Here's a direct quote from the moron who posted this on YouTube:

How to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist! (In 5 EASY steps!)

What this video is saying:
First, what this video is NOT saying. Many Atheists have (for some reaon......perhaps creating a strawman), claimed that my analogy fails, because I can't compare houses to living things, since they don't reproduce. Apparently, they think I didn't think of that (LOL). Yet, the fact that houses DON'T reproduce is exactly why I used houses. Let me explain. (In case the video went over your head, as it seems to have for many people )

I used arguements which are commonly used to support biological evolution, and showed that those same arguements can be used to support "house" evolution. Now, what does that tell us about those arguements? It means that those arguements DON'T ACTUALLY prove evolution at all (since they can be applied to houses, which we KNOW didnt evolve).

For example, take my first arguement in this video (then maybe you can figure out the rest).

Arguement #1: Bad Design.
I've actually heard Atheists claim that since some things are supposedly not designed optimally (backwards wired eye), then it wasn't design. Yet, this is a ridiculus arguement, as this video demonstrated. Just because a light switch doesn't work, would we conclude that therefore no one designed it??? Of course not! THAT is the point I am making in this video.

For the record, the imperfectness of the design is a philosophical/theological question. I believe that we live in a fallen world. That is one explanation (and I think the best one). But, scientifically speaking, you would have to be crazy to think that since something doesn't work, then therefore it wasn't designed.

Get it? Im not saying that "houses can't evolve, therefore living things didnt evolve". And I KNOW that houses didn't evolve!

Wow, did I really just have to explain all that???

...And this is where you lose the arguement. What constitutes an 'innocent display' ? How 'innocent' is any religious icon in a court of law ? Doesn't it seem far more reasonable to just take a pass on displaying ANYTHING religious and be done with it ? What real benefit are we missing out on by allowing it that is worth the very real slippery-slope risk that it poses ?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
They don't want the states or the Feds imposing a religion on them, but they don't mind innocent, harmless displays OF religion in government or public life.

[redacted]

I'll tell you how I look at all of this, and it's quite simple. Wait and see. Why? Because, the worst thing a person can do is get sucked into a trend, and this is a trend. One side will be proven right, the other wrong, in time. We've had this same debate before, however opposite, you've simply decided to forget it ever happened. Need I remind you that in the 1970's, the hype was global cooling, and that we were long overdue for an ice age, and everyone was going to die/freeze to death! That wasn't all that long ago, but I remember it well. And yes, it was a real "craze". Well, the science and evidence of that time, which was supposedly irrefutable, was proven wrong in a mere 20 years.

Now we have the endless warming debate.

Nobody can deny the temperatures have gone up over the past few decades, the evidence is there, they have. I think it's natural that we, as egotistical humans, REALLY want to take credit for being able to cause this much destruction in this short of a period of time -- the Earth has been here for billions of years -- and it only took us 100 to destroy everything. Right. I have a goose that lays golden eggs, too. The Earth was here before us, and it will be here AFTER us.

The only thing I've witnessed thus far from this debate are endless arguments (which result in nothing, ever), and mass amounts of money being made by people, with no results to date. Cars are more efficient than ever. So are factories, power plants, recycling centers, etc. Plastic bottles are thinner, more often than not they are recycled, etc. Despite these trends that have been happening for WELL over a decade now, no progress has been made, as a matter of fact, according to the "evidence", things are continuing to get worse.

Frankly, it's October 5th, in Chicago...and I'm a little cold.

I think I'm going to go run my car for a while and spill oil into Lake Michigan and find some way to emit a ton of methane into the atmosphere. If it makes it warmer, I'm all for it. I'm sick of being cold.

Seriously, though...I tend to stay out of these types of arguments (as they aren't debates, they're arguements), as neither side is actually listening to what the other side has to say. Why? Because both sides are convinced they're 100% right in EVERY facet of the debate. I have some news for both sides. Neither of you are 100% right.

I'll wait and see what happens, and in the mean time, I'll laugh at the ensuing comedy of "angreh" arguments.

Yeah, I see your point... But why perform an act that one knows will result in hatred? It's like the over-zealousness of patriotism sometimes...

I dunno... I see both sides of the Quran burning arguement... There's nothing wrong with it, as a single controlled act of book burning, but it leads to feelings and actions beyond the initial event. Why open those gates to begin with when it will surely lead to something worse? While the burning itself does not cause any visible harm, it may lead to other events that are harmful. I guess then we end up back to the violent video games argument though, where personal responsibility comes into play.

I guess the better quote for this type of thing would be, "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." mostly as a reminder to viewers of the burning.

I do have to agree with the metric/imperial arguement here...

How many inches in a foot? 12
How many feet in a yard? 3
How many feet/yards in a mile? 5280/1760

How many millimeters in a centimeter? 10
How many centimeters in a meter? 100
How many meters in a kilometer? 1000

One makes perfect sense in a base-10 world, while the other seems to be an arbitrary collection of numbers based on comparison lengths of various body parts.


As for the video itself? Well played, Cleese.

I can see what he's saying but I don't really buy that argument totally.

We share 90% of our DNA with all life because at the end of it all we all emerged from the same spark of life millions of years ago. We share DNA with almost all living things.

After that, let's think about it, Neil's arguement essentially levels all humans to the same level i.e. I can be as smart as Stephen Hawking. I believe that the difference between the average human being and Stephen Hawking is far larger then the difference between the average human and the chimpanzee. Out of our 6 billion people we have a small pool of highly educated and inquisitive people like Neil, Hawking and so on.

Furthermore, the more I read into the subject of INTELLIGENT alien life, the more I think it's fairly rare in our universe. There is alien life out there for sure, if life can arise near volcanic plumes then life is out there perhaps in the probable oceans of Europa.

A reading of our past and development as a species show how depended we were on some factors beyond the probable. We have had extinction events but not catastrophic enough to kill all life. We have a satellite that induces currents and what I believe contributed to life occurring. I recommend reading the Short History of Everything to further explore this topic.

You know, a fresh coat of paint, better looking wood stalls, and some germanic ancestory sellers there, and I'd thought it was a Texas gun show. Not much of a difference between the seller's and those I've seen at some gun shows. And the prices aren't to off either...

Seriously, if your going to make an arguement for or against, showing stastics that heavily favor your arguement will never win over the other side.

If firearms did deter crime, why is crime still taking place in those areas? Last I checked, a firearm can't protect you from identity theft, nor a chemical spill. They do not protect you from guys on Wall Street, selling you a derviatives future contract that will ulimately fail, cus they engineered it to fail (i.e. Goldman Sachs). Or your business of shrimp, cus some group of idiots short-cutted design plans that spills 18K of oil barrels/day.

Yes, a firearm would protect me, when some mugger attacks to. So would my man-eating dog, platoon of USMC's, or Ashbringer (WoW sword). So to, to being observant of the enviroment and hence, not walking in to an ambush in the first place!

[redacted]

I feel that the languge points are very true, men are subdivided into smaller groups when it is a positive, but all lumped togeather for the negative.

I have never thought of myself as sexist and I like to belive that I do act as if everyone regardless of gender at the same level, but there have been times where I have heard the arguement or the assertion that simply because my chromosones don't match I must be sexist or don't understand the issue.

The video questions a very deeply ingrained assumption, we accept that men run the world, that men treat women badly and that everything is awesome if you are a dude. When the actuallity of some social problems is the opposite, life expectancy, suicide and homelessness being the examples raised.

This reminds me of a question I once heard.

If I buy a teddy bear for $10.
Name the bear Mohammed.
Then sell the bear for $15.

Have I made a profit?

Thats about what I feel on this whole arguement.

Wow QM, you've been eating WAY too many mushrooms lately.
Calling you childish seems insulting to the many reasonable children alive today. I would say infantile is closer to the truth.
You claim we all "KNOW" these opinions you have about Obama, YOUR PRESIDENT unless you aren't an American. I don't "KNOW" any such thing, and neither do you. An opinion isn't something one can "know" it's something you "feel" which is why they are meaningless and useless, especially when peppered with the vitriol yours often are, more so when offered as FACT (the M.O. of Faux "news" and the right).
I wonder, why do you continue to call his administration an "illegitimate regime"? Is it that you have it confused with the illegitimate regime that held the white house for the last 2 terms (I submit that never counting the vote or rigging it with pre-filled electronic voting machines made by your supporters makes an administration illegitimate, dumbasses ignoring evidence and making insane claims about citizenship does NOT make an administration illegitimate, only your arguement and claims to intelligence).
I find it difficult to believe, with the nonsence you continuously spout, that you have been so successful in life that you are actually paying MORE in taxes under Obama than you were under Bush. It seems more likely you can't do that kind of basic math and are regurgitating what you were told by Faux "news".
I have not heard about troops being stationed at oil rigs, but since you seem to want to believe this is sabotage, wouldn't that be the smart move? Wouldn't you be screaming that he was an idiot who was asking to be "attacked" again if he didn't protect what you claim are oil rigs at risk?
You are correct that they have an excuse to regulate oil companies more, you are wrong to insinuate they needed another reason to regulate an industry that makes more money per quarter in the U.S.A. than most states make in a year, but pays little or NO taxes here, while at the same time causing billions in permanant damage to the U.S. because they are not regulated AND asking for government handouts, subsidies, infrastructure, and military support.
I guess "God" must hate red states, "He's" destroying them with floods, wind, oil, and plagues (plagues of idiots that is). (I'm just trying to point out the ridiculousness of the "God hates "X"" arguement, I'm an athiest.)
And to rain on your parade, I'm not an Obama maniac, I voted for Ron Paul. I am an American that supports his president both at home AND abroad, even when I don't agree with the plan. What happened to the right wing claims that partizenship ends at the border? I guess that only counts if it's THEIR plan or their candidate being questioned.

>> <ahref='http://videosift.com/video/Obama-on-Protesters-They-Should-Thank-Me-For-Cutting-Taxes#comment-978221'>^Nithern:

Someone like WP, you will simply have to understand, doesn't get it. This person has contradicted themselves in the past. Said things both not correct, nor justified with facts one could look up (from a neutral source). WP has waged wars of disinformation, taking things out of context, and 'liberally' glossing over details that would have infact, destroyed his arguements. Its kind of like beating a dead horse. To WP, he/she/it gets tons of fun out of it, while the rest of us go off to play a game of chess or something..

Just take Obama's example. Take the piss out of them (Australasian for "make fun of them") and move on. Fudgepacker and the teabaggers are trolls, pure and simple. They do what they do to get a reaction. They don't have a fact to rest their hat on and they don't have an idea unless Glenn Beck put his weeping dick in their ear and fucked it in to them.

Do not feed the trolls.

I rather have Obama as President then Bush. How many times did Bush screw up words, sentences, and concepts, trying to make a point? If he couldn't get his own stuff straight, why should anyone take him serious on concepts that effect the nation?

Yes, 47%, due to tax cuts, provisions, and other legel code, allowed Americans to NOT have to pay a single dollar to the IRS. In fact, GE (General Electric) announced, after over 7000 local, county, state and federal filings, it will not be paying a penny in taxes. This is, the same company that filed $10.8 billion in profits for 2009. So, how is this possible? GE knows how to file taxes, and those earnings were made OUTSIDE the USA (to which it did make the proper accounting and taxes).

Someone like WP, you will simply have to understand, doesn't get it. This person has contradicted themselves in the past. Said things both not correct, nor justified with facts one could look up (from a neutral source). WP has waged wars of disinformation, taking things out of context, and 'liberally' glossing over details that would have infact, destroyed his arguements. Its kind of like beating a dead horse. To WP, he/she/it gets tons of fun out of it, while the rest of us go off to play a game of chess or something...

You can argue with him/her/it if you wish, but this person will NEVER conscede defeat, NOR, admit that you make valid and justified arguements. He insults and threatens at an alarming rate. He rails others, that they have to be held absolutely accountable, while keeping himself/herself/itself from any degree of accountability.

In essence, he/she/it, is Republican.

For example, ask WP to publish a list of CREDIBLE, economists, who disagree with how the economy has shown signs of turning around. Have him explain which factors are both leading and trailing indicators of the economy status and health. While doing this, have him state WHERE the deficit has grown from. Have him provide the full accounting of events, from a neutral source (read: non-right wing site). Yes, he will not provide this information, because his arguements really dont have much concrete ground to stand on.

Wow, I'm surprised that this video has started so many arguements in the comments section. It just doesn't seem like that kind of video. I am glad thet they both survived, but I am concerned that they will Pee-Pee in my Coke as some sort of prank.