Pharyngula

Posted by: Moses | January 13, 2008 6:57 PM

Just because:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFjH4ZqwOB4&feature=related

Posted by: Gary F | January 13, 2008 7:03 PM

That's nice. I'm glad there are so many young people being outspoken about their disbelief.

I remember a while back I saw a video on Youtube that listed numerous atheists, I think the idea was that atheists could be good people like these famous ones. There were many scientists mentioned, like Stephen Jay Gould, but also celebrities, writers, and others. Does anyone know what video I'm thinking of?

Posted by: ChrisKG | January 13, 2008 7:04 PM

This is a lot like the books of 'deconversion' like 'Leaving The Fold' by Edward T. Babinski, his book even has Dan Barker's story or John Loftus' book, 'Why I Rejected Christianity'.

Posted by: Jim | January 13, 2008 7:13 PM

Bravo to this girl.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | January 13, 2008 7:21 PM

"and you can be too!"

She hasn't lost her evangelical spirit completely methinks :P

Posted by: Misanthrope | January 13, 2008 7:51 PM

So after watching this I did a little more poking around on YouTube and came across this little gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx3EdM1DdPU

I'm typically not a laugh-out-loud type, but this really had me howling.

Posted by: V | January 13, 2008 7:57 PM

#8
Americans are a bit...slow.

Posted by: Jeremy | January 13, 2008 8:11 PM

@ #8

You'd do well not to make broad insulting statements such as that.

Posted by: Sigmund | January 13, 2008 8:32 PM

Do people here seriously think that telling believers that their most important belief systems are "ridiculous" is going to cause anything other than offense?
A lot of believers, hearing those words would automatically see her as a 'militant fundamentalist atheist'

Posted by: John C. Randolph | January 13, 2008 8:41 PM

A good friend of mine gave up his belief when he went deep enough into it to learn greek, hebrew and aramaic, and started reading older versions of the scriptures. He concluded that if god was in the picture, it wouldn't have allowed all the translators to play fast and loose with the wording.

-jcr

Posted by: Severian | January 13, 2008 8:47 PM

Sadly, I doubt a movement of people making videos like this would get nearly the coverage, be it positive or negative, that groups such as the Rational Response Squad can muster through more "controversial" methods.

Posted by: ronbailey | January 13, 2008 9:01 PM

@Sigmund - what, we're supposed to be polite and play nice? Why?

I can promise you from vast experience - that conversation happens only under very defined circumstances, and it isn't because the rational person asked the believer if he/she was an atheist...

Posted by: gyokusai | January 13, 2008 9:05 PM

Wow. What impresses me most is how natural it comes across, and how joyful. And like #1, I'd really like to think that this'd be the future (and I don't mind the wordiness at all ;-)).

So great.

^_^J.

Posted by: kristen in montreal | January 13, 2008 9:18 PM

@Zeno(#22)-
No, it's not Marissa Tomei, but thanks for trying to help me out :)

Posted by: Sigmund | January 13, 2008 9:51 PM

F#20 and #23, Rernando and ronbaily,
personally I have no problem with her approach, the point I was making was that this will not be seen as 'positive atheism' by the religious. The framers tell us to advocate positive rater than negative atheism yet the reality is that any advocacy that involves reason is seen as negative to those who accept faith.

Posted by: idlemind | January 13, 2008 9:56 PM

Hell seems to be the way out for a lot of folks. Once someone starts thinking through how evil a being would be that condemns good people (or even not-so-good people) to eternal hellfire, it is only a matter of time before the whole edifice comes down.

Posted by: Krash | January 13, 2008 10:01 PM

Kristen @ #12: And she reminds me so much of an actress and I can't figure out who.

I was thinking maybe Molly Ringwald:

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Profiles/20061006/244.ringwald.molly.100506.jpg

or

Elizabeth Berkley:

http://www.101lifestyle.com/images/celebs/elizabeth_berkley/prazzi-elizabeth-berkley-001.jpg

Posted by: truth machine | January 13, 2008 10:20 PM

From the same person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLNOntF7hVo

"I should note that, not too long after being 'born again', I starred in this very play, this very role in fact. I was told that my performance was powerful and helped to convert dozens of people and bring many more to tears. I hope these people have since recovered their sense of reason, but I guess I'll never really know. My point in all this that ... c'mon, this is some fucked up shit! Faith founded and inspired and reinforced by nothing more than a dread of the eternal consequences of not accepting the bullshit of Christianity."

...

"I just want to share the good news. My name is Nikki, and I deny the Holy Spirit. I'm not afraid. I'm not afraid any more. And you don't have to be either! Isn't that great?"

Posted by: B. Dias | January 13, 2008 10:29 PM

Am I a bad person for thinking her delivery needs work?

Posted by: Janine | January 13, 2008 10:39 PM

Truth Machine, I think you owe that person an apology. There was no insult. And the person said was that some religious types would even happy and polite atheists, 'militant fundamentalist atheist'. The only people being insulted are the dumb religious types.

Posted by: rmp | January 13, 2008 11:05 PM

I think what ticks me off about this video is that she had the courage to say (at approx 18) what it's taken me much longer to say. I'm 48.

I do find a similarity in that a few weeks ago when I actually said to a couple of close friends that I was an atheist, they we so worried. They ended up taking comfort in the that they didn't think I was a real atheist but rather an agnostic.

The semantic games on this are tiring but I do find it interesting that they could deal with it if I was an agnostic but not if I was an atheist.

I tried to explain that even Dr. Dawkins doesn't say that he is 100% sure there is no God and that most atheists are simply people that say they have no preconditions. We will happily follow the evidence wherever it leads (emphasis on HAPPY and EVIDENCE). I would love to be a theist evolutionist. It would make my life ever so much more simple.

I came away from that with the understanding that agnostic is a more practical position to claim. Not that I understand the difference but it makes other people feel better if you're not an ATHEIST.

Posted by: truth machine | January 13, 2008 11:13 PM

Truth Machine, I think you owe that person an apology.

You're wrong. Perhaps you lack experience with Sigmund.

There was no insult.

You're wrong; it was quite condescending.

Posted by: SteveC | January 13, 2008 11:27 PM

No atheist's Bible?

Hmm, what's this?

http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Bible-Illustrious-Collection-Irreverent/dp/0061349151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200284578&sr=1-1

That' being said, I have a very nice leather bound, gilded copy of the Origin of Species which I keep near the door precisely so that when the JW's or other assorted proselytizers come by, I can grab it and say, "Well, you've got your Bible, but I too have a fancy gilded, leatherbound book, and it is called "The Origin of Species," what about that?"

Posted by: ChicagoMolly | January 14, 2008 12:45 AM

"Are Catholics Christians?"

Great question, and not at all rhetorical.

If you live in The Great City of Chicago you'll know that the Archer Avenue bus route is a wonderful place for street theater (there's a White Castle at Archer and Kedzie -- that always helps). Anyway, I was riding the Archer bus late one night and a fiftysomething woman boarded, settled herself across from the driver and went on a Jesus trip for us. The usual stuff -- J luvs you, do you luv J, are you ready for the end, do you read the bible, oo wah dah doo dah, ... Then she started asking us all if we were christians. She was deeply concerned about the driver, and asked him two or three times, "Are you a Christian?" The driver, clearly getting tired of the show, said, "Of course I'm a Christian; I'm a Roman Catholic!" Her eyes went wide with fright and she blurted out, "O no! Roman Catholics aren't Christian! Roman Catholics are of the Devil!"

So much for the ecumenical spirit.

Posted by: Sigmund | January 14, 2008 1:27 AM

#46, as someone once said "Facts! You can use 'facts' to prove anything that's even remotely true!" It is the examination of the evidence (or lack thereof) that leads her to the conclusion that religion is untenable (or 'ridiculous'). Her conclusion is perfectly valid but in being open about her opinion she is going to cause emotional offense to those who do their utmost to avoid a critical examination for the evidence that would support their religion.
To the religious (and perhaps I should be more specific here - those who truly believe in the tenets of their church) can there ever be such a thing as positive atheism?

Posted by: Ced | January 14, 2008 1:57 AM

Omg, I just fell in love with that girl!

Posted by: Azkyroth | January 14, 2008 3:27 AM

To the religious (and perhaps I should be more specific here - those who truly believe in the tenets of their church) can there ever be such a thing as positive atheism?

If not, what possible advantage is there to be gained by pretending to a deferrence the religious have no right to expect?

Posted by: truth machine | January 14, 2008 3:56 AM

Whoa, talk about positive ... again from Nikki.

Posted by: S.o.G. | January 14, 2008 4:26 AM

@Kristen, Krash:

She reminds me Rebecca Pigeon.

Posted by: Sergeant Zim | January 14, 2008 5:18 AM

Kristen, maybe the actress you're thinking of is Amanda Bynes:

http://moviesbuff.com/images/amanda-bynes-gl5.jpg

Posted by: Guy | January 14, 2008 7:14 AM

Bravo!

She should be in theater or doing monologues on stage.

I agree with the sentiment that you don't need religion to be happy or to be a good person. Too many people think the opposite.

Posted by: Susan | January 14, 2008 7:36 AM

I liked the, "No, I'm not a Christian -- I'm a barista!"

Think I'll borrow that line, even though I'm not a barista.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | January 14, 2008 8:47 AM

Sigmund, you have no point. Ed Darrell at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub links to a guest column in Fort Bend Now, written by a teacher who is not permitted to use the word "evolution" in her classroom because the administration doesn't want to "offend" the families of the pupils.

In the comments section, there is a beautiful quote. Perhaps you would agree with this:

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I believe any truly Godly religion encourages much critical thinking in order to interpret Biblical teachings as our loving God intended them to be interpreted.

Belief in evolution also requires faith that some scientists' and proponents' hypotheses are infallible.

I am a Christian and will stand by my faith, but please know that probably because of what I was fortunately lovingly taught as a child, I do not consider myself superior to any other human being, as I believe God and Christ love us all unconditionally (in the truest and most broadly encompassing sense of the word, "love").

...and I really don't care to debate any more, but I would like to propose that we all can agree to disagree on this topic for the sake of civility alone, without any belittling whatsoever, however intellectual, academic, self-righteous, or passive aggressive any belittling may be.

I hope you can see the problems that your accommodationist thinking leads to, your concern is misplaced here. Are you not concerned by the people who have this unrelenting need to preach whenever they get the chance? Do you concern-troll evangelical blogs?

I would guess not, but you are welcome to correct me.

Posted by: Sigmund | January 14, 2008 10:45 AM

Do I concern troll evangelical blogs?
No, and I don't concern troll this one either. Did you even read my posts? My point is not that I'm worried about the feelings of the religious - why should I be? - but rather a specific point about the title of this thread "This is positive atheism"
I'm not sure if you viewed the four horsemen video of Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens that was posted on RichardDawkins.net recently but Dennett made the same point (probably a little better than I have) that any statement of atheism on logic grounds - as this woman does in this youtube clip - will be seen as an attack, or offensive in some manner, by the religious. As I've said in this very thread I have no problem with what she is doing, (I actually think its great that people have the courage to do this) just don't expect the religious to feel that it is a positive role model too. Hitchens or Harris, for instance, pointing out that religious claims are fallacious and about as believable as the story of Santa Claus is commonly described as 'negative atheism' yet I wonder if there is a qualitative difference compared to this video - at least in the minds of the shocked and dismayed god squad.

Posted by: BDM | January 14, 2008 11:24 AM

Sorry, but I'm a little tired of these "I used to be a christian but..." manifestos. How long must we patiently hand-hold these morons who are just now catching on? Christianity was always stupid. It was stupid 2,000 years ago; it's stupid now. If we are truly obligated to pleasantly smile and nod each and every time some dolt painstakingly relates his or her step-by-step acceptance of reality, it will take another 2,000 years to rid the world of this pernicious horseshit. I for one do not have that much time.

Posted by: Mooser | January 14, 2008 11:31 AM

Listen, I asked begged and prayed for God to come into my life. I cleaned my house, got a bunch of nice snacks and imported beer, and stayed home from work in my best clothes.
The sonuvabitch didn't show! Crap! I had the joints all rolled and everything.
Any bastard rejects my hospitality and a polite invitation, the hell with 'em!
And I've done fine on my own, thank you.

Posted by: kristen in montreal | January 14, 2008 11:34 AM

Re: Sigmund

I find myself half in agreement with you. From experience I know that some religious people will take any criticism of their fait as an insult. That's unreasonable and unfortunate. But there are arguably equally as many who would respect you for forming your own opinion. I had a philosophy professor who was a devout roman catholic, and I would constantly get into discussions with him after class about intelligent design and the god hypothesis and almost everything he had to say about science (he didn't have much to say about science, though, as one might expect). He didn't find my arguments against god insulting at all, and he didn't try to convert me (if anything, I was trying very hard to convert him, but I guess I'm not very convincing).

I guess that this professor is not the kind of "religious person" you mean when you say that this young lady will be perceived by the religious as a fanatic. I think it's really too bad that those kinds of unreasonable people exist. Their intolerance defeats the apparent purpose of their faith.

Posted by: Reynold | January 14, 2008 11:44 AM

@35:
also, this chick is cute as hell. and her points about judgementalness of evangelical christians is right on.
Hah. Speaking of which, check out the first letter on this page:

(hell yes, we need more people like her!) Check out how intelligent she sounds compared with this guy (from the above link):

To Kevin Williamson

RE 'All joking aside' (ENT, Jan. 6, year in preview in movies): In the Jan. 6 issue of ENT, you wrote that the "collapse of The Golden Compass indicates fantasy-film fatigue". I would suggest that it is nothing of the kind. The fact is, moviegoers are not interested in "fantasy" films, which portray organized religion as the "bad guy." In this case, Christ Our Lord would also be the "bad guy" for setting up organized religion for the ordered return of souls to God. I write this letter not only to tell you of these things, but also to gloat over the future success of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. This movie will completely crush The Golden Compass and other atheist-inspired garbage. Because people in the West want to see "good" movies inspired by the writings of Christians such as J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, not atheistic garbage such as The Golden Compass.

Michael Sutka

Posted by: mothworm | January 14, 2008 12:52 PM

Sorry, but I'm a little tired of these "I used to be a christian but..." manifestos. How long must we patiently hand-hold these morons who are just now catching on?

Well bully for you that you weren't raised by Bible-beaters, or figured it all out before grade school. I find it kind of hard to believe, though, that we should be pissing on the people who have figured out reality too recently for your convenience. How is she asking to be "hand-held"? It sounds like she's already got it down.

Posted by: Jay | January 14, 2008 1:22 PM

Dana Delany, definitely.

Posted by: BDM | January 14, 2008 2:03 PM

I find it kind of hard to believe, though, that we should be pissing on the people who have figured out reality too recently for your convenience. How is she asking to be "hand-held"? It sounds like she's already got it down.

1.) It's not just my convenience that's at issue. 2.) She's asking to be hand-held by walking out onto the enormous stage known as YouTube where we are supposed to shower her with endless applause for discovering the obvious.

As Richard Dawkins points out, we don't need to be applauded for rejecting astrology. Why then should we need to be applauded for rejecting a stupid fairytale of virgin births and eternal salvation, etc?

I don't mean to be jumping all over this girl; she's probably a nice person (she seems nice anyway). It's just that this kind of thing is way, way, way, way overdue. Kind of like it's way overdue for people to be discovering fuel efficient cars or that McDonald's is bad for you. Yay! You bought a Prius! Bully for you!

Posted by: Mechalith | January 14, 2008 2:25 PM

It may just be my personal reservation, but something about her wide eyed enthusiasm puts me off a bit. It's good to see another person joining 'our side' so to speak, but I worry about people who are simply followers by nature following the bandwagon.

Posted by: Sara | January 14, 2008 2:54 PM

BDM, congratulations on life being so damn easy for you. If only we all could be so lucky.

This girl's video and others like it are probably not meant for you, or me, or anyone else. I get the feeling such videos are simply a way to help the individual to become comfortable saying "I'm an Atheist." A first step in entering a world where so many people, family and friends included, will think you're a terrible human being and not associate with you anymore because you don't believe in their sky god. That's not a very easy thing to do for most people.

I'm sure you're probably a nice person too, but your comments sound awfully condescending.

Posted by: Lorax | January 14, 2008 3:57 PM

re: look alike... Im guessing Jessica Biel or Nicci Cox although I wonder how much important information I forgot to dig up those references. :(

Posted by: jeffk | January 14, 2008 4:03 PM

I thought atheists were either cranky old white men, libertarian college undergrads, or asexual scientists/science students. As someone in the latter category, yay for cute female atheists.

Posted by: j.t.delaney | January 14, 2008 4:27 PM

sigmund,

Some religious people will be offended merely by our existence, and I just don't think we need to pander to their thin-skinned sensibilities. If you want to show the right way to tell this kind of story, please do so.

My guess is that, if anything, telling some rude religious stranger with boundary issues that he and his beliefs are ridiculous wasn't really intended as an earnest skeptical conversion strategy (now that would be "ridiculous".) Instead, I'm guessing the whole event could be considered a wothwhile teaching moment in practical manners: harrasing busy strangers at their place of work with uninvited religious treacle is not a way to make friends and influence others. There is a time to be nice... but this just wasn't one of those times. Hopefully, he will think twice before pulling that silly stunt on some other poor working stiff again.

BDM:

It appears that she isn't looking for validation from people like you. Rather, she's trying to encourage other people who are still making the journey -- and good for her. I'd love to live in a world where this message really was superfluous, but that's just not the world we live it. There are a lot of young kids who need to hear this. She comes across very sweet, and I would have loved to see this when I was struggling fifteen years ago.

I'm really not sure where you are coming from. For those of us that grew up in the religion-soaked, blue collar American heartland, coming out atheist is more than just some detatched intellectual exercise. It can mean the loss of friends and family, and going against years of systematic brainwashing. Most young atheist from religious baackgrounds that I knew came to their conclusions about the validity of religion first... and then spent *years* feeling guilty and isolated for doubting -- even when they KNEW they were right. Eventually, you get over it and you discover just how great life can be, but that transition period really can suck. You really should count yourself fortunate that you can't empathize.

Posted by: mothworm | January 14, 2008 5:12 PM

2.) She's asking to be hand-held by walking out onto the enormous stage known as YouTube where we are supposed to shower her with endless applause for discovering the obvious.

I don't know that she's asking us to do anything. I think it's about visibility. We're always talking abou the need for people to stand up and come out...well, there she is. It makes it harder for theists to pretend like they're the default position. That's always a good thing.

Posted by: BDM | January 14, 2008 5:17 PM

J.T.,
If you're losing friends over your religious views, then they aren't your friends. As far as family goes, I guess that's a little more complicated, but if millions of homosexuals can do it then millions of atheists can too.
Are you saying there's no second step? I just see all this hand-wringing and comiserating. It seems like we want to re-live that moment of revelation (pardon the pun) over and over again. These weepy how-I-lost-my-religion testimonials aren't getting us anywhere. Let's go already. Time's a wastin'. You know who else was surrounded by religion-soaked nincompoops? Ben Franklin. Thomas Jefferson. Where would we be if all they did was sit around holding encounter sessions about how hard it was to admit their doubts? Franklin's family wouldn't even let him learn how to swim. Know what he did? He went swimming anyway.
My fear is that young doubters will see this girl's video and then...make a video and we'll never leave square one. To return to my regrettable golf analogy, great, you put the ball on the tee, now whack it off. And soon.

Posted by: mothworm | January 14, 2008 5:23 PM

Wait a sec. Cute atheists exist? I didn't know that.

From my experience, all the atheist women are the cutest.

Posted by: truth machine | January 14, 2008 5:34 PM

My point is not that I'm worried about the feelings of the religious - why should I be? - but rather a specific point about the title of this thread "This is positive atheism" ... just don't expect the religious to feel that it is a positive role model too

Ok, in addition to being a jackass, you're plain stupid. Somehow, for us to think that this is positive atheism, we must expect that the religious will find it "a positive role model".

Posted by: truth machine | January 14, 2008 5:45 PM

She's asking to be hand-held by walking out onto the enormous stage known as YouTube where we are supposed to shower her with endless applause for discovering the obvious.

You make Sigmund look like a genius. It's PZ who put her on the stage; even beforehand she was surprised that she got as much attention as she did. She's got a video blog on YouTube; these days, that's no more walking out onto an enormous stage than putting up a text blog -- most of which go unnoticed.

Posted by: BDM | January 14, 2008 6:22 PM

Jeezus. All I'm saying is we're suck at step one. It's like the instructions on shampoo bottles. Lather, rinse, repeat. When do we get to step two?

Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 14, 2008 6:50 PM

Atheists are all at different stages because people all have different backgrounds, and are at different stages in life in general. In any atheist forum there are going to be a few people who seem to be "stuck" at some earlier stage -- including that rather awkward, uncomfortable stage where they keep wondering why 'other people' can't just get with it and move on. Listen long enough, though, and you start to relax.

It's all good...

Posted by: Rey Fox | January 14, 2008 7:01 PM

Just what are these further steps, anyway? Am I behind in this program? Will there be a test later?

Posted by: Janine | January 14, 2008 7:16 PM

BMD, why don't you find the spot where all of the cool atheists are hanging out. You know, where everyone just knows it is all horseshit and could careless about the little people who are trying to figure out who they are and what they are doing.

I do not see where this young woman was boo-hooing and asking for our support. I seem to recall her saying, she can understand the god speakers because she used to be one. And she is already tired of those believers who seem to think that all non believers somehow never heard of Jesus. In otherwords, her video is a small contribution to questioning people that it is alright to be an atheist.

And I repeat myself in saying this, we have to keep this message out so the people who have not been taught better can find out that atheists does not mean monster. For example, all of those kids one sees in the documentary, "Jesus Camp". Guess what, not everyone one of the those are going to be true believers. Some may actually begin to question what has been crammed down them. Now how many of those kids heard anything positive about atheism? We have to show that we are around and that we are not orges. The religious types will not do that for us.

Sliming on one person does nothing. What has she done wrong. You may not be the kind of person who is willing to talk about this. Fine. But please show me where the whining, boo hooing and hand holding is at in her video.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 14, 2008 7:53 PM

Sorry, I know you want us to despise you, but we don't.

there goes heddle, projecting again.

thanks for the demonstration, but it's not like we haven't seen it before.

I suppose you don't see any elephants in your house, either?

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 14, 2008 8:00 PM

...I don't mean to be jumping all over this girl; she's probably a nice person (she seems nice anyway).

well, your blog IS "Big Daddy Malcontent", so I suppose it comes with the territory.

frankly, with that as a blog theme, I would have been a little worried if you came in here all smiles and sunshine.

;)

Posted by: Chet | January 14, 2008 8:44 PM

Haven't you all heard that already?

Sure, when I went to college.

Before that, BDM, who would I have heard it from? My classmates, who all believed the exact same religion as me? My family, who were indoctrinated right alongside me? The libraries with no atheist books?

Religion doesn't just sit around and wait for you to ask the questions that will break the spell. There's all kinds of defenses built into a functioning religious society that head that kind of inquiry off at the pass.

If you're not from a place like rural America, you might just not get it. It's not about not having thought it through. It's about hearing all your life that certain kinds of thought, certain kinds of questions, are to be avoided at all costs because they're from the devil, trying to imperil your eternal soul.

Do you know how they tie down elephants? An adult elephant has more than enough strength to snap a rope or uproot a stake, easily. But a baby elephant doesn't. As a juvenile, it learns the futility of trying to break the rope - and so, as an adult, the power of the rope to bind is not questioned.

Growing up in rural America is a lot like that, BDM.

Posted by: rmp | January 14, 2008 9:27 PM

Carlie, I think the reason that I'm finally ok with saying I'm an atheist is that my parents aren't part of the equation anymore. As you said, it's some 'hard shit to put on the people you love the most'.

Maybe I'll get a divorce someday (after all, she's still a theist) but for that I'll have to wait for the kids to pass away.

Posted by: rmp | January 14, 2008 10:14 PM

damn, I would have loved to hear it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 14, 2008 11:10 PM

though i don't really know how to handle the momentary attention this video seems to have developed.

that's the wonderful thing about the internet; it'll die down by next week.

ITMT, you seem to be handling it fine.

not always, but often the "angry" atheists you will run into are ones that simply are entirely fed up with the nonsensical ravings of the more ignorant theists that appear to be so common out there.

If you can manage to avoid becoming jaded after a few decades of battling these folk, that's great, but don't force it; you will need to call them morons when the shoe fits, for your own sanity.

Posted by: Carlie | January 14, 2008 11:37 PM

rmp - yeah, the conversation with my volunteer youth minister spouse was bad enough (and ever since a topic Not To Be Discussed), I don't even want to think about having it with my grandmother or parents, oy. I phrased it pretty crudely, but there are a few things that aren't very explicable in ways other than resorting to profanity, and that seems to me like one of them.

I think the fact that there are "hundreds of similarly themed" videos to this one can really have a big impact. Again, it might seem like a bad 12-step meeting to the more rational and jaded, but sheesh, if I had seen this back in the Pleistocene when I was a teenager, I think it would have really had an impact. I didn't know any outright atheists AT ALL. Imagine that kind of sheltering. There was nothing to contradict that I was told atheists were few and far between, evil and wrong and sad and bitter people who were just mad at God. There was nothing to prove that idea wrong to me. If I had seen hundreds of smiling happy normal people who declared proudly that they were atheists, it would have shattered my worldview. Videos like nikki's are bits of rational gold for that particular type of person. They might look easy or trite to older observers, but to the right audience, the sheer enormity of them might really make a difference.

Posted by: Chet | January 15, 2008 12:41 AM

well, i guess that's all for now. i'm looking forward to further discussions!

Hey, Nikki. I enjoyed your video, and I thought a lot of the comments on YouTube in response were ridiculous and stupid. But thanks for making it. Every atheist who relates their personal story tips the scales just a little bit more in our favor.

I wouldn't have the courage to post about it on YouTube - I can't even broach the subject with my parents - so your courage is, to me at least, commendable.

Posted by: Teenage Lobotomy | January 15, 2008 3:16 AM

bi=polar bear? cant take the sarcasm huh?

run a background check to! why not float me a personal reply? can i expect a knock from the internet po po's

Posted by: truth machine | January 15, 2008 3:57 AM

Its not attacking the religious in any way other than letting them know that it was rationality was the means to the end (and as I said, some will find that difficult to deal with and take it as an attack on their ability to be rational - then again, thats their problem).

Ah, the Sigmund I'm familiar with. Previously you wrote

Do people here seriously think that telling believers that their most important belief systems are "ridiculous" is going to cause anything other than offense?

but you can't bother to even pay attention to your own arguments as you offer up new bits of sophistry.

Posted by: Sigmund | January 15, 2008 4:36 AM

truth machine,
I've avoided your malicious ad hominem attacks until now as its clear that you are very young. I knew a lot of similar kids in school who acted the same way as you are doing when they were in their early teens but they generally grow out of it by the time they reached 14 or 15 but at the moment you are simply embarrassing yourself.
Telling lies is not the way to win an intellectual argument. You do not know me so don't pretend that we have some sort of history - you might just get asked to prove it.

Posted by: j.t.delaney | January 15, 2008 12:06 PM

Maggie Gyllenhaal. Definitely.

Posted by: Carlie | January 15, 2008 1:39 PM

BDM - It's very simple: it would cause them a great deal of pain, and I don't want to cause them pain.

It's not just a matter of them trying to accept that I'm someone other than they thought I would be, that I have different priorities and ideas and such. My siblings and I have done all kinds of 'sinful' things that we weren't raised to do, and they know about it, and can deal with it. It's not on that gentle a level. Watch those stupid Christian scare videos of ideas of people in hell. That's what they'd be sure would happen to me, and it would eat at them all the time. When I went through a several-year span of not going to church (just because I couldn't find one I liked where I was living) my grandmother asked me if I had found somewhere to attend every single time she talked to me. She thought about it almost daily. Trying to somehow get around something so horrible rooted so deeply could only happen if they gave up all of their ideas about Christianity, and that's an awful lot to tackle. It's kind of easy for me to cop out of it, because I only see them once every year or two, and easy enough to avoid in conversation otherwise. I guess for me it's a cost-benefit analysis; I don't see any benefit of them knowing right now that would justify the emotional turmoil I know it would cause to them. I like people too much to be an "absolute total complete honesty at all costs" kind of person.

Posted by: JimC | January 15, 2008 2:01 PM

How could we? After all, the bible tells us you will find our faith foolish.) I know many of you on here like to think that we are in a constant state of us versus them (you) --but it simply is not so. Sorry, I know you want us to despise you, but we don't. We like you, and in exceptions when we don't, it is generally because you're a jerk, and we wouldn't like you if you were a Christian, either.

heddle is such a tool, he's almost a parody. He accepts genocide without issue.

Read how he writes, we, we, we, as if this tool speaks for a religion. One thing is for certain given his genocide love, lack of general rationality, and anger on many posts, he is the jerk he purports to discuss above.

Posted by: Sigmund | January 18, 2008 6:29 AM

You have been caught telling lies. You have made a specific claim in this thread about some imaginary past encounters that is untrue. I tell you what, if you can find this famous example of me being a troll in the past and you interacting with me then post a link here. If it is true then I will retire from Pharyngula.
If you cannot then it is up to you to do the decent thing, admit you were lying and retire yourself.
Deal?