Media Mayhem – Atheism as a movement – Philosophy – with the President of American Atheists, David Silverman

March 7th, 2013 by admin software


Media Mayhem - Atheism as a movement - not philosophy - with the President of American Atheists, David Silverman

www.facebook.com twitter.com thelip.tv David Silverman, President of American Atheists, contains the media to talk about the chaos a lack of separation of church and state, Christianity was trying to monopolize the American society, and went into the cave FOXNEWS. David also relieves us from the real reason that Bill O’Reilly’s famous Christian “philosophy, not a religion,” and why atheists will be a shortage of President Obama. GUEST BIO: David Silverman is the president of the American Atheists, and was the creator and executive producer of the September Rally. He Brandeis University, where he received a BA degree in Computer Science, while honing their skills in debating theists series of informal discussions presence. Dave has served eight years of professional inventor Bell Labs (74 issued patents) and the Marketing Director for Natural Microsystems. He was an atheist, since he was 6 years old. Dave is an activist in 1996, and soon the New Jersey State Director. He was also a founder of the Union of Lucent and AT & T atheists and secularists, the first club of its kind in the employee. He makes use of the national spokesperson in 2004, and was named Vice Chairman in 2008. The Board elected president Dave in September 2010. David appeared on major news programs including the O’Reilly Factor (spawning the famous “WTF meme-face”), Scarborough Country, The Situation Room Wolf Blitzer, CNN’s Paula Zahn NOW, Nick News, Hannity .. .

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

Security Code:

23 Responses to “Media Mayhem – Atheism as a movement – Philosophy – with the President of American Atheists, David Silverman”

  1. Comment by xxxmain

    Gee, I wonder if this chick is religious?? Very professional journalism lady….. except you suck at your job. If the viewer knows where you stand on a debate, you aren’t a strong journalist. I was only able to muscle through this video because of Silverman.

  2. Comment by knowwaie

    Your ideology is priceless.. It is literally justified insanity.

    What you’re telling me is you’re an unorganized-organization of thoughtless-thinkers, in so many words.

    You have no thought system, so anything goes. Yet your figure heads run our educational system, according to this system of thought..

    Don’t you find it strange how you blocked this out of your mind to bullshit me? Who controls the educational system? Why do you think the way you do?.. You see the insanity you’re under?

  3. Comment by knowwaie

    Look, i know you’re not the smartest people.. It’s hard for me to bear with you because you refuse to remain consistent. You’re so out of your mind that you will even defend all views, including homosexuality, yet, i’m the enemy because i’m a Christian. You realize that you are literally insane? By the classic definition, before it was reduced by relativism. Now sanity is relative to your psychosis.

    The point of my comment is “consistency”, “everything follows logically from a single statement”

  4. Comment by Agronox DT

    We could sit here all day and argue semantics but at the end of the day most atheists define themselves as atheists because they do not believe in god. I do not know of any atheists who unwaveringly follow any collective group. I do know of meetings where other free thinking individuals gather and discuss their ideas and the like. But there are no atheist organizations that I know of which gather on a regular basis and just repeat the same mantra over and over again. The suffix is unnecessary.

  5. Comment by knowwaie

    Okay.. You know what an “ism” is, right?..

    “All my other perspectives and ideas in life do not depend upon me not believing in a deity”

    Alright. This statement is the perfect example of what i’m talking about. You don’t think everything follows logically from a single statement?

    You do understand that since you also said it sounds ridiculous to believe in ghosts. That’s what i’m referring to. So you just defended this illogical approach in saying your other perspectives are not effected.

  6. Comment by knowwaie

    Okay.. You know what an “ism” is, right?..

    “All my other perspectives and ideas in life do not depend upon me not believing in a deity”

    Alright. This statement is the perfect example of what i’m talking about. You don’t think everything follows logically from a single statement?

  7. Comment by Agronox DT

    WTF are you even talking about? That is total nonsense. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. I do not believe in any deity therefore I am an atheist. All my other perspectives and ideas in life do not depend upon me not believing in a deity. There are atheists who believe in ghosts, it sounds ridiculous to me but there are people who do not believe in a deity but still believe something about your existence continues on after death, they are still atheists because they do not believe in god

  8. Comment by Seeker64

    When I was kid, and I did not beleive in a god even then, I asked my Mother what religion we were. She said Protestant. I had not made the connection between relgion and a God.

    So identifying myself at that age as a protestant was as important or relevant as saying I was Polish, German, English, and Swedish for nationality.

  9. Comment by GRABA85

    No one has a reliable theory of origins of universe. Big Bang only describes early development of universe. So the correct answer is “we don’t know”. It is the only honest answer.
    Existence of god would contradict the principal of causality so it can be used as well as argument against religions – e.g. “what was the cause of god?”. There is also interesting view against that principal called “Causal Anti-Fundamentalism”.

  10. Comment by 1tabligh

    The Need of the World for One Without Need!

    The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.

  11. Comment by greenjelly01

    Wow that woman is really stupid!

  12. Comment by 1tabligh

    Absurdity of Atheism!

    If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific “design” can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.

    Allah is far above what the *deluded and ignorant duped atheists* say.

  13. Comment by knowwaie

    No, it’s not a scientific term, is it?… Because it first requires the word “survival”. Animals don’t know what it means to survive.

    So the “social skills” came after the survival didn’t it?.. You see the chronological pattern here? That’s the part you’re missing. Try again; “Do the fittest survive because they are the fittest or are they the fittest because they survive?”.

    By the way, if nature selects then you have an even bigger conundrum. Death is natural, survival is super-natural.

  14. Comment by knowwaie

    No, it’s not a scientific term, is it?… Because it first requires the word “survival”. Animals don’t know what it means to survive.
    So the “social skills” came after the survival didn’t it?.. You see the chronological pattern here? That’s the part you’re missing. Try again; “Do the fittest survive because they are the fittest or are they the fittest because they survive?”.

  15. Comment by GRABA85

    Neanderthals were fitter than homo sapiens sapiens but we survived and they didn’t. We were more intelligent and we had batter group organisation. So in that example intelligence and social skills/pro-social behaviors makes genes and set of genes that promote that traits – “pro-survival”. It’s not scientific term.

  16. Comment by GRABA85

    Survival of the fittest is commonly misused term coined by Herbert Spencer. Every organism’s trait has it’s consequences. For example bigger muscles consumes more energy and that decrease endurance and increase food requirement. Different traits and set of traits in different environments improve survival rate. 

  17. Comment by knowwaie

    P.S. If you were paying attention you wouldn’t make errors like this.. There is a reason why it’s called “natural selection” and not “survival of the fittest”. The reason would be obvious to you if you had a mind of your own. But as you’re explaining here, you don’t.

  18. Comment by knowwaie

    My problem is what you just said makes absolutely no sense.. But the mind of the atheist is so tainted with subjectivism they don’t even notice how ridiculous this is..

    I wont elaborate on this too much since there are likely no corresponding neurons in your head to hold it..

    Do the fittest survive because they are the fittest or are they the fittest because the survive? It’s comical how the average atheist can’t see the obvious contradiction here. “Pro survival genes”? Are you serious?

  19. Comment by knowwaie

    I know that.. There are also people who believe we’re not even here and the world is just a hologram or a hallucination..

    There are all shapes and sizes of ridiculous ideas. People can even mix them all together if they wanted, as long as we’re believing whatever the hell we want. But here we’re dealing with something specific.. Precisely because considering all variable would make this an endless and pointless venture.

  20. Comment by GRABA85

    Sorry, for being off topic but I need to say You are a wonderful journalist and it is a pleasure to listen to your interviews.

  21. Comment by Gabrieliuka

    To be an atheist you don’t need to accept evolution. There are people who believe aliens brought life to earth or simply don’t accept evolution nor religious creation stories. There are also people who are deeply religious but accept evolution, believing that the deity of their choice guided the evolutionary process. So, clumping evolution with atheism is not the best way to go.

  22. Comment by GRABA85

    PS. Atheism doesn’t describe my views and values because that term means “everyone that don’t believe in deities”, the non-believers. Nothing less nothing more. That term doesn’t contain any ideology or values. It’s empty.

  23. Comment by GRABA85

    Evolution is a fact. Life organisms reproduce and die. Better adaptation means higher survival rate which means more ‘pro-survival’ gens will get passed on. Theory of evolution is a part of biology. What’s your problem?

    Regarding me personal worldview I’m somewhere between critical rationalism and positivism. Regarding my moral views I accept my nature as a social creature and I’m trying to be good human being.

Get Adobe Flash player