Show me an adult who is emotionally scarred irreparably from a successful infantile circumcision and I'll show you someone who has far more spare time than sense

Equating this with female circumcision is just irresponsible. Calling it mutilation is sensationalist, at best. Equating it with a sex change ? Troll.

Modern male circumcision by a qualified doctor is no more dangerous/necessary than getting your tonsils taken out. If you are arguing outside of the aesthetics or practicality, I don't have time for you.

And at the end of the day, the vast majority of women I've met think uncircumcised weiners are gross. That tips the scales considerably, IMO (YRMV).

While I mostly agree, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find atheists that approach the WBC level of kook. That's a special kind of crazy.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You ever been on youtube? I'm not going to get into a battle of nutjobs here, but I'd be happy to direct you to a couple privately.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
Shiny, I am not saying that you are wrong here but I am wondering if you can provide any specific examples of atheist kookiness? Now remember, this can't be general kookiness, it must be kookiness that is specific to atheism.
Please provide the source where possible.
Thanks
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^ponceleon:
Where's shiny to tell us how loving and wonderful Christians are?

What, you don't think there are any atheist kooks out there? I just don't have the poor taste to try to make a spectacle out of atheism by dredging up the lunatic fringe. I have the intelligence to realize that those people don't represent atheists as a whole.

Bucking political correctness is great; not being part of the herd is likewise great; however neither exclude you from just being an idiot.

"Antichrist" was just terrible; based on what I've read, this man's purpose in life is to create what appears to be high-brow, visually striking art, but it is devoid of real meaningful content or message apart from being shocking or just flat out incoherent. It's the kind of art that you could feverishly try to intellectualize into something amazing, but really you're just circling the drain, and he's laughing at you all the way down.

In other words, he is definitely German.

Nicely done...(Boston, i'm guessing ?)

After a full viewing, it really is just a re-packaging/re-branding of the same old, tired arguments and false equivalences, simply jazzed up a bit to sound fresh. It also seems extraordinarily difficult to argue the 'Reason for God' objectively without slipping in Christianity (inadvertently or otherwise). It tends to muddy the waters and makes it difficult to have a clear debate without slipping into canon/dogma which introduces a world of other topics.

I thought the Q&A session would be a bigger pay-off, but he seemed to back away from giving any qualitative answers. Say what you want about Hitchens...if you ask a question he will give a solid answer on the spot; I find it intellectually unsatisfying and a bit suspect that he deflected deeper questioning into "not having enough time" or "read my book" to some pretty simple and elegant questions.

That said, the last Q&A guy was a waste of everyone's time.

Could be wrong here, but it seems the seem is to try and flip the burden of proof arguement from:

"There is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore it is rational to believe there is no god."

to

"There is no good argument for fully disproving the existence of God, therefore there must be a God."

I see what he did there.

Why not ? Since when was the dictionary sacred text ?

Seriously, pick another premise; the 'argument from dictionary sanctity' is easily the weakest and stupidest.

I suspect fowl play.

Don't forget to multiply it

>> ^kurtdh:

I'm going to have $23.10 stuck in my head for a long time now.

Every church has their wackos; safe bet on the latter.>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^KnivesOut:
I have no love for wacky, made-up religions, but...
Is her insanity a symptom of the Mormonism, or is her belief in Mormonism just another symptom of her insanity?
Causation or correlation?

The correct answer is: Yes.

DUDE!

This was startling good; Jon seems like he's seeing much bigger picture than most of us are used to thinking of. I had moments where I disagreed, but he articulated his point so well he quickly brought me around where I could at the very least truly respect his argument.

Sadly, the nuanced nature of his position will be lost on most folks; and funnily enough, that proves his point and reinforces his need to be where he is, media-wise. Fascinating.

kudos for at least having a civil discussion and debate, and being <gasp> genuinely affable.

Funny how high the intellectual bar needs to be raised to pull this off