And those limits are very reasonable and practical.

He's correct that the interviewer believes in a subjective truth established by an external being, but (willfully or otherwise) ignores the fact that HE believes in a subjective truth established by his own senses and consensus among his peers. It's an improvement but he's still thinking like the evangelical he used to be. That's my big complaint with most of the outspoken Atheists and Skeptics I've met, read and seen videos of (as opposed to people who are skeptical and people who don't believe in a deity) - they seem to have the same almost pathological need to define their view of the reality as the ONE TRUE view of reality that the people they've placed themselves in opposition to do. Whether or not they actually ARE correct (and in my opinion they're at the very least MORE correct) is beside the point.

Ok, he's doing a much better job at NOT falling into that stuff in the second half than I expected from the first half.

Yeah, I was ready to go off on the guy, but he does seem to correct his own mistakes later on in the video. Much like Fister Roboto, the best thing about him is that he's learning.

I don't think you've met many atheists or skeptics. The ones I know are willing to change their minds based on evidence. Dont confuse siding with mountains of evidence as us thinking we know everything. There is such a thing as epistemology, you know. If you think reality is subjective, and you don't like how the universe works, go find one that fits your definition of reality. We've worked very hard to figure out how things work, and although we could be wrong, the evidence is conclusive about many things. If you disagree, then hit yourself in the head with an iron bar and tell e it was only your senses that gave you a concussion.

Existence precedes intelligence, brah.

I think it's possible that you're both not meeting enough atheists or skeptics. There really does seem to be a nice mix of skeptical non-believers and anti-theistic dogmatics out there.

Hear, hear. Humility is endearing.

Kind of like how there are many people on POE that are dogmatic about Otherkin not being awesome cool people that have the souls of dragons.

If you say that Otherkin are stupid and they haven't really opened a portal to the alternate dimension where Sonic the Hedgehog is real when you haven't pointed out that you're willing to change that opinion if someone would produce sufficient evidence and also a magical unicorn made the claim not stupid then you're being dogmatic.

Like hey, maybe that morbidly obese woman trying to intentionally gain as much weight as possible is too fat. But you can't say for certain that you won't be masturbating furiously to her videos once she gains 200 pounds. It hasn't happened yet so you don't know! We all have to concede the possibility that she isn't fat enough to be sexually attractive.

I can't identify with people as toxic as most outspoken atheists - have some humility and be agnostic, you can't know everything. Doesnt mean you can't believe in a WYSIWYG system, but dont sound so fucking certain about everything.

Atheism and anti-theism is two different things.

The gross predominance of nonintelligent matter over intelligent matter in the universe is a strong inductive argument against intelligence being the foundation for all reality. That's where my atheism comes from.

The violent batshit stupid behavior of the religious is where my antitheism comes from.

Agnosticism is a denial of reason (and a misunderstanding of induction, deduction, and the strengths and weaknesses of both) and has nothing to do with religion. Have some integrity.

Not trying to be snarky here, meme, but I can't remember; were you PRO Hitchens kill-all-Muslims, or ANTI Hitchens kill-all-Muslims?

Blue- I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you get the fatty pics, I'll see where lil' Homer takes me.

Gmork - Saying you're agnostic doesn't mean you are actually holding a different opinion on whether gods are reasonably known than a theist or atheist.

You can consider gods unevidenced and yet still believe, or consider them unevidenced and so not believe. "Agnostic" just means you're refusing to say whether you believe. Which people are free to do, but it doesn't make them any more entitled to self-appointed superiority than others.

No you can't know everything, but is there any reason to use that to attack not believing in gods, versus past-lives, fairies, psychics, Scientology, or anything else? Other than cultural bias? The most prominent anti-theists are Dawkins and Hitchens, and they don't claim to be certain there's no god in any possible sense of the word, just deny the testable common definitions like Yahweh and Zeus, and don't believe others without evidence.

I have to agree. I'm not rating it badly because of the douchey title, but this guy was pretty considerate. I think the militant sides on both the non-religious and religious sides are just as bad.

It has more to do with the prepared dipshit questions the theists throws at AronRa that have nothing to do with the topic at hand because he's incapable of making arguments that haven't been spoonfed to him by Lee Stroebel or William Lane Craig. So, no, he isn't fucking listening. He's waiting for AronRa to stop talking to he can move on to the next step in his little list of the usual shit tripe that creationist dullards have to slavishly rely on to appear as though they have something to day when they can actually only parrot someone else's arguments badly. So fuck this idiot and the rest of them that show up to secular conventions and 5 for AronRa.


Oh no...a "militant" atheist! MY STARS AND GARTERS...

"Secular Convention."

Amen. What is this, his best Tremere outfit?

Rolled all 1s on his Presence check, now he's not got enough blood points to try for Dominate.

Bullshit! That's a tone argument.

Remember when GWAR was on Jerry Springer? That was fucking awesome. That was literally one of the best moments in TV history.