Youtube Atheist Movement

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-02-27 07:09am

I'm not sure if this should be here or in AMP, however I was wondering if anyone had seen the Atheistic Movement on Youtube.

They argue against religiosity, the ones I know of are brettkeane, theamazingatheist, CaptainOAwesome (Admittedly, he doesn't even try and debate with the religious, he just makes fun of them without any remorse, I think the latest were the Wiccans), imrational, greydonsquare, xild, and many others.

Recently, however, Nick Gisburne was banned, for using background music (That's their excuse, he made a video citing passages of the Koran that called for violence and Jihad which got pulled for 'hate speech', however he made a Christian one before and it wasn't pulled), however, if you go onto youtube you can see the idiocy of this.

Anyhow, I thought someone here might be interested. So, I'll leave you with a clip of Nick, here.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-02-27 12:09pm

Brett Keane is a fucking cock. I know him from yahoo chat, total atheist fundie and he plagiarises music and passes it off as his own to sell via his website. I'm guessing the rest of them won't say anything original or that amusing, if they're associated with that arsehole.

HSRTG · Post by **HSRTG** » 2007-02-27 12:44pm

Assholes are assholes, whether they're religious or not. I say live and let live. Your beliefs are your problem.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-27 01:34pm

Rye wrote:Brett Keane is a fucking cock. I know him from yahoo chat, total atheist fundie and he plagiarises music and passes it off as his own to sell via his website. I'm guessing the rest of them won't say anything original or that amusing, if they're associated with that arsehole.

What the hell is an atheist fundie?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-02-27 01:42pm

Youtube posters in general are retarded, whether atheist or not.

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2007-02-27 01:42pm

Molyneux wrote:
Rye wrote:Brett Keane is a fucking cock. I know him from yahoo chat, total atheist fundie and he plagiarises music and passes it off as his own to sell via his website. I'm guessing the rest of them won't say anything original or that amusing, if they're associated with that arsehole.
What the hell is an atheist fundie?

Someone who is an athiest on faith. IE, they don't understand any of the good arguments for athiesm, but they'll loudly repeat all of the bad ones in a complely obnoxioius way.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2007-02-27 02:27pm

lazerus wrote:Someone who is an athiest on faith. IE, they don't understand any of the good arguments for athiesm, but they'll loudly repeat all of the bad ones in a complely obnoxioius way.

Those are excruciatingly annoying because they're so rare. I get used to atheists generally being several intellectual notches above almost everyone else in a discussion, and it's unnerving to see exceptions to that.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-02-27 02:34pm

lazerus wrote:Someone who is an athiest on faith. IE, they don't understand any of the good arguments for athiesm, but they'll loudly repeat all of the bad ones in a complely obnoxioius way.

Atheism is an absence of belief, yes? How can you have NO faith by virtue of having faith? That, sir, is a bunch of bullshit.

You either have faith or you don't. If you don't believe, then it's NOT the fucking result of believing.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-02-27 02:43pm

Molyneux wrote:
Rye wrote:Brett Keane is a fucking cock. I know him from yahoo chat, total atheist fundie and he plagiarises music and passes it off as his own to sell via his website. I'm guessing the rest of them won't say anything original or that amusing, if they're associated with that arsehole.
What the hell is an atheist fundie?

"Idiots who are railing against religion to look like rebels" sounds like a better term than atheist fundie. Even if it doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-02-27 02:58pm

General Zod wrote:
Molyneux wrote:
Rye wrote:Brett Keane is a fucking cock. I know him from yahoo chat, total atheist fundie and he plagiarises music and passes it off as his own to sell via his website. I'm guessing the rest of them won't say anything original or that amusing, if they're associated with that arsehole.
What the hell is an atheist fundie?
"Idiots who are railing against religion to look like rebels" sounds like a better term than atheist fundie. Even if it doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

I really fail to see a distinction. Does someone's motivation make a difference in the 'end product?' Even if one is an atheist, oh... let's say because he was burned by his religious parents and found liberation in it, that doesn't make his atheism somehow "less correct" than the next guy's. If he's educated and open minded enough realize that his position is logically sound, then more power to him.

Now, if someone is just an ignorant moron who is making atheists look bad because of his crappy grasp of logic, I would take issue as well... I just shudder when someone says something like "fundie atheist" because Christians use this type of language to 'level the field.' They usually come up with something like, "well, you have faith about it, and I have faith, so we're even!"

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2007-02-27 03:00pm

Superman wrote:
lazerus wrote:Someone who is an athiest on faith. IE, they don't understand any of the good arguments for athiesm, but they'll loudly repeat all of the bad ones in a complely obnoxioius way.
Atheism is an absence of belief, yes? How can you have NO faith by virtue of having faith? That, sir, is a bunch of bullshit.

You either have faith or you don't. If you don't believe, then it's NOT the fucking result of believing.

"I know there is no God." Is a statement of faith. Someone who makes that statement is also an atheist, because they don't believe in gods. Atheism, as yo usaid, is a lack of belief, so it's possible to have other non-theistic beliefs and still be an athiest.

Put simply, you don't have to state "I know there is no God" to be an atheist, but you CAN state "I know there is no God" and be an atheist.

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2007-02-27 03:01pm

Superman wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Molyneux wrote: What the hell is an atheist fundie?
"Idiots who are railing against religion to look like rebels" sounds like a better term than atheist fundie. Even if it doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
I really fail to see a distinction. Does someone's motivation make a difference in the 'end product?' Even if one is an atheist, oh... let's say because he was burned by his religious parents and found liberation in it, that doesn't make his atheism somehow "less correct" than the next guy's. If he's educated and open minded enough realize that his position is logically sound, then more power to him.

Now, if someone is just an ignorant moron who is making atheists look bad because of his crappy grasp of logic, I would take issue as well... I just shudder when someone says something like "fundie atheist" because Christians use this type of language to 'level the field.' They usually come up with something like, "well, you have faith about it, and I have faith, so we're even!"

Yes, it does. When I make the statement "I can't prove there is no god, but the chance there is is so vanishingly small it drops to zero", that's a logicly verifiable statement. I can make a damn good argument it's true.

The statement "I know with 100% certanty there is no god." Is not verifiable in the same manner.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-02-27 03:09pm

Superman wrote:
I really fail to see a distinction. Does someone's motivation make a difference in the 'end product?' Even if one is an atheist, oh... let's say because he was burned by his religious parents and found liberation in it, that doesn't make his atheism somehow "less correct" than the next guy's. If he's educated and open minded enough realize that his position is logically sound, then more power to him.

Now, if someone is just an ignorant moron who is making atheists look bad because of his crappy grasp of logic, I would take issue as well... I just shudder when someone says something like "fundie atheist" because Christians use this type of language to 'level the field.' They usually come up with something like, "well, you have faith about it, and I have faith, so we're even!"

Well, it's really only important if you're trying to distinguish intelligent atheists from the really stupid ones which might only be lapsed Christians. The angry at religion ones seem to be the types to wind up as born agains later in life.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-02-27 03:10pm

lazerus wrote:"I know there is no God." Is a statement of faith. Someone who makes that statement is also an atheist, because they don't believe in gods.

"I know there is no god" is a statement of faith? Does that mean that, by saying it, I have the burden of proof to show there is no god?

Atheism, as yo usaid, is a lack of belief, so it's possible to have other non-theistic beliefs and still be an athiest.

Like what?

Put simply, you don't have to state "I know there is no God" to be an atheist, but you CAN state "I know there is no God" and be an atheist.

Please clarify further?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-02-27 03:13pm

lazerus wrote:When I make the statement "I can't prove there is no god, but the chance there is is so vanishingly small it drops to zero", that's a logicly verifiable statement. I can make a damn good argument it's true.

I see where there is going now. By making the claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one making a positive claim. I'm waiting for you to show me the evidence for your statement. I don't have to "disprove" anything.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-02-27 03:24pm

General Zod wrote:Well, it's really only important if you're trying to distinguish intelligent atheists from the really stupid ones which might only be lapsed Christians. The angry at religion ones seem to be the types to wind up as born agains later in life.

Ah, yes... I see.

I would agree. On the flip side of that coin, you see people like "Dr". "Tax Evasion" Dino, who is clearly an irrational and mentally unstable person. In his case, I think his religious bullshit allows him a way of expressing his mental illness.

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2007-02-27 03:55pm

"I know there is no god" is a statement of faith? Does that mean that, by saying it, I have the burden of proof to show there is no god?

Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.

Like what?

Anything other then a belief in a god? I could believe, on faith, in the existence of magic flying pie and still be an atheist, since pie is not a deity.

Please clarify further?

There is no real way to clarify that. If you don't believe there's a god, your an atheist, period. Your other beliefs are irrelevant.

I see where there is going now. By making the claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one making a positive claim. I'm waiting for you to show me the evidence for your statement. I don't have to "disprove" anything.

What the fuck? Is this so hard to grasp?

The statement "I know there is no god." Is a DEFINITE STATEMENT and as such, YES you have to back it up! The statement "I do not believe there is a god" is NOT a definite statement and as such does not have to be backed up. But it is possible to make EITHER statement and be an atheist.

I am saying that people who make the first one, a faith-based statement, are annoying and stupid.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-02-27 04:01pm

lazerus wrote:
"I know there is no god" is a statement of faith? Does that mean that, by saying it, I have the burden of proof to show there is no god?
Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.

Since it's impossible to prove a negative, and fallacious to expect someone to, anyone that claims they can clearly doesn't have a very good grasp on logic. That doesn't mean they have to prove a deity's non existence. The burden of proof still rests on the believer.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2007-02-27 04:15pm

The term "atheist fundie" is an intellectually dishonest term used by fundies to describe persons such as Richard Dawkins and I see no way in hell how a rational person could use such a term.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-02-27 04:34pm

I prefer the terms "idiot" or "rebel scum".

General Zod wrote:
lazerus wrote:Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.
Since it's impossible to prove a negative, and fallacious to expect someone to

It is not. One can easily prove negative claims such as "there are no red socks in my drawer". The fallacy is "you cannot prove this isn't true, therefore it must be true", which is not the same thing. The problem with proving that God doesn't exist, is that "God" is a very ill-defined term, which is convenient for theists who like to rely on said fallacy. But if you claim to have proof of God's non-existence, then it is of course up to you to present those proofs, not up to the other side to prove that you don't have those proofs.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2007-02-27 04:44pm

Dooey Jo wrote:I prefer the terms "idiot" or "rebel scum".

General Zod wrote:
lazerus wrote:Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.
Since it's impossible to prove a negative, and fallacious to expect someone to
It is not. One can easily prove negative claims such as "there are no red socks in my drawer". The fallacy is "you cannot prove this isn't true, therefore it must be true", which is not the same thing. The problem with proving that God doesn't exist, is that "God" is a very ill-defined term, which is convenient for theists who like to rely on said fallacy. But if you claim to have proof of God's non-existence, then it is of course up to you to present those proofs, not up to the other side to prove that you don't have those proofs.

Dammit! You beat me to it.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, however his existence is extremely improbable.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-02-27 04:49pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Dooey Jo wrote:I prefer the terms "idiot" or "rebel scum".

General Zod wrote: Since it's impossible to prove a negative, and fallacious to expect someone to
It is not. One can easily prove negative claims such as "there are no red socks in my drawer". The fallacy is "you cannot prove this isn't true, therefore it must be true", which is not the same thing. The problem with proving that God doesn't exist, is that "God" is a very ill-defined term, which is convenient for theists who like to rely on said fallacy. But if you claim to have proof of God's non-existence, then it is of course up to you to present those proofs, not up to the other side to prove that you don't have those proofs.
Dammit! You beat me to it.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, however his existence is extremely improbable.

Every single time I've heard it said by the Atheists on Youtube, it's 'there is no God, but we can't disprove his existence, just like we can't prove that the leprechauns don't live in everyones bellybutton.'

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-02-27 04:56pm

lazerus wrote:
"I know there is no god" is a statement of faith? Does that mean that, by saying it, I have the burden of proof to show there is no god?

Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.

Ah, I knew it. That's a fallacy, dude.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-02-27 05:02pm

Mange wrote:The term "atheist fundie" is an intellectually dishonest term used by fundies to describe persons such as Richard Dawkins and I see no way in hell how a rational person could use such a term.

They exhibit the usual bigotry and aversion to rational discourse as religious fundamentalists. I argued with Brett once about the historicity of Jesus, and he said I was a christian and should die just like all christians should.

I am obviously not calling Dawkins a fundie, and in fact, I go further than him in some antireligious ways. There are stupid, fucking ignorant, intolerant arseholes impervious to rational discourse due to the belief systems they've erected, this is what makes fundies so insufferable, and it can extend beyond theism. Brett Keane is one atheist I absolutely cannot stand for those reasons, and why I call him an atheist fundie.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-02-27 05:04pm

General Zod wrote:
lazerus wrote:
"I know there is no god" is a statement of faith? Does that mean that, by saying it, I have the burden of proof to show there is no god?
Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.
Since it's impossible to prove a negative, and fallacious to expect someone to, anyone that claims they can clearly doesn't have a very good grasp on logic. That doesn't mean they have to prove a deity's non existence. The burden of proof still rests on the believer.

You can prove negatives, that's like logic 101, dude, proof by negation. If a binary switch is on 1, it is not on 0. You have proven it is not on 0 if it's on 1.