The 10 Hour Challenge!

[Tiberius]

I've watched more than 10 hours of theistic videos...heck, I've watched all of Kent Hovind's lectures. I watched them all with an open mind too, and I still spotted all the errors.

This wouldn't really be a challenge for me. I know I could do it if I wanted to, but I honestly don't want to waste my time.

[Whateverist]

I'm just not that hot to convert (or de-convert) anyone. Want to activate for secular discourse in government? I'm in. Want to change what people think? You're on your own.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm just not that hot to convert (or de-convert) anyone. Want to activate for secular discourse in government? I'm in. Want to change what people think? You're on your own.

Exactly. First I believe many people who are active Atheists are just smarter than those who are not. The majority of people are rather stupid. Ever take a good look at youtube comments? That is the intelligence of average people. They aren't going to understand physics lectures. They understand what they were brought up in.

Who cares, it is not benefit to me if someone is an Atheist or not. The reason churches are so keen on this is because it financially benefits them to have more members. For me personally though I'm not sure I see the plus side.

[Brian37]

I'm just not that hot to convert (or de-convert) anyone. Want to activate for secular discourse in government? I'm in. Want to change what people think? You're on your own.

Yes and no. I think it is a bad idea to live in a bubble and not pay attention to the beliefs of others. In a real evolutionary physical sense, there is no way to avoid your thoughts and actions once you express them, from not affecting others. As such, while we cannot achieve a godless utopia where all 7 billion of us will be atheists, anymore than the believer can create their utopia, it is a bad idea to say "don't question others".

I do want to change what others think. At a minimum I want atheists to be as much a part of the mainstream as any other group, instead of being stigmatized. I also want more people to value education in place of superstition. Will life ever be perfect? No. Will everyone de convert because I make an argument? No. But I'd rather spend my life making noise, than to allow superstition to run roughshod over my life. You can't change the world, that part is true. But you can keep fascism at bay, which in a pluralistic society, would be in everyone's best interest.

I am tired of pulpit politcs. Our country over the past 50 years has been severely damaged by the likes of Falwell and Robertson and their ilk. When you have believers calling a college student "Slut" because she values reproductive rights. When you have believing politicians talking about rape, and states forcing utra sounds on women, you cannot ignore these vile tactics.

They are the reason we have a duty to question, even if we cant force people not to believe.

[Minimalist]

So Minimalist, the hours could be flexible.

It does not take hours to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the gods ever invented by the mind of man anywhere at any time.

I merely insist that the theists present actual evidence. Takes a moment.

BTW, I'm still waiting for some.

[Golbez]

@Neko - I don't know who "Zen" is. I'd assume it's cato123, but that's only a guess. But you're missing the point. It's not that I've endured (or whatever) a "paltry 10 hours" of anything. You're misreading what this post is about. So I'll assume that's where your hostility comes from. Because you might understand we're actually on the same side if you reread it, , particularly with your "tired of it" remark. Unless you're saying it's simply a contest of who's put up with it longer, which would explain why you dismissed my alleged "10 hours."

@Tiberius - To be clear, the goal would be to get open-minded theists to watch atheist speeches, so basically what you've done in reverse. And it'd only be those who volunteer, who'd know in advance what they're getting themselves into. So clearly, not everyone would want to do it. That's fine.

@Whateverist - What would be an example of activating for secular discussion in government that would be so different from doing it to those not in government? Or an example in general? Not quite sure what you have in mind there, and why there's separation in your interest to promote atheist values.

Ever take a good look at youtube comments? That is the intelligence of average people. They aren't going to understand physics lectures.

I'd suggest that if we want average intelligence, then a cursory glance would be better than cherry picking a "good" look. And really, it depends on the videos you're watching (the Minute Physics channel comes to mind). And that's a poor sample, because most of the comments on youtube are probably from a younger audience, so it wouldn't quite be fair to generalize it to all people. But again, this is aimed at people who are willing to be challenged, either because they're confident in their beliefs and don't feel worried, or because they're skeptical and interested. So regardless of the educational background, the videos selected for the playlist would be the best articulated at making our arguments. Maybe it'd be too deep for some and they wouldn't fully get it. But I don't expect to have 100% success.

And as I mentioned earlier, the motivating reason I care whether others are atheists is because their religious values interfere with the political discourse (and strongly determine who a party/people might vote for) in the United States. If they were deists, I wouldn't mind.

@Brian - Well said. That's basically precisely how I feel.

@Minimalist - Ha, true. But then, that's never prevented them from believing anyways, so I think it takes more than that to convince them. And besides, they could still possibly argue that a god was behind the big bang, and then let the rest go into natural motion (deist). Not that there's support for that either, but at least it doesn't directly contradict what we know about the natural world. But they know there's no direct support. They hide behind the definition of faith. But I think these speeches make a strong case at having them re-analyze their beliefs.

@Everyone in general - I think maybe this idea would have been less contentious if I had just asked for the best atheist youtube videos, and I could have created a playlist from that anyways. Regardless of the motivations, that's the gist of what I'm asking for. Obviously I'd eventually want it more professional than that. But I don't quite understand why there's some aggressive push-back against this. What kinds of activist ideas are supported?

[Whateverist]

@Whateverist - What would be an example of activating for secular discussion in government that would be so different from doing it to those not in government? Or an example in general? Not quite sure what you have in mind there, and why there's separation in your interest to promote atheist values.

I'm just not aware of any atheist values. Atheism begins and ends with my failure to makes sense of what a god-thing might be. Dismissing one screwy idea has not been foundational for me.

I'm interested in our elected representatives of whatever religious sect agreeing to argue for the public good in purely secular terms. They should not be legislating for any position because the bible calls for it. It may be possible to persuade them that such a move is in their best interest since most of them won't want to have their laws based on the bhagavad gita, torah or secular schema. So lets just agree that all arguments be made based on explicit expected results without appeals to religious authorities.

[Golbez]

I'd consider atheist values as those that apply a critical lens to the world. Minimizing credulity. Requiring evidence somewhat proportional to the claim being made.

I would love for our elected officials to speak and debate in strictly secular terms. But I just don't see it happening. This is an idea aimed at correcting the problem at the root. Educate the voters so they stop voting them in office.

[Brian37]

So Minimalist, the hours could be flexible.

It does not take hours to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the gods ever invented by the mind of man anywhere at any time.

I merely insist that the theists present actual evidence. Takes a moment.

BTW, I'm still waiting for some.

Good luck with that. I am sure that they will have as much luck with finding evidence for a god, as the likely hood of me getting a hummer from Angelina Jolie. "Hope springs eternal" and often craps on reality.

[Golbez]

Actually, they'd find a lot of "evidence," only because they don't understand what constitutes actual evidence. They'd call evidence the beauty in the mountains (something my mom has actually said - ugh), miracles, the watch from the watch maker, etc. Evidence abounds when you already want to believe.