WOTM: Atheism is a Religion

The guy you're ranting about seems to use the term "information" as if all forms of "information" are created equal, eh? I guess bullshit is information too, by his definition.

Nice rant Brian, with just the right amount of gags so I don't forget who I'm watching.

You don't need faith to believe in angels, you need chromosomal damage - LOL funny.

I am convinced the reason most religious people "need" religion is because they cannot understand and/or accept the reality of nature as explained by science. And this inability to understand/accept the "simple plain truth" is something I do not understand of religious people! It's right in front of us, all we have to do is touch it, smell it, see it, hear it, and taste it...the reality of nature...it's awesome...come try it : )

Atheism itself is not a religion, but that doesn't mean there aren't any atheists who treat their atheism like a religion. There are two kinds of atheists in this world: skeptical and non-skeptical. The skeptical atheists are atheists because their skepticism led them to an atheist position. The non-skeptical atheists really are what the Christians accuse them of being -- "religious" atheists, accepting their beliefs purely on faith (e.g., "there is no god" requires just as much faith as "there is a god", but "I refuse to believe in a god until ample proof for one is provided" does not require faith). If Atheism+ ever demonstrated anything, it is the above.

As amusing and adroit as usual. But over here in the UK, the prime minister has just gone public with a declaration in favour of Christianity, and is making out that Great Britain is a Christian country, which is no longer true. Sad to see a fellow student from Oxford making such a fool of himself, but this is actually a serious matter, and makes me worry about the establishment over here (the queen is very Christian too, and her family are very close with all these wretched bishops from what I can see). I also see that there are far too many schools here that are religious - a very worrying trend. So great diatribe Brian, and I think we need a Dalton for the UK too - yes we have a Dawkins I know, but he is not terribly present on the British stage, though I appreciate he is more needed in the US clearly.

"... until they need a bit of rouge!" - loud laughing on an easter sunday over here. Personally, I have real faith in Brian in a mad fury. Love this one.

PLEASE, expand on your demonstration relating atheism to rational thought leading to logical conclusions and that similar science is NOT A BELIEF or a belief system. I had to argue this with an ATHEIST (who tends toward agnosticism, and you know what I think about them, Agnostics? Agnostics? We don need no stinkin' agnostics!) When he insisted that atheism meant an unreasonable 100% rejection of the god hypothesis and was therefore an item taken on "faith" ;-) ( also not true – an atheistic is just a realistic agnostic LOL), I asked him if he was “agnostic” about Santa Claus, or did he not have enough evidence to come to a final conclusion on that similar judgment. He went on to quote a philosopher as "proof". I tried to demonstrate the error of this idea with the comparison of an atheist’s lack of faith and belief in god just as a scientist would the physical world (as you mention) Like an atheist, a scientist doesn’t embrace a belief system he acknowledges the efficacy of a system of rational process. An evolutionary biologist like Sean Carroll does not "believe" in evolution or have "faith" in the scientific method. To anyone who has a real understand of those words that is clear. For those like this atheist-agnostic mutation (who ran as an atheist in a local election, hell I don’t want his speaking for ME, a REAL atheist) and as you so eloquently alluded to, I had to remind them that there is no faith of belief involved in science, just the long term demonstration of the efficacy of this approach to describe the natural world. I then used the old saw, atheism id like religion as baldness is to hair styling. I had a similar “discussion” with some fellows representing Mensa when I volunteered at the local Science Bowl. Their gross oversimplifications and outright misunderstandings were so great and their reasoning so seriously flawed that I finally had to ask them, “Are you SURE you’re in Mensa?” LOL By the way, Again I PROSELYTIZED for Mr Deity high and low at this event where I had a 1st row seat to hear Johnny Depp candidly discuss the creativity he personally derived from mental illness.

I used to have faith in you consistently producing interesting and thoughful videos about religion. Now I just have to accept that you will always provide excellent content. You do it time after time. Thanks.

Yeah. I know. I just figured I've been hitting that point so much with The God Distraction, it would be overkill. Plus, my goal is to always keep the WOTMs under five minutes. I'm going to fail on both videos this month. Oh well. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it.

it is too bad you skipped over the whole "only the way in which information is assimilated or rejected is different", because thats kind of a big deal. it is the whole epistemic difference between those with faith and those without. when someone without faith gets some information that contradicts a current belief, he assimilates that new information and adjusts the belief. but when someone with faith gets that same information, he rejects that information or explains away that information to preserve the current belief. the author buried the whole difference as if it were nothing. other than that, though, that was fun to watch