Morality furthermore hand-picked – A confab: The Atheist skill





Morality furthermore hand-picked – A confab: The Atheist skill – visit my online journal near to http://www.atheistdigest.blogspot.com

WHAT IS THE ATHEIST skill?

The Atheist skill is a weekly link impingement television show in Austin, Texas, geared near to a non-atheist patrons. It is produced via the Atheist likeness of Austin. The Atheist likeness of Austin is organized like a nonprofit cultural clan to narrow furthermore support the atheist likeness, to provide opportunities for socializing furthermore friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to steel positive atheist nobility, to insure the first reform principle of state-basilica separation, to oppose bias offset to atheists furthermore to work with other organizations in pursuit of unusual goals.

VISIT THE ACA’S OFFICIAL WEB SITES:

► likeness: http://www.atheist-likeness.org
► beneficence: http://www.atheist-likeness.org/provide
► TV Show: http://www.atheist-skill.com
► Axp online journal: http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com
► E-mail: tv@atheist.likeness.org (with AETV in the subject line)

grade

Nonprofits & Activism

License

formative mess hall Attribution license (reuse hold)

22 thoughts on “Morality furthermore hand-picked – A confab: The Atheist skill”

  1. Stupid example. I wouldn't even go into a burning building. I'm not going to take such a risk where my life is in danger. A Fireman is well trained with equipment designed to protect you in such an environment.

  2. Is this guy implying that evolution is somehow racist? Well Adolf Hitler, probably the most famous racist in the world, banned teaching of evolution in Nazi Germany.

  3. Poor response by Matt …..Yes saving a human is preferable because he is a more consciously evolved ….More capacity to feel suffering ….and more suffering in general for the society .. again it comes down reducing unesesary suffering !

  4. If you know someone who would save a dog before a baby, it would be a good idea not to use them as a baby-sitter. Why over-complicate?

  5. One of the BEST arguments I've come up with while debating Christians is this… How can I MAKE myself believe in something without evidence? Even if I WANTED to believe, its not possible without convincing evidence. If I were to say that I did believe, I'd be lying. There is no way a person can make themselves believe something without being either legitimately convinced, or legitimately brainwashed

  6. The caller was extremely confused, but was keeping an open mind. Matt was unnecessarily rude this go around. And that is coming from someone who watches these videos primarily to watch Matt own theists.

  7. I would choose the baby under the assumption that the family of that baby would rather not lose their baby over their puppy.
    I'm saying that, I can safely say I'd save my neighbours dog over him because his dog is beautiful and friendly and he's a difficult fuckwit lol
    Seriously though if his kid was in the house I'd save them first over a puppy but I'd put faith an the dog that i could encourage it to leave with me

  8. I'd save the dog. Fuck the human because they mostly like will grow up to call into an atheist show posing a fucking ridiculous analogy that has no realistic, real world relevance.

  9. A hypothetical, non-existent atheist may save a puppy over a baby = Therefore Gawd exists.

    Well, I guess that proves it.

  10. I didn't realize that upon meeting someone, the courteous thing to do is to presume the intuition necessary to anticipate all of their personal hangups and begin the introduction with a list of self-describing adjectives arranged by euphemistic strength according to what I perceive will offend or scare them the least.

    I'm going to try that. I'm sure it will work out splendidly. 👍

  11. Couldn't a Christian save the puppy…then repent. And promise never to save a puppy again? Or, okay, never abandon a baby in a burning building again.

    Ten minutes in, he brings up "one more thing before I let you get on to other calls". And they deal with that. And he brings up "one more quick thing". Then "interesting, but what about Pflug said". And another thing. And another.

  12. Yeah. I'm pretty sure that, when I mention that I'm an atheist, if the person I'm talking to gets an immediate negative sense of me…it's because they assume I'd abandon an infant in a burning building. Not because my stance challenges their worldview, self-identity, assurance that they'll live forever… Or because they may be among the Christians whose pastor or shepherd or whatever has told them "them satanists with no god-bestowed morality".

    And that, if I instead use the term humanist, that same person would like me better…since humanists…save humans from burning buildings.

    If humanists would (be presumed to) rescue humans, the term for someone who would save the puppy would be puppyist. Canophile?

    If we're proposing hypotheticals…can we do the one where I can throw Paul onto the tracks to save the train full of people. Or puppies. Or squid. Or circus menagerie. Or ocelots. Or orang-u-tans…

    = = =
    John is saying "people whose definitions of other peoples' labels…that coincide with MY preconceptions (= 'most people') will like you better if you introduce yourself with the "I'd save the baby" label (humanist). Not the "I'd save the puppy, let the baby roast…then go back later and eat the roast baby and let the puppy chew on the bones" label (atheist).

    How about I say "I'm an atheist. And I'd save the baby"?

    Note also: in caller's example "a baby" turned into "my kid".

  13. I think people who believe they would be purposeless without their religion are reacting in a perfectly normal (if counterproductive) manner. Because that religious belief is directly tied to their identity and that is a really hard thing to forsake and reconstruct once you leave religion. | And hearing this guy wishing for a system of cosmic justice and thinking theism represents that idea…

  14. Oh, okay. Well, let me try this. There's a rat walking by a burning house. Inside the house is a goldfish and a giraffe…

  15. I LOVE LOVE LOVE listening to each of this guy's baseless, conflicting, misused aspects of his "good" religion being summarily smacked down.

  16. Stupid example. He could even have asked about who's to save from a perfect stranger and someone of her own family. Now, there's no reason to treasure one life over another from BOTH the perspective of someone who believes in Evolution and someone who defends the Bible… yet we know that almost certainly she will rescue the member of her family. Why? For the same reason she would save a child over an animal, because she feels closer connected to one of them! Still, that has nothing to do with Evolution OR religion, is just a bad example, period!

  17. I'm always especially interested in listening to former fellow Atheists who have change their minds and become believers again but so far, none of the ones that I have listened to have been very convincing, the best that most of them offer is that they had an NDE, their stories about what they saw and experienced while they were 'clinically dead' are of course interesting, the big problem is that none of their PERSONAL experience of some alleged divine revelation or manifestation will have any practical impact on the point of view of someone like myself who has not had the same or similar experiences.

    You see, one of the ways that we gage reality is by confirmation because on our own, we are prone to make mistakes, we're all fallible at times, this is why affirmation from others is so important, eg, how many others confirm they see the same thing?, for example, if you have 100 people standing around in an area and 10 of them say they see an alien space ship in the sky and the other 90 say it's only a Chinese Lantern, which of those two sets of people are likely to be right and which are likely to be mistaken.??….no conferring Lol.

    Of course, when it comes to something external like that it's much easier to narrow down the truth but when it comes to something like NDE's or people saying they saw Jesus standing next to them or Jesus was talking to them, these kinds of things are unfalisifiable because even if they were true, they have been clearly only intended for one individual to experience, otherwise you would have loads of people saying they experienced the same thing at that same time, this is why if Jesus wants to show himself, it would be much more useful if he showed himself on mass to the whole world, rather than just a few individuals, that way it would be much more convincing but then wouldn't you think a divine being ought to know that anyway without a mere mortal like me having to point it out? Lol.

  18. My atheism dose not inform this. But I think it is factually immoral to not save a baby over the dog (if they are actually 50/50)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *