Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Friday, October 31, 2008

Why Care??



A great video by a young atheist, who answers the question posed by theists "Since you don't believe in God, why are you talking about it so much?" She was censored on Youtube because this vid was posted on Pharyngula and got some theists into a censorship frenzy. Happy Halloween!! Something that alot of religious people want to censor as well.

43 comments:

  1. BRAVO!! She is fantastically well spoken. That was really just a perfect response. I want to buy that girl a beer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, and was there some part in particular that the theists wanted censored?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's the cleavage, honey. The cleavage. They probably consider this porn.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll be the first to say that she had my attention before even speaking. The green eyes..........

    ReplyDelete
  5. Froggie,

    Oh, she is exceptional! Those eyes and teeth, that skin...dreamy! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Froggie, I was gonna say that we atheists have the hottest thinkers around :-)

    It is such a stupid situation that someone took such offense to this video that they had the account locked. Of course, they can spew their "atheists kill millions of people EVERY DAY AND EAT BABIES" and that's okay.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Damn, I almost converted back there!

    Oh, erm, where was I? Oh yes: the vid. I wish there'd have been no no music; it diminshed her credibility a bit (imho).

    Well spoken, made her case intelligently and with lots of falsifiable claims. An excellent example of the species.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and her lips...I forgot to mention her lips....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Come on. Abortion, gay rights,war, global warming .
    All that stuff would still be here without religion.(except for probaly creationism)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Awww, what would we do without MFT to shit on the party?

    Tell me, MFT, are you ever going to explain how offering up a human being for rape and abuse is hospitable or are you just going to continue to dodge that one?

    ReplyDelete
  11. MFT,

    You wrote,

    "All that stuff would still be here without religion."

    There is merit to what you say, except we would be objectively looking for solutions rather than wasting our time smacking down the draconian views of fundamentalist bigots.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MFT wrote Come on. Abortion, gay rights,war, global warming .
    All that stuff would still be here without religion.


    It seems to me that the major religious institutions (ie. those that wish to shape society) exacerbate problems like these. And not in merely in the sense of them being misguided - but in actually causing more death and destruction and mayhem.

    Not all religion does this, of course, and I'd be dishonest to suggest no Good can come from these institutions. Unfortunately, we're forced to accept the bad with the good.

    The worst part of this is that it's been going on for millennia. And yet, like clockwork, every few generations we get a new batch of believers who are ready to commit the same mistakes - and do so with the utmost sincerity and faith

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow, that chick is hot.

    I'll watch the video at some point, too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whateverman said (snipped):

    "...made her case intelligently and with lots of falsifiable claims."

    Is that what you meant to say?

    I agree, if you meant that he claims can be proven false... or that a lot of them were very inaccurate and generalizations.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LAOF wrote I agree, if you meant that he claims can be proven false

    That is indeed what I meant; she said stuff that can either be confirmed or refuted by historical research

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. WeM:

    Yup, like:

    1. No 'In God We Trust' on money until 1957. It was actually 1864 when this was first put on coins, so her statement was too much of a generalization. She should have said 'paper money' (bills).

    2. The comment about stem cell research. This is false, since a lot of good comes from ADULT stem cell research and there are many groups (religious/Christian and non-Christian alike) that feel this is more productive and viable than fetal stem cell research.

    3. Her statement about the 'battle against making abortion legal'. Hello? Does she not understand it already is legal? Sure, there are people trying to get R.v.W. stricken down (as there are groups trying to get other laws changed or striken), but I very much doubt this would happen. The fact is, when people realize this is a moral, personal decision and that they should probably be exposed to both sides, and then REALLY think about it, then you'll understand your choices better (imho).

    4. The 'battle for homosexual equality'. 'Hello!' again... they have equal rights. I'm assuming that she's infer(r)ing the right for same-sex marriage, or the equal TREATMENT of individuals BY individuals. However, she expressed this quite clumsily.

    5. She called the teaching of abstinance the 'oppresive/pointless waste of public money'. So, presenting an opposing viewpoint is 'pointless'? Plus, I don't know of any (public) schools or places of learning that don't teach other forms of birth control (including abortion and 'safe sex) alongside of abstinence. If you can find a place that only teaches abstinence (that is publicly funded), please, let me know.

    6. She also stated that teaching abstinance 'spreads disease'. Funny, I thought that was unprotected sex! And I'd like to see her direct correlation between the two.

    7. "Blue Laws" - which state does she live in? I know of very few states that still have blue laws that would prohibit what she does on certain days. And since she probably was born long after most blue laws were eliminated, this just sounds like something she heard in history class and thought it would support her argument.

    And, in general, I'd like her to be more specific when she states the 'religious institution' as an 'opposing force'.

    -LaOf
    (original post deleted, re-posted to correct some 'spulling' errors.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Liquor cannot be sold in the State of Oklahoma on Sundays. Liquor stores and Bars that sell Liquor cannot be open on Sundays.

    ReplyDelete
  19. She also mentioned Dollar bills not coins, but you are correct about the coins and she is correct about the dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  20. beamstalker said:

    "She also mentioned Dollar bills not coins, but you are correct about the coins and she is correct about the dollars."

    She said 'added to money' and then held up a bill. She didn't say 'Dollar Bills' or 'paper money'. She generalized.
    (watch again if you don't believe me, it's at the 1:39 point in the video.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. ...also her comments that push by the catholics to 'prohibit' condom usage? (at point 2:28)

    I don't see anything like that except among the church members. And if you're a church member, doesn't it make sense to adhere to the doctrines of your faith out of respect to that faith?

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

    :) Fun reading. Her point still remains, this was a majority imposing their will on the government. If that majority turns Muslim then you can't complain if they change it to In Allah We Trust.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Plus, I don't know of any (public) schools or places of learning that don't teach other forms of birth control (including abortion and 'safe sex) alongside of abstinence. If you can find a place that only teaches abstinence (that is publicly funded), please, let me know.

    I'm letting you know. Alabama schools in our area do not teach safe sex and abortion. It's an abstinence only program.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Frankly I wouldn't mind if I was in a muslim maority country and they had "In allah we trust " on their money.
    And there are other references- like in the declaration of independence where we make a reference to god that is not religious.

    ReplyDelete
  25. laof,
    As a result, the number of school-based abstinence-only programs is increasing. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a not-for-profit corporation that conducts research on reproductive and public health, more than two out of three public school districts have policies on sexuality education. The vast majority - 86 percent - require that abstinence be promoted. Of those, 35 percent require abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. That compares to roughly 25 percent six years ago.
    ...
    In some cases, the abstinence-only message is the only one students receive. In other cases, abstinence- only programs are presented as a supplement to a more comprehensive district health curriculum.
    from an '02/'03 article found here

    "All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education."
    ...
    "The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants. Harry Wilson, a top official in the Department of Health and Human Services, said yesterday that the administration has no intention of changing funding priorities in light of the results."
    ...
    "Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."
    from here

    Yes, a large number of US schools teach abstinence-only, enticed by well-funded government programs and reinforced by equally well-funded religious groups. I have not seen evidence that a single secular group advocates abstinence-only 'education'.

    Palin and McCain have explicitly stated that they would only support federal abstinence-only program funding.

    ReplyDelete
  26. erratum: my above post should begin with a qutation mark.

    ReplyDelete
  27. She also stated that teaching abstinance 'spreads disease'. Funny, I thought that was unprotected sex! And I'd like to see her direct correlation between the two.

    Here, you are correct. The results of abstinence-only so far is that a-o teaching does not reduce the number of STD infections compared to abstinence-plus or contraception-focused programs.
    The conclusion is that a-o is simply ineffective, because people will have unprotected sex anyway, and teen pregnancy rates show that there is a higher number of teen pregnancies where schools choose to teach a-o.
    "A recent study found that teens who took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex ed classes ultimately had STD rates similar to other young people and were less likely to use contraception or other forms of protection when they did become sexually active."
    from MSNBC

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sure there were some factual errors, but dwelling on them isn't the point. She made an impassioned plea to ditch apathy, and resist the march of senseless dogma into public and private life, where it is not wanted and/or does not belong.

    Man, atheism is so sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well, I have read lots of Christians (not all of them, maybe, but lots), who deny there is any problem with global warming. Thinking that there is an entity there that won't let the world become shit is problematic, to say the least.

    I like the video. Maybe too much generalization, but true thing that lots of problems have come from religion, and religion continues to be an excuse for discrimination.

    I thought that girl was Maragon first. (Is that you?)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  30. milo said:

    "I'm letting you know. Alabama schools in our area do not teach safe sex and abortion. It's an abstinence only program."

    I'd like a reference (location) for that, Milo, and the (public) school district(s) you reference.

    ReplyDelete
  31. beamstalker said:

    ":) Fun reading. Her point still remains, this was a majority imposing their will on the government. If that majority turns Muslim then you can't complain if they change it to In Allah We Trust."

    Rocky, I'd rather live in a country ruled by the majority rather than the minority. And it's unrealistic to think we can have a "let's all get along" government. If this were possible, there'd be one somewhere in the world already.

    Majority rules - RuLeZ!

    ReplyDelete
  32. All programs receiving Title V funds have to follow certain requirements, such as describing sex outside of marriage as having harmful psychological and physical effects. Teachers are barred from discussing contraception, except to emphasize its failure rates. Sex within marriage, which excludes homosexual relationships, is promoted as the standard.

    Part of the Education policy:
    "# statistics used must be based on the latest medical information that indicate the degree of reliability and unreliability of various forms of contraception, while also emphasizing the increase in protection against pregnancy and protection against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS infection, which is afforded by the use of various contraceptive measures; and
    # classes must emphasize, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.2 "
    "Parents or guardians may remove their children from sexuality education and/or STD/HIV education classes. This is referred to as an “opt-out” policy."
    "The Alabama Department of Public Health received $953,172 in federal Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funds in Fiscal Year 2007. The Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage grant requires states to provide three state-raised dollars or the equivalent in services for every four federal dollars received."

    The practice:
    "The AAEP website contains misinformation and messages of fear and shame."

    "SIECUS reviewed Aspire and found that it is based on one set of values and opinions—that marriage should be everyone’s ultimate goal and that sex outside of marriage is wrong—which it tries to pass off as universally held truths. In an effort to convince students that these opinions are facts, the curriculum provides incomplete and biased information, promotes fear and shame, and undermines young people’s confidence in their own decision-making abilities."

    "Why kNOw is another abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum used by sub-grantees in Alabama, SIECUS reviewed this curriculum and found thatthe program offers limited information about important topics in human sexuality such as puberty, anatomy, and human reproduction, and no information about sexual orientation and gender identity. The information that is included is outdated, inaccurate, and misleading. In addition, Why kNOw relies on negative messages, distorts information, and presents biased views on gender, marriage, family structure, sexual orientation, and pregnancy options."

    "SIECUS reviewed two of the curricula produced by Choosing the Best, Inc.—Choosing the Best LIFE (for high school students) and Choosing the Best PATH (for middle school students). These reviews found that the curricula name numerous negative consequences of premarital sexuality activity and suggest that teens should feel guilty, embarrassed, and ashamed of sexual behavior."

    "SIECUS reviewed WAIT Training and found that it contained little medical or biological information and almost no information about STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Instead, it contains information and statistics about marriage, many of which are outdated and not supported by scientific research. It also contains messages of fear and shame and biased views of gender, sexual orientation, and family type."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Apparently they do teach about contraception in most places - evidentially by lying to the pupils. That's worse than not teaching them at all.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. For $95K, I'd be tempted to sell several body parts...

    ReplyDelete
  36. WeM said:

    "For $95K, I'd be tempted to sell several body parts..."

    Actually it's $953K but we get the drift.

    If the Alabama Dept. of Education want's to 'sell their soul' for that amount, they have nobody to blame but themself/ves.

    ReplyDelete
  37. laof said...

    Rocky, I'd rather live in a country ruled by the majority rather than the minority. And it's unrealistic to think we can have a "let's all get along" government. If this were possible, there'd be one somewhere in the world already.

    Majority rules - RuLeZ!


    I didn't say rule. I said enacting law and policies that oppress the minorities. Something our founding fathers thought would be good to protect against. Separation of Church and State is one of these ideas. I am not saying we need to get along either, but minorities should be protected from majority interference.

    So by your statement you would not mind if a Muslim majority took over and decided that Christian churches should be abolished.

    Not too long ago, the white majority decided separate but equal was a good thing too, keep those African-Americans in their place. That is okay by your standards.

    ReplyDelete
  38. b.s.r. said:

    "Not too long ago, the white majority decided separate but equal was a good thing too, keep those African-Americans in their place. That is okay by your standards."

    No, I didn't say that. Do you put words in everyone's mouth(s), or just mine? Or just those who you tend to disagree with?

    ReplyDelete
  39. No I was giving an example where oppression of the minority was okay. What you suggested is the tyranny of the majority, which is not advocated by the constitution. That is my point.

    By the way you did the same with me, by saying I wanted a government run by the minority, which is not what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  40. beamstalker -

    My comment

    "Rocky, I'd rather live in a country ruled by the majority rather than the minority."

    ...was not to insinuate that you wanted to live in a country ruled by the majority. Just my statement of preference.

    Or, are you referring to a different comment of mine?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Rocky, I'd rather live in a country ruled by the majority rather than the minority."

    Okay so you implied what I thought, if not then how does your statement follow what I was talking about?

    Again, my other statements then follow. Is it okay for the majority to oppress the minority? Majority rules and all...

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.