I was saying Boo-ooks.



Also I don't let my glasses stay empty for twenty minutes, but hey, if that's the way you roll then who am I to stand in the way of your effeminate ass? Maybe you should be drinking wine coolers.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Black coffee isn't sweet. That's a terrible analogy. Terrible. Terrible. Boo. Books.

But seriously, when I say bourbon I just mean Southern whiskey, so I mentally include Jack and Jim and all the the other ones. But you're right, there's a difference. I like Southern whiskey because the sweeter flavor is good on my palette. It's not super sweet, just slightly sweet to the taste. And if you finish a glass of neat whiskey (any type) and set the empty glass out for twenty minutes or so, you can smell the sweet notes or smokey notes. A good Woodford Reserve smells like vanilla.

Slightly oaky doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it gives whiskey a certain charm. I don't care for Scotch, because it's way too smokey. Though if I'm in Vegas and being a douche with a cigar, I'm drinking Scotch because it just works together.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know bourbon is sweeter than scotch, but then a cup of black coffee is sweeter than scotch too. However, all bourbon is aged in charred oak barrels, and that does give it a hint of smoky flavor, which my sensitive palate can detect. That's why if I have to drink an American whiskey made mostly from corn I'll drink Tennessee whiskey, like Jack Daniels, because it's charcoal filtered. That helps remove a little more of the smoky flavor.

Fuck Kentucky and their fucking bourbon - unless I'm on a jag and there's nothing else around. I'll drink girly peppermint schnapps before bourbon, and that sweet, syrupy shit is pretty damn low on my list.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Now I know you're a Yankee. Bourbon isn't typically smokey. What bourbon are you drinking? It's typically made from mash and is sweeter.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Really? I kid about Canadian whiskey - Crown Royal, Pendleton, and Tangle Ridge are all great tasting, and even regular old Canadian Club and VO are pleasing to my palate. I know there are a few people out there who dismiss Canadian whiskey because they claim it's too 'light' in flavor, and for the cheap shit that's true. But a glass of good Canadian hooch, especially the higher end stuff like Gibson's and Wiser's, can stand toe to toe with whiskey made anywhere else on Earth, IMHO.

Scotch and bourbon both taste too smoky to me, but they'll do if there's nothing else around.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Lol, I've only had bourbon once and it didn't really impress me. I still haven't had any Canadian whiskey. Weird, eh?

Black coffee isn't sweet. That's a terrible analogy. Terrible. Terrible. Boo. Books.

But seriously, when I say bourbon I just mean Southern whiskey, so I mentally include Jack and Jim and all the the other ones. But you're right, there's a difference. I like Southern whiskey because the sweeter flavor is good on my palette. It's not super sweet, just slightly sweet to the taste. And if you finish a glass of neat whiskey (any type) and set the empty glass out for twenty minutes or so, you can smell the sweet notes or smokey notes. A good Woodford Reserve smells like vanilla.

Slightly oaky doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it gives whiskey a certain charm. I don't care for Scotch, because it's way too smokey. Though if I'm in Vegas and being a douche with a cigar, I'm drinking Scotch because it just works together.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know bourbon is sweeter than scotch, but then a cup of black coffee is sweeter than scotch too. However, all bourbon is aged in charred oak barrels, and that does give it a hint of smoky flavor, which my sensitive palate can detect. That's why if I have to drink an American whiskey made mostly from corn I'll drink Tennessee whiskey, like Jack Daniels, because it's charcoal filtered. That helps remove a little more of the smoky flavor.

Fuck Kentucky and their fucking bourbon - unless I'm on a jag and there's nothing else around. I'll drink girly peppermint schnapps before bourbon, and that sweet, syrupy shit is pretty damn low on my list.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Now I know you're a Yankee. Bourbon isn't typically smokey. What bourbon are you drinking? It's typically made from mash and is sweeter.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Really? I kid about Canadian whiskey - Crown Royal, Pendleton, and Tangle Ridge are all great tasting, and even regular old Canadian Club and VO are pleasing to my palate. I know there are a few people out there who dismiss Canadian whiskey because they claim it's too 'light' in flavor, and for the cheap shit that's true. But a glass of good Canadian hooch, especially the higher end stuff like Gibson's and Wiser's, can stand toe to toe with whiskey made anywhere else on Earth, IMHO.

Scotch and bourbon both taste too smoky to me, but they'll do if there's nothing else around.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Lol, I've only had bourbon once and it didn't really impress me. I still haven't had any Canadian whiskey. Weird, eh?

>> ^gwiz665:
To be fair, a brick wall could out-think Sean Hannity.


An empty glass bottle with a stiff wind blowing of the tip would win a debate against him...

Thanks so much for your reply, Doc. I'll just make some small points and leave you to you and yours.

Your scam anecdote is an interesting one, and as a scientist I'm sure you'll understand when I point out that the vast majority of people do not understand or appreciate the value of chance and coincidence in their daily lives. However, the majority of those people don't believe in chance or coincidence either. What happens is a "plan" or simply placed there by something unexplainable.

As fantastic as your prayer and sign may be I'd simply recommend reconsidering that you were going to get that email regardless. A far more obvious sign from god would have been an email whose contents actually contained a message from god, IE: "Doc you asked for for your account to be cancelled if it were wrong and it is, therefore I have had the company in charge of it deactivate it. Signed, The Lord."

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from here. Another good example is in Bill Maher's movie Religulous when he's talking to "The Ex-Jew for Jesus" and that man said when he held his empty glass outside and prayed for rain for a drink and it rained he considered that a miracle for the existence of Christ. Bill's response was excellent when he pointed out that if he asked for rain and it rained he'd realize that, hey "It sometimes rains!". Now if it rained frogs he and I both would take pause and consider that to be a miracle. (Even though, as a scientist, I'm sure you know of the meterological phenomenom which has caused it to rain small frogs and fish in the just the last century,)

I also do not understand how someone as schooled as yourself can take the Old Testament as "fact". There is still no archeological evidence what-so-ever for Jews being used as slaves in ancient Egypt. And for a civilization that kept such excellent records of everything (I once had a fundie-xtian tell me they wouldn't document a "Jew slave rebellion") they might make a small note that an entire race under their command left them after a series of miracles befell the Kingdom.

And on the idea of Jesus dying for everyone's sins (which I know full well about; I was raised Protestant and, no I don't hate Christians or Christianity, I am concerned for their mental health and well being) I just think that it is a little too presumptuous if you catch my meaning. God creates original sin (which many in the church now say is just symbolism) then sends his only son to die for all of man's sin (including the "symbolical" original sin). No one asked for this, God merely forces it on us. Then attemps to guilt us into being saved by this Christ Figure (who has the exact same story as countless other Christ figures before his time) or else!.

But, hey, as I've pointed out I'm an Agnostic Atheist. The scientist in me sees no evidence for the existence of a god or god, therefore I don't believe. I've read the Bible front to back, as well as the Quran and other "holy" texts. They all read the same (aside from some Hindu scripture). And as an Agnostic I don't know if there is a god or gods because the evidence hasn't presented itself yet. Maybe if a miracle of such unexplainable value descends into my life I'd start believing, but it certainly wouldn't be the Christian god of the Bible. Why you might ask? Because the Bible is rife with contradictions, errors, hypocrisies and historical fallacies. And if "God" wanted that book to be written I'm sorry to say he might be a little bi-polar and attention deficit disorder.

And thanks for the 100 Star congrats!

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Hello my furry-hatted friend:
First off, you can read this in brief reply to you comment:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawkins-Conversing-Badly-A-Converted-Muslim#comment-625934

I'll now continue in private.

I see that you are (by your profile) rather read in science. Fantastic! Few are these days. I may be a Christian but I'm also a scientist as a profession atm. Many see that as either insane or hypocritical, but I can flatten that argument every time people land it on me in person, mwahaha. As for my life:

I once had a scam going where I could trick multiple "ad-bars" (those advertising bars that would stay on your screen and paid you per active minute) into thinking that I was "active" all freaking day every day even though obviously I was sleeping or in class most of the time. One night I felt convicted and prayed asking "if this is wrong, just cancel my account." I arose that morning and checked my email to find that my account WAS CANCELED DUE TO ABUSE... That very morning. That very day. It could have been that very instant.
I realized my behavior was theft and I stopped it. This has happened once more since! Instantaneous evidence.

In addition, if you look at the evidence for when and who wrote what book in the bible, you'll find that the majority of scholars support the "old testament before new testament" history. That continues to say that the prophecies and foreshadowing of the old testament is a valid justification to say that the new testament is valid as well.

People who hate Christianity are often simply misinformed. Jesus did not die as a sin sacrifice for "good" people or for "christian" people or for "generous" people. He died for ALL people, free of charge, should they only accept it. God is good, but God is just, and for some things death is just, and Jesus spent that punishment for us all. All we need do is believe that the price is paid for us in Jesus. The justice has been dealt to Jesus on our behalf. That is by no means insane. That makes legal sense. It makes human sense. It makes honorable sense. No new dedication is required.

Also, grats on 100 stars.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
I would be extremely interested to know the evidence you've witnessed that makes you a believer. And why Dawkins is a douchebag. Send me a PM if you like.

>> ^Doc_M:
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.

Atheists worldwide have murdered over 100 million people. Since you're going to lump all religious folks together, don't y'all deserve to be thrown in with other atheists?

Such an old, tired, disproven argument.

"Not hardly."

Name one -- just one -- violent act committed in the name of atheism.

"In the name of" implies that atheism is some sort of organized force unto itself. While there are Christian communists, the Soviets were officially atheists and warred openly against religion and the religious. Atheism "the fad" is an empty glass: its absence of morality isn't displaced when something awful like communism is poured in.

*crickets nodding*

Now try to think of a few that were committed in the name of some deity -- you'd probably already come up with a dozen examples before you even finished reading the question.

Such an old, tired, argument indeed. I dare you to look around at all the goodness inspired by religious belief, including the religious beliefs that inspired many great scientists.

*crickets breaking for dinner*

And, by the way, this country was founded largely by those who considered themselves skeptical of religion. Show me one Judeo-Christian reference in the Constitution. One.

*crickets burping*

There are thousands if not millions of religious people who are also skeptics to a degree. So what? You can argue technicalities about the letter of the law...because of the American separation of church and state both reaped the best from the other. America and her people--still the great majority--are intertwined with the Christian faith. I say this not as a Christian, but as an observer of history.

I used to be an atheist so I know all about the power gleaned from being better/smarter than those "religious fools." I also know atheists are likely unhappier then believers.

I'm not your enemy. A sincere atheist probably thinks more about God-who-doesn't-exist than the lukewarm religionists. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Like always.

----------------------------

The Soviet Union was atheistic because it wanted to concrete power upon itself not to anyone else including God.

Well, isn't that what this modern athiest fad is claiming? That THEY and they alone are the arbiters of right and wrong because there is no Higher Power?

Not because they didn't like theology or anything, its about power and control of it. They sought absolute power.

So does socialism. What's the difference?

QM You used to be pretty good at this.

No one is converting anyone to atheism or vice versa. While both sides need the other for healthy resistance, I see no reason to flex. Do you?


PS to budzos. Not all communists are atheists, but the ones that murdered 100 million people were. There was nothing atheism offered that said to the killers, "Hey, this is wrong." Something to ponder.

aye, if you pause as the "empty" glass shakes a bit there is water in there.