David Silverman vs. Jeff Field on ABC Nightline (3 of 3)

August 17, 2010 on ABC Nightline - American Atheists http://Atheists.org -

via http://www.AtheistMedia.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• david
• silverman
• american
• atheists
• jeff
• field
• catholic
• league
• atheist
• atheism
• abc
• nightline
• church
• state
• christian
• bible
• religion
• news

[iamterryfc1]

There is no such thing as an atheist.

It is time to choose a new name for those of us who know that all human gods are imaginary. why define ourselves as the opposite of theists theists are delusional. The word “atheist” gives theists way too much credit. If asked i say I am a Rational Person. I think that Rational Person (or just Rational) is a good name for us.

[doctrixie]

Jeff Field is a crappy speaker because he doesn't really believe, and he's not good at lying.

[MattiasAyd]

SYNAGOGUES, HINDU TEMPLES ETC. DON'T PAY TAXES EITHER YOUR MORON!!

[SydBarretIsMyG0D]

The Christian really lost his cool. He was stuttering a lot and was blinking way more that usual. David kept his cool like a pro

[susodino]

jeff field is really weak. field appears to be almost scared and probably does not believe his crazy position. silverman seemed relaxed and confident and to really believe what he was saying.

[lilredfilmgeek]

@iamterryfc1 I'm an atheist, I don't think that it's fair to say that all people who reject human gods are rational. There are some pretty irrational non-theists unfortunately.

[mason72518]

if we all hold christian values inherently, as according to the christian, than they are not christian values but rather basic human values. Christians need to stop trying to patent kindness and forgiveness etc.

[NairuOnLife]

They needed a better speaker for the pro-religion side of the arguement. I love intelligent debate, which is what I usually see in BBC programs with speakers like Richard Dawkins. Sadly, this program was greatly weighed in favour to the Atheist side. (Not that I dislike the Atheist view being on top, but it doesn't propogate a ground for equal debate.) As a non believer, myself, I did take a few things out of this discussion, so I am glad I came across this video.

[TurpentineRec]

@iamterryfc1 Do you mean, a new name because the self-labeling created problems and now the solution is "A new name" ... "for those of us". You shouldn't deny your need for jesus christ, your place is in a church called the rationals or whatever, as long as you are not alone and you can cry. The difference between christians and atheists in america is that losers can pretend they aren't and the "group" pretend to agree. What is worse?

[berrywoke]

@iamterryfc1 How about Nondelusionalistic nice long word christians would have something new to hate at. I think unchained spirit would be ok to, But I would perfer most of all is if all forms of belivers would just make them self so small that I wouldnt have to notice them at all anymore. But if they still feel the need to speak up they can just call me "Superior" to keep it simple enough for them to understand.

[KevinLockard23]

@iamterryfc1 I think going by no name at all is the best thing for us. If people want our views on religion, we can just explain in detail to them why religion/theism is delusional.

[Smownage]

@iamterryfc1 Except theists would claim that they are also rational. Doesn't work I'm afraid.