We interview Laci, a.k.a. “gogreen18″ of YouTube fame. In just a few short months, Laci’s intelligent commentary on religion and rationalism (not to mention her charm and good looks) have attracted a legion of likeminded fans. Her bluntness has also raised the hackles of religionists, who succeeded in getting her suspended from the ‘Tube for two weeks in late 2008 – that’s when her videos went viral. Now fellow nonbelievers (including uber-blogger PZ Myers and us at American Freethought) take heart that Laci is now a role model and secular spokeswoman for America’s up-and-coming generation. Visit Laci’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/user/gogreen18.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Listen to this episode to find out how you can win a package of cool freethought tchoch including Phil Zuckerman’s book Society without God, Stephen Uhl’s audiobook No Gods, No Guilt, and the 2009 Skepchick and Skepdude calendars. The deadline for entries is January 31st.
We now have a CafePress store! Buy cool American Freethought swag, including t-shirts and mugs. Sport your support for patriotism through rational thought!
A reminder that we post new material (news, commentary, links of interest) several times a week at AmericanFreethought.com.
If you’d like to talk about anything you’ve heard on our podcast (or anything related to freethought in general) join us at the American Freethought Yahoo Group [link]. And don’t forget our Facebook page.
If you pick us up via iTunes please take a moment to leave feedback on our iTunes page.
David is podcasting new episodes of Secular Nation. AtheistAlliance.org/podcast.
Interested in science fiction? Then check out John’s SciFiDimensions Podcast. SciFiDimensions.com.
Send feedback to contact@americanfreethought.com – attach voicemail in mp3 or wav format.
Theme music by Body Found.
Recorded January 10, 2009. Hosted by John C. Snider and David Driscoll.
not everyone who follws/likes her is atheist. you don’t have to be atheist to have common sense.
“not everyone who follws/likes her is atheist. you don’t have to be atheist to have common sense.”
there´s nothing more to say – i completely agree
I am a fellow atheist but I don’t always agree with what Laci says. Her movie titled “Why atheists care about YOUR religion” would have been better labeled as “Why others should care about atheist’s religion”. The movie basically pointed out how atheists were not equally treated like other religions. We’re a larger majority than African Americans in the US and we now have a first generation African American as our president-elect. It is still leaps and bounds before we see a homosexual or atheist in that office, because people feel that homosexuality and atheism is a choice and that being African American is NOT a choice. I stand up for homosexuals and other minorities but I never voice my opinions on atheism. I don’t feel like I should force my beliefs on others like they force their beliefs onto me because it makes me no better than them, but I ramble…
Aidan—atheism is NOT a religion. Religion by DEFINITION requires supernatural belief. Atheism also lacks scripture/doctrine, a set moral code, organization, leaders, meetings, membership fees, etc.
Atheism =/= religion
Atheism IS a religion that satan came up with so he could send more souls to hell. Quit being decieved you commie libs!! Repent to Jesus and join the Republican party! It’s not too late to save yourselves and become rational thinking people by accepting god’s word and becoming a conservative.
Sincerely.
JimBob
(poe’slaw) ;-)
Just to clarify one thing: I do not believe that Atheism is a religion. I was using it in the proper context because I was talking about politics and equality. I believe Atheism is a world view, just like existentialism and solipsism, but it still falls under the “Freedom of Religion” part of the constitution. So, once again the context in which I used religion was correct. I was talking about the equality of the religion in our government so it is the proper category to place Atheism in for use of that sentence.
I saw your Youtube and I was disappointed because you usually know what you’re talking about but this time around you just didn’t. The 4th definition that you used was 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
There is no proof that God doesn’t exist so having faith that he doesn’t exist is still faith. You said there is no faith in Atheism but that is incorrect. The only proof that God doesn’t exist is that there isn’t any proof that he does exist, and vice versa. So saying he doesn’t exist and believing it is having faith even if you weren’t aware of it. I will now explain the difference in view points when critiquing Atheism under two different definitions of “Religion”.
If one is asking if Atheists believe in supernatural powers, the answer is, “No – Atheism is not a religion.” By the definition where “religion” requires worship of God. Thus, those who wish to specifically highlight the fact that they place no credence in unproven notions of supernatural forces are somewhat offended – and rightfully so – when others classify them as “religious” under this definition. “Atheism is not a religion, and we are not religious!”
If one is asking if Atheists should be protected by the Constitution, the answer is, “Yes, Atheism is a religion.” By the definition that additionally, there is “religion” as a sense of morality, as in “Laci has religion.” This is similar to the use of the adjective form of the word: religious. If someone is described as “religious,” one usually thinks of them as a person who goes to church to worship some almighty power, but “religious” also has the definition of “passionate” or “zealous,” and “scrupulous,” as well.
This variability in definitions is the problem in the “Is Atheism a religion?” question. And if one is asking whether Atheists can be moral, the answer will depend upon the participants’ views of what morality is. If an individual contends that belief in God is a requirement for a person to have religion, the answer will be “no.”
If that person accepts that morality is a human quality, that needs no supernatural approval, the answer is “yes.”
To clarify this issue, these two different definitions must be carefully kept in mind as the matter is discussed, since any lack of rigor in maintaining them as separate entities will lead to confusion and disagreement. Additionally, under the American Constitution, failing to strictly segregate these definitions may result in the loss of basic legal protections. Finally, if ending the prejudices that exist against Atheists is a goal, the sliding between definitions (which occurs quite often) must be avoided.
My Americanfreethought blog response was about legal rights and how we were not being treated equally. Therefore the context in which I used Atheism as a religion is correct. On August 20th, 2005 a Court of Appeals in Wisconsin ruled Atheism as a religion when it is talked about in legal context. In 1961 the Supreme Court made the same ruling with Secular Humanism being addressed as a religion in legal cases.
I don’t mean to repeat myself but I feel I must get my points across:
I do not believe Atheism is a religion, it is a world view.
Atheism is called a religion in the context of the law and rights when concerned with the 1st Amendment and the equal treatment of religion under the law.
…. I’ve just seen the lion king, 2girls1cup, and someone out smart Laci… i can go die now.
But honestly this dude Aiden is the first guy, or maybe girl, I’ve seen match wits with Laci. I’ve never been able to work out y it isn’t a religion but sometimes is called 1. I look at youtube videos and no one ever gievs an understandable answer that doesn’t contradict itself in the middle.
Kudos mate, but I still <3 Laci more!
this just seems like a misunderstanding gone wrong. I think it would’ve been better if Laci had just not made a youtube about this cause that obviously egged this guy into thrashing Laci. I hate to say it but he IS right Laci :(. It is purely situational. I also think that he should’ve added in that Atheism has a single belief that god is non-existant. That is the starting point for everyone’s Atheism. You create your own beliefs like you would a sundae at Denny’s. But the difference is you can swap beliefs out at any point you wish.
-Dave
Oh my.
Aidan—Now you’re saying that gods nonexistence requires proof….which is another video. God is an IDEA. An idea that has NEVER been rationally and logically witnessed. Are you saying santa COULD exist? No, probably not, but I should clarify the position of WEAK atheism is quite fluid and most people don’t understand that (yet another video). There are types of atheism, and their variations in topics such as these make a drastic difference. Wikipedia (yeah yeah I know, boo wikipedia, but it has a good explanation) explains these differences very well. I am not a strong atheist, which is what it seems like you’re implying.
I should not–I am VERY offended that you’re trying to tell me what my “world view” is, per se. This is clear in your assumptions. It has already lead to an array of miscommunications both individually and 3rd party wise. I ask of you to refrain in the future for effective trade in ideas.
Concerning your appeal to definition 4–the absence of a deity is NOT held with ardor or faith! Seriously, I’m not sure what you were trying to do with that. I do not have FAITH that there is no god. I’m not believing god doesn’t exist without/contrary to evidence. Logically, the idea of the abrahamic god is IMPOSSIBLE (see work by Epicurus). Further, if I met god, I would not keep believing, contrary to evidence, that there isn’t one–THAT would be faith. This is the idea behind the oppositions stance. This is the aforementioned fluidity of which I spoke. Of course, this situation could never occur (oh so clever) as it is unfalsifiable.
And yes, you ARE right that atheism is classified as a religion. Legally, yes, you are absolutely 100% right. But I wasn’t TALKING about legal classification. I was talking about academic/social/cultural terms–hence merriam webster. Also, classifying it under religion in the constitution doesn’t actually make it a religion. (look at how many fucked up things there are going on in the legal system). it is NOT an absolute. As I was not arguing that atheism isn’t considered a religion legally anyway, the argument you made isn’t really beneficial to the issue. I’m guessing we agree this is an improper classification.
Concerning titling the video “why others should care about atheists religion”…this infuriated me because you’re implying atheism is a religion, legal or not. I understand what you’re saying, but the title is still quite atrocious to me considering my purpose. Atheism should NOT be considered a religion, and to ME, putting the video under that title implies that it SHOULD.
Anyhow, I didn’t mean for you to feel attacked. I honestly tried to pick my words carefully as to address your specific comment WITHOUT you feeling attacked. But I guess any time I name drop, the individual is going to feel targeted, and that’s really not what it was.
I’m not sure why I responded to your message actually (if you know me at all, you know i’m wayy lazy at responding haha), likely to clear up your incorrect assumptions about me and my purpose. That doesn’t change the fact that things like this make me hate YouTube. Everything is an attack instead of a conversation. My sincerest apologies that I came off in such a way that prompted your attack. Rest assured next time I will be trying a different approach.
Unbelief is the very opposite of faith. I’m not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand. Proclaiming that you don’t believe in God is no different than doing the same for invisible pink unicorns. No one would say a-pink-unicornists were faithful. Attempting to apply the word faith to atheism is simply an incorrect use of the term. It would change the meaning of the word because faith is the belief in a POSITIVE.
I have heard this logical fallacy from believers over and over. A common refrain seems to be, “it takes more faith to be an atheist”. This is of course self contradictory and anyone who considers it will see the problem. The only reason these type of pronouncements hold any appeal is because there is a widespread belief in a deity. In all other aspects of human life and observation, asserting a negative for a proposition for which no evidence exists would never be labeled a “faith”.
I would also disagree that atheism is a “worldview like existentialism or solipsism”. Those are both philosophical ideas that deal with epistemology and how we acquire knowledge. Atheism has no such function. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a creator that is attained through revelation.
I did not say that the non-existence of god requires proof. On the contrary, I say it requires faith to believe there is no god because there is lack of proof. Santa is an idea, just like god, that has a 99.999% chance of not being real, but the catch is that .001% people cling to. You can’t shut a door of certainty without all the answers, and you will never be able to shut that door if it is an idea. The human mind is just that way. We question everything and scurry for answers. I know that you are not a strong atheist because you said your atheism is a philosophy, the pursuit of wisdom. If you are pursuing wisdom you leave all the doors open, even if it is just a little open.
I don’t know why you would be offended. Atheism is a type of world view like Existentialism and Solipsism. If I was saying you have a world view then I was merely saying you are an atheist. You can call your atheism anything you want because the basic principles of atheism is your starting point for your own personal beliefs and morals.
I understand what you’re saying here. You’re saying that faith is believing something contrary to evidence. I say faith is believing something that has no evidence for either side. I flip a coin and Christians will say it will definitely be heads while the atheists say it will be tails. There isn’t much proof for each claim, but in this case there has to be an outcome due to only two possible sides, which isn’t how the real world works.
I’m glad we agree on this and my next paragraph in response to YOUR next paragraph should probably clear most of this up. I used the world religion twice in my first comment so I didn’t know which one you were talking about. I figured it was the second one but I guess you meant the first one.
The title I recommended “why others should care about atheist’s religion”. I figure I didn’t pick the best words to say what I wanted to say. If you look at the original first comment I made the world “atheist” is possessive of religion. I was talking about why others should care about atheist’s religion, or lack there of! Atheist’s can have a religion, and many have. They have gone to churches for morals and sometimes to just fit in. Believe in The God Delusion this is said in the first chapter using Einstein and some others, I don’t recall who offhand. If I had said “why others should care about THE atheist religion” then I would’ve definitely have been saying it was a religion.
I didn’t choose my words wisely at all before. My recommendation was pretty foolish and I am just glad to clear things up.
Well I would be very happy to get in contact with someone as intelligent as yourself. I accept your apology and I hope you accept mine as well. I understand that your purpose is to educate and that you were just trying to clear things up and state your beliefs. If you would like to try a different approach next time I would be all for working with you instead of debating against you. I’m sure it’s much better on the other side of the fence.
I found this experience very education. I haven’t had a lot of people that share my belief in atheism here in southern California, so I had no idea on what other atheists believed. I’m able to walk away from this knowing that about 20% of atheists that post on YouTube believe that atheism is a religion, and I learned that my definition of faith is different from others. The way I have been raised, and the previously stated fact that I have had almost 0 friends that are atheist, has made me feel like I have to have faith that god doesn’t exist. There are many believers that I hang around with and I can’t talk to them about religion. I have to hold onto my ideas despite the pressure of others. This is why I personally believe that MY atheism requires my definition of faith.
To Wombat:
“Atheism has no such function. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a creator that is attained through revelation.”
Making it the world view that humans are not governed by a supreme being.
I’ve talked to a philosopher that has a PhD and teaches college, I know what I’m talking about. Yes existentialism and solipsism are both philosophical ideals but these are in the same category as atheism is.
The lack of belief in god is still the belief that he shouldn’t be believed in.
“Unbelief is the opposite of faith.”
Not necessarily, because belief is:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person, thing, or idea
2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
I put my trust AND confidence in the idea that god doesn’t exist.
I believe god doesn’t exist and atheist believe god doesn’t exist.
I believe with conviction that the statement that god does not exist is true.
ALL 3 definitions work with this.
We’re just gonna end up looping here and not realizing that the 2 parts of the loop are the same just worded differently. I actively say there isn’t a god, that is my view point. The idea that: “Atheism takes the claim that there is a god and rejects it.” is what you have. I have the idea that “Atheism is the belief that there is no god.”
You see it as this, gonna try to model this for you.
You see it as: If I say there is a god then I have +1, if you say there isn’t a god then you are taking away from me so -1. In here I have 0 because you took away from me, and you have 0 because all you did was disagree with me. Therefore we are even.
I see it as: If I say there is a god then I have +1, if you say there isn’t a god then you add your OWN view instead of taking away from my own so +1 to you. In here I have 1 because I have my belief, and you have 1 because you have your belief instead of discrediting me. Therefore we are both even but you in this example have your own belief instead of discrediting.
It is two different view points. We are both right you just have to see both sides.
If you have time you can read this: http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/2007/01/faitheism-does-atheism-require-faith.html
it has good answers to this, it it’s too long for you just read the end I guess.
I’ve never heard that belief has to be positive, ever. A disbelief in something is still a belief in the opposite of what you are disbelieving.
I was going to read all this, but screw that. I am stopping at Wombat.
I disagree with your last post Aidan, I think its important to point out that there are three possible scenarios any person can be with regards to their beliefs about God’s existence:
1) Person A hold the belief that God exists
2) Person A hold the belief that God does not exist
3) Person A holds neither of these beliefs (they reserve judgment)
I guess its possible for a 4th possibility, where person A hold both beliefs (1 and 2), but that would require a serious amount of cognitive dissonance, and so I’m going to ignore it.
Your claim (correct me if I’m wrong) is that its impossible to be in the 3rd category. However, I would claim to be in this exact situation about a number of either-or propositions: I don’t hold the belief that P=NP or that P != NP (It’s a computational theory problem, if anyone is not familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP_problem ) In fact, I reserve judgment, as of now, about all of the Millennium prize problems. I’m reserving judgment because there is not enough evidence for me to hold either belief.
Now it is true that I may hold a higher order belief about my disbelief (i.e., I believe that I don’t hold the belief that God exists), but I do not necessarily hold the opposite belief of the same order about God’s nonexistence.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
So if someone says i believe in this God, than i should not believe them unless they have support.
So if someone says i can start fires with my mind, i don’t believe them unless they show me as this is something i have no reason to believe.
In this way the god espoused by most religions, can often be logically disproved by contradiction characteristics, or we have no more reason to believe than a invisible pink unicorn.
So while I see justification to be atheist of nearly every theist version of God i have come across, on the concept itself i simply have not come across anything that would justify not being agnostic.
Read my post again, Aidan. You define belief. But I wasn’t commenting on belief, I was commenting on faith, which is the belief in something without evidence. A state of unbelief cannot be defined as a faith without stripping the word of its meaning. Again, this argument is only made because of the prevalence of religious thought. I certainly don’t believe in Native American animal spirit guides. It would not be said that it is part of my faith as if it shares equal validity to those who do believe in it. If we were to begin defining unbelief as a part of faith, it would render the term impossible to manage. There are an infinite number of concepts that even theists don’t believe in so what is the purpose of branding them ‘faith’? It makes everything a matter of faith.
It is clear why the faithful want to apply the faith tag to atheists. The believer realizes that unsupported belief is the weakest position to have in any debate. Since Kant, the ontological argument has lost what very little validity it had in the first place. In the absence of evidence, they are left with personal revelation and witness alone. So instead of attempting to rebuild a true philosophical argument or present evidence, they attempt to rhetorically bring the non-believer down to their level. It requires an admission of a serious shortcoming, but it is all they have left. But the trick is built on a fallacy and should be pointed out every tiem it is attempted.
I’m not sure why there is all this bickering back and forth about faith/atheism/religion. Really, if you want a true and simplistic (the best IMO) definition of atheism, just look at the word itself – Atheist. Think of it in the same way as asexual – means literally without sex, or reproduction without sex. Atheist then means without theism, which is another word for religion, therefore atheist means literally without religion.
Now that last point was rather obvious and I think we can all agree on what the word means. My next issue is that everyone seems to think in terms of atheism vs christianity and it’s various cult followings (mennonite, catholic, lutheran, morman, etc). It’s not. For me atheism is a way of life devoid of any form of religious observance at all, I will never pray to a statue of Buddah, because Buddhism is a religion, so too is bushido, and countless hundreds of others. I’d like to point out that Buddhists don’t believe in a god figure – Buddah himself is just a spiritual figurehead.
To Laci, Aidan, and all the other well-spoken Atheists out there, don’t just butt heads with christians and their ilk – atheism goes far beyond that.
I refer to Laci/gogreen18 as the “Cabbage Patch Doll with an attitude”