Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:Conor147

2011-04-18T14:55:09Z

Conor147:

I'm a 19 year old Scottish atheist who was first irritated by religious fundamentalism on the internet almost 2 years ago. I don't know a single Christian IRL, but I know many Muslims. I haven't read the bible, but I've read the qur'an.

Astrology

2011-04-18T14:52:30Z

Conor147:

Astrology is a system of [[divination]] founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies can influence human affairs and personal lives. It is a baseless [[pseudoscience]] similar to [[homeopathy]] in that people believe it on no logical or evidential basis, but possibly only because it is comforting. In this way it is also similar to most religious beliefs. [[Carl Sagan]] and [[James Randi]] are among the most notable and staunch critics.

"The desire to feel connected with the Cosmos reflects a profound reality: We are connected, not in the trivial ways that astrology promises, but in the deepest ways." - Carl Sagan

Astrology

2011-04-18T14:51:44Z

Conor147:

Astrology is a system of [[divination]] founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies can influence human affairs and personal lives. It is a baseless [[pseudoscience]] similar to [[homeopathy]] in that people believe it on no logical or evidential basis, but possibly only because it is comforting. In this way it is also similar to most religious beliefs. [[Carl Sagan]] and [[James Randi]] have been among the most vocal and staunch critics.

"The desire to feel connected with the Cosmos reflects a profound reality: We are connected, not in the trivial ways that astrology promises, but in the deepest ways." - Carl Sagan

It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe

2011-03-12T13:49:50Z

Conor147: correcting typo

==Overview==

[[Atheist]]s maintain that there is no [[evidence]] for [[God]], yet, therefore, it is not necessary, [[logic|logical]] or reasonable to [[belief|believe]] in him (or it or them). When the existence of a god is demonstrated [[beyond a reasonable doubt]], then that is the time to believe. Within the context of this discussion, it's important to note the definition of faith that is relevant:

:Faith is accepting a claim as true without sufficient evidence. Faith is an extreme form of belief.

== Counter Apologetics==

With that in mind, not believing in fairies or Father Christmas is not an act of faith, because no claim is being accepted. Technically, such positions require ''less'' a statement of [[faith]], in the same sense that 0 is less than 1. Different kinds of atheism could be described as having different amounts of faith:

* [[strong atheism]] - those atheists believing there is no god, with insufficient evidence
* [[weak atheism|weak (or default) atheism]] - those atheists simply lacking a belief in the god.

An atheist may wish to bring up this distinction to derail the "Atheism is a kind of faith" argument, as most consider themselves weak/default atheists. (Though, some theists may try to make the claim that this category is actually [[agnosticism|agnostics]]).

Definitionally, it doesn't make sense to say that disbelieving "takes more faith". It would be like saying that not-playing-sports requires more athletics than playing football.

There is no evidence for the presence of a higher power, which is why theists need faith - it's used in place of evidence. The irony is that most of them have the confidence to deny the existence of fairy tale creatures from other mythologies and cultures, for which there is no evidence.

Most religions assert that [[faith is a virtue]], and they are criticizing atheists for having more faith (or the same amount they do as the case may be). They are only criticizing themselves. An apt question to directly follow the theists objection would be "does faith prove me wrong?".

==Related Pages==

*[[Atheism is based on faith]]
*[[Atheism is a religion]]

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-10T23:19:29Z

Conor147:

:in a recent debate with a christian:

:"How do we know Jesus existed? Because Christianity exists, if He didn´t exist it seems ridiculous that people like Peter and the other apostles :would talk about and die for someone who didn´t exist. ''The writings of Tacitus also seem to confirm the existence of a man called Jesus."''

:can someone build this page up with apologetics and counter apologetics?
:-[[Conor147]]

::This is going to sound rude, but it's not meant to be. Is there a reason you couldn't do it? If you're worried about formatting, you can look at other pages and see how they do it. I hadn't done any real wiki editing before I got here. If you don't know the topic, then you can research it, and work at the page, little by little if needed. It's a great opportunity to learn. I don't always know the topics of the pages I work on before I came across them. I understand that time can be a limiting factor, but you don't have to do it all at once.
::--[[User:Jt|jt]] 11:47, 7 March 2011 (CST)

::: i live in britain, scotland specifically. religion here isnt a big deal to anyone apart from muslims who make up 2% of the population. christians are laughed at for being "funny in the head". atheists that are atheists because they care, and not because they dont give a shit, are laughed at for taking it seriously at all. as a result, my first exposure to religion was on the internet. ive never read the bible (but ive read the qur'an), of the hundreds/thousands of people i know, none are christians (but i know some muslims), and i have a very poor understanding of christian theology on the whole. i really dont care about who tacitus or josephus or matthew, mark, luke or john were, and probably wont ever come across them again in my life apart from in the context of christian apologetics from christian fundie fucktards on the internet. any time i have at my disposal is spent on my degree, pretty much. apart from wanting to be able to have a response to christians that say "tacitus proves jesus existed", i dont give a flying fuck about who he was and dont want to waste any of my limited number of neurons on learning about him. in order to make this article to a reasonable standard i would have to spend tens of hours learning about bullshit, time which i dont have and wont for years, in all likelihood. normally id be willing to invest some time in learning. but this guy is boring, uninteresting and largely irrelevant, just like christianity nowadays. id rather spend my time learning something worthwhile. just an honest, rushed "rant". anyone have a grounding in christian theology, specifically this tacitus guy?
:::--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 13:07, 7 March 2011 (CST)

:::: looks really good. looking back at my rant, it seems a bit excessive. sorry if i came across as a douche. seriously though, i dont know a single christian :/
::::--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 17:19, 10 March 2011 (CST)

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-07T19:07:46Z

Conor147:

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-07T15:42:40Z

Conor147:

in a recent debate with a christian:

"How do we know Jesus existed? Because Christianity exists, if He didn´t exist it seems ridiculous that people like Peter and the other apostles would talk about and die for someone who didn´t exist. ''The writings of Tacitus also seem to confirm the existence of a man called Jesus."''

can someone build this page up with apologetics and counter apologetics?

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-07T15:41:25Z

Conor147:

in a RECENT debate with a christian:

"How do we know Jesus existed? Because Christianity exists, if He didn´t exist it seems ridiculous that people like Peter and the other apostles would talk about and die for someone who didn´t exist. ''The writings of Tacitus also seem to confirm the existence of a man called Jesus."''

can someone build this page up with apologetics and counter apologetics?

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-07T15:37:01Z

Conor147:

== An error, and a call for deletion ==

First of all, the interview was with David Silverman, not Richard Dawkins.

Secondly, this seems like a transient topic, not something of lasting interest. I suggest moving the content of this page to [[Argument from ignorance]]. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:23, 4 March 2011 (CST)

:no it was with richard dawkins. the david silverman interview was one of the "other encounters" that i mentioned.

:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

:0:48

:and ive been encountering this more and more over the past few years. unless the meme status kills the argument, in which case it would stand as a satirical argument against the god of the gaps (like epilepsy), it will always be relevant.
:--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 20:53, 4 March 2011 (CST)

::I think the point is that it's not an official apologetic.. just something he came up with off the cuff. It's fine as an example of god-of-the-gaps. This wiki would be huge if we had a separate page for every random comment someone made on the air.
::[[User:Jt|jt]] 06:18, 5 March 2011 (CST)

:::i agree its not a unique argument and is just a popular example of the god-of-the-gaps, however its not "random" or "off the cuff". i hear it all the time on youtube and on forums, and its bills front line argument for the existence of a god when debating an atheist. its definitely gaining popularity, both with people that watch fox news, and with atheists that parody the argument. but i see the point that it is not a unique type of argument in itself.
:::--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 09:04, 5 March 2011 (CST)

:::: Do you mean about the tides specifically, or the application of the argument from ignorance / god of the gaps? If it's an application, it's a good one for those pages.
:::: --[[User:Jt|jt]] 09:53, 5 March 2011 (CST)

:::::yes, its an application. if it becomes more popular and needs to be accessed easier, it can always be moved back. so if someone wants to move it, thats probably the best thing to do. i would do it, but im not really acquainted with the formatting etc.
:::::--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 09:37, 7 March 2011 (CST)

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-07T15:36:31Z

Conor147:

Talk:Tacitus

2011-03-07T15:34:24Z

Conor147:

can someone build this page up with apologetics and counter apologetics?

Tacitus

2011-03-07T15:34:04Z

Conor147:

Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-05T15:06:00Z

Conor147:

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-05T15:04:16Z

Conor147:

== An error, and a call for deletion ==

First of all, the interview was with David Silverman, not Richard Dawkins.

Secondly, this seems like a transient topic, not something of lasting interest. I suggest moving the content of this page to [[Argument from ignorance]]. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:23, 4 March 2011 (CST)

:no it was with richard dawkins. the david silverman interview was one of the "other encounters" that i mentioned.

:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

:0:48

:and ive been encountering this more and more over the past few years. unless the meme status kills the argument, in which case it would stand as a satirical argument against the god of the gaps (like epilepsy), it will always be relevant.
:--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 20:53, 4 March 2011 (CST)

::I think the point is that it's not an official apologetic.. just something he came up with off the cuff. It's fine as an example of god-of-the-gaps. This wiki would be huge if we had a separate page for every random comment someone made on the air.
::[[User:Jt|jt]] 06:18, 5 March 2011 (CST)

i agree its not a unique argument and is just a popular example of the god-of-the-gaps, however its not "random" or "off the cuff". i hear it all the time on youtube and on forums, and its bills front line argument for the existence of a god when debating an atheist. its definitely gaining popularity, both with people that watch fox news, and with atheists that parody the argument. but i see the point that it is not a unique type of argument in itself.--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 09:04, 5 March 2011 (CST)

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-05T15:03:37Z

Conor147:

== An error, and a call for deletion ==

First of all, the interview was with David Silverman, not Richard Dawkins.

Secondly, this seems like a transient topic, not something of lasting interest. I suggest moving the content of this page to [[Argument from ignorance]]. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:23, 4 March 2011 (CST)

:no it was with richard dawkins. the david silverman interview was one of the "other encounters" that i mentioned.

:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

:0:48

:and ive been encountering this more and more over the past few years. unless the meme status kills the argument, in which case it would stand as a satirical argument against the god of the gaps (like epilepsy), it will always be relevant.
:--[[User:Conor147|Conor147]] 20:53, 4 March 2011 (CST)

::I think the point is that it's not an official apologetic.. just something he came up with off the cuff. It's fine as an example of god-of-the-gaps. This wiki would be huge if we had a separate page for every random comment someone made on the air.
::[[User:Jt|jt]] 06:18, 5 March 2011 (CST)

i agree its not a unique argument and is just a popular example of the god-of-the-gaps, however its not "random" or "off the cuff". i hear it all the time on youtube and on forums, and its bills front line argument for the existence of a god when debating an atheist. its definitely gaining popularity, both with people that watch fox news, and with atheists that parody the argument. but i see the point that it is not a unique type of argument in itself.

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-05T02:53:18Z

Conor147:

Talk:Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.

2011-03-05T02:52:46Z

Conor147:

Faith

2011-03-04T12:16:32Z

Conor147:

{{wiktionary|faith}}
There are various concepts of '''faith''' which have different connotations. In [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith the dictionary], the first two definitions are:

# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
# Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Both are legitimate definitions in a discussion, but the confusion between the two definitions often leads to the use of the [[equivocation]] fallacy among those who wish to assert that [[atheism is based on faith]]. This confusion can also lead people to the fallacious conclusion that all faith is without reason.

The [[Bible]] clearly adopts the first definition. Though in {{bible|Hebrews 11:1}}, it says: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," it also says "[e]xamine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" in {{bible|2 Corinthians 13:5}}. Clearly the writer of Hebrews is simply stating the obvious, that faith is complimentary to a lack of omniscience. The writer goes on to make examples of other Biblical characters who demonstrated faith. Each had faith in something yet unseen, but not necessarily without reason; Noah had the promise of protection; Abraham, the Covenant; Joseph, his father's blessing; the list goes on. They were able to maintain faith because of a lifetime of evidences that God would fulfill His promise. Furthermore, Paul's account in {{bible|2 Corinthians 13:5}} shows that indeed faith is to be tested and not dogmatically held.

[[Mark Twain]] also created a classic definition in his book, ''Pudd'nhead Wilson'': "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

this is similar to [[Nietzche]]'s definition:

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."

Many [[atheist]]s regard faith as the act of coming to a conclusion first, and then filtering the facts to match your expectations. In a sense, this is the opposite of [[science]].

==Faith in the Bible==

In one classic Bible story, [[Doubting Thomas]] does not believe in the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]]. Jesus appears to Thomas and gives him the opportunity to touch his wounds, after which Thomas becomes a believer. However, Jesus admonishes Thomas' skepticism, saying: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." ({{bible|John 20:29}}).

==Arguments for faith==
A number of arguments exist in defense of faith.

#Faith is a [[virtue]]: Faith is something to be desired, in and of itself.
#*The idea that premises should be accepted without evidence and that the premise is better without evidence can be used to justify any claim. One could just as easily believe that God wants you to love your neighbors as you could that God wants you to kill them for working on the [[Sabbath]]. For example, faith is often used as a justification for suicide bombers.
#** "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." – [[Voltaire]]
#** "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits." – [[Dan Barker]]
#** "A casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." – [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
#People have faith in other things — wind, love, quantum mechanics — without people questioning them.
#*Wind demonstrably exists. Beyond secondary effects and weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes, we also have wind turbines which harness wind power into electrical power. Even more obviously, one can directly feel wind when it blows or by waving their hand back and forth.
#*Love demonstrably exists. We actually feel love. We can easily witness the change in behavior people display while in love. We can measure the neurotransmitters in the brain. We can observe the brain changes via MRI machines.
#*The ideas of [[Wikipedia:Quantum mechanics|quantum mechanics]] demonstrably work. We use quantum mechanics in everything from cell phones to laptop computers, and have measured quantum phenomenon to "a degree equal to measuring the width of the United States to the width of a human hair."
#**"I'm getting rather tired of Christian arm chair physicists waving their hands around in the air, muttering about the "mysteries of QM" and invoking a similar mystery for their god. If God were understood as well as quantum mechanics, we would have already miniaturized him and put him in a device to carry around on our wrists." – Ozy666 (About Atheism/Agnosticism forum)
#Faith is trust
#*Faith is not trust. Trust is generally justified. Appeals to faith would be unneeded if the faith were justified initially.
#*This is [[equivocation]]. Comparing my belief that "my family will not murder me during the night" with believing in "unjustified, unevidenced religious claims" is simply equating the two words when they do not properly equate. Attempting to justify religious faith by appealing to a more justifiable claim, which is itself justified by evidence and reason, and ignoring the justification in order to assume no justification is needed, is not a cogent argument.

==Belief in belief==
Rather than directly justify faith, often arguments will defend the [[Breaking the Spell#Belief in Belief|belief in belief]]. That though, faith may not be itself justified, faith is itself useful. These arguments are largely irrelevant to the question at hand. [[Sam Harris]] addresses these argument by comparing the argument that "faith brings comfort" and "faith gives purpose to people's lives" to the claim that "I have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard". Such a belief could provide a person with purpose, and could be a comforting thought, just as it could give their life meaning. However, none of this has anything to do with the truth of the statement.

==External link==
* [http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa050699.htm Austin Cline, About Atheism/Agnosticism: Just a Little Faith]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Faith

2011-03-04T12:15:33Z

Conor147:

{{wiktionary|faith}}
There are various concepts of '''faith''' which have different connotations. In [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith the dictionary], the first two definitions are:

# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
# Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Both are legitimate definitions in a discussion, but the confusion between the two definitions often leads to the use of the [[equivocation]] fallacy among those who wish to assert that [[atheism is based on faith]]. This confusion can also lead people to the fallacious conclusion that all faith is without reason.

The [[Bible]] clearly adopts the first definition. Though in {{bible|Hebrews 11:1}}, it says: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," it also says "[e]xamine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" in {{bible|2 Corinthians 13:5}}. Clearly the writer of Hebrews is simply stating the obvious, that faith is complimentary to a lack of omniscience. The writer goes on to make examples of other Biblical characters who demonstrated faith. Each had faith in something yet unseen, but not necessarily without reason; Noah had the promise of protection; Abraham, the Covenant; Joseph, his father's blessing; the list goes on. They were able to maintain faith because of a lifetime of evidences that God would fulfill His promise. Furthermore, Paul's account in {{bible|2 Corinthians 13:5}} shows that indeed faith is to be tested and not dogmatically held.

[[Mark Twain]] also created a classic definition in his book, ''Pudd'nhead Wilson'': "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

this is similar and may have been influenced by [[Nietzche]]'s definition:

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true."

Many [[atheist]]s regard faith as the act of coming to a conclusion first, and then filtering the facts to match your expectations. In a sense, this is the opposite of [[science]].

==Faith in the Bible==

In one classic Bible story, [[Doubting Thomas]] does not believe in the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]]. Jesus appears to Thomas and gives him the opportunity to touch his wounds, after which Thomas becomes a believer. However, Jesus admonishes Thomas' skepticism, saying: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." ({{bible|John 20:29}}).

==Arguments for faith==
A number of arguments exist in defense of faith.

#Faith is a [[virtue]]: Faith is something to be desired, in and of itself.
#*The idea that premises should be accepted without evidence and that the premise is better without evidence can be used to justify any claim. One could just as easily believe that God wants you to love your neighbors as you could that God wants you to kill them for working on the [[Sabbath]]. For example, faith is often used as a justification for suicide bombers.
#** "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." – [[Voltaire]]
#** "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits." – [[Dan Barker]]
#** "A casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." – [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
#People have faith in other things — wind, love, quantum mechanics — without people questioning them.
#*Wind demonstrably exists. Beyond secondary effects and weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes, we also have wind turbines which harness wind power into electrical power. Even more obviously, one can directly feel wind when it blows or by waving their hand back and forth.
#*Love demonstrably exists. We actually feel love. We can easily witness the change in behavior people display while in love. We can measure the neurotransmitters in the brain. We can observe the brain changes via MRI machines.
#*The ideas of [[Wikipedia:Quantum mechanics|quantum mechanics]] demonstrably work. We use quantum mechanics in everything from cell phones to laptop computers, and have measured quantum phenomenon to "a degree equal to measuring the width of the United States to the width of a human hair."
#**"I'm getting rather tired of Christian arm chair physicists waving their hands around in the air, muttering about the "mysteries of QM" and invoking a similar mystery for their god. If God were understood as well as quantum mechanics, we would have already miniaturized him and put him in a device to carry around on our wrists." – Ozy666 (About Atheism/Agnosticism forum)
#Faith is trust
#*Faith is not trust. Trust is generally justified. Appeals to faith would be unneeded if the faith were justified initially.
#*This is [[equivocation]]. Comparing my belief that "my family will not murder me during the night" with believing in "unjustified, unevidenced religious claims" is simply equating the two words when they do not properly equate. Attempting to justify religious faith by appealing to a more justifiable claim, which is itself justified by evidence and reason, and ignoring the justification in order to assume no justification is needed, is not a cogent argument.

==Belief in belief==
Rather than directly justify faith, often arguments will defend the [[Breaking the Spell#Belief in Belief|belief in belief]]. That though, faith may not be itself justified, faith is itself useful. These arguments are largely irrelevant to the question at hand. [[Sam Harris]] addresses these argument by comparing the argument that "faith brings comfort" and "faith gives purpose to people's lives" to the claim that "I have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard". Such a belief could provide a person with purpose, and could be a comforting thought, just as it could give their life meaning. However, none of this has anything to do with the truth of the statement.

==External link==
* [http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa050699.htm Austin Cline, About Atheism/Agnosticism: Just a Little Faith]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]

YouTube

2011-03-04T12:08:30Z

Conor147:

There are many videos on YouTube dealing with Evolution, Creation, atheism and God.

== Channels==
=== Pro-Science/Atheist ===
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t Thunderf00t]
:Creator of the ''[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D Why do people laugh at creationists?]'' series of videos, various science/astronomy videos, along with videos documenting his humiliation of VenomFangX.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet richarddawkinsdotnet]
:The [[Richard Dawkins Foundation]]. Lectures, documentaries and interviews by [[Richard Dawkins]].
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell patcondell]
:British stand-up comedian [[Pat Condell]], with almost 150,000 followers (as of March 2011).
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/FFreeThinker FFreeThinker]
:Various atheist and science videos, including more than hundred (as of June 2009) excerpts from [[The Atheist Experience]].
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/MrEvilution777 MrEvilution777]
:Brett Keane, very active creator of various atheist videos, often calling pastors and churches asking tough questions in a civil manner.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss ZOMGitsCriss]
:Romanian atheist woman with 40+ videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa AronRa]
:Creator of the ''[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC Foundational Falsehood of Creationism]'' series of videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 Potholer54]
:Creator of the ''[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB From Big Bang to Us – Made Easy]'' series of videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent Edward Current]
:Creates parodies of creationist videos which are sometimes mistaken for the real thing - see [[Poe's law]].
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsBettyBowers MrsBettyBowers]
:"Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's best Christian." Christian satire.
;[http://www.youtube.com/ExtantDodo ExtantDodo]
:Goes through creationist videos, such as those of [[Kent Hovind]], and debunks their claims step by step.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 cdk007]
:Many pro-evolution videos and creationist criticism.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/FightingAtheist FightingAtheist]
:19 self-produced videos.
;[http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Nick+Gisburne+&search_type=&aq=f Nick Gisburne]
:Account which was deleted by youtube for quoting the Qur'an. [http://www.brianflemming.org/archives/002508.html The Nick Gisburne story]
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup QualiaSoup]
:Pro-reason videos focused on correct use of logic and semantics. Uses graphics and animation.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/1GOD1JESUS 1GOD1JESUS]
:Father Greg, Christian evangelist satire
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVids GodVids]
:God himself has a Youtube channel.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/AngieAntiTheist AngieAntiTheist]
:Former religious cult member.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/FactVsReligion FactVsReligion]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/KingHeathen KingHeathen]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/misterdeity MisterDeity]
:God "behind the scenes" brilliant sketch comedy.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector NonStampCollector]
:Animated comedy demonstrating absurdities of Christianity.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/Noworkbum Noworkbum]
:"Eye on Religion" news segment; Pastor Dick, Christian satire
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/Zjemptv Zjemptv]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/TremickWorld Tremick's World]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/xxxThePeachxxx xxxThePeachxxx]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/Theologikos Theologikos]
:Christian evangelist satire
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/BornWithoutReligion BornWithoutReligion]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/coughlan666 Richard "The Dick" Coughlan]
:Commentary
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/dprjones dprjones]
:no description
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/TheThinkingAtheist TheThinkingAtheist]
:Former Christian who uses "satire, research and some common sense" to explore questions about God.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/TheraminTrees TheraminTrees]
: Like QualiaSoup, uses graphics and animation accompanied by narration. Creator of [http://richarddawkins.net/videos/3515-instruction-manual-for-life "Instruction Manual for Life"], a sort of parable about being raised in the church.

=== Skeptic ===
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesRandiFoundation JamesRandiFoundation]
:The [[James Randi Educational Foundation]]. Videos where [[James Randi|James "The Amazing" Randi]] talks about various topics related to skepticism and critical thinking + debunks various forms of superstition.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFriendlySkeptic TheFriendlySkeptic]
:Many videos from various sources related to skepticism.

=== Pro-Creation ===
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangArchive VenomFangArchive]
:Archive with all videos made by the infamous creationist [[VenomFangX]]. All these videos were removed from the [http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX VenomFangX channel] when he left YouTube.
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/thewayofthemaster thewayofthemaster]
:[[Ray Comfort]] & [[Kirk Cameron]] of [[The Way of the Master]] ministries. Perhaps best known for the video [[Banana argument|Bananas - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare]].
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/AnotherBrotherMark AnotherBrotherMark]
:Self described as "Youtube's most despicable Christian"
;[http://www.youtube.com/user/NephilimFree NephilimFree]
:An abrasive young-earth creationist and geocentrist who is described by many as one of the creepiest and most deranged personalities one could wish to come across in the YouTube community. Well known for his signature oversized head-gear apparatus, delusions of grandeur, and theories from far out in left field, he comes across as loopy entertainment to some and unbearable to others.

==See also==
* [[Atheist podcasts]]

== External links ==
[http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube website]

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Web sites]]

Atheists believe that everything is an accident

2011-03-04T11:53:13Z

Conor147:

==Overview==

[[Religion|Religious]] people like to say that [[atheist]]s believe everything is an "accident". Typically, when the topics of [[abiogenesis]] or the [[Big Bang]] arise, the [[theist]] offers a [[false dichotomy]] between "purposeful [[intelligent design|design]]" and "purposeless accident".

===Understanding the Use of "Accident"===

Two different lines of definition exist for the word "accident", and the theist might be making either claim.

* They may mean "accident" as an event that was not intended. For example, someone driving a car does not intent do collide into another car. So, when it does it's labelled an "accident".

* They may be addressing the issue of ''improbable'' events. For example, it's incredibly unlikely that tornado would randomly blow through a junkyard, and the [[747 Junkyard argument|parts happen to fall together and assemble into a 747]].

==Accident as Unintended Events==

An accident would require a mind in the first place, which had intent. So by saying that atheists believe everything is an accident is implying that atheists believe in a designer, who strayed from it's intent, which is clearly not the position of an atheist, by definition, who does not believe in the existence of any deities that had intent or made an accident.

If there are no gods, then our existence is neither accidental or intentional. It just is. We are the ones who are speculating on whether it's an acccident or intentional, which is irrelevant because from what we can tell, our existence is not the result of a sentient mind.

==Accident as Improbable Events==

Using the word "accident" implies that the phenomenon in question otherwise shouldn't happen. Thus, if the atheist believes it was an accident, then the atheist is foolishly believing that an event that shouldn't have happened, in fact did. If that's the case, the atheist could be accused of having [[faith]], and thus, is a hypocrite.

===The Third Option===

Those who bring up this dichotomy are omitting a third option - "'''expected outcome'''". While an "accident" would be by definition an '''incredibly improbable''' event, an "expected outcome" would be by definition a '''highly probably''' event. That is, given a set of initial conditions, a particular outcome is to be reasonably and [[logic|logically]] expected. Some examples would be:

* If there's a lot of moisture in the air, and it's below freezing, it's to be expected that it would snow, and it's not an accident.
* If there's open soil in an otherwise grassy field during the summer, it's to be expected that grass will start to grow in it, and it's not an accident.

====Historical Example====

After the Big Bang, a series of stages of the development of the [[universe]] lead until the present day. None of these stages are "accidents", but are all "expected outcomes":

* Right after the Big Bang, we had a lot of elementary particles, such as quarks, floating around, and it's to be expected that they'd cool until they form sub-atomic particles, such as protons, electrons and neutrons.
* After the hot protons, electrons and neutrons continue to cool, it is to be expected that they'd combine into hydrogen.
* After some time of hydrogen and helium floating around the universe, it is to be expected that they'd fall into gravity wells, compress and ignite into stars.
* As the nuclear fusion of the stars continues, it is to be expected that the process would build heavier atoms, such as nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, which alongside hydrogen, form the set of organic elements that are the building blocks to organic compounds.
* As the star uses up its nuclear fuel, it is to be expected that the star will either nova or supernova, spreading the heavier elements around as stellar dust.
* After some time of dust floating around, it is to be expected that it would fall into gravity wells, compress, and form planets and planetoids.
* Etc.

Each step is logical and entirely reasonable to accept as true, especially is the claim is supported by evidence.

==External Sites==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/thats_no_way_to_start_your_mor.php The Way I See It #92]

Template:Common objections

2011-03-04T11:35:33Z

Conor147:

{{Navbox|name = Common objections
|titlestyle = background:#FFC9C1;
|title=[[Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]
|groupstyle = background:#FFDDDC;

|group1=Personal
|list1=''[[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]'' · ''[[Why can't everyone just have their beliefs?]]'' · ''[[What are your qualifications?]]'' · ''[[So you believe in nothing?]]'' · ''[[You are a communist]]'' · ''[[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]''

|group2=Religious
|list2=''[[That's not in my Bible]]'' · ''[[They're not true Christians]]'' · ''[[You just want to sin]]'' · ''[[It takes more faith to disbelieve]]'' · ''[[God doesn't believe in atheists]]'' · ''[[Science is a faith]]'' · ''[[Atheism is a religion]]'' · ''[[Atheists worship materialism]]'' · ''[[Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays]]'' · ''[[Atheism is based on faith]]''

|group3=Science and logic
|list3=''[[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]'' · ''[[Science can't touch god]]'' · ''[[God can't be defined]]'' · ''[[So you think we came from monkeys|So you think we came from nothing / pondsoup / monkeys?]]'' · ''[[If God didn't create everything, who did?]]'' · ''[[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]'' · ''[[Religion is another way of knowing]]'' · ''[[God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]'' · ''[[Satan is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]'' · ''[[Tides come in, tides go out. You cant explain that]]''

}}

Muhammad

2011-03-04T11:26:36Z

Conor147:

Muhammad is regarded by Muslims as the greatest and last of a succession of prophets. He is believed to be the most important messenger sent by god. It is through Muhammad that Muslims believe god has revealed the [[Qur'an]]. The qur'an was allegedly ordained to Muhammad through the angel [[Gabriel]] who was sent by god. Muhammad received this revelation over the course of 23 years.

Muhammad

2010-08-08T22:11:25Z

Conor147:

Muhammad is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God. He is believed to be the last and most important messenger sent by god. It is through muhammad that muslims believe god has revealed the [[Qur'an]] to them and for this he is idolised. Muhammad was either sincere when he wrote the Qur'an and consequently was suffering from a mental illness such as schizophrenia, or he was deliberately deceiving his followers into believing the Qur'an was divine and that he was a messenger. Muhammad practised and was an advocate of [[polygamy]] for men. One of his marriages was to a 6 year old girl names [[Aisha]] and was consumated at the age of around 9. This relationship has given rise to many modern day controversies that insinuate Muhammad was in fact a paedophile.

Sharia

2010-08-08T22:05:16Z

Conor147:

[[Muslim]]s believe Sharia law to be the perfect law as dictated by god. They believe that muslims shall reside under sharia in jannat ([[heaven]]). Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and from [[Muhammad]]'s saying in the [[hadith]]s, [[sunnah]]s, and [[sirat]]. There are some disagreements about certain minor aspects of Sharia within the muslim community.

Sharia law controls almost every aspect of [[muslim]]s lives. it also regulates those non-believers([[dhimmi]]'s who live in Islamic states. Sharia does not allow freedom of speech in such matters as criticism of [[Muhammad]], the [[Qur'an]] and [[Islam]] on the whole. Such criticism is blasphemy and punishable by death. Sharia law also punishes [[apostasy]] with death.

Sharia

2010-08-08T22:04:47Z

Conor147:

[[Muslim]]s believe Sharia law to be the perfect law as dictated by god. They believe that muslims shall reside under sharia in jannat ([[heaven]]. Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and from [[Muhammad]]'s saying in the [[hadith]]s, [[sunnah]]s, and [[sirat]]. There are some disagreements about certain minor aspects of Sharia within the muslim community.

Sharia law controls almost every aspect of [[muslim]]s lives. it also regulates those non-believers([[dhimmi]]'s who live in Islamic states. Sharia does not allow freedom of speech in such matters as criticism of [[Muhammad]], the [[Qur'an]] and [[Islam]] on the whole. Such criticism is blasphemy and punishable by death. Sharia law also punishes [[apostasy]] with death.

Qur'an

2010-08-08T21:53:09Z

Conor147:

{{stub}}
{{wikipedia|color=#E7E7E7;}}

The '''Qur'an''' or '''Koran''' is the primary holy text of the [[Islam]]ic [[religion]]. According to [[Muslim]]s, the Qur'an was dictated by [[God]] to [[Muhammad]] in [[Wikipedia:Classical Arabic|Classical Arabic]] through the angel [[Gabriel]]. The Qur'an is different from the bible in that its followers generally believe it to be inerrant, infallible and unchanged from that which was dictated by god. Consequently, believing every word of the Qur'an to be the literal word of god is almost universal among muslims. The Qur'an is heavily criticized, especially in the West, for its consideration of [[women]] as inferior to men, its advocacy of [[intolerance]] towards non-Muslims, and its extremely violent system of [[punishment]] for crimes (especially victimless "crimes" such as [[extramarital sex]], [[homosexuality]], [[blasphemy]] and [[apostasy]]), see [[Problems with Muslim Sharia Law]].

==External link==
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an]

===Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GO3kfw8bHU&NR=1 The video that got Nick Gisburnes account deleted] This video features less pleasant parts of the Koran and Youtube took it down but after heavy criticism restored it. [http://www.brianflemming.org/archives/002508.html]

{{Islam}}

[[Category:Holy books]]
[[Category:Qur'an]]
[[Category:Religions]]
[[Category:Islam]]