How Atheists Can Be Effective Evangelists (1)

[jjason23296]

Let's start bashing on peoples doors every weekend morning!

[ezenewton]

@jesusourhealer Again, their are no true christians, just people who are superstitious.

[ezenewton]

@jesusourhealer yeah right, kinda like your comment, "Long Ago atheist didn't bother with "evangelizing" or protesting God because to do so gave some sort of acknowledgement which was a position they didn't want to uphold.

A meaningless statement, you don't define "Long Ago" or the "position" they didn't want to uphold. You seem to have missed the part "Long Ago" when to be an outspoken atheist meant death. Of course, that wouldn't have been why atheists weren't more outspoken "Long Ago,"

[ezenewton]

@jesusourhealer I would do more research if I were you, you sources are pretty bad if these are your conclusions. Maybe research something that is not the bible for a change

[shandcunt]

@jesusourhealer I hear yah bro, I tend to think of Atheism as a social movement more than anything.

looking back in history, women changed how society viewed them, blacks got equal rights by standing up and calling racism what it is, gays are finally getting treated as people now and atheists are now trying to change society's view on Faith@!!! Those Bastards, believing things without evidence or reason surely can only lead to good things?

Ohh and I'm from New Zealand.

[shandcunt]

@jesusourhealer Just wondering if you still agree with your comment 10 months down the road? has your view changed at all? have you done anymore research on the subject?

[BalladoftheWindfish]

Looking forward to atheist evangelists. I'll try not to shut them down too harshly. :D

[shawndimery]

Damn Russel is massive! He doesnt seem to big when he is sat down on the show!

[thesparitan]

@jesusourhealer What do atheist teach there kids?

Name the foundations of atheism?

How many atheist churches are there?

What are some of the basic creeds of atheism?

You answer those and you got yourself a religion. Atheism is not a religion dont be stupid. You are an atheist too I am just a bit more atheist then you.

[thesparitan]

I can relate to that cartoon, a little to much.

[SubconsciousGatherer]

@jesusourhealer Excuse me, but how is atheism a religion when it's the opposite of religion, the absence of religion? Have you ever been asked if NOT collecting stamps is considered a hobby?

[highwind8124]

"Why bother evangelizing?"

So the Salem witch trials don't happen again. Maybe we don't like a bunch of superstitious people running around who thinks Sarah Palin is fit to be president. Maybe we deserve a chance at responding to the allegations that we are the "spirit of anti-Christ". Do we even have to bother to answer this? Lets just disprove their religion first, and then they'll be understand why we do it.

[Xakani]

@highwind8124 Haha... Sarah Palin is LOSE. XD

Pious People: WRAWR!!! D:< How DARE you not believe in some abstract omnipresence that's existence makes absolutely no sense and has no proof just because we told you to! You must be the incarnation of EEEEVIIIIL!!! DX<

Teehee. Funny people not making sense. owo

[bttrflykiss7701]

his demeanor bothers me.. but that's personal opinion. lol

[Xakani]

@bttrflykiss7701 Hooray for the first amendment! :D

[bttrflykiss7701]

@Xakani agreed. :)

[UnkinglyLike]

there aint nobody there yo..

[beautifulspam]

Yarrrrr I am a pirate.

[bobappleyard84]

YashinNashi, that's an interesting hypothesis. There are others, such as for instance that non-breeding members of a family group can nevertheless help in bringing up children, thus aiding survival (this is common in many other species, and think of all the help extended family provide).

[potmonkey28]

for the guys arguing on this please look at 6:00 of the video lol

[twaj]

Don't think a Christian wouldn't hesitate to talk to your kids about the oddball way he sees the world.

[evolutionisscience]

Well, he's not coming back. And I'm taking the GRE tomorrow, so I need to study. Cheers.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Have at it, thanks for the little discussion. ^_^

[jamaulbrown]

Another question for all the atheist here - I've noticed that a high amount of atheist are homosexuals (not sure of the stats - so don't reply with stupid comments - it's just something I've noticed on YouTube) ..

Since an atheist "probably" believes in evolution - how can they explain their homosexuality? Isn't the only explanation that their a "evolutionary defect" (since evolution is changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms through SUCCESSIVE generations)  ???

[artgoat]

You aren't sure of any stats, because you're making shit up out of thin air. Kind of like God is made up out of deep-seated insecurities. Really really stupid people are also a genetic defect, and yet they are all around us. I don't think this proves the existence of God--or much else, except for the existence of a statistical bell curve.

[jamaulbrown]

Relax captain crazy ..

like I said - I have NO STATS - just something I've noticed ..

"Really really stupid people are also a genetic defects" - so you're calling gay people genetic defects?

Do you agree with my conclusion IF evolution is real ?

[artgoat]

You were the one who called homosexuality a genetic defect (the distinction between evolution and genetics is effectively splitting hairs). I'm operating from your established premise. There are many many examples in nature of same-sex cooperatives enhancing the survival options of a species (in cheetahs, for example). So I can't agree with your conclusion. What you see as a defect very likely exists because it improved survival under certain conditions. Like sickle-cell and malaria.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

There is no question of "if" evolution is "real." Evolution and its processes are observed scientific fact. The only question is if you *understand* those processes. Something you made clear was a "no" when you asked that ridiculous homosexuality V evolution question.

When it doubt, educate yourself. Find a school, go there, and this time don't sleep through class.

[jamaulbrown]

What's the best example of observed macro evolution?

There should be lots of examples if evolution is true - but I'll just ask for one :)

[DeadlyChinchilla]

There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution. Biologists have never used these terms seriously, because they are a base mischaractorization of the evolutionary process with a vague qualifier of time and "in" or "out" of a species scope. There is *only* evolution.

If you really want a demonstrative species, look outside in the air. All birds are 'macro' style evolved from theropod dinosaurs. But I've little doubt you really don't care about this example since it goes against your opinion.

[jamaulbrown]

by macro - I mean "NOT" natural selection .. natural section happens - but doesn't produce any new genetic information.. Hence it's not what the "macro" evolution theory is based on..

I understand you have a dinosaur to bird theory - but I was looking for an observed example. Don't have any?

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Ahh, I love when they move the goalposts.

You'll explain away any example I give you because you don't *want* it to be true. You've already decided what you like and prefer.

There is no seperating natural selection from the evolutionary process. That you think you can just makes your comments all that much more absurd, such as your "no new genetic info" idea, which is a commonly parroted religious idea based on no real knowledge whatsoever. You'll move the goal post with every answer.

[jamaulbrown]

If you're not educated enough on the topic to give a rational answer, then fine.. your replies are making you look foolish..

As you can see below - @evolutionisscience was able to give an answer .. I look forward to researching his post ..

[evolutionisscience]

DC's comments were accurate. I just felt like indulging you.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

I gave you an answer. Do read back if you missed it. Oh wait, that would be *IGNORED* it. Somehow being called "foolish" by a scientific jestor doesn't impact me that much.

[evolutionisscience]

"new genetic information"

Oh. Then polyploidy.

"dinosaur to bird theory"

It's an idea. We have many transitional fossils indicative of such a relationship. Archaeopteryx is our bread winner. There's your observed example. Keep in mind that "transitional" does not mean "ancestral."

[DeadlyChinchilla]

No, no, silly. By "observed example," in his religious-speak, he means "you can walk into your backyard and see in the span of 5 minutes a cat give birth to a duck." He'll just deny any fossil, wait and see. We could list off examples of observed speciation and evolutionary trends, and it won't matter.

Such as we have the entire line of horse evolution, back to when they were all 18 inch tall and rat-like. Or the near-complete line of whale evolution, from and back into the ocean.

[evolutionisscience]

Well, that's rather rigorous. I've never asked historians to show me the eruption at Pompeii.

Well, maybe he understand that science seeks only natural explanations to phenomena; and that evolutionary theory is the most harmonious natural idea we have for the evidence we find.

Furthermore, science is a self-correcting system. In the incredibly off chance that evolutionary theory is found to be wrong, it will be scientists who understand the theory who will do so.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Although that would be marvelous to see, Pompeii's eruption... heh, can't help envisioning it now.

What he likely doesn't get is that we *encourage* those who find incorrect information among scientific data and knowledge. By correcting mistakes, by finding new, more accurate data, we further all mankinds knowledge and allow for new resources and technology. If a person finds a process at odds with evolution, and replaces it, hello scientific immortality! That name would become historic.

[evolutionisscience]

Exactly! And they're going about it all wrong. They're always denying the evidence. They're going about it the hard way. They simply do not know how many pieces of evidence there are for ET. They SHOULD be A) developing a NATURAL theory which better fits the evidence (impossible, for reasons which are apparent) OR B) SEARCHING for evidence AGAINST ET.

B's the best choice for them. Now if ONLY they'd go to school to qualify themselves to look for this evidence.

[adolthitler]

@jamaulbrown

+I mean "NOT" natural selection+

Oh you mean farmers breeding animals?

Information is mutated sometimes less info sometimes more. Then its selected.

Your no new information statement is just wrong.

[evolutionisscience]

Observed speciation. How about the development of multicellularity in Chlorella vulgaris? That's one of my favorites.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Homosexuality is an evolutionary byproduct of some other successful trait. It does not get weeded out because A- our population is quite large and commonly interbred and B- it does not have negative consequences, as many homosexuals still have children by several means.

Somehow claiming homosexuality goes against evolution just shows how little understanding you have of its processes and how it functions within a population.

Also, that you assume most atheists are gay via YT is silly.

[evolutionisscience]

(The other successful trait is suspected to be hypersexuality on the part of the mother of the homosexual individual. Mmmm...)

Anti-ETs fail to understand how trade offs can emerge through evolution. So I fail to understand how an "intelligent" designer would need to implement trade offs in its contrived organisms. It's a fun game.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

How nicely stated, I'm a little jealous. ^_^

I especially love that boys who are born after other boys are far more likely to be homosexual, since the mothers body produces antibodies against 'male' DNA during her pregnancy. The more boys she's had the better they get at fighting (and diminishing during pregnancy) that 'male' emergence of DNA. Not sure if this is confirmed as yet, but its an interesting idea. Genetics is also a fun game!

[evolutionisscience]

Oh, good! I felt like I was the only one to be able to explain the emergence of homosexuality.

And indeed. It is interesting just what kinds of curve balls nature can throw at us.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Quite right, the intricate biological interworkings are fascinating stuff. What just amazes me is the level of denial many people display, even when they haven't even the most basic knowledge on the subject.

My mother for example is a wonderful woman, but very Christian. When it became popular to deny evolution, so did she. She's a *music* teacher, never taken a biology class in her life. She's a marvelous teacher, but there was no explaining anything of evo to her. Very unfortunate.

[evolutionisscience]

I know! I live down South, so it's rampant here. I just learned that my sister's boyfriend is an ET denier. The guy's cool, so it kills me.

It's not even a matter of discussion here. I feel like turning all mischievous and handing out biology books to children at church. But then I imagine the resounding ass-beating I'd get as a result.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Yeah, self-preservation is important, even if its a good cause. I was once dragged into an alley by 3 "good" Christians.

"We're gunna beat some godly sense into you!"

I count myself lucky they didn't feel in the mood for more than what occurred. Just admitting to atheism in some places is asking for those "good" religious people to target you. Thankfully, the major cities and coasts are nowhere near as bad as the Bible Belt.

[evolutionisscience]

I used to be a pacifist. Then two Christians ganged up on me because I "converted" one of their sisters to atheism. I was a pacifist up until the first swing. After that happened, well... I'll put it this way. I'm the one telling this story to everyone. They're not, for some humiliating reason, I'm sure.

You just need to prepare for these sorts of things -- if not physically, then mentally.

But I like where I am. I feel like I'm on the battlefield.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

I know too many non-religious and secular people with stories like that. I myself am committed to non-violence in most circumstances, but there's no shame in defending oneself. I threw a few punches myself that night... and took strange pride in finging a tooth on the ground that wasn't mine when it was over. Not that I 'won' against 3, but I gave what I could.

If only we didn't have these stories though.  I tell my experiences to Swedish friends, and they're boggled by it all.

[adolthitler]

@evolutionisscience

Yes my christian upbringing, tainted my life for a ten years after I deconverted. I used to turn the other cheek. But I got fed up with people taking advantage. So I fight now. They start it, and while the fight is on they complain, about my fighting back. It reminds me of Cenk Uygurs story of his fight where because he was losing the "boxing" he decided to wrestle, and his opponent starts screaming why you grabbing me? LOL its a fight you started, live with your choice. hehe

[YashinNashi]

I just thought of a good answer for this one. Assuming there really are more homosexuals amongst Atheists and that it is caused by genetics, then theists are directly responsible for the high population of homosexuals in society. If natural selection were allowed to run its course, then homosexuals would not breed and the number of homosexuals would remain low (assuming it's a very common mutation, it wouldn't be completely eliminated). BUT, crazy theists FORCED homosexuals to breed, causing

[YashinNashi]

the "gay gene" to continue to be common in the population. So, there are just as many homosexual Theists as Atheists, but the Theistic ones are forced to act heterosexual. This is clearly shown by the number of Fundies who claim homosexuality is a choice and seem to think it's a common temptation to be avoided. I can't imagine them thinking that unless they've felt that temptation themselves.

[GeckoPresident]

YashinNashi, there is probably not a single "gay gene" as you would suggest. Heterosexuals could be "carriers" for homosexuality genes without actually possessing enough of the genes to cause homosexuality. Then when two "carriers" of these genes get together they may have homosexual children. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting homosexuality is a disease.

[YashinNashi]

Of course it's not a disease. I don't think any rational person could consider it anything worse than an evolutionary byproduct. As stated before, there is a great deal of evidence for genetic factors determining sexual orientation. Personally, I think that environment is a major factor, as well. Just the fact that homosexuality is much more prevalent in single-sex environments, such as boarding schools and prisons (excluding the instances of sexual assault as a means of showing dominance).

[artgoat]

Actually, I'd be perfectly fine with saying that the Christian God does not exist, given the parameters by which He is defined. I feel about this similar to Maxwell's proposition that all the sub-zero temperature air molecules could spontaneously move to one side of the room and freeze the cat to death. It's statistically feasible, but so insanely improbable that I can comfortably call it "impossible." By extension, no other gods exist. Call it belief if you like.

[jamaulbrown]

Athiest say that God doesn't exist. So they create groups to talk about this with other like minded people . Very odd thing to do .. (I don't believe in UFO's - but I'd never join a group to talk about my disbelief) ..

That fact that groups like ACA exist - shows that it's more likely God DOES exist..

[perditiontheelder]

We don't usually talk about how god does not exist. We usually talk about how dumb theist arguments are. ie, the argument you provided above.

[Zentz29]

@jamaulbrown

people that believe in ufo's, DON"T EFFECT YOUR RIGHTS!

christianity DOES!

christianity AFFECTS PEOPLE THAT AREN'T CHRISTIAN!! ISLAM AFFECTS PEOPLE THAT AREN'T MUSLIM!!ETC...!

sorry for the caps, but your beliefs affect me. that's why atheists care about your religion...

[47f0]

actually, jamaulbrown, the fact that groups like ACA exist shows that it's more likely that many of us are realizing, belatedly, that we must band together to defend our schools, our country, and our very Constitution from dominionists and the new Christian Taliban.

[jamaulbrown]

would you rather live in a secular country such as the USSR? what's the better option? Secularism has killed more people in the 20th century then any other "religious" wars ..

[TheNHKConspiricy]

"Secularism has killed more people in the 20th century then any other "religious" wars"

The reason your argument is fail was put rather elegantly by Sam Harris.

"Was it scientific, and skeptical inquiry that lead to those deaths? Or was it other forces at work; such as poverty, Communism, dictatorships, worship of the state, totalitarianism, etc etc."

Most of the western civilizations (western Europe) are Secular, and atheists. And they're doing better than us.

[ChairmanKiel]

You do know that the USSR isn't around anymore right? You can call it Russia now.

And more to the point, the founding fathers that wrote the constitution were Secular, and founded our country on Secularism. Unless you want to call the Founding Fathers murderers and immoral satanists, I'd stop your poor understanding of history and bad use of logic right now.

[surfking8]

How about an existing secular country like Sweden, or all the nordic countries for that matter. Much preferable to most of the rest of the world. At least when compairing tolerance and the religious climate, welfare, crime-, corruption- and poverty rates.

[TheNHKConspiricy]

"Athiest say that God doesn't exist."

The fact that you say this makes it evident you have no clue what they are saying at all.

What they actually say is that the concept of god is unproven, and much like other unproven things (such as fairies, goblins, dragons, magic, witches, Santa, the Tooth Fairy), there isn't a good reason to believe in it.

[jamaulbrown]

Why are you trying to argue semantics? By equating God to the tooth fairy just shows that my comment was correct !??!?

So, you think everything is just chance? Do you have a theory on how the universe started?

[ChairmanKiel]

"Do you have a theory on how the universe started? "

Can you explain to me how Ra or Zeus isn't the god you should worship? Give me evidence: since I can just as easily go and find someone from their religion and have them point to their scriptures, which are just as legitimate as yours.

If anything, they are more legitimate, since they've been around longer than your bible has.

No one knows our origins, but it certainly doesn't put skepticism on equal footing with bronze age superstitions.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Most atheists know the universe didn't start by "chance." This is a religiously parroted idea that makes doubly clear you have no idea what the atheistic/secular arguments against religious control are in the first place.

And to be blunt, no, it wasn't "chance." It was natural processes that built upon one another that created, and yes, "started" (even if thats a less proper term) the universe in which we live.

Very few things happen given to chance. This does not = magical deity.

[artgoat]

Have you proven that the Tooth Fairy does not exist? How can so many people believe in something that doesn't exist? The fact that so many people believe in the Tooth Fairy PROVES that it exists. Do you think teeth fall out just by chance?

[jamaulbrown]

Wow artgoat - I think you won the award for stupidest reply! ..

[surfking8]

Actually, you probably just took home some sort of stupidity award. But you've had it since you wrote this

"So, you think everything is just chance? Do you have a theory on how the universe started?"

As if the only logical action in response to not having a theory of ones own would be to believe in a concept that declares "Totally inobservable omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent allfather did it". Rather than just being honest and saying, "I don't know, let find out, by observing reality."

[Nicolasduca]

Wow some people just dont get it.

[ChairmanKiel]

I know. It's like talking to someone who just refuses to use their higher cognitive functions; basically equivalent to talking to a cactus.

[surfking8]

"That fact that groups like ACA exist - shows that it's more likely God DOES exist.. "

Nah, you're wrong as usual.

[link40k]

That doesn't make sense.

[jjason55740]

@surfking8 who TF said that?

[surfking8]

@jjason55740

jamaulbrown said it, 4 months ago. Just pick view all comments, hit ctrl+f and type it in to find it.

[nicanicabad]

excellent video!

[generaleskimo]

Am I the only one having trouble watching this? The video won't start.

[shootamonkey1]

nope, won't start for me either generaleskimo. Could be the "YouTube" server or something because I have no trouble with part 2.

[generaleskimo]

Works it Chrome for me now.

[jursamaj]

I had trouble with it too. Switching to low quality let it play.

[mrselfrog]

Thank you, I couldnt get it to play until I switched.

[buzzausa]

Evangelizing atheism?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[sykeo123]

watching vid it i now have to say... not all atheist are intelligent than just most.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

I think its more an ironic-yet-purposeful misuse of the common term, a purposeful juxtaposition.

[KasparHauser4]

My only wish is... to transform friends of God into friends of man, believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work, candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians who, by their own procession and admission, are "half animal, half angel" into persons, into whole persons. -- Ludwig Feuerbach (Lectures on the Essence of Religion)

[HungryNomadicLion]

Teenager atheists in the closet, COME OUT! If you cannot be honest with your parents, then they need to change, not you.

Talking about religion at work is risky. If it comes up, tell the truth, you are an atheist, it they don't like it, tough. Maybe you can change their minds eventually. Don't be too strong with it at work, you might get in trouble because many workplaces have rules against talking about politics and religion on the clock because of their "controversial" nature.

[VictorphoenixDMvault]

I have to disagree for the Atheists teenagers. Before your tell your parents due some rational thinking about the mental state of your parents.

If they may attempt to hurt you. Attack you. Disown you or other wise harm you. Wait till you get out on your own before telling them.

And push to move out ASAP as soon as you turn 18. Being liberated from oppressive parents is a life affirming experience. Your safty is important more important then telling your parents they are wrong.

[HungryNomadicLion]

Yeah, do that if you are a coward and a phony.

[surfking8]

You are not being rational. If one has parents that are as disturbed as in victorphoenix's example coming out, whilst still under the yoke of these nutcase people is certainly not productive in any way, All it does is bring more trouble. What VP doesn't say outright, but strongly implies is that after leaving the nest you are free to be yourself and "come out".

[HungryNomadicLion]

To each his own. And it is not a matter of rationality, it is a matter of principle. Stop to think about the words and concepts you use before you use them, I fear atheists are throwing the word "rational" around too much without thinking about its use.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

No, its a matter of realistic determination. If ones parents are not overly religious, they will likely be fine accepting their teens atheism. However, if you have parents like mine, who will cry themselves to sleep every night over your "lost soul," whats "principled" about telling them you're an atheist? Nothing. When your parents might be violent even, there is no "bad principle" in keeping ones atheism to oneself until in a safer position. Calling that "cowardly" is short sighted.

[tielec01]

Completely agree with you here, I too have struggled with the idea that telling my parents and grandparents would be very harmful to our relationships.

That doesn't mean I act like I'm still a theist I just tone down how overtly atheist I am.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Quite right, it isn't about lying or pretending. Its just about maintaining a good relationship the way you know how, with neutral tones, being respectful of those you love even if you know they wouldn't (or don't) agree with you.

My parents trade Coulter and Beck books for Christmas, and I don't say a word. What would it do? Cause strife, nothing more.

[CrunkRockSteadyEvan]

i agree, if my parents confront me about a religious issue i tell them the truth but i try not to bring it up to them and never to the grandparents (although ive never been convinced they were religious themselves. its possible they grew up without the language to define themselves as anything other than what their family was

jews felt immense pressure to stay jewish, without fully understanding what that was supposed to entail after the holocaust for the sake of my great grandparents generation

[HungryNomadicLion]

I'll tell you how it is a matter of principle.  You are more concerned with their feelings and your safety. I am more concerned with honesty and freedom of self expression. If we cannot agree on that then like I wrote before "to each his own." But you wrote that it was not rational, which is not true, because standing up for your beliefs no matter what is very rational, and dare I say, praiseworthy. And violence? If your parents become violent because of that then they are breaking the law.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Being "principled" does not mean you rant on about your bluntest issues like a retard with a sledgehammer. Dealing with ones parents is a sensative matter for most people, no matter the issue at hand. If you treat your parents with as much disregard as you portray from this comment, well... lets say I'm glad I'm not them.

Standing up for your beliefs is rational, but destroying your relationship with your family is not.

Breaking the law? If thats your concern, you clearly don't get it.

[HungryNomadicLion]

Who said "rant"?  I was just saying you admit atheism and not go to church, etc. Why can't people read a comment on youtube for what it is instead of making all types of assumptions? Treat parents with disregard? What about the atheist kid? The parents are forcing him to believe a religion that he wants no part of, that's unamerican. And concerning breaking the law, that was regarding someone who wrote the parents might get violent with the atheist teen, which is against the law.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

No, you insinuated that to be "principled," one should openly blather on about ones atheism to ones parents (the topic, remember?) regardless of the bad results some people know might come. Your insinuation went further, calling people "cowards" and "phony" for not doing so on some issue of vague "freedom" without regard for this specific topic.

The violence conducted against atheist teens is the point itself, not that it is illegal. There's nothing principled about getting beaten.

[HungryNomadicLion]

This conversation has completely gotten distorted, so I think we should just end it.

[surfking8]

Well, you are the one who's strayed. Admit the responsibility for that. I'm happy to discuss your points, but right now you're just making strawmen.

[CrunkRockSteadyEvan]

stay strong

[surfking8]

Oh but it is most definently a matter of rational thinking. Antagonizing irrational people under whose guardianship you stand only to prove a point, for the sake of not being a "coward" is, compared to the alternative suggested earlier, clearly suboptimal. As far as I understood the example it was not about sparing feelings, only about not having what basically counts as insane people with legal hold over you knowing that you are what they percieve as a large threat. This is being rational.

[surfking8]

The way you argue suggests to me that you're not so much a freethinker but rather a religious nut. One who sees the "problem" with losing kids as a recruitment base and therefore wants doubters to "come out" while still in the claws of their deluded elders. So that they can make sure that they are put in a more rigorous than standard regimen of brainwashing and guilttripping. Whether or not that succeeds is of little concequence, another life has still been ruined. Avoiding that is not cowardly.

[HungryNomadicLion]

A religious nut would be content staying silent. A freethinker speaks his mind because it is the right thing to do. There is no "recruiting base" for atheists or freethinkers because there is no group for atheists or freethinkers. Seems like you are projecting your feelings upon me. "Another life ruined"? What are you talking about? Most will not ruin their life by admitting atheism. If the family has that much of a problem with it, it won't matter if you wait until you're 18 or not.

[surfking8]

"A religious nut would be content staying silent."

Surely this is the least sensible quote in the YT comments this year. :)

"There is no "recruiting base" for atheists or freethinkers because there is no group for atheists or freethinkers."

Ah, I was unclear, thought too much and wrote too little. What I meant was that you sounded like someone who wants atheists to "come out" before they leave home so they can be "caught and turned".

Continued...

[surfking8]

"Most will not ruin their life by admitting atheism."

Ah, but this was not the case in question was it? The relevant case was the one where a young person would subject him/herself to abuse, brainwashing and other horrors that are all too common in religious communities.

"If the family has that much of a problem with it, it won't matter if you wait until you're 18 or not."

But it will. At 18 years of age you are free to leave.

[jursamaj]

Faith is inherently irrational. What do you expect us to say?

[seanbrockest]

I want an athiest experience up here in canada ;(

[KaelHunter]

I want one in the UK. Let me know if you know of any in the west midlands area.

[mortrem76]

@seanbrockest I always thought that's the best way to convert a French Canadian to atheism is to talk about Duplessis' Children. I know that it is a reason that I thought about.

[glebber]

That sounds like a sex act that doesn't end with "oh God!".

[tobyeo]

They could call it "The Athiest Experience, Eh"

[JonasC22]

I would start one if I wasn't lazy...and employed. But I promise if you make one I'll join lol