Is youtube (and/or the internet) basically atheist land?

[Boris Goodenough]

It is possible to be religious and atheist: Scientology, certain forms of Buddhism.
It is possible to be non-religious and believe in gods: deism, pantheism.

 

[SimuLord]

I sincerely hope they're a vocal minority. They annoy me as an atheist, because they're how people perceive us. I guess they're like our annoying people who go door to door trying to convert you, except they're more foul-mouthed, angrier, and usually have even less of an idea what they're talking about.

Speaking as a devoutly religious (classical polytheist) person, my first impulse is to stereotype an atheist as a frothy-mouthed bigot who's even more narrowminded than the religion he condemns. And it's largely due to most atheists I've met taking their cues from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jillette and treating anyone with faith in a god or gods like a drooling retard. Fucking elitists (and from my point of view, so blissfully ignorant of what's truly out there, but I respect that not everyone believes that so I don't preach.)

 

[Mortons4ck]

The internet is more of "nihilist" land than "atheist" land.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I sincerely hope they're a vocal minority. They annoy me as an atheist, because they're how people perceive us. I guess they're like our annoying people who go door to door trying to convert you, except they're more foul-mouthed, angrier, and usually have even less of an idea what they're talking about.

Speaking as a devoutly religious (classical polytheist) person, my first impulse is to stereotype an atheist as a frothy-mouthed bigot who's even more narrowminded than the religion he condemns. And it's largely due to most atheists I've met taking their cues from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Penn Jillette and treating anyone with faith in a god or gods like a drooling retard. Fucking elitists (and from my point of view, so blissfully ignorant of what's truly out there, but I respect that not everyone believes that so I don't preach.)

Exactly. That's what comes to most people's minds, because it's what they see. And quite frankly, I'm glad atheism doesn't involve any sort of gatherings, because it means I can avoid association with those kinds of people, while still holding on to my beliefs (or lack there of, as the case may be).

 

[RobCoxxy]

Yes. Christians don't believe in Broadband.

 

[Zeraki]

I know the perfect video to describe the average commenter on youtube.


It's funny and sad just how true this video is.

The best thing to do if it bothers you is to ignore it, or just don't read youtube comments. Seriously, your brain cells with thank you.

 

[Snake Plissken]

The reason the internet, and youtube in specific, is atheist land is because it is a vast open forum. When you introduce your demonstrably false ideas to the internet community, the huge number of rationalists are bound to tear it apart. I'm sure there are a lot of fuckwad atheists ranting and posting inane bullshit, but there are plenty who will take the time to explain why a particular viewpoint shouldn't sit well with everyone else.

It's atheist land because, in short, there are a lot of really smart fucking people who use the internet and don't want it sullied with nonsense.

NOTE: As I have no sound, I did not watch the video. This video does not strike me as fundamentalist craziness, so I can't really comment about it in particular. What is written above is just a general observation I've made about all religious material I've seen online.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

It's pretty bad HERE, to be honest. I'm a modified Roman Catholic (my views are based on my own ideas of what is important in the Bible and how it should be practiced rather than the Church's official stand point), but it often seems like I'm severely outnumbered here. I can't tell you how many "Christianity sucks" or "Is religion outdated?" threads I see here. Most of these threads, I believe, spring from the observations of Bible-thumpers, who represent a minority of Christianity. Fundamentalists ALWAYS make up a minority of the religion, but I don't know if people get that. Probably because the Bible-thumpers get more attention.

I definitely agree with you.

 

[GodofCider]

(This is a post by a U.S. citizen, in essence about the U.S., but which also broadly applies to the rest of the world as well.)

Having read the entirety of this thread, and been around the block more than once on religious/atheist/anti-religious matters; I'll throw out a few thoughts here.

A very popular stance is that humanity exists in a fantasy world, where ones religious flavor achieved it's present societal position, and maintains said position, due to sugar, spice, and everything nice. But let's not kid ourselves here and neglect to list a little chemical X. The dominating religions of today, acquired their positions through force, killing off their competitors, and eating whatever made them better fit for survival.

If they had not, then they would not be the dominating religions. Instead they would be, at best, a sideline faith; trying to gain momentum on the fringe, while continuously being stepped upon by the dominates; in an effort themselves to stay on top.

Atheism is one of those 'faiths' on the fringe quickly gaining momentum. Those on top, from a societal point of view, realize this and respond accordingly: there is a reason atheists are viewed as the crap of the crap on the bottom of a crap covered shoe. I'll not go into details, but being a publicly vocal atheist in the U.S. is a remarkably difficult thing to do; and what I mean by publicly vocal atheist, is simply that it is known that you are an atheist.

Which leads to the very unsurprising outspoken atheists on the internet; where social, and potentially economic suicide, hopefully not literal(depends on location), doesn't take place, for voicing ones opinion.


Final thoughts: Why bother looking at religions from an internal perspective, just view it's origins and development as a cult itself; everything else falls into line after that. Here's a good lead at what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=JOmSYHzeoNA&annotation_id=annotation_786156

 

[Harbinger_]

@The title of the topic: It certainly seems that way.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

(This is a post by a U.S. citizen, in essence about the U.S., but which also broadly applies to the rest of the world as well.)

Having read the entirety of this thread, and been around the block more than once on religious/atheist/anti-religious matters; I'll throw out a few thoughts here.

A very popular stance is that humanity exists in a fantasy world, where ones religious flavor achieved it's present societal position, and maintains said position, due to sugar, spice, and everything nice. But let's not kid ourselves here and neglect to list a little chemical X. The dominating religions of today, acquired their positions through force, killing off their competitors, and eating whatever made them better fit for survival.

If they had not, then they would not be the dominating religions. Instead they would be, at best, a sideline faith; trying to gain momentum on the fringe, while continuously being stepped upon by the dominates; in an effort themselves to stay on top.

Atheism is one of those 'faiths' on the fringe quickly gaining momentum. Those on top, from a societal point of view, realize this and respond accordingly: there is a reason atheists are viewed as the crap of the crap on the bottom of a crap covered shoe. I'll not go into details, but being a publicly vocal atheist in the U.S. is a remarkably difficult thing to do; and what I mean by publicly vocal atheist, is simply that it is known that you are an atheist.

Which leads to the very unsurprising outspoken atheists on the internet; where social, and potentially economic suicide, hopefully not literal(depends on location), doesn't take place, for voicing ones opinion.


Final thoughts: Why bother looking at religions from an internal perspective, just view it's origins and development as a cult itself; everything else falls into line after that. Here's a good lead at what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=JOmSYHzeoNA&annotation_id=annotation_786156

It's weird, everyone in my family is atheist with the exception of my grandmom (who was raised in a very religious family), the vast majority of my friends aswell (anacdotal evidence). It's hardly fringe here in Denmark (statistical evidence).

I hardly see it as a faith, when it is for the vast majority a question of not enough evidence in favour of god(s). Faith (the religious kind) is believing in things that are not evidence for.

 

[mikev7.0]

"but it's always the stupid, whiny bitchy ones that i see..."

well, there's your answer, the internet is equal opportunity, it doesn't matter from which race or religion you're from, as long as you want to winge about something, the internet is happy to have you.

Basically it also goes by the internet law that says give an asshole a megaphone but anonymity and they will become a giant asshole even more so, or something liek that yeah.

eDIT:

i am an agnostic who will probably end up an atheist after i finish reading some of richard dawkins books, i think that people should troll that video you posted but only because it is posted on YOUTUBE where lots of PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS look at videos(i dont beleive in public preaching)

What the hell.

what do you mean? everyone has a right to believe what they want, not what others tell the masses, let me clarify, i do not thinks aetheist should post religious videos either and that they should be trolled to.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you or making you watch certain videos. People can meet in a public space to discuss ideas, in the same way they can post what they want to a public forum or video site.

There doesn't need to be "Christ-Tube" for people to speak their minds on any topic including religion. That's what Youtube can be used for in a more constructive way than parodies, starcraft II casts, and whatever else.

There's online communities of religious and irreligious. Deal with it. You can ignore it. NO one's forcing themselves on anyone. It's sharing ideas all around the world. If you have a problem with freedom of speech and religion, then yes, I say, "What the hell"

*sigh* how about I just back off, i dont believe in preachers( i even hate advertisements!) i guess maybe i am a bit biased(religion has a troubled past on both sides) and will have to work on that in the future, anyway all your points are valid and well thought out (and ya having a christ tube does sound stupid[but probably exists]) anyway it is the internet and shit gets trolled
edit: is there not a religion and politics forum this thread should be in? i thought off topic was for random bullshit

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, full on kool-aid drinker here. I'm just not really sure what flavor i'm drinking....

Which to be honest is how I think many people are. That's why preachers turn us off. They're so sure about it (when we're not) and they're absolute about it as well. (which we realize that in a world with as many ideologies as we have) doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think religion is hobbled by it's inflexability in most cases. What if it were okay to believe in whatever you think is right, and then to actually have that view evolve, and what if your belief and study actually changed the views of the ideology? (Well okay then you'd be more like a Scientist than a practitioner of a spiritual belief system but work with me here....)

Before I became a believer, I thought I was an atheist, what I really was was agnostic. If I were an a-theist that would literally mean that I had no theology and that wasn't true. I guess I was more in a "Hmmmmmm MAYbe....." mode. So I don't think You Tube is "atheist land" and certainly not the entire internet, I think it's loaded with agnostics that at least want the freedom to think for themselves and feel that they constantly have not just god, but to them a mythological god, stuffed down their throat. From here the "fun" ensues.

I believe in letting people have whatever faith they have chosen, learning from it if I can, sharing what I believe if invited to, and always trying to remember that human hearts are not cookie cutters. What works for some or even only one of us is not the answer for everybody. In my mind at least, that really needs to be okay.

 

[ShakyFiend]

Everyone go away and watch some Hitchens debates, or some Dawkins if you like, and Stephen Fry. Watch Ann Widdecombe, Howard Jacobson for the other side (sorry don't know that many outspoken supporters of religion, there aren't very many prominent ones).

Because 99% of you people are espousing arguments that have been used a million and one times before by people on both sides of the debate, and its boring and clichéd. Yes they are perfectly fine and intelligent points in most cases (love the escapist) but they have rebuttals thought up by people who think about this shit for way longer and way harder than any of you.

Heres one to get you started

 

[Lord Kloo]

When peeps talk on the interwebs they are not talking normally, or acting normally, like me currently, I'm bulls**ting all this when my real reaction was just "its the Internet, get used to it" so you get my point..

If the people on the Internet were ever organized into factions it would destroy the globe in the ensuing war but luckily we all act like blood thirsty minions of the blood god, not caring who we kill as long as we get blood..

EDIT: personally I believe in a creator of some kind up-the-big-scale-of-things-far-away-not-even-knowing there-is-life-here type of God..

However I don't see why anyone should follow what the big man said or why, personally God is bad and we should wage war against him, somehow..

 

[GodofCider]

It's weird, everyone in my family is atheist with the exception of my grandmom (who was raised in a very religious family), the vast majority of my friends aswell (anacdotal evidence). It's hardly fringe here in Denmark (statistical evidence).

I hardly see it as a faith, when it is for the vast majority a question of not enough evidence in favour of god(s). Faith (the religious kind) is believing in things that are not evidence for.

Well, as I said, the post is more applicable in regards to the U.S.. As I'm sure you're aware it can get kind of psychotically religious over here, which of course, isn't the norm across the board of "first world countries".

Also I did place 'faith' when speaking about atheism in parentheses so as to not break the flow of the post so much. Obviously it's not a faith, it's lack thereof.

So how's Denmark as of late? I've considered moving there actually, if for nothing else, other than their health care.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Well, as I said, the post is more applicable in regards to the U.S.. As I'm sure you're aware it can get kind of psychotically religious over here, which of course, isn't the norm across the board of "first world countries".

Also I did place 'faith' when speaking about atheism in parentheses so as to not break the flow of the post so much. Obviously it's not a faith, it's lack thereof.

So how's Denmark as of late? I've considered moving there actually, if for nothing else, other than their health care.

So far so good, elections soon, most likely a left wing government is going to be formed.
Where in the US do you hail from?

 

[Kashrlyyk]

Well, at least for Catholics the people are right with their assessment that Catholics are "ignorant" and "stupid", because of "Transubstantiation", which is the whole "This is my body, this is my blood" thing by jesus. Yes, the Catholic church believes the white cracker you eat at the service ACTUALLY turns into jesus's flesh in your mouth!

Anyone who is Catholic has to believe that! And of course believing in the resurrection of Jesus is also "ignorant" and "stupid".

Spoiler: I feel like this is appropriate, and that it speaks for me and the others in your post

So I suppose, by the logic of your post, I am being called directly ignorant and stupid on both accounts because of two beliefs I uphold (at least one of which is substantially metaphorical...possibly both, the point is the last supper didn't involve Jesus cutting off hunks of his body and pouring out his blood his cannablistic disciples could eat, it symbolised the passing of the orch onto them after having gone through all he had taught them because he knew he was going to be killed soon. And is it really so implausible that Jesus was ressurected, if you don't believe he was the son of God and rose in accordance with scripture plenty of people have gone through shit worse than stabbing and crucifixion to be presumed dead before "returning to life", that's why modern medicine runs quite a number of checks on dead bodies to see if they're truly dead before burial). Let's see now, low-post count, childish insults, bagging out people just for saying "Yes I'm part of a religion"...obvious troll is obvious.

No, the fun part of "Transubstantiation" is that IT IS NOT METAPHORICAL according to the Catholic Church. Yes, they think that some kind of magic changes the bread in your mouth in the ACTUAL FLESH OF JESUS! How would you call a belief that that is true? Ignorant? Stupid?
Or are you trying to tell me that you didn't know that the Catholic Church teaches that?

Three days of bleeding out of a deep, open spear wound after being crucified and being scourged and of course NO WATER FOR THREE DAYS and no food, and you think that compares to "being presumed dead" in the modern days?! Didn't they check if he is dead by ramming that spear in this lungs?

 

[omicron1]

Well, at least for Catholics the people are right with their assessment that Catholics are "ignorant" and "stupid", because of "Transubstantiation", which is the whole "This is my body, this is my blood" thing by jesus. Yes, the Catholic church believes the white cracker you eat at the service ACTUALLY turns into jesus's flesh in your mouth!

Anyone who is Catholic has to believe that! And of course believing in the resurrection of Jesus is also "ignorant" and "stupid".

Spoiler: I feel like this is appropriate, and that it speaks for me and the others in your post

So I suppose, by the logic of your post, I am being called directly ignorant and stupid on both accounts because of two beliefs I uphold (at least one of which is substantially metaphorical...possibly both, the point is the last supper didn't involve Jesus cutting off hunks of his body and pouring out his blood his cannablistic disciples could eat, it symbolised the passing of the orch onto them after having gone through all he had taught them because he knew he was going to be killed soon. And is it really so implausible that Jesus was ressurected, if you don't believe he was the son of God and rose in accordance with scripture plenty of people have gone through shit worse than stabbing and crucifixion to be presumed dead before "returning to life", that's why modern medicine runs quite a number of checks on dead bodies to see if they're truly dead before burial). Let's see now, low-post count, childish insults, bagging out people just for saying "Yes I'm part of a religion"...obvious troll is obvious.

No, the fun part of "Transubstantiation" is that IT IS NOT METAPHORICAL according to the Catholic Church. Yes, they think that some kind of magic changes the bread in your mouth in the ACTUAL FLESH OF JESUS! How would you call a belief that that is true? Ignorant? Stupid?
Or are you trying to tell me that you didn't know that the Catholic Church teaches that?

Three days of bleeding out of a deep, open spear wound after being crucified and being scourged and of course NO WATER FOR THREE DAYS and no food, and you think that compares to "being presumed dead" in the modern days?! Didn't they check if he is dead by ramming that spear in this lungs?

And the plasma (water) was separate from the blood flowing from the wound, officially proving it. Yes.

Back to transubstantiation: There's something very simple yet overlooked here... and it is simply this. That if the Catholic viewpoint is correct, that bread and wine could literally become Jesus' body and blood in the mouth. Like it or not, the presence of God changes things' possibility. If there is no god, then none of these things could have happened. But if there is a God, then any and all of them could have happened. Simple.

I (like most protestants) don't personally believe this to be the case, but it's another case of something only looking stupid/ignorant to an outsider. Because let's face it, when the discussion leaves the realm of physics and enters the realm of the supernatural, things don't necessarily have to make sense according to the laws of physics.