Craig Ferguson: "I'm not gay, I'm just European."

The narrator sounds like craig ferguson.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. He can have faith that they will be good guests because he has confidence built up by previous visits.


Oxford English Dictionary:

a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

You are right that people sometimes use the words "faith" and "trust" interchangeably, something I deplore, since trust is evidence-based (people "earn" our trust by proving themselves trustworthy), while faith, in it's original sense, is not. I realize I am nitpicking though.

>> ^hpqp:

Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?


Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. He can have faith that they will be good guests because he has confidence built up by previous visits.

Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?

Kristen Bell is great on all talk shows apparently, but she appears often on Craig Ferguson's show.....and is really good there too.

Craig Ferguson, a Scot, hates the English. Comically, but a grain of truth.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We watched this recently on DVD too - liked it so much we watched Long Way Down - (the Africa one) too. I think @persephone is a bit of a McGregor fan. >> ^Yogi:

I started to really like Ewan McGregor after watching "Long Way Round". Now I just wanna chill with him, he seems like such a cool guy. It definitely made up for his pathetic portrayal of Obi Wan.

That's your retort? That religions don't have hearts?

When I say heart above, I mean the core idea, the central thesis, the essence, the main thing. In all religions, it is rotten.

Sure, Christianity gets some things right, so does Buddhism, so does Islam, but the core of their philosophical interpretation of the world is false and misleading.
>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^gwiz665:
I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:
Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.


religions don't have hearts, people do. You might as well say all gov't is bad because a few corrupt people get in power.

>> ^gwiz665:

I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:
Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.



religions don't have hearts, people do. You might as well say all gov't is bad because a few corrupt people get in power.

@SDGundamX

WARNING: pretty harsh words ahead.

First, I'm not going to take up the "to toast or not to toast" subject, only point out that if you choose to ignore my "sarcasm" label, you can't go on to blame me from straying off topic (also: Hitchens is not an alcoholic, which is why I posted the citation from him about his drinking. What with all the dolts he's debated though, it's little wonder he felt like taking the edge off).

Sifters up/down-vote a comment based on their (dis-)agreement with it's content/sentiment, as do you, so no need to get self-righteous about it. Some comments are sarcastic, some funny, some serious arguments; that's communication for you (you'll note the highest rated comments on VS are not necessarily the most snarky (see here, or my top comment for example).

Saying that we don't pay attention to what other comments say is ridiculous in this context: it is because attention has been paid that snarky witticisms can be writ (and so spot on, may I add). Seriously though, saying that the religion/atheism discussion has been "O'Reillyfied" is incredibly insulting and downright false (unless you're talking about shiny's comments... but since he's pretty much the only one to stand up for his absurd convictions on VS I can see why you'd get that impression, from that side of the argument in any case). You point to my response as an example, but it only shows that I'm making two points: correcting your false statement about what Hitchens does in his debates in the briefest possible manner, and arguing that there is nothing sinister or wrong in drinking to a sick man in homage of what he's accomplished, no matter if alcohol is responsible for his sickness.

It seems to me that, as @ChaosEngine points out, you simply don't like being called out on your false assumptions and accusations. I find it telling that you took the time to answer my comment here, whining about how it's impossible to have a debate, but you chose not to answer to my comment here, in which I call you out on your false assumptions without sarcasm, but with evidence (more on that here). So coming here on your high horse to look down on those of us who sprinkle our arguments with both evidence and sarcasm is the height of hypocrisy when you choose to ignore all the actual debate going on. No wonder you can't understand why sifters no longer respond to shiny's bs, or if they do, with nothing but scorn and derision. Not all of us have the patience of a Christopher Hitchens with people who repeatedly spout the same nonsense no matter how many times it is refuted. If all you can do is resort to complaining about tone then by all means, go somewhere where people do not rustle your feathers or question your assumptions, but don't delude yourself into thinking that that is a more rational debate than the ones here.

Yes, the above is harsh, but sometimes one need be to get a point across. If I didn't think you were capable of rational debate I would simply ignore you (as I do shiny).

I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:

Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.

*quality

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX

<div id="widget_545555799"></div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=206157&wid
th=500&comments=15&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_545555799').appendChild(s);</script>

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

You don't care on a personal level whether someone believes in a god/gods or not, but does it matter to you whether your elected officials do, and whether they base the laws they create on their religious beliefs? Like, what's your stance on teaching Intelligent Design as science?>> ^Yogi:

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.
So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.