It is not that, I agree with you and there is a great video from Sam Harris on that topic.
One day, yes, no need for the word "atheist".
The day when young people are no longer healed hostage in their heads by fanatics who wish to force ideas upon them.
If you do this with some ideas you will be accused of abuse.
The day when they do not need the feeling that they are not alone when they are being persecuted by their friends and family and the net or a book is all they have to keep them from feeling like they are an island in the world that feels this way.
It will go when no teenager gets exorcised, committed, kicked-out of their home, no young person gets divorced for announcing their disbelief and have no idea who to talk to or how to begin to find them.
On the day when nowhere someone does not knock on your door and tell you something is wrong with you because you wish to be rational... that day is the day "atheist" will die and we will rejoice.

Plus, it is not an either-or scenario, no one went, "Gee, I sure like Jesus, but meeting him is a loooong way off... these guys will give me a nifty DVD now!! Aw heck! I'll do it! Maw, where's tha' camera?".
This is by atheists, for atheists, the religious don't enter into it.

Those two women are fucking idiots.

"They are atheists, they believe in nothing."
Atheism is not nihilism.

"Christians are strong, Atheists are not strong"
How does religion have anything to do with strength?

& people wonder why some atheists have a chip? I am not one of them, but when I come across them I am never surprised.
A black (the other lady said it once too), female, journalist telling a minority in the US, repeatedly, that we need to "shut-up".
Where would she be if blacks, sufferjets and previous fighters for free speech and press just "shut-up"?
On the back of a bus, not voting being purchased for her next master while no one was writing about it, that's where.

Amazing how people cannot see themselves in others.

The freedom from religion and the freedom of religon is the same.

The closer the state gets to the church the more it will try to influence the church... how it is that the church only sees the influence going one way? Separation protects both.
Either way, it is part of why this nation was founded and should not be breeched under any circumstances.

She also talked how we keep on pushing. It is like someone shoved you against the wall and then started complaining when you push yourself from against the wall. There were so many stereotypes and hypocrisy in that video. I was seriously pissed off for a good 45 minutes after seeing that and I don't consider myself an atheist.

I wondered that when I watched it, "I wonder how agnostics and compassionate Christians are gonna' see this"?

disturbing. i was just checking my emails.

I will admit that I haven't read the posts in this thread but I did watch the video and a few posts after that. I, a non-Christian, feel that the stance of the people in the vid is very wrong. Ok--deny Jesus as a divine person---but DON'T deny God/Goddess, the Essence of the Universe. I, as the worst sinner, KNOW that the Spirit is there---I've felt it, I've tapped into it, I've had love from it---I still do have a continuous love from the Spirit of the Universe. To me, Jesus was the embodiment of the Spirit. He said that we could do what he had done----transcend time, place and situation. He is my role model if not my god. I would NEVER blaspheme Jesus or Buddah or any of the peacemakers. Those who do---hateful creatures who spread hate.

How is something stated for self alone spreading hate?
Illogical.

If it was for self alone it wouldn't be on the internet.

Very logical.

Not at all... a public announcement so one does not feel alone is for self. As stated before, try reading the previous posts.

If you believe and promote the idea that I am going to suffer eternal torment and punishment

it is not "spreading hate" for me to merely beg the question.

Well, I for one have never had the misfortune to be indoctrinated into Christianity. In fact, I'd say my beliefs are incredibly progressive. I don't believe that Dante's Hell or anything anywhere close to it has ever existed or will exist. I believe that the teachings of Christ (New Testament) advocate the BEST possible way to live life...With the exception of all the added goodies like TV and The Cellar of course.

I strive to look at the Bible and it's teachings from a philosophical perspective that depends not on the Historical-Chronological-Narrative (correct term for the commonly used word "literal". got chewed out for using literal to much one day heh.) idea that so often becomes the center point for heated debate.

Between all of the books of the New Testament Christ references to hell but 14 times. In these references he speaks of a hell on earth, caused by the greed and ambition of man. Though my peers and I still discuss hell from time to time it is a general consensus that it is not a physical hell but a separation from God.

Anyways. I just can't see how this is intended to spur anything but the violence and discrimination that the author condemns Christians of in the beginning of his film.

Everybody's experience may vary, of course, but in nearly 15 years I have not had anyone try to admit their teenager for reading about or practicing witchcraft, or even had that mentioned in the course of the discussion about the need for admission. Of course, I'm not in or anywhere near the Bible Belt, so that could certainly account for some of the difference.

I would expect, however, based on my experience outside of the workplace that a lot of disturbed or distressed young folks, particularly the ones who have turned to either cutting or Gothiness as a way of finding an in-group, will also tend towards alternative religion as a means of self-expression and rebellion.

More importantly ... rzen, did you get a submission uploaded in time to qualify for the free video?

They are not.

It is one thing to advocate for the free exercise of religion. This, I think, is a fine thing, and one of the founding principles of this country, a basic right. You can choose your means of approach to faith and worship, or make the choice not to follow a faith-path, without a government mandate to do so. That's freedom of religion. That's IT. I, having the freedom of religion, will make choices different from yours.

I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?