefore meaningless when asked the question "Does God Exist?"
Click to expand...

God is not defined? We will then use ghosts or something metaphysical that has no physical definition. It is the same argument. Usually the most simplest arguments are the most succinct.
 
Castiel said:
Ghosts by their nature are universally defined. The concept of God is not.

I am not clear on why you mean by physical definition?
Click to expand...

Ghosts are no more defined than god. Yet we do not need to prove they do not exist any more than we do with god. God is defined within the parameters of our objective perception just as much as a blue person or a green dragon.
 
Castiel said:
He doesn't generally discuss the theology of anything. He is concerned with Creationism being proposed over that of Evolution...creationists != religious.
Click to expand...

That is correct of his creationist videos, where he specifically states that there are many religious that are not creationists and even many scientists that are religious.

While in other videos he does specifically point out problems with the bible although i have not seen him cover any other religious texts yet and when debating christian's.
 
Dimple said:
But as an atheist I don't believe that for some people religion is wrong.
For the vast majority of religious people religion is a great comforter and helps them with their day to day lives.
Why take this away from the vast majority of believers?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. In every way, social, emotional, intellectual and so on, i do not see religion as a positive in any way. As Sam Harris has best explained (in my opinion), religion prevents humans from reaching their potential. It prevents intellectual discourse and stagnates emotional growth. I do not think the religious texts are good enough to base our ethics on and i think in terms of ethics they are not needed and only lead to people rejecting ethical concerns when they reject the ridiculous notions involved in religion texts.
 
Galaxies can be verified with telescope.

I realy don't see castiel argument as valid. It doesn't not matter whether we can agree on a definition of god. The point is that we don't need to prove something (anything) does not exist. We only need to prove positive claims.
 
Tombo said:
SX7UqXc.jpg
Click to expand...

You should not depict the atheists in any form, this is against our rules. You will suffer the consequence for such actions. ;)
 
Castiel said:
Just to clarify something, Militant can simply mean confrontational and combative in debate or views, it need not mean violent, although it can be both.

Back to Joseph Stalin, he was indeed militant (in the confrontational and violent definitions) in the name of Atheism. That he was also a communist is simply coincidental. Stalin attempted to create not only a (form of) Communist State, but also an Atheist State, he did this through various means including forced re-education and violent suppression of non-atheists.
Click to expand...

 
Lenin atrocities were not done in the name of atheism, they were done in the name of marxist authoritarianism. He just happened to be an atheist. Just the same if someone murders someone and they are an atheist, we don't say immediately that it was done in the name of atheism. Thus there are hardly any militant atheists because not believing in god is realy not something that makes people want to act violently. Religion is the complete opposite, while not all violent acts done by religious people is done in the name of religion, it is far more likely for that to be the case than an atheist as religion has the capacity to do that.

I realy don't see how this is relevant to the thread. The topic has nothing to do with militant atheism.
 
Castiel is wrong, he is only trying to make out as if atheism has just the same capacity for violence as religion. He also falsely thinks that authoritarianism is some how done in the name of atheism just because the leader is atheist.
 
Castiel said:
On top of that, my issue has always been, if there is a God, why would they require their creations to worship them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Religion based on the magic books is based on faith. There is no evidence that there are entities outside of this reality that created everything. It is an idea that is it, it originated in the minds of men to fool other men and manipulate them. It was used as a way to add consequence in the minds of the population for sin. People were too stupid to create a rational philosophical foundation for ethics and instead had to use the fear of eternal damnation as a mechanism to manipulate the populace. Obviously over time it has been refined and refined and translated and interpreted and refined and refined and on. There are many books out that claim to prove that all the religious texts are not actually factual and are simply ancient stories that are adapted over time. More recent analysis from Sam Harris and others shows that they are from the best books to base our ethics and understanding of life on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom