Clips from Various Atheist Speakers August 22, 2011

Clips from Various Atheist Speakers

By Hemant Mehta
August 22, 2011

There’s no rhyme or reason to why these atheists (and not others) are included in the awesome compilation below but, damn, is it fun to watch:

MegaZeusThor also made a (non-autotuned!) compilation of science educators. It has Neil deGrasse Tyson. Does anything else even matter?

Now, let’s hope people randomly stumble onto those videos…

(via MegaZeusThor)

Previous Post
This Guy Needs a Roommate...
Next Post
For Black People, the Church Is More Than Just Religion
"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."
larry parker
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"Is it a Radio Flyer?"
Troublesh00ter
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."
NotAgain Delightful Bītch
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"Free ice water at Wall Drug"
Wacker von Wackenfels
It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • If something has Neil in it, absolutely NOTHING else matters.

  • hate to pick nits, but “atheism: a LACK of belief in gods”?!! c’mon! geez! i don’t know about you, but i wouldn’t be an atheist if i experienced it as a “lack” of something. I experience it a “freedom” from the irrational. so to whomever it may concern: please reedit your video: “atheism: the freedom from belief in gods”. Thank you very much!

  • First you’ll have to convince these 2 communities to change their definition of atheism. (as they’re where I referred to):

    http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/atheism#Whatisatheism
    http://www.atheist-community.org/

    That said, if you have different labels or that work for you, that’s fine.

  • Anonymous

    I like your take on it, but I would probably say that the freedom from believing in gods is an emergent property, not a definition.

  • Renshia

    Thanks, that was just great.

  • “There’s no rhyme or reason to why these atheists (and not others) are included in the awesome compilation below…”

    All white men but two. All white.

    People: We HAVE to stop doing this. We HAVE to stop automatically putting white men front and center as the most iconic representatives of our movement. It is keeping our movement weaker and more limited than it has to be.

  • usclat

    Bravo! Excellent! I’m sure there are so many other video clips like these that could be compiled into a collection of some of the best secular responses to religion/mythology/faith. Again, bravo!

  • nova

    “This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”
    Oh, come on! I am in the UK! If there’s a place where I should be allowed to see it that would be it!

  • I’m happy to take suggestions. Post some links of atheist speakers that you would like to see represented.

    I’ve seen one of your presentations on diversity, and I enjoyed it. I even considered including it here, but it didn’t fit with the theme of the other videos. Also, my YouTube account is limited to 15 minute videos.

    “We HAVE to stop automatically putting white men front and center”. I agree, which is why I put some thought into this. I was more concerned about the content of what they were saying and the how well the particular clip worked with the rest.

  • I agree that it doesn’t make much sense.

    Here is a version with the offending clip removed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k88zUsue8VQ

  • Anonymous

    I prefer “lack of belief in gods” actually.  I simply have no reason to believe in them, so I don’t.

  • Penn Jillette is wrong.  The 900s are history in the Dewey Decimal System; the 200s are religion.  Dewey is such an ethnocentric classification model that most of the 200s are set aside for Christianity; everything else is shoved into one tiny part.  That’s when I stopped listening to the video.   It’s one thing to make a mistake; it’s another to always act superior to everyone else the way he does–like, oh, I’m smarter–I read this book, the Bible, and the only reason people believe in it is because they’ve never read it.  Baloney.

  • MariaO

    I agree. But worse for me was the what Bertrand Russel said: “Either a thing is true or it is not.” There are so many, many important things that cannot be dichotomised in that way. A simple – but relevant – example: “X has consciousness”. If X is a table: false; is X is you, dear reader: true. But what if X is a snail? a bee? a salmon? a cat? a gorilla? a neanderthal? or a future megacomputer? It simple canot be true or false, but a case of degree. I thought Russel was a clever man – maybe this was condecendingly for popular consumption? (All of which has little to do with religions.)

  • Michael Appleman

    I think that is more of a case of not knowing rather than anything else. Something is true or false even if you don’t know. Or even if no one knows.

  • “I’m happy to take suggestions. Post some links of atheist speakers that you would like to see represented.”

    Here’s a list of prominent atheists of color, many of whom are public speakers. Links to individuals are provided in the list.
    http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/03/atheists-of-color.html

    And here’s a list of prominent female atheists. Ditto.
    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists.html

  • MariaO

    No. The world is more complex than that. There are many things that are something between true and false. To think otherwise is simplistic.

  • I also prefer “lack of belief in gods.” It emphasizes that we’re not making any positive assertions.

  • Michael Appleman

    If X has a tiny amount of consciousness, then it has consciousness. I don’t see the problem.

error: Content is protected !!