Poor Suzy

[Nebula]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM5n8jES ... -I&index=4

[Piecemaker]

You don't know Suzy like I know Suzy! (Is ignorance bliss? Is Suzy better off than those who don't believe as she does?)

[Glacier]

I have to agree with the comment by aloh86 below the video:

• Having a discussion with an atheist who knows at least some Christian theology, philosophy, who has a formal background in the hard sciences is on a different level than someone who has read and perceives The God Delusion to be the holy grail reference to use for debate. This story of Suzie is nothing but shallow arguments against why God doesn't exist and [sic]. An old atheist wouldn't stoop to this kind of level...why does new atheism? This video is nothing but cheap shots.
  
  Old atheism = smart, intelligent atheists who academically study philosophy of religion and other various disciplines to form intelligent arguments against the existence of God.
  
  New atheism = old atheism repackaged into a fundamentalist, extremist, and hardline stance against religion with the use of heated rhetoric.
  
  New atheist followers = angry, angst ridden emo people who simply regurgitate instead of finding their way to atheism through the long, arduous, but rewarding process of study.

[hellomynameis]

LOL are you honestly serious?

I mean, I'm glad we recognize that within any group there will be intellectual, emotional and dimwitted people.
Does that mean we just get to apply labels and stereotypes to a mass of people as a rhetorical subversion of the larger debate?

Funny how that always turns inwards on itself. I'd say this is a general rule when it comes to these kind of things.

I have to agree with the comment by 86aloh below the video:

• Having a discussion with an Catholic who knows at least some Atheistic thought, philosophy, who has a formal background in the hard sciences is on a different level than someone who has read and perceives the bible to be the holy grail reference to use for debate. This story of Suzie is nothing but shallow arguments for why God does exist and [sic]. An old Catholic wouldn't stoop to this kind of level...why do Protestants? This video is nothing but cheap shots.
  
  Catholism = smart, intelligent Christians who academically study philosophy of religion and other various disciplines to form intelligent arguments against the existence of God.
  
  Protestants = Catholics repackaged into a fundamentalist, extremist, and hardline stance for religion with the use of heated rhetoric.
  
  Protestant followers = angry, angst ridden square people who simply regurgitate instead of finding their way to Christianity through the long, arduous, but rewarding process of study.

[Omnitheo]

There's no long hard road of study to Atheism. It only requires a small amount of logic.

The path to religion is much more difficult, full of blind belief in counter-intuitive notions and intolerance. It requires you to shut down your brain and submit to archaic dogma.

[forum]

There is no Old and New Atheist group. Christians tend to think so because they have an Old and New testament.

Atheists don't decide to become an Atheist. They are educated people that eventually realize something.
Critical thinking, logic and reason are the key ingredients in the making of an Atheist.

However, one thing I'm not looking forward to is people saying they are an Atheist to look smart. Kind of like people now choosing to wear the uncomfortable thick rimmed glasses (Rivers Cuomo was way ahead of the times). Celebrities will come out claiming they are Atheists and then all hell will break loose! Haha, you like that pun?

[steven lloyd]

There's no long hard road of study to Atheism. It only requires a small amount of logic.

:129: There’s no long hard road of study to any belief system if that’s the road you choose to take. Some skip that route and choose instead to engage in the use of simplistic overgeneralization. However, if you think you arrived at a disbelief in the existence of God due to the use of logic, you've either never taken a formal course in logic or you failed it miserably.

[Glacier]

LOL are you honestly serious?

Only half so. I mean, these videos are pretty entertaining on a certain level (the Noah's Ark one gave me a pretty good chuckle), but we can't have a thread last over 10 days on Castnet without some sort of dissenting voice. :spinball:

More to the point, when forum uses these videos to attempt to show that God doesn't exist, that's where things fall woefully short.

[Born_again]

There’s no long hard road of study to any belief system if that’s the road you choose to take.

Do you classify Atheism as a "belief system"? If so, please illustrate.

[Nebula]

More to the point, when forum uses these videos to attempt to show that God doesn't exist, that's where things fall woefully short.

I don't think anyone is attempting to show god doesn't exist. That's like trying to prove Ra doesn't exist, or Ogopogo. Some of these videos simply show a different point of view, that it's rather silly to believe in the existence of a supernatural being when there is no proof that one exists.

The excuse of, "No one can prove god doesn't exist," is tiring. No one can prove Ra doesn't exist, but no one believes that old fable.

[fluffy]

Some of these videos simply show a different point of view, that it's rather silly to believe in the existence of a supernatural being when there is no proof that one exists.

The excuse of, "No one can prove god doesn't exist," is tiring. No one can prove Ra doesn't exist, but no one believes that old fable.

This makes a great case for agnosticism, as there is no current escape from the fact that we just don't know for sure one way or the other. Everything we have at the moment in support of either the "there is" or "there isn't" side is based on theory and/or personal belief. What's wrong with keeping options open?

[Tumult]

There is no Old and New Atheist group. Christians tend to think so because they have an Old and New testament.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/
...their common claim that religious belief is irrational.

New Atheism refers to a 21st century movement in atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[hellomynameis]

LOL are you honestly serious?

Only half so. I mean, these videos are pretty entertaining on a certain level (the Noah's Ark one gave me a pretty good chuckle), but we can't have a thread last over 10 days on Castnet without some sort of dissenting voice. :spinball:

More to the point, when forum uses these videos to attempt to show that God doesn't exist, that's where things fall woefully short.

The quasi-stick-man Noah's Ark two part skit? It was hilarious ;)

[Nebula]

This makes a great case for agnosticism, as there is no current escape from the fact that we just don't know for sure one way or the other. Everything we have at the moment in support of either the "there is" or "there isn't" side is based on theory and/or personal belief. What's wrong with keeping options open?

Nothing wrong with keeping options open. Let me ask you: Do you keep options open just in case the thousands of gods worshipped throughout history are real?

[hellomynameis]

This makes a great case for agnosticism, as there is no current escape from the fact that we just don't know for sure one way or the other. Everything we have at the moment in support of either the "there is" or "there isn't" side is based on theory and/or personal belief. What's wrong with keeping options open?

Whoa whoa whoa. Let me start in reverse order,

Nothing is wrong with keeping our options open to a degree. This kind of goes back to the old canard that atheists are closed-minded, certainly some are but why just pick on them (not that you are) and leave the real debate behind? I would argue that most atheists, myself included, readily acknowledge that there may be a god(s) or maybe even some unknown supernatural power at work. However, we're also quite firm in stating that there's not sufficient evidence to believe that there is such things as god(s) and supernatural powers.

I think your statement about the support from both camps only being from theory and personal belief is wrong. We cannot prove a negative but we can test claims and research our nature. I would argue that the overwhelming results of testing and research has sided with purely naturalistic explanations. Surely some will argue that perhaps our methods can only produce naturalistic answers or that the supernatural defies testing in the first place. Two responses to that. First, where religion and spirituality trespass overtly into reality there IS something to test. Second, where religion and spirituality retreat into unverifiable cracks in the floor is where they become indistinguishable from the demon in my wristwatch. When that becomes the case I think scepticism not positive and active belief is the correct course.

Agnosticism, to not know. To be an agnostic is to be an atheist. theist/atheist = belief or lack of while gnostic/agnostic = knowledge or lack of. For example, you could be a gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist, gnostic theist or agnostic theist.